KFN5038.AlTT2 1887 ,yUbrary T SSSumSmSSSSS : P rese "«n9 de 3 1924 017 679 "J" 193© J I Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017679782 NOTICE. In every case after consulting the Main Table, look also under the same name in the Supplementary Table following page 872. ABBOTT'S NEW" YOKE DIGEST. TABLE OP OASES CEITICISED PRESENTING DECISIONS OP THE COURTS OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK, WHICH HATE BEEN APPIEMED, REVERSED OR MODIFIED IN ERROR OR ON APPEAL, EXAMINED AND EXPLAINED, LIMITED, QUESTIONED, OVERRULED, OR APPROVED AND FOLLOWED IN LATER DECISIONS OP AMERICAN OR ENGLISH COURTS, OR BY COMMENTATORS AND TEXT , WRITERS; PROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD, TO JANUARY 1, 1887. EDITED BY AUSTIN ABBOTT, NEW YORK : DIOSST & COMPANY, Covd ijjlttblistyera, 231 BROADWAY. 1887. COPTBIGBT, 1887: BY AUSTIN ABBOTT. I/* ADVERTISEMENT. \%a This is not a mere Table of Cases cited. It is a Table of Cases weighed and confirmed or qualified. Mere citations and reiterations which add no new significance to the original case are discarded, and the reader is thus saved the labor of running down decisions of little interest ; and the space thus gained has enabled the editor to present in intelligible but concise form a clue to the opinions of the ablest jurists and commen- tators throughout the country, upon the subject in question. The reports of the Courts of all the States and of the United States, as well as a selection of those of England, have been included in the examination made for this purpose ; and that which the editor deemed most worthy the attention of the practitioner has been sifted out, and cited with sufficient fullness to enable the reader to see at once whether the criticising authority bears on the subject which he is looking up. And numerous references to the Code and other Statutes have also been included. The useful annotations in the well-known series of the American Reports, American Decisions, American Law Register, MoaJc's English Reports, and others have been also frequently referred to. The various well-known collections of Leading American Cases, such as those of Hake & Wallace, Sedgwick, Bigelow, Thompson, and others of equal value, have been included ; and numerous references have been made to the best comments in the Leading Periodicals, such as the Albany Law Journal, the Central Law Journal, and the American and Southern Law Reviews. Perhaps more important still are the references to Leading Text- Writers, including the works of Angel & Ames, Benjamin, Bigelow, Bishop, Irving Browne, Judge Coolet, Jddge Dillon, Gbeenleaf, High, Hoffman, Jones, Chancellob Kent, Moak, Morawetz, Pbof. Paksons, Pkof. Pomeboy, Redfield, Judge Stobt, Judge Seymotjb D. Thompson, Peof. Washbuen, Db. Whabton, and many other writers on special subjects. The object of the work is to give the reader a ready clue to the position which the Case occupies in American Jurisprudence, and thus afford a guide to all the best authori- • ties on the subject. The work is complete in one "volume. It has been thought that as the citations would give the means of pursuing the subject to any extent, it was better to curtail the statements, so far as necessary to present the whole in a single volume. Inasmuch as the annual volumes issued by the editor in continuation of the New York Digest embody a full collection not only of criticisms, but also of all the recent citations, all these being there stated much more at large than would be possible in a volume like this, the editor has been able, by referring, in the Supplementary Table fol- lowing page 872, to those Annuals, to give the reader immediate clue to all the later criticism much more fully than in the main table. BS|§r " Therefore in every case, after consulting the Main Table, look also under the same name in the Supplementary Table. The editor desires to acknowledge valuable assistance from Frederick H. Cooke, Esq., in aiding the execution of the work, and seeing it through the press. ABBOTT'S CASES CRITICISED. A TABLE OASES AFFIRMED, APPROVED, EXPLAINED, DISTINGUISHED, DOUBTED, DISAPPROVED, OVERRULED OR REVERSED, &c, BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS IN NEW YORK, OB ELSEWHEBE, OB BY THE LEADING TEXT WEITEES ; "WITH NOTICES OF CASES INCORRECTLY REPORTED, OR OF WHICH THERE ARE TWO OR MORE DIFFERING REPORTS, AND OF DECISIONS SUPERSEDED BY STATUTE. A case which has been carried by appeal or otherwise, to another tribunal for review, is described as having been Affirmed, Modified, or Reversed, as the cape may be. . A case, the soundness of which has been discussed in the determination of some other came, is described either as having been Approved, Explained or Distinguished, or, if unfavorably noticed, as having been Doubted. Disapproved. Limited, or Overruled, according to the decisive- ness of the criticism, and its weight as a countervailing authority. We have presented an indication of what point iu' the case in chief, is affected by the criticism, ezcept in some cases, where, with the necessary conciseness, it was not possible to indicate it so completely that the reader might at once judge whether a reference to the critical authority would throw any light on the subject under his examination. Abbe t. Allen, 39 How. Pr. 481. Afl'd it seems, in 52 If. Y. 636 ; but no opinion re- ported. Abbe v. Eaton, 51 K Y. 410 ; following Wolfe v. Myers, 3 Sand/. 7 ; and Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590 ; is cited, with others, in 2 Whart. on Ev. % 1070, n., as to bills of lading, like any receipts, being open to ex- planation by parol evidence. Abbey v. Abbey, 6 How. Pr. 340, n. Contra, see Leslie «. Leslie, Abb. Pr. If. 8. 193 ; (Alimony) where it is said to be imperfectly reported, and decided when the Code did not make orders appealable which "affect a substantial right." v. Steamboat R. L. Stevens. 22 How. Pr. 78; Wells v. Steam Navigation Co., 2 If. Y. 204; and 8 If. Y. 375; Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. 574, 585 ; Merrick «. Van Santvoord, 34 If. Y. 208 ; and others, followed and approved in Brown v. Clegg, 63 Penn. St. 51; s. c., 3 Am. R. 522; as in harmony with the Penn. doctrine, and that of the U. S. courts, as to steam tow- boats not being common carriers of the vessels they tow. Abbott v. Allen, 2 Johns. Oh. 519 ; s. a, 7 Am. Bee. 554, with note, collecting citations thereof. See another proceeding in the same case, — doubtless that suggested by the chancellor at p. 525, in 14 Johns. 248. That a grantee of land, in undisturbed possession, will not be relieved against his purchase money bond and mortgage, merely for defect of title, without fraud, or evic- tion, but must rely upon the covenants in his deed. Followed in 5 Johns. Oh. 30 ; Id. 80 ; 2 Edw. Oh. 37; 3 Id. 124; Clarke Oh. 571; 26 Wend. 109 ; 9 Pal Oh. 443 ; 2 Sandf. Oh. 344; 3 Sandf. 118; 20 Barb. 429; 39 Id. 661 ; 2 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 93 ; 74 If. Y. 88 ; 81 Id. 277; 14 Week. Big. 564. See 2 Kent Com. 471, 472 ; where the author sub- stantially reiterates this doctrine as laid down by him in the principal case, which he cites as authority, but does not that of John- son v. Gere, 2 Johns. Ch. 546 ; which was an ex-parte allowance of an injunction made by him out of court some two weeks later. Compare, as to this, Woodruff v. Bunce, 9 Pai. Oh. 442, 444; Banks v. Walker, 2 Sandf. Oh. 344, 349;' Piatt v. Gilchrist, 3 Sandf. 118, 121. See Bumpus «. Platner, 1 Johns. Oh. 213; Potter*). Kitchen. The principal case is also cited and applied, as to equity's reluctance to try titles to land undetermined at law, in Stuarts' Heirs v. Coalter, 4 Hand. (Va.) 74; s. c, 15 Am. Bee. 731 ; with elaborate note, collating and reviewing the authorities. v. , 14 Johns. 248. See another and apparently earlier proceeding in this case, by a bill in equity, in 2 Johns. Oh. 519 ; above. Examined and followed (Pleading — aver- ments of title ; burden of proof ; action for breach of covenant of seizin) in 5 Bosw. 566 ; but distinguished, as under the com- mon law rules and before the mcording acts, ABBOTT- ABEEL. iu Woolley v. Hewcombe, 58 How. Pr. 480 ; which is affd in 87 K Y. 605. — v. American Hard Rubber Co. See Abbott ». Hard Rubber Co. v. Broome, 1 Gai. 292; s. c.,"2 Am. Dec. 187 ; 2 If. Y. Com. L., law. Ed. 157; with brief note as to right and effect •of abandonment. See Saidler v. Church. Reviewed at length (Ins. — abandonment; and waiver of loss of voyage) in 2 Gai. 280, 290 ; where it is approved and thought to have shaken the authority of McMas- ters v. Shoalbred, 1 Esp. 237. Relied on (Waiver of abandonment) in Walden v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 5 Johns. 310, 325; and in Ogden v. N. Y. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Id. 177, 180. There are conflicting views expressed throughout these cases, as to whether the principal case shakes, or is distinguishable from, the case of Saidler & Craig v. Church, July Term, 1799; the substance of which is stated in 2 Cai. 286 ; and compare state- ment there with that at p. 291 of same. v. Draper, 4 Den. 51. See Lockwood v. Barnes. As to part performance; ven- dor and purchaser ; vendee of land seeking to recover money paid on oral contract ; and what will sustain such a suit, — its principles affirmed in Collier v. Coates, 17 Barb. 471, 473 ; quoted from and applied in Thomas «. Dickinson, 12 K Y. 364, 371; in Eraser v. Child, 4 E. D. Smith, 153, 161 ; followed in Marsh i>. Wyckoff, 10 Bosw. 202, 208; and followed in Campbell v. Campbell, 65 Barl. 639, 642, 644. Its principles applied (Part-performance of oral contract) in Van Valkenburg «. Croffut, 15 Hun, 147, 151. Distinguished (Demand in cases of fraud) in Sharkey v. Mansfield, 90 A r . Y. 227, 229. Limited in 26 Mich. 421. Explained and distinguished (Measure of damages) withLiskrc. Sherman, 25 Barb. 433. Approved in Browne on Stat, oj Frauds, (4th ed.) § 122. — v. Hard Rubber Co., 11 Abb. Pr. 204; s. c. , 20 How. Pr. 199, where it is entitled Abbott v. American Hard Rubber Co., and as Abbott v. Judson. Affirmed (Corp. — power of directors ; assent of stockholders ; ultra vires ; injunction) as Abbot v. Ame- rican Hard Rubber Co., in 33 Barb. 578; S. c, 21 How. Pr. 193. The affirming case is quoted and collated with others, in Field on Ultra Vires, 314. Is distinguished (Where a Corp. had virtually ceased to exist) in Murray v. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb. 140, 157. Followed (Corp. — fraudulent assign- ment; stockholder's action) in Smith v. N. Y. Consolidated Stage Co., 18 Abb. Pr. 419, 421. Relied on (Stockholder's remedies — accounting) in Dyckman v. Valiente, 28 Bow. Pr. 346, 348; also (Corp.— officers' duties and powers) in Madison Ave. Bap- tist Church v. Baptist Church, 1 Sweeney, 109, 128 ; (Corp. — its transfer of assets) in Meade v. St. Louis Mutual Life Ins. Co., 51 How. Pr. 1,6; and highly approved as to principles governing the power and duties of directors and trustees of corpora- tions, with numerous citations of cases sus- taining its doctrines, though distinguished as to facts, in Sheldon Hat Blocking Co. ». Eickmeyer Hat Blocking Co., 56 Id. 70, 79 ; and quoted from (R. R. & R. R. Co's — di- rectors) in Metropolitan El. R'y Co. ■». Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. M. G. 103, 239. v. Johnstown, &c, Horse It. R. Co., 80 XT. Y. 27; s. c, 36 Am. R. 572. Com- pare to the same effect, Singleton v. South- western R. R., 70 Ga. 464; s. c, 48 Am. E. 574, with note. Explained and distin- guished (R. R. & R. R. Co's — power to lease; respective rights of parties) in Wood- ruff" v. Erie R'y Co., 93 N. Y. 609, 617. Plaintiff subsequently recovered a verdict against the company ; see Abbott v. Johns- town, &c. Horse R. R. Co., 12 Week. Dig. 189; s. c. more fully, 24 Run, 135. ■ v. Judson. See Abbott v. Hard Rubber Co. v. People, 15 Sun, 437. Affd (False pret. Indict. Conflict of law) in 75 N. Y. 602. v. , 12 Weekly Dig. 282. Affd (Trial — jurors ; challenge. Evidence. Q. of L. & F.) in 13 Id. 471 ; s. c. more fully. 80 N. Y. 460. v. Sebor, 3 Johns. Gas. 39, with notes ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 139 ; 1 N. Y. Com. L., Law. Ed. 610; with brief note on insur- ing profits and freight. Explained and dis- tinguished ^ns. on profits ; and question as to necessary proofs) in Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Coulter, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 222, 240. T. Smith, 8 How. Pr. 463. Relied on (Appearance. Notice. Default. Security for costs) in Carpenter v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 11 How. Pr. 481, 483. Dis- tinguished and doubted (as to notice of retainer after default being -effective) in Pearl v. Robitscheck, 2 Daly, 50, 53. See" also, on s. p., White «. Featherstonhaugh, 7 How. Pr. 357. Abeel v. Radcliff, 13 Johns. 297; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 377, with note. See a further proceed- ing in the same case to determine the amount of rent, in 15 Johns. 505. Said in Stewart ■». Hanley, 21 Wend. 651, 663, (Covenant to renew — certainty in written instruments) to have been clearly a case of patent ambiguity, within Lord Bacon's rule, the clause rejected for uncertainty having no reference to a subsisting object. Reviewed at length, with others, to the same effect, in Western Transportation Co. of Buffalo ». Lansing, 49 N. Y. 499, 504-5. Relied on to the same effect in Holmes v. Evans, 48 Miss. 247 ; s. c, 12 Am. E. 372. See 6 Am. L. Eev. p. 1 to 36, Oct., 1871, for an article upon estoppel of a tenant to deny his landlord's title, collating many cases. v. , 15 Johns. 505. See earlier pro- ceeding in the same case, 13 Johns. 297; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 377. Approved as to the effect of holding over, upon which the court AEELL— ACKEE. IB said not to have been divided, in Sher- wood v. Phillips, 13 Wend. 479, 483. Dis- tinguished (s. p. — as of slight bearing) in Conway v. Starkweather, 1 Ben. 113, 115 ; and (s. p. — as a case where the first rent was for the lot only) in Bradley 1>. Covel, 4 Cow. 349; also in Holsman v. Abrams, 2 Duer, 435, 448 ; where it is doubted, and said to be alone in principle and not easy to be reconciled with prior authorities, and inapplicable when the improvements made by a tenant during his term at its expiration belong to him and not to his landlord. • On the point that accruing rent belongs to the heir, — approved in 17 III. 493 ; citing 13 id 364 ; 4 McLean, 572 ; and 4 Cush. 386. Abell T. Douglass, 4 Den. 305. See Robin- son v. Dauchy. Abels t. Westervelt, 24 How. Pr. 284; s. c, more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 230. Explained (Attachment of partnership property. Sher- iff's liability) and distinguished as a case involving creditor's rights, — in Smith v. Orser, 43 Barb. 187, 191. Not authority for attaching partnership credits and balan- ces, — see Barry v. Fisher, 8 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 369, 379; reviewing the cases. Collated with others, in Thomp. on Prov. Bern. 37. Abercronibie, Matter of, 4 Bun, 141. Affd (Surrogate's court — his power to direct auditor to bring in additional report) in 63 N. Y. 628 ; as Abercrombie v. Holder. v. Holder, 63 ST. Y. 628. See Aber- crombie, Matter of. Aberdeen v. Iilackinur, 6 Hill, 324. Ap- proved (Covenant of indemnity — when not broken) in Lathrop v. Atwood. 21 -Conn. 117, -125. Compare Booth i: Starr, 1 Id. 244; Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 If. Y. 550; Churchill v. Hart, 3 Ben. 321. Abernethy t. Society of Church of Puri- tans, 3 Daly, 1. Collated (Relig. Corp. — pews) in Vi Am. L. Reg. If. S. 542, n. Abliam v. Boyd, 5 Daly, 321. See further proceeding, 7 Id. 30. Abraham v. Plestoro, 3 Wend. 538; s. c, 10 N. Y. Com. L., Law. Ed. 460, with brief note, citing conflicting English and American authorities; and20^4m. Bee. 738, with note ; reversing 1 Paige, 236. See John- son v. Hunt. Followed (Conf. of L. Jurisd. Comity — title under foreign bankrupt law) in Mosselman «. Caen, 34 Barb. 66, 67. Belied on (Foreign bankrupt law. Comity) in Willits v. Waite, in 25 If. Y. 577, 583, 586 ; and see Olyphant D. Atwood, 4 Bosw. 459. Its effect considered in Johnson v. Hunt, 23 Wend. 89; Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 If. Y. 320, 341, 353; Bell ». Hunt, 3 Barb. Gh. 391. Explained (Comity) in Ackerman v. Cross, 40 Barb. 465, 485 ; together with the distinction between vol- untary and compulsory assignments in this respect; but compare Mosselman v. Caen, 1 Bun, 647, 649. Followed (Comity, etc.) in Hibernia Nat. Bk. v. Lacombe, 21 Id. 166, 176 ; collecting approving comments and , analogous cases from U. S. and other courts. Compare Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. {U. 8.) 610, 626, et seq., where the principal case was reviewed at length and great stress was laid upon the character or nationality of the vessel, upon the high seas, in which the goods were shipped. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 409, n., as in conformity with the general doctrine prevailing in the U. S. Abrahams v. Bensen, 11 Week. Dig. 329; s. c, 22 Hun, 605 ; and more fully in 60 How. Pr. 208. There is a previous proceeding in 76 If. Y. 629. Abrahams v. Mitchell, 8 Abb. Pr. 123. Ap- proved (Service, and proof of) in Brooklyn Trust Company v. Bulmer, 49 If. Y. 84. Abrams r. People, 6 Hun, 491. See People v. Cogdell. Acer v. Wescott, 1 Lam. 193. Rev'd (Deed — when recital in is constructive notice of de- fect of title) in 46 N. Y. 384. Achley's Case, 4 Abb. Pr. 35. As to mayor not being a member of common council. (Mun. Corp. — officers.) But compare Cas- sidy ». City of Brooklyn, 10 Id. If. 8. 297 ; affd in 47 If. Y- 659 ; also People ex rel. Ennis s. Schroeder, 76 Id. 160 ; and North v. Cary, 4 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 357. Ackart v. Lansing, 48 How. Pr. 374 ; mem. of s. c. as Ackert v. Lansing, in 59 If. Y. 646. See further decision in 6 Hun, 476. Acker v. Acker, 16 Hun, 173. Bev'd (Lim. of a. Married women) in 81 If. Y. 143; which is followed, on same points, in Clarke v. Gibbons, 83 id. 107, 110; and in Howell v. Leavitt, 95 Id. 617, 623; and disting'd (Statutes — construction of) in Williams «. City of Chicago, 25 Hun, 36, 38 ; and in Watson v. Forty-second St., &c. R. R. Co., 93 If. Y. 522. v. Burrall, 21 Wend. 605. Aff'd (Sher- iffs — color of office. Pleading) iu 23 Id. 606, as Burrall ». Acker. Disting'd as a case of estoppel by deed and its dictum criticised, in dissenting opinion to Dezell ■». Odell, 3 Hill, 215, 226. Relied on (Officers — securities taken by ; color of office) in Decker v. Judson, 16 jV. Y. 439, 442. v. Campbell, 23 Wend. 372. Question- ed in Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348, 349, 354, as to its application of the rule that one who takes goods by trespass from a. trespasser is liable in trespass to the owner, which is elaborately discussed. See Com. Dig , Tresp. D. Disting'd in Lees v. Rich- ardson, 2 Hilt. 164, 175, as being decided upon the ground of fraud. — - v. Ledyard, 8 Barb. 514. Rev'd (Sher- iffs) in 8 If. Y. 62 ; but the remarks there as to unauthorized appearance of att'y, cited as obiter in dissenting opinion of Gkover, J., iu Brown v. Nichols, 42 Id. 26, 36. Com- pare Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 Id. 253, 255 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 589. • v. Phoenix, 4 Pai. 305. Followed (Ev. — parol, to vary written contract) in N. Y. Exchange Co. a. De Wolf, 5 Bosw. 593, 607. Disting'd (Debt, and Cred. — composi- tion deeds) in Renard v. Tuller, 4 Id. 107, ACKERMAN--ADAIR. 118 ; as a case of an explicit condition in the instrument. Collated with Renard v. Tuller, 4 Bosw. 107 ; and other cases , in a note, as to the effect of composition deeds, in 28 Am. R. 293. — T. White, 25 Wend. 614. Explained and distiDg'd (Replevin of goods that have been levied upon) in Burkle v. Luce, 1 N. Y. 163, 168. Applied (Lien on chattels held un- der replevin process) with Manning v. Kee- nan, 73 N. Y. 45 ; in Second Nat. Bk. of Os- wego v. Dunn, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 259. Ackerman v. Ackerman, 11 Abb. Pr. 256. Rev'd (Attorney's lien) in 14 Id. 229. T. Emott, SKY. Leg.' Obs. 337. Afl'd (Trusts and Trustees— investments) 4 Barb. 626; where the opinion of the V. 0. is also reported. In King v. Talbot, 50 Id. 453, 483, Sutherland, J., infers from the opin- ions in the above case, that the judges meant to approve of a rule which, as to public stocks, would exclude an investment in the stocks of any other State. v. , 4 Barb. 626. Disting'd (Trusts and Trustees — investments) as a case where there was no discretion, in Weston v. Ward, 4 Red/. 438. Collated with other cases in 13 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 201 ; where the rules in different States are given. Col- lated (Selection of securities by trustee) with other cases in other jurisdictions hold- ing a less strict rule, in Lamar v. Micou, 112 V. S. 452, 468. T. Finch, 15 Wend. 652. Disting'd (Security for costs) and Bank of Michigan v. Jessup, 19 Id. 10, followed, — in Parks v. Goodwin, 1 Doug. {Mich.) 58. Explained in reference to the construction of L. 1831, c. 300, § 33, in Bates v. Relyea, 23 Wend. 336. Collated with other cases (Attach- ment — non-residents) in Throop's Justice's . Manu. (2 ed.) 25. v. Gorton, 6 Hun, 301. Rev'd (Wills- vested remainders. Powers) in 67 K Y. 63. T. Hunsicker, 21 Hun, 53. See Truscott v. King. Rev'd (Mortgage to secure future advances) in 85 K Y. 43. In Tompkins ». Little Rock & F't S. R'y, 15 Fed. Rep. 15, its doctrine applied to the case of a State binding itself to issue bonds in aid of a rail- road. Aekert v. Lansing, 59 K Y. 646 ; s. c. more fully as Ackart v. Lansing, 48 How. Pr. 374. See further decision in 6 Hun, 476. v.'Pultz, 7 Barb. 386. Approved (De- livery of deed executed by husband and wife) in Baldwin v. Showden, 11 Ohio St. 313 ; citing, also, Shoenberger v. Zook, 34 Perm. 24. Ackley's Case. See Achley's Case. Acklcy v. Dygert, 33 Barb. 176. Appeal said in 30 How. Pr. 592>, n., to have been dismissed. See Throop's Code Civ. Pro. § 2789, n. (Sale of decedent's real estate) The present statute gives power. Cited with other cases in Tyler Inf. & Con. (2 ed.) § 54 ; as to when an infant is estopped by his acquiescence in an irregular sale of his lands. v. Kellogg, 8 Cow. 223. See Van Sant- voord, v. St. John, and St. John v. Van Santvoord. Discussed (Common carrier — responsibility beyond his own route) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 213, n. Explained (Ter- mination of responsibility by delivery) in Ang. on Carr. (5 ed.) § 281. Collated (Car- rier — delivery) with other cases in 2 Red/. Am. Railw. vases, 61. v. Tarbox, 29 Barb. 512. Rev'd on the ground that the error was amendable, in 31 N. Y. 564. v. , 31 K Y. 564. Followed (Amendments in justices' courts) in Lowe v. Rommell, 5 Daly, 17.. Explained (s. p.) in Lapham v. Rice, 55 N~. Y. 472, 477. Not authority on the question of joint legal rights averred in a complaint, — see Pom- eroy on Remedies, § 211, note 1. Disting'd (Amendment — power to substitute a party defendant) in N. Y. &c. Milk Pan Co. v. Remington's Agr. Works, 25 Hun, 475, (dissenting, opinion) 481 ; which see below. v. Westervelt, 10 Weekly Big. 391 ; mem. s. c, 21 Hun, 617. Afl'd (Former Adj. Land. & T. Coverture) in 13 Weekly Dig. 227 ; s. c, 86 K Y. 448. T. , 86 N. Y. 448. Quoted and dis- cussed (Married woman contracting with reference to separate estate) in Ben), on Sales (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.), § 36, n., 39, 49. Acorae v. American Mineral Co., 11 How. Pr. 24. See Getty v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Overruled in Dorman ■». Kellam, 14 How. Pr. 184, as to the remedy in case of separate causes of action not being sepa- rately stated in a pleading. Adair v. Brimmer, 74 K Y. 539. See Clark v. Clark ; Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Sherman ; Evarts v. Evarts. There is reported, in this case, in 95 N. Y. 35, a cross appeal from the judgment in 15 WeeMy Dig. 421, from which this also appeals. Ap- plied (Ratification by cestui qui trust of trus- tee's purchase must be with full knowledge of facts and of right to impeach sale in equity) in Luers v. Brunjes, 5 Red/. 32, 42. Disting'd (Liability of executor for error of judgment) in Weston v. Ward, 4 Id. 415, 437. Dis- ting'd (Executor's debt to estate) in Ban- cus e. Stover, 24 Hun, 109, 113 ; also on the reversal of s. c, in 89 K Y. 1, 8, in the dissenting opinion of Miller, J., — as inapplicable to the case presented. Said to have examined the subject of a trustee's duty and liability as to investing, in a most abla and masterly manner ; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 649 n. Disting'd (Liability of trustee for default of co-trustee) in Dixon v. Storm, 5 Red/. 419, 424. See cases collected by Arthur G. Sedgwick, in 15 Am. L. Rev. 175, 179. Collated with others and relied on (Executor's liability for wasting estate) in Lacey v. Davis, 5 Red/. 301, 307. Relied on (Trustee's liability for negligence) in Storm, Matter of, 28 Hun, 499. Relied on ADAMS. (Trusts and Trustees — investments) in Mills u. Hoffman, 26 Id. 594, 600; (s. P., negli- gence) in Earle v. Earle, 48 Super. Ct. (J. ■dbS.) 18,27. y. Lott, 3 Sill, 182. Disting'd (Seizin. Dower. Curtesy) in Gibbs v. Esty, 22 Sun, 266, .269. Adams v. Alstyne, 25 N. Y. 236; and Wright v. Wright, 21 Conn. 329 ; are cited as authorities in Jones v. Perry, 50 N. S. 134 ; as to when a new division of a fence between adjoining land-owners becomes necessary. v. Bissell, 28 Barb. 382. (An elaborate attempt at an analysis and definition of the question of joinder of causes of action) Pomeroy on Remedies, § 468. Disting'd (Joinder of a.) in Bonnell v. Wheeler, .1 Sun, 336. T. Bush, 23 Sow. Pr. 262. Aff'd (New Trial — Ev., newly discovered and cumula- tive) in 2 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 104, — where, how- ever, the doctrine below was somewhat dis- approved, and the above affirmance by the majority was on the ground of the plaintiff's defective moving papers. v. Couover, 22 Sun, 424. See Par- sons v. Johnson. Aff'd (Deed — appurte- nances passing with; water privilege to mill-site) in 87 N. Y. 422, Disting'd and limited (Deed, with metes, bounds, and covenants — right to use of sewer) in Green •a. Collins, 86 XT. Y. 246; s. c, 13 Weekly Dig. 179; rev'g 20 Sun, 474; s. c, 40 Am. R. 531, with note upon easements. Criticised in the last named note, at p. 279, and in Alb. L. J. 279. Compare Baker v. Bessey, 73 Me. 472 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 377, 381. Collated, with Green t>. Collins, 86 JT. Y. 246, and others, in 31 Moa/c. Eng. 677, n. T. Curtis, 4 Lans. 164. Disting'd (Husb. & W. — who may sue for latter's ' services) as a case where the husband was aware of the services; in Bean i>. Kiah, 4 Sun, 171; s. c, 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 464; though relied on in the dissenting opinion of Boakdman, J., — who also says the principal case was approved by Perkins v. Perkins, 62 Barb. 531, 540. Not sustain- able except on the grounds taken in Hoge- boom's opinion, — see Perkins v. Perkins, 62 Park 531, 540. Compared (Husb. & W.— validity of contracts between) in Van Order . Montgomery. 50 N. Y. 302 ; where it is thought .to have been doubted in Ony- lcr v. McCartney, 40 Id. 221 , 205 ; also (Ven- dor and Purchaser — and former's declara- tions) in Tabor «. VanTassell, 86 A". )'. 642, 643. Disting'd (Admissibility of assig- nor's declarations) as a case where assignor continued in possession after the sale,— in Coyne o. Weaver, 84 Id. 386, 393. Also on same point and reasons, in Peck a. Crouse, 46 Barb, 151, 156. Also (Admis- sibility of declarations of assignor of an assign, for b. of c. — after its execution and delivery and entry of trustees) in Cuyler v. McCartney, 40 JV". Y. 221, 235. Also (Vend, and Pur. — and admissibility of form- er's declarations) as a case where assignor continued in possession after sale, — in Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 Id. 273, 277. Dis- ting'd and limited (Upon s. p.) as a case where vendor continued in possession, — in Roebur v. Bowe, 30 Sun, 379; and as not quite consistent with the principle which has been applied under like circumstances of continued possession when the subject of the sale has been real instead of personal property. Compare, in this connection, Abb. Trial Ev. pp. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 286, 503, 740. v. Dyer, 8 Johns. 347; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 344, with note; where, as to priority of executions, it Is said to have been followed as an authority in the cases there cited. Cited, with Lemon v. Staats, 1 Cow. 592; and applied (Judgments — priority of; and fractional parts of a day) in Biggam v. Mer- ritt, Walker (Miss.) 430; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 576, with note. Thought in Metzler v. Kil- gore, 3 Penr. & W. (Pa.) 245 ; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 76, 81, with note ; (Judgments — and priorities) not to be supported by Attor- ney General v. Andrew, Sardr. 23, on which the court relied. Collated (as to when courts will inquire into fractions of a day) with Lemon v. Staats, 1 Cow. 592 ; Small v. McChesney, 3 Id. 19; Rogers v. Beach, 18 Wend. 533 ; People v. Central City Bank, 53 Barb. 412 ; Safford v. Douglas, 4 Edio. Ch. 537; Fitch v. Smith, 10 Paige, 1; Clute «. Clute, 3 Denio, 263; s. c, 4 Id. 241; Blydenburgh «. Cotheal, 4 Corns. 418 ; s. c, 5 Sow. Pr. 200 ; and Jones v. Porter, 6 Id. 286 ; in a note by W. W. Thornton, to Ar- rowsmithc. Hormening, 23 Am. L. Reg. 258. v. Farmer, 1 E. D. Smith, 588. Ques- tioned (Harbor-master's discretion) in Hoeft v. Seaman, 38 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 62, 71. v. Fort Plain Bank, 23 Sow. Pr. 45. Rev'd on the ground that interest should have been allowed; but otherwise approved, in 36 N. Y. 255. - — v. , 36 N. Y. 255. Explained and compared (Interest) in White v. Miller, 78 Id. 393, 396. Applied (Interest) in Prouty v. Mich. S. & N. Iud. R. R. Co., 1 Sun, ' 655, 667; s. c. 4 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 230. Disting'd ([nterest) and its relations to other cases explained, in Gallup v. Perue, 10 Sun, 525, 527. Relied on iu Gustine ». Stoddard, 23 Sun, 101, and disting'd in Mygatt v. Wilcox, 45 N. Y. 306, as to when the statute of limitations begins to run against an attorney's claim for services. Relied on (Interest on attorney's fees) iu ADAMS. Jackson b. ft. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 Supm. Ct. (T. & ft) 653, 656. v. Fox, 40 Barb. 442 ; s. c, differently reported, 27 How. Pr. 409. ' An appeal taken, was dismissed (as premature until final judgment. Jurisdiction) in 27 N. Y. 640 ; subsequently the decision of the su- preme court was reversed (Joinder of ac- tions. Parties. Pleading) in 40 N. Y. 576. T. , 27 HT. Y. 640. Compare (What is final judgment) Weaver b. Barden, 49 A 7 ". Y. 286 ; rev'g in part, 3 Lans. 338. v. Freeman, 12 Johns. 408; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 327, with note. Its dictum (Trespass ab initio) said in Dumont b. Smith, 4 Den. 319, to be overruled by Allen ». Crofoot, 5 Wend. 506, and Van Brunt v. Scheck, 13 Johns. 414. v. Gilbert, 9 Wend. 499. Examined (Judgment of another State) with Jackson 7>. Stewart, 6 Johns. 34; Denton b. Noyes, Id. 296 ; Green B. Ovington, 16 Id. 55 ; in Wilcox v. Kassick, 2 Mich. 177. v. Greenwich lus. Co., 9 Hun, 45. Affirmed (Ins. — waiver of condition. Wit- .« nesses) in 70 A 7 ". Y. 166. y. Hon n ess, 62 Barb. 326. Said in Pom- eroy on Remedies, % 239, note 10, to be a vir- tual repeal of the statute authorizing a mar- ried woman to maintain an action for ser- vices, and to be directly opposed to Brooks v. Schwerin, 54 A 7 ! Y. 343 ; Bean v. Kiah, 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 464, being also referred to as contrary. v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 252. See Hildreth t>. Ellice. Said to be a leading case, but dis- ting'd (Attorney not liable for Referee's fees. The doctrine of agency as applied to attor- neys) in Judson B. Gray, 11 jv. Y. 408 ; and as one which disregarded the doctrine, that a rule, which is in conflict with general princi- ples, should not be extended by analog}'. Followed in Van Kirk v. Sedgwick, 23 Hun, 37, 39. Questioned, but followed, in Campbell v. Cothran, 56 A 7 ". Y. 279, 281. Disting'd (as an action of assumpsit by Sheriff against attorney) in Geib b. Topping, 83 K Y. 46, 48. Opposed and disting'd with Ousterhout B. Day, 9 Johns. 114, in Wires v. Briggs, 5 Yt. 101 ; s. c, 26 Am. Dee. 284; and the Vermont rule preferred. Examined and collated (Attorney's liability for officer's fees) with Ousterhout v. Day, 9 Johns. 114 ; Trustees of Watertown b. Cowen, 5 Pai. 510 ; Camp v. Carr, 6 Wend. 535 ; Judson B. Gray, 11 A 7 ". Y. 408 ; Camp- bell v. Cothran, 56 Id. 279 ; in 27 Alb. L.J. 124 ; the first three cases being approved in Tilton v. Wright, 74 Me. 214; s. c, 22 Am. Law Beg. A 7 ". S. 460, with note. Quoted and collated with other cases in Smith on Sheriffs, 524. Disting'd (Sher- iff, when entitled to poundage) in Bowe b. Campbell, 2 Civ. Pro. It. (Browne) 232. v. Honghton, 3 Abb. Pi: N. S. 4G. Distinguished, but approved (Assignment for benefit of creditors) in Darrow v. Bruff, 36 How. Pr. 479. Said to apply only to such assignments as cannot be upheld unless executed by all the partners, in Nat- ional Bank v. Sackett, 2 Abb. Pr. K S. 286. y. Ives, 1 Hun, 457; s. c, 3 Swpm. Ct. {T. & C.) 471. Aff' d in 63 N. Y. 650. v. Leland, 5 Bosw. 411. Afl'd in 30 JST. Y. 309. v. , 30 N~. Y. 309. Commented upon (Bills, Notes, etc. — presentation of note for payment) in Bigel. on B. & N. (2 ed. ) 247 ; and is included in 2 Ames 1 Cases on B. & N. 513. t. McPnrtlin. 11 Abb. A 7 . C. 369. Questioned (Foreclosure — prior incumbranc- ers as parties^ in 27 AV>. L. J. 80. v. Mills,' 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 16. Affd in 60 N. Y. 533. v. Nellis, 59 How. Pr. 385. Confirmed in effect, in 24 Hun, 605 ; (no opinion re- ported) which reversed another decision. v. Oaks, 20 Johns. 282. Followed in Torrington v. Norwich, 21 Conn. 549; as to the effect of an agreement whereby a par- ent seeks to release a child from his charge and conlrol. t. People, 3 Den. 190. AfTd in 1 XT. Y. 173. See arguments of counsel in 1 How. App. Cos. 365. v. . 1 A 7 ! Y. 173. Explained (Evi- dence. Crimes — principal and accessory) in 3 Greenleafon Ev. (14 ed.) § 46, note d., 50. T. , 3 Hun, 654. AfTd on the point last discussed in the opinion, without pass- ing on that stated in the head-note, in 63 A 7 ! Y. 621. v. , 63 A 7 ". Y. 621. Followed (Mo- tion to strike out denied because too broad) in Larkin b. Mitchell. &c. Lumber Co., (Mich. Supm. Ct. 1879,) 3 Northw. Rep. 598, 604. . y. Perkins, 25 How. Pr. 368. Referred to in Hakes b. Peck, 30 Id. 104; as not hav- ing been affected by the amendment of Code Civ. Pro. § 307, subd. 7, in respect to the number of term fees in the court of ap- peals. b. Perry, 43 K Y. 487. Collated (Trusts. Charities) with other cases, in Gerard Titles to Real Est. (2 ed.) 305. T. Rivers, 11 Barb. 390. See DygertB. Schenck. Quoted and explained (Trespass. Damages — measure of) in Moak's Under hill's Torts, (1st Am. Ed.) 93. Explained and disting'd in Murray b. McShane, 52 Md. 217; s. c, 36 Am. R. 367, 370; as to what is not a trespass on the part of one traveling in the street. v. Roberts, 25 Bun, 118; mere mem. ; abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 462 ; more fully in 62 How. Pr. 253. v. Rockwell, 16 Wend. 285, 303. Dis- cussed (Estoppel in pais. Abandonment — loss of title by) in 3 Washb. on R. P. (4 Ed.) 65, 76, 89. Confirmed in Van Wyck e. Wright, 18 Wend. 157,168. Commented on at length in Clark v. Wethey, 19 Id. 320. Applied in RatclifFe v. Gary, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 4 ; s. c, as Iiatclifl'e b. Gray, 3 Keyes, ADDERLY— ADRIAN CE. 510, 514; Smith i>. McAllister, 14 Barb. 434; Williams v. Montgomery, 10 Hun, 50. Applied, though limited, in Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y. 183, 204. Approved and applied in O'Donnell ». Kelsey, 4 Sandf. 202, 213. Disting'd on question of title in Terry v. Chandler, 16 N. Y. 354. Followed (Boundaries — acquiescence) in. Hunt v. Johnson, 19 Id. 279, 290, 291, in Miner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 171, 188. Said in Hubbell v. McCulloch, 47 Barb. 287, not to have been overruled or v. Sage, 28 JT Y. 103. Disting'd in Baker v. Spencer, 47 JSf. Y. 564; as to when a right of action for fraud is not barred. v. Saratoga & Washington R. E. Co., 11 Barb. 414. See Stanton ». Crosby. Ee'v'd (New Trial— E v.) 10 If. Y. 328. Overruled (as to point that ejectment would not lie) in Btz n. Daily, 20 Barb. 32. v. Sherrill, 14 How. Pr. 297. See Gay v. Paine. Followed (Pleading condi- tions precedent in action on promissory note) in Ferner v. Williams, 14 Abb. Pr. 215, 219. v. Stevens, 26 Wend. 451. Followed (Remedies. Attorney's lien) in Knapp, Matter of, 85 N. Y. 284, 300. Disap- proved (Recovery by counsel of greater fees than allowed bv statute) in Major «. Gibson, 1 Pat. &H. (Va.) 48, 81. v. Supervisors of Columbia, 8 Johns. 323. Overruled (Mandamus to compel supervisors to audit expenses for mainte- nance of paupers), Exp. Overseers of Gates, 4 Cow. 137. v. Yan Alstyne, 35 Barb. 9. Affi'd on somewhat different grounds, in 25 If. Y. 23^ v. , 25 JV. Y. 232, 235*. Followed with Blain 0. Taylor, 19 Abb. Pr. 228 ; Duffy ». N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 2 Hilt. 490 ; and other cases, in Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175; s. c, 11 Am. R. 335, 344; on the point that the right to require an adjoining land-owner to maintain a division fence runs with the land. — — t. Willoughby, 6 Johns. 65. Disting'd (Agreements to. refer to arbitration) in Gibbs v. Continental Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 611, 617. v. Winne, 7 Paige, 97. Followed (Leg- acy — revocation) in Dowd's Will, 8 Abb. If. a us, 120, lsi. -Adderly v. Storm, 6 Hill, 624. Approved (Liability as stockholder) in Rosevelt v. Brown, 11 N. Y. 148. Disting'd (as not reaching a case where the creditor has the means of knowing by an examination of the books of the company whether the stock has been transferred) in Cutting v. Damerel, 88 N. Y. 410, 415; which dis- ting'd the Rosevelt Case, supra, and Munn v. Currie, 2 Barb. 21'4; also limiting the latter. Adding ton v. Allen, 11 Wend. 374. See Marsh v. Falker. See further proceedings, as Allen 0. Addington, 7 Wend. 2J5. Ex- plained and questioned in part, but fol- lowed (New Trial. Damages. Charge to jury) in Fry v. Bennett, 1 Abb. Pr. 289, 302, 303. Followed (Pleading — practice) in Clark v. Dales, 20 Barb. 42, 66. Col- lated with others, and followed (Fraud — • intent. Pleading) in Wakeman v. Dalley, 44 Id. 498, 501 ; and in Barber v. Morgan, 51 Id. 116, 132 ; and in Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 K Y. 322, 330. Disting'd and lim- ited (as a case where the point of intent was purely a question of pleading) in Gough v. St. John, 16 Wend. 646, 649. Followed (New Trial) in Thompson v. Peo- ple, 23 Id. 537, 604. ^Followed (Pleading. Cause of Action) in Wells v. Jewett, 11 How. Pr. 242, 244. As to liability for recom- mendations for credit, collated with others in note to 25 Am. Dec. 447. Addison t. Bnrckmyer, 4 Sandf. Oh. 498. Discussed (Partnership — partner's interest in stock) in 1 Gollyer on Partn. (Wood's Am. Ed.) § 109, n. 2, p. 186. Adee T. Adee, 16 Hun, 46. See a further decision sustaining the undertaking, but on a different ground, in Toles n. Adee, 84 N. Y. 222. v. Bigler, 81 N. Y. 349. Applied (Rem- edy against fraudulent conveyance) in Bar- ton v. Hosner, 24 Hun, 467, 471. v. Campbell, 14 Hun, 551. Aff'd in 79 If. Y. 52. See Foster v. Hawley. v. Cornell, 12 Weekly Big. 472 ; more fully, 25 Hun, 78. v. Demorest, 54 Barb. 433. Explained (Partnership — firm liability for individual partner's acts) in 1 Colly er on Part. ( Wood's Am. Ed.) § 414, n. 3, p. 657. — r— v. Howe, 15 Hun, 20. For charge of judge on second trial, see 59 How. Pr. 459. Adkins v. Brewer, 3 Cow. 206. Examined (Liability of justice for exceeding his juris- diction) in Shadbolt v. Bronson, 1 Mich. 87 ; citing Colvin 0. Luther, 9 Cow. 61 ; Bigelow v. Stearns, 19 Johns. 39 ; Lewis v. Palmer, 6 Wend. 367; Beach v. Botsford, 1 Doug. 199 ; Wight «. Warner, Id. 384. Adolpli v. Central Park, North & East River R. R. Co., 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 186. Rev'd (Ev. — of negligence for jury) in 65 If. Y. 554. See further decision in 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 199 ; aff'd in 76 N. Y. 530. Adrianee v. Lagrave, 59 JT. Y. 110. See Adrience v. Lagrave, and Williams v. Bacon. Compare (Extradition) Pooley v. Whetham, 22 Alb. L. J. 470; and note, p. 474. Cited in Commonwealth v. Hawes, 13 Bush (Ky.) 697 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 243, 251 ; as to when a person extradited on account of one crime may be tried for another. v. Mayor, &c. of New York, 1 Barb. 19. Disapproved (Right of a tax-payer as such to maintain proceedings to restrain the ac- tion of the public authorities) with Brower 8 ADEIENCE— ^ETNA. v. The Same, 3 Id. 254; Christopher r>. The Same, 13- Id. 567 ; Milh;;u ». Sharp, 15 Id. 193, and 17 /if. 435 ; Stuyvesant v. Pearsall, 15 Id. 244; De Baun v. Mayor, &c., 16 Id. 392; Wetmore v. Story, 22 Id. 414 ; in Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome, 18 IT. Y. 155, 163, and Roosevelt v. Draper, 16 Sow. Pr. 137. Davis, v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Duer, 663, being approved on this point. Adrience t. Lagrave, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 272 ; s. c, 47 Sow. Pr. 71. Rev'd as Bacharach v. Lagrave, 1 Sun, 689; s. c, 4 Supm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 215, and 47 Sow. Pr. 385 ; but this decision was in turn reversed as Adriance v. Lagrave, 59 JT. Y. 110; s. c, 17 Am. R. 317. Adsit v. Adsit, 2 Johns. Oh. 448 ; s. c, 7 Am. Sec. 539, with note, wherein it is shown to have been extensively cited as an authority. Followed and approved (Legacy — when not considered in lieu of dower) in Gordon ». Stevens, 2 Sill Oh. (S. 0.) 46; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 445, with note. Approved (Dower — what provisions bar) with Sanford v. Jackson, 10 Pai. 266 ; Lewis v. Smith, 9 K Y. 502, 517 ; and Van Arsdalo v. Van Ars- dale, 2 Sutcher (JT. /.) 404. See Savage v. Burnham. — — v. Brady, 4 Sill, 630. See Mayor . Follet, 20 Barb. 620, 629. Fol- lowed (Officers. Munic. Corp. — Highways) in Smith v. Wright, 24 Id. 170, 172. Care- fully explained as to the obligation and duty of municipal corporations towards individ- uals, in Peck v. Village of Batavia, 32 Id. 634, 639. with the opinion that existing doubts and questions arising from previous dicta and decisions, especially Adsit «. Brady, are settled to some extent by the case of Weet ». Trustees of Village of Brockport, 16 K Y. 161, 168, note In Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 Id. 389, 391, it is said that that portion of the opinion in 16 Id. 168, note, referring to Adsit e. Brady, was dictum. In French v. Donaldson, 57 Id. 496, 498, which is aided by statutes, Adsit v. Brady is said to be followed and affirmed in Robinson v. Chamberlain. The reader will observe that while Peckuam, J., in the last named case, at p. 391, considers part of the Adsit case dictum, he yet ap- proves its rule of law ; and Hunt, J., at p. 389, says it is authority ; and the three judges concur in an expression that, exclu- sive of judicial action, all officers are respon- sible, for a violation of official duty, to him who sustains special damage thereby. Dis- ting'd (Pleading) in Ryatt s. Trustees of Village of Rondout, UBarb. 385, 391. Fol- lowed (Munic. Corp. — Officers) in Hutson ■b. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 K Y. 163, 169. Its principle applied to a case where the commissioner, though without funds, under- took to build; in Rector v. Pierce, 3 iV. Y. Supm. Ct. (T. & O.) 416. Disting'd with Robinson n. Chamberlain (Officers — judicial acts; duty to public) in East River Gas Light Co. v. Donnelly, 93 N. Y. 557- 561. Collated with other cases in Cooh Sighw. L. (4 ed.) 48, 49. v. Wilson, 7 Sow. Pr. 64. Followed in Kasson v. Mills, 8 How. Pr, 377, on the point that on appeal from a judgment of a justice's court to the county court, the judg- ment cannot be reviewed on questions of fact arising from the evidence. Aeby v. Rapelye, 1 Sill, 9. Explained (Evi- dence — quantum of, in civil cases) in John- son v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Sun, 251, 253. Disapproved, with Holmes v. Wil- liams, 10 Paige, 326; Jones v. Hake, 2 Johns. Oas. 60; Wilkie.fl. Roosevelt, 3 Id. 66; Munn v. Commission Co., 15 Johns. 44; Powell ». - Waters, 17 Id. 176; Cram v. Henricks, 7 Wend. 569; Dowe v. Schutt, 2 Sen. 621 ; Dix v. Van Wyck, 2 Sill, 522; Holford v. Blatohford, 2 Sandf. Oh. 140; Bossange *. Ross, 29 Barb. 576 ; Catlin v. Gunter, 11 N. Y. 368; Clark v. Sisson, 22 Id. 312, and other cases ;— and Jackson v. Fassitt, 33 Barb. 645, being with other cases, approved, in Dickerman v. Day, 31 Iowa, 444; s. c, 7 Am. £. 156; on the point that the defense of usury is not avail- able in an action against the accommoda- tion maker of a note, by a purchaser in good faith from the payee at a greater dis- count than legal interest, unless such pur- chaser had knowledge of its character. .Etna Fire Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend, 385 ; s. c, 30 Am. Bee. 90, with note; where it is said to be regarded by many cases there collated as an authority both in X. Y. and elsewhere on its various points respecting insurance. See Iuman «. Western Fire Ins. Co., and Robert v. Trader's Ius. Co. Lim- ited (Mortgagee, who has insured his inter- est, may recover for loss, without first ex- hausting his remedy dn the mortgage) in Excelsior Fire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co.. 55 ./ETNA INS. CO.— AGAWAM BANK. '9 IT. 7. 343, 356. Explained (Insurer's right to be subrogated) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 440, n. t. Examined, with O'Neil «. Buf- falo Fire Ins. Co., 3 N. 7. 122 (Waiver of defect in proofs required by insurance pol- icy) in Troy Eire Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Wise. 26. Approved (Upon the point that defects in proofs of loss may be waived by the silence or conduct of the underwriters) with Dawes v. North River Ins. Co., 7 Cow. 462; in St. Louis Ins. Co. i>. Kyle, 11 Mo. 278 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 74-73, with note. Followed (s. p.) with Peacock «. N. Y. Ins. Co., 1 Bosw. 338 ; in Jones *. Mechan- ics' Fire Ins. Co., 36 N. J. (7 Vroom) 29 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 405, 411, 414; Kimball v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 495 ; being dis- tinguished in this respect. Cited as authority (Ins. — and What is solo ownership of prop- erty for the purpose of obtaining insurance thereon) in Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. i>. "Weill, 28 Oratt. ( Va.) 389 ; s. c, 26 Am. S. 364. Followed (Ins. — that one in pos- session of real estate under a contract of purchase, has an insurable interest) in Franklin Fire Ins. Co: v. Martin, 11 Vroom (K J.) 568; s. c, 29 Am. R. 271, 273. Followed (Ins. — insurable interest) in Acer 1). Merchant's Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 68, 82. Eelied on (Ins. — waiver of defects in pre- liminary proofs) and collated with others to same effect, in Kimball v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 495, 501. Approved (Ins. — subrogation and remedy over) in Pentz v. Receivers of .JStna Fire Ins. Co., 3 Edw. Oh. 341, 344. Relied on (Insurable inter- est — assignment) in Manley 1>. Ins. Co. of N. A., 1 Lans. 20, 30. Relied on (Re-insur- ance — construction of clause in restraint of; insurer's interest) in Mutual Safety Iris. Co. v. Howe, 2 J 7 ". 7. 235, 242. Approved (Ins. — waiver of defects in preliminary proof) in O'Niel v. Buffalo Fire Ins. Co., 3 Id. 122, 128. Approved (Subrogation — its applica- tion to insurance) in Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie Railw. Co., 10 Bun, 59, 61 ; but see Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 45 jf. 7. 454, 466, where its doctrine as to subrogation is not conceded, and that case is distin- guished therefrom as not within it. Ap- proved and relied on with others (Waiver of defeots in preliminary proofs) in Miller v. Eagle Life & Health Ins. Co., 2 E D. Smith, 268, 2«6. Disting'd (What constitutes a trust) as a case of a direction merely, and of special circumstances fully disclosed in the opinion, — in Rogers Locomotive, &c. Works ->. Kelley, 88 N. 7. 234, 239. Etna Ins. Co. r. Aldrich, 26 N. 7. 92. Rev'd (Validity of mortgage on ship) in U. S. Supreme Court, 8 Wall. 491. See Lunt v. B'k of North America ; Commercial B'k v. Hughes, and Oneida Central B'k. Ex- plained (Conflict of Law.) in Nichols v. Mase. 25 Sun, 640, 641. v. Wheeler, 5 Lans. 480. Aff'd in 49 N. 7. 616. See Van Santvoord v. St. John. v. , 49 IT. 7. 616. Followed (Liabil- ity of carrier) in Edsall v. Camden & Aniboy R. R. & Trans. Co., 50 JST. 7. 661. Etna Nai'l B'k v. Fourth Natl B'k, 46 K 7. 82. Disting'd (Right of depositor) in Van Alen v. American Nat'l B'k, 52 N. 7. 1. Disting'd (as a case of direction merely, proceeding upon special circumstances) in Rogers' Locomotive, &c. Works «. Kelley, 88 K 7. 234, 239. Followed (Grantee's liability to lienor) in Pardee v. Treat, 82 N. 7. 385, 392. See cases reviewed (Payment of- notes payable at bank) in 17 Alb. L. J. 500. Cited asauthority (Bills N. & C.) with Nat'l B'k of Fishkill t. Speight, 47 N. 7. 668 : in Bank v. Henninger, (Penn. April, 1884,) 1 Am. L. J.; s. c, 15 Pittsb. L. J. 114. See (Rights of payee of unaccepted check against drawee) Union Nat'l B'k v. Oceana County B'k, 80 III. 212; s. c, 22.4m. R. 185, and cases cited in note; also 13 Am. R. 752, 71. African Society v. Varick, 13 Johns. 38. Explained (Necessity that a corporation should act by its corporate name) in Glass «. Tipton, &c. Turnp. Co.. 32 Ind. 376. Cases collected (Devise or purchase for un- incorporated society) in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 354, note. Agan v. McManus, 11 Johns. 180. See Berry 7J. Robinson. Agate v. King, 17 Abb. Pr. 15!'. Disap- proved (Counter-claim in foreclosure) in Seligman v. Dudley, 14 Hun, 186. Disting'd (As a case of counter-claim, not of defenses) in Smith v. Hathorn, 25 Hun, 15», 162. v. Lowenbein (No. 1), 4 Daly, 62 ; sub- sequent decision at p. 262, was rev'd in 57 N. 7. 604; subsequent appeal as Agate v. Morrison, in 12 Week. Dig. 254 ; s. c, 84 AT, 7. 672, which, see below, afFg 6 Daly. 291. v. , 57 -V 7. 604. (Right to mate- rials) Compare Morgan v. Stevens, 6 Alb. JST. G. S56, 357, n. v. Morrison. 12 Week Dig. 254: less fully, 84 J 7 ! 7. 672; afFg 6 Daly, 291. ' The case is reported on a former appeal in 57 JT. 7. 604, as Agate v. Lowenbein, which SC6 SLUOVC v. Sands, 8 Daly, 66. Aff'd in 73 K 7. 620; mem. of opinion. Agawam Bank v. Strever, 16 Barb. 82. It seems this cause was tried three times. After the first, when plaintiffs recovered, a new trial was ordered, 16 Barb. 82. After another trial, on which plaintiff was non- suited, the cause was carried to the court of appeals, and a new trial again ordered (see 18 N. 7. 511), which decision, however, is not reported ; and after another trial, when plaintiff recovered again, the cause was car- ried to the court of appeals, and the judg- ment affirmed, which decision is reported, 18 K 7. 502. V. , 18 J 7 ! 7. 502. Approved and followed (Admissibility of extrinsic evi- dence to explain a contract) with Hinton v. Locke, 5 Sill, 4U7 ; in Goodrich r. Stevens, 10 AGNEW— ALBANY & VT. K. E. CO. 5 Lana. 230. Contra, Walker v. Crawford, 00 III. 444; s. c, 8 Am. II 701. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 412. Explained and followed (Accommodation note) in Berenbroick v. Stephens, 8 Daly, 249. 250. Collated (Guaranty — covering successive sales) with other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. (5 ed.) 140. Agnew, Matter of, 4 Hun, 435. AfFd, it seems, in 63 N~. Y. 635 ; but no opinion. Agnirre v. Allen, 10 Barb. 74. AfE'd in 7 N. T. 543. Ahern v. Goodspeed, 9 Hun, 263. Aff d in 72 W. Y. 108. v. , 72 K Y. 108. See Nelson v. Cowing. Followed. (Morgagor, when es- topped by statements made by mortgagee acting as his agent) in Piatt r. Newcomb, 27 Hun, 186 ; as overruling N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Beebe, 7 K Y. 364. Explained (Sales. Warranty) in Ben), on Sales {Gor- birts-ith Am. Ed.) vol. 2, § 945, note 16. v. Nat'l Steamship Co.. 39 How. Pr. 403; s. a, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 283. Overruled on re-argument, in Same v. Same, 3 Daly, 399; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. IT. 8. 356. v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 9 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 69. Contra (Costs on appeal) Van Alen v. American Nat'l B'k, 10 Abb. Pr. Jf. 8. 331. See Throop's Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3239, note. Ahrenfcldt v. Ahrenfeldt, 1 Hoff. Cli. 47. Quoted (Divorce — intent to desert) in 1 Bish. on Mar. & D. (6 ed.) § 784. Dis- cussed (Custody of children, as between parents) with many authorities, in 2 Kent Com. 195, n. c. Cited (Parent & child) with Mcrcein v. People, 25 Wend. 64, and 3 Hill, 399; in Tyler Inf. & Cov. (2 ed.) § 183, as holding . the same rule as that recognized by the courts of England. Aiken v. Albany, V't & Canada R. R. Co., 26 Barb. 289. Disting'd (Corp.— the effect of dissolution upon its property) as deciding other and entirely different ques- tions, — in Owen®. Smith, 31 Barb. 641, 647. v. Benedict, 39 Bwrb. 400. Followed (Ejectment to prevent encroachment) in Vrooman v. Jackson, 6 Hun, 326. Collated (Nuisance) with other cases in McAdam Land. & T. (2 ed.) § 163, 370. Ex- plained in Wood on Nuisances (2 ed.) §§ 98, 100, 104, 107. v. Buck, 1 Wend. 466; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 535, with note. v. Wasson, 24 N. Y. 482. Approved (Laborers, &c, their lien) in Balch o. N. Y. 6 Oswego Midland B. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 521, 525. Disting'd (Master & servant) in Williamson v. Wadsworth, 49 Barb. 294. Compare Coffin v. Reynolds, 37 i^. Y. 640. Applied (Manuf. Comp. — servant; laborer) in Dean v. De Wolf, 16 Hun, 186; and in Coffin v. Reynolds, 37 H. Y. 640, 644 (R. R. & R. R. Cos. — laborer), in Balch v. N. Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co., 46 Id. 521, 525. Relied. on (Manuf. Comp. — who servant of) in Hill v. Spencer, 61 Id. 274. Limited (s. p.) in Hovey v. Ten Broeck, 3 Bobt. 316, 320. Disting'd (R. R. & R. R. Co's— employee ; claim of counsel) in Guruey v. Atlantic & Gt. W. Ry. Co., 58 N. Y. 358, 367, and (Mech. Liens — laborers or servant) in Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 jV. Y. 50, 53; s. c, 32 Am. B. 262, with perti- nent note ; and (Manuf. Corp. — laBorer, servant) in Short v. Medberry, 29 Hun, 39 ; and, with others, (Manuf. Corp. — miner's lien) in Mining Co. v. Cullins, 104 U. 8. (14 Otto) 176. Aikin v. Western R. R. Co., 20 K Y. 370. Discussed (Private Corp. — Powers relating to property) in Any. and A. on P. Con. 11 ed. § 154. Disting'd (Ferry franchise invaded, by ferry maintained by a rail- road company for transport of any per- sons, whether its passengers or not) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. New England Trans- fer Co., 14 Blatchf. C. Ct. 159, 168. Ainsley v. Mead, 3 Lans. 116. Disting'd (Liability of married woman) in Treman v. Allen, 15 Hun, 4; Husted v. Mathes, 77 H. Y. 388, 390. Ainslie v. Boynton, 2 Barb. 258. (Not au- thority for upholding the attorney's lien against an action for a set-off.) Martin v. Kanouse, , 9 Abb. Pr. 370, note; s. c, 17 How. Pr. 146. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Barb. 177. Opposed (Judgment not conclusive against landlord) in Valentine v. Maheny, 37 C'al. 389. Followed (Recovery in action for mesne profits) jn Boardway v. Scott, 31 Hun, 378. T. Wilson, 7 Cow. 662; s. c, It Am. Dec. 532. Contra (Pleading — What will sustain recovery under money counts) Stroud v. Pierce, 6 Allen, 413. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 263. Followed (Pleading. B. N. etc. — Recovery under money counts) in Frazer •». Carpenter, 2 McLean, 237. Said in 17 Am. Dec. 537, n., to have been fre- quently relied on as authority. Aitken v. Clark, 15 Abb. Pi: 319. Further decision on demurrer to answer, 16 Id. 328, note. Akerley t. Haines. 2 Gai. 292. Confirmed in Coon v. Moffett, 2 Penn. (2V. /.) 583 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 392, 399, with extended note; as to the loss of service being the ground of an action for seduction. Akin v. Western R. R., 30 Barb. 305. Rev'd (Ferries — Restriction as to R. R. and R. R. Co.'s franchise therefor) in 20 H. Y. 370. Akrill v. Seldon, 1 Barb. 316. Applied (No injunction granted to restrain trespass, un- less injury irreparable) in Troy & Boston R. R. Co. v. Boston & Hoosac T. & Western R'y Co., 86 IT. Y. 107, 126 ; different pro- ceeding 13 Hun, 60; and 57 How. Pr. 181. Albany & Schnectady R. R. Co. v. Osborn, 12 Barb. 223. Dissented from (R. R. & R R. Co.'s. — and taxation of their real estate) in People «. Fredericks, 48 Barb. 181. Albany & Vermont R. R. Co. t. People, 16 Hun, 126 ; rev'd in 77 H. Y. 232. ALBANY— ALBANY. 11 Albany & West Stockbridge R. R. Co. t. Cady, 6 Hill, 265. Explained (Several bills of costs) in Williams v. Cassady, 22 Hun, 180, 183. Albany City B'k t. Scliermerhoru, Clarke, 303, with note. Eev'd (Officers — Contempt of sheriff. Receivers proceedings by at- tachment. Defective order) in 9 Pai. 372; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 551, with note; where the decretal order is rev'd and the proceedings remitted to the vice-chancellor ■with directions, and whose subsequent and unreported decision it apparently is which is rev'd (the chancellor on the facts there appearing being satisfied that the receiver's possession had not been disturbed) in 10 Pai. 263; where the chancellor said that if the facts had appeared when the case was formerly before him on appeal, he should have directed the sheriffs to have been dis- missed without further useless expense. v. , 9 Pai. 372. See preceding case. See Bergh's case, in the note to 38 Am. Dec. 558. It is said to have been fre- quently cited in N. Y. and elsewhere, chiefly on questions of practice; and to have been followed (Contempt proceedings) in Poertner v. Russell, 33 Wise. 201 ; Witter v. Lyon, 84 Id. 578 ; and Mann v. Brophy, 38 Id. 426. Disting'd and explained (Creditors' suit. Re- demption) in Farnham v. Campbell, 10 Pai. 598. Distg'd and criticised (Contempt — necessity of personal service) in Pitt v. Davi- son, 37 Barb. 97, 108. Distg'd as to facts, but relied on (Contempt — correct procedure and service) in Smethurst, Matter of, 4 How. Pr. 369. Relied on (s. p. and as to suffi- ciency of service) in Clark v. Bininger, 43 Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) 126. Relied on (Con- tempt — propriety of personal service) in Fischer v. Raab, 56 Id. 219. Explained (Contempt) with reference to the statute under which decided, in Woods v. De Fig- aniere, 16 Abb. Pr. 1, 7. Explained (Con- tempt — as to service, whether personal or upon attorney) in Pitt «. Davison, 3 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 398. Relied on (Contempt proceed- ings — and construction of the statute as to costs, expenses, &c. thereunder) in Sudlow v. Knox, 7 Id. 411, 419. Reviewed (col- lating and reconciling the cases, upon s. P., and as to exercise of discretionary powers in cases of civil and criminal contempts) in People v. Compton, 1 Duer, 512, 523. Re- viewed, with others, as to construction of and compliance with statute under which contempt proceedings are initiated, as to procedure, &c, in dissenting opinion to Nichols, Matter of, 54 N. Y. 62, 73. Quoted from (Contempt — receiver's proceedings for) in Bowery Sav'gs B'k v. Richards, 6 8upm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 59. Quoted (Executors en- forcing final surrogate's decree) in Willard on Executors, 439. But distinguished as being a proceeding in a court of record, by , an order to show cause, under section 5 of the statute, and to that extent inapplicable to surrogate's courts, though relied on as to its application, of those sections as to the necessity of filing interrogatories, in con- tempt procedure, —in Watson, Matter of, 3 Lans. 408, 412, 415. The reader will per- ceive that this last distinguishing criticism loses its force under the present Code Gin. Pro. § 2, which makes a surrogate's court in each county a court of record. y. , 10 Pai. 263. See the two pre- ceding cases. Albany City Sav'gs Inst. v. Bnrdick, 20 Hun, 104. Rev'd (Foreclosure. Reformation of instrument) in 87 N. Y. 40. The case of Albany Sav'gs Bk. v. Martin, 56 How. Pr. 500, involves like questions. v. , 87 N. Y. 40. Approved and followed (Negligence in execution in execu- tion of instrument) in Silbar v. Ryder ( Wise. 1885), 23 Northw. Rep. 106, 108. Albany Dutch Church v. Vedder, 14 Wend. 165. See People v. Jansen. Followed (Sureties) in McKecknie v. Ward, 58 N. Y. 541, 549; in Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. ». Barnes, 39 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 40, 45. Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 4 Barb. 407. Aff'd as Fireman's Ins. Co. of Albany v. Bay, in 4 N. Y. 9, though generally cited as first reported. Cited (H. & W.) in Willard's Hq'ty Jurisprudence, 640. Relied on (Husb. & W.) in Cramer v. Comstock, 11 How. Pr. 486. v. , 4 $~. Y. 9. Approved (Con- veyance by Married Woman) in De Pierres v. Thorn, 4 Bosw. 266, 293, 294, 296 ; and see Winans v. Peebles, 31 Barb. 371, 376. Approved (as to power to sell not including power to mortgage), with Coutant v. Servos:*, A Id. 128 ; in Trouch v. Bunnell, Supm. Ct. Oregon (M'ch, 1883), 4 Pacific Pep. 590. Relied on (Husb. & W.) 11 How. Pr. 486. Cited (Husb. & W.) as settling the doubts as to a married woman's powers to convey her separate estate by deed without the con- currence of her husband, — in Colvin v. Cur- rier, 22 Barb. 371, 3S1. Albany Northern R. R. Co. v. Brownell, 24 N. Y. 345. Followed (Compensation) in Boston & A. R. R. Co. v. Village of Green- bush, 52 K Y. 510, 511. Disting'd (In- junction to restrain commissioners from opening highway) in Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co. v. Williamson, 24 Hun, 216, 218. Disting'd (as to when an amendment to the charter of a corporation is permissible) in Detroit v. Detroit & Howell Plank Road Co., 43 Mich. 146, 147. v. Lansing. 16 Barb. 68. Applied (Dam- ages for land taken for railroad') in Hender- son v. N.Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 K Y. 423, 433. Disapproved (Eminent domain, — and rule of compensation) in Utica, &c. R. R. Co., Matter of, 56 Barb. 456; and likewise, on s. P. in N.Y., Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co., Matter of, 29 Hun, 1. Albany Street. Matter of. 11 Wend. 149; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 618, with note containing numerous citations of the case on the points 12 ALBERT— ALEXANDER. decided respecting eminent domain. See Beekman i>. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. Qualified (Eminent domain) in Embury '■». Conner, 3 AT. Y. 511. Followed (Eminent domain — limits upon a city's exercise there- of), with John and Cherry Streets, Matter of, 19 Wend. 659; in Bradshaw ». Omaha, 1 Neb. 16. Explained, with Beekman Street, Matter of, 4 Brad/. 503 ; in Evergreen Ceme- tery Ass'n ». City of New Haven, 43 Conn. 234; s. c, 21 Am. R. 643, 645, with note. Explained in 3 Washb. on R. -P.(4th ed.), 214. Quoted (Eminent domain) in Cooley on Con- stitutional Lim. (5th ed.), 670, n. 1. Dis- ting'd (Eminent domain — rule of damages) with Wyman v. Mayor, 1 1 Wend. 486 ; Matter ofFurmanSt.,lTM 649; Matter of William etc. Sts., 19 Id. 678; Matter of John etc. ^ Sts., Id. 659; Matter of Wall St,lV Barb. 639, ^ — in Munson, Matter of, 29 Hun, 335. Cited (Constitutionality of act) in Heath v. Hub- bell, 6 Daly, 183, 186. Followed (Eminent domain), with Owners of Grounds, &c. v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 15 Wend,. 374, in City of Bridgeport v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 63, 70, — as to land improperly assessed for benefits. Albert v. Bleecker St. R. E., 2 Daly, 389. Explained (Negligence — untied horse) in Gottwald v. Bernheimer, 6 Daly, 212, 214. Alcock t. Giberton, 5 Duer, 76. See Van Marter v. Babcock. Recognized as authority (Contracts — validity of provisions) in Arnot ■o. Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., 2 Run, 591, 594. Not authority that it was necessary to allege that- the art and mystery sold was a secret. Hard v. Seeley, 47 Barb. 428. Alden t. Clark, 11 How. Pr. 209. Disap- proved (Execution cannot issue after the death of the defendant, without leave of the court) as a dictum in Flanagan v. Tinen, 53 Barb. 587. Contra, Marine Bank v. Van Brunt, 61 Barb. 361. v. N. Y. Cent. B. B. Co., 26 N. Y. 102; s. c, 3 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 498. (Carriers of passengers — duty to provide safe vehicles.) Criticised and disapproved in McPadden v. N.Y. Cent. R. B. Co., 44 N. Y. 478; but considered as authority for cases coming directly within it ; also distinguished. Lim- ited in Carroll v. S. I. R. R. Co.., 58 N. Y. 126, 139. Questioned in Readhead «. Mid- land R'y Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 392; s. c, 1 Alb. L. J. 318. Denied in Meier v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 64 Penn. St. 229. Collated, with other cases in reporter's note, 31 Am. R. 324; and said to be no longer law in N.Y. Included with notes in 2 Red/. Am. Railw. Cases, 418. Quoted and collated with other cases in 1 Id. 482. Alderman v. Tirrell, 8 Johns. 418. Fol- lowed (appearance of infant plaintiff or de- fendant) iu McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. Aldrich v. Manton, 13 Wend. 458. Over- ruled (Aliens — power to convey) in Duke of Cumberland v. Graves, 7 N. Y. 305. v. Reynolds, 1 Barb. Ch. 613. Followed (Mortgagor's liability for rents, &c.) in Holt- haus v. Hart, 9 Mo. App. 3. T. Sager, 9 Hun, 337. Collated with Volans v. Owen, 74 N. Y. 526; Jackson v. Brookins, 5 Bun, 534 ; . Baker v. Pope, 2 Id. 556; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 8 Id. 16; Mead v. Stratton, Id. 151 ; Hayes v. Phelan, 4 Id. 733; 5 Id. 335; and other cases, in 25 Am. R. 362, n., as to the statutory liability for injuries arising from the sale, &c, of intoxi- cating liquors. Alexander's Will, Matter of, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. 8.) 9. See Hartnett v. Wandell. Aff'd (Wills — delegation by of power to appoint executor) in 60 N. Y. 346; s. c, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 383; and 19 Am. R. 194, which rev'd 2 Hun, 552 ; s. c, 5 Supm. Ct. (T. S C.) 98. Alexander v. Bennett, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 492. Rev'd (Removal of Causes. Const. L.) in 00 N. Y. 204. Opposed (Appeal- right of on order involving constitutional questions and affecting substantial rights) in De Hart v. Hatch, 6 Supm. Ct. {T. & C. 186; s. c, 3 Hun, 375. v. , 60 N. Y. 204. This opinion is also reported in 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 193, n. Explained (Removal of Cases. Const. L.) in Heath v. Hubbell, 6 Daly, 183, 185. Disting'd (Where parties consented) in An- derson v. Reilly, 60 N. Y. 191. v. Chamberlain, 1 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 600. See Jackson v. Browner. v. Dutcher, 7 Hun, 439. Aff'd in 70 N. Y. 385. v. Esten, 1 Gai. 152. Explained (M. &. 0. — granting relief not asked for) in Jones ». Cook, 11 Hun, 230. v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 655; s. c, 5 Supm. Ct. (T. & C), 208. Rev'd (on both points) in 66 V. Y. 464. T. , 66 N. Y. 464; s. c, 23 Am, R. 76, with note. That this case has been overruled (Ins. — knowledge, of insurer's agent) by Van Schoick v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 68 V". Y. 434,— see Broadhead v. Ly- coming Fire Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 452; Chase ». People's Fire Ins. Co., Id. 456. Disting'd (Ins. — condition as to agent) in Whited v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 76 N. Y. 415, 419. Disting'd ("Building occupied as a dwell- ing ") in Woodruff v. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 83 N. Y. 133, 140. v. Greene, 3 Hill, 9. See Hollister v. Nowlen. Rev'd (Carriers — liability for neg- ligence under contract to tow a boat) in 7 Hill, 533 ; and see Wells v. Steam Navi- gation Co., 2 N. Y. 204; 8 N. Y. 375. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. (5 ed.) § 916, n. 1, 78. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 59 ; (5 ed. ) §§ 59, 668. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars on Contr. 170, n. r. Disting'd (as to the mode of employment) with Caton u. Rumney, 13 Wend. 387; Wells v. Steam Navigation Co., 2 N. Y. 207. ALEXANDER— ALLCOTT. 13 v. , 7 Hill, 533. Followed (Car- riers — liability for negligence under con- tract to tow a boat) with other cases in Bussoy v. Mississippi Valley Transportation Co., 24 La. Ann. Ifi5; s. c, 13 Am. R. 120. v. Hard, 42 How. Pr. 131. Corrected on p. 384 of same vol. v. Hoyfc, 7 Wend. 89. Overruled (Trus- tee's liability) in Hill v. Sellick, 21 Barb. 207. (Not an authority that entire judg- ment may be reversed as to one defendant, and affirmed as to another.) Cruikshank v. Gardner, 2 Hill. 333. ■ v. Sim Mut. Ins. Co., 49 Barb. 475. Rev'd (unless plaintiff should consent to a reduction of his recovery) in 51 If. Y. 253. v. , 51 K Y 253. Disapproved, with Schmidt v. United Ins. Co., 1 Johns. 249, in Matbeson v. Equitable Marine Ins. Co., 118 Mass. 209; s. c, 19 Am. R. 441, 445, — in so far as they conflict with the doctrine holding a marine insurer liable not only for a total loss, but for a partial loss, repaired before the happening of the total loss, — Barker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 8 Johns. 307, 318, being cited as overruling Schmidt v. United Ins. Co., above. Alexander Presb. Ch. v. The Presb Ch., 46 How. Pr. 312. Afi'd in 64 If. ¥.■ 274. Alfaro T. Davidson, 39 Super. Gt. {J. & 8) 408. See further proceedings in Id. 463, and 40 Id. 87, and 289. Algeo v. Duncan, 39 If. Y. 313 ; s. c, 7 frame. App. 106. Reported below as Allgro v. Duncan, in 24 How. Pr. 210. Disting'd (New Tr. — as a case where the damages were capable of being rendered certain) in Wavle v. Wavle, 9 Han, 125. Followed (Motion for new trial before trial judge) in Platz v. City of Cohoes, 8 Abb. If. G. 392, 395. Followed (Motion for new trial for inadequate damages and court's jurisdiction to grant) in McDonald ». Walter, 40 If. Y. 551. Followed (New Tr. — granted upon judge's minutes) in Duden v. Waitzfelder, 2 Abb. If. O. 295, 299. Explained in Clark v. Mechanics' Nat'l Bk. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 481, SOI. Followed (New Tr.— granting of) in Pollock v. Wannamaker, 65 How. Pr. 508. Alger v. Conger, 17 Hun, 45. Aff 'd, it seems, in 79 If. Y. 633, but no opinion. Com- pare (Costs against one in representative capacity) Code Civ. Pro. § 3246. v. Johnson, 4 Hun, 412; s. c, 6 Supm. Gt. (T. & O.) 632. v. Raymond, 7 Bosw. 418. We are in- formed that this decision was affirmed in the Court of Appeals in October, i 863. v. Scott, 54 Jf. Y. 14. Followed (Rights of payee) in Risley v. Smith, 39 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 137; which was rev'd in 64 K Y. 576. Reviewed, with other cases, in Brill v. Tuttle, 81 If. Y. 451. v. Scoville, 6 How. Pr. 131. See, in accord therewith (Joinder of causes of ac- tion), Cahoon t\ Bank of Utica, 7 How. Pr. 134, which, however, was rev'd in 7 If. Y. 486. Algie v. Wood, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 46. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 75 If. Y. 610. No opinion. Algur v. Gardner, 54 If. Y. 360. Followed (How usury by agent affects principal) in Estevez v. Purdy, 6 Hun, 46, which was rev'd in 66 If. Y. 446, where Algur v. Gard- ner was distinguished. Followed (Usury — bonus being part of the contract of loan) in Wyeth v. Braniff, 84 If. Y. 627, 632. Dis- tinguished (Usury — bonus not being part of the contract of loan) in Wood v. Bogart, 19 Hun, 227. Disapproved (How usury by agent affects principal), with Condit n. Bald- win, 21 If. Y 219, in New Eng. Mortgage Security Co. i>. Hendrickson, Supm. Ct. Neb. June, 1882, 14 Reporter, 405. Disapproved, with Estevez v. Purdy, 6 Hun, 46, in Gray v. Van Blarcom, 29 If. J. Eq. 454, as con- trary to Condit v. Baldwin, 21 If. Y. 219. Alien, Matter of an, 7 Hill, 137. Appears to be denied in State v. Whittemore, 50 If. H. 245; s. c, 9 Am. R. 196, 201, respecting the admissibility of affidavits as to resi- dence in naturalization cases. Alkenbrack v. People, 1 Den. 80. Relied on (Indictment — proof of allegations in) in Commonwealth v. Gavin, 121 Mass. 54; s. c, 23 Am. R. 255. Allaire v. Onland, 2 Johns. Cos. 52. Explained (Indemnity — promise to indemnify against trespass) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 999; n. t, 11 Am. Ed. Followed (s. r. and validity of) with Coventry v. Barton, 17 Johns. 162 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 376, with note, and other cases, in Davis v. Arledge, 3 Hill (S. C.) 170 ; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 360, with note. Allaire v. Whitney, 1 Hill, 484, Approved (Fraud) in Whitney i>. Allaire, 4 Den. 554, which see, below. See Crooker r>. Bragg. Disting'd (Damages — malice) in Allaire Works v. Guion, 10 Barb. 58. Disting'd (Damages — not a case of waiver) in Nailor ». Schenck, 3 E. D. Smith, 135. Quoted (Dam- age — showing degree of) in Searlesrc. Cronk, 38 How. Pr. 320, 326. Relied on (Ins. Fraud. Damages) in Harris «. Equitable Life Assurance Soc, 3 Hun, 724, 732. Relied on (Fraud — in cases of, may retain and sue for damages) in Lexon v. Julian, 14 Id. 152. Criticised and disting'd (Fraud. Damages) as a case of an executed contract, and said to be of doubtful authority so far as it enun- ciates a principle applicable to executory contracts, in People v. Stephens, 51 How. Pr. 235, 249. Approved and applied (Fraud. Damages — as to grounds of action and pro- cedure) in Northrop v. Hill, 57 If. Y. 351, 354. Allan v. Smith, 1 Cow. 180. Collated with other cases (Dower — valuation of land for) in Sharsw. & B. Cases on Real Prop. 399. Allard v. Greasert, 61 If. Y. 1. See Rogers v. Phillips ; Krudler v. Ellison. 14 ALLCOTT— ALLEN. Allcott t. Barber, 1 Wend. 526. Explained and followed (Recovery for medicines fur- nished) in Smith v. Tracy, 2 Mall, 465. Allegany Oil Co. v. Bradford Oil Co., 21 Hun, 26. Aff d in 86 If. Y. 638, on opinion below. Allen, Matter of, 24 Hun. 408 ; s. c, as Straus & Co., Matter of, in 61 How. Pr. 243. The proceedings in bankruptcy in this case are reported in 17 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 157 ; s. c, 17 All. L. J. 170. Alien v. Addington, 7 Wend. 9 ; s. c„ 11 If. T. Com. Law ed. 35, with brief note. Rev'd for error in instructions to jury, in 1 1 Id. 374. See Addington. «. Allen. Relied on (Fraud — intent of general recommendation of credit) in "Williams ». Wood, 14 Wend. 127. Relied on (to s. p. and equitable jurisdiction of) in Mayne u. Griswold, 3 Sand/. 463, 475. Relied on (Damages — exemplary, allowed in civil suit. Action for libel) in Fry v. Ben- nett, 4 Buer, 247, 260. Relied on (Fraudu- lent representations— privity between the parties ; sustaining the complaint and action and dismissing the demurrer) in Bank of Wilmington v. Barnes, 4 .464. Pr. 226. Explained and disting'd (Fraud— representa- tions, &c, and as to the action's character, whether in tort or assignable) in Byxbie v. Wood, 24. If. Y. 607. Relied on with others (Fraud in representations — and the necessity of intent to deceive) in Wakeman «. Dalley, 44 Barb. 498. v. Aguirre, 7 If. Y. 543. Reported be- low, in 10 Barb. 74. Explained (Statute of Frauds) in Dow *. Way, 64 Barb. 255, 262. Discussed (Statute of Fraud) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 117, b, 4 ed. v. Allen, 11 How. Pr. 277. Overruled (Designating unknown owners, in partition) by Sanford v. White, 56 K T. 359 ; aft'g 1 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 647 ; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 205. v. , 14 How. Pr. 248. See Boington «j. Lapham, 14 How. Pr. 360, for a contrary case as to the relief to which a defendant is entitled, when a complaint does not conform to the summons. v. , 8 Abb. N. C. 175 ; s. c, (1st) 59 How. Pr. 27 ; (2d) 58 How. Pr. 381. Com- pare Walker v. Walker, 8 Mb. 17. C. 436; s. c, 82 If. T. 260. Opposed (Alimony) in Bloodgood v. Bloodgood, 59 How. Pr. 42, on authority of Bartlett v. Bartlett, Clarke, 460. See cases collated in 60 Am. Dec. 665, 676, n. v. Atlantic Telegraph Co., 21 Hun, 22. See Ward v. Atlantic, etc. Telegraph Co. v. Bishop, 25 Wend. 414. See (Action by or against executor, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. XV. tit. III. art. 1. note. t. Brown, 51 Barb. 86. Aft'd in 44 If. Y. 228. See Myers v. Davis. Decision in 44 If. Y., disting'd (Recovery by transferee) in Hays v. Hathorn, 74 N. Y. 486, 489. See (Burden of proof in action on municipal bonds) McCall v. Town of Hancock {U. S. Circuit Ct. If. B. K Y. January, 1882), 13 Reporter, 419 ; s. c, 10 Fed. R. 8, as con- trary to the principal case, and to Cagwin r>. Hancock, 84 If. Y. 532 ; Starin «. Town of Genoa, 23 Id. 439 ; Gould v. Sterling, Id. 456, and as following Town of Venice v. Murdock, 92 U. 8. 494, as binding upon the court. Y. , 5 Lans. 280. See subsequent decisions in 60 Barb. 39, and 5 Lans. oil. Disting'd (Effect of forfeiture of life estate) in Moore v. Pitts, 53 If. Y. 85, 91. T. , 5 Lans. 511. Followed (Costs of motion to remove injunction) in Langdon v. Gray, 22 Hun, 512. v. City of Buffalo, 39 2V T . Y. 386. An- other decision in 38 N. J". 280. Disting'd (Irregular assessments) in Tilden v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 56 Barb. 340. v. Cook, 26 Barb. 374. Disapproved (Judgment lien on homestead) in 1 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 714, citing cases. Approved in Smith v. Brackett, 36 Barb. 571, 574. Dis- approved (Statutes of exemption — not liber- ally construed) in 1 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 647. Collated with other cases in 20 Am. R. 150, 7i., as to the right and effect of disposal by a debtor, of his exempt property. v. Cowan, 28 Barb. 99. Rev'd on the ground that the delivery was sufficient, in 23 If. Y. 502. Decision in 23 If. Y., applied (H. & W. — possession by) in Porter v. Mc- Grath, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 84, 102. v. Crary, 10 Wend. 349; s. c, 25 Am. Bee. 566, with note. Explained (Replevin, what sufficient taking to sustain) in Chap- man v. Douglas, 5 Daly, 244, 252. Ap- plied in Green v. Burke, 23 Wend. 494; Latimer v. Wheeler, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 42; Neff v. Thompson, 8 Barb. 215. Dis- approved iu Brockway v. Burnstp, 12 Barb. 351; which was, however, rev'd in 16 Id. 309. Disting'd in Hymann i>. Cook, How. App. Cos. 436. Followed in Knapp v. Smith, 27 If. Y. 277. Reaff d in Boyce v. Brockway, 31 Id. 490. Followed (Liability of plaintiff for levy) in Marsh v. Backus, 16 Barb. 483. Disting'd in Chapman v. Dou- glas, 15 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 428. Approved with Stewart v. Wells, 6 Barb. 70 ; and Brockway e. Bur-nap, 12 Barb. 347 being disapproved in Mitchell v. Roberts, 50 If. H 486. Denied (Replevin lies wherever trespass de bonis would) in Richardson v. Reed, 4 Cray (Mass.) 441. T. Crofoot, 2 Wend. 515; s. c, 20 Am. Bee. 647 ; Garr ». Selden, 4 If. Y. 91. Ap- proved (Question for the jury) in Perkins v. Mitchell, 31 Barb. 461. v. , 5 Wend. 506 ; s. c, 10 If. Y. Com. I. Law. ed. 930, with brief note cit- ing other cases. Quoted (Trespass upon property — essentials of) in Bigelow Cases on Torts, 386. v. Culver. 3 Ben. 284. Applied (Ap- plication of payments) in Dows v. More- wood, 10 Barb. 189. Distinguished (Cove- ALLEtf. 15 r.ant running with land) in Tallman v. Cof- fin, 4 K Y. 137. v. Devlin, 6 Bosw. 1. Aff'd in 23 A 7 ! Y. 363. Decision in 6 Bosw. commented upon (Statute of Frauds — surrender of lease; in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 34, n. 3, 4 Ed. ■ v. Dykers, 3 Hill, 593. Aff'd in 7 Id. 497. See Dykers «. Allen ; Nourse v. Prime. Dicta of Walworth, Ch., in latter decision as to power of sale, commented on in Milliken v. Dehon, 27 A 7 ". Y. 364. Examined (Power of pledgee of shares of stock) -with other cases in 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 454, n. ■ v. Eighmie, 14 Hun, 559. Aff'd it seems in 79 A 7 ! Y. 632, but no opinion. v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. Pr. 501. See Catlin v. Hansen. Followed (As- signor for creditors, competency of, as wit- ness) in Symonds v. Peck, 10 How. Pr. 395. See also in accord therewith, Davidson «. Miner, 9 How. Pr. 524. v. Fourth Nat. Bank. 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 137. Aff'd in 59 N. Y. 12; which latter decision was extended and applied in U. S. v. Nat. Park Bank, 6 Fed. Pep 854, as to the effect of negligence in making payment. v. Fox, 51 A 7 ! Y. 562. Included (Dam- ages in replevin) in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 650. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §1722, n. Followed in Yaudlc v. Kingsbury, 17 Kan. 195 ; s. c, 22 Am. B. 282 ; Bell v. Campbell, .17 Kan. 211; s. c, 22 Am. P. 284, n. v. Hudson River Mut. Ins. Co., 19 , Bart. 442. Collated (Clauses in fire policies restraining mortgages, &c.) with other cases in 59 Am. Dec. 311, n. v. Jaquish, 21 Wend. 628. Quoted (Statute of Frauds — conveying lands — seal) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 7, n. 3, 4 Ed. ; Id. § 47. v. Mapes, 20 Wend. 633 ; Grant v. Mc- Caughlin, 4 How. Pr. 216. Disapproved (Admitting defense of usury on opening judgment by default) in Farish v. Coilies, 1 Daly, 274. But compare McQueen v. Bab- cock, 13 Abb. Pr. 208, which was aff'd in 3 Keyes, 428, as to the right to set up new defenses on amending a pleading. v. Martin, 10 Wend. 300; s. c, 25 Am. Bee. 564, with note. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 K D. Smith, 404. Disting'd (Recovery of money paid ou ' assessment) in Perdue v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 12 Abb, Pr. 31. Followed in Mayer v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hun. 306; s. c, 4 Supm. Ct. (T: & C.) 490. Mercantile Mutual Ins. Co., 46 Barb. 642. Rev'd in 44 N. Y. 437. v. Meyer, 7 Daly, 229. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in 71 A 7 ". Y. 594, but no opinion. Re-argument .denied in 73 Id. 1. Decision in 71 A 7 ". Y. followed (Order not appealable) in Claflin v. Baeie, 80 N. Y. 642. v. Merchants' Bk. of N. Y., 22 Wend. 215. Followed (Liability of collecting bank) in Montgomery County Bk. of Penn. ■». Albany City Bk., 7 A 7 ! Y. 459, which aff'd in part 8 Barb. 399 ; Commercial Bk. of Penn. t>. Union Bk. of N. Y., 11 N. Y. 211, aff'g 19 Barb. 395; Indig v. Nat. City Bk., 16 Hun, 201, which was however rev'd in 80 A 7 ". Y. 100 ; Ayrault v. Pacific Bk., 47 A 7 ". Y. 573, aff'g 6 Bob. 337. Discussed at length in Britton s. McColls, 104 U. S. 757. Cited as establishing the doctrine in Ex- change Nat. Bk. v. Third Nat. Bk., 112 Id. 276, 282. Applied in Hoard v. Garner, 10 N. Y. 261 (aff'g 3 Sandf. 179) to case of covenant for collection of mortgage. Re- viewed in State Bk. of Troy «. Bank of Capitol, 41 Barb. 350. Explained in Bank of Orleans v. Smith', 3 Hill, 563. Applied (Evidence of usage) in Fabbri v. Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co., 64 Barb. 101; Dalton v. Daniels, 2 Hilt. 472; Bowen «. Newell, 2 Duer, 595. Explained (Liability for notary's neglect) in Commercial Bk. of Ky. v. Varnum, 3 Lans. 90, n. See contra, cases cited, in 7 South. L. J. K S. 47. v. Mille, 17 Wend. 202. See Troup v. Smith. Commented on (Statute of Limita- tions — fraudulent concealment) in Angell on Limitations, % 185, 6 ed. Followed and approved, with Troup v. Smith, 20 Johns. 33 ; Leonard v. Pitney, 5 Wend. 30 ; Hum- bert v. Trinity Church, 24 Id. 587, in Free- holders of Somerset v. Yeghte, 44 A 7 ! J. Kg.; s. c, 28 Alb. L. J. 29, 33. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 410. v. N. J. Southern R. R. Co., 49 How. Pr. 14. See (Necessity that action for injuries caused by acts of officers of a corporation be brought in name of corporation) Greaves v. Gouge, 69 N. Y. 154 ; s. c, 54 How. Pr. 272. v. Patterson, 7 K .Y. 476; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 542. Commented on (What constitutes a sufficient pleading) in Ches- brough v. N. Y & Erie R. R. Co., 26 Barb. 914; Roedigera. Simmons, 14 Abb. Pr. A 7 . S. 260; Acome v. American Mineral Co., 11 How. Pr. 27. Followed in Adams v. Holley, 12 How. Pr. 329 ; Betts v. Bache, 14 Abb. Pr. 285; Simsera. Cowan, 56 Barb. 397; Cud- lipp 1>. Whipple, 4 Duer, 610; Merwin v. Hamilton, 6 Id. 253; Moffet e. Sackett, 18 A 7 ". Y. 522; Hosley v. Black, 28 Id. 444; Solomon i>. Vinson, 31 Minn. 205. Dis- ting'd in Drake -v. Cockcroft, 5 K. D. Smith. 34; Witherhead t>. Allen, 4 A bb. Ct. App. Dec. 628; Keteltas v. Myers, 1 Abb. Pr. 410. which was, however, rev'd in 19 A 7 ! F. 231. v. Pell, 4 Wend. 505. Explained (Set off in action for rent) in Whitbeck o. Skin- ner, 7 Hill, 53. v. People, 57 Barb. 338. Rev'd in 43 K Y. 28. v". Public Administrator, 1 Bradf. 221. Further decision in Id. 378, said to be affd in Seld. Notes, Apl. 1853, p. 57. See John- son i>. Johnson; Sprague s. Duel. With decision in 1 Bradf. 221 ; compare (Privilege of attorney) Sheridan v. Houghton, 6 Abb. 16 ALLEN— ALMY. If. 0. 234, n. Applied in Pcarsall v. Elmer, 5 Bed/, 181, 182, 184, 190. v. Reynolds, 36 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 297. Doubted (Acknowledgment by married •woman) in 41 Am. Dec. 180, n. Compare Gilraith v. Gallivan, Mo., Nov. 5, 1883, 29 Alb. L. J. 14. ■ ; T. Rightmere, 20 Johns. 365; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 288. Followed (Right of guarantor to demand and notice) with Brown v. Cur- tiss, 2 K Y. 225 ; Union B'k e. Coster, 3 Id. 203; Luqueer v. Prosser, 1 Sill, 256, in Donley v. Camp, 22 Ala. 659; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 274. Disting'd, with Douglass v. Howland, 24 Wend. 35: in Lowe v. Beck- with, 14 B. Monr. (£y.) 184; s. c, 58 Am. Dee. 665. v. Sackridcr, 37 N. T. 341. Followed (Essential characteristics of common carriers) in Fish v. Clark, 2 Lans. 176. Included ■with note in 2 Bed/. Am. Bailw. Oases, 33. v. St. Louis Ins. Go., 46 Super. Ct. {J. 6 S.) 175. Aff d in 85 N. Y. 473. v. Scandinavian Nat. B'k, 46 How. Pr. 71. See Tracy v. First Nat. B'k of Selma. Disting'd (Special appearance' to vacate attachment) as decided prior to Code Civ. Pro. § 682, in People's B'k of N. Y. v. Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 62 Sow, Pr. 422, 425; National Shoe, &c. B'k v. Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 89 If. Y. 440. — T — v. Scarff, 1. Silt. 209. Applied (Guar- anty) in Post v. Geoghegan, 5 Daly, 216, 218. v. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327. Rev'd in 6 Id. 325. See King v. Lenox. v. Starring-, 26 How. Pr. 57. Followed (Adjournment of supplementary proceed- ings) in Kaufman v. Thrasher, 10 Hun, 438, 442. v. Snydnni, 17 Wend. 368. Rev'd in 20 Id. 321 ; s. c, 13 K Y. Com. L., Law. Ed. 868, with brief note. See Blot v. Boiceau ; Smedes v. Bank of Utica. Cited approvingly (Liability of agent who fails to present negotiable paper for acceptance) in Exchange Nat. B'k v. Third Nat. B'k, 112 U. S. 276, 291. Included in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 393; Bicjel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 185. Dis- cussed, Id. 240. Collated with other cases in Holcombe Lead. Cas. on Com. Law, 24. Included with notes in Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Ex. 26 ; also in 32 Am. Dee. 555, with note containing citations. Ex- plained (Presenting bill for acceptance on the day it becomes due) in Plato v. Rey- nolds, 27 K Y. 586. v. Webster, 15 Wend. 284; s. c, 12 If. Y. Com. L., Law. Ed. 866, with brief note. See Utica Ins. Co. Y.Williamsburgli Sav. B'k, 2 Abb. N. C. 342. AflE'd, 69 N. Y. 314. Decision in 69 If. Y. followed (Duties and liabilities of savings banks') in Boone v. Citizen's Savgs. B'k of N. Y., 9 Abb. If. C. 146, 150 ; s. c, 84 N. Y. 83, 87. Allerton T. Allcrton, 50 K Y. 670. Ex- plained (Tender of amount received on application for rescission of contract) in Gould v. Cayuga, &c. Nat. B'k, 21 Hun, 293, 302 ; Metropolitan, &c. R'y Co. v. Man- hattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. If. C. 229; Anthony n. Day, 52 How. Pr. 35. Explained (Deceit by partners) in Moah's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 544. v. Belden, 3 Lans. 492 ; rev'd in 49 If. Y. 373. See Cole v. Savage. Decision in 49 N. Y. followed (Equitable relief by Can- cellation) in Hoffman v. Treadwell, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 183, 188 ; Metropolitan, &c. R'y Co. v. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. If. C. 103, 204. v. Lang. See Millspaugh v. Putnam. Allgro T. Duncan, 24 How. Pr. 210. AfTd as Algeo v. Duncan, in 39 If. Y. 313 ; s. c, 7 Transc. App. 106. Allis v. Leonard, 46 If. Y. 688 ; s. c. more fully, 22 Alb. L. J. 28. Cited (Admissions and denials in answer) in Fellows v. Mul- ler, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 137, 141 ; Haines v. Herrick, 9 Abb. If. C. 379; Calhoun v. Hallen, 25 Hun, 155. Reluct- antly followed in Smith v. Gratz, 59 How. Pr. 274, 276. Disting'd in Potter v. Frail, 67 How. Pr. 445. Supported in Burley v. German Am. Bk., Ill U. S. 216. v. , 58 If. Y. 288. Disting'd (Ex- pression of opinion in charging the jury) in Massoth ». Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 6 Hun, 314, 318. ■». Read, 45 If. Y. 142. Explained (Payment taking contract out of statute of frauds) in Hunter v. Wetsell, 57 If. Y. 375, 379. t. Wheeler, 56 K Y. 50. Followed (Allowance of costs to one of several defend- ants) in Park v. Spaulding, 10 Hun, 128 ; Pierce v. Brown, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 398. Distiug'd in Williams v. Cassaday, 22 Hun, 182. Explained in Royce v. Jones, 23 Hun. 452, 453. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3229, n. Allison v. Ma. Franklin Ins. Co., 9 Pick.. 466 ; and see Freeman v. East India Co., 5 Barnwell & Aid. 617; 3 Kent Com. 173, n. a; Schooner Tilton, 5 Mans. 481. v. Dunham, 12 Wend. 463. Affd in 15 Id. 9. v. Griswold, 14 Wend. 399. Commented on (Liability of successive insurers) in 3 Kent Com. 281, n. e. Said in 28 Am. Dec. 123, n., to have been doubted (referring to Whiting v. Independent Ins. Co., 15 Hid. 295). Followed (Effect of landing portion of goods covered by marine policy) in Chadr sey v. Guion, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 267. v. Button, 24 Wend. 330. Aff'd in. 7 Bill, 321. Explained (Vessel, when at sea) in Union Ins. Co. v. Tysen, 3 Hill, 118. y. Oakley, 9 Paige, 259. Other proceed- ings in Id. 496. Decision on p. 259 fol: lowed (Re-sale in foreclosure, &c.) in Gould v\ Mortimer, 16 Abb. Pr. 448. Reviewed with other cases in Lefevre «. Laraway, 22 Barb. 174. Applied in Kellogg v. Howell, 62 Bo-*-l. 284. Criticised in Wolcott v. SHienck. 23 How. Pr. 388. Decision on p. 496 applied (Corporation, when bound) in Isaacs v. Beth Hamedash Society, 1 Hilt. 471 ; Lee i>. Pittsburgh Coal, &c. Co., 56 How. Pr. 378; Peterson v. Mayor, &c. of K. Y., 17 N. Y. 454. Followed (Un- authorized appearance by attorney) in dis- senting opinion in Brown v. Nichols, 42 K Y. 32. v. Ogden, 15 Wend. 532. Rev'd in 20 Id. 287. See Ruckman t. Merchants' Louisville Ins. Co. Decision in 20 Wend. 18 AMEKIOAN— AHOSKEAG. explained (Want of funds, as cause of abandonment) in 3 Kent Com. 322, n. c; Ruck in an v. Merchants' Louisville Ins. Co., 5 Drier, 342, 359. See (Implied wnrranty of seaworthiness in time policies) Thompson v. Ilopper, 6 El. & Bl. 172, 937< and cases cited; Hoxie v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Allen, 21 ] , and cases cited. Followed (What constitutes unseaworthiness) in Lapene' ■». Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 8 La. Ann. 1 ; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 668. American Life Ins. & Trust/Co. v. Tan Epps, 14 Abb. Pr. K 8. 253. Rev'd in 56 N. T. 601. See also (Costs against trustee per- sonally) Code Civ. Pro. § 3246. American Medicine Co. v. Kessler, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 407. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 637. See further decision in 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 557. American Natl Bank of N. T. t. Wheelock, 45 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 205. Appeal dis- missed in 82 N. Y. 118. American Seaman's Friend So. v. Hopper, 43 Barb. 625. Affd in 33 1ST. Y. 619. American Silk Works v. Salomon, 4 Hun, 135; s. c. more fully in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 352. American Transportation Co. v. City of Buffalo, 23 Barb. 272. Affd in 20 K Y. 388. American Union Tel. Co. v. Middleton, 80 N. Y. 408. Compare (Jurisdiction in actions for injuries to land without the State), 22 Alb. L. J. 47, 119, 147, 219. Explained in Atl. & Pac. Tel. Co. «. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 377, 386. Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. 513. Disting'd (Performance of covenants in charter-party — when excused) in Steele v. Buck, 61 III. 343; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 60, 65. v. Duryea, 6 Lans. 155. Aff 'd in 61 N. Y. 609. v. Jones, 77 K Y. 614. Reviewed and collated (Production of sample not neces- sarily a sale by sample) with other cases to same effect in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 242. v. Merriman, 9 Wend. 498. Explained (Who to make affidavit on motion for judg- ment as for nonsuit) in Bird s. Moore, 3 Bill, 447. ■ v. N. T. Union Ins. Co., 14 N. Y. 253. See Masters v. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. Co. ; Mayor of N. Y. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. Followed (Waiver by insurer) in Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 134; Liddle v. Market Fire Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. ^88, 191; Van Allen v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 399, and 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 593 ; Whit well v. Putnam Fire Ins. Co., 6 Lans. 167. Disting'd in Underwood v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 57 iV. Y. 506. Followed (Effect of acts, &c. of insurance agent) in Hodgkins v. Montgomery Co. Mutual Ins. Co., 34 Barb. 214; Huntley v. Perry, 38 Barb. 571. Reviewed with other cases in Van Schoick v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., C8 K Y. 438. Followed, with Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 36 21. Y. 550, in Alex- ander v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 208 ; s. c, 2 Hun, 655. Fol- lowed (Effect of condition limiting action on fire policy) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co , 39 JST. Y. 46, which aft'd 10 Bosw. 547. Explained in Ripley v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 30 N. Y. 163. Reaffd in Wilkinson v. First Nat, Fire Ins. Co., 72 K Y. 502. Applied in Young v. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 396; Ripley «. Astor Ins. Co., 17 How. Pr. 445 ; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 39 K Y. 45 ; and the latter applied in Killips «. Putnam Fire Ins. Co., 28 Wis. 472 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 506, 513. T.Webber, 11 Wend. 186. Explained (Motion to dismiss writ of error) in Boyd v. Weeks, 6 Hill, 71. Amidon v. Wheeler. 3 Hill, 137, Dis- ting'd (Restitution) in Matter of Guardian Sav'gs Inst'n, 78 N. Y 408, 413. Ammidon v. Walcott, 15 Abb. Pr. 314. Fol- lowed (Adjournment of supplementary pro- ceedings) in Kauffmau v. Thrasher, 10 Hun, 438, 441. Amovy v. Amory, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 520. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 684, mem. ; and that affd in 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 186. T. Flyn, 10 Johns. 102. See People v. McGarren. Relied on (Rights of finder of lost property) in Sheldon -c. Sherman, 42 JT. Y. 489. v. Lord, 9 N~. Y. 403. See Savage v. Burnharn. Disting'd (Suspension of power of alienation) in Woodruff ■». Cook, 61 i\T. Y. 641. Harrison v. Harrison, 36 K Y. 543. v. McGregor, 15 Johns. 24; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 205. See Fontaine v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Explained (Common carrier — measure of damages in actions against) in Ang. on Carr. § 484, n. 1, 5 ed. Cases collected (Inter- course between citizens of belligerent na- tions) in 10 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 228. Cited approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 66, n. a. • Fol- lowed, with Brackett v. McNair, 14 Johns. 171; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 260, in McGregor v. Kilgore, 6 Ohio, 363. Said in 8 Am. Dec. 211, n., to have been noticed elsewhere as to allowance of interest where there is fraud. Anioskeag Mnnnf. Co. v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 63 & Y. 637. Disting'd (Power to reduce claim presented for audit) in Matter of Murphy, 24 Hun, 596, rev'g 60 How. Pr. 258, where the case was relied on. T. Spear, 2 Sandf. 599. See Hier v. Abrahams; Matsetl v. Flanagan; Popham v. Wilcox; Stokes e. Landgraff. Approved (Trade-mark and injunction) in Samuel v. Berger, 24 Barb. 164; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. 88; 13 How. Pr. 342; FetriUge v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr. 101; Fetridge v. Wells, 13 How. Pr. 388; Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 Id. 67; Uor- win v. Daly, 7 Bosw. 222 ; Williams o. Johnson, 2 Bosw. 1 ; Morgan's Sons' Co. v. Troxell, 23 Him, 638, 040; Burnett v. AMSBEY— ANDERSON. 19 Phalon, 3 Keyes, 594; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. K S. 212. Followed in Congress Spring Uo. ■v. High Rock Spring Co., 45 If. Y. 2»1 ; s. c, 10 466. Pr. N. S. 348; rev'g 57 Barb. 526 ; Gillott v. Esterbrook, 17 Barb. 463, and 48 Jf. Y. 377 ; Newman v. Alvord, 40 Barb. 593 ; Gillott v. Kettle, 3 Duer, 624. Disting'd in Mcueely v. Meueely, 1 Hun, 375 ; Godillot v. Hazard, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 427, 430. Followed with Stokes «. Landgraff, 17 Barb. 608 ; Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144; Williams o. Johnson, 2 Bosw. 1, and other cases in Burke v. Cassin, 45 Cal. 467; s. c, 13 Am. B. 204. Applied in Manuf. Co. e. Trainer, 101 U. 8. (11 ' Otto) 51, 61. Quoted in 2 P(ws. era Contr. 257 6ft. rc. 4 ; Id. 257, cc. ». t. Amsbey v. Hinds, 46 Barb. 622. AfFd in 48 A 7 . K 57. Decision in 48 N~. Y. disting'd (Retroactive effect of statute) with Mc- Cahill v. Hamilton, 20 Hun, 388; Watkins v. Haight, 18 Johns. 138 ; Berley v. Ram- pacher, 5 Duer, 188, in Matter of Lauter- jung, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 308. Amsdell v. McCaffrey, 16 Hun, 255. Disting'd (Sufficiency of notice of appeal from justice's judgment) in Andrews v. Long. 19 Bun, 303. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. Amsinck v. Northrup, 12 Weekly Big. 573. Reported as Amsinck v. North, 62 Mow. Pr. 114. Anable t. Anahle, 24 How. Pr. 92. See (Verification of pleadings in action for di- vorce) Olney v. Olney, 7 Abb. Pr. 350; Sweet®. Sweet, 15 How. Pr. 169; Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1757, n. v. Steam Engine Co., 16 Abb. Pr. 286 ; Aff'd, as Anabies. Conklin, in 25 N. Y. 470. Anchor Life Ins. Co. v. Pease, 66 Barb. 360; s. c, more fully, 44 How. Pr. 385. Anderson, Matter of, 48 How. Pr. 279 ; Mem. of s. c, 2 Hun, 377, and 4 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & C.) 658. Modified in 60 If. Y. 457. Decis- ion in 60 Jf. Y. disting'd (Designation of corporation papers) in Matter of Bur.neister. 76 K Y. 174. - - — v. Dickie, 1 Robt. 700; s. c, more fully, 17 466. Pr. 83; 26 How. Pr. 199. Over- ruled (Granting new trial after judgment) in Trace.y v. Altmyer, 46 A. Y. 598. y. Drake,- 14 Johns. 114; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 442, with note containing citations ; s. c, 5 If. Y. Com. L. Law. Ed. 795, with brief note.. Included (Effect of removal of maker of note in excusing holder from present- ment and demand) in 2 Ames Cases on B. S N. 334. Examined in Foster v. Julien, 24 Jf. Y. 28, 30, 39 ; and see Niagara District Bank v. Fairman, &c. Manuf. Co., 31 .Bar6. 403, 406. Seems to be disting'd, though approved, in Hepburn «. Toledano, 10 Mart, (la.) 643 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 345. v. Hill, 53 Barb. 238. Criticised and doubted (Remedy for misjoinder of causes of action) in Henderson d. Jackson, 2 Sweeney, 324; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 168; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 293. v. Jackson, 16 Johns. 382. See Jackson v. Blanshan. Explained (Executory de- vises) in Wilkes o. Lion, 2 CW333, 392, i,s turning on the word '" survivor." Result of the litigation stated in Waldron v. Gianini. 6 Hill, 601. Rule laid down, followed in Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 513, as a local rule of property. Discussed in 4 Kent Com. 279, and n. e. Cited as authority iu Roach v. Martin's Lessee, 1 Harr. (Del.) 548 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 746, 755. v. James, 4 Robt. 35, Said, in 6 Aib. L. J. 166, to have been aff'd by Court of Ap- peals, in April, 1871. See Wetmore v. Law. v. Lemon, 4 Sand/. 552. Rev'd in 8 K Y. 236. Decision in 8 Jf. Y. doubted (Right of partner to purchase reversion of real estate occupied by partnership) in Mitchell v. Reed, 61 If. Y. 123, 142. v. Mather, 44 If. Y. 249. Explained (Jurisdiction of court of equity to direct sale of infants' real estate) in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 Ed. § 610, n. L - — v. Nicholas, 5 Bosw. 121. Aff d in 28 If. Y. 600. See Bush v. Lathrop. Decision in 5 Bosw. followed, as to agency and trans- fer, in McNeil v. Tenth National Bank of N. Y., 55 Barb. 59. Cited (Distinction between conversion of certificate of stock and of the stock itself) with Reynolds i>. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323 ; Packard «. Getman, 6 Id. 7&7 ; Hawkins i>. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586 ; in Daggett ». Davis, 53 Mich. 37. v. Prindle, 23 Wend. 616. Commented on (Questions arising on certiorari) with Buck v. Binninger, S Barb. 391, iu Havi- land v. White, 7 Hoio. Pr. 154. v. Rapelye, 9 Paige, 483. Rev'd in 4 Hill, 472, T. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co., 9Hou>. Pr. 553. Explained and followed (Property dedicated to public use) in Burnet v. Bagg, 67 Barb. 154. Limited in Matter of Bos- ton. &c. R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 574. v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 54 A" Y. 334. Followed (Declarations of witness) in People ex ret. Tenth Nat. Bk. of N. Y. ». Green. 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 37G, 379; inem. s. c, 3 Hun, 208. Disting'd in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 220, 222 ; Water Conim'rs v. Burr, 56 A". Y. 665, 667. Followed with Luby «. Hudson River R. R. C, 17 iV. Y. 131, and other cases, in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 160. Approved and followed (Admission of imma- terial evidence as ground for reversal) in Oleson j). Telford, 37 Wis. 327. Followed in O'Sullivan v. Roberts, 39 Super. Ct. (J. ttk S.) 360, 371 ; Havemeycr v. Haveineyer, 43 Id. 522. v. Speers, 8 Alb. N. C. 383 ; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 68. Rev'd in 21 Hun, 568 ; s. c, 59 How. Pr. 421. • v. Alen, 1 2 Johns. 343. See Andrews i>. Beecker. Approved with Johnson v. Blood- good, 1 Johns. Cos.' 51 (Actual notice of assignment of chose in action, not neces- sary) in Tritt v Colwell, 31 Penn. 228. 20 ANDRES— ANDKZWS. Andres t. Wells, 7 Johns. 260. Collated (Liability for libel) with other cases in Bige. Cases on Torts, 111. Followed and approved in King v. Root, 4 Wend. 136. Andrew v. Dietrich. 14 Wend. 31 ; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 527, with brief note. Criticised (False pretenses and larceny) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 567. T. Newcomb, 32 K Y. 417. Quoted (Sale of things not yet in existence or not yet acquired by vendor) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 78> n. 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.), with Seymour n. Canandaigua, &c. R. R. Co., 25 Barb. 284 ; Field v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 K Y. 179. Collated in 30 Am. R. 56, re., as to the validity of chattel mortgages upon crops or property not in existence or to be acquired. v. N. Y. Bible and Prayer-Book Soci- ety, 4 Sandf. 156; s. c, SKY. Leg. Ubs. 361. Rev'd, on another ground, in 8 K Y. 559, n. ; and see Yates v. Yates, 9 Barb. 324. Compare (Bequest to society) Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. K C. 317. Cited (Trust for illegal object not executed) with other cases in 13 Am. L. Beg. K S. 66. Quoted (Per- petuities) in 1 Jarman on Wills, Randolph and Talcott Ed. 514, n. Commented upon (Execution of trusts by corporations) in 1 Berry on Trusts. 3 Ed. § 45, re. 3. Andrews, Matter of, 22 Hun, 608, n. Fol- lowed (Defects in assessment) in Matter of Dennis, 22 Sun, 608. v. .Etna Life Ins. Co., 18 Bun, 163. Rev'd in 85 K Y. 334. v. Beecker, 1 Johns Cos. 411. Followed (Effect of release by assignor of chose in action) in Raymond v. Squire, li Johns. 49. Disregarded as a foreign authority, with Wardell v. Eden, 2 Johns. Cos. 121, n. a; Littlefield v. Storey, 3 Johns. 425 ; Ander- son 0. Van Alen, 12 Id. 343 ; in Mansfield v. Mansfield, 6 Conn. 559; s. c, 16 Am. Bee. 76, 81. Denied in Bulkley ». Landon, 3 Conn. 76. See contra cases in the court of Kings Bench: Baucrman v. Radenius, 7 Term R. 663 ; Crail v. D'Aeth. Id. 070. See in accord in the English Common Pleas: Legh v. Legh, 1 Bos. & P. 447. And see 1 Campb. 492. Cited with Raymond v. Squire, 11 Johns. 47; Littlefield v. Storey, 3 Johns. 425; Dawson v. Coles, T6 Johns. 51; Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. 675, and other cases, in 1 Taylor Ev. 653, to show that, contrary to the practice of the English trial courts, the equitable jurisdiction exercised by the trial courts in America enables them to exclude admissions of a nominal plaintiff as evidence against the real plaintiff. v. Betts, 8 Hun, 322. Cited as author- ity (Power of court of equity to direct sale of property held in common) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 439, n. Followed in Shchan v. Mahar, 17 Run, 130. v. Bond, 16 Barb. 633. Approved in Pomeroy on Remedies, § 660, as accurate- ly describing the office of the general denial. t. Dnrant, 11 K Y. 35. See Hubbell v. Denison; McConihe v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. ; Reubens v. Joel. Commented upon (Sale of goods) in 1 Chitty on Contr. 531 ; n. z, 1 1 Am. ed. Discussed (Sale of specific chattels conditionally) in Benj. on Sales, § 351, (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Explained in 1 Id. §§ 398, 408, 410, 411, 412 (.Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) Disting'd (When title to goods passes) in Higgins v. Murray, 73 K Y. 252, 254 ; Burrows v. Whitaker, 71 Id. 291, 295 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 42. Relied on in Clarkson v. Stevens, 106 U. S. 505, 514. Followed and approved in McConihe v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 K Y. 495, 497. Ex- plained in Hiscox v. Harbeck, 2 Bosw. 506, 514. But compare 1 Parsons Mar. L. 75. Approved in Edwards ». Elliott, 36 K J. L 449, 452. y. , 18 K Y. 496. Qualified (Right of creditor to attack fraudulent assignment) with Reubens v. Joel, 13 K Y. 488, in Rinchey v. Stryker, 28 K Y. 45. Explained in Thayer v. Willet, 5 Bosw. 344, 360 ; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 325, as not an authority as to sheriff's lien. v. dilenville Woolen Co., 11 Abb. Pr. K S. 78. Compare O'Brien •». Glenville Woolen Co., 50 K Y. 128. See subsequent decision in 50 K Y. 282. See Edwards v. Bodine. Decision in 50 K Y. disting'd (Damages on injunction) in McDonald v. James, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 76, 78 ; Troxell ■v. Haines, 5 Daly, 389, 390; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. N. S. 1 ; Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 50 N. Y. 335; Langdon v. Gray, 22 Hun, 512; Disbrow v. Garcia, 52 N. Y. 655. Disting'd with Corcoran n. Judson, 24 K Y. 106; Newton v. Russell, 87 Id. 527 ; which was followed in Randall v. Car- penter, 88 K Y. 293. — - v. Harrington, 19 Barb. 343. Dis- ting'd (Reference to statute in action for penalty) in Schoonmaker v. Brooks, 24 Hun, 553, 555. y. Herriot, 4 Cow. 508; s. c, 8 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 468, with brief note. See Warren «. Lynch. Cited (Limitation of actions — what law governs) in Perkins v. Guy, 55 Miss. 153; s. c, 30 Am. R. 510, as having appended an elaborate note on the subject. A pproved (What gives jurisdiction of the person) in Fiske v. Anderson, 33 Barb. 71, 75. Approved (Personal property as having no locality) in People v. Comm'rs of Taxes, Id. 116. y. Kecler, 19 Bun, 87. Aft'd, it seems, in 90 K Y. 678. Applied (Interest) in Assoc, for Relief of Females v. Eajjleson, 60 Bow. Pr. 9, 12. v. Long, 19 Bun, 303. Rev'd in 79 N. Y. 573. Further proceeding in 22 Bun, 24. See (Notice of appeal from justice's judg- ment) as to effect of Code Civ. Pro. §§ 3046, &c, Bishop v. Van Vechten, 10 Abb. K C. 220, 224. Decision in 79 K Y. followed in Payne «. Terry, 21 Hun, 281, but without opinion. Followed (Appeals in actions com- ANDREWS— ANON YMOUS. 21 meticed in justices' courts) in Kincaid v. Richardson, 24 Hun, 137. Disting'd in Hoir u. Seaton, 18 Weekly. Dig. 510; Perry v. Round Lake Camp Meeting Assoc, 22 Hun, 294. Cited in Cook v. Darrow, Id. 306. T. Montgomery, 19 Johns. 16S; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 21 S, with note. See Borden v. Fitch ; Hitchcock v. Aiken ; Starbuck v. Murray. Followed (Effect of judgments of sister States) in Gulick v. Loder, 1 Green Law. (N. J.) 63; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 711, with note, as having overruled Hubbel v. Cow- dr}', 5 Johns. 132. Followed in Aldrich v. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 151 ; where however Hitchcock v. Aiken, 1 Cai. 460 ; Kilburn v. Woodworth, 5 Johns. 41; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 321, and other cases are followed, as to when such judgments are invalid. v. Murray, 33 Barb. 354. See Corn- ing v. McCullough; Miller v. Fenton. See (Nature of liability of stockholders, &c.) other cases collected in Chase v. Lord, 6 Abb. N. 0. 258, 259, n. Otherwise (Con- tribution among trustees) now by statute (L. 1871, c. 657, am'd'g L. 1848, c. 40, § 12). So also on general principles, Nickerson v. Wheeler, 118 Mass. 295; Thomps. on Liab. of Off. 442. Contra, Potter on Corp. 401, §319. t. Raymond, 2 Supm. Ct. (7! & C.) 661. AfFd in 58 iV. Y. 676, but with no further opinion on the question of law. v. Rowan, 28 How. Pr. 126. See Mal- lory v. Norton. Opposed (Judgment for interfering with exempt property) to Mal- lory v. Norton, 21 Barb. 424. v. Wallege. See Bank of Poughkeepsie ■0. Hasbrouck. Andrus v. Waring. See Buel v. Gordon ; Woods v. Rowan. Angel v. Town of Hnme, 17 Han, 374. Ap- proved and followed (Validity of town bonds) in Rich v. Town of Seneca Falls, 8 Fed. Rep. 852. Approved and followed (Town bonds issued under L. 1869, c. 907, not nullified by L. 1871, c. 925) in Syracuse Savings B'k v. Town of Seneca Falls, 21 Hun, 304 ; afFd in 86 N. Y. 317, 321. Angell v. Lawtoo, 14 Hun, 70. Appeal dis- missed in 76 N. Y. 540. Angevine's Estate, 1 Tuck. 178, 195. First decision of the Supreme Court reported as Angevine v. Angevine, 48 Barb. 417. Angeviue v. Angevine, 48 Barb. 417. See later decision reported in Angevine's Estate, 1 Tuck. 178, 195, denying authority for ordering new trial before jury. Angrave v. Stone, 25 How. Pr. 167. Affd in 45 Barb. 35; Angus v. Dunscomb, 8 How. Pi: 14. Collated (Arrest of person acting in fiduciary capacity) with other cases in Thompson on Prov. Rem. 33. Auibal y. Hunter, 6 How. Pr. 255. See, in accord (Answer in libel or slander), Bud- dington v. Davis, 6 How. Pr. 401. Annett v. Foster, 1 Daly, 502. Followed (Liability of carrier) in Speed v. Atlantic & Pacific K. R. Co., 71 Mo. 303, 310. v. Kerr. 2 Robt. 556; s. c, 28 How. Pr. 324. Affd, in 35 N. Y. 256, as Annett v. Terry, on the ground that the evidence tended to show fraud as against the sure- ties, and without passing on the other ques- tions. See Stilvvell «. Mills. Approved (Limitations on proceedings against sureties on bonds of executors, &c.) in Scofield v. Adriance, 1 Bern. 196; s. c, as Estate of Scofield, 3 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne), 323 (Surrogate's authority to order removed administrator to account). Disting'd (Sur- rogate's authority to decree payment of assets) in Gerould v. Wilson, 81 JV. Y. 573, 583. — v. Terry. 35 JST. Y. 236. See Annett v. Kerr; Bartlett v. Campbell. Relied on (Surrogate's decree, when not to be impeached), in Thayer v. Clark, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 391, 395. Upheld (Effect of judgment against principal), citing many cases, in Stevens «. Shafer, 48 Wis. 54; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 793, with note. Annsincli v. Northrop, 2 Month. L. Bui. 67. Motion to vacate order denied in Amsinck v. North, 62 How. Pr. 114; abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 573. Anonymous, 2 Abb. N. C. 56. See also ("Ex- ception " in a deed) Langdon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. N. C. 314, n. / ■ — -, SAbb.K C. 161. Reviewed (References in divorce cases) with other cases, in Mc- Cleary v. McCleary, 30 Hun, 156. See (Judgment in matrimonial causes), Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1229. n. , 6 Abb. Pr. 319, n. Disting'd (Lia- bility of partner for fraud of copartner) in Hanover Co. v. Sheldon, 9 Id. 240, 241; Contra, Wetmore «. Earle, 9 Abb. Pr. 58, n. — , 17 Alb. Pr. 48. Disting'd (Pleading in actions for divorce) in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 61 iv". Y. 398, 410. See (Counter-claim in matrimonial action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1770, n. , 18 Abb. Pr. 87. Compare (Creditor's actions) Kerr v. Blodgett, "48 If. Y. 62; modifing 10 Abb. Pr. 137; s. c, 25 How. Pr. 308. , 2 Cai. 261. Overruled (Amendment of declaration in ejectment) in Jackson v. Smith, 6 Cow. 39. , 1 Duer, 613; Tracy v. Leland.2 Sandf. 729. Examined and disapproved*(Right of arrest for tort of wife) in Solomon v. Waas. 2 Hilt. 179. Opposed with Schaus u. Putscher, 16^66. Pr. 353; Solomons. Waas, 2 Hilt. 179, in Muser o. Miller, 12 Abb. IT. C. 306, n. , 4 How. Pr. 112. Overruled (Validity of judgment taken without process served, or appearance by attorney) in Williams v. Van Valkenburgh, 16 How. Pr. 145, 152. , 6 How. Pr. 160. Disapproved (Evidence of character, in action for slander) in Anony- mous, 8 How. Pr. 434. , 59 N. Y. S13; reported bclojvas Froude 22 ANONYMOUS— ABEND. v. Froude, 1 Hun, 76. Followed (Order not appealable) in Claflin v. Baere, 80 J¥. T. 642. , 67 K Y. 598. Reported below as Roe- bling v. Duncan, in 8 Hun, 502. Disting'd (Arrest for fraud) in Ellison v. Bernstein, 60 How. Pr. 148. , 10 Paige, 20. Dissented from (As- signees in bankruptcy as parties to fore- closure proceedings) in Oliver «. Cunning- ham, 6 Fed. Rep. 60. Doubted (Rights of one -who acquires title from mortgagor after commencement of suit to foreclose mortgage) in Stout v. Lye; 13 Otto (C S.) 69. ' , 1 Wend. 90. Overruled (Length of no- tice) in Olcott v. Robinson, 21 If. Y. 150, 154; Sheldon v. Wright, 5 jV". Y. 51 7, 523. , 1 Wend. 108. Doubted (Attorney's authority in conducting suit) in Horton v. Champlin, 12 R. 1. 550; s. c, 34 Am. R. 723. , 5 Wend. 82. Cited (Motion— time of making) with other cases, in Whipple v. Williams, 4 Sow. Pr. 30. , 18 Wend. 578. Followed (Service by leaving papers in office) in Haight ». Moore, 36 Super. Gt. (_J. & S.) 294. , 19 Wend. 225. See (Increased costs) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3258, n. Anonymous v. Gelpcke, 5 Hun, 245. See other cases collated (Trustees' compromises) in Matter of Youngs, 5 Abb. N. C. 346, 354, n. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. % 427, n. 2, 4 Ed. See form of exceptions to referee's report in 1 Abb. N. C. 188, n. Ansonia Brass, &c. Co. r. Babbitt. 8 Hun, 157. See a further decision in 74 J¥. Y. 395. Decision in 74 N. Y. disting'd (Proof of debt in bankruptcy, when waiver of credit- or's right to share in dividends of assigned estate) in Matter of Woodward, 67 How. Pr. 359. Disting'd (Effect of order of U. S. court staying sheriff's proceedings) in Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Conner, 67 How. Pr. 157; s. c, 6 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 173. v. New Lamp Chimney Co., 64 Barb. 435. Affd in 53 N. Y. 123; s. c, 13 Am. R. 476; without passing on the question of jurisdiction, and the latter decision affd in 91 U. S. 656; s. c, 13 Alb. L. J. 74, as New Lamp Chimney Co. ». An- sonia Brass, &c. Co. See Haxtun v. Corse. Decision in 53 N. Y. 123, followed (Effect of proof of debt against bankrupt corpora- tion) in Birmingham Nat B'k o. Keck, 55 How. Pr. 230. Applied (Construing section of bankrupt law) in Libbey v. Strasburger, 14 Hun, 120. v. Pratt, 10 Run, 443. Compare (Bank- ruptcy — jurisdiction) Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. N. G. 72. Autlioine v. Coit. 2 Hall, 40; Marquand v. Webb, 16 Johns. 89; Osgood v. Manhattan Ins. Co., 3 Cow. 612; Davis v. Darrow, 12 Wend. 65. Doubted (New trial because of admission of improper evidence) in Crary v. Sprague, 12 Wei.d. 41. Anthony t. Brouwer, 31 How. Pr. 128. Affd, as Gill v. Brouwer, in 37 JST. Y. 549; s. c, 5 Transc. App. 86. t. Harrison, 14 Hun, 198. Affd in 74 Jf. Y. 613, on opinion of Gilbert, J. T. Smith, 4 Bosw. 503. Overruled (Now- trial not to be granted after judgment) in Tracey v. Altmeyer, 46 iv". Y. 598. Anthony Street, Matter of, 20 Wend. 618. See also (Discontinuance) Matter of Wash- ington Park, 56 N. Y. 144, 156. Appleby t. Brown, 24 K Y. 143 ; s. c , less fully, 23 How. Pr. 207, where, however, the opinion of Davies, J., is given in full. t. Erie Co. Savings Bank, 62 N. Y. 12. Disting'd (Negligence in payment by savings banks) in Allen v. W'msburgh Savings B'k, 69 N. Y. 320. T. Robinson,. 44 Barb. 316. Disting'd (Effect of giving bail) in Wemple v. Glavin, 5 Abb. N. C. 360, 367- Appleton v. Bowles, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 568. Rev'd as Miller v. Bowles, in 58 K Y 253 t. YVater Comm'rs of N. T., 2 Hill, 432. Compare (Liability of city officers) Sage v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Abb. JV. C. 279. Ex- plained in Clarissey v. Metropolitan Fire Department, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 352, 363 ; s. c, 1 Sweeny, 224. Appley t. Trustees of Montank, 38 Barb. 275. Folio wed (Construction of L. 1852, c. 139, incorporating proprietors of Montauk lands) in Griunell v. Mint urn, 16 Hun, 134. Aptliorpe y. Comstock, Hopk. 143. Affd in 8 Cow. 386. Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Run, 146.. Quoted (Assignment for benefit of creditors, to cred- itors) in Burrill on Assign. § 12, n. 2, 4 ed. Arcularius v. Gaisenhainer, 3 Bradf. 64; Sweet v. Gaisenhainer, Id. 114. Affd as Arcularius v. Sweet, in 25 Barb. 403. Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 3 Hun, 195; s. c. 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 63 ; rev'd in 69 JV. Y. 470 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 221 ; modifying 54 Barb. 559 ; and see 66 Barb. 257. Con- trary to decision in 69 If. Y. (Tow-boats as carriers* see Bussey v. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co., 24 La. Ann. 165; s. c, 13 Am. R. 120 ; and see Abb. Tr. Ev. 561. Ap- proved with Silliman v. Lewis, 49 JST. Y. 379, and Milton «. Hudson Riv. Steamboat Co., 37 N~. Y. 210, as in substantial accord with the federal authorities, in The M. J. Cummings, U. S. Dis. Ct. N. D. N. Y. 1883, 18 Fed. Rep. 184. Disting'd (Imputing neg- ligence of carrier) in Perry v. Lansing, l7 Hun, 34, 37. Ardeu v. Ardcn, 1 Johns. Ch. 3^3. See Elli- son v. Moffat t. See to the contrary (Pre- sumption of payment) Dedlake ». Robb, 1 Woods, 680 ; sea also Abb. Tr. Jiv. 812. v. Patterson, 5 Johns. Ch. 44. Ex- plained and criticised (Champerty and main- tenance) in Story on Eg. 11 ed. 1050, n. Compare Thalheimer •». Brinckerhoft, 3 Cow. 623. Arend y. Liverpool, N. Y. & Phil. Steam- AEENT— ARNOLD. 23 ship Co., 6 Latin. 457 ; s. c, more fully, in 64 Barb. 118; afi'd, it seems, in 53 W. Y. 606 ; but without opinion. Arcnt v. Squire, 1 Daly, ,347. See Piatt v. Hibbard. Compare (Burden of proof in action against carrier) Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. R. & Trans. Co., 46 H. Y. 271. Areson v. Areson, 5 Bill, 410. Rev'd in 3 Den. 458. Arga 1 1 v. Jacobs, 56 How. Pr. 167. Aft'd in 21 Hun, 114, which was afTd in 87 K Y. 110. Followed (Motion for new trial) in Newhall v. Apploton, 40 Super: Ct. (J. &. S.) 6, 8. t. Pitts. 78 N. Y. 243. Disting'd (Judg- ment by default) in Ballard v. Sherwood, 85 H. Y. 253, 256. v. Smith, 3 Denio, 435. Discussed (Limited partnership— error in publication of amount contributed by special partner) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 216, n. r. Argus Co. t. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 7 Lans. 364. Approved, and in effect aff'd by ordering judgment on the stipulation, in 55 N. Y. 495 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 296. Decision in 55 N. Y. quoted and explained (Statute of Frauds — note or memorandum in writing — consideration) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 251, n. 46 (Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.) Arkell t. Commerce Ins. Co., 7 Hun, 455; Aff'd in 69 N. Y. 191 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 168.. Armour v. Michigan Cent. R. R. Co., 65 H. Y. 111. See Dickerson v. Seelye. Said (Negotiability of bills of lading) in 9 Weekly Cinn. L. B. 1, to be unsupported by authority in other States. Armsby v. People, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.y 157. Aff'd as Kelley v. People, 55 Ji. Y. 565 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 342. Armstrong y. Byrne, 1 Edw. Ch. 79. Dis- cussed (Assignment for benefit of creditors — releases) in Burrill on Assign. § 192, 4 Ed. Quoted in Id. § 196. Commented upon in Bishop on Assign. § 198. v. Craig, 18 Barb. 387. Disapproved (New trial in justice's court) by Sheldon, J., in Same v. Morrison, 1 Sheld. 385. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. v. Cummings, 2 Monthly L. Bui. 14. Rev'd in 20 Hun, 313; s. c, more fully, 58 How. Pr. 313. CompaTe (Injunction against summary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. § 2265. v. -, 2 Monthly L. Bui. 94; s. c, more fully, in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 38, n. Disting'd (Supplementary proceedings) in Bean v. Tonnele, 24 Hun, 853; s. c, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 33, 38. v. -^— , 22 Hun, 570. Disting'd (Set off of costs) in Moloughney v. Kavanagh, 3 Civ. Pro. L'. (Browne) 253; Tuns tali v. Wiuton, 5 Monthly I. Bui. 42. v. Cnshney, 43 Barb. 340. See (Proof of assignment) for the stricter common law rule, Palmer v. Merrill, 6 Cush. 282 ; see also Abb. Tr. Ev. 2. t. Dubois, 1 446. Ct. App. Dec. 11. Disting'd (Liability for acts of attorney) in Clark v. Woodruff, 83 N. Y. 518, 526. v. Foote, 19 How. Pr. 237. Rev'd in 11 Abb. Pr. 384. v. (Jiirrow, 6 Cow. 465. Examined (Ratification of act done under authority conferred by law) in Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. v. Walworth, 1 N. Y. 433, 445. Applied in Townsend v. Olin, 5 Wend. 210. Dis- ting'd (Effect of giving note as payment) in Van Ostrand v. Reed, 1 Wend. 430; Lewis v. Lozee, 3 Wend. 82. Followed (Action against official collecting money) in Murdock v. Aikin, 29 Barb. 66. Disting'd in Dygert v. Crane, 1 Wend. 541 ; Every v. Edgerton, 7 Wend. 262. Disting'd (Discharge of sheriff by acts of party) in Sheldon v. Paine, 10 if. Y. 401 ; Walden v. Davison, 15 Wend. 580; Webber v. Blunt, 19 Wend. 189; see also Hilliard s. Austin, 17 Barb. 144. Disting'd (Affirmance of security taken by sheriff) in Cook v. Freud„nthal, 80 N. Y. 211. v. Gilchrist, 2 Johns. Cos. 424 ; s. c, 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 564, with brief note on jurisdiction of courts of chancery. v. McDonald, 10 Barb. 300. Opposed (Evidence of legitimacy necessary) in Haight b. Wright, 20 How. Pr. 91. Criticised (Proof necessary to sustain father's action for child's services) as unsound in Abb. Tr. Ed. 382. Cited with other cases in 12 Am. L. Reg. XT. S. 720. — r- y. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 Barb. ' 437. AfTd, it seems, in 53 2f. Y. 623. v. People. 70 Jf. Y. 38. See (Com- munications between attorney and client) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 835, n. v. Percys 5 Wend. 536. Examined (Rule of damages) in Brichard v. Booth, 4 Wise. 74. v. Smith, 44 Barb. 120. Disting'd (Opin- ion of witness) in Townsend v. Brundage, 4 Han, 264. v. Wing, 10 Huft, 520. Disting'd (Evi- dence to sustain action against heir at-law for debt of ancestor) in Blossom v. Hatfield, 24 Hun. 275. Arnold, Matter of, 60 K Y. 26. Approved (Assessments, when not vacated) in Dolan ■v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y , 62 N. Y. 472. Dis- ting'd in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Id. 580. Followed in Matter of Furniss, 4 Hun, 624. v. Angell. 38 Super. Ct (J. & S.) 27. Rev'd in 62 H. Y. 508. Decision in 62 H. Y. followed (Recovery must be on cause of action in complaint) in Hollisterr. Engle- hart, 11 Hun, 446. Disting'd (Accounting, as between partners), in Smith v. Bodine, 74 JV. Y. 30, 33. Quoted and collated (Lease to married woman) with other cases in Me- Adam Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 52. v. Camp. 12 Johns. 409 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 328, with note. See Olcott v. Rath- bone. Shown in note in 7 Am. Dec. to have been followed in several States — Millard v. Thorn, 56 2V. Y. 406, being referred to as 21 ARNOLD— ARTHUR showing the principle on which its decision rests. Disapproved (Partner's note given for firm debt) in Cole v. Sackett, 1 Hill, 516, which see below. Overruled, also, by Way- dell v. Luer, 5 Hill, 448, which was, how- ever, rev'd in 3 Den. 410, where Arnold v. Camp was re-aff'd. Collated with Van Eps ®. Dillaye, 6 Barb. 244, and other cases, in 1 Am. Bee. 5, n., as according with the well established doctrine. v. Crane, 8 Johns. 79. See Roget v. Merritt ; Wilson v. Force. Followed, with Pierce v. Crafts, 12 Id. 90 (Action for money had and received, against maker or indorser), in Eagle Bank v. Smith, 5 Conn. 71 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 37. v. Foot, 12 Wend. 330. See Merritt v. Brinkerhoff. Followed (Right of land-owner to stop flow of water-course, having origin on his land), in Howe v. Norman, 13 £. I. 488. — v. Gilbert, 3 Sandf. Ch. 531. Rev'd, in part, in 5 Bwrb. 190; s. c, 7 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 209. v. Halenbrake, 5 Wend. 33. Explained (Canal-boatmen as common carriers) in Ang. on Oarr. § 81, 5 ed. Collated (Agency implied from course of dealing) with other cases, and commented upon, in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 Ed. 692. t. Hudson River R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 108; rev'd, on all the points, in 55 N. Y. 661. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. Kinlock, 50 Barb. 44. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196 to have been rev'd, by Court of Appeals, in Sept. 1870. v. Nichols. 64 H. Y. 117. Cited, with other cases, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 14S, n., to show when a partnership may be made liable for debts contracted prior to its existence. v. Pacific Mnt. Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 83. Rev'd in 78 N. Y. 7. v. Patrick, 6 Paige, 310. Approved (General lien of a judgment subordinate to equity) in Sieman v. Austin, 33 Barb. 9, 20. ■ v. Roes, 18 N. Y. 57. Points of counsel in 17 Haw Pr. 35. y. Robertson, 3 Daly, 298. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 50 N. Y. 683. v. Rock River Valley Union R. R.Co., 5 Duer, 207. Included (Negotiable note, con- taining other provisions besides that for pay- ment of money) in 1 Ames Oases on B. & N. 61. Followed in Collins o. Bradbury, 64 Me. 37; Heard v. Dubuque County Bank, 8 Nev. 10; s. c, 30 Am. It. 811, 813. v. Sandford, 14 Johns. 417. Explained (Judgment of revocatur) in Camp v. Bennett, 16 Wend. 48. Followed (Appearance by infant without guardian, error in fact) in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. v. Sntt'olk Rank, 27 Barb. 424. Dis- ting'd (Lien on stock) in Driscoll v. West, &c. Manuf'g Co., 59 JV. Y. 96, 108. Fol- lowed (Damages — valuation of stock) in Con- tinental Tel. Co. «. Nelson, 49 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 197. V. Tullinadge, 19 Wend. 527. Overruled (Parties in action on bond given to several) in Pearce s. Hitchcock, 2 -ZV. Y. 388. V. Thomas, 2 How. Pr. 91. Approved (Order of arrest, when extinguished) in People ex rel. Roberts v. Bo we. SI H. Y. 45; s. c, 8 Abb K C. 234. Arnot v. Erie Ry. Co., 5 Hun, 608. Afi'd in 67 K Y. 315. v. McClure, 4 Den. 41. See (Necessity of affidavits on foreclosure by advertise- ment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. y. Pittston & E. Coal Co., 2 Hun, 591 ; s. c, 5 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 143. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 558; s. c, 23 Am. R. 190. See Hull v. Ruggles, 68 K Y. 558. Decision in 68 JT. Y. followed (Contracts against pub- lic policy) in Raymond v. Leavitt, 46 Mich. 447; s. c, 41 Am. B. 170; McBirney & Johnston White Lead Co. v. Consolidated Lead Co., 9 Cin. Law Bui. 3i0. Disting'd in Lewin v. Johnson, 32 Hun, 408. Y. Post, 6 Hill, 65. Rev'd in 2 Den. 344. See Jackson v. Crafts. The latter judgment explained in Kortright ■». Cady, 21 N. Y. 343, as not conflicting with the doctrine that tender before foreclosure discharges the lien. Arnoux v. Phelan, 21 How. Pr. S8. Approved (Taxing stenographer's fees as costs) in Gil- man e. Oliver, 14 Abb. Pr. 174, 176. Artcher v. Doug-lass, 5 Den. 509. See Hub- bard i>. Gurney. Cited with other cases as authority (Admissibility of parol evidence to show that party to note signed as surety) in Ward v. Stout, 32 111. 399. v. Whaleii, 1 Wend. 179; Jackson v. Catlin, 2 Johns. 248; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 415. Reviewed with other cases in State Bank «.. Evans, 3 Green (N~. J.) 155; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 400-404, with note, as to what is an escrow. v. Zeh. 5 Hill, 200; s. c. 16 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 102, with brief note on agreements not to be performed within a year. Dis- ting'd and applied (Part payment, &c. required by statute of frauds) in Brabin v. Hyde, 30 Barb. 265, which was rev'd in 32 N. Y. 523, applying Artcher v. Zeh. Applied in Mattice v. Allen, 33 Barb. 545. Followed in Ely v. Ormsby, 12 Barb. 571 ; Brand v. Brand, 49 Barb. 348. Approved in Shind- ler v. Houston, 1 H. Y. 270. Quoted and discussed in Brown ifn Stat, of Frauds, § 342,-ied. ; 3 Pars, on Con.tr. 41, n. n.; 1 Ben}, on Sales, g 139, n. 1 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Applied (Contracts not to be performed within a year) in Dresser ». Dresser, 35 Barb. 576. Relied on in Ganlt i>. Brown, 48 & H. 183; s. c, 2 Am. R. 210, 218. Arthur ?. Arthur, 10 Barb. 9. ^ee Shotwell ■o. Murray. Approved (Inadmissibility of parol evidence to control will) in Myres v. Myres, 23 How. Pr. 410, 411. Limited (Reformation of will; in O'Donnell v. Har- mon, 3 Daly, 424. ARTHUR— ASTOR. 23 t. Brooks, 14 Barb. 533. Opposed (Form of denial) in Jones v. Ludlum, 74 If. Y. 61. Disapproved (Frivolous answer) with Blake v. Eldred, 18 How. Pr. 240, in Chapman v. Chapman, 34 How. Pr. 281. Criticised and disapproved (Hypothetical pleadings) with Boyce v. Brown, 7 Barb. 80, in Brown s. Byckman, 12 How. Pr. 313. ■ v. Case, 1 Paige, 447. Aff'd, as Case v. Haight, in 3 Wend. 632. Quoted and dis- cussed (Diversion and detention of water), in Wood on Nuisances, 2 ed. § 364. T. Griswold, 2 Hun, 606; s. c, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 235; mem. of s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gt. (7. & G.) 696. Appeal dismissed, in 60 N. Y. 143. See former decision, in 55 N. Y. 400. y. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 78 If. Y. 462. For "defendant's," in ninth line from bottom, read "plaintiff's." Arthurton v. Dalley, 20 How. Pr. 311. See to the contrary, as to the effect of a judg- ment in merging the original cause of action, so as to prevent the defendant therein from being arrested on the ground of fraud, Mc- Butt v. Hirsch, 4 Abb. Pr. 441 ; Mallory v. Leach, 23 How. Pr. 510, 511 ; s. c, li Abb. Pr. 449, n. Arthurton e. Dalley is, how- over, cited in and appears to accord with Baxter v. Drake, 61 How. Pr. 365; s. c, 85 If. Y. 502; s.c, 1 Civ. Pro. £.228; see it also cited in 8 Abb. N. C. 197, n., and relied on in Greenbaum v. Stein, 2 Daly, 223. See also, Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 552, n. Artisans' Bank y. Backus, 31 How. Pr. 242. AfFd in 36 AT Y. 100; s. c. 3 Abb. Pr. If. S. 273. See Cook v. Litchfield. See authorities cited (Negotiable paper — altera- tions) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 406, n. 9. y. Treadwell, 34 Barb. 553. Confirmed by subsequent decision reported as Van Alstyne v. Cook, 25 A". Y. 489. See Innes v. Lansing; Van Alstyne v. Cook. Dis- cussed (Partnership — appointment of re- ceiver) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 384, Wood's Am. ed. Ash v. Coleman, 24 Barb. 645. Disting'd (Action for construction of will — when main- tainable) in Onderdonk v. Mott, 34 Id. 106, 113. y. Putnam, 1 Hill, 302. Opposed (Effect of fraud in invalidating transfer) in Stevens v. Hyde, 32 Barb. 171, 175, 177, 179. Fol- lowed in Chaffee v. Fort, 2 Bans. 81, 89. Commented on in Rawles v. Deshler, 1 Buffalo Super. Gt. 48 ; Sturtevant v. Orser, 24 AT Y. 542. Explained (Rescission of contract of sale) in Blanchard v. Trim, 38 If. Y. 228. Ashley v. Marshall, 30 Barb. 426; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 361; 19 How. Pr. 110. Aft'd, in. 29 AT Y. 494. Decision in 29 AT Y. applied (Counter claims arising after commencement of action) in Howard v. Johnston, 82 If. Y. 271, 275. Ash ton v. Jones, 3 Barb. Oh. 397. See Grant ■o. Vansehoonhoven, below. Aspinwall y. Baleh, 7 Daly, 200; s. c, more fully, 4 Abb. AT C. 193. Cited and compared (Depreciation of purchase at judicial sale) in 25 MoaTc Eng. 71. y. Mryer, 2 Sandf. 180. Affd, as How- land v. Myer, 3 N. P. 290. Followed (Validity of transfer of note by officer of insurance company, without previous resolu- tion of directors), in Brookman v. Metcalf, 5 Bosw. 429, 442. v. Torrence, 1 Bans. 381. As to right to contribution, confirmed on further decision in Aspinwall v. Sacchi, 57 AT Y. 831. Astie v. Leeining, 53 How. Pr. 397; s. c, 3 Abb. N. O. 25. See (Effect of verified answer on application to dissolve injunc- tion) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 630, n. Astor, Matter of, 50 N. Y. 363. Disting'd (Effect of failure to publish ordinance) in Mooro o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 AT Y. 249 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 134. Followed (Desig- nation of newspaper) in Matter of Phillips, 60 AT Y. 16, 24. Disting'd in Matter of Anderson, 60 AT Y. 457, 461; Matter of Burke, 62 AT Y. 224, 227. , 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & O.) 488. Affd in 56 AT Y 625. , 53 N. Y. 617. Disting'd (Validity of assessments) in Matter of Peugnet, 67 AT IT 443; Matter of Marsh, 21 Hun, 582. y. Hoyt, 5 Wend. 603. Explained (Con- tinuous breach of covenant in lease) and disting'd in Coffin . Bank of Niagara, Hoph. 354, in State it. Mobile, 5 Port. {Ala.) 279; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 564, 570, with note, in so far as they deny the jurisdiction of courts of equity in affording preventive relief in cases of public nuisances. Disting'd (Enjoining public nuisance) in Corning v. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Ch. 440. Disting'd (Power of attorney-general to sue for the people) in People v. Lowber, 7 Abb. Pi: 175. Cri.icised and disting'd in People?). Tweed,13 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 50. But compare Superv s of N. Y. v. Tweed, Id. 152, and note; People v. Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1. Approved as con- taining a very able and elaborate review of the authorities in People v. Miner, 2 Lans. 396, 407. Approved (Jurisdiction of equity over offense against public statute) in Smith v. Lockwood, 13 Barb. 219. Applied in De Baun v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 16 Barb. 394. Collated (Quo warranto) with other cases, in Meld on Ultra Vires, 340. Relied on in Hagner v. Heyberger, *7 Watts & S. {Pa.) 104; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 220. Quoted and explained (Dissolution of corporations) in Morawetz on Priv. Corp. § 658. Reaff'd (Remedy for non-user or mis-user of charter powers) in Slee v. Bloom, 5 Johns. Oh. 381. Followed and approved in Attorney-General e. Tudor Ice Co , 104 Mass. 239 ; , si c, 6 Am. E. 227. Followed in People v. Metro- politan B'k, 7 Row. Pi: 146. Quoted and explained (Injunction) in 1 High ,eii lnj. 2ed. § 20, n. 4; Id. § 907, n. 3. Atwater v. Atwater, 53 Barb. 621; s. c, 3! How. Pr. 431. See Fry v. Fry. Approved and followed (Power to grant alimony) in Davis v. Davis, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 455; 6. c, 1 Hun, 444. Followed in Ramsden v. Ramsden, 91 N. Y. 281, as to no action being maintainable by a wife for mainte- nance and support merely. v. Diraaci, 24 Hun, 340. Abridg't in 12 Weekly Dig. 405. Afi'd, it seems, in 89 IT. Y. 638. v. Fowler, 1 Edw. 417. Disting'd (Equitable relief in cases of partnership accounts) in Harris v. Hillegas, 54 Cal. 469. Atwell T. Brown, 1 Hun, 439; mem. of s. c, 3 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & 0.) 779. Aft'd, it seems, 59 N. Y. 655, but without opinion. Atwood v Lynch, 37 Super. Ct. iJ. & 5)5. Disting'd (Illegal levy) in Parker v. Connor, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 416, 422. Aubery v. Fiske, 36 K Y. 47. Cited (Agent not to dispute title of principal) in Whart. Com. on Ag. \ 242, n. Auburn & Cato Plank-road Co. v Douglass, 12 Barb. 553. Rev'd in 9 N. Y. 444. Ex- plained and applied (Extent of corporate franchises) in Prime v. Twenty-third S'. R. R. Co., 1 Abb. N. C. 63, 66. Di tingd in Aiken v. Western R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 370, 382. Auburn City Bank v. Leonard. 20 How. Pr. 193. Disting'd iStay of proceedings) in Liftchild v. Smith, 7 Eobt. 306. Further decision on the merits in 40 Barb. 119. Decision in 40 Ba. Howell, 12^446. Pr. 77; s. c, 20 How. Pr. 59; Linn v. Clow, 14 Id. 508. v. Willson, 81 A 7 ! Y. 341. Explained (Im- plied contracts of sale) in 1 Benj. on Sales, | 48, n. 12 (Corbin's 4 Am., Ed.). Com- mented upon (Delivery of less than is re- quired — acceptance) in 2 Id. § 1032, n. 19 (Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.). Disting'd with Perlee v. Beebe, 13 Hun, 89; Matthews «. Hobby, 48 Barb. 167, in Hill v. Heller, 27 hun, 416. v. Woodbeck, 62 Barb. 557; s.-c, with brief opinions, by Millek, P. J., and Pab- kek, J., in 5 lans. 498. Ayer v. Kobbe, 3fi Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 158; s. c, 45 How. Pr. 373. Aff'd in 59 AT. Y. 454. Ayers v. Lawrence, 63 Barb. 454. Followed in a further decision in 1 Sup"m. Ct. { T. & C.) Add. 5; but the latter rev'd in 59 A 7 ". Y. 192. Reversal solely because of the act of 1872. Decision in 59 N. Y. followed (Right of tax-payer to maintain proceedings to prevent levying or paying over of tax) in Newton v. Keech, 9 Hun, 3")8, :!62. Lim- ited in Clark v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 IT. Y. 186. Aj'inar v. Astor, 6 Cow. 260. Overruled 30 AYMAR-BABCOCK. (Liability of masters of vessels as carriers) in Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327 ; Sewall v. Allen, 6 Id. 335; McArthur v. Sears, 21 Id. 190; and see Merritt v. Earle, 3L Barb. 38, 43. Disapproved in Crosby c. Fitch, 12 Conn. 410; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 745, .47, with note; Jones v. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. {Ala.) 133; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 716, 738, with note, as not being sound law, and as inconsistent with the later decision of Allen ». Sewall, 2 Wend. 327; and was so considered in 2 Kent Com. 473, and Story on Bailm. 323. De- nied in Hale v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. '539 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 398, with note, as ' unsound and anomalous, and repugnant to the decisions of its own and other States. Commented upon (Extent of liability for goods carried) in Angellon Carr. § 80, 5 ed., and in Id.'% 168, as to distinc- tion between "perils of navigation" and "act c'f God" in bills of lading. Approved (Evidence of mercantile usage to explain bill of lading) in Lawson on Usages and Customs, 436. 'v. Beers, 7 Cow. 705; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 538, with note, wherein it is shown to have been generally followed and approved in N. Y. as to what is a reasonable time being a question of law ; see many other citations in note. T. Bill, 5 Johns. Ch. 570. See Jackson *. Willard. Followed (Effect of mortgage executed by mortgagee) in Power v. Lester, 23 N. Y. 527, 533, 535, 536. v. Sheldon, 12 Wend. 489; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 137; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law, Ed. 187, with brief note: Included (Law- govern- ing bill drawn in one country and indorsed or payable in another) in Bigelow on Bills and 'Motes, 333, with note. See in 27 Am. Dee. 142, n., citations from various jurisdic- tions. Included, with notes, in 2 Ames Cases on B.&N. 206; Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Ex. 709. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 277, n.f. Followed in Faulkner v. Hart, 82 HT. Y. 418, as holding what is now a well established principle, that in this State we cannot bruak in upon the settled principles of our commercial law, to accommodate them to tho:se of any other jurisdiction. Ayrault r. Chamberlin, 26 Barb. 83. See Williams v. Fitzhugh. Collated, with other cases, in 5;'i Am. Dec. 147, n., on the subject of dormant partners. ■ — - v. Chamberlain, 33 Barb. 229. Compare previous decision, reported as Williams v. Ayrault, in 31 Bark 3'J4, and later decision as Williams v. Fitzhugh, in 44 Id. 3:i, which was modified and affd on appeal, in 37 N. Y. 444. . v. Pacific Bank, 6 Robt. 337. Aff'd in 47 N. Y. 570. Previous decision in 1 Abb. Pr.N:S. 381. Decision in 47 N. Y. followed (Exceptions too g-nerah in Daly «. Byrn", 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 261, 274. Distingd in Bctz «. Conner, 7 Daly-, 550 See to the contrary (Admissibility of usage) Warren v. Suffolk Bank, 10 Cush. 5S2. Followed as settled law (Liability of collecting bank) in Indig v. National C ty Ban.<, i« San, 201. Disapproved in Guelich n. Nat. State Bank of Burlington, 56 Iowa, 434. Cited as establishing the doctrine— in l xchange Nat. B'k v. Third Nat. B'k, 112 U. S. 276, 282. Followed in Davcy v. Jones, 13 Vr. (N. J.) 31. v. Sackett, 17 Mow. Pr. 401; s. c, 9 Abb. Pi: 154, n. Affd in 1 f How. Pr. 507. See Kissam v. Hamilton. Ayres v. Covill, 18 Barb. 260. See Niven v. Munn. Compare (Proof of mitigating cir- cumstances, in slander or libel) Bushfl. Pros- per, 11 N. Y. 347. Explained (Words used " against one in, his business or professional capacity) in Moak'S Uhderhill's Torts; 1 Am. Ed. 143. - — v. Lawrence. See Ayers v. Lawrence. t. Methodist Episcopal Church, 3 Sandf. 351. See Yates «. Yates. Approved (Charitable trusts) in Beekman v. People, 27 Barb. 260, 273 ; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 584. Dissented from, in part, in Boyce v. City of St. Louis, 29 Id. 650 ; seu Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 551. Quoted in 1 Jarman on Wills, Randolph & Talcott Ed. 468. Collated, with other cases, in Gerard Titles to Real Est. 2 >ed. 298. Commented upon in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 45, n. 3; 2 Id. § 748, n. 391. v. O'Farrell, 10 Bosw. 144. Further de- cision in 4 Robt. 668. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 166. to have been affd by the Court of Ap- peals, in May, 1871, but appears in Carpenter t. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 52, to be regarded as overruled (Effect of reply to counter-claim as waiver) by 67 N. Y. 51, v. Western R. R. Co., 48 Barb. 132; s. c, 32 How. Pr. 351. Appeal in subsequent proceedings reported in 45 N. Y. 260. Direction that reversal be without costs erroneous, and corrected in 49 N. Y. 660. Decision in 48 Barb, relied on (Removal of cause to Federal court — entry of appearance) in Chat. Nat. Bank of N. Y. t. Merchants' Nut. Bank of West Virginia, 4 Sup'm. Ct. . (?'. & C.) 196. 200. Decision in 4o N. Y. explained (Removal to Federal court) in Leutze-o. ButtcrfleM, 7 Daly, 24, 28; s. a, 1 Abb. N. C. 307. Decision in 49 K Y. applied in Commissioners of Pilots v. ijpof- ford, 3 Hun, 52, 04. B. B. T. B., 11 JT. Y. Ley. OU 350. See (Matrimonial aeti..n — Counter-claim) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1770, n. Babbett v. Toung, 51 Barb. 466. Affd in 51 N. Y. 238. Babcock v. Beman, 1 E. D. Smith, 593. Affd in 11 N. Y. 200. See Mott ». Hicks; Peck d. Mallams. Reported in Thomps. Liab. of Off. & A. 36, wilh notes, on p. 77, &c. Decision in 11 N. Y. followed (Bill or not; signed or indorsed by officer or agent) with Watcrvli.t Bank u. White, 1 Den. 603 BABGOCK— BACON. 31 Wright v. Boyd, 3 Barb. 523, in Vater v. Lewis, 36 lnd. 288; 8. c, 10 Am. R. 29, 33. Followed in Hager v. Rice, 4 Col. 90 ; s. c, 34 Am. R. 68, 70. Included in 2 Ames Cases on B. & N. 224. v. lion no II, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 568. Aff'd in 80 N. Y. 244. Decision in 80 JV. Y. with Ruse v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 23 K Y. 523; 24 Id. 653; Shotwell v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 5 Botw. 247; Murdock v. Chenango Ins. Co., 2 N~. Y. 210; Fowler v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 26 Id. 422; Freeman ». Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 14 XM. iV. 398; Mutual Life Ins. Co. «. Wager, 27 ifcwtf. 359; disting'd (Necessity of insurable inter- est) in Ferguson v. Mass. Mut. Ins. Co., 32 Hun, 306. Commented upon (Sale— stop- page in transitu) in 2 Ben), on Sales, § 1298, n. 31 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted in Id. § 1299, n. 81. Collated with other cases in 27 Moak Eng. 346, n. V. Booth, 2 Hill, 185, 186 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 578. See Osborne o. Moss. Explained (Executor of his own wrong) in Willard on Executors, 140. Thought in 38 Am. Dee. 583, n., to have settled in N. Y. right of personal representative . to attack sales in fraud of creditor:;; see other citations in note. v. City of Bnffalo, 1 Sheldon, 317. Aff'd in 56 N. Y. 268. Latter decision explained (Torts — municipality abating nuisances) in MoaUs Underbill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 509. Approved in Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 K Y. 190. v. Eckler, 24 JT. Y. 623. Citod (Volun- tary conveyances as against creditors) as the correct rule, and compared with other authorities pro and con. in 2 Kent Com. 441, n. 1 (Holmes' Ed.). Relied on in Childs v. Connor, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 471. Fol- lowed in Dygert v. Remerschnider, 32 If. Y. 629, 648 ; McCartney v. Welch, 44 Barb. 277; Carr v. Breese, 81 N. Y. 591. Applied in Newman v. Cordell, 43 Barb. 456. Approved and applied (Question of fraud- ulent intent as one of fact) in Kavanagh v. Beckwith, 44 Barb. 194. Followed (Legality of preference given by husband to wife) in Savage «. O'Neil, 44 N. Y. 302 ; Jaycox v. Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 398. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co., 43 How. I'r. 317; s. c, 49 N. Y. 491. Statement in latter case that it is reported below in former, is incorrect. See Van Santvoord v. St John. Followed (Effect of special contract to limit liability of carrier) iu Edsall v. Camden and Amboy R. R. & Transp. Co., 50 N. Y. 661. v. Lamb. 1 Cow. 238. Applied (Execu- tion of public trust) in First Nat. Bk. of North Bennington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 Vt. 87; s. c, 30 Am. li. 734, 741. Followed (Imputing negligence to one that allows animals to stray on highway) with Griffin v. Martin, 7 Barb. 297, in Trow e. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 191, with note. t. Libbey, 53 How. Pr. 255. Aff'd in 17 Hun, 131 ; and that aff'd in 82 N. Y. 144. v. Montgomery County Mat Ins. Co., 6 Barb. 637. Aff'd in 4 N. Y. 326. Relied on (Extent of losses covered by policy) with City Ins. Co. v. Corlies, 21 Wend. 367, in White v. Republic Fire Ins. Co., 57 Me. 91 ; s. a, 2 Am. R. 22. Decision in 4 K Y. referred to (Insurance and loss by lightning) as one of the best considered cases, by Editor of Ins. L. J.'va. 11 Ins. L. J. 371. Both decisions criticised at length and ex- plained in Spensley c. Lancashire Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 440. v. Utter, 1 Keyes, 397. Not the decision of'the court. See full report in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 27; s. c, less fully, in 1 Keyes, 115. Compared (Easement by license) with other cases in Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 N. Y. 31, 40, 42. Baccio v. People, 41 K Y. 265. (See also (Declarations of prosecutrix in rape) 20 Moak Eng. 395, citing other cases. Bacharach t. Lagrave, 1 Hun. 689; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215 ; 47 How. Pr. 385. Rev'd in Adriance v. Lagrave, 59 .V. Y. 110; s. c, 17 Am. R. 317, afl'g 15 Abb. Pr. 272; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 71. Baohe v. Doscher, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 150. Aff'd in 67 K Y. 429, which, with Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 3 Bun, 630, was distinsf'd (Evidence of deficiency judgment in foreclosure) in Springsteene v. Gillett, 30 Hun, 260. v. Lawrence, 17 How. Pr. 554. Collated (Attachment — domicil), with other cases, in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 359. v. Pnrcell, 51 How. Pr. 270. Aff'd in > 6 Hun, 518. Backns v. Shipherd. Bee Coddington v. Davis. Bacon v. Bnrnham, 37 N. Y. 614. See Moore v. Cross. Followed (Presumption arising from indorsement of note payable to another or order) in Woodruff i>. Leonard, 1 Hun, 632; Hull v. Marvin, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 421. Followed (Liability of indorser of note before delivery) iu Schvvarzansky i>. Averill, 7 Daly, 256; Coul'.er v. Richmond, 59 N. Y. 481 ; Phelps v. Vischer, 50 N. Y. 73. V. Frisbie, 15 Hun, 26. Rev'd iu part in 80 K Y. 394; s. c, 36 Am. R. 627, with note. See Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. ; Whiting v. Barney. See (Communications between, attorney and client) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 835, n. Decision in 80 XT. Y. cited in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Red/. 181, 190. v. Oilman, 4 Laris. 456; s. c, 60 Barb. 640. Aff'd in 57 N. Y. 656. v. Reading. 1 Duer, 622. Followed in Hibbard v. Burwell, 11 How. Pr. 572, as to an appeal from an order not operating as a stay of proceedings without an undertaking; but see to the contrary Emerson v. Burney, 6 Id. 32 ; Trustees of Penn Yan v. Forbes, 8 Id. 285; Stewart v. Saratoga & Whitehall R. R. Co., 12 Id. 435. Explained (Suspen- 32 BACON— BAILEY. sion of entry of judgment) in AlfaTO v. Davidson, 39 Super. Gt. (/. & S.) 408. « v. Vau Schoonhoven, 19 Hun, 158. Aff d in 87 A 7 ". Y. 446. Compare (Priority of mortgages) 22 Alb. L. J. 199, 238, 239, and cases cited. Badean t. Stead, 14 Barb. 328. See Under- wood v. Stuyvesant. Applied (Evidence of dedication to public use) in Gould v. Glass, 19 Barb. 194. Explained (Sale of land bounded upon street) in Matter of Sixty- seventh Street, 60 How. Pr. 275. Fol- lowed in Cox v. James, 59 Barb. 144; Fonda v. Borst, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dee. 157; Grinnell *>. Kirtland, 6 Daly, 356. • v. Rogers, 2 Paige, 209. Followed (Ob- ject of action of interpleader) in N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Haws, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 372. Badger v. Benedict, 4 Abb. Pr. 176. Affd in 1 Eilt. 414. Badgly v. Bruce, 4 Paige, 98. Followed (Remedy for dower) under the Code, in Van Name v. Van Name, 23 How. Pr. 247, 249. v. Decker, 44 Barb. 577. See Ingersoll v. Jones. Approved (Real gravamen of action of seduction) in Holliday v. Parker, 23 Hun, 72. Disting'd (Effect of statute on married woman's liability, &c.) in Tait v. Culbertson, 57 Barb. 9. v. Halsey, 4 Paige, 98. Disting'd (Remedy, when right to dower is disputed), in Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 JST. Y. 427, 433. Baer v. Leppert, 5 Hun, 453. See further proceedings in 12 Hun, 516. Bagg v. Jefferson Com. Pleas, 10 Wend. 615. Folldwed (Set-off against judgment) with other cases in Ferguson v. Bassett, 4 How. Pr. 168, 172. Bnggerly v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 3 Weekly Big. 113. Affd in 72 JV. Y. 601. Latter decision followed (Waiver of proof of ~ loss) in Goodwin v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 A 7 ". Y. 480, 495. Baggott v. Boulger. 2 Duer, 160. Disting'd (In whose name action on bond of foreign executor or administrator to be brought) in People ex rel. Becar s. Struller, 16 Hun, 234. Explained in Hood v. Hood, 85 K Y. 561, 573. Disting'd (Conclusiveness of judg- ment on one not party or privy) in Thom- son v. MacGregor, 81 A 7 ". Y. 597. See to the contrary (Improper joinder of parties as ground of demurrer) Gregory v. Oak- smith, 12 How. Pr. 134. Bagley v. Blackman. 2 Lans. 41. Followed (Publication of will) in Neugent v. Neugent, 2 Bed/. 369, 373. v. Clarke, 7 Bosw. 94. Disting'd (Lia- bilities of sureties) in Western N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Clinton, 66 A 7 ". Y. 332. v. Peddie, 5 Sand/. 192. Rev'd in 16 K Y. 469 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 335. See Den- nis v. Cummins. Question (Liquidated damages and penalties) said in 2 Sedgw. Meas. o/Dam. 7 ed. 245, n., to have been very thoroughly discussed in both courts. Principles of case (5 Sand/. 192) said in 1 Am.' Dee. 335, n., to have commanded general approval, although overruled in 16 N. Y. Discussed in 3 Pars, on Contr. 161, n. h. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. §1472, n. 4. Decision in 16 AT. Y. followed in Wooster v. Kisch, 26 Hun, 61. Included with note in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 444. Both cases with Dakin v. Wil- liams, 17 Wend. 447; 22 Id. 201; Smith v. Smith, 4 Wend. 468 ; Slosson v. Beadle, 7 Johns. 72; Spencer v. Tilden, 5 Cow. 150; Hasbrook v. Tappan, 15 Johns. 200; Knapp n. Mattby, 13 Wend. 587; Pearson v. Wil- liams, 26 Id. 630; Esmond ,v. Benschoten, 12 Barb. 36G; Farnham v. Ross, 2 Hall, 167; Colwell v. Lawrence, 38 Id. 71; Cotheal v. Talmage, 9 Id. 551 ; Noyes«. Phillips, 60 Id. . 408; Leggett v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 53 Id. 394; Greer ». Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. (A r . S.) 427 ; O'Donnell v. Rosenberg, 14 Id. 59 ; Kemp v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 69 N. Y. 45, and other cases collated in 30 Am. B. 28, n. v. Smith. 10 A 7 ". Y. 489. Disting'd (Damages, when partnership is wrongfully compelled to dissolve) in Neudecker v. Kohlberg, 81 JST. Y. 296, 304. Explained in Van Ness v. Fisher, 5 Lans. 236, as not con- flicting with rule in Griffin v. Colver, 16 A 7 ". Y. 489, as to speculative and contingent; profits. Disting'd (Damages for loss of profits) in Mitchell v. Cornell, 44 Super, Ct. (J. & S.) 401, 405. Balirenburgli v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 56 A 7 ". Y. 652. See other cases collected (Contributory negligence of parent, &c.) in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Abb. A 7 ". G. 104, 113, n. Bailey v. Adams, 14 Wend. 201. Disting'd (Discharge of mechanic's lien) in Montandon v. Deas, 14 Ala. 33 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 84, 90, with note. v. Bancker, 3 Bill, 183. See Corning s. v. McCullough. Cited (Suit by partner on security given by firm) in Story on Partn. (7 ed.) § 237. Disting'd (Actions between stockholders) in Sanborn v. LefTerts, 16 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 55. Explained in Woodruff & Beach Iron Works v. Chittenden, 4 Bosw. 417. Followed in Beers v. Waterbury, 8 Bosw. 413. Explained in Aspinwall v. Torrance, 1 Lans. 384. Followed in Wait v. Ferguson, 14 Abb. Pr. 385. AppliecJ to case of partners in Englis v. Furniss, 4 E. D. Smith, 599. Regarded as settled law in Dem- ing ii. Puleston, 33 Super. Gt. {J. &8.) 235. Applied to suits between trustees in Andrews v. Murray, 33 Barb. 355. Reviewed (Judg- ment against corporation, as evidence against stockholders), with other cases, in Conklin v. Furman, 57 Barb. 486; Belmont v. Cole- man, 1 Bosw. 200. Reviewed (Nature of liability of stockholders) at length with other cases in Lowry v. Inman, 2 Sweenfy, 117, 141. Applied by Buonson, J., in Corning v. McCullough, 1 N. Y. 76. Ex- plained in Witherhead v. Allen, 28 Barb. 601, 068, as applying, with respect to lia- BAILEr. 33 bility to costs, only to cases arising under the statute under which it arose. See Fisk ■o. Keeseville Manuf. Co., 10 Paige, 592. Explained and criticised, in Lowry v. In- man, 2 Sweeny, 117. See latter case below. v. Bergen, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 642; mem. in 2 Sun, 520. On second trial plaintiff recovered ; judgment afE'd, except, aa to costs in 5 Sun, 555, which was afE'd in 67 Jf. Y 346. T. Briggs, 56 N. Y. 407. See (De- termination of claims to real property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 1638, n., 1639, n. Quoted and discussed (Ejectment as disting'd from action to construe will) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 163. Disting'd (Action under L. 1853, c. 238) in Wager v. Wager, 23 Sun, 439, 442. v. Buell, 59 Barb. 158. Bev'd in 50 JV. Y. 662. Decision in 50 JV Y. reluc- tantly followed (Voluntary payment of taxes) in Drake v. Shurtliff, 24 Sun, 422, 425. Disting'd (Liability of Assessors of taxes for error) in Dorn v. Backer, 61 Barb. 597. — — t. Bean, 5 Barb. 303. Explained (Examination before trial, in action for libel or slander) in Phoenix v. Dupuy, 7 Daly, 238, 245. v. Freeman, 11 Johns. 221; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 371. See Leonard v. Vredenbergh. Said (Promise to pay debt of another, when not within statute of frauds) in 6 Am. Dec. 372, n., to have been recognized and followed in many cases in N. Y. and elsewhere. v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 16 Sun, 503. Afl'd in Baley v. Homestead F. Ins. Co., 80 JV. Y. 21. v. Hudson River R. R. Co , 49 JV Y. 77. See Bank of Rochester v. Jones; Krulder e. Ellison. Followed (Conditional delivery) in Dodge v. Johnson, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 237. Quoted and explained in 1 Beuj. on Sales, § 573 (Corbiu's 4 Am. ed.). v. Jackson, 16 Johns. 210; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 309, with note. See Jackson v. Pierce. See to the contrary (Presumption of pav- ment) Dedlake v. Robb, 1 Woods, 680. See also Abb. Tr. J'Jv. 812. Collated with Jack- son v. Pierce, 10 Johns. 415, and other authorities in 30 Alb. L. J. 107. See cita- tions in 8 Am. Dec. 311, n. Discussed in Angell on Limitations, % 87, 6 ed. v. Johnson. 9 Com. 115. Approved (Modification of contract) in Morgan v. Butterfield, 3 Mich. 023; citing Mead v. Degolyer, 16 Wend. 640. y. , 1 Daly, 61. Followed (Mechan- ics' lien, as against succeeding owner), in Meyers v. Bennett, 7 Daly, 471, 475. • v. Lane, 21 Sow. Pr. 475. Modified on appeal, in 13 Abb. Pr. 354. v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 3 Sill, 531, with note, wherein are collected citations of the case; s. c, 15 JV Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 674, with analytic list of cases citing this case. Affd in 2 Den. 433. See Bartlett v. Crozier; Gardner e. Trustees of New- burgh; Hay v. Cohoes Co.; Maxmilian v. 3 Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester ; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. (Liability of municipal corpora- tions, when in the prosecution of public works). Doctrine of supreme court said in Darlington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 iV. Y. 164, 199, to have been substan- tially repudiated in court of errors. Ex- plained in Hickok v. Trustees of Platts- burgh, 15 Barb. 442; Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 624 ; King v. City of Brooklyn, 42 Barb. 634; Van "Valkenburgh v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 43 Barb. 115; Garrison v. Same, 5 Bosw. 503; Terry v. Same, 8 Bosw. 509; Russell v. Same, 2 Den. 482; Blake v. Ferris, 5 JV Y. 64; Roosevelt e. Draper, 23 JV Y. 318, Followed in Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 iV. Y. 467 ; Delmonico v. IVIayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 226. By Monell, Ch. J., in Ham v. Same, 37 Super. Ct. (J. &. S.) 474. Disting'd in Kelley v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 11 JV Y. 436. By Denjo, J., in Howell v. City of Buffalo, 15 K Y. 522. Approved in West. Sav. Fund v. City of Phila., 31 Pern. 175, 185. Cited with Hay v. Cohoes Co., 2 JV- Y. 159; St. Peter v. Dennison, 58 Id. 416, in sup- port of dissenting opinion in reporter's note, 33 Am. R. 302. Approved in Aldrich v. Tripp, 11 R. J. HI; s. c, 23 Am. R. 438; City of Toledo v. Cone, 41 Ohio, 15; Rowe v. Portsmouth, 56 JV. S. 291; s. c, 22 Am. R. 467 ; People ex rel. Dunkirk, &c. R. R. Co. v. Batchclor. 53 JV Y. 128, 141. Approved and applied in Hart v. City of Bridgeport, 13 Blatchf. C. Ct. 289, 293. Followed in Winn «. Rutland, 52 Vt. 481, 493; Oliver o. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 485, 489. Followed with Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 iV. Y. 109, in City of Jacksonville i>. Drew, 19 If la. 106; s. c, 45 Am. R. 5. Explained in Alamango n. Supervisors of Albany, 25 Sun, 551, 552. Cited as authority in Dono- van v. MoAlpin, 85 JV Y. 185, 188. De- cision iu 2 Den. 433 ; disting'd in Maxmilian v. Mayor, 62 JV Y. 170. Cited in illustra- tion in City of Coldwater v. Tucker, 36 Mich. 474; s. c, 24 Am. R. 601 ; People ex rel. Park Comm'rs v. Common Council of Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; s. c, 15 Am. R. 202, 209. Reviewed and criticised with Mayor &c. v. Furze, 3 Sill, 612; Weet v. Trus- tees of Brockport, 16 JV. Y. 162; Hutson v. Mayor, &c. • of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 289 ; Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburgh, 16 JV. Y. 161 ; in City of Navasota v. Pearce, 46 Tex. 525 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 279-283. Limited in Smith v. City of Rochester, 76 K Y. 506, 510. Compare Sage v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Abb. JV. C. 279. Criticised and limited in Wright e. Holbrook, 52 JV S. 120. Disting'd in Bryant v. City of St. Paul {Minn. 1885), 23 Northw. Rep. 221. Quoted and discussed in Cooley on Const. Lim. 5 ed. 306. Compared in 3 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 359. Included in 2 Thomps. 34 BAILEY— BAKER. on Kegl. 652. Commented upon in Wood on Nuisances, 2 ed. § 750. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 33, 11 ed. Applied (Private rights and interests of municipal corporations) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Britton, 12 Abb. N. G. 367, n.; Benson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Bard. 2H4; Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Barb. 213. Re-affd in Lloyd v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 5 if! Y. 374 Approved by Sandford, J., in Hutson ». City of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 323. Explained (Contracts made by legislative authority) in light of N. Y. Const, art.- 8, § 11, in Matter of Buffalo & Jamestown R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 485. v. Ogden, 3 Johns. 399 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dee. 509, with note on p. 515, showing it to be a leading case on the statute of frauds, and to have been frequently cited in N. Y. and elsewhere; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 647, with brief note on signature under statute of frauds. See Clason v. Bailey; Lansing v. Turner. Explained (Memo- randum) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 374, 4 ed. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 234, n. 33 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Approved in Calkins v. Falk, 38 How. Pr. 02. Followed (Constructive delivery) in Shindler v. Houston, 1 N. Y. 261, 272. Explained (Subscription) in Justice v. Lang, 42 K Y. 493, 503. Followed (Auc- tioneer as agent of both parties) in Davis v. Robertson, 1 Mill (S. C.) 71 ; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 611. On same point, see Benj. on Sales, § 268, and cases there cited. v. O'Mahony,10^&J. Pr. N. S. 270. Limi- ted (Conflicting receiverships) in O'Maho- ney v. Belmont, 62 N. Y. 133, 149. v. Ryder, 10 K Y. 363. Followed in Rome Exchange Bank «. Eames, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 83, 88, as in harmony with law now existing, that a party must recoyer according to case made by his complaint. v. Soutlmick, 6 Lans. 356. Aff d in Bailey v. Briggs, 56 K Y. 407. Disting'd (Infant, as party to proceeding to remove cloud on title) in Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Holloday, 13 Abb. JST. C. 16. v. Stewart, 2 Bed/. 212. Aff'd in Bailey ii. Hilton, 14 Hun, 3. v. Stone, 41 How. Pr. 346. Disting'd (Inserting costs in judgment, without appli- cation to court) in Lultgor v. Rogers, 64 Barb. 417. v. Wakeman, 2 Den. 220. See Stafford v. Rice. Cited (Indorsee, when chargeable with admissions of indorser) with Paige ». Cagwin, 7 Hill, 361, in 2 Wharf. Com. on Ev. § 1163, a, as denying position there taken. v. Warden, 20 Johns. 129. Approved (Attorney not to be special bail) in Miles v. Clarke, 4 Bosw. 632, 635. Bailis v. Cocliran, 2 Johns. 417. Disting'd (Validity of commission issued ■ to take testimony) in Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 41 How. Pr. 421. Baiii v. Brown, 7 Lans. 506. Affd in 66 N. Y. 283. Decision in 56 N. Y. applied (Duty of one acting in fiduciary character) in Farmer's and Merchaut's Bank*. Downey, 53 Gal. 466; s. c, 31 Am-. R. 62. Baiiibridfre, Matter of, 4 Han, 674; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 293. Bainbridge v. Richmond, 17 Hun, 391. Affd, it seems, in 78 N. Y. 618, on opinion below. Baine v. City of Rochester, 12 Weekly Dig. 419. Reported in 1 Civ. Pro. JR. 269. Baird v. Daly. 4 Lans. 426. Rev'd in 57 K Y. 236 ; s. c, 15 Am. P. 488. Further decision in 68 iV. Y. 547. See Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co. Decision in 57 N. Y. disting'd (Jurisdiction of State courts in admiralty proceedings) in Bartlett v. Spicer, 75 N. Y. 528, 534. Decision in 68 A r . Y. followed (Evidence of subsequent act to show negligence) in Morrell v. Peck, 24 Hun, 37, 38. v. Gillette, 47 K Y. 186. Followed (Effect of admission of illegal evidence) - in Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 522. y. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 74 N. Y. 386. • See Moore v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Followed (Waiver of right of trial by jury) in People ex rel. Yale v. Eckler, 19 Hun, 609. v. Pridmore, 29 How. Pr. 253. Affd, on other grounds, in 31 How. Pr. 359. Decision in 31 How. Pr. approved (Sum- mons, when subject to stamp duty) in Cole ■v. Bell, 48 Barb. 194. T. Walker, 12 Barb. '298; s. c, 1 Code Pep. N~ S.' 329. Compare (Limitations — when demand is necessary) Code Civ. Pro. § 410. Collated, with other cases, in Throop, Justice's Man. 2 ed. 189. Bakeman v. Pooler, 15 Wend. 637. Dis- ting'd, (Essentials of tender) in Lawrence v. Miller, 86 W. Y. 131, 138. Explained in 2 • Pars, on Contr. 642, n. h. v. Rose, 14 Wend. 105. Aft'd in 18 Id. 146. See Jackson v. Lewis. v. Talbot. See Huson v. Young. Baken v. Harder, 4 Hun, 272. Reported in 6 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 440. Explained (Estate of married woman, when chargeable) in Covert v. Hughes, 8 Hun, 305. Baker, Matter of. See Holmes, Matter of. v. Arnold, 1 Cai. 258. Explained (What facts attorney or counsel may testify to) in Brandt ». Klein, 17 Johns. 338. Error in marginal note pointed out in Brown v. Payson, 60 N~. B. 443. Commented on in Dietrich v. Mitchell, 43 111. 40. v. , 3 Cai. 279 ; 2 N~. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 644, with brief note. v. Arnot. 5 Sttp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215; mem. in 2 Hun, 682. Non-suit aff'd in 67 N. Y. 448. v. Baker. See Lansing v. Lansing ; People v. Gates. v. Barney, 8 Johns. 72; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 326; 4 IT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 471, with brief note. Approved (Suits by or against married woman, while living apart BAKER. 35 from husband under deed of separation) in Tyler Inf. & Gob. 2 ed. § 352. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 162, as following Nurse v Craig, 5 Bos. & P. 148. \ Bliss, 39 If. Y. 70. Commented upon (Constructive notice) in Wait on Fraud Conv. <;§ 3"4, 376, 378. Reviewed and appl'ed with Stearns v. Gage, 79 If. Y. 102, lleed v. Gannon, 50 N. Y. 345; Pr.n^'.e v. Phillips, 5 Sandf. 157; Magee v. Badge-, 34 If. Y. 247; Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge, 35 If. Y. 65, in Parker ». Conne-, 93 If. Y. 118. v. Biiurcicanlt. 1 Daly, 23. Explained (Sa'es — reservation of jus disponendi) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 587 (Sorbin's 4 Am. ed.). Disting'd in Higgins v. Murray, 73 If. Y. 202, 254. v. Braman, 6 Hill, 471. Applied (Waiver of constitutional, &c. provision) in Keator v. Ulster, &c. Plank Road Co., 7 How. Pr. 41 ; Requa v. Holmes, 19 Id. 444. Approved and applied in Embury v. Conner, 3 If. Y. 518. Applied with Embury ». Conner, 3 If. Y. 511; Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19 Id. 119 ; Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. 25, in McCarthy v. Lavasche, 89 III. 270 ; s. c, 31 Am. It. 83 ; with note collating cases, and regarding Bartlett v. Drew, 57 N. Y. 587, as rather extreme. Applied (Statute operative in part) in People ex rel. Ryan v. Green 58 If. Y. 303. - t. Brill; 15 Johns. 260. Cited (Proof by parol of incidents collateral to records) in 1 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 64. T. Chase, 6 Hill, 482. Quoted and ex- j^ained (Dower as affected by conveyance before marriage) in 1 Washb. on R. P. 4 ed. 2x7. Referred to in 39 Am. Dec. 218, n., as containing what is a mere dictum. v. Cuvler. See Seymour v. Davis. v. Bisbrow. 3 Red/. 348. Aff'd in 18 Hun, 29 ; and that aff d, it seems, in 79 If. Y. 631, on opinion below. Decision in 3 Redf. explained (Improper investments by trustees) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 466, n. 5. v. Brake, 53 If. Y. 211; s. c, 13 Am. k. 507. Further decision in 66 N. Y. 518; s. a, 23 Am. R. 80. See Coytelyou v. Lansing; Kingsbury v. Kirwan; Markham v. Jaudon ; Nourse v. Prime. Followed (Damages) in Mechanics' & Trad. Bank v. Farmers' & Mech. Nat. Bank, 60 If. Y. 40, 52. Explained in Gruman v. Smith, 81 If. Y. 27, as overruling Markham v. Jaudon, 41 N. Y. 235. Followed in Burridge v. Anthony, 1 City Ot. 245; Devlin v. Pike, 5 Daly, 85, 86, 108. Approved with Mechanics' & Trad. Bank of Buffalo v. Farmers' and Mechanics' Nat. B'k, 6 If. Y. 40, in Ingrain v. Rankin, 47 Wis. 106; s. c, 32 Am. It. 762 ; 2 Sedgw. on Meas. of Duma. 7 ed. 384-5, n. Applied in Ladd v. Arkell, 40 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 150, 159, 160; Colt ■v. Owens, 47 Id. 430, 435. Aff'd in 90 If. . Y. 368, which see. Relied on in Ilnbbard v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 33 Wis. 558 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 775, 781. Dis- ting'd in Hopper r. Smith, 63 How. Pr. 34, 37, 39. Included with notes in Sedgio. Gases on Dama. 613. v. Freeman, 9 Wend. 36; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 117, with note. Followed (Rule of damages in case of illegal seizure and sale) in Forsyth v. Palmer, 14 Venn. St. 96; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 519, with note. t. Gilman, 52 Barb. 38. Quoted and explained (Rights of subsequent^ creditors against fraudulent conveyance) in Wait on Fraud. Oonv. §*} 105-6. v. Udag, ZBarb. 203. Explained (Lien for salvage in case of property wrecked in navigable river) in Baker t>. Hoag, 7 Barb. 113, which was overruled in IN. Y. 555; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 431, with note. Decision in 7 Barb, referred to with Sturgis t>. Law, 3 Sandf. 451, and other cases, in Waples Proe. in .Rem % 511, as contrary to spirit of the maritime law, and the more liberal practice now prevailing. Followed in N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Haws, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 372, as to finder of lost chattel having no lien thereon. v. Home Life Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 402; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 582; aff'd in 64 If. Y. 648. Another proceeding in 63 IT. Y. 630. v. Johnson, 2 Hill, 342. See Brincker- hoff v. Wemple. Disting'd and limited (Trespass by canal contractor) in St. Peter v. Denison, 58 If. Y. 416, 422. v. , 2 Eobt. 570. Aff'd in 42 If. Y. 126. T. Judges of Ulster, 4 Johns. 191 ; Wet- more v. Law, 34 Barb. 515; Cl.uk v. Rowling, 3 If. Y. 226. Approved (Disposition of defense arising after judgment ; when same available on motion) in Heckling v. Allen, 15 Fed. Rep. 198. v. Kenworthy, 41 If. Y. 215. Followed (Application of moneys by sheriff to payment of cU.bt owed by plaintiff in execution) in Adams v. Welsh, 43 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 52, 56. Disting'd (Levy on property in hands of officer of court) in Dunlop v. Patterson Fire Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 145, 150. v. Lamb, 11 Hun, 522. Followed (Married woman's contract) in Wilson Sew. Mach. Co. v. Fuller, 60 How. Pr. 480. v. Lever, 5 Hun, 114. Aff'd in 67 If. Y. 304; s. c, 23 Am. R. 123. v. Lorillartl, 4 If. Y. 257. Explained (Jurisdiction of equity to direct sale of infants' real estate) in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 610, n. 1. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Abb. Pr. 82. Followed (Powers of supervisors of N Y. county to legislate for city of N. Y.) in Da- vies v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Super. Ct.' {J. . N. Y., &c. Tel. Co. ; Hamilton v. McPherson ; Lands- berger ». Magnetic Tel. Co. ; Leonard v. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co. Decision in 1 Bans, reviewed (Liability of telegraph companies) with De Rutte o. N. Y., Albany & Buffalo Tel. Co., 1 Daly, 547; Breese v. U. S. Tel. Co., 45 Barb. 274 ; Leonard «. N. Y, Albany & Buffalo Tel. Co., 41 2T. Y. 544; s. c, 1 Am. R 46; Rittenhouse ■». Independent Line of Telegraph, 1 Daly, 474, in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reynolds, 77 Va. 173 ; s. c, 46 Am. E. 715 ; Griffin v. Colver, 16 jY. Y. 489, being with other cases relied on, on the question of measure of damages. Decision in 45 N. Y. cited with approval in Hubbard v. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Wis. 558; s. c, 14 Am. R. 775. Followed in Daniel v. Western Union Tel. Co., 61 Tex. 4:52; s. c, 48 Am. R. 305. Decision in 1 Lans. 125, explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 257, j., n. p. Baley v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co. See Bailey v. Homestead F. Ins. Co. Followed (Condition in policy) in Green v. Homestead . Fire Ins. Co., 82 H. Y. 517. Balja v. Kawley, 37 How. Pr. T20. See (Return on appeal from justice's judgment) Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 3053, n. Ball v. Billiard, 52 Barb. 141. Disapproved (Statute of limitations as to married women) in Clark v. McCann, 18 Hun, 13, 15. v. Gardner, 21 Wend. 270. Followed (Liability on bond given to obtain attach- ment from justice's court) in Bennett v. Brown, 20 K Y. 99, 102. Applied to case of bond given on appeal, in Hinckley v. Kreitz, 36 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 413, 423, but disting'd in 58 K Y. 583, 588 ; which rev'd 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 413. v. Goodenough, 37 How. Pr. 479. See to the contrary (Assignment to receiver) Clan Ranald v. Wyckoff, 41 Super. Gt. (? A Y. 548, 553. Explained and distill} '/ with Ver- planck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., '.' Paige, 438; Davenport v. City Bank of Br "alo, 9 Paige, 12; in Dewey r. St. Albans 'trust Co., 56 Vt. 470; s. c, 48 Am. R. -803 v- St. Lawrence Bank. 3 Barb. 436. Rcv'din7 A". Y. 513. Bank for Savings v. Frank, 5( How. Pr. 403. Aff'd in 45 Super. Ct. (J. & J) 404. Bank of Albion v. Barns, 2 i ins. 52. Affd BANK. in 46 If. Y. 170. Decision in 40 If. Y. applied (Mortgage by wife) in Smith v. Fel- lows, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 36, 49; Hassey v. Wilke, 55 Cal. 525. Followed (Presumption arising from husband having possession of a deed or mortgage of wife's property) in Hoffman v. Treadwell, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 60. T. Smith, 27 Barb. 489. Recognized (Evidence to vary indorsement) with Sea- bury v. Hungerford, 2 Hill, 80; Hall v. Newcomb, 7 Id. 416; in Downer v. Chese- brough, 86 Conn. 39; s. c, 4 Am. It. 29, as holding what is the law in N. Y. Relied on with Thompson v. Ketcliam, 8 Johns. 14G; Patterson v. Hull, 9 Cow. 747; Payne v. Lodue, 1 Hill, 116; Hall v. Newcomb, 7 Id. 416, in Dale v. Gear, 38 Conn. 15; s. c, 9 Am. R. 353, 309. Followed with Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 If. Y. 465; Seabury v. Hungerford, 2 Hill, 80-82, in Charles v. Denis, 42 IFis. 56; 8. c, 24 Am. R. 383. Followed with Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 H. Y. 465. in Doolittle v. Ferry, 20 Hans. 230 ; s. €., 27 Am. R. 167: Cited in Rodney v. Wilson, 67 Mo. 123 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 499. See to the contrary, 1 Dan. Heg. Instr. §717. Sea Abb. Tr. Ev. 415. Bank of America v. Pollock, 4 Edw. Qh. 413. See Pascoag Bank v. Hunt. Ex- plained (Resulting trust) in 1 Perry on Flints, 3 ed. § 135, n. 2. v. Woodworth, 18 Johns. 315. Rev'd in Wood worth *. Bank of America, 19 Id. 391. Explained (Alteration of note) in Benedict v. Cowden,'49 N. Y. 403. Cited as authority with Nazro «. Fuller, 24 Wend. 374, ir, Toomer v. Rutland, 57 Ala. 379; s. c, 2i, Am. R. 722. Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers' & Trad. Bank, 50 If. Y. 501. Applied (Validity of by-latv inhibiting transfer of stock) in Driscoll o. West, &c. Man'f'g Co., 59 N. Y. 96, 104. Disting'd in Leggett v. Bank of Sing Sing, 24 If. Y. 283. Applied in Lock- wood v. Mechanics' Nat'l Bank, 9 R. 1. 308 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 253, 260. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 535, n. 5, 11 ed. Relied on (Compelling transfer of stock) in Cush- man v. Thayer Mfg. Jewelry Co., 7 Daly, 330, 332. Applied (Damages in proceeding of equitable nature) in Seeley v. N. Y. Nat. Exch. B'k, 8 Daly, 400, 405. y. Wolf, 18 How. Pr. 102. See in accord (Right of a defendant, answering separately, to costs) Wilklow v. .Bell, 18 How. Pr. 897. Bank of Auburn v. Aikin, 18 Johns. 137. See Jackson v. Plumbe. Overruled (Plea of mil tiel corporation, — when good) in Bank of Auburn v. Weed, 19 Id. 300. v. Roberts, 45 Barb. 407. AfTd in 44 K Y. 192. See Wilson v. Maltby. • v. Weed. See Bank of Michigan v. Williams; Bank of Utica v. Smalley; Dutchess Cotton Manufactory v. Davis; Jackson it. Plumbe. Bank of Beloit v. Beale, 11 Abb. Pr. 375; s. c, 20 How. Pr. 331. AfTd in 7 Bosw. 611, which was aff'd in 34 If. Y. 473. Sec Lloyd v. Brewster; Thurstfl. West. Applied with Morris fl. Rexford, 18 If. Y. 542; Rodermund v. Clark, 46 Id. 354; Taussig t. Hart, 49 Id. 301 ; Fields v. Bland, 81 Id. 239 (Election of remedies) in Avilau. Manhattan Chemical Co. of N. Y., 32 Hun, 1. Cited (Prosecution of suit by principal as ratifica- tion of unauthorized act) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 90, n. Bank of California v. Collins, 5 Hun, 209. Further decision, it seems, in 7 Id. 336 Doctrine in 5 Hun not accepted (Survival cf right of action against trustee for failure to file report) in Carley v. Hodges, 19 Hun, 187. With decision in 7 Hun, compare Whitnev Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 ST. Y. 62. See Garrison v. Howe. Bank of Chenango y. Hyde, 4 Cow. 567. See Grandin v. Le Roy. Explained and followed (Collateral security) in Bank of State of New York v. Vanderhorst, 32 If. Y. 553. Approved (Action on note for benefit of another) with Bank of Rutland v. Buck, 5 Wend. 66, in Bank of Newbury v. Rand, 38 N. H. (1 Chand.) 166. Approved (Suit on note in name of bank) in Elliot v. Abbot, MIf.H. 549; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 227, with note. Bank of Commerce v. Rutland & Wash. B K. Co., 10 How. Pr. 1. See Hulbert r. Hope Mut. Ins. Co. Approved (Foreign corporations) in Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co., 30 Barb. 159, 164. v. Union Bank, 3 K Y. 230. Followed (Recovery of money paid by mistake) in Marine Nat. Bank v. Nat. City Bank, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 470, which was, how- ever, rev'd in 59 N. Y. 67, 77; Allen «. Fourth Nat. Bank of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 137, 149. Applied in Nat. B'k of Commonwealth v. Grocer's Nat. B'k, 2 Daly, 291 ; Kingston B'k ». Eltinge, 40 N. Y. 395 ; Security B'k v. Nit. B'k, 67 If. Y. 463. Disting'd in Susquehanna Valley Bank v. Pickering, 1 9 Hun, 230 ; in dissenting opinion of Ruoolbs, J., in God- dard v. Merchants' B'k, 4 If. Y. 156; in dissenting opinion of Sedcwick, J., in Nat. B'k of Commerce v. Nat. Mech. B'k, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 295. Criticised with Goddard v. Merchants' Bank, 4 If. Y. 147, as containing dicta respecting payment of bill where signature is forged, in National Park Bank v. Fourth National Bank, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 138. Followed with National Park Bank v. Ninth Nat'l Bank, 55 Barb. 124; which was affd in 46 If. J'. 77; s. c, 7 Am. R. 310, in Redington v. Woods, 45 Cal. 406; s. c, 13 Am. R. 190, 196. Bank of Commonwealth v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 43 If. Y. 184. See Peyser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Stone ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Followed (Recovery of money paid on assess- ment) in Newman v. Livingston County, 45 40 BASK. XT. Y. 682 ; Union Nat. B'k e. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 51 N. Y. 638. Applied in People v. Ingersoll, 67 Barb. 478. Disting'd in Dewey v. Supervisors of Niagara, 2 Hun, 392, 395, 398; Peyser ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Hun, 416; Nash v. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 9 Hun, 218. Disting'd (Review of assessment collaterally) in Strusburgh v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 511. See, also, Merchants' Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. Supervisors of N. Y, 5 Sup'ra. Ct. (.r. & C.) 393, 399, 400. v. Mudgett, 44 XT. Y. 514. Disting'd (Comparison of hands) in Hardy v. Norton, 66 Barb. 527, 536. Bank of Genesee v. Field, 19 Wend. 643. Overruled (Severance of action against two or more parties to note or bill) in Miller v. McCagg, 4 Hill, 35. - — v. Patch in B'k, 13 K Y. 309. Subse- quent decision in 19 Id. 312. See N. Y. African Society v. Varick. Included with notes in 2 Ames Oases on B. & N. 559. Disting'd (Execution of written instrument by agent) in Booth v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bk., 4 Lam. D06. Applied in Barbour v. Litchfield, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 655; Randall v. Snyder, 1 Bans. 166. Disting'd in Dabney v. Stevens, 40 How. Pr. 349. Followed (Indorsement by cashier) in Bank of N. Y. v. Bank of Ohio, 29 K Y. 619; Robb v. Ross Co. Bk., 41 Barb. 592. Applied (Estoppel from representation of agent) in Griswold v. Haven, 25 iVi Y. 603 ; N. Y. & N. H. R. R. C. v. Schuyler, 34 If. Y. 59. Approved (Power of bank to make accommodation indorsement) in Bridgeport City B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co. T 30 Barb. 423. Applied in Central B'k v. Same, 26 Barb. 33. Compare Bank of State of N. Y. v. Farmers' Branch, &c. of Ohio, 36 Barb. 332, 334. Explained in Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 5 Bom. 288, 289. Collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 93. Applied (Enforcing contracts ultra vires) in Farmers', &c. B'k v. Butchers' & Drovers' B'k, 16 K Y. 129. Approved in Bissell «. Mich. Southern, &c. R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 278. Applied (Sufficiency of pleading) in Betts v. Bache, 14 Abb. Pr. 279. Explained in Abbott s. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 468. Followed (Estoppel against defense of usury) in Ferguson v. Hamilton, 35 Barb. 437. Compare Mason v. Anthonv, 3 Keyes, 609. Denied in Payne v. Burnhain, 62 K Y. 72. Followed (Plea of corporate existence) in Shoe & Leather B'k •». Brown, 18 How. Pr. 308; Phenix B'k v. Donaell, 41 Barb. 573 ; Stone v. Western Transp. Co., 38 K Y. 242. Explained (Appeal) in Cook v. N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 18 K Y. 239. Decision in 19 N. Y. followed (Liability of corporation on negotiable paper) in Bank of Auburn v. Putnam, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 83 ; Thomp- son v. Tioga R. R. Co.. 36 Barb. 79 ; Bank of N. Y. v. B'k of Ohio, 29 2T. Y. 630; First Nat. B'k of Angelica v. Hall, 44 JT. Y. 395. Explained in Farmers' & Merchants' B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 5 Bosw. 289. Bank of Geneva v. Hotchkiss, 5 How. Pr. 478. See, to same effect (Beginning of time limited to take appeal to Court of Appeals), Wells «. Danforth, 7 How. Pr. 197. v. Howlctt, 4 Wend. 328 : si c, 10 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 626, with brief note. Followed (Notice of dishonor sent by mail) with Downer v. Remer, 21 Id. 10; s. c, 23 Id. 620; Reid v. Payne, 16 Johns. 218; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 311, in Hazelton Coal Co. i). Ryerson, 1 Spencer (JV! J.) 129; s. c, 40 Am. Bee. 217, with note. . v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. Pr. 81; s. c, 20 / How. Pr. 18. 'Rev'd in 33 K Y- 160. ' Decision in 33 iV. Y. followed (Appeal- ability of order allowing bail to surrender, principal) in Hall v. Emmons, 8 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 451. , Bank of Havana v. Magee, 20 K Y. 355/ Followed (Amendment of misnomer) in Traver v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. (jt. App. Dec. 422, 424. Explained and applied in Merriain v. AYolcott, 61 How. Pr. 3/7, 394. See cases cited in Abb. Tr. JEv.hl, n. 3 ; also N. Y., &c. Milk Pan Co/ v. Remington's Agric. Works, 25 Hun, 475, 477, and (dissenting opinion) 481. Followed (Private banker not a corporation) in Ilallett v. Harrower, 33 Barb. 537, 542. / y. Wickham, 7 Abb. Pr. 134; s. c, 16 How. Pr. 97. Aff d as Bank of Havana v. Mag-ee, 20 W. Y. 355. Decision in 7 Abb. Pr. collated (Pleadings in actions by or/against corporations), with other cases, ir/ Throop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 289. See Code Cits. Pro. 1881, § 1775, n. Bank of Ithaca v. Bean, 1 Code R. 133. Overruled (Stockholder of bank as witness) in Montgomery Co. Bank v. Maroh, 11 Barb. 651. Bank of Kinderhook v. Gifford, 40 Barb. 659. Applied (Amendment of answer) in Barnett v. Meyer, 10 Hun, 109,|ll0. Ap- proved (All defenses to be equally favored) in Union National Bank of Troy's. Bassett, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 359. Bank of Lansingluirgli v. Craiy, 1 Barb. 542. See Milliman v. Neher ;, Phillips v. Cook. Cited and Whipple v. Foote, 2 Johns. 418; Stewarts. Doughty, 9 Id. 108; Frear «. Hardenburgh, 5 Id. 276; Austin v. Sawyer; 9 Cow. 39, disting'd (Sale, &c. of growing crops, &c.) in Owens v. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488; s. c, 15 Am. R. 295, 301, 314, 315, which also cited Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. 550; Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. 613; Pierrepont v. Barnard, 5 Barb. 371; 6 N. Y. 279; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 117; Silvernail v. Cole, 12 Barb. 685; Bennett®. Scutt, 18 Id. 347; Killmoie «. Llowlett, 48 K Y. 569. Said in 4.6 Am. Dec. 714, »., to have been superseded as to validity of mort- gage of future crops. T. McKie, 7 How. Pr. 360. Aff d in BANK. 41 Niles v. Vanderzee, 14 Id. 547. See N. Y. 6 New Haven R. E. Co. v. Schuyler. Denied (Counter affidavits upon motion to vacate attachment) in Houghton v. Ault, 16 How. Pr. 78. Bank of Lyons v. Demmon, Bill & D. Supp. 398. Disting'd (Return of securities given for capital stock) in Tuckerman v. Brown, 1 1 Abb. Pr. 389, 396. Bank of Michigan t. Ely, 17 Wend. 508. Approved (Fraud, not to be presumed) in Bissell v. Lewis, 4 Mich. 457. Commented upon (Acceptance of bill of exchange) in Bige. on B. & N. 2 ed. 53. v. Jessup, 19 Wend. 10. See Ackerman v. Finch. Cited as authority (Security for costs — when given in time) in Parke v. Goodwin, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 58. v. Williams, 5 Wenif. 478. Aff d in 7 Id. 539. See Dutchess Cotton Manu- factory v. Davis ; Bank of Utica v. Smal- lcy. Decision in 5 Wend, followed (Allega- tions of corporate existence) with Jack- son v. Plumbe, 8 Johns. 378; Bank of Auburn v. Weed, 19 Id. 300; Dutchess Cotton Manuf'y v. Davis, 14 Johns. 238; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 459; and Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k «. Rayner, 2 Hall, 19, in Lewis v. B'k of Kentucky, 12 Ohio, 132 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 469, with note. Bank of Monroe, Matter of, 7 Sill, 177; s. c, 42 Am. Bee. 61, with note. Questioned (Affidavit by attorney in judgment) in People v. Ransom, % N. Y. 490. Bank of Monroe v. Culver, 2 Hill, 531. See Lawrence v. Barker; Merrill v. Ithaqa & Oswego R. R. Co. Followed (Books of account in evidence) in Burke u. Wolfe, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 263, 272. Reviewed ■with Merrill ». Ithaca & Oswego R. R. Co., 16 Wend. 600; s. c, 30 Am. Bee. 130; Brewster v. Doane, 2 Hill, 537, in Vinal v. Gilman, 21 W. Va. 301; s. c, 45 Am. E. 562. Disting'd in Derham n. Lee, 47 Super. Ct. (J.&S.) 174, 183; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 334. v. Schermerhorn, Clarke, 297. Rev'd in 9 Paige, 372. See Osborn v. Hcyer. v. Widner, 11 Paige, 529. Compare (Effect of statute of arbitration) Bulson v. Lohnes, 29 N. Y. 2»1. Bank of Newbnrgh v. Seymour, 14 Johns. 219 ; Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cow. 39. Approved (Amendment of judgment) in Shirley v. Phillips, 17 III. 471. Disting'd in Grant v. Griswold, 21 Hun, 509, 511. Bank of New Orleans v. Matthews, 49 K Y. 12. Cited (Validity of partnership dealings with alien enemies) in Whart. Com. onAg. 16, 11. Bank of N. T. v. Bank of Ohio, 36 Barb. 332. Rev'd in Ct. of App., April, 1863, on the ground that the question of intention should have been left to the jury. See Nj Y. African Society v. Varick. v. , 29 N. Y. 619. See N. Y. African Society v. Varick. Disting'd (Liability on note made by agent or trustee) in Storrs v. Flint, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 498, 517. y. Livingston, 2 Johns. Cas. 409 ; Cumpston ?). McNair, 1 Wend. 457. Disting'd (Necessity of demand and notice to give effect to guaranty) in Lane v. Levillian, 4 Ark. 76 ; s. c, 37 Am. Bee. 769, 77 1 . See also Read v. Cutts, 7 Oreenl. (Me.) 186; s. c, 22 Am. Bee. 184, with note. v. Vanderhorst, 32 JST. Y. 553. Affg 1 Rolt. 211. See Bank of State of N. Y. v. Vanderhorst. Followed (Taking note as collateral security) in Moody v. Andrews, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 3u2, 305. Fol- lowed (Holder for value) in Weaver v. Bar- den, 49 K Y. 286. Cited (Continuance of authority of agent of firm after dissolution) in Whart. Com. on Ag. §§ 97, 104. Cited (Dissolution of partnership by death) in Story on Partn. § 3 1 9, n. Bank of Niagara, Matter of, 6 Paige, 216. Followed (Executors' commissions) in Betts «. Betts, 4 Abb. N. C. 317, 342. v. McCracken, 18 Johns. 493; Haxtun v. Bishop, 3 Wend. 1. Disapproved (Proof of demand of payment of note payable on demand) in Thurston ». ,Wolfborough B'k, 18 N. H. 391 ; s. c, 45 Am. Bee. 382, as con- flicting with Jefferson County B'k v. Chap- man, 19 Johns. 323. See Hendricks «. Judah, below. Bank of Ogdensbnrgh v. Arnold, 5 Pai. 40; Lafsky v. Maujer, 3 Sand/. Oh. 69 ; Quincj' v. Cheeseman, 4 Id. 405. Applied (Receiver in foreclosure) in Hollenbeck v. Donnell, 94 N. Y. 342. Compare Syracuse City Bank v. Tallman, 31 Barb. 202, 209. Bank of Orange Co. v. Brown, 3 Wend. 158. Followed (Nature of action against carrier) in Wood v. Milwaukee & St. Paul TVy Co., 32 Wis. 39S. Approved and applied (Joinder of defendants in actions against carriers) in Jones v. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 135; s. c, 24 Am. Bee. 706, 729. v. Haight, 14 Wend. 83. Discussed (Statute of Limitations — judicial process) in Ahgell on Lim. § 320, 6 ed. Bank of Orleans v. Barry, 1 Ben. 116; Loomis v. Mowry, 8 Hun, 311: Catlin o. Hausen, 1 Bner, 323; Vallet v. Parker, 6 Wend. 615; Morton v. Rcgers, 14 Wend.~576; Rogers v. Morton, 12 Id. 484; Hendricks d. Judah, 1 Johns. 319. Collated (Pre- sumption as to regularity of negotiable paper) in 29 Alb. L. J. 145. v. Flagg, 3 Barb. Gh. 316. Criticised (Who bound by judgment of foreclosure) in Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 137. v. Merrill, 2 Hill, 295. Included (Note — promise to pay) in 1 Ames Cases on B. & A. 20. v. Smith, 3 Hill, 560, though said in 7 Hill, 595, to have been reversed, is yet said to have the force of a precedent, as the reversal was upon points raised by the pleadings and not appearing upon the bill of exceptions. Reported in 15 N~. Y. Com. L. law. Ed. 684, with brief note. Discussed (Liability of bank for note deposited for collection) 3 Kent Com. 93, n. d. Cited as 42 BANK. establishing the doctrine laid down in Exchange Nat. B'k v. Third Nat. B'k, 112 U. S. 276, 282. Disapproved in Mont- gomery County Bank v. Albany City Bank, * 7 If. Y. 459 ; Reeves v. State Bank, 8 Ohio (If. S.) 465; also in 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 273. Bank of Pouglikeepsie v. Hasbrouck, 6 If. 7. 216. Disting'd (Effect of payment of note by executor, where payee does not surrender it) in Matter of Benedict, 13 Abb. If. 0. 67. Explained (Jurisdiction of surrogate as to disputed claims) as not overruling doctrine in Magee «. Vedder, 6 Barb. 352 ; Wilson d. Baptist Ed. Society of N. Y., 10 Id. 308; Disosway v. Bank of Washington, 24 Id. 60 ; Curtis «. Stillwell, 32 Id. 354; Andrews v. Wallege, 17 How. Pr. 263, and Magee v. Vedder, followed in Tuckers. Nucker, 4 Keyes, 136. --— v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 472. Subsequent proceeding in 5 Hill, 461. See ' Slee v. Bloom. Approved (Nature of rights of ' creditor of corporation against stock- holders) in Weeks v. Love, 50 K 7. 560. Reviewed in Jones v. Jarman, 34 Ark. 323. Followed (Dissolution of corporation) in Bruce v. Piatt, 80 If. 7. 473: Relied on (Set-off by stockholder in proceedings by Creditor of corporation) in Webber v. Leighton, 8 Mo. App. 50,5, 507. Discussed (Liability of members of private corporation) In Angell & A. on Corp. § 625, 11 ed. With decision in 5 Hill, see (Composition — joint debtors) Code Civ. Pro. 1881. § 1942, n. Bank of Rochester v. Bowen, 7 Wend. 158. Disting'd (Liability on firm note issued by one partner) in Osgood v. Glover, 7 Daly, 367, 371. Cited with other cases in 11 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 543. V. Emerson, 10 Paige, 115. Followed (Confirmation of referee's report) in Bache i>. Doscher, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 150, 156. — — v. Gould, 9 Wend. 279. Disting'd (Sufficiency of notice of non-payment of note) in .Gilbert v. Dennis, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 395; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 329, 337. v. Gray, 2 Hill, 227. Doubted (Certi- ficate of notary) in Bank of Vergennes v. Cameron, 7 Barb. 143. See Hallidav v. McDougall, 20 .Wend. 81, 87. Cited in Richard v. Boiler, 6 Daly, 460, 462. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 923, n. v. Jones, 4 If. 7. 497; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 290, with hote containing numerous cita- tions. See Dows v. Greene. Followed (Delivery of bill of lading) in Cayuga County Nat. B'k v. Daniels, 47 N. 7. 031; First Nat. B'k of Cincinnati v. Kelly, 57 If. 7. 34, 37; Rawls v. Deshler, 4 Abli. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 18; Indiana Nat. B'k v. Col- gate, 4 Daly, 49; Farmers' and Mechanics' Nat. B'k ■». Logan, 74 If. 7. 579; City Bank v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 44 N. 7. 186. Explained in Bailey v. Hudson Rivet R. R. Co., 49 If. 7.70; Ceas '0. Bramley, 18 Hun, 187. Applied in Manu- facturers', &c. B'k of Buffalo v. Farmers', Ac. Nat. B'k of Buffalo, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 401 ; Armour v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 65 If. 7. 120. Followed in First Nat. B'k' of Green Bay v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 219; s. c, 15 Am. £. 92, 96. Followed in Hoi brook v. Wight, 24 Wend. 169; Grosvenor v! Phillips, 2 Hill, 147; Bailey v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 49 If. 7. 70; Krudler v. Ellison, 47 Id. 36 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 402. Disting'd in Hodges v. Kimball, 49 Iowa, 477; s. c, 31 Am. R. 158, 162. Followed (What is bill of lading) in Dows v. Greene, 32 Barb. 502. Explained (Sales — reserva- tion of jus disponendi) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 584 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Col- lated (Necessity of actual possession in order to create factor's lien) with Winter v. Colt, 7 If. 7. 288, and other cases, in 58 Am. Dec. 168, n. v. Monteath. 1 Den. 402; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 681, with note. See Crocker v. Coldwell. Cited (Paper of firm using an individual name) with other cases, fnr 11 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 541. Explained with Oliphant v. Mathews, 16 Barb. 608, as not opposed to rule in Yorkshire B'k'g Co. v. Beatson (Ct. of App., Aug., 1880), 28 Weekly Rep. 883. Approved in Wright «. Hooker, 10 If. 7. 51. Bank of Rome v. Curtiss. See Patterson v. Westervclt. v. Mott, 17 Wend. 554. See Butler v. King; Lane v. Hitchcock. Applied with Strong v. Campbell, 11 Barb. 135, (Officer- to whom responsible) in Bennett D.Whitney, 94 If. 7. 302. v. Village of Rome, 27 Barb. 65. Aft'd in 19 N~. Y. 20. Prior decision in 18 If. 7. 38. See Gould v. Town of Sterling ; Starin v. Town of Genoa. Decision in 18 If. 7. adhered to (Town bonding) in Clarke ». City of Rochester, 28 N. 7. 605, 633. Explained and re-aff'd iu Williams v. Town of Duanesburgh, 66 If. 7. 129. Cited and compared in Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. S. 806, 812. Collated, with other cases, in Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 If. 7. 177. Followed with Starin «. Town of Genoa, 23 Id. 439 ; Clarke v. City of Rochester, 82 Id. 605; People v. Mitchell, 35 Id. 551, in Commissioners of Leavenworth County v. Miller, 7 Earn. 479; s. c, 12 Am. R. 425, 444. Disting'd in People, ex rel. Dunkirk, Warren, &c. R. R. Co. v. Batchellov, 53 If. 7. 128, 138. Followed in People v. Hulbert, 59 Barb. 446. Followed (Con- stitutionality of act of April 16, 1852) in Gould v. Town of Venice, 29 Barb. 442. followed (Control of power of taxation by municipal corporation) in Matter ot Living- ston, 82 N. 7. 622. Applied in People v. Mitchell, 45 Barb. 211. Criticised and disting'd in Sweet v. Hulbert, 51 Barb. 319. Applied in Davidson i: Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 27 How. Pr. 352; Townsend v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 10 Dun, 364. Followed (Committing power to make local regula- BANK. 43 tions to people of locality) in Village of Gloversville v. Howell, 7 Hun. 348. Applied in Bank of Chenango » Brown, 26 N. Y. 471. Applied (Delegation of legislative power) in Currier v. West Side Elev. Pat. Ry. Co., 6 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 487, 494. Decis- ion in 19 N. Y. explained (Town bonding) in Starin v. Town of Genoa, 23 A 7 ! Y. 452. Disting'd in Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 84 A 7 ! Y. 532, 540. Cited and compared in Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. S. 806, 812. Adhered to in People «. Mead, £4 N. Y. 129. Disting'd in dissenting opinion of Allen, J., in People exrel. Martin v. Brown, 55 N. Y. 180, 199. Bank of Rutland v. Buck, 5 Wend. 66. See Bank of Chenango v. Hyde ; Grandin ■». Le Roy. Explained and followed (Collat- eral security) in Bank of State of N. Y. •o. Vanderhorst, 32 N. Y. 553. Followed (Liability of surety on promissory note) with Utica B'k «. Ganson, 10 Wend. 314, in Smitlm. Moberly, 10 B. Monr. (Ky.) 266; s. c, 52 Am. Dee. 543, with note. Bank of St. Albans v. Gilliland, 23 Wend. 311. See Spear v. Myers. Collated (Con- sideration of negotiable paper) with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos., 5 ed. 423. Collated (Bona fide holder of bill or note) with other cases, in 2 Id. 5 ed. 240. Disting'd in Harger v. Worrall, 69 A 7 ! Y. 373 ; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 K Y. 218. Followed in Starin v. Kelly, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 366, 370. Bank of Salina v. Abbot, 3 Den. 181. Dis- ting'd and questioned (Assignment of judg- ment to indorser) in Corey v. White, 3 Barb. 12. v. Alvord, 31 N. Y. 473. See Pratt v. Short. Disting'd I Usury) in Moore v. Bogart, 19 Hun, 227. v. Babcock, 21 Wend. 499. See Bristol v. Spraguc; Coddington v. Bay. Included (Bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in 1 Ames Cases on B. & N. 637. Disting'd in Stewart v. Small, 2 Barb. 565 ; Prentiss v. Graves, 33 Barb. 626. Followed in Youngs v. Lee, 18 Barb. 192; which was aff'd in 12 A 7 ". Y. 555, which see; Mohawk B"k v. Corey, 1 Hill, 518; White v. Spring- field B'k, 3 Sand/. 224; Bank of San- dusky ii. Scoville, 24 Wend. 115. Ex- plained ir. Clark v. Ely, 2 Sand/. Ch. 170. Reviewed and explained in Farrington e. Frankfort B'k, 24 Barb. 564; 31 Id. 190; Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 98. Applied in Mead t. Merchants' B'k of Albany, 25 JV. Y. 149; Brown v. Leavitt, 31 A 7 : Y. 113. Ke-affd in Pratt v. Coman, 37 .A 7 ! Y. 442 ; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 N. Y. 223. Reviewed with Bank of San- dusky e. Scoville, 24 Wend. 115; Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 389, with note, in Blanehard v. Stevens, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 1G2; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 723, with note. Disting'd (Merger of debt in note) in Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker 76 A 7 ". Y. 521, 526. t. Henry, 1 Hill, 555. Rev'd in 5 Id. 523. Another decision in 2 Den. 155; aff'd in 3 Id. 593 ; 1 A 7 ! Y. 83. See People v. Mather. Decision in 2 Den. 155, com- mented on (Questions tending to disgrace witness) in 1 Best on Ev. § 130 n. a, et seq. Wood's Ed. Bank of Sandusky t. Scoville, 24 Wend. 115. See Bank of Salina ■». Babcock ; Bristol ■b. Spraguc; Coddington v. Bay. Included (Bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in 1 Ames Cases on B. & N. 639. Followed in Youngs v. Lee, 18 Barb. 192 ; which was afl'd in 12 X. Y. 553, which see; White v, Spring- field B'k, 3 Sand/. 224. Applied in Purchase v. Mattison, 3 Bosw. 312; Farmers' B'k v. Watson, 82 A 7 ! Y. 584. Disting'd in Stewart v. Small, 2 Barb. 566 ; Prentiss ». Graves, 33 Barb. 626; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 N. Y. 226. Reviewed and explained in Far- rington ». Frankfort B'k, 24 Barb. 564; 31 Barb. 190; Stalkers. McDonald, 6 Hill, 98. Applied in Brown v. Leavitt, 31 N. Y. 113. Explained in Clark v. Ely, 2 Sand/., Ch. 170. Bank of Silver Creek v. Talcott, 22 Barb. 550. Discussed (Assignment for benefit of creditors — designation of debts to be paid) in Burrill on Assign. § 313, 4 ed. Bank of State of Georgia v. Lewin, 45 Barb. 340. Cited as authority (Usury- law of place) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs B'k ». Low, 6 Abb. K C. 76, 89 ? which was afl'd in 81 A 7 ! Y. 566, which see. Compared in First Nat. B'k of N. Y. •». Morris, 1 Hun, 680, 682; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 182. Disting'd in Dickinson v. Edwards, 77 A 7 ! Y. 573, 580. Bank of State of Indiana v. Bug-bee, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 86. Cited (Limitations on authority of broker) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 712. Bank of State of N. Y. v. Vanderhorst, 1 Robt.ZU. Aft" d in 32 N. Y. 553. Latter decision followed (Bona fide character of one taking note, &c. as collateral security) in Brookman v. Metcalf, 32 N. Y. 591. Bank of Syracuse v. Hollister, 17 N. Y. 46. Explained (Presentment of note for payment) in 2 Greenl. on Ea. 14 ed. § 178, n. b. Bank of Troy v. Topping. 9 Wend. 273. Subsequent decision in 13 Wend. 557. Decision in 9 Wend, reviewed and explained (Promissory nite of executor or administra- tor) in McGrath «. Barnes, 13 S. C. 328; s. c, 36 Am. Ii. 6S7, 693. Decision in 13 Wend, followed (Presumption of considera- tion) in Paine u. Noelkc, 43 Super. Ct. (J. '& S.) 176, 184. Bank of U. S. v. Davis, 2 Hill, 451, 463. Sec Hawley ». Keelcr ; N. Y. & New Haven 11. R. Co. v. Schuyler. Followed (Notice to director or other agent of corporation) in Holdcn v. N.. Y. & Erie B'k, ~72 A 7 ". T. 295; Lothian v. Wood, 55 Cal. 162. Disting'd in Westfield B'k v. Covnen, 37 N. Y. 323. Examined and explained in 17 a J3ANK. Am. Law Rev. 849, 871. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. % 673. Followed (Notice to agent) in Bank of Savings v. Frank, 56 How. Pr. 414. Doubted with Westfield B'k r. Cornell, 37 K Y. 320; Jackson v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 163; in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 178. Applied (Liability for fraudulent act of agent) in N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 38 Barb. 551; Sharp v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Barb. 272; Durst v. Burton, 2 Lans. 143. Disting'd (Recovery on bill or note discounted in violation of law) in At- lantic State B'k v. Savery, 82 2f. Y. 306; Cuyler v. Sanford, 13 Barb. 339. Applied (Defense to action on note) in Holbrook v. Wilson, 4 Bosw. 79. Followed (Notice to indorser) in Clarke v. Ward, 4 Buer, 208. ■ v. Honsmnn, 6 Pai. 635; Hildreth o. Sands, 2 Johns. Ch. 43. Approved and applied (Inadmissibility of parol evidence of blood and affection to support deed reciting valuable consideration) in Burrage» Beards- ley, 16 Ohio, 438; s. c, 47 Am. Bee. 3S2. Compare 30 Am. Bee. 116, n. See also Hil- dreth v. Sands. T. Jenkins. See Cable v. Cooper. Bank of Utica v. Bender, 21 Wend. 643; s. c, 34 Am. Bee. 281, with note, where ' it is said to have been frequently refer- red to as authority. See Bank of Utica v. Phillips. Included (Sufficiency of notice to charge indorser) in Bigel. on B. & N~. 2 ed. 329; Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Ex. 410. Approved in Beale v. Parish, 20 AT. Y. 407. Explained and followed in Requa v. Collins, 51 W. Y. 144, 148. . v. Childs, 6 Cow. 238. Compare (Limitations in action by principal against agent) Code Civ. Pro. § 407. v. City of Utica, 4 Paige, 399; s. c, 27 Am. Bee. 72, with note, wherein it is said to havebeeu frequently followed in N. Y., as to what property of a bank is subject to taxation. Y. Davidson, 5 Wend. 588. Explained and followed (Notice sufficient to charge indorser) in Requa v. Collins, 51 A 7 ". Y. 144, 148. v. Finch, 3 Barb. Ch. 293; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 175. with note, collecting cita- tions. See Brinkerhoff v. Marvin; Towns- end v. Stone Dressing Co. Questioned (Mortgage to secure future advances) in Monnot v. Ibert, 33 Barb. 24, 27. — — v. Hillard, 5 Cow. 153. Cited (What must appear to enable the production of papers to be compelled) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. % S17. Subsequent decisions in 5 Cow. 419; 6 Id. 62. Decisions in 5 Cow. 15^-^^419; 6 'Cow. 62, disting'd (Com- pelling agent to' produce principals' papers) in > Robbins «. Davis, 1 Blatchf. 238, 240. Decisions in 5 Cow. 153 ; Id. >419, approved in Wertheimcr v. Continental Railway & Trust Co. (IT. S. Circ. Ct., S. B. N. Y., leVy, 1883), 15 Reporter, 294, as conceding power to compel production of books by officer of corporation where it is not a party, La Farge v. La Farge Fire Ins. Co., liLTov). Pr. 26, and other N. Y. cases being disap- proved in so far as they make a contrary ap- plication of the doctrine of these decisions. Decision in 5 Cow. 419, quoted and explained (Process, pleadings, &c. in case of corpor-' ations) in Angell &A. on Corp. § 682, 11 ed. v. Ives, 17 Wend. 501. Disapproved and questioned (Usurious agreement for extension of time) in VYies v. Sultzer, 1 City Ct. 3. — v. McKinster. See Smedes v. Bank of Utica. — v. Magher, 18 Johns. 314. Collated (Signature by agent of corporate and official documents) with other cases, in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 763. — v. Merserean, 3 Barb. Ch. 528; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 189, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently approved and followed. See Varick v. Tallman. Applied (Effect of covenant of warranty as estoppel) in Tefft v. Munson, 57 A 7 ". Y. 99. Followed in Doe v. Dowdall, 3 Houst. {Bel.) 369; s. c, 11 Am. R. 757, 765. Applied (Form of comptroller's tax deed) in dissenting opinion of Cady, J., in Leggctt v. Rogers, 9 Barb. 414. Applied (Remedy for imperfect tax deed) in Mc- Cready v. Sexton, 29 Iowa, 356; s. c, 4 Am. R. 214, 222. Disting'd (Production of documents) in Peck v. Williams, 13 Abb. Pr. 68. Cited as authority (Communica- tions by two or more clients jointly) in Whiting v. Barney, 38 Barb. 397. Disting'd (Privileged communication) in Sanford v. Sanford, 61 Barb. 305 ; Graham v. People, 63 Barb. 484. Cited as authority in Pierson ■b. People, 18 Run, 249. Followed in Edingtou ». Mut. Life Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 11. Re-aff'd in Williams v. Fitch, 18 A 7 ". Y. 551. Followed (Who are bound by or may take advantage of estoppel) in Mickles v. Towns- end, 18 JST. Y. 583. v. Phillips. 3 Wend. 408. Included (Notice of protest) in 2 Ames Cases on B. 6 A 7 ". 401. Applied in Requa v. Collins, 51^ A 7 ". Y. 144, 147. Applied with Gawtry v. Doane, 51 K Y. 84; Bank of Utica v. Bender, 21 Wend. 643, in Saco Nafl B'k v. Sanborn, 63 Me. 340 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 224. Approved in Marviuc v. Hymers, 12 iV. Y. 223. v. Smalley. 2 Cow. 770. Aft'd in 8 Id. 398, without opinion. Decision in 2 Cow. reported in 14 Am. Bee. 526, with note, wherein it is referred to as settling the law in N. Y. Also reported in 7 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 960, with brief note, on transfer of stock. See Barker, Matter of ; Jackson v. Plumbe; U. S. B'k », Haskins. Cited as authority (Regulation by corporation of transfer of stock) in Mann v. Currie, 2 Barb. 299; Worrall v. Judson, 5 Barb. 210; N. Y. & N. II. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 38 Barb. 540; Comeau v. Guild Farm Oil Co., 3 Baly, 220. Cited as settled law in Bank of Attica «. Man'f. & Traders' BANK— BARBEK. 45 B'k, 20 N. Y. 511. Recognized as author- ity with Mechanics' Bank v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 624 ; N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 Id. 80 ; Gilbert ?>. Manchester Iron Man'f'g Co., 11 Wend. 528; Kortright v. Buffalo Com- mercial Bank, 20 Wend. 91, in Baltimore City Passenger R'y Co, v. Sewell, 35 ltd. 238; s. c, 6 Am. R. 402. Disapproved (Effect of plea of general issue, in action "by corporation) the cases of Jackson «. Plumbe, 8 Johns. 378 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 526 ; Bank of Auburn t. Weed, 19 Johns. 300; Bill «. Fourth Great Western Turnpike Road, 14 Id. 416; Bank of Michigan v. Williams, 5 Wend. 482 ; 7 Id. 541 ; U. S. B'k v. Stearns, 15 Id. 314 being followed, and Dutchess Cotton Manufactory v. Davis, 14 Johns. 245 ; s. c. 7 Am. Dec. 459 being disting'd in Phoenix B'k of N. Y. v. Curtis, 14 Conn. 437; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 492. Followed (Averring corporate existence) in Bank of Waterville a. Beltser, 13 How. Pr. 272. Followed (Witness made competent by trans- fer of stock) in Utica Ins. Co. o. Cadwell, 3 Wend. 300; Gilbert v. Manchester Iron Manf. Co., 11 Wend. 629. Applied in Cates v. Wacters' Heirs, 2 Hill (S. C.) Law, 442, which was cited in Stall v. Catskill B'k, 18 Wend. 473. v. Smith, 18 Johns. 230. Compare (Presentment and demand) Salt Springs Nat. B'k i: Burton, 58 If. Y. 430, 435. v. Wagers 2 Cow. 712. Afifd. in 8 Id. 398. Opinion of Savage, J., compared (Discount by bank, when usurious) in 3 Pars, on Cont. 115. n. p. Explained in Bank of Utica v. Phillips, 3 Wend. 408 ; Marvine v. Hymers, 12 If. Y. 223. Applied (Usury— intent) in Fiedler v. Darrin, 50 IT. Y. 437. Bank of Vergeuiies v. Cameron. 7 Barb. 143. Quoted and explained (Power of partners after dissolution of partnership) in 1 Collyer on Partn. % 107, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Disting'd (Rights of holder of paper indorsed in partnership name) in Grim v. Starkweather, 88 If. Y. 339. v. Warren, 7 Hill, 91. Applied (Pre- sumption of authority of cashier) in Chemical Nat. B'k v. Kohner, 85 If. Y. 189, 193; Thatcher v. B'k of State of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 130. Applied (Validity of redemp- tion proceedings) in Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barb. 25; People v. Ransom, 4 Den. 148. Followed in Chautauque Co. B'k v. Risley, 4 Den. 484. Disting'd in People v. Rath- bun, 15 If. Y. 531. Cited as authority (Right of purchaser at sheriff's sale to release his interest) in Miller v. Lewis, 4 If. Y. 560. Bank of Watertown v. Assessors of Water- town. Report in 25 Wend. 686, said in 2 Mill, 353,, not to contain opinion of court, the C. J. and Cowen, J., being said to have concurred in that of Buonson, J., in People ex rel. Bank of Watertown v. Assessors of Watertown, 1 Bill, G16. Bank of Waterville y. Beltser, 13 How. Pr. 270. Approved (Averment or proof of existence by corporation plaintiff) in La Fayette Ins. Co. ®. Rogers, 30 Barb. 491, 492. Banker v. Banker, 4 Hun, 259. Aff d in 63 If. Y. 409, on other points. See Lewis v. Jones. Decision in 63 If. Y. quoted (Personal disabilities of testators) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 106, n. Banks T. Phelan, 4 Barb. 80, 89. Compared (Bequest to unincorporated society) 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 274. v. Walker, 3 Sandf. Ch. 344. Aff'd in 3 Barb. Ch. 438. Latter overruled, in Mc- Carthy v. Marsh, 5 If. Y. 263. See Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent T. Wilkes, 2 Sandf. Ch. 99. See Bates v. Underhill. Applied (Responsibility for co-trustee's default) to executor in Lacey v. Davis, 5 Red/. 301, 305. See cases collected in 15 Am. L. Rev. 175. Banlec v. N. Y & Harlem R. R. Co., 48 How. Pr. 399; s. c, as Baulec «. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 59 If. Y. 356; 17 Am. R. 325; aff'g in effect 12 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 310; s. o., 5 Lans. 436, and 62 Barb. 623. Banta, Matter of, 60 If. Y. 165. Disting'd in People ex rel. Ross v. City of Brooklyn, 69 Id. 605, as considering other provisions of L. 1859, c. 213, not repugnant to those L. 1861, c. 169. Banta t. Garnio, 1 Sandf. Ch. 383. See Sand- ford v. McLean. Disting'd (Subrogation to prior mortgage) in Snelling v. Mclntyre, 6 Abb. If. C. 469, 472. Baptist Church v. Bigelow. 16 Wend. 28. Followed (Nature of perpetual lease of pew) in St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 34 Barb. 16, 18. v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 28 If. Y. 153. Applied (Necessary elements in con- tract of insurance) in Stockton v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 577. v. Wetherell, 3 Paige, 296, 301; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 223. Quoted (Power over religious corporations) in Cooley on Const. Lim. 5 ed. 577, n. Followed with Lawyer v. Cipperly, 7 Paige, 281 ; Miller v. Gable, 2 Den. 492; Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. 64; Dieffendorf v. Reformed Calvinist. Church, 20 Johns. 12, in Chase v. Cheney, 58 III. 509; s. c, 11 Am. R. 95, 104. Disting'd in Grimes v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198; s. c, 9 Am. R. 690, 700. Barber v. Case, 12 How. Pr. 351. Over- ruled (Examination of parties on a motion) in Meyer v. Lent, 7 Abb. Pr. 225. T. Crossett, 6 How. Pr. 45. Adopted as the opinion of the court at Gen. T. (Right of officer to double costs) in Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co. v. McCoy, 8 Id. 526. See to the contrary, Nestle ». Jones, 6 How. Pr. 172. v. Harris. 15 Wend. 015. Quoted and explained (Effect of recitals in mortgage as estoppel) in 3 Washb. R. P. 4 ed. 106. Disting'd (Right of husband to incumber property held by him and his wife) in Chandler v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 391. Followed -46 BARBER— BACKER. (Effect of conveyance, &c. to husband and wife and others) in Johnson v. Hart, 6 Watts & S. (|Pa.) 319; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 565, 567, with note. Cited in Halls. Stephens, 65 Mo. 670 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 302. Approved (Right of husband to control of his wife's estate — Estoppel by mortgage) with Jackson v. Mc- Connell, 10 Wend. 175; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 439, with note, in Wyckoff v. Gardner, I Spencer (W. J.) 556 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 389, with note. v. Hubbard, 3 Code R. 156. Affd in 3 Id. 169. v. Marble, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & 0.) 114. Disting'd (Amendments of pleadings) in Decker v. Saltsman, 1 Hun, 421, 428 ; s. c, 3 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 595. T. People, 17 Hun, 366. Compare (Examination as evidence) Code Civ. Pro. § 2460. V. Rose, 5 Hill, 76. Disting'd (Waiver of damages for non-performance) in Mc- Cormick v. Penn. Central R. R. Co., 80 K Y. 362. v. Sterling, 68 N. Y. 273. Followed (Effect of discharge in bankruptcy, &c.) in Hardenbrook «. Colson, 61 How. Pr. 426, 431. v. Winslow, 12 Wend. 102. Followed (Effect of recital of jurisdictional facts) in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Eobt. 166, 202. Barbour v. Everson, 16 ^465. Pr. 366. Ex- plained (Directory provisions in assignment act) in Hardman v. Bowen, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 333, 337; s. c, 39 N. Y. 196. Limited in ■ Rennie v. Bean, 24 Hun, 123, 127. Barclay v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 9 Abb. Pr. If. S. 283. Confirmed by further decision in 6 Lans. 25, as to which (Action by for- eign assignee) compare Mosselman ■». Caen, Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 171. v. Talman,4JSaw. 123. Affd 3 Ch. Sent. 56, on the same grounds and for an additional reason that the corporation was a necessary party to such an application, and its assign- ment did not dissolve it so as to render it un- necessary to make it a party. v. Wilcox. See Barkley v. Wilcox. Bard v. Poole, 12 N'. Y. 495. Approved (Suit by party deriving title to chose in action from foreign administrator or executor) in Petersen v. Chemical Bank, 32 JSf. Y. 21. Barger v. Durvin, 22 Barb. 68. Overruled (Authority of assignee for creditors to take debt out of statute of limitations) in Pickett e. King, 34 Barb. 193; which was aff'd as Pickett v. Leonard, 34 jV. Y. 178, which see. Barhydt v. Valk, 12 Wend. 145; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 124, with note. Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 K Y. 238. See Mygittt v. Washburn ; Weaver v. Devendorf. Applied (Jurisdiction of assessors) in Bell v. Pierce, 51 K Y. 12, 15, 18 ; Foster v. Van Wyck, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 172; Dorn v. Backer, 61 Barb. 609. Criticised and limited with Swift a City of Poughkeepsie, 37 2V~. Y. 51 1, in National Bank of Chemung v. City of Elmiva, 53 K Y. 49, 56. Disting'd in Palmer v. Lawrence, 6 Lans. 292. Fol- lowed in Swift v. City of Poughkeepsie, 37 K Y. 513. Cited as authority (Lia- bility for assessing non-resident) in Wade v. Matheson, 4 Lans. 163. Criticised as correctly decided, but unsatisfactory in reasoning (Judicial character of office of assessor) in Auditor of State v. Atchison, Topeka, &c. R. R., Kan. 500, 508. Ex- plained in Cruger v. Dougherty, 43 N. Y. 122, as not changing strict rule as to statutory proceedings to divest property. Barker, Matter of, 6 Wend. 509. See Holmes, ex parte. Explained (Private corporation — admission and election) in Ang\ & A. on Corp. § 132, 11 ed. Cited as authority with Gilbert *>. Manuf'g Iron Co., 11 Wend. 627 ; Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 2 Cow. 770, 778 ; Kortright v. Commercial Bank of Buffalo, 22 Wend. 348, 362; Hoagland v. Bell, 36 Barb. 57 (Recording transfers of stock) in Hoppin v. Buffum, 9 It. 1. 513; s. c, 11 Am. i?.. 291. Barker v. Barker, 15 How. Pr. 568. Fol- lowed (Contempt — striking out pleading) in Walker v. Walker, 82 IT. Y. 260, 264. v. Bradley, 42 JV. F. 316. Disting'd and criticised (parol evidence to vary considera- tion) in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 Huh, 198, 213. Cited with Hope v. Balen, 58 N. Y. 382 (Parol proof of oral part of mixed con- tract) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ho. § 1015. Disting'd (Promise to third person) in John- son v. Morgan, 6 Daly, 333, 337. v. Bucklin, 2 Den. 45 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 726, with note, containing citations. See Leonard v. Vredenbergh; Mallory v. Gillett ; Mersereau v. Lewis ; Schemerhorn v. Vandorheyden ; Westfall v. Parsons. Examined and limited (Promise to pay debt of another) in Mallory v. Gillett, 21 K Y. 412, 427, 442, which aff'd 23 Barb. 610, which see. Applied in Cailleux e. Hall, 1 H. D. Smith, 7. Approved in Blunt ». Boyd, 3 Barb. 209. Followed in Ely «. McNight, 30 How. Pr. 102; Phillips v. Gray, 3 E. D. Smith, 69. Disting'd in Brisbane v. Beebe, 48 K Y. 636. Cited as authority in Stern v. Drinker, 2 R D. Smith, 404. See also Eddy v. Roberts, 17 111. 508. Quoted and discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 166 b, 4 ed. ; Id. §§ 167, 169, 171. Quoted and explained in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1373, n. g, 11 Am. ed. Applied (Promise to pay third party) in Hamilton & Deansville Plank Road Co. ■». Rice, 7 Barb. 165; May v. Nat. B'k of Malone, 9 Hun, 112. Disting'd in Bigelow .,.». Davis, 16 Barb. 565; Dolph v. White, 12 iV. Y. 300. Reviewed with other cases and applied in Hale v. Boardman, 27 Barb. 85. v. Cassidy, 16 Barb. 177. See (Joinder of persons, severally liable, as co-defendants) Code Civ. Pro. § 454. v. Cocks, 50 iV. Y. 689. Compare (Appeal after denial of new trial on inter- locutory judgment) Code Civ. Pro. § 1336. v. (,'oflin, 31 Barb. 556. For similar cases BARKER— BA RN ARD. 47 ' (Rights of passenger riding on through ticket) see McClure v. Philadelphia, W. &B. II. R. Co., 34 Md. 532 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 345 ; Shedd ». Troy, &e. R. R. Co., 41 Vt. 88. V. Cook. 25 How. Pr. 190 ; s. c, 40 Barb. 254; s. c, more fully, in 10 Abb. Pr. 83. De- cision in 40 Barb, followed (Vacating order of arrest for defects in copies of papers served) in Bank of Havana v. Moore, 5 Hun, 624. ■ t. Havens, 17 Johns. 234; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 393. Approved (Consignor's liability for freight) in Holt v. Westcott, 43 Me. 449. Explained in Blanchard T. Page, 8 Gray (Mass.) 299. Followed in Grant v. Wood, 1 Zah. (N. J.) 292; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 162, • with note. Reviewed and disting'd (Duty of carrier as to delivery) in McEwen D.Jefferson- ville, Madison, &c. R. R. Co., 33 Ind. '615; s. c, 5 Am. R. 216. v. Hoff, 7 Hun, 284. Further decision in 52 How. Pr. 382. • v. Mechanics 1 Fire Ins. Co., 3 Wend. 94; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 664, with note. See Hills v. Bannister. Applied (Personal lia- bility of agent executing contract) in Simonds v. Heard, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 120; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 41, 43, with note; Fogg v. Virgin, 19 Me. 352; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. ■ 757, with note. Followed with Moss t>. Livingston, 4 N~. Y. 208, in Revolver Scraper Co. v. Tuttle, 61 Iowa, 423; s. c, 47 Am. R. 816, with note. Examined in Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank u. Troy City Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 468. Explained in Stanton v. Camp, 4 Barb. 274. Applied (Personal liability of maker of note) in Wing v. Click, 56 Iowa, 473. Cited with Hills v. Bannister, 8 Cow. 31 ; Moss «. Livingston. 4 N. Y. 208 ; Dewitt v. Walton, 9 JV. Y. 271, in Powers v. Briggs, 79 111. 493 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 175. ■ v. Millard, 16 Wend. 572. Explained (Statute of Limitations — judicial process) in Angell on Limitations, § 329, 6 ed. v. People, 20 Johns. 457. Aff'd in 3 Cow. 686; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 322. Compare (Power of legislature to provide punishment for crimes) Wynehamer v. People, Vd AT. Y. 378, 418. Decision in 3 Gow. cited with approval in People v. Clute, 50 N. Y. 451. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 8 Johns. 307; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 339. See Alexandre v. Sun Ins. Co. v. Russell, 1 Code R. JV. S. 5. Rev'd in 1 Jd. 57; s. c, 11 Barb. 303. v. Savage, 1 Sweeny, 288. Rev'd in 45 JV. Y. 191. See Baxter «. Second Ave. R. R. Co. ; Stackus v. N. Y. Central. &<.. R. R. Co. Decision in 1 Sweeny approved (Right of railroad to use of highway) in Adolph v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 185. Decision in 45 JV. Y. followed (Rights of foot-passengers) in Myers v. Dixon, 35 Super.. Ct. (J. & S.) 392. Followed (Non-suit for contributory negligence) with Harnett v. Bleecker St., &c. R. R. Co., 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 185, in Smith v. Smith, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 503. v. Wing, 58 Barb. 73. See (Appeal from judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § .1345, n. Barkley v. Wilcox, 19 Hun, 320; s. c, as Barclay v. Same, 9 Weekly Dig. 298. AfTd in 86 JV. Y. 140. Decision in 19 Hun ex- plained (Improvements on realty damaging neighbors' lands) in Moak's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. '458. Decision in 86 JV Y. said "in Boyd v. Conklin; Sup'm. Ct. Mich., 1884, 20 Nurthw. Rep. 597, to leave the door open to deal with cases involving the natural flow of water, upon the particular facts of each. Barlow v. Myers, 3 Hun, 720 ; s. c, 6 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 183. Rev'd in 64 JV. Y. 41 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 582. Decision in 64 JV. Y. relied on (Promise to third person) in Dun- ning v. Leavitt, 85 JV. Y. 30, 39. See to the contrary, Exchange B'k of St. Louis, 107 Mass. 37; s. c, 9 Am. R. 1. But see Abb. Tr. Jiv. 386. v. Scott, 24 JV. Y. 40. Explained (Allow- ance of damages to one seeking equitable relief) in Bradley v. Aldrich, 40 JV Y. 504, 509. Applied in Genet v. Howland, 45 Barb. 570, to allowance of jury trial. Followed in Matthews v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 20 Han, 437. Explained in Waterm. Sp. Per/. § 515, n. Disting'd (Relief against contract) in Anonymous, 2 Abb. JV C. 65; Beams v. Columbian Ins. Co., 48 Barb. 454. Applied (Waiver of jury trial) in McKeon v. See, 4 Robt. 465. Explained (Judgment in accordance with nature of action) in Lewis e. Molt, 36 K Y. 399. Applied (Inter- pretation of promise) in Talcot v. Arnold, 61 N. Y. 617. — j- v. Yeomans, 50 Barb. 187. Compare (Preference of cestui que trust to creditors, in case of commingling of trust funds with others) Hooley v. Gieve, 9 Abb. N. C. 8; Graham v. Van Duzer, 2 Red/. 322. Barnainan v. Williams, 8 Abb. Pr. 158; s. c, as Williams v. Barnaman, 28 How. Pr. 59. Further decision in 19 Abb. Pr. 09. Barnard, Trial of, on impeachment. Re- ported in 3 vols, published at Albany, 1874. Trial and remarks of judges commented on as extremely valuable, by G. Willett Van Nest, in article on "Impeachable Offenses under the Constitution of U. S.," 16 Am. Law. Rev. 798, 815. Barnard v. Campbell, 65 Barb. 286. AfTd in 55 JV. Y. 456; s. c, 14 Am. R. 289. Re-afTd in 58 N. Y. 73; s. c, 17 Am. R. 208. See Stalker v. McDonald. Decision in 55 iV. Y. disting'd (Estoppel) in Voorhees v. Olm- stead, 3 Hun, 744, 755 ; s. c. 6 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & C.) 1 72. . Compare 2 Pomeroy Eg. J. 266. Quoted (Fraudulent vendee — valid title from) in Wait on Fraud. L'onv. § 448, n. 1. Decision in 58 N. Y. disting'd (Prece- dent debt, when not a consideration) in Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Hun, 146. Quoted (Fraud on vendor) in 1 Benj. on. Sales, § 649, 48 BAENAKD— BARNES. n. 15 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Compare (Rights of bona fide purchaser) 15 Am. L. Rev. 386. Both decisions disting'd (Ab- solute delivery of goods sold) in Parker v. Baxter, 86 2V. Y. 586, 596. t. Darling, 1 Barb. Oh. 218. Applied (Presumption that oath was taken within jurisdiction of officer administering it) in People ex rel. Mosher v. Stowell, 9 Abb. 2V. V. 456, 461. v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. 62 ; s. c, 2 Abb. Br. 2V. S. 47, and as Brainerd v. Heydrick, 32 How. Pr. 97. Approved (Use of old affidavit) in Mojarrieta ■». Saenz, 80 2V. Y. 547, 551. y. Kobbe, 3 Daly, 373. Aff d in 54 2V Y. 516. Order for judgment because of frivolousness of answer afFd in 3 Daly, 35. Decision in 54 2V. Y., cited (Dispute of principal's titles by factor) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 761. See (Application of property to satisfaction of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2450, n. v. Monnot, 34 Barb. 90. Rev' d in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 108 ; s. c, 3 Keyes, 203 ; 33 How. Pr. 440. See Knapp v. Wallace. Decision in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. cited as authority (Broker's cofnmissions) in Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 2V. Y. 378, 381. Applied in Fiero v. Fiero, 52 Barb. 292. Followed in Heinrich v. Korn, 4 Daly, 74; Beebe v. Ranger, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 456. Explained in Satterthwaite ». Vree- land, 48 How. Pr. 510. Disting'd (Parol agreements for transfer of real estate) in Badenhop •». McCahill, 42 How. Pr. 195. • t. Pierce, 28 'How. Pr. 232. See (Justices' court — appeal — offer to compro- mise) Qode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. • y. Viele, 21 Wend. 88. Applied (Inva- lidity of unauthorized security taken by sheriff) in Cook v. Freudcnthal, 80 2V. Y. 202, 209. v. Wheeler, 3 How. Pr. 71, 73. Ex- plained (Time of motion to change place of trial) in Schenck v. McKie, 4 How. Pr. 246 ; Mixer «. Kuhn, Id. 409; s. c, 3 Code P. 106 ; the cases of Beardsley v. Dickerson, 4 How. Pr. 81; Lynch v. Mosher, Id. 86; Myers v. Feeter, Id. 240; Schenck v. McKie, Id. 246, being also explained and commented on in Mixer v. Kuhn. Barnes v. Allen, 30 Barb. 663. Rev'd (En- ticing away wife) in 1 Keyes, 390; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 111. — — v. Atlantic, &c. R. R. Co. of Brooklyn, Sup'm. Ct. MSS. Followed (Right of the Long Island R. R. Co. to operate a railroad by steam over certain lands) in People v. Long Island R. R. Co., 9 Abb. N. Cas. 184; s. c, 6 How. Pr. 400. v. Barnes, 13 Hun, 233. Compare (Application for payment of legacy) Code Civ. Pro. § 2719. v. Barrow, 6 All. L. J. 94. Rev'd in 61 2V. y. 39. v. Brown, 11 Hun, 315. Aff'd in part, and rev'd iu part in 80 2V. Y. 527. See Hoyle v. Pittsburgh & Montreal R. R. Co- Decision in 80 2V Y. explained ("Issue of stock) in Hatch v. Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. 2V. C. 430, 435. v. Buck, 1 Lam. 268. Said in Throop't Code Cio. Pro. ch. VII. tit. III. n., to be incorporated into § 635, as to when a war- rant of attachment may be granted. v. Camack, 1 Barb. 392. Approved (Re- instating prior mortgage procured to be canceled by fraud) in Farmers' and Drovers' Ins. Co. v. German Ins. Co., 79 Ky. 598. Approved (Widow as witness) in Jackson v. Barron, 37 2V H. 494. Disting'd and Ratcliff v. Wales, 1 Hill, 63, followed (Divorced wife as witness) in Dickerman o. Grave3, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 308; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 41, with note. t. Greenzeback, 1 Edw. 41. See another case on this will, in Cutter v. Doughty, 23 Weiid. 513, which was rev'd in 7 Hill, 305. v. Harris, 3 Barb. 603. Aft'd in 4 2V Y. 374. Decision in 4 2V. Y. and Brown ■c. Cady, 19 Wend. 477, 479, examined and approved (Turisdiction' of justice's court) in Reno v. Pinder, 20 2V. Y. 298, 304. Commented on and limited in Willins v. Wheeler, 8 Abb. Pr. 119. v. Hathaway, 66 Barb. 452. Applied (Limitation of absolute gift to a life estate) in Colt v. Heard, 10 Hun, 189, 193. Followed (When devisee takes fee) in Coe t. De Witt, 22 Hun, 428. v. McAllister, 18 How. Pr. 534. See to the contrary (Refusing injunction in case of contract providing remedy in damages) Phenix Ins. Co. ■». Continental Ins. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. 2V. 8. 266. Disting'd with Kessle v. Resse, 29 How.Pr. 382; Mott v. Mott, 11 Barb. 127; Trenor ». Jackson, 46 How. Pr. 389, in McCarell v. Braham (U. S. Cir. Ct., S. D. N. Y., Mch., 1883), 15 Reporter, 485. — v. Morgan, 3 Hun, 703. Followed (Reaching patent rights in supplementary proceedings) in Pacific B'k v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 520; s. c, 40 Am. R. 120. v. Mott, 16 Abb. Pr. 2V. S. 57. Aff'd in effect in 6 Daly, 150; s. c, 51 How. Pr. 27, which was aff'd in 64 N. Y. 397; s. c, 21 Am. R. 625. Decision in 64 2V. Y. followed (Subrogation to rights of mortgagee) iu Gatewood v. Gate wood, 75 Va. 407, ,414. Applied in Srielling v.. Mclntyre, 6 Abb. N. C. 469, 472. Limited (Action by grantee paying off incumbrance) in 3 Am. Dec. 249, n. — v. Ontario Bank, 19 2V Y. 152. Fol- lowed (Certificate of deposit) in Pardee v. Fish, 60 2V. Y. 265, 268. Discussed (Mode of making corporate contract) in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 253, a, 11 ed. — v. Ferine, 9 Barb. 202. Aff'd in 15 Id. 249; which was aff'd in 12 N. Y. 18, the question of amendment not being raised* on the appeals. See Trustees of Hamilton College v. Stewart. Decision in 9 Barb. collated (Guaranty — notice to promisee), with other cases, in 2 Hare v. Palmer, 77 K Y. 51. Applied (Contrib- utory negligence of one having charge of conveyance) iu Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 3 Hun, 198. Explained in dissenting opinion in Perry «. Lansinpj, 17 Hun, 41. Ex- plained (Recovery for negligence concurring with other causes) in Pollet «. Long,' 56 27. V. 205. See (Restoration of lien) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1260, n. v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348. See Hoffman v. Carow. Cited as authority (Trespass or replevin for taking of chattel) in Simmons v. Jenkins, 76 III. 479. Dissented from in Farley «. Lincoln, 51- 2V. H. 577; s. c, 12 Am. P. 182. Approved (Demand before suit) in Twinam v. Swart, 4 Lans. 263, 268. See, to the contrary, Harpending v. Myers, 55 Cal. 558. Disapproved with Tallman v. ■ Turck, 26 Barb. 167, in Surles v. Sweeney, 11 Greg. 21. Barretto v. Suowden, 5 Wend. 181 ; s. c, 10 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 815, with brief note, on compensation, as usury. See Condit v. Baldwin. ' Barrie v. Dana. See Jackson v. Hasbrouck. Barringer v. Delaware & Hudson Canal . Co., 19 Han, .216, Disting'd (Fellow servants) in McCosker v. Long Island. R. R. ' Co., 2l Htin,5Q0. ' " ' v. N. ¥. Central, &e. R. R. Co., 18 Hun, 398. Explained (Contributory negli- gence) as put on the ground that defendant's ■negligence did not contribute,* in. Master- son v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 84 iV. Y. 247, 254. ' Barron v. People, -1' if. . Ballard, 9 Johns. 339 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 281, being cited as authority in Coburn v. Pickering, 3 K H. 415 ; , s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 375, with note. Criticised as unsound in rea- son and Sturtevant v. Ballard, preferred and applied in Clow v. Woods, 5 Serg. ■ & P. (P«.) 275 ; s. c, 9 Am. Pec. 346, with note. Reviewed with Beals v. Guernsey, 8 Johns. 446 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 348 ; Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Id. 337; s, c, 6 Am. Dec. 281; Ludlow v. Hurd, 19 Johns. 218; Bisscll v. Hopkins,3 Cow. 166 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 295 ; Divver o. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. 500 ; s. c.; 2 Am. Dec. 655, and other cases, in Watson e. Williams, 4 Blachf. (ind.) 26; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 36, 40, with note. Cited in 2 Pars, on Contr. 112, n. a, as containing Kent, Ch. J.'s discussion of Cortelyou ■». Lansing, 2 Gaines Cos. 200. v. Rhinclandcr, 1 Johns. Ch. 550. Further decision in 3 Id. 614. Rev'd as to fifth exception. Affd, as to others, in 17 Johns. 538. v. Richard, 8 Paige, 351 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 713; with note, collecting cases, where it is said to have been frequently cited and approved. See Hills v. Miller. Cited as authority (Coven ints running with land) in NorflceU. Cromwell, 70 iV. G. 634; s. c, 16 Am. P. 787, 792. Collated, -with other cases, in McAdam Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 98. Discussed in 2 Washb. on P. P. 4 ed. BARRDSO— I3ARTLETT. _5J ( 812.. Quoted (In junction — restraining vio- lation of covenants) in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 1157, n. 1. Barruso v. Marian, 2 Johns. 145; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 382, with brief note, on the rules for determining whether cov- enants are dependent, or independent. Barry v. Bruno, 71 K Y. 261. Aff g 8 Hun, 395, which arfd Barry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., id How. Pr. 504. See Barry®. Equitable Life Ins. Co. Decision in 71 N. Y. disting'd with Wilson v. Lawrence, 8 Hun, 523; 13 Id. 238; Barry v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 59 If. . Y. 587; Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 Id. 9 (Right of wife to insurance policy in her favor) in -Britten ■». • Mutual Life Ins. Co., If. Y. Daily Reg., Aug. 8, 1883. Disting'd in Pilcher v. N. Y. Life Lis. Co., 33 La. Ann. 322. Followed (Determination -of conflicting claims to insurance moneys) in Mutual Life Ins. Co. ■». Blake, If. Y. Daily Meg., Dec. 27, 1881. — v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 385, ». Aff d in 59 If. Y. 587. See Barry v. Brune; Eadie e. Slimmon. See (Stay pending foreign action) Barry v. Mu- tual Life Ins. Co., 2 Swp'm. Ct. (?'. & C.) 15. Decision in 59 AT Y. disting'd with Barry v. Brune, 71 Id. 261; Wilson v. Lawrence, 76 Id. 585; Brummer v. Cohn, 86 Id. 11 (Assignment of -policy issued to wife on the life of her husband) in Living v. Domett, 26 Han, 150. Followed in Barry v. Brun'e, 71 N. Y. 261; Smillie v: Quinn, 25 Hun, 332, 335. Disting'd and explained in Robinson v.- Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 16 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 194, 207, 213, as not applicable if the policy is expressly payable to her assigns. Disting'd in Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 If. Y. 593, 606. Applied (Liability of such policy to creditors) in Bloomingdale «. Lisberger, 24 Hun. 355, 359. - — v. Kennedy, 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 421. Compare (Property that passes to receiver) Ritterband v. Baggett, 4 Abb. N. 0. .07. Disting'd from case of assignee in bankruptcy in Matter of Gallagher, 16 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 410,416. — v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sand/. Oh. 280. See Burrall «. Bushwick R. R. Co. ; Keichum *. City of Buffalo; Partridge v. Badger. Commented on (Right of corporation to borrow) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 JV". Y. 9, 62, 219, 202; Smith «. Law, 21 Id. 296, 299. Applied as to the capital stock mentioned in the charter of a corpora- tion not being a limitation of the amount of property which it may own, — in Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 61 How. Pr. 216, 221; s. c, 9 Abb. N. O. 437, 444. Applied (Security for future advances) in Ackerman 1>. Ilunsicker, 21 Hun, 53 ; which was rev'd in 85 K Y. 43, 51, which see. Quoted (Construction of charters) in Morawetz on Priv. Corp. § 152. Quoted (Shareholders — profits) in Morawetz on Priv. Corp. § 340. — v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 49 How. Pr. 504. AfFd as Barry c- Brune, in B'Hun, 395, which was aff'd in 71 If. Y. 201. Other ' decisions in 53 N. Y. .536, and 2 Sup'm, Ct. {T..S C.) 15. See Barry v. Equitable Life Ins. Co. Decision in 53 If. Y. fol- lowed (Determination of conflicting claims to insurance moneys) in Mutual Life Ins. Co. «.- Blake, N. Y. Daily Reg., Dec. 27, 1881. v. Ransom. 12 N. Y. 462. See Chapin v. Merrill; Coleman. «. First Nat. Bank- of Elmira; Hubbard v. Gurncy; Pechneru. Phoenix Ins. Co.; Sisson v. Barrett. Exam- ined (Parol evidence of contract) in Thomas ' v. Truscott, ■ 53 Barb. 204. Disting'd in Campbell v. fate, 7 Lans.SIZ. Applied in Easterly i>. Barber, 66 If, Y. 436, overruling 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T.&C.) 423, which see; Cqle- man e.First Nat. B'k of Elmira, 53 Barb. 393. Approved in White v. Boyce, U. S. Cir. Ct: S. D. N. Y., Aug. 1884, 21 Fed. Rep. 232. Ex- plain d (Contribution among sureties) ; in Tobias v. Rogers, 13 ■ N. Y. 66. Discussed - in 8 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 451. Applied with Easterly?). Barber, 66 If. Y. 433 (Arrange- ■ ment of liability of indorscrs among them- selves) in Fraley v. Starr, 17 West. Jar. 193; . abstr. s. c, 16 Weekly Dig. 338. To the contrary (Parol proof of promise to in- demnify) see Bissig v. Britton,-59 Mo. 20,4; s. c, 21 Am. R. 379. See also Abb. Tr. M. . 255. Bartean v. Phoenix Mnt. Life Ins. Co.< 3 Sup'm. Ct. (51 & C.) 576; s. c, 67 Barb. 354; mem. of s. c, 1 Hun, 430. Afl'd in 67 A r . Y. 595, with mem. of opinion. Bartholomew v. Finuemore, 17 Barb. 428. See Green ?. Green. Commented upon (Infant avoiding contract) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 319. v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 28 ; s. c, 6 K Y. Com-. L. Law. ed. 921, with brief note, citing other cases. Also reported in 11 Am. Dec. 237, with note. See Frear v. Hardenbergh. Followed with Everts v. Adams, 12 Johns. 352; Dunbar v. Williams, 10. Id. 249 (Creation of relation of debtor and creditor) in Fitch ». Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 33, 43. Applied (Recovery for gratuitous services) in Hewitt v. Bronson, 5 Daly, 1, 0. Discussed in 1 Pars, on Contr. 446, n. v. Included (Con- tract — formal requisites) in Lawaon's Lead. Com. Law Gas. 'Simplified 2. — — v. Yaw, Clarice, 10. Rev'd in 9 Paige, 165. Bartlc v. Gilman. 18 Jf. Y. 200. Facts more fully stated in 17 How. Pr. 1. Bartlett. Exp., 4 Bradf. 221, 224. Approved but disting'd (Power of guardian to change domicile of ward) in Marheineke v. Grot- haus, 72 Mo. 204. Bartlett, Matter of, 9 How. Pr. 414. Fol- lowed (Proceedings to compel delivery of books and papers pertaining to an office) in People v. Allen, 42 Barb. 206. Bartlett v. Bartlett, Clarke, 460. See Allen v, Allen. Approved (Denial of alimony in 52 BAETLETT— BAETLEY. action to annul marriage for impotency) in Bloodgood v. Bloodgood, 59 How. Pr. 42. v. Campbell, 1 Wend. 50. _ Upheld, citing many "cases (Judgment against prin- cipal as evidence against surety) with Fay t>. Ames, 44 Barb. 327; Lee v. Clark, 1 Hill, 56; Franklin v. Hunt, 2 Id. 671; Westervelt v. Smith, 2 Duer, 440; Annctt v. Terry, 35 If. Y. 256. — the cases of Thomas v. Hubbell, 15 If. Y. 405, and Douglass v. Howland, 24 Wend. 35, being disting'd, and the latter criticised, in Stephens v. Shafer, 48 Wis. 54; s. c, 33 Am. R. 793, with note collating authorities. Questioned in Thomas v. Hubbell, 15 K Y. 405. v. Crozier, 15 Johns. 250. Rev'd in 17 Johns. 439 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 428, with note, showing it to have been largely cited. See Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Weet v. Trustees of Brockport. Reviewed at length (Liability of overseers of highway to civil action) in Freeholders of Sussex o. Slrader, 3 Harr. (K J.) 108; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 530- 53S, with note. Thought iu Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, 29 If. Y. 297, to be, with Weet v. Trustees of Brockport. 16 If. Y. 161, authority against liability of commissioners also, only Smith v. Wright, 24 Barb. 170, being to the contrary. But see Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, overruled on this point, and Bartlett v. Crozier explained and criticised, in Hover v. Barkhoof, 44 If. Y. 119. Reviewed (Lia- bility of municipal corporation for negli- gence) with Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of 1ST. Y., 3 BUI, 531; 2 Den. 433; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ». Furze, Id. 612; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Den. 595; Lloyd v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 K Y. 369; Barton v. City of Syracuse, 30 Id. 54 ; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 Id. 463; Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 Id. 489; Ilutson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 289; 9 K Y. 163; Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 If. Y. 161, 171; Morey v. Town of Newfane, 8 Barb. 645, and many other cases, in Hill v. City of Boston, .122 Mass. 344; s.c, 23 Am. R. 332, 339, 347, 362, 363. Explained and approved in Peck v. Village of Batavia, 32 Barb. 634,-641, 645, 64G. Applied in Hollenbeck v. Winnebago Co., 95 III. 148; s. c, 35 Am. R. 151, 155, with note. Disting'd (Personal liability of public officers) in Donovan v. MeAlpin, 46 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 114 ; Adsit v. Brady, 4 mil, 634; Wall v. Eastman, 1 Mich. 170. Explained and applied (Liability for injury caused by defects in highways) in Smith®. Wright, 24 Barb. 170; 27 Id. 631. Regarded as settled law in Hill v. Super- visors of Livingston, 12 If. Y. 57. Applied in Hutson v. City of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 297. Reviewed in Flynn v. Canton Co., 40 Md. 312; s. c, 17 Am. It. 008. Cited as au- thority with Townsend v. Susquehanna S. R. Co., G Johns. 90, in Erie City v. Schwingle, 10 Harris (Pa.) 384; s. c.,- 60 Am. Deo. 87, with note. Quoted and collated, with other cases, in Gooh Hvjhw. L. 4 ed. 47. Fol- lowed (Duty of commissioners as to repairs) in People v. Comm'rs of Hudson, 7 Wend. 477. Disting'd in Commissioners of Jeffer- son Co. v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231; s. c, 35 Am. R. 462, which cited Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233, as not applicable to case of liability of county treasurer. Same point iu Ward «. School District, 10 Neb. 293; s. c, 33 Am. R. 477. Disting'd as inapplicable to turnpike company in Presi- dent, &c. of Waterford Turnpike Co. v. People, 9 Barb. 174. See citations in 8 Am. Dec. 442, n., of cases where it has been relied on as showing that a cause of action must be stated. v. Drew, 4 Lans. 444; s. c, 60 Barb. 648. Aff'd in 57 iV. Y. 587. See Baker v. Braman. Disting'd (Common law liability of stock- holders), in Griffith v. Mangam, 73 iV. Y. Oil. See, also (Parties to creditor's action against stockholder) Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205, 212. Commented on and applied in Thompson v. Reno Sav'gs B'k (Nov. 1885). Disting'd (Enforcing cred- itors' lien on assets of insolvent corpora- tion) in McLean . Dec. 503, 508, 571. Decision-in 30 If. Y. applied (Injuries through defective public works) in McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 46 N. Y. 194. v. Fort Jackson. &c. Plank Road Co., 17 Barb. 397. Reviewed, with Other cases (Contract growing out of previous illegal contract, when also illegal) in 7 Bradw. {111.) 504. v. Hermann, 11 Abb. Pi: If. S. 378. Followed (Effect of payments made on building contract without production of architect's certificate) in Iladen v. Coleman, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 250. v. N. Y. Central, &c. K. R. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 297. Affd, it seems, in 56 If. Y. 000, but no opinion. T. Speis, 5 Hun, 00. Further action in 73 N. Y. 133. Decision in 5 Hun, qualified (Remedy for misjoinder) in Harris v. El- dridge, 5 Abb. If. C. 278, 280. Bartow v. People, 18 Bun, 22. Rev'd in 78 JST. Y. 377. Decision in 78 IT. Y. disting'd (Liability of bank for deposit received by officer who is officer of another institution) in Fiskkill Sav'gs Inst. v. Bostwick, 92 If. Y. 564. Bascoin v. Albertson, 34 If. Y. 584. Atf'g Bascom v. Nichols, 5 Red/. 340. See Shot- well B. Mott ; Tucker «. Rector, &c. of St. Clements' Church; Williams v. Williams. Explained and applied (Charitable uscs^ in Holmes v. Mead, 52 If. Y. 332, 338. Fol- lowed in White «. Howard, 52 Barb. 310 ; Gram v. Prussia, &c. Society, 36 If. Y. 162; Matter of Abbott, 3 Red/. 305. Explained in Church of Redemption v. Grace Church, 6 Hun, 171. Explained as not overruling Williams ». Williams. 8 If. Y. 525,— in Power v. Cassidy, 10 Hun, 303. Collated, with other cases, in CerardTitles to Real Est. 2 ed. 304. Discussed in 2 Perry dn Trusts, 3 cd. § 748,- n. Commented upon in 3 Washb. on P. P. 4 ed. 18, n. Applied (Devises to corporations) in Currin v. Fan- ning, 13 Bun, 472. Followed in Chamber- lain v. Chamberlain, 3 Lans. 353, which was, however, rev'd on this point in 43 If. Y. 434, which see. Followed (Effect of L. 1860, c. 360, regulating charitable, &c. be- quests) in Curran v. Sears, 2 Redf. 52G, 539. Y. Nichols. See Bascom v. Albertson. Baskin v. Baskin. 48 Barb. 200. Aft'd in 30 Jf. Y. 416. Decision in 36 IT. Y. explained and disting'd (Sufficiency of execution and attestation of will) iu Hewitt ■B.Hewitt,5 Redf. 201, 275. Followed in Tavlor u. Brodhcad, 5 Redf. 624. Disting"d in Mitchell i\ Mitchell, 16 Hun. 97, 100 ; Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 67 N. Y. 413. Approved with Gilbert v. Knox, 52 Id. 125, iu Ludlow ». Ludlow, 8 Stew. (If. J.) 480 ; s. c, 14 Reporter, 790. Cited and considered with Chaffee v. Bap- tist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, 85 ; in llaynes v. Haynes, 33 Ohio St. 59S; s. c, 31 Am. R. 579, 581. 54 BASKINS— BATES. Baskins t. Shannon, 3 JV. T. 310. Cited, (Proof to show that chattel mortgage was given in good faith) in Wray «. Fedderke, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 335. BasST. Comstock, 30 How. Pr. 382. Addi- tional opinion by Olebke, J., in 38 JV. Y. 21, which was disting'd (Demurrer to com- plaint containing different causes of action) in Goldberg v. Utley, 60 JV. Y. 427, 429. v. White, 7 Lans. 171. Rev'd in 65 JV. Y. 565. Mem. of opinion. Explained (Payment and tender by vendee) in Benj. on Sales, § 709, n. f. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. § 1057, n. (Oorbin's 4 Am. ed). Basseit v. Bassett, 55 Barb. 505. Said, in 6 Alb. L. J. 166, to have been aff'd by Ot. ' of App., Sept. 12, 1871. v. Fish, 12 Hun, 209. Rev'd in 75 JV. Y. 303. Decision in 75 JV Y. disting'd (Indi- vidual liability of members of a board) in Babcock v. Giftord, 29 Hun, 186; Donovan v. McAlpin, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 115. Followed, with Shaw «. Cock, 78 JV. Y. 194 (Amendment by adding or striking out name of party) in N. Y. Monitor Milk Pan Assoc, v. Remington Agr. Works, 89 JV. Y. 22 ; which rev'd 25 Hun, 475, 481, which see. v. Lederer, 1 Hun, 274 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 671. Compare Gallup v.. Le- derer,- 1 Hun, 2S2; s. c, 3 Sup'm.. Ct. (T. & 0.) 710. See to the contrary (Evidence of good character of agent, where evidence is circumstantial) Bigelow on Fr. 478. See Abb. Tr. Ee. 621. T. Spofford, 2 Daly, 432. Affd, in 45 JV. Y. 387. Decision in 45 JV Y. followed (Goods, whether obtained by larceny or by - false pretenses) in Zink v. People, 6 Abb. JV. O. 413, 427. Followed (Right of owner of stolen property to follow it or it's pro- ceeds) in Newton «. Porter, 5 Lans. 424. Bassford, Matter of, 63 Barb. 101. Affd in 50 JV Y. 509. Decision in 50 JV Y. followed (Presumption as to regularity of assessment) in Matter of A-gnew, 4 Hun, 439. Disting'd in Matter of Gantz, 85 JV. Y. 536, 539. Bassil v. Elmore, 65 Barb. 627. Affd, as Bassell v. Elmore, 4S JV. Y. 561. Bastable v. City of Syracuse, 8 Hun, 587. Appeal dismissed, in 72 JV. Y. 64. Decision in 8 Han, disting'd (Causing surface water to flow on adjacent land) in Lynch v. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 70 JV Y. 60, 62. Bntchelor v. Albany City Ins. Co., Abb. Pr. JV. S. 240. Collated (Reference — involving examination of long account) with other cases, in Hoffm. on Referees, 12. Batchellor v. Schuyler, 3 Hill, 386. On first point discussed in opinion, overruled, in effect, in People v. Schuyler, 4 JV Y. 17-5. Bate v. Graham, 11 K Y. 237. Applied (Action by creditor to set aside fraudulent conveyance) in Bates v. Bradley, 24 Hun, 84, 86. Relied on in dissenting opinion in Dewey v. Moycr, 9 Hun, 491. Compared in Henderson v. Brooks, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 448. Dictum explained in Leonard v. Clinton, 26 Hun, 288. Applied '(Right of administrator to impeach fraudulent con- veyance made by intestate) in Barton .». Hosmer, 24 Hun, 467. Disting'd as in- applicable to real estate, in Phelps v. Piatt, 50 Barb. 430 ; Chillingworth v. Freeman, 67 Barb. 383. Applied (Right to equitable remedy) in Haines v. Meyer, 25 Hun, 414, 417. Reviewed (Supplying defect in plead- ing) with other cases, in Bowdoin v. Coleman, 3 Abb. Pr. JV S. 441. Disting'd in Tooker ®. Arnoux, 76 JV Y. 400; Scoficld *>. Whitelegge, 49 JV. Y. 261. Applied in Cythe v. La Fontain, 51 Barb. 194. Dis- ting'd in Volkening v. De Graaf, 81 JV. Y. 272; Williams v. Birch, 6 Bosw. 677; Egert ii. Wicker, 10 Hon. Pr. 197. . Fol- lowed in Pratt v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 21 JV Y. 313; IIaddow«. Lundy, 59 JV. Y. 328. Bates v. Cherry Valley, &c. B. K Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T.&C.)16. Affd in 59 A?. Y. 641, on opinion below. v. Conkling, 10 Wend. 389. Said, in Schindler v. Houston, 1 JV. Y. 261, 266, not to be authority as to delivery of goods. v. Coster, I.Hun, 400. .Followed (Dis- tinction between contracts of sale, and agree- ments for work and labor) in Kellogg vl Witherhead, 4 Hun, 273. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 109, : n. y. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Delavan. See Van Eps v. Mayor, &c. of Schenectady. v. James, 3 Duer, 45. Disting'd and ex- plained (Nullity of execution) in. Wihebrch- er v. Johnson, 7 Abb. Pr. JV. 8 202. . v. Merrick, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. . Savage, 1 Sweeny, 288. Approved (Rights of foot passengers in streets) in Belton v. Baxter, 33 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 182 ; Adolph v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., Id. 186. Reversal of Barker v. Savage, in 45 Jf. Y. 191, explained in note to Belton v. Baxter, as not conflicting with latter case. v. Smaclt, 17 How. Pr. 183. Disting'd (Suit against guarantor pending fore- closure) in Schaaf v. O'Brien, 8 Daly, 181. v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co. See Das- comb v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. Bay v. Coddinglon, 5 Johns. Ch. 54; s. c, 9 Am. Dee. 268. Aff'd in 20 Johns. 637. See Coddington v. Bay: Grandin v. Leroy. See note to report in Am. Dee., in which its doctrine is said {Bona fide holder of negoti- able paper) to ' be favored in Bramhall v. Beckett, 31 Me. 205; Bailey v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 396 ; Garrard v. Pittsburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 29 Pa. St. 154; Bowman v. "Van Kuren, 29 Wise. 209. Re-affd in Law- rence v. Clark, 36 N. Y. 129. ■ Applied to transferee of stock, in Weaver «. Barden, 49 N. Y. 294. Applied to transferee of goods in Barnard v. Campbell, 58 A 7 ". Y. 77. Approved in Farrington ». Frankfort Bank, 31 Barb. 183; Cook v. Helms, 5 Wise. 110; Reddick v. Jones, 6 Ired. L. (AT. C.) 107; s. c, 44 Am. Dee. 68, with note. Cited and discussed in Bank of Mobile*. Hall, 6 Ala. 639; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 72, with note. Criticised in Maitland v. Citizen's Nat'l B'k of Baltimore, 40 Md. 540; s. c, 17 Am. R. 620, 628, as contrary to weight of authority. Criticised at length, with Wardell v. Howell, 9 Wend. 170 ; Rosa *. Brotherson, 10 Id. 85; Root v. French, 13 Id. 570; Payne v. Cutler, Id. C05; Dickerson v. Tillinghast, 4 Paige Ch. 215, 222 ; Fulton Bank v. Phoenix Bank, 1 Ball, 562; Driggs v. Rockwell, 11 Wend. 509; Morton*. Rogers, 14 Id. 575, in Brush v. Scribner, 11 Conn. 388; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 303, 317, 319. Reviewed with Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93, the cases on both sides of this question being contrasted and the contrary rule urged in 5 Ky. L. Rep. & J. 412, 413. Included in t Ames Case* on B. & N. 631 ; Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 460. Discussed in Id. 497. Also included in Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Ex. 165. Collated, with other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 223. Discussed in 3 Kent Com. 81 ; also Id. 81, n. b. t. Tallmadge, 5 Johns. Ch. 305-315. Disapproved (Effect of judgment against principal and surety) in M. & M. Bank v. Bank of Pa., 7 Watts & S. {Pa.) 335; s. c, 42 Am. Dee. 240-244, with note. Bayard, Matter of, 61 How. Pr. 294. Dis- ting'd (Extent of power of recorder of Cohoes to punish) in Matter of Coughlin, 62 How. Pr. 34, 36; Matter of Trimble, 62 How. Pr. 61, 63. Cited as an interesting decision in 24 Alb. L. J. 21. Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 Johns. 450. Though said to be overruled by Storm *. Davenport, 1 Sandf. Ch. 135 ; Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige, 210, is cited as authority (Action by assignee for creditors to set aside fraudulent transfer) in Pillsbury v. Kingon, 33 K J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 287; s. c, 36 Am. R 556, the cases of Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. 547 ; Osborne v. Moss, 7 Johns. 161 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 252, being disting'd. Collated, with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 170. Disapproved (Power of chancery to aid creditor) in Creswell *. Smith, 2 Tenn. Ch. 416, 421. Compare note to Donovan *. Finn, 14 Am. Dee. 531, and to Tolles *. Wood, 16 Abb. N.C.I. v. Malcom, 1 Johns. 453. Rev'd in 2 Johns. 550; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 450, with note wherein it is shown have been confirmed (Pleading fraud or deceit) in Ross v. Mather, 51 JST. Y. 114; Thomas v Beebe, 25 -K Y. 249. See Mumford v. McPherson. v. Smith, 17 Wend. 88. Explained (Ne- cessity for reference to statute in action for damages given by statute) in Palmer *. York Bank, 18 Me. 166 ; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 710. Bayland v. City of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 27. Followed and approved (Liability of muni- cipal corporation for injury caused by vio- lence, &c, of individuals) in Campbells' Adtn'x v. City Council of Montgomery, 53 Ala. 527; s. c, 25 Am. R 656, 659. Bayley v. Onondaga Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Hill, 476. Applied to case of devise to trustees in Curran *. Sears, 2 Red/. 526, 532. Baylis v. Scudder, 6 Han, 300. Aff'd, it seems, in 67 N. Y. 600, but no opinion. Bayliss v. Cockroft, 8 Weekly Dig. 153. Aff'd, in 81 K Y. 363. Beach v. Allen, 7 Hun, 441. See, to the con- trary (Payment) Orr *. Jackson, 1 III. App. 439. See, also, Abb. Tr. Ev. 810. v. Bay State Co., 27 Barb. 248; s. c, 16 How. Pr. 1; more fully, 6 Abb. Pr. 415. Rev'd in 10 Id. 71; s. c, 30 Barb. 433; 18 How. Pr. 335. See Vanderwerken v. N. Y. & N. Haven R. R. Co. v. Beach, .2 Hill, 260. Applied (Interest of husband in action of slander for words BEACH— BEACHAM. 57 spoken of his wife) in Gibson v. Gibson, 43 Wise. 23; s. c, 28 Am. P. 527. v. Bowery Ins. Co. See Herkimer v. Rice. v. Bradley, 8 Paige, 146. Explained (Necessity for joining a lunatic with his committee as a party in a suit affecting his real estate) in Gorham v. Gorham, 3 Barb. Ch. 24, 39. — — v. Child, 13 Wend. 343. Aff'd in 22 Id. 558. v. Cooke, 39 Barb. 360. AfTd in 28 N. Y. 508. Decision in 28 N. Y. disting'd and explained (Power of general term as to rendering judgment on appeal), in Cuff v. Dorland, 57 JST. Y. 560, 565. ■ T. Crain, 2 Barb. 120. Aff'd in 2 If. F. 86; s. c, 49 Am. Dee. 369, with note. Decision in 2 If. Y. disting'd (Recovery for breach of continuing covenant) in Schell v. Plumb, 55 If. Y. 592, 598; Jex v. Jacob, 19 Sun, 111 ; Reformed Prot. Dutch Church of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191. Dis- • ting'd and explained in Shaffer v. Lee, 8 s Barb. 412. Followed in Turner v. Had- den, 62 Barb. 482. Applied (Covenant to repair) in Myers v. Burns, 33 Barb. 406. Explained in Flynn v. Hatton, 43 Sow. Pr. 350. Included in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 493. Collated with other cases (Private rights of way) in Moalis UhderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 495. v. Endless, 51 Barb. 570. Disting'd (Cancellation of obligation) in Roe v. Con- way, 74 If. Y. 201, 206. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Cow. 485. Followed (Liability of corporation for conversion) in Fishkill Sav'gs Inst. v. National Bk. of Fish- kill, 80 If. Y. 162, 170. v. , 3 Wend. 573. Discussed (As- signment for benefit of creditors — doubtful and disputed claims), in Burrill on Assign. § 428, 4 ed. Approved (Defendants con- fined to grounds set up in answer) in Van Dyke v. Davis, 2 Mich. 150. . t. Fnrman, 9 Johns. 229. Disting'd (Power of justice to inquire into legality of assessment under 2 R. L. 272, § 9) from powers under 1 £. S. 510, § 42, in Rine- hart v. Young, 2 Lans. 354. v. Gray, 2 Den. 84. Examined and qual- ified (Recovery for use and occupation) in Hoffman v. Delihanty, 13 Abb. Pr. 388, 392. ■ v. Gregory, 2 Abb. Pr. 203. AfFd in 3 Id. 78; s. c, as Beach ». Raymond, 1 Hilt. 201. Opposed (Time to file excep- tions) in Bortle ■». Mellen, 14 Abb. Pr. 228. Approved (Effect of death of party) in Adams t>. Nellis, 59 How. Pr. 389. ■ y. Hollister, 3 Hun, 519; s. c, more fully, 5 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 568. See Goelet v. Gori. Disapproved (Effect of married woman's acts on tenancy by entire- ty) by Danfohth, Rapam,o and Mili.ek, JJ., in Meeker v. Wright, 76 If. Y. 262, 270. ■ Collated, with Rogers v. Benson, 5 Johns. 437; Jackson v. Stevens, 16 Johns. 110; Goelet t. Gori, 31 Barb. 314; Farmers' Bank v. Gregory, 49 Id. 155; Miller v. Miller, 9 Abb. Pr. 2f. S. 448; Freeman v. Barber, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 575, and other cases (Effect of conveyance to husband and wife) in 26 Am. P. 65, n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 3 Abb. If. C. 113. Revd in 14 Hun, 79; s. c, 4 Abb. N. C. 236. Decision in 14 Sun approved (Affidavit for examination before trial) in dissenting opinion of Dykman, .T., in Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Sun, 168. Disting'd. with Chapin v. Thompson, 16 Sun, 53; Crooke v. Corbin, 23 Id. 176, in Fogg v. Fisk, 30 Sun, 61. v. Nixon, 9 If. Y. 35. Collated (Estates on condition and conditional limitations), with other cases, in MeAdam Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 27. Collated (Summary proceedings) with other cases, in Id. § 260. T. Ranney, 2 Sill, 309. Followed with Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 If. Y. 54, and other cases (Slander — damages) in Gough v. Goldsmith, 44 Wis. 262; s. c, 28 Am. P. 579, 581. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 177, n. r. Collated, with other cases, in 1 Sare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 120. — v. Raritan, &c. B. B. Co., 37 If. Y. 457. See Beach v. Roberts. Disting'd (Proof of price paid, as evidence of value) in Jones «. Morgan, 24 Sun, 373, which was affd in 90 If. Y. 4, which see. Cited (Insulated telegram not proof of contract) in 1 Whart. Com. on En. § G17. Cited (Parol proof of written proposal, accepted by parol) in 2 Id. § 1016. r- v. Raymond. See Beach v. Gregory. Explained (Amendment of case) in O'Gor- man v. Kamak, 5 Daly, 517, 519. v. Reynolds, 64 Barb. 506. Aff'd in 53 If. Y. 1. Decision in 53 If. Y. followed (Revival of action) in Sober «. Fargo, 47. Sow. Pr. 288. Disting'd in Greene v. Martine, 21 Sun, 136, 138. Followed in Stewart v. James, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 366. Disting'd in Evans ». Cleveland, 72 N. Y. 486, 490. Explained in Coit v. Camp- bell, 82 If. Y. 509, 513. Compare Code Civ. Pro. % 544, 757. t. Smith, 28 Barb. 254. AfTd in 30 If. Y. 116. See Jenkins ». Union Turnpike Co. Explained and applied (Payment of stock subscription) in Excelsior Grain Binding Co. ■». Stayner, 25 San, 91, 94, 96; s. c, 61 Sow. Pr. 456, 459, 462. Disting'd in Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 367. Collated with other cases (Calls for subscrip- tion) in 1 Pedf. Am. Bailw. Cases, 198. v. Southworth, 6 Barb. 173. Followed (Power of court to amend defective under- taking) in Bellinger v. Gardiner, 12 Sow, Pr. 381. — - v. Wise, 1 Sill, 612. Not followed (Declarations of former owner of chose in action) in Williams v. Judy, 3 Gilm. {111.) 282; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 699, 701. Beacham v. Eckford. 2 Sandf. Ch. 116. See Johnson v. Ilartshorne. Followed and 58 BEADLE— BEARDSLEE. approved (Allowance of interest in taking partnership accounts) in Johnson v. Harts- home, 52 N.Y. 173; Buckingham?). Ludlura, 29 K J. Eq. 350; Gyger's Appeal, 62 Pa. 73 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 382, the case of Stoughton v. Lynch, 2 Johns. Ch. 209, being criticised as differing from rule in Dexter v. Arnold, 3 Mason, 289. Commented upon in i Colly er on Partn. % 351, Wood's Am. ed. Beadle v. Chenango Mutual Ins Co. See Baker ». Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. Beal v. Finch, 11 N. Y. 128. Explained (Defendant as witness for co-defendant) in . Blodgett v. Morris, 14 K Y. 482. Com- mented on in Montfort «. Hughes, 3 E. D. ■ Smith, 595. Criticised but followed in Lefever v. Brigham, 10 How. Pr. 385, . where, however, the practice suggested in Beal v. Finch, as to receiving testimony of parties de bene esse in doubtful cases, is con- demned. Explained, as ruling only upon the . admissibility of the witness, in Dean v. . Thornton, 13 K Y. 266. Beale v. Hayes, 5 Sandf. 640. Discussed (Liquidated damages) in 3 Pars, on Contr. , 161, n. h. v. Parish, 24 Barb. 243. Bev' d in 20 :N..Y. 407.. Decision in 20 N. Y. included i (Service of notice of protest) in 2 Ames Cases on B. & N. 411. Beales v. Finch, 9 How. Pr. 385; s. c, more fully, 11 N. Y. 128. Beats v. Allen, 18 Johns. 363; s. c, 9 Am. Lee. 221, with. note. See Haggerty v. Wil- ber. Applied (Authority of special agent) in Mangum ». Ball, 43 Miss. 288; s. c, 5 Am. P. 488. v. Benjamin, 29 How. Pr. 101. See, to the contrary (Time of application for extra . allowance) Clarke v. City of Rochester, 29 How. Pr. 97. . v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurnn, 1 E. D. Smith, 654. Superseded with. . Conklin . «. Wood, 3 Id. 662 (Correcting errors in no- tice of mechanic's lien) Hubbell v. Schreyer, 15 ^466. Pr. N. S. 304, being followed, and McElwee v. Sanfor^, 58 How. Pr. 89, not followed in . Leiegne.*. Schwarzler, 10 Daly, 547. Applied (Defective notice of lien) in Donnelly v. Libby, 1 Sweeny, 259, 275. v. Home Ins. Co., 36 Bark 614. Affd iu 36 K Y. 522. v. Guernsey, 8 Johns. 446; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 348, with note, containing citations. See Barrow ». Paxton ; Fullerton v. Viall. Reviewed and applied (Retention of pos- session by vendor) with Sturtevant v. Bal- lard, 9 Johns. 337; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 281, with note ; Dickenson ». Cook, 17 Johns. 334; Ludlow «. Hurd, 19 Id. 218; Bissell v. Hopkins, 3 Cow. 166; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 259, in Callen v. Thompson, 3 Yerg, (Tenn.) 475 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 587, with note. Approved (Purchase by one having notice of judgment) in Wickham v. Miller, 12 Johns. 324. v. Peck, 12 Barb. 245. Reported below, in 9 -ST. Y. Leg. ' Obs. 226. Approved and followed (Sufficient notice of dishonor) in Youngs v. Lee, 18. Barb. 187. . - v. Stewart, 6 Lans. 408, See Marshall v. Peters. See also (Rights in pond), Myer- v. Whitaker, 5 Abb. N. C. 172. Beamish v. Hoyt, 2 Robt. 307. Collated (Estate by curtesy — how affected by statute) with other cases, in Sharsw. & B. Cases on Real Prop. 2.89. .See Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. 508,522, which was rev'd in 2 Lans. 21. Beams, Mattel* of, 17 How. Pr. 459. Seein- accord therewith (Effect of ordinance of common council passed by one board in one . year and concurred in by another board in a succeeding year) Matter of Beekman, 19 How. Pr. 518. Followed (Application of- statute to assessments made prior to its pas- sage) in Matter of Treacy, 59 Barb. 525. Bean v. Edge, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 455. Aff'd in 84 N. Y. 510. y. Petting-Hl, 2 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 58. Aff'd in 7 Robt. 7. v. Reitway, 17 How. Pr. 90 ; s. c, as Bean v. Wells, 28 Barb. 466. Bear v. Snyder, 11 Wend. 592. See Reynolds i>. Reynolds. Compare to the contrary (Dower) Dunham v. Osborn, 1 Paige, 634 ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 5 Id. 161; Saffordu. Safford, 7 Id. 259; Matter of Cregier, 1 Barb. Ch. 598. Commented upon (Dower upon dower) in Sharsw. & B. Cases on Real Prop. 318. Commented upon in Washb. on Real. Pvop.- ■ 4 ed. 259, n. Referred to in Tyler Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 284, as overruled by Matter of Cregier. Beard v. City of Brooklyn, 31 Barb. 142. Disting'd (Negligent omission to collect assessment) in Richardson v. City of Brook- lyn, 34 Barb. 569, 577. v. Sinnott, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 51. Another decision in 38 Id. 536. v. Yates, 1 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) Add. 21, Further decision in 2 Hun, 466; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 76. Beards v. Wheeler. 11 Hun, 539. Appeal- dismissed in 76 K Y. 213. Decision in 76 iV". Y. explained as not authority against general tqrm's reviewing discretion in Rogers v. Ivers, 23 Htm, 424, 428. Beardslee v. Beardslee, 5 Barb, 324. Dis- cussed (Dower— eviction of husband during coverture by title. paramount, or entry for breach of condition) in 1 Washb. on Real P. 4 ed. 257. v. Richardson, 11 Wend. 25; s. c, 11 A\ Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1009, with brief note ; s. c. 25 Am. Dec. 596, with note. Followed with Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 271 (Proof of bailee's negligence) in Wilson v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 62 Cat. 164. Applied in Beck- man v. Shousn, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 179; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 653, 656,, with note. Discussed in Ang. on Can: § 38, 5 ed. Cited, with other authorities, in 1 Tayl. on Ev. 529, as showing extreme application of doctrine of res gestm. BEAKDSLEY— BECK. 59 Beardsley v. Dickerson, iHoio. Pr. 81. See Barnard «. Wheeler. Explained (Time of motion to change place of trial) with Myers v. Feeter, Id. 240; Schenck v. McKie, Id. 246, in Mixer «. Kuhu, Id. 409 ; s. c, 3 Code R. 106. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 986, 7i. v. Maj liard, 4 Wend. 336. Affd in 7 7. Penn. R. R. Co., 71 Perm. St. 432; s. c, 10 Am. E. 711, 718, with note. v. Bank of N. Y., 1 Johns. 529. See Stafford v. Van Rensselaer. Overruled, in part, with Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 441 ; Livingston v. Dean, Id. 479 ; James v. Morey, 2 Cow. 246 ; (Equity of assignee) in Bush v. Lathrop, 22 JST. Y. 53o, 539, 541. Explained and followed in Booth v. Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank, 4 Lans. 301, 308. v. Bull, 12 TTewZ..504; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 100, with note, containing citations. BEEBE— BEEKMAN. 61' v. Dowd, 22 Barb. 255. Followed (What matter may be set up In answer) in Itcimer ®. Doerge, 61 Horn. Pr. 143. '■ T. Estabrook, 11 Ilun, 523. Affd in 79 K Y. 246. — r- v. Hutton, 47. Barb. 187. See New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Quintard. Disapproved (Admissibility of unstamped instrument in evidence) in Sehermerhorn v. Burgess, 38 How. Pr. 123. Disapproved [citing Vorbeck v. Roe, 50 Barb. 302], in New Ilavea & Northampton Co. v. Quin- tard, 6 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 128; s. c. 37 How. Pr. 29. Commented on (Effect of act of Mar. 24, 1867) in Miller '«. Larmon, 38 How. Pr. 417. See, however, People ex rel. Barbour r>. Gates, 43 If. Y. 40. Followed in Dailey v. Coker, 33 Tex. 815; s. c, 7 Am. R. 279; Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 Arh. 398; s. c, 7 Am. R. 623. Relied on with New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Quintard, 37 Row. Pr. 28 ; Vorebeck *. Roe, 50 Barb. 302; Howe v. Carpenter, 53 Id. 382, and other cases, in Rheinstrom v. Cone, 2G Wis. 163; s. c, 7 Am. It. 48. v. Johnson, 19 Wend. 500. See Harmony v. Bingham; Oakley r>. Morton. Applied (Non-performance of express condi- tion in contract) in Wheeler v. Conn. Mut Life Ins., 82 If. Y. 543, 551. y. Kenyon, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 271. See (Order for payment in supple- mentary proceedings) Code Cio. Pro. 1881, § 2450, n. v. Mead, 33 If. 7. 587. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 766, as to the nature of a factor's lien. v. Pyle, 1 Abb. If. C. 412. Affd in 71 If. Y. 20. Decision in 1 Abb. If. C. not fol- lowed (Effect of composition in bankruptcy) in Ilewes v. Rand, 129 Mass. 523. v. Robert, 12 Wend.ilS; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 132, with note, containing citations. Reviewed and reconciled, with other N. Y. cases (Implied warranty on sale by sam- ple) in 32 Am. Dec. 439, n. See 27 Am. Dec. 166, n. Beeclier v. Allen, 5 Barb. 109. Overruled in Kundolf v. Thalheimer, 12 K Y. 593, as to "cases," as used in If. Y. Const. 1846, art. 0, § 14, subd. 4, being synonymous with "actions." v. Conradt, 13 If. Y. 108. Explained (Contract —performance) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1086, n. o, 11 Am. ed. Reported in 2 LangdelVs Cos. on Contr. 2 ed. 767. r. Crouse, 1 9 Wend. 306. See McDowl v. Charles. Followed (Guardian in socage) in Sylvester v. Ralston, 31 Barb. 286, 289. See McCray v. McCray, 30 Id. 633. Ex- plain! d (Action for intermeddling with rents and profits) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 1.96. Beeoker v. Beecker, 7 Johns. 99; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 262, with brief note on devisees' liability for legacies. Also reported in 5 Am. Dec. 246, with note, containing citations. See Livingston v. Livingston. Explained with "Van Orden v. Van Orden, 10 Johns. 30; Tole v. Hardy, 6 Cow. 333. as not preventing an action at law, —in Gridley v. Gridley, 24 If. Y. 130, 134.- v. Vrooman, 13 Johns. 302; Grant v. Button, 14 Id. 377. Reviewed, with other cases (Showing partial failure of considera- tion in mitigation of damages) in Peden -». Moore, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 71; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 649. See also IS Am. Dec. 378, n. Beekman's Petition, 19 Abb. Pr. 245. Affd, but ground of decision in part overruled, in 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 449. Beekntan, Matter of. See Beams, Matter of. Beekmau v. Bemus, 7 Cow. 30. Rev'd in. 3 Wend. 667. v. Bond, 19 Wend. 444. Overruled (Effect of retention of possession by vendor, &c.) in Smith v. Acker, 23 Id. 653. i v. Bonsor, 23 If. Y. 298, affg Beekman v. People, 27 Barb. 260. See argument of counsel in an appendix to 23 N. Y. See Downing v. Marshall; Shotwell v. Mott; Williams v. Williams. Decision in 23 If. Y. explained (Charitable uses) in Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y. 120. Followed in Bascom v. Albertson, 34 If. Y. 590; Clemens®. Clem- ens, 37 If. Y. 70 ; Heiss v. Murphy, 40 Wise. 276; Pringle ■». Dorsey, 3 S. C. 502. Cited from in Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Penn. St. 465 ; s. c, 3 Am. li. 558. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 409, n. Com- mented upon in 3 Washb. on R. P. 4 ed. 519", a. Collated with other cases in Gerard Titles to Real Est. 2 ed. 296 ; Id. 303. Explained (Trustee — whether able to renounce) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 259, n. 1. Limited (Power, when invalid as suspending power of alienation) in Blanchard v. Blanchard, 4 Hum, 287, 291. Applied in Garvey «. McDevitt, 11 LTun, 461. Applied (Trust to receive rents and profits) in Verdin t>. Slocum, 9 Hun, 152. Applied (Bequest of residue, of residue) in Kerr v. Dougherty, 79 If. Y. 346. V. Frost, 18 Johns. 544; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 246, with note, wherein it is referred to (Recording deeds) as similar to Terrell v. Andrew County, 44 Mo. 309, and contrary to Mims v. Mims, 35 Ala. 23. Compare Ilcister's Lessee ». Fortner, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 40;" s. c, 4 Am. Dee. 417, with note. See Gelston v. Hoyt. Disting'd in Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472; s. c, 2 Am. R. 533, 530 ; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. If. G. 381, 391. Reviewed in Sawyer v. Adams, 8 Verm. 172; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 459. v. Gibbs, 8 Paige, 511. Followed (Decree of sale in foreclosure) in Barnes «. Stoughton, 10 Hun, 14, 10. y. Hale, 17 Johns. 134. Sea Moakeley v. Riggs; Stafford v. Low. Collated with other cases (Consideration for guaranty), in' 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 102. Collated with other cases (Conditional guar- anty) in Id. 108. v. Kirk, 15 How. Pr. 228. See Moody 0^ BEEKMAK— BEISIEGEL. 0. Townsend. Followed (Statement of in- debtedness in confession of judgment) in Claflin v. Sanger, 31 Barb. 36; — — v. Lansing', 3 Wend. 446. Reviewed and. approved (Sufficiency of levy) in Quack- cnbush b. Henry, 42- Mich. 79; Camp v. Chamberlain, 5 Den. 198, being also relied . on. Disting'd in Rodgers v. Bonner. 55 Bart. 9, 24. Explained (Notice of rent due, under 1 R. 8. 746, § 12) in Bussing v. Bush- . nell, 6 Hilt, 383. - — v. People, 27 Bark 260. Aff d as Beek- man v. Bonsor^ in 23 If. Y. 298. See Ayres v. Meth. Episc. Church. Decision in 27 • Barb, sustained (Restrictions upon gifts by will to benevolent, &c. societies) and Law- rence n. Elliott, 3 Bed/.' 235, overruled, in . Stephenson v. Short, 92 If. Y. 433. t. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co., : 3 Pal 45; s. c, 22-^to. Dec. «79, with ex- tended note, wherein it is said to be re- ■ garded as a leading authority. See Gardner , v. Trustees of Ncwburgh; Livingston «. . Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Eminent domain) in Clarke v. City of Rochester, '5 . Abb. Pr. 124: Cited as recognized in § 18 of general, railroad act, in Ellicottville, &c. Plank Road Co. ■». Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 20 Barb. 650. Followed in Bloodgood v. . Mohawk & H. R, R. Co., 14 Wend. 58; 18 Id. 13; Hartwell v.- Armstrong, 19 Barb. 169. Followed with Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 14 Wend. 51 ; in White- i man's Exec'x u. Wilmington & ■ Susque- hanna R. R. Co., 2 Harr.(Del.)5U; s. c, • 33 Am. Dec. 411, 418, with note. Followed , with Varick. v.- Smith, 5 Paige, 159; Tay-- . lor d.: Porter, A Hill, 140; Matter of Albany i Street, 11 Wend. 149 ; in Witham v. Osburn, .4 Or. 318; s. c, 18 Am. B. 287. Referred . to in Stewart©. Supervisors of Polk County, •SO Iowa, 9; s. c, 1 Am. B. 238, 246,. 248, 250, 251, 252, as the leading American case . on the subject Cited and criticised in Whiting v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac. R. . R. Co., 25 Wis. 167; s. c, 3 Am. B. 30, 38. Approved in West River Bridge Case, 6 How. (JJ. S.) 507. Quoted in Couley on Const. Limita. 5 ed. 649, n. 1. Applied (What constitutes franchise, in Davis v. Mayor, &e. of-N. Y., 14 If.- Y. 523; Dela- • ware & Hudson C. Co. v.- Lawrence, 9 Hun, 193. Disting'd (Evidence of public use) in Matter of Dcansvillo Cemetery Assoc, Giilf. Y. 572. Relied on (Extent of legislative con- trol over railroads) in Railroad Commr's v. Portland & Oxford Central R. R. Co., 63 Me. 2G9; s. c, 18 Am. It. 208, 213. Fol- lowed as to compensation, in Livingston -». Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 8 Wend. 101. Followed and approved in Blake v. Winona & St. Peter R. R. Co., 19 Minn. 418; s. c, 18 Am. B. 345, 350. Quoted (Action for refusal by carrier to transport individual passenger) in Ang. on Garr. § 525, ji, 2, 5 ed. v. Sntterlee, 5 Cow. 519. Commented on (Statute of limitations — judicial process) ' in Angell on Limita. § 312, 6 ed. Qnes=- ■ tioned, in Jackson v. Brooks, 14 Wend. 649. Bookman Street, Matter of, 20 Johns, 269.- See Matter of Albany Street. Approved ' With Stafford v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 7- Id. 541; Matter of Third Street. 6 Cow. 571; Matter of Canal Street, ll Wend. 154; Matter of Mt. Morris Square, 2 Hill, 14, in Striker®. Kelly, 2 Den. 323, as to court acting as commissioners.- Said, in People v. Common Council of Syracuse, 20 How. Pr. 491, 494, not to have been overruled, as to the power to discontinue, by later cases. Disting'd in Matter of Washington Park, 56 If. Y. 144, 155. , 4 Bradf. 503, Collated (Rights of burial) . with other cases, in 21 Am. L. Reg. 512, re; Commented on (Legal control of dead body) as holding doctrine that prevails in most of the States, — in article by Francis King Carev on " The disposition of the Body afterDeath," 19 Am. L. Rev. 263. Beers', Ex parte. See Brinckerhoof «: Remseri. Bears v. Hendrickson, 6 Robt. 53. Modified in 45 N. Y. -665. See (Acknowledgment of - satisfaction of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1260, n. v. Phoenix Glass Co. See Partridge *. r>. Badger. -^—^ t. Reynolds, 12 Bafb. 288. Affdiirll- N. Y. 97. - — t. Shannon, 12 Him, 161. Rev'd in 73 ; If. Y. 292. Decision in 73 AT. F, disting'd (Omission of word "as" after name of- plaintiff suing in. Largent, 5 Neb. 223; s. c, 25 Am. B. 479. Followed in Scofield v. Ford, 56 Iowa, 370. Collated with other cases, in 14 Am. Dec. 232, ~n. Followed (Memorandum on note, as part of it) in Grimison v. Russell, 14 Neb. 521 ; s. c, 45 Am. B.120. Applied in Cushingc. Field, 70 Me. 50; s. c, 35 Am. R. 293, 295. Disting'd in Overbaugh ■». Van Pelt, 10 Weekly Dig. 9. v. De Groot, 45 How. Pr. 384. Fully reported in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 125. - — v. Dixon, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 379. Appeal dismissed in 86 N. Y. 640. Subse- quent decision in 47 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 477. Decision in 47 Super. Ct. disting'd (Recovery of damages caused by injunction) in Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y. v. Scott, 31 Hun, 301. V. Field, 4 Duer, 154. AfTd in 16 N. Y. 595. See Kelty v. Second Nat. B'k. Decision in 16 N. Y. followed (Note or bill taken for debt) in Kipp v. Munroe, 18 How. Pr. 383; Bruce v. Burr, 5 Daly, 510. Quoted and collated with other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 304. v. Oilman, 4 Paige, 58. Approved (Action for strict foreclosure) in Ross v. Boardman, 22 Hun, 5.31. Applied (Rights of purchaser at foreclosure sale) in Smith v. Gardner, 42 Barb. 367. Applied in dis- senting opinion of Mullen, J., in Gage v. Brewster, 31 N. Y. 224. Applied (Remedy of judgment creditor after foreclosure) by Porter, Senator, in Posts. Arnot, 2 Den. 352. Approved in Wetmore v. Roberts, 10 How. Pr. 55. Followed in Brainard v. Cooper, 10 N. Y. 362. Followed (Allowance for improvements) in Miokles v. Dillaye, 17 N. Y. 86. Explained by Emott, J., dissent- ing, in Dows b. Congdon, 28 N. Y. 132. Applied (Deduction from interest in surplus moneys) in Raynor v. Solmes, 52 N. Y. 579, 582. Disting'd (Right of one who has not been made party to foreclosure suit, to redeem) in Peabody v. Roberts, 47 Barb. 100. Followed with Vroom v. Ditmas, 4 Paige, 526, in Bradley «. Snyder, 14 111. 263; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 464; Benedict d. Gilman, being also followed (Allowance for improvements). Followed (Liability of party redeeming, for costs of foreclosure) in Vroom v. Ditmas, 4 Paige, 531. v. Goit, 3 Barb. 459. See Bellinger a. N. Y. Central R. R.- Co. ; Williams v, N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Distinguished and limited (Effect of converting highway into turnpike) in Craig v. Rochester City & Brighton R. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 404. BENEDICT—BENNETT. 67 ' T. Harlow, 5 How. Pr. 347. See Mc- , Dowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Approved (Attorney's right defeated by settlement) in Pulwr ». Harris, 62 Barb. 500, 505. v. Howard, 31 Barb. 509. Disting'd (Conversion as between tenants in common) in Osborn v. Schenck, 83 iV. Y. 201, 206. v. Huntington, 32 N. Y. 219, 227. See Brigham v. Tillinghast. Collated with other cases (Assignment lor benefit of creditors — directions as to time of sale) in Bishop on Assign. § 209. Discussed (Terms of sale) in Burrill on Assign. % 224, 4 ed. ■ v. Lansing, 5 Den. 283. Explained (Private corporations — agents) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 298, 11 ed. : v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Gh. 370; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 484. See Clason «. Bailey; Ellis v. Hoskins ; Hatch v. Cobb ; Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt. Overruled (Enforcing agree- ment not mutual) in McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460 ; Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484. Also dissented from in Matter of Hunter, 1 Edw. Gh. 1 ; Woodward v. Aspinwall, 3 Sandf. 2T2. Disapproved in Old Colony R.R. ■v. Evans, 6 Gray, 25. Followed (Time, when of essence of contract) in Rogers v. Saunders, 16 'Me. 92; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 635, 640, with note; Lewis v. Woods, 4 How. {Miss.) 86 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 110, with note. Approved in Pom. on Sp. Per/. § 390, n. Said, in 7 Am. Dec. 492, n., not to be fol- . lowed generally now, on its doctrine as to the necessity of mutuality in a contract for the purpose of specific performance ; but see many citations of the case by courts of other States as to time being of the essence of a contract. v. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. 298. Approved (Statements of actions and defenses) in Lippeneott v. Goodwin, 8 How. Pr. 242 ; Gooding v. McAlister, 9 Id. 123. See in accord (Abolition of curtesy by laws of 1848, 1849) Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. 508, 522, which was rer'd in 2 Lans. 21, which see. v. Stuart, 23 Barb. 420 ; Ogden v. Des • Arts, 4 Duer, 283. Cited as authorities (Champerty) in Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51; s. c, 27 Am. li. 314, with note. See Sedg- wick . Green, 2 Bed/. 408, 410. v. American Art Union, 5 Sandf. 614. See City of Utica v. Churchill ; Kennedy v. Strong. See also People v. African Art Union, 7 II. Y. 240. Commented upon (What constitutes lottery) in 1 Add. on. Contr. 1158, n., Abb. ed. v. Austin, 5 Han, 536. Motion to dis- miss appeal after new trial denied in 10 Hun, 451. Plaintiff's recovery on new trial again modified by disallowing the $22,000 item, in 81 N. Y. 308, which superseded decision in 9 Weekly Dig. 308. v. Brooke. In case of this name, re- argument ordered in Ct. of App. Nov. 22, 1881. See affirmance in 87 K Y. 619. 68 BENNETT. T. Brown, 4 K Y. 254; s. c, 1 Code R. K S. 2(57. See Van Kirk v. Wilds. Further decision holding defendant liable, in 20 ST. Y. 90; aff'g 31 Barb. 158. Decision in 4 jV! Y. collated with other cases (At- tachment — non-residence) in Throop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 20. Followed (Liability for costs covered by undertaking) in Hinckley ■b. Kreitz, 36 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 413, 424, which was rev'd in 58 JST. Y. 583, 587, which see. v. Bnchan, 53 Barb. 578; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 412. ■ Modified in effect on further decision in 61 N. Y. 222. Further decis- ion in 76 K Y. 386. See Holden v. N. Y. & Erie B'k. ■ v. Byrne, 2 Barb. Ch. 216. Applied (Wishes of deceased parent as to guardian- ship of child to be considered) in Burmester v. Orth, 5 Red/. 259, 202. - — T. Cook, 43 N. Y. 537. See Cole «. Jessup. Followed (Computation of time under statute of limitations) in case of non- resident) in Bell v. Lamprey, 57 TV. H 168. Collated, with other cases, in Throop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 185. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §401, n. v. Erving, 4 Robt. 671, See. (Place of trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 982, n. v. Garloch, 10 Hun, 328. Rev' d in 79 ■N. Y. 302; s. c, 35 Am. R. 517. v. Hull, 10 Johns. 364; Jackson v. Covert, 5 Wend. 141 ; Crookshank v. Burrill, 18 Johns. 57; Sewall v. Fitch, 8 Cow. 215 ; Robertson v. Vaughan, 5 Sandf. 1 ; Brown v. Winan, 10 Barb. 406; Donovan v. Wilson, 26 Id. 138; Parker v. Schenck, 28 Id. 30; Mead v. Case, 33 Id. 202 ; Downs v. Ross, 23 Wend. 270. Collated in Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294; s. c, 2 Am, R. 218, 222, as illustrating the rule said to prevail in N. Y., that a contract for the sale of goods not in existence, is a contract for work and labor, and not within the statute of frauds, this rule being said, however, to exclude from the operation of the statute a large class of cases that are within its mischiefs. v. Ingersoll, 24 Wend. 113. Limited (Issues on appeal fron justice's decision) in Wood v. Randall, 5 Bill, 204. i v. Judson, 21 N. Y. 238. See Mead v. Bunn. Limited (Liability for fraudulent representations) in Craig v. Ward, 3 Keyes, 387; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 235. Followed in Kennedy v. Thorp, 3 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 136. Disting'd in Popes. Ilart, 35 Barb. 637; Bin- nard v. Spring, 42 Barb. 477; Oberlander v. Spiess, 45 Jf. Y. 178; Morehouse i>. Yeager, 41 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 147. Doubted in Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27, 33, which affd AiBarb. 498, which see. Doubted as ex- treme, — in Weed «. Case, 55 Barb. 548. Ex- plained in Marsh v. Falker, 40 K Y. 562. Referred to in Indianapolis, Peru, &c. R'y Co. ». Tyng, 4 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 531; s. c, 2 Hun, 311 ; 48 How. Pr. 193, 201, as having been modified in its doctrine. Re- ferred to in Van Vliet v. McLean, 23 Hun, 208, as having been explained and questioned by the Court of Appeals. Followed in Sharp v. Mayor, &c. of iv~. Y, 25 How. Pr. 389, 392, as holding what is settled law. Followed in Brown v. Turtle, 66 Barb. 169, 174; but see Meyer v. Amidon, 45 IT. Y. 169, 174. Followed in Foot v. Mtna. Life Ins. Cp., 4 Daly, 294. Compared and dis- cussed in Livingston v. Keeeh, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 555. Relied on in Cabot v. Christie, 42 Vt. 121; s. c, 1 Am. R. 313. Referred to in Rolfes v. Russell, 5 Oreg. 400, as overruled, or, at least, severely criti- cised in several later decisions in N. Y. Explained with Craig v. Word, 36 Barb. 377, in Marshall «. Gray, 57 Barb. 414; Craig v. Ward being said to be based on Bennett v. Judson. Also explained and lim- ited in Chester v. Comstock, 6 Robt. 22, which was affd in 40 K Y. 575, n., which see. Cited in 2 Am. Dec. 79, a., as clearly deter- mining liability for fraudulent representa- ' tions as to location of land. Disting'd (Lia- bility for wrongful act of agent) in Baldwin v. Burrows, 47 N. Y. 215; Hathaway v. John- son, 55 K Y. 93, 96. Disting'd in dissent- ing opinion of Gjlbert, J., in Chester v. Dickerson, 52 Barb. 366. Explained and re- conciled with Condit v. Baldwin, 21 N. Y. 219,— in Smith v. Tracy, 36 JST. Y. 79. Appllied in Sherman v. Smith, 42 How. Pr. 198; Stewart v. Strasburger, 51 How. Pr. 400. Applied to contract made by officers of corporation, — in Alexander v. Brown, 9 Hun, 647. Referred to as unquestionably sound, in Estevez v. Purdy, 6 Hun, 46, a case of usury. Applied in Krumm v. Beach, 25 Hun, 293, 296. Relied on with Elwell v. Chamberlain, 4 Bosw. 320; 31 N. Y. 611; Crans v. Hunter, 28 N. Y. 389, in MundorfE v. Wickersham, 63 Penn. St. 87; s. c, 3 Am. It. 531. Quoted and explained in 1 Bish. on Mar. & D. % 173, n. 4, 6 ed. Quoted and commented upon in Bigel. Gases on Torts, 24. Applied (Supplying defect in pleading) in Morton v. Pinckney. 8 Bosw. 138. v. Lake, 47 -iV. Y. 93. Relied on (Power to allow amendments of pleadings; upon motion) in Hochstetter r>. Isaacs, 44 How. Pr. 495. v. Leach, 25 Hun, 178. Discussed (Judgment against tenant in ejectment, whether binding upon landlord) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 537.' v. Pratt, 4 Den. 275. Cited (Necessity that consideration appear in memorandum required by statute of frauds) as sustaining English doctrine, — in Benj. on Sales, § 232) n. n. (4 Am. ed.). v. McGiiire, 5 Lans. 183; s. c, more fully, 58 Barb. 625. See (Discontinuance of supplementary proceedings) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 2454, n. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 599. Aff'd in 69 K Y. 594; s. c, 25 Am. It. 250. See Townsend v. Same. v. North British, &c. Ins. Co., 8 Daly, BENNETT— BEEG. 69 471. AfTd in 81 if Y. 273. Decision in 81 N. Y. followed (Waiver of condition in policy against use of oils) in Couch v. Rochester German Fire Ins. Co., 25 Hun, 469, 471. v. Scntt, 18 Barb. 347. See Bank of Lansingburg v. Crary ; Pierrepout v. Barn- ard. Followed (Nature of license to cut timber) with Pierrepont v. Barnard, 6 N. Y. 279, in Jenkins «. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148; s. c, 45 Am. R. 19. Compare Ilobbs v. Wether- wax, 38 Bow. Pr. 385. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 34, n. w. v. Tansyckel, 4 Duer, 462. Appeal dis- missed in 18 N. Y. 481. See Glackiu v. Zel- ler. Followed (One taking renewal of a lease when to be considered as holding it as trustee) I in Davis v. Hamlin, 108 111. 39; s. c, 48 Am. R. 541. Decision in 18 if Y. followed (Waiver of right to appeal) in Knapp v. Brown, 45 if Y. 207 ; s. a, 11 All. Pi: if S. 118, 123. Disting'd in Barker v. White, ' 58 if Y. 204, 210. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1294, n. Bensel v. Gait, 2 Hun, 678 ; s. c, in full, 5 Sufm. Ct. (T. & O.) 186. Collated with other cases (What cases are referable), in 1 All. if 0. 109, n. T. Gray, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 447. Overruled in effect (Contract for sale of tax leases) in 62 if Y. 632. Further decision in 44 Super. Gt. (J. & &.) 372, which was aff'd in 80 N. Y. 517. Bensell v. Lynch, 2. Bolt. 448. Affd in 44 if Y. 162. Decision in 44 if Y. cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 828, as showing when, for evidential purpose, portions of a record may be admitted. Benseu v. Perry, 11 Hun, 16. AfFd, it seems, in 77 if. Y. 625, but no opinion. Benson, Exp., 6 Cow. 593 ; People o. Judges of Madison, 7 Id. 423. See Ex, parte Davis. Explained (As not authorities refusing judgment for costs on dismissing action for , want of jurisdiction) in King v. Poole, 36 Barb. 242, 249. Benson v. Berry, 55 Earl. 620. Questioned (Levy on property in custody of another officer) in Jones Stat. & P. Co. v. Case, 26 Hans. 299 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 310. v. Cromwell. See Hall v. Nelson. ; v. Le Koy, 4 Johns. Ch. 651. Disting'd (Trust, when created by charge upon land devised) in Dill v. Wisner, 23 Hun, 127. ■ v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 10 Barb. 223, 245. See Brittou v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y. Approved with Hegeman ». Western E. B. Co., 16 Id. 353 (Police power of State) in Davidson o. State, 4 Tex. Ct. App. 545; s. c, 30 Am. R. 166. Quoted in Gooley on Const. Limita. 5 ed. 712, n. 1. Explained (Rights of N. Y. City in ferries) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Staten Island Ferry Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. 6 S.) 232. Reviewed (Effect of legislative enactment on municipal property) in Dar- lington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 if. Y. 202. Commented upon (Legislative enact- ment—when to be declared uuconstitutional) in Cooley on Const. Limita. 5 ed. 199. Ex- plained (Contracts as affected by State laws) in 3 Pars, on Contr. 530, n. h. v. Snares, 28 How. Pr. 511; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 61. Quoted and explained (Lia- bility for injury resulting from condition of dilapidated building) in Wood on Nuisances, 2 ed. §§ 118, 119. Limited (Liability of lessor for injury resulting from condition of premises) in Clancy v. Byrne, 56 N. Y. 129, 135. v. Tilton, 24 How. Pr. 494. Said in 41 if. Y. 619, to have been aft'd in Court of Appeals, December, 1869. Bentley v. Columbia Ins. Co., 19 Barb. 595. Affd in 17 if Y. 421. v. Jones, 4 How. Pr. 335; s. c, 3 Code R. 37. Disapproved (Distinction between judgment and order) in Smith v. Lewis, 1 Daly, 452. See, in accord therewith, as to decision on demurrer King v. Stafford, 5 How. Pr. 30; Id. 127. But see Nellis v. Do Forrest, 6 Id. 413, 417. v.' Morse, 14 Johns. 468; s. c, 5 JST. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 944, wUh brief note. Disting'd (Moral obligation, as support for promise) in Gier v. Archer, 2 Barb. 420, 425. Benton v. Martin, 31 if Y. 382. Further decision in 40 H. Y. 345. Both decisions explained and disting'd as to the effect of the duplicate draft, in further decision in 52 if Y. 570, which rev'd 3 Alb. L. J. 212. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. ; People v. Bostwick. Decision in 52 if. Y. applied ' (Parol evidence of conditions) jn McCulloch v. Hoffman, 10 Hun, 133. 136. Disting'd in Willset). Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242, 244; Bull's Head B'k v. Koehler, 1 City Ct. 272. Col- lated with Seymour v. Cowing, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 400, among other cases in Weste- man v. Krumweide, 15 A'orthw. Rep. 256. v. Pratt, 2 Wend. 385. Denied ( Damages for fraud) in Rice v. Manley, 2 Hun, 492 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 14, as over- ruled by Dung v. Parker, 52 if Y. 494. Approved, however, in Rice v. Manley, 66 2f. Y. 85, which rev'd 2 Hun, 492. Relied on in March v. Wilson, Busb. L. {N. C.) 147. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 647 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Wickwire, 54 if Y. 226. Disting'd (Mechanics' lien) in Fox v. Kidd, 77 if Y. 489, 492. Explained (Personal judgment in proceedings to enforce mechanic's lien) in Burroughs v. Fosteran, 2 Abb. if G. 333, 340. Bcrdan T. Sedgwick, 40 Barl. 359. Aff'd in 44 if T. 626. Bcrdell v. Berdell, 58 How. Pr. 102; s. c, more fully, as Berdell v. Parkhurst, 19 Hun, 358. Decision on reversal of order for examination before referee reported in 86 K Y. 519. Berg v. Narragansett S. S- Co., 5 Daly, 395. Followed (Exoneration of carrier by delivery to connecting lines) in Weil v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 7 Daly, 456, 460. 70 BERGEN— BEERY. Bergen t. Bennett, 1 Cai. Cos. 1; s. c, 2 Am. Dee. 281, with note, where it is shown to have been extensively cited and indorsed as an authority on the subject of powers, both in the Federal courts and elsewhere. See Conklin v. Egerton ; Davoue «. Fanning. Followed (Continuance of power of sale contained in mortgage) with Wilson v. Troup, 2 Cow. 236; s. c, 14 Am. Dee. , 458 ; Slee v. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige, 178, in Niles «. Eansford, 1 Mich. 838; s. c, 51 Am. Dee. 95, 97, with note. Followed (Effect of execution by executor of power to sell real estate) in Braman v. Stiles, 2 Pick (Mass.) 460 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 445. v. Bradley, 3G JT. Y. 316. Followed (Appeal to court of appeals, where new trial has been denied below) in Coleman v. Pleystead, 40 JT. Y. 341. — *— v. Carman, 79 N. Y. 146 ; s. c, as Ber- gen v. Snedeker, 8 Abb. JT. C. 50; rev'g Snedeker v. Snedeker, 18 Hun, 355. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bowen ; Snedeker ». Snedeker. Decision in 79 JT. Y. dis- ting'd (Appealability of General Term or- der) in Matter of N. Y., "West Shore, &c. R'y Co., 94 JT. Y. 287. v. Gnlnia, 10 Eun, 11. Cited (Form of town resolution) in People ex rel. Murphy «. Kelly, 5 Abb. JT. O. 383, ». v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 5 Eun, 243. See (Power to appoint attendants for police , courts) Brinck «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 Eun, 340. v. Snedeker. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. s. Bowen ; Snedeker s. Snedeker. v. Wyckoff, 84 JT. Y. 659. Reported in full in 1 Gin. Pro: R. {Browne) 1. v. Duff, 4 Johns. Oh. 368. Reorganized as authority (Delegation of naked power to sell in May v. Frazee, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 391 ; s. c, HAm. Dec. 159, 167, with note. Bergh's Case. Contempt, N. Y. general sessions, 1875. Present't, letter, briefs, in one volume at State Library in Albany. Reportedin 16 ^466. Pr.JT.S. 206. Collated (Constructive contempts) with Hall v. L'PIatinier, 49 Eoio. Pr. 500 ; Albany City Bank v. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige, 372 ; Bowery Savings Bank v. Richards, 3 Eun, 366; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 59 ; Par- ker v. Browning, 8 Paige, 388, 390 ; Sea Ins. Co. v. Stcbbins, Id. 565; People v. Church, 2 Wend. 262, in note to State v. Frew &Kart, 24 W. Va, 416; s. c, 19 Gent. L. J. 93. Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Jnillard, 13 Eun, 506. Aff'd in 75 N. Y. 535; s. c, 31 Am. R. 438. Decision in 75 JT. Y. cited (Liability of a partnership in case of credit given to individual members thereof) in Story on Partn. (7ed.) § 134, n. Berlin v. Hall, 48 Barb. 442. Doubted (Statute of limitations as defense, in pro- ceedings against joint debtor under Code Pro. § 375) in Gibson v. Van Derzeo, 14 Abb. Pr. JT. 8. 111. Berley v. Rampacher, o Duer, 183. . Col- lated with other cases (Effect of married women's acts on liability of husband for wife's debts contracted while sole) in Cole ii. Seeley, 25 Vt. 220; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 258, n. Berly v. Taylor, 5 EM, 581. See Putnam v. Wise. Referred to in 17 Am. Dee. 244, n., as opposed (Waiver of wrong committed in removal of chattels) to the general current of the adjudications. Examined and approved (Delivery of goods to the use of another) in Sturtevant v. Orscr, 24 if. Y. 538, 542. Bernard v. Willcox, 2 Johns. Gas. 374. Disting'd (Proof of death of partner in action by surviving partner to recover a debt due the firm) in Ledden v. Colby, 14 JT. E 33; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 173, with note. Berner v. Mittnaeht, 2 Sweeny, 582. Fol- lowed (Discrediting witness) in Burvee «. People, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 60. Denies v. Weisser, 2 Bradf. 212. Cited (Judgment entered after death of debtor on verdict rendered before, entitled to priority) in Matter of Dunn, 5 Redf. 27, 31. Bernhard v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 18 Eow. Pr. 427. Rev'd in 32 Barb. 165; s. c, 19 Eow. Pr. 199 ; and that aff'd in 23 Id. 166 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Gt. App, Dec. 131. Decision in 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. followed (Negligence in crossing railroad) in Thurber ». Harlem, &c. R. R. Co., -60 JT. Y. 326, 331. Followed and approved in Ernst v. Hudson River R. R.' Co., 35 JT. Y. 40. Followed (Submission of question of negligence to jury) in Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. R., &c. Co., 2 Daly, 467 ; Weber v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 58 JT. Y. 455; Burke v. Broadway & Seventh Ave. R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 534. Applied in Wilde v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 23 Eow. Pr. 495. Berrien v. Steel, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 279, n. ; s. c, 62 Eow. Pr. 335. n. Followed (Hus- band's liability for torts of wife) in Fitz- simons v. Harrington, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 360, 362. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 450, n. v. McLane. See Evans v. Ellis. v. Westervelt, 12 Wend. 194. To the contrary (Amending affidavit in replevin) Cutler v. Rathbone, 1 Dili, 204 ; Stacy «. Farnham, 2 Eow. Pr. 26 (which see below) : Spalding «. Spalding, 3 Id. 297. Disting'd in People ex rel. Beller v. Wright, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 518, 521. Berry, Matter of, 26 Barb. 55. Followed (Effect of security on appeal upon levy) in Rathbone v. Morris, 9 Abb. Pr. 213, 214. Berry v. Cross, 3 Sandf. Gh. 1. Consult (Voluntary associations) Ebbinghousen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. C. 300. v. Kelly, 4 Robt. 106. Applied (Attach- ment against partnership goods) inDoane®. Lindsay, 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 399, 408. v. Mutual Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 603. See Brinckerhoff v. Lansing; Rockwell v. Hobby. Relied on, with other cases, in Probasco v. Johnson, 2 Dim. (Ohio) 98, to show that the weight of authority is against BERTHELON— BETTS. 71 the rule that an equitable mortgage is created by the deposit of title-deeds. t. People, 8 Weekly Dig. 15. Aff'd in 77 If. Y. 588. v. Riley, 2 Barb. 307. Explained (As- signment for benefit of creditors— stipula- tions in assignor's favor) in Burr-ill on Assign. § 209, 4 ed. v. Robinson, 9 Johns. 121; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 695, with brief note. Cited with Tohey v. Barber, 5 Johns. 73 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 326 (Necessity for de- mand and notice in case of note indorsed when overdue) in Poole v. Tolleson, 1 Mc- Cord (S. C.) 199; s. a, 10 Am. Dec. 663. Followed in Eckfert v. Des Coudres, 1 Mitt. (S. C.) 69; s. a, 12 Am. Dec. 609, with note; Hill ». Martin, 12 Mart. {La.) 177; s. c, 13 Am. Dee. 372; Colt v. Barnard, 18 Pick (Mass.) 260; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 584. Followed with Agan ». McManus, 11 Johns. 80 ; Leavitt v. Putnam, ZN.Y. 494, in Patter- son v. Todd, 18 Penn. St. 426; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 622. v. Yates, 24 Barb. 199. Applied (En- forcing contracts ultra vires) with Bissell v. Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co., 22 If. Y. 258, 285, in Franklin Co. v. Lewiston Institu- tion for Savings, 68 Me. 43 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 9, 12, 14. Disapproved by Slosson, J. (Effect of subscriptions) in N. Y. Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 5 Bosw. 593, 609. Bertlielon v. Betts, 4 Sill, 577. Followed , (Priority of creditor procuring assignment) in Spear e. Wardell, l.tf. Y. 144, 149, 160, which rev'd 2 Barb. Oh. 291, which see. Berthoir v. O'Reilly, 8 Sun, 16. AfTd in 74 N. Y. 509 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 323. See Aldrich b. Sager. Decision in 8 Sun, ap- plied (Violation of Sunday law as a bar to action for injuries) in Platz v. City of Cohoes, 24 Sun, 101. Decision in 74 If. Y. disting'd in People v. Lyon, 27 Sun, 180, as inapplicable to case of law pro- viding what shall be prima facie evidence of illegal sale of liquor. Followed with Mead v. Stratton, 87 N. Y. 493 (Right of ac- tion under Civil Damage Act) in Neu v. McKechnie, 95 If. Y. 632. Bertine v. Tartan, 1 Edw. 343. Rule herein said (Time within which to bring action after discovery of fraud), in Foot v. Har- rington, 41 N. Y. 164, to be modified by , Code. Besel v. N. Y. Central, &c. B. R. Co., 9 Hun, 457. Kev'd in 70 If. Y. 171. Decision in 70 Af. Y. applied (Injury from negligence of co-employee) in Murphy v. Boston & Alb. R. R. Co., 8 Abb.. If. 0. 41. 48; s. c, 59 Flow. Pr. 197, 203. Disting'd in McCosker v. Long Island R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 500, 507. Beslej v. Lawrence, 11 Paige, 581. Ex- plained (Effect of creditor having security for debt) in Jervis v. Smith, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 217. — - v. Palmer, 1 Sill, 482. Explained (Ex- tinguishing contract by judgment) in Suy- dam v. Barber, 18 JV*. Y. 468. Besson v. Southard, 10 K Y. 236. Followed (Question of probable cause for malicious prosecution, when for jury) in Heyne v. Blair. 62 If. Y. 19, 22. Best v. Bander. See Swords v. Owen. Dis- ting'd (Validity of sales, &c. without license required by statute) with Griffith v. Wells, 3 Den. 226, in Mandelbaum v. Gregovich, 17 Nev. 87; s. c, 45 Am. R. 433. ■ v. Staples, 61 N. Y. 71. Mem. of decision here aff'd in 1 Alb. L..J. 102. Compare (Validity of mortgage taken under act of Congress as against State law) Aldrich v. Mtna Ins. Co., 8 Wall. 491. Bettis v. Goodwill, 32 Sow. Pr. 137. Dis- ting'd (Offer of judgment in foreclosure as affecting costs) in Bathgate v. Haskins, 63 If. Y. 261, 267. Betts v. Bache, 23 Sow. Pr. 197; s. c, with affirmance, 14 Abb. Pr. 279. Mem. of affirmance in 9 Bosw. 614. v. Betts, 1 Johns. Ch. 197. Approved (Confession not admissible without other proof) in Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch. 52. v. , 4 Abb. K C. 317. Part of opinion here omitted, in 57 Sow. Pr. 355, n. See Valentine 1>. Valentine; Wes- terfield v. Westerfield. Followed (Divis- ion of void bequests between residuary legatees or next of kin) in Greer v. Bel- knap, 63 Sow. Pr. 390. See also (Vesting) Meyer's Will, Abb. N. C. 438, 445, n. Re- aft'd (Bequest to unincorporated society) in McKeon v. Kearney, 57 Sow. Pr. 396. Followed in Leonard v. Davenport, 58 Sow. Pr. 386. Compare 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 269, 274. See also (Defective organization of corporation) Raisbeck ». Oesterricher, 4 Abb. If. C. 44A, 445, n. See also (Volun- tary associations) Ebbinghausen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. C. 300. v. Birdsall. See Bell v. Birdsall. v. Garr. 1 Silt. 411. Rev'd in 26 If. Y. 383. Decision in 26 If. Y. followed (Granting leave to issue execution) in Iiincaid v. Richardson, 9 Abb. Jf. C. 315, 321, as the true rule where facts are undis- puted and remedy doubtful. v. Hoyt, 19 Barb. 412. Compare (Lien of successive levies) Muscott v. Woolworth, 14 Sow. Pr. 477; Wheeler 11. Smith, 11 Barb. 345. v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 173; s. c, 10 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1058, with brief note on revocation. See Jackson v. Kniffen. Cited in Apperson v. Cottrell, 3 Port. (Ala.) 51 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 239, 242, as showing that the original jurisdiction of probates, belonged to the ecclesiastical courts. See also, Colton v. Ross, 2 Paige, 396; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 648, with note. v. June. See Evans v. Evans. v. Lee, 5 Johns. 348; s. c, 3 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1041, with brief note; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 368, with note, in which Curtis e. Groat, Johns. 168; Salisbury «. McCoon, ii, If. Y. 379; and other authorities are reviewed. See Merritt v, Johnson. Fol- 72 BEVAN— BIGELOW. lowed (Owner's right to reclaim property in an altered form) in Curtis v. Groat, 6 Johns. 168; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 204. Compare, also, Isle Royale Mining Co. v. Hertin, 37 Mich. 332; s. c, 26 Am. R, 520. Reviewed with Curtis ». Groat, 6 Johns. 168; Chandler v. Edson, 9 Id. 362; Silsbury n. McCoon, 3 ZV. Y. 378, 385, in Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 653, 656. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 363, as admitting the Civil and English law on the wrongful acquisition of goods by accession. v. Williaiiislnirgu, 15 Barb. 255. Ap- proved (Injunction not allowed against illegal tax) in Dodd v. City of Hartford, 25 Conn. 232. Bcvan v. Cooper, 7 Hun, 117; rev'd in 72 A r . Y. 317. See Harris v. Fly ; Lupton v. Lupton ; Tucker v. Tucker. Decision in 72 N. Y. reviewed (Jurisdiction of surrogate) in Matter of York, 6 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 245. Disting'd in Steinele v. Oechsler, 5 lied/. 312. Disting'd and limited in Leg- gett v. Leggett, 24 Hurt, 336. Questioned in Meeker v. Meeker, 4 Red/. 29, 34. Limited in Riggs v. Cragg, 89 ft. Y. 479. Explained (Legacy, when a charge on realty) in Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 JV. Y. 142, 148; Hall i>. Thompson, 23 Hun, 338. Recognized as authority in Manson ». Manson, 8 Abb. N. C. 123. Explained in Giles' Estate, 11 -466. N. G. 57. Bevier v. Sclioonmaker, 29 How. Pr. 411. Ex- plained and limited (Liability of mortgagee for surplus) in Russell v. Duflon, 4 Lans. 399, 404. Beyer v. People, 12 Weekly Big. 478; mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 655. Affd in 86 W. Y. 369. Bicknell v. Field, 8 Paige, 440. See Mead v. Merritt. Followed (Conclusiveness of foreign judgment) in Kinnier v. Kinnier, 45 J7. Y. 535.. See to the contrary (Effect of constructive service) Arndt v. Arndt, 15 Ohio, 33. See also Abb. Tr. Et. 547. v. Lancaster City & County Fire Ins. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215. Affd in 58 N. Y. 677. Bidwell v. Astor Milt. Life Ins. Co., 16 N. Y. 263. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of transitory action) in Gemp v. Pratt, 7 Daly, 197, 199; Landers v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 53 N. • Y. 459. Disting'd (Equitable relief) in N. Y. Ice Co. «. North w. Ins. Co., 31 Barb. 77. Followed in Lattin v. McCarty, 41 iV. 7. 111. v. Greenshield, 2 Abb. iV C 427. Ex- plained (Trespass — dispossession) in MoaJSs UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 381. v. Lament, 17 How. Pr. 357. Reviewed and disting'd (Dismissal of complaint) in 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 145. v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 19iV F. 179. Subsequent decision in 24 Id. 302. Both decisions limited (Effect of warranty in insurance) so as not to oppose Jen- nings v. Chenango Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Den. 75 ; Kennedy v. St. Lawrence Mutual Ins. Co., 10 Barb. 285, in Ripley v. Mtna, Ins. Co., 80 K Y. 136, 162. Disting'd (Extrinsic evidence in action on policy) in Pitney v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., 65 ZV. Y. 14, which affd 61 Barb. 341, which see. Ex- plained in Dakin . Prosser, 11 if. Y. 347 (Justification in actions of defama- tion) in Wachter v. Quenzer, 29 If. Y. 547. Followed (Pleading mitigating circum- stances) in Delevin a. Wilder, 34 Haw. Pr. 488. Relied on in Van Benschoten v. Yaple, 13 Bow. Pr. 97, 100. Bishop v. Alcott, 21 Bun, 253. Aff'd in 86 If. Y. 503. v. Barton, 2 Bun, 436 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 6. Affd, it seems, in 64 If. Y. 637, but no opinion. v. Bishop, A Bill, 138. Approved (Ef- fect of statute passed after will is made, but before testator's death) in Wakefield v. ' Phelps, 37 If. B. 295. v. , 11 If. Y. 123. See Goodrich v. Jones ; Voorhees ■». McGinnis. Disting'd (Fixtures) in Frank ■». Harrington, 36 Barb. 415. Criticised and disting'd in Noyes v. Terry, 1 Lans. 219. Reviewed, with other cases, in Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Rl. 56 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 260. T. Breekles, Boffm. 534. See Smith v. Mulock. Quoted and discussed (Refusal of partner to proceed properly in business, as ground for dissolution) in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 195, n. I. v. Edmiston, 13 Abb. Pr. 346. Rev'd in 16 Abb. Pr. 466. T. Ely, 9 Johns. 294; s. c, 4 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 769, with brief note. v. Empire Transp. Co., 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 99. Further decisions in 37 Id. 12, 17; 48 Bow. Pr. 119. v. Garcia, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 69. Ex- plained and disting'd (Effect of judgment on party that has not been notified) in Dor- mitzer v. Illinois & St. Louis Bridge Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 217. v. Halsey, 3 Abb. Pr. 400. Explained (Assignment for benefit of creditors — no disposition of surplus) in Burrill on Assign. § 208, n. 2, 4 ed. Bissell v. Baleom, 40 Barb. 98. Rev'd in 39 if. Y. 275. Decision in 40 Barb, overruled also (Time of making payment required by stat- ute of frauds) in Webster v. Zielly, 52 Barb. 482. Decision iu 39 if. Y. disting'd and lim- ited in Hunter v. Wetsell, 57 If. Y. 375, 379. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 192, n. 2 (Corbin's4 Am. ed.). Explained iu Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 343, n. 3, 4 ed. Discussed (Sale of specific chattels unconditionally) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 320 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Dictum followed (Making valid contract after void one) in Allis v. Read, 45 JV. Y. 142. BISSELL. 75 v. Bissell, 65 Barb. 325 ; s. c, I.Abb. Pr. N. 8. 16. See Feme v. Public Adm'r. Discussed (Formalities of entering into marriage contract) in 2 Add. on Oontr. 848, n., Abb. ed. ; 1 Bish. on Mar. & Biv. § 251, a. 6 ed. Cited with Willis v. Underbill, 6 How. Pr. 396 ; Christy v. Clarke, 45 Barb. 529, and other cases (Husband or wife as competent witness to prove their marriage) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 424. v. Cornell, 24 Wend. 354. Collated (Charge of crime involving moral tur- pitude) with other cases, in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas: 5 ed. 99. Cited (Justifi- cation of libel as applied or explained by innuendoes), with Fidler v. Delavau, 20 Wend. 57; Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 56, in Atkinson v. Detroit Free Press Co., 46 Mich. 348. y. Gold, 1 Wend. 210; s. c, 19 Am. Bee. 480, with extended note collating authorities upon the subject of arrest. T. Hall. See Hubbell v. Cowdrey. v. Hnmblin, 6 Dner, 512. Further decis- ions in 3 Bom. 383 ; 13 Abb. Pr. 22. Decision in 6 Duer, cited (Effect of a pub- lic officer's entry as evidence) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 640. Decision in IZ Abb. Pr. disting'd (Reference on reversal of judg- ment) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 386. 389. v. Hopkins, 3 Cow. 166; s. c, 15 Am. Bee. 259, with note, where it is shown to have been frequently cited and approved in N. Y. (Retention of possession by vendor or mortgagor) its doctrine being thought, however, to have been modified by the Revised Statutes, citing White v. Cole, 24 Wend. 136" See Barrow ». Paxton ; Beals v. Guernsey. To same effect, see Lewis v. Stevenson, 2 Hall, 63, 82. Approved in Hall v. Tuttle, 8 Wend. 375, 391. Followed with Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 406, in Briggs v. Parkman, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 258; s. c, 37 Am. Bee. 89, with note. Cited in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 738, n. 58 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.), as a case in which a full discussion by the reporter will be found. Commented upon in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 666, n. 2. v. Kellogg, 60 Barb. 617. Aff'd in 65 K Y. 432. Decision in 60 Barb, followed (Who may maintain proceeding to remove cloud on title) in Phillips v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hun, 212, 215. Followed, but point not indicated, in Mann?). Bouton, 21 Hun, 410. Disting'd in Matter of Phillips, 60 K Y. 21 ; Levy v. Merrill, 52 How. Pr. 360, 3-65. Decision in 65 2F. Y. commented on (Application of statute against usury [L. 1837, c. 430, § 4] to purchaser) in Matthews v. Warner, 6 Fed. Pep. 465. v. Kip, 5 Johns. 100. See Mclntire v. Rowan. Approved (Taking advantage of irregularity in process) in Phillips v. Coffee. 17 HI. 156; citing Jackson v. Walker, 4 Wend. 4G4; Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. 381. Disting'd, though approved, in Den v. Despreaux, 7 Haht. (A/. J.) 182 ; s. c, 22 Am. Bee. 485, 488. Distfng'd in Coltraine v. McCaine, 3 Bev. (N. C.) Law, 308; s. c, 24 Am. Bee. 256, with note. Followed in Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Seam. (III.) 364 ; s. c, 39 Am. Bee. 418, 425, with note. v. Michigan Southern, &e. R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 258. See Berry v. Yates ; Stoney v. Am. Life Ins. Co. Disting'd (Contracts ultra tires) with Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 Id. 62; Woodruff v. Erie R'y Co., 93 Id. 609, but Tracy v. Talmage, 14 iv". Y. 179, followed in Nassau B'k v. Jones, 95 N. Y. 115. Disting'd in Joslyn v. Dow, 19 Hun, 497. Re-afFd in Parish 11. Wheel- er, 22 iY. Y. 509. Cited as authority in President, &c. of Union Bridge Co. v. Troy & Lansingburgh R. R. Co., 7 Lans. 246. Cited in illustration in Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 186. Approved with Farmers' & Mech. B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 5 Bosw. 275, in Monument Nat. B'k v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 322. Cited with De Groff v. American Linen Thread Co., 24 Barb. 375, in City of Memphis *. Adams, 9 HeisTc. (Tenn.) 518; s. c, 24 Am. II. 331, 339. Decision of Comstock, J., applied in Culver v. Reno Real Estate Co., 91 Pa. St. 377. Quoted and commented upon in Morawetz on Priv. Corp. § 30, n. 1 ; Id. § 111. Comstock, J.'s, definition of ultra vires discussed in 1 Pars, on Contr. 142. Followed (Liability of railroad company for injuries happening outside its line) in Buffett v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 40 iV. Y. 168, 178, which aff'd 36 Barb. 420, 425, 428, which see. Also followed in Maghee v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co., 45 A Y. 518. Included, with notes, in Field on Ultra Vires, 116. Quoted and collated, with other cases, in Id. 186, 387. Cited in Hutch, on Carriers, § 153, »., as discussing the question at great length and with great ability. Doctrine of Selden, J., referred to as approved, in N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 XT. Y. 49, and that of Comstock, J., said to be inferentially abandoned (Liability for employee's acts) in Lynch v. Metrop. Elev. Ry. Co., 24 Hun, 506, 508. Disting'd with Edgerton v. N. Y., &c. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 227 (Duty of railroad company to one who by fraud ob- tains permission to ride) in Way v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.. Sup'm. Ct., Iowa, June 1884, 19 N. W. Rep. 830. Approved (Lia- bility for fraudulent corporate acts) in Smith v. Rathbun, 66 Barb. 405. Disting'd, as to liability of shareholder in foreign corpora- tion, in Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 iv". Y. 211. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 26 Barb. 630. Rev'd in 23 if. Y. 01. See Herring v. Fisher; Holdaue v. Trustees of Cold Spring. Decision in 26 Barb, collated with other cases (Highways — acceptance by pub- lic) in Mills' Thomps. on Ilighio. 3 ed. 64. Approved and applied in Kelsey v. Ring, 33 How. Pr. 50. Decision in 23 N. Y. followed 76 BISSELL— BLACKSTOCK. (Right of owner of fee of land covered by- highway to maintain ejectment) with Car- penter v. Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 24 JV. Y. 655, in Terre Haute & Southeastern R. R. Co. v. Rodel, 87 Ind. 128; s. c, 46 Am. J?. 164. Disting'd (Conveyance of land abutting on street) in Perrin v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 40 Barb. 69, which was, however, rev'd in 36 If. Y. 120, which see. Followed in Lozier v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 42 Barb. 467; Miner ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 200. Dis- ting'd in Lee v. Lee, 27 Hun, 1. Applied in Mott v. Mott, 8 Hun, 478. Collated, with other cases, in Mills' Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 41. v. , 29 Barb. 602. After three argu- ments in court of appeals, rev : d in 25 JV. Y. 442. See ■ Cole v. Goodwin ; Nolton v. Western R. R. Co. ; Welles v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Decision in 29 Barb. 196 over- ruled (Limitation of carrier's liability for negligence) in Perkins v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 JV. Y. 196. Decision in 25 JV Y. followed in Lee v. Marsh, 43 Barb. 107. » Applied in Belger ». Dins- more, 51 Barb. 69, 78. Applied in Myn- ard v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 401, which was, however, rev'd in 7f JV. Y. 180, which see. Disting'd in Kirk- land v. Dinsmore, 2 Hun, 46, 51 ; Stin- son e. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 JV Y. 337; Blair v. Erie R'y Co., 66 JV. F. 317. Disapproved in Cleveland, Painesville, &c. R. R. Co. v. Curran, 19 Ohio St. 1, 14; s. c, 2 Am. R. 362. Denied in dissenting opinion of Sanderson, J., in Hooper v. Wells, 27 Cal. 11. See also Pierce ». Milwaukee, &c. R. R. Co., 23 Wis. 387, 391. Criticised in Lawson's Gontr. of Carr. XLV. §§ 28, 128, 220. Reviewed, with other N. Y. cases, in Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 366. Denied in Ohio & Mississippi R'y Co. *. Selby. 47 Ind. 485 ; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Henderson, 51 Penn. St. 328. Ex- plained in Ang. on Carr. § 528, n. b, 5 ed. Quoted and collated, with other cases, in Thomps. on Carriers of Pass. 401, 402. See Id. X"V. Remarks of Denio, J., as to com- parative value of human and bestial life crit- icised in Lehey v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 4 Eobt. 209. — v. , 67 Barb. 385. Said in note thereto to have been aff' d at Oen. Term. v. Payne, 20 Johns. 3. Followed (Right of purchaser at judicial sale to rents accru- ing before execution of deed) in Cheney v. Woodruff, 45 JV. Y. 98. v. Pearce, 21 How. Pr. 130. Subsequent decision in 28 If. Y. 252. See Scott v. Delahunt. Decision in 28 If. Y. disting'd (Priority of subsequent special liens over chattel mortgage) in Scott v. Delahunt, 65 If. Y. 132, which affd 5 Lans. 372, which see. Disting'd, and Scott v. Delahunt, 5 Lans. 372, approved, in Case v. Allen, 21 Kans. 217; s. c, 30 Am. R. 425, 427. Cited with other cases, in Storms «. Smith, 137 Mass. 201. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 817, n., as to lien of farmer pasturing horses. v. Saxton, 66 JV Y. 55. Further decis- ion in 77 IT. Y. 191 Decision in 66 JV. Y. disting'd (Liability of sureties on official bond) in Scofield v. Churchill, 72 A". Y. 565, 567. Applied (Surety not liable for the past) in Thomson v. MacGregor, 81 If. Y. 597. v. Torrey, 65 Barb. 188. Affd in 60 JV. Y. 635. Bissiek v. McKenzie, 4 Daly, 265. Followed (Former adjudication) in Bush v. Knox, 2 Hun, 576, 579; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& C.) 130. Bitter t. Rathman, 61 JV. Y. 512. Collated with other cases (Liability of married wo- man as partner) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. 12, n. Bitting 1 v. Yandenburgh. See Fields v. Moul; Morse v. Keyes. Black's Estate. See McDowl v. Charles. Black v. O'Brien, 23 Hun, 82. Applied (Costs in creditors' actions) in Potter v. Farrington, 24 Hun, 551. v. White, 37 Super. Ct. («/! & S.) 320. Further decision in 42 Id. 446. Decision in 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) followed (Waiver of trial by jury) in Keiley v. Dusenbury, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 238. See Code Civ. Pro. § 1009, subd. 4. Compare De -Bussiere v. Holladay, 4 Abb. If. C. 112, n. See (Demurrer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 488, n. Blackley v. Sheldon, 7 Johns. 32. See Fox v. Smith; People v. McKay; Root v. Sher- wood. Disting'd (Mode of rendering ver- dict) in State v. John, 8 lred. L. (JV. 0.) 330; s. c, 49 Am. Dee. 396, 401. Blackmar v. Van Inwager, 5 How. Pr, 367. Questioned (Validity of motion decided outside of territorial limits prescribed by law) in Newcomb v. Reed, 14 Id. 100. Ap- proved in Pinckney v. Hagerman, 4 Lans. 374, 375. Black River & M. R. R. Co , Matter of, 9 Hun, 104. Followed (Measure of damages for land taken for railroad purposes) in Mat- ter of Boston, Hoosac Tun., &c. R'y Co., 22 Hun, 179. Both these cases disting'd, in Matter of N. Y., Lackawanna, &c. R'v Co., 27 Hun, 116. Black River and UticaR. R. Co. v. Clarke, 31 Barb. 258. Aft'd in 25 JV. Y. 208. See Jenkins v. Union Turnpike. Decision in 25 JV. Y. disting'd (Payment on stock) in Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 367. Cri- ticised and questioned (Effect of subscrip- tion to take stock as evidence of corporate character of company) in De Witt v. Has- tings, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 463, 479. Collated (Calls for subscriptions) with other cases, in 1 Redf. Am. Railw. Cases, 197. Blacksmith v. Fellows, 7 A". Y. 401. Affd in 19 How. (U. S.) 366. Blackstock v. N. Y. & Erie U. R. Co., 1 Bosw. 77. Affd in 20 JV. Y. 48. BLACKSTONE— BLAKE. 77, Blaekstone v. Allemania Fire Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 299. AfE'd in 56 JST. Y. 104. Blackwell v. Wiswall, 14 How. Pr. 257; s. c, 24 Barb. 355. Said in 24 Barb. 362, to have been affirmed at the General Term. Applied (Liability for wrongful acts of an- other) in Mecabe v. Jones, 10 Daly, 222. Quoted and collated, with other cases (Lia- bility of railroad company for contractors, &c.) in 1 Redf. Am. Railw. Canes, 373. Blade v. Noland, 12 Wend. 173 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 126, with note on the subject of actions on lost or destroyed notes. Applied to case of altered instrument, in Meyer v. Huneke, 55 Jf. 7. 412, 418. Disting'd in Steele v. Lord, 70 JST. 7. 280, 283. Blaiu v. Taylor, 19 Abb. Pr. 228. See Adams v. ~?an Alstyne. Followed (Covenant to maintain division fence runs with land) in Uaalett b. -Sinclair, 76 Ind. 488; s. c, 40 Am. R. 254. Blair v. Bartlett, 75 K Y. 150. See Gates e. Preston; Schwinger v. Raymond. Dis- ting'd (Former adjudication) in Schwinger v. Raymond, 83 N. Y. 19.2, 197. Disapproved (Judgment for surgeon's compensation as bar to action for malpractice) in Ressequie v. Byers, 52 Wise. 651. y. Erie R'y Co., 66 iv~ 7:313. SeeNolton v. Western R. R. Co. Followed (Injuries to agent) in Price v. Penn. R. R. Co., Phila. Com. PL, Sept. 1880, 22 Alb. L. J. 391. v. Wait, 6 Hun, 477. Aff'd in 69 N. Y. 113. See Continental Nat. Bank v. Nat. Bank of Commonwealth. Decision in 69 Jf. Y. explained (Estoppel) in Vietor e. International Nav. Co., 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 129, 142. Compared with other cases, in 2 Pomeroy Eq. J. 266. Blaisilell v. Raymond, 14 How. Pr. 265; s. c, more fully 4 Abb. Pr. 446. T. Whiteford, 4 Hun, 264. Reported in 6 Sup' in. Ct. (T. & C.) 462. Blake v. Bemhard, 3 Hun, 397. Reported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 74. — v. City of Brooklyn, 26Barb.30l. Quoted (Injunction against taxes) in 1 High, onlnj. 2 ed. § 544, n. 4. v. Eldred, 18 How. Pr. 240. See Arthur «. Brooks. Disapproved (Effect of denial in form, "he says that he denies ") in Chap- man v. Chapman, 34 Id. 281. Opposed in Jones v. Ludlum, 74 W. Y. 61. r. Ferris. 5 N. Y. 48; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 304 with note containing numerous citations. Bee City of Buffalo v. Holloway; Congreve «. Smith; Mayor, &.C. of N. Y. v. Bailey; Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Storrs v. City of (Jtiea. Collated (Liability for negligence of contractor) with Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 K. Y. 222; Kelly v. Mayor, &c. of N.V., 11 Id. 432; Stores v. City of Ur.ica, 17 Jd. 104; McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. R. K. Co., 61 N. Y. 178; s. c, 19 Am. R. 207; Creed v. Hartman, 29 JST. Y. 591; Congreve v. Smith, 18 Id. 79; Lock wood v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hilt. 60, and other cases, in 27 Am, 11. G47, n. Collated with Stevens v. Armstrong, 6 N". Y. 435; Congreve v. Smith, 18 Id. 79; Creed v. Hartman, 29 Id. 591 ; McCafferty r. Spuvten Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 Id. 178, aud'other cases, in 27 Am. R. 702. Applied in Gourdier v. Cormack, 2 E. D. Smith, 254. Disting'd in Creed v. Hartman, 29 N. Y. 591. Explained in dissenting opinion of Dwigbt, C, in McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 200. Followed in Town of Pierrepont v. Loveless, .72 N. Y. 214. Ap- plied (Liability for excavation in street in Bliss «. Schaub, 48 Barb. 343. Reaff d as to liability of municipal corporations) in Pack v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., 8 N. Y. 227 ; Kelly ». Same, 11 Id. 434. Criticised in Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 JST. Y. 106. Disting'd in Lockwood v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hilt. 67. Disting'd with Pack v. Mayor, " &c. of N. Y. , 8 K Y. 222 ; Kelly v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 11 Id. 432 ; Norton e. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 618; Schular v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 38 Id. 653; Sweet v. Village of Gloversville, 12 Hun, 302; in Dressell v. City of Kingston, 32 Hun, 533. Disting'd with Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 K Y. 222; Kelly . N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 264, 268. Applied in Sulzbacher ■». Dickie, 6 Daly, 469, 471 ; Boniface v. Relyea, 5 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 265; Blackwell ». Wiswall, 24 Barb. 359 ; Norton v. Same, 26 Id. 621 ; Schular v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 38 Id. 653; Gilbert v. Beach, 5 Bosw. 448 ; 4 Duer, 427 ; Simons v. Monier, 29 Barb. 424. Doctrine discussed and cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 359. Collated with the conflicting cases on the doctrine of Bush v. Steinman, in note by John F. Kelley to Railroad Co. v. Gal- lagher, Ohio Supreme Ct. Com., 23 Am. L. Iteg. N. S. 503. Collated with McCafferty i>. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 178, and other cases (Liability of em- ployer contracting for results depending on legislative grant for legality) in 18 Am. L. Rev. 635, 660. Cited in illustration (Stipulations in building contract, when not for benefit of stranger) in Cuff v. Newark & N. Y. R. R. Co., 35 N. J. 17; s. c, 10 Am. It. 205, 210. Criticised in 2 Thomps. on, Negl. 906, as contrary to sound principle, and as questioned in Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 N. Y. 106. 78 BLAKE- BLAUVELT. v. Griswold. See Blake u. Wheeler. t. Jerome, 14 Johns. 406. Discussed (Trespass) in 1 Add. on Torts, 459, n., Wood's ed. Collated, with other cases, in Bigel. Cases on Torts, 380. v. People, 73 Jf. T. 586. See People v. Eastwood. Explained (Evidence of character of deceased, when admissible on trial for murder) in Nichols v. People, 23 Hun, 168. Explained (Admissibility of belief of wit- ness) in Tolman v. King, 24 Sun, 482. ■ v. Sands, 3 Red/. 168. See to the con- trary (Power of suiTogate to remove testa- mentary trustee) Savage v. Gould, 60 Bow. Pr. 234. Superseded by Code Civ. Pro. § 2817. T. Wheeler. See Bonnell v. Wheeler. Blakely t. Calder. 13 How. Pr. 476. Affd in 15 Jf. Y 617. See Fleet v. Dorland; Sullivan v. Sullivan. Decision in 1 5 J7! Y. disting'd (Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in partition) in Muller v. Struppman, 6 Abb. Jf. G. 343, 348. Approved and followed (Partition) in Howell v. Mills, 56 Jf. Y. 226, 229. Disting'd and limited (Partition by remaindermen) in Sullivan v. Sullivan, 66 Jf. T. 40. Followed in McGlone v. Good- win, 6 Daly, 185. Disting'd in Harris v. Larkins, 22 Hun, 488, 490, as inapplicable to case of cestui que trust. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. XIV. tit. I. art. 2, n. Blakiston v. Dudley, 5 Duer, 373. Followed (Effect of parol promise to accept bill) in Flato v. Mulhall, 72 Mo. 526. Blaucliard v. Blanchard, 4 Hun, 287; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 561. Affd, it seems, in 70 Jf. Y. 615, but without opinion. Explained (Powers substituted for trusts) in McGrath v. Van Stavoren, 8 Daly, 454, 460. v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342; s. c, 13 Jf. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1113, with brief note. Also reported in 34 Am. Dec. 250, with note, .containing citations. See Griffin v. Colver; Staats ». Ten Eyck. Followed (Conse- quential damages) in Cassidy v. Le Fevre, 45 Jf. Y. 562; Krom v. Levy, 48 If. Y. 679. Explained in Albert v. Bleecker Street, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Daly, 389, as not being an absolute authority on the subjects on which it treats, after the comments made on it in Griffin v. Colver, 16 K Y. 489. Explained in Griffin v. Colver, 16 Jf. Y. 489, which aft'd 22 Barb. 587, which see. Applied in Freeman v. Clute, 3 Barb. 427; Hargous v. Ablon, 5 Hill, 472 ; Academy of Music v. Hackett, 2 Hilt. 234. Applied to action of tort— in Walrath v. Redfield, 11 Barb. 371. Disting'd in Davis v. Talcott, 14 Barb. 623. Disting'd by Cowen. J., in Lattin v. Davis, HillS D. 15. Disting'd' in Green v. Mann, 11 111. 615. Cited in The Rhode Island, 2 Blatchf. C. Ct. 113, 114. Included in Sedw. Cases on Dama. 240. Relied on (Amount of recovery 1 in case of partial per- formance of agreement) in Porter v. Woods, 3 Humph. {Tenn.) 56; s. c, 89 Am. Dec. 153, 155, with note. T. Myers, 9 Johns. 66. Overruled (Ef- fect of certiorari as supersedeas to an execu- tion) in People v. Judges of the C. P. of N. Y., 1 Wend. 81. Latter case explained as not overruling the former, in Payfer v. Bis- sell, 3 Hill, 239. See, also, Jackson v. Schauber, 7 Cow. 417, 490. v. Nestle, 3 Den. 37. Followed (Undue influence on testator) in Burk's Will, 2 Red/. 239, 243. Explained in Willard on Executors, 91. Explained (Will written by legatee) in Id. 1 15. Commented upon (Lunatic making a will) in Ewell Lead. Cas. on Inf. &c. 655, n. — t. N. J. Steamboat Co., 67 Barb. 101. Aff'd in 59 Jf. Y. 292. T. Strait, 8 How. Pr. 83. See to the contrary (Remedy for indefinite and un- certain pleading) Wood v. Anthony, 9 How. Pr. 78. T. Trim, 38 If. Y. 225. Opinion of Gkoveb, J., in 7 Transc. App. 1. See Keating v. Price. Criticised (Statute of Frauds — note or memorandum in writing — parol evidence) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 215, n. 17 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). — v. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T.&C.) 775. Rev'd in 60 Jf. Y. 510, the dissenting opinion in 67 Barb. 228, being adopted. Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) discussed (Nuisance — navig- able streams) in Wood on Jfuis. 2 ed. § 483, n. 6. Blanco v. Foote, have been aft'd March, 1866. Blank v. Westcott. 32 Barb. 534. by Court of Said to App. in 7 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 225. Disting'd (Costs) in Whitney v. Daggett, 6 Abb. Jf. C. 434, 436. Blasdale v. Babcock, 1 Johns. 511. Ex- plained (Implied warranty on sale of goods) in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1062, n. 3. Blasdell v. Hevt'it, 3 Cai. 137. Criticised as imperfectly reported (Negativing proviso in statute in proceeding for penalty) and Bennett ». Hurd, 3 Johns. 438, followed, in Teel i>. Fonda, 4 Id. 304. Blason v. Bruno, 21 How. Pr. 112; s. c, 33 Barb. 520. Approved, explained and dis- ting'd (Arrest for frauds in foreign country) in Brown v. Ashbough, 40How.Pr. 226,240. Disting'd and doubted, Browns. Ashbough, 40 How. Pr. 226, being followed, and Mpller v. Azner, ll Abb. Pr. K S. 233, being disting'd in Claflin v. Frenkel, 29 Hun, 288. Bla tell ford t. Ross, 51 Barb. 42; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 434 ; 37 How. Pr. 110. Compared (Receiver of corporation) in High on lieceiv. § 288, n. 1. Blatchley v. Moser. See People r>. Stevens. Blattmacher v. Saal, 29 Barb. 22; s. c, 7 Abb. Pr. 409 Doctrine discussed (Promise to marry by person already married) in 11 Am. L. Reg. Jf. S. 71. Blant v. Gabler, 8 Daly, 48. Affd in 77 Jf. Y. 461. Blanvelt v. Woodworth, 31 Jf. Y. 285. Re- atfd (Mechanic's lien laws within power BLEECKER— BLOOD. of legislature) in Glacius «. Black, 67 JV. Y. 563. Bleecker t. Ballon, 3 Wend. 263. See Mat- ter of Mayor of N. Y. Followed (Exemption from Assessments) in Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 84 JV Y. 108, 112. Followed and approved in First Presbyterian Church v. City of Fort Wayne, 36 Ind. 338; 8. c, 10 Am. R. 35. v. Bellinger, 11 Wend. 179. Criticised and explained (Substituting answer for demurrer) in Peoples. Whitwell, 62 How. Pr. 383. v. Carroll, 2 Abb. Pr. 82. See to the contrary (Examination before trial) Leeds v. Brown, 5 Abb. Pr. 418. y. Franklin, 2 E. D. Smith, 93. Cited Right of auctioneer to sue for fees, in his own name) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 647, n. v. Smith, 13 Wend. 530. Explained and applied (Forfeiture, when created by neg- lect of lessee to comply with covenant in lease) in Conger ». Duryee, 24 Hun, 617, , 619. Followed in Ireland v. Nichols, 2 Sweeny, 289. v. , 37 How. Pr. 28. See to the contrary (Contents of motion to change venue) Cook v. Finch, 2 How. Pr. 89 ; Van Auken v. Stewart, Id. 181. Blceker v. Johnson, 51 How. Pr. 380. Rev'd as Bleecker v. Johnston, in 69 N. Y. 309. Decision in 69 JV Y. relied on (No presumption against party created by his omission to produce a certain witness) in Arnold v. Morris, 7 Daly, 505. Blend v. People, 41 JV Y. 604. See Cancemi v. People. Disting'd (Court of Sessions) in People v. Dohring, 59 JV. Y. 374. Blewett v. Baker, 37 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 23. Affd in 58 JV Y. 611. Blin v. Campbell, 14 Johns. 432. See Tenny v. Filer. Denied (Election of remedies by injured party) in Gates v. Miles, 3 Conn. 64, as founded on an erroneous proposition of Chitty, which he has since corrected. Ap- proved in Percival ». Hickey, 18 Johns. 283; McAllister v. Hammond, 6 Cow. 345. Bliss v. Ball, 9 -Johns. 132. Disapproved with Storm B.Woods, 11 Id. 110; Farring- ton v. Sinclair, 15 Id. 428 ; Kelly v. Griffin, 17 Id. 274 (Senior execution creditor loses lien by inactivity) in Adair v. McDaniel, 1 Bailey L. (S. ft) 158; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 664, with note. v. Greeley, 45 JV Y. 671. See Ellis v. Duncan. Disting'd (Percolation) in Johns- town Cheese M'f'g Co. v. Veghte, 69 JV Y. 16, 23. t. Lawrence, 48 How. Pr. 21. Fully reported in 58 JV. Y. 442. Decision in 58 JV. Y. disting'd (Assignment of unearned salary of public officer; in Thurston o. Fairman, 9 Hun, 584. Cited and followed in Bangs v. Dunn, Sup'm. Ct. Gal., Oct. 1884, 4 Pacif. Rep. 964. Approved in Beal v. McVicker, 8 Mo. App. 204. Explained in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 226, n. 1 (Keller's ed.). Decision in 48 How. Pr. disting'd in People ex rel. Grattan v. Dayton, 50 How. Pr. 143. v. Matteson. 52 Barb. 335. Affd in 45 JV. Y. 22. See Carpenter v. Danforth. v. Otis, 1 Den. 656. Applied (Liability of attorney for costs) in Voorhees v. Mc- Cartney, 51 JV. Y. 389. v. Rice, 9 Johns. 160. Followed (Effect of appearance by infant without guardian) in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. v. Schanb, 48 Barb. 339, 342. Followed (Decisions of county court, when only to be reviewed) in Dahash v. Flanders, 2 Sup'm. Gt. ( T. & ft) 445. Rule said, in Kilmer v. O'Brien, 13 Hun, 224, to be changed by Code Civ. Pro. Cited (Personal liability of agent for injury to third person) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 537. y. Sheldon, 7 Barb. 152. Affd in 8 JV. Y. 31. v. Sclnvarts, 64 Barb. 215; s. c, less fully, as Bliss v. Swartz, 7 Lans. 186. Rev'd in 65 JV. Y. 444. Decision in 65 JV. Y. disting'd (Consideration for release of debt) in Luddington v. Bell, 77 JV Y. 138, 142. Followed (Explanation of receipt in full) in Churchill v. Bradley, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 170. Bliven v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 Barb. 188. Affd in 36 JV. Y. 403. Decision in 35 Barb, disting'd and questioned (Carrier, when not liable for goods seized on legal process) in Mierson v. Hope, 2 Sweeny, 561. Decision in 30 JV. Y. followed with Van Winkle v. U. S. Mail Steamship Co., 37 Barb. 122. in Ohio & Mississippi R'y Co. !>. Yohe, 5' Ind. 181; s. c, 19 Am. It 727, 730. Followed and explained (Lia- bility of carrier for delivery) in Robinson v. Memphis, &e. R. R. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 57, 63. As to rule in 36 JV. Y. as to bailee's estoppel preventing interpleader, — see Germ. Exch. Bk. v. pomm'rs of Excise, 6 Abb. JV ft 394, 398. Block v. Columbian Ins. Co., 3 Robt. 296. Affd in 42 JV. Y. 393. Blodgett v. City of Syracuse, 36 Barb. 526. Applied (Municipal corporation — liability for riot) in Alleghany Co. v. Gibson, 90 Penn. St. 397; s. c, 35 Am. R. 670, 675. v. Couklin. See Grazebrook v. Mc- Creedie. Blood v. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 68 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 121, with note containg citations. Further decision in 12 Wend. 525 ; s. c, 12 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 217, with brief note. See Brown v. Bowcn ; Connelly v. Pierce ; Hanford v. McNaer ; Ex parte Ker- win. Decision in i) Wend, applied (Parol ratification of execution of sealed instru- ment) with Hanford *. McNair, 9 Wend. 54, in Despatch Linen. Bellamy M. Co., 12 JV H. 205; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 203, 213. Followed (Proof of parol agreement to extend time to convey land) in Ladd v. King, 1 R. I. 224; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 624, 627. v. Humphrey, 17 Barb. 660. Reviewed and relied on (Right of married woman to 80 J3LOODGOOD— BLOOMFIELD, &o. GAS LIGHT CO. Convey estate and acknowledge . execu- tion of deed) in Roberts v. Wilcoxson, 36 Ark 367. Bloodgood t. Bloodgood, 59 How. Pr. 42. See Allen o. Allen. See to the same effect (Enforcing stipulation to pay half of referee's fees) Bricks. Fowler, 61 How. Pr. 153. T. Bruen, 4 Sarnlf. 427. Rev'd in 8 N. T. 362. See Soulden v. Van Rensselaer. Decision in 8 N. Y. followed with Wakeman v. Sherman, 5 Id. 85 (Acknowledgment of debt, that removes bar of statute of limita- tions, to whom to be made) in Sibert v. Wilder, 16 Kan. 176; s. c, 22 Am. R. 280. See to the contrary (Declarations, &c. of executor, &c.) Shrove v. Joyce, 36 N. J. (7 Vroom) 44; s. c, 13 Am. R. 417. See, also, Abb. Tr. Ed. 59. Followed (Cause of action against estate of deceased partner) in Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Winslow, 11 Blatahf. C. Ct. 513, 519. v. Clark, 4 Paige, 574. See Osborn v. Heyer. Reviewed and applied (Appoint- ment of receiver in creditor's suit) in Shain- wald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. Rep. 776. Quoted in High on Receiv. § 105, n. 4. ■ v. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 14 Wend. 51. Rev'd in 18 Wend. 9. See Beek- nian v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Go. ; Calking «. Baldwin ; Gardners. Trustees of Newburgh. Decision in 18 Wend, reported in 31 Am. Dee. 313, with note, where it is said to have been cited more frequently than almost any other case, either in N. Y. or elsewhere, as to the exercise of eminent domain, au- thorities being also collated. Explained and followed (Eminent domain — provision for compensation) in Drake v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 7 Barb. 552; Chapman v. Gates, 54 N.T. 132, 144. Applied in People v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 9 Barb. 556 ; Wallace v. Karlenowefski, 19 Barb. 121 ; Gould v. Glass, Id. 190; Blodgett v. Utica & Black River R. R. Co., 64 Barb. 587 ; Rexford v. Knight, 11 K Y. 313; Dusenbury v. Mutual Telegraph Co., 11 Abb. K C. 440. Cited as authority in Russell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Den. 472. Relied on with Smith v. Hcl- mer, 7 Barb. 416; Gould v. Glass, 19 Id. 190; Rexford ®. Knight, 11 N. Y. 308, in Cairo & Fulton R. R. Co. v. Turner, 31 Arh. 494; s. c, 25 Am. R. 564, 570. Cited as authority in Beveridge v. West Chicago Park Commr's, 7 Bradw. (111.) 467. Cited from, with People v. Hayden, 6 Sill, 359- 361 ; Chapman v. Gates, 54 K Y. 132, in Connecticut River R. R. Co. v. County Comm'rs, 127 Mass. 50; s. c, 34 Am. R. 388. Collated with other cases, in 1 Red/. Am. Railw. Cases, 246. Applied (Character of railroads as public highways) in People v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 543, 548. Applied (What are works or ob- jects of public benefit) in Clarke v. City of Rochester, 24 Barb. 481; Blooinfleld, . Cun- liff, 1 N. Y. 174. See criticisms in last two cases cited. v. Boyd, 3 Barb. 209, 212. Discussed (Statute of Frauds — guaranties) in Browne on Stat, o/ Frauds, § 167, 4 ed. v. Greenwood, 1 Cow. 15. See to the contrary (Power of court to interfere by mandamus to control practice of other courts) People ex rel. Griffin ». Common Pleas oi Jefferson, 2 How. Pr. 59. Blyrteirburgh v. Bingham, 38 N. Y. 371. Followed (Discharge of surety of judgment debtor) in Ducker o. Rapp, 41 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 235, 243. Disting'd (Burden of proof on creditor who releases or delays in enforcing securities) in Coining v. Pond, 29 Hun, 129. v. Cotheal, 4 K Y. 418. See Adams v. Dyer. Applied (Fractions of a day) in Jones v. Porter, 6 How. Pr. 286. t. Northrup, 13 How. Pr. 289. Collated (Surplus moneys on foreclosure of mort- gage — inchoate dower right) with other cases, in Colby on Foree. 54. Blyer v. Monholland. See Burr v. Beers; Lawrence v. Fox. Blylhe v. Tompkins, 2 Abb. Pr. 468. See Lincoln v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co. Approved (Stating facts in affidavit for arrest) in U. S. v. Tureaud, Cir. Ct. E. D. La., May, 1884, 20 Fed. Bep. 623. Board, Ex parte. 4 . Cow. 420. Compare (Proof to be furnished on redemption of real property) Code Civ. Pro. § 1464. Board of Education y. Fonda, 77 K Y. 350. Followed (Liability of surety on official bond) in Van Campen n. Ross, 9 Abb. N. C. 385, 389, 390, note. Said to clearly state the rule, and collated with other cases to the same effect, in 29 Alb. L. J. 406. Board of Education of New Lots v. Hickcox, 24 Hun, 237. Reported as Same v. Heckox, 12 Weekly Dig. 206. Board of Excise v. Sackrider, 35 K Y. 154. Reviewed and applied (Powers of members of board of excise) in Metcalf v. Garling- house, 40 How. Pr. 50. Followed in People ». Supervisors of Delaware Co., 45 -ZV^ Y. 196. See (Adjournment by justice to allow time for return of attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2967, n. 82 BOARD, &c. OF ORANGE— BOGARDUS. Board of Excise of Orange t. Dongherty, 65 Burb. 332. Cited as authority (License not assignable) in State v. Lydick, 11 Neb. 366. Board of Excise of Saratoga t. Doherty, 16 How.Pr. 46. See however (Pleading over in justices' courts after demurrer sustained) Code Civ. Pro. § 2939, last clause. Board of Water Comiur's of CoJioes v. Lansing, 45 JST. Y. 19. Followed (Report by less than all of the members of an assess- ment commission) in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 539, 573. Board man v. Gaillard, 1 Hun, 217; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 695. Affd in 60 KY. 614. See Wood v. Merritt. T. Balliday, 10 Paige, 223. Explained (Assignment for benefit of creditors — pre- ferences) in Burrill on Assign. § 179, 4 ed. Quoted in Id. § 166. Quoted and collated with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 212. T. Lake Shore, &c. R. B. Co., 8 Week. Big. 347. Aff'd in 84 A T . Y. 157. See Garnsey v. Rogers. Decision in 84 N. Y. followed (Right to dividends on stock) in Manning «. Quicksilver Mining Co., 24 Hun, 360, 362; Followed with Mannings. Quick- silver Mining Co., 24 Hun, 361, in Jermain . Anderson. See also (Sheriff's fees) Campbell v. Cothran, 56 K Y. 279, 284. , v. Taylor, 18 Abb. Pr. 385. Disapproved (Security for costs) in Elliott v. Wood, 5 Sun, 594. Followed unwillingly in Lewis ». Farrell, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 361. Fol- lowed in Lyman Ventilating, &e. Co. ■». Southard. 1 Banm. & A. (0. S.) Pat. Cas. 628. Bomanjee Byramjee Colah, Matter of, 6 Daly, 51. Subsequent proceedings 6 Italy, 308. Bom m er v. American Spiral Spring, &c. M'fg Co., 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 454; Affd in 81 K Y. 468. Bonaffe v. Fowler, 7 Paige, 576. Explained (Power of agent of corporation to bind it) in Any. & Am. on Corp. § 298, 11 ed. Bonard's Will, 16 Abb. Pr. N. SL 128. Test'y. Arg'ts, and opinion published in N. Y. 1872. Also arg'ts by E. T. Gebuy, N. Y. 1872. Disting'd (Evidence admissible on probate of will) in Hagadorn v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Sun, 252. Explained (Constructive conversion) in 2 Jarman on Wills, RinA. & T. ed. 214, n. 10. Bond v. McNiff, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 83. Aff' d in 41 Id. 543, on opinion below. Com- pare (Consent by widow to receive gross sum in lieu of dower) Code Civ. Pro. § 1569. V. Willct, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 105; s. c, 29 Sow. Pr. 47; 31 N. Y. 102. Fully reported, in 1 Eeyes, 377. Disting'd (En- forcement of execution after return-day without previous levy) in Hathaway *. Howell, 54 N. Y. 97, 104, 107. Followed (What constitutes valid levy) in Bardon «. Millins, 16 Weekly Dig. 58. Bonesteel v. Flack, 41 Barb. 435. See Steel- yards v. Singer. Disting'd (Conclusiveness of memorandum of sale) in Errico v. Brand, 9 Sun, 655. Collated (Conditional sale, when void as to third persons) with other authorities, in Lewis v. McCabe, 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 217, with extended note. v. Garlinghouse, 60 Barb. 338. Ap- proved (Plaintiff, when bound to allege his official character) in Albro v. Rood, 24 Sun, 72, 74. v. Lynde, 8 Sow. Pr. 226. Disting'd (Obtaining inspection of books and papers) in De Bary ». Stanley, 5 Daly, 413. Relied on in Commercial B'k of Albany v. Duuham, 13 Sow. Pr. 542, 544. See (Contempt of court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3001, n. t. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 6 Bom. 550. Affd in 22 N. Y. 162; s. c, 20 Sow. Pr. 237. Decision in 22 N. Y. disting'd as in^ applicable to question involving authority of common council, — in Jones v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Robt. 209. Disting'd (Liability of city for work done under void contract) in Moore v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 N. Y. 248. Bonito v. Mosquera, 2 Bosw. 201. Referred to in Pegram v. Carson, 10 Bosw. 505,511, as overruled (Possession by factor that enables him to pass lien to pledgee) in Cartwright v. Wilmcrding, 24 JV". Y. 521. Approved in Howlaiid v. Woodruff, 60 2T. Y. 73, 82. Doubted in 58 Am. Dec. 164, n. Bonnaffe, Matter of, 18 Sow. Pr. 15. Affd in 33 Barb. 469, which was aff'd in 23 N. Y. 169. Bonnell v. Griswold, 68 N. Y. 294. Further appeal in 80 N. Y. 128. Also in 89 K Y. 122. See Blake v. Wheeler; Pier v. Han- more. Decision in 80 N~. Y. applied (What constitutes dissolution of corporation) in Bruce v. Piatt, 80 K Y. 379, 389. Followed (Liability of trustee for filing untrue annual report of corporation) in Pier v. Hanmore, 86 K Y. 95, 100. Disting'd (Conclusiveness of certificate of payment of corporate stock) in Veeder v: Mudgett, 95 W. Y. 295. Ap- plied (Statute not to be so construed as to create implication of penalty) in People ex rel. Bush v. Thornton, 25 Sun, 456, 464. v. Wlieeler, 1 Hun, 332; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 557; 16 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 81. Affd in 68 N. Y. as Bonnell v. Griswold. Further decision in 18 Hun, 496, as Blake v. Wheeler, rev'd as Bonnell o. Griswold, 80 K Y. 128, and Blake v. Griswold, Id. 631. Bonner v. McPhail, 31 Barb. 106. Disting'd (Proof of referee's authority) in Eighmy v. People, 79 XT. Y. 557. Bouncy v. Seeley, 2 Wend. 481. Followed (Limit of suretv's recovery) in Garnsey v. Allen, 27 Me. 366. Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt, 21 Barb. 26; Briggs v. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. 222. Overruled, in part (Excuse of non-performance of con- tract) in Williams *. Vanderbilt, 28 K Y. 217. Bonynge v. Field, 44 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 581. Affd in 81 N. Y. 159. v. Waterbury, 12 Sun, 534. Followed (Liability of attorney for services of steno- grapher) in Sheridan v. Genet, 12 Sun,- 660; Bonynge v. Field, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 581. Boody v. Drew, 46 Sow. Pr. 459. Fully re- ported in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (7. & C.) 69. Bookstaver v.Glenny, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T.SC.) 248. Said in Chapin v. Dobson, 78 K Y. 74, 80, to have been affd by Ot. of App. Said in Unger v. Jacobs, 7 Sun, 220, 223, to definitely settle the law (Effect of oral counter-agreement). v. Jayne, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (_T. & C.) 397. Rev'd in 60 K Y. 140. See Pechner v. BOOL— BORDEAUX. 85 ' Phoenix Ins. Co. ; People v. Bostwick. Decision in 60 N. Y. disting'd (Parol evi- dence to vary terms of note) in Willse v. Whitaker, 22 Hun, 244. Disting'd in Bull's Head B'k «. Koebler, 1 City Ct. 270. Dis- ting'd (Defense to action on note given in settlement of action) in Whitlock v. Coulter, 1 City Ct. 428. Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119; s. c, 13 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 82, with brief note, on conveyances by infants. See Stafford ». Boof. Discussed (Infants' contracts) in 2 Kent Com. 237, n. b; Id. 238, n. d. Ex- plained in 1 Cliitty on Contr. 194, n. h, 11 Am. ed. Explained in Matthewson v. John- son, Hoffm. 565. Followed in Van Nostrand ■o, "Wright, Sill & I). 260. Commented 1 on with Matthewson v. Johnson, Soffm. 560, in Tylei- Inf. & Con. 2 ed. § 25, as to the rule respecting confirmation of feoff- ments made by infants. Cited as authority (Conveyance by married woman) in De Pierres v. Thorn, 4 Bosw. 296. Explained in Sherman «. Garfield, 1 Den. 329. Boomer v. Koon, 6 Hun, 645; s. c, less fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 645. Followed (Evidence admissible under general denial) in Manning v. Winter, 7 Hun, 482, 484; Schwarz v. Oppold, 7 Daly, 121. Collated with other cases (Pleading alteration in a note) in 17 Am. R. 105, n. Boona v. Citizen's Sav'gs B'k of N. ¥., 21 Hun, 235. Rev'd in 84 XT. Y. 83; s. c, 9 Abb. N. C. 416; 38 Am. It. 498, with note. Decision in 84 N. Y. 83, limited (Devolu- tion of trust on administrator) in Kilbum v. See, 1 Dem. 353. Compare (Trusts of per- sonal property) Matter of Howell, 61 How. Pr. 179. Boormau v. Atlantic & Pac. R. R. Co., 17 Sun, 555. Aff d in 78 N. Y. 599. v. Jenkins, 12 Wei.d. 566; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 158, with note, containing citations. Followed (Parol evidence of custom to establish warranty) in Cassidy v. Begodcn; 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 180. Compare (Sale by sample) Waring v. Mason, 18 Johns. 425. Boos v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.)364; mem. a. c, inillun, 133. Aft'd in 64 N. Y. 236. Bootli v. Aminerman, 4 Bradf. 129. Fol- lowed and approved (Effect of bequest of interest payable annually) in Welsh v. Brown. 14 Vroom (A7! J.) 45. v. Bierce, 40 Barb. 114. Rev'd in 38 N. Y. 463. v. Boston & Alb. K. R. Co., 67 K Y. 593. Further decision in 73 K. Y. 38 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 97, with note. See Crispin v. Bab- bitt; Laning v. N. Y. Central, &c. It. R. Co. ; Malone v. Hathaway. Decision in 73 N. Y. explained and followed (Master's liability for injury to servant) in Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46, 52. Applied in McCosker ». Long Island R. R. Co., 21 Sun, 500, 507. v. Bnnce, 35 Barb. 496. Rev'd in 24 N. Y. 592. Subsequent decisions'in '61. N. Y. 246; 33 Id. 139. Decision in 24 N. Y. disting'd (Admissibility of evidence to show fraudulent character of arrangement by which property is held by judgment debtor) in Smith v. Van Olinda, 48 jV. Y. 171. v. Cleveland Rolling Mills Co., 11 Sun, 278. Affd in 74 N. Y. 15. Former decision in 6 Sun, 591. Decision in 74 N~. Y. fol- lowed (What is implied in contract) in Jones v. Kent, 8 Abb. N. C. 300, 304. v. Cornell, 2 Redf. 261. Rev'd as Five Points House of Industry v. Amerman, in 11 Sun, 161. — v. Eighmie, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 378. AfTd in 60 N. Y. 238; s. c, 19 Am. R. 171. y. Farmers' & Mech. Nat. Bank, 4 ' Lans. 301. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 396. Further decisions in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 45; s. c, 65 Barb. 457 ; also in 1 1 Sun, 258, and the latter affd in 74 N. Y. 228. Decision in 74 JV. Y. cited (Recovery by partner for sums paid on account of partnership) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 221. n. v. Kitchen, 7 Sun, 255. Further decis- ions in Id. 260 ; also in 3 Redf. 52. v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22. Rev'g Flint v. Craig, 59 Barb. 319. Decision in 56 N. Y. criticised as extreme (Effect of altera- tion of note payable "to order") in 17 Am. R. 102, n. v. Smith, 5 Wend. 107. Limited (Effect of decision on demurrer against one who has succeeded on trial of issues of fact) in Osborne v. Lawrence, 9 Wend. 445. v. Spuyten Duyyil Rolling Mill Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 368. Aft'd in 60 S. Y. 487. Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. fol- lowed (Measure of damages for breach of contract of sale) in Laird i>. Townsend, 5 Sun, 107. Decision in 60 JT. Y. explained in Ben), on Sales, § 882, n. a (Bennett's Am. ed.). Explained in 2 Id. § 1 337 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.); Id. n. k. Included (Con- sequential damages) in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 331. Disting'd in Allis v. McLean, 48 Mich. 432. v. Sivezey, SKY. 276. See Paige v. Cagwin ; Stafford ». Rice. Limited (Admis- sibility of admissions of former owner of chattels, &c.) in Schenck v. Warner, 37 Barb. 263. Applied in Smith ». Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 500; Simpson v. McKay, 3 Sun, 322; Johnson v. Hicks, 1 Lans. 159; Edington u. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 193. Followed in Tousley v. Barry, 16 N. Y. 500. Criticised aud applied to receipt given bv mortgagee, — in Foster v. BesAs, 21 N. Y. "250. Re-aft'd (Onus on one who impeaches transfer) in Townsend v. Stearns, 32 N.Y. 215; Thomas v. Murray, Id. 612. Bordeaux v. Erie R.Co., 8 Sun, 579. Criti- cised as not well considered, and as opposed to reason and authority (Extra fare, in case of ticket-office being closed) in article on "Discriminative Traffic Rates" in 16 Am. Law Rev. 818, 827. 86 BORDEN— BOSTON & ALBANY R. E. CO. Borden t. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121; s. c, 8 Am. Dee. 255. See Bradshaw «. Heath ; Hitch- cock v. Aiken ; Hoffman v. Hoffman ; Hug- gins v. King; Jackson v. Jackson; Kinnier b. Kinnier; Shumway n. Stillman; Starbuck e. Murray. Collated (Validity "of foreign divorce) with other cases, in 7 Am. Dec. 206, n., and there approved. Discussed in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 212. Explained in 2 Bishop on Mar. & D. § 163, a, n. 3, 6 ed. Discussed in 2 Kent Com. 109. See Brad- shaw v. Heath, 13 Wend. 407- Approved and followed with Vischer v. Vischer, 12 Barb. 640. in McGiffert v. McGiffert, 31 Barb. 69; Phelps v. Baker, 60 Barb. 107. Followed in Holmes v. Holmes, 4 Lans. 391 ; People v. Baker, 76 K Y. 82. Disting'd in Hill v. Hill, 28 Barb. 26; Hunt v. Hunt. 9 Hun, 624, which was afl'd in 72 N. Y. 217, 240, which see. Followed (Necessity of juris- diction) in Bigelow v. Stearns, 19 Johns. 40. Explained in Sheldon v. Wright, 5 K Y. 516; Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 175. Applied in Denning v. Corwin, 1 1 Wend. 652 ; Spear v. Carter, 1 Mich. 20, which cited Mills v. Martin, 19 Johns. 33. Followed (Effect of foreign judgment) in Harrod v. Bar* retto, 1 Hall, 162. Explained in Monroe v. Douglas, 4 Sandf. Oh. 180. Approved in Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend. 156. Exam- ined in Shumway ■». Stillman, 6 Wend. 451. Approved in Dearing v. B'k of Charleston, 5 Oa. 497; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 300, 316. Ap- proved with Andrews v. Montgomery, 19 Johns. 162; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 213, with note; in Bimeler v. Dawson, 4 Scam. (III.) 536 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 430, 433 ; Shumway v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 292 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 374, being followed as to the presumptions respecting the validity of such a judgment. Cited approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 261, n. b. Disting'd in Coleman v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 229. Examined (Necessity of personal presence in court to sustain jurisdiction) in People ». Clark, 1 Parle, 368. v. South SideR R. Co. of Long Island, 5 Hun, 184. Aff'd in 67 N. Y. 588, without opinion. Bordwell v. Collie, 1 Lans. 141. Aff'd in 45 N. Y. 494. See Case v. Hall. Decision in 45 If. Y. applied (Action for breach of warranty, when maintainable) in Converse ■». Miner, 21 Hun, 367, 374. Applied (Effect of implied warranty of title) in Matheny v. Mason, 73 Mo. 677. Boreel v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 2 Sandf. 552. Explained (Right to wharfage) in Langdon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. N. C. 314, 326. Limited and questioned (Liability of interest in wharf to taxation) in Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 68 N. Y. 552. Limited *and criticised in People ex rel. Smith v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 10 Hun, 207, 210. Bork T. People, 1 6 Hun, 476. Writ of error dismissed in 78 K Y. 346. Affd in 83 If. Y. 609, but without opinion. Further proceeding in 1 If. ' Y. Crim. B. 868, and that aff'd without noticing point decided here, in 91 If. Y. 5. Bornsdorff v. Lord, 41 Barb. 211; s. c, more fully, as Matter of Borsdorff, 17 Abb. Pr. 168. Limited (Revivor) in Beach v. Reynolds, 53 If. Y.5. Borst v. Beecker, 6 Johns. 332. Approved (Alienage as ground for challenge) in Schu- maker v. State, 5 Wise. 328; but compare Guykowskie v. People, 1 Scam. (111.) 476; S'towe ». People, 2 Id. 326 ; State v. Babcock, 1 Conn. 401 ; Rex v. Tremaine, 5 B. & C. 254; People ». Jewett, 6 Wend. 386. Dis- ting'd (Disqualification of juror as ground for reversal or for setting aside verdict) in Wassum n. Feeney, 121 Mass. 93; s. c, 23 Am. R. 258, 260. v. Corey, 15 If. Y. 505. Affirms a decis- ion of the Supreme Court, which appears not to have been reported; see however, proceedings between the same parties, in 16 Barb. 136. See Pratt v. Huggins. Approved (Distinction between personal obligation and security furnished by a reserved lien or mortgage) in Coles ». Withers, 33 Gralt. iVa.) 196. Collated with Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Pai. 465 ; and other cases (Right to en- force lien for debt barred by statute of limitations) in 31 Am. R. 41, n. Fol- lowed ''Definition of counterclaim) in Mul- berger Koenig, 22 Northw. Rep. 745, 747. v. Empie, 5 N. Y. 33. Disting'd (Res- ervations in. grants) in Bridger v. Piersou, 1 Lans. 481. v. Lake Shore and M. S. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 346. Aff'd, it seems, in 66 K Y. 639, but without opinion. Decision in 4 Hun fol- lowed (Negligence of person injured while crossing railroad track, when a question for a jury) in Leonard u. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 225. v. Spelman, 4 K Y. 284. Disting'd (Gift to wife) in Brouer v. Vandenburgh, 31 Barb. 649. Applied in Fowler v. Butterly, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 161. Approved (Reviewing question of fact) in Morris v. Husson, 8 W. Y. 205. Approved (Right to post-nuptial choses in action) in Ewell Lead. Cases on Inf., &c. 390. Applied (Effect of appeal from judgment) in Morgan v. Bruce, 1 Code R. K S. 367. Bort v. Smith, 5 Barb. 283. Approved (Im- proper evidence not ground for reversal) in Aldrich «. Maitland, 4 Mich. 212, citing Spencer v. Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co., 12 Barb. 382; Brock v. Waterbury, 13 Id. 116. Bossange v. Ros9, 17 How. Pr. 566; s. c, more fully in 29 Barb. 576. See Aeby v. Rapelye. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., Matter of. 53 ]¥. Y. 574. See Milhau v. Sharp. Explained and applied (Extent of franchise of railroad corporation) in Prime v. Twenty-third St. R. R. Co., 1 Abb. N. C. 63, 67. Disting'd in Stranahan v. Sea View R'-y Co., 84 If. Y. 312. BOSTON, &c. R R. CO.— BOSTWICK. 87 Boston & Albany K. R. Co. v. Village of Grecnbnsh, 5 Dans. 461. Affd in 52 N. Y. 510. Boston Carpet Co. v. Jonrneay. 1 Daly, 190. Afi'd in 36 N. Y. 384. See Leverick v. Meigs. Boston, Hoosnc Tunnel, &c. R'y Co., Matter Of, 79 Jf. Y. 64. Other proceedings in Id. 69, also in 22 Hun, 176; 58 How. Pr. 167. See Matter of Black River, &c. It. R. Co. Boston, Hoosac Tunnel. &c. It. E. Co. t. Troy, &c. R. R. Co. See Boston, Hoosac Tunnel, &c. R'y Co., Matter of. Boston Locomotive Works v. Wright. See Stannard a. Mattice. Bostwick v. Abbott, 40 Barb. 331; s. c, 16 Abb. Pr. 417. Compare (Judgment dismiss- ing complaint) Code Civ. Pro. § 1209. v. Atkins, 3 N. Y. 53. See Jackson ». Car- penter. Explained (Affirmance of sale of real property by infant) in 3 , Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. - 251, with Chapin ». Shafer, 49 K Y. 407; Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. 641. Contrasted with contrary cases, in Goodnow ». Empire Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 468; s. c, 23 Am. L. Peg. JV. S. 329, where they are disapproved as laying down a rule which- should be established by legislature, not by the courts. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 55 Barb. 137. Rev'd in 45 K Y. 712. Decision in 45 N. Y. explained (Effect of bill of lading as evidence of contract) in Long v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 50 JV. Y. 76. See also Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 JV. Y. 168, 174. Disting'd in Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Run, 233, which was , aff'd in 72 JV. Y. 90, which see. Disting'd in Hill v. Syracuse, B. & K. Y. R. R. Co., 73 JV. Y. 351, 353; s. c, 29 Am. It. 163, with note. Applied (Oral evidence to vary written instrument) in Brewer's Fire Ins. Co v. Burger, 10 Hun, 56, 58. Applied (Limitation of carrier's liability for negligence) in Magniu v. Dins- more, 56 N. Y. 168, 174. > v. Barlow, 14 Hun, 177, 179. Applied (Liability- of highway commissioners) in Warren v. Clement, 24 Hun, 472. v. Beiser, 10 Abb. Pr. 1 97. Subsequent decision in 40 JV. Y. 383. See further decis- ion in Bostwick v. Menck, 4 Daly, 68, rev'g 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 169. Decision in 4 Daly disting'd (Supplemental complaint) in Cohn v. Husson, 5 Cio. Pro. P. {Browne) 324. v. Brown, 15 Hun, 308. Followed (Costs against executor, &c.) and Woodruff v. Cook, 14 How. Pr. 481, disapproved in Bedell v. Barnes, 29 Hun, 589. Compare Code Civ. Pro. §§' 1814, 324G. v. Burnett, 11 Hun, 301. Rev'd in 74iV. Y. 317. See contrary to 11 Hun, (Assign- ment with preferences — validity of, under bankrupt act) Dodge v. Sheldon, 6 Hill, 9. Disapproved in Williams v. Pitts, 55 How. Pr. 331, on authority of Dodge v. Sheldon, 6 Hill, 9 ; Seaman v. Stoughton, 3 Barb. Ch. 344, and other cases. Compare 2 Perry on Trusts, 132, § 587; 145, § 597; Wheelock?). Lee, 5 Abb. N. C. 72. Collated with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 233. v. Champion, 11 Wend. 571. Affd in 18 Id. 175. See Champion v. Bostwick; Van Santvoord v. St. John. Collated (Lia- bility of connecting carriers) with Straiton v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 184; Briggs i>. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. 222; Milnor v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 53 JV. Y. 363 ; Kessler v. N. Y. Central. &c. R. R. Co., 61 Id. 538; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 Id. 306, and other cases, in 35 Am. R. 708, n. Applied with Fairchild v. Slo- cum, 19 Wend. 329, in Barter v. Wheeler, 49 If. H. 9 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 434, 446. Applied with Fairchild v. Slocum, 19 Wend. 329 ; Hart v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 8 JV. Y. 37 ; Smith v. N. Y. Central R. Co., 43 Barb. 225, and other author- ities, in Wolff v. Central R. R. Co., 68 Ga. 653; s. c, 45 Am. R. 501. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 582, 5 ed. Collated and discussed (Liability of carrier beyond his line) with Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co., 19 Wend. 534; St. John v. Van Santvoord, 25 Id. 660 ; Wilcox v. Parmelee, 3 Sand/. 610 ; Hart v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 8 JST. Y. 37; Wibert v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 12 JV. Y. 245 ; Schroeder v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 55; Hunt v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 1 Hilt. 228 ; Dillon v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., Id. 231 ; Foy v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 24 Barb. 382; Russell ■». Liviugston, 16 N. Y. 515 ; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 2V. Y. 306 ; Hempstead v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 28 Barb. 485; Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 35, and many other cases, in Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9; s. c, 12 Am. R. 1, 27, 28, 29, 30. . v. Frankfield, 11 Hun, 475. Affd in 74 N. Y. 207. v. Goetzel, 57 N. Y. 582, 585. Followed (Defendant, when not in custody, so as to be entitled to supersedeas) in Watt v. Healy, 22 Hun, 492. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 572, n„ 573, n. v. Menck, 40 JST. Y. 383. See Bost- wick 4i. Beiser. Disting'd (Title of re- ceiver in supplementary proceedings) in Verplanck v. Van Buren, 76 JST. Y. 247, 256. Followed in Olney v. Tanner {IT. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N.Y., Dec. 1883), 17 Reporter, 8. Limited (Compelling assignment to receiver) in Clan Ranald v. Wyckoff, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 527. Quoted (Who may be complainant in creditors' action) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 116. Quoted and explained (Receiver bringing judgment creditor's ac- tion) in High on Receiv. § 455, n. 1. v. Tioga R. R. Co., 17 How. Pr. 456. Followed (Extra allowance — when only to be given) in Merchants' Exch. Nat'l Bank v. Commercial Warehouse Co., 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 214. 88 BOSTWICK— BOWEK T. Wildey, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 23; s. c, with points of counsel, 42 How. Pr. 245. Bosworth t. Van der walker, 53 N. Y. 597. . Disting'd (Service on infant) in Ingersoll r>. Mangam, 84 K Y. 622, 626, which aff d 24 Hun, 203, which see. Botsford t. Burr, 2 Johns. Oh. 409. See Boyd v. McLean; Fleming v. Gilbert; Steere v. Steere ; Stevens v. Cooper. . Followed (Proof by parol of resulting trust) with Steere v. Steere, 5 Johns. 1 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 256, in Pinnock®. Clough, 16 Verm. 500 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec.52l, with note. Both these cases followed in Burden v. Sheridan, 36 Iowa, 125; s. c, 14 Am. R 505, 508. Followed with Louns- bury v. Purdy, 16 Barb. 376, in McGovern v. Knox, 21 Ohio St. 547; s. c, 8 Am. B. 80. Followed in Ilollida v. Shpop, 4 Md. 465; s. a, 59 Ajn. Dee. 88. Followed (Parol agreements respecting lands) with Levy v. v Brush, 45 JV Y. '589, in Bauman v. Holz- hausen, 26 Hun, 505. v. McLean, 42 Barb. 445. Subsequent proceedings in 45 Id. 478. Decision in 42 Barb, said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. in May, 1871. See Welles v. Yates. Decision in 45 Barb, fol- lowed (Relief against misdescriptions in written contract) in Wilson v. Van Pelt, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 414. Followed in Albany City Sav'gs Inst., 87 JST. Y. 40, 47. Boucliand y. Bias, 10 Paige, 445. Rev'd in 1 JV. Y. 201. Decision in 1 J/! Y. explained (Definition of voluntary assignment) in Burrill on Assign. 4 ed. § 3, n. 1. Ex- plained (Distribution of debtor's estate- priority of U. S.) in Id. § 440. v. , 3 Den. 238. Relied on (Conclu- siveness of admission of judgment rendered on demurrer) in Coffin v. Knott, 2 O. Greene {Iowa) 582 ; s. p., 52 Am. Dec. 537, 539, with note. Explained (Former judgment as defense) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 729, n. o. Bouck v. Wilber. See Sollick v. Adams. Boughen v. Nolan. Reported as Bowghen v. Nolan, 53 How. Pr. 485. Boughton Y. Bruce, 20 Wend. 234. Dis- ting'd (Demand, as condition precedent to right of action) in Schroeppel v. Coming, • 5 Den. 242. v. Carter, 18 Johns. 405. Disting'd (Negligence in one acting under authoritv) in Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 23 JV Y. 42, 49. v. Flint, 13 Hun. 206. Rev'd in 74' N..Y. 476; s. c, 5 Abb. N. O. 215. See Gardner v. Gardner; Payne v. Gardiner; Tucker v. Tucker. With decision in 74 JV. Y. compare (Effect of vouchers produced on accounting by executor) Code Civ. Pro. § 2734. Decision in 74 JV Y. disting'd (Ju- risdiction of surrogate as to claim of administrator, &c.) in Richardson v. Root, 19 Hun, 475. v. Mitchell. See Simmons v. Sherman. v. Otis, 29 Barb. 196. Aff'd in 21 JV. Y. 261. See Broughton v. Otis; Corning v. McCullough ; Garrison v. Howe. Decision in 21 JV. Y. examined and approved (Liability of trustees for debts of corporation) in Mc- Harg v. Eastman, 4 Robt. 635. Followed in Nimmons v. Tappan, 2 Sweeny, 652; Miller v. White, 57 Barb. 511; Steam Engine Co. v. Hubbard, 101 U. S. 188; Huguenot Nat. Bk. v. Studwell, 6 Daly, 13, 15; Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. v. Bliss, 27 JV. Y. 297; Carley v. Hodges, 19 Hun, 187. Applied in Craw v. Easterly, 4 Lam. 521. Disting'd in Duckworth v. Roach, 8 Dahj, 159, 162; Losee v. Bullard, 79 JV. Y. 406. Relied on in dissenting opinion of Folgek, J., in Jones v. Barlow, 62 JV. Y. 214. Applied to. stock- holder's liability, — in Lowry v. ■ Inmanj 2 Sweeny, 148. Bonrs v. Tnckerman, 7 Johns. 538. See Person v. Grier. Disapproved (Privilege of witness not absolute) in Merrill n. George, 23 How. Pr. 331, 333, 335. Compare Pol- lard v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 70. Bontel t. Owens, 2 Sandf. 654. Limited (Effect of adjustment of costs without notice) in Gilmartin v. Smith, 4 Sandf. 684. Bonton v. Bonton, 40 How. Pr. 217. Modi- fied on appeal by imposing payment of costs, in 42 Id. 1 1. See Mott v. Lansing. v. City of Brooklyn, 7 How. Pr. 198. Aff'd in 15 Barb. Sin. v. Neilson, 3 Johns. 414:. Relied upon (Validity of summary proceedings for penalties) in Beach v. Furman, 9 Johns. 229, but distinguished therefrom in 48 Am. Dec. 276, n. Followed (Judgment rendered without notice) in Flint River Steamboat Co. i\ Foster, 5 Oa. 194; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 248-254, with lengthy note collating cases. Bovec r. King, 11 Hun, 250. Affd. it seems, in 75 N. Y. 609, but without opinion. Boweu v. Bell, 19 Johns. 390. Disapproved (Allowing defendant to plead after default in justice's court) with Lowther v. Crummie, 8 Cow. 87, and Snell v. Loucks, 1 1 Johns. 69, approved in Pickert v. Dexter, 12 Wend. 150. v. , 20 Johns. 338; s. c, 6 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1035, with brief notes. Also reported in 11 Am. Dec. 286, with note, showing it to have been recently fol- lowed in N. Y. (Parol proof to explain con- sideration clause in deed). See PechneT v. Phajnix Ins. Co. ; Schemerhorn v. Vander- heyden ; Shephard v. Little. Followed with McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. ;4&0, in Goodspced v. Fuller, 46 Me. 147. Applied to case of agreement for conveyance, in Watson v. Blaine, 12 Serg. & It. (Pa.) 131; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 669. v. Bowen, 2 Brad/. S36. See Williams v. Hutchinson. Applied (Liability for gratuitous services) in Hewett v. Bronson, 5 Daly, 1, 7. Disting'd in Gallaher «. Vought, 8 Hun, 87. v. Bradley, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Shdfon) BOWEN— BOWERY NAT. BANK. 89 226; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 395. Disap- proved (Usurious character of contract as determined by law of place) in Dickinson v. Edwards, 77 N. Y. 573 ; Clayes v. Hooker, 4 Hun, 234. Approved in First Nat'l B'k of N. Y. v. Morris, 4 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 182, 184, as preferable to Jewell v. Wright, 30 JST. Y. 259. Followed in Wayne Co. Sav'gs B'k v. Low, 6 Abb. K G. 70, 88, 91. y. Cooper, 2 jv". Y. Leg. Obs. 355. Ex- plained (Privileged communication) in Moak's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. cd. 153. v. Cross, 4 Johns. Gh. 375. Relied on (Supplemental answer) in Stout v. Shew, 1 Finn. (Wise.) 438; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 579, 587. T. Fenner, 40 Barb. 383. Explained (Conversion) in Monk's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. ,582. y. First Nat. Bk. of Medina, 34 How. Pr. 408. Followed (Jurisdiction over national banks) in Cadle v. Tracy, 11 Blatchf. G. Gt. 101, 10S. See to the con- trary (National banks as foreign corpora- tions) Code Civ. Pro. § 3343, subd. 18. See (Time of motion to vacate attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 082, «. v. Idley, 1 Edw. 148. Affd in 11 Wend. 227. v. , 6 Paige, 4fi. Examined (Power of amending bill) in Bank of Mich. v. Niles, Walk. Gh. 401 ; citing McElwain v. Willis, 3 Paige, 505. Criticised (Jurisdiction of equity in suit to establish destroyed will) in Everitt v. Everitt, 41 Barb. 385. v. Lease, 5 Hill, 221. Disting'd (Repeal by implication) in Excelsior Petroleum Co. ■o. Embury, 67 Barb. 261, 265; Pursell v. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 42 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 396. Applied in Vallauce p. Bausch, 28 Barb. 672 ; Spratt v. Huntington, 2 Han, 344; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Walker, 4 J3. D. Smith, 267; Boyle's Estate, Tuck 6. Approved and applied in Wallace v. Bassett, 41 Barb. 96; Whipple ». Christian, 15 Hun, 325. Cited in Peck ». Peck, 8 Abb. N. C. 400, 402. Followed (Application of statute regulating duties of directors) in Hatch v. Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. N. 0. 430, 433. Disting'd (Transfer by corporation in contemplation of insolvency) in Gillet v. Moody, 5 Barb. 188. Explained in Harris v. Thompson, '15 Barb. 65. " Applied to effect of failure to elect corporate officers, — in People ex rel. Miller s. Cummings, 72 - JV. Y. 437. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 65, 4 ed. v. Newell, 5 Sandf. 326. Rev'd in 8 N. Y. 190. Subsequent decision in 2 Duer, 584, which was aft'd in 13 JV. K 290. See Frith v. Barker. These decisions cited with other cases (Evidence of usage as to allow- ance of days of grace) in- 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 9. Decision in 13 N. Y. disting'd in Wayne Co. Sav'gs Bk. v. Low, 6 Abb. N. G. 76, J*6. Included (Days of grace— what law to govern) in 2 Ames Cases on B. & N. 227, 299. v. N. Y. Central R. It. Co., 18 N. Y. 408. Approved (Degree of care required from carrier) in Smith v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 Id. 222, 224. Explained in Ang. on Oarr. § 569, n. a, 5 ed. Cited, with other eases (Ordinary care) in 14 Am. L. Peg. K 8. 266. v. Widner, 25 Hun, 61. Briefly reported in 12 WeeHy Dig. 525. Bowerlian's Case. See William's Case. Bovvers v. Smith, 10 Paige, 201. See Grant v. Van Schoonhoven. Followed (Action for construction of will, — who may not maintain) in Duncan v. Duncan, 4 Abb. Jf. C. 275, 278. Applied in Post v. Hover, 30 Barb. 324; Walrath n. Handy, 24 Barb. 355 ; Trow ». Shannon, 59 How. Pr. 217 ; Bailey v. South- wick, 6 Bans. 363. Explained in Chipman v. Montgomery, 4 Hun, 742, which was rev'd in 63 N. Y. 231, which see ; Marlett v. Marlett, 14 Hun, 315. Approved and applied in Monarque v. Monarque, 19 Hun, 332. Followed (Jurisdiction of such action) in Onderdonk e. Mott, 34 Barb. 113. Discus- sed (Ejectment, as disting'd from action for construction of will) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 163. Disapproved (Devise of real estate in lieu of dower, — whether passing under residuary clause) in Waring v. Waring, 17 Barb. 560. Cited as author- ity (What included in residuary clause) in Youngs v. Youngs, 45 2V Y. 259. Bowery Bank v. Duncan, 12 Hun, 408. Collated and compared (Parol evidence to establish trust) in Randall v. Constaus, 23 Northw. Rep. 530, 533. Bowery Extension Case, 2 Abb. Pr. 368; s. . 372. Bowery Saving's Bank v. Richards, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& ft) 59; s. c, more fully, 8 Hun, 866. Appeal dismissed in 62 If. Y. 631. See Bergh's Case. Bowles t. Van Horn, 11 Abb. Pr. 84. Op- posed (Costs on dismissal of complaint) in Perkins e. Butler, 42 How. Pr. 102. Over- ruled (Dismissal of complaint for neglect to prosecute) by Winchell v. Martin, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 47. Bowling Green Savings Bank v. Todd, 64 Barb. 146. Aff'd in 52 If. Y. 489. See Rooney v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Decision in 52 AT. Y. questioned (Attorney's lien) in Matter of Knapp, 8 Abb. If. C. 308, 310, which was rev'd on other grounds in " 85 If.- Y. 284, 294, 298, which see. Said in 31 Am. Dec. 759, «., collating cases, to have been reiterated in Hooper «. Welch, 43 Vt. 171. Followed (Compelling payment by attorney to client) Matter of Fincke, 6 Daly, 111. Explained in Porter t>. Parmly, 39 (Super. Ct.. (J. & S.) 219, 239. Bowman v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 261. ASM in 59 If. Y. 521. Disting'd (Waiver by special agent) in Thayer v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 566. T. De Peyster, 2 Daly, 203. Relied on by Monbll, Ch. J. (Appeal from order al- lowing amendment of pleading) in Schreyors. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 277. See to the contrary Sheldon v. Adams, 27 How. Pr. 179. v. Ely, 2 Wend. 250 ;, Messenger v. Holmes, 12 Id. 203. Explained (Change of venue) in People v. Webb, 1 Hill, 179. v. Rainetaux, Hoffm. Ch. 150. Quoted and collated (Assignment for benefit of creditors — death of assignee) with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 348. v. Tallman, 2Robt. 385; s. c, more fully, 27 How. Pr. 212. Affd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 182, n. ; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 1. Further decision in 2 Bobt. 632, reported more fully in 3 Id. 633. See Marsellis v. Thalhimer. Decision in 3 Bobt. applied (Execution issued before affirmance of judgment) in Rosenfield v. Palmer, 5 Daly, 318. ■ v. Teall, 23 Wend. 306; s. c, 14 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 379, with brief note. Ex- plained (Waiver of damages for negligence of carrier) in McCormick v. Penn. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 80 If. Y. 353, 362. Dis- cussed (Delivery by carrier) in Ang. on Carr. § 333, n. 2, 5 ed. Included (Carriers' negligence in transporting goods) in Sedgw. Cases on Duma. 101. v. Troy & Boston' R. R. Co.. 37 Barb. 516. See Halloran v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. Disting'd (Liability of railroad com- pany for killing animals strayingupon track) in Brady v. Rensselaer & S. R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 378 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 538. Bowne v. Joy, 9 Johns. 221. See EmbreeV Collins. Followed (Pendency of foreign suit) in Walsh ». Durkin, 12 Johns. 101. Approved with Walsh v. Durkin, 12 Johns. 99, in White e. Whitman, 1 Curt. C. Ct. 494. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on, Coutr. 608, n. w. Followed with Walsh v. Durkin, 12 Johns. 101 ; Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige, 620 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 669, in Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn. 485; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 433. y. Mellor, 6 Hill, 496. Followed (Re- covery on bond given on issuing of attach- ment by justice; in Northrup v. Garrett, 17 Hun, 499. v. O'Brien, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 539. Another decision in 5 Daly, 474. v. Potter, 17 Wend. 161. See Sherwood v. Vandenburgh, Overruled, it seems, (Estoppel of husband's grantee as against claim of dower) in Sparrow v Kingman, 1- K Y. 242. Denied in Finn v. Sleight, 8 Barb. 406. Discussed in 1 Waslib. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 238, 239. Approved (Right of grantee in possession to defend against all but owner) in May u. Sprecht, 1 Mich. 190. Citing Bancroft v. White, 1 Cai. 185. v. Underbill, 4 Hun, 130. Fully, re- ported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 344. v. AYitt, 19 Wend. 475. Disting'd (" Head of a family," under exemption laws)- in Bachman v. Crawford, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 213; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 163, with note. Applied (''Householder") in Calhoun v. Williams, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 18; s. c, 34 Am. R. 759, 762. Boyce v. Bates, 8 How. Pr. 495. See to tho- contrary (Application for leave to issue execution to collect costs) Lucas ■». John- son, G How. Pr. 121; Mitchells. Wcstervelt, Id. 265, 311; Wetzel «. Schultz, 13 Id. 191. Approved and explained (^Enforcing at- torney's liability for costs) in Matter of Levy, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 108: v. Brown, 7 Barb. 80. Reported below, in Royce ». Brown, 3 How. Pr. 391. See Arthur v. Brooks. v. People, 55 K Y. 644. Compare (Seduction, when accomplished under pro- mise of marriage. Relying on the promise) Cook .«. People, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 404. v. Washburn, 4 Hun, 792. Explained (Statute of Frauds— "goods, wares and merchandise ") in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 117, n. 5. (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). V. Wight, 2 Abb. If. C. 163. See also (Acknowledgment and record of certificate given on making redemption) Code Cic. Pro. § 1470. Boyd v. Bigelow, 14 How. Pr. 511. Followed (Costs on reference of claim against estate) in Munson v. Howell, 20 How. Pr. 59. For contrary decisions, see Van Sickler v. Gra- ham, 7 How. Pr. 208; Avery v. Smith, 9 Id. 349. v. Brotherson, 10 Wend. 93. See Mit- chell «. Culver. Approved (Supplying oniis- BOYCE—BOYNTON. 91 sions in promissory note) in Connor v. Routh, 7 How. {Miss.) 176; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 59. t. Colt, 20 How. Pr. 384. Followed (Nullifying testimony of party) in Lynch v. Pyne, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 11. See other cases collected (Weight of testimony of parties) in 1 Abb. 363, n. v. (limimings, 17 N. Y. 101. Applied (Holder of note for value) in Bank of the State of N. Y. v. Vanderhorst, 32 N. Y. 553. Collated (Indorsement of note as consideration for suspending proceedings in collection of debt) with other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 241. v. De La Montagnie, 1 Hun, 096; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 148; 47 How. Pr. 433. Affd in effect on appeal from a second trial in 73 JV. Y. 498; s. c, 29 Am. R. 197. Decision in 73 N". Y. approved (Ground for setting aside conveyance) in Kleeman v. Reltzer, 22 Northw. Rep. 793, 796. See (Transfer of property from wife to husband, when void) Darlington's Appeal, 86 Penn. St. 512 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 726. Quoted and discussed (Validity of illegal convey- ances as between the parties) in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 400. v. Dowie, 65 Barb. 237. Compare (Necessity of possession, in order to main- tain action for partition) Code Civ. Pro. § 1532. v. Dnnlap, 1 Johns. Ch. 478. Followed and Van Wyck v. Baker, 16 Hun, 168, disting'd (Allowing fraudulent conveyance to stand as security) in Davis v. Leo- pold, 87 AT. Y. 620. Reviewed in Taylor v. Atwood, 47 Conn. 498, 508. Disapproved as contrary to reason and precedent, in Gar- land v. Rives, 4 Rand. (Va.) 283; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 756-774. Approved and followed in McMeekins v. Edmonds, 1 Hill (S. C.) 288; s. c, 26 Am. Dee. 203. Distinguished in Moore v. Tarltou, 3 Ala. 444; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 701, with note. Relied on in dis- senting opinion, in Miller v. Tollrson, 1 Harp. Eq. (S. C.) 145; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 712. Followed in U. S. v. Giiswold, 8 Fed. Rep. 504. Commented on in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 192. v. Foot, 5 Bosw. 110. Cited (Entries made in books of partnership after disso- lution) in 2 Whart. Cum. on Ev. § 1132. v. Gray, 34 How. Pr. 323. Followed (Necessity that affidavit of assessors be an- nexed to assessment roll) in Bradley v. Ward, 58 Jf. Y. 401, 406. v. Hitchcock, 20 Johns. 76 ; s. c, 6 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 939, with brief note. See Kellogg v. Richards; Seymour?). Minturn; Witberby v. Mann. Approved (Effect of additional security for less sum as accord aud satisfaction) in Kellogg t>. Richards, 14 Wend. 117; Booth v. Smith, 3 Id. 66. Ap- proved with Kellogg «. Richards, 14 Wend. 116. in Brooks v. White, 2 Mete. {Mass.) 283; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 95, with note. V. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 05. Examined and followed (Parties in creditor's suit) in Reed v. Stryker, 12 All. Pr. 47, 50. See Morton v. Weil, 33 Barb. 30, 36. Discussed (Mul- tifarious pleadings in creditor's suit) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 151. y. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. 382. See Steere v. Steere. Reviewed (Parol evidence to establish resulting trust) with Botsford v. Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. 404; Foote v. Colvin, 3 Johns., 216; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 478, in Neill v. Keese, 5 Tex. 23; s. p., 51 Am. Dec. 745. Reluctantly followed with Botsford v. Burr; Jackson®. Matsdorf, 11 Johns. 91; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 355, in Smitheal v. Gray, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 491; s. c, 34 Am. Dee. 664, 666. Cited with approval in Burleigh v. White, 64 Me. 23. Followed (Trust resulting by presumption of law) in Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121; s. . Luddington, 55 How. Pr, 343. ■ v. Angel, 3 XT. Y. 475. See Keep v. Lord; Lindsays. Jackson. Approved and followed (Set-off as between solvent and insolvent) in Keep v. Lord, 2 Duer, 78. Compare Seymour v. Dunham, 24 Hun, 93. Disting'd in Dougherty v. Central Nat. Bk., 93 Penn. St. 227; s. c, 39 Am. B. 750. Disting'd with Martin v. Kunzmuller, 37 N~. Y. 396, in Coates v. Donnell, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 46. v. Baxter. See Thome v. Cramer. v. Bosley, 1 Barb. Oh. 125. Applied (En- forcing equitable lien for purchase money) in Mills v. Bliss, 55 N. Y. 139, 144. Approved (Nature of relief given in equity) in Whipple v. Farrar, 3 Mich. 446. v. Buffalo, &e. R. B. Co., 34 K Y 432. See Corwin v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. Followed (Duty of railroad companies to fence against animals) in Rhodes «. Utica, Ithaca, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 344. v. Burwell, 3 Den. 61. See Lawrence v. Trustees, &c. Explained (Contribution against estate of deceased surety) in John- ston v. Harvey, 84 K Y. 363, 365. v. Manning, 12 Weekly Dig. 497. From mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 603, it appears, that the opinion was delivered by Boakdman, J. v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 3 Lans. 341. Rev'd in 45 N. Y. 422. Decis- ion in 45 N. Y. disting'd (Restriction in policy as to cause of death) in Shader v. Railway Passenger Assurance Co., 66 N. Y. AAA. v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 288. Affd in 62 tf. F. 99. Decision in 62 If. Y. explained (Master's liability for servant's torts) in Moak's Under- bill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 59. v. Parker, 2 Month. L. Bui. 21. Ques- tioned (Amendment of affidavit, &c. to sup- port order of arrest or attachment) in Southern Inland Nav. & Imp. Co. v. Sherwin, 1 Civ. Pro. B. 44, 47. v. People, 56 Barb. 72. Included with notes (Collecting gunpowder as nuisance) in Lawson Lead. Gas. (Crim. L.) Simplified, 149. v. Boot, 5 Paige, 637. Examined (Ex- amination of defendant in chancery as a witness, and its consequences) in Norris v. Hurd, Walk. Gh. 105. Disting'd (Equitable lien) in Attorney Genl. v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 325, 329 ; s. c, 27 Am. B. 55. Followed (Title to dividends)in Herr- man v. Maxwell, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 347, 351. v. Ward, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 413. Aff' d in 58 R. Y. 401. See Merritt v. Vil- lage of Portchester. T. Wheeler, 4 Bobt. 18. Affd in 44 N. Y. 495. Reviewed ,Troof of local custom without proof of knowledge) with other cases, in Walls «. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464, 474. Bradner v. Faulkner, 12 N. Y. 472. See Cooke v. Meeker; Lawrence v. Embree. Approved (Interest on legacies) in Fisk's Estate, 1 Tuck. 122; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 209, which was, however, rev'd in Campbell ■». Cowdrey, 31 How. Pr. 172 ; where Lawrence v. Embree, 3 Bradf. 364, was followed in preference. See Devlin's Estate, 1 Tuck. 460. Cited as authority in Lynch t>. Maho- ney, 2 Bed/. 437. Followed in Wheeler v. Ruthven, 2 Bed/. 491, 494. v. , 34 Jf. Y. 347. Explained (Sale of growing crops by personal representative) by Sutherland, J., in Sherman «. Willett, 42 K Y. 146, 154. t. Howard, 14 Hun, 420. Affd in 75 N. Y. 417. v. Superintendent of Poor of Orange County, 9 Wend. 433. See (When a common law certiorari may be allowed) Dagetrc. Com- missioners of Alms House ex rel. Hceffele, 2 How. Pr. 256. Bradshaw v. Callaghan, 5 Johns. 80. Rev'd in 8 Id. 558. . v. Heath, 13 Wend. 407. See Jackson v. Jackson. Discussed (Validity of foreign divorce) and cases cited, in 3 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 213. Approved with Vischer o. Vischer, 12 Barb. 640; McGiffert v. Mc- Giffert, 31 Id. 69; Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121, in Prosser v. Warner, 47 Vt. 667; s. c, 19 Am. B. 132, 135. Cited ap- provingly with many other authorities (Effect of foreign judgment) in 1 Kent Com. 261, n. b. y. Bogers, 20 Johns. 103. Rev'd in Id. 735 Bradstreet v. Clarke, 12 Wend. 602; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law: ed. 245, with brief note. Approved and followed (Effect of subsequently accruing disabilities on run- ning of statute of limitations) in McDonald v. Ilovey, 110 U. S. {Davis) 619. Collated (Application of doctrine of estoppel to mar^ ried woman) with Lindner v. Sable, 51 Barb. 322 ; Bodine v. Killeen, 53 N. Y. 93, in 28 Am. B. 374, n. v. Ferguson, 17 Wend. 181. Aff'din23 Wend. 638. Decision in 23 Wend, explained as not authority in People v. Weston, 4 Park. Or. 226, 229, as to pleading ground for warrant, but only as to evidence of it. v. Supervisors of Oneida, IS Wend. 546. Quoted and collated (Action by alien in defense of realty) with other cases, in Sharsw. & B. Oases on Beal Prop. 502. Bradt v. Benedict, 17 N. Y. 93. See Slee v. Bloom. Disting'd (What constitutes disso- lution of corporation) in Bruce v. Piatt, 80 N. Y. 379, 386, 389. Discussed in Mora- wetz on Corp. § 638. v. Brooks. See Jackson ex dem. Bradt «. Brooks. v. Koon, 4 Cow. 416. Better reported, as to the facts, in People v. N. Y. Com. PI., 13 Wend. 653, by Ch. J. Savage. 94 J3KADT— UKAllK T. Towslcy, 13 Wend. 253. Overruled with Fuller v. Fenner, 16 Barb. 333 (Damages for loss of health and incapacity for business) in Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 JT. Y. 54, 63. Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 Johns. Ch. 206. Rev'd (Right of alien enemy to take personal property of alien resident) in 13 Johns. 1, t>y the casting vote of the lieutenant- governor; all the law members of the court being, however, for affirmance. See Bell v. Chapman. Brady, Matter of, 8 Hun, 437; s. c, 53 Sow. Pr. 128. AfPd in 69 JT. Y. 215; s. c, 53 How. Pr. 128. Decision in 69 JT. Y. dis- ting'd (Appeal in proceedings for discharge of imprisoned debtor) in Matter of Roberts, 70 JT. Y. 5. Applied (Debtor's proceedings — when just or fair) in Matter of Fowler, 8 Daly, 548, 557. Disting'd (Truth of state- ments in papers annexed to petition for discharge) in 8chaeffer v. Soule, 23 Hun, 586. Followed (Bond given to procure dis- charge) fn Russak i>. Sabey, 29 Hun, .491. Collated with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 121. Compare CodeCiv. Pro. § 2208. ■ Matter «f, 47 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 36. Aff'd in 85 JT. Y. 208. Decision in 85 JT. Y. followed (Repavement) in Matter of Roberts^ 25 Hun, 371, 376. v. Bissell, 1 Abo. Pr. 76. Followed and approved (Reference to complaint to supply defects in affidavit for order of arrest) in Turner v. Thompson, 2 Abb. Pr. 444. v. Brnndage, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 621. Confirmed in 59 JT. Y. 310. Decision in 59 IT. Y. followed (Appealability of order for exoneration of bail) in Douglass v. Haberstro, 82 IT. Y. 572, 574. See (Rights, &c. of sheriff, when liable as bail) Oode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 595, n. v. Durbrow, *2 R D. Smith, 78. Fol- lowed (Right of defendant to extra allow- ance) in Comm'rs of Pilots v. Spoflord, 3 Hun, 69. v. Kibbe. See People v. Abbot. v. McCosker, 1 Barb. 329. Affd in 1 JT. Y. 214. For points of counsel in Ct. of App. see How. App. Cos. 480. v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 1 Barb. 591. Limited (Effect of resolution of com- mon council, as promise to pay) in Brady v. Mayor of N. Y., 2 Bosw 1 . 173, 181. See also {Functus officio) Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. JT. 0.51. 52, n. Compare (Municipal corporation as public agent) Sage v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Abb. JT. C. 279. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Bosw. 173; s.c, 7 Abb. Pr. 234; 16 How. Pr. 435. AfPd in 20 JT. Y. 812. Decision in 2 Bosw. followed (Liability of municipal corporation under void contract) in McSpedon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 20 How. Pr. 395 ; Fanners' Loan & Trust Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Bosw. 80, 88; Donovan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 33 JT. Y. 291. Disting'd in Bonesteel v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., 6 Id. 550, 565, which was afTd in 22 JT. Y. \ 62, which see. Commented on and doubted in Harlem Gas Light Co. v. Mayor, S-c. of N. Y, 3 Rnbt. 127. Decision in 20 JT. Y. applied in Mj- Closkey v. City of Albany, 7 Hun. 473. Collated, with other cases, in 5 Abb. IT. 0. 49, n. Applied in Smith ». City of Rochester, 1 Sheld. 498. Explained in Hecker v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 28 How. Pr. 214. Recognized in Parr v. Village of Green- burgh, 72 JT. Y. 472. Considered in Moore v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 JT. Y. 248; s. c , 29 Am. R. 134. which rev'd 4 Hun, 548, which see. Decision in 2 Bosw. disting'd (Ratifying act of agent of corporation) in Rider v. Union India Rubber Co., 5 Bosn. 98. Decision in 20 JT. Y. followed (Con- tracts for municipal work) in Brown v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Hun, 31, which was, however, rev'd in 63 JT. Y. 239, which see. Disting'd in Matter of Merriam, 84 JT. Y. 596, 604; People *. Van Nort, 64 Barb. 209. Cited as authority in Matter of Mahan, 20 Hun, 301. Followed with McSpedon n. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Bonesteel v. Same, (Duty of corporation of N. Y. to lease public property by auction) in Taylor v. Beebe, 3 Robt. 262. Decision in 2 Bosw. disting'd (Liability of municipal corporation on void contract) in Jones v. Mayor, &c. of New York, 7 Robt. 209. v. Supervisors of N. Y-, 2 Sand/. 460. AfPd in 10 JT. Y. 260, but without opinion. Decision in 2 Sand/, cited as authority (Power of county officers to incur expenses in legal proceedings), with People n. Super- visors, 32 JT. Y. 473 ; Gillespie v. Broas, 23 Barb. 379, in Thacher v. Comin'rs, 13 Kans. 182. Applied (Effect of allowance by super- visors) in Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426, 429. v. Weeks, 3 Barb. 157. Followed , (Nuisance) in Heeg n. Licht, 8 Abb. JT. G. 355, 360. Reviewed, with other cases, in Hutchins v. Smith, 63 Barb. 255. Quoted in Wood on JTuis. 2 ed. § 2 ; Id. § 76. Quoted and discussed in Id. § 573. Included in LatosoTk Lead. Gas. in Eq. Simplified, 159. Applied (Joinder of plaintiffs in action to be relieved from nuisance) in Foot «. Bronson, 4 Lans. 52. Bragne v. Lord, 41 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 193. Rev'd in 67 JT. Y. 495 ; s. c, 2 Abb. JT. C. 1. Decision in 67 JT. Y. disting'd (Personal communications with deceased) in Gorhain v. Price, 25 Hun, 11, 13. Applied in Trow . v. Shannon, 8 Daly, 239, 242, but objection there cured by putting in evidence examina- tion taken before trial. Applied in Head v. Teeter, 10 Hun, 550; Burnett v. Noble, 5 Red/. 69, 77. Reviewed with other cases, in Kale o. Elliott, 18 Hun, 199. Followed in Ross v. Harden, 42 Super. Ct. [J. & S.) 427; Freeman v. Lawrence, 43 Id. 290. Brahc v. Pythagoras Assoc, 4 liner, 658. See Kattenstroth v. Astor Bank. Overruled (Jurisdiction of N. Y. Superior Court in actions for dissolution of corporations) in Van Pelt v. U. S. Shoe-heel Co., 35 Super. Ct (J. & S.) Ill ; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 325, 332, ERAINARD— BRANDT. 95 BrainardT. Cooper, 10 iK Y. 356. Disting'd (Right to redeem from foreclosure sale) in Iielden v. Slade, 26 Hun, 635. Criticised in dissenting opinion in Gage v. Brewster, 21 If. Y. 218, as decided by a divided court. • t Jones, 18 If. Y. 35. Prior proceeding in 11 How. Pr. 569. See Crandall v. Bryan; Lyon i>. Clark; Smedes v. Houghtaling. Disting'd (Limit of liability on a bond) in Beers v. Shannon, 73 N. Y. 292, 303. Con- trasted with the Massachusetts rule, in Clark v. Wilkinson (Wise. Jan. 19, 1884), 18 Northw. Rep. 481, 485. Followed (Liabil- ity for interest) in Gutta Percha, &c. M'f'g Co. v. Benedict, 37 Super. Gt. (J. &S.)im. 1 Decision in 11 How. Pr. disting'd (Manner of taking objection to complaint for non- joinder of party) in Eaton v. Balcom, 33 Id. SO. See Quigley v. Walker, 2 Sweeny, 175. v. Spring-, 42 Barb. 470. Reviewed. with other cases (Representations, when fraudulent) in Brown «. Ashbough, 40 How. Pr. 226, 238. Brainerd v. Dunning, 30 If. Y. 211. Dis- ting'd (Presumption as to findings of fact, in aid of judgment) in Meyer v. Amidon, 45 N. Y. 173. v. Heydriek. See Barnard v. Hcydrick. v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co., 25 If. Y. 496. Followed (Validity of bond issued payable in blank) with Hubbard •». N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 36 Barb. 286; Dutchess County Ins. Co. v. Hachfield, 4 Supm. Gt. \r. & G.) 158, in Boyd a Kennedy, 9 Vroom (N. J.) 146; s. c. 20 Am. R. 376, 379. Bramhall y. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41. Followed (Conditional trusts) in Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 6 Hun, 31, 40. Quoted (Spendthrift trusts) in Wait on Fraud. Gown. § 366. Cases collected (Valid conditional determination of life estate) in 9 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 522. Branch v. Harrington, 49 How. Pr. 19*6. See to the contrary (Right of receiver in supplementary proceedings to employ at- torney of judgment creditor) Baker v. Van Epps, 60 Id. 79. v. Levy, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 507. Further decision in 46 Id. 428. v. Roberts, 50 Barb. 435. Said not to be good law (Who may sue directors for misconduct) in Thomps. Liab. of Off., &c. of Corp. 400, but approved as in accord with other cases (Creditors' remedies) in 53 Am. Dee. 650. n. Brand v. Brand, 49 Barb. 346; s. c, 83 How. Pr. 167. Rev'd or overruled in 48 If. Y. 675; but no opinion. v. Focht, 8 Robt: 426; s. c, 30 How. Pr. 313. Affd in 3 Keyes, 409; s. c, more fully, in 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 225. Decision in 3 Keyes followed (Acceptance and delivery) in Brewster v. Taylor, 39 Super. Gt. (J. &S.) 159, 166. v. Schenectady & Troy R. R. Co.. 8 Barb. 368. Overruled (Liability of passenger carrier) in Johnson v. Hudson River 11. R. Co., 6 Duer, 633. Followed with Weed v. ■ Panama R.R.Co., 17 If. Y. 362, andnumerous other cases in Goddard «. Grand Trunk R'way, 57 Me. 202; s. c, 2 Am. R. 39, 42, with note. Applied (Liability to others than passengers) in New Orleans, Jackson & Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 48 Miss. 112 ; s. c, 12 Am. R. 356, 364. Collated and applied with Nolton ». Western R. R. Co., 15 If. Y. 444, and other cases, in Higlev e. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 450, with note. Bninder v. Howard, 14 Hun, 420. Affd in 75, N. Y. 417. Brandon v. Avery, 22 IT. Y. 469. Commented on, and disting'd (Validity of act creating justices of the peace) in Waters v. Lang- don, 40 Barb. 408 ; Dawson v. Horan, 51 Id. 459. Explained in Geraty ». Reid, 78 If. Y. 64, 66. Followed in People ex rel. Creegau v. Dutcher, 2 Hun, 156. Cited aa authority (Distinction between police justice and justice of the peace) in People v. Mor- gan, 5 Daly, 151, 180. v. Brandon, iSup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 385; s. c, 50 How. Pr. 328. Rev'd in effect as Brandow v. Brandow, 66 If. Y. 401. v. , People, 42 If. Y. 265. Followed (Waiver of privilege by accused person testi- fying in his own behalf) in Connors v. People, 50 If. Y. 240. Disting'd in People v. Brown, 72 If. Y. 571, 574, which affd 8 Hun, 562, 564, which see. Disting'd in People i). Crapo, 76 If. Y. 291. Followed and approved with Connors v. People, 50 Id. 240 ; Fralich v. People, 65 Barb. 48; McGarry v. People, 2 Bans. 227, in State e. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380; s. c, 29 Am. R. 506, 508. Fol- lowed, and People v. Crapo, 76 If. Y. 288 disting'd, in Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178; s. c, 41 Am. R. 496. Collated with Connors v. People, 50 If. Y. 204; People v. Casey, 72 Id. 393 ; People v. Brown, Id. 571, and other cases, in 27 Am. R. 140, n. See 19 Alb. L. J. 388, 428." Brandow v. Brandow. See Brandon v. Brandon. Brandreth v. Lance, 8 Paige, 24. Followed (Restraining publication of libel) in N. Y. Juv. Guard. Soc'y v. Roosevelt, 7 Daly, 188. Brandt v. Klein, 17 Johns. 335 ; s. c, N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 386, with brief note on attorney's privilege. y. Ogden, 3 Gdi. 6. Subsequent decis- ion in 1 Johns. 156 ; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 94, with brief note, of cases on adverse possession. Relied upon (What constitutes adverse possession) in Gay v. Mofflt, 2 Bibb (E~y.) 506; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 633. Followed with Jackson v. Bard, 4 Johns. 230; Jackson v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 162; in French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439; 8. c, l\-Am. Dec. 680. Applied with Doe v. Butler, 3 Wend. 149, in Arnold v. Stevens, 24 Pich. {Mass.) 106; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 305, 308. Cited as authority with Doe ». Campbell, 10 Johns. 475 ; Jackson v. Leonard, 9 Cow. 653 (Possession by successive disseizors), in Melvin v. Proprietors, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 15 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 384. Followed (Effect of describing line in grant as running toward 96 BRANDTNER— EREESE. one of cardinal points) in Hagan v. Camp- bell, 8 Port. {Ala.) 9; s. c, 83 Am. Dee. 267, 274. Brandtner v. Marshall, 1 Cai. 394. Quoted and explained (Statute of limitations — land- lord and tenant) in Aug. on Limit. § 442, 6 ed. Brant v. Dyckman, 1 Johns. Cos. 275. Ap- plied (Evidence as to defendant in eject- ment not being in possession) in Jackson v. Trusdell, 12 Johns. 247. v. Fowler, 7 Cow. 562. See People v. Douglass. Overruled (Setting aside verdict for drinking of intoxicating liquors by jury) in Wilson v. Abrahams, 1 Mill, 207. Fol- lowed- with People v. Douglass, 4 Cow. 26, notwithstanding Wilson v. Abrahams (which is said to also overrule Bullard v. Spore, 2 Cow. 430 ; Eose «. Smith, 4 Id. 17), in Ryan v. Harrow, 27 Iowa, 494; s. c, 1 Am. R. 302, 303, 306, with note, wherein Dcnnison •d. Collins is said to accord with Wilson e. Abrahams. Disapproved in State v. Bruce, 48 Iowa, 530; s. c, 30 Am. R. 406. T. Wilson, 8 Cow. 56. Approved as to construction of codicil in another decision on the same will, in Wilson v. Wilson, 32 Barb. 328; s. c, 20 Sow. Pr. 41. Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Gh. 242, 400. Explained (Joinder of lunatic with com- mittee as party) in Gorham v. GoVham, 3 Barb. Ch. 24, 38. Followed (Compelling compliance by purchaser at judicial sale) in Warfleld v. Dorsey, 36 Md. 299; s. c, 17 Am. R. 562, 565; Simonds v. Catlin, 2 Cai. 61, being disting'd (Application of statute of frauds) as a case of a sheriffs sale. Brandlacht, Ex parte, 2 Hill, 367. Quoted and explained (Prohibition, writ of — when to be resorted to) in High on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 770. n. 1. Branneck t. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 1 Abb. K C. 393. Followed with Landers v. Staten Island 11. R. Co., 53 K 7. 450, (Juris- diction of City Court of Brooklyn) in Davidsburgh v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. (Jo., 90 N. 7. 526. Compare Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. N. C. 72, 74, n. Bray y. Farwell, 3 Lans. 495. Compare (Voluntary associations) Ebbinghausen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. C. 300. Braynard t. Hoppock, 7 Bosw. 157. Aff'd in 32 N~. 7. 571. Brazil! v. Isham, 1 E D. Smith, 437. Aff d in 12 K 7. 9. Decision in 12 JV. 7. followed (Defense not set up in answer, not available) in Robbins v. Richardson, 2 Bosw. 256 ; Lob- dell «. Stowell, 37 How. Pr. 90; O'Toolc v. Garvin, 1 Hun, 95. Applied to plaintiffs pleadings in Williams v. Birch, 6 Bosw: 307, 678. Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 4 Hill, 73. Affd in 8 IF. 7. 299 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 482, with extended note respecting the effect of the suicide of an insured person upon his right to recover on the policy, Van Zandt v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 55 iV. Y. 169; De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co., 65 N. 7. 235, and many other cases being reviewed and criticised in such note, wherein it is stated that the doctrine of Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., though now the prevailing one in this country, seems to be denied or at least modified by later N. Y. cases. Bee Gates v. Madison County Mut. Ins. Co.; Livingston v. Stickles. Both decisions disting'd in Fowler o. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4 Lans. 202; Van Zandt v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co.. 55 K 7. 169, 173. Contrary held in Dean v. American Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4 Allen, (Mass.) 106. Decision in 8 IF. 7. disap- proved in Cooper v. Mass. Ins. Co., 102 Mass. 229; s. c.,3Am.R. 453. Decision in 4 Hill, followed and approved in Phadenhauer v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 7 Heish. (Tenn.) 567 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 623, 626. Decis- ion in 8 N". 7. followed with approval in Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Groom, 56 Penn. St. 92; s. c, 27 Am. R. 689, 692. Though cited in Life Ins. Co. v. Terry, 15 Wall. 580, as in opposition to the rule laid down in Borradaile v. Hunter, 5 Man. & Or. 639, yet said in Adkins v. Columbia Life Ins. Co., 70 Mo. 27; s. c, 35 Am. R. 410, to have been satisfactorily reconciled in Van Zandt v. Mut. B. Life Ins. Co., 55 IF. 7. 169, the rule in De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 56 N. 7. 235, being approved and other cases collated. Decision in 4 Hill, followed in Bigelow v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 93 U. S. 284; s. c, 19 Am. R. 628, n. Approved, and the doctrine of Van Zandt v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. ; De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. ap- parently negatived in Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121. Collated with.other cases,, in 3 Am. R. 454, n., where it is said to be the first case in the country, where the question arose as to whether such provisions in life policies as that they shall be void, in case the assured shall die by his own hand, include self-destruction under the influence of insanity. Reviewed with other cases, in 4 Alb. L. J. 53. Breck v. Cole, 4 Sandf. 79, 84. Applied (Compromise agreement, when void) in Cran- dall v. Cochran, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & V.) 203, 206. Disting'd with Lawrence v. Clark, 36 JV. 7. 128 ; Penniman v. Elliott, 27 Barb. 315, being followed in Hadley Falls Nat, B'k v. May, 29 Hun, 404. Approved in Huntington v. Clark, 39 Conn. 556'; Bean v. Amsinck, 10 Blatchf. C. Ct. 361, 370. v. Smith. See Forrest v. Forrest. Breed v. Cook, 15 Johns. 241. Explained (Presumption of payment, arising upon sale of goods, by vendor's taking from purchaser note of third person) in Darnall v. More- house, 36 How. Pr. 511. Breese v. Bange, 2 E. I). Smith, ilk Disting'd and reviewed (Proof of demand and refusal as sufficient evidence of con- version) in Ray v. Light, 34 Ark 430. v. IT. S. Telegraph Co.. 45 Barb. 274;- s. c, 31 How. Pr. 86. Afl'd in 48 IF. Y. BEEHM— BREWER. 97 132. See Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co. ; De Rutte «. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co. ; Young v. Western Union Tel. Co. Decision in 45 Barb, disting'd (Limitation of carrier's liability) in Sunderland" v. Westcott, 2 Sweeny, 260. Applied in Falkenau v. Fargo, 85 Super. Ct. (J.SS.) 337. DistingM (Liability of telegraph company for error in transmitting message) in Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co., 1 Bans. 136; Bartlett v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 62 Me. 209; s. c, 16 Am. R. 437, 442. Reviewed, with other cases, in Sweetland v. 111. & Tenn. Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 433; s. c, 1 Am. R. 285, 289, 294. Decision in 48 N~. Y. followed in Young v. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 395. Applied in Red- path v. Western Union Tel. Co., 112 Mass. 71 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 69, 71. Followed in GrinneU v. Western Union Tel. Co., 113 Mass. 299; s. c, 18 Am. ft. 485, where Leon- ard v. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co., 41 JV. Y. 544; s. c, 1 Am. R. 440, was disting'd. Collated with Rittenhouse v. Independent Line of Telegraph, 44 N~. Y. 263 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 673, and other cases, in 24 Am. R. 283, n. Followed in Becker v. Western Union Tel. Co., 11 Neb. 87; s. c, 38 Am. R. 356. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 257, i, n. nn; Id. 257, j. n. p. Disting'd (Duties of telegraph companies) in Friedman v. Gold Stock Tel. Co., 32 Hun, 4. Fol- lowed (Limitation of carrier's liability) in Huntington?;. Dinsmore, 6 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & 0.) 195. Brehm v. Great Western Ry. Co., 34 Barb. 256. See Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co. Followed (Proximate and discoverable negligence as a cause) in Harvey v. N. Y. Central, Sec. R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 556, 500. Followed and approved (Burden of proof resting on railroad company, in case of in- juries resulting from defects in its roadway) in Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. ©. Miller, 2 Gol. T. 457. Bremer v. Penniman. See Brewer*. Brewer. Brennan r. Half. See Hatch v. Mann. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y,' 1 Hun, 315 ; s. c, more fully, 47 How. Br. 178. Rev'd in 62 N. Y. 365. Decision in 62 N. Y. ex- plained (Who are "officers" of the court) in Wines «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Hun, 659. Compared in Moser «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Hun, 163. Disting'd and limited in Rowland v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 N Y. 372, 377. Disting'd with Wines v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Hun, 659 (Ap- pointment of court attendant) in Mason v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 28 Hun, 115. Dis- ting'd (Pay-rolls as evidence, in action against city for salary) in Fitch v. Mayor, &c. of New York., 88 XT. Y. 500 ; Reilly v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 48 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 274. y. People, 7 Hun, 171. Collated with other cases (Proof of general immoral char- acter of prosecutrix in rape) in 1 Barb, on Grim. L. 3 ed. 74, n. L— 7 t. Security Life Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 296. Compare (Effect of statements on applica- tion for policy, as warranties) Fitch v. Am. Popular Life Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 557. v. Willson, 7 Daly, 59. Aff'd in 71 N. Y. 502; s. c, 4 Abb. N. C. 279. See Syracuse, Binghanipton, &c. R. R. Co. v. Collins. Decision in 71 N~. Y. followed un- willingly (Invalidity of conveyance by as- signee made before he has filed bond) in Woodworth v. Seymour, 22 Hun, 247. Dis- ting'd (Provisions of assignment act, when directory) in Rennie a. Bean, 24 Hun, 123, 127. Brereton v. Hull, 1 Den. 75. See Haxtunc. Corse. Approved (Preferences as ground of fonpeacliing discharge in bankruptcy) in Caryl v. Russell, 13 N. Y. 194. Brett v. Brown, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 295. Dis- ting'd (Exemption of witness from service of process) in Frisbie ». Young, 11 Hun, 474. See to the contrary. Pollard v. Union Pacific II. R. Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 70. Col- lated with conflicting cases (Defects in pro- cess) in Sweeney v. Schnltes, 6 Pad. Rep. 44. Compare (Special appearance) Malcolm v. Marshall, 29 Ohio St. 611. v Buck nam, 32 Barb. 655. Commented upon and questioned (Applications to com- pel production of. books and documents on examination of party before trial) in Hause- •man v. Sterling, G I Barb. 347. v. First Bui v. Soc. of Brooklyn, 5 Hun, 149. Aff'd, it seems, in 64 N~. Y- 651, but without opinion. Former decision in 63 Barb. 610. Decision in 63 Barb, dis- ting'd (Objection by defendant to defect of parties) in Chapman v. Douglas,- 5 Daly, 244, 248; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 421. Pronounced incorrect in Pomeroy on Rem. § 676, n. 1. Bretz v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 478. Rev'd (Public statutes) in 6 Robt. 325; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 258; 35 How. Pr. 130. Decision in 6 Robt. cited in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 293. Explained (Judicial notice) in 1 Best on Ev. § 33, n. a, Wood's ed. Brevoort v. Brevoort, 70 N. Y. 136. Dis- ting'd (Interest enabling one to maintain action for partition) in Harris v. Larkins, 22 Him, 490. Followed (Rights of persons not in being) in Monarque v. Monarquc, 8 Abb. N. O. 102, 117. Compare Code Oh. Pr; § 1557. See also Id. (1'hroop's ed.) ch. XIV. tit. I. art. 2, n. v. Grace. 53 N. Y. 245. Compare (Sale of contingent interests) Code Oiv. Pro. § 1557. v. McJimsey, 1 Edw. 551. See (Effect of foreclosure proceedings on proceedings for sale of decedent's real estate) Oode Civ. Pro. 1881, §2797, n. v. Warner, 8 How. Pr. 321. Approved (Proceedings for discovery of books, &c.) in Commercial Bank of Albany v. Dunham. 13 How. Pr. 542. Brewer v. Brewer, 11 Hun, 147. Aff'd, it 98 BREWER— BEEWSTER. seems, as Bremer v. Penniman, 72 AT. Y. 603. but without opinion. Decision in 11 Hun, followed (Validity of trust suspending power of alienation) in Hobsou v. Hale, 95 Jf. Y. 588. y. Isish, 12 How. Pr. 481. Said in head-note to Tremain v. Rider, 13 How. Pr. 149, to agree substantially with that case as to the mode of making up case and excep- tions upon trial before court or referee, but referred to in Ferguson v. Hamilton, 35 Barb. 433, as overruled respecting the neces- sity of a case in order ^o have reviewed a, judgment entered on the report of a referee. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 992, n. v. Salisbury, 9 Barb. 511. Followed (Passing of title to personal property) in Hubbard v. O'Brien, 8 Hun, 245. Opposed in Halterline v. Rice, 62 Barb. 593, 600. Bisting'd with Woodford v. Patterson. 32 Id. 630 (Sufficiency of delivery under con- tract of sale) in Hamburger v. Rodman, 9 Daly, 93. y. Temple, 15 How. Pr. 286. Opposed (Joinder of causes of action) in Anderson v. Hill, 53 Barb. 238. Doctrine re-asserted, in Sheldon v. Lake, 9 Abb. Pr. if. S. 306. Disapproved in Perrotean v. Johnson, 4 Month. L. Bui. 25. Referred to in Pomeroy on Rem. § 466, n. 2, as overruled by An- derson v. Hill. Brewers', &c. Ins. Co. y. Davenport, ft Hun, 264. See also (Jurisdiction of State courts in actions by assignees in bank- ruptcy) Wheelock v. Lea, 5 Abb. if. C. 72. Brewster y; Baker, 16 Barb. 613. Recon- sidered and disapproved as to contract in question being a mortgage, in subsequent decision, in 20 Barb. 364. Followed (^Estop- pel created by not objecting to sale) in Garnar ». Bird, 57 Barb. 277, 289. v. Bostwick, 6 Cow. 34, 37. Relied on (Matter in answer to be stricken out as sham) in Fellows v. Muller, 38 Super. Ct. (/. S.) 137. t. City of Syracuse, 19 JV. F. 116. See People ex rel. Griffing v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn; Town of Guilford ■». Supervisors of Chenango. Disting'd (Expenses covered by statute authorizingassessment) in Matter of Metropolitan Gas Co., 23 Hun, 329. Fol- lowed (Expression of subject in title of local bill) in People ex rel. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 378; Peoples. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 186, which was affd in 41 N. Y. 139, which see. Applied in Mann v. City of Utica, 44 Haw. Pr. 340; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; Freeman v. Panama R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 124; Kerrigan v. Force, 9 Hun. 190; Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 K Y. 22 ; People ex rel. Comm'rs v. Banks, 67 K Y. 573. Disting'd in People v. Allen, 42 K Y. 418. Explained in People v. Supervisors of Chau- tauqua, 43 AT. Y. 19. Followed (Legitimate exorcise of taxing power) in People v. Law- rence, 36 Barb. 194. Disting'd by Peck- ham, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Keyes, 399. Approved and applied in Dar- lington v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y., 31 N. Y. 190. Explained (Additional compensation to con- tractor for municipal work) in Meech v. City of Buftalo,292v".r.212. Followed and approv- ed in Howell v. City of Buffalo, 37 K Y. 272. Applied in Davidson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Uubt. 246. Collated with other cases (Taxation in aid of local interests) in 10 Am. L. Reg. A 7 ". S. 161. Commented on ("Law of the land ") in Cooley on Const. Limita. 5 ed. 470, n. v. Countryman, 12 Wend. 446; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 189, with brief note. See Doty ». Brown. Reviewed (Admissibility of copies as secondary evi- dence) in Lyon v. Boiling, 14 Ala. 753; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 122, 125, with note. v. Doane, 2 Hill, 537. S.ee Bank of Monroe v. Culver; Merrill v. Ithaca & OwegoR. R. Co. Disting'd (Entries, &c. in evidence) in Derham v. Lee, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 174, 183. Rule in different States stated (Effect of absence of witness from State) in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 469. Cited in 1 Wliart. Com. on Ev. § 240, as contrary to rule therein laid down. V. Hall, 6 Cow. 34. Explained (Striking out false defense as sham) in McCarty u. O'Donnell, 7 Eobt. 634. v. Houigsburger, 2 Code Rep. 50. Explained as not authority (Attaching part- nership credits and balances), in Barry v. Fisher, 8 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 369, 379; citing Sears v. Gearn, 7 How. Pr. 303. v. McCarclel, 8 Wend. 479. Included (Indorsee of post-dated negotiable paper) in Red/. &, B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exeh. 225. — v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 5 How. Pr. 183. See Hulbert v. Hope Mut. Ins. Co. Disapproved (Nature of actions against foreign corporations) in Cumberland Coal &'Iron Co. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co , 30 Barb. 159, 103. v. Power, 10 Paige, 562. Explained (Enforcing remedy against trust property) in Ocean National Bank v. Olcott, 46 N. Y. 12, 20. Disapproved in Wait «. Day, 4 Den. 439, which was, however, overruled, and Brewster v. Power approved, in Garfield v. Hatmakcr, 15 A 7 ". Y. 475. v. Silence, 11 Barb. 144. Affd in 8 N. Y. 207. See Leonard v. Vredenbergh; Watson v. McLaren. Decision iu 8 N. Y. disapproved (Joinder of persons liable on same obligation, in one action) in Decker v. Gaylord, 8 Hun, 110. Disting'd (Con- sideration to support guaranty) in Church v. Brown, 21 A 7 . Y. 321, 336, which rev'd 29 Barb. 486, which see. Explained and approved on a similar point in Draper v. Snow, 20 N. Y. 337, 342, which affd 6 Duer, 662, which see. Examined, with other cases, in Speycrs v. Lambert, 6 Abb. Pr. K S. 317. Applied by Cj.erke, J., in Moore v. Cross, 23 Barb. 545. Explained in Prime v. Koehler, 7 Daly, 34-5, 352. Fol- BREWSTER— BRIDGE. 99 lowed in Wilson v. Roberts, 5 Bmw. 100, 107; Glen Cove Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrold, 20 Barb. 301 ; Wood v. Wheelook, 25 Id. 623; Gould v. Moring, 28 Id. 446. Dis- ting'd in Grant v. Hotchkiss, 26 Id. 63; Dauber v. Blackney, 38 Id. 436. Applied in Hahn v. Hull, 4 E. D. Smith, 673. Dis- ting'd (Promise, when to pay one's own debt) in Ellenwood ». Fults, 63 Barb. 334. Followed as settled law, notwithstanding doubts created by later cases, — in Lossee u. Williams, 6 Bans. 234. Approved in dis- senting opinion of Bacon, J., in Mallory v. Gillett, 21 JT. Y. 447. Approved (.Con- struction of statute of frauds) in dissenting opinion in Mead v. Case, 33 Barb. 202, 213. V. Silliman, 38 N. Y. 423. Criticised (Rule of damages in replevin) in Allen v. Fox, 57 jV. Y. 562, 507. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1722, n. ■ v. Striker, 1 E. D. Smith, 321; s. c., 7 XT. Y. Beg. Obs. 140. AS" d in 2 M. Y. 19. Further decisions on will here involved are in Striker v. Mott, 28 K Y. 82 ; Smith v. Scholtz, 63 N. Y. 41 ; Union Nat. Bk. v. Kuffer, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 059. Decis- ion in 2 H. Y. distijig'd (Estate, when vested in executor, &c.) in Tuckers). Tucker, 5 N. Y. 408. Followed in Tobias v. Ketchum, 32 N~. Y. 331. Disting'd in Favill v. Roberts, 50 N. Y. 222, which aft'd 3 Lans. 24, which see. Applied in Morse v. Morse, 85 Jf. Y. 53, 60. Disting'd in Onondaga Trust, &c. Co. v. Paul, 87 iV. Y. 542. Applied in Mead v. Mitchell, 5 Abb. Pr. 106; Wagstaff «. Lowerre, 23 Barb. 220; Dominicks. Michael, 4 Sandf. 403. Applied to personal property in Bean v. Bowen, 47 How. Pr. 327. Doubted in Leggett v. Hunter, 25 Barb. 98, which was afPd in 19 N. Y. 454, which see. Disting'd in Catton v. Taylor, 42 Barb. 581; Post -c. Hover, 33 K Y. 600; Robert v. Corning, 23 Hun, 299, 303. Approved (Effect of vesting legal title in executors, &c.) in Blakely v. Calder, 15 xV. Y. 617. Disting'd (Sale of equitable, &c. interests on execution) in Sheridan v. House, 4 Keycs, 569, 589. Disting'd (Estoppel of one acquiescing in transfer of property) in Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595. Applied (Estop- pel) in Gailor «. flerriek, 42 Barb. 87. v. Taylor, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 150. Aft'd in 63 K Y. 587. Decision in 63 K Y. disting'd (Acceptance under statute of frauds) in U. S. Reflector Co. v. Rushton, 7 Daly, 410, 416. Brick's Estate, Matter of, 15 Abb. Pr. 12. See Whitaker, Matter of. Approved (Surrogate's jurisdiction) in Russell v. Hartt, 87 K Y. 19, 24; Wright's Account- ing, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S: 440. Followed in Curran -v. Sears, 2 Red/. 526, 529, which was affd in 13 Ban, 458, 463, which see. Cited, with approval (Ecclesiastical law of England no part of the law of this State) in Hartnett v. Wandell, 2 Hun, 552. Applied (Power to open decree.) in Bailey v. Stewart, 2 Red/. 226 ; Dobko b. McClarau, 41 Barb. 493. Approved in Dobke v. Munro, 1 Bed/. 487 ; Strong v. Strong, 3 Id. 484. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 2481, subd. 6. See (Ap- pointment of guardian) Code Civ. Pro. % 2821. Opposed (Termination of guardian- ship by marriage) iu Matter of Herbeck, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 216. Cited in 29 Am. Bee. 716, n., as supporting the better opinion. Brick v. Brick, 3 Hun, 617. Affd in 66 K Y. 144. Decision in 66 N. Y. dis- ting'd (Proof of undue influence) in La Bau v. Vanderbilt, 3 lied/.' 404. Relied on in Snyder u, Sherman, 23 Hun, 139. Brick Churcli, Matter of, 3 Edw. 169. Dis- ting'd (Rights of vendee of burial lot) in People e.t rel. Coppers ■». Trustees, 21 Hun, 184, 190. Collated with Richards v. North- west Protestant Dutch Church, 32 Barb. 42; Buffalo City Cemetery?). City of Buffalo, 46 & Y. 503 ; Windt v. German Reformed Church, 4 Sand/. Ch. 471, and other cases (Legislative right to authorize removal of dead) in dissenting opinion, in Craig v. First Pres. Church of Pittsburgh, 88 Penn. St. 42; s. c, 32 Am. R. 417, included in the Reporter's note thereto, p. 424. Brickner v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 Lam. 506. Aff'd in 49 N. Y. 672, but without opinion. See also Laning ®. N. Y. Central R R Co., 49 N. Y. 521; s. c, 10 Am. R. 417, where it is aft'd in effect. See Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co. Explained (Lia- bility of railroad company for injury to em- ployee) in Tinuey v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 62ifar4.218. Followed with approval in Harper v. Indianapolis, &c. R. R. Co., 47 Mo. 567 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 353, 363. Referred to with approval with Malone v. Hathaway, 64 N. Y. 512 (Liability of corporation for injury to employee) in Chicago, Milw. & St. P. R'y Co. v. Ross, 112 U.S. 377,391. Applied in Smith v. Oxford Iron Co., 13 Vroom (N~. J.) 407; s. c, 36 Am. R. 535, 539. Bridenbccker t. Lowell, 32 Barb. 9. Dis- '.ing'd (Application of payments) in Jones v. Benedict, 83 K Y. 80. Applied (Corpora- tion, when bound by acts of agent) in Chcever v. Gilbert Elev. R. Co., 43 -Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 478, 492. Disting'd (Pre- sumption of authority arising from posses- sion of notes) iu Wardrop v. Dunlop, 1 Hun, 325, 329. v. Mason, 16 now. Pr. 203. Followed (Confession of judgment by one partner or joint debtor) in Lambert s. Converse, 22 How. Pr. 265. Bridge v. Mason, 45 Barb. 37. Cited as au- thority (Evidence of insolvency of maker or indorser of note") in Clark v. Hampton, 1 Han, 012; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 76. Questioned in 2 Sedg. Heas. o/ Bama. 7 ed. 59, n. v. Payson, 5 Sand/. 210. Followed (Pleading matter in abatement) in Mayhew v. Robinson, 10 How. Pr. 162. See to the contrary Van Buskirk v. Roberts, 14 Id. 01, 63. loo BEIDGFOKD—URrGGS.: Bridgford v" Crocker, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 273. Affd in 60 K Y. 627. Decision in 60 N. Y. explained (Sale — action against buyer) in 2 Ben), on Sales, § 1121, n. .4 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Bridgeport Ins. Co: V. Wilson, 7 Bosw. 427. Rev'd in 34 If. Y. 275. Further decision in 7 Bosw. 699; s. c, more fully, 12 Abb. Pr. 209. Decision in 34 A 7 ". Y. 275, followed (Indemnitor, when not bound by judgment against principal) in People t>. White, 28 Hun, 289. Cited as authority in State u. Thornton, 8 Mo. App. 31. Bridger v. Pierson, 1 Lans. 481. Rev'd (Construction of clause in deed reserving right of way) in 45 JST. Y. 601. Bridges v. Hyatt, 2 Abb. Pr. 449. Aff'd in 16 A 7 ". Y. 546. t. Wyekoff, 67 N. Y. 130. Disting'd (Acceptance of street by public) in Corwin, v. Corwin, 24 Hun, 148. Bridgewater Paint Man uf. Co. v. Messmore, 15 How. Pr. 12. Disapproved (Right of de- fendant to move to vacate order of arrest, after judgment and execution issued against his person) in Crowell v. Brown, 17 How. Pr. 68. Briggs v. Bergen, 23 N. Y. 162. Disting'd (Appeal to Court of Appeals) in Lahens ». Fielden, 15 Abb. Pr. 180. Followed in Jones v. Ludlum, 74 A 7 ". Y. 61. Applied to case of judgment by default, — in Maltby v. Greene, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 146. Followed (Appeal from order striking out answer as sham) in Potter ■». Carreras, 4 Eobt. 629. v. Boyd, 65 Barb. 197. Affd in 56 N. Y. 289. See Mooney v. Elder. v. Briggs, 20 Barb. 477. Aff'd in 15 N. Y. 471. See Colgrove v. Tallman ; Schu- bert v. Harteau. v. Bavis, 20 JST. Y. 15. Modifying Briggs v. Palmer, 20 Barb. 392. Docis- ■ ion in 20 A 7 ". . Y. partially rev'd on rc- argument, in 2 L Id. 574. Followed (Effect of mortgage executed by one grunting estate in trust) in Marvin v. Smith, 06 Barb. 600. Followed (Rights of purchaser from trustee) in GriswOld v. Perry, 7 Lans. 104. • Followed (Invalidity of sale had in contravention of trust) in Russell v. Rus- sell, 36 A 7 . Y. 585. Commented on (Assign- ment for benefit of creditors, as distin- . guished from mortgage) in Barrill on '' Assign. § 6, 4 ed. Quoted in Id. n. 4. v. Easterly, 62 Barb. 01. Followed (Action against trustee of manufacturing corporation for failure to file annual report) in Brouson n. Dimoek, 4 Han, 614. 1- v. Evans. See Hewit v. Prime. v. Mitchell, 60 Barb. 288, 316. Discussed (Fraud by debtor — intent) in Wait on Fraud. ■ Cowb. § 197. • - — v. N. Y. Central R. B. Co., 28 Barb. 515. Disting'd (Necessity of notice of in- tent to search for property not delivered by carrier) in Fanvell ». Davis, 66 Barb. 73, 81. t. N. t. Central, &c. B. R. Co., 1 Buff. Super. Ct. {Sheldon) 402. Aff'd in Id. 433. Further decision in 72 A 7 ! Y. 26. v. North American & M. Ins. Co., 53 A 7 ". Y. 446. Approved (Liability for loss by explosion) in Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co. v. Dorsey, 56 Md. 70; s. c, 40 Am. B. 403. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 446, n. 3. Keller's ed. — v. North British Mercantile Ins. Co., 66 Barb. 325. Followed (Liability for loss by explosion) in Briggs v. People's Ins. Co., 66 Barb. 330. v. Oliver, 68 A"! Y. 336. See (Fore- closure of chattel mortgage) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1737, n. v. Palmer. 20 Barb. 392. Modified on appeal, as Briggs «. Davis, 20 A 7 ". Y. 15, which see aliove. t. Partridge, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 339. Affd in 64 jV? Y. 357 ; s. c, 21 Am. It. 617. See Kiersted v. Orange ^Alexan- dria R. R. Co. ; Williams v. Gillies. Decis- ion in 64 A 7 ". Y. followed (Who may sue or be sued on sealed instrument) in Nicoll v. Burke, 78 A 7 . Y. 584; Schafer v. Henkel, 75 A 7 ". Y. 381. Explained and applied in Hensler v. Sefrin, 19 Him, 568. Disting'd in Carley v. Potts, 24 Hun, 574. Doctrine discussed in 16 Alb. L. J. 98. v. Penniman, Hopk. 300. Affd in 8 Coin. 387; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 454, with note, collating cases. Decision in 8 Cow. followed with SIee». Bloom, 19 Johns. 456; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 273, and other cases (Liability of stockholders) in Hightower v. Thornton, 8 6a. 486; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 412, 416, with note. Cited in Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co. ■». Merchants' &c. Co., 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 1 ; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 742, 766, with note. Followed (Set-off by stockholder or director) with Tallmadge v. Fishkill Iron Co., 4 Barb. 382, in Remington -». King, 11 Abb. Pr. 278. Applied in Cheever v. Gil- bert Elev. R'y, 43 Super. Ct. (J. '& S.) 495. Approved in Webber v. Leighton, 8 Mo. App. 502. Disting'd (Presumed dissolution of corporation) in Huguenot Nat. Bk. v. Stiidwell, 6 Daly, 13, 17. With Slee n. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456; said in 18 Am. Dec. 401, »., to be frequently cited in N. Y. courts. Discussed in 2 Kent Com. 312. v. Prosser-, 14 Wend. 227. See La Frombois ». Jackson. Disting'd (Adverse possession) in Wiseman v.' Lucksinger, 84 KY. 31, 46. Discussed (Color of title) in Sedgio. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 781. v. Rowe, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 189; s. c, 4 Keyes, 424. Disting'd (Brokers' commissions) in Briggs v. Boyd, 56 N. Y. 289, 294. -. — v. Tillotson. 8 Johns. 304. Discussed (Consideration for contract) in 1 Chitty on Contr. 73, nf. 1, 11 Am. ed. v. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. 222. See Bost- wick v. Champion. Approved (Excuse ipt non-performance of carrier's contract) in BRIGHT— BRINK. 101 Bonsteel v. Same, 21 Id. 26. Questioned in Williams c. Vanderbilt, 28 K Y. 224, which afFd 2'J Barb. 491, 501, which see. v. Waldron, 9 Weekly Dig. 2J9. AfFd in 83 If. F. 582. Brigham v. Tillinghast, 13 Barb. 618. Rev'd in Vi If. Y. 215. See Nicholson v. Leavitt. Decision in 13 If. Y. disting'd (Validity of provisions in genera! assignment) in Jessup •o. liaise, 29 Barb. 539. Confirmed in Bene- dict v. Huntington, 32 If. Y. 219. Decision in 15 Barb. 618, collated with other cases (Provisions for sale on credit) in Bishop on Assign. § 211. Decision in 13 If. Y. com- mented upon in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § . 332. Collated with Kellogg v. Slawson, 11 ■ If. Y. 302; Jessup v. Hulse, 21 id. 168; I Rapalee v. Stewart, 27 Id. 310 ; Benedict v. Huntington, 32 Id. 219; Woodburn v. Mosher, 9 Barb. 255 ; Townsend v. Stearns, . 32 If. Y. 209, and other cases, in 31 Am. R. 398. Quoted and discussed (Terms of sale) in Burrill on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. Decision in 15 Barb, -explained (Recitals) in Id. § 131. Collated with other cases (Com- pounding debts) in Bishop on Assign. § 214. Bright v. Cmrie, 5 Sandf. 433; s. c, 10 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 104. Superseded (Actions by executor, &c, in individual capacitv) by Code Civ. Pro. § 1814. v. Judson, 47 Barb. 29. Followed (Bona fide holder of bill, as against acceptor) in Philbrick v. Dallett, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 370. v. Supervisors of Chenango, 18 Johns. 243. Disting'd (Allowance to officer for disbursements) in Crofut v. Brandt, 5 Daly, 124, 126, which was aff'd in 58 N. Y. 106, 113, which see. Brill v. Flagler, 23 Wend. 354. Overruled (Opinions as to value of dog) in Dunlap v. Snyder, 17 Barb. 561. Followed with Clark v. Baird, 9 If. Y. 183, in Cantling v. Hannibal & St. Joseph It. R. Co., 54 Mo. 385; s.'c, 14 Am. II 476, 481. Applied, as to value of horse, in Miller v. Smith, 112 Mass. 475. Followed (Opinions of witnesses as to value) in Vandine v. Burpee, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 288 ; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 733. Ap- plied (Killing animals trespassing or dam- age feasant) in Aldnch ». Wright, 53 If. H. 398; s. c, 16 Am. li. 339, 349, 370. V. Tuttlc, 15 Bun, 289. Rev'd in 81 N. Y. 454; s. c, 37 Am. R. 515. See Winter v. Drury. Brinckerlioff v. Board of Education, 6 Alb. Br. If. S. 428; s. c, 37 Bow. Pi: 499; 2 Daly, 443. Aff'd in Poillon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 47 If. Y. 666. Decision in 2 Daly, followed (Public property not subject to seizure and sale under execution) in The Fidelity, 16 Blatchf. O. Ct. 569, 572. v. Bostwick, 23 Hun, 237. Rev'd in 88 N. Y. 52. v. Brown, 7 Johns. 217. See Slee n. Bloom. Applied (Dissolution of corpora- tion) in Bruce v. Piatt, 80 If. Y. 379, 389. Examined (Forfeiture of charter by corpora- tion) in Town v. Bank of River Basin, 2 Doug. 550. v. Lansing, 4 Johns. Oh. 65; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 538. See James n. Morey; Storrs v. Barker. Followed with Berry v. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Id. 603 (Postponement of prior mortgage) in Clabaugh v. Byerly, 7 Gill (Md.) 354; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 575, with note. v. Phelps, 24 Barb. 100. Further decis- ion in 43 Barb. 469. See Driggs «. Dwight ; Peters «. McKeon ; Trull v. Granger. Decis- ion in 24 Barb, with Trull v. Granger, 8 IT. Y. 115 ; Driggs v. Dwight, 7 Wend. 71, said in Bush v. Cole, 28 If. Y. 261, not to be overruled (Liability of vender who con- tracts to sell lands to which he has no color of title) in Conger ». Weaver, 20 If. Y. 140. v. Stark ins. 11 Barb. 248. Discussed (Title to wild animals) in 1 Add. on Torts, 513, n. 1, Wood's ed. v. Wemple, 1 Wend. 470. Recognized as authority (Necessity that trustees unite in transfer of trust property) in Brennan v. Willson, 71 If. Y. 507. Reviewed, at length with Baker v. Johnson, 2 Bill, 342 ; Turrill v. Norman, 19 Bar b. 263; People v. White, 11 Barb. 26; Rexford v. Knight, 15 Barb. 267; 11 If. Y. 308; Snyder v. Canal R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 829 (Appropriation of land by State for canal purposes) in Bird- sail v. Cary, 66 How. Pr. 358. v. Remsen, 8 Paige, 488. Aft'd in 26 Wend. 325. Applied (Due publica- tion of will) in Bagley v. Blackman, 2 Lans. 41 ; Nipper v. Groesbeck, 22 Barb. 670 ; Trustees of Theol. Sem. of Auburn o. Cal- houn, 38 Id. 159 ; Bagley v. Blackman, 2 Lans. 43; Gilbert r. Knox, 52 iV. Y. 130; Grant v. Grant, 1 Sandf. Oh. 240 ; Neugeut v. Neugent, 2 Red/. 369 ; Mairs v. Freeman, 3 Id. 193; Von Hoffman «. Ward, 4 Red/. 260, 262. Cited and applied with Remsen v. Brinckerhoof, 26 Wei.d. 325 ; Rutherford v. Rutherford, 1 Den. 33 ; Brown v. De Selding, 4 Sandf. 20; Seymour «. Van Wyck, 6 If. Y. 120; Ex parte Beers, 2 Bradf. 163 ; Wilson 1). Hettrick, 2 Bradf. 467; Burritt v. Silliman, 16 Barb. 198: Lewis v. Lewis, 11 If. Y. 220; Hunt v. Mootrie, 3 Bradf. 322; Robinson v. Smith, 13 Abb. Pr. 359; Abby t. Christie, 49 Barb. 276 ; Gilbert o. Knox, 52 If. Y. 125, in Walsh v. Laffan, 2 Dem. 498. Explained in 4 Kent Com. 515, n. b; Brink v. Gould, 7 Lans. 425; s. o., with points of counsel, in 43 How. Pr. 289. Brink v. Gould, 7 Lans. 425; s. c, with points of counsel, 43 How. Pr. 289. v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 70 If. Y. 593. Explained (Waiver by insurer) on subsequent appeal in 80 If. Y. 108, 111. Followed in Bell v. Lycoming F. Ins. Co., 19 Hun, 238. Decision in 80 If. Y. dis- ting'd and limited in Deveus v. Mechanics' & Tra. Ins. Co., 83 If. Y. 168, 173. Fol- lowed in Titus o. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 81 If. Y. 410. 102 BRINK— BRISBANE. T. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. See Brink v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. - — v. Republic Fire Ins. Co., 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 550. Appeal dismissed in 56 W. Y. 679. See Brink v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. T. Richtmyer, 14 Johns. 255. Followed (Trespass for fishing, &c.) in Whittaker «. Burhans, 62 Barb. 237. Applied with Colvin v. Burnet, 2 Hill, 620 (Construction of public grants) in Langdon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 93 N. Y. 129. Brinkerhofi t. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 671. Another proceeding respecting the same demand in 7 Johns. Oh. 217. See Chautauqua Co. Bk. «. White; Hendricks v. Bobinson. Rule respecting remedy against fraudulent conveyances held inapplicable in cases of mechanics' liens, — in Gross ». Daly, 5 Daly, 540, 553. Followed (Remedy against per- sonal assets of debtor) in Screven v. Bostick, 2 McCords Oh. (S. 0.) 410; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 664. Explained (Remedy against fraudulent conveyance) as to real estate, in McCullough v. Colby, 5 Bosw. 494. Ap- proved in Shaw v. Dwight. 27 K Y. 249. Explained in North Am. Fire Ins. Co.,*. Graham, 5 Sandf. 202. Explained as in- applicable to proceedings to enforce pay- ment of taxes, in Durante. Suprs' of Albany, 26 Wend. 92. Applied (Necessity for return of execution) to supplementary pro- ceedings, in Owens ■». Dupignac, 9 Abb. Pr. 185. v. , 6 Johns. Ch. 139. See Fellows v. Fellows ; Varick v. Smith. Applied (Set- ting aside fraudulent conveyance) in Fel- lows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682, 701. Qualified (Necessity of execution) in McCullough v. Colby, 5 Bosw. 477, 495. Compare Mc- Cartney b. Bostwick, 31 Ba/rb. 390. Relied on (Misjoinder) in Garner v. Harmony Mills, 6 Alb. iv~. O. 212, 216; Loomis v. Brown, 16 Barb. 331. Applied in Lexington & Big Sandy R. R. Co. v. Goodman, 25 Barb. 473 ; Emery «. Erskine, 63 Barb. 14; Griggs r. Griggs, Id. 299; Murray v. Hay, 1 Barb. Oh. 299; Simar v. Canaday, 53 N. Y. 305. Relied on (Multifariousness) in Sheldon v. Keokuk, &c. Packet Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 769. Applied in N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 17 JST. Y. 607, which rev'd 1 Abb. Pr. 417, 427, which see; Board of Super- visors v. Deyoe, 77 N.Y. 225; Robinson «. Smith, 3 Paige, 231. Examined (Demurrer ore tenus) in Boyd v. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 71. Followed (Parties in creditors' action) in Clarkson «. De Peyster, 3 Paige, 323. Fol- lowed with Boyd v. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 65; Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682, in Reed v. Stryker, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 26, 28, 30, which rev'd 6 Abb. Pr. 109, which see; Morton v. Weil, 33 Barb. 30, 35. Followed in Dugan «. Vattier, 3 Blaclf. {hid.) 245 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 105, 108, with note. Ex- plained in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 108. v. Marvin, 5 Johns. Ch. 320, 326. Quali- fied (Security for future advances) in Monnot v. Ibert, 33 Barb. 24, 27 ; Truscott v. King, 6 Barb. 349, which was rev'd in. 6 2v~. Y. 158, which see. Explained in Bank of Albion v. Burns, 2 Bans. 57. Applied in Hall v. Grouse, 13 Hun, 563; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 208; Cook v. Whipple, 55 AT Y. 167; Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Oh. 84; Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 21 Hun, 53, which was rev'd in 85 N~. Y. 43, which see. Followed and approved with Livingston v. Mclnlay, 16 Johns. 165; Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Ch. 78: Bank of Utica v. Finch, 3 Barb. Ch. 203; Thomas ». Kelsey, 30 Ba/rb. 268; Robinson v. Williams, 22 JV. Y. 380, in Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749 ; s. c. 2 Am. B. 653, 657. Applied (Rights of partnership creditors) in Menagh v. Whit- well, 52 K Y. 146, 173. Followed in Doner v. Stauffler, Penr. &W. (Pa.) 198; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 370, 374. Said in note thereto, at p. 374, to have been recognized as authority in King's Appeal, 9 Pa. St. 126 ; Snodgrass' Appeal, 13 Id. 474 ; Deal v. Bogne, 20 Id. 234. Explained (Statement on confession of judg- ment) in Whitney v. Kenyon, 7 Moid. Pr. 460; Schoolcraft v. ^Thompson, 9 Id. 62. Applied in Stebbins V East. Soc. of M. E Church, 12 Abb. Pr. 413. v. Perry, 59 Sow. Pr. 156, n. Further decision in 12 Weekly Dig. 459. Brink ley v. Brinkley, 47 JST. Y. 40. Further decisions in 50 K Y. 184; s. c, 10 Am. B. 460, also in 2 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 501, which was affd, in effect, in 56 K Y. 192. Decision in 47 N. Y. approved (Rights of party in contempt) in Matter of Genet, 1 Hun, 296. Followed in Marshall v. Marshall, 2 Hun, 238, 248; Matter of Steinert, 24 Hun, 246, 248. Applied in Walker v. Walker, 82 N. Y. 260, 264. Disting'd (Appeal in proceedings to punish for con- tempt) in Carrington ». Florida R. R. Co., 52 K Y. 583, 585. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881. § 2273, n. Decision in 2 Svp'm. Ct. ( T. & G.) applied (Adoption of special ver- dict) in Madison University v. White, 25 Hun, 490. 494. Applied (Disregarding spe- cial verdict) in Carroll v. Deimel, 13 Weehly Dig. 401. Decision in 50 N. Y. approved but disting'd (Allowance of alimony) in Collins v. Collins, 71 K Y. 269, 273, Ap- plied (Presumption of marriage from coha- bitation, etc.) in Byrnes «. Dibble, 5 Bed/. 383, 385. Commented on (Marriage and divorce — English law, how far applicable) in Bish. on Mar. & D. § 72, n. 2, 6 ed. Brisbane v. Caiues, 10 Johns. 45. Aff'd in 13 Johns. 9. • v. Adams, 1 Sandf. 195. Rev'd in 3 K F. 129. v. Brisbane, 20 Hun, 48. Applied (Affidavits on application for examination before trial) in Tenney v. Mautner, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 64, 71. v. Macomber, 56 Barb. 375. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196, to have been affd by Ct of App. in Jan. 1875. Y. Pratt, 4 Den. 63. Disapproved (Pos- BRISCOE- BROCK W A Y. 103 session of note as evidence of ownership) in Seeioy «. Engell, 17 Barb. 530 ; Smith v. Schanck, 18 Barb. 344; James v. Chalmers, C iV. Y. 209, 213, 215. Approved (Admis- sions of prior owner, admissible against as- signee without value) in Von Sachs ». Kretz, 72 K Y. 548, 554. Briscoe, Matter of, 51 How. Pr. 422. Reas- serted (Judicial interference with executive) in Matter of Nichols, 6 Abb. K 0. 464, 494. Bristol, Matter of, 16 ^156. Pr. 184. Further decision, in Id. 397. — — v. Barker, 14 Johns. 205. Trial at nisi prius, reported in Anth. N. P. 235. V. Burl, 7 Johns. 254; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 264. Followed with Shotwell ». Few, 7 Johns. 302; Durell ». Mosher, 8. Id. 445 (Evidence of conversion) in Reida. Colcock, 1 Nott & McC. (8. O.) 592 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 739. Followed with Murray «. Burling, 10 JAns. 172; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323, in Maxwell v. Harrison, 8 G-a. 61 ; s. c, 52 Am. Bee. 385, 388, with note. Included in Bigel. Oases -an Torts, 389. Disting'd witi Phillips v. Hall, 8 Wend. 610 (Liability of attaching officer for trespass or conver- sion; in Rand v. Sargent, 23 Me. 326; s. c, 39 Am. Bee. 625, with note. v Chapman, 34 Bow. Pr. 140. Dis- ting'd (Removal of causes to U. 8. Courts) in Chiniberlain «. Am. Nat. L. &T. Co., 11 Sun, 368, 373. Relied on in dissenting opinion of Bbady, J., in Chatham Nat'l Bank v. Merchant's Nat'l Bank of W. Va., 4 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & O.) 196, 201. v. Spragne, 8 Wend. 423, 425. Cited and discuss3d with Rosa v. Brotherson, 10 Id. 85; Baak of Salina o. Babcock, 21 Id. GOO; Bauk of Sandusky ». Scoville, 24 Id. 115; Williams «. Smith, 2 Bill, 301, and other cases (Effect of receipt of negotiable paper iu payment of precedent debt) inBostwiekfl. Dodge, 1 Bouij. (Mich.) 413; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 584, with note. British Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Com- missioners of Taxes. 31 N~. Y. 32; s. c, more fully, 18 Abb. Pr. 118; 28 Bow. Pr. 41 ; 1 /{eyes, 303. Applied (Taxation of foreign corporations) in People ex rel. Bay State Shoe & Leather Co. v. McLean, 80 N~. Y. 254, 259. Brittin r. Peabody, 4 Bill, 61, 66. Modified (Test for change of venue) in Cook ». Pen- dergast, 61 Gal. 72. v. Wilder, 6 Bill, 242. See Holbrook v. Murray. Collated with Roraback v. Steb- bins, 33 Bow. Pr. 278 ; First Nat'l Bank v. Garlinghouse, 53 Barb. 615; Moncrief v. Ward, 16 Abb. Pr. 354 ; s. c, 25 Bow. I J r. 94; Walkers. Swayzee, 3 Abb. Pr. 136; Chapman v. Lemon, 11 Bow. Pr. 235, 238, and other cases (Judgments against mar- ried women) in 55 Am. Dec. 599, n. Britton v. Friuk, 3 Bow. Pr. 102. See argu- ments of counsel in 1 Bow. App. Gas. 4. v. Lorenz, 3 Daly, 23. Aff'd in 45 A 7 ". Y. 61. Decision in 45 iV". Y. applied (Necessity of acceptance by assignee in general assign- ment) in Ronnie e. Bean, 24 Bun, 123. Ex- plained (Express trusts in general assign- ment; in Burrill on Assign. 239, n. 2, 4 ed. Reviewed with other cases (Communica- tions from client to attorney) in 36 Am. B. 633, n. See Code Gin. Pro. 1881, § 835. n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Bow. Pr. 251 ; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. 367, n. Explained and limited with Benson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Barb. 223 ; People «. Hawes, 37 Id. 440 (Private rights of municipal corporations) in Darlington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 N. Y. 164, 201. Explained (Power of municipal corporation to limit its legislative powers by contract) in Whitney n. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. xV. G. 329, 342. Applied with Presbyterian Church v. City of N. Y., 5 Cow. 538, in Trenholm v. Charleston, 3 8. G. 347; s. c, 16 Am. B. 732, 735. y. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 220. Another opinion, in Id. 442. Brizsee v. Maybee, 21 Wend. 144. See Suy- dam ■». Jenkins. Approved as a leading case (Damages in replevin or conversion) in Twinam «. Swart, 4 Bans. 263, 270. Fol- lowed with Cable v. Dakin, 20 Wend. 172; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 10 Johns. 378, in Mc- Donald v. Scaife, 11 Pa. St. 381; s. c, 51 Am. Bee. 556, 558. Applied in Spicer v. Waters, 65 Barb. 227, 235. Discussed in 3 Pars, on Gontr. 201, n. a. Broad v. Hoffman, 6 Barb. 177. Followed (Amount of brokerage) in Cook *. Phillips, 56 N. Y. 310, 314. Broadhead v. Lycoming- Fire Ins. Co., 14 Ban, 452. Further decision in 23 Id. 397. Broadway, Matter of, 63 Barb. 572. Previous proceeding in 42 Bow. Pr. 220; s. c, 61 Barb. 483, which was aff'd in 49 A 7 ". Y. 150. Broadwell v. Getman, 2 Den. 87. Followed (Contracts not to be. performed within a year) in Weir ■». Hill, 2 Bans. 278. Ques- tioned in Talmadge ». Rensselaer & Sara- toga R. R. Co., 13 Barb. 493. Doubted in Waterman on Sp. Perf. § 290, n. Collated, with other cases, in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 883. Cited, as supported by the weight of American authority, in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 112, n. 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Brock way t. Allen, 17 Wend. 40; s. c, Thomps. Liab. of Off. & A. 32, with notes, p. 77, &c. See Hills v. Bannister; Mott v. Hicks. Followed (Proof that maker of note signed as agent) in Clealand v. Walker, 11 Ala. 1058; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 238, 240. Applied in Metcalf v. Williams, 104 U. S. 93. v. Burnap, 12 Barb. 347; s. c, 8 How. Pr. 188. Rev'd in 16 Barb. 309. See Allen v. Crary. Decision in 12 Barb, limited (Action of replevin, when maintainable) in Knapp v. Smith, 27 If. Y. 277. Decision in 16 Barb, approved in Nichols v. Michael, 23 1ST. Y. 269. Limited in Nash «. Fredericks, 12 ^156. Pr. 147. Followed in Drake v. Wakefield, 11 Bow. Pr. 106. 108 104 BROCKWAY— BEOOKLYN PAEK COM. T. Kinney, 2 Johns. 210. Followed with Rice i>. King, 7 Id. 26 ; Platner v. Best, 11 Id. 530 (Judgment as evidence) in Kil- hefferj). Herr, 17 -Ser^. & It. {Pa.) 319; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 658. T. People, 2 -HiK, 558. Overruled (In- dictment for keeping bawdy-house) in People v. Erwin, 4 Den. 129. v. Wells. See Slee v. Manhattan Co. Examined (Distinction between pledge and i chattel mortgage) in Thomas on Mort. 433. Broderick t. Smith, 15 How. Pr. 434; s. c, more fully, 26 Bait). 539. Explained (Relief against payment of principal secured by mortgage) in Ferris v. Ferris, 28 Barb. 29, 32. Brodsky v. Ihms, 25 How. Pr. 471 ; s. c, more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. 251. Broiestedt v. South Side E. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 220. Explained (Ejectment — joinder of ac- tions) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 639. Bromagham v. Clapp, 5 Cow. 295. Rev'd in 9 Cow: 5.30. Bromley v. Smith. See Legg v. Stillman. Brondage v. Warner, 2 Hill, 145. Compare (Ejectment by plaintiff not entitled to pos- session) Rogers v. Sinsheimer, 50 N. Y. 646. Bronuer v. Fruaenthal, 9 Bosw. 350. Aff'd in 37 N. Y. 166. Decision in 37 N. Y. relied on (Admissibility of deposition de bene esse) in Gardner v. Bennett, 38 -Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 197. Branson's Estate, 1 Tuck.- 464, 467. Fol- lowed (Necessity that executor be named in the will) in Hartnette. Wand ell, 2 Hun, 555; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 101. Branson v. Branson, 48 How. Pr. 481. Dis- ' ting'd (Who entitled to accumulated income of trust fund) in Ellinwood v. Beare, 59 Id. 506. T. Earl, 17 Johns. 63, 65. Applied wifli Burdick v. Green, 18 Id. 14 (What consti- tutes commencement of action) in Johnson v. Farwell, 7 Oreenl. (Me.) 370; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 203'. See also, 15 Am. Dec. 344, n. ; 18 Id. 120. v. Fitzhugh, 1 Hill, -185. Disting'd (Effect of release of one of joint wrong- ■ 'doers) in Ellis v. Esson, 50 Wise. 138; s. c, ■ 36 Am. R. 830, 833. v. Gleason, 7 Barb. 472. Explained (Delivery of goods sold where to be made) in 2 Pars, on Contr, 650, n. b. v. Mann, 13 Johns. 460. See (Costs in justice's courts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3074, n. t. Noyes, 7 Wend. 188. See Lovett v. Adams. Applied (Conditional delivery of bond) in People ». Bostwick, 32 N. Y. 445. v. Wiman, 10 Barb. 406. Aff'd in 8 N. Y. 182. See Bennett v. Hull. Followed (Contracts to manufacture as affected by statute of frauds) in Ferren v. O'Hara, 62 Barb. 517, though there said to conflict with Downs v.. Ross, 23 Wend. 270. Com- pare Passaic Manuf. Co. v. Hoffman, 3 Daly, 495. Explained in Benj. on Sales, % 109, n. y. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Brooker v. Coffin, 5 Johns. 188 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dee. 337. See Gibbs v. Dewey. Said in 12 Am. Dec. 41, n. to have been extensively followed (Slanderous charges of crime) in N. Y. and elsewhere. See particularly Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 234; Burton v. Burton, 3 Iowa, 316. St. Martin v. Desnoyor, 1 Minn. 156, thought by the editor from its / citation of Young v. Miller, 3 Hill, 21, to/ adopt the doctrine of the N. Y. decisions./ Approved in Andres v. Koppenheafer, Serg. & R. (Pa.) 255; s. c, &Am. Dec. 64t 650. Included in 1 Hare & W. Am. Leal. Gas. 5 ed. 87. Opposed (Charging woman with prostitution) in Miller v. Parish,l8 Pick 364; Woodbury v. Thompson, 2 ACi 194; Frisbie v. Fowler, 2 Conn. 707. Jn- " eluded in Bigel. Cases on Torts, 77. Bel- lowed (Words actionable/ierse) with Yo«ng «. Miller, 3 Hill, 21 ; Quiiiii v. O'Gara, J E. D. Smith, 388; Van Ness v. Hamilton; 10 JoJms. 367, in Hollingsworth v. ShaV, 19 Ohio St. 430; s. c, 2 Am. It' 411. Brooklyn Bank v. De Grauw, 23 Wendj 342. Approved and applied (Keeping tender good) in Dodge v. Fearey, 19 Hun, 27f. Brooklyn Central R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 358. limited (Extent of street railroad franchise) in Brooklvn City, &c. R-. R. Co. v. Cpney Is- land, A T . Y. 234. See Presbyterian Church v. City of N. Y. Decision in 45 N. Y. applied (Right in lands taken for public use) in BirdsalljD. Cary, 66 How. Pr. 358. Limited (Fee by implication, in property taken for public usfe) in Wash. Cemetery v. Prospect Park, &qi R. R. Co., 68 N. Y. 595. Approved and applied (Com- pensation for property taken by eminent domain) in Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. v. Gilbert Elev. Ry. Co., 3 Abb. A". O. 399. Applied (Purchaser's right to refuse title) in Wood v. Squires, 1 Hun, 481. Disting'U (Evidence of public use) in Matter of Deansville Ceme- tery Assoc, 66 N. Y. 572. Cited (Contract created by accepting bonds issued under stat- ute) in Louisiana!). Pillsbury, 105 U. S. 288 BROOKLYN STEAM TRANSIT CO.- BROOME. 105 Breoklyn Steam Transit Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 78 If. Y. 524. Confirmed as to loss of power to exercise right of eminent domain in Matter of Brooklyn, Winfield & Newtown R. R. Co., 81 N. Y. 71. Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Bulmer, 49 If. Y. 84. Followed (Service by publication) in Pier ». Amory, 40 Wise. 574. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 441, n. Brooklyn White Load Co. v. Masnry, 25 Barb. 416. Approved (What constitutes trade-mark) in Wolfe v. Gaulard, 18 How. Pr. 69. Explained in Newman «. Alvord, 40 Barb. 588; s. c. 35 How. Pr. 108, which was aft'd in 51 If. Y. 189, where Brooklyn White Lead Co. v. Masury was disting'd. Considered in Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co., 57 Barb. 526, 535. Explained in 2 Pars, on Qontr. 257 bo, n. y ; Id. 257 by, n. e. Reviewed (Use of geographical names as trade-marks) in 10 Alb. L. J. 209. Collated with other cases (Injunction against viola- tion of trade-mark), in Tkomps. on Pron. Bern. 259. Quoted and explained in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 1067, n. 5. Brooklyn, Winlield, &c. R. R. Co., Matter Of, 72 N. Y. 245; s. c, less fully, 55 How. Pr. 14. Further decision in 75 N. Y. 335; also in 19 Hun, 314, and that aff'd in 81 If. Y. 69. Decision in 72 If. Y. followed (Loss of corporate existence by failure to comply with charter) in Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 78 If. Y. 524, 530. Disting'd in Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 If. Y. 459. Disting'd with Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. ». City of Brooklyn, 78 If. Y. 527, in Hughes «. Northern Pac. R'y Co., U. S. Giro. Gt., D. ' Oregon, Oct. 1883, 18 Fed. Bep. 117. Quoted and explained in MoraweU on Corp. § 147. Decision in 75 If. Y. disting'd (What is violation of the statute forbid- ding passage of private or local bill, grant- ing right to lay down railroad tracks) in People v. Long Island R. R. Co., 9 Abb. If. G. 204.; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 418. Brookman v. Hamill, 54 Barb. 209. Aff d in 43 If. Y. 554. See Moores v. Lunt. Motion for rehearing upon ground that under decision in Vose ». Cockioft, 44 If. Y. 415, question as to constitutionality of law was waived, — denied in 46 If. Y. 636. with note, correcting syllabus of report in 43 If. Y. Re-affd (Unconstitutionality of State statutes providing for enforcement of maritime contracts) in Poole v. Kermit, 59 JV. Y. 554, 556, which affd 37 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 114, which see. Followed in Mur- phy v. Salem, 1 Hun, 141. Re-Surplus and Remnants of the proceeds of the Ship Edith, 11 Blatchf. G. Gt. 451, 453,456; The Cir- cassian, Id. 472, 479; the B. F. Woolsey, 18 Id; 344, 348. Cited as authority (Jurisdiction of State courts as to maritime contracts) in Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 6 Lam. 434, which was aff'd in 56 N. Y.\, which see. Explained (Contract where maritime) in Wilson v. Lawrence, 82 If. Y. 409, which aft'd 18 Hun, 56, which see. Followed with The Josephine, 39 If. Y. 19, in Steamer Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio St. 602; s. c, 22 Am. B. 397, 405. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals) in Delaney v. Brett, 5 1 If. Y. 78, 82. v. Metcalf, 5 Bom. 429. Aff d in 32 N. Y. 591. Subsequent proceedings in 4 Bobt. 568. Decision in 4 Bobt. disap- proved (Estoppel from pleading statute of limitations) in Shapley v. Abbott, 42 If. P. 443, 455. Brooks v. Avery, 4 If. Y. 225. Collated with Post v. Dart, 8 Paige, 039, and other cases (Right of second morgagee to plead usury) in Pritchett «. Mitchell, 17 Ban. 355; s. c, 22 Am. B. 287, with note, collat- ing cases. ■ v. Ball, 18 Johns. 337. Criticised at length (Oath as consideration) in 14 Alb. L. J. 112. v. Bryce, 21 Wend. 14. Rev'd in 26 Wend. 3(57. v Buffalo & Niagara Falls R. R. Co., 25 Barb. 600. Aff'd in 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 211; S.C., 27 Barb. 532, n. v. Christopher, 5 Duer, 216. Limited (Conditional admission of evidence) in Kerslake «. Schoonmaker, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 524, 527; s. c, 1 Hun, 436. v. Curtis, 4 Lam. 283. Affd in 50 If. Y 639; s. c, 10 Am. B. 535. Decision in 50 If. Y. followed (Right to add to party- wall) in Musgrave v. Sherwood, 23 Hun, 675, n., which was rev'd in Id. 669, 685, which see. Disting'd in Same v. Same, 53 How. Pr. 311. Followed in Vrooman v. Jackson, 6 Hun, 320, 330. Approved in Dauenhauer t. Devine, 01 Tex. 480; s. c, 32 A in. B. 627. Quoted in Wood on Ifuis. 2 ed,§ 226. v. French. See Savacool ». Boughton. v. Hanfoni, 15 .Abb. Pr. 342. Dis- approved (Assignability of demand for damages on account of personal tort) in Alackey v. Mackey, 43 Barb. 58. Denied in Zogbaum v. Parker, 06 Barb. 341, as overruled in Mackey «. Mackey.' Followed (Attorney's lien, as subject to set-off) in- Sanders v. Gillett, 8 Daly, 183. v. Moore, 67 Barb. 393, 395. Disting'd (Effect of part payment by debtor) in Luu- dington *. Bell, 77 If. Y. 138, 143. v. Scliwerin, 54 If. Y. 343. See Filer ». N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Disting'd (Wife's earnings) in Reynolds v. Robinson. 64 If. Y. 589; Birkbeck v. Ackroyd, 11 Hun, 365. Criticised in Heau v. Kiah, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 454, as overruling Filer v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 49 If. Y. 47. Applied in Snow «. Cable, 1 9 Hun, 280. v. Shultz. 5 Bobt. 656. Opinion of Robektson, Ch. J., reported in 3 Abb. Pr. If. S. 124. Broome v. Taylor, 13 Hun, 341. Rev'd as to defendant Helen F. Taylor, and aifd as to James I. Taylor in 76 If. Y. 564. Former 106 BKOOME COUNTY BANK— BEOWK decision in 9 Run, 155. Decision in 76 R. Y. disting'd (Married woman's liability) in Scott v. Otis, 25 Hun, 33, 35. Broome County Bank v. Lewis, 18 Wend. 5G5. Disting'd (Striking out answer as sham) in McCarty «. O'Donnell. 7 Robt. 434. Brotherson t. Consalus, 26 Row. Pr. 213. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196 to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. in Jan. 1871. Brotherton v. People, 14 Run, 486. Aff'd in 75 R. Y. 159. Decision in 75 R. Y. fol- lowed (Burden of proof as to insanity) in O'Connella. People, 87 R. Y. 377. Eeiterated (Insanity as a defense for crime) in Walker v. People, 88 R. Y. 81. Bronghton t. Mitchell, 29 How. Pr. 68; s. c, more fully, 19 Abb. Pr. 163. See Carter v. Werner. y. Otis, 29 Barb. 196. Aff d as Boughton v. Otis, 21 R. Y. 261. v. Whalloii, 8 Wend. 474; s. c, 11 R. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 437, with brief note of other cases. » Brouwer v. Appleby, 1 Sandf. 158. Said in 4 Sandf. Ch. 581, n. to have been aff'd in Ct. of App. Applied (Proof of liabilities of insurance company, in proceedings on premium note) in Thomas «. Whallon, 31 Pari. 172, 178. Examined (Nature of notes given on organization of insurance com- pany) in Howland v. Edmunds, 33 Barb. 439, 454. v. Cotheal, 10 Barb. 216. Aff'd in 5 R. Y. 562. v. Harbeck, ] Puer, 114. Rev'd in 9 R. Y. 589. Decision in 9 R. Y. followed .- with Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 R. Y. 9 (Transfer by insolvent incorporation) in Hoyt v. Shel- don, 3 Bosw. 267, 305. Cited as authority in Smith v. Hall, 5 Bosw. 325. Explained (Evidence of insolvency of corporation) in Ferry,!!. Bank of Central N. Y.,. 15 Row. Pr. 451. Applied in Cheever v. Gilbert Elev. R'y Co., 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 488. Dis- ting'd in Dutchere. Importers' & Trad. Nat. Bank, 59 R. Y. 5, 10 ; Marine B'k of N. Y. v. Vail, 6 Bosw. 430. v. Jones. See Hills v. Miller. Brower v. Bowers, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 214. Compare (Circumstantial proof of marriage) Camden v. Belgrade, 73 Me. 126; s. c, 46 Am. Pec. 364. v. Fisher, 4 Johns. Ch. 411. Included with notes (Contracts by deaf and dumb persons) in Ewell Lead. Cos. on Inf. &c. 721. v. Kingsley, 1 Johns. Cos. 334; s. c, 1 R. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 344, with brief note. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 3 Barb. 254. See Adriance v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Dis- ting'd (Right of individual to maintain ac- tion to restrain or avoid acts of public au- thorities) in Roosevelt v. Draper, 7 Abb. Pr. 126. ' T. Peabody, 18 Barb. 599; s. c, 10 Row. Pr. 125. Rev'd in 13 R. Y. 121; s. c, with points of counsel, 2 Abb. Pr. 211. Decision in 13iV. Y. disting'd (Delivery of goods, when absolute) in Blossom v. Champion, 28 Barb. 222. Approved (Receipt, as subject of larceny) in People v. Bradley, 4 Park. 247. Brown's Accounting, 16 Abb. Pr. R S. 457. Disting'd (Liability of trustee under will for loss) in Bates v. Underhill, 3 Redf. 372. See (Allowance to executor, &c. for ex- penses) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2562, n. Brown v. Babcoek, 3 Row. Pr. 305. Fol- lowed and approved (Power to allow amend- ments, under Code) in Prindlea. Aldrich, 13 Rout. Pr. 466. v. Beuient, 8 Johns. 96. See Peterson v. Clark. Examined (Discharge of mort- gage by implication of law) in Thurber s. Jewett, 3 Mich. 305 ; citing Case v. Boughton, 11 Wend. 109; Langdon v. Buel, 9 Id. 83; Smith v. Acker, 23 Id. 667; Fuller v. Acker, 1 Hill, 475. Approved (Breach of condi--- tion in chattel mortgage) in Tannahill v. Tuttle, 3 Mich. 110; citing Butler v. Miller, 1 Pen. 407, and many other cases. v. Betts, 13 Wend. 29. Disapproved (Questions arising on return to certiorari) in Birdsall v. Phillips, 17 Wend. 464: See, also, Morewood v. Hollister, 6 R. Y. 309. v. Blydcnburgh, 1 R. Y. 141; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 506, with note. See Kellogg v. Smith. Disting'd (Payment of mortgage without production of bond and mortgage) in dissenting opinion in Foster v. Beals, 21 R. Y. 247; Purdy v. Huntington, 46 Barb. 389; Van Keurens v. Corkins, 66 'R. Y. 81. Disting'd as inapplicable to case of payment of note, in Doubleday v. Kress, 50 R. Y. 410. v. Bowen, 30 R. Y. 519, 541. Disting'd (Title by Estoppel) in Wiseman v. Luck- singer, 84 R. Y. 31, 40. Collated, with many other authorities, in 19 Cent. L. J. 87. Reviewed with Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. Ch. 344 ; Storrs v. Barker, fi Id. 166; Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595; Jack- son v. Shearman, 6 Johns. 19, 21 ; Jackson v. Vosbu:gh, 7 Id. 186; Swick v. Sears, 1 Rill, 17, 19 ; Blood v. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 6S, and other cases, in Hayes v. Livingston, 34 Mich. 384; s. c, 22 Am. R. 533, 537, 5!8, 540, 543. Quoted and discussed in Wood on Ruis. 2 ed. § 359. v. Brown. Case of this name said in 6 Alb. L. J. 167 to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. Jan. 23, 1872. v. , 4 Robt. 688; s. c, 31 How. Pr. 48!. See Shaw v. White. Approved (Dis- tinction between causes of action as legal or equitable) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 70, n. 1. See (Admeasurement of dower) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1607, n. v. , 34 Parb. 533, 536. Followed (Lobby service contract) in Russell v. Burton, 66 Barb. 539, 547. V. , 6 How. Pr. 320 ; s. c, 6 N. Y. 106. Explained with Pngsley v. Risscl- burgh, 10 R. Y. 420; Wiggins *>. Tall- BROWN. 107 madge, 7 How. Pr. 404 (Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals in action commenced in justice's court) in Flora v. Carbean, 33 A 7 ". Y. Ill, as decided before Code amendment in 1857. y. — -, 30 N. Y. 519. See Ward v. People. v. , 1 Hun, 443; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 477. Rev'd in 58 A 7 ! Y. (500, for error as to want of power to open default in divorce case. On further hearing order rev'd upon the merits of application, in 2 Hun, 677; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gl. (T. & G.) GUI. See (Opening judgment taken by de- fault on constructive service) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 415, n. y. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 191. Questioned and disting'd (Im- puting violation of ordinance as negligence) in Jetter v. N. Y. & Harlem 11 R. Co., 2 Keyes, 1 54. Overruled i n Beisiegcl v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 14 A bb. Pr. N. S. 29. Re- ferred to as overruled in Massoth i>. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 64 K Y. 524, which aff'd 6 Hun, 314, where Brown v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. was compared. Said also to be overruled in Ryan v. Thompson, 38 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 133, 135. Reviewed, with other cases, in Knupfle v. Knicker- bocker Ice Co., 84 K Y. 488, 490. Dis- approved with Fello v. Jones, 4 Keyes, 328, in Grey v. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387, citing Jetter ». N. Y. & Harlem R. It. Co., 2 Keyes, 154. Disapproved in Correll v. The B. C. R. & M. R. It. Co., 38 Iowa, 120 ; s. c, 18 Am. 11. 24. Followed (Nature of right to recover damages for injury causing death) in Roach v. Imperial Mining Co., 7 Fed. Pep. 098. — v. Batcher's & Drover's Bank, 6 Hill, 443; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 755. with note. See Mcrritt v. Clason ; Palmer v. Stephens. Included (Sufficiency of indorsement) in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 121, with note ; also in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Etch. 110, with note. Followed and applied in Mc- Intire s. Preston, 5 Gihn. {111.) 48; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 321, 329, with note. Applied (Sufficiency of signature) in David v. Wm'burgh City F. Ins. Co., S3 N. Y. 265, 209; Zann v. llaller, 71 Ind. ICC; s. c, 36 Am. P. 193, 195. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, . People, 5 Park. 23. Applied (Liability of railroad company for acts creating nuisance) in Lowrey v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. A. G. 32, 36. Applied in dissenting opinion of Dwight, C, in McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. It. R. Co., 61 A 7 ! Y. 200. Disting'd in Corey v. Buffalo, Corning, &c. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 490. Approved and followed in Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Fifth Bapt. Ch., 105 U. S. 317, 333. Col- lated with other cases, in Mill's Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 411. Explained (Extent of authority given by legislature over high- ways) in People v. Kerr, 37 Barb. 406. Applied (Necessity that objection be taken on trial) in Pollen v. Le Roy, 10 Bosw. 56. v. Cherry, 59 Barb. 628. Rev'd in 57 N. Y. (545. Previous decision in 56 Barb. 635. Decision in 57 N. Y. disting'd (Re- sulting trust) in Randall v. Gonstans, 23 Northw. Rep. 530, 534. v. Clark, 10 Bun, 559. Aff'd in 77 N~. Y. 869; s. c, 1 Am. Prob. R. 510, with note. See Dan v. Brown. Decision in 77 N. Y. applied with Newton v. Seaman's Friend Sot, 130 Mass. 91; Matter of O'Neil, 91 A r . Y. 523 (Effect of papers referred to in will) in Dyer v. Ervincr, 2 Bern. 160. See (Proof of will) Code Chi. Pro. 1881, § 2620, n. Approved (Effect of marriage in revoking will of married woman) in Swan v. Ham- mond, 1 88 Mass. 43. v. Clifford, 7 Lans. 46. Aff d, it seems, in 54 N. Y. 636, but without opinion. Decision in 7 Lans. followed (Disregarding verdict) in Carroll v. Deimel, 13 Weekly Dig. 108 BROWN. 401. Followed (Adoption of special ver- dict) in Madison University v. White, 25 Hun, 490, 493. v. Combes, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 572. Subsequent decision in 63 N. Y. 598. v. Cook, 3 E. D. Smith, 123. See Hull v. Carnley. Questioned and compared (Ne- cessity for demand of payment of chattel mortgage) in Wisser «. O'Brien, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 151. v. Cromien, 50 How. Pr. 192. AfE'd in 6 Hun, 247. See (Jurisdiction of N. Y. dis- trict courts over proceedings for forcible entry and detainer) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2233, 2234. v. Crowl, 5 Wend. 298. Disting'd (Right of action for false imprisonment) iu Van Ingen v. Snyder, 24 Hun, 81. v. Cmning. See Gordon «. Bowne. v. Curran, 14 Hun, 260. Compare to the contrary (Enforcing contract with third person) Goldenberg v. Hoffman, 69 N. Y. 322, which afl'd 7 Hun, 324. v. , 53 Haw. Pr. 303. Cited (Dam- age arising from erection of building) in Hil- liard v. N. Y. & Cleveland Gas Coal Co., 13 Weekly Law Bull. 379. — v. Cnrtiss, 2 N. Y. 225. See Allen v. Rightmere ; Herrick v. Carman ; Johnson v. Gilbert. Disting'd (Guaranty when not within statute of frauds) in Draper v. Snow, 20 £T. Y. 338, which afl'd 6 Duer, 662, which see. Also disting'd in Brewster v. Silence, 8 K Y. 210. Examined at length in Durham ■». Manrow, 2 N. Y. 533. Dis- ting'd and questioned in Spicer *. Norton, 13 Barb. 546. Examined, with other cases, in Church v. Brown, 21 W. Y. 315. Fol- lowed, with hesitation, in Milks, v. Rich, 80 N. Y. 271. Followed in Cardell v. MeNiel, 21 N. Y. 340; Lossee v. Williams, 6 Lavs. 234; Ellcnwood v. Fults, 63 Barb. 321; Fowler v. Clearwater, 35 Barb. 143, 149; Thomas v. Murray, 32 If. Y. 615. Explained in Mattery v. Gillett, 21 If. Y. 423. Com- mented on by Strong, J.,. in Glen Cove Mut. Ins. Co.®. Harrold, 20 Barb. 301. Recon- ciled with Brewster v. Silence, 8 N. Y. 207, in Dauber v. Blackney, 38 Barb. 434, 436. Followed (Liability of guarantor of note) in Gallagher v. White, 31 Barb. 92, 96; Clay v. Edgerton, 19 Ohio St. 549; s. c, 2 Am. It. 422, 424. Applied in Deck v. Works, 18 Hun, 266. Disting'd in Moore i>. Cross, 1 9 K Y. 230. Followed (Guarantor liable without demand and notice) in Mallory v. Grant, 4 Chand. {Wise.) 145. Applied (Incompetency of parol evidence to vary lia- bility of party to note) in Campbell v. Tate, 7 Lans. 373. — v. Dean, 3 Wend. 208. Disting'd (Recording deeds) in Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. N. C. 381, 391. — v. Delaflcld, 1 Ben. 445. Overruled (Effect of absence of one joint-debtor in suspending statute of limitations) in Denny v. Smith, 18 K Y. 567; Cutler v. Wright, 22 N. Y. 472, 477. Denied and Denny «. Smith followed in Coswell v. Elglcman, 31 Wis. 93. v. Dcivey, 1 Sandf. Oil. 56. Disting'd (Agreement to reconvey) in Morrison v. Brand, 5 Daly, 40, 42. Cited (Distinction between absolute conveyance, and convey- ance as security) as containing extensive review of the cases, in 4 Kent Com. 143, n. a. v. Elliott, 4 Daly, 329 ; s. c, with points of counsel, 45 How. Pr. 182. T. Fargo, I N. Y. 429 ; s. c, as Fargo v. Brown, 3 How. Pr. 294, where the facts are more fully stated. • v. Feeter, 7 Wend. 301. See Witherby v. Mann. Applied (Liability for attorney's acts) in Croft v. King, 8 Daly, 265, 269. Disting'd in Clark v. Woodruff, 83 A T . Y. - 518, 526. v. Ferguson, 2 Denio, 196. See (Pay- ment of amount of tender into court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 732, n. v. Frost, 1 Hoffm. 41. Rev'd in 10 Paige, 243. v. Goodwin, 1 Abb. N. C. 452. Aft'd by general term and that affd in 75 N. Y. 409. v. Haff. 5 Paige, 235; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 425, with note. Explained (Decreeing specific performance) in Slauson v. Wivtkins, 86 N. Y. 597, 602. Cited and approved in Andrews v. Sullivan,. 2 Gilm. {Ill,) 327; s. c., 43 Am. Deo. 53. Limited (Right of vendor to make his covenant for title good at any time before decree) in Alvarez v. Bran- nan, 7 Cal. 509. v. Hermann, 14 Abb. Pr. 394. Referred to as overruled (Liability of married woman on personal obligations) in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 758; Thomas on Mort. 198. v. Hinchman, 9 Johns. 75. Denied (Proof enabling justice to issue warrant) in Terry v. Fargo, 10 Johns. 114; Bissell v. Hills, 3 Wend. 390. - v. Jenison, 3 Sandf. 732. Limited (Striking out frivolous answer on notice) in Hull v. Smith, 1 Duer, 649. v. Kimball, 25 Wend. 259. Rev'g Kimball v. Davis, 19 Id. 437. Decision in 25 Wend, limited (Proof of execution of deed) in Northrop v. Wright, 7 Hill, 476, 493. See Kimball v. Brown, below. v. Knapp, 17 Hun, 160. Rev'd in 79 Jf. Y. 136. See Harris v. Fir v. Leavitt, 31 If. Y. 113. Applied (Boitafide holder of note) in Day v. Saunders, 3 Keyes, 347. Disting'd in Huff v. Wagner, 63 Barb. 215, 234; Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 If. Y. 218, 223. Included in 1 Ames Cases on B. & N. 668. v. Leigh, 49 N. Y. 78 ; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr N. S. 193. Further decision in 50 N. T 427; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. H. S. 305, whicn was confirmed in part in 52 N. Y. 78. De- cision in 49 N. Y. criticised with Troy & Boston R. R. Co. v. Tibbitts, 11 How. Pr. 170 (Amendment of pleadings) in Robertson v. Robertson, 9 Daly, 44. Approved in BEDWN. 109 Pomeroy on Rem. § 566. Explained (Action to determine conflicting claims to land) in Sedgw. & W. on Ti: of Tit. to Land, % 181. v. Littlefield, 7 Wend. 45-1. Afi'd in 11 Wend. 467. y. Lyddy. See Peters v. Newkirk. T. Lynch, 2 Bradf. 214. Overruled (Appointment of guardian) in Code Civ. Pro. § 2822. v. , 1 Paige, 147, 158. Followed (Transaction ■when not usurious) in Fiedler v. Darrin, 59 Bart. 652. Approved and followed (Equitable relief against statute of frauds) in Ryan v. Dox, 34 JV. Y. 307. Disting'd in Wheeler v. Reynolds, 66 N. Y. 239. Disting'd with Ryan v. Dox, 34 N. Y. 307, in Bauman v. Holzhausen, 26 Hun, 505. Collated and compared with other cases, in Randall v. Constans, 23 Northw. Rep. 530, 533. Disting'd and limited in Glass v. Hul- bert, 102 Mass. 24; s. c, 3 Am. R. 418, . 430. T. Lyon, 6 N". Y. 419. Applied (Rule in Shelley's case) in Bond o. McNiff, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 83, 88. v. McCune, 5 Sandf. 224. Referred to (Infant's liability for false representations) in Eckstein v. Prank, 1 Daly, 332, as hold- ing a doctrine previously repudiated in Wal- lace v. Morse, 5 Hit , 392, and overruled in this country by an overwhelming weight of authorities. So referred to in Tyler on Inf. & Cov 2 ed. § 126. Disapproved in Schune- rcann v. Paradise, 46 How. Pr. 426. Com- pared in Beuj. on Sales, 27 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). - — T. Mclntyre, 43 Barb. 344. Explained (Malicious prosecution) in Moak's UnderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 95. y. McKee, 57 N. Y. 684. Collated with other cases (Covenants running with land), in MeAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 86. Explained and disting'd (Liability of grantee to contribute towards construction of party-wall) in Scott v. McMillan, 76 N. Y. , 141, i44. v. Marrigoltl, 50 How. Pr. 248. See Trolan v. Pagan. Not followed (Admission of service of summons) in Peck v. Richard- son, 9 Hun, 567. y. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592; s: c, 41 Am. Dec. 771, with note ; 16 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 409, with brief note, of other cases. See Brownell v. Flagler ; Hartfield v. Roper. Dissented from (Extent of infantile responsibility) in Rauch v. Lloyd, 31 Penn. 358, 370. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 1 Hun, 30; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 155. Rev'd in 03 N. Y. 239. Compare, to the contrary, 3 Hun, 685; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 104. Further proceedings in 9 Hun, 587; 11 Id. 21. Decision in 11 Hun followed (Equit- able lien in favor of attorney) in Williams v. Ingersoll, 23 Hun, 285. y. ; 55 How. Pr. 8. Further decision in Id. 11. — — V. , 5 Daly, 481. Aff'd in 06 K Y. 385. See Jarvis v. Driggs. Decision in 6(5 N. Y. disting'd (Effect of judgment of dis- possession) in Jarvis v. Driggs, 69 N. Y. 143. Followed (Effect of adjudication on default) in Blair v. Bartlett, 75 II. Y. 153; s. c, 31 Am. R. 455. r. Merser, 37 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) £65. Followed (Trade-mark) in Electro-Silicon Co. i>. Trask, 59 How. Pr. 189, 192. v. Montgomery, 20 N. Y. 287. Applied (Evidence of insolvency of maker of note, &c.) in Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22, 32. Limited and disting'd (Duty of vendor of worthless negotiable paper) iu Peoples' B'k of City of N. Y. ». Bogart, 81 II. Y. 101, 109.. y. Mott, 7 Johns. 361. See Murray v. Judah. Explained (Liability of accommoda- tion indorser) in Chester v. Dorr, 41 N. Y. 279. Disting'd in Daniel v. McRae, 2 Hawks (N. C.) 590; s. c, 11 Am. Dec 787, with note. Criticised and explained in Pitkin v. Flanagan, 23 Vt. 160; s. c, 56 Am. Dee. 61. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 385. Aff d in 32 N. Y. 597. See Button ■o. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Matteson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Weed v. Panama R. R. Co. Contrary to decision in 31 Barb. (Im- puting negligence of driver, &c. to passenger) see Knapp -o. Dagg, 18 How. Pr. 165; Cole- grove v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 382; Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co., 19 N. Y. 341 ; Lannen o. Albany Gas Light Co., 46 Barb. 264. Decision in 32 N. Y. thought in Beck v. East River Ferry Co., 6 Robt. 82, to greatly shake, if it does not over- rule the doctrine apparently laid down, in Colegrove v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 20 IT. Y. 492 ; Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co., 19 JST. Y. 341. To same effect, Mooney v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Robt. 548. Limited in Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 If.Y. 14, which aff'd 65 Barb. 151, which see. Criticised in Arctic Fire liis. Co. v. Austin, 3 Hun, 198; Perry v. Lansing, 17 Id. 37. Cited, with other cases, in 13 Am. L. Reg. N~. S. 47. Explained in Webster v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 38 21. Y. 260, as not deciding question of imputed negligence. Approved (Negligence of rail- road company in dividing trains while cros- sing a highway) in Butler ■». Milwaukee, &c. R. R. Co., 28 Wis. 487. Followed (Negligence in crossing railroad track) in Ernst «. Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9, 37: Stillwell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 29. Disting'd in Wilcox v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 39 K Y. 361. Discussed with Stillwell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 34 H. F. 29 ; Ernst v. Hudson River R. R Co., 35 Id. 9; 39 Id. 01; Wilcox v. Rome, W., &&■ R. R. Co., Id. 358, and the latter considered as stating the law as finally settled in N. Y., — in Ormsbee v. Boston & Prov. R. R. Co., 14 R. I. 102. Reviewed (Actions for joint negligence) in 20 Alb. L. J. 184. Decision in 31 Barb, discussed and 110 BEOWN. compared (Joint negligence) in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 25. v. , 34 JV. Y. 404. Collated with other cases (Duty of carrier to adopt im- provements contributing to passenger's safety) in 2 Redf. Am. Railw. Cases, 437. Held, not applicable to case of injuries to passersby, in Beisiegel v. N. Y. Central R. K. Co., 40 JV. F 9. T. , 44 JT. Y. 79. Quoted (Forma- tion of contract — mutual assent) in 1 Ben}, on Sales, § 38, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed,). T. Nichols, 42 JV. Y. 26. Explained and limited (Impeaching judgment for want of process) in Sperry v. Reynolds, 65 JV Y. 186. Applied in Diossy v. West, 8 Daly, 298. Disting'd in Ferguson v. Crawford, 17 JV F 253, 255, which rev'd 7 Sun, 25, which see. Disting'd (Effect of un- authorized appearance) in Howard v. Smith, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 124; Ormsby «. Jaques, 12 Sun, 443. Explained in Northrup ■o. Wheeler, 43 Sow. Pr. 122. Followed in Powers v. Trenor, 3 Sun, 5. Remarks of Grovbk, J., disapproved (Lien on estate of deceased judgment debtor) in Smith ». Ed- wards, 23 Sun, 229. v. Orvis, 6 Sow. Pr. 376. See Graham v. Stone. Overruled (Statement of mitigat- ing circumstances in action for libel or slander) in Bush v. Prosser, 11 JV. Y. 347. See to the contrary Heaton v. Wright, 10 Sow. Pr. 79. Approved in Maretzek v. Cauldwell, 2 Rdbt. 715. See as to plead- ings in action for libel, Buddington v. Davis, 6 Sow. Pr. 401. T. Penfield, 24 Sow. Pr. 64. Aff'd in 36 JT. F. 473. See Gage v. Kendall. Decision in 36 If. Y. disting'd (Actions by parties not in interest) in Eaton v. Alger, 57 Barb. 179. Approved in Sanford v. San- ford, 45 JV F. 727. Disting'd in Hays v. Hathorn, 74 JV Y. 486. T. Pentz, 1 Abo. Ct. App. See. 227; s. a, 11 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 24. Disting'd (En- forcing agreement to build party-wall against grantee) in Scott v. McMillan, 76 JV.F. 141, 144. Compare Cole v. Hughes, 54 "JV Y. 444. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 226. v. People. 8 Bun, 562. Aff'd as People v. Brown, in 72 JSF.Y. 571; s. c, 28 Am. R. 183. Decision in 75 JV Y. followed (Im- prisonment in county other than that of conviction) in People ». Lincoln, 62 Sow. Pr. 412, 414. v. Post, 1 Sun, 303. Affd, it seems, in 62 JV Y. 651, but without opinion. v. Richardson, 1 Bosw. 402. Rev'd, on the ground that the witness was improperly excluded ; but. it seems, approved as to the other points, in 20 JV. Y. 472. v. , 4 Robt. 603. Subsequent decis- ion in 7 Id. 57. v. St. Nicholas Ins. Co., 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 231. Affd in 61 JV Y. 332. ■ v. Salisbury, 9 Barb. 571. Disapproved (What passes title) in Halterline v. Rice, 62 Barb. 593, 600. v. Scofleld, 8 Barb. 239. Cited with People ». Canal Appraisers, 33 If. Y. 401 (Judicial notice as to what are navigable streams) in Shaw v. Oswego Iron Co., 10 Oreg. 371; s. a, 45 Am. R. 146. v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95. See Baker v. Wheeler. Criticised with Bakers. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505 (Damages in trover) in Moody *. Whitney, b8 Me. 174; but Wood v. More- wood, 3 Adol. & Ellis, JV. S. 440, is referred to in Cushing v. Longfellow, 26 Me. 306, as seeming to be in conflict with decisions in N. Y. on this subject. v. Sigonrney. See Pennie v. Conti- nental Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 24 Barb. 419. See Vail v. Owen. Followed (Office of assessor when judicial) in Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 If. Y. 243. v. , 13 Sun, 408. Aff'd, it seems, in 80 If. Y. 650, but without opinion. v. Snell, 57 N. Y. 286. See Salisbury, v. Van Hoesen. Applied (Action on guardian's bond without accounting) in Girvin v. Hickman, 21 Sun, 316, 318. Ap- proved in Behrens v. Rodenburg, 1 City Ct. 96. ■ v. Thinner, 77 JV. F. 613. Opinion re- ported in 58 Sow. Pr. 95. v. Town of Canton, 4 Lans. 409. Rev'd in 49 JV. Y. 662, but without opinion. Decision in 49 If. Y. disting'd (Right of father to bounties earned by minor son) in Matter of Wasser, 18 Weekly Dig. 188. v. Treat, 1 Sill, 225. Said in Bates v. Reynolds, 7 Bosw. 685, 690, to be still an authority (Effect of electing to sue in tort on right to arrest) notwithstanding qulifica- tions expressed in Suydam v. Smith,' 7 Hill, 182; McDnffie v. Beddoe, Id. 578. Com- pare, however, Miller v. Scherder, 2 JV. F. 267; McGovem ti, Payn, 32 Barb. 83, 91. Referred to as authority in Smith v. Knapp, 30 JV. F 581. Explained in Hays «. Jones, 1 Edm. 11. Disting'd (Requiring stipulation not to sue) in Faulkner v. Morey, 22 Hlin, 379, 385. v. Volkening, 64 If. Y. 76. Explained (Who bound by judgment of foreclosure) in Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 137. Applied (Possession, when constructive notice) in Pope v. Allen, 90 If. Y. 298. Disting'd in Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. If. C. 381, 391. v. Webber, 24 Sow. Pr. 308. Affd in 38 JV. F. 187. See Leonard v. Vredenbcrgh. Decision in 38 If. Y. disting'd with Watt t>. Rogers, 2 Abb. Pr. 261 ;' People ex rel. Tay- lor v. Brennan, 39 Barb. 522; Sinclair v. Tallmadge, 35 Id. 602 (Effect of failure to perform executory contract) in Innessfl. Wil- lis, 48 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 188. Followed (Promise to pay debt of another) in Raw- son v. Springstern, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 416; Duffy v. Wunsch, 42 JV. F. 245. Dis- ting'd in Prime «. Koehler, 7 Daly, 345, 352. Applied in Kessler «. Sonneborn, 10 Daly, 383; Wcyer ». Beach, U Sun, 237. BROWN— BRUCE. Ill t. Wilde. See Fowler v. Hait. Brown's Water Furnace Co. v. French, 34 How. Pr. 94. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196 to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. in Jan. 1871. Browne v. Bradley, 5 Abb. Pr. 141. Dis- ting'd (Annexing debtor's affidavit to petition . for his discharge) in Richmond v. Praim, 24 • Hun, 578. v. Scofleld, 8 Barb. 239. See Morgan v. King. Approved (Common law in this country) in People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 If. T. 461. t. Robinson, 2 Gai. Gas. 341; s. c, 2 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 842, with brief note. v. Witt, 19 Wend. 475. Approved with - Woodward v. Murray, 18 Johns. 400 (House- holder) in Nelson ». State, 57 Miss. 286; s. c, 34 Am. R. 444. Brownell v. Akin, 6 Hun, 378. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in 66 If. Y. 617, but with- out opinion. See Everts v. Everts. Applied (Executor's liability for his debt to the estate) in Baucus v. Stover, 24 Hun, 109, 11 2. See (Ne exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, re. v. Brownell, 19 Wend. -397. Doubted (Maintenance of action for partition by remainder-man not in actual possession) in Sullivan «. Sullivan, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (_T.SC.) 443 ; s. c, 4 Hun, 198. — r- v. Curtis, 10 Paige, 210. See Bayard v. Hoffman; Osborne v. Moss- Quoted (Creditor's actions — answer) in Wait on Fraud. Coma. § 161. v. Flagler, 5 Hill, 282. See Owen v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Followed with Brown «. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592 (Recovery notwithstanding negligence) in Trow v. Vt. Cent. R. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 191, with note. Followed in Wright v. Brown, 4 Ind. 95 ; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 622. v. McEwen, 5 Den. 367. See Foster v. Scoffield; Oillet v. Mead. Followed (In- admissibility of evidence of promise to marry, in action for seduction) in Whitney v. Elmer, 60 Barb. 250. Relied on (Testi- mony of jurors as to motives, &c.) in Wood- ward ». Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453; s. c, 9 Am. R. 49, 60, and thought to limit Dana v. Tucker, 4 Johns. 487, which is considered hardly reconcilable with later cases in Massachusetts and England. v. Winnie, 29 If. Y. 400. Sec Card v. Miller; Chappel v. Spencer; Muir v. De- maree. Followed (Material alteration in note) in Card v. Miller, 1 Hun, 504, 500. * Browning v. Abrams. See Williams v. Bacon. v. Bettis, 8 Paige, 568. Examined (Limits of examination on creditor's bill) in Howard e. Palmer, Walk. Ch. 392. Com- pare (Reaching moneys earned, but not clue, by creditor's bill) note to Donovan v. Finn, 14 Am. Dec. 531; Tolles v. Wood, 16 Abb. N. C. 1. v. Hanford, 5 Hill, 588 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 369, with note. Rev'd in 5 Den. 586. Reversal said to settle nothing as to the sheriff's liability in Moore v. Westcrvelt, 21 2f. Y. 103, 107. Decision in 5 Hill approved (Duties and liabilities of sheriff in levying execution) in Lawson v. State, 10 Arh. 28; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 238, with note. Contrary to 5 Den. 586 see (Return, as evidence) Freeman on Ex. % 366. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 200. y. Home Ins. Co., 6 Daly, 522. Affd in 71 K Y. 508; s. c, 27 Am. R. 86. Decision in 71 If. Y. followed ("Dwelling- house" not necessarily "occupied") in Woodruff v. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 83 If. Y. 133, 140. Collated, with other cases ( Waiver and estoppel as applied to insurance) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 769. v. Marvin, 5 Abb. N. O. 285. Another proceeding iu 22 Htm, 547. Decision in 22 Hun, collated, with numerous othei cases (Settlement of debts, as affected by partnership relation) in 20 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 465, 469. v. Wheeler, 24 Wend. 258. See Howard i). Sexton. Approved with Diedrick v. Richley, 2 Hill. 271 (Effect of statutes providing for arbitration) in Burnside v. Whitney, 21 If. Y. 148. Approved with Kelsey v. Darrow, 22 Hun, 125, under a similar statute (Waiver of arbiter's oath) in Broadstreet v. Pross, Hamilton Co. 0. Dist. Ct., lei. 1884, WWeeklyL. Bui. 117,119. Brownson v. Gifford, 8 How. Pr. 389. See Van Buren v. Cockburn. Approved (Joinder of husband with wife) in Ackley v. Tarbox, 29 Barb. 512. Overruled (Demurrer for defect of parties) in Palmer v. Davis, 28 If. Y. 242. Bruce v. Burt, 5 Daly, 510. Aff'd in 67 If. Y. 237. See Cardell v. McNeil ; Milks v. Rich. Decision in 67 If. Y. disting'd (Parol guaranty by one transferring note) in Milks v. Rich, 80 If. Y. 271. Explained (Inconsistent pleadings) in Hooker v. Greene, 50 Wis. 278. Collated, with contrary cases, in Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co. v. Warren, 6 Pac. Rep. 726. Compare Code Civ. Pro. §507. v. Carter, 7 Daly. 37. Affd in 72 If. Y. 616. v. Davenport, 36 Barl. 349. Rev'd in 3 Eeyes, 472; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 185; 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 233. v. Fulton Nat. Bk., 16 Hun, 615. Aft'd in 79 If. Y. 154; s. c, 35' Am. R. 505. For " lessee " at end of line ten of syllabus in 79 N. Y. 154 read "lessor." v. Griscom. 9 Hun, 280. Affd, it seems, in 70 If. Y. 012, but without opinion. v. Kelly, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 27. Further decisions in 5 Hun, 229; 2 Abb. If. C. 8.1. v. Lee. See Callagan ». Ilallett. v. Lytle, 13 Barl. 163. Explained (Accommodation indorser — presentment for payment —notice of dishonor — waiver) in 1 Pars. On Contr. 271, n. j. v. Pearson. See Trevor v. AVood. 112 BEUCE— BRYAN t. Tilson, 25 If. Y. 194. See TVcn- man v. Mohawk Ins. Co. Applied (Eight to specific performance without previous request or demand) in Freeson v. Bissell, 63 K Y. 168. v. Westcott, 3 Barb. 374. Approved (Material alteration of note) in State v. Strat- ton, 27 Iowa, 420; s. c, 1 Am. R. 282; Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427; s. c, 7 Am. R. 661, 668. Cited in Toomer ». Rut- land, 57 Ala. 379; s. c, 29 Am. R. 722. v. Wright, 3 Hun, 548; s. c, reported fully, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 81. To the contrary see (Indorser and indorsee) 1 Dan. on Neg. Inst. 532. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 414. Union y. Bokee, 4 Den. 57. See (Commence- ment of action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 398, n. v. Marqnand, 17 Johns. 58; s. c, 6 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. JJ86, with brief note. Approved and followed (Indorser when not released by discharge of maker of note) in Ludwig v. Iglehart, 43 Md. 39. Bruff v. Mali, 36 If. Y. 200. See N. T. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler. Applied (Remedy for fraud) in Eaton, Cole & Burn- ham Co. v. Avery, 83 If. Y. 34. Explained (Sales — fraud) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 646, n. 12 (Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.) Brumley v. Fanning, 1 Johns. Ch. 501. Cited as authority (Enjoining waste of mortgaged premises) in Thomas on Mort. 53. Brnmly v. Westchester County Man'f. So- ciety, 1 Johns. Ch. 366. Followed (Com- pelling corporation to testify) in Knox v. Pro- tection Ins. Co., 9 Conn. 430 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 33, with note. Noted (Private cor- porations, process, pleadings, &c.) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 675, 11 ed. Brnmmer y. Cohen, 57 How. Pr. 386; s. c, 6 Abb. If. G. 409. Aff d in 58 How. Pr. 239 ; s. c, 9 Daly, 36, which was aft" d in 86 N. Y. 11; s. c, 62 How. Pr. 171; 40 Am. R. 503. See Barry v. Equitable Life Ins. Co. Decision in 58 How. Pr. followed (Non-assignability of policy payable to -wife) in De Jonge v. Goldsmith, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 131. Decision in 86 If. Y. disting'd in Living v. Domett, 13 Weekly Dig. 462. Brmnskill t. James, 11 N. Y. 294. Disting'd (Judgment against joint debtors) in Mann v. Marsh, 35 Barb. 68. Followed in Mc- Guire v. Johnson, 2 Lans. 305. Compare McKensie v. Farrell, 4 Bono. 192, 200. Applied in Stimson v. Van Pelt, 66 Barb. 151, 154, as not limited to case of husband and wife. Brundago v. Brnndage, 1 Sup 1 ™. Ct. (T. & C.) 82; s. c, 65 Barb. 397. Affd in 60 If. Y. 544. Set Jones v. Terre Haute & Rich- mond R. R. Co. Decision in 60 If. Y. ex- plained (Private Corporation — transfer of stock) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 557, n. a, 1 1 ed. . Briuiucr v. Meigs, 6 Hun, 203. AffVl in 64 N. Y. 506. Decision in 04 If. Y. followed (Descent on death of cestui que trust) in Sige v. Lockman, 53 How. Pr. 276. See Em- bury v. Sheldon, 2 Abb. If. C. 404, n. Brush v. Holland, 3 Brad/. 240. Disting'd (Admissibility of declarations of legatee to prove undue influence upon testator) in La Bau v. Vanderbilt, 3 Red/. 405. Disting'd (Executor propounding will, as party to probate proceedings) in Whelpley «. Loder, 1 Dem. 368. 1. Kohn, 14 Abb. Pr. 51. Affd in 9 Bosw. 589. v. Lee, 6 Abb. Pr. If. S. 50. Other pro- ceeding in 18 Abb. Pr. 398, and that rev'd in 36 If. Y. 49. Decision in 6 Abb. Pr. If. S. re-asserted (Interrogatories upon pro- ceedings to punish for contempt by order to show cause) in Pitt v. Davison, 37 If. Y. 235. Decision in 18 Abb. Pr. criticised (Who may issue execution on district court judgment) in McDonald v. Flynn, 2 Daly, 42, as decided without reference to Ginochio v. Figari, 2 Abb. Pr. 185. Decision in 36 If. Y. superseded by 2 L. 1870, c. 741, § 3, giving the clerk exclusive power. See Code Civ.Pro. 1881, § 3017, n. v. Beeves, 3 Johns. 439 ; s. c, 3 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 661, with brief note of supporting cases. Applied with Dean v. Hail, 17 Wend. 214 (Who may sue on nego- tiable securitv) in Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 U. S. 334, 346. v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. .506. See Packard v. Hill; Sherry v. Lozier. Cited (Revocation of will by marriage, &c.) as giving the general rule in Re fuller, 79 111. 99; s. c, 22 Am. R. 164. Commented upon in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 274, n. 5. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 524. Dis- cussed in 4 Kent Com'. 523. Biust v. Barrett, 16 Hun, 409. Affd as Brush v. Barrett, 82 If. Y. 400 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 569. See (Limitations — demand) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. Bruyn v. Comstock, 56 Barb. 9. Collated with other cases (Running of statute of limi- tations against attorney's claim) in 26 Moalt Eng. 326, n. . Bryan v Baldwin, 7 Lans. 174. Aff'd in 52 If. Y. 232. v. Brennon, 7 How. Pr. 359. Dis- approved (Right to appeal from order of reference) in Brown v. Harper, 54 Iowa,- 546. v. Butts, 27 Barb. 503. Followed (Effect of affidavits of foreclosure sale) in Mowry v. Sanborn, 7 Hun, 380, 384, which was however rev'd in 68 If. Y. 153. See also, to the contrary a further decision in Mowry v. Sanborn, 72 If. Y. 534. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881,, §2400, n. Quoted (Mortgagee's interest until foreclosure) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 102. t. Knickcibacker, . 1 Barb. Ch. 409. Applied (Accumulated income from trust fund) in Ellingwood v. Bcare, 59 How. Pr. 50o, 506. BRYANT- BUCKLEY. 113 Bryant v. American Telegraph Co., 1 Daly, 575. See De Rutte «. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co.; Leonard v. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co. Applied (Carrier's liability for delay) in Grindle «. Eastern Express Co., 67 Me. 317; s. c, 24 Am. R. 81. Explained (Liability for delay in transmitting message) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, o, n. v. Collated, with other cases, in 9 Am. R. 149, n. .- — v. Bryant,, 4 Alb. Pr. JST. S. 138. Dis- ting'd (Amendment to perfect appeal) in Zinsser v. Seiler, 7 Daly, 464. v. Poughkeepsie Mutual Ins. Co., 21 Barb. 154. Affd in 17 JV. T. 200. See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. Bryce v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 394. Affd in 55 N~. Y. 240; s. c, 14 Am. P. 249. See Boynton v. Clinton & Essex Mut. Ins. Co. Bnchan r. Rintoul, 10 Han, 183. Affd in 70 K Y. 1. Opinion of Surrogate is reported as Matter of Ritch, 2 Red/. 330. v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 165; s. c, 47 Am. Dee. 305, with note. See Buckley v. Buckley. Approved as settled law (Real estate purchased with partnership funds) in Collumbo. Read, 24 XT. Y. 505, 512; Buck- leys. Buckley, 11 Barb. 74. .Examined, with other cases, in Sage v. Sherman, 2 If. Y. 428. Re-afl'd in Fairchild v. Fairohild, 64 If. Y. 478. Followed, with approval, in Lang's Heirs ». Waring, 25 Ala. 625 ; s. c, 60 Am. Dee. 533, with note. Cited in Foster's Appeal, 74 Penn. St. 391 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 553, as containing a learned and exhaustive opinion. Cited as reviewing several leading cases in 1 Pars, on Contr. 150, n. h. Re- viewed and explained (Respective rights of partnership and individual creditors) in Mar- tin v. Wagoner, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 515. Applied (Effect of judgment lien) in Sie- man v. Austin, 33 Barb. 9. Disting'd and questioned in King v. Harris, 34 If. Y. 330. Disting'd (Record or registry when sub- stantially defective or irregular) in Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. JK G. 381, 391. Applied and disting'd (Subordination of judgment lien to equitable liens) in Wilkes v. Harper, 2 Barb. Ch. 354. Applied in O'DonneK v. Kerr, 50 How. Pr. 334. Followed (Effect of amendment of docket of judgment) in Sears v. Mack, 2 Bradf. 409. Explained (Equitable relief against mistake) in Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barb. 28. Applied (Judgment lien when created) in Blyden- burgh v. Northrop, 13 How. Pr. 289. Buchanan y. Comstock, 57 Barb. 568. Modification of final judgment by Ct. of App. in June, 1871, was on other ques- tions. Disting'd (Supplemental complaint) in Prouty v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co., 85 If. Y. 272, 275. v. Curry, 19 Johns. 137. See Clarke v. Morey. Applied (Contract, when not dissolved by war) in Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria R. R. Co., 54 Mow. Pr. 45; O'Rcily v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 174; Sands v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 50 I.— 8 If. Y. 026; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Hillyard, 8 Vroom (If. J.) 444; a. c, 18 Am R. 741, 748. Limited (Submission of partnership controversy by one partner) in Harrington v. Higham, 13 Barb. 662. Applied in McBride v. Hagan, 1 Wend. 836. v. Exchange Ins. Co., 01 If. Y. 26. See Harper - pers v. Trustees, 21 Hun, 184,191. Collated ■with Lantz v. Buckingham, 11 Ab b. Pr. JV. S. 64; Windt v. German Reformed Church, 4 Sand/. Gh. 471, and other cases, in 19 Am. It. 79, n. on various points connected with the law of cemeteries. Buffalo Savings Bank v. Newton, 23 N. Y. 160. Explained (Nature of rights affected by orders granting or refusing resales) in Wolcott v. Schenck, 23 How. Pr. 385. Buffalo Steam Engine Works v. Sun Mnt. Ins. Co., 17 XT. Y. 401. See Traders' Ins. Co. ■». Robert. Disapproved (Power of mortgagee to purchase nt his own salel in Olcott t. Tioga R. R. Co., 27 JV Y. 546. 5H6. Also denied in Hall v. Ditson, 5 Abb. JV C. 198, 211, notwithstanding approval in Pulver e. Richardson, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 436. Referred to as overruled in Thomas on Hort. 454. Re-aff'd (Validity of transfer of policy between assured) in Hoffman v. i£tna Ins. Co., 32 N. Y. 405. Buffalo Union Iron Works v. City of Buf falo, 1 Buff. Super. Gt. (Sheldon) 244 ; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 141. Atf d in 47 JV. Y. 671 on opinion of Vekplanck, J. Bufflt v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 36 Bart 420. Aff'd in 40 IV. F 168. Decision in 36 Barb, explained (Common carrier — liabil- ity for passengers whose fare has not "been paid) in Aug. on Garr. § 521, n. a, 5 cd. Buhler v. Weiitworth, 17 Barb. 649; s. c, as Butler v. Wentworth. 9 How. Pr. .282. Approved in Wies v. Fanning, Id. 543, as not being authoritv for conditional pleading. Bulger v. Albany "Railway, 42 JV Y. 459. Applied (Negligence in Street car driver) in Lawrence v. Pendleton Street R. R. Co., 1 Cine. (Ohio) 180. Bulkeley v. Keteltas, 4 Sandf. 450. Rev"d in 6 JV. Y. 384.. Decision in 6 JV Y. ex- plained (Probable cause for prosecution) in Shaul v. Brown, 28 Iowa, 37; b. c, 4 Am. E. 151, 157. v. Smith, 2 Duer, 261. Citicised (Prob- able cause for prosecution) in Shaul v. Brown, 28 Iowa, 37; s. c, 4 Am. P. 157. Bulkley v. Be Peyster, 26 Wend. See De Peyster v. Clendining. Bull, Matter of, 45 Barb. 334; s. c, 31 How. Pr. 69. See (Effect of removal of executor or administrator who is testamen- tary trustee) Code Gin. Pro. § 2688. Bull v. Church, 5 Hill, 206. Aff'd in 2 Hen. 430. v. Melliss. See Merrill v. Townsend. v. Willard, 9 Barb. 641. Approved (Merger of covenants in deed) in Carr v. Roach, 2 Duer, 20. Ballard v. Pearsall, 53 JV. Y. 230. Ex- plained with Coulter v. Express Co., 50 Id. 585; Pollock v. Pollock, 71 Id. 137, 152 (Right of party to discredit his witness) in Cox v. Eayres, 55 Vt. 24; s. c, 45 Am. It. 583. Cited, at length, in 1 Wkart. Com. on Ev. § 550. . v. , 46 Horn. Pr. 383. Said in Id. 430 to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. April 7, 1874. Followed (Costs on two appeals to General Term) in West v. Lynch, 1 City Ct. 174 — — v. Raynor. See Chamberlain v. Dempsey ; Ohio, &c. R. R. Co. v. Kasson. v. Saratoga Victory M'fg Co., 13 Hun, 43. An»d in 77 N.Y. 52U. v. Sherwood, 22 Hun, 462. Rev'd in 85 JV Y. 253. v. Spoor. See Brants. Fowler; People v. Douglass ; Wilson v. Abrahams. Bull is v. Montgomery, 3 Bans. 255. Rev'd in part in 50 JV. Y 352. Decision in 50 A r . Y. disting'd (Officers' protection by process in replevin proceedings) in Manning v. Keenan, 9 Hun, 686, 689, which was aff'd in 73 "JV. Y. 52, which see. Applied in Otis v. Williams, 70 JV. Y. 210. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1700, n. Disting'd (Declara- tions by former owner) in Von Sachs ». Kretz, 72 JV. Y. 548, 556. Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 391. See Conklin v. Thompson. Disting'd (Infant's liability for tort) in Hewitt v. Warren, 10 Hun, 560. 563. Relied on in Schlossberg v. Lahr, 60 How. Pr. 450. Followed in Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 346 ; s. c, 27 Am. E. 354. Followed (Act may be trespass though unintentional) in Welch v. Durand, 36 Conn. 182 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 55. v. Boyd, 2 Edw. Gh. 293. Disting'd (Ad- missions of principal against surety) in Hatch o. Elkins, 65 JV Y. 497. • v. Koon, 9 Cow. 30; s. c, 9 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 555, with brief note. Cited (Effect of administering oath in cause) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § '386. Bullj'iiiore v. Cooper, 2 Bans. 71. Aff'd in 46 'JV. Y. 236. Decision in 46 JV Y. dis- ting'd (Sheriff, when protected in acting under order of discharge) in Pinckney ». Hegeman, 53 JV. Y. 31, 35. Followed in Develin v. Cooper, 84 JV Y. 417. Followed and also explained in Richmond v. Praim, 24 Hun, 578, 580. Applied (Interest of bankrupt in assigned property) in Colie v. Jamison, 6 Sup'm. Ct. < I 1 . & C.) 580. Bulsou v. Lohnes. 29 JV. F 291. Applied (Proceedings before arbitrators) in Day v. Hammond, 57 A 7 ". F. 479, 488. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2365 n., 2371, n. Quoted in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 74, n. e. Blimp v. Betts, 19 Wend. '421. Cited as au- thority (Action for maliciously suing out attachment) in Spaids v. Barrett, 57 III. 28!) ; s. c, 11 Am. It. 10, 13. Followed in Law- rence i>. Hagerman, 06 111. 08; s. c, 8 Am. E. 674, 679. T. , 23 Wend. 85. See Lewis v. Chap- 116 BUMPUS— BURCH. man. Cited as authority (Evidence of pecu- niary condition) in Heneky v. Smith, 10 Oreg. 349 ; s. c, 45 Am. R. 143. Bninpus r. Platner, 1 Johns. Oh. 213. Re- lied on (Eelief against contract for sale of lands) in Hyslip v. French, 02 Wis. 015, as in harmony with Parkenson v. Sherman, 74 N. Y. 92. Reconciled with Abbott v. Allen, 2 Johns. 519, in Parham i>: Randolph, 4 How. (Miss.) 435; s. c, U."> Am. Dec. 403, with note. Both these cases cited in Ouice a. Sellers, 43 Miss. 52; s. c, 5 Am. R. 476, as to defect of title being no ground for such relief. Quoted and contrary cases cited in 1 High on Ii>j. 2 ed. § 384. n 2. Bumstead v. Hoadley, N~. Y. Daily Reg. Dee. 19, 1376. Applied (Cost for drawing in- terrogations) in Johnson v. Chappell, 7 Daly, 43. t— v. Read, 31 Barb. 661. Explained (Dis- proving jurisdiction) in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Boot. 166, 224. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2473, n. Bunce T. Reed, 16 Barb. 347. Explained with Anon., 1 Wend. 90 (Sufficient publica- tion) in Howard v. Hatch. 2i> Barb. 297. See Code Oh. Pro. 1881, § 444, n. Bnndy v. Bunily, 47 Barb. 135. Reported with decision aft'g it, in 38 N. Y. 410. Decision in 38 N. Y. explained (Meaning .of word " heirs ") in Thurber ■». Chambers, 4 Han, 723. Followed in Kiah v. Grenier, 1 Sup'rn. Ot. (T. & O.) 392. Applied (Validity of trust, where beneficiary is trus- tee) in Rogers v. Rogers, 18 Han, 409. Cited as authority (Construction of words of limita- tion and of purchase) in Taggart v. Murray, 53 K Y. 239. Disting'd with Holden «. N. Y. & Erie Bank, 72 Id. 286. (Setting apart of property, to produce income) in Arthur v. Nelson, 1 Dem. 337. Bange t. Koop, 5 Robt. 1. AffM in 48 iV. Y. 225. Decision in 5 Robt. cited (Effect of notice given by party to contract of sale, as waiver of delivery or tender) in Patten v. Stitt, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 344. Decision in 48 iV , Y. disting'd (Effect of acceptance by creditor of sum less than that due) in Gray v. Barton, 55 If. Y. 71 ; Luddington v. Bell, 77 JV. Y. 138. Commented tipon and modified in Grocer's Bank of N. Y. v. Fitch, 1 Sufm. Ot. (T. & O.) 654. Bunker t. Lutson, 1 E D. Smith, 410. See (Justice's court — appeal — .new trial) Code Oiv. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. Bnrin v. Hoyt. See Duryee v. Dennison. T. Biker, 4 Johns. 426; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 292, with note; 3 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 870, with brief note. See Juhel v. Church ; Rust v. Gott ; Vischer v. Yates. Followed (Invalidity of election bets) in Lansing i). Lansing, 8 Johns. 454 ; Vischer v. Yates, 11 Id. 28. Approvingly cited with Rust v. Gott, 9 Cow. 169, in Russell v. Py- land, 2 Hamph. (Tenn.) 131 ; s. c, 36 Am. R. 307, with note. Disting'd in Lurton v. Gilliam, 1 Scam. (III.) 577; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 430. Followed but criticised in Bettis v. Reynolds. 12 lred. (N. C.) Law. 297 ; 8. c, 55 Am. Dec. 416. Followed (When cog- nizance will not be taken of fictitious suits) in Brewington «. Lowe, 1 Ind. 21 ; s c, Smith, 79; s. c, 48 Am. Dec: 349, with note. v. Vaughan, 3 Reyes, 345. Cited as authority (Effect of death of trustee of per- sonal estate) in Enjerson v. Bleakley, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 28. Dissented from in Wells v. Wallace, 2 Red/. 58. Explained and dis- ting'd with Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. 641; Savage v. Burnham, 17 N. Y. 561, in Cur- tis v. Smith, 60 Barb. 9. v. Wiuthop, 1 Johns. 329. See Dayton v. Tillou ; Hayes v. Kershow; Souverbye r. Arden. Followed (Enforcing trust created by voluntary conveyance) in Dennison v. Goehring, 7 Penn. St. 175; s. a, 47 Am. Dec. 505, 508, with note. Quoted and ex- plained (Deed retained in grantor's posses- sion uutil death) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 338. Bunnell t. Greatlitfad, 49 Barb. 106. "See to the contrary (Watching adultery as conniv- ance) Phillips v. Phillips, 1 Robertson (Bug. Ecc.) 144, 160. Banner v. Storm, 1 Sandf. Oh. 357. Exam- ined (Execution of power) in Taylor n. Morris, 1 N. Y. 341, 350. Bnnten t. Orient. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. 254. Further decision, in 8 Bosw. 448, aff d 2 Reyes, 667. Decision in 4 Bosw. relied on (Jury bound by erroneous instructions) in Emerson v. County of Santa Clara, 40 Cat. * 545; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 136, n. Bunting v. Brown, 13 Johns. 425. Rule said to be changed by statute (Arrest with- out judge's order) in Bromley v. Town, 1 Hill, 373. Bui-bank v. Fay, 5 Lans. 397. Affdin65iv: F.,57. Decision in 65 N. Y. commented upon in 32 Am. Dec. 719, n., as adopting the Penn. rule, which is rapidly gaining ground respecting private occupancy as vesting title inconsistent with public use. Applied (Estimation of damages and benefits result- ing from construction of canal) in Whitney r. State of N. Y., 96 N. Y. 240. ' v. Reed, 11 Weekly Dig. 576. Opinion in full, in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 42, n. Followed (Examination before trial) in Russ r>. Camp- bell, 1 Oio. Pro. R. 42 Burbridge v. Marcy, 54 How. Pr. 446. Fol- lowed (Effect of N. Y. mechanic's lien act of 1875 in repealing former statutes in Heck- man i). Pinkncy, Abb. K C. 371, 374. Approved and allowed (Interests not affected by mechanic's lien) in Ilolley v. Van Dolsen, 55 How. Pr. 333. Applied with Holley v. Van Dolsen, 55 How. Pr. 333 (Liability, under lien law, for improvements instituted by another) and Otis v. Dodd, 24 Hun, 533; Burkitt v. Harper, 79 iv". Y. 273, disting'd in Cornell «. Barney, 26 Hun, 134. Bnrch v. Newberry, 1 Barb. 648. Aff d in 10 N. Y. 374. Decision in 10 K Y. cited (Unconstitutionality of legislation impairing BUFFALO CITY CEMETARY— BURKE. 117 effect of judgment) in Lawson v. Jeffries, 47 Miss. 686; s. c, 12 Am. R. 342. v. Spencer, 15 Hun, 504. See Moses v. Mead ; Van Bracklin v. Fonda. Commented upon (Implied warranty of provisions for domestic use) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1012, re. 44 (Corbiu's 4 Am. ed.). Reviewed and collated with other cases, and disapproved in 22 Am. L. Reg. W. S. 233. Biirckle v. Eckart, 3 Den. 279. AfFd in 3 N. Y. 132. Previous decision in 1 Den. 337. Decision in 1 Den. disting'd (Partic- ipation in profits, as test of partnership relation) in Mohawk Nat. B'k v. Van Slyck, 29 Hun, 188. Recognized in Leg gett «. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 279. Cited with Heimstreet «. Howland, 5 Den. 68, 70, and other cases, by Doe, J., in Eastman v. Clark, 53 W: H. 276 ; s. c, 16 Am, R. 192, 266. as according with an irresistible weight of authority. Quoted and explained in 1 Colly er on Partn. § 31, re. 2, Wood's Am. ed. ; Id. § 47, re. 1. Decision in 3 N. Y. disting'd with Landers v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 53 K Y. 450 (Waiver of objection to want of jurisdiction) in Goldman v. Monds, 1 City Ct. 97. Explained in Mahaney e. Penman, 1 Abb. Pr. 37. Com- pare Simmons v. De Barre, 8 Id. 269, 279. Cited as authortiy in Brown v. Snell, 57 K Y. 302. Cited in Spyer v. Fisher, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 104, as having probably suggested Code Pro. § 139 as amended in 1857. Burdell v. Bnrdell, 54 Sow. Pr. 91. Dis- ting'd (Appointment of receiver before judg- , ment in ejectment) in Mitchell v. Barnes, 22 Hun, 1 98. Compare Sheridan v. Jackson, 72 IT. Y. 170. Explained in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Til. to Land § 015. Bnrdett v. Love. 11 Weekly Dig. 323. Re- ported as Burdett ». Lowe, 22 Hun, 588. T. Lowe, 22 Hun, 588. Rev'd in 85 K Y. 241. See Savage v. Allen. Burdick v. Green, 18 Johns. 14. See Bron- son v. Earl. Explained (Commencement of suit) in Rose*. Luther, 4 Cow. 161. Com- mented upon in Ang. on Limit. § 312, 6 ed. Applied with Hughes ■». Wheeler, 8 Cow. 77 (Recovery on debt for which note has been given) in Velledge v. Boston Iron Co., 5 Gush. {Mass.) 158 ; s. c, 51 Am. Dee. 59, 65. Explained in Hughes v. Wheeler, 8 Cow. 77, 80. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 294. Followed (What is necessary to create transfer of legal title in note) in Bennett v. McGaughy, 3 How. (Miss.) 192; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 77. v. McVaniier, 2 Den. 170. Relied on (Title of mortgagee of chattels becoming absolute, upon default in payment) in Wray ■b. Fedderke, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 335. Applied (Effect of power of sale contained in mortgage) in Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich. 304. v. Post, 12 Barb. 168. Aff'd in 6 K Y. 522. Decision in 12 Barb, quoted (Prefer- ences in assignment for creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 169, 4 ed. Discussed (Terms of sale) in § 221, re. 5. Quoted and col- lated with other cases (Assigning only part of debtor's property) in Bishop on Assign. 164. Burger v. Baker, 4 Abb. Pr. 11, 14. Ap- proved as still good law (Decision on trial of question of fact bv court) in Bishop v. Em- pire Trans. Co., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 15. Burg-ess v. Abbott, 1 Hill, 476. Affd in 6 Id. 125. Burgher v. Columbian Ins. Co., 17 Barb. 274. Misreported. Opinion of Edmonds, J., given as that of the court, was a dissent- ing opinion. Opinion of court was delivered by Roosevelt, J., and judgment aff'd. v. Hughes, 5 Hun, 18Q. Aff'd, it seems, in 63 W. Y. 629, but without opinion. Burhans v. Burhans, 2 Barb. Ch. 398. Dis- ting'd (Determining adverse claims in par- tition suit) in Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 iV. Y. 427, 434. v. Tibhitts, 7 How. Pr. 21. Subsequent decision in Id. 74. Decison on p. 21 relied on (Alteration in verdict when not cause for setting it aside) in Herzberg v. Murray, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 271. Decis- ion on p. 74, followed (When title to real property comes in question at trial) in Seam v. Currier, 15 Hun, 184, 186. • v. Van Zaudt, 7 Barb. 91. Rev'd in 7 K Y. 523. Decision in 7 -V. Y. followed (Right of tenant in common, to hold title for his exclusive benefit) in Weare ». Van Meter, 42 Iowa, 128; s. c, 20 Am. R. 616; Van Home v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Gh. 388, being also, with other cases, relied on. Burk's Will, 2 Redf. 239. Applied (Publi- cation of will) in Von Hoffman v. Ward, 4 Redf. 244, 260. Burke, Matter of, 4 Sandf Ch. 617. ■ See Wilkes v. Rogers. Reviewed (Maintenance and support of infants) in 16 Am. Dec. 662, n. and citations collected. Criticised in McKnight v. Walsh, 23 N. J. Eg. (8 C. E. G.) 136-144, as standing by itself in N. Y., and going far beyond any decision, doctrine or dicta in any of the English cases. Re- viewed with Matter of Turner, 10 Barb. 552, 557; In re Davison, 6 Paige, 136; In re Ryder, 11 Id. 185, in Tyler on Inf. & Con. 2 ed. § 192, as in accordance with decisions in other States, and in England. , 2 Hun, 281 ; mem. in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 657. Modified in 62 XT. Y. 224. Decision in 62 N. Y. applied ("Party ag- grieved" by improper assessment) in Mat- ter of Walter, 75 A". Y. 357. Disting'd (What is repavemenl) in Matter tff Grube, 81 K Y. 139, 141. Disting'd (Burden of proof as to injury by assessment) in Matcer of Gantz, 85 A 7 ". Y. 536, 539. Burke v. Candee, 63 Barb. 552. Followed (Basis for extra allowance) in Riley v. Hul- bert, 13 Weekly Dig. 101. Explained and applied in Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 01 How. Pr. 305, 307. lis BUEKE— BURNETT. Y. Nicliols. 34 Barb. 430; s. c, 21 How. Pr. 459. Affd in 2 Keyes, 070; s. a, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 200. See Green v. Col- lins. Decision in 2 Keyes, 670, disting'd (Eviction of grantee) in Adams v. Conover, 87 If. Y. 428. v. Valentine, 52 Barb. 412; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. If, S. 164. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 167 to have been aft'd by Ct. of App., June 21, 1872. See (Tenancy by curtesy) Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. 508, 512, which was, how- ever, rev'd in 2 Lans. 21. See, also, Breeding ■o. Davis, 77 Va. 639; s. c, 46 Am. P. 740. Quoted and collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 289. Discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills Rand, and T. ed. 512, n. v. Wolfe, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 263. Disting'd (Admissibility of copies in evi- dence) in Derham v. Lee, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 174, 183. Burkelt v. Taylor, 86 If. Y. 618. Reported in 13 Weelcly Dig. 75. Burkhalter v. Second Nat. Bank, 42 2V! Y. 538. Disting'd (Drawer, when charged) in First Nat. Bank o. Fourth Nat. Bank, 77 N. Y. 320, 320. Bnrkhardt v. McClellan, 15 Abb. Pr. 243, n. Disting'd (Levy under attachment) in Rodgers v. Bonner, 55 Barb. 9, 24. v. Sanford, 7 How. Pr. 329. Rev'd in effect (Levy on Real property) in Burkhardt v. McClellan, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 263. Bnrkitt y. Harper, 14 Hun, 581. Aft'd in 79 N. Y. 273. See Burbridge «. Marcy. Decision in 14 Hun, followed (Mechanics' lien against owner of leased premises) in Otis v. Dodd, 24 Hun, 538, 540. Burkle v. Lnce, 6 Hill, 558. Aff'd in 1 K Y. 163. For additional facts and points of counsel, see How. App. Gas. 330. Further decision in 1 If. Y. 239.. Decision in 1 If. Y. 163 disting'd (Abatement of action of replevin) in Roberts v. Marsen, 23 Hun, 486, 488. Burleigh v. Center, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 4A1. Appeal dismissed in 74 If. Y. 608. Burling v. Freeman, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 695. Reported in 2 Hun, 661. v. King, 66 Barb. 633. Further decis- ion in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 545; s. c, less fully, 46 How. Pr. 452. Burlingame v. Burlingame, 7 Cow. 92. Explained (Remedy on parol contracts for purchase of real estate) in Jack v. M'Kee, 9 Burr (Penn.) 235. Differently explained in Malaun's Administrator i>. Amnion, 1 Grants {Penn.) Cases, 123, 142. Com- mented on and in part overruled in King v. Brown, 2 Hill, 485. Collated with Shute v. Dorr, 5 Wend. 204 ; Clark v. Fitch, 2 Wend. 463; Canover «. Cooper, 3 Barb. 115; John- son v. Gibson, 4 E. D. Smith, 121, and other cases (Emancipation of minor child) in 35 Am. B. 117, n. v. Puree, 12 Hun, 144. Further pro- ceeding in Id. 149. See, to same effect (Jurisdiction of State courts in bankruptcy proceedings) Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. If. C. 72. Burlock y. ^Peck, 2 Duer, 90. Disapproved (Passing of right to reimbursement for use of party-wall, with grant of premises) in Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; s. c, 13 Am. E. 613. Cases collected and compared in 7 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 13. Burineister, Matter of, 12 Hun, 478. Rev'd in 56 How. Pr. 410; s. c, less fully, 76 If. Y. 174. Former decision in 9 Hun, 613. See Matter of Hyde. Decision in 76 If. Y. disting'd (Repavement) in Matter of Grube, 81 If. Y. 139, 141. Disting'd (Valid basis for assessment) in Matter of Kendall, 85 If. Y. 302, 307. Burnell v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., 45 K Y. 184. See Lamb v. Camden & Aniboy R. R. Co. Re-aff'd (Carrier's liability as ware- houseman) in Weed v. Barney, 45 If. Y. 347. Applied in Fairfax e. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 139, which was, however, rev'd in 67 If. Y. 11, which see. Disting'd (Liability of carrier in mak- ing delivery) in Price v. Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 50 If. Y. 213. Disting'd (Through contract by carrier) in Milnor v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 53 If. Y. 363. 370. Followed (Burden of proof on carrier failing to deliver) in Coleman v. Livingston, 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 32, 35; Claflin v. Meyer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 7. Questioned and disting'd in Magnin v. Dins- more, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 182. Fol- lowed in Schwerin v. McKie, 51 If. Y. 186. Burnett v. Harris, 50 Barb. 379. See other cases collected (Testimony of parties) in 1 Abb. If. C. 363, n. v. Plialon, 9 Bosw. 192. Aff'd in 3 Reyes, 594; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. K S. 212; 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 207. Decision on motion for new trial reported in 4 Bosw. 622. Decision in 9 Bosw. explained (Trade-marks) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257 be, n. ee ; Id. 257 bv, n. z. See Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144. De- cision in 3 Keyes, reviewed with Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144; Fetridge v. Mer- chant, Id. 156, in Selchow v. Baker, 93 K Y. 59. See in connection with decision in 4 Bosw. (Motion for new trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1002, n. v. Snyder, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 238. Aff'd in 76 If. Y. 344. Another proceed- ing in 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 342. See also, other actions in 45 Id. 577, and Id. 582, which were rev'd in 81 N. Y. 550; s. c, 37 Am. R. 527 ; 81 N. Y. 651. Decision in 76 If. Y. followed (Partnership result- ing from sharing profits) in decision in 81 If. Y. Decisions in 70 N. Y. ; 81 Id. 555, explained with Cnrry v. Fowler, 13 Weekly Dig. 287; Richardson v. Hughitt, 76 If. Y. 58 ; in Haas v. Roat, 26 Hun, 632. Collated with other cases, in 27 Moah Eng. 012, n. Decision in 81 If. Y. explained iu Adce v. Cornell, 25 Em, 78, 81. BURNETT— BUER. 119 — - v.Westfall, 15 Hdw. Pr. 430. See (Defendant's offer to compromise) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 738, n. Biirnhain v. Brennan, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 49. Rev'd in 74 N. Y. 597. Further proceeding in 60 How. Pr. 810. y. Harrison, 3 Bed/. 345. See (Judg- ment against executor for decedent's debts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. v. Onilerdonk, 41 JT. T. 425. Followed (Action to compel determination of claims to real property) in Haynes v. Onderdonk, 2 Hun, 019; Boylston v. Wheeler, 2 Hun, 022. Burns v. Billon, 25 Hun, 119. Reported in 12 Weekly Big. 473. v. Erben, 26 How. Pr. 273. Opinion of Monbll, J., given in addition, in 1 liobt. 555, which was atf d in 40 ' N. Y. 463. ■ v. Howard, 9 Abb. JT. C. 321. Compare (Appeal vacating judgment) Britton v. Fox, 39 Ind. 369. v. Kempshall, 24 Wend. 3C0. Aff'd in 4 Hill, 468. y. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 3 Hun, 212. Fully reported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 371. v. People, 5 Bans. 189 ; s. c, more fully with dissenting opinion, in 59 Barb. 531. V. , 1 Park Cr. 182. Opposed (Effect of former conviction or acquittal) in 17 Am. L. Rev. 748. Collated with other cases in 2 Bennett & H. Can. on, Crim. L. 559. Cited with approval in State v. Little- field, 70 Me. 452; s. c, 35 Am. S. 335, with lengthy note collating cases. v. Provincial Ins. Co., 35 Barb. 525 ; s. c., more fully, 13- Abb. Pr. 425. v. Rowland, 40 Barb. 368. Disting'd (Consideration for note or draft) in Fisher v. Sharpe, 5 Daly, 214, 210. Bnrnside v. Whitney, 24 Barb. 632. Aff'd in 21 N. Y. 148. Burr. Matter of, 2 Barb. Ch. 208. Explained with Matter of Patterson, 4 How. Pr. 34 (Validity of will made by drunkard while subject to commission) in Lewis ». Jones, 50 Barb. 045. Burr v. American Spiral Spring Butt Co.,' 17 Hun, 188. Atl'd in 81 JT. Y. 175; s. c, 8 Abb. JT. 0. 403. y. Beers, 24 JT. Y. 178. See Campbell r. Smith; Garnsey s. Rogers; Hamill v. Gillespie; King's. Whitely; Lawrences. Fox; Schemcrhorn v. Vanderheydeu. Applied (Liability of purchaser of premises subject to a mortgage) in Thayer v. Marsh, 11 Hun, 501, 503. Explained in Garnsey 1>. Rogers, 47 JT. Y. 233; Real Estate Co. «. Balch, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 432. Followed in Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 47 Barb. 439, which was aff'd in 48 2T. Y. 253, which see; Pardee v. Treat, 18 Hun, 301. Examined and followed in Douglass *. Wells, 18 Hun, 88. Disting'd in Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280, 285, which modified 8 Hun. 78, which see. Disting'd in Collins a. Rowe, 1 Abb. JT. C. ,99. Applied, in Campbell v. Smith, 71 IT. Y. 26; Calvo v. Davies, 73 JT. Y. 216. Followed with Marsh v. Pike, 10 Paige. 595; Blyer v. Mon- holland, 2 Sanilf. Ch. 478; Trotter v. Hughes, 12 JT. 7. 74; Douglass v. Wells, 18 Hun, 88, in Willard v. Warsham, 76 Va. 392, as announcing what is now the settled doctrine of 1ST- Y., which is also fully established by the current of authority in this'country. Disting'd (Grantee's liability to lienor) in Pardee v. Treat, 82 JT. Y. 385, 387. Applied (Promise for benefit of third person) in dissenting opinion of Earl, J., in Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 JT. Y. 30, 39. Applied in Becker n. Torrance, 31 JT. Y. 643 ; Coster v. Mayor of Albany, 43 Id. 411 ; Claflin v. Ostrom, 54 Id. 584; Glen v. Hope Mutual Life Ins. Co., 50 Id. 381. Disting'd in Simson v. Brown, 68 IT. Y. 358. Cited as settled law,— in Turk v. Ridge, 4] JT. Y. 206. Followed (Assumption of obligation on transfer of property) in Otis «. Seligman, 67 How. Pr. 101. v. Burr, 10 Paige, 20. Aff'd in 7 Hill, 207. Decision in 7 Hill quoted (Definition of alimony) in 2 Bishop on Mar. & I). § 351, n. 1, 6 ed. Decision in 10 Paige, ap- plied (Allowance of gross sum for alimony) in Crain v. Cavana, 62 Barb. 109, 120. Criticised (Rights of wife divorced from bed and board) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 354, as contrary to other cases cited, hold- ing what is there considered to be a very reasonable doctrine. y. - — , 2 Edw. 448. Explained (Bills of particulars in action for divorce for adul- tery) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 607, 6 ed. v. Mills, 21 Wend. 290. See Lampman ». Milks. Disting'd (Implied easements) in French v. Carhart, 1 JT. Y. 96, 112. Ap- proved and Lampman ». Milks, 21 It. Y. 505 criticised in Outerbridge v. Phelps, 13 Abb. JT. C. 117. Disting'd and criticised in Seibert v. Levan, 8 Penn. St. 383; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 525, with note. t. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. 85. Explained (Intestacy. Distribution. Foreign doinicil) in Willard on Executors, 404. v. Stenton, 52 Barb. 377, 389. Not followed (Interest of tenant for years in sur- plus money arising from sale under foreclos- ure) in Clarkson v. Skidmore, 2 Bans. 23S. y. Tan Buskirk, 3 Cow. 263. See Christman e. Floyd. Commented on and explained (Sufficiency of avowry in replevin) in Webber v. Shearman, 6 Hill, 20. Over- ruled in Lion v. Burtis, 5 Cow. 408. v. Wilcox, 6 Bosw. 198. Aff'd in 22 JT. Y. 551. Decision in 22 JT. Y. Applied (Na- ture of corporate stock) in Williams v. West- ern Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. JT. C, 437, 443. Disting'd with Handy i>. Draper, 89 JT. Y. 334; Shellington ». Howland, 53 Id. '&72 (liability of stockholder for interest on debts of the corporation) in Wheeler o. Mil- lar, 90 JT. Y. 353. Collated with other cases in Munger v. Jacobson, 99 III. 349. 120 BURRALL— BURT. Burrall v. Acker, 23 Wend. 606 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 582, with note. See Acker v. Burrall. Cited (Sale of partnership property on execution against one partner), in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 262, n. Explained in 1 Pars, on Oontr. 209, n. i. v. Bush wick E. E. Co., 75 K 7. 211. Applied (Nature of corporate stock) in Bar- clay v. Culver, 30 Dun, 1. Criticised in Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. AT". C. 423. Applied with Barry v. Mer- chant's Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280 ; in Williams «. Western Union Tel. Co., 93 N~. 7. 162, 188. See also (Pleading plaintiff's title) note to Richardson v. Snyder, 20 Am. L. Reg. 393, 397. t. Jewett, 2 Paige, 134. See Cross v. * Huntley. Explained and limited (Jurisdic- | tion of State courts in questions involving patents) in Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 57 A 7 . 7. 119, 124. Compare Gibson v. Woodworth, 8 Paige, 133. Burrel v. Associate Church, 44 Barb. 282. See cases collected (Right of seceders) in 12 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 362, n. Burrell v. Bull, 2 Sandf. -Ch. 15. Applied (Duty of one acting for others not to hold interest adverse to them) Baker v. Humph- rey, 101 U. S. 494, 501. Burrill v. Boardman, 43 N. 7. 254. See Hone ». Van Schaick. Explained (Charit- able use) in Holmes v. Mead, 52 JST. 7. 332, 338. Collated with other cases in Gerard Titles to Peal Est. 2 ed. 304. See papers in Charles O'Conor's My Own Cases, No. 79 in Law Institute Library, N. Y. City. v. Chenango County Mut. Ins. Co., 1 Edm. 233. Disapproved (Effect of misstate- ment as to realty, upon insurance on person- alty) in Todd v. State Ins. Co., 11 Phil. {Pa.) 357, as overruled by Wilson v. Her- kimer Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 6 JST. 7. 53. v. Shiel, 2 Barb. 457. Discussed (Per- petuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed., 512, n. v. Watertown Bank & Loan Co., 51 Barb. 108. See Markle v. Hatfield. Ap- proved. (Objection to return of commission) in Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 41 Bow. Pr. 421. Burritt v. Saratoga Co. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 4 Hill, 188; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 345, with note wherein the case is shown to have been frequently cited. See Fowler v. jEtna Fire Ins. Go. Followed (Effect of concealment by insurer in fire policy) in Kennedy v. St. Lawrence Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Barb. 288. Disting'd in Masters v. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Id. 633; Chase v. Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Id. 539. Explained at length and disting'd in Gates v. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 JY. 7. 48, which rev'd 3 Barb. 78, which see. Applied in. Wilson v. Her- kimer Co. Mut! Ins. Co., 6 If. 7. 59; Chaf- fee ». Cattaraugus Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 Id. 381 ; People ®. Liverpool, London, &c. Ins. Co., 2 Sufm. Ct. (T. & V.) 271. Followed with Gates v. Madison, etc. Ins. Co., 5 AT. 7. 469, and other authorities in Hartford Protec- tion Ins. Co. v. Harmer;- 2 Ohio St. 452 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 702. 'Applied (Application as part of contract of insurance) in Egan v. Mut. Ins. Co. of Albany, 5 Den. 32G Ex- amined with other cases (What amounts to warranty) in Wall v. East River Mut. Ins. Co., 7 K 7. 374. v. Silliinan, 16 Barb. 198. Rev'd (Re- nunciation by witness to will) in 13 A 7 ! 7. 93. See Brinckerholf v. Remsen; McDon- ough v. Loughlin. Decision in 13 A 7 ! 7. commented upon (Executor as subscribing witness) in Willard on Executors, 111. Re- viewed with Coffin v. Coffin, 23 AT. 7. 9, and other cases (Effect of release by legatee in making him a competent witness) in Whelp- ley v. Loder, 1 Dem. 368. Said in Seguine v. Seguine, 3 Abb. Pr. JY. S. 442 to be super- seded as to costs by amendment of 1862. Burroughs v. Bloomer, 5 Den. 532. Relied on (Absences that prevent running of statute of limitations) in Cole v. Jessup, 10 Dow. Pr. 515, 527; Berrien v. Wright, 26 Barb. 208. Approved in part, but dis- approved as to view taken of constructive absence, in Campbell v. White, 22 Mich. 178, 179. Approved and applied in Tioga R. R. v. Blossburgh, &c. R. R., 20 Wall. 137, 150. v. Posteran, 2 Abb. A 7 ". C. 333. Rev'd as Burroughs v. Tostevan, 75 A 7 ". 7. 567. v. Reiger, 12 How. Pr. 171. Explained and limited (Effect of lis pendens) in Tate ». Jordan, 3 Abb. Pr. 392. Burrows v. Erie R'y Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 44. Rev'd in 63 N. 7. 55fi. See Harty v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J. v. Miller, 4 Mow. Pr. 349. Collated with other cases (Attachment— domicile) in Thomps. on I'rov. Pern. 357. v. Norton, 2 Dun, 550. To similar effect (Indorsement instead of subscription) see Heilner ». Walsh, 47 Super. (It. (J. & S.) 269, 271. As to effect of Code Civ. Pro. §§ 3046, &c, see Bishop v. Van Vechtcn, 10 Abb. A\ C. 220, 224. v. St niii in. 22 Dow. Pr. 169. Opinion substantially the same as that of the same judge in the Ct. of App., in Roome v. Phil- lips, 24 AT. 7. 463, which was perhaps an appeal in the same case. V. Turner, 24 Wend. 276; ». c, 35 Am. Dec. 622, with note. Cited (Right of one not named in policy to recover thereon) in Sleeper t>. Union Ins. Co., 63 Me. 385; s. c., 20 Am. R. 706. v. Whitaker, 8 nun, 260. Affd in 71 N. 7. 291 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 42, With decision in 71 AT. 7. compare (When title to personal property passes) O'Brien v. Jones, 47 Super. Ct. ( J. & S.) 67, 73. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 424 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Bart v. Brewers' and Malsters' Ins. Co., 9 Ilun, 383. Afl'd in 78 A 7 . 7. 400. v. Burt, 41 N. 7. 46. Sec Bates v. Underhill. Disting'd (Jurisdiction in actions , BUET— BUSH. 121 between executors) in Price v. Brown, 10 Abb. If. 0. 67, 70. v. Dewey, 31 Barb. 540. Rev'd in 40 N.Y. 283. See Case v. Hall; Sweetman v. Prince. Decision in 40 JV! Y. applied with McGjffin v. Baird, 62 JV. Y. 329 (Warranty of title) in Inness v. Willis, 48 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 188. Approved in Bordwetl v. Dewy, 45 JV. Y. 494. Explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 948, n. 18 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Cases collected and followed in Matheny v. Mason, 73 Mo. 682. v. Dutcher, 34 JV Y. 493. Examined and disapproved (Rule of damage in conver- sion) in Baker v. Drake, 53 If. Y. 211, 220. Disting'd in Whelan v. Lynch, 65 Barb. 329. Followed in Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 JV Y. 70, 76. v. Farrar, 24 Barb. 518. Examined and reviewed (Corporate creation and existence) in 8 South. L. Rev. If. S. 530. v. Place, 4 Wend. 591. Explained and followed (Malicious prosecution) in Palmer v. Avery, 41 Barb. 290. v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; s. a, 15 Am. Dec. 402, with note containing citations. Compared (Evidence of former recovery) in Wood ®. Jackson, 8 Wend. 45. See also Same v. Same, 18 Id. 107, 123. Explained (Former recovery as evidence, under general issue) in Coles v. Carter, 6 Cow. 691. Ex-plained by Walworth, Ch., in Miller v. Manice, 6 Hill, 125. Cited as authority in Derby 1>. Hartman, 3 Daly, 461. Followed (Effect of former recovery) in Doty v. Brown, 4 If. Y. 75 ; Birckhead v. Brown, 5 Sandf. 143. Bnrtch v. Nickerson, 17 Johns. 217. In- cluded (Charge affecting employment, trade or business) in 1 Bare & W. Am.. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 91. Bui-tis v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 42 Jf. Y. 269. See Van Santvoord v. St. John; Wait v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co. ; Weed «. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R, Co. Followed (Construction of L. 1847, c. 270, — as to foreign corporations) in Root v. Great Western Railway Co., 45 JV Y. 524. v. Burtis, Eoph. 557. Followed (Law of England as to marriage and divorce never a part of the law of this State) in Campbell v. Crampton, 18 Blatchf. C. Gt. 150, 160. Commented upon and discussed in 1 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 72, 6 ed. v. Doughty, 3 Bradf. 287. Disting'd (Lapse of legacy to a person and his heirs) in Williams v. Seaman, 3 Bed/. 148, 150. v. Thompson, 42 If. Y. 246; s. c, 1 Am. B. 516. Explained (Effect of antici- patory refusal to perform contract) in Howard v. Daly, 61 If. Y. 362, 377. Reviewed with Freer ». Denton, 61 JV". Y. 492, and other cases, in Day v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 45 Conn. 480; s. c, 29 Am. It. 693, 699. Collated with other cases, in Goyert v. Stoner, (Super. Gt, Ginein., Ohio) 11 Week L. Bid. 53. Compared in 3 Alb. L. J. 115, .187, 199. Discussed in Benj. on Sales, § 509 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Explained in 2 Id. § 860 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Cases collected (Promise to marry — when broken) in 11 Am. L. Beg. If. S. 71. Burtnett, Matter of, 8 Daly, 363. DistingM (Examination of assignor for creditors) in Matter of Swezey, 62 How. Pr. 215, 218. Followed in Matter of Brown, 10 Daly, 115. Burton v. Burton, 26 Haw. Pr. 474. Rev'd in 1 Keyes, 359; s. c, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dee. 271. Decision in 1 Eeyes, cited as author- ity (Rights of alien widow of naturalized citizen) in Headman v. Rose, 63 Oa. 465. Doctrine applied in Renner v. Muller, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 535, 546. Followed in Kelly v. Owen, 7 Wall. 499. Thought in Pcquignot v. City of Detroit, 16 Fed. Bep. 215, to have been decided by a divided court. v. Stewart, 3 Wend. 236 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 692, with note wherein it is said to have boon frequently cited (Total and partial failure of consideration of note). Cited as authority with Tallmadge v. Wallis, 25 Wend. 107; Case v. Hall, 24 Id. 102 (De- fense of want of title, in action against purchaser in possession for purchase price) in Sumner v. Gra3 r , 4 Ark. 467; s. c, 38 Am. Deo. 39, 41. Burwell v. Jackson, 9 If. Y. 535. See Gazley ». Price. Examined and approved, but dis- ting'd (Warranty of title implied in con- tract for sale of land) in Lcggett v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 53 JV. Y. 394, 398. Ap- plied in Story o. Conger, 36 JV. Y. 673. Pronounced settled law in Delavan v. Dun- can, 49 /JV Y. 485. Followed in Penfields. Clark, 62 Barb. 584, 591; Bensel o. Gray, 38 Super. Gt. [J. & S.) 447; Collins v. Delashmutt, 6 Oreg. 51. Approved in 11 Am. Dec. 36, n. as containing a remarkably clear exposition of the law, limited to cases of title in Canaday o. Stiger, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 430. v. Knight, 51 Barb. 267. Collected with other cases (Effect of omission to prove partial payments when sued for debt) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 789, n. Bush v. Barnard, 8 Johns. 407. Explained (Statute of Limitations — conditional ac- knowledgments) in Ang. on Limit. § 236, 6 ed. V. Brainnrd,l Cow. 78; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 513. See Owen v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Approved with Holladay v. Marsh, 3 Wend. 147 (Horses and cattle when rightfully on premises) in Williams i>. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 2 Mich. 259; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. , 59, where Griffin v. Martin, 7 Barb. 297, was disapproved as neither sound in law nor just in principle. Disting'd in Johnson v. Patterson, 14 Conn. 1; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 96, with note. v. Cole, 28 JV. Y 261. See Brinckerhoof v. Phelps ; Hicks v. Minturn ; Mills v. Hunt. Disting'd (Personal liability of one who enters into a contract in behalf of another) 122 BUSH. in Bellinger v. Bentley, 1 Hun, 565. Ex- plained with Mills i). Hunt, 20 Wend. 431 ; Simpson v. Gerard, 2 Bosw. 607, in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 502. Collated with Pum- pelly 1). Phelps, 40 JV Y. 59; Driggs ». Dwight, 17 Wend. 71 ; Trull v. Granger, 8 JV. F. 115; Baldwin v. Munn, 2 Fend. 399; Peters «. McKeon, 4 i>«ra. 546; Conger ». Weaver, 20 JV. T. 140. and many other cases (Measure of damages for breach of con- tract to sell) in Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374; s. c, 4: Am. R. 490, 493. T. Dennison, 14 How. Pr. 307. To the contrary (Sufficient appeal from justices' judgment) see Forman v. Forman, 17 Id. 255. Followed in Avery v. Woodbeck, 62 Barb. 557, 565. v. Hicks, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 356. Affd in 60 JV. Y. 298. Compare (Reforma- tion) Hitchins v. Pettingill, 58 JV. H. 3, 386. v. Lathrop, 22 JV Y. 535. See Kort- rightu. Buffalo Commercial B'k; Murray v. Lylburn ; Myers v. Davis ; Poillon ». Martin ; Stafford fl. Van Rensselaer. Followed (Rights of assignee of non-negotiable chose in action) in Blydenburgh v. Thayer, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 160; Wyman «. Smead, 31 How. Pr. 3, 354. Followed, but criticised in Reeves v. Kimball, 63Barb. 129, which was affd in 40 JV. Y. 299, 3 11 , which see. Limited in Gould v. Marsh, 1 Hun, 566. Explained in Dillaye v. Com. Bank of Whitehall, 51 JV Y. 353. Cited as authority in Cutts v. Guild, 57 JV. Y. 233. Explained, at length, in dissenting opinion of Danfortd, J., in West- brook ■», Gleason, 79 JV. F."41. Explained in Trustees of Union College ». Wheeler, 61 JV.F. 88, 105, 113; Greene v. Warnick, 64 If. Y. 224, as not overruled by Moore v. Metropolitan Bank on this point, but only on point of estoppel. Disting'd in Heermans v. Ellsworth, 64 JV Y. 162. Followed as settled law in McNeil i>. Tenth National Bank of N. T., 55 Barb. 59, but dis- ting'd on appeal in that case in 46 If. Y. 325, 338. Critically examined, with Ander- son v. Nicholas, 28 JV. Y. 600; Mason v. Lord, 40 Id. 476, 487 ; McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 Id. 325 ; Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 55 Id. 41, and other cases, in Pomeroy on Rem. §§ 160, 161. Recognized as authority in Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 U. S. 572. Referred to in Thomas on Mort. 1 06, as settling pointof no distinction between latent and patent equities. Approved as settled law (Assignee how far subject to equities of third persons) in Shafer v. Reilly, 50 If. Y. 67. Overruled (Effect of doctrine of estoppel") and the adverse decisions of McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 JV Y. 325 ; Commercial Bank of Buffalo ■». Kortright, 22 Wend. 348, approved in Moore v. Metro- politan Nat. Bank, 55 If. Y. 41. So referred to in First Nat. Bank of Corry v. Stiles, 22 Hun, 345 ; Armour ». Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 65 N. Y. 124. Referred to as over- ruled in International B'k v. German B'k, 71 Mo. 198; Thomas on Mort. 111. T. Livingston, 2 Gai. Cas. 66; s. c, 2 Am. Bee. 316 ; 2 JV. Y. Gom. L. Law. ed. 764, with brief note. v. Miller, 13 Barb. 481. See Piatt v. Hibbard. Collated with other cases (Bail- ment — onus of proving negligence) in 2 Story on Gontr. 5 ed. § 903, n. 6. Explained (Loss or iujury to thing hired) in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 125, n. b. v. Peltibone, 5 Barb. 273. Aff'd in 4 JV. F 300. v. Prosser, 13 Barb. 221. Rev'd in 11 JV. Y. 347. See Bisbey v. Shaw. Decis-.. ion in 11 JV Y. followed (Pleading matter in mitigation, in action for libel or slander) in Howard «. Raymond, 11 Abb. Pr. 155; Weed v. Bibbins, 32 Barb. 321 ; Heaton v. Wright. 10 How. P-. 81 ; Herr v. Bamberg, Id. 131. Disting'd in~ Gorton v. Keeler, 51 Barb. 481, which was rev'd in Spooner v. Keeler, 51 JV. Y. 535, which see. Disting'd in Hagerrc. Tibbits, 2 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 101. Criticised at length, in Van Benschoten ». Yaple, 13 How. Pr. 99. Applied in Delevin v. Wilder, 7 Robt.- 319; Hatfield «. Lasher, 81 JV. Y. 249, which affd 17 Hun, 23, which see. Decis- ion in 11 JV Y. regarded as authority, not- withstanding criticisms, in Littlejohn v. Greeley, 13 Abb. Pr. 311, 314. Examined and limited in Wachter v. Quenzer, 29 JV Y. 547. Doubted in Maretzeck ». Cauldwell, 2 Robt. 715 ; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 35. Cited, though not followed, in Huson v. Dale, 19 Mich. 17; s. c, 2 Am. R. 66, as to the propriety of repudiating the rule, in Under- wood v. Parks, 2 Strange, 1200. Explained' as not authority for setting up mitigating circumstances alone, — in Fink v. Justh, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 107. Applied to action for assault and battery, — in Foland v. Johnson, 16 Abb. Pr. 239 ; to action for false im- prisonment, — in Beckett ■». Lawrence, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 406. Explained (Proving mitigating circumstances not pleaded) in Travis «. Barger, 24 Barb. 623; Wehle v. Haviland, 42 Hpw. Pr. 407. Re-aff'd (Plaintiff's damages not enhanced by defendant's allegations of justification) in Klinck v. Colby, 46 JV. Y. 436. Collated with Lewis ». Chapman, 10 JV. Y. 372, and other cases, in article on malice in actions for slander and libel, in 26 Alb. L. J. 247. Quoted (Truth of the charge pleaded) in 2 Greenl. on Ed. 14 ed. § 420, n. b. v. Seabury, 8 Johns. 418. Followed with Village of Buffalo v. Webster, 10 Wend. 100; Stokes v. Corporation of N. Y., 14 Id. 87 (Incidental powers given to city by its charter) in City of Dubuque i>. Stout, 32 Iowa, 80; s. c, 7 Am. R. 171, 174. v. Treadwell, 11 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 27. See (Place of trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 982, n. v. Trustees of Geneva, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T.&C.) 409. Relied on (Notice to agent of corporation when not notice « to cor- poration) in dissenting opinion of Elliott, BUSH— BUTLER. 123 J., in City of Logansport v. Justice, 74 Ind. 391. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 03 N. Y. 531. Rev'g 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T, & ft) 629. Decision in 63 IT. F. disting"d (Waiver of proof of loss) in Goodwin v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ius. Co., 73 N. Y. 480, 492. Bushnell v. Bnshncll, 7 IIow. Pr. 380. Aff d in 15 Barb. 399. See Forrest v. For- rest; Fuller v. Emeric. Decision in 15 Barb. followed (Ne exeat) in Beckwith v. Smith, 4 Lans. 184. Reviewed, at length, and dis- approved in Johnston v. Johnston, 25 IIow. Pr. 182, 187. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, n. y. Chautauqua Nat. Bank, 10 Sun, 378. Modified, and as modified aff'd in 74 JST. Y. 290. Buswell v. Lincks, 8 Daly, 518. See Mc- Elwain v. Willis. Discussed (Creditors' ac- tions — return of execution) in Wait on Fraud. Com. § 87. Butchers' & Drovers' Bank v. Brown, 1 IT. Y. Leg. Obs. 149. Aff'd in 6 Sill, 443. v. Jacobson, 24 Sow. Pr. 204; s. c, 9 Bosw. 595; s. c, more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 218. Said in 33 Sow. Pr. 620 to . have been aff'd by Ct. of App., in Sept. 1867. Another decision in 22 Sow. Pr. 470. Decision in 22 Sow. Pr. followed (Costs on motion for judgment on demurrer) in Whitman v. Nicol, 16 Abb. Pr. K S. 329 ; but see to ,the contrary, Lawrence v. Diivis, 7 Id. 354; Roberts v. Morrison, Id. 390 ; Pratt o. Allen, 19 Id. 450. Butler, Matter of, 38 W. Y. 397. Disting'd (buty of executor to include in inventory assets in another State) in Sherman v. Page, 83 JT. Y. 123, 129, which aff'd 21 Sun, 59, which see. Butler v. Benson, 1 Barb. 526. Examined and limited (Admissibility of memoranda in evidence) in Thurman v. Mosher, 1 Sun, 344, 348. Applied (Proof of execution of will) in Norton v. Norton, 2 Re. Butler, 3 Barb. Ch. 304. Decision in 3 Barb. Ch. discussed in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 512, n. v. , 77 2v". T. 472 ; s. c, 33 Am. P. 648. Quoted and explained (Prevention of performance of contract — how affecting other party) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 859, n. 6 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. City of Rochester, 4 Sun, 321 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 572. Followed (Presentation of claim against municipal corporation) in Williams v. City of Buffalo, 25 Sun, 301. — y. Evening Mail Assoc, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 58. Rev'd in 61 IT. Y. 634. — v. Flanders, 56 Sow. Pr. 312; s. c, 44 Super. Ct. {.I. S S.) 531. See (Order for separate trial of issues) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 907, n. Y. Galletti, 21 Sow. Pr. 465. Dis- ting'd (Injunction) in Daly v. Smith, 38 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 158, 169. y. Kelsey, 15 Johns. 177. Followed, with Story v. Elliot, 8 Cow. 27; and Hoghtaling v. Osborn, 15 Johns. 119, denied (Invalidity of judicial acts and receiving of verdicts, on Sunday) in Davis v. Fish, 1 0. Greene {Iowa) 406 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 387, with note. v. Kent, 19 Johns. 223. Cited with Bank of Rome v. Mott, 17 Wend. 556 (Proof of special damage to individual in action against public ministerial officer for negli- gence) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 548. v. Lee, 3 Robt. 044. AfE'/J, in effect, in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 279; s. c, more fully, 33 Sow. Pr. 251 ; 3 Keyes, 70. With decision in 3 Keyes, compare (What is final judgment) Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286. First paragraph of head-note in decision in 33 Sow. Pr. said in Pomeroy on Item. § 69, n. 1, not to be sustained by the decision. — v. Lewis Common Pleas, 10 Wend. 541. Aff'd in 15 Id. 110. v. Mason, 16 Sow. Pr. 546. Approved (Rebutting matter improper in complaint) in Sands v. St. John, 36 Barb. 628, 633 ; s. c, 23 Sow. Pr. 140. v. Maynard, 11 Wend. 548; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 100, with note, collecting cita- tions respecting levies. — y. Mayor, &c. of New York, 1 Sill, 489. Rev'd in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Butler, 7 Id. 329. But as to some other grounds, confirmed in Butler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Barb. 325 ; and see Briggs v. Smith, 20 Id. 409. See Huy v. Brown. Applied (Evidence to impeach award) in Borrowe v. Milbank, 5 Abb. Pr. 30. — y. Miller, 1 Den. 407. Questioned (Ef- fect of now security on debt secured by mortgage) in later decision in 1 JT. Y. 496, which aff'd 5 Den. 159. See Brown v. Bement. Decision in 1 JT. Y. disting'd (Estoppel) in Smith «. Ferris, 1 Daly, 21. Followed (Interest of mortgagor of chattels) in Stewart v. Slater, Duer, 83, 100. Cited as settled law (Interest of mortgagee) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 119. Explained in Haskius v. Kelly, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 63, 75, as inapplicable to case of pledge. Ap- plied (Effect of new security for debt secured by mortgage) in Hill n. Beebe, 13 N~. Y. 563. Applied in Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich. 299. — v. N. Y., Lake Erie, &c. R. R. Co., Supreme Ct. IIS. Followed (Time within which stockholder may take stock under plan of reorganization) in Vatable v. N. Y., Lake Erie, &c. R. R. Co.. 9 Abb. K C. 273. — Y. Palmer, 1 Sill, 324. See Clark •„•. 124 BUTLER-— BUTTERWORTTI. People. Approved (Law impairing vested right) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 17 Barb. 358; Hickox o. Tallman, 38 Barb. G13; Church v. Rhodes, 6 How. Pr. 284. Examined in 27 ifcwi. ]56; ?i. Examined in "Scott v. Smart, 1 Mich. 303 ; citing Cochran v. Van Surlay, 20 Wend. 365. Cited disapprovingly, in 1 Kent Com. 456, n. a. Followed (No vested right in forfeiture) in Hoppock v. Stone, 49 Barb. 528. Relied on with Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 K Y. 1, in Town of Danville v. Pace, 25 Gratt. ( Va.) 1 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 663, 678. Applied (Validity of law impairing remedy ou contract) in James v. Stull, 9 Barb. 482. Disting'd and questioned (Effect of repeal of a statute) in People v. Supervisors of Westchester, 4 Barb. 64, 75. Applied in People v. Townsey, 5 Den. 70 ; People v. Van Pelt, 4 How. Pr. 39. Cited as author- ity in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 153 ; Hartung v. People, 22 Id. 102. Explained and criticised in Tinker v. Van Dyke, 1 Flipp. (U. S.) 521, 534. Cited as author- ity, in Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Gal. 323, 325. Followed in Stephenson v. Doe, 8 Blaclcf. (Ind.) 508; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 489, wit'i note. Approved (Statute becoming part of contract) in Damman v. Com. of School & Cn. Lands, 4 Wise. 418. Ex- plained (Contracts as affected by State laws) in 3 Pars.' on Gontr. 533, n. h. v. Patterson. See Van Dusen v. Worrell. v. Potter. See Clark v. Holdridge. V. Rawson, 1 Den. 105. Disting'd (Sufficiency of complaint in action on prom- issory note) in Osgood v. Whittelsey, 10 Abb. Pr. 134, 136. v. Sprague, 66 N. Y. 392. See Chaffee «. Fort. See also (What may be attached) Matter of True, 4 Abb. K G. 90. v. Stoddard, 7 Paige, 1G3; s. c, 20 Wend. 507. Applied (Sales — fraudulent , possession) in Jones v. O'Brien, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 58, 65. Discussed' (Assign- ment for benefit of creditors— delivery of possession) in Burrill on Asssign. | 274, 4ed. v. Tomlinson, 38 Barb. 641; s. c, more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 88. v. Tucker, 24 Wend. 447. Followed (Ef- fect of referring dispute to umpire) in Whiteman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Hun, 117, 120. Approved and followed (Contract to satisfaction of defendant) in Wilson «. Gould, 21 Hun, 446. — — v. Van Wyck, 1 Hill, 438. Explained (Conveyances to defraud creditors) in Vance v. Phillips, 6 Id. 433. v. Warren, 11 Johns. 57. Overruled (Interested witness not allowed to prove notice to produce papers) in Jackson v. Frier, 16 Id. 193. v. Wentworth. See Buhler ». Went- worth. ■ v. Wood, 10 How. Pr. 313. Applied (Construction of statute requiring security for costs) in Flint v. Van Deusen, 24 Hun, 440, 442. v. Wright, 20 Johns. 367. Further decision between same parties in 2 Wend. 369, which was aff'd in 6 Id. 284. Decision in 2 Wend, applied (Money paid) in Dougherty v. Vallotton, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 405, 460. Discussed (Defense — judg- ment recovered) in 2 Ghitty on Contr. 1171, n. a, 11 Am. od. ; Id. 1172, n. c. Followed, with Halliday ». Martinet, 20 Johns. 173; Nichols v. Goldsmith, 7 Wend. 161 (Evi- dence of memoranda made by third persons since deceased) in Lathrop v. Lawson, 5 La. Ann. 238; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 585, 587. Decisions iu 20 Johns, collated with Curtis «. Brown, 2 Barb. 51, and other cases (Nature of contract of guarantor) in Beebe e. Dudley, 26 K H. 249; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 341, with note. Iiutolpu v. Blust, 5 Lans. 84; s. c, more fuiiy, 41 How. Pr. 481. Disting'd (Police- man's power to arrest without a warrant) in Hennessy i>. Connollv, 13 Hun, 173, 175. Butterfield v. Klaber, 52 How. Pr. 255, 262. Considered with McKeon v. See, 4 Eobt. 449, and other cases (Noise as a nuis- ance) in article by Seymouk D. Thompson, in 22 Am. L. Reg. K S. 631. v. Radde, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1. Motion for leave to go to Ct. of App. denied in Id. 44; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 535. Notwith- standing an appeal having been taken, was dismissed in 58 N. Y. 489, as Butterfield v. Rudde and Selchaw v. Rudde. Motion for re-argument granted in 40 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 169 as Butterlield v. Radde and Selchow v. Radde. Decision on re-argument rev'g decision in 38 Id. 1, is in 41 Id. 181, with note, giving a history of the case. Decision in 38 Id. 44 disting'd (Leave to appeal) in Alfaro v. Davidson, 40 Id. 289. Decision in 40 Id. cited (Re-argument at general term, when allowable) in Produce Bank v. Mor- ton, 42 Id. 124. Buttcrnnts & Oxford Turnpike Co. v. North, 1 Hill, 518. Applied with Fort Edward & Fort Miller Plank Road Co. «; Payne, 15 F Y. 583 ; Troy & Boston R. R. Co. e. Tibbits, 18 Barb. 298 (Subscriptions to stock in rail- roads, &c.) in Craig ». Town of Andes, 93 N. Y. 405, 414. Disting'd with Fort Edward & Fort Miller Plank Road Co. «. Payne, 15 N. Y. 583 (Contracts in aid of rail- roads) in First Nat. B'k of Cedar Rapids v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402 ; s. c, 31 Am. li. 153. Bntterworth v. Crawford, 3 Daly, 57. Rev"d in 46 K Y. 349. See Lampman «. Miiks. Decision in 46 N. Y. explained (Torts — easements) and cases cited to the contrary, in Moah's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 429. Cited, with other cases (Presump- tion of easement from common grant) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1346, n~ as greatly qualifying the doctrine of the text; Part- ridge v. Gilbert, 15 K Y. 601, being also cited in this connection. BUTTER WORTH- BYRNES. 125 - — v. Gould, 41 2T. Y. 450. See Patrick e. Mctcalf. Followed (Recovery by one of two claimants of amount in dispute, when it has been paid to the other) in Osby v. Conant, 5 Lans. 310; Rowe v. Bank of Au- burn, 51 If. Y. 074; Decker v. Saltzman, 59 If. Y. 279. Disting'd in Carver i>. Creque, 48 If. Y. 385; Hathaway v. Town of Oin- cinnatus, 62 If. Y. 434, 447. Followed in Peckham v. Van Wagenen, 83 JS. Y. 40. Disting'd in Long v. Bussell, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 434. Disting'd (Claim against XL S. government) in Lake v, Devoe Manu- facturing Co., 7 Daly, 161, 163. v. O'Brien, 28 Barb. 187; s. c, 7 Abb. Pr. 456; 16 How. Pr. 503. Aft'd in 23 N. Y. 275. Further decision in 39 Barb. 192 ; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 438. Decision in 28 Barb, approved (Effect of statute forbid- ding corporations to interpose defense of usury) in Belmont Branch Bank v. Hogs, 7 Bosw. 543, 558; and see Hungerford's Bank v. Dodge, 30 Barb. 625, 629. Decision in 23 N. Y. followed in Strong v. N. Y. Laundry M'f'g Co., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 279, 282. Decision in 39 Barb, overruled (Action by creditor or receiver) by Osgood v. Lay tin, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 418. Button v Hudson River R. R. Co., 18 If. Y. 248. See Owen v. Same. Said in Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 20 If. Y. 65, not to be a lucid precedent (Burden of proof as to plaintiffs freedom from negligence). Examined in Welling r>. Judge, 40 Barb. 209. Applied in Robinson v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 152. Applied (Contributory negligence) in McGrath v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 152; Cox v. President, &c. of Westchester County Road, 33 Barb. 416. Examined in Bern- hardt v. Renss. & Saratoga R. R. Co., 19 How. Pr. 203. Collated with Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 21; 20 If. Y. 65 ; Reynolds v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 58 Id. 248 ; Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co., 19 Id. 341 ; Colegrove v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. & N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 20 Id. 492 ; Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 Id. 597; Webster ». Hudson River R. R. Co., 38 Id. 200; Mooriey v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 liobt. 548, and other cases, in 28 Am. B. 563, n. — — v. McCauley, 38 Barb. 413. Rev'd (Breach of promise of marriage) in 1 A bb. Ct. App. Dec. 282 ; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 29. Butts V. Genung, 5 Paige, 254. Applied (Liability of estate of joint debtor) in Stahl v. Stahl, 2 Lans. 60. Explained and applied (Proof in action by judgment creditor against heirs at law) in Blossom v. Hatfield, 24 Hun, 275. v. Swartwood, 2 Cow. 432, with note, and supplemental note at p. 572. Decisions in notes denied (Testimony by persons who deny any future punishments) in At- wood v. Wclton, 7 Coim. 75, as opposed to Jackson v. Gridley, 18 Johns. 98; and see Stanbro v. Hopkins, 28 Barb. 265. y. Wood, 38 Barb. 181. Aff d in 37 If. Y. 317. See Carpenter v. Danforth; Greaves v. Gouge; Scott ». Depeyster. Decision in 37 If. Y. disting'd (Liability of trustee of corporation for fraudulent breach of trust) in Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 If. Y. 38, 46. Applied in East N. Y., &c. R. R. Co. v. Elmore, 5 Hun, 214; Rockford, R. I., &c. R. R. Co. v. Boody, 56 If. Y. 461. Ap- plied (Inability of director, to make contract binding on corporation) in Coleman v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 38 If. Y. 203. Applied (Compensation of officers of cor- poration) in Blalchford v. Ross, 54 Barb. 48. Followed in Jones v. Morrison, 16 Northw. Rep. 854, 858. Followed in Cheeney v. Lafayette, Bloomington, &c. R. R. Co., 08 III. 570; s. c, 18 Am. B. 581, 586 ; Holder v. Lafayette, Bloomington, &c. R'way Co., 71 III. 106; s. c, Am. B. 89. Buys v. Gillespie, 2 Johns. 115; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 404; 3 1 Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 321, with brief note, contrary to the case. Byass v. Sullivan, 21 How. Pr. 50, Cited (Witness not compelled to produce docu- ments that would inculpate him) in 1 Whart. Com. on En. § 533. Bye, Matter of, 2 Daly, 528. Cited in 58 Am. Dec. 113, n., as forcibly recognizing tho principle of domicile by birth. Bjers v. Van Deusen, 5 Wend. 268. Cited (Effect of stipulation to submit to arbitra- tion matters in difference between partners) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 215, n. Cited in Id. § 300, as showing when the dissolution of a partnership may be implied from the nature of an award. Bylandt v. Comstock, 25 How. Pr. 429; s. c. as Comstock's Case, 16 Abb. Pr. 233. Said not to be authority (Being out but within jail liberties, not being in prison) in Develin v. Cooper, 84 K Y 410, 416. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2188, n. Byrne v. N. ¥. Central, &c. R. R. Co.» 14 Hun, 322 Rev'd (Contributory negligence) in 83 N. Y. 620. v. Van Hosen, 5 Johns. 66. Examined (Powers and duties of guardian) in Palmer v. Oakley, 2 Doug. 465. Approvingly cited, with Jackson v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 167; Jack- son v. Thomas, 16 Johns.. 301, and other cases (Presumption that possession of land accompanies title) in Riley v. Jameson, 3 If. H. 23; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 325. v. Weeks, 7 Bosw. 372. Afi'd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 657. Byrnes v. City of Cohoes, 5 Hun, 602. AfTd in 67 If. Y. 204. Decision in 67 If. Y. dis- ting'd (Liability for flow of surface water) in Lynch v. Mayor, &c. of K. Y., 76 If. Y. 60, 62. Relied on in Beach v. City of Elmira, 22 Hun, 163. Followed in O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 333; s. c, 33 Am. It. 470; considering the principle of Radcliff ii. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 A r . Y. 195, not so sound or just ; but the latter, and f^oodalc v. Tuttle, 29 If. Y. 459, are cited as 'o how a man must use his own. Fxplained 126 BYENES— CALDWELL. in Moak's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 468. Approved as founded on the most obvious grounds of justice ; and other cases pro and con collated, in 19 Am. L. Rev. 291, 292. . t. National Ins. Co., 1 Cow. 265. Fol- lowed and approved (Applying rule for deducting one-third new for old, in case of loss under marine policy) in Eager v. Atlas Ins. Co., 14 Pick. {Mass.) 141 ; s. c, 25 Am. Bee. 363, 368, with note. Byxbie t. Wood, 24 N-. 7. 607. Reported below, as Sheldon v. Wood, 2 Bosw. 267. Relied on (Fixing action as one in tort by allegations of complaint) in Sparmann v. Keim, 9 Abb. N. 0. 1, 6; s. c, 83 N. 7. 245. Commented upon in Pomeroy on, Rem. § 572, n. 2, as inconsistent with Booth v. Farmers' & Mech. Bank, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 45. Applied in Townsend v. Hendricks, 39 How. Pr. ill ; Quintard v. Newton, 5 Robt. 80. Followed (Time for objectiug to non- joinder or to improper parties) in Rhodes v. Dymock, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 141. Ap- plied (Assignment of cause of action) in Bonnell v. Wheeler, 1 Hun, 332, 339 ; Genet v. Howland, 45 Barb. 567; Graves*. Spier, 58 Barb. 385. Followed in Mason v. Raplee, 66 Barb. 182. Disting'd as to cause of ac- tion against trustee, — in Bank of California v. Collins, 5 Hun, 209. Relied on, and Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 K 7. 322 doubted, in Baker v. Crandal, 78 Mo. 584 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 126. Disting'd (Exceptions) in Salisbury ■». Howe, 13 Weekly Biff. 448. Criticised but followed (Amendment of complaint) in Bedford ». Terhune, 30 iV. 7. 461. Followed in Knapp v. Roche 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 395, 407. c. Cable T. Cooper, 15 Johns. 152. Explained (Effect of discharge on habeas corpus) in Wiles v. Brown, 3 Barb.ZT, as superseded by L. 1818, c. 277. Reviewed with Bank of the U. S. v. Jenkins, 18 Johns. 308; Yates' Case, 4 Id. 318, and other cases (Limits of power to discharge on habeas corpus) in Commonwealth v. Lecky, 1 Watts (Pa.) 66; s. c, 26 Am. Bee. 37, with note. Disting'd on the ground that the judgment was re-examinablc by writ of error, — in Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. ( Va. i 472 (cited in 4 QUI [Md.] 301 ; s. c, 45 Am. Bee. 130, with note). t t. Dakin. See Brizsee «. Maybee. Cadwell v. Colgate, 7 Barb. 253. Disting'd (Validity of undertaking on attachment) in Bildersee v. Aden, 62 Barb. 175, 180. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 642, n. Disting'd (Sufficiency of affidavit on information and belief) in Miller «. Adams, 52 N. 7. 409, 414. — v. Manning, 15 ^455. Pr. 271 ; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 38. Approved as correctly stating law (Practice before and since the Code in obtaining security for costs) in Hinds ». Douglass, 19 Abb. Pr. 11. Cady t. Faircliild, 18 Johns. 129. Approved (New trial in justice's court) in Stephens v. Wider, 32 K 7. 351 ; explaining Herrick v. Stover, 5 Wend. 580; Rathbone o. Stanton, 6 Barb. 141; Fish t>. Skut, 21 Barb. 333; Wiley v. Slater, 22 Barb. 506. Cagger v Lansing, 57 Barb. 421. Rev'd in 43 AT. 7. 550. Decision in 43 JV. T. ex- plained (Effort of payment of purchase money on parol contract for sale of land) in Morrill v. Cooper, 65 Barb. 512, 517. T. , 4 Hun, 812. Aff'd in 64 K 7. 417. Decision in 64 2f. 7. superseded (Maintaining real action by infant in his own name) hy Code Civ. Pro.§ 1686. Com- pare Id. § 1534, &c. Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 22 Him, 201. Rev'd in 84 N. 7. 532. See Allen v. Brown; Town of Springport v. Teutonia Sav'gs B'k. Decision in 84 JST. 7. not followed (Valid- ity of town bonds in hands of bona fide holder) in McCall v. Town of Hancock, 13 Reporter, 419. Calien v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 296. Rev'd in 69 N. 7. 300. Decision in 69 K 7. followed (Witness — privilege) in G rattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 K 7. 281, 298. v. Piatt, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 483. Rev'd in 69 N. 7. 348: s. c, 25 Am. 11 203. Calioon v. Bank of Utica, 4 How. Pn 423. Affd in 7 How. Pr. 134, which was, . however, rev'd in 7 N. 7. 486. See Alger v. Scoville. Cain v. Ingham, 7 Cow. 478. See Ilighbie v. Leonard. See (Costs in justice's courts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. Cairnes v. Bleeoker, 12 Johns. 300; s. c, 5 N. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 399, with brief note. Disting'd with Hanks v. Drake, 49 Barb. 202 (Ratification of unauthorized sale by agent) in Bank of Owcnsboro v. Western Bank, 13 Bush (Ky.) 526; s. c, 26 Am. R. 211, 218. Applied in Meyer v. Morgan, 01 Miss. 21 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 617, 620. Result stated (Agent's liability for conversion) in Laverry u. Snethcrs, 68 N.7. 522, 027; s.c, 23 Am.R. 184. Caines v. Brisban. See Mitchell «. Bristol. Caldwell's Case. See Fitzgerald, Matter of. Caldwell v. Cassidy, 8 Cow. 271. See Wol- cott r. Van Santvoord. Cited as settled law (Presentment of negotiable instrument for payment) in Hills «. Place, 48 N. 7. 520. Compared with other cases in Salt Springs Nat. B'k v. Burton, 58 N. 7. 435. Applied to contract to pay for goods,— in Locklin v. Moore, b.Lans. 307, which was aff'd in 57 N. 7. 360, which see. Applied to order oa city treasurer, — in Read v. City of Buffalo, 67 Barb. 528. Dictum as to necessity of demand, in case of note payable on demand, denied in Haxtun v. Bishop, 3 Wend. 14. Explained in 1 Pars, on Cuntr. 273, n. o. Discussed in 3 Kent Com. 98. Followed (Effect of tender) in Kelly s. West, 66 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 304. CALDWELL- CAVLO. 127 v. Murphy, 1 Duer, 233. Affd in 11 If. Y. 41C. See Camden R. R. & Transp. Co. 8. Burke ; Matteson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Decision in 1 Duer applied (Com- pensatory damages for personal injuries) in Hamilton u. Third Ave. It. R. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. If. S. 323. Approved and applied in Ransom 8. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 If. Y. 423. Applied (Recovery for con- sequential damages) in Piatt 8. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 37 If. Y. 475. Dis- ting'd (Negligence in passenger who rides in unusual position) in Spooner 8. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 420. Followed (Necessity that negligence be contributory) in Johnson 8. Hudson River It. R. Co., 6 Duer, 646. Decision in 11 If. Y. commented on (Admission of plaintiff's testimony ex necessitate) in Garvey v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co., 4 AN>. Pr. 173. Applied in Baker v. Griffin, 10 Bosw. 142; Cleveland 8. N. J. Steamboat Co., 5 Hun, 529. Disting'd in Page 8. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 532. Followed in Werely 8. Persons, 28 If. Y. 344. Referred to in Reed v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 hf. Y. 579, as super- seded by statutory provisions. Applied (Exception — when too general) in Elton v. Markham, 20 Barb. 346 ; Bows 8. Rush, 28 Barb. 181 ; O'Donnell 8. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 413. v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 56 Barb. 425. Aff'd in 47 If. Y. 282. Decision in 47 N. Y. disting'd (Master's liability to punitory dam- ages for wrongful act of servant) in Towns- end 8. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 56 K Y. 295, 299; Samuels 8. Evening Mail Assoc, 9 Hun, 291. Followed in Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. If. S. 323. Followed (Construction by appellate court of charge to jury) in Carnes v. Piatt, 41 Super. Gt. {J. S S.) 435, 439; Loseo i>. Buchanan, 51 Jf.Y. 492. Applied (Pre- sumption of negligence in carrier) in Marck- wald v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 11 Hun, 467. Disting'd (Misconduct by court to jury — when reviewable on bill of exceptions) in Huntoon v. Russell, 50 How. Pr. 155. Calhoun v. Lee, 29 How. Pr. 1. See to the contrary (Right of a sheriff to fees upon the settlement of proceedings on attachment) Muller 8. Sautler, 28 Id. 87; Trenor 8. Fachin, 20 Id. 405. Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 168. Approved (Statutory remedy for injuries, when exclusive) in City of Camden 8. Allen, 2 Dutcher (K J.) 398. Cited as authority in Troy v. Cheshire R. R. Co., 23 If. H. 83; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 177, 185. Disting'd (Payment as condition pre- cedent to taking property by eminent domain) and Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hud- son R. R. Co, 18 Wend. 1, explained, in Dusenbury v. Mutual Telegraph Co., 11 Abb. If. G. 440. v. Barger, 44 Barb. 424. Doubted (Neg- ligence in burning rubbish) in Hays' Adm'r v. Miller, 6 Hun, 320, 324. v. Brand. 5 How. Pr. 395. See in ac- cord therewith (Right of public officer to double costs) Tillou 8. Sparks, 9 How. Pr. 465. v. Calkins, 3 Barb. 305. Aff'd, in effect, as Calkins 8. Isbcll, 20 If. Y. 147. v. Falk, 39 Barb. 620. Affd in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 291. v. Isbell. See Calkins v. Calkins. v. Long, 22 Barb. 97, 99. Cited as au- thority (Application of statutory provision making seal only presumptive evidence of a consideration) in Braden v. Ward, 13 Vr. (N. J.) 523. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 840, n. v. Packer, 21 Barb. 275. To the con- trary see (Tmperfect records) James 8. Stookey, 1 Wash. C. Ct. 330. But see Abb. Tr. Eo. 538. v. Smith, 48 N. Y. 614 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 575. Disapproved (Application of a partner- ship claim to payment of an individual debt)- in Gotzhausen 8. Judd, 43 Wis. 219; s. c, 28 Am. li. 541. Cited, with Livingston 8. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. 251, 265, and other cases, in Story on Parln. 7 ed. § 132, n. Quoted (Suits by partners against each other) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 1 97, n. 2, Wood's Am. ed. Disapproved (Remedy for misjoinder of plaintiffs) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 214. v. Williams, 5 How. Pr. 393. See (In- creased costs) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3258, n. Callagan v. Hallct, 1 Cai. 104. Compare (Compensation of pilots) Schooner Wave «. Hyer, 2 Paine, 150. Cited with Payne 8. Eden, 3 Cii. 213 ; Waitee. Harper, 2 Johns. 380 ; Bruce v. Lee, 4 Id. 410 ; Yeomans 8. Chatterton, 9 Id. 295; Wiggin 8. Bush, 12 Johns. 306; Tuxbury 8. Miller, 19 Johns. 311; in Sharp 8. Teese, 4 Halst. (N. J.) 352; s. c, 17 Am. Dee. 479, as authority for denying the validity of note given by an in- solvent dcbtor,in consideration that his cred- itors withdraw opposition to his discharge. Callahan v. Mayor, &c. ol'N. Y., 6 Daly, 230. Aff'd in 66 If. .Y. 656, but no opinion. Decision in 86 If. Y. relied on (Want of jurisdiction of subject-matter, when not waived) in Westervelt 8. VVestervelt, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 394. Callanan v. Van Vleck, 36 Barb. 324. Said in 41 If. Y. 619, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. in June, 1869. Calvo v. Davies, 8 Hun, 222. Affd in 73 N. Y. 211; s. c, 29 Am. R. 130. See Hamill 8. Gillespie. Decision in 73 If, Y. followed and approved (Rights arising from assumption of mortgage by purchaser) in George v. Andrews, 60 Md. 26; s. c, 45 Am. R. 706. Disapproved in Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. 8. Mayer, 8 Mo. App. 22. Disting'd (Creation of right of surety- ship by arrangement among debtors) in Palmer 8. Purdy, 83 If. Y. 147. Explained (Effect of giving collateral security) in Fire- man's Ins. Co. 8. Wilkinson, 8 Steic. (if. J.) 160; s. c, 14 Reporter, 245. 128 CAMBLOS— CAMPBELL. Camblos v. Butterfleld, 15 All. Pr. K 3. 197. A motion in this case said to have been denied Nov. 30, 1875,— in 12 All. L. J. 368. Camden R. R. & T. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. 354. See Hollister v. Nowlen. Dis- cussed (Common carrier — delivery of bag- gage to, to create liability for loss of) in Ang. on Carr. %% 135, 239, 5 ed. T. Burke, 13 Wend. 611 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 488, with note, containing citations thereof; 12 K T. Com. L. Law. ed. 493, with brief note. Applied with Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 236 (Liability of carriers of passengers), in Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 1 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 346, 353, with lengthy note. Examined and applied, with Hegeman v. Western R. R. Co., 16 Barl. 353; 13 K Y. 9; Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Duer. 241, in Taylor v. Grand Trunk R'way, 48 N. H. 304; s. c, 2 Am. R. 229, 232. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 523, 5 ed. Cameron v. Chappell, 24 Wend. 94. Included, with note (Accommodation paper — usuiy) in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 287. v. Dm-klieim, 7 All. L. J. 298. Rev'd in 55 N. Y. 425. v. Freeman. See Swift v. Wells. ■ v. Irwin, 5 Hill, 272. See Wood v. Colvin. Cited as authority (Rights acquired under foreclosure of void mortgage) in Warner v. Blakeman, 4 All. Ct. App. Dec. 535, which affd 36 Barl. 501, 516, which see. Applied in Mickles v. Dillaye, 15 Bun, 301. Explained (Power of court of law to correct mistake) in McNulty v. Prentice, 25 Barl. 213. Applied (Mortgagee — when not estopped from denying mortgagor's title) in National Fire Ins. Co. v. McKay, 1 Sheld. 145. Explained (Mortgage — payment as extin- guishing power of sale) in 4 Kent Com. 196, n. I. Discussed (Statute of Limitations — adverse possession) in Ang. on Limit. § 418, 6ed. t. Seaman, 7 Hun, 601. Rev'd in 69 N. Y. 396 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 212, with note. Decision in 69 N. Y. followed (Trustee's liability for failure to file report) in Butler n. Smalley, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 492. v. Young, 6 How. Pr. 372. See (Execu- tion after creditor's death) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1376, n. Cammann v. Tompkins, 1 Code R. N. S. 12. Affd in 12 Barl. 265. Cammeyer v. United German Lutheran Churches, 2 Sand/. Ch. 186. Cited as au- thority with Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barl. 64, and other cases (Purpose of trust may be changed by consent) in 12 Am. L. Reg. A 7 ". S. 361, n. Explained (Corporate meet- ings) in Ang. & A. on, Corp. § 504, 11 ed. Camp v. Barney, 4 Hun, 373 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 022. Followed (Necessity of leave before suing receiver) in Barton v. Barbour, 104 C. S. 126. Compare dissent in article by Geokge W. McChaky in 17 Am. L. Rev. 833, 845. t. Bennett, 16 Wend. 48. Followed (Invalidity of appearance of infant defend- ant without guardian) in McMurray v. Mc- Murrav, 60 Barl. 117. v. Camp, 2 Red/. 141. Rev'd ml8 Hun, 217. v. Camp, 2 Hill, 628. Applied (Change of possession on mortgage of chattels) in Steele v. Benham, 84 N. Y. 634, 639. v. Chamberlain, 5 Den. 198. See Beek- man v. Lansing. Applied (What constitutes valid levy) in Bond v. Willet, 1 All. Ct. App. Dec. 174. Followed in Barker v. Bin- ninger, 14 JY. Y. 278. v. Garr. See Adams v. Hopkins. v. Ingersoll, ,47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 534. Rev'd in 86 N. Y. 433. v. Norton, 52 Barb. 96. Compare Dex- ter v. Norton, 47 K Y. 62, which affd 55 Barl. 272. v. Boot, 18 Johns. 22. Approved with Exp. Wright, 6 Cow. 399; Miller v. Van Anken, 1 Wend. 516; Wells v. Lain, 15 id 99 ; West v. Stanley, 1 Hill, 69 ; Smith v. Barse, 2 Id.' 387 (Submission to arbitrators works discontinuance of suit) in Dolph v. Clemens, 4 Wise. 184. y. Wood, 76 N. Y. 92. Disting'd (Lia- bility of owner of dangerous premises) in Edwards v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 25 Hun, 634, 637; Converse v. Walker, 30 Hun, 596. Explained in Monk's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 20. Cited in 34 Am. R. 230, n., collating cases. See also lengthy note, 26 Am. R. 562. Campbell v. Adams, 38 Barl. 132. Denied (Former assessment upon premium note as bar to subsequent one) in Sands v. Sweet, 44 Barl. 108; Jackson v. Van Slyke, Id. 117, n. v. Arnold, 1 Johns. 511. Followed (Necessity of proof of actual possession, to enable action of trespass to be maintained) in Wickham v. Freeman, 12 Johns. 184. To the contrary, Starr v. Jackson, 11 Mass. 524. Applied, with Tobey v. Webster, 3 Johns. 468 ; Van Rensselaer v. Van Rensselaer, 9 Id. 376, in Gibbons v. Dillingham, 10 Ark 9; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 233, 236, with note. T. liruen, 1 Brad/. 224. Disapproved with Westervelt v. Gregg, 1 Barb. Ch. 469 (Reference in proceedings to compel ex- ecutor to account) in Matter of Douglass, 3 Red/. 538. Disting'd in Buchan v. Rintoul, 10 Hun, 183, 186. Overruled with Jenuings v. Phelps, 1 Braclf. 485 ; Babcock t>. Lillis, 4 Id. 218 (Surrogate's jurisdiction as to disputed claims) in Martine's Estate, 11 All. N. C. 50. v. Butler, 14 Johns. 349. See Herrick v. Carman. Disapproved (Liability of in- dorser, as guarantor) in Hall v. Newcombe, 3 Hill, 233. Applied (Evidence to show malice, in action for slander) in Coleman v. Playsted, 36 Barl. 30. Approved (Subse- quent action for words given in evidence to show malice) in Howard v. Sexton, 4 iv". Y. 161. CAMPBELL. 129 T. Btttts, 3 K Y. 173. Disting'd (Parol evidence of subject litigated on former trial) in Davis v. Talcott, 14 Bwrb. 620. Cited as authority in Smith «. Smith, 79 If. Y. 634. v. Campbell, 54 Sow. Pr. 115. Aff'din 12 Sun, 636. v. , 65 Barb. 639. Discussed (Stat- ute of Frauds— verbal contract — suit for partial services performed) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 122 a, n. 1, 4 ed. t. Champlnin & St. Lawrence R. R. Co.,. 18 Sow. Pr. 412. Affd in Id. 419, n. — - t. Conner, 41 Super. Ot. (/. & S.) 459. Affd in 70 If. T. 424. y. Consalus, 25 If. Y. 613. Relied on (Former judgment, when not a bar) in Fergu- son v. Mass. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 22 Sun, 326. Disting'd (Binding effect of report of referee in foreclosure) in Sutherland v. Ross, 47 Barb. 147. v. Cothran, 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & G.) 70; s. c, 65 Barb. 534.. Aff d in 56 If. Y. 279. See Adams v. Hopkins. Decision in 56 N. Y. followed (Liability of attorney for sheriff's fees) in Van Kirk ».' Sedgwick, 23 Sun, 39. Limited in Bowe ». Campbell, 63 Sow. Pr. 167. Collated with other cases, in Smith on Sheriffs, 524. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 3307, subd. 7. t. Cowdrey, 31 Sow. Pr. 172; rev'g Fish's estate, 19 Abb. Pr. 209 ; s. c, 1 Tuck. 122. v. Erie Railway Co., 46 Barb. 540. Approved (Party precluded from raising question in which he has no interest) in Flint e. Craig, 59 Barb. 319. v. Evans, 54 Barb. 566. Afl'd in 45 If. Y. 356. See Cook v. Gregg: Rockwell v. Nearing. Decision in 54 Barb, followed (Constitutionality of L. 1867, c. 814, pro- viding for seizure of trespassing animals) in . Squares v. Campbell, 41 Sow. Pr. 193, 197. Explained in McConnell v. Van Aer- man, 56 Barb. 534. See also Leavitt v. Thompson, Id. 542. , v. Ewait, 7 Sow. Pr. 399. See (Justice of the peace — when authorized to issue war- rant for arrest) Wilson v. Robinson, 6 Sow. Pi: 110. — _ T . Foster, 16 Sow. Pr. 275. Affd, on the merits, but disapproved as to pleading, in 35 If. Y. 361. Decision in 35 If. Y. fol- lowed (Income of trust fund, when not to be reached by creditor^) in Hann «. Van Voorhis, 5 Sun, 427; Same v. Same, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 79; Parker v. Harrison, 42 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 110; McEwen v. Brewster, 17 If. Y. 227. Disting'd in Wil- liams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270, 274; Miller v. Miller, 1 Abb. If. G. 30, 37. Commented upon in Wait on Fraud. Gonv. % 45. 360, 365. Applied (Application of statutes of uses and trusts to personal property) in Wells v. Wal- lace, 2 Bed/. 58, 63. Applied in Roosevelt «. Roosevelt, 6 Sun, 81, 45. v. Genet, 2 Silt. 290. Followed (Effect of injunction order in supplementary pro- ceedings upon after-acquired property) in I.— 9 Atkinson v. Sewine, 43 Sow. Pr. 84. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2469, n. Approved (Losing benefit of admission of truth of counter-claim) in Randolph «. Mayor, &c. of K. Y., 53 Sow. Pr. 76. — v. Hall, 16 If. Y. 575. Subsequent pro- ceeding in Campbell v. Consalus, 25 K Y. 613. Disting'd (Who is privy in estate, so as to be bound by judgment) in Bennett v. Couchman, 48 Barb. 83. v. Hogo, 4 Sun, 672. Followed (When action is on contract and referable) in Harden v. Corbett, 6 San, 522. — v. Johnston, 1 Sandf. Gh. 148. Ex- plained (Liability of executors to account for rents and profits) in Moncrief v. Ross, 50 If. Y. 431. — v. Logan, 2 Bradf. 90. Followed (Publication of will) in Burk's Will, 2 Redf. 239, 242. Disting'd in Neugent v. Neugent, Id. 369, 372. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills. Rnnd. & T. ed. 214, n. Explained in Willard on Executors, 105. Approved (Revoking or altering decrees of Surrogate's Court) in Bailey ». Stewart, 2 Redf. 212. 223. — v. Mesier, 4 Johns. Gh.. 334; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 570. See Eastburn v. Kirk ; Sherred b. Cisco. Applied (Rights in party wall) in Eno 11. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer, 60; Partridges. Gilbert, 15 If. Y. 607, which affd 3 Duer, 184, which see. Cited as authority, in Brooks v. Curtis, 50 If. Y. 643. Commented upon in Wood on Ifuis. 2 ed. §§ 221, 228. Cases collected and compared in 7 Am. L. • Reg. If. S. 13. Applied (Equitable con- tribution between owners of adjoining land) in Matter of Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 4 Paige, 553. Disting'd (Contribution to expense of party wall) in Sherred -v. Cisco. 4 Sandf. 485. Explained in Leigh v. Dickoson (Q. B. Div. Dec. 1883) 50' Daw Times B. If. S. 124. Cited with approval (Grounds of doctrine of contribution) in .Fletcher «. Grover, 11 If. S. 368; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 497, with note. Quoted in 2 Ghitty on Contr. 891, n. i, 11 Am. ed. V. -, 6 Johns. Gh. 21. Disting'd (In- terest on money advanced) in Renss. Glass Factory ». Rertl, 5 Gow. 598. — v. Page, 67 Barb. 113. Appeal dismis- s%a in 50 N. Y. 658. — v. Parker, 9 Bosw. 322. Examined, with other cases (Distinction between chat- tel mortgage and pledge) in Thomas on Mart. 432. — v. People, 8 Wend. 636. Followed (Sufficiency of indictment for perjury at election) in Burns v. People, 59 Barb. 531. — v. Perkins. See Farrdl v. Calkins. — v. Rawdou, 19 Barb. 494. . Rev'd in 18 If. Y. 412. Compared with other cases (Wills— gift to the heir as purchaser) in 2 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 617, n. 17. — v. Richardson. See Mount v. Waite. — v. Seaman, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 231. Affd in 63 N. Y. 5&3; s. c, 20 Am. R. 67. 130 CAMPBELL— CANAL BANK. Case and briefs in State Library at Albany. Case and points in vol. 353, Ct. of App Cas. Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Decision in G3 JSf. Y. followed (Injunction, against nuis- ance) in Beach v. City of Elmira, 22 Hun, 158, 162. Cited as authority in Bushnell v. Robeson, 2 Iowa, 548. Included, with note, in Lawson Lead. Cas. in. Eg. Simplified, 140. Discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 531, 534, 544. Quoted in Id. § 711. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) cited in 10 Am. R. 674, «,, as disapproving Huckenstine's Appeal, 7 Penn. St. 102. v. Shields, 11 Sow. Pr. 565. Collated with other cases (Lease — eviction) in Me- Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 212. v. Smith, 8 Sun, 6. Aff d in 71 N. Y. 26 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 5. See further action, for money paid in consequence of this judg- ment, reported in Smith v. Truslow, 84 A7! Y. 660. See Hamill v. Gillespie. Decision in 71 -ST. Y. disting'd (Assumption of debt) in Roe v. Barker, 82 W.- Y. 431, 435. Ap- plied in Hand «. Kennedy, 83 Id. 154. Fol- lowed in Follansbee o. Menage, 28 Minn. 312. With Burr v. Beers, 24 N. Y. 78; Garnsey ». Rogers, 47 Id. 233, and other N. Y. cases said (Right of mortgagee to en- force mortgage debt against another than the mortgagor) in 9 Am. Dee. 155, ra.,to be in harmony with Mellen ». Whipple, 1 Gray (Mem.) 317. v. Stakes, 2 Wend. 137; s. c, 10 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 78, with brief note; 19 Am. Dee. 561. See Gelston v. Hoyt. Followed (Infant's liability for tort) in Moore v. Eastman, 1 Hun, 580; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 37. Disting'd and in part denied in Eaton v. Hill, 50 JST. H. 235; s. c, 9 Am. B. 189, 192. Quoted in Swell Lead. Cos. on Inf. &c. 208. Commented upon in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 325. Discussed with other authorities in 2 Kent Com. 241, n. e. Followed (Liability as for conversion, of one receiving property on void or voidable contract) in Woodman v. Hubbard, 25 N. H. 67; s. a, 57 Am. Dee. 310; Hall®. Corcoran, 107 Mass. 251; s. c, 9 Am. R. 30, 33. Relied on (Differing powers of courts having same apparent jurisdiction) in Payne v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 1 Cal. 33. •• — r. Tate, 7 Lans. 370. See Hubbard v. Gurney. Followed (Evidence that maker of note signed as surety) in Benjamin v. Arnold, 2 Hun, 447, 449; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 54, but the latter overruled in Hubbard v. Gurney, 64 K Y. 457, 461. Cited as au- thority with Benjamin v. Arnold, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 54; Hubbard v. Gurney, G4 N. Y. 460 (Rigb* of surety to have his status respected) in Anthony ■». Fritts (Sup'm. Ct. N. J. Feb'y, 1883) 15 Reporter, 726. — v. Tonsey, 7 Cow. 64. Followed (Lia- bility of foreign executor or administrator) in McXamura v. Dwyer, 7 Paige, 239 ; Brown v. Brown, 1 Barb. Ch. 189; Gulick «. Gulick, 33 Barb.-M; and see Rogers ■». McLean, 31 Id. 304, 310. Said in Marcy v. Marcy, 32 Conn. 308, to be irreconcilable with later cases in N. Y. and no longer an authority there. Cited in Williamson v. Branch Bank, 7 Ala. 906; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 617, with note. Approved and applied in Atchison's Heirs v. Lindsey, 6 B. Mon. (Ey.) 86; s. c, 43 Am. Dee. 153, 157, with note. Explained in Cureton ®. Mills, 13 S. C. 409; s. c, 36 Am. R. 700, 712. Dis- ■ approved in Hedenberg v. Hedcnberg, 46 Conn. 30; s. c, 33 Am. R. 12. Disting'd in Judy v. Kelley, 11 III. 211 ; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 455, with note. v. Vedder, 3 Reyes, 174. Relied on (Necessity for recording assignment of mort- gage) in Bank of Savings in N. Y. v. Frank, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 404. v. Western, 3 Paige, 124. Decision of Superior Court here referred to is reported as Lowndes v. Campbell, in 1 Hall, 598. See Doke v. James. v. Woodworth, 26 Barb. 648. Rev'd in 20 K Y 499. Further decision in 33 Barb. 425, affd in 24.# Y, 304. Decision in 24 N. Y. applied (Interpretation of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Benedict v. Hun- tington, 32 K Y. 219, 227. Decision in 20 If. Y. disting'd (Evidence of value' of con- verted property) in Flannagan ». Maddin, 81 N. Y. 623. Canaday v. Stiger, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 423. Affd in 55 N. Y. 452. Decision in 55 JT. Y. followed (Correcting judgment on appeal) in Schreyer v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 255. Decision in 35 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) examined in 5 Abb. N.C.in. Canal Appraisers v. People, 17 Wend. 571, 587. See Canal Commissioners v. People. Discussftd (Law governing territories- ceded or acquired) in 1 Kent Cum. 178, n. a. Cited (Grants enbracing rivers and streams above tide waters) in 3 Kent Com. 427, n. e, as stating the true rule of the common law. But see Id. 438, n. e. Canal B'k v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill, 287. Followed (Recovery of amount of draft from one who has received it without au- thority) in Holtsinger v. Nat. Corn Exch. B'k, 6 AU. Pr. N. S. 299. Followed in Holt ». Ross, 59 Barb. 554, which was affd in 54 N. Y. 472, which see ; Batik of Com- merce v. Union B'k, SKY. 237. Explained in dissenting opinion of Ruggles, J., inGod- dard v. Merchant's B'k, 4 N. Y. 155, which affd 2 Sand. 247, 255, which see. Disting'd in Susquehanna Val. Nat. B'k r, Loomis, 85 JV". Y. 207, 212. Applied in National B'k of North America v. Bangs, 106 Mass. 441 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 349. Approved and followed in Schroeder v. Harvey, 75 III 638. In- cluded with notes in 1 Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. on Ii. of Exch. 643. Applied (Recovery of money paid under mistake of fact) in Gard- ner v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 26 Barb. 427; Talbot v. Bank of Rochester, 1 Hill, 205; CANAL BANK— CANDEE. 131 Kingston Bank ». Eltinge, 40 K 7. 391, 395. Disting'd (Liability for money re- ceived) in Bixby v. Drexel, 56 How. Pr. 482. Canal Bank v. Mayor of Albany, 9 Wend. 244. Cited a3 authority (Impeaching report of commissioners) in Biggs v. Dickinson, 2 Scam. {111.) 437; s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 113. Canal Commissioners y. People, 5 Wend. 423. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; People v. Canal Appraisers. Cited with approval with Canal Appraisers v. People, 17 Wend. 571, 597 (Extent of riparian ownership) in Delaplaine v. Chicago & Northwestern R'y Co., 12 Wis. 214; s. c, 24 Am. R. 386, 388. Cited as containing established rule in the State, — in 13 Gent. L. J. 3. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 47. Followed and approved with People v. Canal Appraisers, 13 Wend. 335 ; Gardners. Trustees of New- burgh, 2 Johns. Oh.. 162, in Weaver v. Miss. & R. R. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 540. T. Tibbetts, 6 Cow. 518, 551, n. Rev'd in 5 Wend. 423. Canal St., Matter of, 11 Wend. 154. See Beekman St., Matter of; Bowery Extension case; Patchin v. Trustees of Brooklyn; Striker v. Kelly. Cited as ' authority (Limit of assessment for local improvements) in Tide-water Company v. Coster, 18 N. J. Eq. 518, 529. Disting'd and limited with Striker v. Kelly, 7 Mill, 9, 23 ; 2 Den. 323 (Local assessments — when constitutional) in Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Penn. St. 140; s. c, 3 Am. R. 615, 621; People ex rel. Post 11. Brooklyn, 6 Barb. 209, being cited with approval. See also (Discontinuance) Matter of Washington Park, 50 N. Y. 144, 155. Canal & Walker Streets, Matter of. See Boivery Extension case. Followed (Appeal in assessment proceedings) in Matter of Commissioners of Central Park, 61 Barb. 45 ; 4 Lans. 467 ; 50 N. Y. 493. Caiiaudaigua & Niagara Falls R. R. Co. v. Payne, 10 Barb. 273. See Utica, &c. R. R. Co., Matter of. Followed and approved (Damages in case of land taken by railroad company) in Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co. ■». Dayton, 10 Abb. Pr. H. S. 183, 185. Canceini v. People, 16 If. Y. 501. Explained (Juror, when disqualified by opinion) in dis- senting opinion of Daniels, J., in Lindsley v. People, 6 Park. Or. 243. Explained in .Greenfield v. People, 6 Abb. K 0. 1, 9. Also in dissenting opinion of Henry, J., in State ». Barton, 71 Mo. 300. Explained as modified by L. 1872, c. 475; L. 1873, c. 427,— in Balbo v. People, 80 If. Y. 493. Applied (Evidence of character in criminal • cases) in Ryan v. People, 19 Abb. Pr. 232. Cited (Evidence of character in capital cases) in 52 Am. Dec. 738, n., as repudiat- ing the doctrine of Commonwealth v. Web- ster, 5 Oush. 295 ; and as approved in Har- rington v. State, 19 Ohio St. 264, 268. y. People, 18 If. Y. 128; s. c, more fully, 7 Abb. Pr. 271. ' See Stephens v. People. Applied (Irregularities that do not bar new trial) in People v. Reaglc, 00 Birb. 527. Applied (Amending record in writ of error, in criminal cases) in Graham v. People, 03 Id 475. Followed (Ques- tions to be decided on writ of error) in Stephens v. People, 19 If. Y. 551. Explained in Willis v. People, 32 Id. 720. Disting'd (Waiver of'trial by jury) in People ex rel. Walker v. Special Sessions, 4 Hun, 444. Applied in Grants. People, 4 Park. Or. 534; People v. Rulloff, 5 Id. 81. Applied in dis- senting opinion of Mui.lin, J., in Knight v. Campbell, 02 Barb. 36. Followed in Terri- tory v. Ah Wah, 4 Mont. 149; £. c, 47 Am. R. 341. See State v. Davis, 66 Mo. 684; s. c, 27 Am. R. 387. Referred to in State v. Borowsky, 11 Nev. 119, 128, as op- posed to Commonwealth v. Dailey, 12 Oush. 80, though followed and approved in Hill 4>. People, 10 Mich. 354, the cases in N. Y. and Mich, being, however, disting'd as cases of murder. Disting'd on the ground of differences in constitutional provisions, — in Connelly e. State, 60 Ala. 89; s. c, 31 Am. R. 34, 30, with note. Considered and disting'd from question as to constitution- ality of act authorizing election for trial by court, in State v. Woi'den, 46 Conn. 349 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 27, 32. Disting'd (Waiver in criminal case) in Pierson v. People, 18 Man, 243, which was aff'd in 79 If. Y. 429; which see Vose v. Cockcrof t, 44 Id. 422 ; Connors v. People, 50 Id. 240 ; People v. Dohring, 59 Id. 380. Applied in Maurer v. People, 43 Id. 5 ; People v. Campbell, 4 Park. Or. 388. Relied on in Lemons v. State, 4 W. Ya. 755 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 293. Collated with People 1>. Dohring, 59 If. Y. 374; Blend «. People, 41 Id. 004, and other cases (Conferring jurisdiction by con- sent) in 25 Am. U. 539, n. See (Waiver of defects in jury, after verdict) State v. Powciii, 10 Orcg. 145; s. c, 45 Am. 11. 138. Applied (Effect of irregularities in criminal cases) in Blend v. People, 41 If. Y. 604. Explained (New trial in criminal cases) in Shepherd v. People, 25 Id. 417. Candee v. Burke, 1 Hun, 540; s. c, ISup'm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 143. Further decision in 10 Han, 350. With decision in 1 Hun compare (Naming mortgagee) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2391, 2383, last clause. y. Giindelsheimer, 8 Abb. Pr. 435; s. c, 17 How. Pr. 434. Overruled (Supple- mentary proceedings on judgment in jus- tice's court) in Butts c. Dickinson, 12 Abb. Pr. 60 ; Vulte v. Whitehead, 2 Hilt. 596. y. Hayward, 34 Barb. 349. Aff'd in 37 N. Y. 653. --— y. Lord, 2 If. Y. 269; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 294, with note, where it is said to have been frequently cited. Compared (Effect of judg- ment, as against creditors, &c.) in Luding- ton's Petition, 5 A bb. If. O. 323. Applied in McParland . Amidon, 45 N. Y. 169, 172. Re-affd (Review of questions of fact) in Rice v. 1s- Ij-tn, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Lee. 41. Applied , (Review of referees' decision by appellate court) in Heroy v. Kerr, 8 Boew. 204; Hoyt v. Hoyt, Id. 521. Applied (Vendees to be regarded as one party) to mortgagees, — in People v. Keyser, 28 A' Y. 235. Applied in Havens- «. Patterson, 43 Id. 222. Dis- ting'd (Waiver by purchaser of real estate) in Morange «. Morris, 2 A bb. Ct. App. Dee. 320. Applied in Bigler v. Morgan, 77 If. Y. 319. Disting'd (Waiver of objection) in Rae e. Harteau, 7 Daly, 102. Applied in Moses v. Bierling, 31 N. Y. 464. Carinichael v. Carmicliacl, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Lee. 309. Explained (Vesting) in Meyer's Will, 6 Abb. N. C. 438. 444. Games v. Piatt, 6 Robt. 270. On second trial plaintiff had judgment, which was affd in 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 42; s. c, 1 Sweeny, 140; 38 How. Pr. 100. This de- cision rev'd in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Lee. 159. n., on the ground that the question of. delivery should have been submitted to the jury. Subsequent decision in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 301; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 337; 46 How. Pr. 520; affd in 59 N. Y. 405. Further decision on the merits in 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 435 ; and as to taxation of costs, in 40 Id. 205. Decis- ion in 1 Sweeny explained and the report corrected in decision in 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. Decision in 6 Eobt. followed (Question when not objectionable, as calling for conclusion of law) in Rocke v. Meiner, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 158. Decision in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) disting'd (Examination by appellate court of question of weight of evidence) in Peck 11. Cohen, 40 Id. 142, 145. And see to the contrary Halpin v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., Id. 175. Cited (Communications by a client to a lawyer) iu 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 583, as holding the true view. Carolus v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Bosw. 15. Collated, with other cases (Negligence — munioipal corporation — defective highways) in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 708. Carow v. Mowatt, 2 Edio. 59. Disting'd (Enforcing liability of sureties of etecutor or. administrator) in Hood v. Hood, 85 A. Y. Weekly Dig. 227. s. c, 37 Am. R. Washer «. Bullitt 501, 573. Applied in Trust, &c. Co. of Onondaga •«. Pratt, 25 Hun, 23, 27 ; Wil- liams «. Kiernan, Id. 362 ; Haines v. Meyer, Id. 417. Applied to sureties of trustee in Brooks v. Brooke, 12 OiU & J. (Md.) 303 ; s. c, 38 Am. Lee. 310, 316, with note. Cited (Liability of infant executor or administrator) in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 180. Carpenter v. Atherton, 28 How. Pr. 303. See to the contrary (Right to discharge con- tract to pay in gold or silver, by payment in U. S. legal tender notes) Wilson v. Morgan, 30 How. Pr. 386. v. Bailey. See Gazly v. Priee. v. Bell, 19 Abb. Pr. 258, 263. Followed (Defendant's right to set up matter arising after suit brought) in Reimer v. Doerge, 61 Bow. Pr. 143. v. Blake, 00 Barb. 488. Rev'd in 50 A 7 ! Y. 096. Further decision in 10 Hun, 358. Also former decision on other facts in 2 law. 206. Decision in 2 Lans. disting'd (Opinion by witness as to testimony that he has heard) in Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 178. v. Butterfield, 8 Johns. Cas. 145. Ex- plained (Set-off) in Taylor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 82 N. Y. 23. v. City of Cohoes, 5 Affd in 81 N. Y. 21; 468. See also (Bridges) County, 110 V. S. 558. v. Danforth, 19 Abb. Pr. 225. Further decision in 52 Barb. 581. Decision in 19 Abb. Pr. explained (Retaining injunction where plaintiff's allegations are denied) in Secor ■». Weed, 7 Robt. 67. Decision in 52 Barb, explained (Director of corporation as trustee) in Mitchell v. Vermont Copper Mining Co., 47 How. Pr. 222. Followed and approved, and Robinson v. Smith, 3' Paige, 222; Verplank v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 1 Edw. 84; Scott ts. Depeyster, Id. 513, 527: Cumberland Coal, &c. Co. v. Sherman, 30 Barb. 553; Butts e. Woods, 38 Id. 181 ; Bliss v. Matteson, 45 N. Y. 22, disting'd, in Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County *. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509; s. c, 15 Am. R. 245, 251. Considered question- able in Story on Eq. Jur. 11 ed. § 229, I, n. 1. Cited in 12 Alb. L. J. 195, as hold- ing what is the true rule, affirmed in numer- ous cases. v. Eastern Transp. Line, 67 Barb. 570. Affd in 71 N. Y. 574, as Carpenter v. East- ern Transp. Co. Decision in 71 N. Y. dis- ting'd (Opinion of witness) in Brink b. Hanove.- Fire Ins. Co., 80 K Y. 108, 116. v. Goodwin, 4 Laly, 89. See to the contrary (Vacatur of judgment must be specullv pleaded) Kinsey ■». Ford, 38 Barb. 1 95. And see Abb. Tr. Ev. 539. T. Green. 4 Hun, 416; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 550. Compare (Appeal in summary proceedings) Code Ci" Pro. §§ 1340, 1357, 2122, subd. 2. v.- Grillln, 9 Paige, 310. Followed and 134 CARPENTER. approved (Distinction between sale and bail- ment) in Reed v. Abbey, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. 6 ft) 381. T. Halsey, 60 Barb. 45. Aff'd, it seems, in 57 N. Y. 657. T. Herri ngton, 25 Wend. 370; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 239, with note. Compare (Ex- emption of growing crops from levy) King v: Moore, 10 Mich: 538. v. Mutual Safety Ins. Co., 4 Sand/. Ch. 408. Relied on (Effect of mere contract to insure) in Cooper v. Pacific Mutual Ins. Co., 7 Nev. 116 ; s. c, 8 Am. B. 705. v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 11 Bow. Pr. 481. Explained (Necessity for appear- ance by defendant) in Pearl v. Robitschek, 2 Bali/, 50. v. Nixon, 5 Hill, 260. Doubted (Con- viction of petty larceny as impeaching evi- dence) in Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 472. Questioned in Wilson v. State, 1 Smith (Wise.) 193. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on. Ev. § 397, n., with contrary decisions from other jurisdictions. v. O'Dougherty, 67 Barb. 397; s. c, with affirmance, in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 427. Aff'd in 58 N. Y. 681, it seems, but without opinion. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) followed (Estoppel to set up invalidity of mortgage) in Barnett v. Zacharias, 24 Bun, 304, 306. v. Oswego and Syracuse R. R. Co. , 24 IT. Y. 655. See Bisscll v. N. Y. Central R. Co. ; Jackson v. Hathaway. Followed (Ap- propriation of highway for railroad— an additional burden) in Craig -a. Rochester City, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Barb. 494, which was affd in 39 N. Y. 104, which see; Wager v. Troy Union R. R. Co., 25 K Y. 526, 532. 534. Collated, with other cases, m Cook Bighw. L. 4 ed. 18. Limited in People «. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 206. Applied (Such appro- priation is a uisseizin) in Henderson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 17 Bun, 348. Fol- lowed (Ejectment for land under highway) in Lozier v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 42 Barb. 469. Disting'd (Judgment without qualification for exclusive possession in ejectment) in White's Bank of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 W. Y. 75. Disting'd (Equitable relief against trespass) in Troy & Bost. R. R. Co. v. Boston, Hoosac Tunnel & W. R'y Co., 86 JV. Y. 127. v. Ottley, 2 Lam. 451. Approved (Parol evidence respecting interest in land) in Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Bun, 67, 73. v. Roe, 10 N~. Y. 227. Followed (Evidence of fraudulent conveyance) in Loeschigk v. Addison, 19 Abb. Pr. 187; Pendleton v. Hughes, 65 Barb. 144 ; Savage v. Murphy, 8 Bosw. 98; Hawley *. Sackett, 6 Sup'm. Ct.(T.& ft) 322. Cited as au- thority in D3'gert v. Rcmerschnider, 32 N. Y. 648. Explained in Tappan v. Butler, 7 Bosw. 490. Disting'd in Spicer ». Ayers, 53 Bow. Pr. 405; Carr ». Breese, 81 N. Y. 090. Disting'd and applied in Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 629. Explained in Wait on Fraud. Conv. §§ 95, 102. y. Secor, 1 1 How. Pr. 403. See, in ac- cord therewith (Limitations upon testimony of adverse party) Evans v. Burbank, 12 Id. 73 ; but see adverse thereto Burgart v. Stork, 12 Id. 559. v. Shinier, 24 Hun, 464. Followed (Statute, when to act prospectively) in Wil- liams v. City of Oswego, 25 Bun, 36, 38. v. Simmons. See Hull v. Carnley. v. Spooner, 2 Sandf. 717. Followed with Goupil v. Simonson, 3 Abb. Pr. 474 (Deceit in making service of process) in Peel v. January, 35 Ark 331 ; s. c, St Am. B. 27. v. Stevens, 12 Wend. 589. Disapproved (Damages in replevin) as wrong in principle, and contradicted by Rowley v. Gibbs, 14 Johns. 385, and other authorities, in Suy- dam v. Jenkins, 3 Sandf. 64A. Reviewed with Suydam v. Jenkins ; Yates v. Fassett, 5 Den. 21; Rowley v. Gibbs, 14 Johns. 385 (Effect of death of animal pending replevin) in De Thomas v. Witherby, 61 Col. 97, and the later cases, holding death not a defense, approved, — citing Wells on Replevin, §§ 600, 601; 2 Sedgw. on Dama. 500. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1735, n. v. Stillwell, 12 Barb. 128. Rev'd in 11 N. Y. 61. Effect of judgments herein held not binding on defendant in subsequent decision, in Wilson v. Davol, 5 Bosw. 621. See Dezell v. Odell; Frost v. Yonkers Sav-' ings B'k. Decision in 11 IT. Y. reaff'd (Practice in taking exceptions) in Chamber- lain v. Pratt, 33 if. Y. 52. Applied (Sher-'. iff cannot execute process for or against himself) to process against his deputy, — in Holbrook v. Brennan, 6 Daly, 46, 49. Both decisions disting'd and applied in Albany City Nat. Bk. v. Kearney, 9 Hun,' 535. v. Ward, 30 K Y. 243. Applied (Irrele- vant statement of witness not to be contra- dicted) in Gandolfo v. Appleton, 40 N. Y. 539 ; Stape v. People, 21 Bun, 399. v. West, 5 Bow. Pr. 53. Approved (Party, when entitled to have matter stricken out of pleading) in Williams ». Hayes, 5 Bow. Pr. 470, 475. v. Whitman, 15 Johns. 208. See People v. Kling. Collated with other cases (Main- tenance of bastard children) in 56 Am. Dec. 259, n. v. Willett. See Carpentier v. Willett. v. Wright, 4 Bosw. 655. Disting'd with Pacific Mail Co. v. Leuling, 7 Abb. Pr. KS. 37 (Damages sustained by granting of in- junction) in N. Y. West Shore & B. R. R. Co. v. Omerod, 29 Bun, 274. Cited with Palmer e. Foley, 2 Abb. N. C. 192 ; Metho- dist Churches of N. Y. ■». Barker, 18 N. Y.' 465; Wilde v. Joel, 15 Bow. Pr. 327, in Hay den v. Keith, 32 Minn. 279. Disting|d (Requisites of determination that plaintiff was not entitled to injunction) in Neugent v. Swan, 61 Brno. Pr. 40. CARPENTIER— CARTER 135 Carpentier v. Mintnrn, 65 Barb. 293 ; Same 0. Same, 6 Lang. 56. Affd in effect in 55 N. Y. 676, as Hall v. Minturn. Compare (For- eign statute of limitations no bar here (Code Civ. Pro. % 390. v. Willet, 6 Bom. 25 ; s. a, 18 How. Pr. 400. Affd in 1 Keyes, 510; s. a, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 312; s. a, as Carpenter v. Willett, 31 .N. Y. 90 ; 28 How. Pr. 225. Subsequent decision as to double costs in 3 Biobt. 700 ; s. c, 28 Bow. Pr. 376. Can- v. Breese, 18 Eun, 134. Rev'd in 81 If. Y. 584. Decision in 81 N. Y. quoted and discussed (Debtor's alienations of prop- erty — proof necessary to overturn) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 102. v. Carr, 4 Lam. 314. Affd in 52 If. Y. 251. Decision-in 52 If. Y. applied (Effect of conveyance absolute in form, as mortgage) in Bowery Nat. B'k v. Duncan, 12 Bun, 408; Umfreville v. Keeler, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 489 ; Pardee 0. Treat, 82 N. Y. 385, 392. Disting'd in Fullerton v. McCurdy, 55 If. Y. 637, 639. Approved in Starks 0. Redfield, 52 Wis. 352. Followed (Once a .mortgage, always a mortgage) in Meighen 0. King, 16 Northw. Rep. 702. Disting'd (Verbal agree- ment respecting real estate) in dissenting opinion of Leabned, J., in Bissell v. Har- rington, 18 Bun, 87. Cited as authority (Effect of assent to submission of question to jury) in Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3 Bun, 695. Compare (Ejectment by mort- gagee) Code Civ. Pro. § 1498. v. Ellison, 20 Wend. 178. Applied (Covenant for renewal of lease) in Banker 0. Brake?, 9 Abb. If. C. 411, 414. Great Western Ins. Co., 3 Daly, 160. Applied (Discovery) in Schepmoes v. Bous- son, 1 Abb. If. C. 481. 485. v. Roach, 2 Duer, 20. Qualified (Merging antecedent stipulations in deed) in Morris v. Whitcher, 20 If. Y. 41. Carrington v. Ward. 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 571. Affd ia,71 N. Y. 300. Carris v. Comm'rs of Waterloo, 2 Bill, 443. Explained (Regularity of proceedings for alteration of highway) in People ex rel. Dorn v. Jones, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 362. Carroll v. Carroll, 2 Bun, 609; s. c, G Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 294; 1G Abb. Pr. If. S. 239. Rev'd in 60 If. Y. 121; s. c, 19 Am. It. 144, with note. Decision in 60- N, Y. cited (Letters of administration on estate of person when inadmissible to prove his death) in 2 Whart. Com. on En. § 810. Also cited in § 1278, on a like point. v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 40 Barb. 292. Affd in 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 166; s. c, 1 Abb. . Ct. App. Dec. 316. Prior decision in %HJ3arb. 292. Decision in 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. cited as authority (Waiver by insurance agent) in Pitney v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., 65 If. Y. 23; Goodwin v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 491. Disting'd in Walsh !i. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 73 If. Y. 11. Explained in . Mersereau0. Phoenix Mut.' Life Ins. Co., 00 N. Y. 278, 283. See other cases collected (Testimony of parties) in 1 Abb. If. C. 356, 365, n. Decision in 38 Barb, cited as au- thority (Effect of renewal of policy to create new contract) in St. Nicholas Ins. Co. v. Merchant's Ins. Co., 11 Eun, 112. Followed (Waiver of forfeiture) in Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 61 Bow. Pr. 144, 148 ; Shear- man «.' Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 531. T. Cone, 40 Barb. 220. Said in Baker v. Kenworthy, 41 If. Y. 215, to have been affd in Ct. of /A pp., March, 1869. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 5 Barb. 613. Opposed (Usury arising from differ- ence of interest) in Mumford v. American Life Insurance Company, 4 If. Y. 463, 475. v. Fiuley, 26 Barb. 61. See (Attach- ment — certificate of interest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 651, n. v. Newton, 17 Bow. Pr. 189. Collated with Fobes «. Shattuck, 22 Barb. 568, and other cases (Manure as part of realty) in 28 Am. R. 39, n. t. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 1 Duer, 571. See Edgerton v. N. Y. & Har- lem R. R. Co. Disting'd (Contributory negligence in passenger riding in unusual position) in Spooncr 0. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 419, 429. Cited, with approval in Creed v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 86 Pa. St. 139; s. c, 27 Am. R. 693, 697. Disting'd in Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Langdon, 92 Pa. St. 32, citing Robertson «. Erie R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 91. v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 32. Affd, in 58 If. Y. 126; s. c, 17 Am. R. 221. See Merritt v. Earle. Decisfon in 58 If. Y. followed (Violation of Sunday law no bar to action for injuries) in Platz v. City of Cohoes, 24 Bun, 101. Thought, in 12 Am. Dec. 294, n., to furnish the correct rule taken in connection with other decisions there cited. Cited-as indicative of the N. Y. rule in Schmid v. Humphrey, 48 Iowa, 652 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 414, with note. See, also, 17 Am. R. 122, n. Approved and followed in Opsahl v. Judd, 30 Minn. 129. v. Upton, 2 Sand/. 171. Affd in 3 If. Y. 272. Carsliore v. Huyck, 6 Barb. 583. See Soulden v. Van Rensselaer. Approved (Dis- tinction between statute which discharges debt and one w'hich acts on remedy) in Waltermire 0. Westover, 14 If. Y. 16. Quoted (Statute of Limitations — part pay- ment) in Ang. on Limit. % 247, n. 1, ed. Carson v. Murray, 3 Paige, 483. Followed (Wife cannot release her dower to husband) in Guidet 0. Brown, 54 Bow. Pr. 409. Carstens v. Barnstorff, 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 442. See (Acknowledgment by attorney, of satisfaction of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1260, n. Carter v. Clark, 2 Sweeny, 189. Compare (Dismissal of complaint for failure to bring cause to trial) Winchell 0. Martin, 14 Abb. Pr. K S. 47. f. Dolby, 2 Bun, 523. Affd, it seems, in 13 N. Y. 631, but without opinion. 136 CARTER— GARY. v. Hamilton, 11 Barb. 147. Rev'd in Seld. Notes, No. 6, 80. ■ v. Hammett, 18 Bai-b. 608. Disting'd (Assignment of lease) in Tates. McCorraick, 23 Hun, 218, 221. Criticised in Welsh v. Schuyler, 6 Daly, 412, 415. V. Hunt, 40 Barb. 89. Sec (Action to recover real property — parties defendant) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 1503, n. v. Long-, 25 Hun, 57, 59. Abridgt. in 12 Weekly Dig. 364. — — v. People, 2 Hill, 317. Overruled (Evi- dence of good character of witness — when inadmissible) in People v. Gay, 7 iV. Y. 378. See People v. Hulse, 3 Hill, 309. v. Rockett, 8 Paige, 437. See Crom- well v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co. Followed (Equitable lien on insurance moneys) in Cromwell b. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 44 A r . F. 42, 50. Cited as authority in Wheeler v. Ins. Co., Ill U. S. 439, 442. T. Simpson, 7 Johns. 535. Applied (Rights of purchaser at judicial sales) in Jackson «. Hasbrouck, 12 Johns. 215. Reviewed and relied on, with Yates v. St. . John, 12 Wend. 74; Earl v. Camp, 16 Id. 566, in Power v. Kindschi, 58 Wis. 539; s. c, 46 Am. R. 652. v. Wernef , 27 How. Pr. 385. See Sim- mons v. Sherman. Denied with Monroe v. Monroe, 27 How. Pr. 208 (Appeal in pro- . ceedings commenced in justice's court) in Broughton v. Mitchell, 19 Abb. Pf. 106 ; Broughton v. Mitchell being l-eluctantly fol- lowed on this point in Bliss v. Schaub, 48 Barb. 342, where the doctrine of Carter v. Werner is preferred. v. Youngs, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 169. Further proceeding in Id. 418. Cartwright v. Wilmerding, 24 JV. Y. 521. See Jennings v. Merrill. -Disting'd (Pos- session that enables factor in pledge) in Howland v. Woodruff, 60 N. Y. 73, 83. Followed in Pegram v. Carson, 10 Bosw. 511. Applied in Bates v. Cunningham, 12 Hun, 29. Applied to pledge by purchaser, —in Winne •». McDonald, 39 K Y. 244. Applied (Constructive possession of goods stored in bonded warehouse) in Schwerin v. McKie, 5 Robt. 418. Quoted (Factor's act) in Benj. on Sales, § 19, n. 11 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Carver v. Creque, 46 Barb. 507. Aff d in 48 XT. Y. 385. Decision in 48 2V. Y. disting'd (Validity of contracts relating to bounties) in Decker v. Saltsman, 1 Hun, 424, which was aff d in 59 N. Y. 275, 279, which see. v. Lane, 4 K D. Smith, 168, 170. Quoted (Statute of Frauds — goods over fifty dollars — acceptance) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § . 141, n. 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Carvey v. Rider, 2 Cow. 617. 'See Lydd v. Kenney; Sheridan v. Genet. Followed (" Costs to abide event") in Mott v. Con- sumer's Ice Co,, 8 Daly, 244. Carville v. Crane, 5 Hill, 483; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 364, with note, collecting cita- tions thereof. Quoted and collated with other cases (Statute of Frauds — conside ation or. promise to be in writing) in Holcombe Lead. Cos. on Com. Law, 426. Quoted and dis- cussed (Guaranties) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 174, 4 ed. Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 35. See Bostwick v. Champion; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. Followed (Carrier's liability as warehouse- man) in Burnell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184. Commented upon and coni- pared in Ang. on Carr. § 114, n. a, 5 cd. Disting'd (Contract by carrier beyond hik line) in Milnor v. N. Y. & New Havon.R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363, 370. Quoted and collated, with other cases, in Field on Ultra Vires, 113. v. Gruinan, 4 Hill, 625 ; s. c, 40 Aiti. Dee. 299, with note, wherein it is said to have been extensively cited and approved in N. Y., and to be in accordance with the doctrine maintained in other States. See Voorhees v. Earle. Examined (Rempdy for breach of warranty without fraud) in Gatey v. Rountree, 2 Chand. ( Wise.) 43. Rule of damages herein, said in Passinger v. Thof- burn, 34 N~. Y. 634, to rest on sound prin- ciples and to be settled by this case and Voorhees v. Earle, 2 Hill, 288. Disting'd in Flannagan v. Maddin, 81 N. Y. 623. Quoted and explained in 3 Pars, on Contri 211, n. x. Explained (Sales — mistake and failure of consideration) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 626 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Gregory, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 127.. Mem. of further proceeding in Id. 566. Cited (Contracts of executors and* admin- istrators) in Ross ». Harden, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 26. v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 311 ; s. c, 37 Am, Dec. 323, with note; 15 .V. Y. Com. I. Lam- ed. 140, with brief note. 'See Mowry v. Walsh. Applied (Evidence of frauds similar to that in issue) in Van Kleek v. Leroy, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 481, which affd87itofl. 544, which see. Applied in French a. White, 5 Duer, 259 ; Bruen v. Bruen, 4 Edm. 040, Disting'd in Murfey v. Brace, 23 Barb. 564; Strong v. Place, 4 Robt. 393. Examine^ with other cases in People v. Shulman, 80 N. Y. 375, n. Reaffd in Olmsted v. Jlotail- ing, 1 Hill, 317. Cited as an authority in . Whart. Com. on E%. § 33, n. Limited (Replevin as -concurrent remedy with tres- pass) in Brockway v. Burnap, 12 Barb. SBp. Cited as authority in Brockway ». Burnap, 16 Barb. 313. Disapproved with Olmstead v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 311, 317, in Roberts v. Randel, 3 Sandf. 707, but followed and ex- plained in Drake v. Wakefield, 11 How. Pr. 108, notwithstanding Roberts v. Randel. Applied (Trover, &c. for goods obtained by fraud) in Townsend v. Bogart, 11 Abb. Pr. 360; McKnight v. Morgan, 2 Bark 173; Foshay v. Ferguson, 5 Hill, 159. Applied to case of goods received on usurious con- tract — in Schroeppel v. Corning, 5 Den. ^43. Limited in Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348. CAKY— CASE. 137' Applied (Right to waive tort and sue in as- sumpsit) in Abbotts. Blossom, 66 Barb. 355. Approved (What is fraud on vendor) in Van Neste n. Conover, 20 Barb. 548. Limited (Effect of sale procured by fraud, in divest- ing title or possession) in Stevens v. Hyde, 32 Barb. 175, 179. v. Schoharie Valley Machine Co., 2 Hun, 110; s. c, with opinion, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 285. v. White, 7 Bans. 1. Eev'd in 52 N. Y. 138. Further decision in 59 N. Y. 336. See Hatch t>. Peugnet. Decision in 02 If. Y. disting'd (Extension of time as valuable consideration") in Mutual Life Ins. Co. i>. Smith, 23 Hun, 540. Followed in Van Etten ». Troudden, 67 Barb. 345. Applied in Beard v. Root, 4 Hun, 356; Sullivan Savgs. Inst. v. Young, 55 Iowa. 134. Ex- plained in Grocer's B'k v. Penfield, 7 Bun, 282. Disting'd in Hubbard v. Gurney, 64 If. Y. 457, 468. Reviewed with other cases in Maier v. Canavan, 8 Daly, 272, 275. Disting'd (Who purchaser in good faith and for value) in Union Dime Savings Institution «. Uuryea, 67 If. Y. 87. Decision in 59 If. Y. explained and distinguished (Personal trans- actions with deceased) in Ross v. Harden, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 427. Followed in Witthaus ii. Schack, 24 Hun, 331. Followed (Evidence of communication made by de- ceased to third party) in Patterson v. Cope- land, 52 How. Pr. 465; Hildebrandt v. Crawford, 65 If. Y. 111. Applied in Kale n. Elliott, 18 Hun, 198; Holcomb v. Holcomb, .20 /& 109. Disting'd in Head n. Teeter, 10 Id. 548; Bragueu. Lord, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 196. To the contrary (Exclusion of assignor as witness) Lyon n. Snyder, 61 Barb. 172. See also Abb. Tr. En. 64. Caryl v. McElrath, 3 Sandf. 176, 179. Ex- plained (Corporations — agents) in Ang. & A. on Corp.% 298, 11 ed. v. Russell, 18 Barb. 429. Rev'd in 13 A: Y. 194. Dase of . See the name of the party in its alphabetical place in this table. 3ase v. Abeel, 1 Paige, 393. See Williams v. Wilson. Explained (Partnership — surviving partner's rights) in 2 Colly er on Partn. § 623, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. v. Boughton, 11 Wend. 106. See Lang- don v. Buel. Applied (Debt not extinguished by foreclosure) to case of forfeiture of stock, in Herkimer M. & H. Co. v. Small, 21 Wend. 276. Cited (Effect of recital of object of mortgage) in Haskins n. Kelly, 1 Robt. 175, as contrary to doctrine there stated. Ap- plied (Inquiring into consideration of sealed instrument) in WHson n. Baptist Education Soc. of N.Y., 10 Barb. 312. Examined in Mann v. Eckford, 15 Wend. 519. Followed as settled law in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 Sun, 207. Followed (Effect of possession taken by mortgagee of chattels in satisfying debt) in Stoddard n. Denison, 2 Sweeny, 62. Shown in 2 Am. Bee. 78, n., to bo, with Meyer v. Amidon, 45 If. Y. 169; Simar v. Canaday, 53 Id. 298. limited (Liability for honestly making false statement) by the well settled principle stated in Bennett v. Judson, 21 If. Y. 138; Meyer n. Amidon. Criticised (Plea, when an answer to the whole declaration) in Sterry v. Schuyler, 23 Wend. 487. Cited as authority in Sheldon «r. Lewis, 97 111. 644. v. Buckley, 15 Wend. 327. Collated with. other cases (Charge of crime involving moral turpitude) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 99. De Goes, 3 Cai. 261. See Wickham «. Freeman. Followed (Limitations upon doc- trine of trespass by relation) in Van Brunt v. Schenck, 11 Johns. 384. v. Haight. See Arthur n. Case. v. Hall, 24 Wend. 102. See Vibbard v. ' Johnson. Followed (Breach of warranty in sale of chattels) in Gross n. Kierski, 41 Gal. Ill, 116. Applied (Recovery for breach of warranty) in Converse n. Miner, 21 Hun, 367, 374. Approved in Bordwell vs. Collie, 45 N. Y. 496. Followed with Delaware B'k o. Jarvis, 20 Wend. 226 ; Burt ». Dewey, 40 Id. 283; Bordwell n. Collie, 45 If. Y. ■ 495 ; McGiffin n. Baird, 62 Id. 329, in O'Brien v. Jones, 91 If. Y. 193. Examined and followed (Action for price of chattels, defeated by seller's fraud, without actual ouster) in Sweetman v. Prince, 62 Barb. 256, which was, however, rev'd in 26 If. Y. 224. v. Hotchkiss, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 324. See Murray n. Toland. v. Mechanics' Banking Assoc, 4 If. Y. 166. Disting'd (Liability of principal on note executed by agent without authority) in Storrs n. Flint, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 517. v. People, 14 Hun, 503. Rev'd in 76 If. Y. 242 ; s. a, more fully, Abb. If. 0. 151. Decision in 76 N. Y. approved (Formalities necessary to an oath) in O'Reilly v. People, 86 If. Y. 154, 160, which rev'd 9 Abb. If. C. 83, 88, which see. Considered extreme (Interference with verdict of jury in criminal cases) in Levy v. People, 19 Sun, 383, 388. v. Phelps, 39 If. Y. 1-64. Disting'd with Carpenter n. Roe, 10 Id. 227 (Conveyance of husband's property to wife, when fraudulent) in Carr v. Breese, 81 If. Y. 589 ; Spicer ». Ayers, '53 How. Pr. 405. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 100. r. Potter, 8 Johns. 211. Criticised, with Vosburgh !>. Thayer, 12 Id. 465 (Accounts as evidence) in Conklin n. Stamler, 2 Hilt. 422, 425. Disting'd in Burke v. Wolfe, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 263, 272. v. Price, 9 'Abb. Pr. 111. Approved (Witness-fees a disbursement) in Dunham ii. Sherman, 11 Id. 152, 154. Opposed, in Bronner n. Frauenthal, 12 Id. 183. v. Reeve, 14 Johns. 79, 81. Approved (Estoppel) in Prentiss- n. Holbrook, 2 Mich. 376. Cited (Result of suit between two persons, when not binding on third) in St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain R. K. Co. n. Hunt, 55 Vt. 570; s. c, 45 Am. R. 639. 138 CASEY— CASWELL. Cited as authority (Evidence to show who were real parties to suit) in Belden v. Sey- mour, 8 Conn. 304; s. c, 21 Am. Bee. 660, 663, with note. Casey t. Brabason, 10 Abb. Pr. 368. In- cluded (Negotiable paper — parties to, not guarantors within the Statute of Frauds) in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 713. — — V. Brush, 2 Cat. 293. Cited with Hal- sted v. Schmelzel, 17 Johns. 80 ; Westerlo v. Evertson, 1 Wend. 532, and other cases, as showing that in N. Y., South Carolina, and England, assumpsit will not lie for a final balance of a partnership account, — in Wil- liams *. Henshaw, IVPich. {Mass.) 79; s. c, 22 Am. Bee. 366, with note, where a con- trary rule was recognized as prevailing in Mass. and Penn. v. Mann, 5 Abb. Pr. 91. Approved with Doolittle v. Howard, 3 Duer, 464; Robbins v. Mount, 33 How. Pr. 24 ; Kaiser v. Hirsh, 46 Id. 161; Moore v. Goedel, 34 N. Y. 527 (Liability of landlord for failure to repair) in Purcell v. English. 86 Ind. 40. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Sun, 463. Disting'd (Defect in local assessment) in Matter of Auchmuty, 11 Hun, 79. Com- pared with Matter of Auchmuty in Matter of N. Y. Prot. Epis. Pub. School, 75 A 7 : Y. 327. T. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 220, 222; s. c, 6 Abb. A 7 ! C. 104, with note. Aff d, on other grounds, in 78 A 7 ! Y. 515. See Luby v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Cashman v. Henry, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 93; s. c, 55 How. Pr. 234. Rev'd in 75 A 7 ! Y. 103; s. c, 5 Abb. N. C. 230; 31 Am. R. 437, with note ; also 44 Super. Ct. (. Pendleton, 75 Va. 516; s. c, 40 Am. B. 738. Quoted and discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 497, 505. Applied (Joinder of owners of separate premises in action to abate nuisance) in Gillespie ». Forrest, 18 Hun, 112. Caton v. Riimney, 13 Wend. 387. See Alex- ander v. Green. Disting'd (Liability of Tow- boat as carrier) in Pa., &c. Nav. Co. v. Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 248; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 543, 555, with note. Followed and approved, with Alexander v. Greene, 3 Hill, 9; Wells v. Steam Navigation Co., 2 AT /. 207 ; in Leonard v. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. St. 40; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 587, it being also thought that the grounds on which Alex- ander «. Greene, was rev'd in 7 Hill, 533, cannot be learned from the opinions there 140* CATON— CENTER. delivered. These three cases also followed in Varble v. Bigley, 14 Bush (Ky.) 698; s. c, 29 Am. R. .435. Commented upon in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 170, n. r. •> T. Southwell, 13 AwS. 325. See (Effect of supplementary proceedings on after-ac- quired property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2409, n. Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 Barb. 471. See N. Y. & Sharon Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank. Disting'd (Partnership created by participa- tion in "profits) in Burnett v. Snyder, 76 N. Y. 344, 351. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 43, n. v. Messenger, 9 Cow. 37; s. c, 9 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 558, with brief note. v. Sanford, 4 How. Pr. 101. See (Time within which to issue execution, in case of judgment obtained before the passage of Code Pro.) Pierce v. Craine, 4 How. Pr. 257 T. Stall, 15 Wend. 364. Aff'd in 18 Id. 466. Decision in 15 Wend, examined (No- tice of protest when indorser's residence is uncertain) in Beale ». Parrish, 20 N. Y. 407, 410. Cited with other cases (Violation of partnership articles no defense against bona fide holder) in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 542. Caughey v. Smith, 50 Barb. 851. Intimation in 6 Alb. L. J. 168, that this decision was rev'd in Ct. of App., Jan. 16, 1872, is erro- neous. See decision in 47 N. Y. 244, which was applied (What is decision of General Term) in Merceron v. Fowler, 8 Daly, 536. Collated with other cases (Right of action for enticing away servant) in 22 Am. R. 485, n. Explained (Enticing minor to en- list in the army) in Monk's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 336, 338. Zaujolle y. Ferrie, 4 Bradf. 28. Aff'd in 26 Barb, lit, which was aff'd in 23 N. Y. 90. See Ferrie v. Public Adm'r ; Foster v. Hawley ; Starr v. Peck. Caulfield v. Sullivan, 21 Hun, 227. Affd in 85 N. Y. 153. Caulkins v. Harris, 9 Johns. 324. Applied with Tanner «. Livingston, 12 Wend. 83 (Measure of damages for breach of covenant of seizin) in Spring v. Chase, 22 Me. 505; , s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 595, with note. v. Hellinan, 47 N. Y. 449 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 461. Disting'd (Acceptance under Statute of Frauds) in Smith v. Milliken, 7 Lam. 336 ; U. S. Reflector Co. v. Rushton, 7 Daly, 410. Applied in Ham «. Van Orden, 4 Hun, 709. Cited as authority in Stone v. Browning, 68 N. Y. 601. Followed in Brewster v. Taylor, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 159, 16C; Ex parte Parker, 11 Neb. 314. Cited as authority in Hewes v. Jordan, 39 Md. 472 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 578. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 139, n. 1 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. § 160, n. q. Cited in Benj. on Sales, §§ 140, 181 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Caussidiere v. Beers, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 333; s. c, ZKeyes, 198. Applied (Tracing property or proceeds) in Dows v. Kidder, 84 iV. Y. 121, 132. Disting'd (Money Ille- gally obtained — when recoverable from third person) in Stephens v. Board of Education of Brooklyn. 79 N. Y. 188. Compare Same v. Same, 3 Hun, 712. Cavalli v'. Allen, 57 N. Y. 508. Discussed (Ejectment against vendee) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 322. Cavanagh, Matter of, 10 How, Pr. 27; s. c, as People v. Cavanagh, 1 Park. Cr. 588. Rev'd in People v. Cavanagh, 2 Abb. Pr. 84; s. a, 2 Pari. Cr. 650, where the certiorari arid return are given. Cavmiagli v. Dinsuiore, 12 Hun, 465. See Sheridan i>. Charlick. Applied (Servant when not acting in master's business) in Quinu v. Power, 17 Hun, ,102. Caw v. Robertson, 5iV. Y, 125. Rev'g 3 Barb, 410. Commented upon (Executor as sub- scribing witness) in Willard on Executors, 176. Caykendoll, Matter of, 6 Cow. 53. Disting'd (Jurors — when allowed to impeach affidavit) in Dalrymple' v. Williams, 63 N. Y. 361. Caylusv. N. Y., Kingston & S R. R. Co., 49 How. Pr. 100. Aff'd in 10 Hun, 285, and that aff'd in 76 N. Y. 609. Cayuga Bank v. Daniels, 47 N. Y. 631. Ex- plained (Sales — reservation of jus dispo- nendi) in 1 Benj. on Sales, §§ 585, 589 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Dill, 5 Hill, 403. Disapproved (Con- duct of indorser excusing protest and notice) in Boyd v. Bank of Toledo, 32 Ohio St. 526; s. c, 30 Am. It. 628. Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee, 2 Paige, 116. Aff'd in 6 Wend. 85. See Lawton v. Green. Decision in 2 Paige, 116, cited with other authorities (Practice concerning injunction bonds) in Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433, 441. Cayuga Co. Bank v. Bennett. See Johnson v. Beardslee; Merchant's Bank v. Birch. — r - v. Hunt, 2 Hill, 635. Approved (Taking interest in advance not usury) in Marvine v. Hymers, 12 N. Y. '223. v. Warden, 6 N. Y. 19. See Dole v. Gold. Opinion of Gray, J., in 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 355. Disting'd (Insufficiency of notice of protest) in De La Hunt «. Higgins, 9 Abb. Pr. 422. Cayuga Lake R. R. .Co. v. Kyle, 5 Sup'm. Ct. 659. Aff'd in 64 iV. Y. 185. Cazeaux v. Mali, 25 Barb. 578. Approved, and Seizer v. Mali, 32 Barb. 76, disting'd (Liability on spurious certificates of stock) in Bruff «. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200; s. c, 34 How. Pr. 338; Shotwell v. Mali, 38 Bhrl. 445. Fully confirmed (Sufficient cause of action by stockholders against directors) in Smiths. Rathbun, 66 Barb. 405. Applied (Liability for representation not made directly to party seeking redress) in Eaton, Cole & Bui-nham Co. «. Avery, 83 N. Y. 34. Center v. American Ins. Co., 7 Cow. 564. Aff'd in 4 Wend. 45. See Scott v. Libby. -r— v. Finney, 17 Barb. 94. Aff'd in Sell Notes, No. 2, 44. CENTKAL BANK— CHAINE. 141 Central Bank v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 20 Barb. 23: Said, in 22 How. Pr. 571, ?i., to have been rev'd by Ct. of App. in Dec. 1801. Disting'd (Effect of repeal of stalute on prior contracts) in Washburn v. Franklin, 11 Abb. Pr. 98, which was, however, rev'd in 13 Id. 140; s. c, 33 Barb. 599; 24 How. Pr. 515, which see. Central iBank of Brooklyn v. Hainmett, 50 N. Y. 158. Mem. of decision below, in 4 Alb. L. J. 75. Disapproved (Presumption arising from possession of bill by acceptor before due) in Witte v. Willfams, 8 S. ft 290; s. c, 28 Am. R. 299. Compare Hol- mes v. Witty, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. <& G.) 670. Included, with notes (Negotiable paper — bona fide holder) in 1 Ames Gas. on, B. & N. 742. v. Lang, 1 Bosw. 202. Followed (Dis- counted paper) in Farmers' Bank v. Watson:, 32 K Y. 583. Central Bank of Troy v. Heydorn, 48 JST. Y. 260. Collated and relied on, with Lyon v. Adde, 63 Barb. 89 ; Lyon o. Odell, 65 N. Y. 28; Giles v. Baremore, 5 Johns, Gh. 545 (Presumption of payment) in article by John D. Lawson, in 30 Alb. L. J. 84. Central City Savings Bank t. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424. See Poillon v. Secor. Followed (Liability of corporator) in Stafford Bank v. Palmer, 47 Conn. 449. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 ed. 50, n. Quoted and explained (Liability cf partners for acts of copartners) in 1 Onllyer on Partn. § 405, u. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Central Cross-town R. R. Co. t. 23d St. Rw. Co., 53 How. Pr. 45. Further proceeding in 54 Id. 168. Decision in 54 How. Pr. ex- plained with Fisher v. N. Y. Central It. R. Co., 40 K Y. 644 (Power to lease property of railroad corporation) in Metropolitan, &c. R'y Co. «. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. K G. ' 103, 251. Central Gold Mining Co. v. Piatt. See Partridge v. Badger. Central National Bank v. Richland Na- tional Bank, 52 How. Pr. 136. Criticised and disting'd (Attachments against national banks) in Robinson v. Nat, B'k, 19 Hun, 477. Overruled or limited in People's B'k of N. Y. v. Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 62 How. Pr. 422; citing Robinson r>. Nat. B'k of Newberne, 81 N. Y. 385. V. White, 37 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 297. Cited (Corporation cannot be compelled to produce its books and papers by subpoena duces tecum) in 4 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 377. Central Sav'gs Inst. v. Walker, 5 Hun, 35. Aff d in Central City Savgs B'k *. Walker, 6"> N. Y. 424. Central Park, Matter of, 4 Hvn, 599. Aff d, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 645, on opinion of Davis, P. J., below. Central Park Extension, Matter of, 16 Abb. Pr. 69. Collated, with other cases (Dower — barred by eminent domain) in Sliarsw. & B. Gas. on Peal Prop. 333. Cesar v. Karntz, 60 A 7 ". Y. 229. Disting'd (Liability of landlord for .'njurics to tenant caused by defect in premises) in Bowe «. Hunking,"l35 Mass. 380; s. c, 46 Am. B. 471. Chace v. Hinman, 8 Wend. 452; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 39, with note, wherein it is said to have been recognized in N. Y. as a leading case. See Gilbert v. Wiman ; Rockfeller v. Donnelly. Declared to be authority as to damages, but disting'd in Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 2v". Y. 550, 555, 561. 'Cited (When lia- bility of surety becomes fixed) in Turnure «. Hohenthal, 36 Super. Gi. (J. & 8.) 79. Said in Weller v. Barnes, 15 Minn: 401 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 150, 153, to be based (Dam- ages allowable on agreement to indemnify) on Rockfeller v. Donnelly, 8 Cow. 639 (which is there said to have been questioned in Aberdeen v. Blackmer, 6 Bill, 326, and denied in Sedgw. on Dama. 309-314). Also disapproved in Weller t. Eames; Churchill %. Hunt, 3 Den. 321, being followed and Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 N. Y. 550, disting'd. Cliailwlck v. Brother, 4 How. Pr. 283. Dis- sented from .(Right of sheriff to double costs) in Nestle i>. Jones, 6 How. Pr. Yl%. v. Fonner, 6 Hun, 543. Rev'd in 69 N. Y. 404. Decision in 69 N. Y. disting'd (Right to possession) in Fonner v. Johnson, 78 N. Y. 617. v. Lamb, 29 Barb. 518. See Rich v. Milk. Overruled (Action by chattel mort- gagee for conversion) in Hathaway ». Bray- man, 42 H. Y. 322 324, as repudiated by Hall v, Sampson, 3o K Y. 277. Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, 85; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 225, with note, collecting citations thereof. See Baskin v. Baskin. Followed (Proof of due execution of will) in Lewis v. Lewis, 13 Barb. 23. Applied in Lawrence v. Norton, 45 Id. 452. Disting'd in Torry v. Bowen, 15 Id. 308. Cited as authority in Tarrant d. Ware, 25 K Y. 429, n. ; Moore ». Gris- wold, 1 Red/. 390; Van Pelt v. Van Pelt, 30 Barb. 139; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 16 Hun, 97; Matter of Lewis, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 152. Ap- plied to subscription bv witness, — in Morris v. Kniffln, 37 Barb. 340~ Explained in Willis v. Mott, 36 N. Y. 494; Robinson v. Smith, 13 Abb. Pr. 363. Compared with other cases •in Van llooser v. Van Hooser, 1 Red/. 370; Norton v. Norton, 2 Id. 12. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, .Rand. & T. ed. 219, n. Applied (Suffkfiency of subscription to legal process) in Barnard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. 66. v. Cattaraugus Co. Mnt. Ins. Co., 18 jV. Y. 376. Followed (Severability of con- tract of insurance) in Merrill o. Agricultural Ins. Co., 73 JST. Y. 452, 462. v. Fort, 2 Lans. 81. Disting'd (Set-off in case of insolvency) in Terhune v. B"k of Bergen County, 7 Stew. (AT. J.) 367, citing Matter of Franklin B'k, 1 Paige, 249 ; Butler v. Sp.ague, 66 N. Y. 392. Cliaine v. Wilson, 16 How. Pr. 552; s. c, 1 Bosw. 673; 8 Abb. Pr. 78. Collated with. 142 CHALMERS— CHAMPION. other cases (Attachment — domicile) in Thomps. on Pros. Rem. 359. Chalmers t. Wright, 5 Robt. 713. See (Pore- closure by advertisement — deed not neces- sary) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. Chamberlain, Matter of, 28 Sow. Pr. 1. See (Official bond — application for leave to pros- ecute) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1892, n. Chamberlain v. Beller, 18 If. Y. 115. See Curtis v. Patterson. Disting'd (Costs — when covered by indemnity bond) in Home Ins. Co. v. Watson, 1 Sun, G46; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 230, which was how- ever rev'd in 59 If. Y. 390, which see. Relied on (Indemnity to officer executing process) in Grace ». Mitchell, 31 Wis. 533; s. c, 11 Am. R. 613, 620. v. Chamberlain, 3 Lans. 348. Modified, in 43 If. Y. 424. See Wynkoop v. Halbut. Decision in 43 If. Y. followed (Validity of bequest to corporation as determined by law of its domicile) in Draper v. President, &c. of Harvard College, 57 Sow. Pr. 269; Kennedy v. Town of Palmer, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 58. Followed* in Taylor's Ex'rs v. Bryn Mawr College, 7 Stew. (K J.) 101. Cited as authority in Crum v. Bliss, 47 Conn. 599. Applied (Surrogate's jurisdiction as to con- struction, of will) in Danser v. Jeremiah, 3 Redf. 143. Applied (Bequest to corporation) ,in Kerr v. Dougherty, 59 Sow. Pi: 44, 58, 67, which was modified in 17 Sun, 341, which was aff d in 79 If. Y. 327, which see. Applied in Curran v. Sears, 2 Redf. 526, 539, which was affd in 13 Sun, 47b, which see. Qualified in Hollis v. Hollis, 29 Hun, 225. Applied (Bequest to trustees of cor- porations, in legal effect a bequest to the corporations) in Effray*. Foundling Asylum, 5 Redf. 557, 560. Followed with Kerr v. Dougherty, 79 Id. 346 (Widow, when re- stricted to provisions in will for her benefit) in Bullard v. Benson, 1 Dem. 486. Followed (Equitable conversion by direction to sell) in Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. If. C. 386 ; Kearney v. Missionary Society of St. Paul, 10 Abb. If. C. 274. — — t. Dempsey, 13 Abb. Pr. 61. Rev'd in 9 Bosw. 212; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. 241, and that overruled in further decision, in 36 N. Y. 144. Subsequent decision in 9 Bosw. 540; s. c., 15 Abb. Pr. 1; rev'd in 36 N. Y. 144. Decision in 36 K Y. cited with Wil- liams v. Tilt, Id. 319, but Hartley v. Har- rison, 24 Id. 176; Bullard. v. Raynor, 30 Id. 197, doubted (Usury as personal de- fense) in Ready v. Huebner, 46 Wis. 792; s. c, 32 Am. R. 749. T. Gorham, 20 Johns. T44. Rev'd in 20 Id. 746. See (Notice with plea) Fuller v. Rood, 3 Sill, 258. T. Greenleaf, 4 Abb. If. C. 92. Further proceeding in Id. 178. Compare (Pledge - ) Gould e. Central Trust Co., 6 Abb. N. C. 381. — -• v. Martin, 43 Barb. 607. Followed (Validity of private sale made under power in mortgage) in .Ballou v. Cunningham, 60 Barb. 425. Compare Huggans «. Fryer, 1 Lans. 276, and .dissenting opinion in 4 Lans. 74. Questioned in T/wmas on Mort. 452. Cited as authority in Jones on Chat. Mort § 791. v. Roch. Seaml. Pap. Yes. Co., 7 Sun, 557. Compare (Validity of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. § 2430. v. Spargur, 22 Sun, 437. Affd in 86 If. Y. 603. v. Townsend, 7 Abb. Pr. 31; s. c, erro- neously reported as a decision at Special Term, in 26 Barb. 611. See in accord there- with (Maker of ■ promissory note, when by certificate annexed thereto estopped to set up usury) Mechanics' Bank of Brooklyn v. Townsend, 17 Sow. Pr. 569. v. Western Transportation Co., 45 Barb. 218. Rev'd in 44 K Y. 305. Decision in 44 If. Y. applied (Baggage not "mer- chandise") in The Marine City, U. S. Dist. Ct. E. D. Mich., 6 Fed. Rep. 415. Quoted and collated with other cases, in Thomps. on Carr. of Pass. 485. Chamberlin v. Cnyler, 9 Wend. 125. Fol- lowed as decisive (Items of account pleaded as set-off, when not barred) in Helms v. Otis, 5 Lans. 137. Chambers v. Appleton, 46 Super. Ct. (J.&S.) 577. Appeal dismissed in 84 iV. Y. 649. An- other proceeding in 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 524, with which compare (Clerk's fees) Code Civ. Pro. § 3301, as amended by I. 1882, c. 399. v. Clearwater, 41 Barb. 200. Affd in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 341. See Oakley «. Aspinwall. v. Dnrand, 33 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 494. See (Resisting motion to vacate order of arrest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 568, n. v. Lewis, 2 Silt. 591 ; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. 200; affd in 11 Abb. Pr. 210, which was affd in 28 If. Y. 454; s. c, more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. 433. See Garrison v. Howe. Decision in 28 If. Y. followed (Action against trustee of manufacturing corporation) in McHarg v. Eastman, 35 Sow. Pr. 205. Disting'd in An- derson v. Speers, 21 Sun, 568, 571 ; Duck- worth v. Roach, 8 Daly, 159, 162. Applied in Huguenot Nat. Bk. v. Studwell, 6 Daly, 13, 15. v. McCormick. See Hicks v. Minturn. Chamboret v. Cagney, 2 Sweeney, 378; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 31; 41 Sow. Pr. 125. Followed (Definition of counter-claim) in Mulberger v. Koenig, 22 Northw. Rep. 745, 747. Followed ("Subject of the ac- tion ") in Lehmair v. Griswold, 40 Super. ' Ct. (J. & S.) 100. Cham bo vet v. Cagney, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 474. See Perkins v. Perkins. Compared with other cases (Opinion of value) in 36 Am. R. 437, n. Opposed (Partnership be- tween husband and wife) in Zimmerman v. Erhard, 8 Daly, 311, 314. Champenois v. White. See Marsh v. Law- rence. Champion v. Bostwick, 18 Wend. 175; s. c, CHAMPION— CHAMPNEY. 143 31 Am. Dec. 376, with note, wherein it is said to be a leading case. See Bostwick v. Champion ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenec- tady R. R. Co. Applied (Creation of partnership liability by sharing in profits) in Smith v. Wright, 1 Abb. Pi: 246; Cottner v. Bettner, 1 Bosw. 493. Re-aff d in Lefcgett v. Hyde, 58 If. Y. 279. Approved in Patti- son v. Blanchard, 6 Barb. 511, which was affd in 5 If. Y. 190, which sen. Examined with other cases, in dissenting opinion of Siiankland, J., in Burckle v. Eckhart, 3 If. Y. 141. Disting'd in Briggs v. Vander- bilt, 19 Barb. 237; Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Nilcs, 3 Hill, 162; ^tna Ins. . Co. ». Wheeler, 5 Lans. 482; Merrick v. Gordon, 20 If. Y. 93 ; Burnett v. Snyder, 76 If. Y.S51; Straiton v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 186. Applied with Merrick v. Gordon, 20 If. Y. 93; Smith v. Wright, 1 Abb. Pr. 243, in Con- nolly v. Davidson, 15 Minn. 519; s. c, 2 Am. R. 154, 160. Explained in Bentley v. Harris, 10 E. 1. 434; s. c, 14 Am. R. 095. Disting'd and Merrick v. Gordon, 20 If. Y. 93, approved in Irvin v. Nashville, &c. R. R. Co., 92 III. 103; s. c, 34 Am. R. 116. Criticised in Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188; s. c, 40 Am. R. 465. Cited at length in Story on Partn. 7 cd. § 38, n. Said to be followed in Mass. and elsewhere, but criti- cised,— in Id. § 50. Cited in 1 Pari, on Oontr. 160, n. m. Commented on in 1 Col- yer on Partn. § 47, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Relied on with Weed v. Schenectady & Sara- toga R. R. Co., 19 Wend. 534 (Liability of common carriers) in People v. Rylands, 20 Penn. St. 497; s. ,c, 59 Am. Dec. 746. Compared with other cases (Liability of connecting lines of carriers) in 35 Am. li. 710, n. t. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 398; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 343. Cited (Equity of pur- chaser in contract for sale of land) in Wing *. McDowell, , Walk. Oh. 181. Reviewed and approved (Enforcing covenants on prin- ciple of bills quia timet) in Funk®. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 110; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 017, with note. Disting'd, but cited as the leading case in this country upon the doc- trine in Michigan State Bank v. Hastings, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 225; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 549-570-572, with note. Applied (Pur- chaser with notice, bound as his vendor) in Clark s. Flint, 22 Pick (Mass.) 231; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 733, 738, with note, to case of assignee for benefit of creditors. v. Joslyn, 44 JV. Y. 653. Cited (Ac- count rendered, when open to correction) in 2 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 1133. v. Webster, 15 Abb. Pi: 4. Overruled (Dismissal of complaint for neglect to prose- cute) in Winchell v. Martin, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 47. v. White, 5 Cow. 509. See Robb v. Montgomery. Cited as authority with Dan- forth i>. Suydain, 4 If. Y. 66; Loonie ». Hogan, 9 Id. 433 (Meaning of "own") in Gibson v. Gibson, 43 Wis. 23; s. c, 28 Am. R 527 533 Cliainpln'in v. People, 2 If. Y. 82. See People v. Koeber. Explained and applied (Power to let to bail) in People i>. Clews, 77 If. Y. 39, 45. Cham pi in t. Cliamplin, 1 Buffalo Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 355. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 620, but without opinion. y. Haight, 10 Paige, 274. Rev'd in 7 Hill, 245. v. Laytin, 1 Edw. 467. Aff'd in 6 Paige, 189; which was aff'd in 18 Wend. 407. See Holdredge v. Webb; Livingston v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Lyon v. Richmond ; Mercer St., Matter of; Shotwell v. Murray. Decision- in 18 Wend, followed (Relief against mistakes of law) in Fellows v. Heer- mans, 4 Lans. 230, 243. Decision in 1 Edw. cited with approval in Griffith v. Town- ley, 69 Mo. 13; s. c, S3 Am. R. 481; Evants v. Strodes, 11 Ohio, 480; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 14&, with note. T. Petrie, 4 Wend. 209. . Disting'd (Judgment as for non-suit, in referred cause) in Sheldon v. Erie Common Pleas, 12 Id. 268. v. Rowley, 13 Wend. 258. Aft'd in 18 Id. 187. Both decisions followed (Recovery for part performance) in Pullman v. Corning, 14 Barb. 179; Soloman v. Neidig, 1 Daly, 200; Paige v. Ott, 5 Den. 408; Moses v. Banker, 2 Sweeny, 271. Re-aff'd in Smith . Will- son, 81 If. Y. 344. Criticised by Dwight, Referee, in Marie . Meyer, 49 Id. 571, . and other cases, in Horn v. Bray, 51 Jnd. 655; s. c, 19 Am. P. 742. Compared in 4 Am. L. Peg. N. 8. 242. Collated with other authorities and applied (Consideration of promise to indemnify) in Duncans. Miller 64 Iowa, 225. ■—— t. Seeley, 13 How. Pr. 490. Approved (Practice upon motion to vacate order of ar.rest) in Barron v. Sanford, 14 How Pr 443. - v. Shafer. See Bostwick v. Atkins- Jackson v. Carpenter. v. Thompson, 4 Hun, 779. See also (Trustees and statute of limitations) Con- gregational Ch. in Union Village, Matter of 6 Abb. N. O. 398. ' v. , 18 Hun, 446. Rev'd in 80 N. Y. 275. Other proceedings in 16 Hun, 53 ; 58 How. Pr. 46; 23 Hun. 12, which latter was modified in 89 K Y. 270. See Beach v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 16 Hun, followed (Examination before trial) in Kitz- patrick v. Van Schaick, 59 How. Pr. 472, in dissenting opinion of Dykman, J., in Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Hun, 168. Re- cognized in Tenney v. Maufner, 1 Civ. Pro. P. 71. Decision in 23 Hun relied on (Practice after trial of specific issues by jury) in Madison University v. White, 25 Hun, 490. Explained in Glidden v. LaDgdon, 24 Hun, 493. Decision in 80 K Y. followed (Exceptions on trial of specific questions of fact, in equity action, when to be presented) in decision in 89 N. Y. Decision in 89 K. Y. followed (Usurious debt rendered valid by being included in schedules of general assignment) in Matter of Thompson, 80 Hun, 195. Chapman v. Albany & Schenectady E. E. Co., 10 Barb. 360. Recognized as authority (Recovery by abutting property owner for injury resulting from improvements) in Elizabeth, Lexington, &c. R. R. Co. v. Combs, 10 Bush (Ky.) 382; s. c, 19 Am. P. 67. Collated, with other cases, in Mills Tlwmpg. on Highw. 3 ed. 410. Explained in 1 Am. L. Peg. N. 8. 198. Cited with Radcliff's Executors v. Mayor, &c. of Brook- lyn, 4 N. Y. 195 (both said to overrule Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co., 25 Wend. 462) ; Lansing ». Smith, 8 Cow. 146, and other cases in 7 Am. P. 119, *., as denying the right to recover damages arising from an act authorized by statute. v. Chapman, 34 How. Pr. 281. Same rule held (Denial in form "he says that lie denies ") in Jones v. Ludlum, 74 N. Y. 61. v. City of Brooklyn, 40 N. Y. 372. Disting'd (Effect of invalidity of assess- ment proceedings on right to recover back money paid) in Nash v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Hun, 221 ; City of Rochester v. Town of Rush, 80 N. Y. 311. Ex- plained iu Dewey v. Sup'rs of Niagara, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (7: & C.) 611. Disting'd in Strusburgh v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 512. Applied in Bank of Commonwealth v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y-, 43 N. Y. 191; Newman v. Sup'rs of Living- ston, 45 Id. 685. Followed in Nat. Bank of Chemung v. City of Ehnini, 53 iV. ) r . 5(5. CHAPMAN. 113 Applied (Conclusiveness of certificate of assessment proceedings) in Newell v. "Wheeler, 48 JST. Y. 490. Disting'd (Liability of municipal corporation to refund money inequitably received) in De Grauw v. Sup'rs of Queens, 13 Hun, 384. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 3 Lang. 2C1. To the contrary (Plaintiffs title) see cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 692, n. 2. T. Draper, 10 How.Pr. 367. Aff d in 17 If. Y. 125. v. Dyett, 11 Wend. 31; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 598, with note. Disting'd (Liability for proceedings taken under irregular pro- cess) in Day v. Bach, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 466; Landt v. Hilts, 19 Barb. 290; Van Ingen v. Snyder, 24 Hun, 81. Criticised but approved in Dominick v. Eacker, 3 Barb. 19. v. Erie R'y Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 526. Eev'd in 55 If. Y. 579. Decision in 55 If. Y. relied on (When erroneous instruc- tion to jury may be obviated) in People v. Greenfield, 23 Hun, 472. Disting'd (Ad- missibility of agent's declarations) in Mc- Dermott v. Hannibal, &c. R. R. Co., 73 Mo. 516; s. c, 39 Am. R. 526. See, also, Adams v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R R. Co., 74 Mo. 553 ; s. c, 41 Am. R. 333. v. Fish, 6 Hill, 554; s. c, 16 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 456, with brief note. T. Fuller, 7 Barb. 70. Followed (Re- newal of execution) in . Hodge v. Adee, 2 Lane. 314. v. Gates, 46 Barb. 313. Affd in 54 If. Y. 145. See Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. Co. Decision in 46 Barb, disting'd (Effect of failure to produce record of highway) in Marvin v. Pardee, 64 Barb. 353, 359. Decision in 54 If. Y. dis- ting'd with Sage v. City of Brooklyn, 89 If. Y. 189 (Provision for payment for land taken by eminent domain) in Matter of Church, 92 N. Y. 1. v. Lathrop, 6 Cow. 110; s. c, 8 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 849, with brief note ; 16 Am. Dec. 433, with note, citing cases, — wherein it is said to have been frequently approved (Effect of delivery of goods without payment to pass the title) in N. Y. Fol- lowed in Morgan v. Powers, 66 Barb. 35, 38. v. Lemon. See Brittin b. Wilder. v. Lipscomb, 1 Johns. 294. Approved and applied (Diligence in ascertaining in-, * dorser's address) in Central National Bank v. Adams, 11 tl C. 452 ; s. c, 32 Am. £. 495. Cited with approval in Nichol v. Bate, 7 Yerff. (Tenn.) 305; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 505. Disting'd in Foard v. Johnson, 2 Ala. 565; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 421, with note. Reviewed with Ogden v. Cowley, 2 Johns. 274; Ireland v. Kip, 11 Id. 232, and other cases (Sufficiency of notice sent to indorser by mail) in Shed «. Brett, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 401 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 209, 214, with note. t. March, 19 Johns. 290; s. a, 10 Am. I.-10 Dec. 227; 6 AT Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 803, with brief note. Followed with'Duffee v. Mason, 8 Com. 25; Roberts v. Morgan, 2 Cow. 438 ; Oneida Manf. Soc. v. Lawrence, 4 Cow. 440, (Warranty on sale of chattels) in Kinley v. Fitzpatrick, 4 How. (Miss.) 59; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 108, with note. Exam- ined with Swett v. Colgate, 20 Johns. 196 ; Seixas «. Woods, 2 Cad. 48, in Henshaw n. Robbins, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 83; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 367, 370, with note. v. New Haven R. R. Co , 19 If. Y. 341. See Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.; Button v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Dis- ting'd (Contributory negligence in one hav- ing charge of conveyance) in Bronk ■». N. Y. & New Haven R R. Co., 5 Daly, 454, 457. Disting'd with Webster v. Hudson R. R. R. Co., S8KY. 262; Colegrove«. N. Y. & N. II. R. R. Co., 20 Id. 492, in Callahan v. Sharp, 27 Hun, 85. Referred to with Cole- grove v. N. Y. & N. H. R R. Co., 20 If. Y. 492, in Mooney d. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Robt. 548, as overruled by Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 597. Cited with approval with Webster St. 63; s. c, 48 Am. R. 421. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 584, n. h. Discussed and favorably commented upon in 2 Kent Com. 461, n. a. Disting'd (Foreclosure — set-off) in Hudson Fire Ins. Co. v. Wmthrop, 2 Leg. Obs. 38 ; Holden v. Gilbert, 7 Paige, 211. Examined in Bathgate v. Haskin 51) N. Y. 537. Ap- plied in Rawson ». Copeland, 2 Sandf. Oh. 251. v. Rose, 44 How. Pr. 364. Rev'd in 56 N. Y. 137; s. a, 47 How. Pr. 13; 15 Am. R. 407. Decision in 56 A 7 ". Y. disting'd (Lia- bility on paper negligently issued) in Sweet t>. Chapman, 7 Hun, 576, 579. Applied in Carey v. Miller, 25 Hun, 28, 31. Examined with other cases in Millard v. Barton, 13 R. 1. 606. Followed, and Jackson v. Hayner, 12 Johns. 469, disting'd in Montgomery v. Scott, 9 S. 0. 20 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 1. Fol- lowed and approved in Ort v. Fowler, 31 Kans. 478; s. c, 47 Am. R. 501. Collated with Whiting v. Snyder, 2 Bans. 477, and other cases, in 41 Am. R. 607, n. v. Smith. See Niven v. Munn. ■ v. Swan, 65 Barb. 210. Compare (Lay- ing out highways) L. 1873, c. 315, which was, however, repealed by L. 1874, c. 616; L. 1875, c. 431. Compare (Plea of title in action for obstructing highway) Little v. Deun, 34 iK Y. 452. v. White, 6 A 7 ! Pi 412; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 464, with note. See Commercial B'k v. Hughes; Hutter v. Ellwanger; Lunt ■». Bank of North America. Followed (Check does not operate as assignment of fund) in Butterworth v. Peck, 5 Bosw. 341 . Applied in Curry v. Powers, 70 A 7 ! Y. 216; Willetts «. Finlay, 11 How. Pr. 474. Applied in dis- senting opinion of Strong, J., in Ketchum v. Bank of Commerce, 19 A 7 ". Y. 513. Fol- lowed (No action on unaccepted draft) in Ketchum «. Stevens, 6 Duer, 483 ; JEtna National Bank v. Fourth National Bank, 46 N. Y. 82, 87. Approved in Carr v. National Security Bank, 107 Mass. 45 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 6, 9, as according with the law in -Eng- land, Penn. and the U. S. Supreme Court. Cited as authority with Pope ». Luff, 7 Hill, 577, inNat'l Bank of Rockville v. Second Nat'l D'k of Lafayette, 69 lad. 479; s. c, 3,) Am. R. 230, with note collecting cases. Applied (Power of corporation, to incur obligations) in Curtis is. Leavitt. lo A 7 ". Y 169. Chapman Slate Co. v. Sntcliffe, 2 Hun, 634 • s. c, 5 Sufm. Ot. (T. & O.) 686. Aff d in 63 N~. Y. 616. Chappel v. Brockway, 21 Wend. 157. See Maier t>. Hotnan ; Nobles ». Bates. Followed and Hooker B.Vandowater, iDen. 349; Stan- ton v. Allen, 5 Id. 434, criticised and disap- proved (Contracts in restraint of trade) in Kellogg v. Larkin, 3 Pinn. (Wis.) 123: 3 Chand. 133; s. a, 56 Am. Dec. 164,177. Cited with approval, with Holbrook v. Waters, 9 How. Pr. 335, in Smalley v. Greene, 52 Iowa, 241; s. c, 35 Am. R. 267, with note. Col- lated with Dunlap v. Gregory, 10 N. Y. 241 ; Lawrence v. Kidder, 10 Barb. 641 ; Holbrook v. Waters, 9 Hoio. Pr. 335, and other cases, in 13 Am. R. 173, n. Opinion of Beonson, J., approvingly cited in 2 Kent Com. 467, n. e ; 2 Pars, on Oontr. 748, n. z. v. Chappel, 12 A 7 ". F. 215; s. c, 64 Am. Dec. 496, 501, with brief note. Limited (Judgment entered on insufficient state- ment, when fraudulent) in Miller ». Earlc, 24 A 7 ". Y. 110, 112. — — v. Skinner, 6 How. Pr. 338. Disting'd (Provisional remedies) in Rockford, &c, R. R. Co. v. Boody, 56 A 7 ! Y. 456, 459. Chappell v. Spencer, 23 Barb. 584. Re- asserted (Alteration of note by adding name of person as maker) in Brownell v. Winnie, 29 A". Y. 400, notwithstanding contrary decis- ions in Cobb a. Titus, 10 A 7 ! Y. 198; Part- ridge v. Colby, 19 Barb. 248. But followed and reconciled with Cobb «. Titus ; Partridge v. Colby, in McVean v. Scoit, 46 Barb. 379. Opposed in Card v. Miller, 1 Hun, 504, 506. Disapproved with McVean v. Scott, as stand- ing alone, in Denick v. Hubbard, 27 Hun, 347. Both cases referred to in 23 Am. L. Reg. A 7 ! S. 198, as expressly overruled in Card v. Miller, 1 Hun, 504. Followed with McCaughey v. Smith, 27 A 7 ! Y. 39, in Wal- lace v. Jewell, 21 Ohio St. 163; s. c, 8 Am. R. 48, where Brownell v. Winnie, 29 A 7 ! Y 408; Cobb «. Titus, 10 A 7 ". Y. 199, were disting'd. Cited as authority in Co- burn «. Webb, 56 Ind. 96; s. c, 26 Am. R. 15. Charles v. Loweiistein, 26 How. Pr. 29. Overruled in effect (Cause of action against separate estate of wife, whether necessarily equitable) in Hauptman v. Catlin, 20 N. T. 247 ; Corn Exch. Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 42 K Y. 613. v. People, 1 A 7 ". Y. 180. See brief opin- ion of court below in How. App. Gas. 362. Decision in 1 N. Y. applied (Curing de- fect in indictment) in Case v. People, 6 Abb. A 7 ! O. 151, 157. Applied (Legality of for- eign contract as affected by our statute) in Ormes «. Dauchy, 82 K Y. 443, 448. Charruaud v. Charruaud, IKY. Leg. Ok. 134. Explained (Dower— divorce for adul- CHARTER- CHAUTAUQUE. 147 tery) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 707, n. 1, 6 ed. ; itf. $ 717. • Charter t. Otis, 41 Barb. 525. Explained (Effect of introductory clause in will on subsequent devise without words of per- petuity) in Vanderzee v. Vanderzee, 36 N. Y. 231. T. Stevens, 3 Den. 33 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 4Ai, with, note, collecting citations thereof. Disting'd (What operates as satisfaction of chattel mortgage) in Brown v. Rich, 40 Barb. 32. Ap-»iied (Right of mortgagor of chat- tels to redeem) in Hinman «. Judson, 13 Barb. 631 ; Stoddard v. Dehison, 2 Sweeny, 61. Chase v. Barrett, 4 Paige, 148. See Vander- burgh v. Hull. Re-affd (Participation in profits as constituting a partnership) in Leg- gett v. Hyde, 58 2f. Y 279. Disting'd in Burnett v. Snyder, 76 K Y. 344, 851. Also ex- plained in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 27, n. But see Auten v. Ellirigwood, 51 How. Pr. 364; Explained in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 47, n. 1, "Wood's Am. ed. v. Day, 17 Johns. 114. Applied (Obliga- tion to answer for another — when an original contract) in Post ■». Geoghegan, 5 Daly, 216. v. Ewing, 51 Barb. 597. Explained (Mortgage as evidence of indebtedness) in Coleman a. Van Renssalaer, 44 How. Pt. 372. Disting'd ^Advancements) in Eisner n. Koehler, 1 Dem. 277. v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 22 K. Y. 527. Rev'd in 20 K Y. 52. See Brown v. Cattaraugus County Mut. Ins. Co. ; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co. Decision in 20 N. Y. disting'd (Insurance company — when bound by knowledge of agent) in Van Sehoick ». Niagara Ins. Co., 68 N. Y. 441; Woodruff ■d. Imperial P. Ins. Co., 83 K Y. 133, 140. Decision in 22 Barb, followed (Insurable interest of equitable title. Fraud in repre- sentations of ownership of land by owner of such title) in Acer». Merchants' Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 63, 82. — : — V. Hosran, 6 Bosw. 431. Reviewed and explained (Specific performance of contract) in further decision, in 3 Abb. Pr. K S. 58. v. James, 10 Hun, 506. Further pro- ceeding in 16 Id. 14. Compare (Referee's fees) Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 3290, n.; Rust ». Hauselt, 8 Abb. N. O. 148, 153. Decis- ion in 16 Hun, followed, and First Nat. Bk. v. Tamajo, 77 K. Y. 478, explained (Attorney's authority as to referee's fees) in Mark ». City of Buffalo, 87 N. Y. 184. v. Lord, 16 Hun, 369. Rev'd in 77 JST. Y. 1 ; s. c, 6 Abb KG. 258. Decision in 77 N. Y. dis^g* ^ ^Proof that defendant is stockholder) in Wheeler v. Miller, 24 Han, 541, 543. Disapproved (Liability of corporator) in Gulli\er . Van Anken, 6 Leg. Obs. 381. Applied (Jurisdiction of equity to prevent multiplicity of actions) in Erie R'y Co. ■». Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 653. Approved and ap- plied (Assignment of Hen) in Lagow v. Badollet, 1 Blachf. (Ind.) 416; s. "a, 12 Am. Dec. 258, with note collecting oases pro and con. Followed (Rights of junior lien creditors) in Pennsylvania Bank v. Winger, 1 Rawle {Pa.) 295; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 633, with note. Cheeseman v. Sturgis, 6 Bosw. 520. Further decision in 9 Id. 246. v. Wiggins. 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. SG.) 95. Cited (Accounting upon dissolution of part- nership by death) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. §§ 347, n., 348, n. Cheever v. Saratoga Co. Bank, 47 How. Pr. 376. Overruled (Perpetuation of testimony, as matter of right) in Martin v. Hicks, 1 Abb. N.C.Ztl. Cliegaray v. Jenkins, 3 Sandf. 409. Aft'd in 5 JST. Y. 376. Decision in 3 Sandf. fol- lowed (Effect upon general words of par- ticular words that precede them) in Cleaver v. Cleaver, 39 Wis. 96; s. c, 20 Am. R. 30, 34. Decision in 5 N. Y. applied (Assessors — when acting within jurisdiction) in Foster v. Van Wyck, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 172;. Bell v. Pierce, 51 JY. Y. 15. Approved in Barhyte «. Shepherd, 35 Id. 243, 252. Disting'd and applied in Nat. Bk. of Che- mung v. City of Elmira, 53 Id. 54. Fok lowed in Matter of N. Y. Catholic Protectory, 77 Id. 342. Applied (Warrant for col- lection of taxes, when a protection) in Patchin v. Ritter, 27 Barb. 37; Johnsons. Learn, 30 Barb. 618. Cited as authority in Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 E D. Smith, 696. Limited (Impeaching proceedings for want of jurisdiction) in Roderigas v. East River Sav'gs Inst. 43 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 231. Reviewed with other cases (Process as protection) in Bullymore «. Cooper, 2 Lans. 75. Applied (Action of assessors not to be reviewed collaterally) in Rector, &c. of Trinity Church v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 How. Pr. 138. Cited as author- ity in Swift v. City of Poughkeepsie, 37 N~. Y. 515. Dictum overruled (Exemption of private school property from taxation) in Ohegaray v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Id. 231. v. Mayor. &c. of N. Y., 2 Duer, 521. Rev'd in 13 XT. Y. 220. Decision in 13 N. Y. disting'd (Recovery of amount of illegal tax) in Newman v. Supervisors of Livingston, 45 K Y. 676. Chemical Nat. B'k t. Kohner, 8 Daly, 530; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 267. Rev'd in 85 Id. 189. Chemung, &c. Bank v. Bradner, 44 N. Y. 680. Explained (Partnership— liability for. acts of copartners) in 1 Gollyer on Partn. § 412, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 K Y. 254. Rule as to void judgments qualified in respect to ministerial officers, in Welles v. Thornton, 45 Barb. 390. Cited as authority (Inquiry into jurisdiction) in People ». N. Y. k C. R. R. Co. v. Hutton, 18 Hun, 123; Ferguspn v. Crawford,. 70 K Y. 265. Ap- CHENANGO BKIDGE CO.-CHILD. 149 plied in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Roht. 199. Applied (Inquiry into jurisdiction of U. S. District Court) in Ansonia Bras9 & Copper Co. u. New Lamp Chimney Co., 64 Barb. 435. Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bingliamton Bridge Co., 27 N. Y. 87. Rcv'd in 3 Wall. 51. — v. Lewis, 63 Barb. 111. 'See Mayor, &c. of Albany v. Cunliff. Disting'd (Lia- bility for nuisance to which others have con- tributed) in Chipman v. Palmer, 77 iV. Y. 51, 56. Followed with Irvine u.Wood, 51 Id. 224 (Liability of builder and user of unlaw- ful structure) in Taylor v. Metropolitan El. R'y Co. 49 Super. Ct. (Jl & S.) 311, 340. v. Paige, 8 Hun, 292. Bev'd in 83 if. Y 178; s. c, 38 Am. B. 407. See Hooker «. Cummings. Compare (Riparian rights) Smith v. City of Rochester, 92 if. Y. 463. Cheney T. Arnold, 15 N. Y. 345. See Fenton v. Reed. Followed (Presumption as to laws of another State) in McCullock v. Norwood, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 180, 187. Approved (Marriage per verba de faturo, followed by carnal intercourse) in Holmes v. Holmes, 1 Abb. U. S. 539. Cited with Starr v. Peck, 1 Hill, 270, in fyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 616. Discussed in 1 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 256, 6 ed. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 80. v. Beals, 47 Barb. 523. Superseded (Right of executor to sue individually) by Code Civ. Fro. § 1814. v. Fisk, 22 Bow. Br. 236. Explained (Remedy for misjoinder in one count) in Harris v. Eldridge, 5 Abb. if. G. 278, 281. Disting'd in Barton v. Speis, 5 Bun, 61. But see Harris v. Eldridge, 5 Abb. if. C. 278. T. Garfoutt, 5 How. Br. 467. Followed (Relevancy of allegations of fraud in com- plaint) in Field v. Morse, 8 How. Pr. 47. as having been approved by the Court of Appeals. t. Troy Hospital Assoc. , 65 If. Y. 282. Followed (Mechanics' lien — payments in ad- vance) in Post ■». Campbell, 83 if. Y. 279, 284. v. Woodruff, 45 IT. Y. 98, 100. Applied (Rights of purchaser at foreclosure sale) - in Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Balch, 4 Abb. if. C. 200, 202. Cheviot v. Barker, 2 Johns. 340; s. c, 3 Am. Dee. 437. See Brown «. Cattaraugus County Mutual Ins. Co. Chesebrongh, Matter of, 56 How. Pr. 460. Affd in 17 Bun, 561, and that affd in 78 if. Y. 232. See Matter of Cheesebrough. Chester v. Bank of Kingston, 16 N. Y. 330. Disting'd (Effect of failure of consideration) in Weston v. Chamberlain, 56 Barb. 424. Applied (Surety not discharged by contract made with his consent) in Wright v. Storrs, 6 Bosw. 611. Explained (Parol evidence of understanding existing at time of written contract) in N. Y. Exchange Co. v. De Wolff, 5 Bosw. 593, 607 ; Lewis v. Jones, 7 Id. 300, 370. Disting'd in Campbell v. Tate, 7 Lans. 370. Applied in Bainbridge v. Rich- mond, 17 Hun, 393. v. Corastoek, 6 Robt.l. Affd in 40 jff. Y. 575. See Marsh v. Falker. Decision in 40 N.'Y. followed {Scienter necessary to constitute fraud) in Brown v. Ashbough, 40 How. Pr. 226, 238; Morehouse v. Yeager, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 135, 146. Compared and discussed in Livingston v. Keech, 34 Super Ct. (J. & S.) 553. v. Dickerson, 52 Barb. 349. Affd in 54 if. Y. 1; s.c, 13 Am. £. 550. See Buckley e. Buckley. Decision in 54 if. Y. followed (Parol proof of partnership as to real estate) in Traphagen v. Burt, 67 if. Y. 33; Williams *. Gillies, 53 How. Pr. 429; Bissell v. Harrington, IS -Hun, 83. Disting'd in Fairchild v. Fairchild, 64 if. Y. 479. Followed and approved, in Holmes ■». Mc- Cray, 51 Ind. 358 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 735. Discussed in 2 Collyeron Parln. § 700, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 83, n. Followed (Responsibility for fraud of copartner) in Getty v. Devlin, 54 if. Y. 413. Discussed in 1 Colly er on Parln. § 446, Wood's Am. ed. v. Dorr, 41 if. Y. 279. To the contrary (Liability of maker of accommodation note taken after maturity) see First Nat. B'k of Salem ». Grant, 71 Me. 374, with note. In- cluded in 1 Ames Cases on B. & if. 793. Disting'd (Rights of bona fide holder for value of note) in Eckhert v. Ellis, 26 Hun, 663. Chesterman v. Eyland, 74 if. Y. 452. Further decision in 17 Hun, 520, which was aft'd in 81 if. Y. 398. Chicago & Great Eastern R. Co. v. Dare. See Trevor v. Wood. Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cow. 39; s. c, 15 Am. Bee. 238, 242, with note, wherein it is said to have been repeatedly recognized as an authority in N. Y. See Bank of Newburgh v. Seymour; Mechanic's Bank ». Minthorne. Disting'd (Amendment of judgment) in Giant v. Griswold, 21 Hun, 511; Butler v. Lewis, 10 Wend. 544. Applied in Hunt v. Grant. 19 Wend. 90; Geller v. Hoyt, 7 How. Pr. 267. Criticised as extreme (Allowing filing nunc pro tunc) in People v. Superior Court of N. Y., 18 Wend. 675. Applied (Filing record nunc pro tune to sustain execution) in Bradford v. Read, 2 Sandf. Gh. 163 ; Jones v. Porter, 6 How. Pr. 289. Followed with Seaman v. Drake, 1 Cat. 9, and other cases (Amendment of record) in King v. State Bank, 9 Arh. 185; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 739, with note. v. Livingston, 2 Sandf. 718. Followed (Examination of party before trial) in Wat- son v. Gage, 12 Abb. Pr. 215. Reviewed with other cases, in Phoenix v. Dupuy, 7 Daly, 238, 242. Child v. Brace, 4 Paige, 309. Followed (Creditor's action — when maintainable against several) in Field v. -Chapman, 13 Abb. Pr. 320, 326. Followed (Jurisdiction of equity) in Dunlevy v. Tallmadge, 32 if. Y.' 150 CHILD— CHPJ3TIE. 45V. , Quoted (Creditor's lien before filing bill for discovery of property) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 75. v. Chappell. See Cowenhove'n v. City of Brooklyn. v. Starr, 4 Hill, 369. Rev'g Starr v. Child, 20 Wend. 149. Subsequent decision in 5 Ben. 599. See Ex parte Jennings. Decision in 4 Hill, followed (Evidence of intent to extend grant to thread of stream) in Orendorff v. Steele, 2 Barb. 129. Cited as authority in Harris v. Thomp- son, 9 Barb. 360. Followed in Halsey v. McCormick, 13 K Y 298. Explained in Walton v. Tifft, 14 Barb. 220. Dis ting'd in Seneca Nation v. Knight, 23 Jff. Y. 499. Collated with other cases, in Mills Thornps. on Highw. 3 ed. 50. Doctrine of Bockbe, Senator, adopted (Distinction between city and country lands) in Ham- mond v. McLachlan, 1 Sandf. 342. Criti- cised (Right of riparian proprietors) in People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 484, as to the doubts raised by People v. Tib- betts, 17 Wend. 571, having been removed by Commissioners of Canal Fund v. Canal Appraisers, 33 A'. Y. 461, 484. Applied to highway in Sizer v. Devereux, 16 Barb. 163 ; Van Amringe v. Barnett, 8 Bosw. 368 ; Anderson *. James, 4 Eobt. 35. Children's Aid Society v. Loveridge, 70 K Y. 387. See Pruyn v. Brinkerhoff. Applied (Undue influence on testator) in Tucker v. Field, 5 Red/. 139, 180; Bristed n. Weeks, Id. 529, 532. Followed and applied with Horn v. Pullman, 72 N. Y. 209; Coit v. Patchiu, 77 Id. 533 ; Marx o. McGlynn. 88 Id. 357 ; in Hagan v. Hagan, 1 Bern. 584. Referred to in 16 Am. Bee. 260, n., as well stating the settled doctrine. Quoted in 1 Jarm. onWills, Rand. & T. ed. 141. Ex- plained (Executor disqualified from testi- fying) in Matter of Burke, 5 Redf. 369. Childs v. Clarke, 3 Barb. Oh. 52; s. a, 49 Am. Bee. 1G4, with note, collecting citations thereof. v. Smith, 55 Barb. 45 ; s. c, 38 How. Pr. - 328. Rev'd in 46 JST. Y. 34. These decisions examined and reviewed (Corp'orale creation and existence) in 8 South. L. Rev. N. S. 531. Ohillingworth v. Freeman, 67 Barb. 379. Disting'd (Status to impeach fraudulent con- veyance) in Barton v. Hosner, 24 Hun, 467, 471. Chipinan, Matter of, 14 Johns. 217. With this case and Matter of Smith, 16 Id. 102, compare (Attachment against paitner) Rob- bins v. Cooper, 6 Johns. Gh. 186. Chipman v. Montgomery, 4 Hun,' 739. Affd in 63 K Y. 221. Followed (Right to maintain action for construction of will) in Duncan v. Duncan, 4 Abb. N. O. 279; Trcw v Shannon, 59 How. Pr. 214. Disting'd in Keteltas v. Keteltas, 53 How. Pr. 05: Dis- ting'd (Jurisdiction of action to construe will) in Monnrque v. Monarque, 1 9 Hun 332, which was, however, rev'd in 80 K Y. 320, 320, which see. Applied in Wager v. Wager, 21 Hun, 93, which was, however, rev'd in 89 JT. Y. 161, which see. Disting'd in Danser®. Jeremiah, 3 Redf. 130, 136. Disting'd (Action by one claiming in hostility to will) in Wa^er v. VYager, 23 Hun, 439, 442. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in action for accounting) in Harth v. Bower, 30 Hun, 151. Approved (Jurisdiction over administra- tors) in 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 349, «. 1. See (Costs on appeal from final judgment! Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3238, n. v. Palmer, 9 Hun, 517. AfTd in 77 H. Y. 51 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 506. Decision in 77 K Y. explained (Private nuisance- joint acts) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 168 n. 2. Cited in Woodruff v. North Bloom- field Gravel Mining Co., 11 Pac. C.L.J. 181 ; s. c, 16 Fed. Rep. 25 ; 17 West. Jur. 220, as expressly recognizing rule as to equitable action against parties severally contributing to a nuisance, other cases being collated. Chism v. Keith, 1 Hun, 589. Compare (Barring future contingent interests by judgment in partition) Code Civ. Pro. § 1557. Chouteau v. Suydam, 21 N. Y. 179. See Peck v. Mallams. Applied (Affirming judg- ment, with reduction of its amount) in Sears v. Conover, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 182; Weed v. Lee, 50 Barb. 354. Disting'd in Whitehead v. Keendy, 69 N. Y. 468. Ap- plied (Extrinsic proof to show that contract was individual act of person executing it) in Lee v. Meth. Epis. Church of Fort Ed- ward, 52 Barb. 120. Followed (Right of executor or administrator to bind estate) in Ferrin v. Myrick, 53 Barb. 95, which was rev'd in 41 iV. Y 322, which see. Applied in Tradesmen's Nat. Bk. v. McFccly, 61 How. Pr. 525. Disting'd but approved in Austin v. Munro, 47 iV! Y. 365. Disting'd in Hall v. Richardson, 22 Hun, 449. Fol- lowed (Common law right of executors to • compromise) in Wood v. Tunnicliff, 74 N. Y. 45. Reviewed, with other cases (Authority to allow such- compromise) in Shepard v. Saltus, 4 Redf. 232. Disting'd (Delivery of written instrument) in Russell v. Freer, 56 JV. Y. 71. To the contrary (Qualified delivery) see Pope v. Latham, 1 Pike (Ark) 60. But see Abb. Tr. En. 507. Chretien v. Doney, 1 N. Y. 419. Dis- ting'd (Effect of election by lessee to extend period of lease) in Western Trans. Co. of Buffalo v. Lansing, 49 K Y. 499. Christian v. Gouge, 10 Abb. K C. 82. Fol- lowed (Suit by non-resident in forma pauperis ) in Anonymous, Id. 80, 81. Christern, Matter of, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523. See also (Amending record of natural- ization) Matter of Desty, 8 Abb. H. G. 250. Approved and followed in Re Coleman, 15 Blatchf. C. Ct. 406, 427. Christie v. Bloom iugdale, 18 How. Pr. 12. Disting'd and disapproved (New trial in ejectment) in Reed v. Loucks, 61 How. Pr. 434, 436. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 1526, n., 1528, n. , Commented upon in CHRISTIE -CHURCHILL. 151 Sedgw. & W. on Tr.' of Tit. to Land, § 593. V. Gage, 5 Lans. 139. Further decisions in 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T . & G.) 344; 71 N. Y. J 89. See Williams 9. Williams. Chrlstmau v. Floyd, 9 Wend. 340. Ex- plained with Burr v. Van Buskirk, 3 Cow. 263 (Sufficiency of avowry in replevin) in Webber v. Shearman, 6 Mil, 20, 30. Christopher v. Austin, 11 N. Y. 216. Affg Vermilya 9. Austin. 2 K D. Smith, 203. See Dyett v. Pendleton. See (Effect of eviction of tenant in suspending vent) Lounsbery 9. Snyder, 31 V. Y. 514. See also Abb. Tr. Ho. 355. Disting'd in Mc- Kinney v. Holt, 8 Hun, 336. Cited in Col- burn v. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262; s. c, 19 Am. R. 415. v. Garr, 6 If. Y. 61. See (Statute of limitations where one dies abroad) Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 391, n. Commented upon in Throop's justice's Man. 2 ed. 180. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 13 Barb. 567. See Adriance v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Cited ■with approval, with Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Barb. 195; Stuyvesant v. Pearsall, Id. 244; De Bairns. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 Id. 392 ; Wood v. Draper, 24 Id. 187 (Right of tax-payer to maintain proceeding to restrain authorities) in Newmover v. Missouri & Mississippi R. R. Co., 52 Mo. 81; s. c, 14 Am. R/ 394, th-jugh said to be questioned by later N. Y. decisions, as Roosevelt 9. Draper, 23 If. Y. 318; Doolittle v. Supervisors, &c, 18 Id. 155. Christy v. Clarke. See Bissell 9. Bissell. v. Libbv, 35 Sow. Pr. 119. Aff'd in 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 192. Decision in 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. applied (Joinder of causes of ac- tion against defendant individually and otherwise) in Day v. Stone. 5 Daly, 353. v. Murphy, 12 How. Pr. 11. Collated with other cases (Injunction —violation of trade-mark) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 264. Chrysler v. Canaday, 12 Weekly Dig. 214. It appears by mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 137, that Learned, P. J., dissented. v. Renois. 43 If. Y. 209. Included (Note — how payable, to be negotiable) in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & If. 53. Chrystie v. Phyfe, 19 If. Y. 344. Disting'd (Pee given by will, when defeasible) in Gibson v. Walker, 20 Id. 476, 483. Relied on (Rule of construction in interpretation of wills) in Farish v. Cook, 78 Mo. 212; s. c, 47 Am. R. 107. Quoted (Rule in Shelly's case) in 3 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 175, n. Cliubbuck T. Vernam. 42 If. Y. 432. Ex- plained at length (Effect of exceptions to legal conclusions in case that contains none of the evidence — in action tried by referee) in Stoddard 9. Whiting, 46 If. Y. 627, 630. Followed and reconciled with Stoddard 9. Whiting (Right to look beyond findings of factl in Porter v. McGrath, 41 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 98. Church v. Ayres. See Canfield v. Westcott. v. Be.dient, 1 Cai. Gas. 21. Collated with other cases (Abandonment (marine) — dependent on actual state of affairs), in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 678. v. Brown. 29 Barb. 486. Rev'd in 21 If. Y. 315. See Leonard v. Vredenbergh. Decision in 29 Barb, disting'd (What is promise to pay debt of another) in Ellen- wood ii. Fulls, 03 Barb. 334. Decision in 21 If. Y. compared with other cases (Ex- pressing consideration in guaranty) in Dau- ber 9. Blackney, 38 Barb. 438. Examined with other cases and approved, in Dunning «. Roberts, 35 Barb. 463. 409. v. . 29 Barb. 335. See other cases collected (Limit of cost of public works) in 5 Abb. If. G. 468, re. t. Bull, 2 Den. 430; s. c, 43 Am. Dee. 754, with note, wherein it is said, with citations, to be a recognized authority. Aff 'g 5 Hill, 206. Quoted (Election in case of dower) in 2 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 24, n. v. Church, 3 Sandf. Gh. 434: Discussed (Dower in equitable estates) in 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 206. Explained (Dower in proceeds of sales directed by order of court) in Id. 295. v. Howard, 17 Hun, 5. Rev'd in 79 If. Y. 515. Decision in 79 If. Y. explained and followed (Incompetency of defendant who makes no defense, to testify for co- defendant as to transactions with deceased) in Hill 9. Hotchkin, 23 Hun, 414, 416. Compare Wilkins 9. Baker, 24 Id. 32, 36. v. Kidd, 3 Han, 254; s. c, less fully, 5 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & G.) 454. Further decision in G Hun, 475. Compare (Application of rules respecting new trials to trials of specific issues) Code Civ. Pro. § 1003. Collated and compared with other cases (Parol evidence to establish trust) in Randall v. Constans, 23 Narthw. Rep. 530, 533. v. Landers, 10 Wend. 79. Disting'd (Husband, when agent for his wife, and vice versa) by Van Hoesen, J., in Mead t>. Jack, 10 Weekly Dig. 403; s. c, If. Y. Daily Reg.< Mar. 24, 1883. Applied in Casteel -9. Casteel, 8 Black/. (Ind.) 240; s. c, '44 Am. Dec. 763. 765, with note. Disting'd in Benjamin v. Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 384, 390. v. Maloy, 9 Hun, 148. Aff'd in 70 If. Y. 63. Decision in 70 If. Y. disting'd (Usurious agreement as defense) in Nat. B'k of Gloversville v. Place, 15 Hun, 564, 567. : v. Simmons, 19 Hun, 220. Rev'd in 83 If. Y. 261. Church of Redeemer v. Crawford, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 200. Rev'd in 36 Super. Gt. {J. 6 S.) 307. Church of Redemption v. Grace Church, 6 Hun, 166. Rev'd as to personalty, and otherwise aff'd, in 68 If. Y. 570. Churchill v. Hunt, 3 Den. 321. See Chace v. Hinman; Gilbert 9. Wiman; Matter of .Negus. Applied (Right of action on con- 152 CHURCHILL— CITY OF BUFFALO. tract of indemnity) in McGee v. Roen, 4 All. Pr. 10; Drake o. Porter, 13 Sun, 662. Followed in Kohler v. Matlage, 72 If. Y. 266. Examined with Wright v. Whiting, 40 Barb. 235, in 1 Am. Dec. 47, n. Disting'd in McGay v. Keilback, 14 All. Pr. 144. Ex- plained in Crippen ■». Thompson, 6 Barl. 534 ; Bancroft v. Winspear, 44 Id. 214. Approved and disting'd in Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 If. Y. 563. Approved in Eector, &c. of Trinity Church v. Higgins, 48 Id. 536, which overruled 4 Bolt. 372, which see. v. Marsh, 4 E. D. Smith, 369; s. c, more fully, 2 All. Pr. 219. Questioned but followed (Necessity of seal on process of N. Y. Marine Court) in Talcott v. Rosen- berg, 8 All. Pr. If. S. 287. v. Onderdonk, 59 If. Y. 134. Followed (Possession enabling one to maintain pro- : ceeding to compel determination of claim to I vacant lots) in Cleveland v. Crawford, 7 Sun, 619. • v. Prescott, 3 Brad/. 233. Explained (Intestacy — distribution — foreign domicil) in Willard on Executors, 404. T. Stone, 58 Barl. 233. Applied (Re- covery of money paid for membership in ' association) in Weller v. Tuthill, 4 Sun, 811. Cipperly t. Cipperly, 40 Sow. Pr. 269. Applied (Effect of word "heirs" in giving absolute estate) in Williams v. Seaman, 3 Bed/. 150. Cisco v. Roberts, 6 Bosw. 494. Rev'd in 36 If. Y. 292. Decision in 36 N. Y. disting'd (Pilots) in Gillespie v. Zittlosen, 60 If. Y. 449, 452. City Bank v. Dearborn, 20 N. Y. 244. Cited (Effect of record put in evidence as involving an admission) in 2 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 836. v. Lumley, 28 Sow. Pr. 397. Approved, and head-note criticised (Arrest for frauds in foreign country) in Brown v. Ashbough, 40 Sow. Pr. 226, 240. v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R; Co., 44 If. Y. 136. Applied (Effect of delivery of bill of lading to pass title) in First Nat. B'k of Toledo ». Shaw, 61 N. Y. 295. Ex- plained in Man'f'rs, &c. B'k of Buffalo v. Farmers', &c. B'k of Buffalo, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G) 401. City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney. See Vernon v. Manhattan Co. City Bank of New Haven v, Perkins, 4 Bosw. 420, Aff'd in 29 If, Y 554. See Gage v. Kendall; Sanford v. Sanford. Decision in 29 If. Y. disting'd (Who can deny plaint- iffs title to negotiable paper) in Eaton t>. Alger, 57 Barb. 179. Approved in Flint v. Craig, 59 Id. 819. Cited as authority in Sheridan v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., 68 If. Y. 32. Followed in Brown v. Penfield, 36 N.Y. 475; Hays v. Southgate, 10 Sun, 511, 513, which was rev'd in 74 If. Y. 486, which see. Approved but disting'd in Sanford v, Sanford, 45 If. Y. 727. Decision jn iBosw, cited (Extent and continuance of power of bank cashier) iu Whart. Com, on Ay, § 685. City Bank of Rochester v. Westbnry, 16 Sun, 458. Applied (Validity of provision in chattel mortgage enabling mortgagor to sell) in Brackett v: Harvey, 25 Sun, 502, 506. Disting'd in Caring ». Richmond, 22 Id. 371. City Fire Ins. Co. v. Corlies, 21 Wend. 367. See Babcock v. Montgomery Co. Mut. Ins. Co. ; Grim v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Followed (Loss covered by fire policy) in Scripture v. Lowell Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 356. Applied in N. Y. & Boston Despatch Ex- pressCo. v. Traders', &c. Ins. Co., 132 Mass. 381; s. c, 42 Am. R. 440; Boon «. .^Gtna Ins. Co., 12 Blatchf. G. Gt. 24, 33. City Savings Bank v. Bid well, 29 Barb. 325. Followed (Law of place) in Jewell v. Wright, 12 Abb. Pr. 55, 57, which was however rev'd in 18 Abb. Pr. 80; s. c, 27 Sow. Pr. 481. City of Brooklyn, Matter of, 73 If. Y. 179. Approved (Implied covenant in grant of land bounding on highway) in Matter of Opening 67th St., 60 Sow. Pr. 264. City of Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 57 Barb. 497 ; s. c. more fully, 8 Abb. Pr. If. S. 309. Affd in 47 If. Y. 475. See Dorwin v. Potter; Losee v. Clute; Tall- man v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 47 If. Y. followed (Liability of contractor with city to third parties) in McMahon v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 11 Sun, 348, 350; which was aff'd in 75 If. Y. 235, which see. Applied (Recovery over by corporation for negligence causing injury in street) in Town of Seneca Falls v. Zalinski, 8 Sun, 576. Disting'd (Liability of corporation for defect in highway) in City of Hartford v. Talcott, 48 Conn. 525; s. c, 40 Am. R. 189. v. Fulton Municipal Gas Co., 7 Alb. If. G. 19. Disting'd (Transfer of franchise of gas company) in City of Brooklyn j>. Jourdan, 7 Abb. N. G. 23. v. Lott, 2 Sun, 628. Aff'd in 60 2f. Y. 398, as Matter of Lands in the Town of • Flatbush. City of Buffalo, Matter of. 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 408. Further decision in Id. 423. , , 64 If. Y. 547. Further decision in 68 N. Y. 167. See Milhau «. Sharp. Decis- ion in 68 If. Y. disting'd (Taking land al- ready acquired for one public use, for an- other) in Stranahan v. Sea View R'y Co., 84 If. Y. 312. , , 78 2V. 7". 362. Aft'g Matter of Carl- ton St., 16 Bun, 497. Decision in 78 If. T. eited as authority (Setting aside on motion, unauthorized proceeding to take land) in Matter of Department of Public Parks, 85 If. Y. 459, 464; s. c, as Matter of One Hun- dred and Thirty-Eighth St., 61 Sow. Pr. 284, 286. City of Buffalo v. Holloway, 14 Barl. 101. Aff'd in 7 If. Y. 493; s. c, 57 Am. Bee. 550, with note. See Blake v, Ferris; Con- greve v. Smith ; Pack v. Mayor. &o. of N. Y. ; Storrs v. City of Utica. Decision in 7 If. Y. applied (Necessity of pleading facts to show duty) in Ramsay v. Erie R'y Co., 7 Abb. Pr. CITY OF NEW YOEK— CLANCY. 153 2V1 S. 180. Criticised (Respondeat superior) in Sulzbacker v. Dickie, 6 Daly, 409, 478, 477 ; Gardner o. Bennett, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 200. With Blake v. Ferris, 5 if. Y. 48; Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Id. 222; Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 ii. 104; Congrev'e v. Smith, 18 Id. 79 ; Kelly ». Mayor, . Dolan, 36 Id. 68. Overruled in First Nat. Bank of Sandy Hill v. Fancher, 48 Id. 524. Disting'd in Clapp t>. City of Burlington, 42 Vt. 579; s. c, 1 Am. 11 355, 359. Exam- ined with Wilde v. Jenkins, 4 Paige, 481; Mickles v. Rochester City Bank, 11 Id. 118; Bennett v. Am. Art Union, 5 Sandf. 614, (Title to corporate property) in Button v. Hoffman, 61 Wise. 23. Claflin t. Baere, 57 Sow. Pr. 78. Aff'd by the General Term, and appeal therefrom dis- missed, in 80 N. Y. 642. v. Farmers' & Citizens' Bank, 86 Barb. 540. Rev'd in 25 K Y. 293; s. c, 2 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 92, with note. See partial report of reversal in 24 How. Pr. 1 ; where, however, the opinion of referee is given. Decision in 25 if Y. followed (Notice of want of authority in corporate officer to negotiate paper) in Dabney v. Stevens, 10 Alb. Pr. N. S. 47. Disting'd (Power of officer to certify in his own favor) in N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 64 ; Titus v. President, &c. Great Western Turnpike Road, 01 Id. 237, 243, which affd 5 Lans. 250, which see. Cited with Titus v. President, &c. Great Western Turn- pike Road, 5 Lans. 250 ; Comstock v. Corn- stock, 57 Barb. 453 ; Reimers v. Ridner, 2 Robt. 7 (Agent cannot use his trust for his own benefit) in Whart. Com. on Ag. §§ 231, 232. Decision in 36 Barb, applied (Estoppel of bank to deny authority of its officer) in Coohecho Nat'l Bank v. Haskell, 51 N. H. 116; s. c, 12 Am. R. 67, 74, with note. v. Lenheim, 5 Hun, 269. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 301. v. Meyer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. &. 8.) 1. Rev'd in 75 Zf Y 260 ; s. c, 31 Am. R. 467. Decision in 75 N. Y. disting'd (Proof of bailee's Jiegligence) in Levy v. Appleby, 1 City Ct. 252. Followed in Madan v. Covert, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 245. T. Ostrom, 45 K Y. 581. Applied (Ef- fect of assignment) in Budd v. Thurber, 61 How. Pr. 206, 215. Upheld in George v. Tate, 102 U. S. 571. Discussed in Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bdch, 45 Super. Ct. (J. S.) 534. See (Promise by one to another for benefit of third) 11 Alb. L. J. 121; 13 Id. 362. Compare Merrill v. Green, 55 Jv". Y. 270. v. Sanger, 31 Barb. 36. Aff'd in 11 Abb. Pr. 338. See Freligh v. Brink ; Lan- ning v. Carpenter. v. Tisliler, 66 Barb. 649. Affd it is said, in 55 N. Y. 657, but without opin- ion. Clancy T. Byrne, 58 Barb. 449. Further decision in 65 Barb. 344, which was rev'd in 56 K Y. 129; s. c, 15 Am. R. 391, with note, on the ground that the lessor was not liable, not being in possession, &c. Decision in 56 N. Y. followed (Liability of owner, &c.) in Homer v. Everett, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 298, 300. Disting'd in Walsh v. Mead, 8 Hun, 391. Applied in Swords v. Edgar, 59 JV". Y. 31. Followed (Privity necessary to maintain action on covenant or contract) in Wilmington, &c. R. R. Co. ii. Greenville, &c. R. R. Co., 9 S. C. 325; s. c, 30 Am. Ii. 23. Said in 50 Am. Dec. 780, n., to enunciate the same doctrine as is laid down in Nelson v. Liverpool, &c. Co., L. Ii. 2 C. P. Div. 311, as to a lessor's liability for injuries to third persons. 154 CLAN RANALD— CLARK. Clan Ranald t. Wyckoff. See Ten Broeck v. Sloo. Clapp v. Astor, 2 Edw. 384. Same principle (Interest of life tenant in dividends) in case of extra dividends — in Woodruff's estate, 1 Tuch. 58. t. Bromagham, 5 Cow. 295. Rev'd in 9 Id. 530. See Jackson v. Ellis. Decision in 9 Cow. applied (What constitutes ouster of co-tenant) in Trustees of Church, &c. of North Greig v. Johnson, 66 Barb. 123. Disting'd in Culver v. Rhodes, 87 K Y. 348. Approved and followed in Parker v. Pro- prietors of Locks, &c, 3 Mete. {Mass.) 91 ; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 121, 124, with note. Followed (Adverse possession as bar to ac- tion for partition) in Burhans v. Burhans, 2 Barb. Oh. 405 ; Therasson v. White, 52 How. Br. 65. Explained and applied in Florence v. Hopkins, 46 AT. Y. 185. Applied (Who may maintain action for partition) in Brownell v. Brownell, 19 Wend. 370; Beach v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Sow. Pr. 370. Approved, but referred to as modified by later decisions, as to necessity for present actual possession, — in Stewart e. Munroe, 56 How. Pr. 195. Disting'd in Blakely v. Calder, 15 N. ?. 622, 627, which aff'd 13 How. Pr. 476, which see. Followed (Ad- verse •possession by one entering under ex- ecutory contract) in Whitney v. Wright, 15 Wend. 181. Followed (Adverse possession by grantee of tenant in common) in Bo- , gardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, 200. Commented upon in Ang. on Limit. % 429, 6 ed. Applied'(Deed given without right, as basis of adverse possession) in Sands v. Hughes, 53 JV. Y. 297 ; Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Gh. 633, 739. Examined with other cases, in Chalmers v. Wright, 5 Robt. 717. Quoted and commented upon in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §776. v. Fullerton, 34 N. Y. 190. SeeSchenck ».. Dart ; Stewart v. Lispenard. Explained (Jurisdiction of Supreme Court on appeals from surrogates) in Marvin v. Marvin, 3 A bb. Ot. App. Bee. 202; Johnson v. Hicks, 1 Lans. 157. Applied in Horn v. Pullman, 10 Hun,4:7S. Disting'd (Opinion of witness as to mental capacity) in Real ». People, 55 Barb. 576. Followed in Van Zandt v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. (Ct. of App. 1872) which was cited in Higbee v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 66 Barb. 466. Approved and applied in O'Brien v. People, 36 N. Y. 282. Applied in Holcomb «. Holcomb, 95 Id. 316. Approv- ingly cited in 11 Am. Dec. 656, »., as main- taining a doctrine that is gaining ground. Included in Bed/. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 105. Examined with other cases (Evidence of ad- missions of legatee as to testator's capacity) in La Bau '«. Vanderbilt, 3 Bed/. 403. Ap- plied (Right of testator to dispose of estate) in Seguine v. Seguine, 4' Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 194; in dissenting opinion of Peckiiaw, J., in Tyler®. Gardiner, 35 A^ Y. 613; in Jack- son v. Jackson, 39 Id. 157; McLaughlin's Will, 2 Red/. 514; v Deas v. Wandell, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 128. Examined with other cases (Insane delusions of testatprs) in Merrill v. Rolston, 5 Red/. 220, 252. Applied (Disregarding admission of improper evidence in equity action) in Patterson v. Copeland, 52 How. Br. 406 ; Foote v. Beecher, 12 Hun, 374, which was rev'd in 78 N. Y. 155, which see. Compare Holcomb v. Holcomb, 20 Hun, 158; Schoonmaker v Wolford, Id. 168. — — v. Graves, 26 N. Y. 418. Applied (Dis- tinction between irregularity and nullity) in McMurray o. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. v. Hudson River R R Co. See Hege- man v. Western R. R. Co. v. Meserole, 38 Barb. 661. Aff'd in 1 Keyes. 281 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 362. See Walton ■». Walton. v. Rogers, 1 E. D. Smith, 549. Aff'd in 12 N. Y. 283. See Vernon v. Manhattan Co. v. Shntt, 19 Abb. Pr. 121; s. c, 44 Barb. 9 ; 29 How. Br. 255. Aff d in 44 N. Y. 104. v. Wilson, 5 Den. 285. Disapproved (Impeaching witness by inconsistent written statements) in Romertz v. East River Na- tional Bank, 2 Sweeny, 82, which was, how- ever, rev'd in 49 N. Y. 577, which see. Clapper, Ex parte, 3 Hill, 458. Cited (Con- clusiveness of record of magistrate) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 813. Clare v. National City Bank, 14 Abb. Pr. JSf. S. 326; s. c, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 261. Further decision in 40 Id. 114. Previous decision in 1 Sweeny, 539. ' De- cision in 1 Sweeny, compared with con- trary cases (Negligence — articles falling from buildings) in Bigel Gas. on Torts, 600. Decision in 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) applied (Liability for negligence of servant of con- tractor) in Burmeister v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 47 Id. 264, 268. Clarissey v. Metropolitan Fire Dept., 1 Sweeny, 224. Followed (Liability of Board) in Donovan v. Board of Education of N. Y., 44 Super. Ct. (/. S S.) 64. Clark, Matter of, 9 Wend. 212. Disting'd (Extradition) in Leary's Case, 6 Abb. M. G. 43, 65. Followed in Brown's Case, 112 Mass. 409; s. c, 17. Am. It. 114, 116. — — , , 20Hun, 551. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 81 if. Y. 638, but without opinion. , , 3 Den. 167. Cited with apparent disapproval (Necessity of notice, in order to give jurisdiction in attachment proceedings) in Waples on Proc. in Rem, § 596. Clark v. Baird, 7 Barb. 64. Aff'd in 9 N. Y. 183. See Brill v. Flagner; Pcchner ■». Phoenix Ins. Co. Decision in 9 A'. Y. ap- plied (Inadmissibility of parol evidence of acquiescence to vary description in deed) in Emerick «. ' Kohlcr, 29 Barb. 169; Hub- bell v. McCulloch, 47 Id. 302 ; Terry v. Chandler, 10 W. Y. 358; Drew v. Swift, 46 Id. 209. Applied (Opinions as evidence) in Harris -o. Panama R. R. Co., 3 Bosw. 1. CLARK. 155 Approved in De "Witt v. Barly, 11 K Y. 342. Applied (Opinion of witness as to value) in Bush «. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 629, 634; Teerpen- ning v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., 43 Jf. Y. 283 ; Van Deusen v. Young, 20 Id. 37. v. Barlow, 4 Johns. 183. Followed (When rent carries interest) in Obermeyer v. Nichols, Binn. (Pa.) 109; s. c, Am. Dec. 439. ■ t. Biningcr, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 126, and Id. 344. The former affd and the lat- ter modified and aff' d in 75 JV. Y. 344. For- mer proceeding in 1 Abb. AT. 0. 421. T. Binninger, 38 How. Pr. 341 ; s. c, 8 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 304, with note giving history of connected litigation. v. Bogardus, 2 Edw. 387. Explained (Evidence of intention of testator as to en- forcing claim) in Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Itedf. 265, 286. v. Brockway, 3 Eeyes, 13. Quoted and explained (Receiver — judgment creditor's action) in High on Receivers, § 464, n. 4. v. Brooks, 2 Alb. Pr. N. 8. 385. Ap- plied (Adoption of special verdict) in Madi- son University v. White, 25 Hun, 490, 494. — — t. Bruce, 12 Hun, 271. See also Same «. Same, 7a!. 274. v. Burdetl, 2 Hall, 197. Examined (Continuing guaranty) in Farmers' & Me- chanics' .Bank v. Kercheval, 2 Mich. 510. v. Bush, 3 Cow. 151. See Smedes v. Houghtaling. Limited (Interest beyond penalty) in the cases cited under Smedes v. floughtaling, below ; but approved, in Tare- well v. Saunders, 13 Qratt. ( Va.) 354, 366. See, also. Mower v. Kip, 6 Paige, 88. : v. City of Rochester, 13 How. Pr. 204. Rev'd in 24 Barb. 446; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. 107; 14 Huw. Pr. 193. Latter decision in effect aff'd in 28 K Y. 605. See Bank of Rome b. Village of Rome; Beals v. Benja- min; Griswold v. Atlantic Dock Co. ; People v. Mitchell. Decision in 13 How. Pr. disap- proved (Constitutionality of statute author- izing town bonding for railroads) in Benson *. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 24 'Barb. 251. Re-examined in Williams v. Town of Duanes- burgh, 66 2V. Y. 138, by Allen, J., who had given the opinion in 13 How. Pr. Cited and compared in Thompson v. Perriue, 103 U. S. 806, 816. Decision in 24 Barb, fol- lowed in Gould v. Town of Venice, 29 Id. 450. Explained as affected by N. Y. Const, art. 8, § 11,— in Matter of Buffalo & Jamestown R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 485. Ap- proved in Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 18 N. Y. 44. The decisions in Clark v. City of Rochester, examined at length in Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 Id. 186. Decision in 24 Barb, applied (Statute when not unconstitutional as delegation of legislative power) in Bank of Chenango v. Brown, 26 IV. Y. 471. Decision in 28 N. Y. applied in Gilbert Elevated R. Co. v. Anderson, 8 Abb. N. O. 447 ; People "j. Acton, 48 Barb. 528; Village of Glovers- ville v. Howell, 7 Hun, 348, which was affd in 70 K Y. 291, which see. Examined in Metropolitan Board of Health i: Heister, 37 Id. 676. v. Clark, 8 Paige, 152; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 676, with note, collecting citations thereof. See Bates v. Underbill. Disting'd (Bequest of residue for life, with remainder over) in Hill v. Hill, 2 Lans. 43. Followed (Duty of guardian as to requiring infant to maintain himself) in Kelahor «. McCahill, 26 Hun, 148. Disting'd (Accounting by executors for proceeds of real estate that they are em- powered to sell) iu Jansseu v. Wernple, 3 Red/. 233. Cited as authority (Right of executors to retain control of proceeds of estate) in Bundy v. Bundy, 47 Barb. 141. Followed in Edsall v. Waterbury, 2 Red/. 50. Followed (Proof of claim made against estate by executor, &c.) in Wood v. Rusco, 4 Id. 386. Applied with Adair v. Brimmer, 74 A 7 ". Y. 566 ; Croft v. Williams, 23 Hun, 102 (Liability of trustee for acts or omissions of co-trustee) in Earle v. Earle, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 18. Applied in Whitney v. Phoenix, 4 Red/. 198. — v. , 24 Barb. 581. Disapproved (Curtesy, how affected by«tatute) in Matter of Winne, 1 Bans. 508, 520, which was, however, rev'd in 2 Id. 21, which see. See, also, Hurd v. Cass, 9 Barb. 366. Collated, with other cases, in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 289. — v. , 25 Barb. 76. See Petridge v. Wells. Approved (Trademark — use of same word to designate same manufacture as another) iu Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr. 68. Collated with Paber «. Faber, 49 Barb. 357; Wolfe v. Burke, 7 Lans. 151; Meneely v. Meneely, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 540, and other cases (Restraining one from the use of his own name) in 12 Am. R. 410, n. — v. Cleveland, 6 Hill, 344. Disapproved (Second arrest) in Doyle v. Russell, 30 Barb. 300, 303. Cited as authority iu Riley v. Whittiker, 49 A 7 ! H. 145; s. c, 6 Am. R. 474. Disting'd (Letting prisoner to bail in county where arrested) in People v. Clews, 77 N. Y. 39, 44. Collated, with other cases, (Arrest without warrant) in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 276. — v. Coles, 48 How. Pr. 266. Further pro- ceeding in 50 Id. 178. — v. Cottrell, 63 Barb. 335. Rev'd in 42 N. Y. 527. — v. Crego, 47 Barb. 599. Affd in 51 A 7 . Y. 646. Decision in 47 Barb, disting'd (Charge on land creating trust) in Dill v. Wisner, 23 Hun, 123, 127. Cited (What constitutes ouster, as fact for a jury), in Highstone v. Burdette, Sup'm. Ct. Mich. Jane, 1884, 20 Northw. Rep. 65. v. Cumiiiings, 5 Barb. 339, 353. Col- lated with King ». Paddock, 18 Johns. 141; Eagle's Case, 3 Abb. Pr. 218, and many other cases (Presumption of death from ab- sence) in 29 Alb. L. J. 426. 156 CLAEK. — * t. Dales, 20 Barl. 42. See Keating v. Price, 20 Barb. 42, 64. Followed (Waiver of proof of loss) in Goodwin v. Massachu- setts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 JT. Y. 480, 495. Followed (Extension of time, by parol) in Burt e. Saxton, 4 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 109, 111. — v. Denure, 3 Ben. 319. See (Justice's court — remitting part of verdict) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 3016, «. v. Dibble, 1H Wend. 601. See Woodbeck v. Keller. Disting'd (Evidence— quantum of, in civil cases) in Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Ban, 251, 253. — v. Donaldson, 49 Bow. Pr. 63 ; mem. s. c, 3 Bun, 224; 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 683. Affd, it seems, in G4 N~. Y. 631, but without opinion. — v. Eighth Ave. K. K. Co., 32 Barb. 657. Aff d in 36 K Y. 135: s. c, 34 Bow. Pr. 315. See Phillips v. Rens. & S. It. R. Co. Decision in 36 JVJ Y. followed (Negligence in street car) in Lax v. Forty -second, &c. R. R. Co., 46 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 448, 452. v. Ely, 2 Sandf. Gh. 166. See TenEyck v. Holmes. See (Bona fide holder) 2 Alb. L. J. 327, n. T. Fairchild, 22 Wend. 576. Disapproved (Declaration need not be special) in King v. KeiT, 4 Chand. (Wise.) 160. — v. Farmer's Woollen Mannf. Co. of Benton, 15 Wend. 256. Included with notes (Negotiable paper — effect of a seal) in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 770. — v. Fisher, 1 Paige, 171 ; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 402, with note. In Bogardus v. Clark, 1 Edw. 266 (aff d in 4 Paige, 623) a subse- quent action concerning realty devised by same will, decision in 1 Paige, on validity of will as to personalty held not to bo con- clusive. Will sustained in Clark i>. Sawyer, 3 Sandf. Gh. 351, which was rev'd in 2 Barb. Gh. 411, and that affd in 2 AT. Y. 498. See Culver v. Haslam. Cited as authority (Evidence as to paternity of children for whom provision is made in will) in Davis v. Calvert, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 269; s. c, 5 Am, Dec. 282, 298, wi'.h note. Included with note (Will — capacity necessary) in Bed/. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 287. Fitch, 2 Wend. 459; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 639. See Bartley v. Richtmyer; Burlin- game v. Burlingame; Foster v. Scofiekl ; Martin v. Payne. Approved (Infant's right to collect his wages) in Swartz v. llazlett 8 Cal. 118, 124. Applied (Who may main- tain action for seduction) in Certwell i>. Uoyt, Bun, 575; Lavery v. Crooko, 52 Wise. 618. Followed (Exclusion of evidence of promise of marriage, in action for seduc- tion) in Whitney v. Elmer, 60 Barb. 250. Not followed in White v. Campbell, 13 Gratt. ( Va.) 573. v. Foot, 8 Johns. 421. See Hay v. Cohoes Co. Approved (Liability for spread of lire) in Do France v. Spencer, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 462; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 533, with note. Discussed in Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 502. Applied with Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. 92 (One doing lawful act, when not ■ chargeable with consequences) in Burroughs v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 15 Conn. 124; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 64, 68, with note. v. Ford, 1 Abb. Gl. App. Dec. 359 ; s. c, 3 Keyes, 370. See McCartee v. Camel. See (Action by legatee against executor) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1819, n. v. Fuller, 21 Barb. 128. Explained (Assignment for benefit of creditors— ^au- thority to assignee) in Burrill on Assign. § 315, 4 ed. Discussed (Terms of sale) in Id. § 224. v. Gilbert, 32 Barb. 576. On second trial plaintiff excepted to rule of damages, and on appeal judgment was rev'd in 26 N. Y. 279. v. Goodridge, 41 JV". Y. 210. See second report purporting to supply deficiencies, in 44 Bow. Pr. 226, which was corrected (Notice of attachment of funds) in O'Brien b. Mech. & Trad. Ins. Co., 56 JST. Y. 52, which rev'd 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 124, which see. Decision in 41 B. Y. disting'd in Wehle v. Connor, 69 A 7 ! Y. 546, 552, as involving a question as to priority of creditors. v. Griffith, 2 Bosw. 558. Rev'd in 24 N. Y. 595. Dictum in 24 N. Y. approved (Right of severance between tenants in common of personalty) in Channon «. Lust, 2 Bans. 211. v. Hall, 7 Paige, 382. Further deris- ion, as Clark v. Hale, Clarice, 349. See Moore v. Burrows. v. Harwood, 8 Bow. Pr. 470. Approved (Nothing but cause of action to be stated in complaint) in Sands v. St. John, 36 Barb: 628, 640. v. Henry, 2 Cow. 324 ; s. c, 7 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 800, with brief note, on proving deed a mortgage. See Dey v. Dunham. v v Holdridge, 58 Barb. 60. Collated with Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. 282; Butler s. Potter, 17 hi. 145 ; Willis v. Havemeyer, 5 Duer, 447 (Judge not liable in civil action for judicial acts) in 25 Am. P. 694, n. v. Jones, 1 Den. 516; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 706, with note, collecting citations. See Van Rensselaer v. Jewett. - — v. Loomis, 5 Duer, 468. Affd, as Clark v. Sisson, in 22 B. Y. 312. V. Luee, 15. Wend. 479. Overruled (Practice on attachment against non-resi- dent) in Bennett v. Brown, 4 A T . Y. 254; and see Taylor v. Heath, 4 Den. 592.- Col- lated, with other cases, in Throop's Justice's Man. 2 ed. 25. v. MeCann, 19 Bun, 13. Rev'd in Clarke ». Gibbons, 83 N. Y. 107. v. Marsiglia, 1 Den. 317; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 670, with notes, wherein it is said to have been frequently referred to with ap- proval in N. Y. and elsewhere. Applied with Ueckshcr t<. McCrea, 24 Wend. 314; Master- ton 8. Mayor of Brooklyn, 2 BUI, 75 (Dam- CLARK. 157 ages for breach of contract) in Friedlander v. Pugh, 43 Miss. Ill; s. c, 5 Am. R. 478. Applied with Wilson v. Martin, 1 Den. 602 ; Spenoer v. Halstcad, Id. 606, in Polsley e. Anderson, 7 W. Va. 202 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 613, 6 IV. Approved in Hosmcr «. Wilson, 7 Mich. 294. v. Masters, 1 Bosw. 177, 185. Followed (Freight not recoverable until goods tend- ered) in 12G5 Vitrified Pipes, 14 Match/. 0. Ct. 274. v. Mayor, &c. of Syracuse, ,13 Barb. 32. Collated with Underwood v. Green, 42 N~. Y. 140, and other authorities (Liability of municipality for abatement of a supposed nuisance which is not one in fact) in Cole ■o. Kegler, 64 Iowa, 62. — v. Mayor of N. ¥., 3 Barb. 288. Rev'd in 4 H. Y. 338; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 379, with note. Another decision arising under same contract, in 1 Keyes, 9. Decision in 4 N. Y. criticised at length (Measure of dam- ages in case of contract terminated by one party against the consent of the other) in Doolittle v. McCullough, 12 Ohio St. 809- 372. Included in Sedgw. Uas. on Lama. 371. v. Meigs. 12 ^456. Pr. 267: s. c, 21 How. Pr. 187. Rev'd in 13 Abb. Pr. 467; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 340. Further decision in 10 Bosw. 337. v. Merchants' Bank, 1 Sand/. 498. Rev'd in 2 N. Y. 380. Decision in 2 K Y. explained and disting'd (Title to negotiable paper received for collection) in Commercial Bank of Clyde v. Marine Bank, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 33; s. c, 3 Keyes, 337. Confirmed and applied (Bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in Wyman v. Colorado Nat'l Bank, 5 Col. 30; s. c, 40 Am. R. 133. Applied (Title to money or bills deposited in bank) in Metropolitan Nat. B'k v. Loyd, 25 Hun, 101, 105. v. Miller, 4 Wend. 628. Applied (Lia- bility of one preventing owner of property from showing its quality and value) in Bailey fl. Shaw, 24 N. H. 297 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 241. v. , 42 Barb. 255. On further decis- ion plaintiff had judgment in 47 Barb. 38, which was affd in 54 A r . Y. 528. See Adsit i). Brady. Decision in 54 N. Y. cited as authority (Damaged party not to increase amount of damage) in Beers v. Board of Health, 35 La. Ann. 1132; s. c, 48 Am. It. 256. v. Montgomery, 23 Barb. 464, 472. Commented on (Guardian appointed by surrogate) in Willard on Execvtors, 447, n. V. Niblo. See Jackson v. Plumbe. v. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 7 Lam. 322. Rev'd in 64 N. Y. 33. — — v. Norton, 8 Lans. 484; s. c, 58 Barb. 434. Aff'd in 49 If. Y. 243. See People v. Supervisors of Chenango. Decision in 49 M. Y. disting'd (Liability of assessors) in Stewart t. Fonda, 19 Hun, 191. Doctrine explained (Completing assessment roll) in Overing «. Foote, 65 2f. Y. 271. Followed (Substantial compliance with statutes regu- lating assessment and' taxation sufficient) in Albany City Bank v. Maher, 6 Fed. Rep. 423. v. Ostrander, 1 Cow. 437; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 546, with extended note on the subject of waiver of appeal or right of review. v Owens, 18 N. Y. 434. See Jackson v. Blanshan. Approved (Admissibility of deed accompanied with possession for thirty years) in 3 Am. Dec. 490, n. Cited (Evi- dence of death of cestui que vie) in 1 WasAb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 115, n. 3. v. People, 26 Wend. 599. Followed with People v. Draper, 15 JT. Y. 543 ; Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 324 (Courts, when not authorized to annul act of legislature) in Stewart v. Supervisors of Polk Co., 30 Iowa, 9; s. c, 1 Am. R. 238, 243. Disting'd (Justice of the peace) in Wenzler v. People, 58 XT. Y. 516, 524. Explained in People v. Morgan, 5 Daly, 161, 180. v. , 1 Park Gr. 347. Rev'd, on the ground that an intent to kill, though formed on the instant, may be a "premeditated design," in People v. Clark, 7 K Y. 385. v. Pinney, 6 Cow. 297. Applied (Effect of reversal of judgment on property rights) in Duncan v. Ware's Executors, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 119; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 772. Followed inMcJilton v. Love, 13 III. 486; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 449, 454, with note. See, also, Ponder v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 207; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 194. Approved (Trespass not maintainable for amount of a judgment which was merely erroneous) in Field v. Anderson, 103 III. 407. — v. , 7 Cow. 681; s. c, 9 2v". Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 263, with brief note, citing con- flicting authorities. See Gleason v. Same; Suydam v. Jenkins. Denied (Damages for breach of contract for sale of chattels) in Kennedy v. Whitwell, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 466 ; Parks v. Boston, 15 Id. 206. Preferred in Thomas v. Murray, 32 iv~. Y. 605, to Pinney v. Gleason, 5 Wend. 393, which is reconciled with Clarke v. Pinney. Discussed and quali- fied in Suydam v. Jenkins,, 3 Sand/. 614. Explained with Sturgis v. Allis, 10 Wend. 355, in Lott v. Swezey, 29 Barb. 87. Ex- plained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 197, n. j. ; Id. 205, n. i. Explained (Contracts — construc- tion and interpretation of) in 2 Pars. on. Contr. 500, n. s. — v. Rankin, 46 Barb. 570; s. c, with opinion of Daniels, J., in 6 Am. L. Reg. A r . 8. 368. — v. Richards. See Beardsly v. Root. v. Rowling, 3 if. Y. 216; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 290, with note, wherein it is said to be denied (Effect of adjudication in bankruptcy on judgment) in McCarthy v. Goodwin, 8 Mo. App. 380 ; but thought by the editor to be sustained by the great preponderance of authority, citing cases. See Dresser v. Brooks; Monroe v. Upton. Followed in Monroe v. Upton, 50 XT. Y. 593. Disap- 158 CLAEK— CLARKE. proved with Dresser v. Brooks, 3 Bart. 429, in Boynton v. Ball, 105 III. 627; s. c, 46 Am. R. 577. Dissenting opinion of Bron- son, Ch. J., cited as authority (Power to vacate judgment after expiration of term where it was rendered) in Heckling*. Allen, U. S. Oir. Ot. D. Col. 15 Reporter, 387. Followed (Looking behind judgment to debt in insolvency proceedings) in Conway «. Seamons, 55 Vt. 8; s. c.,.45 Am. R. 579. v. Sawyer. See Clai* v. Fisher ; Stew- art v. Lispenard. v. Sickler, 64 JST. Y. 231; s. c, 21 Am. R. 606. Applied (Discharge of surety) in Marsh ». Dunckel, 25 Hun, 167, 169. Dis- ting'd and Sailly v. Elmore, 2 Paige, \497, cited in White's Adm. v. Life Ass'n of America, 63 Ala. 419; s. c, 35 Am. R. 45. Disting'd. (Accommodation maker) in Con- verse r>. Cook, 25 Hun, 44, 48. V, Sisson, 22 K Y. 312. Aff'g Clark v. Loomis, 5 Duer, 468. See Aeby v. Rapelye. Followed (Oral evidence to vary writing) in Fellows v. Wallace, 8 A bb. .JST. C. 351, 353. Applied (Estoppel of parties to instrument by representations outside its face) in Weyh v. Boylari, 85 K Y. 394. Collated, with other cases (Consideration — purchase of accommodation note or bill) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 243. V. Skinner. See Pangburn v. Patridge. v. Smith, 14 Johns. 326. Followed with Wood «. Edwards, 19 Id. 212 (Recovery on general count, when precluded, after failure in proof of special contract) in Fowler v. Austin, 1 How. (Miss.) 156; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 701. v. , 34 Barb. 140. See Quinn v. Quinn. Limited (Revocation of will) in Lovell v. Quitman, 25 Hun, 537. v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 11 Barb. 112. Criticised (Liability of railroad com- pany for injury to cattle trespassing on its track) in 49 Am. Bee. 262, »., as going beyond the rule of the authorities holding to the common-law doctrine laid down in Tonawanda R. R. Co. v. Munger, 5 Ben. 255 ; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 239, with valuable note, collating many authorities. Dis- approved in Jackson v. Burlington & Rut- land R. R. Co., 25 Vt. 162; and compare Corwin ». N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 3 2T. Y. 42. V. Titcomb. See Partridge v. Badger. v. Tucker, 2 Sand/. 157, 164. Quoted (Part payment required by statute of frauds) in Benj. on Sales, § 193,. n. m. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Union Ferry Co., 35 K Y. 485. Fol- lowed (Proximate cause of damage) in Ken- nedy v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 N. Y. 365, 368. Quoted and explained (Nuisance — care of animals) in Wood on JVuis. 2 ed. § 748, n. 1. v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 Hun, 181. Aff'd, it seems, in 75 iv". Y. 612, but with- out opinion. Decision in 12 Hun disting'd (Suit to vacate assessment) in Kennedy v. City of Troy, 77 2T. Y. 493, which rev'd 14 Hun, 308, which see. v. Vorce, 15 Wend. 193. Subsequent decision in 19 Wend. 232. Decision in i.» Wend, approved (Proving testimony of de- ceased witness on a former trial) in Craw- ford v. Loper, 25 Barb. 449. Decision in 19 Wend, referred to as modified by late de- cisions (Improper evidence always cause for new trial) in People v. Gonzalez, 35 ^V. Y. 49. v. Wethey, 19 Wend. 320. Approved (Controlling effect of description) in Clark v. Baird, 9 JST. Y. 183, 204. v. Wise, 57 Barb. il6\ s. c, 39 How. Pr. 97. Rev'd (Question of fact, in case sub- mitted without action) in Clark «. Wise, 46 N. Y. 012. v. Woodruff, 18 Hun, 419. Aff'd in 83 N. Y. 518. Clarke. Matter of, 1 Tuck 119. Explained (Authority of assistant of surrogate in N. Y.) in Roderigas v. East River Savings Institu- tion, 43 Super.' Ct.(J. & S.) 217, 232. Clarke v. Baird, 7 Barb. 64. Appeal from decision on subsequent trial in 9 N. Y. 183. Clarke v. Bogardus. See Rickets v. Living- ston. v. Boreel, 21 Hun, 594. Followed (Service of summons) in Wood ». St. Louis Bolt & I. Co., 1 Git. Pro. R. 220, in prefer- ence to Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714. v. Brooklyn Bank. See Walker v. Devereaux. v. City of Rochester. See Clark v. Same. v. Davenport, 1 Bosw. 95. Said in Towle v. Remsen, 70 N. Y. 303, 307, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. See Towle v. Forney. v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674. See Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wager; Shotwell v. Murray. Applied (Effect of mistake of law) in Hold- redge v. Webb, 64 Barb. 22; by Cowen, J., in Root v. Stuvvesant, 18 Wend. 299. Applied in Champlin o. Laytin, Id. 417; Morton s. Ludlow, 1 Edw. 643. Dis- approved in Northrop v. Graves, 19 Conn. 548; s. c, 50 Am. Bee. 204, 270, with note. Cited as authority with Mowatt «. Wright, 1 Wend. 355, in Mayor of Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill (Md.) 425; s. c, 45 Am. Bee. 145. Cited as authority with Mowatt v. Wright, 1 Wei.d. 355; Lyonu. Richmond, 2 Johns. Ch. 5 1 . in Union Ins. Co. v. City- of Allegheny, 101 Pa. St. 255. Opposed in City of Louisville v. Anderson, 20 An. L. R*g. N. S. 687, with note. Dicta hereia criticised in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 322, as inconsistent with decisions, and as having been expressly overruled, though said to to have been followed by some of the text- writers. Discussed in 2 Alb. L. J. 450. Cited as authority (Admission that avoids statute of limitations) in Deyo «. Jones, 1!) Wend. 491 ; Hancock v. Bliss, 7 Id. 267. T. Gibbons. See Clark -o. McCann. CLAEK— CLASON. 159 ■ v. Goodridge, 41 N". Y. 210. Rev'g Drake v. Goodridge, 54 Barb. 78. Decision in 41 N. Y. explained (Sufficiency of notice of attachment) and report corrected in O'Brien . Trow's Printing, &c. Co., 24 Hun, 281, 283. Clarkson v. Clarkson, 18 Barb. 640. Approved (Interest of life tenants in dividends) in Woodruff's Estate, 1 Tuck 58. Followed with Matter of Woodruff's Estate, in Cragg «. Riggs, 5 Bed/. 82, 88. Disting'd in Scovel v. Roosevelt, Id. 121, 126. Discus- sed in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 546, n. Disting'd (Dividends, &c, whether principal or income) in Matter of Pollock, 3 Bed/. 109. Collated with Simpson v. Moore, 30 Barb. 037, and other cases, in 24 Am. B. 109, n. v. De Peyster, Hoph. 424, 505. Aff'd in 2 Wend. 77. See (Payment into court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 743, n. v. , 3 Paige, 320. Dictum disap- proved (Necessity of issuing execution, for the purpose of removing obstructions) in North American Ins. Co. v. Graham, 5 Sandf. 197. Disapproved with Mohawk Bank v. Atwater, 2 Paige, 54; Storm ■». Waddell, 2 Sandf Ch. 510 • (Necessity of • execution for maintaining action to set aside conveyance), in McCullough v. Colby, 5 Bosw. 477. 495. Compare -Williams v. Hubbard, Walk. Ch. 29. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conn. % 76. t. Gifford, 1 Cai. 5 ; s.c.,81 Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 37, with brief note on changing venue. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 304. Cited as authority (Nature of powers and privileges conferred on railroad cor- porations by act of 1850) in Johnson ». Hud- son River R. R. 'Co., 49 N. Y. 455. v. Skidmore, 2 Bans. 238. Modified on appeal, in 46 N. Y. 297. Clasou t. Bailey, 14 Johns. 487. See Mer- ritt v. Clason. Followed (Subscription to memorandum required by statute of frauds) in Justice v. Lang, 42 N. Y. 493, and ex- plained in connection with Bailey v. Ogden, 3 Johns. 399 ; Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt, 1 Johns. Ch. 282 ; Benedict v. Lynch, Id. 370. Collated with Justice . Boston & Alb. R. R. Co., 24 Hun, 104, 108;.Loftus v. Union Ferry Co. of Brooklyn, 84 K Y. 455, 460.' T. Whlton, 31 Barb. 544. Followed (Jurisdiction of surrogate) in Savage v. Olm- stead, 2 Red/. 478, 482. See (Judgment against executor for decedent's debt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. Cleves t. Willoughby, 7 Hill, 83. See Dyett v. Pendleton. Followed (Application of maxim of caveat emptor to hiring of real property) in McGlasham v. Tallmadge, 37 . Barb. 315 ; O'Brien v. Capwcll, 59 Id. 504. Commented on (Recovery for use and occupation) in Hall v. Western Transp. Co., 34 N. Y. 289. RcafFd (Lessor's liability as to condition of premises) in Jaffe v. Ilarteau, 56 Id. 401. Applied in Post v. Vetter, 2 K D. Smith, 249. Included in Lawson-s lead. Com. L. Cos. Simplified, 160. Fol- lowed in Foster v. Peyser, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 242 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 43, with note. Ap- plied (Lease when not to be controlled by oral agreement) in Wilson v. Dean, 74 A 7 ! Y. 534. , Clews y. Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co., 2 Hun, 379; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 669. Another proceeding in 49 How. Pr. 117. Clickman t. Clickman, 1 A 7 ! Y. 611. Ex- plained and disapproved (Error in name of court in title of affidavit) in Bowman v. Shel- don, 5 Sandf. 657. Clifford v. Bam, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 391. Aff'd in 81 A 7 ". Y. 52. Statement in latter ' that the appeal is from the Supreme Court is incorrect. See Brown v. Cayuga & Sus. R. R. Co. Decision in 81 A 7 ". Y. disting'd (Liability for injury resulting from obstruc- tion, &c. in sidewalk) in Wenzlick «. Mc- Colter, 87 Id. 128. Applied in Dickin- son v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 62 How. Pr. 257 Clift v. White, 15 Barb. 70. Rev'd in 12 N. Y. 519. Decision in 15 Barb, relied on (Merger of mortgage) in Welsh v. Phillips, 54 Ala. 309; s. c, 25 Am. R. 679. Clinch v. South Side R. R. Co., 2 Hun, 154; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 683. Another decision in Id. 224. With latter decision compare (Receiver of corporation — how ap- pointed) Code Cm. Pro. § 1810. Clinton y. Hope Ins. Co., 51 Barb. 647. Alf'd in 45 N. Y. 454. Decision in 45 N. Y. disting'd (Effect of reference to survey, &c. in policy) in Steward v. Phoe- nix Fire Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 264. Applied in Vilas v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 72 A 7 ". Y. 592. Explained (Right of insurer to subro- gation to rights of mortgagee) in Foster «. Van Reed, 70 Id. 26. Examined with other cases (Insurable interest of creditor of estate of deceased) in Rohrbach v. Gennania Fire Ins. Co., 62 Id. 60. Explained (Effect of words " estate of " in designating parties having; rights or liabilities on written I.— 11 instrument) in Merchant's Bank v. Hayes, 7 Hun, 535. Cited as authority (Effect of in- surance procured by mortgagee at instance of mortgagor) in Waring i>. Loder, 53 A 7 . Y. 585. Applied with Hoffman v. JEtna Ins. Co., 32 Id. 405 (Construction of policy) in Morse v. Buffalo Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 30 Wis. 534; s. c, 11 Am. R. 587, 591. v. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511. Disting'd (Right to discharge surface water) in Waffle ». N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 53 -N. Y. 11, 13. v. Strong, 9 Johns. 370. See Hall v. Schultz; Ripley v. Gelston. Examined with other cases (Payment to emancipate person and property, when not compulsory) in Mayor of Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 QUI (Md.) 425; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 145-151, with elaborate note collating cases. Ex- plained (Money had and received) in 2 Chitty on Gontr. 943, n. i 3 , 11 Am. ed. Close v. Stnart, 4 Wend. 95. Applied (Re- covery back of money paid) to case of as- sessment in Mayor, &c. of Jersey City ads. Riker, 9 Vroom (N~. J.) 225 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 386. Clothier v. Adriauce, 51 A 7 ! Y. 322. See Moore v. Cross. Disting'd (Surrender of notes as constituting holder for value) in Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 K Y. 218, 224. Clough v. Murray, 3 Robt. 7, 16. Disting'd (Accord and satisfaction as bar) in Law- rence v. Barker, 9 Daly, 140.. Disting'd (Discharge of sealed agreement) in Anthony «. Harrison, 14 Hun, 198, 210. Approved and followed in Kuhn ». Stevens, 36 How. Pr. 275. v. Borst, 6 Johns. 37. Compare (Pay- ment by a stranger) Wellington v. Kelly, 84 A 7- . Y. 543, 547. Clow v. Van Loan, 4 Hun, 184; s. c, more fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 458. Clowes y. Dickenson, 5 Johns. Ch. 235. Rev'd in 9 Cow.' 403. Followed with Gill i). Lyon; 1 Johns. Ch. 440 (Applying parcels of incumbered land in inverse order of their transfer) in Nailer v. Stanley, 10 Serg. & R. (Penn.) 450; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 691, with note. Compare (Execution — contri- bution between owners) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1481, 1483, mi. V. , 8 Cow. 328. Explained and disting'd (Seeking payment of judgment, when waiver of right to appeal) in Knapp v. Brown, 45 A 7 ". Y. 207. Cloyes v. Thayer, 3 Hill, 564. Approved with Vroom i>. Ditmas, 4 Paige, 520 (Variance) in Richards ». Worthly, 5 Wise. 76; and see Griggs v. Howe, 31 Barb. 100, 102, and Catlin v. Gunter, above. Followed with Ward v. People, 6 Hill, 144 ; Brandon v,. People, 42 A 7 ! Y. 265 ; Connors v. People, 50 Id. 240 (Privilege of witness to refuse to make criminating answer, purely per- sonal) in State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. £34 ; s. a, 20^1to. R. 6S8, 690. Cluni v. Smith, 5 Hill, 566. See Dana v. 162 ' CLUMPHA— COBB. Tucker. Disting'd (Correcting verdict on juror's affidavits) in Dalrymple 1). Williams, 63 N. Y. 361. " Clninpha v. Whitiug, 10 AM. Pr. 448. Ex plained (Waiver of irregularity in judgment, by appeal) in People v. Albany & Susque- hanna R. R. Co., 8 AM. Pr. N. 8. 122. Clussman v. Long Island R. R. Co., Jlun, 618. Aff'd, it seems, in 73 K Y. 606, but without opinion. v. Merkel, 3 Bosw. 402. See Gaillard v. Smart. Limited (Conditional admission of evidence) in Kerslake ■». Schoonmakcr, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 524, 527. Clute v, Bool, 8 Paige, 83.. gee Hone v. Van Schaick. Limited .and disting'd (Right of creditors to reach income of trust fund) in Williams v. Thorn, 70 K Y. 270, 279. v. Clnte, 3 Ben. 263. See Adams v. Dyer. Considered (Fractional parts of a day, when to be regarded) in Knowlton o. Culver, 2 Pinn. (Wis.) 243; 1 Chand. 214 ; s. c, 52 Am. Dee. 156, with note. V. Emmerick, 12 Hun,, 504. Further decision in 21 Id. 122v • Contrary to decis- ion in 12 Id. see (Ejectment) Tyler on Ejectment, 529. See, also, Abb. Tr. Er>. 703. — - v. Fitch, 24 Barb. 428. Criticised and explained (Justifying attachment by proof that prior sale by defendant was fraudulent) in Hall v. Stryker, 27 iV. Y. 596. Explained in Wait on Fraud. Gorvo. § 263. — — v. Robison, 2 Johns. 595. See Gazley n. Price. Examined, with other cases (Rights of assignee of chose in action) in Bush v. Lathrop, 22 JST. 7. 544. Approved (Con- tract to give good deed relates to title) as stating rule correct in equity though other- wise at law, — in Parker v. Parmelee, 20 Johns. 130, 132. Followed with Judson v. Wass, 11 Id. 525; Gazley v. Price, 16 Id. 267, in Stow t>. Stevens, 7 Vt. 27; s. c, 29 Am. Bee. 139, 142. Though said to be im- pugned if not overruled by later cases (citing Van Eps 'v. Schenectady, 12 Johns. 436; Gazley v. Price, 16 Id. 269; Parker v. Parmelee, 20 Id. 130), yet cited as authority with Jackson «. Ayres, 14 Id. 224, in Tin- dall v. Conover, 1 Spencer (iV. J.) 214; s. c, 40 Am. Bee. 220, with note. V. Wiggins, 14 Johns. 175; s. c, 7 Am. Bee. 448, with extended note, wherein it is re- ferred to as a leading and early case and one .. very frequently • followed as to liability of innkeepers. See Cromwell v. Stephens. Dis- ting'd (Possession that creates innkeeper's liability) in. Albin v. Preslv, 8 K H. 4t)8"; s. a,' 29 Am. Dec. 679, 681, with note. Explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 154, n. p. Clyde & Rose Plank road Co. v. Baker, 12 How. Pr. 371. AfFd in 22 Barb. 323. Coakley v. Chamberlain. See Rolls v. De Leyer. Coates, Matter of, 18 Barb. 452. Rev'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 231. See Donnelly «. , Corbett. Decision in 3 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. approved (Effect of foreign discharge in bankruptcy) in Matter of Bonaffe, 23 N.-Y. 169. ;: * Explained and limited in Munroe v. Guilleaume, 3 Keyes, 30. Coates v. Cheever, 1 Cow, 460, 475. See Collins v. Torry. Explained (Dower in mortgaged premises) in Russell v. Austin, 1 Paige, 192. Collated, with other cases, in Sharsio. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 342. Followed (Dower in mines) in Billings v. Taylor, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 460; s. c, 20 Am. Bee. 533 ; Hendrix v. McBeth, 61 Ind. 473 ; s. c, 28 Am. jR.'680. Cited as authority in Lcnfers v. Ilenke, 73 III: 405 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 263. Discussed in 1 Washb. on Meal Prop. 4 ed. 208. v. Coates, 1 Buer, 664. Disting'd (What is final decision that plaintiff was not en- titled to injunction) in Neugent v. Swan, 61 Hoio. Pr. 40. t. Goddard, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & £) 118. Compare (Allowance in addition to costs) Code Civ. Pro. % 3252. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Cow. 585. Ap- proved (Constitutionality of burial laws) in •West Sav.- Fund v. City of Philadelphia, 31 Penn. 175. Applied (Power of municipal corporations to anniflStheir grants) in Mayor;" &c. of Now York v. Second Avenue R. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 261. Coats v. Hoi brook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 586. Ap- proved (Trade-marks) in Amoskeag Manuf. Co. «. Spear, 2 Sandf. 613. Followed with Bell v. Locke, 8 Paige, 75 ; Stone v. Carlan, 2 Sandf. 738, as leading cases, in Marsh c. Billings, 7 Cwh. (Mass.) 322 ; s. c, 54 Am. Bee. 723, with note. Quoted and collated with other cases, in Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 70, 71. See 3 Alb. L. J. 143. Cited as au- thority with Spottswood v. Clark, 2 Sandf. Ch. 629 (Damages for violation of trade- mark) in Graham v. Plate, 40 Gal. 593; s. c, 6 Am. R. 639, 641. v. People, 4 Park. Or. 662. Rev'd on the point that defendant was not within the statute, in 22 K Y. 245. v. Shepard, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 404; s.c, more fully, as Coats v. Holbrook, in 2 Sandf. Ch. 586. Cobb v. Cornish, 16 K Y. 602. ' DistingM (Power to suspend entry of judgment) in Alfaro v. Davidson, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 408. v. Bows, 9 Barb. 230. Rev'd in 10 fl~. Y. 335. Decision in 10 N. Y. applied (Right of principal to trace proceeds of property) in Dows v. Kidder, 84, Id. 121, .137. « — — v. Dunkin, 17 How. Pr. 97. Rev'd in 19 Id. 164. v. Harmon, 29 Barb. 472. AfTd in 23 N. Y. 148. v. Hatfield, 46 K Y. 538. Disting'd (Cbntracts — rescission for fraud) in Krumm v. Beach, 25 Hun, 293, 295. Applied in Anthony®. Day, 52 How. Pr. 38; Sinclair fl. Noill, 1 Hun, 82; Ross v. Titterton, 6 Id. 284; Dows v. Griswold, 4 Id. 556 ; Gray v. Green, 12 Id. 602 ; Guckenheimer 0. COBB— CODDINGTOK 163 • Angevine, 81 K Y. 394, 396. Followed in Grannis v. Hooker, 31 Wis. 474. v. Knapp, 42 Super. Ct. (/. S S.) 91. Affd in 71 W. Y. 348; s. c, 27 Am. It 51. Decision in 71 N. Y. followed (Execution of instrument by agent) in Adamsou v. Elwell, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 494. T. Titus, 13 Barb. 45. Affd in 10 If. Y. 198. Sec Chappcll v. Spencer. Followed (Altering note, by adding name of maker) in Brownell v. Winnie, 29 N. Y. 400, where it is explained as understood in Burton v. Baker, 31 Barb. 261.' Cobine v. St. John, 12 How. Pr. 333. Op- posed (Limit of jurisdiction of Supreme Court in equitable actions) in Marsh v. Benson, 11 Abb. Pr. 241, 250; but see SarsGcld v. Van Vaughner, 15 Id. 65. Coburn v. Wheelock, 42 Barb. 207. Affd in 34 N. Y. 440. Cochran v. Dinsmore. See Lamb v. Camden & Amboy K. R., &c. Co. . T . Gottwald, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 442. Other decisions in 41 Id. 317, and 42 Id. 614. Decision in 42 Super. Ct. overruled in effect (Costs to abide event) in Howell v. Van Siclen,^ Abb. iV. C 1. -, t. lngersoll, 13 Hun, 368. Appeal dis- missed in 73 1ST. Y. 613. Other proceedings in 66 N. Y. 652, and 11 Hun, 342. -. y. Van Surlay, 20 Wend. 365 ; s. a, 32 Am. Dec. 570-588, with note, wherein it is considered as by no means settling the titles in dispute, though recognized as au- , thority by all the decisions, except William- son i'. Berry, 8 How. {IT. S.) 465; but the position there taken, is said to have been receded from in Suydam v. Williamson, 24 Id. 427, by reason of the decision in Towle v. Forney, 14 N. Y. 426, which affd 4 Duer, 164, 174, which see. See other cita- tions in note, Also reported in 1 3 R. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 884, "with brief note. ; Compare Towle v. Palmer, 1 Pobt. 437;' Clarke v. Davenport, 1 Bosio. 5)5, 105; Towle %. Item- sen, 70 N. Y. 305 ; Williamson o. Field, 2 Sandf. Ch. 533, 549. See Clarke s. Van Surlay. Cited as authority (Sale of contin- gent interests or estates of infants) in Bow- , man e. Tallman, 27 How. Pr. 225, 278 ; Matter of Trustees of P. E. Pub. School, 31 If. Y. 591. Cited as necessarily disposing of the question, — in Leggett v. Hunter, 19 Id. 461. Disting'd as to adults, in , Brevoort v. Grace, 53 Id. 251. ■ Belied on in Todd v. Flournoy's Heirs, 56 Ala. 99; s. ft, 28 Am. li. 758, 763. See to the con- trary Burft v. Mechanics' Savings Bk., 12 R. I. 513. Cited as authority (Care of equitable estates of infants, inherent in Court of Chancery) in Anderson v. Mather, 44 N. Y. 260. Applied (Extent of legisla- tive power) in People v. Clute, 63 Barb. 386 ; People v. Quant, 12 How. Pr. 80 ; People v. Toynbce, 2 Park. Cr. 534. Ap- proved in Wynchamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 412. Approved in Bradford v. Shine's Administrator, 13 Fla. 393 ; s. «., 7 Am. Ii. 239, 245. Examined in People e. Gallagher, • 4 Mwh. 249. Quoted and commented upon in Cooleij on Const. Lim. 5 ed. 121. Ap- plied (Duty of courts to declare laws un- constitutional) in Darby B.Wright, 3 Blatchf. O. Ct. 170, 174. Quoted in Cooley on Const. Lim. 5 ed. 205. Coclicroft v. Claflin. 64 Barb. 464. See (Undertaking on application by one of two or more defendants for vacation of attach- ment) Code Civ. Pro. 1831, § 689, n. Coekey v. Hard. 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 307; s. a, .43 Ho(o. 'Pr. 140. Affd oh account of de- fects in motion papers; but disapproved on the question of power, in 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 183; s. c, 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 42, and 45 How. Pr. 70. But see to the contrary (Power to appoint referee to take affidavit of party) Knoeppcl v. Kings County Fire Ins. Co., VI How. Pr. 412; Spratt v. Hun- tingdon, 2 nun, 341. Cockle t. Underwood, 1 Abb. Pr.\; s. c, more fully and affd in 3 Duer, 676. Decis- ion in 3 Duer approved, but disting'd (Right to discontinue after counter-claim set up) in Seaboard & Roanoke,, R. R. Co. t>. Ward, 1 Abb. Pr. 46. Approved and followed (Power to deny discontinuance) in Young v. Bush, 30 How. Pr. 240. Cocks v. Barker, 44 N. Y. 107. See Worrall v. Munn. Disting'd and limited (Parol evi- dence to vary consideration) in Anthony ■». Harrison, 14 Hun, 189, 213. Cited (Con- tradicting acknowledgment of delivery of deed) ir> Whart. Com. on En. § 930. Codd v. Codd, 2 Johns. Ch. 141. Reviewed (Origin and character of the writ of suppli- cavit) in Adams v. Adams, 100 Mass. 305; s. c, 1 Am. R 111, 113. v. , 2 Johns. Ch. 224. Disting'd (Pleading in actions for divorce) in Mitchell ■o. Mitchell, 01 N.. Y. 398, 403. Quoted and explained in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 606, 6 ed. Discussed and approved with Qer- mond fl. Germond, .6 Johns. Ch. 347, in Chri itianberry v. Christianberrv, 3 Blaclrf. (hid.) 202 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 96, 98, with note. v. Rattibone, 19 N. Y. 37. Followed (Banker not a corporation) in Hallet v. nar- rower, 33 Barb. 537, 542. Followed (Waiver, when not created by failure to ob- ject to admission of evidence); in Williams v. Mechanics' & Traders' Fire Ins. Co., 54 N. Y. 577, 580. Codding v. Newman, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 364. Affd, it seems, in 63 K Y. 039, but without opinion. Confirmed (Retraction of renunciation) in Code Civ. Pro. § 2639. — — V. Wainsley, 1 Hun, 586 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 49. Affd in 60 JV. Y. 644, but without opinion. Decision in 1 Hun disting'd (Covenant in lease, when not for- feited by failure to perform condition within time prescribed) in N. Y. Life Ins. Co. ■». Rector, &c. of St. George's Church, 12 Abb. JT. C. 50. Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. 637; s. c, 164 CODDLNGTON— CQE. 11 Am. Dee. 342, with note; 6 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1143, with brief note. See Bay v. Coddington ; Padgett v. Law- rence ; Root v. French ; Rosa ■». Brother- son ; Spear ». Myers ; Stalker v. McDonald. Followed (Precedent debt as considera- tion for transfer of negotiable paper) in Spear v. Myers, 6 Barb. 447 ; Wright v. Delafield, 23 Id. 520; Bright e. Jud- son, 47 Id. 37 ; Francia v. Joseph, 3 Edie. 182 ; Turner «. Treadvvay, 56 How. Pr. 28; Lawrence v. Clark, 36 If. Y. 128; Clark v. Ely, 2 Sandf. Oh. 17 '1 ; McQuade v. Irwin, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 308; Prentiss n. Graves, 33 Barb. 624 ; Rosa v. Brother- son, 10 Wend. 86. Applied in Trader's Bit. v. Bradner, 43 Barb. 392 f Moore «. Ryder, 65 If. Y. 441 ; Ontario Bk. v. Worthington, 12 Wend. 600. Commented on in Whites. Springfield Bank, 3 Sandf. 226. RcafFd in Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93 ; McBride v. Farmers' Bk., 26 K Y 454. Disting'd in De Zeng v. Fyfe, 1 Bosw. 335. Declared settled law, and never to have been de- parted from by our courts, in Crandall v. Vickery, 45 Barb. 156. Examined in Mc- Cuskey v. Sherman, 24 Conn. 611 ; citing, Bank of Salina v. Babcock, 21 Wend. 499 ; Bank of Sandusky v. Scoville, 24 Id. 115. Critiaally considered in Russell v. Hadduck, 3 Gilm. (111.) 233; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. ,693, with note, and in effect said to be super- seded by Bank of Salina «. Babcock, 21 Wend. 499 ; Bank of Sandusky «. Scoville, 24 Id. 115; and to be denied by Justice Story, after reviewing all the cases, in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 ; though again reviewed and approved by Chancellor Wal- worth, in Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 39 ; where he endeavored to prove that Justice Story entirely misunderstood all the Eng- lish cases, as well as those in 21 and 24 Wend, supra ; the decision in 3 Gilm. supra ; also approving the last-named casesin support of what is said to be the most sensible and reasonable rule. Criticised and disting'd with Rosa v. Brotherson, 10 Wend. . 85, in Homes v. Smyth, 16 Me. 177; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 650, with note, as inapplicable to the law of Maine, and upon their principles and authorities, the N. Y. doctrine as thus laid down, in Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns. 68 ; Johnson v. Weed, 9 Id. 309 ; N. Y. S^ato Bank v. Fletcher^ 5 Wend. 85, is denied. Explained in Railroad Co. ». Nat. Bk., 102 U. S. 25, as not according with views after- wards expressed in 3 Kent Com. 81, n. b. Dissented from in Fellows v. Harris, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 466. Disting'd as to transferee of bonds, — in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15- If. Y. 196; as to mortgagee, in Birdseye v. Ray, 4 Hill, 163. Applied to assignee of mortgage, — in Hoyt ®. Hoyt, 8 Bosw. 527; Hcrtell». Bogert, 9 Paige, 59. Applied to transferee of stock, — in Weaver v. Barden, 49 If. Y. 294. Applied to purchaser of mortgaged premises, — in Dickerson v. Til- linghast, 4 Paige, 222. Applied -to. trans- feree of goods, in Root v. French, 13 Wend. 573. Followed (Necessity that negotiable paper be taken in usual course of trade) in Paynes. Cutler, iSWend. 605; Hall v. Wil- son, 16 Barb. 553; Wardell ». Howell, 9 Wend. 173. Applied in Holbrooke. Mix, 1 B. D. Smith. 1 58. Applied to consignment of goods in Williams v. Tilt, 36 N. Y. 325. Applied (Compelling accounting for proceeds of negotiable paper) in Comstock v. Hier, 73 If. V. 275 ; Covell v. Tradesman's Bank, 1 Paige, 134, v. Davis, 3 Den. 16. Affd in 1 JV. Y. 196. See points of counsel in How. App. Gas. 387. Decision in 1 If. Y. applied (Waiver of demand, by indorser) in Russell v. Cronkhite, 32 Barb. 282; Porter ». Kem- ball, 53 Id. 470. Disting'd (Demand in- cluded in protest, by implication) in Bren- nan v. Lowry, 4 Daly, 255. Applied in Youngs v. Lee, 12 If. Y. 554; Cook v. Litch- ■ field, 5 Sandf. 341 ; Woodbury «. Sackrider, 2 Abb. Pr. 404. Disting'd with Youngs v. Lee in Cook «. Warren, 88 If. Y. 37. -Dis- ting'd, arfd Backus v. Shipherd, 11 Wend. 269, cited, in Sprague n. Fletcher,' 8 Oreg. 367; s. a, 34 Am. R. 587. Codwise v. Field, 9 Johns. 263. Followed with Bank of Orange v. Wakeman, 1 Cow. 46 (Officer not to apply execution to his own debt) in Miles v. Richwine, ■ 2 fiawle (Pa.) 199; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 638, with note. v. Gelston, 10 Johns. 521. Compared with other cases (Application by trustee to court for advice, whether by petition or bill) in 5 Abb. If. O. 352, n. Quoted in Bur- rill on Assign. § 427, n. 1, 4 ed. Coe v. Beckwith, 31 Batb: 339; s. c, more fully, in 10 Abb. Pr. 296; 19 How. Pr. 398. Denied as a rule of pleading in Graham v. Machado, 6 Duer, 519; Price v. McOlave, Id. 548. Discussed (Assignment for benefit of creditors — release, subsequent to) in BurriU on Assign. § 317, 4 ed. v. Beckwith, 10 Abb. Pr. 296; s. c, 31 Barb. 339. Collated with other cases , (Trustees' compromises) in 5 Abb. If. C. 351, n. - v. Dunham, 45 How. Pr. 40; s. c, more fully, 3'5 N. Y. Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 412. v. Gilbert, 5 Duer, 72 ; s. c, 2 Abb. Pr. 242. Affd in 17 .V". Y. 489. Decision in 17 If, Y. followed (Bonds not leviable un- til delivered) in Sickles v. Richardson, 23 Hun, 559, 564. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 648. Explained (Private corporation— suit against) in Ang. & A. on Corp. 401, 11 ed. v. Hunt, C Hill, 595. Followed (Newly discovered evidence) in May v. Strauss, 8 Abb. If. O. 274, 279. v. Webb, 4 Sandf. 639. Questioned (Service of injunction order as prerequisite to bringing party into contempt) in People e. Compton, 1 Duer, 512, 553. v. Cassidy, 6 Daly-, 242. Affd in 72 ff. Y. 133. , - . • ' < COE -COLIN. 165 V. Coe; 37 Barb. 232; s. c, more full}', 14 Abb. Pr. 86. v. Hobby, 7 Hun, 157. Aff'd in 72 J*. K.141 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 120. See Na- tional Bank of Fort Edward «. Washington Co. Nat. Bank. .Decision in 72 JV. Y. fol- lowed, but point not stated, in Nat. B'k of Fort Edward v. Washington Co. Nat. B'k, 72 JV Y. 606. v. Smith, 24 Wend. 341. Approved and followed (Construction of Poor law) in Foster «. Cronkhite, 35 JV. Y. 139. Coffey V. Home life Ins. Co., 44 How. Pr. 381 ; s. c, more fully, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.), 314. Decision in 35 Super. Gt. followed (Suicide as showing insanity) in Weed v. Mutual Benef. L. Ins. Co., Id. 386. Coffin v. Coffin, 23 JT. Y. 9. Followed (Exe- cution of will) in Nexsen v. Nexsen, 2 Eeyes, 229. Applied in Bagley v. Blackman, 2 Lavs. 41 ; Von Hoffman v. Ward, 4 Red/'. 244, 260. Followed in Darling v. Arthur, 22 Hun, 84. Compared in Brady v. Mc- Crosnan, 5 Red/. 431. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills. Band. & T. ed. 208, n. y. Coke, 3 Hun, 396 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. .& O.) 71. Further proceedings in 4 Hun, 616. Decision in 4 Hun followed (Extra allowance on discontinuance) in Dambmann v. Schulting, 6 Run, 29. v. N; Y. Central B. R. Co., 64 Barb. 379. Aff'd, it seems, in 56 N. Y. 632, but without opinion. v. Reynolds, 37 JV Y. 640. See Aikin e. Wasson ; Hovey ». Ten Broeck. Disting'd (Meaning of terms "laborers, employes," &c.) in Gumey v. Atlantic & G. W. li'y Co., 58 JV. Y. 358, 3C7; Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 IT. Y. 50, 53. Applied (Power of referee) in Schuyler «. Smith, 51 JV. Y. 309, 317. Collated, with other cases, in Hoffm. on Referees, 4. - — - v. Folger. See Fenton v. Folger. Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Oh. 292 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 471, with note. Commented on (Jurisdiction of chancery over charitable bequests) in King v. Woodhull, 3 Edw. 79. " Belied on in Williams v. Williams, 8 JV". Y. 525, 550. Approved with McCartee v. Orphan Asylum, 9 Gow. 440, in Burr s. Smith, 7 Verm. 241 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dee. 154, 185, with note. Compared (Bequest to un- incorporated society) in 4 im. L. Reg. N. S. 274. Coggill v. American Exchange Bk., IKY. 113; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 310 ; with note, col- lecting citations thereof. Cited as authority (Recovery on bill, &c, made payable to fictitious person) in Merchants' L. & T. Co. «. Bk. of Metropolis, 7 Daly, 137, 140. Discussed (Note — bona fide holder) in Bijel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 567. Coggins v. Bulwinkle, 1 E. B. Smith, 4.34. See Guernsey ». Carver. Cogswell v. Cogswell, 2 Edw. 240. Applied (Interest of tenants in dividends, &c.) in case of extra dividends, in Woodruff's estate, 1 Tuck. 58. Disting'd in Matter of Pollock, 3 Red/. 109. Cited as authority in Richard- son v. Richardson, 75 Me. 570 ; s. c, 46 Am. It. 428. Coghlau v. Dinsmore, 9 Bosw. 453. Aff'd in 35 How. Pr. 416. Cohen. Matter of. 1 Tuck. 286. Followed (Signature at end of attestation clause of will) in Williamson v. Williamson, 2 Red/. 449, 451. Cohen v. Dry Dock, &c. R. R. Co., 40 Super.) Gt. (J. & S.) 368. Affd in 69 IT. Y. 170. See Rounds v. Delaware, Lack. & W. R. R. Co. Decision in 44 Super. _ Gt. {J. & S.) explained (Liability for acts of servant) in Hoffman v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. R. Co., Id. 1, 7. Decision in 69 JV. Y. quoted in. JUoak's UnderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 32. Approved as a well considered case, in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 200. v. Dupont, l'Snndf. 260. See Dyett v. Pendleton. Applied (Constructive evic- tion) in West Side Sav'gs Bk. v. Newton,. 8 Baly, 332, 335. Quoted in 2 Story on Gontr. 5 eg. § 1221, n. 4. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed..§ 212. v". Frost, 2 Buer, 335. Disapproved (Liability of carrier for loss of baggage) in Mudgett i). Bay State Steamboat Co., 1 ' Baly, 151. Questioned in dissenting opin- ion of Christiancy, J., in McKee v. Owen, 15 Mich. 133 (the court being equally, divided). See Thomps Carr. of Pass. XXII. v. N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 50 JV. Y. 610; s. {/., 10 Am. R. 522. See Hayner v. Am. Popular Life Ins. Co. Disting'd (Non- performance of express condition in contract of insurance) in Wheeler v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 82 JV Y. 543, 551. Followed (Equitable relief to one whose rights under insurance contract are denied) in Mausbach v. Metrop. Life Ins. Co., 53 How. Pr. 496. Approved with Hayner v. Am. Popular L. Ins. Co., 69 JV Y. 435, in Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Pottker, 33 Ohio St. 459 ; s. c, 31 Am. R. 555, 558. Disapproved (Effect of non-performance of condition in policy caused by war) in Tait v. N. T. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 1 Flipp. (<7. S.) 292, 318. To the contrary, N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24. Followed and approved with Sands v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 50 JV Y. 620, 631, 632, in Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Atwood's Administratrix, 24 G-ratt. ( Va.) 497; s. c, 18 Am. R. 652, 658. Followed in Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. «. Hillyard, 8 Vroom (JV. /.) 444; s. c, 18 Am. R. 741, 753. v. O'Connor, 5 Baly, 28. Aff'd in 50 JV Y. 613, but without opinion. Cohn v. Burtnell, 25 Hun, 118. Reported in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 211. v. Goldman, 43 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 436. Rev'd in 76 JV. Y. 284. Decision in 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) applied (Judgment on contract of sale, as conclusive against vendor) in Sacia v. Decker, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 47, 51. 166 COHN— COLE. v. Lippmann, 2 Month. L. Bui. 45. Superseded (Sale of infant's real estate) as to infant over 14 joining),' — by Code Civ. Pro. § 2349. Colioes Co. t. Goss, 13 Barb. 137. Dictum disapproved (Foreclosure by advertisement — passing of title without recording of affida- vits) in Howard v. Hatch, 29 Id. 297, 303. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. Coit v. Beard, 33 Barb. 357; s. c, as Coit v. Bland, 12 Abb. Pr. 462; 22 How. Pr. 2. Followed (Judgment dismissing complaint) in Dexter v. (Jlark, 35 Barb. 271. Disap- proved in People «. Smith, 51 Id. 360. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1209. v. Campbell, 20 Bun, 50. AfTd in 82 N. Y. 509. Decision in 82 N. 7. followed (Continuance of action on death of party) in . McLachliu v. Brett, 27 Ban, 18. Followed, but point not indicated, in Greene v. Mar- tine, 84 N. Y. 648. v. Commercial Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 385; s. a, 5 Am. Dec. 282. Followed (Parol evidence of signification of term) in Samp- sen v. Gazzam, 6 Port. (Ala.) 123; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 578. 582, with note. Collated with Astor v. Union Ins. Co.. 7 Cow. 202; Hinton v. Locke, 5 Bill, 437; Stroud v. Frith, 11 Barb. 300; Fitch v. Carpenter, 42 Id. 40, and other cases, in 6 Am. R. 678, n. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 535, «. e. T. Horn, 1 Sand/ Gh. 1 ; s. c, fully re- ported in 2 K Y. Leg. Obs. 102. T. Houston, 3 Johns. Cos. 243. See Hawley v. Foote; Slingerland ■ v. Morse. Cited with Slingerland v. Morse, 8 Johns. 474; Lamb v. Lathrop, 13 Wend. 95; Bement v. Smith, 15 Id. 493, and Des Arts v. Leg- gett, 16 K Y. 582, in 12 Am. Dec. 700, n., as showing it to be the established rule in If. Y. that a complete and valid tender dis- charges the debt and passes the title in the property to the creditor even thoug.. he is absent. Overruled (Mutual promises, when good as accord and satisfaction) in Tilton v. Alcott,' 16 Barb. 598, and cases there cited. See Russell v. Lyttle, 6 Wend. 390 ; Hawley v. Foote, 19 Id. 516; Brooklyn Bank v. I)e Grauw, 23 Id. 342. — - v. Millikin, 1 Den. 376. Applied (Suf- ficiency of seal) in Gillespie ». Brooks, 2 Red/. 349, 366. y. Planer, 7 Robt. 413; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 140. Afl'd in 51 N. Y. 647. — - v. Stewart, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 216. Ap- proved, but appeal dismissed, in 50 JT. 1". ' 17. Decision in 12 Abb. Pr. JV. S. disting'd (Counter-claim founded on tort) in Bell v. Lesbini, 4 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 367. Colah, Matter of, 3 Daly, 529. Applied (Who to be appointed committee of lunatic) in Matter of Owens, 5 Daly, 288, 293. Compare (Compensation of such committee) Code Civ. Pro. § 2338. Colburn v. Woodworth, 31 Barb. 381. Fol- lowed (Effect of former recovery for install- ment due under contract) in Brodar v. Lord, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 205, 207. Colden v. Brownell, 1 Johns. 267. Reviewed with other cases (Lease and letting on shares) in Taylor v. Bradley, 4 Abb. Ct. Ajip. Deo. 363, 370. v. Knickerbacker. See Gelston v. Hoyt. v. Thurber, 2 Johns. 424. Collated with other cases (Highways — dedication) in Mills Thomps. on Bighw. 3 ed. 59. Cole y. Bell, 48 Barb. 194. Disting'd (Notice of appeal) in Avery v. Woodbeck, 62 Barb. 557, 564. v. Cole, 50 Bow. Pr. 59.- Afl'd in 12 Bun, 373. Decision in 50 Bow. Pr. applied (Witness convicted in another State not dis- qualified) in U. S. v. Barnabo, 14 Blatehf. C. Ct. 74, 78. - — v. Goodwin,- 19 Wend. 251; s. c., 32 Am. Dec. 470. See Clark v. Faxton ; Gibson v. Culver; Hollister v. Nowlen; Orange County Bank v. Brown; Welles v. N. Y. Central K. R. Co. Explained with Hol- lister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 247; Gould v. Hill, 2 Bill, 623, (Limitation of carrier's liability) in Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chase, 1 E. D. Smith, 115. Relied on- in Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. v. Bal- dauf, 16 Pa. St. 67; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 481. Referred to as contrary to the cur- rent of authority, — in Swindlers. Hilliard, 2 Rich. (S. C.) L. 303. Referred to as over- ruled, — in Welsh v. Pittsburgh, &c. R R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 70. Reviewed with Gould *. Hill. 2 EiU, 623; Dorr v. N. J. Steam- Navigation Co., 4 Sand/. 136 ; Parsons v. Monteath, 13 Barb. 353; Moore v. Evans, 14 Id. 524; Wells v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 20 Id. 641 ; Perkins o. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 K Y. 196; Bissell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 25 Id. 442; Smith v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 132; 24 K Y. 222; Poucher v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 49 Id. 263 ; Cragin v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 51 Id. 61; Magnin v.' Dinsmore, 56 Id. 168 j Steers v. Liverpool, N. Y. & Phila. S. S. Co., 57 Id. 1, in Maslin v. Bait. & Ohio K. R. Co, 14 W. Va. 180; s. c, 35 Am. R. 748, as illustrating the development of the N. Y. doctrine — which, together with the English, is deprecated — English, U. S. and State authorities being collated.. Quoted in 1 Add. on Contr. 544 ; 1 Add. on Torts, § 656. . Cited approvingly with other authorities, in 2 Kent Com. 608, ». 6. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contri 234, n. j ; 238-, n. Collated, with other cases, in 2 Red/. Am. Railw. Cos. 86. Included, with note, in Id. 110. Commented upon in Id. 54. Commented upon in Ang. on (Ian. \\ 234, 235, 818, 319, 321, 5 ed. Approved (Duty of carrier as to delivery of baggage) in Logan v. Pontchartrain 11. R. Ce.. U Rob. (La.) 24; s; c, 43 Am. Dec. 199, 201, with note. Quoted (Carrier's duty to receive goods) in Ang. on Carr. § 125, n. 4,. 5 ed. v. Gourlay, 9 Bun, 493. Afl'd in 79 JT. Y. 527. V. Hawes, 2 Johns. Cos. 203; s. c, 1 COLE. 167: N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 488, with brief note on construing covenants together. v. Hughes. 54 N. FV444; s. c, 13 Am. R., 611. Disting'd (Effect of party-wall agree- ment) in Brown v. McKee, 57 N. Y. 684. Applied in Scott v. McMillan, 8 Daly, 320, 327. Followed with Scott v. McMillan, 76 N. Y. 141, in Ilart v. Lyon, 90 Id. 663. Compared in Stewarts. Aldrich, 8 Hun, 241. Cited^ with other cases, in Richardson v. Tobey, 121 Mass. 457; s. c, 23 Am. R. 283. Collated with Coffin v. Tallman, 8 K Y. 465, and other cases, in 18 Cent. L. J. 125. Col- lated, with other cases, in McAdam on Landl. & T., 2 ed. § 86. Explained in Wood on . Nuis. 2 ed. § 223. Quoted (Covenants — transfer of burden or benefits — distinction between) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 285. v. Irvine, 6 Hill, 634. See Harrison v. Stevens; flyers v. Wheeler. See (Separate action by joint tenants, &c. to recover real property) Code . Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1500, n. v. Jessnp, 9 Barb. 395. Aff'd in 10 N. Y. 96. Former decision in 2 Barb. 309. Decision in 10 A 7 ". Y. followed (Effect of suc- cessive absences under statute of limita- tions) in Cutler o. Wright, 22 K Y. 472, 477. Followed with Bennett «. Cook, 43 N. Y. 537, under a similar statute, in Whit- comb e.' Keator, 59 Wise. 614. Followed in Milton v. Babson, 88 Mass. 326. Decision in 2 Barb, disapproved (Pleading — return that will bar statute of limitations) in Ford v. Babcock, % Sandf. 518. v. Malcolm, 7 Hun, 81. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 363. Decision in 66 N. Y. explained and applied (Subrogation) in Twombly v. Cassidy) 82 JT. Y. 155, 158. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Coiw. § 1 95. v. Mann, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 380. AfTd in 62 N~. Y. 1. See Herring «. Hop- pock. Decision in 62 N. Y. followed (Ef- fect of sale of goods, title not to pass till they are paid for) in Fitzgerald v. Fuller, 19 Run, 180. Explained in Thomas on Mort. 438. v. Niles, 3 Hun, 326 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 451. Afl'd, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 636, but without opinion. *T. Patterson, 25 Wend. 456. See Jack- son v. Topping. Approved (Separate actions by heirs for rent) in Jones v. Felch, 3 Bosw. 63. v. Perry, 8 Cow. 214; s. c, 9 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 364, with brief note, on granting of new trial for excessive damages. See Matson v. Buck. - — - y. Reynolds, 18 K Y. 74. Followed (Suits between firms where a person is mem- ber of both) in Kingsland v. Braisted, 2 Lam. 17. v. Sapkett, 1 Hill, 516. Approved (Ef- fect of note to satisfy debt) in Elwood v. Deifendorf, 5 Barb. 398, 408. Disting'd in Neff v. Clute, 12 Id. 471. Applied in Farrington v. Frankfort Bank, 24 Id. 502 ; Parrott ». Colby, 6 Eun, 58. Followed in Bates v. Rosekraus, 23 How. Pr. 98, 107, which was aff'd in 37 If. Y. 409, which see ; Hill v. Beebe, 13 Id. 562. Disting'd (Satisfaction of obligation due from joint obligors) in La Farge v. Hcrter, 4 Barb. 352.) Disapproved in Waydell v. Luer, 3 Den. 415, which rev'd 5 Hill, 448, which see. Criticised in Livingston v. Radcliff, 6 Barb. 207. Applied in Vernam v. Crocker, 1 Hun, 451, 454. - — v. Sanlpaug-h, 48 Barb. 105. See De Zeng v. Fyfe. Questioned (Pledgee of ac- commodation paper as security for pre-exist- ing debt, as a bona fide holder) in Bowman v. Van Kuren, 29 Wis. 209; s. c, 9 Am. R. 557. v. Savage, 10 Paige, 583. Not followed (Right of grantee of mortgaged premises to set up usury) in Mechanic's Bank v. Edwards, • 1 Barb. 278, which was however denied and Cole v. Savage followed in Morris v. Floyd, 5 Id. 135. Disting'd in Berdan «. Sedg- wick, 40 Id. 362. Disapproved in Post e. Bank of Utica, 7 Hill, 397, which was reaffd in Chamberlain v. Dempsey, 36 N. Y. 149, and Cole v. Savage disapproved. Ex- amined ("Borrower" within meaning of usury act) and disapproved as contrary to Rexford v. Widger, 2 AT. Y. 131; Schermer- horn ». Talman, 14 Id. 93,— in Allerton v. Bclden, 49 Id. 377. Compare Leavitt ». De Launay, 4 Sandf. Ch. 299. Limited, and Allerton v. Belden, 49 If. Y. 375; Post, v. Bank of Utica, 7 Hill, 391 ; Rexford v. Wid- ger, 2 17. 131; Vilas v. Jenes, 1 Id. 274; Schermerhorn v. Talman, 14 Id. 93; Wheelock v. Lee, 64 Id. 243, reviewed in Buckingham v. Corning, 91 Id. 525. Cited as authority (Bill to remove usurious security) in Williams v. Fitzhugh, 37 Id. 448. Applied (Waiver of defense of illegal- ity of contract) in Merritt v. Millard, 4 Keyes, 214. >. .v. Smith, 4 Johns. 193. Disting'd (Proof of right of action, in action on stat- ute) in Thorpe 0. Rankin, 4 Harr. (if. J.) 36; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 531, with note. v. Tyler, 65 A 7 ". Y. 73, 77. Explained (Creditor's actions— judgment) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 170. Quoted and explained (Debtor's alienations of property — existing creditors— fraud) in Id. § 95. Quoted (Fraudulent intent— how judged) in Id. §8. — v. Van Keuren, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.} 480 ; mem. of s. c, 4 Hun, 262. Aff'd, it . seems, in 64 A 7 ". Y. 646, but without opin- ion. Further decision in 51 How. Pr. 451. — T. Village of Medina, 27 Barb. 218. Reviewed and reaffd (Liability of muni- cipal corporation, in respect to sidewalks) in Peek v. Village of Batavia, 32 Id. 634, 646. — - v. Wendel, 8 Johns. 116. Cited (Parol vidence to explain ambiguous expressions) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 947. — T. White, 26 Weiul. 511. See Collins v. 168' COLEGROVE— COLES. Brush ;' Srnith «. Acker. Explained (Effect of sale, &c. without immediate delivery of possession) in Hanford v. Archer, 4 Hillfill. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 252, n. 4. Colegrove v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 382. AfTd in 20 if. Y. 492. See Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Button «. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co. Decision in 20 H. Y. crit- icised (Contributory negligence that ex- cuses carrier) as not removing the difficulty that may be presented by such cases, — in Willis v. Long Island R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 402, which was afi'd in 34 N. Y. 677, which see. Cited with other cases (Effect of con- tributory negligence of one in charge of conveyance) as conclusively settling the law inN. Y.,^in Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 154. Applied in Arctic Fire Ins. Co. ». Austin, 3 Hun, 198, which, was rev'd in 69 N. Y. 483, which see; Brown «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 Id. 601. Thought in Mooney v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Robt. 648; Beck v. East River Ferry Co., 6 Id. 87, to be in great measure overruled by Brown o. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 5 Id. 549. Applied (Effect of con- tributory negligence of third" person) in Mott d. Hudson River R. R. Co., 8 Bosw. 354; Slater v. Mersereau, 64 N. Y. 147. Cited as authority in Perry v. Lansing, 17 Hun, 37. Disting'd in Bronk ». N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 5 Daly, 457. Dis- ting'd (Joint action against wrong-doers) in Jackson v. Brookins, 5 Id. 535. Applied in Van Wagenen v. Kemp, 7 Id. 328. Disting'd in Chipman ®. Palmer, 9 Id. 519, which was affd in 77 N. Y. 51, which see. Relied on with Cooper v. Eastern T. Co., 75 Id. 116, in Cuddy v. Horn, 46 Mich. 004. Questioned and compared in 4 Am. L. Beg. W. S. 25. Coleman v. Bean, 14 Abb. Pr. 38. Affd ia 3 Reyes, 94; s. a, more fully, 32 How. Pr. 370 ; 1 Abb. Ot. App. Bee. 394. Decision in 32 Bow. Pr. applied (Consideration to support undertaking given on discharge of attachment) in Bildersee v. Aden, 12 Abb. Pr. AT. S. 327. Applied (Presumption as to validity of such undertaking) in Onder- donk v. Voorhis, 36 K Y. 361. Applied (Sureties estopped by recitals in undertak- ing) to undertaking in replevin, in Harrison v. Wilkin, 69 Id. 418. v. Crump, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 548. Affd as Colman v. Same,, in 70 N. Y. 573. Decision in 70 N. Y. followed (Use of trade- mark to be restrained, notwithstanding ab- sence of proof of guilty intent) in American Grocer ». Grocer Pub. Co., 25 Bun, 398,402. v. Eyre, 1 Sweeny, 476. Rev'd (Validity of parol agreement to share profits and losses of adventure) in 45 N. Y. 38. v. First Nat. Bk. of Elinira, 53 N. Y. 390. Approved (Right to rescind contract for deposit in bank, — for fraud on part of bank) in Rich v. Niagara Sav'gs Bk., 3 Bun, 484. Followed (Parol evidence that loan was made to bank and not to its officer; in Pierson v. Atlantic Nat, Bk., 77 IT. Y. 310. Applied (Estoppel of bank to deny its lia- bility on certificate of deposit) in West v. First Nat. Bk., 20 Hun, 411. Explained at length (Liability of principal not named in written contract) in Merchant's Bank v. Hayes, 7 Id. 533. Cited as authority jn Briggs v. Partridge, 64 XT. Y. 3R2. Cited with Barry v. Ransom, 12 Id. 404, in -2 Whart. Com. on Bv. § 950, n. Cited {Parol evidence to explain contract with agent) in Id. § 225, n. Cited (Election to proceed against agent, instead of principal) in Id. § 472. — - v. Garrigues,. 18 Barb. 60. Examined and explained (Agency for the sale of laud) in Pringle v. Spaulding, 53 Id. 17. Quoted and explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 11, n. q. v. Lansing, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (7 1 . & O.) 8; s. c, more fully, 65 Barb. 54. v. Livingston, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 32. Affd, it seems, in 56 iv". Y. 658, but without opinion. Another decision denying reargument, in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 231 ; s. c, 45 How. Pr. 483. Decision in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) disting'd (Negligence of warehouseman as question for a jury) in Madan v. Covert, 42 Id. 135, 139. v. People, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) add. 3. Rev'd in 55 N. Y. 81. Further decisions in 1 Hun, 596; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 61, which were affd in 58 N. Y. 555. Sea People v. Corbin. Decision in 55 N. Y. ap- plied (Evidence of other offenses than that charged) in People -v. Corbin, 56 Id. 365. Disting'd in Coppennan v. People, 56 Id. 594 ; Levy v. People, 80 Id. 327, 331 ; People 7). Gibbs, 93 Id. 470. Decisions in 55 Id. and 58 Id. with Copperman v. People examined aud reconciled (Proof pi scienter on part of one receiving stolen goods) in State v. Ward, 49 Conn. 429; s. c, 15 Reporter, 748. Explained (Evidence establishing scienter) in 2 Add. on Torts, 630, n., Wood's ed. Explained (Derivative evidence) in 2 Best on Bv. § 495, n. a, Wood's ed. v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 48 Barb. 371. Affd in 38 N. Y. 201. v. Wise, 2 Johns. 165. See to the con- trary (Competency of person whose name appears on negotiable paper, as witness to impeach its validity) in Stafford v. Rice, 5 Cow. 23. Coles v. Bowne, 10 Paige, 534. See Trevor v. Wood ; Wiswall v. Hall. Explained (Re- formation of Contract for mistake) in Bryce v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 55 K Y. 240, 245. v. Coles, 15 Johns. 159; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 231, witty note. Opposed (Rules applica- ble to partnership real estate) in Edgar 0. Donally, 2 Mumf. 387. Denied in Sigourney v. Munn, 7 Conn. 18. Approved in Thayer e. Lane, Walk Ch. (Mich.) 203. Criticised and qualified in Divine ®. Mitchum^ 4 B. Monr. (Ky.) 488 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 241, with note, COLES— COLLINS. 169 as at variance with other decisions. Re- viewed, with other cases, in McDermott «. Lawrence, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 438; s. c, 10 Am. Dee. 468. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 ed., § 94, n., as not supporting the rule laid down in the text. Included in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 592. t. Marquand. See Martin ». Black. Colgrove v. Tallman, 5 Bun, 103. Aff'd in 67 N. Y. 95; s. c, 23 Am. R. 90. Previous decision in 2 Lam. 97. See Pain v. Packard, Decision in 67 N. Y. explained (Complaint in action against surety) in Luce ■«. Alex- ander, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 202. Dis- ting'd (Change of relation of debtor to creditors from legal to equitable) in Hunger e. Albany City Nat. B'k, 85 N. Y. 580, 591. Followed (Duty of creditor to pro- ceed against principal debtor at request of surety) in Russell «. Weinberg, 4 Abb. N. O. 139, 143. Explained in Marsh v. Duockel, 25 Hun, 167, 169. Cited (Discharge of retiring partner s liability for debts of firm) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 158, n. ; Briggs v. Briggs, 15 N. Y. 471, being cited in § 159, n., on a like point. Quoted aud dis- cussed in 2 Colly er ' in Partn. § 553, n. 2, Wood's Am. ed. Decision in 2 Lans. dis- ting'd (Discharge of withdrawing partner by dealings with continuing partner) in Vernam «. Harris, 1 Hun, 451, 453. Collender v. Dinsinore. 55 N Y. 200 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 224; rev'g 64 Barb. 457. See Reynolds v. Commerce Fire Ins. Co. Com- pare decision in 55 If. Y. (Meaning of " C. 0. D.") with American Express Co. v. Schier, 55 III. 140. Criticised (Parol evidence to explain written contract for carriage of goods) in Lawspn's Oontr. of C'arr. § 113'. Colie v. Jamison, 13 Nat. Banlcr. Reg. 4, ' n. Aff'd in 4 Hun, 284; s. c.,,6 SujSm. Ct. \T. & C.) 576; 13 Nat. Banhr. Reg. 1. V. O'Keel, 3 Alb. L.J. 13. Followed (Expiration of lien) in Dart v. Fitch, 23 Hun, 361, 366. Collier v. Coates, 17 Barb. 471. See Lock- wood e. Barnes. Followed (Recovery of money paid under contract void by statute of frauds) in Galvin v. Prentice, 45 N. Y. 162; Galway v. Shields, 66 Mo. 313; s. c, 27.4m. R. 351, 353. v. Idley, 1 Bradf. 94. Disting'd (De- positions taken on probate of will, how affected by subsequent filing of objections) in Downey v. Downey, 16 Hun, 481. v. Munn, 41 N. Y. 143. Aff'g 1 Tuch 136. Decision in 41 N. Y. approved (Com- pensation of executor) and applied to guardian, in Morgan v. Hannas, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 361, 368. v. Whipple, 13 Wend. 225. Relied on (Setting aside judicial sale) in Kellogg v. Howell, 62 Barb. 280. Approved in King v. Piatt, 37 N. Y. 160. Colligan v. Scott, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 574. ' AfPd, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 670. Collin v Collin, 1 Barb. Ch. 630; s. c, 45 Am. Dee. 420, with note, collecting cita- tions thereof on the'points decided respect- ing construction of wills and legacies. Collins v. Albany & Schenectady R. R. Co., 1 1 Barb. 492. See Hegeman v. Western R. R. Co. Disting'd (Contributory negligence in railroad passenger) in Southwestern R. R. Co. ii. Paulk, 24 Ga. 365. Criticised as inconclusive (Allowing damages for accident larger than allowed for death) in 2 Sedgw. on Dama. 7 ed. 659, n. ^— v. Allen, 12 Wend. 356; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 130, with note, containing citations re- specting set-off. v. Brush, 9 Wend. 198. Followed with Doane v. Eddy, 16 Id. 523; Randall v. Cook, 17 Id. 56 (Retention of possession by vendor as evidence of intent to defraud) in Randall v. Parker, 3 Sandf. 332, as not overruled by Smith v. Acker, 23 Wend. 653; Cole v. White, 26 Id. 511 ; Hanford v. Artcher, 4 Hill, 271. v. Burns, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 518. Aff'd in 63 N Y. 1. v. Butts, 10 Wend. 399. Aff'd in 13 Id. 139. v. Campfleld, 9 How. Pr. 519. Ap- proved (Sufficiency of substituted service), in Jones v. Derby, 1 Abb. Pr. 458. Dis- ting'd (Affidavit to obtain substituted ser- vice) in Simpson v. Burch, 4 Sun, 315, 317. v. Collins. 10 Hun, 272. Rev'd in 71 N. Y. 269. Further decision in 80 Id. 1. Another proceeding in 17 Hun, 598, aff'd in 80 N. Y. 24. Decision in 71 Id. dis- ting'd (Right to alimony) in Kennedy v. Kennedy, 73 Id. 369, 372. Decision in 80 Id. followed in Maxwell v. Maxwell, 28 Hun, 566. v. Drew, 6 Daly, 234; s. c, 50 How. Pr. 477. Aff d in 67 N. Y. 149. ■ v. Hasbrouck, 1 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.)36. Rev'd in 56 N. Y. 157 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 407. See Woodhull v. Rosenthal. Decision in 56 N. Y. examined and approved (Sublease arid assignment) in Ganson v. Tifft, 71 Id. 48, 54. Authorities reviewed in 16 Am. L. Rev. 31. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hun. 680. Followed (Recovery for services as clerk of board of aldermen) in Oakly v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Hun. 72. Disting'd as inapplic- able to messenger, in Smith «. Mayor &c. of N. Y., 4 Id. 644. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 499, 503. Aff'd, it seems, in 71 N. Y. 609, but without opinion. v. Ralli, 20 Hun, 246. Aff d on opinion below, in 85 N Y. 637. Decision ia 20 Hun followed and Zink v. People, 77 N Y. 114 disting'd (Righ,ts of one claiming under one who has acquired possession by larceny) in Hentz v. Miller, 94 Id. 64. v. Torry, 7 Johns. 278. See Hitchcock v. Harrington ; Jackson v. Dewitt ; Jackson v. Willard ; Jackson ■». Wood; Raynor v. Wilson. Disapproved with Coates v. Cheever, 1 Cow. 460, 475 (Dower in mort- izd OOLLMAN— COMINS. fged premises) in Van Dyne v. Thayre, 19 end. 172. Collated with other cases, in Sharsw. & B. 'Oat.' on Real Prop. 342. ColLmaii t. Collins. See Van Buskirk v. Purinton. Collomb t. Caldwell, 16 K Y. 484. Further decision, as Collomb v. Read, 24 K Y. 505. Decision in 16 N. Y. quoted (Assignment for benefit of creditors — trusts in assignor's favor) in Burrill on Assign.' § 200, n. 5, 4 ed. Explained in Id. § 207, n. 4. Dis- cussed in Id. § 211. T. Bead. See Collomb v. Caldwell. Colmnn v. Shattuck, 2 Hun, 497; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T.&O.) 34. Aff'd in 02 N. Y. 348. Decision, in 62 K Y. disting'd (Excess of or reduction from assessment, when to be disregarded on appeal) in Matter of Deering, 93 Id. 361. Colson v. Arnot, 57 N. Y. 253. Disting'd (Negotiable instrument as subject of sale) in Sweet v. Chapman, 7 Hun, 576, 579. Colt T. Heard, 10 Hun, 189. Compared with other cases (Lif e donee's absolute power of disposition) in Flanagan v. Flanagan, 8 Abb. N. O. 413, 418. v. Lasnier, 9 Cow. 320. Followed and approved (Liability of one receiving assets from executor) in Prosser v. Leatherman, 4 How. (Miss.) 237; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 121. v. McMeclieu, 6 Johns. 160; s. c, 5 Am. Dee, 200; s. c, 4 if! Y. Com. L. Law. ed.&b; with brief note, treating it as of doubtful authority. Approved (Extent of common carrier's liability) in Fitch v. Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 7. Cited as authority with Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns. 107; Elliott v. Rossell, 10- Id. 1, in Malpica v. McKown, 1 La. 248 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 279, 283. Criticised (Act of God) in Lawson's Oontr. of Carr. % 5. Discussed in Aug.. on Carr. § 155, 5 ed. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 160, n. I. Condemned in 1 Smith Lead. Cos. pt. 1, 417. v. People, 1 Parh. Or. 011. Previous proceedings in People s. Colt, 3 Hill, 432. — — y. Sixth Ave. K. K. Co., 33 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 189. Aff'd in 49 ST. Y. 071, but without opinion. Decision in 33 Super. Ot: (J. & S.) collated with other cases (Con- tributory negligence of disabled, &e. person; in 6 Abb. 'N. O. 116, n. Colton v. Beardsley, 38 K Y. 29. Reviewed at leDgth and disting'd (Estoppel to assert title to office) in Turnipseed v. Hudson, 50 Miss. 429 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 15, 20; Bigel. on Estoppel, 522, being thought to convey an erroneous impression of the ease. v. Fox, 6 Hun, 49. Aff'd in 67 ST.- Y. 348. See Manice v. Manice. Decision in 67 K Y. and Magill ». McMillan, 23 Hun, 193, disting'd (Provision by will, when vest- ■ ing at testator's death) in Stuart v. Spalding, 30 Id. 21. v. Ross, 2 Paige, 396. See Betts v. Jackson; Lloyd v. Brewster. Commented upon (Wills —probate conclusive as to per- sonalty) in Willard on Executors, 60. Columbia Ins. Co. v. Force, 8 How. Pr. 353. Followed (Waiver of objection to legality of arrest) in preference to Stcttdrt v. Howard, 15 Barb. 26, in Farmer v. Rob- bins, 47 How. Pr. 415. v. Stevens, 37 K Y. 536. Disting'd (Costs against receiver of insurance com- • paiiy) in Matter of. Booth, 11 Abb. N. G. 145. ' Quoted in High on Beceiv. § 339, n. 3; Id. § 810, n. 1. Columbia Turnpike v. Haywood, 10 Wend. 425. See Fairbanks v. Wood ; Noyes t>. Hewitt. Colvin v. Colvin, 2 Paige, 385. Limited (Re- marriage of divorced parties) in Moore ■v. Hegoman, 92 N. Y. 521, 528. Followed in Moore t. Moore, 8 Abb. N. O. 171, 173. Explained and limited in Rush e. Rush, 40 Iowa, 648; s. c, 26 Am. B. 179. Explained (Reversal of decree of divorce on mutual request) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 752, 6ed. y. Corwin, 15 Wend. 557. See Guernsey v. Carver. Disapproved (Cause, of action, when entire) in Secor v. Sturgis, 16 If. Y. 548. Questioned in Perry v. Dickerson, 85 Id. 345, 348. v. Currier, 22 Barb. 371. Disapproved (Lien for work done on separate estate of - married woman) in Ainsley «. Mead, 3 Lans. 116. See (Curtesy as affected by statute) Matter of Winne, 1 Id. 508/521. Collated with other c;ises in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 289. v. Holbrook, 3 Barb. 475. Aff'd in 2 JV. Y, 126. v. Lawrence, 24 How. Pr. 324; s. c, more fully, 38 Barb. 643. Aff'd in 38 N. Y. 71 ; s. c, 36 How. Pr. 306. See Bagley «. Peddie. Coman v. Lakcy, 80 If. Y. 345. Disting'd (Lien of vendor of personal property as ■ against bona fide purchaser) in Walker D.- Mitchell, 25 Hun, 627. y. Storm, 26 How. Pr. 84. Followed (Imprisonment for debt — .on the limits) in; Matter of Moore, 1 Am. Insolv. B. 95. Confirmed in Code Civ. Pro. § 2200. Comer v. Cunningham, 77 N. Y. 391. Fol- lowed (Conditional sales of personal prop- erty) in Hintermister v. Lane, 27 Hun, 497. Explained in Walker v. Mitchell, 25 Id.- 527. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales,_ § 358, et seq. (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Criticised as against the weight of authority, in 15 Am. L. Rev. 381. Comfort y. Fulton, 39 Barb. 56; s. c, more fully, 13 Abb. Pr. 276. Questioned and explained (Liability for false imprisonment) in Von Latham v. Rowan, 17 Abb. Pr. 237. y. Eiersted, 26 Barb. 472. Approved (Passing of title to articles to be manufac- tured) in Hyde . Gardiner, 54 Id. 365 ; Wyeth v. Braniff, 84 Id. 627, 632. Cited in Wheaton v. Van Voorhis, 53 How. Pr. 324, as unshaken by Algur v. Gardner. Criticised and disting'd in Porter n. Mount, 45 Barb. 430. Approved with Smith v. Marvin, 27 If. Y. 137; Bell v. Day, 32 Id. 165 ; Barretto v. Snowden, 5 Wend. 181, in Palmer v. Call, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Iowa, 12 Reporter, 194; s. c, 7 Fed. Rep. 137. See also Acheson v. Chase, 28 Mich. 214. Followed with Bell v. Day, 32 If. Y. 165. in Ballinger v. Bourland, 87 III. 513; s. c, 29 Am. R. 69, with note, col- lating other cases. Examined with Algur 0. Gardner, 54 If. Y. 360, in New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Hendrickson, 13 Neb. 160. Applied (Ratification of un- authorized act of agent) in Smith v. Tracy, 36 If. Y. 84 ; Thompson v. Craig, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 33. Applied (Repelling defense of usury by proof of absence of corrupt agreement) in Shoop v. Clark, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 238. Condon v. CaUahan, 9 Abb. If. C. 407. Compare (Employment by husband) Potter v. Virgil, 67 Barb. 578. Cone v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 15 Hun, 172. Affd in 81 If. Y. 206. See Laning v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 81 If. Y. applied (Duty of master to furnish safe machinery) in Kara v. Smith, 25 Hun, 146, 148. Disting'd (Contributory negligence in servant) in White v. -Sharp, 27 Hun, 94. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 33. Affd in 60 If. Y. 619. Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) disting'd (Waiver by agent of condition in policy) in Thayer v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 567. Qited as authority in dissenting opinion of Milleu, J., in Mersereau v. Phoenix Mut. Ins. Co., 66 if. Y. 285. Disting'd (Right of action on fire policy) in Hastings ». West- chester Fire Ins. Co., 73 Id. 150. Decis- ion in 60 Id. followed (Insurable interest of one having right to purchase or redeem) in Creighton v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 17 Hun, 80. Applied (Right of appointed payee to sue on policy) in Lasher ». North- western Nat. Ins. Co., 18 Id. 102. Applied (Waiver by agent of condition in policy) in Woodruff®. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 83 N. Y. 133, 140. See also (Right of subrogation) Dick v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 10 Mo. App. 386. Cited as authority (Parol waiver of contract) in Waterman on Sp. Per/. § 386, n. 174 OONE-CONHOCTOX STONE: ROAD. v. Purcell, 56 K Y. 649. See opinion in 11 Nat. Banhr. Reg. 490. v. Whitaker, 2 Johns. Gas. 280. Over- 1 ruled (Costs of non-suit, as affected by dis- charge under insolvent act) in Warne v. Constant, 5 Johns. 135. Congdeu t. Lee, 3 Edit. 304. Quoted (Re- ceiver — judgment creditor's bill— discovery) in High on Receiv. § 403, n. 1. •Conger t. Conger, Sup'm. Ct. Sp. T. Fol- lowed (Judgment in divorce case after trial before referee) in Schroeter n. Schroeter, 23 Sun, 230. T. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 375. Approved and followed with Wibert «. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 19 Barb. 36 (Measure of damages against carrier for delay in transportation) in Kirkland v. Leary, 2 Sweeny, 677, the Wibert case being thought to have been, though overruled in Kent v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 278, yet sustained in Jones ». N. Y. & Erie R. R'Co., 29 Id. 633. —7— v. Ring, 11 Barb. 364. Followed (Pur- chase of trust property by trustee) in Ter- williger v. Brown. 59 Barb. 9, wjjich was aff'd in 44 N. Y. 237, which see; Fulton i>. "Whitney, 5 Bun, 20. • — - v. Van Aerniim, 43 Barb. 602. Rev'd by Comm. of App., in Jan., 1871.. v. Vandewater, 1 Abb. Pr. N.'S. 126. Commented upon (Judgment— when pre- sumed to be paid) in Throop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 174. Compare Code Civ. Pro. §§ 376, 382, subd. 7, § 414. v. Weaver, 20 N. Y. 140. See Brincker- hoof v. Phelps; Bush ■». Colo; Driggs v. Dwight. Explained and reconciled (Dam- ages for breach of contract to convey land) withBrinckerhoof b. Phelps, 24 Barb. 100, — in Brinckerhoof v. Phelps, 43 Id. 4G9 ; also in Bush v. Cole, 28 N. Y. 270. Re-affd in Cockcroft v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 69 Id. 204. Congregation Slinner Hashmoin v. Halli- day, 3 Robt. 386. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 604. Congregational Church in Union Tillage, Matter of, 6 Abb. N. C. 398. See also (Diversion of church property) First Ref'd. Presb. Ch. ». Bowdcn, 10 Abb. N. V. 1. . Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co., 57 Barb. 526. Rev'd in 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 348; s. a, 45 N. Y. 291; 6 Am. R. 82. Decision in 45 N. Y. followed (Use, as trademark, of name indicating origin or ownership) in Dunbar v. Glenn, 42 Wis. 118; s. c, 24 Am. R. 395. Applied in Newman ». Alvord, 51 N. Y. 189, 194. Explained in 2 Pars, on Oordr. 257, ba, n. 1 Keller's ed. Id. 257, uj, n. I. Applied (Use of word as trade- mark) in Hier v. Abrahams, 82 N. Y. 519, 524. Disting'd in Huwer ■». Danneuhoffer, Id. 499, 503. Followed with Glen & Hall Manf'g Co. v. Hall, 61 Id. 229; Booth ». Jarrett, 52 Sow. Pr. 169 (Assignment of property, as carrying right to use name) in Pepper v. Labrot, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Ky., 12 Reporter, 321 ; s. c, 8 Fed. Rep. 29. v. Knowlton, 23 Alb. I. J. 290. Dis- tingM (Money recoverable back; in Birkett v. C'hatterton, 12 Rep. 441. . Congreve v. Morgan, 5 Duer, 49>. Affd as Congreve «. Smith, 18 N. Y. 79. Sec Creed v. Hartinan ; Jrvin v. Wood. Decision in 5 Duer disiing'd '(Liability for negligence of contractor, &c.) in Potter «. Seyinoor, 4 • Bosw. 140, 147. Disting'd (Liability for un- authorized excavation of highway) in Wen- dell v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 4 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 570. Disting'd (Proof of accident as evidence of negligence) in Garrison «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y,, 5 Bosw. 503. Criticised and explained (Owner of scuttle in a sidewalk as absolute insurer) in Fisher v. Thirkell, 21 Mich. 1 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 422, 427. v. , 18 N. Y. 84. .Disting'd (Lia- bility for injury caused by excavation of highway) in Wendell v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec.\ 571. Followed in Andersons. Dickie, 26JH>w. Pr. 117. Ee- , affd in Sexton -e. Zett, 44 N. Y. 432. Fol- lowed in Irvin v. Wood, 4 Robt. 146, which was affd in 51 N. Y. 224, which see. Ap- plied in Davenport v. Ituckman, 16 Abb. Pr. 352. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 274, ».•- 2. . Disting'd (Liability of owners of premises as insurers) in , Robbins "o. Mount, 33 How. Pr. 35. Quoted and dis- cussed in 1 Add. on Torts, 245, «. 2, Wood's ed. v. Smith, 18 If. Y. 79. Aff'g Congreve v. Morgan, 5 Duer, 495. See Blake c Ferris; City of Buffalo ?>. Holloway ; Creed v. Hart- man ; Dygert v. Scheuek; Kelly v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Pack «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Storrs v. City of Utica, Disting'd (Liability for injury caused by excavation of high- way) in Wendell «. Mayor,. &c. of N. Y., 4 Abbs Gt., 4PP- & ec - 570l Eccles v. Darragh, 46 Super." Ct. (J. &S.) 180. Followed in An- derson v. Dickie, 20 How. Pr. 117; lrvin s. Wood, 4 Robt. 146, which was affd in 51 If. Y. 224, which see; Davenport v. Ruck- man, 10 Bosw. 37, which was aff'd in 37 N. Y. 572, which see. Re-afl'd in Sexton v. Zett, 44 Id. 432. Quoted and discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 2S0. Disting'd (Liability of owners of premises as insurers; in Bobbins o. Mount, 33 IIow. Pr. 35. Examined and compared with Blake ■o. Fer- ris, 5 If. V. 43; Pack «. "Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Id. 222; Storrs e. City of Ltica, 17 Id. 104 ; City of Buffalo ■». Holloway, 7 Id. 493; Kelly ■». Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 11 Id. ,432, (Liability of employers, con- tractors, &e.) in Creed v. Hartinan, 29 Id. 591, which aff'd 8 Bosw. 128, which see. Disting'd (Imputing negligence to one that changes condition of street) in Lowrey t. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. N. 0. 36. Disting'd in Hume *. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 8 IIuu, 676. Conhocton Stone Road v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 52 Barb. 390. Rev'd in 51 If. Y. 573; CONKEY- CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO. 175 s. c, .10 Am. B. 646. Further decision in 3 Hun, 523; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 651. See Goodale v. Tuttle. Decision in Dl JV. Y. cited, with other cases (Liability of grantee of land for continuing nuisance placed by previous owner) in 14 Am. Dec. , 338, n., as according with an overwhelm- ing weight of authority. Considered with Miller v. Church, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 259 (Necessity of request to remove nuisance) and 2 Ghitty on PL cited to the contrary, — in Morse v. Borough of Fairhaven, 47 Conn. 220, where, however, these cases are followed (Necessity of knowledge of existence ,pi nuisance). Conkey v Bond, 34 Barb. 276. Affd in 36 JV Y. 427; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. JV S. 415. Decision in 36 JV Y. cited (Duty of agent under general power to buy) in Wliart. Com. on Ag. § 240, n. y. Hart. Seee Shuart v. Taylor. Conklin v. Barton. See Poillon v. Secor. T. Baner, 62 JV Y. 620. Disting'd (Per- mission to build under mechanic's lien law) '" in Burkitt v. Harpei\ 79 Id. 276. ' < v. Egrerton,..21 Wend,. 430. Aft'd in 25 Id. 224. Decision'in 21 Wend, referred to in Matter of Anderson, 5 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 302, as overruled (Executors — powers in trust) in Bogert v. Hertell, 4 Hill, 492. Examined in Battelle v. Parks, 2 Mich. 532; citing Roseboom v. Mosher, 2 Den. 01 ; Bergen v. Ben net, 1 Cai. Cos. 16. Cited as learnedly and ably investigating the subject (Powers that survive to administrator de bonis non) in Evans v. Chew, 71 Pa. St. 47, 49, which was cited in 24 Am. Dec. 389, n. Cited as authority in Warfleld v. Brand, 13 Hush (Ky.) 77, 100. Quoted and discussed in 2 Perry ori Trusts, 3 ed. § 500, n. 3. Decision in 25 Wend, discussed in same place. Decision in 21 Wend, reviewed with Roome v. Phillips, 27 JV. Y. 357, 363; Dunning v. Ocean Nat'l B'k, 61 Id. 497, in 12 Am. Dec. 102, »., as showing the posi- tion of the N. *Y." courts. Disting'd (Sur- • vival of power to sell real estate) in Clapp v. Brown, 4 Redf. 200. v. Fnrman, 57 Barb. 484 ; s. c, 8 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 161. Decision in 57 Barb, over- ruled (Judgment as evidence against stock- holder) in Miller v. White, 50 JV Y. 137. v. Moore, 2 Bradf. 179. Followed (Vesting of interest that is subject to life estate) in Talmadge v. Williamson, 2 Redf. 455. T. Second National Bank of Oswego, 53 Barb. 512, n. Aff'd in 45 JV. Y. 655. T. Stamler, 2 Hilt. 423. Explained (Books of account as evidence) in Burke v. Wolfe, 38 Super. -Ct. {J.-& S.) 263, 2C9. T. Thompson, 29 Barb. 218. Followed (Nuisance) in Conklin v. Phoenix Mills of Seneca Falls, 62 Id. 299, 309. Disting'd (Infant's liability for tort) in Hewitt ». Warren, 10 Id. 560, 563. Cited as author- ity with Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & D. \ 93 ; Bullock ». Babcock, 3 Wend. 391 ; Corning v. Corning, 6 JV. Y. 97, in Peterson v. Haff- ner, 59 Ind. 130 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 81, with note. : t. Wood. See Beals v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurun. Conkling v. Gandall, 1 Keyes, 228; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 423. Disting'd (Suffi- ciency of complaint in action on note, &c.) in Richter v Kramer, 1 City Ct. 348. Followed in Judd v. Smith, 3 Hun, 191; Tooker v. Arnoux, 76 JV Y. 401. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 534, n. v. King, 10 Barb. 372. Aff'd in 10 JV. Y. 440. . v. Shelley, 28 JV. Y. 360. Limited (Effect of provision in chattel mortgage allowing mortgagor to sell) in Brackett v. Harvey, 91 Id. 214, which rev'd 25 Hun, 502, 507, which see. Followed in Ellsworth v. Phelps, 30 Id. 646. Disting'd in City Banks. Westbury, 16 Id. 458. Approved ift Southard v. Benner, 7 Daly, 4\, 43. Conley v. Meeker, 9 Weekly Dig. 288. Affd in 85 JV Y. 618. Coulin v. Cantrell. 51 How. Pr. 312. Affd in 64 JV Y. 217. See Yale v. Dederer. Decision in 04 WY. followed (Liability of married woman for services, &c.) in Muller e. Piatt, 31 Hun, 121. Collated with Wil- liamson v. Dodge, 5 Id. .497, and other cases, in 31 Am. R-' 697, n. Cited in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 476. Explained and disting'd (Intent to charge inferred from circumstances) in Salmon v. McEnany, 23 Hun, 87, 89. Connah v. Hale, 23 Wend. 462. Followed (Goods delivered to tradesmen, exempt from distress for rent) in McCreery v. Clafflin, 37 Md. 435; s. c, 11 Am. R. 542. T. Sedgwick, 1 Barb. 210. Discussed (Assignment fpr benefit of creditors — deliv- ery of possession) in Burrill ort Assign. § 274, 4 ed. Connecticut v. Jackson, 1 Johns. Gh: 13 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 471. Applied (Computing interest in case of partial payments) in French v. Kennedy, 7 Barb. 455; Bennett v. Cook,. 2 Hun, 529. Recognized as au- thority in Voung «. Hill, 67 JV. Y. 167, which rev'd 6 Hun, 619, which see. Fol- lowed in Hart v. Doraian, 2 Fla. 445 ; s. c. , 50 Am. Dec. 285. Explained (Interest on interest) in Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cleveland. &c. R: R. Co., 41 Barb. 23. Dis- ting'd in Gibbs v. Chisolm, 2 Nott & McG. (S. 0.) 38; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 560. See lengthy note to 6 Am. Dec. 188, collating cases. Disting'd in Hovey «. Edmison, 22 Northw. 7*^.594,601. Disting'd (Recovery of compound interest) in Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 628; Towhsend ». Corning, 3 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 97. Explained in Kellogg «. Hickok, 1 Wend. 521. Followed in Van Benschooten v. Lawson, 6 Johns. Gh. 314. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 10 Hun, 59. Rev'd in 73 JV. Y. 399; s. c, 29 Am. R. 171. Decision in 73 JV. Y. ex- plained (Action by insurance company to 176 CONNECTICUT HUT. UFE INS. CO.— CONRAD. recover amount of loss paid, from party whose negligence caused it) in First Presb. Soc. v. Goodrich Transp. Co,, 12 Rep. 105; s. c, 7 Fed. Rep. 257. Applied in Swart- out v. C: & N. W. R. Co., 49 Wise. 628. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cleve- land, &c. R. R. Co., 23 How. Pr. 180. Plaintiffs recovered judgment which was affd in 41 Barb. 9; s. c, 26 How. Pr. 225. ,06018100 in 41 Barb, criticised (Interest when allowable on coupons for interest) in Wheaton v. Pike, 9 R. I. 132; s. c, 11 Am. R. 227. Connelly v. Pierce, 7 Wend. 129. Cited as authority with Blood «. Goodrich, 9 Id. 68 ; Fuller v. Hubbard, 6 Cow. 13 ; Fuller v. Williams, 7 Id. 53 (Duty of vendor to pre- pare deed) in Smith v. Henry, 2 Eng. (Ark.) 207; s. c, 44 Am. Bee. 540, 542, with note. Conner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Sandf. 355. Att'd in 5 N. Y 285. See Smith ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 5 R. Y. applied (Public and private statutes) in Bretz v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 261 ; Phillips b. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Hilt. 489. Applied -in dissenting opinion of Welles, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Barb. 367. Considered and explained with Williams v. People, 24 JY. Y. 405; People v. Hills, 35 Id. 449 ; People v. O'Brien, 38 Id. 193, in Healy v. Dudley, 5 Laiis. 115. Applied (Expression of title of local act) in Freeman ». Panama R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 124; Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 W..Y. 21 ; People ex rel. Comm'rs v. Banks, 67 Id. 573 ; Central Crosstown R. R. Co. v. Twenty-Third St. R. R. Co., 54 How. Pr. 179. Examined in dissenting opinion of Hunt, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y., 2 Reyes, 409. Explained in People v. Allen, 42 K Y. 417. Followed in Tifft v. City of Buffalo, 82 Id. 204,211. Applied (Nature of right to public office and its emoluments) in McVeany v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 80 N. Y. 190, 194. Disting'd with Smith ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Id. 518; Uolan v. Same, 68 Id. 274 ; McVeany v. Same, 80 Id. 185 ; Terhune v. Same, 88 Id. 247, in People ex rel. Ryan v. French, 91 Id. 265. Approvingly cited in State v. Douglass, 26 Wis. 428; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 87; the case of People v. Morrell, 21 Wend. 503, 576, being also cited. Cited as authority in Perkins. ». Corbin, 45 Ala. 103; s. c, 6 Am. P. 698. Decision in 2 Sandf. collated with other cases, in 25 Am. Dee. 701, n. Comiitt v. Reformed P. D. Church, 4 Bans, 339. Affd in 54 N. Y. 551. Connolly v. Pardon, 1 Paige, 291; s. c, 19 Am. Dee. 433. See Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum «. Emmons. ' v. Poillon, 41 Barb. 366. Said in 41 $T. Y. 619, to have been affd in Ct. of App. June, 1869. Connor v. Williams, 2 Robt. 46. Commented upon (Statute of frauds — guaranties) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 166, 6, 4 ed. Connors v. People, 50 & Y. 240. See Brandon v. People. Disting'd (Liability of accused testifying in his own behalf) in People v. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571, 574; People v. Crapo, 76 Id. 288, 291. Followed in State v. Ober, 52 N. H. 459; s. c, 13 Am. R. 88. Cited as authority in State v. Went- worth, 65 Me. 234; s. c, 20 Am. R. 688. Commented upon (Waiver of constitutional privileges; in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 387. Conor v. Dempsey, 49 K Y. 665. For the rule in case of executory contract see cases cited (Acceptance of goods after opportunity to examine) in Abb. Tr. Fv. 348, n. 5. Conover, Matter of, 3 Abb. Pr. 74. Disap- proved (Proceedings to obtain official books and papers) in People v. Allen, 42 Barb. 203. Conover v. Devlin, 15 How. Pr. 470; s. c, more fully, 6 Abb. Pr. 228. y. — — , 24 Barb. 587. Approved (Ap- plication to compel delivery of books, &c. pertaining to public office) in Matter of Davis, 19 How. Pr; 327. v. Hoffman, 1 Bosw. 214. Afi'd in. 15 Abb. Pr. 100; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 429. v. Mutual Ins. Co., 5 Den. 254. Afl'd in 1 2T. Y. 290. See point's of counsel in How. App. Cas. 604. See Van Deusen v. Charter Oak. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Decis- ion in 3 Den. disting'd with Masters ». Madi- son County Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Barb. 624 (Powers of officers and agents of insurance companies) in Gibbs v. Richmond County Mut. Ins. Co., 9 Daly, 203. Explained in 2 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 405, n. 1. Decision in 1 N. Y. followed with Salomes v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 3 Keyes, 416, in Northrup v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 435 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 337, 341. See to the contrary 1 Re8f. on Railw. 590. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 42. Decision in 3 Ben. relied on (Mortgage not to be regarded as an alienation) in Harral v. Leverty, 50 Conn. 46 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 608, 617; Hubbard v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 33 Iowa, 325; s. c, 11 Am. R. 125, 132. Conrad v. Trnstees of Ithaca, 16 K Y. 158. See Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburg; Hut- sou v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze ; Rochester White Lead Co. ». City of Rochester; Smith ■». City of Rochester; Wilson v. Mayor, -&c. of N. Y. Applied (Liability of municipal corporation for negligence of agents) in Baldwin ». City of Oswego, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 74 ; Deyoe v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 1 Hun, 343 ; Limited in Onderdonk v. City of Brooklyn, 31 Barb. 506. Explained in Saw-mill Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 39. Cited in In- man «. Tripp, 11 R. I. 520; s. c, 23 Am. R. 520, 525. Explained with Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburg, 16 K Y. 161 (Lia- bility of municipal corporation for injury resulting from defect in public work) in Peck i>. Village of. Bataviii, 32 Barb. 637. Disting'd as to sidewalks,— in Hart v. City CONRAD— CONWAY. 177 of Brooklyn, 36 Id. 227, but followed as to sidewalks in N. Y. city, in Davenport v. Euckman, 10 Bosw. 29, which was aft'd in 37 If. Y. 568, which see. Followed as to sidewalks generally, in Wilson 1). City of Watertown, 3 Hun, 512. Disting'd as in-, applicable to counties, in Ensign «. Super- visors of Livingston, 25 Id. 22 ; Herring- ton v. Village of Corning, 51 Barb. 411. Disting'd with Hickok i>. Trustees of Platts- burg, 16 If. Y. 161, in Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 Id. 500. Applied in Hines v. City of Lockport, 60 Barb. 385 ; Clemcnce v. City of Auburn, 66 If. Y. 341 ; Buffalo, &c. Turnpike Co. v. City of Buffalo, 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & U.) 540; Nims «. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 3 Id. 7. v. Williams, 6 Sill, 444. Applied (Ef- fect of testimony of uncontradicted witness) " in Stafford v. Leamy, 43 flow. Pr. 49. Dis- ting'd in Kavanagh . Gray, 4 How. Pr. 166. Decision in 4 How. Pr. quoted and explained (Private corporations — credi- tor's rights) in Morawelz on Corp. § 572. Decision in 12 Barb, approved (Directors of a corporation cannot destroy it) in Abbott v. Am. Hard Rubber Co., 33 Barb. 578, 584, 592. Quoted and explained in Morawetz on Corp. § 241. Referred to as containing a fiill discussion (Creditor's suits) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 267, n. 1. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Oonv. § 68, n. 1. Conroe r. Bird sail, 1 Johns. Cos. 127; s. c, 1 Am. Bee. 105, with note; 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 268, with brief note. Criticised (Infants' contracts — distinction between void and voidable) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 329, n. b ; Tyler on Inf. & Conn. 2 ed. 12. Shown in 1 Am. Dec. 107, n., to have been approved in N. Y. and elsewhere, though doubted (Validity of deeds of an infant) in Story on Sales, § 28. Criticised and reconciled with other cases (Doctrine of estoppel in pais as applicable to infants) in 44 Am. Dec. 286, n. v. National Protection Ins. Co., 10 How. Pr. 403. See (Change of venue) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 986, n. Conroy v. Gale, 5 Bans. 344. Said in Stack v. Bangs, 6 Bans. 262, to have been affd in Ct. of A pp. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 6 Daly, 490. Aff'd, it seems, in 67 If. Y. 610, but without opinion. v. Warren, 3 Johns. Cos. 259 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 156. Approved (Liability in case of non-presentment) in Matter of Brown, 2 Story G. Ct. 502. Applied (Right to sue on note indorsed in blank) in Barlow v. Myers, 24 Hun, 286, 289. I.— 12 Conseqna v. Fanning, 3 Johns. Ch. 587. Rev'd in 17 Johns. 511. Cousiderant v. Brisbane, 14 How. Pr. 487. Subsequent decision on demurrer to amended complaint, in 2 Bosw. 471, which was rev'd in 22 If. Y. 389. Decision in 22 If. Y. ex- plained (Action by trustee of express trust) in Grinnell v. Buchanan, 1 Daly, 538. Fol- lowed in Brown ». Cherry, 66 Barb. 635. Disting'd with Devol v. Barnes, 7 Hun, 342 (Actions by agent) in Iselin ■». Rowlands, 30 Id. 488. Cited as containing an exhaus- tive discussion, in Pomeroy on Rem. § 175, n. 1. Cited as a fully considered case (Na- ture of express trusts) in Id. § 174. Decis- ion in 14 How. Pr. distiug'd with Grant "v. Johnson, 5 If. Y. 247 (Promise to pay, when conditional) in Chase v. Behrman, 10 Daly, 344. Constantino v. Tan Winkle, 2 Hill, 240. Rev'd in 6 Hill, 177. See (Married woman's deed) Van Winkle b. Constantine, 10 iV. Y. 422. - — v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, 239. See authority reviewed (Sub-lease and assignment) in 16 Am. L. Rev. 31. Continental Nat. B'k v. Nat. B'k of Com- monwealth, 50 If. Y 575. Followed (Re- quisites of equitable estoppel) in Voorhees ■». Olmstead, 3 Hun, 754, which was affd in 66 If. Y. 113, which sec. Compared with other cases in Vietor v. International Naviga- tion Co., 45 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 129, 142. Relied on, Blair v. Wait, 69 N. Y. 113, in Anderson v. Hubble, 93 Ind. 570; s. c, 47 Am. R. 394. See cases collected in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 265, n. Disting'd (Estoppel to recover money paid on forged paper) in White ». Continental Nat. B'k, 64 If. Y. 321. Applied in Marine Nat. B'k v. Nat. City B'k, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 479. Extended and applied in U. S. v. Nat. Park B'k, 6 Fed. Rep. 854. Converse v. Kellogg, 7 Barb. 590. See Hone v. Van Schaick. Disting'd (Suspension of division of estate) in Doubleday v. Newton, 27 Barb. 441. Cited as authority (Death referred to in will — when death happening in lifetime of testator) in Kelly t>. Kelly, 61 If. Y. 50. Disting'd (Consideration for agreement) in White v. Baxter, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 367. Disapproved (Effect of de- ferring payment of legacy) in Bliven Q. Sey- mour, 84 N. Y. 469. Conway v. Bush, 4 Barb. 564. Disting'd (When title passes to vendee) in Morey v. Medbury, 10 Hun, 540, 543. v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥.. 6 Daly, 515. Further decision in 8 Id. 306. v. , 4 Hun, 43. Modified and affd in 63 If. Y. 504. v. Starkweather, 1 Den. 113. Explained and followed (Holding over by tenant) in Schuyler «. Smith, 51 If. Y. 309, 315. Approved in Witt «. Mayor, &c. of New York, 6 Robt. 441, 451. See to the contrary (Tenant's estoppel) Welland Canal Co. v. 178 CONWAY— COOK. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 528, 529. v. Williams, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 089. Reported in 2 Hun, 642. Cook t. Allen, o Hun, 561. Affd in 67 27. Y. 578. v.- Barnes, 36 27. Y. 520. Cited as settled law (Effect of taking usurious security for valid debt) in Gerwig v. Sit- terly, 56 27. Y. 217, which partially rev'd 64 Barb. 626, which see. Applied in Pat- terson e. Birdsall, 64 27. Y. 298. v. Barr, 44 27. Y. 158. Cited (Answer under oath, when admissible against the party making it) in 2 Wha'rt. Com. on Ev. § 1116. See to the contrary, cases cited (Proof of express trust) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 233, n. 3. Explained with Peabody v. Speyers, 56 27. Y. 230 (Memorandum re- quired by statute of frauds) in Warfield v. Wisconsin Cranberry Co., 63 Iowa, 314. v. Beal, 1 Bosw. 497. Aff'd in Ct. of App., Dec. 1862. v. Brockway, 21 Barb. 331. Explained and limited (Opinion as to quantity of lost or destroyed property) in Harpending v. Shoe- maker, 37 Barb. 370, 290. Disting'd in Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 27. Y. 308. v. Chainnlain Transportation Co. Ap- proved (Rights of one who when lawfully using property exposes it to accidental injury) in Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 27. Y. 209, 215. Approved with Fero s. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., in Murphy v. Chicago, &c. R'y Co., 45 Wis. 222; s. c, 30 Am. R. 721. Approved and cited with Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 27. Y. 209; Corwin v. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 13 Id. 42; Shepard v. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 35 Id. 641, in Cressey «. North- ern R. R. Co., 59 27. H. 564; s. c, 47 Am. R. 227. Limited in JSesee «. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 76; s. c, fi Am. R. 642, 647. Explained (Damages for injury to building) in Agate v. Lowenbein, 6 Daly, 291, 294. Cited, with other cases, as op- posed to the doctrine held in Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co., 54 III. 504; s. c, 5 Am. R. 155 (Contributory negligence in a landowner adjoining a railroad) in 5 Am. R. 157,- n. Relied on with Field v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 27. Y. 339; Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 Id. 209,- in Kellogg v. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 26 Wis. 223; s. c, 7 Am. R. 69, 72, 76. Followed with Fero ». Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 27. Y. 215, in Howell «. Rail- road, 57 27. H. 132; s. c, 24 Am. It. 59, 62. Cited in Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co. v. Salmon, 10 Vroom (27. J.) 299; s. c, 23 Am. R. 214, 224. Cited with approval (Judgment against non-resident — when good by reason of waiver) in Dearing v. B'k of Charleston, 5 Oa. 497; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 300, 317, wth note. v. Clark, 8 Hun, 247; a. c, as Cook ®. Rogers, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 493. Affd in 68 27. Y. 178. t. Commercial Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 40- s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 353 ; 5 27. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 53, with brief note. Decision in 11 Johns, criticised (Barratry in respect to cargo, as well as to vessel) in Natchez Ins. Co. v. Stantori, 2 Smedet \'& M. (Miss.) 340; s. c, 41 Am. Dee. 592, 600, with note. v. Cook, 1 Barb. Gh, 639, 644. Applied (Proceedings collateral to action for divorce) in Kamp «. Kamp, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 241, 245. v. Ellis, 6 Hill, 466. See Tillotson v. Cheetham. Followed (Defendant's liability in civil action not barred by criminal pro- ceedings against him) in Hoadley v. Watson 45 Vt. 289; s. c, 12 Am. R. 197. Disap- proved (Exemplary damages in case of offense punishable by criminal law) in Fay v. Parker, 53 27. H. 342; s. c, 16 Am. R. 270, 315. Cited with Fry v. Bennett, 4 Duer, 247, in Taylor v. Grand Trunk R'y Co., 48 27. H. 304 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 229, 240. Approved in Klopfer v. Brorcme, 26 Wis. 372. Included in Sedgw. Cas. on Duma. 741. Discussed in 2 Oreenl. on En. 14 ed. § 253, n. 2. v. Esleeck, 8 Abb. Pr. 170. Affd as Cooks. Kelsey, in 19 if. F. 412. v. Farmer, 11 Abb. Pr. 40. Affd in 12 Id. 359; s. c, 34 Barb. 95; 21 How. Pr. 286. v. Ferral, 13 Wend. 285. Approved with Dox v. Dey, 3 Id. 356 ; Porter e. Rose, 12 Johns. 209 (Plaintiff's duty to show perform- ance or readiness) in Hough v. Rawson, 17 III 591. v. Fincli. See Bleecker v. Smith. v. Freudenthal, 80 27. Y. 202. Affg Cook v. Horwitz, 14 Hun, 542. Decision in 80 27. Y. confirmed (Invalidity of under- taking) in Toles e. Adee, 84 27. Y. 222. v. Gregg, 46 27. Y. 439. See Rockwell v. Nearing. Decision in Sup'm Ct. here aff'd, but not reported, followed (Constitutionality of statute authorizing seizure of trespass- ing animals) in Squares v. Campbell, 41 How. Pr. 193, where Fox «. Dunckel, 38 Id. 136; Campbell «. Evans, 54 Barb. 566; McCpnnell «. Van Aerman, 56 Id. 534; Leavitt v. Thompson, Id. 542, were also compared. v. Harris, 61 27. Y. 448. Cited with Gibney e. Marchay, 34 Id. 303 (Admissions made by owner of estate in respect to such estate) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1157. v. Hill, SSandf. 349. Applied (Doctrine of absolutely privileged communications not to be extended) in Maurice v. Warden, 54 Md. 233; s. c, 39 Am. R. 384. V. Horwitz, 10 Ilim, 586. Further pro- ceeding in 14 Id. 542, which was aff'd as Cook v. Freudenthal, 80 N. Y. 202. v. Kelley, 12 Abb. Pr. 35. Affd in 14 Id. 406. v. Kelsey. 19 27. Y. 412. Affg Cook «. , Esleeck, 8 Abb. Pr. 170. v. Kroemeke, 4 Daly. 268. Opposed with Hart v. Hoffman, 44 Mow. Pr. 168 COOK -COOKE. 179 (Burden of proof on broker who claims com- missions) in Iselin v. Griffith, 62 Iowa, 668. v. Litchfield, 5 Sand/. 330. Rev'd in N. Y. 279. Subsequent decision in 2 Bosw. 137. Decision in 9 N~. Y. disting'd (Protest as including demand by implication) in Brennan v. ,Lowry, 4 Daily, 254. Dis- ting'd (Sufficiency of notice to indorscr) in Artisan's Bk. v. Backus, 31 Id. 100, which aff'd 31 How. Pr. 242, which see. Disting'd and limited in Bank of Coopers- town v. Woods, 28 N. Y. 558, 505. Ap- plied in Arnold v. Kinloch, 50 Barb. 48 ; Youngs v. Lee, 12 K Y. 554. Collated with 'Artisans' Bank ». Backus, 36 Id. 100; Pahquioque Bank«. Martin, 11 ^156. Pr. 29! ; Dole v. Gold, 5 Barb. 490, in 26 Am. P. 505, n. Explained and applied (Contract of indorsement, as governed by law of place) in "Weil v. Lange, 6 Daly, 550. Ex- plained (Law of place of note) in Dickin- son v. Edwards, 77 AT. Y. 586, as not incon- sistent with Jewell .«. Wright, 30 Id, 259. Approved (Commencement of indorsees liability) and applied to acceptor, — inTilden n. Blair, 21 Wall. 247. Decision in 5 Sandf applied (Law of place of note) in Overton i>. Bolton, 9 Heish, (Term.) 762 ; s. c, 24 Am. P. 367, 374. v. McClure, 2 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 434. ReVd in 58 N. Y. 437. v. McDoel, 3 Den. 317. Aff'd in 2 N. Y. 110. v. Moseley, 13 Wend. 277 ; s. c, 12 N. Y. Oorn. L. Law. ed. 373, with brief note on requisites of warranty. Explained in 1 Pars, on Oontr. 580, n. n. v. Newman, 8 How. Pr. 523. Quoted (Assignment— personal torts as distinguished from rights adhering to property) in 1 Pars, on Oonir. 226, n. h. v. Passage, 4 How. Pr. 360. Followed (New trial in ejectment under the Code) in Post v. Moran, 61 Id. 122. v. President of N. Y. Floating' Dry Dock Co., 1 Hilt. 436. Followed (Liability of dock company for injury from defective construction) in Mulcahy v. N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 8 Daly, 93. v. Rogers, 5 Sup'm* Ct. (T. & C.) 493 : s. c, as Cook «. Clark, 3 Run. 247. Aff'd in 68 N. Y. 178. v. Satterlee, 6 Cow. 108; s. c, 16 Am. Dee. 432. Approved (Instrument, when bill of exchange) in Munger v. Shannon, 61 N. Y. 251, 257. Disting'd with Atkinson . Clark, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 252, 256. v. Starkweather, 13 All. Pr. K S. 392, 400. Followed (Relief against imitation of trade-mark) in Brown v. Mercer, 37 Super. Ct. (J. S S.) 265, 268. Followed (Packages, &c. as trade-marks) in Godillot v. Hazard, 44 Id. 427, 433. v. Travis, 22 Barb. 338. Aff'd in 20 N. Y. 400. See Thomas v. Crofut. Decision in 20 A r . Y. followed (Effect of conveyance by sheriff as against purchasers without notice) in Reynolds v. Darling, 42 Barb. 418. Followed (Possession as notice) in Staples v. Fenton, 5 Hun, 172. Disting'd (Duty of purchaser to search for incum- brances as against title not appearing by records) in Crane v. Turner, 7 Id. 359. Cited with other cases as holding a uniform doctrine (Conveyance entitled to be recorded, as constructive notice to subsequent pur- chasers) in Edwards ®. McKenna, 22 Nbrthw. Pep. 20, 23. v. Wardens, &c. of St. Paul's Church, 5 Hun, 293. Aff'd in 67 JST. Y. 594. Decis- ion in 5 Hun quoted (Ejectment — rever- sioners) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 212. v. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150; s. c, 14 Am. R. 202. Applied (Jurisdiction of State court in bankruptcy matters) in Brew- ers' & M. Ins. Co. ». Davenport, 10 LTun, 264, 269 ; Olcott v. McLean, 50 How. Pr. 455. Followed in Rutherford ». Ilewcv, 59 Id. 235; Tyler v. McCollum, 19 Hun, 623. Referred to as superseded by amend- ment of June 22, 1874, in Olcott v. McLean, 10 LTun, 280, but see to the contrary Wente v. Young, 12 Id. 221; Kidder v. Horrobin, 72 N. Y. 105. Approved in Sherwood v. Burns, 58 hid. 502, 507 ; Isett v. Stuart, 80 111. 402 ; s. c, 22 Am. P. 194. Cooks v. Meeker, 36 N. Y. 15. Followed (Interest on legacy) in Matter of Lynch, 52 How. Pr. 367 ; Pierce v. Chamberlin, 41 Id. 501. Explained in Devlin's Estate, 1 Tuck. 460, as, thougn thought to have over- rule! Bradner v. Faulkner, 12 N. Y. 472, yet not to. have dealt with a legacy of a sum of money. Explained and disting'd in Nahmcns «. Copely, 2 Dem. 253. v. Millard, Lans. 243. Aff'd in 65 N. Y. 352; s..c, 22 Am. It 019. Decision in 65 N. Y. quoted and explained (Statute of frauds — goods over fifty dollars — sale dis- tinguished from contract for work and labor) in 1 Bmj. on Sales, § 109, n. 8 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Explained in Id. § 109, n. y, (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted (Acceptance preceding receipt) in 1 Id. § 157, n. 9 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.l. v. Smith, 3 ' Sandf. Ch. 333. Discussed (Assignment for benefit of creditors— other transfers in connection therewith) in Burrill on Assign. § 357, 4 ed. v. State Nat. Bank of Boston, 3 Abb. Pr. K S. 339; s. c, 50 Barb. 339. Further decision in 1 Lans. 494, qualified on appeal in 52 N. Y. 96; s. c, 11 Am. P. 667-. Sec First Nat. B'k of Whitehall v. Lamb; 180 COOKINGJJAM— COOPER Marine Nat. Bank v. Nat. City. B'k ; Toall 0. Fclton. Decision in 52 N~. Y. explained (Jurisdiction of State courts in actions against national banks) in Central Nat. Bk. «. Kichland Nat. B'k of Mansfield, 52 How. Pr. 137. Reaff d and applied in Robinson v. Nat. Bk. of Newberne, 81 N. Y. 390. Applied in Southwick v. First Nat. Bk. of Memphis, 7 Hun, 97; 20 Id. 349, 355. Followed in Cadle v. Tracy, 11 Blatclif. G Gt. 101, 108. Reluctantly followed (Application by corporation for removal of cause) in Mix v. Andes Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 399, which was rev'd in 74 JST. Y. 53, 58, which see. Criti- cised and questioned in Quigley v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 11 Nev. 350; s. o., 21 Am. R. 757. Explained (Liability of bank certifying check) in Marine Nat. Bk. v. Nat. City Bk., 59 N. Y. 72. Followed with First Nat. B'k of Jersey City e. Leach, 52 Id. 350, in French v. Irwin, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 401 : s. c, 27 Am. R. 769. See criticism of syllabus (Submitting particular facts to jury) in 9 Alb. L. J. 255. Decisions in 1 Lans. and 50 N. Y. explained (Review of order of removal to U. S. court) in Cham- berlain v. Amer. Nat. Life, &c. Co., 11 Hun, 373. Compare (National bank a for- eign corporation) Code Civ. Pro. § 3343, subd. 18. Cookinffhain v. Lasher, 38 Barb. 656. Aft'd in 2 Reyes, 454; s. c, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 436. Cooley v. Betts, 24 Wend. 203. Referred to in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 787, n , as con- troverting with much justice (Demand in case of suits against foreign factors) Clark v. Moody, 17 Mass. 145 ; Dodge v. Perkins, 9 Pick. 368, the case of Terwilliger v. Beals, 6 Lans. 403, being also cited (Duty of selling factor to make statement of dealings). v. Howe Machine Co., 53 K Y. 620. Disting'd (Assumption of debt) in Roe v. Barker. 82 Id. 431, 435. v. Lawrence, 5 Dicer, 605. Followed (Submission of defendant to jurisdiction of court) in Krause v. Avcrill, 4 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 410. Considered in dissenting opinion of Bbady, J., in Chatham Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of West. Virginia, LSutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 202. Coon v. Knap, 8 JST. Y. 402. Another decis- ion, as it seems, in 13 How. Pr. 175. Decis- ion in 8 N. Y. commented on and disting'd (Effect of payment by debtor of sum less than indebtedness. Parol evidence to ex- plain receipt) in Hammond v. Christie, 5 Robt. 160. Examined with other cases (Parol evidence to explain receipt) in Howard v. Norton, 65 Barb. 101, 167. With decis- ion in 13 How. Pr. see (Extension of time) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 784, n. v. Syracuse & Utica R. R. Co., 6 Barb. 231. AffU in 5 JST. Y. 492. Decision in 5 J¥. Y. disting'd (Liability of employer for injury caused by negligence of co-servant) in Russell v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 41, which was rev'd in 17 N. Y. 134, which see. Cited as authority (Discharge' of prin- cipal from liability for negligence of ser- vants) in dissenting opinion of Allen, J., in Smith «. N. Y. Central R. R.-Co., 24 N. Y. 240. Followed in Ross v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 495; Sherman v. Roch- ester & Syracuse R. R. Co., 17 K Y. 155; Warner v. Erie R'y Co., 39 Id. 471. Ap- proved in Whaalan «. Mad River R. R., 8 Ohio (iV. . Harde; 1 . Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517. See Crispin «. Babbitt; Laning v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Malone v. Hathaway. Applied (Liability for negligence of superior servant) in Fort v. Whipple, 11 Hun, 592. Followed in Ryan v. Bagaley, 50 Mich. 179; s. c, 43 Am. It. 35. Cited with Laning v. "N Y. Central R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521, in Willis v. Oregon R'y &, Nav. Co., 11 Greg. 203. v. Judson, 24 iV. Y. 106. See Andrews v. Gleuville Woolen Co. Commented on (Reference — assessing damages — counsel fees) in Hoffm. on Referees, 135. Cordell v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., Hun, 401. Rev'd in 64 N. Y. 535. Subsequent decisions in 70 Id. 119; s. c, 26 Am. P. 550; also in 75 K Y. 330; and in 77 Id. 036, latter being without opinion. See Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Reynolds v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 64 N. Y. followed (Duty of railroad company to give signals at crossing) in Byrne v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 94 Id. 12. Decision in 70 A". Y. cited in Thomas v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., U. S. Cir. Ct., JSf. D. N. Y., 12 Reporter, 730; s. c, 8 Fed. Rep. 729. Decision in 75 K Y. explained and followed (Contributory negli- gence) in Glendening v. Sharp, 22 Hun, 78. Followed in Kenncy v. N. Y. & Man- hattan Beach R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 01. Explained in Urquhart v. City of Ogdens- burgh, 23 Hun, 75. Decision in 70 N. Y. quoted (Nuisance — injuries caused by) in Moak's UiiderMWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 263. Corey v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 482. See Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brook- lyn. Overruled (Effect of dedication) in Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 16 N~. Y. 97. v. Long, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 569. Afl'd in 53 F. Y. 641. Corlies v. Cunnning, 6 Cow. 181. Disting'd (Sale by factor for another than his princi- pal) in Roosevelt v. Doherty, 129 Mass. 301 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 356. Cited in Wfiart. Com. on Ag. § 764. v. Gardner, 2 Hall, 345. See Wilson v. Force. Disting'd and critically considered (Effect of refusal of purchaser to give secur- ity agreed upon) in Bradford v. Marbury, 12 Ala. 520; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 264, 266, with note. Cormier v. Batty, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 70. Further decision in 42 Id. 423. Com Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 8 Abb. Pr. H. S. 246. Rev'd in 9 Id. 156 ; s. c, less fully, 42 N. Y. 613 ; 1 Am. R. 601. See Barnett v. Lichtenstein ; Freckiug «. Rolland; Jaques v. Methodist Episc. Church; Perkins®. Perkins; Yale v. Dederer. Decision in 42 N. Y. followed (Charge on separate estate .of married woman) in Merchants' Bk. v. Scott, 59 Barb. 643 ; Todd v. Ames, 00 Id. 462 ; Kidd v. Conway, 65 Id. 160; Conlin v. Cantrell, 51 How. Pr. 313; Hierr. Staples, 51 N~. Y. 139. Followed as established law, in Maxon v. Scott, bold. 251; Woplsey «. Brown, lild. 84, which aff'd 11 Hun, 53, which see. .Disting'd in Bogert i>. Gulick, 45 How. Pr. 300. Applied in Williamson v. Dodge, 5 Hun, 497 ; Eustaphieve v. Ketchum, 6 Id. 623. Disapproved in Dcering v. Boyle, 8 Kan. 525 ; s. c, 12 Am. li. 482. Explained in Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 145, n. 1. Disting'd (Necessity of averment of exist- ence of separate estate) in Schlesiuger v. llexter, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 504. 182 COENELIUS— COENING. Cornelius t. Van Slyck, 21 Wen/l 70. Cited as authority (Words "you will steal," whether actionable) in Townshendon Slander and Libel, 2 ed. 192. Disting'd iu Bays v. Hunt, 60 Iowa, 254. Cornell t. Barnes. See Earl v. Camp ; Warner v. Shed. v. Cook, 7 Cow. 310. Opposed (Officer's return on execution as presumptive evi- dence in his favor) in Merrill v. Sawvcr, 8 Pick. (Mans.) 397. y. Dakin, 38 N. Y. 253. See People ex rel. Knapp v. Reeder. Disting'd (Re- ceiptor of property from sheriff, when estop- ped) in Clark v. Weaver, 17 Bun, 481, 486. — «— v. Masten, 35 Barb. 157. See (Composi- tion — joint debtors) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1942, n. v. Monlton, 3 Den. 12. Cited with Commercial Bank v. Ives, 2 BUI, 355 ; Judd v. Fulton, 10 Barb. 118, as accord- ing with the weight of authority (Computa- tion of time from act done) in Warren v. Slade, 23 Mich. 1 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 70, 74. Followed and cited with Osborn v. Moncure, 3 Wend. 170; Salt Springs Nat. B'k t>. Burton, 58 iV~. T. 430 ; in Blackman v. Nutting, 43 Conn. 56; s. c, 21 Am. R. 634. v. Potter, 15 How. Pr. 278. Opposed (Party not entitled to witness fees) iu Bron- ner v. Frauenthal, 12 Abb. Pr. 183. Com- pare Dunham v. Sherman, 1 1 Id. 152 ; and see Steere v. Miller, 30 Bow. Pr. 7. y. Prescott, 2 Barb. 10. Explained (Assumption of mortgage) in Stebbins v. Hall, 29 Id. 530; Gamsey ' 1>. Rogers, 47 K Y. 230. Cornes v. Wilkin, 14 Bun, 428. Aff'd in 79 N. T. 129. Decision in 14 Ban followed (Contribution against • estate of deceased surety) in Johnston v. Harvey, 22 Id. 460. Corning v. Corning, 6 N. Y. 97. Aff'g 1 CodeR N. 8. 351. See Conklin v. Thomp- son^ Decision in 6 N. Y. relied on (Evi- dence of dissolute conduct to mitigate dam- ages) in dissenting opinion of JonNsoN, J., in Crossman v. Bradley, 53 Barb. 137. Ap- plied (Amendment of complaint after ver- dict by increasing damages) to amendment after confirmation of referee's report, — in Bowman «. Earle, 8 Dner, 695. Applied to action tried before judge, in Decker v. Par- sons, 11 Bun, 295. Disting'd in Barth v. Walther, 4 Duer, 228 ; Poillon e. Volken- ning, 11 Bun, 388. Cited as authority in Coulter «. Am. Merchants' &c. Expies= Co,, 5 Lans. 67. Disting'd as not applicable to amendments before verdict, — in Knapp v. Roche, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 406. Pol- lowed in Elting v. Campbell, 5 Blatclif. C. Ct. 183. Disting'd (Rejecting evidence offered on immaterial issue) in White v. Spencer, 14 N. Y. 251. v. Gould, 16 Wand. 631. Applied (Evi- dence of intent to abandon easement) in Grain v. Fox, 16 Barb. 187. Disting'd in Pope v. O'liara, 48 K Y. 455; White's Bk. of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 Id. 74. Cited in 3 Bent Com. 448, n. o, as containing a full and learned view of the law. Commented upon in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 61. v. Greene, 23 Barb. 33. Said in 26 K Y. 472, v., to have been aff d in Ct. of App. Decision in 23 Barb, followed (Statute to be void unless corporation consent, not a delegation of legislative power) in Currier v. West Side Elev. Pat. R'y. Co. of N. Y., 6 Blatclif. C. Ct. 487, 494. See (Actions by or against associations) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1919, n. v. Lewis, 54 Barb. 51; s. c, with ref- eree's opinion, 36 Bow. Pr. 425. v. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Oh. 439. Ap- proved with Hills ». Miller, 3 Paige, 254; Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Id. 510 (Injunction) in Greeri v. Oakes, 17 III. 251. Relied on (Injunction of nuisance) in Hamil- ton v. Whitridge, 11 Md. 128; s. c, 48 Am. R. 274, n. Approved and applied in City of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet. 99. — v. McCulIongh, 1 K Y. 47; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 287, with note. Subsequent decision in 4 Bow. Pr. 183. See Harger a. McCuilough. Decision in 1 2f. Y. explained (Nature of stockholder's liability) in Walker v. Crain, 17 Barb. 129 ; Abbott v. Aspinwall, 26 Id. 207. Approved and followed in Conant «. Van Schaick. 24 Id. 96 ; Bird v. Hayden, 1 Robt. 388. Re-affd in Moss v. Averell, 10 JST. Y. 459 ; Story v. Furman, 25 Id. 222. Applied in Strong v. Wheaton, 38 Barb. 625; Pfohl v. Simpson, 50 Bow. Pr.SIS; Clark v. Myers, ] 1 Bun, 609. Approved in Hawt- horne i>. Calef, 2 Wall. 10. Disting'd in Merchants' B'k v. Bliss, 35 N.Y. 414, which aff'd 1 Robt. 401, where Corning v. McCui- lough is said to have overruled Freeland v. Mcuullough, 1 Den. 414; Van Hook •». Whit- lock, 3 Paige, 409. Disting'd in Jessup v. Car- negie, 80 N~. Y. 457; Halsey v. McLean, 12 Allen {Mass.) 441. Disting'd with Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. 338 ; Moss v. Oakley, 2 Bill, 265 ; Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Id. 188; Harger v. McCuilough, 2 Den. 119 ; Ex parte Van Riper, 20 Wend. 614, and cited with Garri- son v. Howe, 17 N. Y. 458; Andrews '«. Murray, 33 Barb. 354 ; Shalcr & Hall Quarry Co. v. Bliss, 34 Id. 309 ; Boughton v. Otis, 21 K Y. 261 ; Squire v. Brown, 22 Bow. Pr. 45, in First Nat. B'k of Plymouth v. Price, 33 Md. 487; s. c, 3 Am. R. 204. Compared with other cases, in Conklin v. Furman, 57 Barb. 487 ; Belmont v. Coleman, 1 Bosw. 200. Compare Chase o. Lord, 6 Abb. N. C. 258, and note. Cited as authority in Cuvkenrlall v. Miles, II. S. Cir.. Ct. D. Mass. 10 Fed. Rep. 342; s. c, 14 Reporter, 69. Disapproved in Lowry v. Inman, 2 Sweeny, 117, 148. Explained in Morawctz on Corp. § 609. Explained and approved in Wade on Retroactive Laws, § 142. Ex- plained (Statute of limitations — what actions may be barred) in Aug. on Limit. § 70, n. 1 , (i ed. Discussed (Specialties) in Id. § 80, n. 1. Applied (Application of CORNING— CORTELYOU. 183 maxim "nosr.itur a sociis'") in McGaffin v. City of Cohoes, 74 N. Y. 389. v. Murray, 3 Barb. 652. Criticised (As- signment of chose in action— subject to what equities) in Greene v. Warwick, 64 N. Y. 220, 224. v Slosson, 1,6 if. Y. 294. Approved (Consultation necessary to decision by court) in Parrott v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 234, 244. Explained in Shaw v. People, 5 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C.) 439, 448. v. Smith, 6 K Y. 82. Explained (Prior mortgagee as party to foreclosure suit) in Walsh v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 33, 39. Applied in Banning v. Brad- ford, 21 Minn. 308; s. c, 18 Am. It. 398, to case of one holding adversely to mort- gagor. v. Southland, 3 Hill, 552. Explained and disting'd (Discharge of sheriffs liability for failure to return execution) in McKinley ». Tucker, 59 Barb. 93, which was overruled in 6 Lans. 216, which see. Applied (Sheriffs liability for acts of deputy) in Sheldon «. Payne, 7 N. Y. 458; 10 Id. 401. v. Stebbins, 1 Barb. Gh. 589. Cited as authority (Time within which to fill credi- tor's bill) in Walker v. Donovan, 6 Daly, 552. v. Troy Iron & Nail Factory, 6 How. Pr. 89; s. c.. 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 7. Injunc- tion suit reported in 34 Barb. 485 ; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 217. Case under same name in 34 Barb. 529; s. c:, 22 How. Pr. 212; is eject- ment suit between same parties. Subse- quent decision in injunction suit, — in 39 Barb. 311, which was aff'd in 40 N. Y. 191. See Garwood v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 40 N. Y. applied (Injunc- tion to restore rights in running water) in Pollitt v. Long, 58 Barb. 34; Foot v. Bran- son, 4 Lans. 52. Explained in Clinton v. Myers, 46 jV. Y. 511, 521. Quoted and explained in 1 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 804, n. 1. Cited as authority (Grant of real estate, title to which is in dispute) in Allen 0, Welch, 18 Hun, 227. Applied (Use of word "reservation " in deed) in Saunders v. Hanes, 44 N. Y. 361. Applied (Right to relief as affected by form of action) in Wright 11. Wright, 54 Id. 443; Broiestedt v. South Side R. R. Co., 55 Id. 220 ; Henderson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 Id. 436. Compare (Judgment requiring defendant to remove nuisance) De Laney v. Blizzard, 7 Hun, 68. Explained and limited (Mandatory injunction) in Slocum v. Chi- cago, . Decker, 20 Hun, 175. Followed in Dyer v. Erie R'y Co., 71 JV. Y. 236. Collated with other cases, in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 609. Fol- lowed (Impeaching one's own witness) in Nichols v. White, 85 K Y. 531, 536. r. Board of Edncation, 4 Hun, 569. Aff'd in 63 K Y. 365. Countryman v. Light hill, 24 Hun, 405. Ex- plained (Private nuisance — overhanging branches) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 108, n. 1. Courtney t. Baker, 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 249. Appeal dismissed in 00 If. Y. 1. De- cision on appeal from former trial, in 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 529. Statement in 62 N. Y. 1, that the case there reported is re- ported below in "2 J.- & S. 529 " is in- correct. See vol. 307 of Cases on Appeal, in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. Decision in 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) approved (Master's liability for acts of servant not within the scope of his employment) in 35 Am. Dec. 197, n. — - v. N. Y. City Ins. Co., 28 Barb. 116. Quoted and explained (Marine insurance — assignment of policy) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 356, n. r. Courtwright v. Stewart, 19 Barb. 455. Ap- proved with Stephens v. Santee, 51 Id. 545 ; Webster t>. Zeilly, 52 Id. 482 (Statute of frauds — work and labor disting'd from Bale of goods) in Cooke v. Millard, 5 Lans. 243. Explained in Benj. .on Sales, § 109, n. y, Bennett's 4 Am. ed. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 53, n. u. Cousland v. Davis. See Bedell v. Sturta. Coutant v. People, 11 Wend. 511. Approved (Construing statute) in Clark v. Mowyer, 5 Mich. 468. v. Schuyler, 1 Paige, 316. Followed with Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598 (Promis- sory note as proper subject of donatio causa mortis) in Brown v. Brown, 18 Conn. 410; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 328, with note, as accord- ing with the current of decisions in this country. Disting'd and Wright o. Wright, 1 Cow. 598, denied as disapproved in Ray- mond v. Sellick, 10 Conn. 480; and opposed to Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. {Mass.) 198; s. c, 25 Am. Dee. 378, with note, and to the whole current of English authorities, — in Holley v. Adams, 16 Vt. 206; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 508, 510, with note. Collated with Westerlo e. De Witt, 36 IT. Y. 340; Grymes v. Hone, 49 Id. 17; House v. Grant, 4 Lans. 296; Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Hun, 470, and numerous other cases, in 23 Am. Dee. 601, n., as showing an unbroken current of authority in this country. — — t. Servoss. See Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay. Co-,3ll T. Hill. See Covill v. Hill; Laverty r>. Snethen. t. Hitchcock, 2SWend. 611 ; s. c, 14 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 486, with brief note. Aff'g Hitchcock v. Covell, 20 W-end. 167. Decision in 23 Wend, disting'd and ques- tioned with Buckley «. Furniss, 15 Wend. 137 (Stoppage in transitu) in Sawyer *. Joslin, 20 Vt. 172 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 768, 772, with note. Illustrated with other cases, in 2 Kedf. Am. Bailw. Cas. 380. v. Tradesman's B'k, 1 Paige, 131. Dis- ting'd (Rights of assignee of non-negotiable chose in action) in Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. B'k, 55 If. Y. 41, 48. Examined in Bush v. Lathrop, 22 Id. 535, 545. Dis- ting'd and approved in McNeil v. Tenth Na- tional Bank, 46 Id. 325, 337. Coveney v. Tannahill, 1 Hill, 33; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 287, with note, containing cita- tions. See Jackson v. French. Disting'd (Communication by attorney to two or more jointly — when privileged) in Whiting v. Barney, 38 Barb. 399, which was rev'd in 30 N. Y. 330, 342, which see. Approved (Extent of privilege of communications be- tween attorney and client) in Bank of Utica v. Mcrsereau, 3 Barb. Ch. 595, 000 ; Crosby v. Berger, 11 Paige, 379. Examined, with other cases, in March v. Ludlum, 3' Sandf. Ch. 46. Covenhoven v. Shuler, 2 Paige, 122; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 73, with note, containing citations. Applied (Life interest in chattels with remainder over) in Rapalye v. Rapalye, 27 Barb. 615; Smith v. Van Nostrand, 3 Hun, 452; Williamson v. Williamson, Paige, 306; Cairns *>. Chaubcit, 9 Id. 163; Calkins «. Calkins, 1 £edf. 338. COVENTRY— COX. 187 Disting'd in Hill v. Hill, 2 Lans. 48. Com- pare Livingston v. Murray, 68 N. Y. 493. See to the contrary Wcstcoatt v. Cady, 5 Johns. Ch. 334. Doubted in Evans v. Igle- hart, 6 QUI & J. (Md.) 171, 193. Cited as authority (Eight of executors to control pro- ceeds of estate) in Bundy v. Bundy, 47 Barb. 141, which was affd in 38 If. Y. 418, which see. Followed in Clark v. Clark, 8 Paige, 160; Edsall v. Waterbury, 2 Bed/. 50. Applied (Construction of words of will) in Conover v. Hoffman, 1 Bosw. 221 ; Ex- parte Hornby, 2 Bradf. 422. Applied (Absolute estate, when- given by will to widow) in Roseboom v. Roseboom, 15 Hun, 315. Coventry v. Barton, 17 Johns. 142; s. o., 8 Am. Dec. 376. See Allaire v. Ouland. Disting'd (Town's liability to indemnify against suit) in People ex rel. Van Keuren v. Auditors of Esopus, 10 Hun, 551, 553. Approved with Averill v. Williams, 1 Den. 502 (Agency of officer) in Nelson v. Cook, 17 III. 449. Cited as authority (Implied promise of indemnity) in Turner v. Jones, 1 Lans. 147. Disting'd (Validity of con- tract to indemnify for unlawful act) in Cumpston v. Lambert, 18 Ohio, 81 ; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 442, with note. Covert v. Gray, 34 How. Pr. 450. Cited (Presumption of continuance of an existing condition) in 2 Whart Com. on En. § 1284. v. Hughes, 8 Bun, 305. Disting'd (Wife as agent of husband) in Salmon ». McEnany, 23 Id. 87, 89. Covill v. Hill, 4 Den. 323. Eev'd as Hill v. Covell, 1 If. Y. 522. Further decision as Covell v. Hill, 6 N. Y. 374. Decision in 4 Den. disting'd (Factor's act) in Bates v. Cun- ningham, 12 Bun, 26. Quoted (Sale of specific chattels conditionally) in Ben}, on Sales, § 450 (Corbiu's 4 Am. ed. ). Cowan v. Village of West Troy ,,43 Barb. 48. Cited as authority (Invalidity of executed contract that is against public policy) in Dickinson v. City of Poughkeepsie, 75 If. Y. 74. Cowden v. Pease, 10 Wend. 333. Followed with Cowdin v. Stanton, 12 Id. 120; Shaw v. Tobias, 3 If. Y. 188 (Pleading in action on replevin bond) in Jennison v. Haire, 29 Mich. 207. v. Teale, 6 Hun, 532. Appeal dis- missed in 67 If. Y. 581, as Cowdin v. Teal. Decision in 6 Hun collated, with other cases (What cases are referable) in 1 Abb. IT. 0. 109, n. Cowdin v. Stanton. See Cowden i>. Pease. Cowdrey v. Carpenter, 1 Robt 429; s.'c., 19 Abb. Pr. 373. Rev'd in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 445. Subsequent decision, as it seems, in 2 Robt. 601; s. c, 17 Abb. Pr. 107. Decision in 2 Robt. examined (Supple- mentary procedings as affected by stay of proceedings) in Woolf v. Jacobs, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 408, 412. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2454, n. v. Coit, 3 Robt. 210. Rev'd in 44 K Y. 382. Cowee v. Cornell, 75 AT 7. 91. Collated with Bank of American. Woodworth, 18 Johns. 315 ; 19 Id. 391 ; Benedict v. Cowden, 49 A". Y. 396 (What is material alteration of promissory note) in 25 Am. R. 481, re. ; Benedict v. Cowden, being thought to over- rule Sanders ». Bacon, 8 Johns. 485 ; Tappan v. Ely, 15 Wend. 362, and to cast some doubt on Bank of America v. Woodworth. Followed (Constructive fraud) in Carpenter v. Soule, 13 Weekly Dig. 55. Collated with other cases, in 25 Am. R. 728, n. Denied (Scope of constructive fraud) in 2 Pomeroy on Eg. Jur. 463, n. Cowen v. Banks, 24 How. Pr. 72. Criti- cised and explained (Effect of assignment of copyright to pass renewal) in Paige v. Banks, 13 Wall. 615. Cowenhoven v. City of Brooklyn, 38 Barb. 9. Disapproved, and Child v. Chappell, 9 If. Y. 248 disting'd (Ejectment — for what maintainable) in Armstrong v. City of St. Louis, 69 Mo. 309 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 499. Cowing v. Altman, 5 Hun, 556. Rev'd in 71 If. Y. 435; s. c, 27.4m. R. 70. Previous decision in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 494. Further decision in 79 If. Y. 167. Cowles v. Watson, 14 Hun, 41. Approved (Effect of misrepresentation as to value of property) in 2 Pomeroy on. Eg. Jur. § 879, n.<, where, however, contrary cases are cited. Cowley v. People, 21 Hun, 415; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. N. C. 1. Afl'd in 83 N. Y. 464 ; s. c, 38 Am. R. 464, with note. See error book and briefs at State Library in Albany. Also error book, &c. in vol. 548 of Cases on Appeal in Law Inst. Libr., N. Y. City. Decision in 83 If. Y. followed with Gaiterman v. Liverpool, N. Y., &c. S. S. Co., Id. 358 (Hypothetical questions) in Burt v. Jewett, If. Y. Daily Reg., May 6, 1884. Cowpertliwaite v. Sheffield, 1 Sandf. 416. Aft'd in 3 N. Y. 243. See Harris v. Clark; Hutter i>. Ellwanger ; Winter v. Drury. Decision in 3 If. Y. followed (Draft, when not operating as assignment) in Winter v. Drury, 5 If. Y. 530 ; (Jtatpman v. White, 6 Id. 416; Willetts v. Finlay, 11 How. Pr. 475. Applied in iEtna Nat. Bk. v. Fourth Nat. Bk., 46 If. Y. 87; Lunt v. Bk. of North America, 49 Barb. 230. Disting'd in Munger v. Shannon, 61 If. Y. 258. Ex- amined with other cases, in Shuttleworth v. Bruce, 7 Robt. 162. Applied with Winter v. Drury, 5 If. Y. 525, in Exchange B'k of St. Louis «. Rice, 107 Mass. 37; s. c, 9 Am. R. 1. Applied with McMenomy v. Fer- rers, 3 Johns. 72 ; Peyton v. Hallett, 1 CaL 363; Luff v. Pope, 5 Hill, 413; Harrison v. ■ Williamson, 2 Edw. 430, in First Nat. B'k of Canton i: Dubuque Southwestern Ry Co., 52 Iowa. 378; s. c, 35 Am. R. 280, 283. Applied (Effect of failure to raise objection on trial) in Morris v. H'isson, 8 K Y. 206; Murphy v. People, 63 Id. 595. Cox v. Broderick, 4 E. D. Smith, 72. Ex- 188 COX— CEAGIK plained (Mechanic's lien — how defeated) in Smith v. Merriam, 67 Barb. 405. v. Clift, 3 Barb. 481. AfE'd in 2 N. Y. 118. Decision in 2 If. Y. cited as author- ity (Setting aside deed, &c. as cloud on title) in Chautauque Co. Bk. v. White, 6 Id. 256. Applied in Scott v. Onderdonk, 14 Id. 14; Ward v. Dewey, 16 Id. 524. Disting'd in Williams v.. Fitzhugh, 37 Id. 448. Examined and applied in Fonda «. Sage, 48 Id. 179. v. Jagger, 2 Cow. 638; s. c, 14 Am. Dee. 522. Applied (Effect of award relat- ing to title to land) in Robertson v. McNicI, 12 Wend. 583. Questioned (Power to award costs of arbitration) in People v. Newell, 13 Barb. 91. Applied (Effect of arbitrators exceeding their powers) in Harrington v. Higham, 15 Id. 528. Questioned and dis- ting'd in Matter of Vanderveer, 4 Deri. 251. v. James, 59 Barb. 144. Affd in 45 N. Y. 557. Decision in 45 N. Y. examined with other cases (Time to object that plaint- iff has adequate legal remedy) in De Bus- sierre v. Holladay, 4 Abb. If. 0. 1 17. v. McBurney, 2 Sandf. 561. Disapproved (Ownership of real estate purchabed with partnership funds) in Fairchild v. Fairchild, - 5 Hun, 413. Cited (Effect of statutory abolition of implied trusts in N. Y. on pre- sumption as to such ownership) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 94, n. p. 140. v. N. Y. Central, &'c. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 176; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 405. Rev'd in 63 N. Y. 414. Further decision in 11 Hun, 621. Decision in 63 W. Y. dis- ting'd with Roberts v. Marsen, 23 Hun, 486 ; McGuire v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 6 Daly, 70 (Continuance of action) in Matter of Norwood, 32 Him, 196. Explained (Juris- diction of person conferred by stipulation) in Roberts v. Marsen, 23 Id. 486, 489. With decision in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) see (Rights of passengers in drawing-room car of railway company) 11 Alb. L. J. 393. v. , 61 Barb. 615. Disapproved but followed (Reference to statute in action for penalty) in Schoonmaker «. Brooks, 24 Hun, 553. v. People, IP Hun, 430. AfPd in SO If. Y. 500. See Balbo v. People: People «. Wentz. Decision in 80 If. Y. applied (Juror not disqualified by opinion) in Abbott v. People, 86 Id. 460, 469. Cited, and with others approved, as sustained by weight of authority, in State v. Walton, 74 Mo. 279. Collated with Balbo v. People, 80 N. Y. 484, and other cases (Admissibility of con- fessions in evidence) in 46 Am. R. 253, n. Deeisioo in 19 Hun, examined with other cases, in 20 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 123, n. Compare Points of law in Guiteau's Case, 83 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1881). ■ v. Schermerliorn, 12 Hun, 411. Further decision in 18 Id. 16. See Ex parte Dean. Decision in 18 Hun questioned (Executors' commissions on sale of real estate subject to mortgage) in Baucus ». Stover, 24 Id. 109, 115. Followed (Trustees' commissions to be computed on entire fund) in Matter of Moffat, 24 Id. 325, 327. D'sting'd (Two or more executors, when entitled to but one commission) in Matter of St. John, N. Y. Daily Reg. June 10, 1884. v. Weller, 3 Hun, 612. Reported fully in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.~) 309. v. Wiglitman, 4 Hun, 799. Affd, it seems, in 66 N. Y. 612, but without opinion. Decision in 4 Hun disting'd with Dewitt v. Brisbane, 16 JV. Y. 508 (Mortgage when void as against public policy) in Nichols v. Weed Sewing Machine Co., 27 Hun, 200. Coy v. Utiea, &c. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 643. See Moshier v. Same. Disting'd (Liability for encroachment on public highway) in Conklin v. Phoenix Mills, 62 Barb. 299. Coykendall v. Eaton, 55 Barb. 188. Points of counsel in 37 How. Pr. 438. Further decisions in 40 Id. 266; 42 Id. 376. De- cision in 37 Id. quoted and commented on (Innkeeper — what, constitutes one a guest) in 1 Add. on Torts, 753; n. Woods' ed. Coyle v. City of Brooklyn, 53 Barb. 511. Said in 41 If. Y. 619 to have been affd by Ct. of App. in June, 1869. v. Western R. R. Co., 47 Barb. 152. Applied (Delivery into possession of earner) in ^Etua Ins. Co.V Wheeler,. 49 If. Y. 622. Coyne v. Weaver, 84 If. Y. 386. Applied (Assignment for benefit of creditors provid- ing for compromises) in McConnell v. Sher- wood, 84 N.-Y. 522, 527. which aff'd 61 How. Pr. 67, 69, which see. Cozine v. Graham, 2 Paige, 177.. Quoted (Bill for specific performance) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1447. n. p, 11 Am. ed'. Commented upon (Statute of frauds — pleading's) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 534, 4 ed. v. Walter, 55 If. Y. 304. Cited (Sheriffs legal duty to bail) in Koch v. Coots, 43 Mich. 33. Compare (Surrender of defend- ant by bail) Code Civ. Pro. § 591. Cozzens v. Higgins, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 451 ; s. c, 3 Reyes, 206. See Rulloff t. People. Applied (Photographs as evidence) in Cowley v. People, 83 If. Y. 464, 479, which aff'd 8 Abb. If. C. 1, 30, which see. Craft v. Merrill. See Frost 1>. Youkers Sav- ings B'k. Crafts v. Mott, 5 Barb. 3Q5. Aff'd in 4 N. Y. 604. Decision in 5 Barb, followed (Recovery by surety against principal who has^ been discharged in bankruptcy) in Lipscomb v. Grace, 26 Ark. 231 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 607. Cited as a case of great in- struction in 3 Pars, on Contr. 506, n. Jr. Decision in 4 If. Y. disting'd (Discharge of one of two joint obligors) in Mullendore e. Wertz, 75 Ind. 431 ; s. c, 39 Am. R. 155. Cragin v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61; s. c, 10 Am. R. 559. See Cole v. Goodwin ; Poucher v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Decision iu 51 If. Y. disting'd (Lia- bility of carrier of animals) in Holsapple 0. Rome, W. & 0. R. R. Co., 86 If. Y. 275, 279; Mynard v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 71 CEAIG- CRAM. 189 II ISO, 188; Totter v. Sharp, 24 Hun, 179. Criticised in Lawsorts Contr. of Carr. § 180. Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76. See Haxtun ». Corse. Explained and questioned (What is in- cluded in residuary clause of will) in Waring «. Waring, 17 Barb. 560. Explained (Legacy, ■when an annuity) in Booth v. Ammerman, 4 Brad/, 133, with which it is compared in Wells v. Knight, 5 Hun, 52. Questioned (Application of income of personal property, absolute ownership of which is suspended) in Phelps s>. Pond, 23 K Y. 83. Reviewed, with other cases, in Grant v. Grant, 3 Red/. 291. Applied (Accumulated income, when to go to those entitled to capital) in Elling- •wood i>. Beare, 59 How. Pr. 505. Followed (Commencement of payment of annuity, &c. from' testator's death) in Cooke v. Meeker, 42 Barb. 540, which was aff'd in 36 N. Y. 15, 19, which see. Examined, with other cases, in Matter of Lynch, 52 How. Pr. 371. Explained in Matter of Williams, 1 Red/. 216. Followed (Promissory note of donor not subject of gift causa mortis) in Harris v. Clark, 3 K Y. 114. Cited as settled law in Whitaker v. Whitaker, 52 Id. 378. Disting'd with Wood v. Brown, 34 Id. 337 (Trustee when allowed to disclaim trust) in Earle v. Earle, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 18. v. Hone, 2 Edw. 554. Explained and disting'd (Invalid trust) in Wetmore v. Truslow, 51 N.Y. 338, 344. Disapproved in Matter of Moke, 2 Redf. 429, 432. t. Marsh, 2 Daly, 61. Denied (Title derived from one obtaining by fraud) in Collins ». Ralli. 20 Hun, 246. t. Tarkis, 40 N. Y. 181. SeeMoakeley «. Riggs. Applied (Discharge of surety by delay) in Northern Ins. Co. v. Wright, 13 Htm, 168 ; McMurray v. Noyes, 72 N. Y. 526. Disting'd in Field v. Cutler, 4 Lans. 195. Explained (Exhausting remedy at law, prior to resort to guarantor) in Riper *. Poppenhauseu, 43 IT. Y. 74. t. Rochester City & Brighton R. R. Co., 39 Barb. 494. Aff'd in 39 IT. Y. 404. See Milhau *. Sharp ; Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. ; People it. Kerr. De- cision in 39 IT. Y. disting'd (Right of owner adjoining street railway to injunction) in Patten v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 3 Abb. IT. C. 345 ; Kellinger v. Forty-second Street, &c. R. R. Co., 50 K Y. 210. Applied (What is imposition of additional burden on street) to laying gas p'pes, —in Bloomfleld, &c. Gas-Light Co. v. Calkins, 62 Id. 389. Its doctrine, in effect, limited in Story v. N. Y. Elev. Ry. Co., 11 Abb. IT. C. 236. Criticised and disting'd in Eichels v. Evans- villc Street Ry. Co., 78 Ind. 261; s. c, 41 Am. B. 561. Examined with People v. Kerr, 27 IT. Y. 204 in Hobart ». Milwaukee City R. R. Co., 27 TP«s. 194; s. c, 9 Am. R. 461, with note collating cases. Quoted and collated with other cases, in Mills Thomps. on Highio. 3 ed. 401. T . Swinerton, 8 Hun, 144. AfTd, it seems, in 76 N. Y. 608, on opinion below. v. Tappen, 2 Sandf. Ch. 78. See Brin- kerhoff. e. Marvin; Townsend «. Empire Stone Dressing Co. Explained ("Security for future advances) in Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 85 y. Y. 43, 52, which rev'd 21 Hun, 53, which see. Explained in 2 WiisAb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 156. v. United Ins. Co., 6 Johns. 226; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 222 ;4f. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 107, with brief note on conflict of authority as to fear of capture justifying abandon- ment. v. Ward, 36 Barb. 377. AfTd in 3 Keyes, 387; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 235; 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 454. See Bennett v. Judson; Mead r>. Bunn. Decision in 36 Barb. : ex- plained (Liability for false representations) in Wakeman v. Dalley, 44 Id. 502; Ches- ter d. Comstock, 6 Robt. 22. Disting'd in Barrett v. Western, 66 Barb. 206 ; Mar- shall v. Gray, 89 How. Pr. 174. Decision in 3 Keyes, examined with other cases, in Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 IT. Y. 34. Criti- cised but followed, in Morehouse v. Yeager, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 147. Applied (Meaning of "good and valid " as applied to security) in Du Flon «. Powers, 14 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 395. v. Wells, 11 IT. Y. 315. Followed (Effect of exception in deed) in Hill v. Priestly, 52 Id. 635. Disting'd in Rex- ford v. Marquis, 7 lans. 260. Explained by Denio, Ch. J., in Hathaway v. Payne, 34 JV. Y. 116. Disting'd (Conditions in grant — when not favored) in Kellam, v. Mc- Kinstry, 69 Id. 269. Craighead v. Peterson, 10 Hun, 596. AflE'd in 72 N. Y. 279; s. c, 28 Am. R. 150. Crain v. Beach, 2 Barb. 120. AfTd in 2 IT. Y. 86. Decision in 2 Barb, quoted and ex- plained (Measure of damages — separable breaches) in 3 Pars, on Contr. 188, n. h. v. Cavana, 36 Barb. 410. Another opinion by Mdlltn, J., in 62 Id. 109. v. Fox, 16 Barb. 184. Doctrine dis- cussed (Abandonment of easement) in 2 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 515. v. Petrie, 6 Hill, 522. Relied on (Re- covery for injuries resulting from wrongful act of third person) in CufE v. Newark & N. Y. R. R. Co., 35 IT. J. 17; s. c, 10 Am. R. 205, 215, 217. Cram v. Dresser, 2 Sandf. 120. Disting'd (Counter-claim in action for rent) in Walker v. Shoemaker, 4 Hun, 579. Approved and followed in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Mabie, 2 Duer, 401. v. Hendricks, 7 Wend. 569. See Aeby «. Rupelye; Powell «. Waters. Followed (Sale, &c. of note when not usurious) in El- well v. Chamberlain, 4 Bosw. 327. Disap- proved but followed in Burton v. Baker, 31 Barb. 255. Approved in Cowles v. McVickar, 3 Wis. 733. Explained and followed in Armstrong v. Gibson, 31 Wis. 61; s. c, 11 Am. R. 599, Reviewed and disting'd with 190 CRAM— CRANS. Nash e. White's Bank of Buffalo, 63 K Y. 396; Atlantic State Bank s. Savery, 82 Id. 291; Talmage ®. Pell, 7 itf. 328, with regard to usurious discount by national bank, in National Bank of Gloversville v. Johnson, 104 U. S. 271, which aff'd John- son v. National Bank of Gloversville, 74 N. Y. 329. Included, with notes, in 2 Ames Gas. onB.&N. 202. Collated with other cases, in Holcombe, Lead. Cos. on Com. Law, 160. t. Mitchell, 1 Sandf. Ch. 251. Ex- plained (Assignment for benefit of creditors — qualifications of assignee) in Burritt on Assign. § 92, 4 ed. v. Union Bank of Rochester, 42 Barb. 426. Aff'd in 4 Keyes, 558; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 461. With decision in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. see to the contrary (Variance between assignment and schedule) Piatt v. Thorn, 8 Bosw. 574. See also Abb. TV. En. 6. Cramer v. Benton, 60 Barb. 216; s. c, 4 Lans. 291. Further decision in 64 Barb. 522, which was aff'd in 56 N. Y. 638, but with- out opinion. Decision in 64 Barb, followed, without specifying points, in Howland v. Newark Cemetery Assoc, 66 Id. 366. Decision in 60 Id. explained (Ejectment — answer in) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 488. Criticised (Equitable de- , fenses) in Pomeroy on Bern. § 91, n. 1. v. Blood, 57 Barb. 155, 671. Aff'd in 48 IT. Y. 684, but without opinion. Decision in 57 Barb, followed (Equitable lien of creditors against fraudulent vendee of debtor, how discharged) in Toumans v. Boomhower, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 21, 25. ■ v. Bradshaw, 10 Johns. 484. Applied (Requisites of warranty by vendor) in Kinley v. Pitzpatrick, 4 How. (Miss.) 59; s. c, 34 Am. Bee. 108, with note. v. Van Alstyne, 9 Johns. 386. See Mo- Intire v. Bowan. Followed and approved with Scott v. Shaw, 1 3 Johns. 378 (Irregular process not void) in Commonwealth v. O'Cull, 7 /. /. Marsh. (Ey.) 149; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 393, with note. Followed in Byers v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218; s. c, 54 Am. Dee. 271, 275, with note. Cranch v. McLachlin, 4 Johns. 34. Disting'd (Divesting of property by proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction) in Edgerly v. Bush, 81 iV. Y. 199, 205. v. Parker, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C) Add. 1. Aff'd in Crouch v. Parker, 56 ST. Y. 597, which also aff'd in effect 40 Barb. 94. Crandall v. Bradley, 7 Wend. 811. Followed with Smith v. Smith, 2 Johns. 235 ; Pierce v. Crafts, 12 Id. 90 (Note payable in specific articles, — admissibility thereof in evidence) in Payne v. Couch, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 64; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 497. y. Brown, 18 Hun, 461. Followed (Change of possession) in Steele v. Benham, ■ 84 K Y. 634, 638. v. Bryan, 15 How. Pr. 48. Examined and doubted (Ground of arrest) in Mc- Govern ». Payn, 32 Bafb. 83, 89. Cited and approved (Meaning of word '" obligation ") in Exchange Bank «. Ford, 7 Col. 317, while Brainard 11. Jones, 11 How. Pr. 569 is not regarded as authoritative. v. Clark. 7 Barb. 169. Followed (Aver- ment of performance not sustained by evi- dence of excuse for non-performance) in Clift v. Eodger, 25 IJun. 39, 43. ■ — v. People. See McGarry n. Same; Crane v. Bandoine, 65 Barb. 260. Rev'd as Crane «. Baudouine, in 55 N. Y. 256. With decision in 65 Barb, compare (Implied em- ployment of physician) Buck «. Amidon, 4 Daly, 126. v. Decker, 22 Hun, 452. See also mere mem. decision in 23 Id. 534. v. Ford, Hoph. 114. Discussed (Part- nership—appointment of receiver) in 1 Col- lyer on Partn. § 375, Wood's Am. ed. v. French, 1 Wend. 811. See Grazebrook 7). McCreedie; Green v. Beals; Holbrooke. Murray; Smith's Case. Difficulties herein and in Grazebrook ». McCreedie, 9 Wend. 437, explained (Entering judgment) in Pardee «. Hayues, 10 Wend. 630, as obviated by L. 1833, c. 271, § 3. See cases collected (Unauthorized submission by one partner not binding) in 9 Am. L. Beg IT. S. 270. Language of Savage, Ch. J., quoted (Separ- ate creditor levying on partnership property) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 209, n. i. v. Holcoml), 2 Hilt. 269. Examined (Costs as affected by questions of jurisdic- tion of justices' courts) and held not to be in conflict with Kalt v. Lignot, 3 Abb. Pr. 190, in Boston Mills v. Eull, 6 Abb. Pr. If. S 319. . Disting\d in Griffin v. Brown, 53 Barb. 428. Also explained in Boston Mills v. Eull as not authority as to whether district courts are justices' courts. v. Hnbbel, 7 Paige, 413. Followed (Loan when not made usurious by fact of agent taking premium) in Hetfield -o. New- ton, 3 Sandf. Ch. 370. Explained in Condit v. Baldwin, 21 Barb. 189. v. Knubel, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 443; s. c. le«s fully, 43 How. Pi: 389. Aff'd in 61 KY. 645. v. Sawyer, 5 How. Pr. 372. Disap- proved (Proceedings undei' Code Pro. § 449 to determine claims to real property) in Hammond «. Tillotson, 18 Barb. 332, but the latier overruled in part, in Burnham t. Onderdonk, 41 A T . Y. 425. v. Stiger, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 577. Appeal dismissed in 58 JV. Y. 625. v. Turner, 7 Hun, 357. Affd in C7 N. Y. 437. Decision in 67 iV. Y. reviewed with other cases (Conflicting equities aris- ing after inception of hiortgage) in Bank for Savings «. Frank, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & £>■) 409. Also in dissenting opinion of Dan- foktii, J., in Wostbrook v. Gleason, 79 N. Y. 40. Limited in Decker v. Boice, 83 Id. '215 222 Crans v. Hunter, 28 K Y. 389. See Ben- CRAPO— CREED. 191 nett v. Judson. Followed (Compromise of a doubtful claim as consideration) in Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294; s. c, 2 Am. R. 218, 228. Cited with other cases, in Gris- woldfl. Wright,' CI Wise. 197. Crapo v. King, 45 If. Y. 86. Kev'd as Crapo v. Kelly, in 16 Wall. 610. v. People, 15 Hun, 269. Aff d in 76 If. Y. 288; s. c, 32 Am. R. 302. Decision in 15 Hun, disting'd (Question admissible to impeach witness) in Stape v. People,. 21 Id. 399. Crary v. Goodman, 9 Barb. 657. Rev'd in 12 N. Y. 266 ; s. c, 64 Am. Dee. 506, with brief note on equitable defenses in legal actions. See Livingston o. Peru Iron Co.; Reubens v. Joel. Decision in 12 JV Y. limited (Distinction between law and equity) in Marsh ». Benson, 11 ^155. Pr. 241. Ap- plied in Stevens v. Mayor, &c, of N. Y., 84 If. Y. 305. Disting'd and limited in Cramer v. Benton, 4 Lans. 295. v. , 22 If. Y. 170. Applied (Requi- sites of adverse possession under statute against champerty) in Fish v. Fish, 39 Barb. 515; Nash v. Kemp, 12 Hun, 595; Christie Gage, 71 XT. Y. 192. Followed in Hallas t>. Bell, 53 Barb. 248; Chalmers «. Wright, 5 Robt. 716. Applied (Constructive ad- verse possession, — when insufficient) in Pope ». Hanmer, 74 If. Y. 245. Explained (Ne- cessity of claim or color of title) in Sands v. Hughes, 53 Id. 296. Quoted and ex- plained in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 760. — v. Smith, 2 If. Y. 60. Explained (Speci- fic performance when decreed though there is remedy at law) in Slauson v. Watkins, 86 Id. 597, 602. . t. Sprague, 12 Wend. 41; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 110, With note, containing citations thereof. See Wilbur v. Selden. Disting'd (Judicial sale when to be deemed fraudulent) in Speer v. Skinner, 35 III. 282, 298. Dis- ting'd ( Res gestm) in Bullis v. Montgomery, 50 If. Y. 352. — •• v. Turner, 6 Johns. 51; s. c, 4 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 49. Disting'd with Jack- son v. Bartlett, 8 Johns. 361; Kellogg v. Gilbert, 10 Id. 220, and Doty v. Turner, 8 Id. 20; Mott v. Kipp, 10 Id. 478; Kellogg v. Griffon, 17 Id. 274, followed (Contin- uance of powers of attorney) in Brackctt v. Norton, 4 Conn. 517; s. c, 10 Am. Bee. 179. Crater v. Bininger, 54 Barb. 155. Aff'd in 45 N. Y. 545. Decision in 45 If. Y. applied (Partner's action against copartner) in Halli- day v. Carman, 6 Daly, 422. Craver v. Wilson, 47 N. Y. 673. Fully re- ported in 14 Abb. Fr. If. S. 374. Ap- plied (Enforcing mortgage against married woman) in Smith v. Fellows, 41 Saper. Ct. (J. &'S.) 36, 49. Craw v. Easterly, 4 Lans. 513. Aff'd in 54 If. Y. 679. Decision in 54 JV. Y. dis- ting'd (Liability of trustee of manufacturing corporation) in Easterly v. Barber, 65 Id. 256. Decision in 4 Lans. collated with other cases, in 6 Abb. N. ft 259, n. Denied as absurd in Thomps. on Liab. of Off. & A. 444, n. 5. Crawford, Matter of, 3 K Y. Leg. Obs. 76. Collated, with other cases (Attachment — doinicil) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 360. Crawford v. Collins, 45 Barb. 269. See Fralick v. Betts. Followed (Canal boats are vessels) in Emmons v. Wheeler, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 617; King * Greenway, 71 N. Y. 413, 717. t. Lockwood, 9 How. Pr. 547; s. c, 12 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 105. See Harper v. Leal. Approved (Effect of waiver of right of ex- emption) in Kneettle e. Newcomb, .31 Barb. 169. v. Loper, 25 Barb. 449. Applied (Man- ner of returning commission to take testi- mony) in Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 41 How. Pr. 421. v. Morrell, 8 Johns. 253. See Van Dyck 13. Van Beuren. Explained (Application of statute of frauds) in Dow v. Way, 64 Barb. 255, 260. Followed (Effect of illegality, of part of consideration) in Widoe v. Webb, 20 Ohio, 431 ; s. c, 5 Am. R. 664. v. Russell, 62 Barb. 92. Collated with other cases (Marriage brokerage contracts) in 22 Am. L. Reg. 781, n. Included in Law- son's Lead. Com. L. Oas. Simplified, 103. v. Waters, 46 How. Pr. 210. Compared with subsequent decision in Waters v. Craw- ford, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (7! & C.) 602, and ex- plained (Redemption of possession that has been forfeited by lessee) in Pursell v. N. Y. Life Ins. &c. Co., 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 383, 389, 391, 398. v. Wilson, 4 Barb. 504. See Matter of Wrigley. Cited as authority (Power to direct verdict) in People v. Cook, 8 If. Y. 76. Disting'd (Entry of judgment nune pro tunc) in Tuomy v. Dunn, 77 Id. 515. Approved (Inhabitancy and domicil mean the same tiling) in Lee v. Stanley, 9 How. Pr. 272. Applied in Houghton v. Ault, 16 Id. 86. Doctrine discussed and cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 258. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Contr. 580, n. y. Creed v. Hartinan, 8 Bosw. 123. Aff'd in 29 If. Y. 591. See Blake v. Ferris; Dygert v. Schenck. Decision in 29 If. Y. disting'd (Liability of one that changes condition of street) in Lowrey -o. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. If. G. 36. Commented on in Gardner v. Bennett, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 200. Disting'd (Joint and several liability) ' in Chipman v. Palmer, 9 Hun, 519, which was rev'd in 77 If. Y. 51, 54, which see. Followed in Wood v. Luscomb, 23 Wise. 287. Decision in 8 Bosw. 123 explained and disting'd (Liability for contractor's neg- ligence) in Eccles v. Darragh, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 186. Decision in 29 JV. Y. col- lated with Congreve i>. Smith, 18 Id. 79; Congreve v. Morgan, Id. 84 ; Irvine v. Wood, 51 Id. 224, in 18 Am. L. Rev. 635, 658. Decision in 8 Bosw. approved and 192 CliEELY-CEOCERON. followed (Testimony of person not an ex- pert as to result of injury) in Wright «. City of Port Howard, 60 Wis. 122. Creely v. Ostrander, 3 Brad/. 107. Ex- plained (Will — old age of testator) in Wil- lard, on Executors, 86. Creery v. Holly, 14 Wend. 26. See Van Ostrand v. Reed. Cited as authority (Effect of clean bill of lading, precludes parol evi- dence to show agreement to stow goods on deck) in 2 ~Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1070. Cregier, Matter of, 1 Barb. Oh. 59S. See Bear v. Snyder; Dunham v. Osborn. Dis- tingd and explained with Dunham v. Os- born, 1 Paige, 634 (Nature of estate that gives right of dower) in Brooks v. Everett, 13 Allen (Mass.) 457. See to the contrary Bear v. Snyder, 11 Wend. 592. Quoted and collated with other cases (Dower upon dower) in Skarsio. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 318. Explained in 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 259, 260. Cregin v. Brooklyn Cross Town R. K. Co., 56 Row. Pr. 32. Aff'd in 75 N. Y. 192; s. c, 56 How. Pr. 192; 31 Am. R. 459. Further proceedings in 18 Hun, 368; 19 Id. 341 ; Id. 349. Decision in 19 Hun, 341. rev'd in 83 N. Y. 595 ; s. c, 38 Am. R. 474. With decision in 75 N. Y. compare (Survi- val of cause of action) Holliday v. Parker, 23 Sun, 71, 73. Applied in Scott «. Brown, 24 Run, 620, 622. Cressou v. Stout, 17 Johns. 116; s. c, 8 Am. Bee. 373, n. ; 6 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 306, with brief note. See Ilaggerty v. Wilber; Heermancea. Vernoy; Thompson ■». Button; Wehle v. Conner. Applied (Machinery as personal property) in Taffe v. Warnick, 3 BlacTcf. (Ind.) l'll ; s. c., 23 Am. Bee. 383. Followed in Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63 ; s. c., 21 Am. Bee. 718, with note. Re- viewed with Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 636; Vanderpoel v. Van Allen, 10 Barb. 157; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Id. 43, in Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; s. >„., 59 Am. Bee. 654. Approved in Thomas on Mort. 48. CresSey v. Sabre, 17 Run, 120. Criticised (Mortgage of implanted crop) as not in accord with McCaffrey v. Wooden, 65 N. Y. 459, — in Jones on Chat. M. § 147. Creuse v. Deflganier^, 10 Bosw. 122. Ap- plied (Authority to do act that will prevent running of statute of limitations) in Smith v. Ryan, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 489, 497. Crippen v. Bauines, 15 Run, 130. Disting'd (Equitable jurisdiction of action to reform and foreclose mortgage) in Avery v. Willis, 24 Id. 548, 550. t. Heerinance, Clarice, 133. Rev'd in 9 Paige, 211. Decision in 9 Paige cited as authority (Costs where two causes of action are litigated) in Adams v. Howard, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. B. N. Y., 19 Fed. Rep. 319. v. Hudson, 13 N. Y. 161. Quoted (Foundation for creditors' actions) in Wait on Fraud. Com. § 80. t. Ingersoll, 10 Wend. 603. -Followed, and regarded as decisive (Costs of motion not to be given under general clause in notice) in Northrup v. Van Dusen, 3 Code R. 140. v. Morss, 49 K Y. 63. Cited (Admissi- bility of acts and declarations of tenants in common in each other's presence) in 2 Whari. Com. on Ev. § 1193. Crisfield v. Perine, 15 Run, 200. Aff d, it seems, in 81 N. Y. 622, on opinion below, without further opinion. . Crispell v. Dubois, 4 Barb. 393. Collated with other cases (Onus of proof respecting uiidue influence in confidential relations) in 33 Am. R. 736, n. Explained in Kinne v. Johnson, 60 Barb. 69; Willard on Ex- ecutors, 114. Quoted (Wills — personal dis- abilities of testators) in 1 Jarm. on Wills Rand. & T. ed 69, n. 10.. Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 K Y. 516; s. c, 37 Am. R. 521. See Slater v. Jewett. Fol- lowed (Liability to employee for negligence of co-employee) in MoCosker o. Long Island R. R. Co., 84 K Y. 77, 81. Disting'd in Slater v. Jewett, 85 Id. 61, 71. Fol- lowed and Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 Id. 517; Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 Id. 549, disting'd in Beilfus v. N. Y., Lake Erie, &c. R. R. Co., 29 Run, 556. Applied with McCosker v. Long Island R. R. Co., 84 K Y. 77, and Flike v. Boston & A. R. R. Co., 53 Id. 549; Booth v. Same, 73 Id. 38; Fuller «. Jewett, 80 Id. 46, dis- ting'd in Hart v. N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 48 Super. Ct. (J & S.) 460. Applied with McCosker v. Long Island R. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 77, in Houser v. Chicago, Rock Is- land & P. R. R. Co., 60 Iowa, 230; s. c, 46 Am. It. 65. Followed and Shcehan v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 332; Dana v. Same, 92 Id. 639, disting'd in New- bauer v. N. Y., Lake Erie, &c. R. R. Co., 18 Weekly Big. 402. Crist v. Armour, 34 Barb. 378. Examined (Anticipatory refusal to perform contract) in Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 376. Y. Erie R'y Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. 4 C.) 435. Aff'd in 58 N. Y. 638. Crittenden v. Faircbild, 41 N. Y. 289. See Lang v. Ropke, Disting'd (Effect of power of sale given to executors) in Prentice v. Janssen, 79 Id. 486. Applied in Matter of Boyd, 4 Red/. 156; Hetzell v. Barber, 6 Run, 534, 540. v. Wilson, 5 Oow. 165; s. c, 15 Am. Bee. 462; 8 K Y. Com. L. Law. , ed. 612, with notes on cumulative remedies. De- cision in 5 Cow. followed (Liability of person acting under legislative authority, which results in damage to private property) in Lee v. Pembroke Iron Co., 57 Me. 481 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 59, 62. Quoted in 2 Add. on Torts, 261, ra., Wood's ed. Crocheron v. North Shore S. I. Ferry Co., 56 N. Y. 656. Disting'd (Negligence of carrier by boat, in failing to provide proper appliances for safety of passengers) in Cleve- land v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 5 Run, 527, CROCKER- CROMWELL. 193 which was rev'd in 68 JV. Y. 306, which see. Followed in Loftus v. Union Ferry Co. of Brooklyn, 84 N. Y. 455, 460. Crocker v. Clauglily, 2 Duer, 684. Examined and disting'd (Setting oft costs against judg- ment) in Purchase ®. Bellows, 16 Abb. Pr. 105. - — T. Colwell, 46 N. 7. 212. Cited (Part- nership liability on negotiable paper to which one of the partners has become a party in his individual name) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 742, n.; Bank of Rochester v. Monteath, 1 Den. 402, being cited on a sim- ilar point. v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 228, with note. See Jenkins v. Union Turnpike Co. Examined with Ex parte Eogers, 7 Cow. 526 (Execution of au- thority delegated to several) in First Nat. B'k of North Bennington v. Town of North Tabor, 52 Vt. 87 ; s. c, 36 Am. P. 734, 740. Explained (Payment by check) in Beach v. Smith, 28 Barb. 254. 26). v. Crocker, 17 Mow. Pr. 504. Bev'd in part in 31 K Y. 507. Decision in 31 N. Y. relied on (When purchaser from one having apparent right of property will be protected against secret trust) in Rawls v. Deshler, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 20. Said in McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bk., 55 Barb. 66, to be unskilfully reported, and the point stated. Applied by Grover, J., in Weaver ■o. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286. v. Whitney, 71 N. Y. 161. Bev'd in National Bank ». Whitney, 103 U. S. 99, on the ground that only the XI. S. could object to the validity of the mortgage. Croemcr v. Bradshaw, 10 Johns. 484. Ap- plied (Statements as to quality, made upon sale of chattel — effect of as warranty) in Osgood v. Lewis, 2 Earr. & G. (Mi.) 495 ; s. c, 1% Am. Dec. 317. 321, with note. Crofoot v. Allen, 2 Wend. 494; s. c, 10 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 207, with brief note. — - v. Bennett, 2 N. Y. 258. Applied (De- livery of goods sold) in Brewer «i. Salisbury, 9 Barb. 514; Dexter v. Bevins, 42 Id. 577 ; Heroy i>. Kerr, 8 Bosw. 206 ; Bradley v. Wheeler, ARobt. 27; Tyler v. Strang, 21 Barb. 206; Graffs. Fitch, 58 III. 373; s. c, 11 Am. R. 85, 89, with note, collating cases. Approved and applied in Burrows v. Whit- aker, 8 Hun, 264, which was aft'd in 71 N. Y. 291, which see ; Hyde v. Lalhrop, 3 Keyex, 600. Explained and applied in Kimberly ». Patchin, 19 N. Y. 336. Disting'd in Cooke v. Millard, 65 Id. 365. Doubted in Chapin v. Potter, 1 Hilt. 372. Dis- approved in Kein v. Tupper, 33 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 476. Quoted in Benj. on Sales, § 319, n. c (Bennett's 4 Am. cd.). Dis-' cussed in Id. § 346. Quoted and explained in 1 Id. § 394 (Corbin's 4 Am.,ed.). Croft v. King, 8 Daly, 265. Compare (Direc- tion of warrant) Code Civ. Pro. § 2238. Crofut v. Brandt,, 58 N. Y. 106. Afi'g 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 128; s. c, 46 Row. Pr. 481. Decision in 58 N. Y. followed (Sheriff's fees) in O'Connor v. O'Connor, 47 Super.Ct. (J. & S.) 498, 505; McKeon v. Horsfall, 13 Weekly Dig. 252. Decision in 13 Abb. Pr. K S. ^'applied to sale by U. S. Marshal, in The John E. Mulford, U. S. Distr. Ct. S. D. N. Y., 18 Fed. Rep. 456. Compare Code Civ. § 3307, subd. 7. v. Brooklyn Ferry Co., 36 Barb. 201. Explained (Private corporation — constitu- tion of powers, &c.) in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 107, n. a, 11 ed. Croghan v. Livingston, 25 Barb. 336. Aff d in 17 K Y. 218; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. 352. Decision in 17 N. Y. explained and approved (Partition by petition) in Matter of Cavanajrh, 14 Abb. Pr. 261. Limited (Effect of appearance by infant without guardian ad litem) in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 124. See (Partition by infant) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1534, n. . Cronielines v. Beldens. 1 Wend. 107. Ex- plained (Amount of justification by bail) in Louis v. Mitchell, 2 Hill, 379. Cromer v. Pinckney, 3 Barb. Oh. 466. Applied (Necessary parties to action by one of several residuary legatees) in Leavy n. Leavy, 22 Hun, 499, 501. Followed with Gardners. Heyer, 2 Paige, 11; Mowatt v. Carow, 7 Id. 328 (Legal import of term "children") in Cummings v. Plummer, 94 Ind. 403; s. c, 48 Am. R. 167. Crommelin v. N.'T. & Harlem K. K. Co., 10 Bosw. 77. AfFd in 4 Keyes, 90 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 472. Decision in 4 Keyes explained (Sale— remedies against the goods — lien) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1181 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. § 796 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Cromwell v. Benjamin, 41 Barb. 558. See Raymond v. Loyl. Referred to (Liability of husband for necessaries furnished to wife) in 10 Am. Dec. 405, n., as well expressing the spirit of the American courts. v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 44 If. Y. 42; s. c, 4 Am. R. 641. See Kitts v. Massasoit Ins. Co. Disting'd (Effect of agreement to keep insured for benefit of mortgagee) in Woodward v. Republic Fire Ins. Co., 32 Hun, 365; Stearns v. Quincy Mut. Life Ins. Co., 124 Mass. 61 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 647, G49. Disting'd with Carter v. Rockett, 8 Paige, 437, in Dunlop v. Avery, 89 N. Y. 592. Applied in Ames v. Richardson, 29 Minn. 333. •< v. Cromwell, 2 Edw. 495. Affd, it seems, in 3 Ch. Sent. 7, but without opinion. v. Hewitt, 40 N. Y. 491. See Dean v. Hall; Hall v. Newcomb; Moore v. Cross; Richards v. Warring. Disapproved (Irreg- ular indorser's liability) in Burton v. Hans- ford, lOW.Va. 470; s. c, 27 Am. R. 576. Applied (Liability as maker of non-negoti- able note) in Little v. Rawson, 8 Abb. iV". G. 253, 258. v. Lovett, 1 Hall, 56. Afi'd in 6 Wend. 369. y. Stephens, 2 Daly, 15. Collated with other cases (Who are inn-keepers) in 7 194 CRONIN— CROSS. Am. Dec. 450, n. Referred to in 35 4m. Dee. 137, n., as containing a learned and interest- ing dissertation. Collated with Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485 ; Clute e. Wiggins, 14 ' Johns. 175; Ingallsbee «. Wood, 33 JV Y. 577; Wilkins v. Earle, 44 Id. 172 (Liability of inn-keepers) in 18 Jm. R. 130, ». Crouin t. People, 20 Hun, 137. Aff d in 82 JV. Y. 318 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 564. Croninger v. Crocker, 62 JV. Y. 151. Quoted and explained (Sale — delivery) in 2 Ben,}, on Sales, § 1026, n. 16 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. % 1030, n. 17. Cronk v. Canfield, 31 Barb. 171. See (Motion for new trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1002, n. Cronkite v. Wells, 32 JV. Y. 247. Cited with Goddards. Mallory, 52 Barb. 87; Standard Oil Co. s. Triumph Ins. Co., 6 Sup'm.' Ct. (T. & C.) 300 (What acts of. agent are in scope of his authority) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 129, and note. Cronnse v. Fitch, 14 Abb. Pr. 345 ; s. c, as Crounse v. Fitch, 23 How. Pr. 350. Rev'd in 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 475; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. 2V. S. 185. Decision in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. disting'd (Evidence of subsequent dis- position of property to show its value) in Flannagan «. Maddin, 81 JV. Y. 623. Crooke v. Andrews, 40 JV Y. 547. Applied (Equitable relief against illegal assessment) in Hanlon v. Supervisors of Westchester, 8 Abb. Pr. JV S. 270; Masterson v. Hoyt, 55' Barb. 528. Examined with other cases (Action to remove cloud on title, — when maintainable) in Fonda v. Sage, 48 JV Y. 186. Applied in Washburn v. Burnham, 63 Id. 134. v. Slack, 20 Wend. 177. Followed (Word "stores" embraces fuel) in The Alida, Abb. Adm. 173. Crooker v. Bragg 1 , 10 Wend. 260; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 555, with note. Followed and approved with Allaire v. Whitney, 1 Hill, 487 (Riparian owner's right to natural flow of stream) in Parker «. Griswold, 17 Conn. 288; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 739, 749, with note. Followed in Davis v. Fuller, ISVern. 178; a. c, 36 Am. Dec. 334, 337, with note. Crookshank v. Burrell, 18 Johns. 58 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 187, with note ; 6 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 506, with brief note on conflicting authorities. See Bennett v. Hall ; Moore v. Fox. Applied (Statute of frauds inapplic- able to contracts for work and labor) in Mead v. Case, 83 Barb. 204; Parker v. Schenck, 28 Id. 40 ; Biggins ». Murray, 4 Hun, 567, which was aff' d in 73 JV. Y. 252, which see. Reviewed with other cases and followed in Ferren v. O'Hara, 62 Barb. 529. Reviewed with other cases in Passaic Manf'g Co. v. Hoffman, 3 Daly, 507; Court- right o. Stewart, 19 Barb. 457. Cited as settled law, in Parsons v. Loucks, 48 JV. I". 19, which aff'd 4 Robt. 218, which see. Disting'd in Cooke v. Millard, 65 JV. Y. 360 ; Downs v. Ross, 23 Wend. 273. Followed in ■ Bewail v. Fitch, 8 Cow. 219. Shown in 9 Am. Dec. 188, n., to hold a view different from that held in Mass., N. H. and else- where ; see Goddard v. Binney, 115 Mass. 450; s c, 15 Am. R. 112; Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 JV H. 294; s. c, 2 Am. R. 218. Applied with Sewall v. Fitch, 8 Cow. 215, in Bird «. Muhlinbrink 1 Rich. (8. C.) 199; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. M7, with note. ' Explained in Benj. on %tles, § 109, n. y (Bennett's 4 Am., ed.). Commented on, in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1005, n. 2. Applied (Recovery for value of article contracted to be made) in Muckey n. Howenstine, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 29; Bementu. Smith, 15 Wend. 485. v. Gray. See Niveri v. Munn. Cropsey v. McKiunney. 30 Barb. 47. Cited with other cases (Validity of bigamous marriage, when not to be questioned col- laterally) in 10 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 610. T. Ogden, 11 K Y. 228. Examined (Reason of prohibition of re-marriage) in Moore v. Moore, 8 Abb. If. C. 171. Ap- proved, but disting'd, in Van Voorhis ». Brintnall, 86 JV. F. 18, 25, 27. Applied in Marshall v. Marshall, 2 Hun, 238, 240. 242. 250. Crosby t. Berger, 3 Edw. 538. Rev'd in4 Ch. Sent. 63, but without opinion. Further decision, as it seems, in 4 Edw. 254, which was aff'd in 1 1 Paige, 377. v. Crafts, 5 Hun, 327. Aft'd, it seems, in 69 N. Y. 607, without further opinion. r. Hillyer, 24 Wend. 280. Approved (Necessity of acceptance of trust) in Pierson v. Manning, 2 Mich. 462. Applied in Iieu- nie v. Bean, 24 Hun, 123. Crosier v. Acer. See Little v. Harvey ; Shok well v. Murray. Cross v. Beard, 26 JV. Y. 81. Disting'd (De- murrage) in Schull v. Albany, &c. Iron Co., Jf. Y. Daily Reg., Apr. 11, 1883. Cited as authority, in Wiles v. N. Y. Central, &c. B. R. Co., 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 264, 266. . v. Huntley, 13 Wei.d. 385. Approved (Invalidity of patent as defense to action on note) in McDougall v. Fogg, 2 Bosw. 391. 'Followed (Jurisdiction of State court to in- quire collaterally into validity of patent) in Mcrserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 6 Blatchf. C. Ct. 356, 360. Followed with Head v. Stevens, 19 Wend. 411; Burrall v. Jewctt, 2 Paige, 134; Saxton v. Dodge, 57 Barb. 84, 115; Middlebrook v. Broadbent, 47 JST. Y. 443, in Rice v. Garnhart, 34 Wis. 453; s. c, 17 Am. R. 448, 451. v. Jackson, 5 Hill, 478. Collated with other cases (Voluntary associations) in 4 Abb. N. C. 306, n. Collated with other cases (Consideration for subscription to public and charitable enterprises) in 2 Hare 6 W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 184. v. O'Donuell, 44 iV. Y. 661. Applied (Acceptance required by statute of frauds) in U. S. Reflector Co. ■». Rushton, 7 Daly, 410, 412. Explained and disting'd in Caulkins v. Hellman, 47 JV. Y. 454; Brewster v. Taylor. 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 159, 165. Explained (Effect of delivery to carrier, to CROSS— CULVER. 195 take case out of statute of frauds) in Allard «. Greasert, 61 N. Y. 5. Cited iu Benj. on Sales, § 181 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Cited as authority (Acceptance that vests title) in Hubbard v. O'Brien, 8 Hun, 246. T. Williams, 25 Hun, 62. Abridgt. s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 426. Crossman, Matter of, 20 How. Pr. 350. See (Revocation of letters — testamentary tr.psts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 26S8, n. Crossman v. Bradley. See People v. Jack- son. v. Lindsley, 42 How. Pr. 107. See .(Attachment of property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. VII., tit. III. art. 1, n. Croswell v. Crane, 7 Barb. 191. See Young v. Dake. Overruled (Effect of parol lease to commence in future) in Young e. Dake, 5 N. Y. 463. Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 34, 4 ed. Croton Turnpike Co. v. Ryder, 1 Johns. Ch. 611. Overruled with Newburgh Turn- pike Co. v. Miller, 5 Id. 101 (Extension of franchise by implication) in Auburn and Cato Plankroad Co. v. Douglass, 9 JV. Y. 444. Followed. (Injunction to secure enjoy- ment of privilege conferred by statute) in Gates v. McDaniel, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 211; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 49. Crouch v. Parker, 40 Barb. 94. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 197, to have been rev'd by Comm. of App. in May, 1871. Crounse v. Pitch. See Cronnse v. Fitch. • v. Walrath. See Baxter v. Putney. Crowley v. Panama B. E. Co. See Vande- venter v. N. Y. & N. H R. R. Co. Crozier v. Bartlett, 15 Johns. 250. Rev'd as Bartlett v. Crozier in 17 Id. 439, deciding that a civil action will not lie in such case. V. People, 1 Park. 453. Disapproved (Proof of reputation of chastity) in Za- briskie v. State, 14 Vroom (AT. J.) 640; s. c, 30 Am. R. 610, 614. Cruder v. Armstrong, 3 Johns. Cas. 9; s. c, 2 Am. Dee. 126. Cited with other cases (Distinction between bills and checks) in 12 Am. L. Reg. JT. S. 10. v. Dougherty, 1 Lans. 464. Aff d in 43 . N. Y. 107. Decision in 43 N. Y. applied (Heirs, when not bound) in Merchants' B'k v. Hayes, 7 Han, 536. Cited (What can be ■ proved by record cannot ordinarily be proved by parol) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ed. § 63. -. — v. Douglas, 4 Edw. 433 ; s. c, less fully, 4 JST. Y. Leg. Qbs. 55. Modified and aff d in 5 Barb. 225, where the opinion of the V. C. is also reported. See also decisions in 2 K Y 571; 8 Barb. 81. Pleadings, proofs, and decrees published at N. Y. 1850, also, • N. Y. 1840-47 (bound with other cases). ■ v. HallMay, 3 Edw. 565. Rev'd in 11 Paige, 314. — - t. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12 K Y. 190. Followed (Construction of word "jury" in , respect to assessments) in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 539, • 568. Disting'd and explained in Menges v. ■ City of Albany, 56 K Y. 374, 378, Ap- proved (Invalidity of proceedings to open road without notice to owner of land) in Silva v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591. - — v. Jones, '18 Barb. 467. Applied (Dis- ability of Supreme Court to authorize aliena- tion of trust estate) in Douglas i>. Cruger, 80 If. Y. 1j 19. —-T : McClanghry, 51 Barb. 642. Aff'd in 41 If. Y. 219. Crumb, Ex parte, 2 Johns. Ch. 439. Com- mented on (Guardian — chancery removing) iu Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 315. Crygicr v. Long, 1 Johns. Cas. 393. Over- rueld with Lawrenee v. Bowne, 2 Id. 225 (Time for objection that suit on note was not commenced in time) in Osborne v. Mon- cure, 3 Wend. 170. Cuddeback v. Kent, 5 Paige, 92. Disting'd and questioned (Remedy on guardian's bond) in Hood v. Hood, 85 If. Y 561, 574. a case of an executor's bond. Applied in Girvin v. Hickman, 21 Hun, 316. Cudney v Cndney, 68 N. Y. 148. See Jack- son v. Kniffen. Risting'd (Proof of undue influence on testator) in Van Kleeck v. Phipps, 4 Red/. 99, 131. Followed in Tucker v. Field, 5 Id. 139, 178. Applied in Bristed v. Weeks, Id. 529, 533. Cuff v. Borland. 50 Barb. 438. Approved, as to the specific performance; but rev'd on the ground that damages should have been awarded, in 55 Id. 481. Decision, in 55 Barb, rev'd in 57 If. Y. 560, on the ground that the General Term could not give a judg- ment for specific relief on the appeal, the correctness of the decision in 50 Barb, not being passed on. Culhane v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 562. Former decision in 60 If. Y. 137. See Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Culver v. Avery, 7 Wend. 380. See Monell i). Colden. Approved with Welsh v. Carter, 1 Id. 189 (Representations pending contract, merged in warranty) in Horner «. Fellows, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 54. Approved (No dis- tinction as to representation as to title and and as to ma'fters collateral) in Whitney «. Allaire, 1 If. Y 305, 308. Disting'd (Duty of one rescinding for fraud) as inapplicable to one bringing action for deceit, — in Krumm «. Beach, 25 Hun, 293, 295. v. Barney, 14 Wend. 161. Approved (Puis darrein continuance waives former pleas) in Adler v. Wise, 4 Wise. 162. v. Felt, 4 Robt. 681. Reported in 30 How. Pr. 442. . v Haslam, 7 Barb. 314. See Stewart o. Lispenard. Overruled (Admissibility of opinions of witnesses) iu Dewitt v. Barley, 9 K Y. 371. Collated with Clark v. Fisher, 1 Paige, 171; Jackson v. King, 4 Cow. 207; Delafield e. Parish, 25 N. Y. 38, and other cases, in 27 Alb. L. J. 126. See also, Id. 146. Explained in Willard on Executors, 180. T. Sisson, 3 JV Y 264. Disting'd (Covenant to pay implied from acknowledg- 196 CUMBE BLAND— CUNNINGHAM. ment of debt) in Thayer®. Marsh, 11 -Him, 501, 503. Applied in Mack v. Austin, 29 Id. 534 ; Booth v. Cleveland Mill Co., 74 N. Y. 15, 22. Cumberland v. Codrington, 3 Johns. Gh. 229. Applied (Promise for benefit of third person) in Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Den. 55; Berly.*, Taylor, 5 Sill, 586 : Applied (Liability of grantee of mortgaged premises) in King v. Whitely, Soffm. 477; Burr v. Beers. 24 2T. Y. 180. Examined with other cases, in Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 Id. 238. Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co., 30 Barb. 159; s. c, 20 Sow. Pr. 62. Other decisions in 8 Abb. Pr. 243; 30 Barb. 553; 39 Id. 16; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. 78. See Humiston v. Ballard. Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sherman, 8 Abb. Pr. 243. Aff d, as Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. •». Sherman, 30 Barb. 159 ; s. c, 20 How. Pr. 62. See Carpenter v. Danforth; Hoyle v. Plattsburgh & Montreal R. R. Co. Decision in 8 Abb. Pr. disting'd (Objec- tion as to want of jurisdiction over for- eign corporation) in McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 If. Y. 303. Decision in 30 Barb, disting'd (Duty of director of corporation as trustee) in Murray v. Vander- bilt, 39 Id. 157; Gardiner v. Pollard, 10 Bosw. 692. Applied in East N. Y. & Jamaica R. R. Co. v. Elmore, 5 Hun, 217; Butts v. Wood, 37 JST. Y. 319, which aft'd 38 Barb. 189, which see. Approved in Paine v. Irwin, 16 Sun, 391. Followed in Metropolitan, &c. R'y Co. t. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. N. 0. 103. 209. Followed and approved in Port v. Russell, 36 Ind. 60; s. c, 10 Am. R. 5, 9, with note, collat- ing cases. Approved in Pickett v. School Dist. No. 1, Town of Wiota, 25 Wis. 551; s. c, 3 Am. B. 105, 107, as applicable to member of school board. Quoted in Afora- wetz on Co?-]). § 243, n. 2. Applied (Trustees, &c. when incapacitated to pur- chase) in Case v. Carroll, 35 .K Y. 388. Applied to lease from father to son, — in dis- senting opinion of Dwight, 0., in Lingke v. Wilkinson, 57 Id. 453. Applied with Adair v. Brimmer, 74 Id. 539 (Ratifica- tion by cestui que trust) in Luers v. Branjes, 5 Bed/. 32. Cumberland, Duke of v. Graves, 9 Barb. 595. Aff'd in 7 Jf. Y. 305. Cumines v. Supervisors of Jefferson, 63 Barb. 287. Aff'd as Comins v. Supervisors of Jefferson, in 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 296, and that aff'd in 64 XT. Y. 626. Cu mining's Case, 3 Park 343. Examined and approved with Francis «. McCann, Id. 298 (Impaneling a jurv) in People v. Ferris, 1 Abb. Pr. H. 8. 193, notwithstanding reversal of Francis ■». McCann in 16 iV. Y. 58. Camming t. Hackley, 8 Johns. 202. See Witherby t>. Mann. Examined, and Roose- velt v. Mark, 6 Johns. Gh. 281, followed (Right of action by pne who has paid debt of another) in Miller, v. Howry, 3 Penr. & W. (Pa.) 374; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 320, with note. Followed in Boulware v. Robin- son, 8 Tex. 327; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 117. t Williamson. See Williams v. Woodard. Cnmmings r. Banks, 2 Barb. 601. See Mon- roe v. Douglass. Approved with Monroe v. Douglass, 4 Sand/. Gh. 126 (Conclusiveness of foreign judgment) in Lazier ». Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146. v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 11 Paige, 596. Approved (Recovery by contractor with city, when municipal officers neglect to make proper assessment) in Baldwin v. City of Oswego, 1 Abb: Gt. App. Dec. 62. v. Morris, 3 Bosw. 560. Aff'd in 25 H. Y. 625. See Myers v. Davis. Decision in 25 AT. Y. disting'd (Right of action on note) in Hays v. Hathorn, 74 Id. 488, which rev'd 10 Sun, 513, which see. Ap- plied to case of assignment of claim, — in Henderson v. Fullcrton, 54 Sow. Pr. 427. Cummins v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 5 Sun, 554. Rcv'd in 6 If. Y. 260; s. c, 23 Am. B. Ill, with note. Decision in 67 N. Y. Y. reviewed with other cases (Insured building when vacant or unoccupied) in Herman v. Adriatic Fire Ins. Co., 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 397. Applied in Stupetski v. Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co., 43 Mich. 371. Collated with other cases in 35 Am. R. 443, n. T. Barkalow, 4 Reyes, 514; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 479. Compare (Agree- ment for compensation for procuring govern- ment contract) Providence Tool Co. ». Nor- ris, 2 Wall. 45. v. Bennett, 8 Paige, 81. Disting'd (Discontinuance) in Clearwater v. Decker, 13 Hun, 63. Followed in Bishop ». Bishop, 7 Robt. 194. Cited in Jerome v. Seymour, Walk. Gh. (Mich.) 360. Cumpston v. McNair, 1 Wend. 457. See Bank of N. Y. v. Livingston; Moakley v. Riggs. Cuuliff v. Mayor of Albany, 2 Barb. 190. Rev'd in 2 AT. Y. 165. Cunningham v. Bucklin, 8 Gow. 178; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 432, with note. See Lansing v. Yates : Yates v. Lansing. Followed with Vanderheyden v. Young, 11 Johns. 159 (Judicial responsibility) in Gordon ». Farrar, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 416. Disting'd (Jurisdiction to grant discharge to insolvent) in Stanton v. Ellis, 12 N. Y. 575. v. Bunlel I, 4 Bradf. 343. Quoted and commented on (Evidence of marriage) in 1 Bishop on Mar. & D. § 539, 6 ed. Dis- cussed (Administration — widow preferred) in Willard on Executors, 192. . v. Cassidy, 17 N. Y. 276; «. c, more fully, 7 Abb. Pr. 183. Applied (Validity of sale in mass) in Bennett v. Bagley, 22 Bun, 408, 411. Followed in Mclntyre ». Sanford, 9 Daly, 21. v. Freeborn, 1 Edw. 256. Aff'd in. 3 Paige, 557; and that aff'd in 11 Wend. CUNNINGHAM— CUETIS. 197 240. Decision in 11 Wend, overruled (Power of debtor or assignee to delay pay- ment) in Dunham v. Waterman, 17 JV. Y. 9, 17. Followed, notwithstanding Dun- ham v. "Waterman (Provision for carrying on or finishing business) in Perry Ins. & Trust Co. v. Foster, 58 Ala. 502; s. c, 29 Am. R. 779, 784, with note collating cases. Compared with other cases in 21 Alb. L. J. 24. Approved (Proportional right of creditors to insolvent's property) in Brooke e. Scoggins, U. S. Cir. Ot. D. Oreg. 11 Bankr. Reg. 258, 268. Followed in Dord v. Bonnaffee, 6 La. Ann. 563; s. c, 54 Am. Dee. 573, with note, as to the validity of an assignment under the laws of N. Y. Quoted (Assignment di- rectly to auditors) iu Burrill on Assign. § 3, n. 4, 4 ed. Commented on in Id. § 121, n. 1,' §§ 212, 216. Quoted (Fraudulent in- tent) in §§ 338, 339. Quoted (Preferences) in Id. § 163, n. 1. Cited as condemning the common law doctrine on this point, — in 3 Pars, on Gontr. 427, n. f. v. Goele', 4 Den. 71. Followed (Sum- mary proceedings — affidavit of agent- appearance for purpose of objecting to juris- diction) in People v. Johnson, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 578. v. Hudson River B'k, 21 Wend. 557. Explained (Proof of handwriting) in 1 Best on Ed. § 234, n. a, Wood's ed. v. Jones, 3 E. D. Smith, 650; s. a, 4 Alb. Pr. 433. Aff'd in 20 N. Y. 486. v. Knight, 1 Barb. 399. See Jackson v. De Witt; Stowji. Tifft. Disapproved (Dower in mortgaged premises) in Mills v. Van Voorhis, 23 Barb. 125. v. Morrell, 10 Johns. 203; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 332. See McMillan o. Vanderlip ; Seers v. Fowler. Reported in 2 LangdeWs Cas, on Gontr. 2 ed. 600. Approved (Mutual and independent covenants) in Beau v. Atwater, 4 Gonn. 3; s. c, 10 Am ~}ec. 91, as having overruled Seers v. Fowler, 2 Johua 272 ; Havens v. Bush, Id. 387, which rccogniised Terry a. Duntze, 2 H. Bl. 389, as authority. Cited in Leopold e. Salkey, 89 IU. 412; s. c, 31 Am. R. 92, with note, collating cases, — as approved in Tompkins v. Elliott, 5 Wend. 496. the case of Wolfe e. Howes, 20 JST. Y. 197, being disting'd in Leopold B. Salkey. Applied in Savre v. Craig, 4 Ark. 10; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 757, 760, with note. v. Pell, 5 Paige, 607. Disting'd (Direc- tors of corporation liable for fraudulent breach of trust) in Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 N. Y. 46. Followed in Heath t>. Erie R'y Co., 8 Blotch/. G. Ct. 347, 395 ; Smith e. Rathbun, 66 Barb. 402. See other cases collected (Application to intervene) in 6 Abb. N~. G. 306, n. Followed with Peck r. Ellis, 2 Johns. Gh. 231 ; Miller v. Fcnton, 11 Paige, 18 (Co-trustee not necessary party to suit for fraudulent breach of duty) in Boyd v. Gill, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. Y., 17 Re-porter, 132. • v. People, 4 Em, 455. Disting'd (Forgery of instrument invalid on its face) in Phelps v. People, 6 Id. 428, 445. Cure v. Crawford, 5 How. Pr. 293. Dis- approved (Restraining proceedings of in- ferior tribunal) in Wordsworth v. Lyon, Id. 463. Curneii v. Mayor. &c. of N. T., 7 Daly, 544. Rev'd iu 79 N. Y. 511. Statement in latter that it is an appeal fr6m Sup'm. Ct. is error. Currie v. Cowles, 6 Bosw. 452. Cited (Effect of attorney's negligence, &c. in one matter, in depriving him of compensation in another) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 615, n. with a query as to a case where the client pleads damage as set-off. v. Hart, 2 Sandf. Gh. 353. Explained (Assignment for benefit of creditors — quali- fications of assignee) in Burrill on Assign. § 92, 4 ed. Explained (For whose benefit) in Id. § 114. Explained (Trusts in assignor's favor) in Id. § 199. v. Henry, 2 Johns. 433. See Gillet n. Fairchild. Disting'd (Using language em- ployed in one plea to support or disprove another) in Alderman v. French, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 1; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 114, 121, with note, collating cases. , v. White, 1 Sweeny, 166; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. K 8. 352 ; 37 How. Pr. 330. Rev'd in 45 N~. Y. 822. Currin v. Finn, 3 Den. 229. See Mick t>. Mick. Collated with other cases (Aliens — effect of statute on rights of) in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 519. Curtis v. Brooks, 37 Barb. 476. Doubted (Effect of intermarriage of maker and payee of note) in Wright x>. Wright, 59 Id. 505. Criticised as inconsistent with later decis- ions in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 463, citing Wright v. Wright, 54 iV. Y. 437. V. Brown, 2 Barb. 51. Affd in 2 N. Y. 225. See Butler v. Wright. Decision in 2 Barb, cited as authority (What is contract of guaranty) in National Loctii & Building Society v. Lichtenwalner, 100 Perm. St. 100; s. c, 45 Am. R. 359. v. Bryan, 36 Row. Pr. 33. Qiloted (Trade-mark — fraud in the use of) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257 bn, n. u. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 74 N.Y. 116. Disting'd (Lex loci contractus as to liability of carriers) in Faulkner v. Hart, 82 Id. 413, 420. Disting'd (Title to para- phernalia of wife) in Whiton v. Snyder, 88 Id. 299. — — v. Eugel, 2 Sandf. Gh. 287. See Jaques v. M. E. Church. Disting'd (Husband's lia- bility for wife's debts) in Tuttle v. Hoag, 46 Mo. 38 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 4S0. v. Fox, 47 N. Y. 299. Explained (Creditor's actions — judgment) in Wait on Fraud. Gonv. § 181. v. Gokey, 5 Hun, 555. Rev'd in 68 N.Y. 300. See Maier v. Hoffman; Nobles v. Bates. Decision in 68 N. Y. cited with Saratoga Co. B'k v. King, 44 Id. 87 ; Maier v. Hoffman, 4 Daly, 168; Lawrence 19S CURTIS. v. Kidder, 10 Bar b. 641 ; Murray v. Vander- bilt, 39 Id. 140, and many other cases (Application of doctrine of public policy to restraint of trade) in note to Motzger v. Cleveland, Super. Ot., Marion Co. hid., 13 Ins. L. J. 861. v. Groat, 6 Johns. 168 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 204. See Betts «. Lee ; Merritt v. Johnson; Osterhout v. Eoberts. Roaffd (Right of owner to reclaim property in altered form) in Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 If. 7. 392, which rev'd 4 Ben. 334, which see. See, in connection therewith, Isle Royale Mining Co. o. Hertin, 37 Mich. 332 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 520. Applied (Effect of judgment and execution to change property in chattel) in Osterhout v. Roberts, 8 Cow. 44. Reviewed with Osterhout v. Roberts, 8 Cow. 43, and other cases, in Marsh v. Pier, 4 Ramie (Pa.) 273; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 131, 139, with note. Reviewed with other cases (Effect of passing on demand presented as set-off) in Hatch v. Benton, 6 Barb. 33. Explained in Skelding ». Whitney, 3 Wend. 157; Burwell v. Knight, 01 Barb. 269. Cited as authority in Wilder v. Case. 16 Wend. 585. Applied in McGuinty ». Her- riek, 5 Id. 244. Applied (Recovery of enhanced value of property as damages) in Walther v. Wetmore, 1 E. D. Smith, 28; Baker e. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505. Explained and disting'd in Weymouth v. Chicago & N. W. R'y Co., 17 Wis. 550. Reviewed with Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 If. Y. 379, and other cases, in Skinner v. Pinney, 19 Ma. 42; s. c, 45 Am. R. 1. - — v. Hubbard, 1 Hill, 336. Aff d in 4 Id. 437. Decision in 1 Bill quoted (Wrongful execution of civil process by sheriff) in 2 Add. on Torts 124, n., Wood's ed. v. Jones, 3 Den. 590. Modified on appeal in How. App. Gas. 137. v. Knox, 2 Den. 341. See People v. Mather. Commented on (Witness — questions tending to disgrace) in 1 Best on Et>. § 130, n. a, Wood's ed. — - v. Leavitt, 4' Edw. 246. Aff'd in 11 Paige, 386. v. , 17 Barb. 309. Modified on appeal in 15 If. Y. 9. See Brouwer t>. Ilarbcck; Butler v. Palmer ; Ketchum v. City of Buf- falo; Tracy v. Talmage. Another decision arising out of the transactions here involved is reported in Leavitt». Blatchford, 17 If. Y. 521. Decision in 17 Barb, followed (Suffi- ciency of seal) in Gillespie v. Brooks, 2 Red/. 349, 366. Decision in 15 If. Y. fol- lowed (Question of usury as determined by law of place) in Hull v. Wheeler, 7 Abb. Pr. 414; Jewell v. Wright, 30 N. Y. 264. Dis- ting'd in Wayne Co. Savg's Bk. *>. Low, 6 Abb. If. O. 87. Applied in Berrien v. Wright, 26 Barb. 213. Cited as authority with Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige, 634, in Miller*. Tiffany, 1 Wall. 310. Cited as au- thority (Defense of usury as to corporations) in Butterworth v. O'Brien. 7 Abb. Pr. 461, which was aff'd in 23 N. Y. 275, which see. Disting'd in Hungerford's Bk: fl.'Potsdam, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Abb. Pr. 27, which is thought in Smith v. Alvord, 63 Barb. 424, to conflict with the other two ca^es. Ap- proved in Belmont Branch Bk. «. Hoge, 7 Bosw. 557. Re-afPd in Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Packer, 17 If. Y. 52. Explained and applied in Rosa v. Butterfield, 33 Id. 665. Examined with other cases, in Strong v. N. Y. Laundry M'f'g Co., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 279, 282. Explained (Repeal of usury laws as to corporations) in Merchants' Exch. Nat. Bk. ■». Com, Warehouse Co., 49 If. Y. 641. Applied (Effect of repeal or alteration of law giving cause of action or defense founded on public policy) in Washburn t. Franklin, 13 Abb. Pr. 140; Central Bk. v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 26 Barb. 37; Hoppock v. Stone, 49 Id, 528. Said in 10 Am. Dee. 135, n., to maintain the doctrine, which has been followed in Va., 111., Ind., and elsewhere, — citing cases. Applied in Gregory v. German Bank of Denver, 3 Goto. 332; s. c, 25 Am. R. 760. Followed and approved in Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 150; Town of Danville v. Pace, 25 Gratt. ( Va.) 1 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 663, 665, 671. Applied (Validity of provisions contained in instru- ment also containing invalid provisions) in Scott ii. Guthrie, 10 Bosw. 420; Powers v. Graydon, Id. 646 ; Towle v. Smith, 2 Robt. 495. Explained and applied in O'Neil v. Salmon, 25 How. Pr. 255. Applied (Effect of contract illegal in part) in Pollak v. Gregory, 9 Bosw. 128; Sacketts Harbor Bk. v. Codd, 18 If. Y. 244. Disting'd in Sara- • toga County Bk. v. King, 44 Id. 91. Applied (Incidental power of corporation to transfer assets as security) in Nelson e, Eaton, 26 If. Y. 414. Followed in Smith u. Law, 21 Id: 299. Applied (Implied power in cor- poration)' in East N. Y. & Jamaica R. R. Co. v. Lighthall, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 462. Disting'd in Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 K Y. 180. Followed (Power of cor- poration to borrow) in Barnes v. Ontario Bk., 19 Id. 156. Followed (Banking as- sociation not within provisions of L. 1829, c. 94) in International Bk. v. Bradley, Id. 255. Followed with Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 Id. 521 ; International Bk. ». Bradley, in Robinson v. Bk. of Attica, 21 Id. 409. Dis- cussed in Burrill on Assign. § 66, 4 ed. Applied (Individual bankers) in People v. Doty, 80 If. Y. 234. Examined with other cases (Obligation of bank to charge in- dorsers) in State Bk. of Troy v. Bk. of the Capitol, 17 Abb. Pr. 370. Explained (Re- covery of money paid) in Knowlton v. Con- gress & Empire Spring Co., 57 If. Y. 532. Followed in Oneida Bk. v. Ontario Bk., 21 Id. 496. Explained and disting'd in Mat- ter of Jaycox, 13 Blatchf. G. Gt. 70, 79. Applied with Schermerhorn v. Talman, 14 If. Y. 93; Tracy v. Talmage, Id. 162, in Smart v. White, 73 Me. 332 ; s. c. 40 Am. R. 356. Explained (Illegal contracts) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 976 n. p, 11 Am. ed. Ex- CUHTIS— CTTSilMAN. 190: plained in Benj. on Sales, § 504, n. « (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.). Approved as an able discussion (Parties when not in pari delicto) in Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 403, n. 2. Quoted ("Void" and "voidable" acts disting'd) in "Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 434, n. 2. Applied (Application of statute forbidding fraudulent alienations of property) in Rome Exchange Bk. v, Eames, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 95. Applied with Dunham v. Whitehead, 21 If. Y. 131 ; Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 Id. 521, in Van Buskirk c. Warren, Id. 459; Shoemaker v. Hastings, 61 How. Pr.- 96. Commented on in Burrill on Assign. §§ 349, 850. Followed (Rights of bona fide trans- feree of property unlawfully transferred by corporation) in Warner v. Chappell 32 Barb. 314; Marine Bk. v. Clements, 31 N. Y. 45. Cited as authority in Ogden v. Andre, 4 Bosw. 601. Explained (Invalidity of assign- ment for creditors containing reservation in favor of assignor) in Collomb v. Caldwell, 1 6 If. Y. 485. Collated with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 201. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. §§ 200, 243, 4 ed. Ap- plied (Invalidity of revocable assignment for .creditors) in Yates v. Lyon, 61 Barb. 209. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 6, 4 ed. Quoted and commented on in Id.. § 173, 4 ed. Quoted (Receiver of corporation) in High on Receiv. §315, n. 2. Explained (Fraud- ulent conveyance of personal estate) in Shoemaker ». Hastings, 61 How. Pr. 79, 96. v. Masten. See Vroom v. Ditmas. v. Patterson, 8 Cow. 65. Referred to as overruled (Liability of sheriff for refusal to levy when indemnified) in Dolson v. Sax- ton, 11 Hun, 565. Collated with Chamber- lain v. Beller, 18 JST. Y. 115, and other cases, in 16 Am. Bee. 551, n. v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co , 18 M, Y. 534. AfPg ?0 Barb. 282. See Ran- som v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. Decision in 18 jV. Y. applied (Presumption that injury resulted from negligence of railroad com- pany) in Brehm v. Great Western R'y Co., 34 Barb. 269 ; Edgerton v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 35 Id. 389, 395 ; 39 N. Y. 229. Applied to owner of building, in Mullen v. St. John,. 57 N. Y. 572. Included with notes, in Thomps. on Carr. of Pass. 188. Commented upon in Id. 214. Followed (Damages for bodily suffering) in Swarthout r. N. J. Steamboat Co., 40 Barb. 226, which was affd in 48 If. Y. 211, which see. Ap- plied with Ransom v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 Id. 415, in Smith v. Bagwell, 19 Fla. 117; s. c, 45 Am. R. 12. Applied to damages for loss of health, &c, in Williams v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 225; Sheehan v. Edgar, 58 Id. 631. Applied (Damages for future suffering) in Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., "35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 130. Disting'd in Macer «. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 461, 467. Followed (Damages for mental suffering) in Matteson v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 62 Barb. 379. Cited with other cases (Damage's for negligence) in 14 Am. L. Reg. If. 8. 279. v. Smallman. See Moakeley v. Riggs. v. Smith, u0 Barb. 9. Denied (Vesting of trusts on death of trustee of personal estate) in Matter of Howell, 61 How. Pr. , 180. Collated with other cases (Assign- ment for benefit of creditors — parties in suits by assignee) in Bishop on Assign. § 315, n. v. Tyler, 9 Paige, 432. Applied (Right of creditor to benefit of security taken by surety) in Van Schaick «. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. If. S. 383 ; Marine & Fire Ins. B'k of Ga. v. Jauncey, 1 Barb. 488; Crossby v. Crafts, 5 Hun, 329; Vail v. Foster, 4 N. Y. 314; Clark v. Ely, 2 SandJ'. Ch. 168; Ten Eyck v. Holmes, 3 Id. 429. Cited as authority in First Nat. B'k of Carry ». Stiles, 22 Hun, 345. Explained in Marine & Fire Ins. B'k v. Jauncey, 3 Sandf. 261. Disting'd in Hampton v. Phipps, 108 If. S. 265. Disting'd (Liability for deficiency in, foreclosure) in Burr v. Beers, 24 IT. Y. 1 79. Explained in King v. Whitely, 10 Paige,, 468. Applied in Marsh v. Pike, 1 Sandf. Ch. 213; Blyer v. Monholland, 2 Id. 480. 'Applied (Effect of assignment of debt to carry collaterals) in Dorsheimer ». Nichols, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 521 ; Bowdoin v.. Cole- man, 6 Duer, 186. Cnrtiss v. Ayranlt, 47 If. Y. 73. Subsequent decision in 3 Hun, 487; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 611. Decision in 47 If. Y. quoted and discussed (Nuisance — artificial water courses) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 409. v. Howell, 39 If. Y. 211. Disting'd (Duty of vendor rescinding for fraud, to restore what he has received) in Guckcn- hcimcr v. Angevine, 81 Id. 394. v. BIcNair, 6 Hun, 550. Aft'd in 68 If. Y. 198. Cushman v. Bailey, 1 Hill, 526. Disting'd. (Participation in profits, as constituting partnership) in Burnett v. Snyder, 76 If. Y. 344, 351. v. Hatfield, 52 If. Y. 653; s. c, more fully, as Cushman v. Hadfield, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 109. Compare (Jurisdiction when lost by Court of Appeals) People ex rel. Smith v. Village of Nelliston, 79 If. Y. 638. v. Hortoii, 1 Hun, 601 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct, (T. & C.) 103. Rev'd in 59 N. Y. 149. — — v. Johnson, 13 How. Pr. 495; s. c, more fully, as Cashman v. Johnson, in 4 Abb. Pi: 256. Followed with Miller v. Rosseman, 15 How. Pr. 10 (Supplementary proceedings must be conducted by a judge) in Amlingceier v. Amlingmeier, 9 Gin. L. Bull. 241. v. Thayer M'f'g Jewelry Co., 53 How. Pr. 60. Aft'd in 7 Daly, 330; which was affd in 76 XT. Y. 365; s. c, 32 Am. R. 315. Decision in 76 If. Y. confirmed (Refusal of remedy by mandamus) in Clarke v. Behtel, Bist. Ct. Hamilton Co. Ohio, 11 Weekly L. Bui. 105. v. U. S. Life Ins. Co., 4 Hun, 783, 200 CUTLEIt— DALE. Rev'd in 63 JT. Y. 404. Further decision in 70 N. Y. 72. Decision in 70 N. Y. explained (Life insurance: — statements in policy — warranty) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 466, n. 1, TC pl l^r's cd Cutler v. Biggs, 2 Hill, 409. Disting'd (Use of old affidavit) in Mojarrieta v. Saenz, 80 JT. Y. 547, 551. v. Rath bo ue, 1 Hill, 204. See Berrien v. Westervelt. With this decision and Stacy v. Farnham, 2 How. Pr. 26, com- pare (Affidavit, &c. in replevin) Milliken v. Selye, 6 mil, 623 ; 3 Den. 54. v. Wright, 22 JV. Y. 472. Explained (Foreign statutes as evidence) in Munroe v. Guilleaume, 3 Eeyes, 30. Disapproved in Prouty v. Michigan S. & N. Indiana R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 655, 669. Examined with other cases (Usury as determined, by law of place) in Wayne Co. Savgs' Bk. v. Low, 6 Abb. JT. 0. 76, 86. Followed in Sheldon v. Haxton, 24 Hun, 196. Cutter v. Doughty, 23 Wend. 513. Rev'd in 7 Hill, 305. Cutting T. Cutting, 20 Hun, 360. AfTd in part and rev'd in part in 86 JT. Y. 522. Decision in 20 Hun discussed (Creditors reaching powers) in Wait on Fraud. Coma. §40. v. Marlon. See Cutting v. Marlor. v. Marlor, 6 Abb. N. C. 388; s. c, 57 How. Pr. 56, Aff' d in 17 Hun, 573, and that aff'd in 78 JT Y. 454. Cutts v. Guild, 57 N. Y. 229. Subsequent appeal in 4 Weekly Big. 582 ; mem. s. c, in 70 JT. Y. 608, but no opinion. Decision in 57 Id. recognized as authority (Rights of an assignee) in Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 U. S. 572. Followed in Scamoni v. Ruck, 53 How.Pr. 317. See (Judgment, when assignable) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1912, n. Cuyler v. Ensworth, 6 Paige, 32. Applied (Subrogation of surety to position of judg- ment creditor) in Townsend v. Whitney, 75 N. Y. 430. v. Nellis, 4 Wend. 398. Overruled Sufficiency of notice of protest) in Downer v. Remer, 21 Wend. 10. v. Sandford, 13 Barb. 339. Relied on (Usury as determined by rate of exchange) in dissenting opinion of Johnson, J., in Price v. Lyons Bank, 30 Id. 85, 97. Cythe v. La Foutain, 51 Barb. 186. Ex- plained (Ejectment against vendee — waiver of forfeiture) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 326. D. Dabney v. Stevens, 2 Sweeny, 415; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 39; 40 How. Pr. 341. Aff'd in part in 46 K Y. 681, but without opinion. Daby v. Ericsson, 45 JT. Y. 786. Collated with Clark v. Hopkins, 7 Johns. 556 ; Miller v. Smith, 16 Wend. 425, and other cases (Presumption of payment of judgment after twenty years) in 30 Alb. L. J. 86. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on JSv. § 1360. Daccy v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 21 Hun, 83. Compare (Separate valuation of each article insured) Newlin v. North Amer. Ins. Co., 5 Penn. L. J. Pep. 116. Back v. Back, 19 Hun, 630. Modified in 84 N. Y. 063. Da Costa, Matter of. See Yates' Case. Baguerre v. Orser, 3 Abb. Pr. 86. Subsequent decision, as it seems, in 10 Id. 12, n., which was aff'd in 15 Id. 113. Decision in 3 Abb. Pr. doubted (Allowance of amendments of pleadings) in Stevens v. Brooks. 23 Wis. 196. Dahash v. Flanders, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 445. See Bliss v. Schaub. Rule said to be changed by Code Civ. Pro. (Appeal in ac- tion commenced in County Court) in Kilmer o. O'Brien 13 Hun, 224. Bain t. Wycoff. 7 JT. Y. 191. See Lewis v. Chapman. Disapproved, and the contrary held (Exemplary damages) in Fry ». Ben- nett, 1 Abb. Pr. 289. Followed (Inadmis- sibility of evidence of defendant's wealth in action for seduction) in Watson v. Watson, 53 Mich. 175. Dains v. Prosscr. 32 Barb. 290. See Morse v. Keyes. Approved (Leviable property in Twinam v. Swart, 4 Lans. 263, 265. Bake v. Miller, 15 Hun, 556. Followed (Objection to jurisdiction of County Court) in Coe v. Raymond, 22 Hun, 461. Bakiu, Matter of, 4 Hill, 42; s. c, 15 JT. F. Com. L. Law. ed. 737, with brief note. Relied on with Matter of Husson, 26 Sun, 130; Matter of Haskin, 18 Id. 42 (Attorney not to be summarily disbarred for miscon- duct as individual) in People ex rel. Hcvres v. Appleton, 105 111. 474, 481. Bakiu v. Bemmhig, 6 Paige, 95. Applied (Trustees, when entitled under statute to compensation for services rendered before ■ its passage) in Savage i>. Sherman, 24 Hun, 307, 311. Disting'd (Executor's right to compensation) in Secor v. Sentis, 5 Redf. 570, 572. V. Hudson, 6 Cow. 221. Followed (Proof of surrogate's jurisdiction) in People ex rel. Meyer v. Hartman, 2 Sweeny, 576. v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 122. AfTd in 77 K Y. 600. v. Williams, 17 Wend. 447. Affd as Williams*. Dakin, 22 Wend. 201. SeeBagley ». Peddie; Nobles v. Bates. Decision in 17 Wend, followed with Mott v. Mott, 11 Barb. 127 (Penalty or liquidated damages) in Holbrook v. Tobey, 66 Me. 410; s. c, 22 Am. B. 581, 584. Discussed in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1317, n. e, 11 Am. ed Con- sidered at length in 2 Sedgw. on Meas. of Dama. 7 ed. 237. Included in Sedgw. Cos. on Dama. 435. Dale v. Brooklyn City, &c. R R. Co.. 1 Him, 146; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (-3". & C.) 686. AfFd, it seems, in 60 N. F.,638, but with- out opinion. v. Cooke, 4 Johns. Ch. 11. Followed (Set-off of debts accruing in different rights) DALE— DANA. 201 in Robbiiis v. McKnight, 1 Halst.Ch. (AT. J.) 642; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 406, with note; Simson a. Hart, 14 Johns. 63, and Pond v. Smith, 4 Conn. 297, — holding insolvency to be ground for such relief, — being disap- proved by Stouy, J., in Greene ». Darling, 5 Mason, 201 ; Howe v. Sheppard, 2 Sumn. 416 (both cited in 45 Am. Dec. 411), and said not to be supported by any English decisions. v. McEvers, 2 Cow. 118. See Eobinson *. Ryan, Disting'd (Right of mortgagee to acquire adverse claim to or lien upon mort- gaged premises) in Cornell v. Woodruff, 77 N. Y. 203. v. Radcliffe, 25 Barb. 333; s. c, 15 How. Pr. 71. Explained as no longer au- thority (Effect of giving bail in precluding motion to vacate arrest) in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Ecclesine, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 9. v. Roosevelt, 5 Johns. Ch. 114. Con- firmed on rehearing in 6 Id. 255, and aff'd in 2 Cow. 129. Subsequent decision, as it seems, in 9 Id. 307. See Sherwood v. Johnson ; Upton v. Vail. Decision in 9 Cow. followed (Parol evidence to show ille- gality of consideration of written contract) in Donley a. TindaH, 32 Tex. 43; s. c, 5 Am. M. 234, with note, coMating cases. v. Smithson, 12 .^.66. Pr. 237. Ex- plained (Trade-mark — fraud in the use of) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257 bn, n. o. Dairy tuple v. Arnold, 21 Hun, 110. Cited as authority (Funeral expenses, &c. as a charge on the estate) in Laird ■». Arnold, 25 Id. 5. v. Hillenbrand, 2 Hun, 488; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 57. Aff'd in 62 N. Y. 5; s. c, 20 Am. R. 438. See Erwin v. . Downs. Decision in 62 N. Y. examined with others (Composition agreements) in 14 Alb. L. J. 436. v. Williams, 63 N. Y. 363; s. c, 20 Am. £. 544. Collated with other cases (Admissibility of affidavits of jurors to im- peach verdict) in 24 Am. Dec. 475, n. Daly's Adm'r v. Wright, 5 Weekly Dig.- 229. Fully reported as Meeker v. Wright, iu 7 Abb. A 7 ". C. 299 ;'s. c, 76 N. Y. 262. Daly v. Byrne, 43 Super. Ct. {J. &. S.) 261. AfTdin 77 N. Y. 182. Former proceeding in 1 Abb. N. C. 150. v. Daly, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 158; s. c, 49 How. Pr. 150. Disting'd (Injunc- tion to restrain actor, &c. from performing for another) in Mapleson v. Del Puente, 13 Abb. N. C. 144. Compared with other cases in 20 Am. L. Peg. 589, n. Damainville v. Mann, 32 N. Y. 197. Dis- approved as unsupported by authority (Entry necessary to charge assignee of lease, with rent) in Babcock v. Scovill, 56 III. 461. Dambntan v. Butterfleld, 2 Hun, 284; s. c, 4 Sufm. Ct. (7'. & 6'.) 542. Further pro- ceeding in 15 Hun, 495. - — T. Schultingr, 51 How. Pr. 337. Affd in 4 Hun, 50; s. c, 6 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 251. Further decision in 6 Hun, 29; mem. s. c , 51 How. Pr. 357. Also in 54 Id. 289, which was affd in 12 Hun, 1, and that rev'd in 75 N. Y. 55. See Glackin v. Zeller. Decision in 75 A 7 ". Y. disting'd (Relief against mistake as to extrinsic fact) in Knapp v. Fowler, 80 Hun, 512. Approved and relied on with People's Bk. v. Bpgart, 81 N. Y. 107 (Fraudulent concealment) in Milliken v. Chapman, 75 Jlfe. 306 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 389, 396. Approved as stating general rule and exceptions, very clearly (W'hat amounts to fraud) in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 390, n. Damon v. Moore. See Ingersoll v. Jones. Dau v. Brown, 4 Cow. 483; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 395, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently cited and approved in N. Y. and elsewhere. See Jackson v. Knif- fen. Reviewed with Fetherly v. Waggoner, 11 Wend. 599; Brown v.. Clark, 77 M. Y. 367; Matter of Kellum, 52 Id. 517; Everitt v. Everitt, 41 Barb. 385 ; Sheridan v. Houghton, 6 Abb. AT. V. 234 ; Knapp v. Knapp, 10 A 7 ". Y. 276 (Proof of execution of lost will) in Hatch v. Sigman, 1 Dem. 519. Applied in Apperson p. Cottrell, 3 Port. {Ala.) 51 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 239. Cited with Osgood v. Manhattan Co., 3 Cow. 611 . (Effect of admissions of one of several having community of interest) in 1 Taylor on En. 660. See to the contrary cases cited (Testator's declarations) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 124, n. 9. Dana v. Fiedler, 1 E. D. Smith, 463. Aff'd in 12 N. Y. 40. See Van Rensselaer v. Jewett. Decision in 12 N. Y. applied (In- terest as damages) in Fishell ». Winans, 38 Barb. 230; Van Allen v. Illinois Central li. R. Co., 7 Bosw. 538 ; Greer v. Mayor, &c. of N. if., 3 Relit. 410. Applied to action for conversion in Andrews v. Durant, 18 N. Y. 496, 5U2. Collated with other cases, in White v. Miller, 7b Id. 396. Approved, but not followed, in JUikeman v. Grinnell, 5 Bosw. 638. Disting'd in Gallup v. Perue, 10 Hun, 527; Black v. Camden & Amboy R. R., &c. Co., 45 Barb. 43. Applied (Evi- dence of meaning of terms used iu business) iu Pollen v. Leroy, 10 Bosw. 55. Compared in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 350. Applied (Damages for non-delivery) to case of con- version, — in Nauman v. Caldwell, 2 Sweeny, 217. included in Sedgw. Cas. on Dama. 220. Collated with other cases (Tender — waiver) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 154. v. Mnnson, 23 A 7 ". Y. 564. Affg Dana v. Munro, 38 Barb. 528. Decision in 23 N. Y. limited (Liability on note given to in- surance company before organization) in Jackson s. Van Slyke, 52 N. Y. 645. v. 'flicker, 4 Johns. 487. See Brownell 1). McEwen ; Smith v. Cheetham. Followed with Smith v. Cheetham, 3 Oai. 57 ; Jack- son i>. Dickenson, 15 Johns. 309 (Admis- sibility of testimony of jurors to impeach 202 DANE— DARL1NGTOK their verdict) in Tyler v. Stevens, 4 N. H. 116; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 404. Cited with approval in Smith v. Eames, 3 Scam. (III.) 76; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 515, 520, with note. Doubted in Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 470; s. c, 9 Am. R. 60. Collated with Clum v. Smith, 5 Hill, 560 ; Gale v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 53 How. Pr. 385, and .other cases, in 12 Am. Dec. 142, n. Thought with People v. Barber, 3 Wheel. Cr. 19; Green v. Bliss, 12 How. Pr. 428, in 1 Am. Dec. 39, n., to express what is now the position of the N. Y. courts, notwithstand- ing decision in Smith v. Cheetham, 3 Cai. 58. Followed with Roberts v. Failis, 1 Cow. 238 (Invalidity of "chance" verdict) in Goodman v. Cody, 1 Wash. T. 329'; s. c, 34 Am. R. 808 ; with note collating Harvey v. Rickett, 15 Johns. 88, and other cases. Dane v. Liverpool & London Ins. Co., 21 Hun, 259. Disting'd (Compulsory refer- ence) in Dustin v. Wallace, 13 Weekly Dig. 518. v. Mallory, 16 Barb. 53. Qualified with Talman v. Smith, 39 Id. 390 (Power of mortgagee of chattels over mortgaged property) in Stoddard v. Denison, 38 How. Pr. 296. Danfortli v. Culver, 11 Johns. 146; s. c. ( 6 Am. Dec. 361 ; 5 N.Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 95, with brief note. See Dean v. Pitts ; Frear v. Hardenbergh. Cited as authority with Dean v. Pitts, 10 Johns. 35 (Acknowledgment of debt as affecting statute of limitations) in. Glenn v. McCullough, Harper (.5. C.) 484; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 661. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 70, n. w. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. §§ 214, 215, 6 ed. v. Dart. See Kentgen v. Parks. v. Schoharie Turnpike Co., 12 Johns. 227. Disting'd with Dunn v. Rector, &c. of St. Andrew's Church, 14 Johns. 118, as cases of assumpsit, — (Liability of corporation to actions of trespass) in Orr «. Bank of U. S., 1 Ohio, 36; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 588, with note, however, wherein the Ohio case is regarded as unsound and obsolete. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 379, 11 ed. v. Suydam, 4JK 7. 66. See Champion e. White. Explained and disting*d with Munsell v. Lewis, 2 Den. 226 (Lien on or title to fund) in Bank of Auburn v. Roberts, 45 Barb. 407. Daniels v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 260. Aifd in 24 N. Y. 447. v. Ball. See Duncan v. Spear. v. Cushman. See People ex rel. Daniels v. Cushman. — — v. Lyon, 9 N. Y. 549. Referred to as overruled by Allis ». Wheeler, 56 Id. 50 (Right of several defendants to costs) in Williams v. Cassady, 22 Hun, 180. Banks v.- Quackenbusk, 3 Den. 594; s.«c., with points of counsel and opinion, 1 JV". Y. 129. Aff'g 1 Den. 128. Decision in 1 Den. criticised, and that in 3 Id. explained as adding little to weight of authority (Re- trospective effect of exemption law [L. 1842, c. 157]) iri Vedder '■»'. A'lkenbrach, 3 BarK 329. Overruled in Morse v. Goold, 11 K Y. 285. Both decisions disting'd (Law im- paring obligation of contract) in Guild v. Rogers, 8 Barb. 504. Examined with other cases (Exemption of team from, execution) in Van Buren ®. Loper, 29 Id. 386. Applied (Law not to be construed as restrospective) in Wood v. Mayor, &c. of Nj Y., 6 Rubt. 469. Dannat v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Han, 88. Affd in 66 N. Y. 585. Decision in 66 K Y. followed (Liability of city for claims for ser- vices rendered distinct department) in Waterman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Daly, 489. Applied in People ex rel. Burnet v.- Jackson, 60 How. Pr. 332. Darbee v. Elwood. 2 Hun, 599. Reported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (t. & C.) 148. Darby v. Callaghan, 16 K Y. 71. Applied (Acts for protection of married women to be construed liberally) in BiXings v. Baker, 28- Barb. 356. Applied (Right of married women to hold property before acts of 1848-9) in Vandevoort v. Gould, 36 & Y. 641. Darling v. Brewster, 3 Hun, 219; s. a, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 670. AflTd, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 630, but without opinion. Mem. of previous decision in 55 Id. 667. — - v. Halsey, 2 Abb. N. C. 105. Subse- quent decision, a*s it seems, in 12 Hun. 90. v. Pierce, 15 Hun, 542. Compare (Dis- qualification of surrogate) Wigand v. Dejonge, 8 Abb. N. C. 260. v. Rogers, 22 Wend. 483. Discussed (Assignment of realty for benefit of credi- tors, to sell or mortgage) in 4 Kent Com, 310, n. b. Quoted and discussed with Rogers v. De Forest, 7 Paige, 272 (Terms of sale) in Burrill on Assign. § 221, n. 5, 4 ed. ; Id. | 352. Darlington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Robt. 274. Affd in 31 2V. Y. 164. See New- berry v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 31 JV". Y. applied (Liability of municipal corporation on claim which no means are provided to meet) in Hecker v. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 18 Abb. Pr. 374. Approved and applied (Exemption of municipal property from execution, &c.) in Biinckerhotf v.. Board of Education, 6 Abb. Pr. K S. 433; Leonard v. Reynolds, 7 Hun, 74, which was affd in 71 K Y. 498,'which sec. Applied- to exemption from taxation, — in City of Rochester v. Town of Rush, 80 Id. 307. Followed in The Fidelity, 16 Blatehf. G. Ct. 569, 571. Questioned (Constitutionality of legislation respecting use of property of municipal corporation) in Baldwin v. Mayor,; &c. of N. Y., 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 77, which affd 30 How. Pr. 291, which see. Explained in Webb «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 64 Id. 10. Applied (Plenary power of legislature in respect to subjects of civil .government) in People , v. Pinckney, 32 N. Y. 395. Cited as authority in People v. Ingersoll, 58 Id. 21. Disting'd and ex- DARNALL— DASH. 203 plained in Spaulding v. Andover, 54 N. H. 38, 55. Explained in 38 Am. Dec. 676, »., as inconsistent with People v. Batchellor, 53 K Y. 141, which relied upon Atkins v. Randolph, 31 Vt. 226, a case declared in Darlington v. Mayor not to be law. Fol- lowed (Constitutionality of act respecting liability of city, &c. for injury done by mob) in Moody v. Supervisors of Niagara, 46 Barb. 662; Sarles v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 47 Id. 451 ; Orr n. City of Brooklyn, 30 K T. 667. Explained in Eastman «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Bobt. 389, as not shaken by Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Liability of municipal corporation for injury done by riot) in Allegheny Co. v. Gibson, 9 Penn. St. 397; s. c, 35 Am. B. 670, 677. Applied (Power of legislature to delegate power to local organizations) in Metropolitan B'd of Health v. Heister, 37 K Y. 672. Applied ("Tax" within mean- ing of N. Y. Const, art. 7) in Matter of Ford, 6 Lans. 97; People, ex rel. N. Y. & Harlem R. R Co. v. Havemeyer, 4 Sup'm. Ot. {T. & C.) 380. Daruall y. Morehouse, 36 How. Pr. 511. Rev'd in 45 2V. Y. 64. Decision in 36 How. Pr. collated with other cases (Debt — bill or note taken for) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 306. Barrow v. Lee, 16 Abb. Bf. 215. See (Sup- plementary proceedings — receiver) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. XVII., tit. XII., art. 2, n. Commented on in Thomps. on Prov. Bern. 518. Darry t. People, 10 N. Y. 120. Opinion of Parker, J., approved (Murder by one com- mitting another offense) in Buel o. People. 18 Hun, 490, which was afFd in 78 F. Y. 500, which see. Not followed (Statutory defi- nition of murder) as excluding cases of particular malice, in Hogan «. State, 36 Wis. 226, 241, 243, 250. Dart v. Ensign, 2 Lans. 383. Rev'd in 47 A r . Y. 619. v. Fitch, 77 XT. Y. 025. Affirmance of order explained in subsequent decision, in 23 Hun, 361. Darvin v. Hatfield, 4 Sandf. 468. Rev'd in Seld. notes, No. 1, 36. Dascomb r. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 27 Barb. 221. Approved (Contributory negligence as defense) in Thrings v. Cen- tral Park R. R. Co., 7 Bobt. 616. Fol- lowed with Ernst v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 61 ; Wilcox v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., Id. 358; Beiseigel v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 40 Id. 9; Havens v. Erie R. R. Co., 41 Id. 296 ; Baxter v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., Id. 502 (Duty of one crossing railroad track to use his senses of ' sight and hearing) in Bellefontaine R'y Co. ». Hunter, 33 Ind. 335; s. c, 5 Am. B. 201, 209. Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 291, with note collating cases and where it is shown to have been extensively cited and followed as an authority, both in the Federal and other courts. ' See People e.v rel. Pells v. Supervisors of Ulster. Ap- plied (Retrospective construction of statutes) in Trist v. Cabenas, 18 Abb. Pr. 146 ; Brower ■o. Bowers, 1 Abb. Gt.App.Dec. 223; People !). Marshall, 7 Abb. N. G. 382; Smith v. Colvin, 17 Barb. 161 ; People v. Supervisors of Ulster, 63 Id. 85, which was rev'd in 65 XT. Y. 300, 307, which see ; Berley v. Ram- pacher, 10 Bosw. 188; Jarvis v. Jarvis, 3 Edw. 465 ; Mills «. Hildreth, 5 Hun, 368 ; Sanfordfl. Bennett, 24 N. Y. 23; Peoples. Supervisors of Columbia, 43 Id. 135; N. Y. & Oswego M. R. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 Id. 477; Williamson v. Field, 2 Sandf. 570; Snyre v. Wisner, 8 Wend. 604; Baker v. Bartlett, 9 Id. 496 ; McPherson v. Cheadell, 24 Id. 28 ; Snyder v. Snyder, 3 Barb. 623 ; Weed v. Oakley, 11 Paige, 403. Followed in Bedford v. Shilling, 4 Serg. & B. {Pa.) 401; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 718; Perkins v. Per- kins, 7 Gonn. 556; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 120, 126, with note. Compare 9 Bac. Abr. (1840 ed.) 220. Followed and approved in Society v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 104, 139, 144; Lewis v. Brackenridge, 1 Blachf. (Ind.) 220 ; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 228. Reviewed with Tillman v. Lansing, 4 Johns. 45, and other cases, in Woart v. Winnick, 3 N. H 473; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 384, with note. Disting'd in Wadsworth v. Thomas, 7 Barb. 450 ; Bul- lock v. Boyd, Hoffm. 303; Shepard v. People, 23 How. Pr. 339, which was rev'd in 25 iV. Y. 410, which see ; Guillotel v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.. 55 How. Pr. 115; Morse v. Goold, 11 K Y. 285; Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 Id. 210. Disting'd as inap- plicable to construction of a constitution, — - in Matter of Oliver Lee & Co's Bk., 21 Id. 12. Cited in Cooley on Const. Limit. 62. Cited approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 455. Referred to as qualified in Kent Com. (Vested rights not to be subverted by legis- lative authority) in Syracuse City Bk. v. Davis, 16 Barb. 190. Applied in McDonnell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Hun, 475 ; Burch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 393 ; Ely o. Holton, 15 Id. 600; Moore v. State, 43 N. J. L. ( Vroom) 207. Disting'd in Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 333. Followed by Bronson, J., in Sackett v. Andross, 5 Id. 336. Disting'd in Coles v. County of Madison, Breese {III.) 154; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 161. Reviewed and explained in Pryor i>. Downey, 50 Gal. 388; s. c. 19 Am. It. 056. Approved' in Kennebec Purchase «. Laboree, 2 Greenl. {Me.) 275; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 79, 90, with note. See also Merrill 1>. Sherburne, 1 N. H 199 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 52, with note ;. King v. Dedham Bank, 15 Mass. 447; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 112; Foster v. Essex Bank, 16 Mass. 245; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 135, with note ; Bedford v. Shilling, 4 Serg. & B. {Pa.) 401 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 718; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 3 Murph. {K C.) 327; s. c.,_9 Am. Dec. 308. Criticised as iuconclusive in Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. 209 ; s. c, . 10 Am. Dec. 121, 129, with note collating 204: DATER— DAVIS. ■ cases. Applied and approved in Davis ®. Minor, 1 How. (Miss.) 183 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 325, 330, with note. Disting'd with People ex rel. Ryan ®. Green, 58 if. T. 295, in People ex rel. Gere ®. Whitlock, 92 Id. 191. Relied on in Aldridge ®. Tuscumbia, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Stew. & P. {Ala.) 199 ; 8. c, 23 Am. Dec. 307, 311, with note. Disting'd (Effect of election to affirm debtor in custody, as waiver) in McElroy v. Man- cius, 13 Johns. 122. Applied (Return of prisoner, as defense in action for escape) in Mandell v. Barry, 9 Id. 237, which was rev'd in 10 Id. 576, which see. Applied (Statute when a repeal) in U. S. ®. Ben- nett, 12 Blatchf. C. Gt. 345, 349. Explained in People ex rel. Brown v. Van Hoesen, 62 How. Pr. 76, 81. Pater v. Troy Turnpike, 2 Hill, 629. Fol- lowed (Right of owner of land to full com- pensation before appropriation by railroad company) in St. Joseph & Denver City R. R. Co. ®. Callender, 13 Kans. 496, 502. v. Wellington, 1 Hill, 319; s. c, 15 If. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 143, with brief note. Dauber v. Blackney, 38 Barb. 432. Doubted but followed (Guaranty by transferrer of note — when not within statute of frauds) in Milks®. Rich, 80 If. Y. 269, 271. Daubney v. Hughes. 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 350. Affd in 60 N. Y. 187. Dauchy v. Tyler, lb How. Pr. 399. Approved as authority (Permitting amendments) in Baker®. Seely, 17 Id. 297. Davenport v. City Bank of Buffalo. See. Bank Comm'rs v. Bank of Buffalo. v. Ferris, 6 Johns. 131. Applied (Set- ting aside default) in Security Bank ». Bank of Commonwealth, 2 Hun, 287, 292. v. Gilbert, 4 Bosw. 532. Further decis- ion in 6 Id. 179. v. Ludlow. See Ward v. Wordsworth. - — v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 536. Aff'd in 67 If. Y. 456. v. Ruckraan, lOBosw. 20 ; s. c. 10 Abb. Pr. "341. Aff'd in 37 If. Y. 568. See Mc- Ginity ®. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Mayor, &c of N. Y. v. Furze; Rochester White Lead Co. ®. City of Rochester. Decision in 37 If. Y. applied (Liability of municipal corporation for injury caused by excavation in highway) in Wendell ®. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 568 ; Wilson v. City of Water- town, 3 Hun, 512; Hume o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 74 N. Y. 270. Disting'd in Hartford & N. Y. Steamboat Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 12 Hun, 554. Disapproved in Detroit®. Blakeby, 21 Mich. 84 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 455. Applied (Contributory negligence in one in- jured in street) in Healy v. Mayor, . Mtna, Ins. Co., 13 Me. 265; s. c, z9 Am. Dec. 505. Davrley v. Brown, 9 Hun, 461. Rev'd in 79 K. Y. 390. Former decision in 65 Barb. 107. Decision in 79 F Y. explained and applied (Prior action a bar only as to points necessarily passed on therein) in Masten v. Olcott, 24 Hun, 587, 589. Quoted in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 635. Dis- ting'd (Effect of a/tornment made in refer- ence to proceedings that are afterward set aside) in Ross v. Kernan, 31 Hun, 164. v. , 43 How. Pr. 22. Discussed (Ejectment — writ of possession) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Lands, § 568. Dawson v. Coles. See Andrews ». Beecker. v. Horan, 51 Barb. 459. Approved and followed, notwithstanding Baxter v. Putney, 37 How. Pr. 140 (Constitutionality of laws enlarging jurisdiction of justices) in Knight v. Campbell, 62 Barb. 16. v. Kittle, 4 Hill, 107; s. c, 15 IT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 761, with note. Followed (Evidence of meaning of words " on freight") in Outwater v. Nelson, 20 Barb. 31. Cited as authority in Stoney v. Farmers' Transp. Co., 17 Ilun, 582. Explained in Lawrence v. Gallagher, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 321. Examined with other caiies in Walls v. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464, 475. — - v. People, 5 Park. 118. Aff'd in 25 K Y. 399. Decision in 5 Park, re- viewed with other eases (Bills of exceptions and writs of error, and return thereto) in Manke v. People, 74 N. Y. 420. Followed in Woodiu i>. People, Hun, 654. Decision in 25 N. Y. doubted (Fatality of duplicity in iudictment) in Polinski «. People, 73 Id. 65, 72. Disting'd in Pontius v. People, 82 Id. 339, 345. Day, Matter of, 1 Bradf. 476. Followed with Matter of Diez, 50 JV. Y. 88 (Validity of joint will) in Betts v. Harper, 39 Ohio St. 639; s. c, 48 Am. R. 477. Reviewed with other cases in Schumaker v. Schmidt, 44 Ala. 454; s. c, 4 Am,. R. 135, 138. Day v. Alverson, 9 Wend. 223. Examined with Jackson v. Denison, 4 Id. 558: Jack- , ..son v. Colo, 4 Cow. 587 (Title sufficient to 208 DAY— DEAN. Sustain ejectment) in Mt. Sterling v. Givcns, 17 III. 255. v. Brooklyn City R. B. Co., 12 Hun, 435. Aff'd, it seems, in 76 If. Y. 593, but without opinion. v. Crossinan, 1 Hun, 570. For authori- ties cited by counsel, see s. c, 4 Stip'm. Ct. [T. & 0.) 122. v. Hammond, 57 X. Y. 479. Approved (Setting aside of award, on what principle based) in Pross ». Bradstreet, 9 Cin. L. Bui. 244. Compare (Calling in umpire) Code Oh. Pro. § 2367. Compare (Waiver of oath) Id. § 2369. v. Leal, 14 Johns. 404; s. c, 5 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 916, with brief note. Followed (Obligation taken as security for and not in satisfaction of a debt) in Weakly i>. Bell, 9 Watts {Pa.) 273; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 116, 122, with note. — — v. Lee, 52 How. Pr. 95 ; s. c. as People ex rel. Day v. Jones, 1 Abb. If. C. 172. v. Major, &c. of N. ¥., 6 Hun, 92. Bev'd in 66 If. Y. 592. v. Mooney, 4 Hun, 134. Beported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 382. Followed (As- sumption of mortgage) in Best v. Brown, 25 Hun, 223. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 548. Further decision in 53 Id. 250, which was rev'd in 5 1 If. Y. 583. Also further decis- ion in 22 Hun, 412. Decision in 51 If. Y. discussed (Statute of frauds — verbal con- tract — partial performance) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 122 a, 4 ed. • v. Pool, 63 Barb. 506. Aft'd in 52 K Y. 416; s. c, 11 Am. R. 719. See Hargous v. Stone ; Reed v. Randall ; Voorhees v. Karl. Decision in 52 If. Y. applied (Buyer's rem- edy on warranty) in Nichols v. Townsend, 7 Hun, 378 ; - Parks v. Mortis Ax & Tool Co., 54 If. Y. 591; Dounce v. Dow, 57 Id. 22 ; Gurney v. Atlantic, &c. R'y Co., 58 Id. 365 ; Marcus v. Thoruton, 44 Super. Ct. (J. SS.) 415; Smith v. Holbrook, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 481. Followed and Reed v. Randall, 29 If. Y. 358, approved in Kent v. Friedman, 17 Weekly Dig. 484. Disting'd in Dounce v. Dow, 64 If. Y. 416. Disting'd as inapplicable to contract for labor procured by illegal combination, — in People v. Stephens, 51 How. Pr. 250. Com- pare Gaylord Manuf. Co. ■». Allen, 53 If. Y. 515. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 626 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.); 2 Id. § 1356, n. 11. Quoted (Sale by sample) in 2 Id. § 977, n. 29. Disting'd (What constitutes express warranty) in Cahen v. Piatt, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 490. v. Eoth, 18 K Y. 448. See Witzel v. Chapin. Applied (Resulting trust created by one person taking deed to land paid for by another) in Fairchild v. Fairchild. 5 Hun, 412, which was aff d in 64 K Y. 477, which see; Siemoni). Schurck, 18 Id. 612. Applied (Informal agreement creating trust) in Neilly Neilly, 23 Hun, 653. Examined with other cases (Substituted agreement, as satisfac- tion of prior demand) in dissenting opinion of Mullen, J., in Ohbo;n v. Robbi'ns, ;!7 Barb. 490. Disting'd in Clapp v. Hawlcy, 09 If. Y. 526. Explained in 2 Chitty on Conlr. 1126, n. a, 11 Am. ed. v. Saunders, 3 If eyes, 347. Misreported. See opinion of court in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 495. Applied (Surrender of paper, whether due or overdue, as creating holder for value) in Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 56 How. Pr. 496, which was rev'd in 81 If. Y. 223, which see. Applied in Pratt v. Coman, 37 Id. 442 ; Clothier e. Adr.ance, 51 Id. 322, 327. Explained and followed in Powers ». Free- man, 2 Lam. 127. V. Stone, 5 Daly, 353; s. c, more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 137. v. U. S. Car Spring Co., 2 Duer, 608. Compare (Jurisdiction over foreign corpora! ions Code Civ. Pro. §§ 263, 204, 1780. Dayton v. Borst. 7 Bosw. 115. Aff'd in 31 If. Y. 435. See Mann v. Pentz; Spears. Crawford. Decision in 31 If. Y. dir'.ing'd (Liability for amount unpaid on stock) in Wintringham v. Rosenthal, 25 Hun, 580, 582. Followed (Right of receiver of foreign corporation to sue for unpaid subscriptions) in Winans v. M> Kean R. R. & Nav. Co., 6 Blatchf. C. Ct. 215 223 v. Johnson, 69 If. Y. 419. Disting'd (Proper plaintiff in action on official bond) in People ex rel. Becar v. Strulleiv 16 Hun, 234. Compare Code Git. Pro. §§ 1880- 1890, 2607-2609, 3347, subd. 11. t. Tillon, 1 Robt. 21. Collated with Bunn «. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. 329, and other cases (What constitutes " furniture ") in 47 Am. R. 197, n. v. Trull, 23 Wend. 345. Included (Debt— note or bill taken for) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 250. v. Wilkes, 17 How. Pr. 510. Followed (Injunction to restrain publication of paper) in Pratt «. Underwood, 4 Civ. Pro. S. (Browne) 167. Discussed (Partnership- good will) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 117, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. De Agreda v. Mantel, 1 Abb. Pr. 130. See (Entry of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1354, n. Deal v. Maxwell, 51 If. Y. 652. Explained (Sales — agreements for work and labor, distinguished from) in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. y (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Dean, Matter of, 86 If. Y. 398. Applied (Commissions of assignees, &c.) and Cox v. Schermerhorn, 18 Hun, 16, disting'd in Matter of.. Fulton, 30 Id. 258. Discussed (Assignment for benefit of creditors— as- signee carrying on business) in Burrill on, Assign. § 397, 4 ed. Dean v. .Etna Life Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 358; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 497; less fully in 48 How. Pr. 36. Rev'd in 62 N. 7. 642. Decision in 62 N. Y. disting'd (Waiver of condition in insurance policy) in Marvin s. Universal Life Ins. Co., 16 Hun, 494. DEAN- DECKER. 209 V. Be Wolf, 16 Hun, 186. Afi'd in 82 J/". Y. 626. See Aiken v. Wasson. T. Eldridge, 2. Pr. 218. Approved (Action against joint debtors) in Lane v. Salter, 51 N. Y. 1. T. Gridley, 10 Wend. 254. Explained (Bill of exceptions) in Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S. 333, 359. Y. Hall, 17 Wend. 214. -See Brush v. Reeves ; Herriek v. Carman ; Mitchell v. Culver; Packer v. Willson. Explained (Liability of one indorsing note before de- livery to payee) in Phelps v. Vischer, 50 N. Y. 69. Collated with Richards v. War- ring, 1 Reyes, 576 ; Cromwell v. Hewitt, 40 N. Y. 491; Phelps «. Vischer, 50 Id. 69; Seabury v. Hungerford, 2 Hill, 80 ; Hall i>. Newcomb, 7 Id. 416, and other cases from N. Y. and elsewhere, and criticised and dis- approved in so far at they distinguish be- tween negotiable and non-negotiable paper, in Rothschild v. Grix, 31 Mich. 100; s. c, 18 Am. R. 171, 174. Cited and approved in Bright v. Carpenter, 9 Ohio, 139; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 432, with note. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 401. v. Hewitt. See Van Keuren v. Par- melee. v. Mace, 19 Hun, 391. Followed (En- forcing liability of stockholder — judgment, where to be obtained) in Viele v. Wells, 9 Abb. N. C. 277, 279. T. Pitts, 10 Johns. 35. See Danforth v. Culver. Reviewed with Danforth v. Culver, 11 Johns. 146, and other cases (Sufficient acknowledgment to take debt out of stat- ute of limitations) in Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. {Mass.) 368; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 437, 441, with note. Followed with Johnson v. Beardslee, 15 Johns. 3, in Beitz v. Fuller, 1 McGord (5. 0.) 541; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 693, with note. v. Thornton, 13 N. Y. 266. Approved (One defendant testifying as to matter which would exonerate both) in Hall ». Nash, 11 Ind. 34. Deane v. O'Brien, 13 Abh. Pr. 11. Applied (Amendment that removes bar of statute of limitations) in Hatch v. Central Nat'l Bk., 78 N. Y. 487, 490. Disting'd with Hatch v. Central Nat'l Bk., in Greene v. Martinc, 27 Hun, 246. De Augelis, Matter of, 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 476. See (Superior city courts) Code Gio. Pry. § 268. Deansville Cemetery Association, Matter of, 5 Hun, 482. Rev'd in 63 N. Y. 569 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 86. With decision in 06 N. Y. see cases cited (Public use' of private property) in 24 Am. R. 564, n. Dearborn v. Cross, 7 Cow. 48. See Fleming v. Gilbert ; Keating v. Price ; Lattimore v. Harsen. Explained as not authority, with Lattimnre v. Harsen, 14 Johns. 330 (Written contract modified by parol contract) in Allen v. Jaquish, 21 Wend. 628. See also Eddy v. Graves, 23 Id. 62. ' Disting'd as inapplicable Vol. I.— 14 in Richardson v. Johnson, 41 Wis. 100; s. c, 22 Am. R. 712, 714. v. Kent, li Wend. 184. Overruled (At- tacking declaration on demurrer te replica- tion) in Auburn Canal Co. ■». Leitch, 4 Den. 65. Dcas v. Wandell, 3 Sup'm. Cl. (T. & C.) 128; mem. s. c, 1 Hun, 120. Aff'd, it seems, in 59 N. Y. 636, but without opinion. Decision in 59 N. Y. applied (Evidence of undue in- fluence on testator) in Tucker v. Field, 5 Eedf. 139, 177. Disting'd in Van Kleeck v. Phipps, 4 Id. 99, 131. De Bary v. Stanley, 48 How. Pr. 349 ; s. c, more fully, 5 Daly, 412. De Baun v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 16 Barb. 392. Dissenting opinion in 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 396. See Adriance v. Same; Christophers. Same. De Beerske v. Paige, 47 Barb. 172. Aff'd in 36 JV. Y. 537. De Bow v. People, 1 Den. 9. See People v. Supervisors of N. Y. ; Purdy v. People ; Thomas v. Dakin. Overruled (Validity of general banking law) in Gifford v. Livings- ton, 2 Den. 380. So referred to in Leavitt i). Yates, 4 Edw. 177. Examined (Non- existent corporation not subject to be de- frauded) in Noakes «. People, 25 N. Y. 387, which afTd 5 Pari. 298, which see. Dis- ting'd in People v. Chadwick, 2 Id. 164. Applied (Conclusiveness of enrolled bill, as law) in People d. Comm'rs of Highways of Marlborough, 54 K Y. 279. Criticised and disting'd in State v. Swift, 10 Nev. 176; s. c, 21 Am. R 727. Disting'd in Mayor of Annapolis v. Harwood, 32 Md. 471 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 161. De Bussierre v. Holladay, 4 Abb. K G. 121. Approved (Whatis jurisdiction) in Monarque ». Monarque, 19 Hun, 332. Compare (Juris- diction to set aside will) Eedf. Surr. Pr. 357, n. 2. De Camp v. Eveland. See Thomas v. Dakin. De Caters v. Lo Ray De Chaainont, 3 Paige, 178. Previous decision in 2 Id. 490. De- cision in 3 Id. followed (Trustee not to purchase trust property) in Terwilliger v. Brown. 59 Barb. 9. Decision in 2 Paige, re- viewed at length with Searing v. Brinkerhoff, 5 Johns. Gli. 332; Hvslop ». Clark, 14 Johns. 458; Austin ». Bellj 20 Id. 442; Mackic v. Cairns, 5 Goto. 580 (Validity of assignment containing provision for release by assenting creditors) in AtkiDson v. Jordan, 5 Ohio, 293; s. c, 24 Am., Dec. 281, 287, with note. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 477, 4ed. Decker v. Boice, 19 Htm, 152. Aff'd in 83 A 7 : Y. 215. Decision in 83 N. Y. explained and followed (Mortgage and assignment) in Smyth v. Knickerbocker Life ln3. Co., 84 Id. 589, 593. With decision in 19 Hun, compare (Parties entitled to notice of sale of mortgaged premises; Gode Civ. Pro. § 2388, subd. 4. v. Fnrniss, 3 Duer, 291. Rev'd in 14 N. Y. 611. Decision in 14 N. Y. followed 210 DECKER— DE FOREST. (Executed and executory contract) in Spring- steen v. Samson, 32 Id. 703. r. Gardiner, 8 N. Y. 29. Applied (Costs in case of two or more defendants) , to action on contract, in Corbett v. Ward, 3 Bosw. 632, 633. Superseded in Allis i\ Wheeler, 56 JST. Y. 50. v. Gay lord, 8 Hun, 110. Disting'd (Continuance of liability of surety on re- newal of lease) in Knowles v. Cuddeback, 19 Id. 590. Disting'd (Joinder of actions) in Harris ,t. Eldridge, 9 Abb. N. O. 278, 280. v. Judson, 16 XT. Y. 449. Disting'd (Release of surety by entry of judgment against co-surety) in Waggoner v. Walrath, 24 Hun, 443, 445. Applied (Meaning of words "color of office") in Kelly v. Mc- Cormick, 28 JST. Y. 321; Richardson v. Crandall, 30 How. Pr. 141. Cited as au- thority (Effect of judgment against principal or surety) in Miller v. White, 50 N. Y. 142. Applied (Estoppel of surety in undertaking in replevin) in Harrison v. Wilkin, 69 Id. 418. v. Livingston, 15 Johns. 479. See Austin v. Hall; Rawson v. Adams; Sherman «. Ballou. Explained (Diverse actions by- tenants in common for rent) in Sherman v. Ballou, 8 Cow. 308. v. Matthews, 5 Sand/. 493. Aff'd in 12 N. Y. 313. Decision in 12 N. Y. applied (Action for conversion of chose in action) in Carver v. Creque, 46 Barb. 513, which was aff'd in 48 JV. Y. 389, which see. Applied (Action by maker of note not enforceable by payee but transferred to bona fide holder) in Newell v. Gregg, 51 Barb. 266. Explained and applied in Thayer v. Manley, 8 Han, 551. Applied to action by creditor who has been fraudulently induced to compromise, . in Whiteside v. Hyman, 10 Id. 221. Ap- plied . (Property in instrument before its inception) in De Silver v. Holden, 50 Super. Ct.(J. & 8.) 236. Followed (Damages in action for conversion of note) in Potter v. Merchants' B'k, 28 N. Y. 655; Thayer v. Manley, 73 Id. 308. v. Saltzman, 1 Hun, 421 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 589. AfTd in 59 N. Y. 275. See Patrick v. Metcalf. Decouche v. Savetier, 3 Johns. Ch. 190; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 478, n. Overruled (Ap- plication of statute of limitations to express trusts) in Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Oh. 125. i Reviewed at length and results approved with Coster ' v. Murray, 5 Id. 522; 20 Johns. 285; Kane e. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. 90, in App v. Dreisbach, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 287; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 447, 450, with note. Commented on in Ang. on Limit. § 167, 6 ed. Said not to have been followed to the full extent of its doctrine (Lex loci governing marriage contract) in 8 Am. Dec. 490, n. followed in Bonati v. Welsch, • 24 AT. Y. 157. Referred to in Tyler on Inf. & Con. 2 ed., § 323, as laying down a doctrine that has been often con- firmed both in this country and in England. Quoted (Bankruptcy — distinction between right and remedy) in 3 Pars, on Contr. 437, n. I. De Conrcy v. Stewart, 20 Hun, 561. Com- pare (Jurisdiction of actions for injuries to land without the State) 22 Alb. L. J. 47, 119, 147, 219. Dederich t. McAllister, 4 Hun, 670. Re- ported in 49 How. Pr. 351. Dederick v. Richley, 19 Wend. 108. Applied (Reference — where only allowed) in Mc- Master v. Booth, 4 How. Pr. 427 ; Dewey v. Field, 13 Id. 437, 439; Ross v. Major, &o. of N. Y., 32 Id. 164; De Graffs. MacKinley, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 203, 207. Applied (Compulsory reference) in Turner r. Taylor; 2 Daly, 282 ; Townsend v. Hendricks, 40 How. Pr. 162. Applied (Application of statute limiting time within "which to set aside judgment for irregularity) in Bonnell v. Henry, 13 How. Pr. 145. Dedien v. People, 22 K Y. 178. Examined, and in general approved (Conviction of offense for lesser degree than set forth in indictment) in Kecfe ». People, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 76. Followed (What constitutes dwelling within statute of arson) in Levy v. People, 19 Hun, 383, 387, which was affd in 80 XT. Y. 327, which see. Deering, Matter of, 55 How. Pr. 296. The "Matter of Deering",in which a decision is noted in 21 Hun, 618, and which wasrev'd in C. of App. in Apr. 1881, was a different case. Deering v. Metcalf, 74 W. Y. 501. See Dering v. Metcale. Cited as authority (Testimony of witness, when not to be dis- regarded) in Moett v. People, 85 iV. Y. 373, 378. De Fonclear v. Shottenkirk, 3 Johns. 170. Approved (What words will make contract of sale) in Chapman r. Campbell, 13 Oratt. ( Ya.) 105. De Forest v. Farley, 4 Hun, 640; affd, it seems, in 62 K Y. 028. Decision in 02 N. Y. disting'd (Validity of objection to title of purchaser at judicial sale) in Muller v. Struppman,6 Abb. K C. 343, 348. v.Frary, 6 Cow. 151. Disting'd (Ne- cessity of certainty of time of payment of negotiable note) in Charlton v. Reed, 01 Iowa, 106; s. c, 47 Am. li. 808. v. Fulton las. Co., 1 Hall, 84. Cited as authority (Damages for negligence of agi j nt to insure) in Beardsley ». Davis, 52 Barb. 160. Applied (Insurable interest in agents in Kline v. Queen Ins. Co., 7 Hun, 271 ; Sturm e. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 63 K Y. 80, which affd 33 Super. Ut.iJ. & &■) 302, which see. Applied to administrator— in Herkimer v. Rice, 27 Id. 179. To carrier in Van JSuitta v. Mut. Security Ins. Co., 2 Sandf. 494. To creditor in Rolirbach «. ^Etna Ins. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 344. To assignee for creditors,— in Whites. Hud- son River Ins. Uo., 7 How. Pr. 347. Applied (Provision in tire policy for insurance of DE FOKEST— DELAFIELD. 211 property held "in trust," " on commission," &c.) in Stilwell e. Staples, 6 Duer, 66, which was rev'd in 19 N. Y. 404, which see. Examined in Lee •». Adsit, 37 Id. 90. Reviewed with Stillwell v. Staples, 19 Id. 401 ; Waring v. Fire Ins. Co., 45 Id. 606, and other cases in Lucas v. Ins. Co., 23 W. Va. 258 ; s. c, 48 Am. Ii. 383. Discus- sed and compared in 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 662. Discussed in 3 Kent. Com. 371. Cited in.Whart. Com. on Ag. \ 204. T. Jewett, 19 Bun, 509. Further decis- ion in 23 Hun, 490, which was affd in 88 N. Y. 264. See Wright o. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. Leete, 16 Johns. 122. Disting'd (Traversing allegation of special damage) in Thompson v. Lumley, 7 Daly, 74, 77. Defreeze v. Trumper, 1 Johns. 274 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 329 ; 3 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 139, with note. See Seixas v. Woods. Disting'd (Damages for breach of warranty of title to personal property) in O'Brien v. Jones, 91 If. Y. 193. Quoted and explained in I Pars, on Oontr. 575, n. e; 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1062, n. 3. De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 65 N. Y. 232. See Breasted v. Farmers" Loan & Trust Co. Recognized as authority (Effect of self-destruction on right to recover on life policy) in Supreme Commandery Knights Golden Rule n. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436; s. c, 46 Am. R. 332. De Graaf y. Teerpenning, 52 How. Pr. 313. Rev'd as De Groff v. Terpenning, 14 Hun, 301. De Graff v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 3 Sutfm. Ct. {T. & C.) 255. Further decision on appeal after second trial in 76 If. Y. 125. See Warner v. Erie R'y. Co. Decision in 76 N. Y. disting'd (Evidence of negligence in not furnishing suitable machinery) in Jones »). N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 364; Kain v. Smith, 25 hi 140, 149; Brann v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 53 Iowa, 595; s. c, 36 Am. R. 243, 245. Reviewed wi(jh other cases, in Ballou ». Chicago & N. W. R'y Co., 54 Wise. 266. De Graw v. Elmore, 50 N. Y. 1. Applied (No recovery as on contract, where complaint shows cause of action in tort) in Berriau v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 15 Abb. Pr. M. S. 209; People v. Denison, 19 Hun, 147. Applied to recovery for tort, in Beard i>. Yates, 2 Id. , 467. Disting'd in Graves v. Waite, 59 N. Y. 162. See to the contrary, Code Civ. Pro. § 529. See also Abb. Tr. Eh. 285. Cited as authority (Action founded on deceit or fraud, when not maintainable) in Indiana- polis, P. & C. R. R. Co. i). Tyng, 2 Hun, 320. De Groff v. American Linen Thread Co., 24 Barb. 375. Rev'd in 21 If. Y. 124. With decision in 21 If. Y. see for a stricter rule (Burden of proof as to corporate acts) People ex rel. Town of Rochester v. Dcyoo, 2 Sufim. Ct. (T. & C.) 142. See also Abb. Tr, En. 36. Quoted and collated with other cases {Ultra tires— completed contract) in Field on Ultra Vires, 185. De Groot v. Jay, 30 Barb. 483; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 364. Quoted (Receiver— permission to sue) in High on Receiv. § 254, n. 1. v. Van Dnzer, !7 Wend. 170. Rev'd in 20 [d. 390. See Thallhimer v. Brincker- hoff. Decision in 20 Wend, questioned (Ef- fect of knowledge by vendor of purchaser's intent) in Wallace i>. Lark, 12 S. C. 576 ; s. c, 32 Am. 72. 516. Approved (Invalidity of contract to enable one to break the law) in. Waterman on Sp. Per/. § 217, n. De Grove v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 61 If. Y. 594; s. c, 19 Am. R. 305, with note. De Hart v. Hatch, 3 Hun, 875. Explained (Removal of cause to Marine Court) in Heath i>. Hubbell, 6 Daly, 183. Deidericks v. Commercial Ins. Co., 10 Johns. 234. Followed (Severability of contract of insurance) in Merrill v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 452, 460. De Jonge v. Goldsmith, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 131. Aff'd, it seems, in 86 If. Y. 614, on opinion in Brumrner v. Cohn, Id. 11. De Kay v. Irving, 5 Den. 646. Applied (Ef- fect of lawful provision in will connected with illegal direction) in Williams «. Wil- liams, 8 If. Y. 539; Post ». Hover, 33 Id. 598; Oxley v. Lane, 35 Id. 349; Matter of Ruppert, Tuck. 490. Disting'd (Suspension of power of alienation) in Provost v. Provost, 70 If. 7. 145. Applied (Provision in will, invalid as trust, but valid as power) in Manice v. Manice, 43 Id. 364. Delacroix v. Biilkley, 13 Wend. 71. Applied (Sealed contract, as affected by subsequent parol agreement) in French v. New, 20 Barb. 492, which was rev'd in 28 If. Y. 150, which see;. Townsend v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 6 Duer, 214; Allen v. Jaquish, 21 Wend. 032 ; Lynch v. McBeth, 7 How. Pr. 120. Relied on in dissenting opinion of Gridlcy, J.,- in Pierrepont ». BaTnard, 6 If. Y. 290. Disting'd in Friess v. Rider, 24 Id. 309 ; Jonks ». Robertson, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 257. Cited as authority in Dodge fl. Craudall, 30 N. Y. 307 ; Clough v. Mur- ray, 3 Robt. 18; Hart v. Brady, 1 Sand/. 627. Dclaficld v. De Grauw, 9 Bosw. 1. Aft'd in 3 Reyes, 467; a. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 500. v. Hand, 3 Johns. 310. Disting'd as relating to the adjudications of foreign municipal courts, and Gardere ». Columbian Ins. Co., 7 Id. 510, as a case where the question was waived, — (Effect of seal of court of admiralty) in Thompson v. Stewart, 3 Conn. 171; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 168. v. Parish, 1 lied/. 1. Aff'd in 25 If. Y. 9. Report in 25 2f. Y. corrected in 1 Red/. 204, n. See Culver v. Haslam; Stewart v. Lispenard. Opinion of Sup'm. Ct. is in 42 Barb. 274. Decision in 25 If. Y. explained in reference to principle laid down in Stewart v. Lispenard, 26 Wend. 255, and approved as a safe and reliable guide (Testa- mentary capacity) in Ean v. Snyder, 46 Barb. 212 DELAFIELD- DELANO. 230. Followed as decisive with Van Guys- ling v. Van Kuren, 83 Nl. Y 70 ; Tyler v. Gardiner, Id. 559, in Kinne v. Johnson, 00 Barb. 69. Applied in Van Guysling v. Van Kuren, 35 N~. Y. 74; Mairs ■n. Freeman, 3 Redf. 198; Harper i>. Harper, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T & C.) 358. Followed and explained in Legg v. Myer, 5 Redf. 028. Examined in dissenting opinion of Potter, J., in Ncxsen ». Nexsen, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 308. Com- mented on and- quoted in Ewell Lead. Cas. on Inf, &c. 656. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Band. & T. ed. 69, n. 10. Included in Redf. Lead. Cas. on Wills, 158. Cited as authority (Undue influence on testator) in Marvin . Dean, 13 Johns. .105 ; and Dimmick v. Lockwood fol- lowed in Foote o. Burnett, 10 Ohio, 317; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 90, 93, with note. Ap- plied to breach of covenant to convey, — in Baldwin v. Munn, 2 Wend. 406. v. Noxon, 14 Johns. 333. Explained (Settlement of bastards) in Overseers of Canajoharie v. Overseers of Johnstown 17 Id. 41. Delavigue v. United Ins. Co., 1 Johns. Cas. 310; s. c, 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 335, with citation of cases in support. Delaware v. Ensign, 21 Barb. 85. Considered with Dutcher v. Swartwood, 15 Hun, 31 ; Parshall «. Eggert, 54 N.. Y. 18, — citing also cases in Wis., Minn, and Cal. (Fraud in mortgage not cured as against creditors by taking actual possession) in Wells ». Lang- bein, U. S. Cir. Ct. W. D. Iowa, 20 Fed. Rep. 183, 186. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., Matter of, 3 Weekly Dig. 232. Appeal dismissed in 69 JT.- Y. 209. Decision in 69 N. Y. applied (Review of action of commissioners in con- demnation proceedings) in Matter of Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 85 Id. 489, 498. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Dubois, 15 Wend. 87. Examined with other cases (Effect of agreements to arbitrate) in Dela- ware & Hud. Canal Co. v. Pa. Coal Co.. 50 N. Y. 250, 264. v. Lawrence, 2 Hun, 163. Affd in 56 N. Y. 612, on opinion below without further opinion. Decision in 2 Hun cited as settled law (Water rights) in Peoples. Stateu Island Ferry Co., 7 Id. 112. Decision in 9 A 7 ". Y. discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 492. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 50 K Y. 250. Previous decision as Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Delaware & Hud. Canal Co., in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 470. See Larkin v. Robbins. Decision in 50 N. Y. applied (Effect of agreement to arbitrate) in Altaian ' v. Altaian, 5 Daly, 437 ; Whiteman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Hun, 117, 121. Disting'd in Gibbs v. Continental ins. Co., 13 Id. 611, 610; Mark v. National Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y., 24 Id. 565, 56S. Followed in Weeks v. Little, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1, 10, in preference to Hurst v. Litchfield, 39 A 7 ". Y. 377. Examined with other cases, in 16 Alb. L. J. 464. Collated with other cases, in 29 Am. R. 602, n. Cited and fol- lowed in Holmes v. Richet, 56 Cal. 307; s. c, 38 Am. R. 54. Approved in Hudson v. McCartney, 33 Wis. 331, 345. Cited and followed in Perkins ». U. S. Electric Light Co., U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. Y, 15 Reporter, 680. Delaware Bit. v. Jarvis, 20 A 7 ". Y. 226. See Case v. Hall; Elwood v. Diefendorf. Dis- ting'd and limited (Warranty on transfer of note) in Littauer v. Goldman, 72 N~. Y. 510, which rev'd 9 Hun, 232, which see. Fol- lowed in Fake v. Smith, 7 Abb. Pr. K S. 106, 118 ; Whitney v. National Bank of Potsdam, 45 A 7 . Y. 305; Morford v. Davis, 28 Id. 485; Bell v. Dagg, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 625. Cited in Challiss t>. McCrum, 22 Kans. 157; s. c, 31 Am. R. 181, as applic- able to case of indorsement without recourse. Disting'd (Recovery over of expense incur- red in attempting to enforce obligation) in Weston v. Chamberlain, 56 Barb. 424. Delaware, Lackawanna. &c. R. R. Co v. Downs, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 126. Rev'd in 58 N. Y. 573. Decision in 58 N. Y. disting'd (Excusing performance of con- tract) in Kemp v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 51 How. Pr. 36, which was rev'd in 69 A 7 ". Y. 56, which see; Booth v. Cleveland Mill Co., 74 Id. 22. Delcomyn t. Chamberlain. 48 How. Pr. 409. Affd in 39 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 359. With decision in 48 How. Pr. compare (Costs of commission). Code Civ. Pro. § 3256. De Llamosas v. De Llamosas, 2 Hun, 380; s. c. as Llamosas v. Llamosas, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 574. Appeal dismissed as De Llamosas -o. ' Llamosas in 02 N. Y. 618. Decision in 62 A 7 ! Y. explained (Orders reviewable on appeal) in Collins 1>. Collins, 10 Hun, 272, 277. Delmonico v. Griiillaume, 2 Sandf. Ch. 366. Followed (Title of heir of deceased partner to real property of firm) in Andrews' Heirs v. Brown, 21 Ala. 437; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 252; Shanks ». Klein, 104 U.S. 18, 23. Opinion of Assistant V. C. quoted in 1 Pars, on Contr. 150, n. h. v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 1 Sandf. 222. See Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Bailey; Rochester White Lead Co. i. City of Rochester. Cited (Liability of municipal corporation for fail- ure to perform its duties) in Gilman v. Laconia, 55 A 7 ". H. 130; s. c, 20 Am. R. 175, 182. Compared (Negligence of con- . tractor) in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 359. Dclonsruemare v. Tradesmen's Ins. Co., 10 214 DE MARCELLIN— DEMPSEY. Johns. 120. See Fowler v. iEtna Fire Ins. Co. Followed (Marine policy covering risks in port) in Bradley v. Nashville Ids. Co., 3 La. Ann. 708; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 465, with note. Cited as authority (Arrival at port of discharge) and Dickie v. United Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 358 disting'd in Bramhall v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 104 Mass. 510; s. c, 6 Am. R. 261. De Marcellin, Matter o'.", 4 Bed/. 299. Affd, in effect, in 24 Hun, 207. Demurest v. Daig, 11 Abb. Pr. 9. Affd, as Demarest v. Darg, 32 2f. Y. 281 ; s. c, less fully, 29 How. Pr. 266. See Hess v. Beek- man. Decision in 32 IT. Y. followed with Brown v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 66 Id. 391 (Effect of summary proceeding as conclusive adjudication) in Leavitt v. Wolcott, 95 Id. 212. Followed in Brown v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 66 Id. 391. Applied in Riuehart v. Young, 2 Lans. 359. Recognized but disting'd in People v. Eddy, 57 Barb, 602. Disting'd • in Gillilan v. Spratt, 3 Daly, 445 ; People ex rel. Wilbur v. Eddy, 3 Lans. 82. Applied in action on recognizance, — in People v. Smith, 51 Barb. 364. Applied to proceedings by debtor for discharge, — in Matter of Thomas, 10 Abb. Pr. JX~. S. 116; Matter of Roberta, 10 Hun, 253, 255. Applied (Who bound by judgment) in Bush v. Knox, 2 Hun, 579. t. Haring 1 . See Gibbs v. Dewey. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 11 Hun, 19. Affd in 74 N-. Y. 161. T. Wickham, 67 Barb. 312; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 627. Affd in 63 K Y. 320, without passing on point here raised. v. Willard, 8 Cow. 206. Applied (Rent when not passing by assignment of rever- sion) in Burden v. Thayer, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 76; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 117, 120, with note. Cited in Beal v. Boston Spring Car Co., 125 Mass. 157; s. c, 28 Am. E. 216. v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. 129: s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 467. See Pratt v. Huggius. Relied on (Wife's power to mortgage her separate property) in Hollis v. Francois, 5 Tex. 195; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 760, 766, with note, which was followed oh this point, in Sampson v. Williamson, 6 Tex. 102; s. c, 55 Am. R. 762, 765, with note. Followed (Statute of limitations — cumulative disabil- ities) in Cozzens v. Farnan, 30 Ohio St. 491 ; s. c, 27 Am. P. 470, 473; Dugan v. Git- tings, 3 Gill (Md.) 138; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 306, 315, with note; McDonald «. Hovey, 110 C. 8. 623; Thompson v. Smith, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 209; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 453. Explained (Disabilities in respect to real property) in Ang. on Limit. §§ 479, 480, 485, 6 ed. Applied (Construction of statute of limitations) in Ten Eyck v. Wing, 1 Mich. 42. De Mets v. Dagron, 53 N. Y. 635. Applied (Authority of attorney employed to collect debt) in Herriman v. Shoman, 24 Kans. 387. Deming, Matter of, 10 Johns. 232. Limited (Effect of executive pardon) in Matter of , an Attorney, 86 N. Y. 563, 569. Doming v. Bailey, 10 Bosw. 258. Further decision in 2 Robt. 1. v. Colt, 3 Sandf. 284. Collated* with Hayes v. Heyer, Id. 293 ; Havens v. IIu9sey, 5 Paige, 30; Fisher v. Murray, 1 E.D. Smith, 341 ; Wetter v. Schliepcr, 4 Id. 707; Kimball v. Hamilton, 8 Bosw. 495; Kelly®. Baker, 2 Hilt. 531 ; Haggerty ». Granger, 15 How. Pr. 243; Paton v. Wight, 15 Id. 481; Pet- tee v. Orser, 18 Id. 442; Welles v. March, 30 JV. Y. 344; Coope v. Bowles, 42 Barb. 88, and authorities from other States (Power of partner to make assignment for benefit of creditors) in 22 Am. L. Reg. 38. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 79, 4 ed. v. Kemp. 4 Sandf. 147. See Seymour v. Davis. Explained (Making parol contract valid, by subsequent acts) jn Boutwell D. O'Keefe. 32 Barb. 434, 437. v. Pnlestou, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 300. Aff'd in 55 N~. Y. 655. Former decision in 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 231. Decision iu 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) followed (Liability of trustees holding over their term) .'u Read t. Keese, 37 Id. 269, 275, which was affd in 60 Hf. Y. 616, which see. Decision in 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) followed (Liability of trustee of manufacturing corporation, when not affected by notes taken by creditor) in Jones v. Barlow, 38 Id. 142, 146, which was rev'd in 62 N. Y. 202, which see. Applied (Effect of judgment against corporation) iu Lewis i). Armstrong, 8 Abb. iV. C. 385, 388. Demott v. Field, 7 Cow. 58. See Austin v. Munro. Cited with other cases (Liability of trust estates on contracts) in 15 Am. L. Reo. 449. v. McMullen, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 335. Criticised (Married woman's liability for debts incurred as agent of husband) in Covert v. Hughes, 8 Hun, 305. Applied with Smith v. Allen, 1 Lans. 101, in Wilson v. Herbert, 12 Vroom (N. J.) 454 ; s. c, 32 Am. B. 243 ; 246. De Mott v. Hagerman, 8 Cow. 220. Reviewed with other cases (Distinction between lease and letting on shares) in Taylor o. Bradley, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 363, 372. Followed in Henderson v. Allen, 23 Cal. 521. Dis- approved (Replevin for crops) in Rowell v. Klein. 44 Ind. 290; s. c, 15 Am. R. 235. v. Laraway, 14 Wend. 225; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 523. Explained (Delivery by carrier) in 1 Chitty on Contr. 702, n. 2, 11 Am. ed. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 183, n. h. y. Starkey, 3 Barb. Ch. 403. Explained (Bona fide purchaser of negotiable paper) in Dows v. Kidder, 84 XT. Y. 121 r 135. Dempsey's Estate, Tuck. 51. See (Retrac- tion of renunciation) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2639, n. Dempssey v. Kipp, 62 Barb. 311. Rev d m 61 K Y. 462, DEMUTH— DENTON". 215 Temnth t. American Institute of N. Y., 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 336. Aft'd in 75 If. Y. 502. Deiiham v. Cornell, 7 Hun, 662. Aff'd in 07 N. Y. 556. Denike v. Harris, 23 Hun, 213. Rev'd in 84 N. Y. 89. — — v. N. Y. & Rosendale Lime, &c. Co., 80 K Y. 599. Relied on (When insol- vent corporation is not to be regarded as dissolved) in Dewey v. St. Albans Trust Co., 56 Vt. 476; s. c, 48 Am. R. 803. Demi v. Cornell, 3 Johns. Gas. 174; s. c, 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 659, with brief note. Cited as authority with Sinclair o. Jackson, 8 Cow. 586; Jackson v. Parkhurst, QWe,.d. 209 (Estoppel by recitals in deeds) in Doe v. Dowdall, 3 Houst. (Del.) 369; s. c, 11 Am. R. 757, 762. Denning v. Corwiii, 11 Wend. 647. See Bloom v. Burdick. Overruled (Judgment of super- ior court void if record does not show juris- diction) in Foot v. Stevens, 17 Wend. 483 ; latter case explained in Hart v. Seixas, 21 Id. 40. V. Roome, 6 Wend. 651; s. c, 10 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1226, with brief note. Cited as authority (Evidence of transactions of public bodies, &c.) in People v. Zeyst, 23 If. Y. 140. 143. Collated with other cases (Highways — dedication) in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 59. v. Smith, 3 Johns. Ch. 332. See Gold- smith v. Osborne. Approved (Special au- thority to be strictly pursued) in Agent of State Prison v. Lathrop, 1 Mich. 443. Dennis v. Cummins, 3 Johns. Cos. 297; s. c, 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 702, with brief note. Reviewed with Spear «. Smith, 1 Den. 464 ; Lampman v. Cochran, 6 If. Y. 275; Bagley v. Peddie, 5 Sand/. 192; 16 If. Y. 469 (Liquidated damages or penalties) in 1 Am. Dec, 331, n. T. Kennedy, 19 Barb. 517. Consult (Voluntary associations) Ebbinghausen -t>. "Worth Club, 4 Abb. If. C. 300. v. Ludlow, 2 Cai. Ill; s. c, 2 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 346, with brief note on being under weigh. v. Ryan, 5 Lans. 350; s. c, more fully, 63 Barb. 145. AfJ'd in 65 If. Y. 385 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 635, with note. Decision in 65 If. Y. approved (Liubility of prosecutor for untrue statements) in 13 Cent. L. J. 262, 266. Explained in Moah's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 165. v. Tarpenny. See Meriara v. Harsen. Dennison v. Collins, 1 Cow. 111. See Brant ». Fowler. See (Costs in justice's courts) Code Cio. Pro. 1881, § 3074, n. v. Ely, 1 Barb. 610. Compare (Effect of cancellation of deed to pass title) in Schutt v. Large, 6 Barb. 373. v. Plumb, 18 Barb. 89. See (Limitation of time within which to sue officer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 385, n. Denniston v. Bacon, 10 Johns. 198; s. c, 4 -If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 996, with brief note. -^— v. N. T. & N. H. R. R. Co., 1 Silt. to. Followed (Citizenship of corporations) in Kranshaar v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 7 Robt. 356. Denny v. Manhattan Co., 2 Den. 115. Aff'd in 5 Id. 639. t. N. Y. Central. Ac. R. R. Co., 5 Daly, 50. Disting'd (Conductor's authority to waive regulation as to "stop over" ticket) in Tarbell v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 24 Hun, 51, 54. v. Smith, 18 N. Y. 567. See Brown o. Delafield. See (Commencement of action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, $ 398, n. Denottback v. Astor, 16 Barb. 412. Aff'd in 13 If. Y. 98. Denston v. Morris. 2 Edw. 37. Affd, it seems, in 3 Ch. Sent. 29, but without opin- ion. Dent t. People, 46 How. Pr. 264. Reviewed with other cases (Return to writ of error) in Manke v. People, 74 IT. Y. 415, 421. v. Watkins, 49 How. Pr. 275. Dis- approved (Indorsement on order of arrest) in Kopelowich v. Kersburg, 13 Hun, 178. Denton v. Denton, 1 Johns. Ch. 364. See Mix 4). Mix. Explained (Alimony pendente lite) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 461, n. 6, 6 ed. v. Jackson, 2 Johns. Ch. 320. See cases collected (Religious societies) in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 346, n. v. Livingston, 9 Johns. 96; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 264. Explained (Private corpora- tion — transfer of stock) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 588, 11 ed. v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 618. Approved (Dower in surplus) in Vartie v. Underwood, 18 Id. 561, 564. Disapproved with Vartie v. Underwood in Newhall v. Lynn Savings Bank, 101 Mass. 432; s. c, 3 Am. R. 389. Explained in 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 295. v. Noyes, 6 Johns. 296; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 237, with note; 4 If. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 131, with "brief note, saying it has been criticised but not overruled. See Adams v. Gilbert; Green o. Beals. Shown to be con- trary to the current of recent American decisions, though not overthrown as an au- thority in N. Y. (Unauthorized appearance by attorney) in 5 Am. Dec. 244, n. Dis- ting'd in Everson «. Gehrman, 1 Abb. Pr. 174; Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 N. Y. 256; Griswold v. Blanchard, 14 How. Pr. 448. Criticised in Williams v. Van Valkenburg, 16 Id. 149. Disapproved in Allen v. Stone, 10 Barb. 550. Applied in Ellsworth ». Campbell, 31 Barb. 137; Bean v. Mather, 1 Daly, 441 ; Sterne v. Bentley, 3 How. Pr. 333; Grazebrook v. McCreedie, 9 Wend. 440. Approved in Bates v. Voorhees, 20 If. Y. 528. Cited as authority in Brown v. Nichols, 9 Abb. Pr. If. S. 12, 26; Acker v. Ledyard, 8 If. Y. 65. Disting'd as inapplic- able to courts not of record, in S perry v. Reynolds, 65 Id. 183. Reviewed, with other cases, in Keith v. Wilson, 6 Mo. 435; s. c, 216 DENVREY— DEPUY; 35 Am. Dee. 443, 445, -with note. Followed and approved in Piggott v. Addicks, 3 0. Greene (Iowa) 427; s. c, 56 Am. Dee. 547; Bunton v. Lyford, 37 JST. H. 514. Followed in Tally v. Reynolds, 1 Arh. 99 ; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 737. 739. Disapproved in Haslet v. Street, 2 McGord (S. C.) 310; s. c, 13 Am. Dee. 724. Doctrine discussed and cases collected in 5 Am. L. Reg. 2f. S. 391. Applied (Averment in judgment — when not conclusive) in Harrod v. Barretto, 2 Hall, 304. Criticised (Relieving party whose rights are concluded by neglect of attorney) in Meacham v. Dudley, 6 Wend. 515. Denvrey v. Fox. See Shepard v. Rowe. Department of Public Parks, Matter of, 48 How. Pr. 285; mem. s. c, 2 Hun, 374; 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 549. AfFd in 60 N. 7. 319. , , 6 Hun, 486. Rev'd and report of referee confirmed in 73 N. 7. 560. See Astor v. Hoyt. Compare with decision in 73 N. 7. (Award of commissioners — how far binding between parties interested) Liv- ingston p. Sulzer, 19 Hun, 375, 383. Dis- ting'd in Matter of Eleventh Ave., 81 N. 7. 436, 447. Department of Public WorkSt Matter of, 24 Hun, 378. Aft'd in 86 N. 7. 437. Dcpau v. Ocean Ins. Co , 5 Cow. 63; s. c, 15 Am. Dee. 431. Approved (Conclusiveness of adjustment of general average, made in foreign country) in Peters v. Warren Ins. Co., 1 Story, 463, 471 ; 8 Sumn. 393, as ac- cording with the weight of authority. Depew v. Dewey, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 515; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 441. Appeal dismissed in 56 N. 7. 657. De Peyster, Matter of, 4 Sandf. Oh. 511. Applied (Compensation of trustees, &c.) in Matter of Leggatt, 4 Red/. 148, 151 ; Matter of Moffat, 24 Hun, 325, 327; Ward ». Ford, •4 Red/. 34, 41, 47. , , 18 Hurt, 445. AfFd in 80 fl~. 7. 565. De Peyster v. Clendining, 8 Paige, 295. Affd as Bulkey v. De Peyster, in 26 Wend. 21. Decision in 8 Paige disting'd (Time when will takes effect) in Ellison v. Miller, 11 Barb. 335 ; Parker t>. Bogardus, 5 N. 7. 314. Compared with other cases, in Camp- bell v. Rawdon, 19 Barb. 501. Approved in Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 K H. 295. Ap- plied to validity of execution of will as affected by law of place, — in Moultrie v. Hunt, 23 N. 7. 398. Followed (Alienabil- ity of trust interests in personal property) in Arnold v. Gilbert, 3 Sandf. Gh. 555. Ap- plied (Power of administrator with will an- nexed) in Bain v. Mattespn, 54 K 7. 667. Applied (Vested remainders) in Williamson ». Field, 2 Sandf. Ok. 550. Both decisions disting'd (Suspension of power of alienation) in Jennings v. Jennings, 5 Sandf. 177. Ex- plained in Mason v. Mason, 2 Sandf. Ch. 466. v. Columbian Ins. Co., 2 Cai. 85. Re- viewed (Injury to insured vessel when suffi-' cient to justify abandonment) in Hyde v. Louisiana State Ins. Co., 2 Mart. N. 8. {La.) 410; s. c, 14 Am. Dee. 196. See 2 Am. Dee. 187, n. v. Hasbrouck, 11 N. 7. 582. See Wis- wall v. Hall. Approved (Reformation of contract) in Waterman on Sp. Perf. § 372, n. v. Hildreth. 2 Barb. Gh. 109. Applied (Duty of creditor having lien on two funds) in Ingalls «. Morgan, 10 K 7. 188. v. Michael, 6 K 7. 467; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 470, with note. Explained (Condition repugnant to grant) in Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 AT 7. 78, 95. Approved and fol- lowed in Mandlebaum v. McDonell. 29 Mich. 78; s. c, 18 Am. R. 61, as overruling Jack- son v. Schultz, 18 Johns. 174; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 195, with note, wherein De Peyster v. Michael, is said to establish the doctrine on this point. Followed in McCleary . Nellis, 1 Sup'm. Gt.(T. & G.) 118, 121. v. Swart, 3 Wend. 125 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 673. Followed (Effect of new promise to pay obligation that has been discharged) in Dusenbury ». Hoyt, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 94, 97, which was rev'd in 53 N. 7. 521, 524, which see: Stafford v. Bacon, 1 Hill, 535; Clark v. Atkinson, 2 E. D. Smith, 115; Moore ». Viele, 4 Wend. 421 ; Fitzgerald v. Mullen, 19 Id. 403; Stafford v. Bacon, 25 Id. 385. Applied in Ross v.' Hamilton, 3 Barb.- 609, 612; Carshore e. Huyck, 6 Id. 587. Disting'd in Soulden v. Van Rensselaer, 9 Wend. 297. Examined and followed in Stearns i,. Tappin, 5 Duer, 300. Explained DEKAISMES— DEVEAU. 217 and not' followed in Graham n. O'Hern, 24 Hun, 221. Examined, at length, with other cases in Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 531. Disapproved with Moore v. Viele, 4 Wend. 420, in Way 0. Sperry, 6 Gush. (Mass.) 238; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 779, with note. Deraismes v. Merchants' Mutual lus. Co., 1 If. Y. 371. Examined and applied (Validity of note made for premiums in advance) in Brown ». Crooke, 4 Id. 51. Derby v. Hannin, 15 How. Pr. 32; s. c, more fully, 5 Abb. Pr. 150. Approved (No- tice of appeal) in Avery v. Woodbeck, 62 Barb. 557, 503. v. Tale, 13 Hun, 273. See (Extent of application of statute of limitations) Code Cw. Pro. 1881, § 414, n. Bering T. Metcale, 72 N. Y. G13. Further decision on the merits as Deering «. Metcalf, 74 If. Y. 501. De Rivafinoli v. Corsetti, 4 Paige, 264; s. c, 25 Am. Bee. 532. See Hamblin «. Dinue- ford. Disting'd (Injunction to prevent breach of contract for theatrical perform- ance) in Daly v. Smith, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 158, 166. De lloe v. Smith, 4 Sutfm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 690. See also (Voluntary associations) Ebbing- hausen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. 0. 300. De Rutte v. N. T., Albany & Buffalo Tel. Co., 1 Daly, 547; s. c, 30 How. Pr. 403. Also reported as Telegraph Co. v. De Rutte, 5 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 407, with note. See Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co. ; Leonard v. N. Y., &c. Tel. Co. Cited with Breese «. U. S. Tel. Co., 45 Barb. 274; Baldwin v. Same, 6 Abb. Pr. If. S. 405; Leonard ». N. Y., &c. Tel. Co., 41 N. Y. 544; Bryant v. Am. Tel. Co., 1 Daly, 575 (Ability of telegraph com- pany to limit liability by contract) in 14 Fed. Pep. 718, n. Collated with other cases (Negligence in telegraph company for errors in message) in Bigel. Gas. on Ihrts, 622, 623. Explained (Relation of telegraph com- pany to recipient of message) in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 257 q, n. x. Quoted (Telegraph . company whether common carriers) in Id. 257 c, n. b. De Ruyter v. St. Peter's Church, 3 Barb. Oh. 119. Afl'd in 3 If. Y. 238. See Part- ridge ». Badger. Decision in 3 Barb. Oh. followed (Restraints on alienation of church property) in Madison Ave. Bapt. Church v.- Bapt. Church in Oliver St., 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 132. Commented on (Validity of assignment by corporation for benefit of creditors) in 3 South. L. Rev. If. S. 554, where other cases are collected. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. § 64, 4 ed. Explained (Sale) in Id. § 4. Collated with other cases (Surplus moneys or foreclosure of mort- gage — appearing before referee) in Colby on For eel. 18. Des Arts v. Leggett, 16 N. Y. 582. See Coit v. Houston. Disting'd (Relief against mis- take of fact) and Leger v. Bonnafie, 2 Barb. 480, applied in Knapp ». Fowler, 30 Hun, 512. Commented on (Sale of specific chattels unconditionally) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 339 (Curbin's 4 Am. ed.). Deshain v. Lee, 23 Alb. L. J. 216; s. c, more fully, as Derham v. Lee, 47 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 174; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 334. Despard v. Churchill, 53 If. Y. 192; s. c, 7 Alb. L. J. 415. Applied (Remitting pro- ceeds to executor of domicile) in Sherman v. Page. 2 1 Hun, 59, 65, which was afl'd in 85 N. Y. 123, which see. Compare Gode Civ. Pro. % 2700. See (Will— validity and con- struction) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §"2624, «. v. Walbridge, 15 N. Y. 374. Disting'd (Implied contract to pay rent, in case of holding over) in Lore 11. Pierson, 10 Daly, 272; Hazeltine v. Weld, 73 If. Y. 156, 161. Followed in Mack v. Burt, 5 Hun, 30. Ap- plied (Equitable defenses) in Van Valben- burghu. Stupplebeen, 49 Barb. 101. Applied (Parol evidence of equitable interest) in Robinson v. McManus, 4 Bans. 385 ; Smith r. Beattie, 31 If. Y. 544; Ryan v. Dox, 34 Id. 313; Anthony v. Atkinson, 2 Sweeny, 233. See also Thompson v. Hickey, 8 Abb. K O. 159, 163. Detlilefs v. Tainsen, 7 Daly, 354, See Reeves -c. Denieke. Explained (Contracts in restraint of trade) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 807, n. 15 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Detmold v. Drake. 46 N. Y. 318. See Em- bury v. Conner. Applied (Effect of deferring the making of compensation for land taken for public purposes) in Hammersley v. Mayor, &,-,. of N. Y., 56 N. Y. 533, 536. Detouches v. Peck, 9 Johns. 210; s. c, 4 If. Y. Oom. L. Law. ed. 733, with brief note. Deuchars v. Wheaton, 16 How. Pr. 471. Referred to in Vedder v. Van Buren, 14 Hun, 250, as criticised, if not overruled (Notice of appeal from justice's' court) in Sanders v. Keough, 27 How. Pr. 477 ; and since Sperry v. Reynolds, 65 If. Y. 179, not to be deemed authoritative. Deutsch v. Reilly, 8 Daly, 132; s. c, 57 How. Pr. 75. Said in 8 Daly, 134, n., to have been aff'd in Ct. of App. Statement at end of case in 57 How. Pr. 75, that motion to go to Ct. of App. was denied, seems to be an error. Decision in 57 How. Pr. disapproved (Right of sheriff levying on goods to show fraudulent character of gen- eral assignment) in Carr v. Van Hoesen, 20 Hun, 315. Dcvaubagh v. Deranbagh, 5 Paige, 554 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 443, with extended note. See Walsh v. Sayre. Applied (Physical incapacity as ground for divorce) in J. G. v. H. G., 33 Ed. 401; s. c, 3 Am. R. 183. See Allen v. Allen, 8 Abb. N. O. 175; also Id. 193, n., 194, n., 200, n., 206, n., 207, n. Quoted (Right of inspection of person in actions for divorce) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. %\ 591, 592, 6 ed. Deveau v. Fowler, 2 Paige, 400. Disap- proved with Rebb v. Stevens, Olarh, 191, 195 (Effect of agreement by continuing partner to pay firm debts and indemnify 218 DEVELIN— DEWINT. retiring partner) in Cory v. Long, 2 Sweeny, 491, as weakened by Ketchum v. Durkee, 1 ' Barb. Ch. 480. Develin v. Cooper, 20 Hun, 188. Affd in 84 JV. Y. 410. Devendorf t. Beardsley, 23 Barb. 656. See Shaughnessy v. Rensselaer Ins. Co. Followed (Validity of premium notes) in Otis t>. Harrison, 36 Barb. 210, 214. Quoted (Receiver of corporation) in High on Receiv. § 318, n. 2. Dcvenpeck v. Lambert, 44 Barb. 596. Examined with other cases (Right of action for encroaching on or obstructing highway) in Marvin ». Pardee, 64 Id. 359. Devens v. Mechanics' & Traders Ins. Co., 83 JV. Y. 168. Followed (What amounts' to waiver of defense) in Woolner v. Hill, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 470, 476. Devin v. Fatchin, 26 JV. Y. 441 ; s. c, less full}-, 25 How. Pr. 5. Rev'g Patchen v. Devin. 37 Barb. 430. Decision in 20 JV. Y. confirmed (Proof on which surrogate's decree is to be reviewed) in Howell v. Howell, 30 Hun, 625. Cited (Allowances ' by surrogates) in Noyes «. Children's Aid Soc, 10 Id. 289, 292. Approved in Ross v, Ross, 6 Id. 80, 87. Devine v. People, 20 Hun, 98. Disting'd (Jurisdiction over misdemeanors) in Mc- Donald v. People, 13 Weekly Dig. 548. Explained in People ex rel. Comaford v. Dutcher, 83 JV Y. 240, 243. Devlin v. Brady, 32 Barb. 518. Affd in 36 JV. Y. 531. Decision in 36 JV. Y. followed (Bona fide holder of promissory note) in Coleman v. Lansing 4 Lans. 70. Included in 1 Ames Cat. on B. & JV. 328. V. Cooper, 20 Hun, 188. Affd in 84 JV. Y. 410. v. Crary, 1 Bun, 489; s. c„ 3 Sup'm.Ct. (T. & C.) 765. Afl'd in 60 JV. Y. 635. v. Devlin, 67 Barb. 290; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 651. AfPd with hesitation in 69 JV Y. 212; s. c, 25 Am. R. 173. Decision in 69 JV. Y. quoted (Injunction — trade-mark) in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 1069, n. 2. v. Mayor, &'c. of N. ¥., 4 Duer, 337. Collated with other cases (Municipal con- tracts — changes of plan) in 5 Abb. N. C. 48, n. v. , 15 Abb. Pr. JV. /SI 31. Further decision on the merits in 48 How. Pr. 457, which was rev'd in part and affd in part in 63 JV Y. 8; s. c, 50 How. Pr. 1. Further proceedings in 54 Id. 11 ; s. c, less fully, 6 Baly, 486, appeal from which was dismissed, it seems, in 67 JV. Y. 590, but without opinion. Further decision in 54 How. Pr. 50. Also one in Id. 64, which was rev'd in Id. 383; s. c, 7 Daly, 466. Still further decisions in 62 How. Pr. 163 ; s. c, 9 Daly, 334 ; also 62 How. Pr. 166 ; Id. 260; also in 63 Id. 206, which was, rev'd it seems, in 90 JV. Y. 688, but without opinion. Decision in 62 How. Pr. 163 dis- ting'd (Appointment of new referee) in Moy v. Moore, 24 Hun, 551. v. Murphy, 5 Abb. JV C. 242. See >to same effect (Release of assumption) Drury j>. Hayden, 111 U.S. 223. V. O'Neill, 6 Daly, 305. . Affd, it seems, in 68 JV. Y. 622, but without opinion. Decision in 6 Daly explained (Sale of specific chattels conditionally) in Benj. on Sales, § 319, n. c (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Piatt, 11 Abb. Pr. 398. Disting'd (Proceedings when terminated and review- able by certiorari) in People ex rel. Gilmore v. Donahue, 22 Hun, 470. v. Shannon, 8 Hun, 531. But see (Affidavit of merits when required) Code Civ. Pro. § 980. Devoe v. Brandt, 58 Barb. 493. Rev'd in 53 JV. Y. 462. Decision in 53 iV. Y. disting'd with Hennequin v. Naylor, 24 Id. 140 (Proof of fraud) in Jaffray v. Cunningham, N. Y. Daily Reg. April 17, 1884. Followed (Title under fraudulent purchase) in Weiss v. Brennan, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 177, 180. Disting'd in Am. Express Co. v. Smith, &c, 57 Iowa, 244. Cited, with numerous other cases to same effect, — in 15 Am. L. Rev. 386. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 640, n. 7 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.'). v. Hackley, 3 Robt. 679. Disting'd (Control of court over judgments) in Alfaro e. Davidson, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 408. Explained (Jurisdiction of trial court as to hearing of exceptions at General Term) in Post v. Hathorn, 54 JV. Y. 147, til. v. Ithaca & Oswego R. R. Co. See White v. Geraerdt. Devoy v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 35 Barb. 264; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 226. Judgment on second trial affd in 39 Barb. 169, and that in 36 N. Y. 449. Devyr v. Schaef'er, 55 JV. Y. 446. Explained (Title — adverse possession — intent) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 760. Dewey v. Goodenough, 56 Barb. 54. Dis- ting'd (Widow's right to sue for distributive share) in Betsinger v. Chapman, 24 Hun, 15, 18. Disting'd (Who included as "next of kin ") in Murdock t>. Ward, 67 JV. Y. 391. v. Moyer, 9 Hun, 473. Affd in 72 F. Y. 70, and that affd as Moyer v. Dewey, 103 U. S. 301. Decision in 72 JV Y. fol- lowed (Action by creditor to set aside fraudulent conveyance of bankrupt) in Bates i). Bradley, 24 Hun, 84. Disting'd (Judg- ment when not affected by discharge in bankruptcy) in Blumenthal v. Anderson, 28 Id. 93. v. Osborne, 4 Cow. 329. Quoted (Eject- ment — mesne profits and damages) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land-, § 665. v. Stewart, 6 How. Pr. 465. Followed (Trial fee taxable if juror is withdrawn) in Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co., 8 Daly, 244, 248. v. Supervisors of Niagara, 2 Hun, 392; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (7. & G.) 606. Rev'd in 02 JV. Y. 294. Dewint v. Wiltsie, 9 Wend. 325 ; s. c, 11 DE WITT— DEXTER. 219 If. Y. Com. I. Law. ed. 629. Explained (Measure of damages) as probably turning on, the ground that the breach was fraudu- lent in Blanchard v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342. Disting'd in Albert v. Bleecker Street, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Daly, 389. De Witt t. Barley, 13 Barb. 555. Rev'd in 9 If. Y. 371. Subsequent decision in 17 Id. 340. Se6 Stewart v. Lispeuard. De- cision in 9 If. Y. disting'd (Opinions of •witness as to testator's capacity) in Van Pelt v. Van Pelt, 30 Barb. 141. "Limited in decision in 17 If. Y. Applied in Deshon v. Merchants' B'k, 8 Bosw. 463 (where decis- ion in 17 If. Y. was disting'd). Discussed in Willard on Executors, 181. Applied to accused person in O'Brien «. People, iSBarb 280, which was afPd in 36 If. Y. 282, which see. Applied (Opinions of witnesses) in McGregors. Brown, 10 Id. 119; Tompkins v: Wadley, 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 427. Disting'd in Robertson v. Knapp, 85 If. Y. 92. Opposed in Elwell's Malpr. 425-430. Decision in 17 N. Y. applied (Opinions of witnesses) in Harpending v. Shoemaker, 37 Barb. 288; Brand v. Brand, 39 Bow. Br. 265; Nellis v. McCarn, 35 Barb. 118. Dis- ting'd in Armstrong v. Smith, 44 Id. 124, as not conflicting with Morehouse v. Mathews, 2 N. Y. 514. Disting'd in Hardenburgh v. Cockroft, 5 Daly, 82. Approved in State v. Pike, 49 If. H. 399; s. c, 6 Am. R. 551. Cited and approved with People v. East- wood, 14 N. Y. 562; McKee v. Nelson, 4 Cow. 355, in Hardy v. Merrill, 56 If. H. 227; B.C., 22 Am. R. 441, 450,457. Ap- plied (Opinions as to testator's capacity) in Gardiner v. Gardiner, 34 _V. Y. 165. v. Chandler, 11 Abb. Pr. 459. Compare (Bequest to unincorporated society) Betts v. Betts, 4: Abb. If. O. 317. Applied (Actions against unincorporated associations) in Poult- ney v. Bachman. 10 Abb. If-. C. 252, 254. See also Ebbinghausen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. If. C. 300. ■ Compare (Judgment dis- missing complaint) Code Civ. Pro. § 1209. v. Elmira Nobles M'f'g Co., 5 Hun, 301. Aft'd in 66 JV. Y. 459 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 73. v. Hastings, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 463. Aff'din 69 If. Y. 518. v. Morris, 13 Wend. 496. Followed (Insufficient description in replevin) in Tal- cot-t v. Belding, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 84, 91. Applied in Stevens v. Osman, 1 Mich. 92 ; s. C, 48 Am. Dec. 696, with note. v. Walton, 9 If. Y.. 571; s. c, 2 Am. Bee. 514, with note, wherein it is collated with other cases, and referred to as a well considered case. See Barker v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co. ; Stanton v. Camp. Disting'd (Liability of f,gent signing con- tract) in Chase v. Pattoerg, If. Y. Daily Reg. July 24, 1883. Doubted in Green v. Skeel, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 23. Fol- lowed and approved in Tannatt v. Rocky Mountain Nat. B'k, 1 Col. 278; s. c, 9 Am. R. 156. Dewitt v. Brisbane, 16 ¥. Y. 508. See Cox v. Wightman. Approved (No recovery on valid security transferred on illegal trans- action) in Fish v. De Wolff, 4 Bosw. 573, 582. Disting'd in Merritt v. Millard, 5 Id. 645, 651. v. Buchanan, 54 Barb. 32. See Maloney v. Dows. Followed (Jurisdiction of N. Y. courts over action for personal injuries com- mitted abroad) in Newman v. Goddard, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T.&C.) 299. v. Post, 11 Johns. 460. Followed (Ef- fect of appearance by infant without guardian) in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117; Fairweather v. Satterly, 7 Robt. 546. Applied (When writ of error coram nobis will lie) in Dows v. Harper, 6 Ohio, 518 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 270. v. Yates, 10 Johns. 156; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. '326. Commented on (Legacies — satis- faction of) in Lawson's Lead. Eq. Cos. Simplified, 56. De Wolf t. Capital City Ins. Co.. 16 Sun, 116. Reviewed with Foster v. Van Reed, 5 Hun, 321 ; Excelsior Fire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 55 If. Y. 343; this last case being referred to as clearly stating the true view (What is to be deemed subject of insurance where mortgagee insures independently of mortgagor) in 54 Am. Dec. 693, n. v. Crandall, 1 Sweeny, 556. Subse- quent action on the same contract in 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 14. N. Y. Fireman's Ins. Co., 20 Johns. 214. AfFd in 2 Cow. 56. See Ludlow v. Bowne. t. Williams, 69 If. Y. 621. Disting'd (Opinion of witness) in Nicolay ■». Unger, 80 Id. 54, 57. Dexheime'r v. Gautier, 34 How. Pr. 472. Approved and followed with Irish v. Nutting, 47 Barb. 370 (Requisites of gift mortis causa) and Bedell v. Oarll, 33 If. Y. 581, also approved (Distinction between a gift inter vivos and mortis causa) in Smith v. Dorsey, 38 Ind. 451; s. c, 10 Am. £. 118, 124. Dexter v. Adams, 2 Den. 646. Subsequent de- cision aff'd in How. App. Cas. 771, — where points of counsel are given, but no opinion reported. v. Broat. See Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. Clark, 22 How. Pr. 289. Compare (Judgment dismissing complaint) Code Civ. Pro. § 1209. >. Hazen. See Fowler v. Hait. v. Norton, 55 Barb. 62. Aff'd in 47 If. Y. 62. See Harmony v. Bingham. De- cision in 47 If. Y. disting'd (Accident ex- cusing performance) in Booth v. Spuyten Duyvil Mill Co., 60 Id. 487, 491. Compare (Executory contract of sale — loss) Camp 1>. Norton, 52 Barb. 96. Explained in Ben}, on Sales, § 570 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 2 Id. § 862, n. 11. (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Syracuse, Bingham ton & N. Y. R. R. Co., 42 If. Y. 32fi; s. c. 1 Am. R. 527. Collated with other cases (What constitutes 220 DEXTER-DE ZENG. baggage, for loss of which carrier is liable) in 8 Am. R. 302, n. v. Taber, 12 Johns. 239. Followed with Van Rensselaer ». Dole, 1 Johns. Gas. 270 (Evidence of relation in which slander- ous words were spoken) in Brite v. Gill, 2 T. B. Mowr. (Ky.) 65; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 122. Followed with Van Rensselaer v. Dole, 1 Johns. Cas. 279 ; Green v. Long, 2 Cai. 91, in Norton v. Ladd, b N. H. 203 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 573, with note. Quoted and commented on (Libel — functions of court and jury) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. (Jas. . 5 ed, 155. Dey v. Dox, 9 Wend. 129; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 137, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently approved in N. Y. (Meas- ure of damages for non-delivery of goods). v. Dunham, 2 Johns. Oh. 182. Rev'd as Dunham v. Dey, in 15 Johns. 555 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 282, with note, and that aff'd in Dunham v. Gould, 16 Johns. 307; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 323. See Peterson v. Clark. De- cision in 2 Johns. Oh. followed with James v. Johnson, 6 Id. 417 (Elfect of absolute deed given as security) in North ». Bel- den, 13 Oonn. 376 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 83, with note. Followed with Clark i>. Henry, 2 Cow. 324; James v. Johnson. 6 Johns. Oh. 417; Henry «. Davis, 7 Id. 40, in Stephens «'. Sherrod, 6 Tex. 294; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 776. Disting'd as resting on a statute, and moreover questioned in dissenting opinion of Tod, J., in . Friedley v. , Hamilton, 17 Serg. & R. (Penn.) 70 ; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 638, with note. Referred to as not having been followed by the courts of N. Y. (Pre- cedent debt as sufficient consideration for mortgage) in Moore v. Fuller, 6 Oreg. 272; s. c, 25 Am. R. 524. Quoted (Assignment for benefit of creditors — right to make) in Burrill on Assign. § 13, n. 3, 4 ed. Ex- plained (Consideration) in Id. § 236. Dis- cussed (Prior unrecorded mortgage) in Id. § 391. v. Ponghkeepsie Mutual Ins. Co., 23 Barb. 623. Sustained (Transfer of policy) in Hoftman v. iEtna Ins. Co., 32 N. J*. 410. Compared and doubted (Assignment of policy after loss) in 9 Am. L. Reg. N. 8, 462. Deyermand v. Chamberlain, 22 Hun, 110. Further decision in 13 Weekly Dig. 60. De- cision in 22 Hun followed (Assumption of mortgage) in Best v. Brown, 25 Id. 223, 225. Deyo v. Jones, 20 Wend. 491. Discussed (Statute of limitations — acknowledgment by agents, executors, &c.) in Ang. on Limit. § 264, 6 ed. v. N. Y. Central E. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 9. Compare (Duty of carrier to provide vehicle- worthy road) McPadden v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 47 Barb. 247. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 538, n. a, 5 ed. v. Van Valkenburgh, 5 Hill, 242. See Jackson v. Anderson. Limited (Effect of discharge of insolvent to extinguish judg- ment) in Kelly v. Thayer, 34 How. Pr. 163. Applied in Schaeffer v. Soule, 23 Han, 583, 586. Dezell v. Oilell, 3 Hill, 215; a., c, 38 Am. Dec. 628, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently approved in N. Y. See Lansing ». Montgomery. Applied (Estoppel in pais) in Hawley v. Griswold, 42 Barb 23 ; Stackpole v. Robbins, 47 Id. 219: Young®. Bushnell, 8 Bosw. 15; Frost v, Saratoga Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Den. 157; Hib- bard o. Stewart, 1 Hilt. 208 ; Andrews v. ^EtnaLife Ins. Co., 18 Hun, 160; Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bk., 13 K Y. 316; Baker v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., 43 Id. 289 ; Kelly «. Scott, 49 Id. 601 ; Blair v. Wait, 69 Id. 116; Vietor ».' In- ternal " Nav. Co., 45 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 143. Examined with other cases, in Shap- ley v. Abbott, 42 N. Y. 449. Explained in Miller v. Piatt, 5 Duer, 279 ; Andrews v. jEtna Life Ins. Co., 85 JV. Y. 834, 344. Disting'd in White v. Ashton, 51 Id. 286. Opinion of Bronson, J., applied in Trus- cott t). Davis, 4 Barb. 498 ; Griffith ». Beecher, 10 Id. 432, 436; Carpenter v. Stilwell, 12 Id. 136; Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Id. 600; Huntley v. Perry, 38 Id. 573; Requa v. Holmes, 19 How.. Pi: 445; Plumb v. Cattaraugus Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 392, 395 ; Finnegan i>. Carraher, 47 Id. 500; Gillespie v. Carpenter, 1 Robt. 70 ; Kingsley v. Vernon, 4 Sandf. 364; Maybee v. Sniffen, 2 K D. Smith, 14. Reviewed in Common- wealth v. Moltz, 10 Pa. St. 527; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 499, with note. Followed in McCravey i). Remson, 19 Ala. 430; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 194, with note. Approved in Eldred «. Hazlett, 33 Pa. 307. Cited with Carpenter v. Stillwell, 12 Barb. 135 ; Wel- land Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 483; Frost 11. Saratoga Mut. Ins. Co. , 5 Den. 154, in Horn®. Cole, 51 N.H.'WI; s. c, 12 Am. R. Ill, 122, 124, as giving a broad application to the doctrine. Opposed in Martin v. Zel- lerbach, 38 Oal. 300. Followed in Taylor v. Zepp,14ifo. 482; s. c.,55^1m. Dec. 113. Ap- proved in Turnipseed v. Hudson, 50 Missis. 429; B.C., 19 Am. R. 15, 19. Disting'd (Estoppel by giving receipt to officer levying) in Clark v. Weaver, 17 Han, 485. Followed in People v. Reeder, 25 N. Y. 303 ; Cornell v. Uakin, 38 Id. 257. Followed (Special property as authorizing recovery in trover, &c.) in City B'k v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 44 K Y. 138. De Zeng v. Fyfe, 1 Bosw. 335. Disapproved with the dicta in Robbins v. Richardson, 2 Bosw. 253; Cole v. Saulpaugh, 48 Barb. 105; Lathrop v. Morris, 5 Sandf. 9 (Pre- cedent debt constituting holder for value) in Bowman v. Van Kuren, 29 Wis. 209 ; s. c, $4m. R. 554 ; Coddington v. Bay, 20 . Johns. 637, being approved as according with the current of authority and weight of reason ; Grandin ». Le Roy, 2 Paige, 509, being criticised as a case, where if does not clearly DEZENGEEUEL— DICKINSON. 221 appear ■whether there was any new con- sideration ; Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93, being however cited in this connection. Dezengreuel v. Dezengreuel, 1% Weekly Dig. 286. Reported as Dezengremel v. Dezen- gremel in 24 Hun, 457. Dias v. Bouchand, 3 Edw. 485. Aff'd in 10 Paige, 445, and that rev'd in 1 JT. Y. 201. See Bouchand «. Dias. v. Brnnell, 24 Wend. 9. Followed (Court of law without jurisdiction of suit to recover trust fund) in Curtis ■». Smith, 6 Blatehf. 0. Ct. 537, 543. • v. Glover, Hoffm. 71. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 133, n. d (Husband and wife as ten- ants in common) in connection with Preston on Abstr. of Tit. II, 41. Dibble v. Camp, 10 Abb. K S. 92: s. c, 60 Barb. 150. Compare (Appeal in arbitration case) Code Civ. Pro. § 2381, superseding 2 R. S. 543, 544. v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 25 Barb. 183. Followed (Action to recover for causing death — when barred) in Littlewood v. Mayor, &c. of N Y., 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 547; which was aft*d in 89 N. T. 24, 29, which see. Crit- icised in Schlichtingu. Wintgen,25 Hun,626. v. People, 4 Park. 199. Aff'd as Peo- ple v. Dibble, in 5 Id. 28. - — v. Rogers. See Baldwin v. Brown. Dickens v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 28 Barb. 41. Former decision in 13 How. Pr. 228. Subsequent decision in 23 N. Y. 158. Also in 1 Keyes, 23: s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Deo. 504. See Comstock «. Hoeft. Decision in 13 How. Pr. disting'd (Statement of separate grounds of relief) in Velie v. Newark City Ins. Co., 12 Abb. N. C. 309. Doctrine in 23 N. Y. re-atTd (Husband not "next of kin") in Drake v. Gilmore, 52 Id. 389, 392. Dickenson v. Cook. See Beals v. Guernsey. v. Cod wise, 11 Paige, 189. Followed with Williamson v. Field, 2 Barb. Ch. 281 (Judgment whether interlocutory or final) in Williams v. Field, 2 Wis. 421 ; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 426, with note. r. Gilliland, 1 Cow. 481. See Little v. Harvey. Followed (Payment by check) in Woodbury ». Lewis, Walk. Ch. 259. Dickerson v. Seelye, 12 Barb. 99. Explained and approved (Explaining terms of bill of lading) in Ellis v. Willard, 9 K Y. 529. Followed in O'Brien v. Gilchrist, 34 He. 554; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 676. Applied with Armour v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 05 N. Y. Ill (Estoppel created by bill of lading) in Sioux City, &c. R. R. Co. v. First Nat. B'k of Fremont, 10 Neb. 55C; s. c, 35 Am. R. 488. See, also, Witzler 1>. Callins, 70 Me. 290; s. c, 35 Am.. R. 327. v. Tillinghast, 4 Paige, 215; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 528, with note. See Bay v. Cod- dington ; Padgett v. Lawrence ; Root i>, French. Applied (Who is not bona fide pur- chaser) in Barnes v. Camack, 1 Barb. 397; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 8 Bosw. 527. Applied to as • signee for creditors in Van Heusen v. Radcliff, 17 N. Y. 583; De Lancey®. Stearns, 66 Id. 157, 102. Disting'd in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 Id. 196 ; Wood v. Morehouse, 45 Id. 377. Explained in Taylo'r v. Baldwin, 10 Barb. 637. Applied to mortgagee of chattels in Tiffany v. Warren, 37 Barb. 577. Approved and followed in Zorn v. R. R. Co., 5 So. Car. 90. Commented on in Morse v. Godfrey, 3 Story C. Ct. 364. v. Wason, 48 Barb. 412. Further de- cision in 54 Id. 230, and that rev'd in 47 N. Y. 439. Intimation in 6 Alb. L. J. 169, that decision in 48 Barb, was rev'd, is an error. Decision in 54 Barb. 230, limited (Lien of banks as collecting agents) in Dod v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 59 Id. 265. Decision in 47 N. Y. questioned in Hyde v. First Nat. Bk. of Lacon, 7 Bis*. 156, 160. Dis- ting'd (Title to paper deposited with bank) in Metropolitan Nat. Bk. v. Loyd, 25 Hun, 101, 103. Dickey v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 4 Cow. 222. Aff'd in Dickey v. American Ins. Co., 3 Wend. 658; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 763. v. United Ins. Co. See De Longuemere v. N. Y. Fire Ins. Co. Dickinson v. Benliam, 10 Abb. Pr. 390; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 410. Aff'd in 12 Abb. Pr. 138; s. c, 20 How. Pr. 343. See Wilson v. Britton. Both decisions opposed (Supple- mental affidavits on motion to vacate attach- ment) in Gasherie v. Apple, 14 Abb. Pr. 64, 67. Decision in 12 Abb. Pr. applied in Brewer v. Tucker, 13 Id. 76, 78. Disting'd (Threats of assignment as evidence of fraud) in Anthony v. Stype, 19 Hun, 265. v. City of Poughkeepsie, 7 Hun, 1. Decision on appeal after further trial, in 75 N. Y. 65. Statement in latter that it is re- ported below, in 7 Hun, 1, is incorrect. See vol. 433, Cas. in Ct. of App. Law Inst. Libr. Former decision in 2 Hun, 615 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 185, as Dickinson v. Water Commissioners of Poughkeepsie. Decision in 75 N. Y. disting'd (Municipal contract) in Kingsley v. City of Brooklyn, 78 Id. 200, 213. v. Dickey, 14 Hun, 617. Appeal dis- missed in 76 N. Y. 602. v. Dudley, 17 Hun, 569. Disting'd (Title derived from agent acting without authoritv) in Swan v. Produce Bank, 24 Hun, 27"7, 280. v. Edwards, 2 Abb. ST. C. 300; s. c, 53 How. Pr. 40. Rev'd in 13 Hun, 405, which was aff'd in 77 XT. Y. 573 ; s. c, 7 Abb. N. C. 65; 58 How. Pr. 24; 33 Am. R. 671. De- cision in 77 N. Y. applied (Contract as governed by law of place of performance) in Marie «. Garrison, 13 Abb. N. C. 210, 300. Compared in Hibernian Nat. Bk. i>. La- combe, 84 N. Y. 367, 378; Followed (Usury as governed by law of place) in Le Baron ». Brunt, 9 Daly, 349. Disting'd in Sheldon v. Haxton, 2±Hun, 196; Wayne Co. Savings B'k v. Low, 81 iV. Y. 566. Compare Tilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. 241. v. Mitchell. See Swift v. Wells. 222 DICKINSON -DILLON". v. Rawson, 25 Hun, 60. Abridgt. s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 563. Water Comm'rs of Ponghkeepsie. See Dickinson v. City of Poughkeepsie. Dickson v. Broadway, &c. R. R. Co., 33 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 330 ; s. c, 41 How. Pr. 151. Appeal from order granting new trial dismissed, in 47 N. Y. 507. See Wright v. Hunter. T. Frazer, 9 Hun, 191. AfPd, it seems, in 70 A 7 ! Y. 607, but -without opinion. T. McCoy, 39 N. Y. 400. Denied in part (Liability for injuries resulting from .unlawful or negligent act) in Fallon ». O'Brien, 12 R. I. 518 ; s. c, 34 Am. R. 713. Collated with McCahillr. Kip, 2 K D. Smith, i 413 ; Sheridan v. Brooklyn, &c. R. R. Co., 36 JST. Y. 39, and other cases in 22 Am. L. ■ Reg. A 7 . S. 58. Diddell v. Diddell, 3 Abb. Pr. 167. Super- seded (Counter-claim in action for divorce) by L. 1881, c. 703, which amended Code Cm. Pro. § 1770. Didieu v. People, 4 Park 593; s. c. as Peo- ple «. Didieu, 17 How. Pr. 224. Rev'd on the merits, as Didieu v. People, 22 AT. Y. 178. Dieckerhoff t. Ahlborn, 2 Abb. A 7 ! C. 372. Applied (Discharge of debtor as affected by prior bankruptcy proceedings) in Matter of Fitzgerald, 8 Daly, 188. Diedrick T. Richley, 2 Hill, 271; s. c, 15 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 356, with brief note. See Browning v. Wheeler. Dieffendorf v. Reformed Calvinist Church. See Baptist Church in Hartford o.Witherell. Dietrick t. Allen, 25 Hun, 66. See Rodgers v. Fletcher. See to the contrary (General objection) Rodgers v. Fletcher, 13 Abb. Pr. 299. Dietz t. Farish, 53 How. Pr. 217; s. c, with affirmance, in 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 190, and that aff d in 79 A 7 ". Y. 520. Another proceeding in 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 87. T. McCallum, 44 How. Pr. 493. Ex- plained (Effect of settlement between parties on attorney's rights) in McCabe v. Fogg, 60 Id. 488. Diez, Matter of, 56 Barb. 591. Affd in 50 A 7 . Y. 88. Statement in Id. that prior appli- cation was under act of 1840, is error. It was under 2 R. S. 67, §§ 63-67. See Mat- ter of Day. Dike V. Lewis, 4 Den. 237. Further decis- ion in 2 Barb. 344. Both decisions ap- proved (Validity of controller's sale) in Tallman v. White, 2 JST. Y. 66, 72. Applied to sheriffs' sale in Mason v. White, 11 Barb. 173. v. Reitlinger. 23 Hun, 241. Collated with Clew v. Mcpherson, 1 Bosw. 480, and other cases (Implied warranty on sale by sample) in 17 Am. L. Rev. 430. But see (Effect of opportunity to inspect bulk) Beirne «. Dora, 5 N. Y. 95; Hargous v. Stone, Id. 73; Sands v. Taylor, 5 Johns. 395. Discussed- (Sales to arrive) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 880, n. 20 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Dikeman t. Puckhafer, 1 Abb. Pr. K 8. 32. Applied (Effect of failure to index mortgage) in Mutual Life Ins. Co. «. Dake, 1 Abb. N. C. 381, 390. Dillaye v. Commercial Bank of Whitehall, 51 K Y. 345. Compare (Trust created by ante-nuptial contract) Dillaye v. Greenough, 45 Id. 4?>8. Disting'd (Rights of assignee of mortgage) in Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 Id. 88, 106. V. Greenough. 45 A 7 ". Y. 438. See Dil- laye ». Commercial Bank. Explained (Ef- fect of transfer in violation of trust) and Fellows ». Longyor, 91 N. Y. 324, applied in Wetmore v. Porter, 92 K Y. 76. v. Wilson, 43 Barb. 261. See (Action to recover real property — distinct occupants) Code Civ. Pro. 1881. § 1516, n. Dilleber v. Home Life Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 256; s. c, 25 Am. R 182. Subsequent decision in 87 N. Y. 79. which rev'd 10 Weekly Dig. 180. See Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co.; Valton v. Nat. Fund Life Assurance Co. ; Whiting v. Barney. Decis- ion in 69 A 7 ! Y. disting'd (Effect of admit- ting part of writing in evidence) in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 92 Id. 274. Followed (Privileged communications be- tween physician and patient) in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 Id. 281, 298. Applied to case of attorney and client, — in Pearsall». Elmer, 5 Red/. 181, 184. Applied (Distinction between fraud and breach of warranty) in Mowry v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 7 Daly, 321, 324. v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 7 Daly, 540. Aff'd in 76 K Y. 567. Dillenbach v. 1 Jerome, 7 Cow. 294. Criti- cised and explained and said to be contrary to decisions in England and several in America (Right to maintain trover against one tak- ing property from possession of one holding it under an obligation to return it) in 1 Am. Dee. 588, n. Disapproved in Thayer v. Hutchinson, 13 Verm. 504; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 607. Dillingham v. Bolt. See Same v. Ladue; Meech v. Patchin. v. Ladue, 35 Barb. 38. Rev'd as Dil- lingham v. Bolt, in 37 N~. Y. 198. Dillon v. Anderson, 43 AT". Y. 231. Applied (Party when affected by notice to agent) in Bank for Savings v. Frank, 56 How. Pr. 414; Broadhead v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 23 Uun, .401. Disting'd (Duty of injured party to reduce damages) in Becar v. Flues, 64 A 7 . Y. 520. Applied (Allowing witness to testify as to his own intent) in West v. First Kat. Bk., 20 Hun, 414. Explained (Damages for wrongful discharge from em- ployment) in Everson v. Powers, 60 How. Pr. 106. Explained (Right of party to con- tract, to create breach by notice of non- compliance) in Kadish e. Young, 108 III. 170; s. c, 48 Am. R 548,555. v. Horn, 5 How. Pr. 35. See Innes v. Lansing. Overruled (Right of creditor at large to maintain creditor's suit against DILLON-DOB. 22J general partnership) in Crippen v. Hudson, 13 N. Y. 163. t. Masterson, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 133. Further decision in 42 Id. 176. — - v. N. Y. & Erie R. K. Co. See Bost- wick v. Champion. v. People, 1 Hun, 670; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& 0.) 203. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 If. Y. 669, but without opinion. Dimmick v. Lockwood, 10 Wend. 142. See De La Vergne v. Norris; Pitcher v. Liv- ingston. Approved (Damages for breach of covenant against incumbrances) in Grant v. Tallman, 20 N. Y. 191.. Dimon v. Bridges, 8 How. Pr. 16. Itev'd as Dimon v. Dunn, in 15 JV. Y. 498. v. Delmonico, 35 Barb. 554. Aff'd at General Term, 1863, for reason stated ,by court at Special Term. v. Dunn, 15 N. Y. 494 Rev'g Dimon v. Bridges, 8 How. Pr. 16. v. Hazard, 32 N. Y. 65. Followed (Eftect of transfer of one parkier to another, of firm property) in Cory i>. Long, 2 Sweeny, 491. Limited in Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 IT. Y. 146, 160, 167. Collated- with Menagh v. Whitwell, and other cases, in 30 Am. R. 533, n. Dinehart v. Wells, 2 Barb. 432. Followed (Costs in action for assault when title to real property came in question) in Lillis i>. O'Connor, 8 Sun, 281. v.' Wilson. See Putnam v. Wise ; Stewart v. Doughty. Dingeldein v. Third Avenue R. R. Co., 9 Bosw. 79. Rev'd in 37 JV. Y. 575. Decision in 37i^ Y. disting'd (Party-wall agreement) in Scott v. McMillan, 8 Daly, 320. Diiigmnii v. Clancey, 3 "Weekly Dig. 428; s. c, more fully, as Dingens v. Clancey, 67 Barb. 566. Commented on (Effect of tender) in Thomas on Mart. 127. Di ninny v. N. T. & N. H. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 540. Disting'd (Liability for baggage retained without check) in Mattison %. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 57 Id. 552, 556. Dinsmore v. Adams, 48 now. Pr. 274. Aff'd in 49 Id. 238; mem. s. c, 5 Hun, 149, and that approved and appeal dismissed in 66 IT. Y. 618. v. Duncan, 4 Daly, 199. Rev'd in 57 XT. Y. 573 ; s. c, 15 Am. B. 534, with note. Dintruff y. Crittenden, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 143. Applied (Effect of assignment of chose in action) in George v. Tate, 102 IT. S. 57). Diossy v. Martin, 6 "Weekly Dig. 54. Followed (Effect of mechanic's lien act of 1875) in Heekmann o. Pinkney, 6 Abb. N. C. 371, 374. v. Morgan, 74 N. Y. 11, Disting'd (Estoppel created by giving receipt, jfce. to officer levying) in Clark v. Weaver, 17 Hun, 481, 486. Direct U. S. Cable Co. v. Dominion Tel. Co., 22 Hun, 568. Rev'd in 84 N. Y. 153. Disbro v. Disbro, 37 How. Pr. 147. Cited as authority (Injunction, &c. pending ap- peal) in opinions in Fellows v. Ileermans, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 1, 12, 18. Disbrow v. Garcia, 52 N. Y. 654. Explained ' (Eftect of extra allowance on right to dam- ages for injunction) in Park v. Musgrave, 6 Hun, 223. Disting'd (Counsel fees as dam- ages) in Newton v. Russell, 24 Id. 40, 42. Followed in Troxell v. Haynes, 5 Daly, 389, 391. r. Mills, 2 Hun, 132; mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 682. AfPd in 62 N. Y. 604. Dissosway t. Winant, 34 Barb. 578; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. 216. Rev'd in 33 How. Pr. 460; s. c, 3 Reyes, 412; 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 508. Distiu v. Rose, 7 Hun, 83. Aff'd in 69 K Y. 122. With decision in 69 N. Y. see to, the contrary (Evidence of words spoken before suit brought, — malice) cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 666, n. 14. Ditchett v. Spuyten Duyvil & Port Morris R. R Co., 5 Hun, 165. Rev'd in 67 N. Y. 425. See Fish v. Dodge. Decision- in 5 Hun collated with other cases (Contributory neg- ligence in disabled, &c. person) in 6 Abb. If. C. 117, n. Dittenhoeffer v. Lewis, 5 Daly, 72. Collated with other cases (What cases are referable) in 1 Abb. JST. C. 110, n. D'lvernois v. Leavitt, 23 Barb. 63. Discus- sed (Assignment for benefit of creditors — lex loci — real estate) in Bwrrill on Assign. . § 305, 4 ed. Divver v. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. 596; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 655, with extended note on the subject of mortgages to secure future ad- vances. See Barrow v. Paxton. Referred to as not accoi'ding with the prevailing au- thorities, in Jones on Chat. M. § 96, n. Dix v. Palmer, hHow. Pr. 233. See (Notice to defendant in default) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 5 1219, n. v. tan Wyck, 2 Hill, 522. See Aeby N. Y. 488 (Right to set up usury) in Carow v. Kelly, 59 Barb. 239, 249. See Jackson v. Tuttle, 9 Cow. 233. Cited as authority in Madison Uni- versity ». White, 25 Hun, 490, 497. Com- pared (Ratification of usury) in 4 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 324. Dixon v. Beach, 8 Daly, 284. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in 80 iV. Y. 641, on au- thority of Liddell i>. Patton, 67 N. Y. 393, but without opinion. v. Buck. See Simmons v. Sherman. v. Frazee, 1 E. D. Smith, 32. Applied (What constitutes guaranty) in Post v. Geoghegan, 5 Daly, 216, 218. Doane v. Eddy. See Collins v. Brush. Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. 34 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 293, with note ; 6 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 47, wth brief note. See Evernghim ■». Ens- worth ; Foot v. Sabin ; Livingston v. Roose- velt. Followed (Application of firm property to payment of private debt) in Koss v. 224 DOBKE— DODGE. Whitefield, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 50. Said in 8 Am. Dec. 297, n. (citing cases) to have been denied in Mass., N. H. and N. J. though followed in Pa. and elsewhere. Followed in Lanier v. McCabe, 2 Fla. 32 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 172. Approved in Rogersa. Batchelor, 12 Pet. 231. Reviewed ■with Evernghim v. Ensworth, 7 Wend. 326 ; Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. 251, in Ex parte Goulding, cited in Rogers v. Batchelor and Story on Partn. 7 ed.§ 133, «., p. 235; Gale v. Miller, 44 Bark 420, being also cited in Story on Partn. Applied (Burden of proof on creditor) in Rust v. Hauselt, 41 Super. Gt. ((J. & &1 467, 474, Cited with Foot v. Sabin, 19 Johns. 154, 157. G'ansevoort v. Williams, 14 Wend. 133, 135, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 133, n. Dobke v. McClaran, 41 Barb. 491. Applied (Power of surrogate to open or correct de- crees) in Bailey v. Stewart, 2 Bed/. 212, 224. Dobson v. Pearce, 1 Duer, 142; s. c, 10 IT. T. Leg. Obs. 170. AfTd in 12 JV. T. 156; s. c, with opinion of Denio, J., in 1 Abh. Pr. 97. See Konitzky v. Meyer; Pepoon ■». Jenkins; Ross v. Wood. Reference in Cramer «. Benton, 60 Barb. 227, explained in Same v. Same, 64 Id. 525. Decision in 12 N. Y. applied (Inquiry into jurisdiction) in Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. New Lamp Chimney Co., 64 Barb. 437; People ex rel. Comm'rs v. Smith, 13 Hun, 417; Kin- nier v. Kinnier, 45 N. Y. 542; Bolton v. Jacks, 6 RoU. 200. Disting'd (Relief against fraudulent or iniquitous judgment) in Far- rington v. Bullard, 40 Barb. 518; Methodist Episc. Ch. at Harlem v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 55 Sow. Pr. 60. Applied in Ross v. Wood, 8 Bun, 187. Applied to certificate of elec- tion, — in People ex rel. Stemmler n. Mc- Guire, 2 Id. 274. To release, in Dambman ». Sch ulting, i Id. 51. To award, in State of Michigan v. Phoenix B'k, 33 N. Y. 27, ■ which modified 7 Bosw. 20, 84, which see. To order for sale in Hackley v. Draper, 60 Id. 93. Explained (Distinction between law and equity) in Marsh «. Benson, 11 Abb. Pr. 248. Re-aff'd (Equitable defense to legal claim) in Crary v. Goodman, 12 N. Y. 267; Phillips v. Gorham, 17 Id. 275; Pitcher d. Hennessey, 48 Id. 422. See comments An Pomeroy on Rem. §§ 70, n., 90, 93. Dis- ting'd (Controversies to be determined in one action) in McHenry v. Hazard, 45 Id. 587. T. Kacey, 3 Sandf. Ch. 60. Subsequent decision in 8 If. Y. 216. Decision in 8 2V. Y. followed (Effect of title acquired by or through mortgagee, to foreclose equity of redemption) in Elliott v. Wood, 45 Id. 71. Dodd, Matter of, 27 JSF. Y. 629. Doubted •with People ex rel. Harvey v. Heath, 20 How. Pr. 304 (What is special proceeding) in People ex rel. Clute v. Boardman, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 484. So referred to in Mat- ter of Hudson Ave., 6 Hun, 350, 3G3. Not followed in Matter of Presbytery of N. Y., 54 How. Pr. 226, where the later case of Matter of Tappan was followed. Ex- plained and disting'd in Matter of Jetter, 78 JV. Y. 601. 604. Limited as a case of an application, made out of court, — in Pinck- ney's Case, 18 Abb. Pr. 356, but see this limitation disapproved in Matter of Thayer, 30 How. Pr. 277. Dodd v. Cnrry, 4 How. Pr. 123. Approved with Moffatt v. Ford, 14 Barb. 577; Rogers v. Degen, 10 Abb. Pr. 313 (What is a trial) in Mora v. Grsat Western Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. 622. Dodge, Ex parte, 7 Cow. 147. Doubted (Ex- cepting Sunday in computation of statutory time) in Keating v. Scrrell, 5 Daly, 278, 282. Dodge v. Berry, 26 Hun, 246. Followed with Marshall v. Peters, 12 How. Pr. 218 (Right to ice) in Brookville & Metamora Hydraulic Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 134; s. c, 46 Am. JR. 580, the contrary case of Myer«. Whitaker, 5 Abb. K C. 172, being disap- proved as against the weight of authority, as condemned by the courts of N. Y., as being the decision of a single judge, and as not being well reasoned. t. County of Platte, 16 Hun, 285. Rev'd in 82 N. Y. 218. v. Crandall, 30 N. Y. 294. See Hess v. Fox. Disting'd (Non-performance of por- tion of contract void by statute of frauds) in Weir ■». Hill, 2 Lans. 278. v. Dodg:e, 31 Barb. 413; s. c, more fully, 10 Abb. Pr. 401; 21 How. Pr. 63. Ex- plained (Widow, when deprived of dower by provision in will) in Tobias ®. Ketchum, 36 Barb. 306. y. Manning, 1 N. Y. 298. See Harris v. Fly ; Reynolds v. Reynolds. Applied (Legacy when payable) in Wheeler v. Ruthven, 2 Red/. 491, 494. v. Pond. 23 JST. Y. 69. Cited (Equit- able conversion), in Flanagan v. Flanagan, 8 Abb. N. C. 413, 417. Cited as authority with Bunce v. Vandergrift, 8 Paige, 37; Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. 641; Bogert v. Hertell, 4 Hill, 492; Stagg v. Jackson, 1 N. Y. 206 ; Hood v. Hood, 85 Id. 561, in Shaw v. Chambers, 48 Mich. 355. v. Porter, 13 ^466. Pr. 253. See (Direct- ing sheriff to pay money into court) Code Cit>. Pro. 1881, § 675, n. v. Potter, 18 Barb. 193. Applied (Parol evidence of property intended in mortgage) in Kennedy *. Nat. Union Bk. of _ Watertown, 23 Hun, 494, 497. v. Sheldon. See Bostwick v. Burnett. v. Wellinan, 42 Barb. 390. Aif d in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 512; s. c, 43 How. Pr. 427. See Hess v. Fox. Decision in 43 How. Pr. explained (Ejectment- against vendee in possession) in Carr v. Carr, 52 N. Y. 251, 259. v. Wilbur, 5 Sandf. 397. AfTd in 10 K Y. 579. Dodge & Stevenson MTg Co., Matter of, 14 DOE— DOMINICK. 225 Hun, 440. Rev'd in 77 N. 7. 101 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 579. See Walker v. Crain. Doe V. Butler. See Brandt v. Ogden ; Schau- ber v. Jackson. v. Campbell, 10 Johns. 475. See Brandt v. Ogden ; Jackson v. Lunn. Quoted (Statute of limitations — adverse possession) in Ang. on Limit. § 392, 6 ed. T. Howland, 8 'Cow. 277; s. c, 18 Am. Dee. 445. See Jackson v. Stevens. T. Phelps, 9 Johns. 169. See Jackson ■o. Lunn. Disting'd (Recitals in deed, as evidence) in McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. 7. 206, 211. v. Roe, 1 Johns. Coys. 25 ; s. c, 1 If. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 228, with brief note, on admissibility and effect of confessions of adultery. t. , 1 Johns. Gas. 402. See Ver- planck o. Sterrv. v. , 1 Wend. 541. Followed (What real estate passes by devise) in Sharp v. Dim- mick, 4 Lam. 496, 498. v. Thompson, 5 Cow. 371 ; s. c, 8 If. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 687, with brief note of cases as to course, distance, &c. Dohring v. People, 2 Sup'm. Cl. (T. & C.) 458. Aff'd, in part, as People «. Dohring, in 59 If. 7. 375 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 349. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct'. (T. & C.) dis- ting'd (Right of justice to hold office after age of seventy) in People ex rel. Lawrence v. Mann, 32 Hun, 440. Doke t. James, 4 N. 7. 568. Disting'd with Briggs v. Smith, 20 Barb. 418; Camp- bell v. Western, 3 Paige, 126 (Vacating of award on evidence furnished by arbitrators) in National Bank of Republic v. Darragh, 30 Hun, 29. Commented on, in Briggs ». Smith, 20 Barb. 409. Dolnii T. Fiigan. See Lee v. Woolsey. T. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., G Hun, 506. Aff'd, it seems, in 67 If. 7. 009. v. , 62 N. 7. 4.72. Followed (Effect of confirmation of report of commissioners of estimate and assessment) in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Id. 580. v. , 8 Hun, 440. Aff'd in 68 If. 7. 274; s. c, 23 Am. R. 168. See Conner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 68 If. 7. explained (Right of officer to compensation) in Mc- Veany v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 80 Id. 185, 191, 194, which aff'd 59 Mow. Pr. 106, which see. Compare Comm'rs of Saline Co. v. Anderson, 20 Kans. 298; s. c, 27 Am. R. 171. Disting"d in Stuhr v. Curran, 15 Vroom (If. J.) 181, 187. T. , 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 397. Disting'd (Injunction to restrain laying of pavements) in Grcaton v. Griffin, Id. 310. v. People, 6 Hun, 493. Aft'd in 64 If. 7. 485. Previous proceeding as People i. Dolan in 6 Hun, 232. Decision in Hun, 493 followed (Removal to Oyer and Terminer) in Leigh ton v. People, 10 Abb. If. C. 261, 265. Dole v. Bull. See Love v. Palmer. v. Fellows, 5 How. Pr. 451.' Cited (Application for inspection of private writ- ings, how made) Exchange Bank «. Monteath, 4 Id. 280, being also cited (Who may make such application) in 1 Whart. Com. on En. § 750. v. Gold, 5 Barb. 490; s. c, 7 If. 7. Leg. Obs. 247. See Cook i>. Litchfield. To the contrary see (Sufficiency of notice to in- dorsee) Cayuga County Bank v. Warden, 1 If. 7. 413. v. N. Y. Central, &c. K. R. Co., 1 Buff. Super. Ct. {Sheldon) 291. Brief mem. of previous decision in 49 If. 7. 677. v. Yan Rensselaer, 1 Johns. Cos. 330; s. c, 1 If. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 342, with brief note as to words spoken relative to officer. Dolevin t. Wilder, 7 Robt. 319; s. c, 34 How. Pr. 488. See (Mitigating circum- stances, how pleaded) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 536, n. Wolf v. Bassett, 15 Johns. 21. See Shaw v. White. Collated with other cases (Dower — valuation of land for) in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 399. Doll v. Earle,65 Barb. 298. Affdin59iv: 7. 638. v. Harlow, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 699. Reported in 2 Bun, 659. Dollard v. Taylor, 33 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 496 Compare (Appeal from order appoint- ing or refusing to appoint receiver) McKel- sey t. Lewis, 3 Abb. If. C. 61. Dollfus v. Frosch, 5 Hill. 493; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 368, with note, wherein are collected citations of the case as to when a motion once denied may be renewed without leave of court. Dollner v. Gibson, 3 Gode R. 153. Rev'd at General Term, Nov. 6, 1852. v. Lintz. 9 Daly, 17. Aff'd, it seems, in 84 AT 7. 669. v. Ward, 12 Weelcly Dig. 31 ; mem. s. c, as Dollner v. Lintz, in 84 'if. 7. 669. Dolson v. Kerr, 5 Hun, 643. Further decision m 52 How. Pr. 481. Collated with other cases (Assignment for benefit of creditors — surrender to bankruptcy assignee) in Bishop on Assign % 233. Explained (Possession by assignee) in Burrill on Assign. § 369, n. 1, 4 ed. Bominick v. Eacker, 3 'Barb. 17. Relied on with Savacool «. Boughton, 5 Wend. 170, and other cases (When officer is protected by process) in Gurney v. Tufts, 37 Me. 130 ; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 777. T. Michael, 4 Sand/. 374. Examined with other cases (Power of administrator with will annexed) in Paret v. Keneally, 30 Hun, 15. Cited as authority in Van Gies- sen v. Bridgford, 83 If. T. 348, 354. Ex- plained (Effect of power given to executor) in Clapp b. Brown, 4 Redf. 201. Reviewed with Jackson v. Bouchin, 14 Johns. 124; Voorhis v. Voorhis, 24 Barb. 150: Palmer v. Miller, 25 Id. 399 (Deed of infant, as affected by conveyance made after coming 226 DOMING— DOOLITTLE. of age) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 cd. § 33. Approved (Effect of original statute) in the Louisiana Lottery cases, U. S. v. Dauphin, U. S. Cir.Ct. E. D. La. 20 Fed. Bep. G28. Doming- v. Miller, 33 Barb. 386: To the contrary see cases cited (Grantor's title) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 705, n. 3. Donaldson v. Wood, 17 Wend. 550. Affd in 22 Id. 395. See Wood ». Donaldson. Donelly v. Yaudenbergh, 3 Johns. 26; s. c, 3 K T. Com. L. Law. ed. 516, with brief note. Donely v. Rockfeller, 4 Cow. 253. Rev'd in 8 Id. 623. Donnell v. Walsh, 6 Bosw. 621. Aff'd in 33 N. Y. 43. — — v. Williams, 21 Hun, 216. Explained and followed (Attachment in action on firm debt) in Buckingham v. Swezey, 25 Id. 84. Applied (Invalid attachment) to case of arrest, — in Southern Inland Nav. & Imp. Co. v. Sherwin, 1 Civ. Pro. B. 44, 46. Donnelly r. Corbett, 7 K T. 500. Examined with other cases (Effect of insolvent's dis- charge) in Ritchie v. Garrison, 10 Abb. Pr. 246, 248. Followed in Hawley v. Hunt, 27 Iowa, 303; s. c, 1 Am. P. 273, 274, 277. Cited with Soule v. Chase, 39 Id. 342; Pratt v. Chase, 44 Id. 597; Matter of Coates, 3 All. Ct. App. Dec. 231, in 29 Alb. L. J. 186. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 439, n. w. v. Shaw, 7 Abb. N. C. 264. Rev'd in 17 Sun, 564. Statement in early copies of 7 Abb. N. C. that no appeal was prosecuted was an error. Donovan v. Board of Education of N. Y., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 565. Aff'd in 85 K Y. 117. Prior decision in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 311, n. See Union Trust Co. v. Whiton. Decision in 1 Civ. Pro. B. applied (Costs allowed on amendment of answer) in Havemeycr v. Havemcyer, 62 How. Pr. 476, 478. v. Finn, Hoph. 59; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 531, with note inclining to favor the view that the weight of authority is against the doctrine of the power of equity in or- dinary cases to reach choses in action. This view I think an error; the better sustained opinion at the present day, being, I under- stand, in favor of the power. See Tolles v. Wood, 1G Abb. N. C. 1, and note; Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 126, 131; Artzbacher ». Mayer, 53 Wise. 380 ; Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565 ; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 ; s. c, 10 Am. Law Reg. K S. 718, and to the contrary, Hardenburgh v. Blair, 30 JV. J. Eq. 456, which rev'd Id. 42. See also Drake v. Rice, 130 Mass. 413; Carver v. Peck, 131 Id. 291; Scott v. Indianapolis Wagon Works, 48 Ind. 79. Opposed in Hadden v. Spader, 20 Johns. 554, and see Pcttit v. Candler, 3 Wend. 621. Coutrary provided by 2 B. S. 173, § 38 (same Stat, revised in Code Civ. Pro. § 1871). Compare Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41. Commented on, in Craig v. Howe, 2 Edw. 554; Congdon v. Lee, 3 Id. 304; Adsit v. Sanford, 2R Hun, 45, 49. Followed in Erwin v. Oldham, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 185; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 458, with note. - — v. McAlpin, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) ill. Affd in 85 N. Y. 185 ; s. c, 39 Am. B. 649. v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., 44 Barb. 180; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. fi8. Rev'd in 33 K Y. 291. Decision in 33 K Y. disting'd (Re- covery on municipal contract) in Jones v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Robt. 209. Collated with other cases, in 5 Abb. N. C. 43, n. Disting'd with Hodges v. City of Buffalo, 2 Den. 110, in City of Memphis v. Adams, 9 Heish. (Tenn.) 518; s. c, 24 Am. B. 331, 337. v. Yandemark, 18 Hun, 200. Rev'd in 78 N. Y. 244. Further proceeding in 22 Hun, 307. See First Nat. Bank of Mead- ville v. Fourth Nat. Bk. ; Leggetts. Perkins; Union Trust Co. u. Whiton. v. Willson, 26 Barb. 138. See Bennett v. Hall. Followed (What is sale within statute of frauds) in Ferren v. O'Hara, 62 Id. 517. Compare Passaic Manuf. Co. v. Hoff- man, 3 Daly, 495, where it is treated as overruled. Explained and compared,- in Cooke v. Millard, 65 N. Y. 362. v. Woodruff, 1 Hun, 439. Fuller mem., in 3 Su.p'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 773. Rev'd, it seems, in 63 N. Y. 636, but without opinion. Doolin v. Ward, 6 Johns. 194; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 97, with brief note. See Jones v. Caswell. Applied with Wilbur v. How, 8 Johns. 444 (Validity of agreement not to bid) in Thompson v. Davies, 13 Id. 112, and these three cases disting'd in Corning v. Pond, 29 Hun 129. Disting'd in Marsh v. Russell, 66 iV. Y. 292. Dis- ting'd with Wilber v. How; in Bellows v. Russell, 20 IT. H. 427; s. c, 52 Am. Dee. 2;S8. Collated with Wilbur v How, Thomp- son v. Davies ; Atchison v. Mallon, 43 iY. Y. 147; Jones v. Caswell, 3 Johns. Cos. 29, and other cases, in 22 Am. L. Beg. 16. Doolittle v. Dummy, 31 N. Y. 350. Ex- plained (Effect of undertaking) in Seaman v. Reynolds, 50 How. Pr. 425. Applied in Ilumerton v. Hav, 65 JV. Y. 3S4; Lowry v. Tew, 25 Hun. 257, 259. v. Howard. See Casey v. Mann. t. Lewis 7 Johns. Gh. 45; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 389, with note. See William's ». Stoirs. Explained (Power of foreign exe- cutors, &c ) in Robbins v. Wells, 1 Robt. 6C6. Examined and approved in Par- sons o. Lyman, 20 H. Y. 108, 112, 114. See to the contrary Carmichael v. Saint, 16 Ark. 28. Sec also Abb. Tr. Eo. 54. Ex- plained in Dial v. Gary, 14 So Car. 582. Commented on in Hutchins v. State B'k, 12 Met. (Mass.) 424, as holding a doctrine which would probably not be accepted to its full extent in Mass. Disting'd in Reynolds t>. McMullen, 22 .Northw. Rep. 41, 45. Ex- plained (Power — who may execute) in 2 Washb. on: Real Prop. 4 ed. 654. v . Najlor, 2 Bosw. 206. Disapproved DOOLITTLE— DO RWIN. 227 (Whether original promise within statute of frauds) in Prime v. Kochler, 7 Daly, 345. v. Southworth, 3 Barb. 79. Discussed (Assignment for benefit of credi tors — designa- tion of debts to be paid) in Burrill on As- sign. § 313, 4 ed. ■ v. Supervisors of Broome, 18 N. Y. • 1C5. See Christopher «. Mayor, &o. of N. Y. Followed and approved with Roose- velt v. Draper, 23 If. Y. 318 (Power of pri- vate individual to maintain proceedings to restrain or avoid public corporate act) in Phelps v. Oity of Watertown, 61 Barb. 121. Disting'd in People ex rel. Stephens ■c. Halsey, 37 If. Y. 344; People ex rel. ■ Haskins i>. Supervisors of Westchester, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 277; Lutes v. Briggs, 5 Hun, 71. Limited in People v. Miner. 2 Lans. 396, 410. Approved in Brooklyn City, &c. E. R. Co. v. Coney Island, &c. R. R. Co., 35 Barb. 364, 372. See People i>. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 32 Id. 102, 105; People v. Kerr, 20 How. I'r. 130, 135. Applied in Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Hun, 163, 194, 196. Dissented from in Board of Comm'rs of Clay Co. v. Murkle, 46 Ind. 96, 103. Disapproved in State ex rel. Silver v. Kendall, 18 Northw. Rep. 85, 92. Commented on in 1 Pomeroy on Eg. Jar. § 266, n. 2. v. Tice, 41 Barb. 181. See (Adverse possession under claim of title not written) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 372, re. Doran v. Deinpsey, 1 Braclf. 490. Disting'd (Attachment against executor for failure to pay) in Saltus v. Saltus, 2 Lans. 9. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2535, re. v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 10 Weekly Big. 555; mem s. c, 22 Hun, 313. Rev'd in 13 Weekly Dig. 229 ; mem. s. c, 86 N. Y. 635. Dorchester v Coventry, 11 Johns. 510. See Humphrey v. Phinney; Shaw v. White. Collated with other cases (Dower — valua- tion of laud for) in Sharxw. S B. Gas. on Heal Prop. 399. Discussed in 4 Kent Com. 68. Doreinns v. Lewis, 8 Barb. 124. Collated with other cases (General assignment for benefit of creditors — assigning only part of debtor's property) iu Bishop on Assign. Dorian v. Sammis, 2 Johns. 179. Followed with Holden v. l)akin,*4 Id. 121 ; Davis v. Meeker, 5 Id. 354, 404 (Fraud as barring action for recovery of purchase price of goods) in Reed v. Prentiss, 1 If. H. 174; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 50. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 783, ;?. d. Dorlon v. City of Brooklyn, 46 Barb. 604. Rev'd in 1 Alb. L. J. 315. Dorm an v. Kellain, 14 How. Pr. 184; s. c, more fully, 4 Abb. Pr. 202. Doru v. Backer, 61 Barb. 597. Rev'd in 61 If. Y. 261. Decision in 61 If. Y. disting'd (Liability of assessors) in Stewart v. Fonda, 19 Hun, 191, which was affd in 86 N. Y. 339, 348, which see. v. Fox, 6 Lans. 162. Rev'd in 61 If. Y. 204. Decision in 61 If. Y. examined with other cases (Restraining tax by injunction) in Mann v. Board of Education, 53 How. Pr. 289, 298. Followed (Interpleader) in Pustet v. Flannelly, 60 Id. 67, 69. Doron v. McLonglilin, 14 Hun, 628. See Wynkoop v. Halbut. See (Notice of appeal in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, re. Dorr v. Birge, 5 How. Pr. 323. See (Appeal from judgment, &c.) Code Civ. Pr. 1881, § 1294, n. v. Miinsell, 13 Johns. 430. See Sher- wood v. Johnson. Disting'd and Belden v. Davies, 2 Hall, 434, applied (Sufficiency of plea that execution of instrument was ob- tained by fraud) in Saunders v. Stotts, 6 Ohio, 380; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 263. Fol- lowed in Taylor v. King, 6 Munf. (Fa.) 358; s. a, 8 Am. Dec. 746, with note. v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 11 If. Y. 485. Previous decision in 4 Sand/. 136. See Cole 11. Goodwin: Hollister v. Nowlen; Wel- les v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Decision in 11 If. Y. referred to as the leading ease and one that has been repeatedly followed (Right of carrier to limit liability) in Fibel . Pratt, 4 Wis. 520. Applied (Evidence of grounds of justice's judgment) in Royce v. Burt, 42 Barb. 665. Subsequent proceedings on justice's judgment referred to herein, nar- rated, in Rinchey v. Stryker, 28 N. Y. 53. Disting'd (Evidence as to controversy in former action) in Phelps v. Gee, 29 Hun, 202. Reviewed with Brewster v. Country- man, 12 Wend. 446; Castle v. Noyes, 14 H. Y. 329; Kip v. Brigham, 6 Johns. 158;' Waldo v. Levy. 7 Id. 173; Lee v. Clark, 1 Hill, 56 (Judgment against one privy as binding upon others) in Smith d. Moore, 7 So. Gar. 209; s. c, 24 Am. B. 479, 483, 485, 487. v. , 3 How. Pr. 375. See (How time enlarged) Code. Civ. Pro. 1881, § 781, n. v. Miller, 43 Barb. 529. Cited with other cases (Broker entitled to commissions where sale fails through defect of title) in 10 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 638. v. Turner, 8 Johns. 20. See Crary v. Turner. Followed (Effect of leaving prop- erty levied on in possession of defendant) in Keyser's Appeal, 13 Pa. St. 409; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 487, with note. v. Wilson, 5 Lans. 7. Modified in 47 iV. Y. 580. See Ingraham v. Gilbert ; Nash v. Russell. Doubleday v. Heath. See Kundolph v. Thal- heimer. v. Kress, 60 Barb. 181. Rev'd in 50 N: Y. 410; s. c, 10 Am. It. 502. Decision" in 50 A'". Y. cited (Authority derived by agent from possession of promissory note) in W hart. Com. on Ag. § 208, n. See to the contrary, 2 Oreenl. on Ev. 13 ed. 52 ; also Abb. Tr. Ev. 801. v. Supervisors of Broome, 2 Cow. 533. Questioned and disting'd (Charges by officers for performance of duties imposed by law) in Crofut v. Brandt, 58 >. Y. 106, 113. Dongan T. Champlain Transp. Co., 6 Lans. 430. As to jurisdiction confirmed in 56 N. Y. 1, where a non-suit granted on the second trial was sustained. Decision in 56 K Y. applied (Inadmissibility of evidence of acts done subsequent to accident causing injury) in Salters v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 3 Hun, 341 ; Paynes. Troy & Bos- ton H. R. Co., 9 Id. 526; Morrell v. Peck, 24 Id. 38. Followed with Baird v. Daly, 68 ]?. Y. 547 ; Dale v. Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co., 73 Id. 472, in Delaney v.' Hilton, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 341. Fol- lowed with Baird v. Daly; Salters v. Dela- ware & Hudson Canal Co., 3 Hun, 338; Morrell v. Peck, 24 Id. 37, in Henkel v. Murr, 31 Id. 31. Disting'd in Westfall v. Erie R'y Co., 5 Id. 77; Sewell ». City of Cohoes, 75 K Y. 54, which affd 11 Hun, 630, which see. Cited as authority (Evi- dence of prior accidents) in Quinlan v. City of Utica, Id. 220. Disting'd (Negligence, as shown by failure to use appliances for safety) in Cleveland v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 5 Id. 527, which was rev'd in 68 A'. Y. 310, which see; Ring v. City of Cohoes, 13 Hun, 84. Followed in McMahon v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 507; Loftus v. Union Ferry Co., 84 N. Y. 460; Car- penter v. Bost. & Alb. R. R. Co., 24 Hun, 104, 108. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of Stato courts in maritime matters) in Bartlett v. Spicer, 75 N. Y. 534. Dougherty v. Bunting. See Dygert v. Schenck. v. Van Nostrand, Hofflm. 68. See Wil- liams ;'. Wilson. Explained as a leading authority (Good-will of business does not survive to continuing partner) in Williams v. Wilson, 4 Sandf. Ch. 380; Howes. Searing, 19 How. Pr. 17. Doughty v. Brill, 36 Barb. 488. Affd in 3 Keyes, 61 SI; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec.bii. Decision in 36 Barb, followed (Liability for encroachments on highways) in Marvin v. Pardee, 64 Id. 353, 359. v. Devlin, 1 E. I). Smith, 625. Applied (Proceedings to foreclose mechanic's lien) in Gross v. Daly, 5 Daly. 540, 550. Disting'd in Preusser v. Florence, 4 Abb. IT. C. 136, 138. v. Hope, 3 Den. 249. Motion for second new trial denied, in Id. 594, and judgment affd, in 1 A 7 ". Y. 79, but without further opinion. Decision in 1 A 7 ! Y. fol- lowed (Necessity of publication of redemp- tion notice after sale of land for taxes) in Westbrook v. Willey, 47 Id. 457. Cited with Van Alstyne v. Erwin, 11 Id. 331; Wood v. Chapin, 13 Id. 509; Town of Guilford v. Supervisors of Chenango, Id. 143; Moore v. Major, &c. of N. Y., 8 Id. 110, and People ex ret. Albany, &c. R. E. Co. v. Mitchell, 45 Barb. 208 ; People «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Wend. 398, disting'd (Constitutional power of legislature to de- clare act or instrument conclusive evidence of legal title or right) in McUready ». Sex- ton, 29 Iowa, 356 ; s. c, 4 Am. li. 214, 230. v. Stillwell, 2 Bradf. 300. See Walton v. Walton. Disting'd (Liability of widow DOUGLAS— DOUGLASS. 229 for assessments to be deducted from income given her by will) in Bohde v. Bruner, 2 Retlf. 333, 338. Douglas v. Cruger, 80 N. Y. 15. See Mc- Whorter v. Agnew. Applied (Extinguish- ment of trust) in Thebaud i>. Schermerhorn, 10 Abb. JV. 0. 72, 77. Compare contrary cases, in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 539, n. v. Douglas, 5 Hun, 140. Further pro- ceedings in 7 Id. 272, and 11 Id. 406. With, decision in 7 Id. sec to same effect • (Exceptions filed nuna pro tunc) Rust v. Hauselt, 46 Super. Ct. (J..& S.) 22, 33. Collated with other cases in note on divorce for impotence in 8 Abb. JV. C. 205, n. V. Haberstro. See Douglass «. Same. v. Knickerbocker life. Ins. Co., 55 How. Pr. 104; s. c, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 313, where it is affd on opinion below, and that affd in 83 N. Y. 492. v. Valentine, 7 Johns. 273. Explained (Trespass upon land) in Thompson v. Ben- nett, 2 Eeyes, 503. Douglass, Matter of, 9 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 84; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 201 ; 58 Barb. 174. Rev'd in 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 84; s. c, 46 N. Y. 42. Decision in 46 N. Y. disting'd (Validity of assessment proceedings) in Matter of Prot. Episc. Public School, 47 N. Y. 550 ; Moore v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 Id. 238, 249; s. c, 29 Am. B. 134, which rev'd 4 Hun, 545, which see. Followed in Matter of Astor, 50 N. 7. 363, 365. Applied in Mat- ter of Bnrke, 2 Hun, 281, 283. Decision in 58 Barb, followed in Matter of Agnew, 4 Hun, 4:55, 438. Douglass v. Clark, 14 Johns. 177. See Matter of Negus. Referred to as overruled (Action on indemnity bond) in Thomas «. Allen, 1 Hill, 145. ■ v. Haberstro, 19 Hun, 1 ; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 264. Further proceedings in Id. 276; s. c, 8 Abb. N. C. 230. Also another in 21 Hun, 320; s. c, 8 Abb. N. G 230; 59 How. Pr. 194, which was dismissed on ap- peal in 82 N. Y. 572. Still further proceed- ing in 25 Hun, 262, which was rev'd in 88 N. Y. 611. Decision in 58 How. Pr. doubted (Sufficiency of notice of appearance) in Krause v. Averill, 4 Gin. Fro. R. (Browne) 410. ■ V. Howland, 24 Wend. 35; s. c. 14 N. Y. Gom. L. Law. ed. 524, with brief note, and tp. 532) analytic list of cases citing this case. See Allen -o. Rightmere; Bartlett v. Campbell; Leonard ». Vroden- burgh; Watsons. McLaren. Cited as au- thority (Judgment against principal as con- cluding surety) in Thayer v. Clark, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 395 ; Bridgeport Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 7 Bosw. 434. Examined with other cases in dissenting opinion of Daniels, J., in Tyng «. Clarke, 9 Hun, 276. Followed in Moss v. McCullough, 5 Hill, 134; Thomas v. Hubbell, 15 N. Y. 407, which rev'd 18 Barb. 11, which see. Annett v. Terry, 35 If. Y. 261. Applied in Bridgeport Ins. Co. a. Wilson, 34 Id. 281; Germain v. Wing, 1 Sheld. 444. Compare Ex parte Young, 45 L. T. 11. N. S. 90. Disting'd (Effect of admissions of principal against surety) in Hatch v. Elkins, 65 N. Y. 498. Commented on and explained inRapelye v. Prince, iHill, 122; Jackson®. Griswold, Id. 529. Explained in Thomson v. MacGregor, 81 N. Y. 597. Cited as settled law (Notice of acceptance of absolute guaranty not necessary) in Union B'k v. Coster, 3 Id. 212, which affd 1 Sand/. 563, 568, which see. Commented on and applied with Smith e. Dann, 6 Hill, 543 ; Union B'k v. Coster, 'SKY. 203, in Wilcox v. Draper, 12 Neb. 138, 142. Dissented from with Union Bank «. Coster, 3 N. Y. 203, as con- trary to reason and authority, in Menard v. Scudder, 7 La. Ann. 385; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 610. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 14, n. e. Quoted and collated, with other cases, in Holcombe, Lead. Gas. on Gom. L. 1 95. Applied (Liability of guarantor as af- fected by failure to give notice) in Deck v. Works, 18 Hun, 271 ; Brown v. Curtiss, 2 H. Y. 231. Applied to maker, in Genesee College v. Dodge, 26 Id. 215. Quoted and collated, with other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 62, 106, 110, 119, 5 ed. Explained and questioned (Expression of consideration for guaranty) in Bennett v. Pratt, 4 Hen. 286. Examined with other cases by Jewett, J., in Staats v. Howlett, Id. 563. Examined with other cases in Hall i>. Farmer, 5 Id. 494. Applied (Con- struction of guaranty) in Draper u. Snow, 20 N. Y. 333. Followed (" Value received " as expression of consideration) in Moore v. Cross, 23 Barb. 538 ; Miller v. Cook, 23 K Y. 497. Followed (Seal as sufficient ex- pression of consideration) in Barnum v. Childs, 1 Sand/. 61; Rosenbaum v. Gunter, 2 E. D. Smith, 416. Language of Cowen, J., quoted with great approval (Construction of statutes) in 1 Kent Gom. 468, n. d. v. Ireland, 73 N. Y. 100. Disting'd (Liability of stockholders) in Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 Id. 441, 457. T. Tousey, 2 Wend. 352; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 616, 620, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently noticed and ap- proved (Setting aside verdict as against evidence). See Root v. King. t. Warren, 19 Hun, 1; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 264. Further proceeding in Id. 276. T. Wells. See Burr v. Beers. r. Wiggins, 1 Johns. Ch. 435. Followed with Steward v. Winters, 4 Sand/. Ch. 587 (Enjoining improper use of demised prem- ises) in Maddox v. White, 4 Md. 72; s. c, 59 Am. Dee. 67, with note. • v. Wilkeson, 6 Wend. 637. Explained and disting'd (Effect of indorsement for part only of contents of note) in Shoop v. Clark, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 235, 239. Dis- approved (Admissibility of instrument not negotiable, under money counts) in Taplin v. Packard, 8 Barb. 220. v. Wilkinson, 17 Wend. 431. Affd in 22 Id. 559. 230 DOtJGEEY- DOWNING. Dongrey T. Topping, 4 Paige, 94. Explained (Necessity of showing acts and declarations to preclude widow from claiming dower) in O'Brien «. Elliott, 15 Me. 125; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 137, 139. Bounce v. Dow, 57 If. Y. 16. Further decis- ion in 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 653, which was aft'd in 64 If. Y. 411. See Hoe v. San- born; Reed D.Randall; Seixas v. Woods. Decision in 57 N. Y. disting'd (Warranty on sale) in Cahen v. Piatt, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 483, 490. Decision in 64 If. Y. fol- lowed in White v. Miller, 71 Id. 118, 129. See other cases collected in 15 Am. L. Rev. 668. Explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 933, n. 8 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.); Id. § 600, n. p. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.); Id. § 661, n. q. Doupe v. Genin, 1 Sweeny, 25; s. c, 37 How. Pr. 5. Affd in 45 N. Y. 119. See Witty v. Matthews. Decision in 45 If. Y. dis- ting'd .with Witty v. Matthews, 52 Id. 512 (Liability of lessor to repair) in Avery v. City of Syracuse, 29 Hun, 537. Approved in Fox v. Abbott, 16 Weekly Dig. 159. Dow, Ex parte, 1 Cow. 205. Overruled (Adjudication as to settlement of paupers) in People v. Supervisors of Oswego, 2 Wend. 291 ; Ejb parte Overseers of Gate3, 4 Cow. 137. Dow v. Platner, 16 N. Y. 562. Explained (Assignment for benefit of creditors — trust in assignor's favor) in Burrill on Assign. § 200, n. 4, 4 ed. T. Smith, 1 Cai. 32. Collated with other cases (Effect of adjustment of claim for in- surance) in 35 Am. R. 775, n. v. Way, 64 Barb. 255. Discussed (Statute of frauds — verbal contracts — col- lateral agreements) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, f 117, b, 4 ed. v. Whelten, 8 Wend. 160. See to the contrary (Contract of insurance — intention of parties) Ionides v. Pacific Ins. Co., L. It. 7 Q. B. 517; 6 Id. 674; s. c, 6 Am. L. Ren. 297. See Abb. Tr. Ev. 478. Dowd, Matter of, 58 How. Pr. 107; s. c. as Dowd's Will, 8 Abb. If. C. 118. Dowdle Y. Camp, 12 Johns. 451. See Abbott v. Draper; Lockwood «. Barnes. Followed (Recovery back of money paid on land con- tract) in Sims v. Hutchins, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 328; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 90. Ques- tioned with Abbott i>. Draper, 4 Den. 51 ; Rice *. Peet, 15 Johns. 503 ; Thayer 11. Rock, 13 Wend. 53, in Scott «. Bush, 26 Mich. 418; s. c, 12 Am. R. 311, 313. Dowdney v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 54 K Y. 186. Disting'd (Existence of assessment as lien) in De Peyster v. Murphy, 66 Id. 622. Compare as to taxes generally, Edwards v. Cogswell, 1 Supm. Ct.(T. & C.) 416. Dowe v. Schutt, 2 Den. 621. See Acby v. Rapelye. Followed (Estoppel to set up usury in note) in Chamberlain v. Towusend, 7 Abb. Pr. 81; Mason v. Anthony, S Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 208 ; Mechanic's Bk. of Brook- lyn v. Towusend, 29 Barb. 575 ; Ferguson v. Hamilton, 35 Id. 435. Explained by Mabvin, J., in Truscott v. Davis, 4 Id. 50 1. Commented on in Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bk., 13 If. Y. 316. Applied (What is not accommodation paper) in McSpedon v. Troy City Bk., 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 138, which affd 33 Barb. 84, which see ; Coburn v. Baker, 6 Duer, 537 ; Burhans v. Carter, 13 Hun, 153, 157; Davis v. McCready, 17 If. Y 232. Disting'd in Catlin «. Gunter, 11 Id. 372. Explained in Bayliss ». Cock- croft, 81 Id. 372. Disting'd (Note as subject of sale) as inapplicable to case of a mort- gage, in Bank of Albion v. Burns, 2 Lans. 55. Dowling v. Bucking, 52 If. 7. 658. Fully reported in 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 190. Fol- lowed (Liability o.f assignee of collateral security for costs) in Peck v. Yorks, 75 If. Y. 424. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 3247. Down v. McGourkey, 15 Hun, 444. Aff'd, it seems, in 78 If. Y. 614, but without opinion. See Noyes v. Children's Aid Society. Downer v. Eggleston, 15 Wend. 51. Exam- ned with Sherman v. Ballou, 8 Cow. 304 (Set-off and recoupment) in Pierce v. Hoffman, 4 Wise. 278. Explained at length (Agreement preventing set-off) in Gutchess v. Daniels, 49 N. Y. 613, which rev'd 58 Barb. 401, which see. v. Madison Co Bank, 6 Hill, 648. See to the contrary (Liability of banks as col- lecting agents) Guelick «. Nat. State Bank of Burlington, 56 Iowa, 436, citing many cases. v. Remer, 21 Wend. 10. Rev'd in 23 Id. 620 ; 25 Id. 277 ; opinion of Yerplanck, Senator, being given in 25 Id. Whether the reversal can be deemed to have settled any principles, Query? But see (Sufficiency of service of notice on indorser) Seneca County Bank v. Neass, 3 If. Y. 442. Y. Thompson, 2 Hill, 137. Rev'd in 6 Id. 208; s. c, 16 If. Y Com. L. Law. ed. 334, with brief note. Subsequent decision in 6 Hill, 377. Decision in 2 Hill ex- plained (Effect of delivery to carrier, as delivery to vendee) in Hague v. Porter, 3 Id. 141. Followed as not affected on this point by reversal (Passing of title to property sold) in Field v. Moore, 1 Hill & D. 422. Decision in 6 Hill, 377 explained (Amendment of declaration) in Alston v. Mechanic's Mut. Ins. Co., 1 How. Pr. 85. Explained (Sales— waiver of extra delivery) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 534 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Downes v. Phoenix Bank, 6 Hill, 297; s. c, 16 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 365, with brief note. Approved (Necessity of demand before suit) in Payne v. Gardiner, 29 N. Y. 146, 169. Applied with Howland v. Ed- monds, 24 Id. 307, in Brown v. Brown, 28 Minn. 502. Downing v. Kelly, 49 Barb. 547. Appeal dismissed in 48 IT. Y. 433. Decision in 48 DOWNING— DOWS. 231 If. Y. re-afl'd (Opinion of general term, when not to be resorted to) in Kirkland ■». Leary, 50 Id. 678. v. Mann. 9 How. Pr. 204; s. c, more fully, 3 E D. Smith, 36. v. Marshall, 23 If. Y. 366. Dissenting opinion of Davies, J., in 23 How. Pr. 4. Decision as to cos,ts in 37 If. Y. 394. See Lang v. Ropke. Decision in 23 N. Y. ap- plied (Powers in trust) in McGrath v. Van Stavoren, 8 Daly, 460; Blanchard v. Blanchard, 4 Hun, 287, 292; Garvey v. McDevitt, 11 Id. 461. Approved in N. Y. Dry Dock Co. v. Stillrnan, 30 N. Y. 193. Followed in Crittenden v. Fairchild, 41 Id. 292. Disting'd (Devise void for alienage) in Hall v. Hall, 81 Id. 138. Disting'd (Continuance of trust beyond life of bene- ficiary) in Thomson «. Thomson, 55 How. Pr. 511. Applied (Capacity of society to take personal property by testamentary gift) on Sherwood v. American Bible Society, 4 A o o. Ct. App. Dec. 231; Harris v. Slaght, 46 Barb. 504, which was rev'd in 4 Abb. Pr. If. S, 426, which see; Betts v. Betts, 57 How. Pr. 355, n. Disting'd in Burrill t>. Boardman, 43 N. Y. 206. Applied (Opera- tion of statute of uses) in Eysaman v. Eysa- man, 24 Hun, 430, 433. Collated with other cases (Effect of R. S. on trusts) in Gerard Titles to Peal Est. 2 ed. 272. See (Voluntary associations) Ebbinghausen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. If. O. 300. Dis- cussed (Trust to receive and pay over rents ard profits) in 4 Kent. Com. 313, n. 1, Comstock's ed. Applied (Invalidity of charitable trusts) in Levy v. Levy, 33 If. Y. 121; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 Id. 594. Examined with Beekman o. Bonsor, 23 Id. 298: Williams v. Williams, 8 Id. 525; Owens v. Missionary Society of the M. E. Church, 14 Id. 380, in Grimes' Executors v. Harmon, 35 hid. 198; s. c, 9 Am. It. 690, 693, 694, 717. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on, Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 410, n. Applied with McCartee e. Orphan Asylum, 7 Cow. 437 (Disability of corporations to take and hold real estate) in Starkweather v. American Bible Society, 72 III. 50 ; s. c, 22 Am. It. 133. Col- lated with other cases in 18 Am. Dee. 542, n. Decision in 37 If. Y. followed (Costs in action for construction of will) in Rose *. Rose Assoc., 28 Id. 1 90 ; Wetmore v. Parker, 52 Id. 466. Applied (Costs in equity ac- tions discretionary under the Code) in Black v. O'Brien, 23 Hun, 82, 85. Followed (Equity without jurisdiction to order costs, independent of statute) ia Sheehau v. Huerstil, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 64. Ap- plied (Review of order granting allowance) in Leslie v. Leslie,- 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 193. Disting'd (Right of one acting in autre droit, to indemnity for expenses) in Crofut «. Brandt, 5 Daly, 124, 127. y. Rugar, 21 Wend. 178: s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 223, with note, wherein are collected citations. Cited as authority (Presumption that act of public duty was duly performed) in Scott v. Lessee, &c, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 150. Applied (Execution of power delegated to several) in First Nat. Bk. of North Ben- nington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 Vt. 87; s. c, 36 Am. R. 734, 739. Shown in 1 Am. Dec. 200, n., to lay down a rule which has been frequently applied. Downs v. N. Y Central K. R. Co., 47 If. Y. 83. Further decision in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 20, which was affd in 56 iV. Y. 664. With decision in 47 Id. see other cases collected (Contributory negligence of parent, &c.) in 6 Mb. If. C. 116, n. Doctrine dis- cussed and cases cited, in 12 Am. L. Peg. If. S. 758. Collated with other cases, in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 1181. Cited with Mc- Cormick v. Penn. Central R. R. Co,, 49 If. Y. 315 (Admissibility of memoranda in evi- dence) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 522, n. v. Ross, 23 Wend. 270. See Bennett v. Hall; Bronsou i>. Wiman. Compare (What is sale within statute of frauds) Bronson v. Wiman, 10 Barb. 406, with which it is said to conflict, in Ferren v. O'Hara, 62 Id. 517. Referred to as overruled, in Passaic Manuf. Co. v. Hoffman, 3 Daly, 495. Doc- trine explained and compared, in Cooke v. Millard, 65 If. Y. 361. Compared in 13 Am. L. Peg. If. S. 734. Quoted and ex- plained in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1005, n. 2. Quoted in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. 8 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Cited as a case in which the subject was discussed with great ability by Bkonson, J., and cases reviewed — in Id, § 109, n. 3 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Sprague. See Tinney v. N. J. Steam- boat Co. Dows r. Greene, 16 Barb. 72. Further decis- ion in 32 Id. 490, which was affd in 24 H. Y. 638. Decisions in 16 Barb. ; 24 N.Y. with Dows v. Rush, 28 Barb. 183; Dows v. Perrin, 16 If. Y. 325; Bank of Rochester «. Jones, 4 Id. 497, followed as decisive authorities (What is a bill of lading) iu Rawls v. Deshler, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 19. Decision in 24 If. Y. disting'd in Mechanics' & Trad. Bk. v. Farmers' & Mech. Nat. Bk., 60 If. Y. 40, 49, 52. Decision in 32 Barb, disting'd (Effect of bill of lading in passing title) iu Pattison v. Culton, 33 Ind. 240; s. c, 5 Am. B. 199. v. Kidder, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 639. Affd in 84 If. Y. 121. Decision in 84 N. Y. quoted (Sales of specific chattels uncon- ditionally) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 339 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.). v. McMichael, 2 Paige, 345. See Fish v. Miller. Followed and approved (Relief to which complainant is entitled, in case of plea being found false) in Hinlbut®. Britain, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 194. Applied in Kennedy v. Creswell, 101 U. S. 641, 645. v. Perrin, 16 N. Y. 325. For cases arising on same facts see Dows v. Greene, 16 Barb. 72; Dows f. Rush, 28 Id. 157. Ap- plied (Parol authority to execute instru- ment) in Bank of North America v. Embury, 33 Id. 325. Examined (Construction of 232 DOWS— DREW". ' bill of lading) in First Nat. B'k of Toledo ». } Shaw, 61 A 7 ". Y. 292. Criticised as too re- '' stricted and not involved in the judgment, — (Negotiability of bills of lading) in Dows v. Rush, 28 Barb. 185. Applied {Bona fide holder of bill of lading) in Wilmot v. Richardson, 7 Bosw. 589. Disting'd (Rights ' of transferee of bill of lading) in Blossom v. 'Champion, 28 Barb. 223; Holbrook v. Vose, 6 Bosw. Ill ; Meyer v. Peck, 28 A 7 ! Y. 599. Compare Wolfe v. Myers, 3 Sandf. 7; Covill ». Hill, 4 Den. 323. Quoted (Sale— stoppage in transitu) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1286, n. 27 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). T. Rush. See Dows v. Greene. Dox v. Backenstose, 12 Wend. 542. Ques- tioned (Enforcement of judgments against decedent's estate) in Marine Bank of Chi- cago *. "Van Brunt, 49 JV. Y. 160, 164. v. Dey. See Cook v. Ferral. Doyle v. Gibbs. See People ex rel. Hubbard v. Annis. T. Lord, 48 How. Pr. 142; s. c, more fully, with affirmance, in 39 Super. Ct. (J. . & S.) 421, which was rev'd in 64 N. Y. 432; s. c, 21 Am. R. 629. See (Implied covenants in leases for years) 2 Abb. N. Y. Big. 472-3. Decision in 64 N. Y. ex- plained and followed (Ancient lights) in Shipman *. Beers, 2 Abb. N. C. 435, 438. Commented on in Wood on Nuis. 2 ^ed. § 155. Quoted and commented on (Lease — " appurtenances ") in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 63. v. Peerless Petroleum Co., 44 Barb. 239. Disting'd (Title acquired by grantor subsequent to execution of conveyance) in Tefft v. Munson, 63 Id. 31, 38. T. Russell, 30 Barb. 300. Disting'd (Action for false imprisonment) in Dusenbury v. Keiley, 85 A 7 ". Y. 383. Collated with other cases and explained, in Bigel. Cos. on Torts, 277. Y. Sharpe, 41 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 312. Mem. of confirmation in 43 Id. 545, which was affd in 74 A 7 ". Y. 154, and that rev'd in Sharpe v. Doyle, 102 U. S. 686. Decision in 74 If. Y. explained (Seizure by marshal) in Diderick v. Fiske, 59 How. Pr. 73. Drake v. Cockroft, 4 E. D. Smith, 34. Ex- plained (Counter-claim in action for rent) in Walker v. Shoemaker, 4 Hun, 579. t. Goodridge, 54 Barb. 78. Rev'd (Sufficiency of notice of attachment) in Clarke v. Same,41 If. Y. 210. v. Hudson River R. It. Co., 7 Barb. 508. Explained and applied (Right of owner of property abutting on street occupied by railroad) in Caro v. Metrop. Elev. Ry. Co., 46 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 138, 161. Ex- plained in Kellinger v. Forty-second Street, &c. R. R. Co., 50 If. Y. 211. Followed in Greeno v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 12 Abb. N. O. 124. v. Kayor, &c of N. T., 77 If. Y. 611. Former decision in another action, in 7 Lam. 340. T. Miller, Col. & C. Cos. 89. Overruled (Process as invalidated by return) in Wil- liams v. Rogers, 5 Johns. 163; Morrell «. Waggoner, Id. 233. v. Price, 7 Barb. 388. Affd in 5 K Y. 430. See Valentine v. Valentine; Wester- field . Battel, 4 ^466. Pr. 269. Re-aff'd in Hovey 0. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 57 If. Y. 125. Disting'd as inapplicable to case arising out of bankrupt law, — in Gilbert v. Priest, 63 Barb. 348; Gilbert ». Crawford, 46 How. Pr. 224; Cook d. Whipple, 55 If. 7. 163. To action founded on contract, — in Middle- brook v. Broadbent, 47 Id. 446. Ap- proved in Judson v. Union Rubber Co. ; Tomlinson v. Battel, Law\i Dig. of Pat. & Cop. L. 78. Applied (Assent cannot con- fer jurisdiction) in Harriott v. N. J. R. R. Co., 8 Alb. Pr. 286 ; Ansonia Brass & Cop- per Co. ■». New Lamp Chimney Co., 64 Barl. 435, 438. Applied (Right, when confined to statutoiy remedy) in Hollistcrs. Hollister Bk., 2 All. Ct. App. Dec. 370; Lowry v. Inman, 6 All. Pr. If. S. 401 ; First Nat. Bk. of Whitehall v. Lamb, 57 Barb. 434; People v. Green, 1 Hun, 11; Matter of Townsend, 4 Id. 31, 33 ; Davidson ii. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Bolt. 242. Dis- ting'd in Smith v. City of Albany, 7 Lans. 18; People ex rel. Hatzel e. Hall, 80 N. Y. 125. Applied with Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns. 175 ; McKeon v. Caherty, 3 Wend. 494; Renwick v. Morris, 7 Hill, 575 ; People v. Hazard, 4 Id. 207; People v. Hall, 80 N. 7. 117, in Pentlarge v. Kirby, U~. S. Dist. Ct. S. D. N. 7. 19 Fed. Rep. 506. Relied on in Corey v. Ripley, 57 Me. 69; s. c, 2 Am. B. 19. Dner t. Small. See People ex rel. Hoyt v. Comm'rs of Taxes. Duff, Matter of. See White v. Munroe. Duffuny v. Furgeson, 5 Hun, 106. Rev'd as Duffany «. Ferguson, and re-argument denied in 65 If. 7. 482. Decision in 66 If. 7. ex- . plained in Scott v. Stebbins, 27 Hun, 335, as not being a bar to the action there brought. Dnffee v. Mason, 8 Cow. 25. See Chapman v. Murch. Quoted (Question of warranty in parol contracts of sale — whether for jury) in Borrekin v. Bevan, 3 Bawle (Pa.) 23; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 85, 91, with note. Duffield v. Horton, 10 Hun, 140. Aff'd in 73 N. 7. 218. Decision in 73 If. 7. cited as authority with other cases (Parties claiming under attachment, when becoming liable as for conversion, through subsequent institu- tion of bankruptcy proceedings) in Conner v. Long. 104 U. S. 228, the cases of Sava- cool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 170; Webber®. Gay, 24 Id. 485, being followed as denying the liability of the sheriil. Duffy v. Donovan,* 52 if. 7. 684. See brief note of decision below, in 7 Alb. L. J. 414. v. Duncan, 32 Barb. 587. Afl'd in 35 N. 7. 187. Decision in 35 N. 7. quoted' (Assignment for benefit of creditors — as- signee's compensation) in Burrill on Assign. § 145, n. 7, 4 ed. Quoted" and explained (Assignee continuing business) in Id. § 397. Commented on (Expenses of the trust) in Id. § 418, n. 4. v. Lynch, 36 How. Pr. 509. Examined with other cases (Right to examination be- fore trial) in Phoenix v. Dupuy, 7 Daly, 238, 242. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. S,ee Adams v. Van Alstyne. v. People, 1 Hill, 355. Rev'd in 6 Id. 75. v. , 26 If. 7. 588. Aff'g 5 Pari. 321. Decision in 2C K. 7. applied (State- ments, &c. of person under duress, in evi- dence) in State v. Graham, 74 If. C. 646 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 493. v. Thompson, 1 Abb. Pr. 326, n. ; s. c, fully reported, in 4 E. D. Smith, 178. v. "Wnuscli. 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 113; s. c, more fully, 42 If. Y. 243. See Leonard v. Viedenburgh. Decision in 42 If. 7. dis- ting'd (What is promise to answer for debt of another) in Prime v. Koohler, 7 Daly, 345 352 Dugi-o, Matter of, 50 If. 7. 513. Collated with other cases (Municipal contracts — invit- ing proposals) in 5 Abb. If. G. 41, n. Duguet v. Rhinelander, 1 Johns. Gas. 360. Rev'd in 2 Id. 476; s. c, 1 Cai. Cas. 25. Decision in 1 Johns. Gas. cited with Jack- son v. N. Y. Ins." Co., 2 Id. 191, as showing the prevailing doctrine in this country, though contrary to Grotius, Vattel, and Puffendorf (Rights of emigrant from belli- gerant country) in Waples Proe. in Rem, § 288. Duguid v. Edwards, 50 Barb. 288. Rev'g 32 How. Pr. 254. See Whitaker v. Chapman. Decision in 50 Barb, cited (Commission merchant acts in fiduciary capacity) in Lemcke v. Dooth, 47 Mo. 385 ; s. c, 4 Am. DUGUID— DUNHAM. 235 JR. 826. Decision in 32 How. Pr. collated •with other cases in Thomps. on Prov. Rem.. 30. y. Ogilvie, 1 Abb. Pr. 145. Examined (Power of referee) in Ayrault «. Sackett, Id. 154, n. Duigau v. Hogan, 1 Bosw. 645. Followed (Injunction against supplementary proceed- ings) in Marks v. Wilson, 11 Abb. Pr. 87. Duke of Cumberland v. Codrington. See Cumberland v. Codrington. v. Graves, 1 N. Y. 305. See Morrison v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Approved and followed as to validity of titles here in- volved, — in People i>. Snyder, 41 if. Y. 397. Dunbar v. Williams, 10 Johns. 249. See Bartholomew v. Jackson. Applied (Re- covery for gratuitous services) in Hewitt v. Bronson, 5 Daly, 1, 6. Explained in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 41, n. u. Duncan v. Berlin, 5 Itobt. 547; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. K S. 34. Rev'd in 11 Id. 116. See Lunt v. Bank of North America. v. , 38 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 31. Aff'din60 iK Y. 151. T. Blair, 5 Den. 196. Doubted (Parol evidence) in 12 MoaVs Eng. II. 243, n. v. De Witt, 49 How. Pr. 131. . Another proceeding in 7 Hun, 184. Decision in 7 Hun disting'd (Exercise of discretion in granting extra allowance) and Morrison «. Agate, 9 Weekly Dig. 286, followed in Tal- man v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 31 Hun, 397. .Explained (Right to discontinue on payment of costs) in Carpentier B. Wilson, 14 Abb. JV. G. 101. v. Dodd. See Lansing i>. McPherson; Williamson v. Dale. t. Great Western Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 369. Aff' d in 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 562. v. Katen, 6 Hun, 1. Aff d, it seems, in 64 JV. Y. 625, but without opinion. v. Lawrence, 6 Abb. Pr. 304. Dis- ting'd (Denial of plaintiff's title to note) in Hays o. Southgate, 10 Hun, 511, 514. v. Lyon, 3 Johns. Oh. 351; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 513. Followed (When equity will not grant relief after decision at law) in Green v. Dodge, 6 Ohio, 80; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 736, with note ; Kearney v. Smith, 3 Yerg. (Term.) 127; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 550, with note ; More v. Bagley, Breese (III.) 94 ; s. c, 12 Am. Dee. 144. See Freeman on Judgments, § 502. Followed andapprdved (Unliquidated damages — set-off) in Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 ; s. c, 31 Am. Dee. 727, 735, with note. v. Spear, 11 Wend. 54. See Schermer- horn t>. Van Volkenburgh. Followed (Effect of possession of chattels, as against wrou. Mulholland, 82 If. Y. 324, and other cases, in 35 Am. 12. 702, n. — t. Waterman, 17 If. Y. 9; s. c, more fully, 6 .466. Pr. 357. Rev'g 3 Duer, 166. Decision in 17 N. Y. questioned (Particular- ity required in confessing judgment under the Code) in Clements 1>. Gerow, 30 Barb. 325, 328, which was however rev'd in 1 Eeyes, 297. Applied in Frehgh v. Brink, 30 Barb. 145; WiAnebrenner v. Edgerton, Id. 186. Explained in Gandall v. Finn, 1 Reyes, 217. Approved (Who may impeach judg- ment taken by confession) in Daly v. Mat- thews, 12 Abb. Pr. 406, n. Explained at length (Debtor making assignment not to authorize delay) in Benedict v. Huntington, 32 If. Y. 224. Disapproved in Perry Ins. & Trust Co. «. Foster, 58 Ala. 502 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 784. Quoted and explained in Burr ill on, Assign. § 212, 4 ed. Quoted (Preferences) in Id. § 166. Discussed (Judg- ments) in Id. § 356. Quoted (General assign- ment when void per se) in Wait on Fraud. Coui). § 322. Quoted (Disposition by debtor of assigned property) - in Id. §§ 330, 332, n. 6. v. Whitehead. See Curtis v. Leavitt. v. Williams. See Jackson v. Hatha- way. v. Wyckoff, 3 Wend. 280 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 695, with note. See Judd v. Fox. Fol- lowed (What is sufficient possession for maintaining replevin) in Haythorn v. Rush- forth, ASarr. (2V. J.) 160; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 540, with note. Dunkin v. Yaiidenbergh, 1 Paige, 622. See Rooney v. Second Ave. R. Co. Reviewed with other cases (Attorney's lien as barring set-off) in Nicoll v. Nicoll, 16 Wend. 446. Dunklcy v. Van Buren, 3 Johns. Gh. 330. Compared (Personal judgment in addition to recovery in rem.) in Burroughs «. Toste- van, 75 N. Y. 567, 572. Dunlap v. Hawkins, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 292. Afi'd in 59 N. Y. 342. See McCart- ney ®. Bostwick. Decision in 59 If. Y. com- mented on (Debtor's alienations of property — existing creditors — fraud) in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 95. T. Hunting, 2 Den. 643; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 763, with note. Disting'd (Rights of officer making title under process) in Hill v. Haynes, 54 If. Y. 153, 157. v. Snyder. See Putnam v. Payne. Dunlevy v. Talmadge, 32 if. Y. 457. Rev'g 18 Abb. Pr. 48. See Fassett v. Tallmadge. Applied (When only creditor to be relieved in equity) in Voorhecs v. Howard, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 504 ; Sloan «. Waring, 55 Sow. Pr. 63; Briggs v. Oliver, 68 If. Y. 340. Disting'd in Everingham ®. Vander- bilt, 51 Sow. Pr. 185; Stewart v. Beale, 7 Sun, 415. Dunlop v. Gregory, 10 If. Y. 241. See Chappel v. Brockway; Nobles v. Bates. Disting'd (Contract in restraint of trade) in Ebling ®. Bauer, 17 Weekly Dig. 497. Applied with Lawrence ». Kidder, 10 Barb. 641, in Oregon Steam Navigation Co. «. Hale, 1 Wash. T. 283 ; s. c, 34 Am. B. 803, IrtTNLOP— DURAND. 237 806. Explained in Benj. on Said, § 521, re. a (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Patterson, 5 Cow. 243. See Dunn «. People. Questioned if not distinctly over- ruled (Effect of proof that witness has pre- viously sworn differently) in Dunn«. People, 29 If. Y. 529. Applied, however, in People v. Evans, 40 Id. 6. Disapproved in Warren v. Haight, 62 Barb. 490. Examined with other cases, in Deering v. Metcalf, 74 If. Y. 501, 504. v. Patterson Fire Ins. Co., 12 Hun, 627. Affd in 74 If. Y. 145 ; s. c, 30 Am. B. 283. See Wehle v. Conner. Decision in 74 If. Y. applied (Sheriff when excused for not paying over) in Parker v. Bradley, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & . Sackett, 1 Ohio St. 54 ; s. c, 59 Am. Bee. 610, with note. v. Dunn, 4 Paige, 425. See Huggius v. King; Jackson v. Jackson. Explained (Irregularity distinguished from want of jurisdiction) in Holmes v. Holmes, b Abb. Pr. N. S.\. Quoted (Cohabitation — mean- ing of) in 1 Bish. on Mar. &'D.% 777, re. 2, 6ed. t. Hewitt, 2 Ben. 637. Followed (Parol evidence of purchase excluded by existence of bill of sale) in Barnett v. Williams, 7 iTasres. 339. ■ v. Hornbeck, 7 Hun, 629. Aff'd in 72 If. Y. 80. In Id. 81, in fourth line from bottom for "plaintiff," read "defendant." v. James, 62 Mow. Pr. 307. Aff'd it seems, on this opinion, in 85 If. Y. 642. v. People, 29 If. Y. 526. Followed in preference to Dunlop v. Patterson, 5 Cow. 243, and People v. Evans, 40 If. Y. 1 (Effect of proof that witness has previously sworn differently) in Warren v. Haight, 62 Barb. 490. Followed in White v. McLean, 47 if. Y. 199 ; Lee v. Chadsey, 2 Keyes, 549. Recognized as authority in Roth a. Wells, 29 If. Y. 492. Examined in Dealing v. Metcalf, 74 Id. 501, 504. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 557. Applied (Discretion in order of receiving proof) in McCarney v People, 83 N. ¥. 408, 415. Followed (Woman on whom abortion committed not an accom- plice) in Watson v. State, 9 Tex. Ct. Am. 237, 244. v. Rector of St. Andrews' Chnrch, 14 Johns. 118. See Danforth v. Schoharie Turnpike Co. Applied (Power of corpora- tion to bind itself by contract not under seal) in Gottfried v. Miller, 104 U. & 521. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 238, 11 ed. ; Id. §284. Dunning v. Clark, 2 R. D. Smith, 535. Followed (Effect of deposit of money to remove mechanic's lien) in People ex rel. Flynn v. Butler, 61 How. Pr. 274. v. Fisher, 20. Hun, 178. Rev'd as Dun- ning v. Leavitt, 85 If. Y. 30. T . Ocean Nat. Bank, 6 Bans. 296. Aff'd in 61 If. Y. 497; s. c, 19 Am. B. 293. See Conklin v. Egerton. Decision in 61 If. Y. followed (Surplus on foreclosure sale, to be regarded as realty) in Pliess v. Buck- ley, 22 Hun, 551, 556. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2798, re. Examined with other cases (Power of administrator with will annexed) in Paret v. Kenealy, 30 Hun, 17. Explained in Matter of Clark, 5 Bed/. 466, 471. See (Power of sale of trust estate) Bettso. Betts, 4 Abb. K O. 317. T. Roberts, 35 Barb. 463. Doctrine discussed (Agency of telegraph operator) in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 207. Explained with Trevor v. Wood, 36 If. Y. 307 (Pri- mary and secondary evidence in case of telegrams) in Howley v. Whipple, 48 If. H. 487, 490. Cited with Trevor v. Wood, 36 If. Y. 307; Beach v. Raritan, &c. R. R. Co.. 37 Id. 457, in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 76. Quoted and explained (Contracts by telegraph) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, v, n. e. v. Stearns, 9 Barb. 630. Examined with other cases (Distinction between chat- tel mortgage and pledge) in Thomas on Mort. 443. Dunphy t. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Hun, 479. Followed (Effect of refusal to make appro- priations for salaries) in Brinck o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 Id. 340, 343. Dunscomb y. Dunscomb, 1 Johns. Ch. 508 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 504, with note. Reviewed and applied with Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Oh. 620, and other cases (When trustees are chargeable with interest) in Ringgold v. Ringgold, 1 Harr. & 67. {lid.) 11; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 250, 265, with note. Explained (Time within whieh trust moneys are to be invested) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 123, re. g. Dupre v. Thompson, 4 Barb. 279. Aff'd in 8 Id. 538. Dupuy v. Seymour. See Dupuy v. Wurtz. v. United Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 182. See Smith v. Bell. Overruled (What con- stitutes technical total loss) in Smiths. Bell, 2 Cai. Cas. 153. v. Wurtz, 53 If. Y. 556. Affg Dupuy •v. Seymour, 64 Barb. 156. Further pro- ceeding in 47 How. Pr. 225 ; mem. s. c, in 1 Hun, 119; also further proceeding in 53 How. Pr. 48. Decision in 53 iV. Y. followed (Burden of proof of change of domicile) in Tucker v. Field, 5 Bed/. 139, 174; Von Hoffman v. Ward, 4 Id. 244. Cited with i Tucker v. Field, 5 Id. 139 (What is ne- cessary to obtain French domicile) in ex- tended note to Harrall v. Wallis, 37 If. J. Eg. (10 Stew.) 459, where the contrary doc- trine seems to prevail. Duranil v. Hankerson, 39 If. Y. 287. Dis- cussed (Creditor's actions — joinder of parties defendant) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 134. v. Hollins, 3 Duer, 686. Examined in dissenting opinion of Bkadt, J. (Appear- ance when regular) in Chatham Nat. Bk. 238 DUKAKDO— DUTCH CHURCH OF ALBANY. 0. Merchants' Nat. Bk. of West Virginia, 4 Sup'm.Ct. (T. & C.) 198, 202. Diiriinilo v. Darando, 32 Barb. 529. Affd, in eflect, in 33 IT. 7. 831. Decision in 23 If. 7. quoted and collated with other cases (Dower upon dower) in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 319. Durant v. Abendroth, 41 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 53. Affd in 69 IT. 7. 148; s. c, 25 Am. R. 158, with note. Decision in another ac- tion, in 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 463. Decis- ion in 69 If. 7. applied (Effect of check as payment) to case of subscription, in Excel- sior Grain Binding Co. v. Stayner, 25 Hun, 93. T. Cook, 1 How. Pr. 45. Applied (Affidavit of merits) in State Bk. of Syra- cuse c. Gill, 23 Hun, 406. t. Supervisors of Albany, 26 Wend. 66. .Limited (Test of equity jurisdiction) in Haines v. Meyer, 25 Hun, 414, 417. Durbrow v.' McDonald, 5 Bosw. 130. Further decision as Winne v. McDonald, 39 If. 7. 233. Decision in 5 Bosw. 130, disting'd {Bona fide purchaser) in Barnard v. Camp- bell, 58 If. 7. 73. 78. Durell v. Mosher, 8 Johns. 445. See Bristol v. Burt. Followed and People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. 381, explained (Disqualification of juror) in Smith v. Eames, 3 Scam. (III.) 76 ; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 515, 518, with note. Durgin v. Ireland, 44 If. 7. 322. Sedgwick . Goff, 12 Id. 423 (Waiver of notice by indorser) in Ladd v. Kenny, 2 If. H. 340; s. c, 9 Am. Dee. 77. Followed with Bunn v. Hoyt, 3 Johns. 255 ; Shumway v. Fowler, 4 Id. 425 (Newly discovered evi- dence to discredit or impeach witness not ground for new trial) in State v. Carr, 21 If. H. 166; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 179, with note. Duseubury v. Ellis, 3 Johns. Cas. 70 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 144, with note. See Rossiter v. Bos- siter. Referred to with Whites. Skinner, 13 Johns. 307; Feeter v. Heath, 11 Wend. 487; Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Id. 494 ; Meech v. Smith, 7 Id. 315 ; Palmers. Stephens, 1 Den. 480 ; Plumb v. Milk, 19 Barb. 74 (Liability of agent signing contract without authority) in White v. Madison, 20 If. 7. 117, as shaken by Walker v. Bk. of State of N. Y., 9 Id. 582. Explained in Hegeman v. Johnson, 35 Barb. 205. Several of the above cases also referred to in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 533, as shaken by later N. Y. cases, though Grafton B'k v. Flanders," 4 If. H 239 ; Wearo v. Grove, 44 Id. 196, are referred to as uphold- ing the earlier N. Y. rule. Thought in 2 Am. Dec. 144, n., to be still good doctrine as to cases of misrepresentation or concealment. Also referred to with White 1>. Skinner, in Walker «. Bank, of N. Y., as inapplicable to cases, where there is no fraud or deceit. Included in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 751. T. Hoyt, 45 How. Pr. 147. Aff'd in 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 132; s. c. 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 94, and that rev'd in 53 If. 7. 521 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 543. Decision in 53 If. 7. disting'd (Effect of discharge in bank- ruptcy on right to recover on original in- debtedness) in Wilson o. Gould, 21 Hun, 446. Applied in Graham v. O'Hern, 24 Id. 221. Included in 1 Langdell's Cas. on Contr. 2 ed. 387. v. Hulbert, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 177. Rev'din 59 If. 7. 541.' v. Keiley, 8 Daly, 537; s. c. 58 How. Pr. 280. Afl'd in 85 If. 7. 383 ; s. c, 01 How. Pr. 408. Dustan v. McAndrew, 10 Bosw. 130. Aff'd in 44 'If. 7. 72. See Bement v. Smith; Hayden o. Domets. Decision in 10 Bosw. questioned (Damages for breach of contract to purchase) in Bridgford ». Crocker, 60 If. 7. 627. Decision in 44 Id. followed in Schoonmaker v. Reed, 1 Hun, 611. Exam- ined with other cases, in 10 Alb. L. J. 385. Explained in % Ben], on Sales, § 1125. «. 6 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.): Relied on with Hay- den «. Demets, 53 If. 7. 420 (Title must have passed, to enable action for price of personal property sold to be maintained) in Dwiggins v. Clark, 94 Ind. 49 ; s. c, 48 Am. £. 140. Dutch v. Harrison, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 306. Collated with other cases (Usage to vary contracts) in 1 Abb. N. C. 472, n. v. Mead, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 427. Aff'd, it seems, in 59 IT. 7. 628, but with- out opinion. Decision in 86 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) commented upon and compared (Contract in writing invalid for informality) in 1 Add. on Contr. 158, n. Abb. ed. Dutch Church of Albany v. Bradford, 8 DUTCHER— DYETT. 239 Cow. 457. Approved and followed (Decis- ions of ecclesiastical tribunals — how fav re- garded by civil courts) in Oonnitt v. Re- formed Protestant Dutch Church of New Prospect, 4 Lans. 339, 340. Approved (Right of clergyman to salary) in Chase v. Cheney, 58 111. 509 ; s. C , 11 Am. R. 95. Butcher v. Importers' & Traders' Nat. Bank, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 400. Rev'd in 59 N. Y. 5. See Duncombe v. N. Y., Housa- tonic, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 1 Sup'm,. Gt. {T. & G) overruled (Transfer of cor- porate property) in Binns «. Williams, 15 Weekly Dig. 17; mem. s. c, 88 K Y. 6C0. Decision in 59 Id. applied in Paulding v. Crome- Steel Co., 94 Id. 339. v. Swartwood, 15 Hun, 81. See Dela- ware ». Ensign. Disting'd (Effect of vendor, &c. continuing in possession) in Bainbridge v. Richmond, 17 Hun, 391, 394. Approved in Stimson v. Wrigley, 86 N. Y. 332, 339. Dutchess Cotton Manufactory t. Davis, 14 Johns. 238; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 459, with note, wherein it is shown to have been fre- quently recognized in N. Y. and elsewhere; also s. c, 5 iT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 848, with brief note. See Bank of Michigan t. Williams; Bank of Utica «. Smalley; Jack- son e. Plumbe; Jenkins . Page, 1 Hilt. 320 ; 20 JV. Y. 281, were also cited. Criticised and disting'd in De Witt ■». Pierson, 112 Mass. 8; s. c, 17 Am. R. 58, 61. Applied with St. John v. Palmer, 5 Hill, 599 ; Greenvault v. Davis, 4 Id. 643, in Marsh i>. Butterworth, 4 Mich. 577. Collated With Ogilvie v. Hull, 5 Hill, 52; Edgerton v. Page, 5 .42*. Pr. 1 ; 14 How. Pr. 116 ; Cohen ». Dupont, 1 Sandf. 260 ; Rogers v. Ostrom, 35 Barb. 523; Gilhooly v. Washington, 3 Sandf. 330; 4 JV. F. 217; Howards. Doo- little, 3 Duer, 464; Cleves v. Willoughhy, 7 Hill, 83 ; McGlashen «. Tallmadge, 37 Barb. 313; Lounsberry v. Snyder, 31 JV. Y. 514, and other cases, in 17 Am. R. 62, n. Explained in 2 Ghitty on Oonlr. 980, n. h, 11. Am. ed. ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 529, 532. Collated with other cases, in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 212. Ap- plied (Effect of eviction from part of prem- ises) in Christopher v. Austin, 11 JV. Y. 218; Vermilya v. Austin, 2 E D. Smith, 205 ; Lewis v. Payn, 4 Wend. 427. Followed with Christopher v. Austin, in Hayner v. Smith, 63 III. 430; s. c, 12 Am. H. 124, 127. Explained and disting'd (Effect of enforcing judgment on right to appeal) in Knapp v. Brown, 45 2V. Y. 207. Dygert v. Remerschnider, 39 Barb. 417. Aff d in 32 JV. Y. 629. Decision in 32 JV Y. disting'd (Effect of gift, &c. from husband to wife) in Little v. Willets, 55 Barb. 129. Applied in Ford v. Johnston, 7 Hun, 507. Criticised as impaired by Ocean Nat. Bk. v. Olcott, 46 JV Y. 12 (Enforcing trust in property conveyed to wife) in Chillingworth v. Freeman, 67 Id. 383. Applied (Contract in consideration of marriage, when void) in Brown v. Conger, 8 Hun, 627. Decision in 39 Barb, referred to as contrary to Henry «. Henry, 27 Ohio St. 121 (Marriage as part performance of parol contract to convey land) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 330. v. Schenck, 23Wend. 445; s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 575, with note. See Irvine v. Wood ; Storrs v. City of Utica. Collated with Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 ; Pierce v. Dart, 7 Cow. 609; Lansing v. Wiswall. 5 Ben. 218; Fort Plain Bridge Co. v. Smith, 30 JV Y. 44; Strickland v. Woolworth, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 286 ; Peckham v. Henderson, 27 Barb. 207 ; Goldsmith e. Jones, 43 How. Pr. 415 ; Dougherty v. Bunting, 1 Sandf. 4; Van Brunt v. Ahearn, 13 Hun, 388; Adams v. Rivers, 11 Barb. 390, and other cases (Right to maintain pri- vate action for obstructing highway) iu 25 Am. B. 533, n. where Dougherty v. Bunting, 1 Sandf. 4, is thought not to be distinguish- able from Stetson v. Faxon, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 147, the decisions in the two cases being, however, contral'y. Approved with Heacock «i. Sherman, 14 Wend. 58 ; Creed i>. Hart- mann, 29 JV. Y. 595 ; Congreve v. Smith, 18 Id. 79 (Liability of one interfering with highways) in Pres't & Trustees, &c. ». Mann, Wise. 1883, 17 Northw. Bep. 972. Included in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 328, with note. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 274, n. 2. Elaborately reviewed with Varick «. Cor- poration of N. Y., 4 Johns. Ch. 53, and other cases (Whether municipal corpora- tions are bound by statutes of limitation) in City of Wheeling v. Campbell, 12 W. Va. 36 ; s. c, 48 Am. R. 24, n. Dyke v. Erie R'y Co., 45 JV Y. 113. Re-aff d (Damages when not limited by foreign statute) in Lyon s. Erie R'y Co., 57 Id. 489. Dykers v. Allen, 3 Hill, 393. Aff'd. in 7 Id. 497; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 87, with note 1 , col- lecting citations. Dicta of Walworth, Ch., in 7 Hill commented on (Sale by pledgee) in Millikeu v. Dehon, 27 JV. Y. 364. v. Leather Manuf. Bk., 11 Paige, 612. Applied (Check not assignment of fund) in Butterworth v. Peck, 5 Bosw. 341, 343. v. Towusend, 24 JV. Y. 57. Applied (Authority to sign memorandum required by statute of frauds to contract for sale of land) in Pringlo ■». Spaulding, 53 Barb. 21. Applied to contract by municipal corpora- tion, not to be performed within a year, — in Argus Co. v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 55 JV Y. 501. Cited as settled law, in Briggs v. Partridge, 64 Id. 362. Followed with McWharter v. McMahon, 10 Paige, 386, in Neaves v. North State Mining Co., 90 JV 0. 412 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 529, with note. Fol- lowed and Hall v. Shultz, 4 Johns. 240; Sherrill v. Crosby, 14 Id. 358 ; Van Alstine v. Wimple, 5 Govt. 162, disting'd as cases of such agreements to create a trust as can only be proved by writing, in Baker v. Wainwright, 36 Md. 336 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 495, 501. Quoted in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 237, n. 36 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Explained and qualified (Signature to memorandum required by statute of frauds) in Justice v. Lang, 42 JV. Y. 493, 512, which rev'd 2 liobt. 347, which see. Applied (Negativing exception in statute) in Harris v. White, 81 JV. Y. 548. v. Woodward, 7 How. Pr. 313. Seems overruled (Time to answer in case of ser- vice of summons by publication) by Ker- ner v. Leonard, 15 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 96.. EADIE-EASTERLY. 241 E. Eadie t. Slimmon, 26 2f. T. 9. See Barry v. Bnine. Explained with Barry v. Equitable Life Ins. Co.; 59 N. Y. 587; Smillie «. Quinn, 25 Sun, 332 ; 90 K Y. 492 (Wife's interest in policy on husband's life) in Bolt». Kehoe, 30 Sun, 619. Followed as applicable to daughter, in Glanz v. Gloeckler, 104 111. 577. To heirs, in Gosling v. Cald- well, 1 Lea (7Vn».) 454; s. c, 27 Am. R. 774. Explained and applied (Assignability of policy in favor of wife) in Barry v. Equit- able Life Assur. Soc, 14 Abb. Pr. JK S. 386, n., which was'aff'd in 59 JV. Y. 592, which see. Applied in Lock wood v. Bishop, 51 Sow. Pr. 225 ; Wilson ®. Lawrence, 13 Sun, 241 ; Smillie v. Quinn, 25 Id. 335. Followed in Beer v. Sanger, 17 Weekly Dig. 340. Ap- plied to endowment policy, — in Brummer ». Cohn, 86 N. Y. 11, 13, 15, which afFd 9 Daly, 36, which see, but disting'd as to en- dowment policy taken out before L. 1806, c. 656, in Living v. Domett, 26 Sun, 150. Dis- ting'd in Ainsworth ». Backus, 5 Id. 417; Olmsted «. Keyes, 85 K Y. 593, 605; Char- ter Oak Life Ins. Co. v. Brant, 47 Mo. 419; s. c, 4 Am. B. 328; Robinson v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 16 Blatchf. G. Gt. 194, 206. Criticised (Insurable interest in life of another at common law) in Deronge ■v. Elliott, 23 K J. Eg. 486. Disting'd (Validity of instrument executed by wife under duress) as inapplicable to case of threats, &c. made by husband, — in Rexford v. Rexford, 7 Dans. 8. Disting'd in Lefebore v. Dutruit, 51 Wis. 326; s. c, 37 Am. R. 833. Applied (Validity of appropriation of property by wife to save her husband from imprisonment) in Jones v. Diederich, 3 Daly, 177. Explained in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 261. Applied (Sufficiency of findings) in Voorhis v. Voorhis, 50 Barb. 125. Eager, Matter of, 10 Abb. Pr. K S. 229; s. c, 58 Barb. 557; 41 Sow. Pr. 107. Affd in 46 N. Y. 100; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 151. Decision in 46 N. Y. followed (Effect of not stating objection in petition to vacate assessment) in Matter of Clark, 31 Sun, 198. Reconciled (Irregularity in assess- -zz.i) ;„ Matter of Brady, 85 AT. Y. 263, 271. Eager v. Crawford. See Gibson v. Stone. v. Price See Candler v. Pcttit. v. Roberts, 2 Red/. 247. Disting'd (Commissions of executors, etc.) in Ward o. Ford, 4 Id. 34, 40. v. Wiswall, 2 Paige, 369. Followed (Compelling defendant to produce papers not in his possession, if under his control) in Robbins v. Davis, 1 Blatchf. G. Gt. 238, 241. Eagle v. Emmet, 4 Bradf. 117. Followed (Presumption of death) in Matter of Acker- man, 2 Red/. 523. v. Swayze, 2 Daly, 140. Reconciled (Liability of lessor for repairs) in 50 Am. Dec. 777, »., with cases there cited. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent, 1 Ed.e. 301. Aff'd in 6 Paige, 635. Decision in 6 Paigp approved with Banks v. Walker, 3 Barb. Oh. 438 ; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 2 Barb. 20 (Parties in foreclosure) in Chamberlain b. Lyell, 3 Mich. 460. Explained as not de- ciding that prior mortgagee may not be party, in Walsh v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 33, 39. Eagle Iron Works, Matter of, 3 Edw. 385. Rev'd as to the lien of judgment, in Matter of Waterbury, 8 Paige, 380, but aff'd as to the appointment of receivers, in Matter of Eagle Iron Works, Id. 385. Earl v. Camp, 16 Wend. 562. See Carter «. Simpson ; Savacool v. Boughton. Disting'd (Justification of officer by his process) in Hill ii. Haynes, 54 N. Y. 153, 157; Clear- water v. Brill, 4 Sun, 728, 730. Followed with Cornell v. Barnes, 7 Sill, 35, in Ncv- burg i>. Munshower, 29 Ohio St. 617; s. c, 23 Am. R. 769. Approved with Savacool ». Boughton, 5 Wend. 170; McGuinty r. Herrick, Id. 240 ; Rogers v. Mulliner, 6 Id. 597, in Beach v. Botsford, 1 Doug. {Mich.) 204 ; citing Hotchkiss v. McVickar, 12 , Johns. 403. -*— t. David, 20 Sun, 527. Affd as Earle v. David, in 86 N~. Y. 634. v. Grim, 1 Johns. Ch. 494. Followed (Effect of introductory clause on construc- tion of will) in Youngs v. Youngs, 45 JV. Y. 254. V. Shaw, 1 Johns. Cas. 314 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 117. See Marcus o. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Van Alstyne, 8 Barb. 630. Explained (Liability for injuries done by animals) in 1 Add. on Torts, 43, n. 1, Wood's ed. In- cluded in 1 Thomps. on N~egl. 182, with note, Earle v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 7 Daly, 303. Aft'd, it seems, in 74 N. Y. 618, but without opinion. Easllmrn t. Kirk, 2 Johns. Ch. 317. Prior decision in 1 Id. 444. Decision in 2 Johns. Gh. disting'd with Hotaling «. Marsh, 14 Abb. Pr. 164; Campbells. Mesier, 4 Johns. Gh. 833 ; Barnes v. At. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 59 Sow. Pr. 240 (Allowance out of trust fund) in Attorney-General v. North Amer. Life Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. 57. Applied (Costs in_ equity) in Black v. OT'rien, 23 San, 82. 85. Decision iu 1 Johns. Ch. quoted and case cited to the contrary (Injunction — ad-, mission of affidavits) in 2 Sigh on Inj. 2 ed § 1003, n.z. Easterly v. Barber, 4 Sun, 426. Confirmed on point stated but rev'd on another, in 66 N. Y. 438. Former decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & C.) 421, which is sub- stantially overruled in 66 N. Y. Former appeal in 65 Id. 252. See Barry v. Ran- som; Pechner o. Phoenix Ins. Co. With decision in 6.3 N. Y. see other cases collated •(Liability of officers, &c. of corporations) in Abb. N. G. 259, n. With decision in 60 H. y. compare (Objection that remedy is ai 242' EASTERN PLANK-ROAD CO.— EBERLE. law and not in equity) Do Bussiere v. Holla- day, 4 Abb. N. V. 111. Cited approvingly (Special agreement requisite to constitute indorser's co-sureties) in 11 Am. Dee. 792, n. Eastern Flank-road Co. r. Vanghan, 20 Barb. 155. Affd in 14 JV. Y. 546. East N. T. & Jamaica It. B. Co. v. Liglit- hall, 6 Robt. 407. Disting'd and doubted (Payment on stock) in Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 368. Easton v. Calendar, 11 Wend. 90. See Weaver Edgell v. Hart, 13 Barb. 380. Aff'd in 9 If. Y. 213; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 532, with note. See Gardner «. McEwen. Decision in 9 JT. Y. approved and applied (Validity of chattel mortgage which creates fluctuat- ing lien only) in Mittnacht v. Kelly, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 442. Followed in Gardner ». McEwen, 19 K Y. 123. Disting'd in Conk- ling v. Shelley, 28 Id. 360. Questioned ■with Sheldou v. Carpenter, 4 Id. 579 ; Wil- liston ». Jones, 6 Duer, 504; Ford v. Wil- liams, 13 N. Y. 577. in Gay v. Bidwell, 7 Mich. 519. Denied as authority in Hoss r>. Wilson, 7 Bush {Ky.) 35; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 606, n. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conn. §349. Decision in 13 Barb, explained in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 571, n. u. Edgerly v. Bush, 16 Hun, 80. Rcv'd in 81 N. Y. 199. Edgerton v. Ford, 11 Abb. Pr. 415. Dis- ting'd (Requiring stipulation not to sue) in Faulkner v. Morey, 22 Hun, 379, 385. v. N. ¥. & Harlem R. R Co., 35 Barb. 193. Further decision to similar effect, in Id. 389, and that aff'd in 39 N. Y. 227. See Bissell ii. Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co.; Mullen v. St. John. Decision in 39 If. Y. relied on with Carroll v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 1 Duer, 578 (Liabil- ity for safety of passengers riding in un- usual or prohibited place! in Dunn v. Grand Trunk R'y, 58 Me. 187; s.c, 4 Am. B. 267, 271. Decision in . 35 Barb, explained in Ang. on Carr. § 528, n. b, 5 ed. y. Page, 12 'How. Pr. 58. Rev'd in 14 Id. 116; s. c, more fully, 5 Abb. Pr. 1; yet more fully 1 Hilt. 320. Latter judg- ment affd in 20 If. Y. 281 ; s. c, more fully, 10 Abb. Pr. 119; with points of counsel, 18 How. Pr. 359. See Dvett v. Pendleton. Decision in 20 If. Y. disting'd (Effect of eviction, &c. on liability of tenant) in Mat- toon v. Monroe, 21 Hun, 74, 82 ; Walker v. Shoemaker, 4 Id. 580. Explained in 1 Washb. on. Seal Prop. 4 ed. 532. Collated with other cases, in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 212. v. Peckliam, 11 Paige, 352. See Hub- boll v. Van Schoening. Relied on (Extent of application of rule that time is not of essence of contract) in Bacon v. Smith, 52 Oa. 505. Edick v. Crim, 10 Barb. 447. See McCoy v. Artcher. Quoted, with cases to the con- trary, and commented on (Sales of goods — implied warranty) in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1062, n. 3. Edington r. .Etna Life Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 543. Rev'd in 77 N. Y. 564. See Eding- ton e. Mut. Life Ins. Co.; Johnson v. John- son; Whiting «. Barney. Decision in 77 N. Y. disting'd (Communications to phy- sician when privileged) in Grattan v. Me-, tropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 K Y. 281, 299 ; Linz v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 8 Mo. App. 370. Cited -and considered at length with Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 24 Hun, 43; Dilleber v. Home Life Ins. Co., 69 If. Y. 256; Cohen v. Conn. Life Ins. Co., Id. 308 ; Sloane v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 Id. 125, in 33 Am. B. 435, «., where the Edington case was regarded as not very authoritative, and with slight, if any, distinctions from that of Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 67 If. Y. 185. Criticised in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Bed/. 181, 188. Dis- approved in Masonic Mut. Benefit Ass'n v. Beck, 77 Jnd. 203; s. c, 40 Am. B. 295. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 5 Hun, 1. Rev'd in 67 JV. Y. 185. See Edington v. Mtna. Life Ins. Co. ; Whiting «. Barney. Decision in 5 Hun, disting'd (Declarations of applicant for policy) in Estes o. World Mut! Life Ins. Co., 6 Id. 349, 352. Compare Mulliner v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1 S-*p'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 448, and see Abb. Tr. Ev. 501. Followed (Com- munications to jjhjsicians when privileged) 244 EDMESTON— EGLESTON". in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 JT. Y. 281, 297. Cited in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Red/. 181, 184. Disting'd with Edington «. ..Etna Life Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 564: Grat- tan v. Metrop. Life Ins. Co., 80 Id. 281 ; Bacon v. Frisbie, Id. 394; Root ■». Wright, 84 Id. 72; Dilleber v. Home Life Ins. Co., 87 Id. 79, in Whelpley v. Loder, 1 Bern. 368. Edineston T. Lyde, 1 Paige, 637; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 454. Explained (Procedure in creditor's suit) in Dawley v. Brown, 65 Barb. 107, 119. Approved and collated with Mc- Dermott «. Strong, 4 Johns. Ch. 687; Wil- liams v. Brown, Id. 682; Purdy «. Doyle, 1 Paige, 558, and other cases, in Freedman's Savings & Trust Co. v. Earle, 110 IT. S. 710, '716. Compare note to Donovan v. Finn, 14 Am. Dec. 531, and to Tolles v. Wood, 16 Abb. N. C. 1. Editions ton v. McLoud, 19 Barb. 356. Aff d in 16 K Y. 543. Decision in 16 N.Y. col- lated, with other cases (Receiver — how ap- pointment of operates on passing debtor's real property) in Thomps.. on Prov. Bern. 481. Ediuonstono v. Thompson. See Retan o. Drew. Edsall v. Brooks, 2 Robt. 29; s. c, 17 Abb. Pr. 221 ; 26 Sow. Pr. 426. Subsequent decision in 2 Robt. 414; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 191; also in 3 Robt. 284. Decision in 2 Robt. approved (Term "blackmailing" li- belous per se) in Robertson v. Bennett, 44 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 66, 70. Edson t. Weston, 7 Cow. 278. Disting'd (Taking of goods from bailee or carrier, as justification for not delivering) in Mierson v. Hope, 2 Sweeny:, 561. Cited as authority (Evidence admissible under general denial) in Oscaryan v. Winchester Rep. Arms. Co., 103 JT. S. 261, 267. ' Edwards T. Bishop, 4 if. Y. 61. Explained (Ejectment — co-tenants — puster) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 284. v. Bodinc, 11 Paige, 223. Followed (Damages on injunction-bond) in Corcoran v. Judson, 24 K Y. 106, 108. Followed with Andrews v. Glenville Woolen Co., 50 Id. 282, in Boiling p. Tate, 65 Ala. 417; s. c, 39 Am. It. 5, with note, citing con- trary cases. — ^- v. Cogswell, 1 Sup'm.Ct. (T.& C.) 416. Overruled in effect (Taxes, &c. as lien on real estate) in Dowdney v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 54 K Y. 186. v. Davis, 16 Johns. 281; s. c, 6 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 141, with brief note. See Van Valkenburgh v. Watson. Followed with Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johns. 167; Whitbeck*. Cook, 15 Id. 483 (Liabil- ity of wife on personal contract made during coverture) in Wadleigh v. Glines, 6 N. II. 17; s. c, 23 Am. Dec^ 705, a case of coven- ant of warranty. Explained (Obligation to support parent) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 304, n. Jo. - T. Drew, 2 K D. Smith, 55. See (No- tice of appeal from justice's judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. v. Farmers' Fire Ins. & Loan Co., 21 Wend. 467. Aff d in 26 Id. 541. See Jack- son v. Crafts ; Kortright v. Cady. Decision in 21 Wend. 467 approved (Effect of tender of mortgage debt after law day) in Kortright e. Cady, 21 K Y. 343, 350! Explained (Private corporation — powers relating to - propertv) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 157, 11 ed. v. Lent, 8 How. Pr. 28. Followed (Sufficiency of denial) in Lloyd v. Burns. 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 423. Explained as probably decided before amendment to the Code in 1852 (§ 149) in Sands v. Maclay, 2 Mont. 35. t. Russell, 21 Wend. 63. See Higbie v. Leonard. See (Costs in justices' court) Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. , v. Varick, 5 Den. 664. See Jackson v. Waldron. Overruled (Release of contingent interest) in Miller v. Emans, 19 N. Y. 384. Eells r. Lynch, 8 Bosw. 465. Followed (Trust for accumulation) in Ruppert's Estate, 1 Tuck. 480, 489. Discussed in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 512, n. Egan v. Mutual Ins. Co., 5 Den. 326. Ap- plied (Policy, when avoided by incumbrance) in Dacey ■». Agricultural Ins. Co., 21 Hun, 83, 01. Disting'd in Baley v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 80 Nl Y. 21, 23. Egberts v. Wood, 3 Paige, 517; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 236, with note. See Havens v. Hussey. Examined with Havens v. Hussey, 5 Paige, 30; Hitchcock v. St. John, Huffm. 511 (Power of one partner to assign for benefit of creditors) in Kirby v. Ingersoll, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 485. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. §§ 68, 72, 89, 4 ed. Quoted and collated, with other cases, in Holcombe, Lead. Cots, on Com. L. 75. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 178, n. t. Followed (Trust charac- ter and application of partnership property) in Roop v. Herron, 15 Neb. 80. Egertou v. Conklin, 25 Wend. 224. Ap- proved (Time of execution of power to sell testator's real estate) in Richardson v. Sharpe, 29 Barb. 222. Eggler v. People, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (7*. & C.) 796. Aff'd in 56 K Y. 642. Decision in 56 N. Y. applied (Evidence of character of deceased for violence, upon trial for murder) in Nichols i>. People, 23 Hun, 165, 167. Eggleston r. Columbia Turnpike Road, 18 Hun, 146. Rev'd in 82 N. Y. 278. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 35 Bart. 162. Followed with Miller v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co., 6 Hill, 61 (License revoked by transfer of title to land) in Jen- kins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148; s. c, 45 Am. R. 19. v. Smiley, 17 Johns. 133. Cited with approval, but limited (Taking advantage of cause of challenge, after verdict) in Rollins «. Ames, 2 K H, 349; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 79. Egleston v. Kuickerbaeker, 6 Barb. 458. Approved with White v. Parker,. 8 Id. 48 EPILE-ELLIS. 245 Parol evidence to explain receipt that em- bodies contract) in Coon v. Knap, 8 N. Y. 402. Compare McCotter v. Hooker, 4 Id. 497. Ehle v. Biiigham, 4 Hill, 595. See Robert- son . Kimball, 9 Conn. 38; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 707, with note. Limited in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 54, 55, 59. Emberson's Case, 16 Abb. Pr. 457. Disting'd and limited (Jurisdiction to grant discharge to insolvent) in Morrow v. Freeman, 61 N. Y. 515, 520. Embree v. Ellis, 2 Johns. 119; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 323, with brief note. Cited as conclusive (Widow's remedy against alienee of husband for detention of dower) in Sellman v. Bowen, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 50 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 524, with note. v. Hanna, 5 Johns. 101. Disting'd (Ef- fect of proceedings pending in another State) in Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 K Y. 508. Op- posed in Lynch v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., U. S. Cir. Ct. D. N. K, 17 Fed. Rep. 628. Examined with Holmes b. Remsen, 4 Johns. Ch. 460, in Scott v. Coleman, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 349; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 71, 74. Appears to be disting'd in Merrill v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co,, 103 Mass. 245; s. c, 4 Am. R. 548. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 607, n. v. Disting'd (Plea of at- tachment pending) in Crawford v. Slade, 9 Ala. 887; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 463, 465. Fol- lowed with Bowne v. Joy, 9 Johns. 221, in Crawford v. Clute, 7 Ala. 157 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 92. Reviewed with other cases in 25 Am. Dec. 195, n. Embury v. Conner, 2 Sandf. 98. Rev'd in 3 K Y. 511; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 325, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently referred to in N. Y. and else- where with approval. See Baker ». Braman ; Wynehamer «. People. Decision in 53 IT. Y. applied (Waiver of statutory or constitu- tional right) in Sherman v. McKeon, 8 Bosw. Ill ; Keating v. Serrell, 5 Daly, 281; Heath v. Hubbell, 6 Id. 185; Bartow v. Draper^ 5 Duer, 136; People ex rel. Jennys v. Bren- nan, 3 Hun, 666, 674 ; Vose t. Cockroft, 44 N. Y. 424; Gutchess v. Daniels. 49 Id. 608; Baird «. Mayor,. &c. of N. Y., 74 Id. 386. Cited as authority in Barlage v. De- troit, G. H. & M. R'y Co., 54 Mich. 570. Followed with Detmold v. Drake, 46 N. Y. 318, in State v. Iron Cliffs Co., 54 Mich. 362. Applied (Effect of former adjudica- tion) in Freer v. Stotenbnr, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 189, 196; Baldwin ». McArthur, 17 Barb. 420 ; Glackin v. Zeller, 52 Id. 151 ; Clemens . § 480. Collated, With other cases (Assignment for benefit of creditors- parties in suits by assignee) in Bishop on Assign. § 315. Quoted and collated with other cases (Death of assignee) in Id. % 348. v. Bowers, 14 Barb. 658. ' Rev'd in 14 N. Y. 449. Decision in 14 N. Y. disting'd (Removal of executor, &c. for incompetency) in Savage v. Gould, 60 How. Pr. 234, 254. ' Commented on in Willard on Executors, 137, 205. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2685, n. v. Burney, 6 How. Pr. 32. See Bacon v. Reading. Disapproved (•Effect of appeal from order as stay of proceedings) in Bacon v. Reading, 1 Duer, 622. v. Parsons, 2 Sweeny, 447. Affd in 46 N. Y. 560. Decision in 46 N. Y. cited (What is evidence of dissolution of partner- ship) in Story on Partn. § 268, n. v. Spicer, 55 Barb. 428 ; s. c, more fully, 38 How. Pr. 114. Affd in 46 if. Y. 594^ Decision in 46 IT. Y. collated with other cases (Lease by guardian) in McAdam onLandl. & T. 2 cd. §-50- -■■.. EMERY— EEBEN 249 Emery t. Hitchcock, 12 Wend. 156. Ap- proved (Awards) in Dolph «. Clemens, 4 Wise. 186. Applied (Separate action by one of covenantees) in Lahy v. Holland, 8 Gill (lid.) 445; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 705, 708, with note. v. Pease, 20 If. Y. 62. Applied (Grant- ing relief consistent with facts stated) iu Denman v. Prince, 40 Barb. 218; Genet v. Howland, 45 Id. 569; Mackey v. Auer, 8 Hun, 184; Jones ». Jones, 18 Id. 440; Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 42 If. Y. 047; Rindge «. Baker, 57 Id. 223. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 488, n. Disting'd (Power of general term over judgments) in Cuff v. Dorland, 57 Jf. Y. 565. Emigrants' Industrial Sav'gs B'k, Matter of, 75 N. Y. 888. Disting'd (Delegation of power by common council) in Edwards v. City of "Watertown, 24 Hun, 426, 428. Fol- lowed in Matter of Presbytery of N. Y., 9 Daly, 116. Disting'd in dissenting opinion of Mu.lek, J. (What is included in authority to lay out streets) in Matter of Deering, 85 If. Y. 1, 14. Applied (Letting out contract for municipal work) in Matter of Merriam, 84 Id. 596, 603. Followed in Matter of Eobbins, 82 Id. 131, 142. Emigrant Industrial Sav'gs B'k v. Gold- man, 75 If. Y. 127. See Pardee v. Van Anken. Followed and explained (Prior lien, when cut off by mortgage sale) in Smith ». Roberts, 01 If. Y. 470, which aff'd 62 How. Pr. 196, 200, which see. Reviewed with Frost v. Yonkers Sav'gs B'k, 70 N. Y. 553, in Adams v. McPartlin, 11 Abb. N. C. 369. Applied in Payn i>. Grant, 23 Hun, 134, 136. Commented on in 13 Cent. L. J. 384. Emmet v. Hoyt, 17 -Wend. 416. Disting'd (Power of court to confirm, &e. award), in Matter of Kings Co. Elev. R'y Co., 82 If. Y. 95,101. T. Reed, 4 Sandf. 229. Aff d in 8 If. Y. 312. Emmons v. Barnes, 4 Daly, 418. Affd in 55 If. Y. 643, but without opinion. v. Cairns, 2 Sandf. Ch. 369. Rev'd in 3 Barb. 243. See Jansen v. Cairnes. Decis- ion in 3 Barb, discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm. on, Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 612, n. v. Wlieeler, 3 Hun, 545; s. c, reported fully, 5 Sup'm. Vt. (T. & C.) 617. Empire City Bank, Matter of, 6 Abb. Pr. 385. Rev'd in 18 JV. Y. 199; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. Pr. 192. Decision in 8 Abb. Pr. followed (Sufficiency of notice by publication) in Campbell v. Evans, 45 If. Y. 856. Decision in 6 Abb. Pr. applied with Matter of Reciprocity Bank, 22 U. Y. 17 (Liability of stockholders) in Briggs v. Corn well, 9 Daly, 436. Enders t. Sternberg]!, 52 Barb. 222. Rev'd in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 81. Eiigh y. Greeubaum, 2 Hun, 136; s. c 4 Sup'm. Ci. (T. db C.) 426. Aff'd, it seems, in C4 N. Y. 642, but without opinion. English t. Delaware & Hud. Canal Co., 4 Hun, 683. Aff'd in 06 If. Y. 454; s. c, 23 Am. R. 69. Englishbe v. Helmuth, 3 K Y. 294. Rev'g 7 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 186. See repeal of act of 1833 in L. 1845, c. 115, § 14. Ennis v. Currie, 22 Hun, 584. Complaint dismissed in 61 How. Pr. 1. v. Harmony Fire Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 516. Followed (When owner of equity of redemp- tion cannot recover on policy) in Roussel v. St. Nicholas Ins. Co., 41 Super. Ct. (/, & 8.) 283. Eno v. Crooke, 6 Bote. Pr. 462. Approved (Effect of memorandum handed down by General Term of decision of appeal) in Knapp v. Roche, 82 If. Y. 369. See Code Ch. Pro. 1881, § 1354, n. v. Bel Vecchio, 4 Duer, 53. Another proceeding, in Id. 17. Decision in 4 Duer examined with other cases (Rights in party walls) in Brooks v. Curtis, 50 If. Y. 639. Followed as abundantly sustained by au- thority, and Brooks e. Curtis, 50 If. Y. 639, relied on in Andrae v. Hazeltine, 58 Wis. 395; s. c, 4j5 Am. R. 635. See cases col- lected ml Am. L. Eeg. If. 8. 12. Decision in 6 Duer explained in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 555. Collated with other cases in McAdam , on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 233. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 53 How. Pr. 382. Affd in 7 Hun, 320, and that rev'd on point in second head note, as to obligation to enforce bond, in 68 If. Y. 214. With decision in 68 If. Y. see (Fund for satisfy- ing municipal contract) Biglcr v. Mayor. &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. If. C. 51, 65. v. Woodworth, 4 If. Y. 249. Followed (Action to recover purchase money) in Wooster v. Sage, 6 Hun, 285, 288, which was affd in 67 If. Y. 67, which sec. Enoch v. Wehrkampt See Heins v. Peine. Enos v. Thomas, 5 How. Pr. 361. See Seeley v. Prichard. Said not to have au- thority of a General Term decision, in Toll v. Thomas, 18 Bow. Pr. 324. Ensign v. St.. Louis & San, Francisco R'y Co. See Larkiu v. Robbins. v. Sherman, 13 How. Pr. 35. Rev'd in 14 Id. 439. v. Supervisors of Livingston, 12 Weekly Dig. 362. Reported in 25 Hun, 20. v. "Webster, 1 Johns. Cas. 145; s. c, 1 Am,. Dec. 108. Reviewed and criticised ■with House v. Low, 2 Johns. 378; South- wick v. Hayden, 7 Cow. 335 (Effect of re- ceipt) in Fullers. Crittenden,)) Conn. 401; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 362, with note. Eppendorf v. Brooklyn & Newtown R. R. Co., SI How. Pr. 472. Aff'd in 69 If. Y. 195; s. c, 25 Am. P. 171. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v.Cuyler, 12 Hun, 247. Affd in 75 If. Y. 511. Erben v. Lorillard, 19 If. Y. 209. Rev'g 23 Barb. 82. Decision in 19 If. Y. explained and applied (Recovery for services, &c. rendered under contract void by statute of frauds) in Bailey v.' Gardner, 6 Abb. If. C. 150. Approved and applied in Day v. N. Y. 250 EKICKSON— ESSELST FN. • Central R. R. Co., 53 Barb. 255, which was rev'd in 51 N. Y. 590, which see. Ex- plained in Van Valkenburg v. Croffut, 15 Hun, 151. Applied (Invalidity of agree- ment void by statute of frauds, as evidence of damages) in Hobbs i>. Wetherwax, 31 Barb. 389. Disting'd (Effect of admission of improper evidence) as inapplicable to case of error in charge, in Ruloffs Case, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 294. Criticised and disting'd as a case before a jury, in Garfield v. Kirk, 65 Barb. 469. Disting'd in Mandeville v. Guernsey, 51 Id. 103; Meyer v. Clark, 2 Daly, 519; Dolan v. Mtna. Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 402 ; People ®. Greenfield, 23 Id. 471 ; Tochman «. Brown, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 422; Logan v. Ogdensburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Big. 335. Applied in Decker v. Myers, 31 How. Pr. 375; Neuman v. Goddard, 48 Id. 365 ; Arthur v. Griswold, 55 A 7 . Y. 408; O'Sullivan v. Roberts, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 371. See to the con- trary (Broker's commissions) Elting v. Sturtevant, 41 Conn. 176. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 380. Erickson v. Quinn, 3 Law. 299. Affd, with modifications, in 47 A 7 ". Y. 410. Further ; decision in 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 166; mem. s. c, 50 N. Y. 697. Mem. of further pro- ceeding in 3 Hun, 549. v. Smith, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 64. Ap- plied (Effect of record as .against stranger) in Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 245. Ericsson v. Browu, 38 Barb. 390. See Balch v. N. Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co. Applied (Meaning of "laborers") in Stryker v. Cassidy, 10 Hun, 18. Disting'd in Gur- ney e. Atlantic & Gt. W. R'y Co., 58 N. Y. 358, 367. Erie & N. T. City R..R. Co. t. Owen, 32 ' Barb. 616. Disting'd (Requisites of sub- scription for stock) in Buffalo & Jamestown R. R. Co. v. Clark, 22 Hun, 359, 362; Sodus Bay & Corning R. R. Co. ■». Hamlin, 24 Td. 390, 394. Erie Railway Co. v. Ramsay, 3 Lans. 178. . Affd in 45 N. Y. 637. See N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. «. Ketchum; People ex rel. Morris n. Randall. Decision in 45 AT". Y. disting'd (Injunction, when superseded) in Gardner v. Gardner, 62 How. Pr. 265, 267. Ernst v. Bartle, 1 Johns. Cos. 319. Quoted and explained (Private corporations — how created) in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 80, 11 ed. . v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 159; s. c, less fully, 19 How. Pr. 205. Subsequent imperfectly reported decision in 24 Id. 97, dissenting opinion of Sutherland, J., being in 32 Id. 262. . Further proceedings in 35 N. Y. 9; s. c, 32 How. Pr. 61; 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 82; also in 39 K Y. 61 ; s. c, 36 How. Pr. 84. See Beisicgel ®. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Brown v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. ; Dascomb .«. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. ; Gordon v. Grand St. & Newtown R. R. Co. Decis- - ion in 35 N. Y. applied (Negligence in one crossing railroad track) in Gonzales v. N; Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 6 Robt. 102; com- pare dissenting opinion in Id. 297. Ex- plained in Same v. Same, 39 How. Pr. 414. Approved and followed with Wilcox v. Rome, &c. R. R. Co., 39 K Y. 358, in Havens v. Erie R'y Co., 41 Id. 299. Dis- ting'd in Gillespie v. City of Newburgh, 54 Id. 4C8. Explained and applied (Non-suit for contributory negligence) in Thrings o. Central Park R. R. Co., 7 Robt. 616. Ap- plied (Evidence of contributory negligence) in Ochsenbein v. Shapley, 85 A 7 ! Y. 225. Cited with other cases (Negligence and the rule of damages) in 14 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 267. Decision in 39 K Y. applied (Failure to keep flag-man at crossing, as- evidence of negligence) in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 78 A 7 . Y. 518, 524, which aff'd 6 Abb. K C. 104, 125, which see. ErTin v. Oregon Steam Nav. Co., 22 Hun, 566. Another proceeding in Id. 598. Erwin v. Downes, 15 A 7 ". Y. 575. Followed with Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand, 2 Hun, 488 (Indorser when liable without demand and notice) in Butler v. Slocomb, 33 La. Ann. 170; s. c, 39 Am. R. 265; s. c, 13 Reporter, 74. Commented on in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 167. v. Loper, 43 A 7 ! Y. 521. Disting'd (Limitation of action for debt against next of kin) in Sclover v. Coe, 63, Id. 438, 444, v. Neversink Steamboat Co., 23 Hun, 573. Aff'd in 88 A 7 . Y. 184. Decision ill 23 Hun overruled (Interest, by what law governed) in Salter v. Utica & Black River 11. R. Co., 8G A 7 . Y. 401, 403. Followed in Smith v. Hathorn, 25 Hun, 159, 1G2. v. Olmsted, 7 Cow. 229. Cited as au- thority (Liability of tenant in common to co-tenant for trespass) in King v. Phillips, 1 Lans. 421, 434. Followed in Maddox v. Goddard, 15 Me. 218; s. c, 33 Am. Dee. 604, 606. Disting'd (Whether agreement for sale of land gives right of possession) in Miller v. Ball, 64 A 7 ! Y. 286, 294. v. Saunders, 1 Cow. 249; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 520. See Keating «. Price ; Lattimore v. Harsen; Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Followed (Parol evidence to show that note or acceptance absolute on face, was condi- tional) in Heaverin v. Donnell, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 244 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 302. v. Voorhees, 26 Barb. 127. Said to have been rev'd by Ct. of App. in 1862. Esmond v. Apgar, 7 Daly, 379. Afl'd in 76 N. Y. 359. v. Van Benschoten. See Bagley v. Ped- die ; Keating v. Price. Espie, Matter of, 2 Red/. 445. Further pro- ceeding in 3 Id. 270. See proceedings affect- ing same estate, in McNaughton v. Ohave, 5 Abb. A 7 . C. 225. With decision in 3 Red/. see (Enforcing surrogate's decree by punish- ment for contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. Esselstyn v. Weeks, 2 R D. Smith, 116. Approved, as to question of pleading, but ESSEX CO. BANK— EVERETT. 251 rev'd, as to sufficiency of oral new promise, in 12 i\T. Y. 635; s. c, with, copy of plead- ings and substance of opinion below, but without dissenting opinion, in Ct. of App., 2 .446. Pr. 272. Decision in 12 N. Y. dis- ting'd and explained (Necessity of written promise to take out of statute of limitations demand that had accrued when Code Pro. ■went into effect) in Van Alen v. Feltz, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 439, 442. Essex Co. Bank v. Russell, 29 N. Y. 673. Disting'd (Amount of recovery by bona fide holder for value) in Huff v. Wagner, 63 Barb. 215, 233. Esterly t. Cole, 1 Barb. 235. AfTd in 3 K Y. .502. Referred to as an instructive case where the authorities are collated at length, —"(Interest by right of usage) in 6 Am. Dec. 192, n. Included in Lawson on Usages and Customs, 198, with note, at p. 317. Collated and discussed with other cases (Necessity of knowledge to sustain usage) in Walls v. Bailey, 49 JV. Y. 474. y. Purdy. See Bstevez v. Purdy. Estes v. Wilcox, 67 N. Y. 264. See Adsit v. Sanford; Chautauque Co. Bank v. White. Applied (Relief against fraudulent convey- ance) in Adsit v. Sanford, 23 Sun, 45, 48. Disting'd in Barton v. Hosner, 24 Id. 467, 471. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 79. Followed with Allyn v. Thurston, 53 JV. Y. 622 ; Ocean Nat. B'k t>. Olcott, 46 Id. 12; 'Adsit®. Butler, 87 Id. 585; 23 Hun, 45; Southard n. Benner, 72 N. Y. 424 • (Rights of simple contract creditor of de- ceased) and Loomis v. Tifft, 16 Barb. 541 ; Spicer v. Ayers, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T.& C.) 624, disapproved in Gardner v. Lansing, 28 Bun, 413. t. World Mut. Life Ins Co., 6 Hun, 349. Motion herein said in 8 Id. v; 10 Id. x, to have been granted. Estevez v. Purdy, 6 Him, 46. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 446, which aflM Esterly v. Purdy, 50 How. Pr. 350. See Algur v. Gardner; *Condit v. Baldwin ; Lee v. Chadsey. Decis- ion in 66 K Y. followed, though doubted (Usury as determined by agreement made by agent) in Stout v. Rider, 12 Hun, 574. Decision in 6 Id. disapproved in Gray v. Van Blarcom, 29 iV. J. Eq. {Stew.) 455. Eten t. Luyster, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 486. Aff'd in 60 N. Y. 252. See Williams v. Vanderbilt. Decision in 60 N. Y. relied on (Proximate consequences of wrongful act) in Baltimore City Pass. R'y Co. v. Kemp 61 Md. 74; s. c, 47 Am. R. 381, n. ; 30 Alb. L. J. 92, with note. Followed in Brown v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co., 54 Wis. 342; s. c, 41 Am. R. 41. Ettenheiiner v. Hefferman, 66 Barb. 374. See Jackson v. Adams. Compare (Escheat) Mooers v. White, 6 Johns. 360 ; Hauenstein . v. Lynham, 100 U, S. 483. Etz v. Daily, 20 Barb. 32. Explained (Eject- ment by owner in fee) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Lands, § 134. Eustapkieve v. KetcUum, 6 Hun, 621. See Eaustapere v. Ketchum. Disting'd (Lia' bility of married woman for rent) in Bush v. Babbitt, 25 Hun, 213. Evangelical Lutheran, &c. St. John Or- phans' Home t. Buffalo Hyd. Assoc, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 589; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 419. Aff'd in 64 XT. Y. 561. Decision in 64 N. Y. applied (Execution against corporation) in Gooch ■». McGee, 83 N. C. 59; s. c, 35 Am. R. 558, 560. Evans v. Chapin, 20 How. Pr. 289. Ex- plained (Provision in assignment act, when directory) in Rennie v. Bean, 24 Hun, 123, 127. t. Cleveland, 12 Hun, 140. Rev'd in 72 JST. Y. 486. Decision in 72 2f. Y. applied (Continuance of action notwithstanding lapse of time) in Greene v. Martine, 21 Hun, 136, 138. v. Ellis, 5 Den. 640. Criticised with Berrien v. McLane, 1 Hoffm. 421 ; Starr v. Vanderheyden, 9 Johns. 253, as laying down too strict a rule (Burden of proving fairness of contracts between attorney and client) in Stanton v. Haskin, 1 McArth. 558 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 612. - v. Evans, 9 Paige, 178. Cited (Right of surviving partners to close up affairs of firm) in Story on Partn. 7 ed., §§ 328, 344, 347; Betts v. June, 51 H. Y. 613, being also cited in Id. § 344. T. Hill, 18 Hun, 464. Disting'd (Action to set aside. fraudulent conveyance) as inap- plicable to suit by administrator under L. 1858, c. 314, in Barton v. Hosner, 24 Id. 467, 471. v. Kalbfleisch, 16 Abb. Pr. KS. 13; s. c, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 450. Disting'd (Referable action) in Place v. Chesebrough, 63 iv". K 317; Maryott v. Thayer, 39 Super. Ct. (J. &.S.) 417. Followed in Ross v. Combes, 37 Id. 289, 295 ; Flanders ». Odell, 2 Hun, 664. v. Moran, 12 Wend. 180. Overruled (Proceedings for non-payment of rent) in Stratton ». Lord, 22 Id. 611. v. U. S. Life Ins. Co., 3 Hun, 587; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C) 331. AfTd in 64 N.Y. 304. Decision in 64 K Y. followed (Effect of non-payment of premium) in Wheeler v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 82 Id. 543, 551. — — T. Post, 5 Hun, 338. Followed (Record in summary proceedings as evidence) in Boiler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Super. Ct. (J. AS.) 523, 536. v. Wells, 22 Wend. 324. See Dubois v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. ; Witherby «. Mann. Disting'd (Ratification of execution of instrument by agent) in Schaefer v. Henkel, 75 N. Y. 378, 387. Everett v. Saltus, 15 Wend. 474. AfTd in 20 Id. 267. Decision in 15 Id. followed (Lien on property when lost by setting up title independent of lien) in Thompson ». Rose, 16 Conn. 71'; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 121, 127, with note. Explained (Consignee's right of action against earner) in 7 South. 252 EVERETT -EXCELSIOR SAYINGS BANK. L. Rev. N. S. 260 as misapprehended in Southern Express Co. v. Armstead, 50 Ala. 350. T. Vendryes, 25 Barb. 383. Afl'd in 19 Jf. T. 436. Decision in 19 N. Y. disting'd (Law of place of note, &c.) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs B'k v. Low, 6 Abb. JV. C. 76, 86. Followed in Hibernia Nat. B'k v. Lacombe, 84 N. Y. 367, 378, 381. Everingham t. Vanderbilt, 51 Sow. Pr. 177. Aff' d in 12 Sun, 75. Decision in 51 Sow. Pr. followed (Execution not condition precedent to action to reach assets fraud- ulently transferred by administrators) in Malloy v. Vanderbilt, 4 Abb. JT. C. 127, 129. Ever it t. Strong, 5 Hill, 163. AfPd in 7 Id. 585. See Mabbett ». White. With decis- ion in 5 Sill see cases collected (Seal does not vitiate act of partner otherwise valid) in 9 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 271. Decision in 7 Sill explained (Assignment for benefit of creditors — power of partners to make) in Burrill on Assign. § 67, n. 1, 4 ed. T. Watts, 3 Edw. 486. Affd in 10 Paige, 82. Everitt v. Everitt, 29 Barb. 112. Rev'd m 29 K Y. 39. See Dan v. Brown ; Gott v. Cook; Loder v. Hatfield; Manice». Manice. Decision in 29 N~. Y. followed (Perpetuities) in Stevenson v. Lesley^ 49 Sow. Pr. 230, which was modified and aft'd in 9 Sun, 637, which see ; Meserole ». Meserole, 1 Id. 71 ; Moore v. Hegeman, 72 N. Y. 383 ; Monarque v. Monarque, 80 Id. 324." Discussed in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 512. Ap- plied (Effect of trust embracing both lawful and unlawful purposes) in Harrison v. Har- rison, -36 N~. Y. 548. Applied (Estate, when vested) in Hays «. Gourley, 1 Sun, 40 ; McKinstry v. Sanders, 2Sup'm. Ct.(T. & 0.) 194. Disting'd and applied in Cotton v. Fox, 67 N. Y. 352. With, decision in 41 Barb, see (Limitation of action to establish will) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 382, n. Ererngliiin v. Enswbrtli, 7 Wend. 326. See Dob v. Halsey; Livingston v. Roosevelt; Stall v. Catskill Bank. Followed with Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. 34; Gram v. Cadwell, 5 Cow. 489 (Effect of attempt of partner to apply firm assets to payment of individual debt) in Cotzhausen «. Judd, 43 Wis. 213 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 539. Evers v. People, 3 Sun, 716; s. c, 6 Sup'm.Ct. (T. & C.) 156. Affd, it seems, as People v. Evers, 63 N. Y. 625, but without opinion. Ererson v. Carpenter, 17 Wend. 419. Ap- proved (Effect of conditional promise to execute contract made during infancy) in Chandler «. Glover, 32 Penn. 509. Followed in Edgerly «. Shaw, 25 N. S. 514 ; s. c, 57 Am. Bee. 349. Followed (Witness, when not to be impeached by proof of contradic- tory statements) in Doe'd. Sutton v. Reagnn, 5 Blachf. tfnd.) 217 ; s. c, 33 Am. Bee. 466. . y. Gehrman, 1 Abb. Pr. 167; s. c, 10 Sow. Pr. 301. Approved (Confession of judgment by partner for firm) in Grkwold v. Griswold, 14 Id. 446. Explained in Lahey i>. Kingon, 13 Abb. Pr. 192, 194. Everts v. Adams. See Bartholomew v. Jack- son. v. Everts, 62 Barb. 577. Applied with Brownell v. Akin, 6 Sun, 378 (Liability of executor indebted to estate) and Adair ». Brimmer, 74 N. Y. 539 disting'd in dis- senting opinion of Milleb, J., in Baucus v. Stover, 89 Id. 6, which rev'd 24 Sun, 109, 112, which see. Evertsoti v. Booth, 19 Johns. 486. Follow.cd (Effect of assignment of note secured by mortgage) in Terry v. Woods, 6 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 139 ; s. c, 45 Am. Bee. 274, 276, with note. v. Givan, 16 Sow. Pr. 25. Commented on (Surplus moneys on foreclosure- of mort- gage — exceptions to referee's report) in Colby on Porecl. 31. v. Miles, 6 Johns. 138. Followed (Neces- sity of averment of fraud in sale, in order to admit proof of it) in Dean v. Mason, 4 Conn. 428; s. c, 10 Am. Bee. 162. Dean v. Mason was followed on this point in Bartho- lomew v. Bushnell, 20 Conn. 271 ; s. c, 52 Am. Bee. 338, with note, and its doctrine noticed in 1 Id. 83, n. v. National Bank of Newport, 4 Sun, 692. Rev'd as to the interest warrants, and aff'd as to the coupons, in 66 N. Y. 14; s. c, 23 Am. R. 9. Decision in 66 N. Y. cited at length (Negotiable character of coupons) in 14 Am. Bee. 425, n. Included in 2 Ames Cos. on B. & N. 775. Cited as authority in McKim v. King. 58 Md. 505. v. Sawyer. See Thomas v. Crofut V. Tappen. See Green v. Winter. Every v. Merwiu. See Lion v. Burtis. Ewi ng v. Johnson. See Nobles v. Bates. Excelsior Fire Ins. Co., Matter of, 38 Barb. 297; s. c, more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. 8. Excelsior Fire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Liverpool, 7 Bans. 138. Further decision in 55 K Y. 343 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 271. See De Wolf v. Capital City Ins. Co. ; Foster v. Van Reed. Decision in 55 iv". Y. approved (Insurance of mortgagee's interest) in Foster v. Van Reed, 5 Hun, 321, 325, which was rev'd in 70 N. Y. 19, which see. Examined with other cases, in 20 Am. Bee. 512, n. Approved in 1 Jones on Mort. § 419. Cited as authority in Dick v. Franklin Fire Ins- Co., 10 Mo.App. 384. Excelsior Grain Binding Co. t. Stayner, 58 Sow. Pr. 273. Aff'd in 24 Alb. L. J. 190; s. c, 61 Sow. Pr. 456. Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Embury, 4 Sun, 648 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 261. Com- pare Same v. Lacey. v. Lacey, 3 Sun, 111 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 305. Further decision on the merits, in 63 N. Y. 422. Compare Same «. Embury. Excelsior Savings Bank v. Campbell, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 549; s. £, 48 How. Pr. 347, and mem. s. c, 2 Sun, 375. EXCHANGE BANK— FAKE. 253 Affd, it seems, in 62 K Y. 637, but without opinion. Exchange Bank v. Monteath, 17 Barb. 171. Subsequent decisions in 24 Id. 371 and 26 N. Y. 505, 509, in which last see extended explanation of effect of decision in North River Bk. v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 262, on the decisions herein. See Dole v. Fellows. Decision in 26 K T. collated with other cases' (Ultra vires — corporation making negotiable paper) in Field on Ultra Vires, 94. Exchange Fire Ins. Co. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 10 Bosw. 180. Cited as authority (Character of liability of canal company) in Penn. Canal Co. v. Burd, 90 Perm. St. 281 ; s. c, 35 Am. It. 659. v. Early, 4 Abb. JV. O. 78. See (Omis- sion of referee's oath) Browning v. Marvin, 5 Abb. N. G. 285 ; McGowan v. Newman, 4 Id. 80., See also Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1016, n. Ex parte . See name of party in its al- phabetical place in this table. Eyre v. Higbee, 15 How. Pr. 45. Rev'd in 35 Barb. 502; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 198. See Woolsey v. Judd. Decision in 35 Barb. commented on (Enjoining publication of letters) in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 1012, n. 2. Referred to as an instructive case (Property in letters) in 5 Am. Dec. 725, a, F. Affd Fabbri t. Kalbfleisch, 2 Sweeny, 252. in 52 N. Y. 28. v. Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Lam. 446; s. c, more fully, 64 Barb. 85. Faber v. Faber. See Clark it. Clark; Fet- ridge ». Wells. Fabre v. Colden. See Pritchard v. Hicks. Fagan v. Dngan, 2 Red/. 341. Applied (Undue influence over testator) in McCoy v. McCoy, 4 Id. 54, 59. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 84 K Y. 348. Followed, but point not indicated, in Golden v. Same, Id. 657. Fagen v. Davison, 2 Duer, 153. Limited (Right of amendment) in Van Ness v. Bush 14 Abb. Pr. 33, 36. Fagnait v. Knox, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & £1 41. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 525 ; s. c, 1 Abb. N O 246. Faliy v. North, 19 Barb. 341. * Explained (Master and servant — entire agreement) in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 38, n. k. Fairbanks v. Mothersell, 60 Barb. 406; s. c, 41 How. Pr. 274. Dictum' qualified (Mar- ried woman's power to contract with hus- band) in Perkins v. Perkins, 62 Barb. 531. Disting'd (Husband's agency to contract for wife) in Jones v. Walker, 63 JV. Y. 613. v. Wood. 17 Wend. 329. Marginal note corrected (Computing time of limitation of actions, Lftider provision in revision of 1830) in Johnson ». Burrell, 2 Hill, 238; Millard v. VVhitaker, 5 Id. 408; Burchs. Newberry 3 How. Pr. 271. Explained in Ang. on Limit. § 50, 6 ed. ' Reviewed with Small v. Edrick, 5 Wend. 138; Columbus Turnpike Co. v. Haywood, 10 Id. 423, and other cases (Computing time prescribed in stat- utory enactments) in Stebbins v. Anthony, 5 Col. 348; s. c, 46 Am. It. 410, n., where numerous other cases are collated. Fairchild v. Case, 24 Wend. 381. Applied (Liabilitv of officer for voluntary escape) in Riley v. Whittaker, 49 N. H. 145; s. c, 6 Am. It. 474, 478. v. Fairchild, 64 K Y. 471. Affg 5 Hun, 407. ' See Buckley v. Buckley. Decis- ion in 64 N. Y. followed (Copartnership books) in Cheever v. Lamar, 19 Hun, 130, 134. See to the contrary (Parol evidence as to title to real property between partners) Le Fevre's Appeal, 69 Penn. St. 122; Eb- bert's Appeal, 70 Id. 79. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 228. Collated with other cases (Real estate purchased with partnership funds) in 27 Am. R. 270, n. Quoted and commented on in 1 Colly er on Partn. § 114, n. 2, Wood's Am. ed. Decision in 5 Hun dis- ting'd (Resulting trust) in Randall v. Con- stans, 23 Northw, Rep. 530, 534. t. Gwymte, 14 Abb. Pr. 121. Rev'd in 16 Id. 23. See Griswold v. Atlantic Dock Co. r. Liverpool, &c. Ins. Co.. 48 Barb. 420. Aft'd in 51 if. Y. 65. t. Lynch, 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 265. Compare (Objection that remedy is at law and not in equity) De Bussiere v. Holladav, 4 Abb. JV. C. Ill, and Id. 112, n. See also (Liability created by assumption of mort- gage) 5 Id. 230, n. • ' T. Slocum, 19 Wend. 329. Aft'd in 7 Hill, 292. See Bostwick v. Champion ; Van Santvoord ». St. John. Decision in 19 Wend, disting'd with Weed v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co., Id. 534; St. John v. Van Santvoord, 25 Id. 660 (Second carrier — when not agent for first) in Walker v. Cassa- way, 4 La. Ann. 19; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 551. Explained in Ang. on Carr. % 94-, 5 ed. Fairfax v. N. Y. Central. &c. R. R. Co., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 516. Further decision in .40 Id. .128, and that rev'd in 67 N. Y. 11. Also in 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S) 18, and that aff'd in 73 N. Y. 167; s. c, 29 Am. R. 119. Decision in 67 N. Y. applied (Carrier's lia- bility for failure to deliver baggage) in Flaherty ®. Greenman, 7 Daly, 491, 484. See to the contrary, Jackson 8. Sacramento, &c. R. R Co., 23 Col. 268. And see Abb. Tr. Ev. 555. Fairweather v. Satterly, 7 Robt. 546. Fol- lowed (Effect of appearance of infant by attorney) in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. Fake t. Eddy, 15 Wend. 76. Explained (Time when interest commences) in Cook v. Rogers, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 493, 495. Approved and followed (Recovery of inter- est after payment of principal) Tillotson t>. Preston, 3 Johns. 229, being disting'd in 254r FAKE- FARMERS' AND MECHANICS' BANK. Robbins 11. Cheek, 32 bid. 328; s. c, 2 Am. R. 349. Cited as authority with Til- lotson v. Preston, 3 Johns. 229, in American Bible Society v. Wells, 68 Me. 572 ; s. c, 28 Am. E. 82. ,T. Smith, 7 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 106. Dis- ting"d (Liability of vendor of usurious note) in Littauer c. Goldman, 72 JSf. Y. 506, 511. v. Whipple, 39 Barb. 339. Aff'd in 39 K 7. 394. Falconer v. Buffalo & J. It. R. Co., 7 Hun, 499. Aff'd in 69 JT. Y 491, and that affd in 103 U. S. 821. With decis- ion in 69 If. ~Y. compare (Effect of constitu- tional amendment prohibiting town bonding) People ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly, 5 Abb. M C. 383, 444. Followed in People ex rel. Het- field v. Trustees of Fort Edward, 70 N. Y. 33. Decision in 69 Id. applied to amend- ment forbidding exclusive grant of railroad privileges, — in Negus v. City of Brooklyn, 10 Abb. N. G. 180, 185. Applied (Affixing conditions in town bonding proceedings) in People ex rel. N. Y. Canada R. R. Co. v. Button, 18 Hun, 120. v. Freeman, 4 Hand/. Ch. 565. Examined (Attachment lien as enabling to impeach transfer) in Thayer v. Willet, 5 Bosw. 344, 357, 367. Disting'd in Mills v. Block, 30 Barb. 549, 552. Applied in Rinchey v. Stryker, 28 N. Y. 45. Falkenau t. Fargo, 35 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 332; s. c, 44 How. Pr. 325. Affd, it seems, in 55 N. Y. 642, but without opinion. Falkland t. St. Nicholas Nat. B'k of N. Y., 21 Hun, 450. Rev'd in 84 N. Y. 145. Fallon v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Daly, 8. Affd in 64 K Y. 13. v. McCunn, 7 Bosw. 141. Opinion of Hoffman, J., corrected in Haviland v. Wehle, 43 How. Pr. 59, 62. T. People, 6 Park 256. Affd in- 2 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 83. Falls v. Belknap, 1 Johns. 486. Collated with other cases (Custody of illegitimate children) in 56 Am. Bee. 258, n. Fanning v. Consequa, 17 Johns. 511 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 442. See Hosford v. Nichols. Compared with other cases (Law of place of contract) in Hibernia Nat. B'k ». Lacombe, 84 N~. 7. 367, 378. v. Dunham, 5 Johns. Ch. 122; s.'c, 9 Am. Bee. 283. Disting'd (Impeaching judgment in creditor's action) in Bank of Wooster v. Stevens, 1 Ohio St. 233; s. c, 59 Am. Bee. 619, with note. v. Lent. 3 E. D. Smith, 206. See to the contrary (Proof of executor's official char- acter) Trimble v. Brichta, 10 La. Ann. 778. See also Abb. Tr. Eo. 56. v. Trowbridge, 5 Hill, 428. Disting'd (Adjournment by justice) in Thompson v. Sayre, 1 Den. 175. Fargo v. Brown. See Brown v. Fargo. Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. 432; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 387, 393, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently approved in N. Y. ; also s. c, 8 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 439, with brief note. Affd in 9 Cow. 639. See Ell wood v. Monk; Jackson v. Rayner; Leonard v. Vredenburgh. Applied (Promise to pay debt of another, when not within statute of frauds) in Blunt v. Boyd, 3 Barb. 212; Hale v. Boardman, 27 Id. 85; Brown v. Curtiss, 2 N.Y. 234; Connor®. Williams, 2 Eobt. 49; Ellwood v. Monk, 5 Wend. 237; Meech v. Smith, 7 Id. 318; Rogers v.- Knee- land, 13 Id. 122. Disting'd in Kingsley v. Balcome, 4 Barb. 133; Stern v. Drinker, 2 E. B. Smith, 404 ; Watson v. Randall, 20 Wend. 204. Criticised. and disting'd in Mal- lory v. Gillett, 23 Barb. 616, which was aff'd in 21 N. Y. 422, which see. Explained by Ui.shoeffeh, J., in Rexford v. Burnett, 1 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 398. Followed in Tindal ». Touchberry, 3 Strob. {S. C.) 177; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 637, 639. Followed with Mallory ■b. Gillett, 21 N. Y. 412, in Calkins «. Chandler, 36 Mich. 320 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 593, 597. Quoted and collated with other cases in Holcombe Lead. Cos. on Com. L. 427. Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, §169, 4 ed. Applied (Right of third per- son to maintain action on promise made for his benefit) in Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Ben. 55 ; Judson v. Gray, 17 How. Pr. 295. Re-affd * in Lawrence *. Fox, 20 K Y. 270. Exam- ined with other cases in Vrooman v. Turner, 69 Id. 285. ■ T. McConnell. 7 Bans. 428. Aff'd in 52 iV. Y. 630, but without opinion. Compare (Presumption of surrogate's jurisdiction) * Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2473, 2474. Farmers' & Citizens' Bank v. Sherman, 6 Bosw. 181. Affd in 33 N. Y. 69. Farmers' & Mnnuf. Bank v. Wliinfleld, 24 Wend. 419. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Dissented from (Allowing jury to take documentary evidence to their room) in Langworthy v. Connelly, 14 Neb. 340 ; s. c, 45 Am. R. 117. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers' & Drovers' Bank, 4 Buer, 219. AfTd in 16 N. Y. 125. Other proceedings in 14 Id. 623j and 28 Id. 425. See Marine Nat. Btnk «. Nat. City Bank; North River Bank v. Aymar; Willets v. Phoenix Bank. Decision in 16 N. Y. disting'd (Liability on certified check) as inapplicable to stock certificates, — in N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 8 * Abb. Pr. 241 ; in dissenting opinion of Pea- body, J., "in Cazeaux B.Mali, 25 Barb. 593. Applied to stock certificates, — in Seizer v. Mali, 32 Id. 78 ; K. Y. & N. H. R R. Co. ■». Schuyler, 38 Id. 552; Cross v. Sackett, 2 Bosw. 658. Elaborately examined as to such certificates, with other cases, in N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 61 et seq., and explained on this point in N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 17 How. Pr. 465. Applied in Claflin e. Farmers' & Citizens' B'k, 36 Barb. 540, 546, which was rev'd in 25. N. Y. 293, 297, which see; Nolan v. B'k of N. Y. Nat. B'k'g Assoc, 67 Barb. 34 ; Irving B'k v. Wetherald, 36 JH. 7. FARMERS'. 255 837 ; Meads v. Merchants' B'k of Albany, 25 Id. 146. Disting'd in Bank of State of N. Y. v. Farmers' Branch, &c. of Ohio, 36 Bart. 334, a case of indorsement by cashier, but applied on this point in Bank of State of N. Y. v. Bank of Ohio, 29 JV. F.632. Applied to indorsement by president, in Marine B'k of N. Y. «. Clements, 31 Id. 45, 49. Disting'd as not authority for holding cor- poration liable as accommodation indorser, —in Bridgeport City B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 30 Barb. 424, but applied to such indorsement in Mechanics' B'k'g Co. e. N. Y. & Saugerties Lead Co., 20 How. Pr. 510 ; 23 Id. 74, 80. Applied to town bonds,— in Gould v. Town of Venice, 29 Barb. 451, but disting'd on this point in Gould e. Town of Sterling, 23 JV. Y. 463. To indorsement by cashier, in Bank of Genesee v. Patchin B'k, 19 Id. 319. Ex- plained in Marine Nat. B'k v. Nat. City B'k, 59 Id. 72. Disting'd in Clarke National B'k v. B'k of Albion, 52 Barb. 597; Salt Springs B'k v. Syracuse Sav'gs Inst., 62 Id. 108. Commented on in Cooke ». State Nat. B'k of Boston,. 52 JV. Y. 116. Included with notes, in Bedf. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of JExch. 727. Compared in Bigel. on B. & JV 2 cd. 55. Compare 2 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 301. Applied (Liability of bank for acts of agent) in Reynolds v. Kennyon, 43 Barb. 600 ; Continental Nat. B'k ». Nat. B'k of Commonwealth, 50 JV. Y. 581. Disting'd in Booth v. Farmers' & Mech. Nat. B'k, 4 Bans. 306. Applied to liability of firm, in Griswold v. Haven, 25 JV. Y. 59o, 601. Applied (Liability on paper negotiated by agent) in Exchange B'k v. Monteath, 26 Id. 510, 512. Quoted and explained (Private corporations — ultra vires) in Morawets on Corp. § 98. t. Empire Stone Dressing Co. See Bissell v. Michigan Southern and Northern, &c. R. R. Co. v. Evans, 4 Barb. 487. Disting'd (Limita- tion of guarantor's liability) in Pratt ». Matthews, 24 Hun, 386, 390. v. Joslyn, 37 JV. Y. 353. Cited as au- thority (Trial of issues in equity action) in Hatch v. Peugnet, 64 Barb. 196. Disting'd (Recovery on debt for which note has been given) in Hansce v. Phinney, 20 Hun, 154. Followed (Valid contract as affected by usurious agreement) in Winsted B'k v. Webb, 39 N. Y. 332. Applied in Patterson v. Birdsall, 64 Id. 298. v. Rayncor. See Bank of Michigan v. Williams; Dutchess Cotton Manufactory v. Davis. Tanners' & Mechanics' Bank of Rochester v. Gregory, 49 Barb. 155. See Beach v. Hollister; Goelet v. Gori; Rogers ». Benson; Wright v. Saddler. Disapproved (Effect of married woman's acts on tenancy by en- tirety) in Meeker v. Wright, 70 JV. Y. 262 269. Tanners' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank of Buffalo v. Atkinson, 43 Super. Ct. («/". & S.) 546. Afi'd, it seems, in 74 JV. Y. 587. Decision in 74 iV. F. followed, but point not in- dicated, in Same s. Hazeltine, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 576, which was aff'd in 78 if. Y. 104, which see. T. Brown, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 522. Aff d as Same v. Logan, in 74 JV. Y. 568. v. Bearing. 59 JV. Y. 659 (no opinion). Rev'd, it seems (Effect of usurious loan by national bank) in 91 U. S. 29. v. Hazeltine. 45 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 576. AfTd in 78 JV. Y. 104. T. logan, 74 JV. Y. 568. See Same v. Brown; Marine Bank v. Wright. Followed, but point not indicated, in Farmers' & M. Nat. B'k v. Hazeltine, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 576. Explained (Sales— reservation of jus disponendi) in. 1 Benj. on Sales, § 581 (Corbin's 4 x\m. ed.). Explained (Torts — conversion) in MoaPs UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 573. _ v. Sprague, 2 Hun, 522; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 713. Previous decision va- cating order of arrest, in 52 JV Y. 605. Decision in 52 JV Y. disting'd (Fiduciary* . capacity of factor) in Kelly v. Scripture, 9 Hun, 283. Cited (When usage will not relieve factor from duty or liability) in Whart. Com. on Ag. §§ 739, 742. Farmers' Bank of Amsterdam v. Blair, 44 Barb. 641. Approved (Settlement of contro- versy as consideration) in Scott v. Warner, 2 Bans. 49. Disting'd in Panzerbeiter v. Waydell, 21 Hun, 101. Farmers' Bank of Bridgeport v. Vail. Sec Mead v. Engs. Farmers' Bank of Fayetteville v. Hale, 15 ,455. Pr. JV S. 276. Rev'd in 59 JV Y. 53. See First Nat. B'k of Whitehall v. Lamb. Decision in 59 JV. Y. overruled, and the doctrine of the decision in 15 Abb. Pr. JV. S. established in Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k, &c. v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29. Deemed overruled (Penalties for usury by national banks) in Hintermister v. First Nat. B'k of Chittenango, 64 JV Y. 212. 214. Farmers' Fire Ins. & Loan Co. v. Edwards, 26 Wend. 541. Explained (Mortgage — tender after day stipulated for payment) in 4 Kent Com. 193, n. d. Farmers' Ins. & Loan Co. v. Snyder, 16 Wend. 481, 493; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 118, 123, with note. Reviewed with Alston •». Mechanics' Mut. Ins. Co. of Troy, 4 Hill, 330; Jennings e. Chenango Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Ben. 75 (Representations and war- ranties in insurance contract) in Glen- dale Woolen Co. v. Protection Ins. Co., 21 Conn. 19; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 309, with note. Relied on with Alston v. Mechanics' Insur- ance Co., in Hartford Protection Ins. Co. ■». Harmer, 2 Ohio St. 452; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 695, 699. Farmers' Loan & Trnst Co. v. Carroll, 5 Barb. 613. Further decision in 2 JV Y. 566. Decision in 5 Barb, approved (What is usury) in Schermerhorn ■». Talman, 14 JV. Y. 93, 120. See to the contrary, Mum- 2oG FARMERS'— *FARRELL. ford «. American Life Ins. Co., 4 N". Y. 463, 475. Approved (Corporation limited in mode of exercise of power) in Brady v. Mayor of N. Y., 2 Bosw. 183. v. Clowes, 4 Edw. 575. Further decision in Id. 578, and that affd in 3 N. Y. 470; s. c, more fully, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 249. Decision in 3 N. Y. followed (Burden of proof as to loan by corporation) in Cheever v. Gilbert Elev. R. R. Co., 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 478, 485. For a stricter rule, see People ex rel. Town of Rochester v. Deyoe, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & C.) 142. See also Abb. Tr. Ed. 36. v. Curtis, 7 N. Y. 466. For 1 a stricter rule (Burden of proof aa to corporate acts) see People ex rel. Town of Rochester v. Dcyoe, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 142, See also Abb. Tr. En. 36. t. Dickson, 9 Abb. Pr. 61 ; s. c, 17 How. Pr. 477. Disapproved (Printed sub- scription of summons by attorney) in Mutual - Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 10 Abb. Pr. 260, n.; Barnard «. Heydrick, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 47. v. Harmony Fire, Ac. Ins. Co., 51 Barb. 33. , Said in 41 J¥. Y. 619 to have been affd in Ct. of App. in Dec. 1869. See Boynton v. Clinton & Essex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. 484. See Hoyle v. Plattsburgh & Montreal R. R. Co. ; Voorhees v. McGinnis. Overruled (Roll- ing stock of railroad deemed fixtures) in Stevens v. Buffalo & N. Y. R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 590 ; Beardsley v. Ontario Bank, Id. 619; Randall v. Elwell, 52 If. Y. 521, 525. Disapproved in Boston C. & M. R. R. Co. i>. Gilmore, 37 If. H. 410. Fpl-, • lowed (Filing railroad mortgage as chattel mortgage) in Stevens v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 590.. Opposed in Bement v. Plattsburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 104. See 2 L. 1868, c. 779. Followed (Railroad track as realty) in City of New Haven «. Fair Haven & Westfield R. R. Co., 38 Conn. 422 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 399, 4Q3. v. Hunt, 16 Barb. 514. Other proceed- . ings as Hunt e. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., in 8 How. Pr. 416, and in 1 Code B. If. S. 1. t. Kurscli, 5 If. Y. 558. Explained (Costs of ejectment) in Perrigo v. Dowdall, 25 Hun, 234. v. Maltby, 8 Paige, 361. Disting'd (Pur- chaser when bound by mortgage) in Teff t v. Munson, 63 Barb. 31, 38. Disting'd in Trustees of Union College ». Wheeler, 61 If. Y. 88, 108. Expained in Edwards v. Mc- Kernan, 22 Northw. Sep. 20, 22. See 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 100, n. = T. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 4 Bosw. 80. Disting'd (Lease to municipal corporation) in Davies v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 N. Y. 207, 214. Farmers' Nat. Bk. of Ft. Edward t. Leland, 60 If. Y. 673. Followed (Sham answer) in Roby «. Hallock, 5 Abb. N. C. 86, 88. Farnham, Matter of, 14 Hun, 159. Affd in 75 JV. Y. 187. Decision in 75 N. Y. ex- plained (Provisions in assignment act, when directory) in Rennie v. Bean, 24 Hun, 127. Farnliani v. Campbell, 34 K Y. 480. Fol- lowed (ttemoval of cloud on title) in Mulli- gan v. Baring, 3 Daly, 79. T. Farnham, 9 How. Pr. 231. Followed (Striking out pleading of party in contempt) in Walker v. Walker, 82 K Y. 260, 264. v. Hildreth, 32 Barb. 277. See Holley v. Mix. Explained and followed (Misnomer), in Muldoon v. Pierz, 1 Abb. N. C. 309, 811. y. Mallory, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 100. , See to the contrary (Proof of executor's official charactert Shorter ■». Urquhart, 28 Ala. N. S. 360. 'See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 56. v. Ross. See Bagley v. Peddie. Farqualiarson v. Kimball, 18 How. Pr. 33 ; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 385, n. See (Service of injunction order) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2452, m.j 2454, n. Farr v. Smith, 9 Wend. 338; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 16!i See Toof ». Bentley; Wilson®. Reed. Disting'd (Property of tenants in common) in Channon v. Lusk, 2 Bans. 211. Farrand v. Marshall, 19 Barb. 380. Further decision in 21 Id. 409. Decision in 21 Barb. applied (Right of owner of land to use thereof) in Pickard v. Collins, 23 Id. 458. Examined with other cases in Losee v. Buchanan, 61 Id. 107, which was rev'd in 51 N. Y. 479, which see. Examined with other cases (Nuisances) in Heeg v. Licht, 80 Id. 582. Examined with other cases (Right to adjacent and subjacent support) in dissent- ing opinion of Johnson, 0., in Ryckman v. Gillis, 57 Barb. 77. Disting'd in Austin v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 25 K Y. 345. De- cision in 19 Barb, explained in People exrel. Barlow v. Canal Board, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (7. & C t ) 277. Decision in 21 Barb, disting'd and PaBton v. Holland, 7 Johns. 92 ; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige, 169 ; Radclift's Ex'rs v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 4 If. Y. 197, cited in City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 III. 23 ; s. c., 20 Am. B. 243-247. Quoted and cases cited to the contrary in Bigel. Cos. on Torts 549. Commented on in 1 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 753, n. 5. Quoted and discussed in Wood on ITuis. 2 ed. §§ 173, 182. Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Den. 527. Criticised as not furnishing a reliable test of fixture, in Teaff v. Hewitt, I Ohio St. 511 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dee. 035, 643. t. Pliosuix Ins. Co., 3 Sup'm Ct. {T. & C. ) 789. Affd, it seems, in 60 N. Y. 626, but without opinion. Farrell v. Calkins, 10 Barb. 348. Said in Van Slyck «. Snell, 6 Lans. 299, not to have been expressly overruled (Reversal of joint judgment if erroneous as to one defendant) though questioned in Gerard v. Stagg, 10 How. Pr. 369 ; Field v. Mould, 15 Abb. Pr. 6, 1 1, contrary opinions being also expressed in Kasson v. Mi»s, 8 How. Pr. 377, 379 ; 6 If. Y. 86, n. Also disapproved in Van Slyck v. Snell as opposed to Code. Pro. § 366 and contrary to Campbell -». Perkins, 8 N. Y. 430. FARRELL— FEETER. 257 t. Higley, Hill & D. 87.. Explained (Contracts— estoppel) in 2 Para, on Contr. 793, n. q. v People, .21 Hun, 485. Affd in 84 JV. Y. 656, but without opinion. Farrington v. Frankfort Bank, 81 Barb. 183. Previous report in 24 Barb. 554, with opinion of Bacon, J. See Spear v. Myers. v. Sinclair. See Bliss v. Ball. Fash v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 1 Daly, 148. Followed (Obligation of city railroad com- pany to keep its track in good order) in Worster v. Forty-second Street, &c. E. R. Co. , 3 Daly, 278. Questioned in Lowery v. Brooklyn City & Newtown E. R. Co., 76 JV. Y. 28, 31. Fassett v. Smith, 23 JV. Y. 252. Disting'd (Statutory definition of felony) in People v. Park, 41 JV Y. 24. Approved (Obtaining property by false pretences, not a felony) in Nickelson v. Wilson, 60 Id. 369. Disting'd (Title to goods obtained by false pretenses) as inapplicable to case of larceny, — in Florence Sewing Machine Co. ». Warford, 1 Sweeny, 450. See 24 MoaFs Eng. 359, stat- ing rule in other States. Compared with decision to the contrary in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 650, n. 17 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Tallmadge, 18 Abb. Pr. 48. Rev'd as Dunlevy v. Tullmadge, in 32 JV. Y. 457; B . c, 29 How. Pr. 397. v. ■, ST Barb. 436; s. c, more fully. 14 Abb. Pr. 188. Decision at General Term less fully reported in 23 How. Pr. 244. Decision in 23 Id. disting'd (Arrest in action to set aside conveyance) in Bruce v. Kelly, 5 Hun, 229. Fassin v. Hubbard, 61 Barb. 548. See Bank of Albion «. Smith. Explained (Notarial certificate as evidence) in Lawson v. Pinck- ney, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 187, 196. Fatman v. Lobach, 1 Duer, 354. See to the contrary (Negotiability of stock certificates) Stebbins v. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co., 3 Paige, 350. Approved in Mechanics' Bank v. N. Y. AN. H. R. E. Co., 4 Duer, 480, which was rev'd in 13 JV Y. 599, which see. Disting'd from McCready v. Eumsey, 6 Duer, 574, and approved in McNeil «. Tenth Nat. Bk, 46 JV 7! -325, 335. Faucett v. Nichols, 4 Sup'm. Ct, (T. & G.) 597; mem. s. c.,'2 Hun, 421. Rev'd in 64 JV. Y. 377. Decision in Id. cited (Admissi- bility of collateral facts upon issue of casus or accident) in Whart. Com. on En. § 38. See as to fires set by locomotives, Sheldon v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 14 JV. Y. 221, cited in § 43, and Field «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 JV Y. 339, cited in § 43, n. Fancier v. Hallett, 2 Johns. Gas. 233; s. c, 1 JV. Y. Corn. L. Law. ed. 499, with brief note of supporting authorities on adjust- ment. Faulkner, Matter of, 4 Hill, 598. Applied (Affidavit for attachment; in Eastou v. Mala- vazi, 7 Daly, 147, 149. Faulkner v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 1 Den. 441. Not followed (Statute of. 17 limitations as applied to foreign corpora- tions) in Blossburg & Corning R. R. Co. v. Tioga R. R. Co., 5 Blatehf. G. Ot. 387, 390. Overruled in Olcott v. Tioga R. R. Co., 20 2V Y. 210, 226. Followed with McQueen v. Middleton Manuf. Co., 16 Johns. 5, in Clarke «. Bank of Mississippi, 10 Ark. 516; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 248, with note. Applied (Jurisdiction over foreign corporations) in McCormick v. Penn. Central R. R. Co,, 49 JV. Y. 303. v. Erie R'y Co., 49 Barb. 324. Explained in Tinney v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 62 Id. 218, as not holding that a railway company is bound to provide its employes with a safe roadway. v. Hart, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 471. Rev'd in 82 If. Y. 413; s.c, 37 Am. R. 574. .Decision in 82 JV. Y. explained (Con- flict of laws) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 568, n. 1 Keller's cd. Faure v. Martin, 13 Barb. 394. Affd in 7 JV F. 210; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 515, with note. Decision in 7 JV. Y. doubted (Construction of contract of sale of lands) in Wilson v. Randall, 67 Id. 338, 342. Disting'd in Bel- knap v. Sealey, 14 Id. 143. Favill v. Roberts, 3 Lans. 14. Affd in 50 JV. Y. 222. Decision in Id. followed (Es- toppel to set up title to land) in Mattoon v. Young, 2 Hun, 559, 564. Explained in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 80. Fay T. Ames, 44 Barb. 327. See Bartlett v. Campbell. Disapproved (Judgment against principal as evidence against surety) in Stephens v. Shafer, 48 Wis. 54; s. c, 33 Am. R. 798. v. Bell, Hill & D. 25. Overruled (Consideration for parol promise to answer for debt of another) in Mallory v. Gillett, 2 1 K Y. 412. v. O'Neill, 36 W. Y. 11. Followed (Re- cognizance before magistrate) in Van De Wiele v. Callanan, 7 Daly, 386. Fearing v. Irwin, 4 Daly, 385. Affd in 55 Jf. Y. 486. Further decision in 5 Daly, 383. See Milhau v. Sharp; Wetmore v. Law. Fearn v. Gelpcke, 13 Abb. Pr. 473. Fol- lowed (Waiver of right to ask for security for costs) in Persse & Brooks Paper Works e. Willet,14M 119, 121. Feeter v. Heath, 11 Wend. 477. See Dusen- bury v. Ellis ; Lawrence v. Barker. Ap- proved as settled law (Effect of memoran- dum used by witness) in Green v. Brown, 3 Barb. 124. Criticised in Kendall v. Stone, 2 Sandf. 286. Examined with other cases in Merrill v. Ithaca & Owego R. R. Co., 16 Wend. 596. Applied in Stuart v. Binsse, 10 Bosw. 444 ; Taylor v. Crowninshield, 5 JV! Y. Leg. Obs. 212. Qualified in Halsey v. Sinse- baugh, 15 JV. Y. 487. Qualified with Law- rence v. Barker, 5 Wend. 301, in Guy v. Mead, 22 JV. Y. 465. Followed (Review of referee's conclusions) in Esterly v. Cole, 3 Id. 505. See People v. Superior Ct. of N. Y., 18 Wend. 575. Reviewed with other 258 FEETER— FENNER. cases (Allowance of interest) in White v. Mil- ler, 78 .V. Y. 398. Disting'd (Liability of agent contracting without authority) in Walker v. B'k of State of N. Y., 13 Barb. 639 ; Hegeman v. Johnson, 35 Id. 205 ; Aspinwall v. Torrance, 1 Lans. 387. v. Weber, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 255, Aff'd in 78 JSf. Y. 334. Feibel v. Obersky, 13 Abb. Pr. K S. 402, n. Followed (Infant's promise to marry . not binding) in Leichtweiss v. Treskow, 21 Hun, 488. Cited with other cases in 20 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 459, n. Fellerman's Case, 2 Alb. Pr. 155. See (Dis- continuance of supplementary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2454, n. Fel linger T. People. See People v. Fellin- ger. Fellows v. Commissioners of Oneida, 36 ■Barb. 655. Disting'd (No ratification of act not done avowedly for principal) in Good- novr v. Stryker, 61 Iowa, 263. T. Cook, 50 How. Pr. 95. Rev'd in 6 Daly, 204. See as to the rule under Code Civ. Pro. (Arrest in action under foreign judgment) Baxter v. Drake, 85 N. Y. 502. v. Emperor, 13 Barb. 92. Quoted (Con- sideration for debtor's voluntary convey- ances) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 213. T. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682, s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 412, with note. Another decision in proceedings between same parties as it seems, in 4 Johns. Ch. 25. Decision in 4 Cow. ap- proved with Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139, (Bill, when not multifarious) in In- gersoll s.Kirby, Walk. Ch. 69. Said in 15 Am. Dec. 428, n., to have been generally followed in N. Y. and elsewhere (Joinder of fraudu- lent debtor and his assignees in one bill) notwithstanding the doubt expressed in Story on Eq. PL § 286, as to whether this case and Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139, are sustained by the English authori- ties. Doubted as extreme in Johnson d. Brown, 2 Humph. {Tenn.) 327 ; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 556. Compare (Requisites of bill against several persons) Garner v. Harmony Mills, 6 Abb. N. C. 212, 217. ■ v. Harrington, 3 Barb. Ch. 652. Opin- ion of vice-chancellor in 4 AT. Y. Leg. Obs. 340. Decision in 3 Barb. Ch. explained (Time when interest commences) in Cook v. Rogers, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 493, 495. — — v. Heermans, 4 Lans. 230. Subsequent decision in 13 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 1. Decision in 4 Lam. 254, followed (Trust to receive rents and profits of land) in Heermans v. Robertson, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 596, which was afFd in 64 A 7 ! Y. 332, which see. Decision in 13 Abb. Pr. N~. S. explained (Injunction after judgment) in Spears v. Matthews, 6 Hun, 489 ; which was , rev'd in 66 K Y. 127. which see. See {Ne exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, n. v. Mull'er, 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 137. Followed (Sham answer) in Roby v. Hallock, 5 Abb. K ft 86, 88. v. Niver, 18 Wend. 563. Disting'd (Ef- fect of failure of infant to appear by guard- ian ad litem) in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117; Fairweather v. Satterly, 7 Robt. 546. v. Prentiss, 3 Den. 512 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 484, with note wherein are collected citations. See Bingham v. Weiderw'ax; Murray v. Smith. Applied (Discharge of surety) in President, &c. of Agawam Bk. v. Strever, 16 Barb. 85 ; Eisner v. Keller, 3 Daly, 492 ; Hart v. Hudson, 6 Duer, S05 ; Pomeroy v. Tanner, 70 K Y. 550 ; Hubbard v. Gurney, 64 Id. 467. Relied on in Smith v. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42 ; s. c, 24 Am. B. 529. Disting'd and head note criticised (Continuing guaranties) in Sickle v. Marsh, 44 How. Pr. 93. Cited as authority in Gates v. McKee, 1 3 A 7 ". Y. 237. See to the contrary Rose. A 7 ". P. 457 ; and see Abb. Tr. Ev. 473. Disting'd (Extension of time as consideration) in Cary v. White, 52 N. Y. 143. Examined with other cases (Construc- tion of guaranties) in Crist v. Burlingame, 62 Barb. 356. Explained by Selden, J., with McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460 ; Murray v. Smith, 1 Duer, 412 ; Bingham v. Weiderwax, 1 A 7 ". Y. 509 (Parol evidence to explain agreement) in Halliday v. Hart, 30 Id. 474, 493. Collated with other cases (Note or bill taken for debt) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 277. Felter v. Mnlliner, 2 Johns. 181. Applied with Hess v. Beekman, 11 Id. 457 (Effect of verdict in justice's court) in Gaines v. Betts, 2 Doug. {Mich.) 100. Applied with Thomp- son v. Button, 14 Johns. 84, in Lamberton v. Foote,. 1 Doug. (Mich.) 104. Cited (Appli- cation of rule forbidding verdict to be put in evidence) in 2 Whart. Com. on En. § 831, n. Fenby v. Pritchard, 2 Sandf 151. Over- ruled {Bona fide purchaser) in Barnard n. Campbell, 58 N. Y. 73. See Nickerson v. Ruger, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 258. Col- lated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 424. Fenly v. Stewart, 5 Sandf. 101. Approved (Charging person not party to written con- tract) in Briggs v. Partridge, 39 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 339, 342. Explained and discussed in 1 Pars, on Contr. 56, n. x. Quoted in 3 Id. 9 V n. I. Fenner v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 46 Barb. 103. Rev'd in 44 A 7 ". Y. 505; s. c, 4 Am. R. 710. Decision in 44 N. Y. fol- lowed and approved with McDonald v. Western R. R. Co., 34 Id. 97; Mills «. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 45 Id. 622 (Intermediate carrier's liability) in Conkey 8. Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co., 31 Wis. 619 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 630, 640. Cited with Mills v. Mich. Central R. R. Co., 45 A 7 ! Y. 622, in 7 Am. R. 592, n. collating cases. Approved with Zinn ». N. J. Steam- boat Co., 49 N. Y. 442 (Liability of car- rier after transit) in L. L. & G. R. R. Co. «. Maris, 16 Kan. 333, 337. V. Lewis, 10 Johns. 38. Disting'd (Ad- FENNER— FERNANDEZ. 259 missions of principal against surety) in Hatch v, Elkins, 65 N. Y. 497. Cited with a query as to cases arising under statutes enabling the principal to be called, in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1212. Discussed (Husband and wife as witnesses for or agaiust each other) in 2 Kent. Com. 180. v. Sanborn, 37 Barb. 610. Followed as overruling People «. Hulbert, 5 How. Pr. 446 (Compelling assignment by judgment debtor) in Clan Ranald v. Wyckoff, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 529. Fenno v. Dickinson, 4 Den. 84. Applied (Proceedings begun in court not of record) in Mellen v. Hutchins, 8 Abb. JV. G. .228. Disting'd (Damages on bond given in ac- tion) in Bennett v. Brown, 31 Barb. 158, 162. Fenton v. Folger, 21 Wend. 676. Disting'd and questioned (Execution against partner- ship property) in Ryder v. Gilbert, 16 Hun, 163. Cited as authority in Bowker v. Smith, 48 K H. Ill; s. c, 2 Am. R. 189, 197. v. People, 4 Hill, 126. Limited (In- dictment for obtaining signature) in People v. Chapman, 4 Park. 56, 59. v. Reed, 4 Johns. 52; s. c, 3 -N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 740, with brief note; 4 Am. Dec. 244, with note, wherein it is said to be regarded as a leading case in N. Y. See Starr v. Peck. Applied (Evidence of mar- riage) in Bissell v. Bissell, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 20; Caujolle v. Ferrie, 26 Barb. 185, which aff d 4 Bradf. 28, 80, which see, and was aff d in 23 N. Y. 106, which see; Rockwell v. Tunnicliff, 62 Barb. 415 ; Starr ». Peck, 1 Hill, 273; Jackson v. Claw, 18 Johns. 350; Rose ». Clark, 8 Paige, 581 ; Dnrand v. Durand, 2 Sweeny, 321; Dann v. Kingdom, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 493; Blanchard v. Lambert, 43 Iowa, 228; s. c, 22 Am. R. 248. Cited as authority iu Londonderry v. Chester, 2 Jf. H. 268; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 61, 72 ; Taylor ». Robinson, 29 Me. 328. Fol- lowed in Newbury v. Brunswick, 2 Verm. 151; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 703, 706, with note; Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31, Mich. 130. Dis- ting'd in Clayton v. Wardell, 5 Barb. 217, which was aff'd in 4 N. Y: 234, which see; Cheney B.Arnold, 15 Id. 351; O'Gara v. Eisenlohr, 38 Id. 300 ; Machini v. Zanoni, 5 Red/. 492, 495; Cram v. Burnham, 5 Greenl. {Me.) 213; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 218, •with note. Examined with other cases in Jaques v. Public Adm'r, 1 Bradf. 507; Wright v. Wright, 48 How. Pr. 2 ; Gahagan v. People, 1 Park 385. Collated with People v. Humphrey, 7 Johns. 314, and other cases, in Cook «. State, 11 Ga. 53; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 410, 417. Cited as au- thority with Jackson i>. Winne, 7 Wend. 47 ; Rose v. Clark, 8 Paige, 574 ; Starr v. Peck, 1 Hill, 270 ; Clayton ». Wardell, 4 N. Y. 230 ; Cheney «. Arnold, 15 Id. 345 ; O'Gara v. Eisenlohr, 38 Id. 296, in Matthewson v. Phoenix Iron Foundry, U. S. Gir. Gt. R. I., 20 Fed. Rep. 281, 284. Explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 77, n. r. Ferdou v. Cunningham. See Pennington v. Townsend ; Swords v. Owen. Ferguson, Matter of, 9 Johns. 239. See Fer- ris v. Paris; Taylor e. Bates. Approved and followed (State court without jurisdic- tion to inquire into validity of enlistment, on habeas corpus) in Reilly's Case, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 334. See article on habeas corpus and martial law, in W. Am. Rev. (Oct. 1861), vol. 93, pp., 471, 484, where it is suggested that, as the officer made return without ob- jecting that by the existence of war he was exempted from the operation of the writ, that question cannot be deemed touched by , the decision. Cited and reviewed (Concur- rent State and federal jurisdiction) in 1 Kent Com. 400. " Applied with approval with Matter of Stacy, 10 Johns. 328, in Bruen v. Ogden, 6 Halst. {N. J.) 370; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 593, 602. Ferguson v. Broome, 1 Bradf. 10. Dis- approved (Time within which creditor may enforce lien against estate of deceased debtor) and Gilchrist v. Rea, 9 Paige, 66 ; Hyde v. Tanner, 1 Barb. 75, disting'd in Mead v. Jenkins. 29 Him, 253. Ferguson v. Broome also disting'd in Hurd v. Callahan, 5 Red/. 398. Applied in U. S. Life Ins. Co. v. Jordan, Id. 207. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2750, n. See also (Judgment against ex- ecutor for decedent's death) Id. 2757, a. v. Crawford, 7 Hun, 25. Rev'd in 70 N. Y. 253; s. c, 26 Am. R. 589. Subse- quent decision in 86 N. Y. 609. See Hunt v. Hunt. Decision in 70 N. Y. applied with People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 Id. 568 ; People ex rel. Rogers v. Spencer, 55 Id. 1 ; Hards. Shipman, 6 Barb. 621 (Inquiry into jurisdiction of court) in Craig i>. Town of Andes, 93 N. Y. 405. Disting'd in Diossy ii. West, 8 Daly, 298. Collated with other cases in Mastin «. Gray, 19 Kans. 458 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 149. Cited as authority in Reynolds v. Fleming, 30 Kans. 106 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 86. t. Ferguson, 2 N. Y. 360. Disting'd (Damages for breach of contract to support another for life) in Schell i>. Plumb, 55 Id. 592, 598. v. Kimball. 3 Barb. Ch. 616. Modified in Ferguson v. Ferguson, 2 2V. Y. 300. v. Morris, 1 Hun, 619; fuller mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 696. v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543. Affg Furg-i- son v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. 168. Ferlat v. Gojou, Hopk. 478; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 554. See Wightman v. Wightman. Fenian v. Donbleday, 3 Bans 216. Followed (Discharge of surety by usurious agreement) in Thayer v. King, 31 Hun, 437. Disting'd in Nat. B'k of Gloversville v. Place, 15 Id. 564, 567. Fernandez v. Great Western Ins. Co., 3 Robt. 457. Rev'd in 48 JV. Y. 571. Decis- ion in Id. applied with Vos v. Robinson, 9 260 FERO— FETEIDGE. Johns. 192; Stevens v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co.. 26 N. Y. 397 (Deviation that avoids marine policy) in Snyder v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 95 Id. 196. Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. See Cook v. Champlain Transportation Co. ; Rood v. N. Y. & Erie R R. Co. ; Teall v. Barton. v. Ruscoe, 4 N". Y. 162. Doctrine dis- cussed (Justification of slander) in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 432. Ferren t. O'Hara, 62 Barb. 517. Compare (What is contract of sale within statute of frauds) Passaic Manuf. Co. ■». Hoffman, 3 Daly, 495, where the authorities on which this case was decided are reviewed, and held overruled. Ferrer v. Pyne, 18 Hun, 411. Affd in 81 N. Y. 281 ; s. c, 1 Alh. Prob. R. 556, with note. Ferrero t.' Buhlmeyer, 34 How. Pr. 33. Dis- cussed (Dissolution of partnership) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 275, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Ferrie v. Public Administrator, 4 Bradf. 28. Affd as Caujolle v. Ferrie, in 26 Barb. 177. Prior decision in 3 Bradf. 151. See Foster v. Hawley. Decision in 3 Bradf. reviewed at length with Bissel v. Bissel, 55 Barb. 326, and other cases (Evidence of marriage) in Dyer v. Brannock, 66 Mo. 391 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 359, 368, 374. Ferrier v. American Glass Silvering Co., 3 Alb. Pr. N. S. 419 ;.s. c, 34 How. Pr. 496; 7 Robt. 288. See (Attachment of property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. VII., tit. III., art. 1. n. Ferrin v. Myrick, 53 Barb. 76. Rev'd in 41 N. Y. 315. Decision in Id. disting'd (Contracts of executors, &c.) in Trades- men's Nat. B'k v. McFeely, 61 Barb. 525. Applied in Hall v. Richardson, 22 Hun, 449; Casoni v. Jerome, 58 N. Y. 321; Lunt v. Lunt, 8 Abb. N. 0. 90. Cited as settled law in Austin v. Munro, 47 N. Y. 366. Cited as authority (Allowance for head- stone, &c. as part of funeral expenses) in Owens v. Bloomer, 14 Hun, 297; Cornwell v. Deck, 2 Redf 90 ; Matter of Erlacher, 3 Id. 13; Matter of Luckey, 4 Id. 97. Exam- ined with other cases (Liability of trust estates on contracts made for their benefit) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 449, 456. Cited as au- thority (Joinder of causes of action against executor as such and individually) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 484. Ferris, Matter of, 35 N. Y. 262 ; s. c, more fully, 32 How. Pr. 411. Ferris v. Crawford, 2 Den. 595. Aff g Watt v. Crawford, 11 Paige, 470. See Jumel v. Jumel. v. Douglass, 20 Wend. 627. Approved with Smith v. Kingsley, 19 Id. 620 (Writ of error not demandable of right) in Higbie v. Comstock, 1 Den. 652. ■ V. Holmes, 8 Daly, 217. See (Married woman's answer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 450, n. t. Kilmer, 47 Barl. 411. Rev'd (Lia- bility of principal for purchases by agent) in 48 K Y. 300. T. Paris, 10 Johns. 285. Commented on with Taylor v. Bates, 5 Cow. 376 ; Exparte Ferguson, 6 Id. 596 ; Rathbun v. Ingals, 7 Wend. 320 ; Stafford v. Richarson, 15 Id. 302 (Liability of collecting agent to action, without request to pay) in Lilhe v. Hoyt, 5 Hill, 395. Discussed in Aug. on Limit. § 181, 6 ed. t. People, 48 Barb. 17; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 193. Affd in 35 N Y. 125; s. c, 31 How. Pr. 140. Decision in 35 N. Y. exam- ined with other • cases (Review of decisions of N. Y. General Sessions in Court of Ap- peals) in Levy v. People, 80 Id. 327, 337. T. Van Vechten, 9 Hun, 12. Rev'd in 73 JSf. Y. 113. Decision in 73 N. Y. disting'd (Commingling moneys) as to moneys held in trust to pav creditors, in Falkland ». St. Nicholas Nat.*B'k of N. Y., 84 Id. 145, 151. Commented on (Fiduciaries purchasing with trust funds) m 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 623, «. Ferriss v. North American Ins. Co., 1 Hill, 71. Disting'd (Provision in policy against fraud, &c. in connection with proofs of loss — what avoids) in Moore v. Va. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 28 Gratt. {Va.) 508 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 373. Ferry t. Stephens, 5 Hun, 109. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 321. See Gray v. Barton. Fetherly v. Waggoner, 11 Wend. 599. See Dan v. Brown. Followed (Attestation of will, as evidence of due execution) in Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa. St. 489; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 567, 573. Fetridge v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr. 156. See Burnett v. Phalon. Commented on in con- nection with Fetridge v. Wells, Id. 144 (Restraining use of name as trade-mark) in Corwin v. Daly, 7 Bosw. 222, 231. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257 In, n. o. Collated with other cases in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 262. v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144: s. c, 13 How. Pr. 385. See Amoskeag Manuf. Co. v. Spear ; Barnett e. Phalon. Compare (Re- straining use of name as trade-mark) Fetridge v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr. 158. Disting'd in Curtis v. Bryan, 2 Daly, 316; Hennessy v. Wheeler, 69 iV. Y. 275. Applied in New- man v. Alvord, 49 Barb. 591 ; Taylor v. Gillies, 59 K Y. 334; Swift v. Dey, 4 Robt. 612. Compared with other cases in Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co . 57 Barb. 534 ; Corwin v. Daly, 7 Bosw. 229; Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr. 68. Approved in Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood, 108 U. S. 218, 226; Tomlin- sou v. Battell, cited in Law's Dig. of Pat. and Cop. L. 79. Reviewed with Samuel v. Berger, 24 Barb. 164; Partridge v. Menck, 2 Sand/. Ch. 622 ; 2 Barb. 101 ; How. App. Cas. 547, and Faber v. Faber, 49 Barb. 357; Clark v. Clark, 25 Id. 76, also cited in the concurring opinion of Potter, J., m FETTRETCH— FIELD. 261 Carinichel v. Latimer, 11 R I. 395; a. c, 23 Am. R. 481, 486, 490. Applied with Hobbs v. Fraucais, 19 How. Pr. 567, in Laird v. Wilder, 9 Bush (Ky.) 131; 8. c, 15 Am. R. 707. Cited with other cases in 10 Am. L. Reg. JV. 8. 708. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257 bn, n. o. Col- lated with other cases in Thomps. on. Prov. Rem. 262. Fettretch T. McKay, 11 Abo. Pr. JV 8. 453 ; s. c, 47 JV. Y. 426. Disting'd (Disregard- ing counterclaim) in Burroughs v. Garrison, 15 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 144, 147. v. Totten, 2 Abb. Pr. JV S. 264. Fol- lowed (Discharge of mechanic's lien) in Dowdney u. McCollora, 5 Daly, 240. Fibel v., Livingston, 64 Barb. 179. Disap- proved (Liability of common carrier on receipt not read) in Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 4 Sap'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 304, 307. Criticised in Ayres v. Western R. R. • Corporation, 14 Blatchf. O. Ct. 9, 14. Also criticised in Dawson's Contr. of Carr. xlvi. Filler v. Delavan. See Bissell v. Cornell. Fiedler v. Darrin, 59 Barb. 651. Rev'd in 50 JV Y. 437. See Seymour v. Wilson. Deeision in 50 JV Y. disting'd (Evidence of usury) in Haughwout v. Garrison, 69 Id. 339 ; Mor» v. Deyoe, 22 Hun, 208, 233. v. Day, 2 Sandf. 591. Collated with other cases (Assignment for benefit of creditors, when in part void) in Bishop on Assign. § 195. Explained (When void in toto) in Barrill on Assign. § 353, 4 ed. Field v. Blair, 1 Code B. JV 8. 292. Affd in Id. 361. v. Chapman, 13 Abb. Pr. 320; s. c. as Field v. Hunt, 22 How. Pr. 329. Further decision in 14^466. Pr. 133; s. c, 23 Sow. Pr. 80; but the former affd, and the latter overruled in 15 Abb. Pr. 434; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 463. Decision in 13 Abb. Pr. cited and followed with Rogers v. Paterson, 4 Paige, 450 (Legal rights of party in con- tempt to be protected) in Koehler v. Dobber- puhl, 56 Wis. 501. v. Field, 73 JV. Y. 588. Further decis- ion in 77 Id. 294. Another proceeding in 2 Redf. 160. Decision in 77 JV. Y. disting'd (Allowance of costs against executor) in Horton ». Brown, 29 Hun, 654; Gouley v. Smith, 5 Month. L. Bui. 17. Applied (Claim when made out) in Minick v. City of Troy, 83 JV Y. 514, 516. See (Presentation of claim against estate) Code Civ. Pro. § 1822. T. , 4 Sandf. Ch. 528. Discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 513, n. - v. , 9 Wend. 394. Cited as author- ity with Gable v. Miller, 10 Paige, 627; Miller n. Gable, 2 Den. 492, 548 ; People v. Steele, 2 Barb. 397 (Diversion of funds of religious corporation) in Hale v. Everett, 53 JV H. 9; s. c, 16 Am. R. 82, 112-115, where Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. 64 132; 11 JV.' Y. 243, 267; Parish of Bellport 0. Tooker, 29 Barb. 256, 265; Petty v. Tooker, 21 JV. Y. 267, are criticised and aid to rest on special statutory provisions in N. Y. Applied as incorporated in stat- ute (Meeting of religious corporation, when competent to transact business) in Moore v. Rector, &c. of St. Thomas, 4 Abb. JV. C. 51, 56. V. Gibson, 56 How. Pr. 232. Affd in 20 Hun, 274. v. Holbrook, 3 Abb. Pr. 377. Further decision in 6 Duer, 597; s. c, 14 How. Pr. 103. V. Hunt. See Field v. Chapman. v. Leavitt, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 215. Further proceeding in Id. 537. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 JV. Y. 179; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 435, with notes. See Andrews v. Newcomb; Munsell «. Lewis. Applied (Assignment of demand to become due) in Ely v. Cook, 9 Abb. Pr. 376 ; Hall v. City of Buffalo, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 307; Stover v. Eyclcshimer, 4 Id. 312, which aft'd 46 Barb. 90, which see ; Seymour v. Canan- daigua, &e. R. R. Co., 25 Id. 306; People ex rel. Grattan v. Dayton, 50 How. Pr. 149; Parker v. City of Syracuse, 31 JV Y. 379. Disting'd in Risley v. Smith, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & 8) 150. Approved and followed in Bacon v. Bonham, 6 Stew. (JV. J.) 614. Re- lied on in Kane v. Clough, 36 Mich. 436 ; s. c, 24 Am. R 599. Disting'd (Suit in equity by assignee of chose in action) 1n N. Y. Guaranty Co. v. Memphis Water Co., 107 V. 8. 205, 214. Approved with Risley v. Phoenix Bank, 83 JV. Y. 318 ("Validity of as- signment of part of chose in action) in Ex- change Bank v. McLoon, 73 Me. 498. Ap- plied (Facts proved not available, if not pleaded) in Allen v. Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Barb. 656 ; Robins v. Richardson. 2 Bosw. 256 ; Williams v. Birch, 6 Id. 678. Disting'd in Barnes v. Perine, 12 JV. Y. 31; Voorhees v. Burchard, 55 Id. 104; Richards «. Allen, 3 B. D. Smith, 407. Cited as authority (Duty of assignee of chose in action to notify debtor) inHeermansa. Ells- worth, 64 JV. Y. 161. v. Munson, 47 JV Y. 221. Followed (Parol evidence to explain written contract) in White's Bank of Buffalo v. Myles, 73 Id. 335, 339. T. N. Y Central R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 176. Affd in 32 JV. Y. 339. See Cook v. Champlain Trans. Co. ; Faucett b. Nichols ; Rood v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. ; Sheldon «. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Wright v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Decision in 32 JV. Y. fol- lowed (Evidence to show liability of railroad company for fire caused by passing engine) in VVestfall v. Erie R'y. Co., 5 Hun, 77 ; Mc- Coun v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 Barb. 338. Said to be inconsistent with the doctrine of Ryan v. N. Y. Central R.R.Co., 35 JV. Y. 214; and the latter also disapproved as inconsistent with every reported case except Kerr v. Penn. R. R. Co., 62 Penn. St. 353 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 431, — in Fent v. Toledo, Peoria, &c. R'y Co., 59 111. 349 ; s. c, 14 Am. R 13, 19. Applied in Longabaugh «. Virginia 2(52 FIELD— FINKEGAK &c. R. R Co., 9,fc 271, 286. Cited as authority in Jackson v. Chicago & North- western R'y Co., 31 Iowa, 176; s. c, 7 Am. B. 120. Followed (Question of negli- gence is one of mingled law and fact) in Gagg v. Vetter, 41 hid. 228 ; s. c, 13 Am. B. 322, 342. Decision in 29 Barb, followed with "Wright v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 28 Id. 80 ; Johnson v. Mcintosh, 31 Id. 267 (Corporation as a person) in La Farge v. Exchange, Fire Ins. Co., 22 K Y. 352, 354. v. Schieffelin, 7 Johns. Ch. 150 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dee. 441. See Sutherland v. Brush. Followed (Power of guardian to assign choses in action of ward) in Tuttle v. Heavy, 59 Barb. 334, 343. Disapproved in McDuffee v. Mclntyre, 11 So. Car. 551 ; s. c, 32 Am. B. 500, 502. Discussed in 1 Para, on Contr. 1 i, n. b. Approved (Power of executors, trustees, &c. to dispose of trust property) in Graff v. Castleman, 5 Band. {Va.) 195; s. c, 16 Am. Bee. 741, 749, with note. See 11 Am. Bee. 386, n. Applied (Liability of purchaser from executor, trustee, &c.) in Carter v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bk. of Lewiston. 71 Me. 448 ; s. c, 36 Am. B. 338, 341. Reviewed with other cases in Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382; s. c, 1 Am. B. 115, 121. Quoted in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 814, n. Ap- plied (Liability of third party for misappro- • priation of trust fund) in Fifth Nat. Bk. v. Village of Hyde Park, 101 111. 595 ; s. c, 40 Am. B. 218. Fielden v. Lillians, 9 Bosw. 436. AfFd as to the merits, but rev'd in respect to non-suit, in 6 Abb. Br. N. S. 341 ; s.c, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 111. Decision in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. included (Bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in I Ames. Gas. on B. & N~. 738. Fields v. Moul, 15 Abb. Br. 6. See Farrell®. Calkins. Collated with Sammis v. Smith, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 444 ; Bitting v. Vanden- burgh, 17 Bow. Pr. 80 ; Ford v. Johnson, 34 Barb. 364, and other cases (What are tools, &c. within meaning of statutes of exemption) in 25 Am. B. 63, n. Fiero v. Fiero, 52 Barb. 288. See Millspaugh v. Putnam. Doubted (Validity of parol agree- ment for employment of broker to sell real estatel in Badenliop v. McCahill, 42 How. Pr. 192. Figaniere v. Jackson, 11 How. Pr. 462. This decision was not at General Term as here stated, but at Special Term ; and it was rev'd at General Term, 4 E. D. Smith, 477. Filer v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 47; s. c, 10 Am. B. 327. Further decisions in 59 N. Y. 351, and 68 Id. 124. See also decision in action by husband of plaintiff herein, in 49 N. Y. 42. See Morrison v. Erie R'y Co. Decision in 49 N. Y. 47, reviewed with Brooks i>. Schwerin, 54Y(Z. 343 ; Rey- nolds v. Robinson, 64 Id. 589 ; Whitaker v. Whitaker, 52 Id. 368 ; Birbeck i>. Ackroyd, 74 Id. 357 (Right of husband to services of wife) in Coleman v. Burr, 93 Id. 17. De- cision in 49 Id. 42, followed (Right of husband to recover for injuries to wife) in Sloan v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 541. Decision on p. 47, disting'd in Brooks v. Schwerin, 54 Id. 343, 350. Fol- lowed in Clark v. Dillon, 6 Daly, 526. Decision on p. 42 applied (Hypothetical questions to expert witnesses) in Dolz v. Morris, 10 Hun, 201, 205. Decision on p. 47 disting'd (Right of passenger to rely on directions of agents in charge of train) in Burrows v. Erie R'y Co., 63 If. Y. 560. Fol- lowed in Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371 ; s. c, 47 Am. B. 149. Filkins v. Brockway, 19 Johns. 170. See also {Functus officio) Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. N. O. 51. V. People, 1 Buf. Super. Ct. {Sheldon) 504. Rev'd in 69 N. Y. 101 ; s. c. 25 Am. B. 143. T. Whyland, 24 Barb. 379. Aft'd in 24 N. Y. 338. See Miimford ». McPherson. Decision in 24 N. Y., applied (Distinction between receipt and contract) in People, ex rel. Coppers v. Trustees, 21 Hun, 184, 191. Examined with other cases in Howard v. Nor- ton, 65 Barb. 161, 167. See Lamb v. Crafts, 12 Mete. {Mass.) 353. See also Abb. Tr. En. 345. Fillo v. Jones, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 121. See Brown v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. Explained (Liability for damage caused by explosion) in Heeg ». Licht, 80 iV". Y. 579, 584. Finch v. Calvert, 13 How. Br. 13. Approved (Expense of foreign commission taxable) in Cases. Price, 9 Abb.Br. Ill, 115. v. Parker, 49 N. Y. 1. The judgment was aff'd, not redd, as stated at foot of p. 11. Fi nek, Matter of, 89 How. Pr. 145. Compare (Meaning of "just and fair") Matter of Fowler, 8 Daly, 548. Fincke v. Fincke, 53 K Y. 528. Further decision as Rodman v. Fincke, in 69 Id. 239. Fink T. Cox. 18 Johns. 145 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 191 ; 6 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 538, with brief note. See Pearson v. Pearson. Ex- amined (Effect of executory contract when not supported by valuable consideration) Schemerhorn «. Vanderheyden, 1 Johns. 139 ; Weston v. Barker, 12 Id. 276, being explained as to when a third person for whose benefit such contract is made may enforce it, — in Ross v. Milne. 12 Leigh ( Va.) 204; s. c, 37 Am. Bee. 646, 650, with note. Finlay v. Cook, 54 Barb. 9. Applied (Effect of deed given on invalid sa'c, as foundation of adverse possession) in Hilton v. Bender, 4 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & Cy 270, 272. Finn v. Sleight, 8 uarb. 401. Discussed (Estoppel of husband's grantee, to deny his seisin as against widow) in 1 Washb. on Seal Prop. 4 ed. 239. Finnegan y. Carahar, 61 Barb. 252. Aff'd in 47 N. Y. 493. Decision in Id. disting'd (Estoppel created by admission) in Warder v. Baker, 54 Wis. 57. Discussed (Eject- FIEE DEPAKTHENT— EIKST NAT. BANK. 2C3 ment against landlord) in Sedgw. S W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 264. Fire Department v. Bnhler, 1 Daly, 391. Eev'd in 35 If. Y. 177 ; s. c, 33 Row. Pr. 378. v. Harrison, 9 Abb. Pr. 1. Additional opinion of Daly, J., in 2 Hilt. 455; s. c, 18 How. Pr. 181. T. Kip, 19 Wend. 266. Approved (Stat- ute to be strictly complied with) in Cross v. Pinkneywell Manuf. Co., 17 111. 56. Ex- amined and reviewed (Corporate creation and existence) in 8 Suuth. L. Rev. If. 8. 529. v. Noble, 3 K D. Smith, 440. Re-asserted (Constitutionality of provisions for taxation of business of foreign insurance companies) in Same v. Wright, Id. 453, which is there said to have been aff' d in Gt. of App. See opinions of eminent counsel in Id. 458, n. Decision in 3 E. D. Smith applied to reg- ulation of theater business in Wallack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hun, 84. Compare (Regulation of business of foreign insurance companies) People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 69. v. Williamson, 16 Abb. Pr. 195. Rev'd in Id. 402; s. c, 1 Robt. 476. V. Wright. See Same v. Noble. Firemen's Ins. Co.. Ex parte, 6 Hill, 243. See Shipley v. Mechanics' Bank. Explained (Compelling transfer on ■stock book) in Cush- man v. Thayer M'fg Jewelry Co., 7 Daly. 330, 332. Disting'd (Right to mandamus, when not taken away by existence of right of action) in People v. Meade, 24 If. Y. 114, 120. Fireman's Ins. Co. of Albany v. Bay, 4 Barb, 407. AfTd as Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, in 4 If. Y. 9. Firmenieh v. Bovee, 1 Hun, 532. See au- thorities cited by counsel for plaintiff in 4 Sup'm. Gl. (T. & G.) 98. First Baptist Church v. Bigelow, 16 Wend. 28; s. c., 12 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1013, with brief note. Compare (Mutual subscrip- tion under statute of frauds) Levy v. Brush, 8 Abb. Pr. If. S. 418; Justice v. Lang, 42 If. Y. 493. Cited as authority w.th Davis i>. Shields, 26 Wend. 341 (Requisites of memorandum) in Norn's v. Blair, 39 Ind. 90 ; s. c, 10 Am. R. 135, 138. T. Brooklyn Ins. Co., 18 Barb. 69. Sub- sequent decisions in 19 If. Y. 305 ; 23 How. Pr. 448 ; and the latter aff'd in 28 N, Y. 153. Decision in . #9 If. Y. followed (Parol waiver of condition in insurance policy) in Carroll v. Charter Oak Tns. Co., 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 320 ; Post v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 43 Barb. 363 ; Boehen v. Williams- burgh Ins. Co., 35 If. Y. 132 ; Bodine e. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 51 Id. 122 ; Good- win v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 491 ; Dilleber v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 76 Id. 573. Disting'd in Underwood v. Farm- er's Joint Stock Ins. Co., 57 Id. 506. Com- pared with other cases in dissenting opinion of Miller, J., in Merserau ». Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 66 Id. 282 ; in Van Schoick v. Niagara "Fire Ins. Co., 68 Id. 439. Ap- plied (Contracts not to be performed within a year) in Dresser v. Dresser, 35 Barb. 577; Van Woert v. Albany, &c. R. R. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 258; 'Smiths. Conlin, 19 Hun, 235. Re-afFd (Validity of parol contract of insurance) in Fish v. Cottenet, 44 N~. Y. 543. Approved in dissenting opinion of McOunn, J., in Tyler v. New Amsterdam Fire Ins. Co., 4 Robt. 160. Re- viewed with Audubon v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 27 If. Y. 216 (Validity of contract of insur- ance indefinite as to time or rate of premium) in Strohn v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 37 Wis. 625 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 777, 779. Decision in 28 If. Y. disting'd (Admissions by officer of corporation) in Pierson v. Atlantic Nat. Bank, 77 Id. 304, 310. v. Utica & Schenectady E. R. Co., 6 Barb. 313. See to the contrary (Action for disturbance caused to religious society by running train) First Baptist Church of Schenectady v. Schenectady & Troy R. R. (-"o., 5 Id. 79. Cited as authority with Hentz «. Long Island R. R. Co., 13 Barb. 646; People v. Denslow, 1 Gai. 177 (What has been authorized by law not to be re- garded as nuisance) in Chope v. Detroit & Howell Plank R. R. Co., 37 Mich. 195; s. c, 26 Am. R. 512. v. Witherell, 3 Paige, 296 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 223, with note, containing cita- tions of the case on the points decided respecting religious associations, &c. First Baptist Society v. Rapalee, 16 Wend-. 605. Criticised as not recognizing distinc- tion (Corporations de facto, and de jure) in Buffalo & Alleghany 'R. R, Co. v. Cary, 2S N. Y. 75. First Nat. Bank of Angelica t. Hall, 44 N. Y. 395. See N. Y. African Society v. Varick. Included with notes (Negotiable paper— agent contracting for principal) in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & If. 565. First Nat. Bank of Ballston Spa. v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 5 Lans. 203. Aff'd in 50 K Y. 45. First Nat. Bank of Berlin v. Wheeler. Re- ported under First Nat. Bank of Oxford v. Wheeler, 72 If. Y. 201. First Nat. Bank of Canandaigna v. Garling- house. See Brittin v. Wilder. First Nat. Bank of Chittenaiigo v. Morgan, 6 Hun, 346. Aff'd in 73 If. Y. 593. See Getty v. Binsse; Olcott v. Rathbone. First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Kelley, 57 If. Y. 34. Explained (Sales— reservation of jus disponendi) in 1 Benj. on Sales, . § 40. First Nat. Bank of Meadville v. Fourth Nat, Bank of N. ¥., 16 Han, 332. Rev'd in 77 N. Y. 320; s. c, 33 Am. R. 618. Further proceeding in 22 Hun, 563, and the latter rev'd in 84 IT. Y. 469 ; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 436. Still further proceeding in 24 Hun. 241, and that modified and aff d in 89 K Y. 412. See Howell ». Van Siclen; Union Trust Co. ». Whiton. Decision in 84 iV. Y. disting'd with Donovan v. Vande- mark, 22 Hun, 307; Sanders v. Townshend. 63 How. Pr. 343 (Costs on appeal) and Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 68 Jf. Y. 628, followed and explained in Newcomb v. Hale, 12 Abb. JSf. C. 338. Applied in Havemeyer «. Havemeyer, 62 How. Pr. 476. First Nat. Bank of New Berlin v. Church, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 10. Aff'd, it seems, in 60 N. Y. 634, but without opinion. First Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. Morris, 1 Hun, 680. Commented on (Usury as determined by law of place) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs B'k v. Low, 6 Abb. JK C. 76, 89. First Nat. Bank of Oxford v. Wheeler, 72 N. Y. 201. Followed with People ex rel. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 47 How. Pr. 494, 516. (Custodian of public moneys, when not justified in refusing to pay them over) in People ex rel. Masterson ■b. Gallup, 12 Abb. K C. 64. Disting'd in Shepherd's Fold v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Weekly Dig. 573. First Nat. Bank of Elattsburgh t. Heaton, 3 Hun, 414 ; s. c. reported fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 37. First Nat. Bank of Sandy Hill t. Fancher, 52 Barb. 138. Aff'd in 48 K Y. 525. First Nat. Bank of Toledo v. Shaw, 61 N. Y. 283. Reiterated in 69 Id. 624, but without opinion. Decision in 61 Id. quoted (Factor's act) in Benj. on Sales, § 20, n. 14 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). First Nat. Bank of Utica t. Ballon, 49 N. Y. 155. Disting'd (Payment that stops run- ning of statute of limitation's) in McMullen v. Rafferty, 24 Hun, 363, 366. Approved in Nat. B'k of Delavan v. Cotton, 53 Wis-. 34. First Nat. Bank of Whitehall v. Lamb, 57 Barb. 429. Rev'd in 50 JT. Y. 95; «. c, 10 Am. R. 438. Principle of decision in 50 2f. Y. approved without adopting reasoning (Na- tional banks subject to State usury laws) in Re Wild, 11 Blotch/. G. Ct. 243. 248. Fol- lowed in Hintermister v. First Nat. B'k of Chittenango, 3 Hun, 345, which was modi- fied in 64 iV. Y. 212, which see. Overruled in Farmers', &c. Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 36. Disapproved in First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. Garlinghouse, 22 Ohio St. 492; s. c, 10 Am. R. 758; Central Nat. Bank . Swazey, 35 Me. 41 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 681 ; Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10 Conn. 243; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 390, with note. Ex- plained in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 110, 4 ed. Quoted in 3 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 53, n. v. Fredenliall. See Masson v. Bovet. v. Gould, 9 Weekly Dig. 44. Appeal dismissed in 81 JV. Y. 228. See Beams v. Gould. Decision in 81 N. Y. followed (Appellate court looking into opinions) in Townsend v. Nebenzahl, 8 Abb. N. G. 427, 436. v. Hepburn, 48 N. Y. 41. Limited and explained (Review by single judge) in Kamp v. Kamp, 59 Id. 212, 217. See (Determin- ation of claims to real property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. XIV., tit. I., art 5, n. Ap- proved (Defendants in suit to quiet title) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 372. Explained in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 239. v. Mersey, 17 Bun, 370. Appeal dis- missed in 78 N. Y. 387. v. Hubbell, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 97; s. c, 7 Lans. 481, and with points of counsel in 65 Barb. 74. Re-affd in Fisher v. Banta, 4 Hun, 425. v. Marvin, 47 Barb. 159. Overruled (Merging indebtedness of corporation in note) m .Tagger Iron Co. v. Walker, 76 N. Y. 521, 526, which affd 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 275, which see. T. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Lans. 451. Rev'd in 57 ¥. Y. 344. Further decision in 3 Hun, 648; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 100. Still further decision in 6 Hun, 64, and that rev'd in 67 JV. Y. 73. Decision in 266 EIBHEJB— FITCH. Id. followed (Presumption ' of payment of assessment) in Dorgeloh v. Bassford, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 450. Disting'd with Taylor v. Mayor, &c. of N Y., 67 A 7 ". Y. 88 (Right of action against city for money due, when complete) in Mason v. ■ Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 28 Hun, 115. t. Murray, 1 E. £>. Smith, 341. See Deming e. Colt; Robinson v. Mcintosh; Welles v. March. Followed with Welles v. March, 30 MY. 344 (Validity of assign- ment by one partner without preference) in Rumery v. McCullock, 54 Wis. 572. Ex- plained in Burrill on Assign. § 80, 4 ed. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 644. See Central Cross Town R. R. Co. v. Twenty-Third Street R. • R. Co. ; Sturgis v. Spofford. Disting'd (Recovery for successive offenses) in Suydam v. Smith, 52 N. Y. 383, 388; Grover o. Morris, 73 Id. 473, 479 ; Hintermister v. First Nat. B'k of Chittenango, 64 Id. 212, 217. Fol- lowed (Recovery for excessive railroad • fares) in Micks v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 49 Id. 654; Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., Id. 675 ; Baker v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 61 Id. 655. Disting'd in Pittsburgh, Cin. & St. Louis R'y Co. v. Moore, 33 Ohio St. 384 ; s. c, 31 Am. R. 543. ■ v. Verplanck, 17 Eun, 150. Further decision in 23 Id. 286. v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 47 How. Pr. 45.1. Facts stated in fuller report in 15 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 363. Fishkill Sav'jrs Inst. v. Bostwick, 19 Sun, 354. Aff'd in Same v. Nat. B'k of Fishkill, 80 K Y. 162. Fisk y. Chicago, R. I., &c. R. R. Co., 3 Abb. Pr. M S. 430. See Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Followed (Compelling affidavit of party on motion) in Cockey v. Hurd, 36 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 42, 45. Disapproved in Hodgkin v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co., 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 73. Not followed in Spratt v. Huntington, 2 Eun, 341, 343. v. , 53 Barb. 472. Followed (Re- moval of cause from State to Federal Court) in Beery v. Inck, 22 Graft. (Va.) 484; s. c, 12 Am. R. 539. v. Fisk, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 791. Rev'd, it seems, in 60 N. Y. 631. V. Newton, 1 Ben. 45; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 649, with note, wherein are collected cita- tions. Disting'd (Termination of liability of carrier as such) in Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 264; McDonald «. Western R. R. Co., 34 Id. 497. Followed in Northrop . People, 40 If. Y. 353. Fitzhugli v. RunyoiK, 8 Johns. 375. Ap- proved with Thompson v. Ketchara, Id. 189; Wells v. Baldwin, 18 Id. 45 (Parol evidence to vary written agreements) in Erwin v. Saunders, 1 Cow. 249. But see Mc- Nulty v. Prentice, 25 Barb. 204. v. Wimaii, 7 &. Y. 559. Cited (Lia- bility of sureties on replevin bond) in Hager v. Clutc, 10 Hun, 447, 450. Fitzpatrick t. Brady, 6 Hill, 581. Explained with Kidd «. Chapman, 2 Barb. Ch. 414 (Jurisdiction of surrogate to determine dis- puted claims) in Andrews v. Wallace, 29 Barb. 350. Overruled, with -Smith's Estate, 1 Bradf. 224, in Tucker ». Tucker, 4 Reyes, 136; Shaw's Estate, 1 Tuck 352. Fitzsimons v. Woodruff, 1 Sup'm. Cl. (T. & C.) 2. Rev'd in effect in 74 N. Y. 621. Five Points House of Industry v. Amer- lnan, 11 Hun, 161; s. c, less fully, 2 Red/. 547. Rev'g Booth v. Cornell, Id. 261. Flagg v. Thurber, 14 Barb. 186. Modified, as Flagg v. Munger, 9 N. Y. 483. Decision in 9 N. Y. applied (Defense in action on assumption clause in deed) in Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 N. Y. 30, 36, 42. Flake v. Van Wagenen, 54 K Y. 25. Fol- lowed (No appeal from default) in Gold- schmidt «. Goldschmidt, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 184, 186; Innes v. Purcell, 58 If. Y. 388.' See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1294, n. Flanagan v. Demarest, 3 Robt. 173. Quoted and explained (" Cargo " defined) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 888, n. 21 (Corhin's 4 Am. ed.). v. People, 5 Hun, 187. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 237. Case in 52 If. Y. 467; s. c, 11 Am. R. 731, is entirely different. v. , 52 N. Y. 467; s. c, 11 Am. R. 731. Followed (Criminal responsibility of the insane) in People v. Moett, 23 Hun, 60, 64; which was aff'd in 85 If. Y. 373, 379, which see. Doctrine discussed in 10 Alb. L. J. 97. Cited as showing the question to be unsettled in N. Y. (Burden of proof of insanity) in Boswell v. State, 63 Ala. 307; s. c, 35 Am. R. 20, with note. ■ v. Tinen, 53 Barb. 587 ; s. c, 37 How. Pr. 130. Overruled with Wilgus ». Blood- good, 33 Id. 289 (Execution against lands of deceased judgment debtor) in Wallace v. Swinton, 64 N. Y. 188. Disapproved, in Marine Bank of Chicago v. Van Brunt, 61 Barb. 361. Flanders v. Odell, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 247; s. c, 2 Hun, 664. Collated, with other cases (What cases are referable) in 1 Abb. N. C. 110, n. Flandrow, Matter of, 20 Hun, 36. Affd in 84 N. Y. 1. For the present statute (Service of attachment) see Code Civ. Pro. § 649, subd. 3. Fleeman v. McKcan, 25 Barb. 474. See Wait v. Green. Disting'd (When title pas- ses to vendee) in Morey v. Medbury, 10 Hun, 540, 543. Approved (Right of boTta fide purchaser from vendee) in Wait v. Green, 36 A r . Y. 556. Dictum overruled in Ballard v. Burgett, 40 Id. 314, 321. Fleet v. Borland, 11 How. Pr. 489. Dis- approved (Right of one having interest in reversion or remainder to maintain action for partition) Blakely v. Calder, 13 Id. 477, being, however, followed as controll- ing, in McGlone v. Goodwin, 3 Daly, 185. v. Hegeman, 14 Wend. 42. Approved (Trespass on oyster-beds) in 1 Am. L. Req. N. S. 579. 268 FLEETWOOD— FLIKE. Fleetwood v. City of N. ¥., 2 Sandf. 475. See Forrest u. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Dis- ting'd (EfEect of voluntary payment) in Meyer v. Clark, 2 Daly, 497; Peyser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 70 JST. Y. 502. Cited in Tutt v. Ide, 3 Blatchf. G. Gt. 249, 253. Cited with approval in McMillan v. Richards, 9 Gal. 417; Bucknall v. Story, 46 Id. 589; s. c, 13 Am. R. 220. 224. Fleischauer v. Doellner, 58 How. Fr. 190. Another proceeding- in 60 Id. 438. Fleisclnnaii v. Bennett, 23 Hun, 200. Aff'd in 87 N. Y. 231. Different proceeding from 79 Id. 579. See Pry v. Bennett. With decision in 23 Hun compare (Slander) Havemeyer i\ Fuller, 10 Abb. N. G. 9. v. Stern, 24 Hun, 265; s. c, 61 How. Pr. 124. Re-argument denied in 24 Hun, 382, but without opinion. Decision in 24 Hun affd in 90 If. Y. 110. Fleming 1 v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 1 Abb. If. O. 433. Affd, it seems, in 74 If. Y. 618, but without opinion. With decision in ,1 Abb. N. G. see to same effect (Liability of railroad company for injury to newsboy) Duff v. Allegheny R. R. Co., 36 Am. R. 675. Followed (Liability for injury to one not passenger) in Buckley d. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 187, 190. Fleming v. Gilbert, 3 Johns. 528. See Free- man ». Adams; Keating t>. Price; Lattimore v. Harsen. Disting'd (Waiver of perform- ance) in Second Nat. Bank of Oswego v. Poucher, 56 If. Y. 348, 352. Applied in Edminster v. Cochrane, 8 Daly, 138, 140. Followed with Keating v. Price, 1 Johns. Gas. 221 ; Stevens ®. Cooper, 1 Johns. Gh. 429; Botsford v. Burr, 2 Id. 416, in support of the well settled rule (Subsequent parol agreement, discharging executory contract in writing not under seal) in Grafton Bank v. Woodward, 5 Jf. H. 99; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 566. See Id. 475. Approved with Dearborn v. Cross, 7 Cow. 48; Langworthy v. Smith, 2 Wend. 587 (Parol discharge of obligation under seal) in Herzog v. Sawyer, 61 Md. 353. Quoted and collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 cd. 592. - v. Griswold. See Jackson v. Moore. v. Hollenbaek, 7 Barb. 271. Overruled (Return of commissioner to take testimony) in Pendell v. Coon, 20 If. Y. 134. See Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 87. Dis- ting'd in Goodyear v. Vosburgh,! 41 How. Pr. 421. v. People, 27 If. Y. 329. Aff'g 5 Parh. 353. See Hart v. Cleis. Decision in 27 If. Y. disting'd (Sufficiency of indictment) in Case v. People, 6 Abb. If. C. 151, 157. Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse U. R. Co., 25 Wend. 462. See Chapman ■». Albany & Schenectady R. R. Co. ; Trustees of Presby- terian Society in Waterloo v. Auburn & Rochester R. R. Co. Applied (Liability „of railroad company for damage done in con- structing road) in Trustees of Presb. Soc. in Waterloo v. Auburn & Rochester R. R. Co., 3 Hill, 569. Seems to be approved in Brown v. Cayuga & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 12 If. Y. 486; but see this statement explained in Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 23 Id. 42, 52, where Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co. is considemd to be overruled by Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. Questioned in Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 4 If. Y. 205. Applied in Lowrey v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. K G. 32, 36. Disting'd in Kellinger v. Forty-Second Street R. R, Co., 50. N. Y. 206, 211. Followed in Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Naylor, 2 Ohio St. 235; s. c, 59 Am. Bee. 667. Collated, with other cases, in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 409. Commented on with other cases in 15 Am. L. Rev. 592. Followed with Wasmer v. Delaware, Lack., &c. R. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 212 ; People ex rel. Green ■». Dutchess & Columbia R. R. Co., 58 Id. 153; Worster v. Forty-second Street R. R. Co., 50 Id. 203 (Duty of railroad company as to con- dition of highway used by it) in Bell v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 29 Hun, 560. v. Button, 6 Barb. 646. Affd in 4 K Y. 396. See Gazly v. Price. Decision in 4 N. Y. explained (Contract for sale of real property) in 1 Ghitty on Oontr. 429, n. o, 11 Am. ed. Decision in 6 Barb, discussed in Id. 437, n. p. v. Updike, 3 Hun, 350 ; s. c. reported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 513. Flewelling v. Brandon, 4 Daly, 333. Dis» ting'd (Payment of costs before second ac- tion) in Lewis ». Davis, 8 Id. 185. Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 F. Y. 549 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 545. See Crispin 1). Babbitt; Laning v. N. Y. Central R. B. Co. Examined with other cases (Liability for negligence of co-servant) - in Coulter, v. Board of Education, 4 Hun, 575 ; Ross v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Id. 494. Applied in Stevenson v. Jewett, 16 Id. 212; McCosker ». Long Island R. R Co., 21 Id. 507; Chapman v. Erie R'y Co., 55 iV. Y. 583 ; Sprong v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 58 Id. 58, which afi'd 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 57, which see ; Corcoran v. Holbrook. 59 K Y. 20; Fort v. Whipple, 11 Hun, 592; • Booth v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 38; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 Id. 52; Hener v. Heiuvelman, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 90. Disting'd in Besel v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 70 iV: F. 174 ; Malone «. Hath- away, 64 Id. 10; Slater v. Jewett, 85 Id. 61, 71. Explained in Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 2d. 521. Followed with approval in Lewis v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. R. Co., 59 Mo. 495; s. c, 21 Am. B. 385, 391. Col- lated with Laning v. N. Y. Central R. B. Co., 49 if. Y. 521; Brickner v. Same, 2 Bans. 506 ; 49 N. Y. 672, in Gilinore v. Northern Pac. R'y Co., U. S. Gir. Ct., D. Oreg., 18 Fed. Rep. 870. Disting'd with Malone v. Hathaway, 64 If. Y. 5, in Peterson v. Whitebreast Coal & Mining Co., 50 Iowa, FLINN— FONDA. 269 673 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 143. Followed and sUted not to have been overruled, — in Brann v. Chicago, K. I., &c. R. R. Co., 53 Iowa, 597. Explained (Liability of corpora- tion for injuries caused to employes through negligence) in Rose v. Bostou & Albany R. R. Co., 58 K Y. 219. Applied in Smith v. Oxford Iron Co , 13 Vroom (1ST. J.) 467 ; s. c, 3B Am. R 53), 538. Followed in Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. R'y Co., Minn. 1885, 23 Hfortkw. Rep. 229, 232. Fliuti v. Powers. See Flynn v. Powers. Flint v. Corbitt, 6 Daly, 429. Discussed (Contract to manufacture as distinguished from sale) in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. y (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Craig. 59 Barb. 319. Rev'd as Booth v. Powers, 56 JST. Y. 22. Flood v. Mitchell, 4 Hun, 813. Confirmed in 68 N. Y. 507, but rev'd on other points. v Reynolds, 13 Row. Pi: 112. Dis- ting'd (Denial of plaintiffs title to note) in Hiiys v. Southgate, 10 Hun, 511, 514. Florence v. Bulk ley, 1 Duer,105. Followed (Denying leave to sue in forma pauperis) in Alexander v. Meyers, 8 Daly, 112. v. Hopkins, 46 If. Y. 182. Disting'd (Adverse possession by tenant in common) in Kathan v. Rockwell, 16 Hun, 90, 92. Disting'd (Right to maintain action for partition) in Jordan v. "Van Epps, 85 JF. Y. 427, 434. Commented on (Partition not a substitute for ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Ti: of Tit. to Land, % 166. Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Warford, 1 Sweeny, 433. Approved (Distinction be tween larceny and false pretenses) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 367. Florentine v. Wilson, Hill & D. 303. Re- ferred to as in accordance with the general doctrine (Agreement between husband and wife for separation) in Tyler on Inf.. & Gov. 2 ed. § 338. Flower T. Allen, 5 Cow. 650. Quoted (Pri- vate corporation — liability of members) in Ang. &A.on Corp. § 630, 11 ed. v Lance. See Peyser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Floyd v. Blake. See Hernstein v. Mat- thewson. v. Jayne, 6 Johns. Gh. 479. Followed (Jurisdiction of equity to grant new trial) in Oliver v. Pray, 4 Ohio, 175; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 595. 600, with lengthy note. Flviiii v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc, 7 Hun, 337. Rev'd in 67 JST. Y. 500; s. c, 23 Am. M. 134. Further decision in 15 Hun, 521, and th.it aff'd in 78 N. Y. 568. Also another proceeding iu 18 Hun, 212. Decision in 78 Jf. Y. followed (Filling out of application by agent) in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 Id. 281, 294. Decision in 7 Han applied (Medical examiner as agent of insurance company) in Taylor v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co , 10 Id. 52, 55. v. Hntton, 4 Daly, 552. See cases col- lected (Negligence of parent) in 14 Am. L Reg. N. S. 676. t. McKeon, 6 Duer, 203. Cited (Parol evidence that rescinded contract has been reinstated) in 2 W hart. Com. on Ev. § 1017. v. Powers, 35 How. Pr. 279. Affd in 54 Barb. 550; s. c. as Flinn v. Powers, in 36 How. Pr. 289 — where points of counsel are given, and the latter rev'd as Walsh v, Powers in 43 N. Y. 23. t. Stonghton, 5 Barb. 115. Referred tc (Exemption of consul from suits in State courts) in Republic of Mexico v. Arrangois, 11 How. Pr. 1, as overruled in Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N~. Y. 576. Fobes v. Shattuck, 22 Barb. 568. See Car- roll v. Newton. Limited (Right of sever- ance of property of tenants in common) in Channon v. Lusk, 2 Lans. 211. Foden v. Sharp, 4 Johns. 183. See Wolcotl v. Van Santvooid. Reviewed and applied with Woloott B. Van Santvoord, 17 Johns. 248, and other cases, on what is said to bf the soundest and best supported rule (Ne- cessity of averment of presentment at place of payment of note) in Weed v. Van Houten, iHalst. (JT. J.) 189; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 468, with note. Followed (Interest as governed by law of place of payment) in Kavanaugh v. Day, 10 R. I. 393; s. c, 14 Am. R. 691. Foersch v. Black well, 14 Barb. 607. Dis- cussed (Prima facie evidence) in 1 Best on M. § 275, n. a. Wood's ed. Fogal t. Pirro, 17 Abb. Pr. 113. See (Limitation of action to redeem from mort- gage) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 365, 379, n. Fogerty y. Jordan, 2 Robt. 319. Cited (Right of attorney to set up, as against client, the illegal acquisition \,f client of his claim) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 610. Fogg v. Edwards, 57 How. Pr. 290. Further decision on appeal from judgment entered, on report of referee in 20 Hun, 90. Foland v. Johnson, 16 Abb. Pr. 235. Ap- proved (Pleading facts in mitigation in action for malicious wrong) in Beckett v. Lawrence, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 403. Foley, Matter of, 39 How. Pr. 356. Over- ruled by later unreported decision granting relief sought. Foley t. Egan, 13 Abb. Pr. 2f. S. 361, n. Disting'd (Executor's, &c. commissions) in Ward ». Ford, 4 Redf. 34, 40. v. Foley, 17 Hun, 235. Affd, but con- struction of will in question overruled, in Hennessy v. Paterson, 85 N. Y. 91. Follett v. People, 17 Barb. 193. Rev'd in 12 JV. Y. 268. Folliard v. Wallace. See Greenby «. Wil- cocks. Folsom, Matter of, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 55. Affd in 56 Jf. Y. 60. Decision in 56 If. Y. disting'd (Designation of official paper) in Matter of Burke, 62 Id. 224, 227 ; Matter of Burmeister, 76 Id. 174, 177. Folts t. Huntley, 7 Wend. 210. Approved (Lease determinable only at will of lessee) in Effinger v. Lewis, 32 Penn. 367. Fonda v. Borst, 2 Keyes, 48; s. c, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 155. Followed (Effect of grant 270 EONDA— FOOTE. described as bounding on street) in Cox to. James, 59 Barb. 144. Compare (Necessity of acceptance of road by public) L. 1873, c. 315, § 8, which was repealed by L. 1874, c. 613, | 2. ■ v. Sage, 46 Barb. 109. Aflf'd in 48 N~. 7. 173. ■ v. Van Home, 15 Wend. 631. Dis- ting'd (Liability for acts of sheriff in mak- ing levy) in Chapman ». Douglas, 5 Daly, 244, 252. Applied (Voidable acts of infant) in Harner v. Dipple, 31 Ohio. St. 72; s. c, 27 Am. R. 496. Fontaine v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 10 Johns. 58. Disting'd (Seaworthiness) in Rogers v. Sim Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. <&' S.) ' 65, 74. v. , 11 Johns. 293. See Kennedy v. Strong; Suydam v. Marine Ins. Co. Ques- tioned (Forfeiture of vessel) in Wilkes v. People's Fire 'ins. Co., 19 K Y. 187. Doubted and criticised in Mariatigui v. Louisiana Ins. Co., 8 La. 65; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 129, 132. Disapproved with Amory v. McGregor, 15 Johns. 24, in Clark ». Protec- tion Ins. Co., 1 Story C. Ct. 109. Cited as authority (Proceeding in rem is based on presumption of guilt) in Waples Proc. in Rem. § 39. Reviewed with other cases (Choice of remedies in case of false .swear- ing to obtain registry of vessel) in Id. % 205. Foot v. JItna Life Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 285. Rev'd in 61 N. Y. 571. Decision in 61 N. Y. followed (Effect of statements in policy as warranty) in Ritzier v. World Life Ins. Co., 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 409, 416. / Cited as authority in 16 Cent. L. J. 366, where it is added, that this seems to be the rule also in N. C, N. J., Iowa, Me., and is so laid down in Throop v. N. A. Fire Ins. Co., 19 Mich. 440; but that the rule ap- pears to be otherwise in Tenn., Mo. and possibly in Minn. v. Bentley, 44 N. Y. 166; s. c, 4 Am. R. 652. Approved (Action by purchaser on warranty, without return of article sold; in Day «. Pool, 52 K Y. 416, 421. Fol- lowed (Letter- press copies as evidence) in Delany v. Enickson, 10 Neb. 492; s. c. 35 Am. R. 487. See, also, Eborn v. Zim- pleman, 47 Tex. 503; s. c, 26 Am. R. 319, with note, collating cases. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on, Ev. § 93, n. - v. Iironson. See Bellows v. Sackett. v. Brown, 8 Johns. 64; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Lain. ed. 467, with brief note. Approved (Words as to calling, when not actionable) in Camp «. Martin, 23 Conn. 89. Disapproved in Secor v. Harris, 18 Barb. 425. v. Farrington. 41 N. Y. 164. See (Limitation of action on ground of fraud) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 382, n. . V. Gmnaer, 12 Wend. 195. Overruled (Costs, as affected by certificate that execu- tors have unreasonably resisted demand) in Carhart v. Blaisdell, 18 Id. 531 ; Gansevoort v. Nelson, 6 Hill, 389. — t. Harris, 2 Alb. Pr. 454. Disting'd (Affidavit authorizing order for substituted service) in Simpson v. Burch, 4 Hun, 315, 317. — t. Marsh, 51 N. Y. 288. Explained (Sale of chattel not specific) in 1 Ben], on Sales, § 479 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Morgan, 1 Hill, 654. See Higbe v. Leonard. Doubted (Effect of relationship of judge to one not party) in Matter of Dodge & Stevenson Manuf. Co., 77 N. Y. 101. See (Costs in justices' court) Code Cii>. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. T. Sabin, 19 Johns. 154; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 208. See Dob «. Halsey. Followed (Power of partner to bind firm as sureties) in Andrews v. Planters' Bank, 7 Smedes & M. {Miss.) 192; s. c, 45 Am. R. 300, with note. Disapproved with Dobs. Halsey, 10 Johns. 38, in Flemming v. Prescott, 3 Rich. L. (S. C.) 307 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 766, with note. Followed, and Livingston «. Hastie, 2 Cai. 246; Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. 251; Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Id. 300; Dob e. Halsey, 16 Id. 34; cited as sus- taining the decision, — in N. Y. Firemen's Ins. Co. d. Bennett, 5 Conn. 574 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 109, with note collating cases. Disting'd as a case where the note specified on its face that the firm was a surety, — in Hawes v. Dutton, 1 Bailey L. (S. C.) 146; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 663. v. Stevens, 17 Wend. 483. See Wheeler v. Raymond. Followed (Presumption as to jurisdiction of courts of common pleas) in Pringle e. Woolworth, 90 AT. Y. 502. Fol- lowed with Hart v. Seixas, 21 Wend. 40 ; Bloom 0. Burdick, 1 Hill, 130; Mills®. Mar- tin, 19 Johns. 7, and said to be at variance with Diehl v. Page, 2 Green (K J.) 143; Pittenger v. Pittenger, Id. 156 (Presump- "tion as to courts of general jurisdiction) in Horner v. State B'k of Indiana, 1 Ind. 130; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 353, 358, with note. Fol- lowed with Wheeler v. Raymond, 8 Cow. 314; Bloom «. Burdick, 1 Hill, 130; in Reynolds v. Stansbury, 20 Ohio, 344 ; s. c. 55 Am. Dec. 459. v. Tracy, 1 Johns. 46 ; s. c, 3 K 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 52, with brief note. See Root v. King. Followed with Paddock ». Salisbury, 2 Cow. 811; Roots. King, 7 Id. 613 (Evidence of character in action for libel, &c.) in Stone «. Varney, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 86 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 762, with note. Compare Learned v. Buffington, 3 Mass. 546 ; King v. Waring, 5 Esp. 14. Commented on in 1 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 55, n. 2. v. Webb, 59 Barb. 38. Explained (Statute of frauds — note or memorandum in writing — terms of payment) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 254, n. 5J (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Foote v. Beecher, 12 Hun, 374; s. c. in full in 7 Abb. N. O. 360. Confirmed in part, but rev'd in 78 K Y. 155 ; s. c, more fully, 7 Abb. N, C. 358. T. Bryant, 47 K Y. 544; aff'g Foote FOOTE— FOKD. 271 «. Foote, 58 Barb. 258. Decision in 47 K Y. followed (What is valid under statute of trusts) in Hazewell v. Coursen, 36 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 459, 468 ; Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Hun, 67, 72. v. Colvin, 3 Joins. 216 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 478, with note, wherein what is said to be the generally received doctrine is stated (Sale on execution of estate of beneficiary ; in case of resulting trust), though statutory changes in N. Y. have made it otherwise there,— citing Freem. on Exec. § 189. See Boyd v. McLean. Cited with Jackson v. Bate- man, 2 Wend. 570; Bogart v. Perry, 1 Johns. Gh. 52; Lynch v. Utica Ins. Co., 18 Wend. 236 ; Jackson o. Walker, 4 Id. 462 ; Jack- son e, Parker, 9 Cow. 73 ; in Pitts «. Bul- lard, 3 Oa. 5 ; s. c, 46 Am. Dee. 405, 412, as applicable to case of purchaser in con- tract for sale of real estate. Approved as a sufficient authority (Nature of contract to work farm on shares, in Andrew v. New- comb, 32 if. Y. 417. Reviewed, with many other cases, in Taylor v. Bradley, 4 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 363, 370. Disapproved (Con- veyance of land passes grain growing thereon) and Whipple v. Foote, 2 Johns. 418; Newcombe v. Ramer, Id. n.; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Id. 108, cited to show that such grain is a chattel, in Smith v. Johns- ton, 1 Penr. & W. {Pa.) 471; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 404. Compare Go. Litt. 556, and notes. v. Foote, 58 Barb. 258. Aff'd as Foote ■v. Bryant, 47 If. Y. 544. Decision in 58 Barb, applied (Enforcing parol trust created on conveyance) in Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Hun, 67, 72. v. Lathrop. 53 Barb. 183. Appeal dis- missed in 4t K Y. 358. Decision in 41 N. Y. followed, but point not indicated, in Ives v. Memphis, &c. R. R. Co., 58 Id. 630. Disting'd (Appeal as involving substantial right) as inapplicable to appeal from Special to General Term, — in Matter of Duff, 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 421. Disting'd (Order non-appeal- able as discretionary) in Depew v. Dewey, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 517. Applied in Keck a. Werder, 86 N~. Y. 264, 269. Disting'd (Right to stay proceedings on judgment) in Kamp v. Kamp, 59 Id. 212, 223. Decision in 53 Barb, applied (Service upon husband only, when good as to wife) in White v. Coulter, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 617. v. Morris, 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 61. Cited in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 220, as holding an erroneous view of L. 185.3, c. 576 (Liabil- ity of wife for debts contracted before mar- riage). v. People, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 216. Rev'd in 56 If. Y. 321. v. Schieder, 5 Weekly Dig. 463. Afl'd it seems, in 76 If. Y. 592, on opinion below. v". Storrs, 2 Barb. 326. Quoted with oases to the contrary (Onus of proving neg- ligence in case of bailment) in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 902, n. 6. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 61, n, 5, 5 ed. ■ t. West, 1 Den. 544. Applied (Right of purchaser in land contract to sue thereon, when complete) in Hartley e. James, 50 K Y. 38. t. Whipple, 5 Weekly Dig. 154; s. c, more fully as Fort v. Whipple, 11 Hun, 586. „ , Forbes' Case, 11 Abb. Pr. 52; s. G, 4 Park 611 ; 19 How. Pr. 457. Opposed (Requis- ites of commitment) in Gray's Case, 11 Abb. Pr. 56. Forbes v. Halsey, 26 If. Y. 53. See Davoue v. Fanning. Disting'd (Validity of sale of decedent's real estate) in Kelley's Estate, 1 Abb. N. 0. 102, 106. v. Logan, 4 Bosw. 475. Aff d as Forbes «. Waller, 25 If. Y. 430 ; s. c, less fully, as Forbes v. Walter, 25 How. Pr. 166. Force v. Gower, 23 How. Pr. 294. See Fiske v. Anderson. See (Action upon judgment) , Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1913, n. Ford v. Adams, 2 Barb. 349. Quoted and explained (Contracts — change of parties by novation) in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 483, n. v. Andrews, 9 Wend. 312. See Buel v. Gordon. Relied on (What debts are to be satisfied out of insolvent's estate) in Rome Exchange Bank v. Eames, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 83, 92. t. liabcock, 2 Sand/. 518 ; s. c, more fully, 7 If. Y. leg. Obs. .270. See Cole v. Jessup. v. Belmont, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 135. Aff d in 69 N. Y. 567. Previous proceeding in 7 Robt. 508, which aff'd Id. 97. With decision in 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) compare (Judgment awarding defendant possession in action to compel determination of claim to real property) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1641- 1643. v. Cobb, 20 If. Y: 344. Applied (Machinery, &c. when not a fixture) in Voorhies ». McGinnis, 46 Barb. 251, which was rev'd in 48 N. Y. 278, 289, which see; Sheldon v. Edwards, 35 Id. 283; Tifft v. Horton, 53 Id. 380; Sisson ». Hibbard, 75 Id. 542, 546, which aff'd 10 Hun, 420, 422, which see. Disting*d in Potter v. Crom- well, 40 N. Y. 293. Relied on in Eaves v. Estes, 10 Eans. 314; s. c, 15 Am. It. 345. v: David, 1 Bosw. 569. Authorities on which this was held said to have been criti- cised (Liability on agreement to assume debt secured by mortgage on chattels) in Thomas on Mort. 456. v. Ford, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 74; s. c, 41 How. Pr. 169. See Woodruff v. Dickie. Followed (Imprisonment for non-payment of alimony) in Allen ». Allen, 8 Abb. JV. G. 175, 187. Followed (Striking out pleading of party in contempt) in Walker v. Walker, 82 H. Y. 260, 264. v. Harrington, 16 If. Y. 285. Disting'd (Effect of fraudulent conveyance as between parties) in Renfrew . Miller, 8 Johns. 74 (Pleading and proof in slander) in Zorg v. Ort, 3 Chand. (Mich.) 31 ; citing Nestle v. Van Slyck, 2 Hill, 287. Foxell v. Fletcher, 11 Hun, 643. Another proceeding in 59 How. Pr. 88. Conqiare • very brief mem. in 23 Hun, 149. Foy v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 24 Barb. 3S2. See Bostwick v. Champion; Weed p. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. Com- pared with other cases (Liability of carriir. beyond line) in Berg v. Narragansett S. S. Co., 5 JDahj, 395. Cited in East Tenn. &, Va. R. R. Co. i). Rogers, 6 Heislc. {Tenn.) 276 FRALICH^-FKASIEK. 143; s. c, 19 Am. R. 589. Cited as au- thority in Taylor v. Little Rock, &c. R. R. ■ Co., 32 Arh. 393; s. c, 29 Am. R. 1. Fralich v. People. See Brandon v. People. v. Betts, 13 Hun, 633. Cited with Crawford e. Collins, 45 Barb. 269; King v. Green way, 71 K Y. 413 (What consti- tutes a "vessel") in Yarnherg «. Watson, Sup'm. Ct., Or eg., March, 1884, 4 Pasc. Rep. 297. Compare Hicks u. Williams, 17 Barb. 523. France T. Erie R'y Co., 2 Hun, 673 ; s. c. re- ported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 12. O'Menra v. Comm'rs of Allegany, 3 Id. here relied on (Constitutional right of domain) has since been rev'd by Ct. of App. Fraiichot v. Leach, 5 Cow. 506. See Keating ■b. Price. Explained (Damages for breach of contract to purchase real estate) in Congregation Beth Elohim v. Central Pres- byterian Chnrch, 10 Abb. Pr. K S. 495. Cited as authority in Richards v. Edick, 17 Barb. 265. Explained in 3 Pars, on Gontr. 232, n. c. Followed (Fraud, when not to be set up to avoid agreement under seal) in Jackson v. Hills, 8 Cow. 293; Belden v. Davies, 9 Id. 447. Disting'd (Parol en- largement of place, &c. of performance of written contract) in Blood v. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 78. Disting'd (Waiver of omission of notice) in Marshall v. Vultee, 1 E. B. Smith, 308. Applied (Offer to perform, when excused) in Clarke v. Crandall, 27 Barb. 77 ; Crist -o. Armour, 34 Id. 387; Shaw v. Re- public Life Ins. Co., 69 K Y 293. Francia v. Joseph, 3 Edw. 182. See War- dell v. Howell. Included (Who is bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 635. Francis v. City of Troy, 10 Hun, 515. Rev'd in 74 N. Y. 338. v. Ocean Ins. Co., 6 Cow. 404. Affd in 2 Wend. 64. v. Schoellkopf, 53 N~. Y. 152. Appliod with Jutte v. Hughes, 67 Id. 267 (Measure of damages for maintenance of nuisance) in Taylor v. Metropolitan Elevated R'y Co.,, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 311. Followed in Wiel v. Stewart, 19 Hun, 272. Followed (Private action for public nuisance) in Hardy v. City of Brooklyn, 7 Ahb. N. C. 403, 407; Shepherd ».' Barnett, 52 Tex. 638. Discus- sed in 1 Add. on Torts, 296, n. 1, Wood's ed. Quoted and discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 678. Quoted and discussed (Tannery as nuisance) in Id. §§ 588, 603. Francisco v. People^ 1.8 How. Pr. 475 ; s. c, more fully, 4 Part;. 139. Frank t. Chemical Nat. Bank of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 26. Further decision in 45 Id. 452 ; s. c, 56 How. Pr. 403, and that aff'd in 84 N. Y. 209; s. c, 38 Am. R. 501. With decision in 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) see to the contrary, cases cited (Com- parison of iands) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 397, n. 1. — — v. Levie, 5 Robt. 599. See (Practice where name of defendant is unknown) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 451, n. Franklin v. Hunt. See' Bartlett «. Camp- bell. v. Low, 1 Johns. 396 ; s. c, 3 N. Y. Cum. L. Lam. ed. 187, with brief note. Cited as authority (Jurisdiction of State court over U. S. officer) in Coleman v. Frazier, 4 Rich. L. (S: 0.) 146; s. c, 53 Am. Bee. 727, with note. — - T. Osgood. See Raymond v. Squire. v. Pendleton, 3 Sandf. 572. Affd in 7 N. F.508. v. Robinson. See Bradford e. Kim- berly. v. Talmadge, 5 Johns. 84. Followed (Immateriality of middle name) in State v. Smith, 12 Arh G22; s. c, 56 Am: Dec. 287. Followed with Roosevelt v. Gardinier, 2 Gow. 463; Milk v. Christie, 1 Hill, 102; - People v. Cook, 14 Barb. 259, 307, in Choen v. State, 52 lnd, 347; s. c, 21 Am. R. 179, with note, wherein see also Van Voorhis r. Budd, 39 Barb. 479 ; Matter of Snook, 2 ■ Hill, 566, and other cases collated. v. Underhill, 2 Johns. 374. Explained with Tillinghast v. King, 6 Vow. 591,. as not authority since R. S. (Requisites of affidavit to change venue) — in Anonymous, 1 Hill, 668. Franklin Bank, Matter of, 1 Paige, 249; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 413, with extended note. See Chaffee v. Fort. Applied (Title to deposits in bank) in Metropolitan Nat. B'k v. Loyd, 25 Hun, 101, 105. Disting'd with People v. Security Life Ins. Co., 78 N. T. 122 (Right of creditors of corporation to preference in payment) . in People «. Mechanics' & Traders' Sav'gs Inst"., 28 Hun, 375. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 3 Wend. 130. See Scott «._ Depeyster. Disting'd (Corporation directors not liable for error in judgment merely) in Van D3 r ck v.. McQuade, 86 K Y. 38, 46. Cited (Liability of direc- tors as such and as individuals) in Godbold v. Branch Bank at Mobile, 11 Ala. 191; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 211. Frary v. Dak in, 7 Johns. 75. Applied (Lim- itation of jurisdiction to grant discharge tti insolvent debtor) in Morrow v. Freeman, 61 K Y. 515, 518. v. , 8 Johns. 353. Applied (Right to security for. costs, in case of appeal) in Flint o. Van Deusen, 24 Hun, 440. Frascliieris v.' Hettriqnes, 6 Alb. Pr. K S. 251. See Nellis v. Bradley. Applied (Who may exercise right of stoppage in transitu) in Gossler v. Schepeler, 5 Dahj, 47C, 479. Dis- ting'd (Withdrawing special question sub- mitted to jurv) in Ebersole v. Northern Cent R'y Co., 23 Hun, 114, 117. Fraser v. Freeman, 56 Barb. 234. Rev'd in 43 K Y. 566. v. Wyckoff, 2 Hun, 545 ; mem. s. c; 5 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & C.) 707.. Aff'd in 63 XT. Y. 445. ;■ Frasier v. Frasier, 9 Johns. 80. Stated in 20 Id. 297, n. a, that moving party here was a judgment creditor. . , .. . TRAZER— FREEMAN. 277 Frazer t. Kimler, 2 Hun, 514 ; s. c. reported in 5 Suftm. Gt. (T. & G.) 16. v. Phelps, 3 Sandf. 741. Further decis- ion in 4 Id. 682. Decision in 3 Sandf. ex- plained and that in 4 Id. limited (Power of referee to compel production of books, &c.) in North v. Piatt, 7 Robt. 207. v. Western, 1 Barb. Gh. 220. Afi'd by Ct. of App., though a majority of the judges did not agree upon grounds of affirmance, in How. App. Cos. 448, 479. Both decis- ions examined (Doctrine of constructive notice) in Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge, 7 Bosw. 543, 563. Frazier t. McCloskey, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 266. Kev'd in 60 N. 7. 337; s. c, 19 Am. B. 193. Decision in 60 JV. T. disting'-d (Evidence of 'repetition of slander) in Flan- ders v. Groff, 25 Hun, 553, 555. See to the contrary cases cited in Abb. Tr. En. 666, n. 14. Commented on in Folhard's Starkie on Slander, 4 Eng. ed., § 640, n. 7. Frear's Case, 15 Abb. Pr. 350. See (Punish- ment by surrogate for contempt) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. Frear v. Evertson. See Mauran «.• Lamb ; Phoenix v. Dey. v. Hardenbergh, 5 Johns. 272; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 356. See Bank of Lansingburgh Crary ; Newcomb -o. Ramer. Cited with approval (Moral consideration insufficient to support contract) in Society v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 143. Relied on in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 434, 446. Discussed in 1 Chilty on Gontr. 34, n. b, 11 Am. ed. Collated, with other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 187. Relied on with Bartholomew v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 28, in Whart. Com. on Ag. % 372. Followed with Danforth v. Culver, 11 Johns. 146 (Contract for sale of improvements on public lands not within statute of frauds) in Zickafosse v. Hulick, 1 Morris (Iowa) 175; s. c, 39 Am. Dee. 458, with note. Quoted and explained in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 233, 4 ed. Frecking v. Holland, 33 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 499. Rev'd in 53 JV Y. 422. Decision in 53 JV Y. applied (Liability of married woman as to real estate) in Westervelt . Oakley. Decision in 1 Den. overruled (Nature of lia- bility of stockholders) in Corning v. McCul- lough, 1 JV. Y. 47. Explained (Statute of limitations — what actions may be barred) in Ang. on Limit. § 70, re. 1, 6 ed. Freelore v. Cole, 41 Barb. 318. Said in 41 JV Y. 6 1 9 to have been affd in Ct. of App. i 1 1 De- cember 1869. Decision in 41 Barb, disting'd (Validity of fraudulent conveyance, as against grantor) in Renfrew «. McDonald, 11 Hun, 254, 257. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 400. Freeman v. Adams, 9 Johns. 115. Reviewed with Langworthy «. Smith, 2 Wend. 587; Fleming ». Gilbert, 3 Johns. 528 ; Keating v. Price, 1 Johns. Cos. 22; Thompson v. Ketoham, 8 Id. 149; Van Hagen v. Van Rensselaer, 18 Id. 420. and other cases (Effect upon written contract, of subsequent parol agreement) in Ford v. Campfield, 6 Halst. (If. J.) 327; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 589, 592. See contrary to this case and Myers v. Dixon, 2 Hall, 456 (Action of debt on arbitration bond, where time for making award has been extended) Greig v. Talbot, 2 Barn. & G. 179. v. Atlantic Mnt. Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 124. Explained (Ordering reference as in- volving long account) in Batchelor t>. Al- bany City Ins. Co., 6 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 240. v. Anld, 25 How. Pr. 327; s. c, more fully, 37 Barb. 587. Further decision in 44 Id. 14, and that rev'd in 44 JV Y. 50. Decision in Id. followed (Estoppel to deny existence of lien on real estate) in Lyon v. Adde, 63 Barb. 98; Parkinson v. Sherman, 74 JV Y. 92. Disting'd in Ben- . nett v. Bates, 26 Hun, 364. Disting'd (As- signee of mortgage, as trustee for mort- gagor) in Grissler v. Powers, 53 How. Pr. 194, which was affd in effect in 81 JV. Y. 57, 61, which see. y. Barber, 1 Hun, 433. Fully reported in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 574. See Beach v. Hollister; Goelet v. Gori. Disapproved by Danforth, Rapallo and Miller, JJ. (Effect of married woman's acts on tenancy by entirety) in Meeker v. Wright, 76 JV. Y. 262, 270. v. Clute, 4 Barb. 424. See Staats n. Ten Eyck. Quoted (Measure of damages in ac- tion for breach of contract of sale) in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed., § 1098, n. 4. v. Cram, 3 JV. Y. 305. Explained (Per- sonal judgment in proceedings to enforce 273 FREEMAN— FRENCH. mechanic's lien) in Barton v. Herman, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 399, 403. Applied in Grant v. Vandercook, Id. 455. Limited in Don- nelly v. Libby, 1 Sweeny, 259, 270. Cited as authority in Maltby i>. Green, 3 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 144, 148. Disting'd (Continuance of lien) in Fox v. Kidd, 77 N. Y. 489. T. Falconer, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 132. Further decision in Id. 579, and 45 Id. 383. Decision in Id. followed (Real party in in- terest who may maintain action on nego- tiable paper) in Amy v. Stein, 48 Id. 512. Followed in Potts v. Mayer, 46 Id. 183, which was rev'd in 10 Abb. N. ft 63. — v. Freeman, 51 Barb. 306. Affd in 43 N. Y. 34; s. c, 3 Am. B. 657. See Hessu. Fox; Lobdell v. Lobdell. Decision in 43 If. Y. applied (Enforcing verbal trust con- cerning real estate) in Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Hun, 67, 72; Dana v. Wright, 23 Id. 29, 32. Followed with approval in Hardesty v. Richardson, 44 Md. 617; s. c, 22 Am. R. 57, 62. v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co. See Babcock v. Bonnell ; Grosvenor v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co. ; Ruse v. Mut. Benefit Ins. Co. v. Kendall, 41 N. Y. 518. See Isaacs v. Beth Hamedrash Soc. See (Writ of error) Code Cii). Pro. 1881, § 1293, n. v. Ogden, 40 If. Y. 105. See (Writ of error) Code Civ.- Pro. 1881, § 1293, n. v. Orser, 5 Duer, 476. Explained (Lia- bility of wife' s property for husband's debts) in Burger v. White, 2 Bosw. 92, 96, 99. v. People, 4 Ben. 9 ; s. c, 47 Am. Bee. 216, with note, wherein are collected cita- tions. See People i. Bodine; People v. Huntington. See also The Trial of William Freeman, reported by Bcnj. F. Hall, 1 vol., 8vo., Auburn, 1848. See Mr. Seward's speech in the trial court, in Snyder's Grewt Sp. 149. The prisoner was not tried again. He died in his cell and his brain was found to have long been diseased. See Id. 190. Applied (Duty of triors of competency of jurors) in Smith v. Floyd, 18 Barb. 524 ; in dissenting opinion of Ingraham, J., in Allen ». People, 57 Id. 351, which was rev'd in 43 If. Y. 32, which see. Followed (Effect of peremptory challenge by prisoner) in Friery v. People, 2 Abb. Ot. App. Bee. 220, which affd 54 Barb. 319, 341, which see. Approved and sustained (Challenge for principal cause) in Dowenberg v. People, 27 K Y, 336. Ap- plied in Carnal v. People, 1 Park. 278. Cited as authority in People v. Stout, 4 Id. 109; Lindsley v. People, 6 Id. 244. Compare, as to effect of L. 1872, c. 475, Balbo o. People, 80 If. Y. 493. Disting'd in Greenfield v. People, 74 Id. 282. Rule as to assigning ground of challenge qualified in 6 Abb. If. G. 16, n. Applied (Test of insanity in criminal cases) in People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 256, 246; Willis v. People, 32 N. Y. 719, which affd 5 Parle. 621, 644, which see. Followed in Flanagan v. People, 52 N. Y. 467, 469. Cited and said to con- flict with People v. Klein, 1 Edm. 13, in State ii. Jones, 50 If. H. 309; s/c, 9 Am. B. 242, 253. Commented on in 1 Ben-, nett & H. Gas. on Grim. L. 97. Applied (Time for exceptions in criminal eases) in Hartung i>. People, 4 Park.' 330. Followed (Questions not reached.by bill of exceptions) in People v. Gardiner, 6 Id. 149. — r. Spalding. See Van Dusen v. Wor- rell. Freer v. Denton, 61 K Y. 492. See Burtis v. Thompson. Applied (Action as stamped in tort by allegations of complaint) in Spar- > man v. Keim, 83 If. Y. 250. Cited (Action on refusal to perform contract) in 2 Ben}, on Sales, § 860, n. 9 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). — v. Stotenbur, 36 Barb. 641. Rev'd in 2 Keyes, 467; s. c, 34 Mow. Pr. 440. Frees v. Ford, 6 If. Y. 176. Disting'd (Juris- • diction of county courts) in Burns «. O'Neil, 10 Hun, 495 ; Dake v. Miller, 15 Id. 356, 358. See to the contrary, Kundolf v. Thal- heimer, 17 Barb. 503, w^hich was rev'd in 12 If. Y. 600, which see. See also 17 Barb. 512, n. Cited as conclusive in Judge e. . Hall, 5 Lans. 69. Freeson v. Bissell, 65 If. Y. 168. Disting'd (Necessity of offer to perform, in action to foreclose lien for purchase money) in Thom- son v. Smith, Id. 305. Freiberg 1 v. Branigan, 18 Hun. 344. Affd, without opinion, in 82 N. Y. 627. Another proceeding in 3 Abb. If. G. 121. Freligrh v. Brink, 30 Barb. 144; s. c, 16 How. Pr. 272. Rev'd in 18 Id. 89, and the latter affd in 22 If. Y. 418. See Lanning v. Carpenter; Moody®. Towsend." Decision in 22 If. Y. held in Lyon v. Sherman,. 14 Abb. Pr. 393, to overrule (Judgment on confession) Clain v. Sanger, 11 Id. 338; Moody ■». Townsend, 3 Id. 375 ; Davis v. Morris, 21 Barb. 151. Followed in Frost v. Koon, 30 If. Y. 428, 442; Harrison v. Gib- bons, 71 Id. 58, 61. Fremont v. Stone, 42 Barb. 169. Disting'd (Agreements for management of corporation — when not against public policy) in Have- meyer v. Havemeyer, 43 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 506, 513. French v. Buffalo, N. T. & Erie K. R. Co., , 2 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 106; s. c, 4 Keyes, 108. Denied (Burden of proof of carrier's negligence) in Shriver v. Sioux City and St. Paul R. R. Co., 24 Minn. 506; s. c.,31 Am. R. 355. Criticised (Degrees of negligence of carrier) in Lawson's Contr. of Oarr. § 128. v. Carhart, 1 If. Y. 96. Rev'g Hill & B. 17; s. c, 2 Leg. Obs. 367. See opinion delivered in court below, in Mow. App. Gas. 47. Decision in 1 If. Y. disting'd (Extrinsic evidence to explain written instrument) in Giles v. Comstock, 4 Id. 273; Levy v. Bur- gess, 38 Super. Gt. (/. & S.) 438. Applied inBridger v. Pierson, 45 If. Y. 604; Whites B'k v. Myles, 73 Id. 339 ; Kingsland v. Chit- tenden, 6 Lans. 19, which was affd, it seems, in 61 If. Y. 618, which see. FRENCH— FROST. 279 T. Conelly, 1 Weekly Dig. 196. Quoted and commented on (Injunction in copyright case) in 2 High, on Inj. 2 ed., § 1043. n. 1. t. Donaldson, 5 Lans. 293. AfPd on the merits in 57 W. T. 496. T. Kennedy, 7 Barb. 452.- Explained (Interest, when payable) in Cook v. Rogers, 5 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & 0.) 493, 495. t. Magnire. See Shook v. Daly. t. New, 20 Barb. 48 1. Rev'd in 2 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 209 ; s. c, less fully, 28 K Y. 147. See Keating o. Price. v. People, 3 Park. 114. Approved (In- dictment without preliminary examination) in People, ex rel. Phelps v. Westbrook, 12 Sun, 649. v. Powers, 80 A 7 ". 7. 146. Followed (Invalidity of court rule affecting time given by Code for filing exceptions) in Gormerly v. McGlynn, 84 Id. 284, 286. v. Redman, 13 Sun, 502. Further decision as Hun v. Cary, 59 Sow. Pr. 426. Doctrine of decision in 13 Sun discussed (Liability of corporate trustees) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 160. — — v. Shotwell, 5 Johns. Oh. 555. Decis- ion in 20 Johns. 668 said in report thereto to be on appeal from decision in 5 Johns. Oh., but see this statement corrected in Shufelt v. Shufelt, 9 Paige, 146. Decision in 5 Johns. Oh. approved and followed (Estoppel bv waiver of former owner) in Graham v. R. R. Co., 102 U. S. 148, 154. v. Willet, 4 Bosw. 649; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. 99. Modified (Sheriff's liability) in ef- fect, in further decision, in 10 Bosw. 566. Frets t. Frets. See Larkin v. Robbins. Freund v. Importers' and Traders' Nat. B'k, 12 Sun, 537. Aff'd in 76 A 7 ". Y. 352. Previous decision in 3 Sun, 689; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & O.) 236. Frick v. White, 57 A 7 ! Y. 103. Disting'd (Unliquidated claim) in Bullard v. Sher- wood, 85 Id. 253, 256. Fried v. Royal Ins. Co., 47 Barb. 127. Aff'd in 50 K Y. 243. Friedman, Matter of, 8 Weekly Dig. 99. Aff'd in 82 N. Y. 609, with mem. of opinion. ' Friedman v. Dewes, 33 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 450. See also (Performance of contract for sale of land) Rinaldo v. Housmann, 1 Alb. N. O. 312. Friery v. People, 54 Barb. 319. Aff'd in 2 Keyes, 424; s. c, 2 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 215. Decision in 2 Keyes applied (Effect of irreg- ularity in obtaining jurors) in Pierson v. People, 18 Sun, 242; Cox s. People, 19 Id. 439, which was aff'd in 80 A 7 . Y. 511, which see. Followed (Statutory provisions for summoning jurors are simply directory) in People v. Tweed, 50 Bow. Pr. 262. Frink v. Hampden Ins. Co. See Grosvenor 11. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 13 Abb. Pr. 80. Ap- proved (Execution after death of judgment debtor) in Marine Bank of Chicago v. Van Brunt, 61 Barb. 361. Frisbee T. Hoffnagle, 1 1 Johns. 50. See Sill v. Rood. Disting'd and said to have been virtually overruled in Vibbavd u. Johnson, 19 Johns. 77 (Failure of consideration as defense to action for purchase price) in "Whitney v. Lewis, 21 Wend. 134. So also considered in Lamerson v. Marvin. 8 Barb. 15, but regarded as sound in Tibbets v. Ayer, Hill & D. 179. Also referred to in Morrison v. Edgar, 16 Mo. 411; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 236, as overruled by these and other cases. Said in Long v. Allen, 2 Fla. 403; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 281, with note, to have been overruled in cases there cited. ' Followed in Tyler v. Young, 2 Scam, (III.) 444; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 1 16, with note. Frisbey v. Thayer, 25 Wend. 396. See Hastings v. Belknap. Followed (Right of distraint) in Martin v. Black, 3 Edw. 580. Disting'd in Redman v. Hendricks, 1 Sand/. 33. Disting'd (Right of sheriff to show fraudulent nature of transfer bv debtor) in Hall v. Stryker, 27 A 7 ". Y. 604, which rev'd 29 Barb. Ill, which see; Thayer v. Willet, 5 Bosw. 368. Explained and disting'd with Hastings v. Belknap, 1 Den. 190, in Rinchey b. Stryker, 28 N. Y. 45. Frisbie v. Larned, 21 Wend. 452. Explained and criticised with Cole v. Sackett, 1 Sill, 516; Waydell v. Luer, 5 Id. 448; Rices. Dewey, 54 Barb. 455 (New promise as de- fense on original cause of action) in Wel- drick's Adm'r n. Swain, 7 Stew. (N. J.) 167. Followed (Effect of acceptance of notes as payment) in Doebling v. Loos, 45 Mo. 150; and see McMurray v. Taylor, 30 Id. 263. Collated with other cases in 2 Bare & W. Am. Lead. Oas. 5 ed. 271. Frith v. Barker, 2* Johns. 327. Relied on with Woodruff v. Merchants' Bank. 25 Wend: 674; Bowen v. Newell, 8 N. Y. 194 (Evidence of usage) in Pedersen u Engster, 14 Fed. Hep. 423. See also Beirne i>. Dord, 5 2V. Y. 95; Simmons v. Law,. 3 Keyes, 219. Applied in Gordon ■». Little, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 533; s.c, 11 Am.. Dec. 632. v. Crowell, 5 Barb. 209. Explained (Jurisdiction to determine questions of salvage) in Cashmere ». De Wolf, 2 Sandf. 379. v. Lawrence, 1 Paige, 434. Rev'd in Mactier «. Frith, 6 Wend. 103. Fritz Y. Muck, 62 Bow. Pr. 69. In statement that . the association was "incorporated," "incorporated" is a misprint for" unin- corporated." Frost v. Beekman, 1 Johns. Oh. 288. Rev'd in 18 Johns. 544; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 246. See Wendell ». Wadsworth. Decision in 1 Johns. Ch. explained (Effect of mistakes in recording conveyances, &c.) in Hcilbrun v. Hammond, 13 Hun. 474, 480. Cited as authority in Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick. 2:! Miss. 124; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 79. Collated with other cases, and dissented from in Man- gold v. Barlow, 61 Miss. 593: s. c, 48 Am. R. 84. Followed in Shepherd v. Burkhalter, 13 Geo. 443; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 523. Dis* 280 FROST— FRY. ting'd in Sinclair o. Slawson, 44 Mich. 123 ; s. c, 38 Am. R. 235. Collated with Ford v. James, 4 Reyes, 300 ; Peck v. Mallams, 10 N. Y. 518 ; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. o. White, 17 Id. 469, and other cases in 26 Am. R. 811, n. See other cases collected in 3 South. L. Rev. XT. 8. 640. See 10 All. L. J. 210. Explained in 2 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 2. Cited with Jewett v. Palmer, 7 Johns. Oh. 65; Dickerson v. Tillinghast, 4 Paige, 215 (Plea of bona fide purchaser without notice) in Thomas®. Graham, Walk. Gh. (Mich.) 118; citing, also, Grimstone v. Carter, 3 Paige, 421. Explained (Relation back of time of delivery of deed) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4ed. 309. v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. 11; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 423, with note. Collated with other cases (Attachment as affected by law of domicil) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 358. v. Carter. See Buel ». Gordon. v. Hotchkiss, 1 Abb. K 0. 27; s. c, 14 Bank. Reg. 443. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of State court in bankruptcy proceedings) in I Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Abb. ,2f. C. 184, . 189. Disapproved with Olcott v. Maclean, 10 Sun, 277, —preferring the decision in Goodrich «:. Wilson, 119 Mass. 429, — in Wente v. Young, 12 Hun, 220. v. Koon, 30 N. Y. 428. Affg Frost ». QuacKenbush, 18 Abb. Pr. 3. Decision in 30 N. Y. applied (Who -not bound by judg- ment of foreclosure) in Payn v. Grant, 23 Sun, 134, 136. < v. McCarger, 14 Sow. Pr. 181. Ap- proved (Vacating order of arrest) in Barret v. Gracie, 34 Barb. 20. T. Mott, 35 K Y. 2£3. See Hoyt v. Van Alstyne ; Twinan v. Swart.' Limited (Right of attaching creditor to impeach fraudulent acts) in Mechanics' & Traders' B'k v. Dakin. 50 Barb. 587, 594, which was rev'd in 51 W. Y. 523, which see. Cited as authority in Parshall v. Eggert, 54 Id. 22. Applied to mortgagor of chattels, in Anderson i>. Hunn, 5 Hun, 82. Disting'd in Jacobs v. Hogan, 15 Id. 199. Explained and criticised (Duty of execution debtor to claim exemption) in Turner v. Borthwick, 20 Id. 120, 122. v. Peacock, 4 Edw. 678. See Titus v. Nelson. t. Quackenbush. See Frost v. Koon. v. Raymond, 2 Cai. 188. Cited as au- thority (Covenants implied from use of words " grant, bargain, sell, &c") in Bet'hell v. Bethell, 54 2nd. 428; s. c, 23 Am. R. 650. Followed by Yeates, J., in Dorsey v. Jackman, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 42 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 611; Seixas v. Woods, 2 Cai. 48, being cited as an analogous case having re- ference to personal property. Explained and qualified in 4 Kent Com. 474. Collated with Kent v. Welch, 7 Johns: 258; Vander- karr v. Vanderkarr, 11 Id. 122, and other cases (Effect of express warranty) in Weiser v. Weiser, 5 Watts (Pa.) 279; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 316, 319. ■ v. Saratoga Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Den. 154; s. c, 49' Am. Dec. 234, with note, wherein- are collated citations of the case. See Dezell v. Odell. Cited as authority (Equitable estoppel) in Andrews v. iEtna Life Ins. Co - 85 JSf. Y. 334, 344. : v. Warren, 42 K Y. 204. Disting'd (Validity of chattel mortgage, as affected by sales made by mortgagor) in Southard -v. Benner, 72 Id. 424, 431, which aff'd 7 Daly-, 41, which see. - — - v. Tonkers Sav'gs B'k, 8 Sun, 20. Rev'd in part in 70 N. Y. 553; s. c. 26 Am. R. 627. ■ See Emigrant Industrial Sav'gs B'k v. Goldman. Dceision in 70 N. Y. applied (Agreement. as to priority of mortgage lien) in Taylor «. Wing, 23 Sun, 233, 236. * Followed (Effect of tender by junior mortgagee) in Day «. Strong, 29 Hun, 505. Collated with Hale v. Clauson, 60 JV. Y. 339, and other cases (Title obtained by purchaser at judicial sale) in 26 Am. R. 38, n. Disting'd with Wood v. Colvin, 2 Hill, 566; Carpenter v. Stilwell, 11 K Y. 61 ; Craft v. Merrill, 14 Id. 456, in Jaqueth v. Merritt, 29 Sun, 584. Froude v. Fronde, i Sun, 76. Appeal dis- missed, as it seems, in Anonymous, 59 N. Y. 313. See (Rogatory letters) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 913, n. Fry y. Bennett, 1 Abb. Pr. 289; s. c, 4 Duer, 247, 651. Further proceedings in 3 Bom. 200; and that aff'd in 28 N. Y. 324. Other proceedings in 9 Abb. Pr. 45; 16 Sow. Pr. 402; 5 Sandf. 54. See Cook v. Ellis; Van Vechten v. Hopkins. Decision in 5 Sandf. followed with Fleischmann v. Bennett, 87 N. Y. 238 (Office of innuendo) in Bradley v. Cramer, 59 Wis. 309 ; s. c, 48 Am. R. 511, where Van Vechten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 211, was also cited as a leading case respect- ing the office of an averment, colloquium or innuendo. Approved and applied (Innu- endoes which may be regarded as sur- plusage) in Krans v. Sentinel Co., 60 Wis. 430. .'Decision in 28 JV.- Y. cited as authority (Disproving truth of charge, in action for libel) in Malloy v. Bennett, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. K- Y-, 35 Reporter, 321. Ap- proved as well illustrating the rule (Lia- bility for criticism) in 8 Smthi L. Bet:. N. S. 184, Decision in 3 Bosw. applied (Dam- . ages for libel) in Myer v. Press Publishing Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 127, 130. Cited with Willis «. Forrest, 3 Duer, 310; Mitchell v. Borden, 8 Wend. 570 (Inadmis- sible evidence to be entirely excluded from ' consideration of jurv) in Scripps v. Reilly, 35 Mich. 371 ; s. a", 24 Am. R. 575, 583. Decision in 16 Sow. Pr. followed (Notice of judgment to limit time to appeal) in Devlin «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. 62 Id. 167. With decision in 9 Abb. Pr. see (Order of dis- position of issues) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 967, n. — v. Fry, 7 Paige, 461. Collated with Palmer v. Palmer, 1 Paige, 276; Atwater v. Atwater, 53 -Barb. 621; Perry v. Perry, 2 Barb. Ch. 311, and other cases (Alimony- in FKYATT— FflXTOK 281 in case of divorce for wife's fault) in 60 Am. Dec. 670, n. Fryatt v. Sullivan, 5 Mill, 116. Aff d in 7 Id. 529. Decision in 5 Bill explained (Fixtures attached to freehold) in Voorhies e. McGinnis, 46 Barb. 242. Explained and approved (Conversion of fixtures into realty) in Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344. Frye t. Lockwood, 4 Cow. 454. See Hearsey «. Pruyn. Referred to as very correctly giving the reason of the decision in Ripley v. Gelston, 9 Johns. 201 (Liability of public officer to refund money paid by compulsion) in 6 Am. Bee. 273, n. Fryer v. Rockfeller, 4 Hun, 800. Afl'd in 63 N. Y. 268. Fuchs v. Pohlman, 2 Daly, 210. See (Ap- peal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3046, n. Fndickar v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 45 Bow. Pr. 462. Aff'd in 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 358. And that aff'd in 62 N. Y. 392. Decision in Id. followed (Waiver of objection to proceeding before referee, &c.) Stebbins v. Brown, 65 Barb. 272, being dis- ting'd in Katt v. Germauia Fire Ins. Co., 4 Month. L. Bui. 59. Applied (Effect of refusal of arbitrators to hear evidence) in Halstead «. Seaman, 82 N. Y. 27, 31. Fullager v. Reveille, 3 Bun, 600. Disting'd (Rescission of contract) in Roe i>. Conway, 74 N. Y. 201, 206. Fuller, Matter of, 21 Bun, 497. Compare (Power of Commissioners of Central Park as to street improvements) Matter of Dear- . ing, Id. 618, which was rev'd in 85 if. Y.l. Fuller v. Acker, 1 Bill, 473. Doubted (Parol evidence to supply blank) in 12 Moalc's Eng. 249, n. -v. Emeric, 2 Sandf. 626; s. c, 2 Code E. 58; 7 N~. Y. Leg. Obs. 300. See Johnston «. Johnston. . Reconsidered, and approved and followed notwithstanding Forest v. Forest. 10 Barb. 46; Bushnell v. Busnnell,' 15 Id.' 399 ; Neville v. Neville, 22 Bow. Pr. 500 (Ne exeat is abolished by Code) in Johnston v. Johnston, 16 Abb. Pr. 43. Opposed in Beckwith v. Smith, 4 Lans. 182. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, n. -. v. Fenner. See Bradt v. Towsley. v. Hubbard, 6 Cow. 13; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 423, with note, wherein it is said to have been followed frequently in N.Y. (Duty of purchaser of land to demand conveyance) but to be not now followed in N. Y. and elsewhere (What will satisfy contract to con- vey in fee). Thought in same note not to have been modified by Carpenter v. Brown, 6 Barb. 149, "so as to dispense with the second request " (as was thought in Gray v. Dougherty, 25 Cal. 279) ; and is said to have have been erroneously referred to (Duty of purchaser in N. Y. to prepare and tender deed) in Cooper o. Brown, 2 McLean, 498. See Connelly v. Pierce; Ellis v. Hoskins; Gazley v. Price. Referred to as substanti- ally overruled (What will satisfy contract to convey in fee) in Penfield v. Clark, 62 Bark 584, 591. v. Jewett, 80 K Y. 46. See Crispin v. Babbitt; Laning v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Applied (Duty of master to provide safe machinery) in Kain v. Smith, 25 Bun, 146, 148. Disting'd in Murphy v. Boston & Al- bany R. R. Co., 88 JST. Y. 146; Slaters. Jewett, 85 Id. 61, 71, 73. Followed in Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R'y Co., 33 Minn. 315. v. Lewis, 3 Abb. Pr. 383. Overruled (Necessity of averring demand and refusal in action of claim and delivery) in Scofield v. Whitelegge, 33 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 179. See note. - — v. Read, 15 Bow. Pr. 236. Disting'd (Effect of another action pending) in Litch- field v. Smith, 7 RoU. 306. v. Robinson, 21 Hun, 232. Reported in 10 Weekly Dig. 487. Rev'd in 86 N~. Y. 306. v. Rowe, 59 Barb. 344. Rev'd in 57 N. Y. 23. With decision in 57 N. Y. com- pare (Defective organization of corporation) Raisbeck v. Oesterricher, 4 Abb. N~. O. 444, with note; Humphreys v. Moonev. 5 Col. 282. v. Scribner, 16 Hun, 130. Afl'd in 76 K Y. 190. With decision in Id. see (Effect of notice of lis pendens) Code Ok. Pro. 1881, § 1671, n. v. Van Geesen, 4 Hill, 171. Aff'd in How. App. Cos. 240, but without opinion. Decision in 4 Bill, explained (When deed executed on foreclosure sale takes effect) in Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Balch, 4 Abb. N. C. 200, 202. v. Webster Fire Ins. Co.. 12 Bow. Pr. 293. Applied (Amendment b}"- substitution of defendant) in N. Y., &c. Milk pan Co. m. Remington Agric. Works, 25 Hun, 475, 477*, ' 480. • v. Williams, 7 Cow. 53; s. c, 17 Am. Dee, 498. See Connelly ». Pierce. Fullerton v. Dalton, 58 Barb. 236. Aff d, it. seems, in 49 N. Y. 659, but without opinion. v. McCnrdy, 55 AT. Y. 637. Disting'd (Specific performance of contract to convey) in Candee v. Burke, 10 Hun, 350, 355. See also (Effect of deed absolute in form, as mortgage) Thompson «. Heckey, 8 Abb. N. C. 159, 163.' v. Taylor, 6 How. Pr. £59. Disap- proved (Separate judgment against one of several defendants) in Zink v. Attenburgh, 18 Id. 108; People v. Cram, 8 Id. 151. v. Viall, 42 Bow. Pr. 294. See Union Nat. B'k v. Warner. Examined with Briggs v. Merrill, 58 Barb. 389 ; Union Nat. B'k v. Warner, 12 Hun, 306; Salomon v. Moral, 53 now. Pr. 342; Beals v. Guernsey, 8 Johns. 446 (Transfers void as to creditors) in Billings v. Billings, 31 Hun, 65. Fol- lowed in Smith v. Sands, 17 Neb. 501. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 1 77. , v. — r-, 28 How. Pr. 244. Overruled 282 FiiifroN— gage; (Limitation of term fees in Court of Ap- peals) in Hakes v. Peck, 30 Id. 104. Fulton v. Mathews, 15 Johns. 433; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 261. See Gahn v. Niemcewicz; Pain v. Packard. Followed (Surety when not discharged by discontinuance of suit brought by creditor) in Bank of Montpelier v. Dixon, 4 Vt. 587 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 640, .with note. Cited and applied with Lyman v. Mut. Ins. Co., 17 Johns. 374; Keating v. Price, 1 Johns. Gas. 22 (Parol agreement to enlarge time of performance of written con- tract) in Ferguson v. Hill, 3 Stew. (Ala.) ' 485 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 641, with note. v. Whitney, 5 Hun, 16. Aff'd in 66 JV Y. 548. See Davoue v. Fanning. De- cision in 66 JV Y. applied (Effect of pro- vision in decree of foreclosure allowing parties to purchase at sale) in Bennett v. Austin, 81 Id. 308, 322, 327, 337. See 14 Alb. L. J. 271. Cited in Thomas on Mart. 354. Fulton Bank v. Beach, 1 Paige, 429. Aff'd in 3 Wend. 573. Another decision in 2 Paige, 307, and that aff'd in 6 Wend. 36. v. N. T. & Sharon Canal Co., 4 Paige, 127. See Welsh v. German American Bank. Disting'd (Imputing knowledge of agent, &c. to corporation) in Holden v. N. Y. & Erie B'k, 82 JV. Y. 286, 295; First Nat. B'k of Hightstown v. Christopher, 11 Vroom (JV. J.) 435 ; s. c, 29 Am. E. 262, 265. Applied in Wickersham v. Chicago Zinc Co , 18 Kans. 481 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 784. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 673. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 245, 11 ed. Collated with other cases and the conflicting opinions discussed in 17 Am. L. Rev. 849, 868. Discussed (Pleadings in ac- tion against private corporation) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 678, 11 ed. v. Phoenix Bank 1 Hall, 562. See Bay Vi Coddington ; Root v. French. v. Stafford, 2 Wend. 483. Disting'd (Estoppel to allege incompetency of witness) in Montgomery «. Miller, 3 Red/. 159. Fulton Fire Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 xV. Y. 648. Followed (Liability of canal con- tractor for negligence) in French v. Donald- son, 5 Lans. 294; Conroy v. Gale, Id. 346; Stack v., Bangs, 6 Id. 263. Applied (Dis- regarding demurrer) in People ex rel. Lord v. Crooks, 53 JV T. 649. Fults v. Wynn, 2 Lans. 153. See (Notice of appeal in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. Fundi v. Merian, 2 JV Y. Leg. Obs. 126. Rev'd in A-Den. 110, and the latter afPd in How. App. Cos. 659, but without opinion. Funcke v. N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co., JV. Y. Super. Ct. 1876. Collated with other cases (Use of photography, in connection with production of evidence) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ed. % 676, n. Funk v. Brigaldi. See Shaw v- Lenke. Furgnson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. 168. Affd as Ferguson v. Tweedy, in 43 JV Y. 543. Furiuan v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 5 Sandf. 16. Affd in 10 JV Y. 567. See Whitney *. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 5 Sandf. cited as authority (Right to wharfage) ;in Langdon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. N. C. 314, 328. v. Van Sise, 56 JV. Y. 435; s. c, 15 Am. R. 441, with note. See Bartley -o. Richtmyer; Simpson v. Buck. Applied (Who may maintain action for seduction) in Certwell e. Hoyt, 6 Htm., 575, 577, 580 ; Lav«ry v. Crooke, 52 Wis. 619. Cited with approval in 4 Am. Dec. 405, n. Collated with other cases in Bigel. Cas. on Torts 303. See 10 Alb. L. J. 354. Cited in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed., § 190, as show- ing tendency of later decisions. v. Walter, 13 How. Pr. 348. Qualified and followed (Moving to discharge attach- ment) in Gasherie v. Apple, 14 Abb. Pr. 64, 67. Fnrman Street, Matter of, 17 Wend. 649; s. c, 13 JV Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 265, with brief note. See Matter of Albany St. ; Matter of Mercer St. Cited (Nature of power to grade and improve streets) in Mc- Cormack v. Patchin, 53 Mo. 33; s. c, 14 Am. R. 440. Furniss v. Ferguson, 15 JV Y. 437. Further decision in 3 Robt. 269, and that affd in 34 N. Y. 485. v. Furniss, 51 How. Pr. 64. Further proceeding in 2 Reilf. 497. Furst v. Second Av. R. R Co., 72 JV. Y. 542. Disting'd (Effect of error in receiving evi- dence) in Logan v. Ogdensburgh, &c. R. R. Co* 13 Weekly Dig. 335; McCarney ■«. People, 83 JV. Y. 408, 417. G. Gable t. Miller, 10 Paige, 627. Rev'd in 2 Den. 492. v See Field v. Field; First Baptist Church ». Witherell. Gaff ne v v. Bigelow, 48 How. Pr. 475. Rev'd in 2 Abb. JV. C. 311. v. People, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 304; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 36. Afl'd in part in 50 JV. Y. 416. See Speyer v. Stern. Decision in 50 JV. Y. followed (Impeach- ment of witness by proof of inconsistent statement) in Pratt v. Norton, 2 Hvn, 517. Gage v. Angcll, 8 How. Pr. 335. Dis- approved (Counter-claim between partner?) in Ives v. Miller, 19 Barb. 196. Approved in Waddell v. Darling, 51 JV. Y. 327, 332. v. Brewster, 30 Barb. 387. Rev'd in 31 JV. Y. 218, as stated in 28 How. Pr. 582. Statement in 31. JV. Y. 228, that judgment was aft'd, is erroneous. See People u. Beebe. Decision in 31 JV Y. disapproved (Merger of mortgage lien in judgment of foreclosure) in Evansville Gas Light Co. v. State of Indiana, 73 Ind. 219, 223. v. Ranchy, 28 Barb. 622. Rev'd in 84 JV. Y. 293. See Buckley v. Wells. Decis- ion in 34 JV. Y. followed (Property of mar- ried woman not liable to husband's creditors) in Whedon v. Champlin, 59 Barb. 61. GAGE— GANSEVOORT. 2S3 : v. Kendall, 15 Wend. 639. Examined, in connection with provisions of Code Pro., with City Bank v. Perkins, 29 N. 7. 568 ; Brown o. Penfleld, 30 Id. 475 (Right of action on promissory note) in Sanford v. Sanford, 45 Id. 723. Modified in Hays v. Hathorn, 64 Id. 486, 490. Included in 1 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 326. Gahagan v. People, 1 Park. 378. See People v. Humphrey. Applied (proof of marriage) in Halbrook v. State, 34 Ark. 511 ; s. c, 36 Am. R. 17, 21. Quoted and explained in 1 Bisli. on Mar. & D. § 499, 6 ed. Ex- plained and cases cited to the contrary in 3 Oreerd. on Ev. 14 ed. § 204, n. c. Galin v. Niemcewicz, 11 Wend. 312. Ex- plained (Discharge of surety by indulgence to principal debtor) in Hubbard v. Gurney, 64 N. Y. 457, 468. Followed with King v. Baldwin, 2 Johns. Ch. 559 ; Fulton v. Mat- thews, 15 Johns. 433; Pain v. Packard, 13 Id. 174, in Burke v. Cruger, 8 Tex. 65 ; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 102. Cited and approved •with Halliday v. Hart, 30 JV. Y. 474, as applicable to sureties on penal bonds, in Lindeman ». Rosenfield, 67 Ind. 246; s. c, 33 Am. P. 79, 83, with note. Cited as authority (Right of wife to mortgage her separate estate) in Sampson v. Williamson, 6 Tex. 102 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 762. Gaillard v. Smart, 6 Cow. 385. Cited (Au- thority of attorney of record) in Whart. Com. on Ac/. § 585, where People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 11 Abb. Pr. 66; Clussman s. Merkel, 3 Bosk. 402 ; Read «. French, 28 JV. Y. 285 ; Quinn v. Lloyd, 5 Abb. Pr. 281, are, however, cited as snowing the limita- tions upon such authority. Collated with Ford u. Williams, 13 N. Y. 577, and many other cases, in 30 Am. P. 358, n. Galatian v. Erwin, Hopk. 48. Aft'd as Gal- latian ». Cunningham, in 8 Cow. 361. Gale, Matter of, 75 JV. Y. 526. Explained (Disbarring attorney for misconduct) in 2 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 147, n. a. Gale v. Mead, 4 Rill, 109. Afl'd in 2 Den. 232. v. Miller, 1 Bans. 451. AfTd in 54 JV. Y. 536. Previous decision in 44 Barb. 420. v. N. ¥. Central. &c. R. R. Co., 53 Sow. Pr. 385. Aff'd in 13 Hun, 1, and that affd in 76 JV. Y. 594. See Dana v. Tucker. Decision in 53 How. Pr. collated with other cases (Setting aside verdict on ground of juror having been improperly in- fluenced) in 48 Am. P. 347, n. v. Nixon, 6 Cow. 445. See Ellis v. Hoskins; Vincent v. Germond. Cited as authority (Action of covenant on sealed instrument) in Johnsons v. Muzzy, 45 Vt 419; s. c, 12 Am. P. 214, 217. Gallager v. Brunei, 6 Cow. 346. Applied (Right of action cannot be based on con- tract void by statute of frauds) in Dun"' i>. Parker, 52 N. Y. 494, 499.. Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 183, 4 ed. Gallagher, Estate of. See Macpherson v. Clark. Gallagher t. Egan, I.Sandf. 742. DistipgVl (Sheriff's fees) in Crofut v. Brandt, 58 JV. Y. 106, 112, which aff'd 5 Daly, 124 126, which see. Criticised (Costs on discon- tinuance of suit) in Pennell v. Wilson, 2 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 466. . y. Waring, 9 Wend. 20. AfTd as War- ing v. Mason, in 18 Id. 425. See Howard ». Hoey. y. Vbught. See Williams v. Hutchin^ son. v. White. See Moakley v. Riggs. Gallarati v. Orser, 4 Bosw. 94. Rev'd in 27 JV. Y. 324. Decision in 4 Bosw. with Met- calf v. Stryker, 31 Barb. 62 followed (Sheriffs liability as bail) in Bensel v. Lynch, 2 Robt. 448. Decision in 27 JV. Y applied (Liability of sureties on replevin bond) in Hager v. Clute, 10 Hun, 447, 449. Followed in Jaggar v. Lalance & Grosjeau M'i'g Co., 8 Daly, 251, 253. Galleo v. Eagle, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T.& C.) 124; s. c, as Gallie v. Eagle, with points of counsel, 65 Barb. 583. See (Action by infant for partition) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1534, n. Gallup v. Albany Ry. Co., 7 Lans. 471. AfTd in 65 JV. Y. 1. V. Hansen, 3 Hun, 598; s. c, 6 Sup'm: Ci. (T. & C.) 400. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 68 JV. Y. 615, but without opinion. v. Lederer, 1 Hun, 282; s. u., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 710. For a':ti6n against same defendant, and arising out of similar trans- action, see Bassett v. Lederer, 1 Hun, 274; ,s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 671. v. Perue, 10 Hun, 525. Followed, but point not indicated, in Bullard ». Sherwood, 22 Id. 462, which was rev'd in 85 JV. Y. 253. v. Wright, 61 How. Pr. 286. Reviewed with Lefevre v. Lefevre, 29 JV. Y. 434; Trustees v. Colgrove, 4 Hun, 362, and other cases (Extrinsic evidence to identify devisee, &c.) in 46 Am. P. 76. n. Galoupeau v. Ketclmra. See Mead v. Bunn. Galway y. U. S. Steam Sugar Reflning Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 211; s. c, 21 How. Pr. 313. Aff'd in 36 Barb. 256. Gambling t. Haight, 14 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 398, n. AfTd in 5 Daly, 152 ; and that affd iu 58 N. Y. 623. Gandal v. Finn, 13 How. Pr. 418; s. c, 23 Barb. 652. Rev'd as Gandall v. Finn in 33 How. Pr. 444; s. c, 1 Keyes, 217; 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 232. See Moody v. Towns- end ; Stebbins n. East Sod. of M~. E. Church. Gans v. Frank, 36 Barb. 320. See (Effect of foreign statute of limitations) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 390, n. Gansevoort v. Williams, 14 Wend. 133. See Dob v. Halsey. Disting'd (Liability on firm note issued by partner) in Osgood v. Glover, 7 Daly, 367, 371. Explained in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 416, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Referred to as authority (Indorsement of accommodation paper, not within ordinary 28± G ANSON— GARDNER. scope of partnership business) in Tanner v. Hall, 1 Pa. St 417, which is cited in 13 Aril. Dec. 117, n. Ganson v. Tifft, 71 If. Y. 48. Qualified (Instructing jury to disregard) in Abb. Tr. Brief, XVII. 15. See authorities reviewed (Subleases and assignments) in 16 Am: L. Rev. 31. Gantz, Matter of, 23 Hun, 350. Rev'd in 85' N. Y. 536. ' ■ Garbutt v. Smith, 40 Barb. 22. Disting'd (When crops, &c. may be levied on under execution against grantor in fraudulent con- veyance) in Pierce v. Hill, 35 Mich. 194; s. c, 24 Am. R. 541, 545. Garcie v. Sheldon, 3 Barb. 232. Doctrine discussed, and cases to the contrary cited (Damages by reason of injunction) in 2 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 547. Gardere v. Columbian Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 514. See Delafield v. Hand. Followed with Schieffelin v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 9 Johns. 21 ; Grim v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 13 Id. 451 (Master of vessel acts as agent of owner of cargo) in Natchez Ins. Co. v. Stanton; 2 Smedes & M. (_Miss.) 340; s. c, 41, Am. Bee. 592, 597, with note. Gardiner v. Clark, 6 Sow. Pr. 449. Over- ruled (Plea in abatement) by further decis- ion in 21 If. Y. 399. v. Gardiner, 34 JV. Y. 155. Applied (Undue influence on testator) in Burk's Will, 2 Red/. 239, 243 ; Mairs v. Freeman, 3 Id. 184; McCoy v. McCoy, 4 Id. '58. Disting'd in Fagan v. Dugan, 2 Id. 341, 346. Approved as containing a well-stated rule in Wade v. Halbrook, Id. 378, 387. v. , 3 Abb. If. G. 1. See (Arrest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 550, n. v. Pollard, 10 Bosw. 674. Approved (Action by stockholder against trustees of • corporation, when not maintainable) in Smith v. Rathbun,' 66 Barb. 402, 410. v. Smith, 1 Johns. Gas. 142. Followed XEffect.of provision in marine policy, cover- j ing goods until "landed") in Chadsey v. ■ Guion, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 267. Col- lated, with other cases (What constitutes constructive total loss) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 706. v. Tyler, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 247 ; I s. c, 3 Keyes, 506. Applied (Allowance! to receiver) to lunatic's committee, in Matter of Colah, 6 Daly, 51, 58. — - v. , 36 How. Pr.- 63. Aff'd as Gardner v. Tyler, in 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 33. Gardner v. Adams, 12 Wend. 297. Dis- sented from (Assignability of cause of action) in Howell «. Kroose, 2 Abk Pr. 172; Robinson v. Weeks, 6 How. Pr. 161. Explained in People v. Tioga Com. PI., 19 Wend. 73. Commented on and questioned in Hall v. Robinson, 2 IT. Y. ■ 295. So referred to in Hyde v. Tuffts, 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 56, 58. Explained in Burrill on Assign. % 100, n. 3, 4 ed. v. Astor, 3 Johns. Gh. 53; s. c, 8 Am. Bee. 465. Approved with Mills v. Corn- stock, 5 Id: 214V, Stan* •«. Ellis, C, Id. 393 (Merger of legal and equitable claims) in James «. Morey, 2 Cow. 246, 304, 318. y. Barney, 24 How. Pr. 467. Followed (Liability of sureties on undertaking on appeal) in Richardson v. Kropf, 5 Bah/, 385. Disting'd in Hinckley -v. Kreitz, 58 If. Y. 583, 588, which rev'd 36 Super. Ct (/. & S.) 413, which sec. v. Bartholomew, 40 Barb. 325. Ap- proved in part and criticised in part (Con- viction "of crime as impeaching evidence) in . Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 473. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 5C9. — v. Bennett, 38 Super. Ct-. (J. & S.) 197. Followed (Principal, when not liable for negligence of contractor's servants) in Burmeister v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 47 Id. 264, 268. v. Board of Health, 4 Sand/. 153. Affd in 10 If. Y. 409. Decision in 10 JK 7. criticised (What is corporation capable of being sued) in Clarissy v. Metropolitan Fire Department, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 352, 358. Disting'd in Maximilian v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hun, 263, ; 268. v. Buckbee. 3 Cow. 120; s. c,, 15 Am. Bee. 256; 8 If. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 72, with brief note. See Rice v. King. Fol- lowed as having been approved by the U.- S. Sup'm. Ct. and frequently recognized by the Indiana Sup'm. Ct. (Effect of judgment on one of series of notes) in Cleveland v. Creviston, 93 Ind. 31 ; s. c:, 47 Am. R. 367. Disting'd in Felton v. Smith, 88 Ind. 149; s. c, 45 Am. R. 454.. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 729, n. o. Relied on with Wright v. Butler, 6 Wend. 289 (Giving in evi- dence matter not pleaded as estoppel) in Isaacs t>. Clark, 12 Vt. 692; s. c, 36 Am. Bee: 372. v. Campbell. See Thompson v. Button. ^^y. Clark, 17 Barb. 538. Disting'd (Examination of assignor of thing in action as witness) in Forward v. Harris, 30 Id. 338, 344. Dissented from in Carpenter v. Smith, 4 E B. Smith, 333. v. Commissioners of Warren, 10 How. Pr. 181. Compare (Issuing Writ of certio- rari without notice) People v. City of ^Rochester, 21 Barb. 656. Followed (Certio- rari not to be granted by judge at chambers) in People en rel. .Kilmer v. McDonald, 2 Hun, 70, 73. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2127, n. v. Gardner, 5 Paige, 170. Explained and corrected (Ejc parte application fordis-. missal of appeal from surrogate's decision) in Suffern v. Lawrence, 4 How. Pr. 1 29. — v. , 7 Paige, 112. Rev'd in 22 WW.. 526; s. c, 34 Am. Bee. 340, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently recognized as authority both in N. Y. and elsewhere. See Grangiao v. Ardcn; Jaques v. M. E. Church. Decision in 7 Paige explained (Surrogate's power to enforce right of subrogation) in Leviness v. Cassebeer, 3 Red/. 497. Applied with GAKMEE-4GAimELI>.. 285' — Boughton «.' Flint, 74 If. Y. 476 ; Shakespeare e. Markham, 72 Id. 400 ; Kylo «. Kyle, 67 7 161; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 526, with note, wherein it is said to have been extensively followed as an authority. See Canal Com'rs v. People; People v. Canal Appraisers; Reid v. Gifford. Said in Olmsted v. Loomis, 9 If. Y. 423, to be, even if overruled by Reid v. Gifford, 6 Johns. Ch. 1 9, yet re-affd (Re- straining diversion of water) by Belknap v. Trimble, 3 Paige, 577, 585, 600. Followed in Plumleigh «:• Dawson, 1 Oilm. (111.) 544; . s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 199, 202, with note; Campbell v. Smith, 3 Halst. (N. J.) .HO; s. c, 14 Am. Deo. 400. Cited as authority in dissenting opinion of Alvey, J., in Mayor, &c. of Cumberland v. Willison, 50 Md. 138. ■, s.. c, 33 Am. R. 316, n. Fol- lowed (Right to compensation for private property, taken for public use) in Ex parte . Martin, 13 Ark. 198; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 321. Followed and approved in Hooker v. New Haven & N. Co., 14 Conn. 146; s. c, 36 Am.. Dec. 477, 484,, with note. Followed with Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cow. 166 (last case said to be limited by Rogers ■». Bradshaw, 2 Johns. 735), (Liability of one who interferes with private property though he act in pursuance of a statute) in Sinnickson v. Johnson, 2 Harr. (If. J.) 129; s. c, 34. Am. Dec. 184. Sec . also Rogers v. Bradshaw ; Calking v. Bald- win, 4 Wend. 667; Steele v. Western In- land, &c. Co., 2 Johns. 283, cited in concurring opinion. of Nevius, J. Disting'd with Brown v. Cayuga & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 12 If. Y. 486; Rochester White Lead Co. •». City of Rochester, 3 Id. 463; Radcliff v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 Id. 195; Bailey v. Mayor of N. Y., 3 Hill, 531, but Bloodgood v.. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 14 Wend. 51; Beekman v. Saratoga & Schenectady R R. Co., 3 Paige. 45, relied ' on in Slatten v. Des Moines Valley R. R. Co., 29 Iowa, 148; s. c, 4 Am. R. 205. . v. Turner, 9 Johns. 26,0. Doubted (Ef- . feet of triors' finding against challenge to , juror) imPringle v. Huse, 1 Cow. 435. Garfield v. Hatinaker, 15 If. Y. 475. See McCartney v. Bostwick ; Wood v. Robinson. , Applied (Enforcement of pure trusts in favor of creditors against grantee of land) in McCartney v. Bostwick, 32 If. Y. 53. Dis- ting'd in Underwood v. Sutcliffe, 77 Id. 58. This and other earlier cases as Wood «. Robinson, 22 Id. 564; McCartney v. Bostwick, 32 Id. 53, that regarded such trust as enforceable without taking any legal proceedings against debtor are con- 2S6 GARLAND- GARRISON. trasfed with later decisions that confine rem- edy to judgment creditors, as Ocean Nat. B'k v. Olcott, 46 N. Y. 12; Dunlap e. Hawkins, 59 Id. 342; 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 292, in 2 Pomeroy on Eg. Jur. 615. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1431, n. Garland v. Chattle, 12 Johns. 430. Discussed (Service of process so as to avoid bar of statute of limitations) in Ang. on Limit. § 317, 6 ed. Garlick v. Strang, See Shepard v. Shepard ; Simar «. Canadayv Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, 29- " JV Y. 297. Ex- plained and commented on in connection with Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 Id. 389 (Liability of highway commissioners) in Hover v. Barkhoof, 44 Id. 113. , Disting'd in Day v. Crossman, 1 Hun, 571. Garner t. Hannah, 6 Duer, 262. Applied (Remedy under re-entry clause in lease) in Giles «. Austin, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 215, 237, 242, 244, which was aff'd in 62 JV. Y. 486, which see. ■*. v. Thorn, 56 How. Pr. 452 ; s. c, more fully, as Garner v. Harmony Mills, 6 Abb. JV C. 212. v. Wright, 24 How. Pr. 144. Further decision in 28 Id. 92. Garniss v. Gardiner, 1 Edw. 128. Applied (Allowance of compound interest) in Ben- nett v. Cook, 2 Hun, 526, 530. Garnsey v. Knights, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 259. Affd, it seems, in 60 JV. Y. 646, but without opinion. v. Rogers, 47 JV Y. 233. Another decision as Garnsey v. Knights, which see. See Campbell v. Smith ; Hamill v. Gillespie ; Lawrence v. Fox ; Marsh v. Pike. Explained and applied (Liability of one assuming pay- ment of mortgage) in Ranney «. McMullen, 5 Abb. JV. C. 258. Applied in Whiting c. Gearty, 14 Hun, 501; Douglass v. Wells, 18 Id. 93; Deyermahd v. Chamberlin, 22 Id. 114; Thayer v. Marsh, 11 Id, 504. Exam- ined with other cases in Vrooman v. Turner, 69 JV Y. 284; Real Estate Co. e. Balch, 45 Super. Ct. (J". & S.) 533. Disting'd in Campbell v. Smith, 8 Hun, 6, which was affd in 71 A 7 ! Y: 28, which see ; Pardee v. Treat, 18 Hun, 801, which was rev'd in 82 JV. Y. 388, which see. Explained in Thomas on Wort. 187. Disting'd (Right of third party to enforce promise made for his benefit) in Schindler v. Euell, 45 How. Pr. 36; Barlow v. Myfts, 3 Hun, 720, 724. Applied in Roe v. Barker, 82 JV Y. 435. Followed and Burr v. Beers, 24 Id. 178; Hutchings v.' Minor, 46 Id. 456; Hand v. Kennedy, 83 Id. 149; Vrooman v. Turner,,. 69 id., 280; Kent v. Quicksilver M. Co., 12 Hun, 53; 78 JV Y. 159;. Boardman v. Lake Shore, &c. R. R Co., 84 Id. 157, dis- ting'd in People ex rel. Content v. Metro- politan Elev. R'y Co., 26* Hun, 82. Reviewed with Simson v. Brown, 6 Id. , 251; 68 F. Y. 355'; Stephens v. Casbacker, 8 Hun, 116 (Whether parties can release assumption before creditor has accepted it), and the -question answered in the affirm- ative, in Gilbert v. Sanderson, 56 Iowa, 349 ; s. c, 41 Am. R. 103. Garr v. Bright, 1 Barb. Ch. 157. See (Jurisdiction against„State) People r. Deni- son, 8 Abb. JV C. 128, and cases cited in 130, n. v. Gomez, 9 Wend. 649. Followed (Right to sue on negotiable paper) in Thompson v. Cartwright, 1 Tex. 87; s. c, 4C Am. Dec. 95, with note. v. Martin, 1 Hilt. 358. Rev'd in 20 ' JV Y. 306. v. Selden, 6 Barb. 41 fi. Rev'd in 4 JV. Y. 91 ; s. c, more fully, as Selden ». Qanv in 9 JV Y. Leg. Obs. 137. Decision fn 6 Barb, opposed (Words not actionable per se) fa Ganvreau v. Superior Publishing Co., 62 Wis. 403, 4G& Gnrretson v. Clark, MU, &. I). 162. Dis- ting'd (Effect of authority to "lay out" street) in dissenting opinion of MnsJB8 K A, in Matter of Deering, 85 JV Y. 1, 14. Garrigue v. Loescher, 3 Bosw. 578. Com- pare (Allegation of. assignment of cause of action) Bowman v. Kekman, 65 JV Y. 51)8. See also Abb. Tr. En. 2. Garrison v. Akin, 2 Barb. 25. Quoted and discussed (Admissions as evidence) in 2 Best on Ev. § 519, n. a. Wood's ed. T. Howe, 17 JV Y. 458. See Coinings. McCullough; Moss «. Oakley; Wiles «. Suydam. Applied (Liability of trustees of corporation) in Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. t. Brewster, 10 Abb. Pr. 467; Bird e. Havdcn, 2 Abb. Pr. JV S. 67; Huguenot Nat. B'k v. Studwell, 6 Daly, 15; Craw v. Easterly, 1 Lnns. 522; Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. «. Bliss, 27 JV. Y. 297, 300; Bruce ». Plait, 80 Id. 381 ; Nimmons «. Hennion, 2 Sweeny, 667. Explained in McHarg •». Eastman, 4 Bobt. 638. Approved in Reed v. Kecsc, E7 Super. Ct. {J. & &") 275. Applied in Ster m Engine Co. v. Hubbard, 101 U. S. 188, lf2, 196. Approved with Boughton v. Otis, 21 JV Y. 261 ; Chambers v. Lewis, 28 Id. 454; Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. v. Bliss, 84 Barb. 309 ; Bank of California «. Collins, 5 Ihiv, 209; Beynolds u. Mason, 54 How. Pr. 213, in Mitchell v. Hotchkiss, 48 Conn. :); s. c, 40 Am. R. 146. Applied (Liability of stock- holders) to case arising under banking liiw,~ in Matter of Hollister Bank, 27 F. Y. £98. Explained in Collins v. Coggill, 7 lobt. 93. Disting'd with Lewis v. Ryder, 13 Mb. Pr. 1, in Mclntyre v. Strong, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 127." Applied (Set off of claim as creditor against liability as stockholder) in Matter of Empire City B'k, 18 JV. Y. 227; Mathez v. Neidig, 72 Id. 105. Applied (Right of stockholder to contribution when sued to enforce his induvidual liability) in Aspinwall v. Torrance, 1 Ions. 385. Examined with other cases (Effect of con- tingent liability) in Leggett t'. Bank of Sing Sing, 24 JV }'. 292. Cited as nuthorty (Place of contract for services) in Mullin v. Hicks,. 49 Barb. 250, .254. Disting'd, (Who GARRISON— GATES. 2S7 may bring action to charge trustee, &c.) in Anderson v. Speers, 21 Hun, 571. Applied ■ (Action by single creditor to enforce stock- holder's liability) in Weeks v. Love, 50 If. Y. 570. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T. See McGinity v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Garson v. Green, 1 Johns. Ch. 308. Cited and followed (Vendor's lien on real estate) in Manly 1 «. Slason, 21 Vt. '271 ; s. c, 52 Am. Dee. 60, with note. Followed (Pre- sumption as to existence of such lien) in Briscoe «. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 108, 112, with note. Disting'd in Keridrick v. Eggleston, 56 Iowa, 128; s. c, 41 Am. R. 90 ; 12 Reporter, 77. Garvey, Matter of, 77 ' N. Y. 523. Applied (Width of flagging of side-walk) in Matter of Blodgett, 27 Hun, 12. Disting'd (What is repavement) in Matter of Grube, 81 If. Y. 139, 141 ; Matter of Brady, 85 Id. 268, 271. Garvey t. Fowler, 4 Sandf. 667. Applied (Necessity of averring facts that excuse giv- ing notice of non-payment of note, &c.) in Clift v. Rodger, 25 Hun, 39, 42. v. Jarvis, 54 Barb. 179. Affd in 46 If. Y. 310. v. McCue, 3 Red/. 313. Rev'd in 14 Hun, 562. Contrary to decision in 3 Red/. t see authorities from other States cited (Hus- band's right to charge wife's funeral ex- penses against her separate estate) in 19 Am. L. Rev. 262. v. McDevitt, 11 Han, 457. Aff'd in 72 'If. Y. 556. Garwood v. N. T. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 17 Hun, 356. Affd in 83 N. Y. 400; s. c, 38 Am. R. 452. Decision in 83 If. Y. relied on with Olmsted «. Loomis, 9 Id. 423; Markhamn. Stowe, 66 Id. 574; Corn- stock v. Johnson, 46 Id. 615; Coming v. Troy I. & N. Factory, 40 Id. 191 (Equitable remedy for breach of contract for use of water) in Lawson v. Menasha Wooden- Ware Co , 59 Wis. 393 ; s. c, 48 Am. R. 528. Gasherie v. Apple, 14 Abb. Pr. 64. Followed (When threats of assignment will sustain attachment) in Anthony v. Stype, 19 Hun, 265. Collated with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. % 223. Quoted in Wait on Fraud Conv. § 342. Gaskin v. Anderson, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 1; s. c, 55 Barb. 259. Aff'd as Gaskin v. Meek, in 8 Abb. Pr. If. S. 312; s. c, 42 If. Y. 186. With decision in Id. see criticisms (Constitutionality of laws embracing sub- jects not disclosed by title) in Kerrigan «. Force, 68 If. Y. 381. v. Meek. See Gaskin v. Anderson. Gasper v. Adams, 24 Barb. 287. Cited (Amendment after trial) in Barnett v. Meyer, -10 Hun, 110. Gates y. Andrews, 37 If. Y. 657. Disting'd (Limitation of action in case of fraud) in Morris v. Budlong, 78 Id. 543, 559. Dis- ting'd as turning on the terms of the statute, » in Phillips v. Shipp, 81 Ky. 436,441. v. Beeclier, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 404. Aff'd in CO If. Y. 518; S. c, 19 Am. R. 207. Decision in Id. followed (Power of partner after dissolution) in Hart v. Woodruff, 24 Hun, 510, 512. Cited with Hubbard v. Matthews, 54 N. Y. 43; Gillilan v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 41 Id. 376, in Story cm Partn. 7 ed., § 328, n. v. Brower, 9 N~. Y. ,205. Disting'd (Husband's agency to contract for wife) in Jones v. Walker, 63 Id. 613. Explained in 1 Chitty on Gon.tr. 239, n. o, 11 Am. ed. T. Green, 4 Paige, 355; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 68, 71, with note, wherein it is said to have, among other oases, settled in N. Y. the doctrine (Effect of destruction of leased premises by fire). See Graves v. Berdan. Disting'd (Reformation of lease) in Wilson a. Deen, 74.^ K 531, 536. v. Lounsbnry, 20 Johns. 427. Dis- ting'd (When in action for trespass, inten- tion is material) in French v Marstin, 24 If. H. 440; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 294. - v. McKee, 13 If. Y. 232. See Leonard v. Vredenbergb. Examined and rc-affd (Continuing guaranty) in Rindgei). Judson, 24 Id. 65, 70, 72. Approved in White's Bk. of Buffalo v. Myles, 73 Id. 335, 341. Applied (Consideration for guaranty) in Evansville Nat. B'k ». Kaufmann, 24 Hun, 612, 615. Followed in Dunning v. Roberts, 35 Barb. 463, 469. Cited as sustaining the English doctrine, in Benj. on Sales, § 232, a. u (Bennett's 4 Am. ed). v. Madison County Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Barb. 73. Rev'd in 2 N. Y. 43. Subse- quent decision in 5 Id. 469; s. c, 55 Am. Dee. 360, with note, containing citations. See Burntt v. Saratoga. &c. Ins. Co. ; Hynds v. Schenectady County Mut. Ins. Co. ; Jen- nings v. Chenango, &c. Ins. Co. ; St. John v. Am. Mut. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Decision in 5 If. Y. approved (Recovery on policy when not defeated by act of insurer) in Mathews v. Howard Ins. Co., 11 Id. 14. Relied on with Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 8 Td. 306,, in Knrow v. Continental Ins. Co. of N. Y., 57 Wis. 56; s. c., 46 Am. R. 16. Approved in Troy Fire Ins. Co. ». Carpenter. 4 Wis. 29; cit- ing O'Niel «. Buffalo Fire Ins. Co., 3 JV. Y. 126. Disting'd (Warranty respecting occu- pancy) in Wustum v. City Fire Ins. Co., 15 Wis. 138. Followed (Continuing warranty) in Blumer v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 45 Jd. 6411. Followed with N. Y. Equit. Ins. Co. v. Langdon, C Wend. 623 (Hazardous use of insured premises) in Hartford Protection Ins. Co. ii. Harmer, 2 Ohio Si. 452; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 704. - — t. Preston, 41 N. Y. 113. Applied (Former judgment as bar) in Dunham v. Bower, 77 Id. 80. Denied with Blair o. Bartlett, 75 Id. 150 ; Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb. 534; Dunham o. Bower, 77 If. Y. 76 , in Ressequie v. Byers, 52 Wis. 050 : s. c, 38 Am. R. 775. Criticised,— Sykes v. Bonner, Cin. Super. Ct. 404, being referred to 288 GATES-GEIS. as holding a contrary view, and Davis v. Tallcot, 12 2V". Y. 184, explained, —in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 790. Disting'd in Sch wingers. Raymond, 83 K Y. 192, 197. Re-afl'd (Judgment in favor of physician for services, as bar to action for malpractice) in Blair v. Bartlett, 75 Id. 152. v. Ward, 17 Barb. 424. Cited (Amend- ments in justice's and district courts) in Lowe v. Rummell, 5 Daly, 17. Approved in Gilmore v. Jacobs, 48 Barb. 336. Dis- ting'd (Waiver of objection) in Logan v. Ogdensburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 335. r. Whitcoinb, 4 Hun, 137; s. c. reported in 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 341. Gaul y. Clark, 1 Weekly Dig. 209. Collated with other cases (Proceedings of imprisoned debtor to be just and fair) in Bishop on As- sign. § 121. Gauntley v. Wheeler, 31 .How. Pr. 137. Further proceeding in 4 Lans. 491. Gautier v. Douglass M'fg Co., 62 How. Pr. 325. Modified and afi'd in 13 Eun,.5U. Decision in Id. disting'd (What is debt of trust estate) in Storrs v. Flint, 46 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 498, 518. Gawtry v. Doane, 48 Barb. 148. Affd in 51 N. Y. 84. See Bank of Attica r>. Phil- lips. Decision in 51 N. Y. cited as author- ity (Notarial certificates as evidence) Com- mercial B'k «. Varnum, 3 Lans. 86 being cited (Admissibility of custom to vary duties of notary) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 123, n. Also cited (Entries made in notaries' books by deceased clerks) in Id. % 251. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 923, n. Gay v. Ballon, 4 Wend. 403 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 158, with note. Cited with approval (Lia- bility for necessaries furnished infant with- out express promises) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 62. V. Gay, 10 Paige, 369. See also decision on appeal heard ex parte in 3 Ch. Sent. 50. ' See Coster v. Griswold. v. Paine, 5 How. Pr. 107. Approved • with Adams v. Sherrill, 14 Id. 297 (Suffi- ' cency of averment of presentment of nego- tiable paper for payment) in Ferner v. Wil- liams, 14 Abb. Pr. 215, 219. These cases overruled in effect, in Conkling v. Gandall, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 423. Gaylord v. Tan Loan, 15 Wend. 308 ; s. c, 12 2V. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 874, with brief , note. Explained and disapproved, in part \ (Estoppel from pleading of statute of ; limitations) in Shaoley v. Abbott, 42 JV. Y. 443, 454. Gaylord M'f'g Co. v. Allen, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 571. Affd, it seems, in 53 N. Y. 515. . See Hargous v. Stone ; Reed v. Randall. As to decision in 53 J¥. Y. it is otherwise (Ef- fect of acceptance by purchaser in barring claim for compensation for defects) where there is a warranty, especially if "the defects are latent. See Day v. Pool, 52 Id, 416. ' Explained (Sale by sample) in 2 Benj. on Sales, §977, n. 29 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Gazley v. Priee, 16 Johns. 267. Questioned with Parker v. Parmele, 20 Id. 130 (Effect of covenant to give good, &c. deed) in Fletcher v. Button, 4 K Y. 396. Denied in Pomeroy v. Drury, 14 Barb. 418. Refer- red to with Parker v. Parmele, 20 Johns. 130; Fullers. Hubbard, 6 Cow. 13, as sub- stantially overruled by, Burwell v. Jackson, 9 2V. Y. 535, and many other cases (Burwell v. Jackson being followed on this point) in Penfleld v. Clark, 62 Barb. 584, 590. Re- ferred to as overruled by Burwell s. Jack- son, in Delavan v. Duncan, 49 2V. Y. 485, 487. Cited with Ketchum «. Everteon."13 Johns. 359, in Kyle v. Kavanagh, 103 Mass. 356; s. c, 4 Am. R. 560. Reviewed with, Clute v. Robinson, 2 Johns. 611; Parker v. Parmele, 20 7. Hvde, 58 N. Y. 272 ; Eager v. Crawford, 76 U. 97 ; Haas v. Roat, 16 Hun, 526, were cited as maintain- ing a contrary doctrine. Explained in 1 Oollyer on Partn. § 47, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. t. Toby, 53 Barb. 191. Subsequent decision in 46 K Y. 637. Decision in Id, cited as authority (Effect of note as pay- ment) in 34 Am. R. 25f>. n. Decision in 53 Barb, collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Ons. 5 ed., 301. v. Van Derzep, 47 How. Pr. 231 ; s. c, more fully, 14 Abb Pr. N. S. 1 11. v. Williams. See Van Vechten v. Hop- kins. Giddings T.Eastman, " Paige, 561. Followed (Attorney's purchase inures to his client's benefit) in Shanklin v. Mevler, Ky. Super. Ot., 1880, 5 Ky. L. Rep. &J. 296, 300. Gifford v. Livingston. See Warner v. Beers. — "— v. Waters, 6 Daly, 302. Aff'd in 07 N. Y. 80. Gilion v. Stanton, 9 K Y. 476. See Hov v. Reade. Examined (Duty of factor to ex- haust lien) in Hoy «. Reade, 1 Sweeny, 626. Disting'd in Whitman i>. Horton, 46 Super. Ct.,(J. &S.) 631, 534. Gilbert v. Beach, 16 N. Y. 606. Rev'n- 4 Duer, 423. Further decision in 5 Bosip. 445, 454. See Gourdier e. Cormnck. De- cision in 16 N. Y. disting'd (Verdict sub- ject to opinion of court) in City B'k of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 Id. 240, 243. Explained (Liability of owner for negligence 292 GILBEET- GILCHRIST. of contractor) in Hefferman v. Benkard, 1 Robt. 432, 436. T. Bulk ley, 1 Duer, 668. Approved (Time for exoneration of bail) in Bank of Geneva v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. Pr. 81, 84. v. Columbia Turnpike Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 107. Disting'd with Jenkins v. Wild, 14 Wend. 539 (Construction of statute re- quiring notice) in N. Y. Pharmical Ass'n v. Tilden, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. 2V. T. 1882, 14 Fed Rep. 741. v. Crawford, 46 How. Pr. 222. Rev'd in effect in Gilbert v. Priest, 14 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 165 ; s. c, 65 Barb. 444, which rev'd 63 Id. 339. Decision in Id. followed as according with the weight of authority (Jurisdiction of State courts, over action by assignee in bankruptcy to recover for fraudulent disposal of assets by bankrupt) in Dambmann v. White, 48 Cal. 439, 452. But denied as contrary to weight of author- ity in Markson i>. Haney, 47 Ind. 31, 37. ■ v. Dickerson, 7 Wend. 449; s. c, 22 Am. Bee. 592. See Mersereau «. Norton, Followed (Trover, when not maintainable by tenant in common against co-tenant's vendee) in Dain v. Cowing, 22 Me. 347; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 585, with note. v. Gilbert. 1 Keyes, 159; s. c, 34 How. Pr. 142. This case is misreported, the opinion, being a dissenting opinion. See correct report in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 256. See Shotwell «. Murray. See statements in Cipperly v. Cipperly. 4 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & (7.^342; Foote v. Bryant, 47 2V. Y 544, 551, in Tatter of which, report in 2 Keyes, is as- sumed to be incorrect, as inconsistent with Simson v. Schenck, 29 JV. Y 598. t. Judges of Niagara C. P. See People ex rel. Wilson d. Supervisors of Albany. v. Knox, 52 N. Y. 125. See Baskin v. Baskin ; Brinckcrhoof v. Kemsen ; Jackson v. Jackson. Explained (Publication of will) in Neugent ». Neugent, 2 Red/. 369, 374. Applied in Von Hoffman v. Ward, 4 Id. 244, 261. Disting'd in Heath v. Cole, 15 Hun, 100, 104. Cited as a well considered case in 10. Am. Dee. 518, n. v. Manchester Iron Wfg Co.. 11 Wend. 628. See Bank of Utica v. Smalley; Matter of Barker: Stebbins ». Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. Disting'd (Restraints on .transfer of stock) in Driscoll o. West, &c.' M'fg Co., 59 K Y. 96, 108. v: N. A. Fire Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 48. Explained and limited (Effect of delivery of deed to grantee to be held in escrow) in Braman v. Bingham, 26 N. Y. 783. Ex- plained and applied in People v. Bostwick, 32 Id. 445. Cited in Dawson ». Hall, 2 Mich. 392. ■ v. Priest. See Gilbert o. Crawford. . v. Ronnds. 14 How. Pr. 46. Explained (Practice on assessment of damages) in Thompson v. Lumley, 7 Daly, 74, 79. t. Sage, 5 Lans. 287, Aff'd in 57 N. Y. 639, but apparently without passing on questions as to license. v. Sharp, 2 Lans. 412. .Cited with othei cases (Effect of transfer of note without in- dorsement) in Clark v. Whitaker, 50 N. H. 474; s. c, 9 Am. R. 286. T. Sheldon, 13 Barb. 623. Criticised (Limit of inquiry, on impeachment of wit- ness) in Wright v. Paige, 36 Barb. 438, 446. Cited with People v. Rector, 19 Wend. 569; Jackson v. Lewis, 13 Johns. 504, in Fletcher v. State, 4'9 lnd. 124; s. c, 19 Am. R. 673, 676, as showing common law rule. v. Wiman, 1 & Y. 550; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 359, with note, wherein are collected citations. See Chace v. Hinman. Applied (Effect of contract to indemnify) in McGee v. Roen, 4 Abb. Pr. 10 ; Wright v. Whiting, 40 Barb. 239; Jarvis v. Sewall, Id. 454; Farnsworth v. Clark, 44 Id. 603 ; Johnson v. Gilbert, 9 Hun, 469 ; Rector, &c. of Trinity Church o. Higgins, 48 N. y. 536, which overruled 4 Root. 375, which see. Disting'd in McGay «. Keilback, 14 Abb. Pr. 144; Martin v. Campbell, 29 Barb. 191 . Westervelt v. Smith, 2 Duer, 462. Com; mented on in Nat. B'k of Newburgh %• Bigler, 83 N. Y. 51, 61. Examined with. Thomas v. Allen, 1 Hill, 145 ; Churchill v. Hunt, 3 Den. 321 ; Chace v. Hinman, 8 Wend. 452; Rodman v. Hedden, 10 Id. 498; Rockfeller v. Donnelly, 8 Cow. 623, in Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert Mor- row, 14 Pitts. L. J. N. S. 359j 360. Cited with Aberdeen v, Blackmar, 6 Hill, 324; Webb v. Pond, 19 Wend. 423 (Damages in actions on contracts of indemnity) are cited in Valentino v. Wheeler, 122 Mass. 566; s. c, 23 Am. R. 404. Decision of Pkatt, J., in Sup'm. Ct. approved in Hawkins o. Mosher, 13 Hun, 566. Gilbert Elevated R'y Co., Matter of, 9 Hun, 303. Aff'd in 70 N. Y. 361 as Gilbert Ele- vated R. R. Co. ». Kobbe ; s. c, more fully, as Gilbert Elevated R'y Co. v. Anderson, 3 Abb. if. C. 434. See Matter of N. Y. Ele- vated R'y Co. Decision in 70 JV! 7. applied (Constitutional amendments of 1875 do not operate upon previously granted charter) in Moran v. Lydecker, 27 Hun, 582. Ex- amined with other cases (Damages to owners abutting on street railway) in Caro v. Metrop. Elev. R'y Co.. 46 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 138, 160. See case cited in note on ultra vires, 4 Abb. K C. 59. Gilbert Elevated R'y Co. v. Anderson. See Matter of Gilbert Elevated R'y Co. — — v. Kobbe. See Matter of GilbertElevated R'y Co. Gilchrist v. Brooklyn Grocers' Mamif. Assoc, 66 Barb. 390. Affd in 59 M. i. 495. Decision in Id. disting'd (Admissibil- ity of memoranda in evidence) in Jonsson v. Thompson, 15 Weekly Dig. 475. v. Comfort, 34 N. Y. 235. Followed (Place for redemption of lands sold on exe- cution) in Morss v. Purvis, 68 Id. 225, which affd 2 Hun, 542, which see. bee Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1455, n. .Cited as authority (Rights of holder of certificate ot GILCHRIST— GILLESPIE. 293 sale not to be prejudiced by acts of sheriff) in Schroeder t>. Lahrman, 28 Minn. 75. v. Cunningham, 8 Wend. 641. Compare (Admissibility of- parol evidence) Webb v. Rice, 6 Hill, 219. Gildersleere v. People, 10 Barb. 35. Followed (Jurisdiction of N. Y. Common Pleas over judgments on forfeited recognizances) in People v. Hickey, 5 Daly, 365, 375. Cited as authority (Sufficiency oi description of offense in recognizance) in People v. Dennis, 4 Mich. 616. Gile v. Libby, 36 Barb. 70. Approved (Inn- keepers' liability) in Krohn v. Sweeney, 2 Daly, 200. Followed in Ramaley v. Leland, 6 Rdbt. 358. Disapproved in Hyatt v. Taylor, 51 Birb. 632. Disapproved and Hyatt B. Taylor followed in Rosenplaenter ». Roessle, 54 H. Y. 262. Disapproved in Stewart v. Parsons, 24 Wise. 241. Discus- sed in 1 Add. on Torts, 756, n. 1, Wood's ed. Giles v. Austin, 34 Super. Gt. (,7. & S.) 171. Further decision in 38 Id. 215, which was affd in 62 W. Y. 486. Another in 46 How. Pr. 269. v. Biremore, 5 Johns. Gh. 545. See Central Bank of Troy v. Heydorn; Jackson v. Willard. Followed (Pleading presump- tion of payment) in Malloy v. Vanderbilt 4 Abb. JV. G. 127, 133. Applied (Presump- 1 tion of payment of mortgage) in Pano-burn v. Miles, 10 Id. 42, 46. Followed in Wanmaker ». Van Buskirk, 1 Saxton Oh. (If. J.) 685; s. c, 23 Am. Deo. 748, 754, ■with note. Explained in Ana. on Limit. § 454, 6 ed. v. Gaines, 3 Oai. 107. Overruled (Ef- fect of failure to file plea) in Smith v Wells, 6 Johns. 286. v. Comstoek, 4 2V. Y. 270. See Pech- ner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Followed (Liability | for rent in case of eviction) in Hunter o. Reiley. 14 Vroom (K J.) 480. v. Dugro, 1 Duer, 331. Applied (Effect of existence of easement as breach of cove- nant against incumbrances, &c.) inLamba Danforth, 59 Me. 322; s. c, 8 Am. R. 426; Burk «. Hill, 48 2nd. 52 ;. s. c, 17 Am It. 731, 734. v. Halbert, 5 How. Pr. 319. Affd in 12 K Y. 32. Decision in Id. explained (Appealability of order made on application to enforce liability for costs, under 2 R. S. 619, § 44) in Marvin v. Marvin, 78 Id. 541. Explained (Liability for non-payment of costs) in Morrison v. Lester, 15 Hun. 538 540. — r v. Lyon, 4 N. Y. 600. Limited (Dis- tinction between law and equity) in Marsh v. Benson, 11 Abb. Pr. 241, 247. GiHertv. Hallett, 2 Johni. Gas. 296; s. c, IKY. Own. L. Law. ed. 521, with brief note. (Deviation, and its excuses.) Gilhoolv v. Washington, 3 Sand/. 330 Affd in 4 K Y. 217. See Dyett a. Pendleton. Decision in 3 Sandf. collated with other cases (Eviction of leasee) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 212. Gill v. American Express Co., 25 Han, 61. Abridgt. s. c , 12 Weekly Dig. 431. — - v. Bronwer, 37 N. Y. 549. Affg SI How. Pr. 28. See opinions of Mason, J., and Bacon, J., in 5 Transc. App. 86. De- cision iu 37 N. Y. followed with Thurber p. ■ Chambers, 66 Id. 42 (Use of words " and his heirs " in will) in Rhodes ?). June, 15 Weekly Dig. 326. v. Brown. See Sheffield v. Watson. v. Lyon, 1 Johns. Gh. 447. Said in 16 Am. Dec. 143, n. to have the almost un- broken current of American authority in its favor (Inverse order of liability of conveyed portions of mortgaged premises.) v. McNamee, 42 N. Y. 44. Disting'd (Evidence of subsequent disposition of con- verted property, to show its value) in Flan- nagan v. Maddin, 81 Id. 623. v. People, 3 Hun. 187; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 308. Affd, it seems, in 6T 27. Y. 643, but without opinion. Decision in 5 Sup'm. Gt. and other cases reviewed (Cross-examination of prisoner testifying in his own behalf) in State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234; s. c, 20 Am. R. 688. 692. Gillespie v. Brons. See Brady v. Super- visors of N. Y. v. Brooks, 2 Red/. 349. Explained (Commissions of negligent executors) ; n Ward «. Ford, 4 Id. 34, 39. Compare (Vouchers on executor's accounting) Code Civ. Pro. % 2734. v. Moon, 2 Johns. Gh. 585; s. c. 7 Am. Dec. 559, with note, where it is said to have been approved by the courts of many States. See Boyd ». McLean ; Mann V Mann's Ex'rs; Wiser v. Blachly ; Wiswall v. Hall. Applied (Relief against written contract for fraud; in Hutcheon v. Johnson, 33 Barb. 398 ; Botsford ». McLean, 45 Id. 481 ; Fishell v. Bell, Clarke, 38 ; Rosevelt v. Fulton, 2 Cow. 133; Funch v. Abenheim, 20 Hun, 6; Lyman «. United Ins. Co., 17 Johns. 376, which affd 2 Johns. Ch. 632, which see; De Peyster v. Hasbrouck, 11 K Y. 591; Andrews e. Gillespie, 47 Id. 490; Beardsley v. Duntley, 69 Id. 581. Disting'd in Troy Iron & Nail Factory v.- Corning, 45 Barb. 255. Cited as settled law by Dwight, Referee in Marie v. Gar- rison (MS.). Relied on in Stone v. Hale, 17 Ala. 557; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 18) ; Hunter v. Bilyeu, 30 III. 228, 241. Followed in McCurdy v. Breathitt, 5 T. B. Mm. (Ku ) 232 ; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 65, with note; Cohen v. Dubose, 1 Harp. Kq. (So Car ) 102; s. c, MAm. Dec. 709. Disting'd in Osborn v. Phelps, 19 Conn. 63; s c 48 Am. Dec. 133, 135, with note. Explained in Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24. 41. Cri- ticised as extreme in Elder v. Elder. 10 Me 80; a. c, 25 Am. Dec. 205. with note. See as criticising the distinction sought to be made .in Elder v. Elder. — ; Ruhling v. Hackett, 1 Ne«. 365; Tilton «. Tilton 9 JV. 11. 385, 392. Explained in 3 Greenl on Ed. 14 ed. § 363, n. 1. 294 GILLESPIE-.GILLOTT. t. Thomas, 15 Wend. 464. Disapproved and opposed (Rule of apportioning rent) in Post v. Logan, 1 K Y. Leg. Obs. 59. Re- conciled (Effect of legal proceedings as evic- tion of tenant) in Foote v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio, 408; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 737, with note. v. Torrance, 4 Bosw. 36; s. c, 7 Abb. Pr. 462. Affd in 25 K Y. 306. Decis- ion in Id. compared -with others (Right of guarantor to set up defenses that would be valid in favor of principal) in Putnam v. Schuyler, 4 Sun, 170. Followed in Delano v. Rawson, 10 Bosw. 236, 292 ; Emery «. Baltz, 22 Bun, 434; Lasher v. Williamson, 55 K Y. 620. Disting'd in Bookstaver v. Jayne, 60 Id. 150. Approved and followed in Hiner i>. Newton, 30 Wis. 640. Approved in Pomeroy on Rem. § 750, n. 3. Cited as authority (Warranty on sale of personal property) in Parks v. Morris Ax & Tool Co., 54 N. Y. 591. Applied (Rescission of sale, for breach of warranty as to quality) in Nichols v. Townsend, 7 Sun, 378. v. Walker, 56 Barb. 185. Collated with other cases (Admissions by husband against his interest) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ei>. § 1215. Gillet v. Fairchild, 4 Ben. 80. See Beach v. King. Disting'd with White v. Joy, 13 JV. Y. 83 ; Currie v. Henry, 2 Johns. 433 (Indeflniteness in pleading) in Williamson v. Nat. Electric Light, &c. Co., 48 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 541. Disting'd (Pleading au- thority to sue, in action by receiver) as in- applicable to assignee for creditors, in But- terfleld v. Macomber, 22 Sow. Pr. 150, 154. Quoted and discussed (Definition of chose in action) in 1 Pars, on Oontr. 223, n. a. Quoted in 2 Ghitty on Oontr. 1358, n.f, 11 Am. ed. v. Mayuard, 5 Johns. 85 ; s. c, 4 Am. Bee. 329. See Battle v. Rochester City B'k. Cited with Pease v. Barber, 3 Oai. 266; People v. Gasherie, 9 Johns. 71 (Allowing interest in action for money had and received) in Wood v. Robbins, 11 Mass. 504; s. c, 6 Am. Bee. 182. For the general subject, see Selleck v. French. 1 Conn. 32; s. c, 6 Am. Bee. 185, with lengthy note col- lating many cases. Disting'd (Vendee's right to recover back payments on rescission of contract of sale) in Tice *. Zinsser, 76 N. Y. 549, 553. v. Mead, 7 Wend. 193; s. c, 22 Am. Bee. 579, with note, where the cases are reviewed, the distinctions in Brownell v. McEwen, 5 Ben. 367, being criticised as un- sound: and Whitney v. Elmer, 60 Barb. 250, referred to as an elaborately argued case laying down principles which harmon- ize the law in N. Y. See Foster v. Scoffleld. Followed (Evidence of breach of promise of marriage, in action for seduction) in Whit- ney v. Elmer, 60 Barb. 250. v. Moody. 3 N. Y. 479. Rev's? 5 Barb. 185. Decision in 3 TV! Y. distinsfd (In- dividual bankers as affected by prohibitions against moneyed corporations) in Cuyler ». Sanford, 13 Barb. 346. Applied (Banking as- sociations as moneyed corporations) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 17 Id. 375, which was modi- fied in 15 N. Y. 9,47, which see, and where Talmage v. Pell, 7 Id. 328 ; Gillet v. Phil- lips, i3 Id. 114 are also questioned. Fol- lowed in Talmage *. Pell, 7 Id. 341. Cited as authority in Ferry v. B'k of Cen- tral N. Y., 15 Sow. Pr. 449. Overruled in parr with Talmage t>. Pell ; Gillet r. Phil- lips, in Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 N Y. 542. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. § 66, v. 3, 4 ed. Explained (Receiver of corporation as representative of creditors) in McHarg v. Donelly, 27 Barb. 103. Disting'd (Right of receiver of corporation to impeach its acts) In Hyde v. Lynde, 4: N. Y. 392. Dishng'd (Liability of corporation trustee for fraud- ulent breach of trust) in Van Dyck ®. Mc- Quade, 86 Td. 38, 46. v. Phillips, 13 N. Y. 114. See Gillet v. Moody. Cited (Power of cashier to transfer securities of bank) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 685. Followed (No action in implied as- sumpsit for money loaned on illegal contract) in lie Jaycox, 12 Bluichf. C. Ct. 209, 216. Quoted in Burrill on Assit.n. § 173, 4 ed. v. Stanley, 1 Sill, 121. See Harrison v. Stevens ; Ryers v. Wheeler. Cited (Effect of deed of married woman) in Dewey «. Campan, 4 Mich. 567. Gillett t. Campbell, 1 Ben.. 520. Cited (Powers of bank- president) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 683. Gillette v. Bate, 86 N. Y. 87; s. c, 10 Abb. N. C. 88. Applied (Power to reach patent-right) in Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 131. Explained (Identifying the fund in creditor's suits) in Wait on Iravd. Com. §44. Gillig T. Mnass, 28 JK Y. 191. Disting'd (Rights of assignee of mortgage) in Trustees of Union College t. Wheeler, 61 Id. 111. Disting'd (Defect in registry of deed) in Mut. Life Ins. Co. ». Dake, 1 Alb. N. 0. Gillilan V. Spratt, 8 Abb. Pr. H. S. 13. Rev'd (Effect of discontinuance of proceed- ings to disposses tenant) in 41 Sow. Pr. 27. v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co. See Gates v. JJcfiCLior T. Swift, 14 Hun, 574. See (Deed to bar dower) 22 Alb. L. J. 319. Gillis v. Space. 63 Barb. 177. Approved (Power of school trustee to employ teacher) in Waits. Ray, 5 Bun, 649, which was aft'd in 67 N. Y. 36, which see. Followed in Blandon ». Moses, 29 Sun, 606. Gillott v. Esterbrook, 47 Barb. 455. Afrd in 48 N. Y. 374. See Matsell v. Flanagan. Decision in 48 N. Y. applied (Use of ar- bitrary symbol as trade-mark) in Hier v. Abrahams, 82 Id. 519, 524. Cited as au- thority in dissenting opinion of Cliffokd, J., in Manuf. Co. ». Trainer, 101 U. b. 51, 62. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, be n. g, Id. 257, bv n. s. GrILLOTT— GLEASOK 295 v . Kettle, 3 Duer, 624. Decision hero aff d will be found in 2 Liv. Law. Mag. 371, reported as Gillott v. Thettle. Collated with other cases (Injunction to restrain violation of trade-mark) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 259. Gilinaii v. Gilinan, 35 Barb. 591. Deter- mination of appeal on the merits reported in 1 Red/. 354. Further proceeding affect- ing estate here involved, in 2 Law. 1 ; also in 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 675; s. c, fully reported, 3 Hun, 22 ; also in i Id. 68, which was rev'd in 66 N. Y. 631 ; also in 4 Hun, 69; s. c, fully reported, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 211, which was aff d in 63 N. Y. 41. Decision in 2 Lam. followed (Investment of trust funds) in Bolide v. Bruner, 2 Bed/. 333, 337. Criticised (Trustees, when chargeable with compound interest) in 2 P-imeroy on Eq. Jur. 650, n. v. Lowell. 8 Wend. 573 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 96, with note containing citations ; 11 JV. Y. Oom. L. Law. ed. 473, with brief note of cases. See Mapes ». Weeks. Examined (Mitigating circumstances in ac- tion for slander) in Viele v. Gray, 10 Abb. Pr. 1, 6. Included with notes in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 223. v. Reddington, 1 Silt. 492. Aff d in 24 N. Y. 9. Decision in Id. disting'd (Valid- ity of accumulations of income) in Gilinan v. Healy, 1 Dem. 404. v. , 4 Hun, 640. Reported fully, in 67 Barb. 321. Compare (Costs on appeal from surrogate) Code Giv. Pro. § 2589. Gilmartin v. Mayor, *&c. of N. ¥., 55 Barb. 239. Explained and collated with numer- ous cases (Liability of master for injuries done by servant) in 1 Add. on Torts, 588, n., Wood's ed. - — v. Smith, 4 Sandf. 684. Approved (Entry of judgment) in Mitchell v. Hall, 7 How. Pr. 490. Gilmore v. Crowell, 67 Barb. 62. See (For- feiture of undertaking given to vacate attach- ment) Gode Giv.Pro. 1881, § 689, n. v. Jacobs, 48 Barb. 336. Disapproved (Amendment in justices' and district courts) in Lowe v. Rummell, 5 Daly, 17. v. Ontario Iron Co., 22 Sun, 391. Aff'd in 86 S. Y. 455. v. Spies, 1 Barb. 158. Aff'd in 1 HT. Y. 321. fiinna v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 8 Sun, 494. Aff'd in 67 N. Y. 596. Both decis- ions collated and approved with Sauter v N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 Id. 50; Wil- liams v. Vanderbilt, 28 Id. 217 (Remote and proximate causes) in Terre Haute & Indiana- polis R. R. Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 846, 351. Decision in 67 N. Y. followed (Liability for injury to passenger riding on platform of street car) in Lax v. Forty-second, &c. R. R. Co., 46 Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) 448, 452. Ginochio v. Figari. See Brush ». Lee. v. Pdrcella, 3 Bradf. 277. Commented on (Wife's contracts) in Schouler on Dom. Bel. 3 ed., § 212, n. 1. Ginther v. Richmond, 18, Sun, 232.. Com- " pare brief mem. m 2J Id. 109, and Id. 4U8. Girvin v. Hickiuuu, 58 How. Pr. 244. Ali'd in 21 Sun, 316. Glacius v. black, 4 Sun, 91. Rev'd in 67 2f. Y. 563. Prior decision in 50 Id. 145; s. <;., 10 Am. R. 449. Bee Champliu i>. Rowley ; Phillip v. Gallant. Decision in 50 N. Y. followed (Personal judgment in proceedings to enforce mechanics' lien) in Burroughs t. Fosteran, 2 Abb. N. C. 340, which was rev'd in 75 N. Y. 573, which see. Disting'd in Weyer «. Beach, 79 Id. 412. Applied (Ef- fect of substantial compliance with provis- ions of building contract) in Phillip t. Gallant, 62 Id. 264. Applied (Effect of ac. ceptance by architect, &c. of work or materials contracted for) in Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Sun, 259. Disting'd in Weeks «. Little, 47 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 1, 13. Decision in 67 N. Y. disting'd (Cpn- tinuance of mechanics' lien) in Fox v. Kidd, 77 Id. 489, 492. Glackin v. Zeller, 52 Barb. 147. Followed with Knapp v. Brown, 45 N. Y. 209; Ben- nett v. Van Syckel, 18 Id. 481 ; Dambmann v. Schulting, 6 Sun, 29 (Right to appeal as affected by acceptance of full satisfaction of judgment) in Paine v. Woolley, 80 Ky. 571. Gladke v. Bernstein, 60 How. Pr. 145. Compare brief statement in 23 Hun, 148. Glasco v. N. Y. Central, &c R. R. Co., 36 Barb. 557. Explained (Proof of under- taking of common carrier to carry passenger and baggage) in 2 Oreenl. on En. 14 ed., § 222, n. b. Gleadell v. Thomson, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 232. Aff'd in 56 iV. Y. 194. Gleason's Case. So called in Benedict. &c. Man'f'g Co. v. Thayer, 21 Sun, 614, 610. Reported as People ex rel. Roberts v. Bowe. in 8 Abb. N. G. 234; also as N. Y. Guaranty & Ind. Co. v. Gleason, 7 Id. 334. Gleason v. Clark, 1 Wend. 303. Overruled (Executor's liability for costs in error) in Judah v. Stagg, 22 Id. 641. v. Gage, 7 Paige, 121. Applied (Right of assignee to maintain creditor's action) to right of personal representatives to maintain summary proceedings, in Walker v. Dono- van, 6 Daly, 552, 556. v. Moen, 2 Duer, 639. Examined and followed (Counter-claim, when not to be set up in action by assignee) in Wiltsie v. Nort- ham, 3 Bosw. 162, 16-!. v. Pinney, 5 Cow. 152. Report cor- rected in 5 Id. 411. Rev'd in Pinney r. Gleason, 5 Wend. 393. See Clark v. Pinney. Decisions in 5 Cow. and 5 Wend, reviewed with Clark v. Pinney. 7 Cow. 681, and that in 5 Wend, followed (Damages for breach of agreement to pay in chattels) in Fletcher e. Derriekson, 3 Bosw. 181, 188. ComDare McDonald v. Hodge, 5 Hayw. {N. C.) 85. Decision in 5 Cow. followed (Distinction between penalty and liquidated damages) in Curry v. Larer, 7 Penn. St. 470; s. c, 49 Am. Dee. 486, 488, with note. GLEASON— GOELET. v. Yonmans, 9 Abb. K C. 107. AfFd in 13 Weekly Dig. 25. Glen v. Fisher, 6 Johns. Ch. 38; s. c, 10 Am. Bee. 310. Applied (Duty of one who accepts benefit under will) in Thomas v. Kelly, 3 So. Car. 214 ; s. c, 16 Am. R. 716. t. Hope Mnt. Life Ins. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 463. Aff'd in 56 N. Y. 379. Decision in Id. followed (Liability of reinsuring company) in Fischer v. Hope, &c. Ins. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 291, 298, which was aff'd in 69 JV. Y. 161, which S6C Glen & Hall M'fg Co. t. Hall, 6 Lans. 158. Rev'd in 61 N. Y. 226; s. c, 19 Am. R. 278. See Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co. Decision in 61 JV. J", cited as authority (Good will of business as property) in Smock v. Pierson, 68 Ind. 405; s. c, 34 Am. R. 269. Glendening t. Canary, 5 Daly, 489. Aff'd, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 636, but without opinion. Glemicy t. Stedwell, 1 Abb. K C. 327, with note; s. c, less fully. 51 How. Pr. 329; 64 N. Y. 120. Aff'g Glenney v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 92. Followed (Examination before trial) in Tenney v. Mautner, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 64, 71 ; Levy v. Loeb, 5 Abb. 2V. C. 157, 161; Hutchinson v. Lawrence, 29 Hun, 450. .Compare Schepmore o. Bousson, 1 Abb. jV". C. 481. v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co. See Glenney v. Stedwell. Glen's Falls Paper Co. v. White, 58 How. Pr. 172. Aff'd by General Term, and ap- peal therefrom dismissed, it seems, in 81 N. Y. 649, but without opinion. Previous proceeding in 18 Hun, 214. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co. t. Reals, 48 How. Pr. 502. AfTd in 50 Id. 237. Further proceeding in 79 N. Y. 202. See People v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co. Glover v. Haws, 19 Abb. Pr. 161. Disting'd (Appointment of guardian ad litem without service of summons) in Gotendorf v. Gold- schmidt, 83 N. Y. 110, 114. v. Payn, 19 Wend. 518. Followed as cited (Effect of provision in conveyance that the premises conveyed may be reconveyed at election of grantor) in Strattpn v. Sabin, 9 Ohio, 28 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 418. v. Tack, 24 Wend. 153. Followed (ac- tion at law between partners) in Madge v. Puig, 12 Hun, 15. Explained in 1 Collyer on Partn.'% 197, n. 2, p. 2, Wood's Am. ed. Discussed (Partnership, when formed) in Id. § 509, n. 1. v. Thomas, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 415; mem. s. c, 2 Hun, 158. Rev'd in 63 N. Y. 642. Goddard v. Mallory. See Cronkite ®. Wells. v. Merchants' Bank, 2 Sandf. 247. AfTd in 4 N. Y. 230. See Bank of Com- merce v. Union B'k. Decision in 2 Sandf. approved (Recovery of money paid on forged paper) in Nat. Park B'k v. Ninth Nat. B'k, 46 N. Y. 77, 82, which rev'd 7 Abb. Pr. 2V. S. 138, which see. Decision in 4 JV. Y. followed, in Allen v. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 137, 149. Followed and approved in First Nat. B'k of Quincy v. Ricker, 71 III. 439; s. c, 22 Am. R. 104, 111. v: Pomeroy, 36 Barb. 546. See Rey- nolds v. Reynolds. Disting'd (Charging legacies on realty) in Bevan v. Cooper, 72 N\ Y. 317, 323. Followed in Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 Id. 142, 147. Quoted (Gift to charit- able uses) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 410, n. Collated with other cases, in Gerard on Titles to Real Est. 2 ed. 301 . Godfrey v. Godfrey, 75 K Y. 434. See (Vacation, &c. of attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 683, n. V. Moser, 3 Hun, 218; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 677. Aft'd in 66 N. Y. 250. Decision in Id. applied (Duty of court on appeal) in Robertson v. Stillings, 8 Daly, 153, 155. v. People, 5 Hun, 369. Statement in 20 Hun, xliii. that this was aff d in 66 N. Y. 250, is an error. Decision was rev'd in 63 Id. 207. Godillot v. Harris. See Same v. Hazard ; Messerole v. Tynberg. v. Hazard, 49 How. Pr. 5. AfTd in 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 427, where opinion at Special Term, is also given, and this aff d as Godillot v. Harris in 81 N. Y. 263. Goelet v. Gori, 31 Barb. 314. See Beach v. Hollister. Disapproved (Effect of married women's acts on tenancy by entirety) by Danforth, Rapallo and Miller, JJ., in Meeker v. Wright, 76 N. Y. 262, 269. Referred to with Farmers', &c. Bk. v. Gre- gory, 49 Barb. 155; Miller «. Miller, 9 A bit. Pr. N. S. 448; Freeman v. Barber, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (jT. & C.) 575; Beach v. Hol- lister, 3 Hun, 519, in 18 Am. Dec. 382, »., as holding the better opinion. Meeker r. Wright, 7 Abb. N. C. 299, being however referred to as likely to abolish estates by entirety in N. Y. But see later and con- trary view, in Abb. N. Y. Dig. Supp. p. 602, 7i. 3 ; Abb. Annual Dig. 1882-3, p. 132, § 28, collecting authorities; Id. p. 242, § 16, n. Followed with Farmers', &c. Bk. ». Gregory ; Miller v. Miller ; Freeman v. Bar- ber ; Beach v. Hollister ; Ward v. Kruman, 54 How. Pr. 95; Forsvth v. McCall, 27 Alb. L. J. 199 ; Meeker v. Wright, 7 Abb. N. Y. Dig. 602, n. 3, and Meeker v~. Wright, 76 N. Y. 262 ; Feely t>. Buckley, 28 Hun, 451; Zorntlein v. Bram, 16 Weekly Dig. 458 ; overruled in Bertles v. Nunan, 92 J?. Y. 152. Followed (Liability of wife on lease by herself and husband) in Eusta- phieve v. Ketchum, 6 Hun, 621, 623. Sus- tained (Joint demurrer) in Hoffman v. Wheelock, 62 Wis: 434, 441. . v. McManus, 1 Hun, 306. Aft'd in 59 JV. F. 634, on opinion of Davis, P. J-, below GOELET— GOODELL. 297 t. Sprofford, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 564. Aff'd in 55 JV. 7 647. See (Inval- idity of unsigned judgment role) McNaugh- ton o. Chave, 5 Abb. JV C. 229. Goetcheus v. Matthewson, 5 Lans. 214. Rev'd in 61 JV Y. 420. Previous decision as Gotcheus v. Matheson, 58 Barb. 152 ; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 97. Goit v. Nat. Protection Ins. Co., 25 Barb. 189. See Boeheu v. Williamsburg Ins. Co. Approved (Repugnancy of con- dition) in Courtney v. N. Y. City Ins. Co., 28 JV. 7. 119. Disting'd with Sheldon v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 26 JV. 7. 460 (Waiver of prepayment of premium) in Heiman v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 153 ; s. c, 10 Am. R. 154. Goix v. Knox, 1 Johns. Cos. 337. Rev'd in Goix o. Low, 2 Id. 480. Decision in 1 Johns. Gas. dissented from with Vos v. United Ins. Co., 2 Id. 187; Grin v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 13 Johns. 457 (Exoneration of insurers from losses arising from negligence of master and mariners) in Perrin v. Pro- tection Ins. Co., 11 Ohio, 147; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 728, with note. • v. Low, 1 Johns. Cos. 341. Rev'd in 2 Id. 480. Gold v. Bissell, 1 Wend. 210. See Vosburgh 1>. Welch. Limited (Liability of those acting under warrant issued without oath) to such as have notice of the defect, in Savacool ». Boughton, 5 Id. 179. Disting'd with Toof v. Bentley, 5 Wend. 276 ; Pierce v. Hub- bard, 10 Johns. 405 (Delegation of minis- terial act) in Kyle v. Evans, 3 Ala. 481 ; s. c, 3^ Am. Dee. 705, with note. v. Phillips, 10 Johns. 412. See Sche- merhorn v. Vanderheyden. Discussed (Statute of frauds as affecting guaranties) in Browne on Stat, of Fraud. § 171, 4 ed. Goldenburgh t. Hoffman, 7 Hun, 324. Affd in 69 JV. 7. 322. Goldsmith v. Brown, 35 Barb. 484. Dis- ting'd and doubted (Guaranty to pay de- ficiency on foreclosure of mortgage) in Mc- Murray e. Noyes, 72 JV 7. 523. v. Jones. See Dygert v. Schenck. v. Osborne, 1 Edw. 560. Doubted (Setting aside mortgage sale) in 2 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 831. Approved in Schwarz v. Sears, Walk. Gh. {Mich.) 172; examining Denning v. Smith, 3 Johns. Oh. 332 ; Sher- man v. Dodge, 6 Id. 107. Goll v. Hinton, 8 Abb. Pr. 120. See Sears v. Gearn. Approved and followed (Attach- ment of partnership property) in Smith v. Orser, 42 JV 7. 132, 139; which affd 43 Barb. 187, which see. Disting'd and ex- plained, in Barry «. Fisher, 8 Abb. Pr. JV S. 369, 379. Collated with other cases, in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 371. See Gode Oiv Pro. 1881, § 693, n. Gombault v. Public Adm., 4 Bradf. 226. Cited (Who may contest probate of will) in Merrill v. Rolston, 5 Red/. 220, 258. See Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2616, n. Quoted (Personal disabilities of testators) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 74, n. Included witb notes, in R'edf. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 360. Commented on in Willard on Executors, 69. Gomez v. Garr, 6 Wend. 583. Rev'd in 9 Id. 649. Gonzales t. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co., 6 Robt. 93. 297. Rev'd in 38 JV. 7. 440. Further decision in 39 How. Pr. 407, which rev'd 1 Sweeny, 506. Still further decision in 33 Super. Ct. (J.SS.) 57. See Hart®. Central R. R. Co. of N. J. ; Nichols v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. Decision in 38 JV Y. explained and disting'd (Contributory negligence in passenger alighting from train) in Armstrong e. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 Barb. 441. Disting'd (Duty of one crossing rail- road track) in Gillespie v. City of New- burgh; 54 JV. 7. 468. Criticised (Neg- ligence as question of law) in Barker ». Savage, 1 Sweeny, 292. Goodale v. Brockner, 61 How. Pr. 451. Affd in 25 Hun, 621, and this rev'd as Goodale v. Lawrence, 88 JV 7. 513. v. Finn, 2 Hun, 151 ; s. c. reported in 4 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 432. Compare (Right of arrest as affected by foreign judgment) Code Giv. Pro. § 552. v. Holridge, 2 Johns. 193. Followed (Validity of agreement with levying officer to delay sale) in Perkins v. Proud, 62 Barb. 420, 428. V. Tuttle, 29 JV. 7. 459. See Byrnes v. City of Cohoes ; Ellis v. Duncan. Examined with numerous other cases (Diversion of surface waters) in Trustees of Village of Delhi v. Youmans, 50 Barb. 319, 325, which was affd in 45 JV. 7. 363, which see; Pixley v. Clark, 35 Id. 528. Applied in Waffle v. K Y. Central R. R. Co., 58 Barb. 423, which was affd in 53 JV 7. 13, which see; Vanderwiele v. Taylor, 65 Id. 346. Approved and applied in Barkley v. Wilcox, 86 Id. 140, 144, which aft'd 19 Hun, 320, which see. Disapproved in Shane 1). Kansas City, &c. R. R Co., tl' Mo. 237: s. c, 36 Am. R. 480, 489. Disting'd with Ellis v. Duncan, 21 Barb. 230, in Pettigrew v. Vil- lage of Evansville, 25 Wis. 223; s. c, 3 Am. R. 50. Cited with other cases in 11 Am. L. Reg. JV S. 22. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed., § 382. Approved with Con- hocton Stone Road Co. v. Buffalo, N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 3 Hun, 523 (Discrimination between rules applying to water-courses and surface waters) in Taylor «. Fickas, 64 Ind. 167; s. c, 31 Am. R. 114. v. Walsh, 2 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & C.) 311. Disting'd (Time for filing notice of lien) in Chase v. James, 10 Hun, 506, 508. Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 693; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 351. For the same rule in other States and U. S. courts (Criminal jurisdic- tion of States over Indians) see State 1>. Dox- tater, 47 Wis. 278, 294, citing also Murray v. Wooden, 17 Wend. 531; Peters' Case, 2 Johns. Cos. 344. 298 GOODHUE— GOODYEAK. Goodhue, Matter of. See Matter of "Wash- burn. Goodhue v. Berrien, 2 Sandf. Oh. 630. See Union Nat B'k v. Warner. Disting'd (Ef- fect of non-production of bond referred to in mortgage) in Bergen v. Urbahn, 83 N. Y. 49. Limited (Mortgage to secure future lia- bilities) in Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 85 N. Y. 43, 51, which rev'd 21 Hun, 53, which see. v. Churchman, 1 Barb. Ch. 590. Relied on with Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige, 37.1. (Exam- ination of record of former suit, on review of errors at law) in McDougald v. Dougherty, 39 Ala. 409. Goodman v. Stroheim, 36 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 216. Followed (Malice must be com- bined with want of probable cause) in Kingsbury v. Garden, 45 Id. 224, 232. Goodrich t. Downs, 6 Hill, 438; s. c, 16 N~. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 415, with brief analytic list of cases commenting on it. See Gtover v. Wakeman. Overruled (Effect of reservation for assignor's benefit, in as- signment for creditors) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 IT. Y. 9, 114, 146, 176. Disapproved with Barney v. Griffin, 2 Id. 365, in Morgan v. Bogue, 7 Neb. 429. Disting'd in Knee- land v. Cowles, 4 Ohand. ( Wis.) 49. Col- lated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 82. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 200, 4 ed. ; Id. § 2J43. Quoted and collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 167. Collated with other cases in Id. § 201. Quoted (Preferences) in Burrill on Asaign. 4 ed., §§ 166, 169. Commented on (Terms of sale) in Id. § 221, n. 5. Ex- plained (Fraudulent intent) in Id. §§ 338, 339, 349, 350, 352. v. Dunbar, 17 Barb. 644. Approved (Arrest in action on judgment) in Mallory v. Leach, 14 Abb. Pr. 449, 451, n. Com- pared with other cases, in Baxter v. Drake, 85 N. Y. 502. Collated with other cases, in Thomps. on Prov. Pern. 34. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 552, n. v. Jones, 2 Hill, 142. Disting'd (Man- ure as part of realty) in Haslem v. Lock- wood, 37 Conn. 500; s. c, 9 Am. R. 350. Collated with Main v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 B. D. Smith, 275 ; Bishop v. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 125 ; Walker «. Sherman, 20 Wend. 655, and many other cases (Fixtures), in 17 Am. Dee. 686, n. v. Pendleton, 3 Johns. Oh. 384. Cited (Invalidity of plea containing two distinct points) in Albany City Bank i>. Dorr, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 322. Commented on (Appli- cation of statute of limitations to trusts) in Ang. on Trusts, § 167, 6 ed. v. People, 19iV. Y. 574. Included with notes (Selling diseased meat) in Lawson Lead. Cas. (Crim. L.) Simplified, 151. v. Russell, 42 N. Y. 177. Followed (Capacity of alien to hold land) in Dusen- berry v. Dawson, 9 Hun, 511. v. Stevens. See "Walrath i>. Thomp- son. v. Thompson. 4 Robt. 75. Affd in 44 JV. Y. 324. v. Woolcott, 3 Cow. 231. Aff'd in 5 Id. 714. See Gibbs v. Dewey. Decision in 3 Cow. commented on (Pleadings in libel) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 163. Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. 479. See Swasey «. Vanderheyden. Approved (" New pro- mise," to whom to be made) in Chandler v. Glover, 32 Penn. 509. Approved and ap. plied (Validity of note of infant) in Conn v. Coburn, 7 N. H. 368; s. a, 26 Am. Dee. 746, with note. Compare Dubose o. Whed- don, 4 MeOord (So. Oar.) 221. Collated with, other cases in Bwell Lead. Cas. on Inf., t&c. 175, n. v. Phillips, 49 Barb. 353. Explained and followed (Entry of judgment on ar- bitrator's award) in Ocean House Corpora- tion v. Chippu, 5 Huh, 419. Goodwin's Case, 5 City Hall Pee. 11. See account by a "gentleman of the bar" published in N. Y. in 1820. Also published with continuation by W. Sampson, N. Y. 1820-1. Goodwin v. Baltimore & 0. K. E. Co., 58 Barb. 195. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 154; s. c, 10 Am. R. 457. v. Conklin, 6 Weekly Dig. 131. Modi- fled in 85 N. Y. 21. Goodwin v. Hirsch, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 5. Compare (Effect of verdict where evi- dence has been erroneously admitted) Bra- * gue . Arkell; 37 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 36, 41. Followed (Action for conversion for taking of money of employer) in Id. 395, 404. v. People, 33 K Y 501. Followed (Effect of failure of plaintiff to testify) in Brooks v. Steen, 6 Hun, 516. Gore v. Norwich & N. Y. Transportation Co. See Macklin v. N. J. Steamboat Co. ; Weeks v. N. Y., New Haven & H. R. R. Co. Gorham v. Gale, 7 Cow. 739; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 549, with note. Prior decision in 6 Cow. 407. See Jackson ». Bush.; Decision in 7 Cow. disting'd (Sheriff when not liable by reason of special instructions to deputy) in Ross v. Campbell, 19 Hun, 615. Decis- ion in 6 Cow. explained and disting'd in McKinley v. Tucker, 59 Barb. 93. Gorham MT g Co. y. Fargo, 45 How. Pr. 90; s. c, more fully, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 434. Gori t. Smith, 6 Robt. 563. Followed (Order granting extra allowance reviewable) in Hayner v. Am. Pop. Life Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 211, 215. Gormly T. Mcintosh, 22 Barb. 271. Ex- plained (Costs on dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction) in King v. Poole, 36 Id. 242, 248; Harriott v. N. J. R. R. Co., 1 Daly, 377, which rev'd 8 Abb. Pr. 284, which see. Gorsline's Case, 10 Abb. Pr. 282. Disting'd (Letting to bail in county other than that where warrant of arrest issued) in People v. Clews, 77 N. Y. 39, 44. Gorton t. Keeler, 51 Barb. 475. Rev'd as Spooner v. Keeler in 51 If. Y. 527. Goshen Turnpike Co. r. Hurtin, 9 Johns. 217; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 273. See Jenkins ». Union Turnpike Co. ; Union Turnpike Co. v. Jenkins. Followed and approved (Neces- sity of demand of payment of note given to make up capital stock) in Howland v. Ed- monds, 24 If. Y. 307, 315; Whites. Smith, 77 111. 351; s. c, 20 Am. R. 251, 253. Dis- cussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. % 518, 11 ed. Followed (Presumption of consideration of note) in Paine v. Noelke, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 176, 184. Commented on with other cases (Effect of omission to pay percentage on stock subscription as required by statute) in Excelsior Grain Binding Co. v. Sta^ner, 61 How. Pr. 456, 461. Gosling v. Acker, 2 Hill, 392. Followed (Effect of appearance by infant without attorney) in Fairweather v. Satterly, 7 Robt. 546. Gosinan v. Crnger, 7 Hun, 60. Aff'd in 69 XT. Y. 87; s. c, 25 Am. R. 141. Goss v. Mather, 2 Bans. 283. Aff'd in 46 Jf. Y. 689, but without opinion. Gotcheus T. Matheson, 58 Barb. 152; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 97. Further decision in 5 Bans. 214, which was rev'd in 61 If. Y. 420. See Goetcheus v. Matthewson. Gotendorf t. G<>l«sclimidt, 83 If. Y. 110. Limited (Dispensing with personal service on infant in partition) as not applicable in foreclosure or actions generally, in Ingersoll v. Mangam, 84 Id. 622, 627. Gott T. Cook, 7 Paige, 521. Aff'd in Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. 641 ; but one of its positions questioned. See Hone v. Van Schaick. Decision in 7 Paige relied on with Everitt v. Everitt, 29 N. Y. 71, in construing the terms "power of alienation " in reference to real estate and "unqualified ownership" in reference to personal property, in the statutes of N. Y., as synonymous terms, — in Ladd «. Mills, U. S. Cir. Ct, S. D. N. Y., 20 Fed. Rep. 792. Commented on (Trusts to receive rents and profits or income for use of another) in 4 Kent Com. 310, n. c. Gottsberger v Smith, 5 Duer, 566. Affd as Gottsberger v. Taylor, 19 If. Y. 150. Decision in 19 JV. Y. followed (Money held in representative capacity) in People v. Hascall, 22 Id. 188, 190. See (Liability of sureties) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2596, n. 300 GOTTSBEEGEE— GOULD. T. Taylor. See Gottsberger v. Smith. Gouge v. Roberts, 53 N. Y. 619. Cited (Things of different species not to be taken into account in determining value) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1290. Gough v. St. John, 16 Wend. 646. See Fowler *. jEtna Ins. Co. Commented on (Evidence of general character) in 1 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 54, n. 3. v. Slants, 13 Wend. 549. Disapproved (Diligence required in presenting cheek) in Smith v. James, 20 Id. 192. Cited with Mohawk B'k i>. Broderick, 13 Id. 133, in Himmelmann v. Hotaling, 40 Gal. Ill ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 600. Gould v. Armstrong:. See Elting v. Vanderlyn. • • y. Banks, 8 Wend. 562; s. c, 24 Am. Bee. 90. Limited (Effect of offer to fulfill contract, after time appointed) in Friess ». Rider, 24 N. T. 367, 370. v. Cayuga County Nat. B'k, 21 Hun, 293. Aft'd in 86 N. T. 75. Prior decision in 56 How. Pr. 505. See Reubens v. Joel. Decision in 86 N. T. disting'd (Limitation of actions) in People v. White, 28 Hun, 289. Followed (Rescission for fraud) in Metropolitan Elev. R'y Co. v. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. Jf. G. 103, 224. 1 v. Chase, 16 Johns. 226. Followed (Waiver of right to enforce, offset existing against assignor of chose in action) in Merrill v. Merrill, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 463 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 247. v. Conway, 59 Barb. 355. Disting'd (Entries as evidence) in Payne v. Hodge, 7 Hun, 612, 615. v. Gager, 24 How. Pr. 440; s. c, more fully, 18 Abb. Pr. 32. v. Glass, 19 Barb. 179. See Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. Co. Cited as authority (Proof of official charac- ter of commissioner of highways) in Albro v. Rood, 24 Hun, 72, 74. v. Gould, 36 Barb. 270. Further • decision on the merits, in 41 Id. 654. v. , 8 Cow. 168. Aff d in 6 Wend. 263. Compare to the contrary (Joint action by sureties) Fletcher v. Jackson, 23 Vt. 593 ; Osborne v. Harper, 5 East, 225 ; Boggs ». Curtin, 10 Serg. &R. (Pa.) 211; Pearson v. Parker, 3 N. H. 366 ; Jewett v. Cornforth, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 107. Decision in 6 Wend. partners with other cases (Presumption that collated share equally in profits and losses of partnership) in Story on Partn. 7 ed., § 24, n. Cited in 1 Taylor on' En. 186 to show that the law as best interpreted in England and America agrees with the civil law. - v. , 29 How. Pr. 441. See. Minier v. Minier. Approved with Longendyke v. Longendyke, 44 Barb. 866 (Suits between husband and wife) in Perkins v. Perkins, 62 Id. 531, 537. Questioned in Adams v. Curtis, 4 Lans. 164. v. Hill, 2 Hill, 623; s. c, 15 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 475, with brief note. See Cole v. Goodwin ; Gibson » Culver; Hollister v. Nowlen ; Welles v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co. Overruled (Limitation of liability of carrier by contract) in Don- r. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 11 2T. Y. 485; Par- sons v. Monteath, 13 Barb. 358; Moore v. Evans, 14 Id. 524.. See Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Calebs. 20 N. Y. 173; Blossom v.- Dodd, 43 Id. 264. Referred to as denied in N. J. Steam Nav-. Co. i>. Merchants' Bk., 6 How. (U. S.) 344, and as overruled in N. Y, — in Kirby 1>. Adams Express Co., 2 Mo. App. 369. Referred to in Welsh v. Pitts- burg, Fort Wayne, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Oho St. 65, 70, as having been overruled, and in Indianapolis & Cincinnati R. R. Co. 7. Cox,29 Ind. 360, as having been modified. Doubted in Moses v. Boston & Maine R. R., 24 i^. 11. 71 ; s. c, 55 Am. Bee. 222, 232. Compaied in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 5. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 221, 5 ed.. Id. § 2S9. Quoted and explained in 2 Pur*, on Contr. 234, n. j, where it is stated that this case received the approbation of Niseit, J., in Fish e. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349. Quoted with decisions to the contrary and commented on in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed., § 947, n. 1. Cited approvingly with other author- ities in 2 Kent Com. 608, n. b. Reviewed and collated with Parsons e. Monteath, 13 Barb. 353; Wells r. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 181 ; Perkins v. Same, .24 Id. 196; Mynard v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 71 Id. 180, with conflicting cases in other juisdictions (Rights of gratuitous passen- gers) in 20 Cent. L. J. 485. — v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12 Bml. 616. Aft'd in 6 N. Y. 522. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Hooker v. Cum- mings ; Lansing v. Smith ; Marshall t. Guion ; Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. Decision in 6 N. Y. disting'd with People v. Tibbetts, 19 Id. 527, and dissenting opinion of EmrfoNDS, J., in 6 Id. approved (Legisla- tive power over fresh water streams and lakes) in Smith v. City of Rochester, 92 Id. 463. Followed in Stevens v. Paterson & Newark R.-R. Co., 34 N. J. 532; s. c, 3 Am. E. 269, 283, where views of Ednones, J., were criticised. Decision in 12 Barb, reviewed and relied on with People v. Tibbetts, li) N. Y. 523 ; People r. Canal Appraisers, 83 Id. 461 (Rights of owners of land on navigable rivers) in Ravenswood v. Flemings, 22 W. Vn. 52; s. c, 46 Am. R. 485. Decis- ion in 6 N. Y. disapproved in Providence Steam Engine Co. v. Providence, &c. Steamship Co., 12 R. I 384; s. c, 34 Am. R. 660. Followed in Tomlin v. Dubuque. Bellevue, &c. R. R. Co., 32 Jmra, 106; s. c, 7 Am. R. 176, 178. Said, bow- ever, ml Am. It. 179, «.., to be distinguish- able from Tomlin «;. Dulmque, &c. R. R. Co. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps- on Highw. 3 ed., 41 0. Compaied in 11 Alb. L. J. 19. Referred to in °A Am.K. 394, n., as a leading case. Quoted in Wood, onNuis. 2ed., §468, n. GOULD-GRACIE. 301 : t. James, 6 Cow. 369. Followed with Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. 237 (Rights of fishery) in Trustees of Brookhaven v. Strong, 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & ,G.) 415, which was aff'd in 60 N. Y. 56, 65, which see. Discussed in 3 Kent Com. 417. v. McCarty, 11 JV Y. 575. Examined (Discovery and inspection) in Pegram v. Carson, 10 Abb. Pr. 340, 344. Cited in Babbitt v. Crampton, 1 ' Giv. Pro. R. 169, 175, with note. v. Moore, 40 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 387. Further proceeding in 51 How. Pr. 188. v. Moring, 28 Barb. 444. Disapproved (Joining security and lessee in one action) in Decker to. Gaylord, 8 Hun, 110, v. Mortimer, 16 Abb. Pr. 448; s. c, 26 How. Pr. 167. Approved (Right to move against judgment) in Kellogg v. Howell, 62 Barb. 280. Collected with other cases (Ap- plication to intervene) in 6 Abb. If. O. 306. n. v. Root, 4 Hill, 554. Explained (Dis- regarding irregular order) in Spencer v. Barber, 5 Id. 569. ,v. Segee, 5 Duer, 260. Disting'd (Lia- bility on note not put in circulation) in Benson v. Huntington, 21 Mich. 415 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 502. Cited as authority in Kinyon v. Wohlford, 17 Minn. 239; s. c, 10 Am. R. 165. Reviewed and relied on with Griggs v. Howe, 31 Barb. 100; Kitchen e. Place, 41 Id. 465 ; Redlich v. Doll, 54 K Y. 234 (Rights of bojiafide holder of negotiable instrument when not impaired by fraud, &c, in making or execution thereof) in First Nat. B'k of Parkersburg v. Johns, 22 IP. Va. 520; s. c. 46 Am. R. 506. v. Town of Oneonta, 3 Hun, 401 ; s. c, less fully, 6 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & O.) 43. Aff'd in 71 If. Y. 298. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Town bonds) in Scipio v. Wright, 101 U. S. 665, 676. v. Town of Sterling, 23 If. Y. 456 ; s. c, 1 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 290, with note. See Allen v. Brown; Starin «. Town of Genoa. Examined and approved with Starin v. Town cf Genoa, 23 IT. Y. 439 ; Barto v. Himrod, 8 Id. 483 ; Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 18 Id. 38; Same v. Same, 19 Id. 20 (Legislative power when not to be dele- gated) in Clark-B. City of Rochester, 28 Id. 605, 633. Followed (Town bonding) in Horton v. Town of Thompson, 71 Id. 513, 523; Town of Venice v. Breed, 65 Barb. 601. Disapproved in Town of Venice v. Murdock, 92 U. S. 494, 499. Disting'd in Scipio v. Wright, 10 Id. 665, 674, 676. Approved in State v. School Dist. No. 4, 16 Ifeb. 188. Commented on in 7 South. L. Rev. If. S. 229. v. Town of Venice, 29 Barb. 442. Subsequent decision as Starin v. Town of Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439. See People v. Mitchell ; Starin v. Town of Genoa. Goulding v. Davidson, 28 Barb. 438. Rev'd in 25 Sow. Pr. 483; s. c, more fully, 26 If. Y. 604 ; also in 6 Am. L. Reg. K S. 34, with note by Prof. Dwight. See Nash v. Russell. Decision in 26 N. Y. disting'd (Liability of married woman on note, as affected by promise to pay made after, coverture) in Smith «. Allen, 1 Lam. 101, 107. Included in Ewell Lead. Cas. on Inf.,' &c. 333, n. 2. Doctrine criticised in 3 Am. I. Reg. If. S. 44. Quoted in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 107, n: a. Gonlet v. Asseler, 22 N. Y. 225. Con- clusions herein not approved as a whole (Differences between forms of action under the Code) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 108, n. 1. Goupil y. Simonson. See Carpenter «. Spooner. Gonraud v. Trust, 3 Hun, 627. See opinion of court below in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 134. Gonrdier v. Cormack, 2 E. I). Smith, 254. Cited as authority with Gilbert v. Beach, 4 Duer, 423; Young «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 30 Barb. 229 (Liability for negligence of independent contractor) in Myer v. Hobbs, 57 Ala. 175; s. c, 29 Am. R. 719. Gourley v. Campbell, 6 Hun, 218. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 169. See Power v. Cassidy. v. Shoemaker, 1 Johns. Gas. 392 ; s. c, IKY. Com. L. Law. ed. 364, with brief note, citing other cases (Convenience of witnesses). Gouverneur v. Lynch, 2 Paige, 300. With Grimstone v. Carter, 3 Id. 436, referred to as holding a doctrine the contrary of which is not held in any State in the Union (Adverse possession as evidence of notice) in Landes v. Brandt, 10 How. (C. S.) 348. Criticised in Young v. Guy, 87 N. Y. 457, as overruled (Purchaser of land when af-. fected by prior mortgage) by Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 Id. 88. v. Titus, 1 Edw. 477. Aff d in 6 Paige, 347. See Wis wall v. Hall. Governors of Almshouse v. Am. Art Union, 7 N. Y. 228. Collated with Grover v. Mor- ris, 73 Id. 473, and other cases (What is.a lottery) in 28 Am. R. 441, n. Commented on in 2 Add. on Gontr. 1158, n., Abb. ed. Gowau v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 176. See Whitney v. Sterling. Followed (Presump- tion that indorser, &c. had notice of dis- honor) in West Branch B'k v. Fulmer, 3 Pa. St. 399; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 651. Relied on in N. Y. & Ala. Contracting Co. v. Selma Savings B'k, 51. Ala. 305 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 552. Gowdy v. Poullain, 2 Hun, 218. Disting'd (Amendment of pleading) in Hauck v. Craighead, 4 Id. 561. Grace v. Wilber, 10 Johns. 453. Rev'd in 12 Id. 68. Gracie v. Freeland, 3 Den. 609 ; s. c, more fully, 1 JST. Y. 228; also as Gracie v. Free- 1 land, 3 How. Pr. 218. Disting'd (Appeal- ability of order denying rehearing) in Marvin v. Seymour, 1 If. Y. 535. T. N. T. Ins. Co., 8 Johns. 237. Applied 302 GEACIE- GKANGER. (Assured deemed trustee of amount re- ceived) in Conn. Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 10 Hun, 59, 61. v. Pierson. See Gracie v. Freeland. Graduates, Matter of the, 31 Barb. 353 ; s. c, more fnlly, 10 Abb. Pr. 348; 19 How. Pr. 97, 136. Rev'd in 22 N. Y. 67; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. 301; 20 How. Pr. 1. Decision in Id. disting'd (Review of proceedings on application for admission to practice) in Matter of Beggs, 67 K Y. 121. Grady v. Crook, 2 Abb. N. O. 53. Aff'd, it seems, in 72 If. Y. 612, but without opinion. Graff t. Bonnett, 25 How. Pr. 470. Subse- quent decision in 2 Robt. 54, which was affd in 31 N'. Y. 9. Decision in Id. ap- proved and followed (Right of creditor to reach trust fund for support of debtor) in Locke v. Mabbett, 2 Keyes, 457. Disting'd in Williams v. Thorn, 70 If. Y. 270, 275. Explained and applied (Pleading in proceed- ings to reach such fund) in Miller ». Miller, 1 Abb. K C. 30, 37. Applied (Inalienability of trust estate in personalty) in Roose- velt v. Roosevelt, 6 Hun, 31, 44. Com- mented on in 2 Alb. L. J. 261, 288. With decision in 25 How. Pr. see (Relation back of receiver's title in supplementary proceed- ings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2469, n. V. Kip. See Little v. Harvey. Graham t. Cainmann, 2 Cai. 168. Followed (Adverse possession, as question for jury) in Beverly e. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 351, with note. . T. Chrystal, 32 How. Pr. 287; s. c, more fully, 1 Abb. Pr. K S. 121. Aff'd in 2 I Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 263; s. c, 2 Keyes, 21; \ 37 How. Pr. 279. Decision in Id. applied [ (Limit of time on inquiry as to general reputation) in Stevens v. Rodger, 25 Hun, 54, 56. v. Dickinson, 3 Barb. Ch. 169. Ex- plained and limited (Surplus fund when to i be regarded as personalty) in Sweezy v. [ Thayer, 1 Duer, 286, 307. • Commented on I (Husband's rights in wife's real estate) in Schouler on Dom. Pel. 3 ed., § 92. See (Restitution for assets subsequently dis- covered; Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2801, n. v. Firemen's Ins. Co. See mem. of de- cision under Graham v. Sterling Fire Ins Co., 77 iV; Y. 611. Further decision, as it seems, in 8 Daly. 421. Also in 9 Id. 341, which was affd in 87 If. Y. 69. y. First Nat. B'k of Norfolk, 20 Hun, 326. Aff'd in 84 xV. Y. 393; s. c, 38 Am. B. 528. See People ». Gardner. v. People, 6 ''Lang. 149. Subsequent decision in 63 Barb, 468. These decisions reviewed with other cases (Writs of error in criminal cases) in Manke v. People, 74 If. Y. 415, 421. v. PhcBnix Ins. Co., 12 Hun, 446. Aft'd in 77 N. Y. 171. See also decision in subsequent action in 17 Hun, 156. T. Pinckney, 7 Robt. 147. Criticised (Pleading infancy of defendant aftcfr default) in Phillips v. Dusenberry, 8 Hun, 348. — — v. Public Administrator, 4 Brad/. 127. Applied (Domicil for purposes of succes- sion) in Matter of Stover, 4 Red/. '8%, 85; Von Hoffman v. Ward, Id. 244, 257. Ex- plained in Willard on Executors, 405. v. Selover. 59 Barb. 313. Affd in 46 How. Pr. 107. See Hackley v. Patrick. v. Stone, 6 How. Pr. 15. Overruled with Brown v. Orvis, Id. 376 (Proof of mitigating circumstances in action, for libel, &c.) in Bush v. Prosser, 11 JE f. 347. These two cases with Newman v. Otto, 4 Sand/. 669, approved (Motion to make more definite, mitigating circumstances set up in libel, &c.) in Bush v. Prosser, but doubted in Maretzek v. Cauldwell, 2 Robt. 715. v. Van Wyck, 14 Barb. 531. Disap- proved (Validity of conveyance by wife to husband) in Winans v. Peebles, 31 I.I. 371. Grain v. Cadwell, 5 Cow. 489; s. c, 8 A 7 ". Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 729, with brief note of supporting cases. See Evernghim v. Ens- worth ; Smith v. Miller. Disting'd from Napier t. McLebd, 9 Wend. 120 (Power of partner after dissolution) in Huntington v. Potter, 32 Barb. 300, 304. Applied in Hilton v. Vanderbilt, 82 If. Y. 590, 596. Disting'd (Assignment of part of debt) in. First Nat. B'k of Milwaukee *. Smith, 26 Hun, 224. v. Prussia, &c. German Society. See Robertson v. Bullions. V. Seton, 1 Hall, 202. See Ludlow v. Simond. Criticised (Power of partner to bind copartner by instrument under seal) in Turbeville v. Ryan, 1 Humph. (_Tenn.) 113; s. c, 34 Am. Dee. 622, 624, with note. Followed and approved in Bond v. Aitken, 6 Watts & 8. {Pa.) 165; s. c, 40 Am. Den. 550, with note; Drumright «. Philpot, 16 Geo. 424; s. c, 60 Am. Dee. 738, with note. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 cd., § 122, n. Discussed in 3 Kent Com,: 48, n. b. v. Stebbins, 6 Paige, 124. Explained (Recovery of money, &c. paid in pursuance of wager contract) in Staples v. Gould, 9 IT. Y. 520. Grandin v. Le Roy, 2 Paige, 509. See De Zeng v. Fyfc. Criticised (Bona fide ho:der of accommodation paper) in Bowman ■c. Van Kurcn, 29 Wis. 209; s. c, 9 Am. R. 557. Followed with Bank of Rutland v. Buck, 5 Wend. 60; Bank of Chenango v. Hyde, 4 Cow. 500, in Uimbro v. Ljtle, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 417; s. c, 3L Am. Dec. 585, with note; Bay v. Coddington, 20 Johns. 637, and other cases being disting'd as cases of equities arising from fraud, &c. Grand Rapids & Indiana R. K. Co. T. Sanders, 54 How. Pr. 214. Rev'd in 17 Hun, 552. Granger v. City of Buffalo, 6 Abb. F. C. 238. Compare (What is included in right to be heard) Matter of Nichols, Id; 474. GRANGES— GRAVES. 303 T. Crouch, 22 Han, 464. AfE'd in 86 . XT. T. 494. Grangiac t. Arden, 10 Johns. 293. Applied (Evidence of gift inter vivos) in Trow «. Shannon, 8 Daly, 239, 242. Relied on (Gift causa mortis when valid without actual delivery) in Ellis v. Secor, 31 Mich. 185; s. c, 18 Am. R. 178, 183. Relied on with Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 525,, in Dar- land v. Taylor, 52 Iowa, 503; s. c, 35 Am. R. 285, 287. Grannis v. Clark, 8 Gow. 36. Followed (Meaning of term "demise" in lease) in Crouch u. Fowle, 9 K H. 219; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 350, with note. See 2 R. S. 738, § 140. Explained in 4 Kent Com. 475, n. c. Grant v. Button. See Beecker v. Vrooman. v. Chester, 17 How. Pr. 260. Disting'd (Liability of attorney for money received in professional capacity) in Matter of Husson, .62 How. Pr. 358, 362. v. Courter, 24 Barb. 232. . Reviewed with People exrel. Grilling v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419; Town of Guilford v. Cornell, 18 Barb. 615; 13 N. Y. 143 (Right of legislature to compel city to create debt or levy tax for particular city purposes) in People v. Lynch, 51 Gal. 15; s. c, 21 Am. R. 677, 695. Applied (What is not delegation of legislative power) in Currier v. West Side Elev. Pat. R'y Co. of N. Y., 6 Blatchf. G. Gt. 487, 494. v. Ellicott, 7 Wend. 227. Explained (Liability of accommodation signer) in Chester v. Dorr, 41 N. Y. 279. Included in Bigel. on B. & N.1 ed., 448, with note. Also in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 263. v. Griswold, 21 Hun, 509. Appeal dis- missed in 82 N. Y. 569. v. Johnson, 6 Barb. 337. Rev'd in 5 N. Y. 247. Prior decision in 5 Barb. 161. See Considerant v. Brisbane. Decision in 5 N. Y. included (Conditions precedent in con- tracts) in 2 LangdelVs Cos. on Gontr. 2 ed. 603. Quoted in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 855, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Discussed in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 528, n. q. v. McCaughin. See Allen v. Mapes. v. Morse, 22 N. Y. 323. Dictum cor- rected (Granting new trial for referee's refusal to find facts) in Manley o. Ins. Co. of N. A., 1 Lans. 20. Disting'd in Meyer v. Amidon, 45 K Y. 269; and see Van Slyke v. Hyatt, 46 Id. 259; Leffler v. Field, 47 Id. 407; 42 How. Pr. 420. v. People, 4 Park 527. Disting'd (Conferring jurisdiction by consent in criminal cases) in People v. Dohring, 59 JW. Y. 374, 380. v. Quick, 5 Sand/. 612. Disting'd (Ef- fect of suit pending before court competent to give full relief) in Moser v. Polhamus, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 442. v. Shurter, 1 Wend. 148. Disting'd (Right to sue personal representatives of deceased partner) in Haines v. llollistcr, 64 IT. Y. 1, 4. T. Smith, 46 N. Y. 93. Disting'd (Lia- bility of sureties) in Western N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Clinton, 66 Id. 333. v. Tallman, 20 N. Y. 191. Included, with note (Damages for breach of covenant against incumbrances) in Sedgw. Gas. on Dam. 36. y. Taylor, 31 Super. Gt. (U. & S.) 338. Affd, it seems, in 52 H. Y. 627, but without opinion. Decision in 35 Super. Gt. relied on (Lien of banker) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 688, n. T. U. S. Bank, 1 Gal Gas. 112._ Ex- plained (Tacking as between registered mortgages) in 4 Kent Com. 178, n. b. v. Vandercook, 8 Abb. Pr. N~. S. 455. Approved (Expiration of mechanics' lien) in Huxford v. Bogardus, 40 How. Pr. 94. But see to contrary, Donelly v. Libby, 1 Sweeny, 259. v. Van Schoonhoven, 9 Paige, 255. See People v. Hoffman. Approved as authority under the Code with Bowers v. Smith, 10 Id. 193; Alston v. Jones, 3 Barb. Ch. 397 ; Sherman v. Burnham, 6 Barb. 403 (In actions for her separate property, wife must sue alone) in Ackley v. Tarbox, 29 Id. 512. Applied (Appointment of guardian ad litem for infant defendant) in Ingersoll v. Mangam, 84 N. Y. 622, 626. Grantman T. Thrall, 31 How. Pr. 464. Fol- lowed (Attachment for costrl in Wice v. Commercial Fire Ins. Co., 8 Daly, 70. Dis- approved in Morrison v. Lester, 15 Han, 538, 540. Graser v. Stellwagen. See Havens v. Hussey. Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 N. Y. 281. Decision in 24 Hun, 43 was in action on another policy. See Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. ; Whiting v. Barney. Decision in 80 W. Y. applied (Information of physician when privileged) in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Red/. 181, 189. See in accord therewith (Sufficiency of proof of loss) Home Ins. Co. v. Davis, 98 Penn. St 280, and see comments in 24 Alb. L. J. 243. v. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 74. Cited with other authorities in 57 Am. Dec. 95, n., as showing a tendency to depart from what is now the doctrine in England and America (Interest in another's life that will support life policy). Graves v. American Exchange B'k, 177V; Y. 205. Disting'd (Effect of forged indorse- ment) in Susquehanna Val. Nat. B'k v. Loomis, 85 Id. 207, 212. Applied witli Morgan v. B'k of State of N. Y., 11 Id. 404; Talbot o. B'k of Rochester, 1 Hill, 295, in Dodge ». Nat. Exchange B'k, 20 Ohio St. 234; s. c, *5 Am. R. 648. Ex- plained (Liability for conversion of negoti- able paper) in Thompson i). B'k of British N. A., 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 15. T. Berdan, 29 Barb. 100. AfE'd in 26 N. Y. 498. Decision in Id. limited and disting'd (Effect of destruction of leased premises) in Doupe v. Genin, 45 Id. 119. 304 GRATES— GEAT. Opinion of Emott, J., in 29 Barb, and of Wmgjht, J., dissenting, in 26 If. Y. approved in Austin v. Field, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 29. Both decisions examined with other cases in Aspinwall v. Balch, 7 Daly, 200, 203. Re- viewed, at length, with Gates v. Green, 4 Paige, 355; Hallett v. Wylie, 3 Johns. 44; Willard «. Tillman, 19 Wend. 358, in Coogan d. Parker, 2 So. Gar. 255 ; s. c, 16 Am. P. 659, 669, 675, 677. v. Brinkerhoff, 4 Hun, 305; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 630. Compare (Mis- take in deed) Paine «. Upton, 21 Sun, 306. v. Gouge. See Greaves v. Gouge. v. Graves, 2 Paige, 62. Quoted and discussed (Requisites of decree of divorce) in 2 Pish, on Mar. & D. § 745, 6 ed. v. McKeon, 2 Den. 639. Affd in How. App. Gas. 345. Decision in 2 Den. applied (Jurisdiction of person in justice's court) in Lapham v. Rice, 55 If. Y. 472, 477. r. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Cat. 339; s. c, 2 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 453, with brief note. v. Merry, 6 Cow. 701; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 471, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently followed (What is notice of dissolution of partnership). T. Otis, 2 Hill, 466. Explained (Space over which commissioners of highways have control) in Hines v. City of Lockport, 60 Barb. 378. - — v. Spier, 58 Barb. 349. Affd in 49 If. Y. 657, but without opinion. Decision in 58 Barb, approved (Repudiating agent's acts) in Estes v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 Hun, 349. See (What claims may be as- signed) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1910, n. -~— v. Waite, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) Add. 16. Affd in 59 If. Y. 156. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of allegations of fraud to fix action as one in tort) in Barnes v. Quigley, Id. 268 ; Matthews v. Cady, 61 Id, 651, 652. Cited as authority in Sparman v. Keim, 9 Abb. If. O. 1, 6, with note. v. Waterman, 4 Hun, 687. Rev'd in 63 K Y. 657. See Davoue v. Fanning. Gray v. Barton, 55 N. Y. 68. Mem. of decision below, in 1 Alb. L. J. 122. Decis- ion in 55 If. Y. approved (What constitutes executed gift) in Ferry v. Stephens, 5 Hun, 109; Taylor d. Kelly, Id. 115; Johnson v. Spies, Id. 468. Applied in Turner v. Brown, 6 Id. 331, 334. Disting'd in Mayer v. Townsend, 1 City Ct. 358. Cited as au- I thority with Ferry ». Stephens, 66 If. Y. 325 ; Carpenter v. Soule, 88 Id. 251 (Effect of promissory gift, evidenced by sealed instrument) in Lamprey v. Lamprey, 29 Minn: 151, 155. Compared with other cases in 15 Alb. L. J. 40. y. Bensel, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 447. Overruled in effect in subsequent decisions as Bensel v. Gray, 62 N. Y. 632. ; v. City of Brooklyn, 50 Barb. 365. Aff'd in 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 186; s. c, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 267. Decision in Id. followed (Constitutionality of act limiting liability of municipal corporation) in Van Vranken v. City of Schenectady, 31 Hun, 516. Decision in 50 Barb, explained (Lia- bility of city of Brooklyn for negligence) and Fitzpatrick v. Slocum, 89 If. 7. 358; Hardy v. City of Brooklyn, 90 Id. 435, followed in Vincent v. City of Brooklyn, 31 Hun, 122. Decision in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. disting'd in Fitzpatrick v. Slocum, 89 If. Y. 358; Hardy*. City of Brooklyn, 90 Id. 435. v. Cook, 24 Bow. Pr. 432. See (En- forcing judgment) Code Civ; Pro. 1881, § 1241, n. v. Crosby, 18 Johns. 219. Applied (Payment of liquidated damages as dis- charge) in Higbie v. Farr, 28 Minn. 442. Quoted in 3 Pars, on Contr. 159, n. g. y. Davis, 10 If. Y. 285. Quoted and explained (Acceptance in case of sale of goods over fifty dollars in value) in 1 Bcnj. on Sales, § 144, n. 4 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). y. Durland, 50 Barb. 100. See dissent- ing opinion of Hogeboom, J., Id. 211. .Affd in 51 If. Y. 424. Decision in Id. applied (Bight of action for seduction) in Ceitwell v. Hoyt, 6 Hun, 575, 577. Decision in 50 Barb, approved in Furman «. Van Sise, 56 A 7 ". Y. 435, 438. Reviewed with Simpson ii. Buck, 5 Lans. 337, in Hollingswoith v. Swedenborg, 49 2nd. 378; s. c, 19 Am. R. 687, 690. Approved in 4 Am. Dec. 405, n. y. Fisk, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 484; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. If. S. 213 ; 42 How. Pr. 135. Affd in 53 If. Y. 630, but' without opinion. Decision in Id. disting'd (Re- view by General Term of order of Special Term) in Liventaore v. Bainbridge, 56 Id. 73. Followed in Gowdy v. Poullain, 2 Hun, 220 ; Jeffras v. McKillop & Spiague Co., Id. 353. Decision in 42 How. Pr. followed (Setting aside referee's report for his mis- conduct) and Meyer v. Bernheimer, if. Y. Sup'm. Ct, Jan. 30, 1882; Stebbins . Conover. See Adams v. Conover. Decis- ion in 86 Sf. Y. disting'd with Burke v. Nichols, 2 Keyes, 670 (Eviction of grantee) in Adams ». 'Conover, 87 J¥. Y. 422. Dis- ting'd with Adams v. Conover, McMullin v. Wooley, 2 Lans. 304; Whitbeck». Cook, 15 Johns. 483 (Breach of covenant of war- ranty) in Scriver v. Smith, 30 Hun, 129. — v. Disbrow, 7 Lans. 381. Rev'd in 56 N. Y. 334. Further decision in 79 Id. 1 ; 8. c, 35 Am. R. 496. Decision in 7 Lans. disting'd (Bar of statute of limitations, when removed) in Boyce v. Stowers, 16 Weekly Dig. 279. Decision in 56 N. Y. disting'd with Nicholson v. Waful, 70 Id. 604 (Evidence as to giving of credit, &c ) in Bradher v. Gile, 16 Weehly Dig. 60. Followed in Denman v. Campbell, 7 Hun, 88. See to the contrary cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ed. 303, n. 5. Disting'd (Evidence ad- missible on part of defendant in explanation of plaintiff's evidence) in Wallis v. Randall, 81 N. Y. 164, 168. Decision in 79 Id. cited approvingly (Statute of limitations as affect- ing accounts between merchants) in 3 Pars, on Gontr. 87, n. 1, Keller's ed. T. Edick, 66 Barb. 564. Rev'd on point not discussed below, in 56 N~. Y. 613. De- cision in Id. applied (Protection of witness against testifying as to conversations with deceased partner) in Farley v. Norton, 67 How. Pr. 438. v. Eldred, 4 Hun, 276. Affd in 66 N. Y. 611, but without opinion. v. Green, 7 Hun, 492. Affd in 69 K Y. 553; s. c, 25 Am. R. 233. See Catlin v. Catlin. Decision in 69 If. Y. followed; and Roof v. Stafford, 7 Cow. 179; Hillyer e. Bennett, 3 Edw. 222; Bartholomew v. Fin- nemore, 17 Barb. 428 disting'd (When contracts of infant may be avoided without tendering back what he has received there- under) in Eureka Co. v. Edwards, 71 Ala. 248; s. c, 46 Am. R. 314. Relied on in Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 317, n. - — v. Hart, 1 Johns. 580; s. c, 3 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 255, with brief note. See Dunham v. Jackson. Examined with other cases (Nature of mortgage as security) in Campbell v. Parker, 9 Bosw. 329. Ex- plained (Matter in answer, responsive to bill) in Dunham v- Jackson, 6 Wend. 81. Explained (Transfer of title, to mortgage) in Trustees of Union College «. Wheeler, 61 N, Y. 118. Followed (Mortgage as earned by transfer of debt) in Jackson v. Blodget 5 Cow. 206. Examined with other cases in Slee -b. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige, 71. Ex- plained and applied in Pattison v. Hull, 9 Cow. 752. Followed with Pattison ». Hull, in Cooper «. Ullman, Walk. Ch. (MM.) 253. Applied with Runyan v. Mersereau, 11 Johns. 534, to case of vendor's lien, in Graham -o. McCampbell, Meigs (Tenn.) 52; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 1*6, with note. Cited in Crain v. Paine, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 483; s. c, 50 Am. Dee. 807, 809, with note. Quoted in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 99. • Dis- approved with Runyan «. Mersereau, 11 Johns. 534 (Assignment of mortgage by parol) in Vose v. Handy, 2 Oreenl. (Me.) 822; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. .10], 109, where Prescott . Hosea, 14 Ala. 194; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 94, with note. Relied on with Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johnc. Ch. 261; Evertson v. Tappen, 5 Id. 497 (Trustee when not to purchase trust estate) in Brackenridge ». Holland, 2 Blaclf. (Ind.\ 377; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 123, with note. Considered and illustrated with Bellinger v. Shafer, 2 Sandf. Ch. 293 (Power of trustees to charge estate with expenditure) in Dickinson v. Connift, 65 Ala. 581, 584. Commented on (Com- pensation to trustees) in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed., § 916. Referred to with Manning v. Mannings 1 Johns-. Ch. 534, in 17 Am. Dee^ 266, n. as having led to the enactment of the N. Y. statute of 1817. See expression of what is said to be the prevailing opinion ; in this country, in 2 Starif on Eq. Jur. § 1268, n. r. Wood, 6 All. Pr. 277;s. c, 15 How. Pr. 338. Approved (Examination of ad- verse party before trial a matter of right) in Cook v. Bid well, 17 Abb. Pr. 300. Greenby v. Cheevers, 9 Johns. 126. Dis- ting'd (Purchaser in contract for sale) of laud when justified in refusing to complete on ground of existence of incumbrance in Sibley v. Spring, 12 Me. 469; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 191. v. Wilcocks, 2 Johns. 1; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 379 ; 3 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 277, with brief note. Dissented fron) (Right of action on covenant of: seisin) in Martin v. Barker, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 233. But see Withy ■o. Mumford, 5 Cow. 137. Disting'dand criti- cised with Folliard v. Wallace, 2 Johns. 395 ; Kent v. Welch, 7 Id. '258 ; Sedgwick o. Hallenback, Id. 375 (Necessity of legal eviction to support breach of warranty) in Cummins v. Kennedy, 3 Litt. (R~y.) 118; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 45, 51, with note. Cited with Waldron v. McCarty, 3 Johns. 473; Kent v. Welch, 7 Id. 258; Vanderkarr v. Vanderkarr, 11 John*. 122, as maintaining a well settled rule, — in Williams «. Shaw, If. C. Term. R. 197; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 706. Disting'd with Hamilton v. Wilson, 4 Johns. 72 (Passing of right of action derived from existence of incumbrance) in McCrady v. Brisbane, 1 Nott. & UcC. (So. Car.) 104; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 676. See Co. Lit. 384, § 738, n. u. Considered, and dissenting opinion disapproved (Covenants running with the land) in 2 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 198. Questioned in Id. 269. Greene v. Bates, 7 How.- Pr. 296. See (Ex- tension of time) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 784, n. v. Breck, 10 Abb. Pr. 42. Affd in 32 Barb. 73. v. Deal, 4 Hun, 703: Rev'd as Greene «. Warnick, 64 N. Y. 220. v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 51 How. Pr. 73. Further decision in 6 Hun, 128. v.. Herder, 30 How. Pr. 210; s. c, 7 Robt. 455. Followed (Examination before trial) in Central Nat. B'k of City of N. Y. v. Arthur, 2 Sweeny, 194. Explained in Phcenix «. Dupuv, 7 Daly, 238, 2+2. v. Martine, 21 Hun, 136. Affd in 84 N. Y. 648. Decision in Id. followed as conclusive (Continuance of action where both plaintiff and' defendant are dead) in Holsman v. St. John, 90 Id. 461. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C) 753; s. c, 1 Hun, 24. -Rev'd in 60 If. Y. 303. Decision in Id. applied and disting'd (Municipal contracts) in Nelson r. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 Id. 538, which rev'd 5 Hun, 190, which see. Disting'd in Matter of Robbins, 82 If. Y. 131, 135, 141. Collated with other cases in 5 Abl . N. C. 42,' n. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co;, 6 Hun, 128. As to effect of judgment herein compare to the contrary Greene e. Republic Fire Ins. Co., 23 Alb. L. J. 313. 308 GfUEENE— GEIDLET. T. Republic Fire Ins. Co. See Greene 11. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 4 Sun, 809. Afi'd in 68 N. T. 610, but without opinion. . v. Warniek, 64 If. Y. 220. Disting'd (Priority of mortgages) in Heilbrun v. Ham- mond, 18 San. 474, 481. Disting'd and limited in Decker v. Boice, 83 K Y. 215, 221. Explained in Bank for Savings v. Trank, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 408. Cited in Thomas on Mort. 107, 147. Greenfield v. People, 13 Sun, 242. Rev'd on last point in 74 If. Y. 277; s. c, 6 Abb. If. G. 1. Further decision in 23 Sun, 454. See vol. 557, Ct. App. Cos. Law. Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. See People v. Eastwood. Decision in 74 If. Y. disting'd (Competency of juror) in People ex rel Phelps ■»'. Oyer & Term, of N. Y., 83 Id. 436, 458 ; Abbott v. Peoples, 86 Id. 460, 463; Cox v. People, 19 Sun, 430. Explained in Balbo v. People, 80 If. Y. 484, 496, which affd 19 ffun, 424, which see. Examined with other cases in 20 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 117, n. Reviewed and other cases collected in Points of Law in Guiteau's Case, 63, 84 (Boston ; Little, Brown & Co., 1881). Decision in 13 Sun explained (Contradicting witness) in People v. Cox, 21 Id. 47. Greenleaf v. Muraford, 19 Abb. Pr. 469. See Lawrence v. Bank of the Republic. Over- ruled (Sufficiency of general notice in attachment suits) in Clarke v. Goodridge, 41 If. Y. 210, which rev'd 54 Barb. 78, which see. Approved in O'Brien v. Mer- chants' and Trad. Fire Ins. Co., 56 If. Y. 55, 59. Green point Sugar Co. v. Kings Co. M'f'g Co., 7 San, 44. Affd in 69 If. Y. 328, as Same «\ Whitin. Decision in Id. cited as authority (Validity of mortgage given by manufacturing corporation) in Coman v. Lakey, 80 Id. 345, 351. v. Whitin. See Same v. Kings Co. M'f g Oo. Greentree v. Rosenstock, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 505. Affd in 61 If. Y. 583. Decis- ion in Id cited as authority (Effect of allega- tions in complaint, to fix action in tort) in Sparman v. Keim, 9 Abb. If. ft 1, 6. Greenvault v. Davis, 4 Sill, 643. See St. John v. Palmer. Approved with St. John v. Palmer, 5 Sill, 591, as settled law (Ne- cessity of eviction to sustain action for breach of warranty of title) in Bordwell «. Collie, 45 If. Y. 494. Followed with Fowler v. Poling, -6 Barb. 165 (both said to conflict with Waldron v. McCartv, 3 Johns. 471) in McGary v. Hastings, 39" Cal. 360; s. c, 2 Am. R. 456. Greenwich Bank v. De Groot. See Mechan- ics' & Trad. Bank of N. Y. v. Crow. Greenwood v. Brink. See Manhattan Brass Manuf. Co. ■». Sears. < v. Brodhead, 8 Barb. 593. Approved (Equitable remedy of creditor against part- nership property) in Crippen v. Hudson, 13 If. Y. 161. t. Sclinniaeker, 4 Weekly Dig. 397. Further decision to same effect see 82 If. Y. 614. Greer y. Allen, 15 Sun, 432. Cited as au- thority (Examination before trial) in Tenney v. Mautner, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 64, 71. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 206; 8. c, 4 Robt. 675. Previous decision in 3 Id. 406. v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. If. S. 427. See Bagley v. Peddie. Cited with Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. 23 ; Seymour v: De- lancey, 3 Cow. 444 ; Foshay v. Ferguson, 5 Sill, 154 (Unconscionable contracts when not to be enforced) in 33 Am. R. 1 n. Gregg t. Howe, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 420. Followed (Exception to decision denying motion to postpone trial when available) in Tribune Assoc, v. Smith, 40 Id. 251. V. Pierce. See Hatch v. Mann. Gregory v. Cryder, 10 ^456. Pr. If. S. 289. Disting'd (Extension of time for referee's report) in Ballou v. Parsons, 67 Barb. 19, 23, which was affd in 55 If. Y. 673, which see. See Code. Cir. Pro. 1881, § 1019, m, v. Dodge, 4 Paige, 557. Aff'd in 14 Wend. 593. v. McDowell, 8 Wend. 435; s. c, II If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 423, with brief note of other cases. v. Mack, 3 Sill, 380. Applied (Agree- ment for employing particular thing as medium of payment) in Larrabee «. Talbot, 5 Gill (Md.) 426; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 637, 644, with note. Collated with other cases (Liability of agent when acting without authority from principal) in 1 Sare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 770. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 If. Y. 273. Decision below reported as McLaren v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Daly, 243. — - T. Stryker, 2 Den. 628. Quoted and ex- plained (Purcbase and sale as distinguished from bailment) in 2 Pars, on Contr. Ib2, n. «. v. Thomas, 20 Wend. 17; s. c, 13 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 762, with brief note. See Meech «. Patchin. Dictum explained (Second mortgagee of chattels when af- fected with notice of prior mortgage) in Meech ■e. Patchin, 14 N. Y. 71. Approved and followed with Hill v. Beebe, 12 Id. 556, in Ransom v. Schmela, 13 Neb. 73. Grey v. Grey, 47 If. Y. 552. Rev'g Gray «. Gray, 2 Lans. 173. See Rawson v. Adams. Decision in 47 N. Y. cited (Possession cf note by maker as evidence of payment) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. % 1362. Gridley v. Dole, 4 If. 7. 486. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Followed (Liability of partner at law) in Crater v. Bininger, 54 Barb. 155, which was affd in 45 if. Y. 545, Wllicll 966. v. Garrison, 4 Paige, 647. Overruled (Attorney's lien for costs, as bar to set-off) in Nicoll «. Nicoll, 16 Wend. 446; and see Cowell v. Snow, 10 Bing. 432. t. Gridley, 33 Barb. 250. Rev'd in 24 N. Y. 130. GRIERSON— GRIFFITH. 309 Grierson t. Mason, 3 Sutfm. Ot. (T. & ft) 185; mem. s. c, 1 Hun, 113. Aff'din60 N. Y. 394. Decision in' Id. followed (Parol evidence as to condition on which instru- ment was given) in Nichol v. Nelson, N. Y. Daily Reg., Jan. 9, 1884. Explained in Willse v. Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242, 244. Griffeii v. House, 18 Johns. 397. Questioned (Discretion conferred by use of word " near " in giving authority respecting high- ways) in People v. Collins, 19 Wend. 56. Disting'd (Power to alter line of road) in Mississippi & Tenn. R. R. Co. v. Devaney, 42 Miss. 555 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 608, 617. Griffin v. Banks, 24 How. Pr. 213. Rev'd in 37 N. Y. 621. v. Chase, 23 Barb. 278. Aff'd in People v. Rathbun, 15 N. Y. 528. v. Colver, 22 Barb. 587. AfFd in 16 N. Y. 489. See Bagley «. Smith; Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co.; Davis v. Talcott; Staats v. Ten Eyck. Decision in 16 N. Y. applied (Damages for loss of profits) in Landsberger ». Magnetic Tel. Co., 32 Barb. 532; Pas- senger v. Thorburn, 35 Jd. 23, which was aff'd in 34 N. Y. 635. which sec ; Rogers v. Beard, 36 Barb. 37; 20 How. Pr. 102; Al- bert v. Bleecker St , &c. R. R. Co., 2 Daly, 394 ; Sternfels v. Clark, 1 Hun, 122 ; Heine- man ». Heard, Id. 332 ; Schutt v. Baker, 9 Id. 557 ; Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co., 1 Bans. 137 ; Van Ness v. Fisher, 5 Id. 239 ; Myers v. Burns, 35 N. Y. 273 ; Milton v. Hudson River Steamboat Co., 37 Id. 214 ; Booth v. Spuyten Duyvil Rolling Mill Co., 60 Id. 497, which aft'd 3 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & ft) 372, which see. Compared with other cases in Cassidy v. Le Fevre, 45 N. Y. 567. Explained in Kemp v. Knickerbocker Ice Co. , 5 1 How. Pr. 41. Applied in Brock v. Gale, 14 Flu. 523; s. c, 14 Am. R. 356. Disting'd in Bridges v. Lanham, 14 Neb. 369; s. c , 45 Am. R. 121. Followed with Blanchard v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342, and Master- ton v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 7 Hill, 68, disting'd in Deming ». Grand Trunk R'y Co., 48 N. H. 455; s. c, 2 Am. It. 267. Reviewed with Blanchard v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342 ; Masterton v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 7 Hill, 61, in Howe Machine Co. «. Bryson, 44 Iowa, 159; s. c, 24 Am. R. 735, 739. Cited with approval in Manville v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Iowa, 214; s. c, 18 Am. £. 8, 12. Cited on the tendency of theN. Y. cases in Thomas v. Dingley, 70 Me. 100; s. c, 35 Am. R. 310. Collated with Leonard ». N. Y., &c. Tel. Co., 41 N. Y. 544; Sprague v. W. U. Tel. Co., 6 Daly, 200; Lowery v. W. U. Tel. Co., 60 N. Y. 198; Baldwin v. IT. S. Tel. Co., 45 Id. 744; Landsberger v. Magnetic Tel. Co., 32 Barb. 530, and cases from other jurisdictions in 18 Gent. B. J. 331, n. Included in Sedgw. Gas. on Dama. 269. Explained in Ben], on Sales, § 894, n. t (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted in 2 Ohitty on Oontr. 1325, n. A, 11 Am. ed. Cited as a leading case in 2 Thompson Negl. 849. Compared with Eng- lish cases by Lond. Law Times, quoted in 1 Alb. L. J. 120. t. Cranston, 1 Bosw. 281. Re-aff'd in 10 Bosw. 1. T. Golf. See Duryee v. Dennison. t. Griffin, 21 How. Pr. 364. Aff'd in 23 Id. 189. Decision in 23 Id. op- posed (Right of appeal from order affecting right to alimony) in Leslie v. Leslie, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 193. See (Counter- claim in matrimonial action) Code Gio. Pro. 1881, § 1770, n. v. , 47 N. Y. 134. Followed (Alimony restricted to cases where wife ad- mits existence of valid marriage) in Blood- good ». Bloodgood, 59 How. Pi: 42. Approved (Alimony in absence of statute) in Brinkley v. Brinkley, 50 AT. Y. 184, 200. Explained and discussed in 2 Bish. on Mar. &D.% 398, n. 5, 6 ed. v. Griffith, 6 How. Pr. 428. Overruled in effect (Power of recorder at Troy to act as judge at chambers) in Hayner ». James, 17 N. Y. 316; and see Cashman v. Johnson, 4 Abb. Pr. 256. y. Marquardt, 17 K Y. 28. Subse- quent decision in 21 Id. 121. Decision in 17 Id. disting'd (Giving final judgment on appeal) in Hone v. Julien, 9 Abb. Pi: 193, 195. Decision in 21 JV. Y. collated with other cases (Directions as to time of sale in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Bishop on Assign. § 209. Collated with other cases (Acts showing intention to delay creditors) in Id. § 222. v. Martin, 7 Barb. 297. See Babcock ». Lamb ; Bush v. Holladay ; Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. . Followed and approved (Constitutionality of statute regulating the running at large of cattle, &c. on highways) in Hardenburgh v. Lockwood, 25 Id. 9. Disapproved in Williams v. Michigan Cen- tral R. R Co., 2 Gibbs (Mich.) 2«5. t. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 9 K Y. 456. See Kelly v. Mayor, Ac. of N. Y. ; Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Disting'd (Liability of municipal corporation for injury caused by defect in way) in Requa v. City of Rochester, 45 JY. Y. 129. Pronounced un- sound in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 763, 764. Quoted and discussed in Gooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed., 254, h. 1. T. Winne, 10 Hun, 571. Aff'd, it seems, in 79 N., Y. 637, on opinion below. Griffing t. Slate, 5 How. Pr. 205. See (Action on undertaking given on granting of injunction) Code Gie,' Pro. 1881, § 625, n. Griffith v. Beecher, 10 Barb 432. Approved (What are assets) in Moore v. Burrows, 34 Id. 173, 182, 185. v. Griffith, Hoffm. 153. Rev'd in 9 Paige, 315. Decision in Hoffm. cited as authority with Green v. Slayter, 4 Johns. Ch. 38 (When lis pendens affects purchaser) in Jones v. McNanin, 68 Me. 334; s. c, 28 Am. R. 66. Cited in 4 Kent Com. 179, n. 310 GEIFFITH— GRISWOLD. c, as containing a full examination of the doctrine of constructive notice. V. McCiillum, 40 Barb. 561. Quoted and explained (Abatement of public nuis- ance) in Wood on fluis. 2 ed. § 740. v. Mangain, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 369. Aff'd in 73 if. Y. 611. v. Reed, 21 .Wend. 602; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 267, with note, wherein are collected citations. See Suydam «. Westfall. Ap- proved (Liability of surety to acceptor) in "Wright o. Garlinghouse, 26 N. Y. 539; and lield not overruled by Suydam v. West- fall, 2 Den. 205. v. Wells, 3 Den. 226. See Best v. Bauder; Pennington «. Townsend; Swords v. Owen. Repudiated (Distinction between license for- revenue only, and others) in Swords v. Owen, 43 How. Pr. 176, 186. Griffiths v. Hardenbcrgh, 41 JST. Y. 464. Explained (Bond of indemnity as covering prior levy) iu Reilly v. Coleman, 62 How. Pr. 289. Griggs v. Griggs, 66 Barb. 287. Aff d in 56 2i. Y. 504. t. Howe, 31 Barb. 100. Aff'd in 3 Keyes, 166; s. c, 2 Id. 574; 2 Abb. . Columbian Ins. Co. ; Goix v. Low. Overruled (Inquiry into remote cause of loss covered by policy) but cited as still an authority (Liability of insurer for loss resulting from misconduct of master and crew) in Mathews v. Howard Ins. Co., 11 N. 7.1, 14, 16, 21 ; and see Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Coulton, 3 Pet. 222 ; 3 Kent Com. , 304, n. a. Disapproved in St. Louis Ins. Co. «. Glasgow, 8 Mo. 713; s. c, 41 Am. Dee. 661, 670. with note. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare S W. Am. Lead. Can. 5 ed , 779. Followed and approved with Duncan v. Sun Fire Ins. Co., 6 Wend. 488; Oity Fire Ins. Co. v. Corlies, 21 Id. 367 (Fire policy covers loss by explosion of gunpowder) in Scripture v. Lowell Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 357 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. Ill; Babeock i>. Montgomery County Ins. Co., 6 Barb. 637, being disting'd as a case of damage by lightning. Gt'imstone v. Carter, 3 Paige, 421 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 230, with note. See Fost .«. Beekman; Gouverneura. Lynch. Approved (Possession as constructive notice) in Newton v. McLean, 41 Barb. 285. Fol- lowed in Roods. Chapin, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 84. Approved and applied (Prior of two equal equities is to prevail) in Wing v. Mc- Dowell. Id. 183; Norris n Sherman, Id. 213. Grinnell, Matter of, 18 AlS. L. J. 75. See (Adverse possession under written instru- ment, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 369, n. See also Grinnell v. Rirtland. Grinnell v. Buchanan, 1 Daly, 538. Ap- proved (Abolition of distinction between causes of action legal or equitable) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 70, n. 1. v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 663, with note; 15 N". Y. Com. L. Law.'ed. 658, with brief note, and analysis of cases citing this case. See Cronlwell v. Stephens; Mowers v. Fethers. Followed (Liability of innkeeper) in Ingalsbee v. Wood, 36 Barb. 452. Followed in Matter v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 303, 310, with note, as placing liability of innkeepers and carriers on same ground. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 15^ n. m. Referred to in .Lord v. Jones, 24 Me. 439; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 391, as at variance with Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick (Mass.) 280; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 471 (Lien of innkeepers, &c). Followed in Miller i>. Marston, 35 Me. 153 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 694; Hickman v. Thomas, 16 Ala. 666. Referred to in 7 Am. Dec. 451, «., as at variance with Mason ». Thompson; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316; Story on Bailm. § 477, the case of Peet «. Mc- Graw, 25 Wend. 653, which holds a like doctrine, being said not to be followed by late N. Y. cases. v. Kirtland, 48 How. Pr. 17. Aff'd in 6 Daly, 356; s. c, 2 Abb. JV. C. 386; and that aft'd, it seems, in 68 N. Y. 629, but without opinion. See also Matter of Grin- nell. Grippen t. N. ¥. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 34. Explained (Duty of railroad company to protect persons who cross the track) in McGrath v. Same, 63 Id. 522, 526. Followed with Beiseigel v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 40 Id. 9, and McGrath v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 63 Id. 529, disting'd in Semel v. N. Y., New Haven, &c. R. R. Co., 9 Daly, 321. Followed iu'Callaghan v. Rome, W.'& O. R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 395. Grissler t. Powers, 53 How. Pr. 194. Aff d in effect in 81 N. Y. 57; s. c, 37 Am. E. 475. Compare (Rights of transferee of mortgage having no legal inception) Real Estate Trust Co. v. Rader, 53 How. Pr. 236. v. Stuyvesant, 67 Barb. 77. Other pro- ceedings in Id. 81; 1 Hun, 116; s. c, 3 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 756. Griswold v. Atlantic Dock Co., 21 Barb. 225. Collated with Clarke- v. City of Rochester, 24 Id. 446 ; Gamble v. Beattie, 4 How. Pr. 40; Fairchild v. Gwynne, 14 Abb. Pr. 121, and other cases (When statutes take effect) in 23 Am. L. Reg. 254, n. v. Fowler, 24 Barb. 135. See Lamer- son v. Marvin. Explained (Sale of property in parcels on foreclosure sale) in Wolcott v. Schenck, 23 How. Pr. 385, 390. v. Griswold, 7 Lans. 72. Affd, it seems, in 52 JT. Y. 631, but without opin- — v. , 4 Bradf. 216. Applied (Duty of executor to pay taxes on real estate) in Mitchell v. Bowne, 63 How. Pr. 1. fol- lowed (Payment of annuity) in Ferngan «. Ferrigan, 2 Red/. 517, 519. T . Haven. 25 N. Y. 595. Distingd (Right of assignee of warehouse receipt) in GEIBWOLD— GUtOSYENOR. 311' Second Nat. B'k v. Walbridge, 19 Ohio St. 419; s. c, 2 Am. B. 408,411. Dis- cussed (Fraud by copartners) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 446, n. 10, 717, Wood's Am. cd. V. N. T. Ins. Co., 3 Johns. 321 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 490. Explained (Performance of contract) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1094, n. c, 11 Am. cd. Commented on (When right to freight is absolute) in Any. on Carr. % 414, 5 ed. Commented on ( Freight ou deterior- ated goods) in 3 Kent Com. 225. v. Sheldon, 4 K Y. 581. Disapproved (Chattel mortgage void, which allows mort- gagor to go on selling) in Brett v. Carter, 2 Lowell, 458, reviewing many cases. Quoljed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 349. Disting'd (Effect of leaving mortgagor, . Jones, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 67, 74: Compare Graff v. Fitch, 58 III. 373 ; Gibbs v. Benjamin, 45 Vt. 124. Quoted and ex- plained in Benj. on Sales, § 346, n. a (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 1 Id., §§ 395, 424 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.). See other cases collected (Usage to vary contract) in 1 Abb. N. C. 472, n.- V. Phillips, 3 Jinn, 412; s. c, more fully, 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & O.) 42. Grocer's Bank v. Peniield, 7 Hun., 279; s. c , less fully, 2 Abb. N. C. 305. Qualified in 69 N. Y. 502; s. C. 2 Abb. N. C. 305; 25 Am. B. 231. Decision in Id. disting'd (Con- sideration for indorsement) in Produce B'k v. Penfleld, 30 Hun, 851. Followed (Rights of indorsee taking note as collateral security for antecedent debt) in Continental Nat. B'k v. Townsend, 87 If. Y. 8; Pitts v. Fogleson, 87 Ohio, 676; s. c, 41 Am. B. 540. Com- pare Wheeler v. Allen, 59 How. Pr. 1!8. Included, with notes, in 2 Ames Cas. on B. 6 N. 085. Grocers' Bank of N. Y. v. Fitch, 1 Sup'm-. Ct. (T. & C.) 651. AfTd on opinion of Bkady, J., in 58 If. Y. 623, without further opinion. Groesbeck T. Brown, 2 How. Pr. 21. Ex- plained (Confession of judgment by partner for firm) in Everson v. Gehrman, 1 Abb. Pr. 167. Groff v. Grlswold, 1 Den. 432. Criticised as extreme (Application of rule of intendment and construction) in Manning v. Johnson, 7 Barb. 457. v. Jones, 6 Wend. 522; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 545. See Tiernan v. Wilson. Ex- plained (Avoiding sheriff's sale) in O'Donncll v. Lindsay, 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523, 539. Followed and approved in Rector v. Hart, 8 Mo. 448; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 050, 653,- with note; Tiernan v. Wilson, 6 Johns. Ch. 414, being disting'd. Thought with Tiernan v. Wilson, in 13 Am. Dec. 212, n., to maintain what is the prevailing doctrine, though con- trary to that of Patterson v. Carneal, 3 A. K. Marsh.. (Ky.) 618; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 208, . with note, and other Ky. decisions. Grogan t. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 E. D. Smith, 693. Explained (Personal judgment in case of failure of mechanics' lien) in Barton v. Herman, 8 Abb. Pr. If. S. 399. Compare Grant v. Van Dercook, Id. 455; Donnelly «. Libby, 1 Sweeny, 259. Groshon v. Lyon, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 321 ; s. c, 1 CodeB. If. S. 348. Affd in 10 Barb. 401. Decision in Id. disting'd (Parties ap- E earing in action brought for their benefit ound by judgment) in Schuehle v. Geiman, 86 If. Y. 270, 273. Gross v. Clark, 1 Civ. Pro. B. 17; mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 843. Afl'd in 1 Civ. Pro. Ii. 464. ^ Grosvenor v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 5 Duer, 517. Rev'd in 17 If. Y. 391. See Traders' Ins. Co. v. Robert. Decision in 17 If. Y. disting'd (Mortgagee's interest in insurance 312 GROS VENOR- GUERNSEY. policy) in Matter of Moore, 6 Daly, 545. Applied in Ennis ». Harmony Fire Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 519. Cited in Brunswick Sav'gs Inst. ii. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 68 Me. 313; s. c, 28 Am. R. 56. Approved in Thomas on Mori. 177. Disting'd (Clause in policy directing payment to other than insurer) in Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Great Western Ins. Co., 65 Barb. 334, 337. Followed in Martin v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 9 Vroom (K J.) 40; s. c, 20 Am. Ii. 372, 374. Explained with Freeman v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. 398; Fowler v. N. Y. Indemnity Ins. Co., 26 N. Y. 425; Frink v. Hampden Ins. Co., 1 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 343 (Necessity of pleading insur- able interest) in State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Robert, 31 Perm. 438. Approved (Assent of insurer to assignment of policy is col- lateral undertaking to original policy) in Id. Disting'd (Evidence extrinsic to insur- ance policy) in Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65 N. Y. 14. ■ v. Hunt. See Larkin v. Eobbins. v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 39 K Y. 34. Disting'd (Delivery by common carriers) in Rogers v. Long Island R. R. Co., 3 Lans. 269. T. Phillips, 2 Hill, 147. See Bank of Rochester v. Jones. Disting'd (ESect of specific appropriation of goods as security) in Cayuga Co. Nat. B'k ti. Daniels, 47 N. Y. C36. Followed in Desha i>. Pope, 6 Ala. 690 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 76. Grout v. Cooper, 5 Hun, 423. Further pro- ceeding in 9 Id. 326. v. Townsend, 2 Hill, 554. AfFd in 2 Den. 336. Decision in 2 Sill, explained (Acknowledgment of consideration in deed, when creating an estoppel) in 3 Washb. on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 377. ■ v. Van Schoonkoven, 1 SanJf. Ch. 336. See Kane «. Gott. Opposed with Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. 641 (Construction of statutes relating to inalienability of real or per- sonal property) in Graff v. Bonnett, £1 A 7 ! Y. 9. Explained (Marriage settlement not corresponding to decree of court) in 1 Perry onTrusts, 3 ed., § 365. Grove, Matter of, 64 Barb. 526. AfFd in 53 N. Y. 645, but without further opinion. Grover v. Morris. See Governors of Alms- house v. Am. Art Union. v. Wakeman. See Wakeman v. Grover. Grnbe, Matter of, 20 Ewn, 303. Rev'd in 81 N. Y. 139. Gvnue v. Schultkeiss, 4 Daly, 207. Aff'd in 57 N. Y. 669. Gruinan v. Smith, 44 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 3S9. Rev'd in 81 N. Y. 25. See Cortelyou «. Lansing; Kingsbury v. Kirwan; Mark- ham t). Jaudon. Decision in 81 A'". Y., fol- lowed (Right of stockbroker to sell without notice stock carried on margin) in Capron v. Thompson, 86 Id. 418, 420. Decision in 44 Super. Ct. commented on in 1 Add. on Cnntr. 60, n., Abb. ed. Decision in 81 2?. Y. disting'd in Levy v. Loeb, 89 Id. 389. Applied (Effect of conversion of securities by broker) in Levy v. Loeb, 47 Super. Ct. (/. & 8.) 61, 65. Disting'd (Ef- fect of sale by pledgee, as conversion) in Hopper «. Smith, 63 How. Pr. 34, 87. Grussy v. Schneider, 50 How. Pr. 134. Affd in 55 Id. 188. Grymes v. Hone, 49 K Y. 17. See Coutant v. Schuyler; Taylor v. Taylor. Cited (Ef- fect of stock transfer producing union of legal and equitable title in same person) in Beckwith v. Burrough, 13 H. I. 298. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., Matter of, 13 Hun, 115. AfFd, it seems, in 74 N. Y. 617, but without opinion. Guardian Mnt. Life Ins. Co. v. Kashaw, 3 Hun, 616. Rev'd in 66 K Y. 544. See Van "Wyck v. Walters. Guardian Savings Inst., Matter of, 9 Hun, 267. Another proceeding in 78 Jf. Y. 408. Guckenheinier v. Angevine, 16 Huh, 453. Another proceeding in 81 Jf. Y. 394. Decision in Id. disting'd (Return of prop- erty received under contract as prerequisite to action for rescission) as inapplicable to action for deceit in Krumm v. Beach, 25 Hun, 293, 295. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 649, n. 14 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Guenther y. People, 24 N. Y. 100. Relied on (Operation of implied acquittal had on former trial, as defense to indictment) in Johnson v. State, 29 Ark. 31; s. c, 21 Am. S. 154, 161. Explained in 3 Greenl. on Et>.. 14 ed., § 36, n. a. Followed (Proceedings upon part of counts in indictment, as bar to proceedings upon rest) in Commonwealth v. Foster, 122 Mass. 317; s. c, 23 Am. Ii. 320'; People v. Merrill, 14 K Y. 74, being also cited in this connection. Guerlain v. Columbia Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 527. Discussed (Total loss under marine policy) ia 3 Kent Com. 299. Guernsey v. Carver, 8 Wend. 492 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 60, with note, where it is shown to have been frequently approved in N. T. Questioned with Stevens v. Lookwood, 13 Wend. 644 (Indivisibility of demand)' in Secor v. Sturgis, 16 JUT. Y. 548. Disap- proved with Stevens v. Lockwood ; Colvin v. Corwin, 15 Wend. 557; Bendcrnaglc v. Cocks, 19 Id. 207, in Mcintosh v. Lown, 49 Barb. 550. Disting'd in Perry o. Dicker- son, 85 K Y. 345, 348. Disapproved in Badger v. Titcomb, 15 Fich. {Mass.) 409; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 611, 014,. with note. Followed with Bendcrnaglc v. Cocks, in Oliver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 229 ; Zorngesser v. Harrison, 12 Wis. 548. Collated with Bendernagle v. Cocks, 19 Wend. 207; Secor v. Sturgis, 10 N. Y. 548; Colvin «. Corwin, 16 Wend. 557; Cog- gins v. Bulwinkle, 1 E. D. Smith, 434; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191, in Burritt v. Beliy, 47 Conn. 323; s. c, 37 Am. E. 82. v. Powers, 9 Hun, 78. Followed with Thompson ». Sherrard, 35 Barb. 593 (Ap- pointment of receiver in action for trial of GUEENSEY— HAAS. 313 title) notwithstanding Ireland v. Nichols, 37 How. Pr. 222 ; in Burdell v. Burdell, 54 Id. 91. Explained in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 615. Guest y. City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 97. Affd in 69 N. Y. 506. Further decision in 9 Hnn, 198 rev'd, it seems, in 73 N. Y. 611. Also further decision in 79 Id. 624. Decis- ion in 69 Id. followed (Assessment pro- ceedings) in a case involving many of the same points, — in Townsend v. City of Brooklyn, 73 Id. 589. Approved in State v. Dist. Ct. of Ramsey Co., 33 Minn. 295, 309. Guidet v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 557. Further decision, denying reargument, in 37 Id. 124. Guillander v. Howell, 35 K Y. 657 ; s. c, as Guillaudet v. Howell, 6 Am. L. Keg. If. 8. 522, with note. See Whitman ». Conner. Disting'd (Transfer of prop- erty, as affected by law of place) in Ockerman v. Crossj 54 If. Y. 29, 34. Fol- lowed in Hallgarten «. Oldham, 135 Mass. 1 ; s. c, 46 Am. B. 433. Approved in Ful- ler v. Steiglitz, 27 Ohio St. 355; s. c, 22 Am. E. 312, 319, as according with reason and authority. Quoted and collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 261. Discussed in Bwrrill on Assign. § 307, 4 ed. Guille v. Swan, 19 Johns. 381 ; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 234, with note, where it is referred to as a "land-mark" case. See Dunckle c. Kocker; McAllisters. Hammond; Parten- heimer v. Van Order ; Ryan v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Applied (Liability for conse- quences of illegal act) in Munger v. Baker, 1 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 122. Cited with Vandenburgh v. Truax, 4 Ben. 464, in St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain R. R. Co. v. Hunt, 55 Vt. 570 ; s. c, 45 Am. B. 639. Cited with approval in Hobart v. Haggett, 12 Me. 67; s. c, 28 Am. Bee. 159. Gnillotel v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.. 55 How. Pr. 114. Rev'd in 10 Abb. IT. O. 318; s. c, as Goillotel v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 87 If. Y. 441. Decision in 55 How. Pr., not fol- lowed (Limitation of time to bring action for personal injury) in Carpenter v. Shimer, 24 Hun, 464. Guion v. Knapp, 6 Paige, 35; s. c, 29 Am. Bee. 741, with note, wherein are collected citations. See Patty v. Pease. Guiteman v. Davis, 3 Baly, 120. Disap- proved (Recovery of rate of exchange) in Ladd o. Arkell, 40 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 150, 158. Guiterman v. Liverpool, &c. S. S. Co., 83 If. Y. 358. Rev'g 9 Daly, 119. See Cowley v. People. Decision in 83 If. Y. followed (Hypothetical questions) in Cowley v. Peo- ple, Id. 464, 470. Gundlach v. Germania Mechanics' Ass'n, 4 Hun, 339. See Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co. Followed (Right to benefits as affected by by-law of voluntary association) in Poultney «. Bachman, 10 Abb. N. C. 252, 258. Gunn v. Cantine. 10 Johns. 387. Relied on (Necessity that party suing have legal inter- est in subject of suit) in Bissell v. Spencer, 9 Gonn. 267; s. c, 23 Am. Bee. 336. Guntz, Matter of, 11 Weekly Big. 437; s. c. as Matter of Gantz, 23 Hun, 354. Rev'd in 85 N. Y. 536. Gurney v. Atlantic & G. W. R'y Co., 2 Sup'm. Oi. (T. & G.) 446. Rev'd in 58 If. Y. 358. See Hargous v. Stone; Reed v. Randall. Decision in 58 If. Y. disting'd (Meaning of terms " laborer," &c.) in Krauser v. Ruckel, 17 Hun, 463, 465. Approved (Warranty on sales by sample is express rather than implied) in 7 Am. Dec. 126, n., for reasons there stated at length, other cases being collated. See another re- view of the authorities in 6 Am. Dee. 113, n. Quoted and explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 977, n. 29 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Sharp, 17 Abb. Pr. 410. Said in 41 If. Y. 619 to have been affd in Ct. of App. Sept. 1869. v. Smithson, 7 Bosw. 396. Overruled (New trial not to be granted after judg- ment) in Tracey v. Altmyer, 46 If. Y. 598. Gntcliess v. Daniels, 58 Barb. 401. Rev'd in 49 If. Y. 605. Guy v. Mead, 22 If. Y. 462. See Merrill v. Ithaca & Owego R. R. Co. ; Russell v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Disting'd (Memo- randa in evidence) in Haack v. Fearing, 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 301 ; Downs v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 47 If. Y. 87 ; Reed v. U. S. Ex- press Co., 48 Id. 468; Squires v. Abbott, 61 Id. 535 ; Driggs v. Smith, 39 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 288. Explained in Kennedy v. Os- wego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 182. Examined with other cases in Meacham v. Pell, 51 Id. 67. Applied in Wilcox Silver Plate Co. ■». Green, 9 Hun, 348 ; Kennedy v. Crandell, 3 Bans. 5 ; Osborn v. Merwin, 12 Hun, 334 ; Morrow «. Ostrander, 13 Id. 222. v. Oakley, 13 Johns. 332. Followed (Liability of factor for loss from disobeying principal's instructions) in Kelly v. Smith, 1 Blatchf. G. Gt. 290, 295. Guynet v. Mantel, 4 Duer, 86. Disting'd (Right to specific performance of contract for sale of land) in Hinckley v. Smith, 51 If. Y. 21, 25. Applied in Beyer v. Marks, 2 Sweeny, 715. H. Haack v. Fearing. See Higgins v. Watervliet Turnpike Co. Haas v. O'Brien, 40 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 543. Rev'd in 66 K Y. 597; s. c, 52 How. Pr. 27; mem., s. c, 1 Abb. If. C. 173. Decis- ion in Id. followed (Validity of assign- ment for benefit of creditors under bank- 314 HAAS— HAGADON. rupt law) in Van Hein v. Elkus, 8 Sun, 516, 519. — •— v. Boat. See Gibson v. Stone ; Leggett v. Hyde. Hnase v. N. T. Central R. B. Co., 14 Sow. Pr. 430. Approved (Allowing appeal after statute time has passed) in Toll v. Thomas, ' 18 Id. 324. But see Sherman v. Wells, 14 Id. 522. Overruled by Sherwood v. Pratt, 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 115. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 784, n. Hacker v. Ferrill, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 780. Another proceeding in 66 Barb. 559. Green v. Disbrow, which was relied on in decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (2'. & G.) (Manner of charging accounts) was rev'd in 56 XT. Y. 334. Rule stated in 66 Barb, said to be changed by Code Civ. Pro. (Appeal from judgment entered in referee's report in action in county court) in Kilmer v. O'Brien, 13 Sun, 224. Hackett v. Badeau, 63 XT. Y. 476. Followed (Foreclosure of mechanics' lien) in Wilson v. Doran, 64 Id. 648. v. Beldeii, 10 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 123; s. a, 40 Sow. Pr. 289. Aff' d in 47 XT. Y. 624. v. Connett. See Coster v. Griswold. v. People, 54 Bar b. 370. See People v. Davis. Reviewed with other cases (Amissi- biiity of dying declarations in evidence) in State v. Draper, 65 Mo. 335; s. c, 27 Am. B. 287, 290. v. Richards, 11 XT. Y. Leg. Obs. 315. Rev'd in 3 E. D. Smith, 13, and that rev'd in 13 XT. Y. 138; s. c, 3 E. D. Smith, 15, n. Eackettstown Nat. Bank v. Eea, 6 Lans. 455; s. c, more fully, §iJ3arb. 175. Hackford v. N. Y. Central, &c. E. R. Co., 6 Lans. 381; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 18; 43 How. Pr. 222. Aff d in 53 XT. Y. 654. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Negligence as question for court or for jury) in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 593. Hackley, Matter of, 21 Sow. Pr. 103. This is probably a dissenting opinion. Compare contrary decision, reported as People ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly, in 12 Abb. Pr. 150; s. c, 21 How. Pr. 54, which was affd in 24 XT. r. 74. Hackley v. Draper, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 614; mem. s. c, 2 Hun, 523. Affd in 60 XT. Y. 88. v. Johnson. See Smith v. Ludlow. ■ v. Patrick, 3 Johns. 536; s. c, 3 XT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 695, with brief note. See Baker v. Stackpole; Sanford v. Mickles. Applied (Acknowledgment by one partner after dissolution) in Hart v. Woodruff, 24 Sun, 510, 512. Doctrine of this case and Walden v. Sherburne, 15 Johns. 409, 425, denied in Parker v. Merrill, 6 Creenl. (Me.) 41; Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 227; Phil. Ev. 400. Followed with Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300; Walden v. Sher- burne, 15 Id. 409, in Brady v. Hill, 1 Mo. 315 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 503, with note. Collated with Smith v. Ludlow, 6 Johns. 267; Roosevelt v. Mark, 6 Johns. Ck. 266, 291 ; Graham v. Selover, 59 Barb. 313; "Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 XT. Y. 523; Walden v. Sherburne, 15 Johns. 409, 424, and other cases in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 324, n. ■ Quoted in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 107, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Quoted and explained in 1 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 112, n. c, 155. Commented on in Aug. on Limit. § 260, 6 ed. Hadden v. Dimick, 31 How. Pr. 196. Rev'd in 13 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 135. v. People, 25 XT. Y. 373. Included, with notes (What constitutes kidnapping) in Lawson Lead. Cas. (Crim. L.) Simplified, 186. v. Spader, 20 Johns. 554. See Donovan v. Finn. Confirmed (Non-leviable assets can be reached by creditor's bill) in Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 126; Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463; s. c, 10 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 718; Artzbacker v. Mayer, 53 Wise. 380; s. c, 10 XTorthw. Rep. 440, 445, and in 2 B. S. 173, § 38; Code Civ. Pro. §0871; Tolles v. Wood, 16 Abb. XT. C. 1, with note. See to the contrary Hardenburgh v. Blair, 30 XT. J. Ea. 446, which rev'd Land}*. See Haddow v. Had- _ Id. 42. Haddon r. dow. Haddow v. Haddow, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 171. Aff'd as Haddow v. Lundy, 59 N. Y. 320. Haden v. Buddensiek, 4 Sun, 649; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 188. Litigation of mechanics' lien is reported in 6 Daly, 3. v. Coleman, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 256. Rev'd in 73 XT. Y. 567. Hadley v. Barton, 47 Sow. Pr. 481. Affd in 58 iV. Y. 675 on opinion of Talcott, J., without further opinion. v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 33 XT. Y. 603. Commented on with other cases (Basis of claim to official emolument) in McVeany v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 80 XT. Y. 185, 191. Included, with notes (Canvassing election returns) in Brightly Cas. on Elect. 307. Haff v. Marine Ins. Co., 8 Johns. 163; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 331. Trial at nisi prius re- ported in Anth. XT. P. 22. Subsequent de- cision in 8 Johns. 165. Decision in 4 Id. disting'd (Presumption as to possession of proofs of loss under policy) in Foster v. Jackson Mar. Ins. Co., 1 Edm. 290. v. Splcer. See Jackson v. Virgil. Hairadorn v. Connecticut Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Sun, 249. Compare (Disqualification of I'uror) Points of Law in Quiteau's Case, 75 (Boston; Little, Brown & Co., 1881), where other cases are cited. v. Ranx. 72 XI. Y. 583. Disting'd ("May," when equivalent to "must," in statute) in Talmage v. Third Nat B'k, 91 Id. 531. Disting'd (Action by town super- visor against predecessor) in Gleason v. Youmans, 13 Weekly Dig. 25, which aff d 9 Abb. N. C. 107, 111, which see. Distingd HAGAMAN— HALDEN. 315 in Victory «. Blood 25 Hun, 515, 519, 523. Hagainan T. Jackson. See Jackson v. Wil- lard. Hagar v. Clark, 12 Hun, 524. Rev'd in 78 K Y. 45. Hagen v. Bowery Nat. Bank, 64 Barb. 197; s. c, more fully, 6 Lar.s. 490. Hager v. Danfor'th, 8 How. Pr. 435. Rev'd in 20 Barb. 16. Decision in Id. cited as authority (Right of officer to use force to overcome resistance to service of process) in Hull . Bartlett, 49 Conn. 64. — — v. Hager, 38 Barb. 92. Cited with other cases (Misconduct of juror) in 14 Am. L. Reg. N. 8 546. Haggart v. Morgan, 5 K. Y. 422; s. a, 55 Am. Dec. 350, with note, containing cita- tions. Disting'd (Effect of agreement to submit to arbitration) in Delaware & Hud- son Canal Co. v. Penn. Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250. Followed as conclusive (What con- stitutes non-residence) in Burrill v. Jewett, 2 Robt. 701. Haggerty v. Palmer, 6 Johns. Ch. 437. See Steelyards v. Singer ; Strong v. Taylor. De- nied (Effect of delivery of goods sold, with- out payment, to pass property) in Chapman v. Lathrop, 6 Cow. 115, n. a, where mar- ginal note to Palmer v. Hand, 13 Johns. 434, was criticised as erroneous. See au- thorities collected (Validity of conditional sales as to third persons) in Lewis v. Mc- Cabe, 49 Conn. 141, 148; s. c, 21 Am. I. Reg. N. 3. 217, with note. Applied in Knowles v. Lord, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 500; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 525, 529, to case of fraudu- lent purchaser making assignment for creditors. v. People (No. 1), 6 Lans. 332. Rev'd in 53 N. Y. 476. v. (No. 2), 6 Lans. 347. AfTd, it seems, in 53 N. Y. 642, but without opin- ion. . v. Wilber, 16 Johns. 286; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 321. Followed with Cresson v. Stout, 17 Johns. 116; Lamberts. Paulding, 18 Id. 311; Beals v. Allen, Id. 363 (Lien of execu- tion) in People v. Bradley, 17 III. 487. Hague v. Porter, 3 Hill, 141. Quoted and explained (Failure to accept goods sold) in 1 Benj. on, Sales, § 527 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Halin v. Hull, 4 M. D. Smith, 664. Dis- ting'd (Sufficiency of complaint in action against indorser) in Schwarzanskv v. Averill, 7 Daly, 254, 256. .Haight, Matter of, 14 Hun, 176. See (Sale of infant's real estate) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2348, n. Haight y. Badgely, 15 Barb. 499. Explained (Enticing away servant) in Johnston Har- vester Co. v. Meinhardt, 9 Abb. W. C. 393, 399. v. Childs, 34 Barb. 186. Applied (De- fendant in action for specific performance not ob'iged to set up statute of frauds) in Morrill v. Cooper, 65 Id. 512, 510. v. Day, 1 Johns. Ch. 18. See Hartwell v. Armstrong; Sice v. Bloom. Explained and reconciled (Reviewing exercise of dis- cretionary powers) in English v. Smock, 34 Ind. 115, 120. Explained (Equitable regulation of corporate elections) in 3 South. L. Rev. N. S. 212. Commented on in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed., § 1230, n. 1. v. Hayt, 19 iV. Y. 464. See Tallman v. Green. Followed and approved (Survival of cause of action) in Johnson v. Bennett, 5 Abb. Pr. K S. 331. Applied in Cregin v. Brooklyn Crosstown R. R. Co., 75 K Y. 194; Jackson v. Daggett, 24 Hun, 204, 206. v. Holcomb, 7 Abb. Pr. 210; s. c, 16 How. Pr. 173. See McGregor v. Corn- stock. Disapproved (Limit of attorney's lien) in Ackerman «. Ackerman, 14 Abb. Pr. 229, 233 ; Hall ». Ayer, 9 Id. 221 ; and see Roberts v. Carter, Id. 366, n. In part overruled in Rooney s>. Second Av. R. R. Co., 18 K Y. 368. See Pulver v. Harris, 62 Barb. 500. Explained (Trial of question of fact arising between attorney and client) in Porter v. Parmly, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 219, 239. T. Holley, 3 Wend. 258. Cited (Implica- tions in pleading) in Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. 8. 415, 418. v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 7 Lans. 11. Applied (Contributory negligence in cros- sing railroad track) in Slater v. LTtica & Black R. R. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 279. v. Sahler, 30 Barb. 218. See Ex parte Kerwin ; Randall v. Van Vechten. Applied (Officers or agents when not bound by con- tract executed for corporation) in Bellinger v. Bentley, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 71. 74. Disting'd (Liability on sealed contract exe- cuted by agent) in Schaefer v. Henkel, 75 K Y. 378, 387. v. Turner, 2' Johns. 371. Approved (En- titling papers) in People «. Tioga C. P., 1 Wend. 291 ; Maher v. Comstock, 1 How. Pr. 175. Examined with Humphrey v. Cande, 2 Cow. 509, in Kearney v. Andrews, 5 Wis. 25. v. Wright, 20 How. Vr. 91. See to the contrary (Proof of legitimacy, in action for child's services) Armstrong v. McDonald, 10 Barb. 300. See Abb. Tr. Ev. 382. Haile v. Lillie, 3 Hill, 149. Approved (In- fant's privilege) in Ackerman v. Runyon, = 3 Abb. Pr. 111. Cited in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. § 128. Haines v. Backus, 4 Wend. 213. Examined and followed (Effect of certiorari) in Devlin v. Piatt, 11 Abb. Pr. 398, 401. v. Hollister, 64 ST. Y. 1. Explained (Parties defendant in creditor's action) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 128. Quoted in Id. §133. Haire v. Baker, 5 If. Y. 357. Approved but explained as modified by the Code (Right of defendant to affirmative relief) in Auburn City B'k v. Leonard, 20 How. Pr. 193, 195. See (Contents of demurrer) Code Ch. Pro. 1881, § 490, n. Halden v. Crafts, 4 E. D. Smith, 490. Col- 316 HALE— HALL. lated with other cases (Limitation of action on deposit of money or property to be re- turned on special demand) in Throop Ju- stice's Man. 2 ed. 189. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. Hale v. Aiijrell, 20 Johns. 342. Cited as au- thority with Smith v. Mumford, 9 Cow. 26 (Action on domestic judgment) in Hummer v. Lamphear, 32 Kan. 439. v. Clauson. See Frost v. Yonkers Sav- ings Bank. v. Hays, 54 N. Y. 389. See also (Duty of vendor as to discharge of incumbrances) Rinaldo v. Housmann, 1 Abb. N~. G. 312. v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 258; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 328. See Swaine v. Perine. Col- lated with other cases (Valuation of land for dower) in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 399 Discussed in 4 Kent Com. 69, n. d. 1 v. Omaha Nat. B'k, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 40. Eev'd in 49 N. Y. 626. Further decision on the merits, in 47 How. Pr. 201 affd in 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 207, and that aff'd in 64 JST. Y. 550. Decision in Id. applied (What necessary to sustain action for deprivation of equitable lien) in Husted v. Ingraham, 75 Id. 258. "With decision in 49 Id. see (Demurrer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 488, n. v. Patton, 60 N. Y. 233. Explained (Excuse for non-payment) in Asendorf v. Meyer, 8 Daly, 278, 281. v. Smith, 78 N. Y. 480. Followed (Burden of proof as to contributory negli- gence) in Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 84 Id. 57, 62; Ur'quhart v. City of Ogdens- burgh, 23 Sun, 75, 77. Applied in Probst v. Delamater, 17 Weekly Dig. 355. v. Sweet, 40 JV. Y. 97. Applied (Change of possession under chattel mortgage) in Steele v. Benham. 84 Id. 634, 638. Ex- ' plained (Chattel mortgage when void as against creditors) in Fraser v. Gilbert, 11 Sun, 634, 637. Applied in Field r>. Baker, 12 Blatchf. C. Ct. 438, 443. Disting'd (Affidavit for discharge of imprisoned debtor) in Richmond v. Praim, 24 Sun, 578. Hall v. Barton, 24 Barb. 274. Qualified with McCleary v. Edwards, 27 Id. 240; Hurd b. Pendrigh, 2 Sill, 502 (Proper re- turn of commissioner) in Pendell v. Coon, 20 N. Y. 134. 136. Followed in Goodyear v. Vasburgh, 41 Sow. Pr. 421. v. Bishop, 3 Daly, 109. See to the contrary (Recovery by unlicensed lawyer) Woodward v. Stearns, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 395, a case of a broker. v. City of Bnffalo, 1 Keyes, 193. See Hutter v. iEUwanger. Disting'd (Order on particular fund) in Attorney Gen'l v. Con- tinental Life Ins. Co., 71 JST. Y. 325, 328. v. Cronse, 13 Sun, 557. See Townsend v. Masterton Stone Dressing Co. Disting'd (Mortgage for future advances) in Acker- man v. Hunsicker, 21 Sun, 53. — — v. Dean. See Delavergne v. Norris. v. Erwin, 60 Barb. 349. Modified in 57 N. Y. 643. Further decision in 66 Id. 649. v. Farmer, 5 Den. 484. Affd in 2 N~. Y. 553. Decision in Id. referred to as not authoritative (Liability on guaranty) in Draper v. Snow, 20 Id. 331, 337. v. Fisher, 9 Barb. 17. . Other decisions in 1 Barb. Ch. 53 ; 3 Id. 637. See decision in subsequent action brought to recover mesne profits and damages caused by the injunction, in 20 Barb. 441. Decision in 9 Id. applied (Disregarding trifling error in amount) in Colman v. Shattuck, 2 Sun, 497, 508. Quoted (Estoppel as created by silence) in 2 Best on M). § 543, n. a, Wood's ed. t. Gird, 7 Sill, 588. Doubted (Statute prohibiting attorneys, &c. from buying choses in action, &c. not applicable in chancery) in Baldwin ». Latson, 2 Barb. Ch. 306 ; Hall v. Bartlett, 9 Barb. 299. v. Hall, 13 Sun, 306. Affd in 81 2T. Y. 130. V. , 18 Sun, 358. Aff'd in 78 N. Y. 535. See Valentine v. Valentine; Wes- terfield v. Westerfield. Decision in 78 JT. Y. disting'd (Double commissions as exe- cutor and trustee) in Blake v. Blake, 30 Sun, 469. Explained in Matter of Roose- velt, 5 Bed/. 601, 620. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 2738. v. , 38 Sow. Pr. 97. Criticised as opposed to the weight of authority (Action between tenants in common for specific per- formance) in Pomeroy on Bern. § 460, n. 6. T. Hodskins, 30 Sow. Pr. 15. Disting'd (Costs in justice's court when title to realty is in question) in Learn v. Currier, 15 Bun, 185, 187. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 58 N. Y. 292. See Harper v. Alb. Mut. Ins. Co. ; Stein- bach v. La Fayette Fire Ins. Co. Approved as a well considered case (Implied right to use hazardous articles) in 15 Am. L. Bev. 767, where other cases are collected. t. James, 25 Sun, 61. Abridgt. in 12 Weekly Dig. 510. v. Kellogg, 12 N. Y. 325. Rev'g 13 Barb. 603. Decision in 12 N. Y. re-affd (Right of pursuing creditor to priority) in People ex rel. Latorre v. O'Brien, 6 Abb. Pr. K S. 63. v. McMahon, 10 Abb. Pr. 103. Modi- fied in Id. 319. v. Merrill, 5 Bosw. 266. Followed (Composition deeds) in Horstman v. Miller, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 29, 34. Disting'd (Consideration for agreement to compromise claim) in Chemical Nat. B'k v. Kohner, 8 Daly, 530, 535. v. Naylor, 6 Duer, 71. Rev'd in 18 2f. Y. 588. v. Nelson, 23 Barb. 88. Not followed (Power of county court to foreclose mort- gage) in Benson v. Cromwell, 26 Id. 218. See Arnold v. ReeSj 18 iV. Y. 57, and cases cited. HALL— HALLENBECK. 317 Y. Newcomb, 3 Hill, 233. ' Aff'd in 7 Id, 416; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 82, with note, wherein are collected citations. See Bank of Albion v. Smith ; Dean v. Hall ; Herrick e. Carman. Decision in 7 Hill approved and followed (Liability of irregular in- dorser) in Spies v. Gilmore, 1 N. Y. 321 ; Cottrell v. Conklin, 4 D tier, 45; see also, Cromwell v. Hewitt, 40 If. T. 491. Ex- plained in Richards v. Warring, 4 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 47, 52 ; Leggett v. Cochrane, 10 Daly, 270. Disapproved in Burton a. Hansford, 10 W. Va. 470 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 570. Dissented from in Carroll «. Weld, 13 III. 682; s. c, 56 Am. Deo. 481. Re- viewed with Phelps v. Vischer, 50 i\7! T. 66; Oakley v. Boorman, 21 Wend. 588, in Rivers v. Thomas, 1 Lea {Term.) 649; s. c, 27 Am. R. 784, 787. Disapproved with Spies v. Gilmore, 1 N. Y. 321; Richards v. Warring, 1 Keyes, 576; Cromwell v. Hewitt, 40 If. Y. 491, in Chaddoek «. Vanness, 35 N. J. 517; s. c, 10 Am. R. 256, 262. Disap- proved with Tillman v. Wheeler, 17 Johns. 328; Herrick «. Carman, 12 Id. 160, in Lewis v. Harvey, 18 Miss. 74; s. a, 59 Am. Dec. 286. Collated with Spies v. Gilmore, 1 If. Y. 320; Ellis v. Brown, 6 Barb. 282; Waterbury ». Sinclair, 26 Id. 455, and other cases, in 2 Am. R. 475, n. Included, with notes, in Red/. A B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Bxch. 131. Included in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & If. 256. Collated and discussed with Bruce v. Wright, 3 Hun, 548 ; Dean v. Hall, 17 Wend. 214; Bank of Albion e. Smith, 27 Barb. 589; Herrick v. Carman, 12 Johns. 159; 10 Id. 224 (Parol evidence to explain or vary contract of indorsement) in 18 Gent. L. J. 382. v. Phelps, 2 Johns. 451. Limited to unsealed instrument (Proof of written instrument by admissions of party execut- ing) in Fox v. Riel, 3 Id. 477; Henry o. Bishop, 2 Wend. 575. Disting'd and doubted, and Fox v. Riel, 3 Johns. 477, cited as in point, in Berly v. Wilson, 3 Ohio, 42; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 577. v. Prentice, 3 How. Pr. 328; s. c, differently reported, 1 Gode R. 81. v. Reed, 2 Barb. Gh. 500. See Lyon v. Richmond. Explained (Mistake of law) in 1 Story on Gontr. 5 ed., § 526, and n. 1. v. Robhins, 61 Barb. 33; s. c, 4 Lans. 463. See to the contrary (Promise to third person to pay plaintiff) Exchange B'k of St. Louis v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37; s. c, 9 Am. R. 1. But see Abb. Tr. Eo. 386. v. Robinson, 2 N. Y. 293. See GardneT v. Adams. Discussed (Assignment of right of action arising out of tort) in 1 Bars, on Gontr. 226, n. I. v. Rochester, 3 Gow. 374. Followed (Effect of release of one of two joint oblig- ors) in Benjamin v. McConnell, 4 Gilm. (III.) 536; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 474, with note. T. Samson, 19 How. Pr. 481. Further decision in 23 Id. 84, which was rev'd in 35 If. Y. 274. Decision in Id. cited, and Ford ». Ransom, 8 Alb. Pr. If. S. 416, dis- ting'd (Restraining mortgagee by injunc- tion from taking possession under clause in chattel mortgage) in Cline v. Libby, 46 Wis. 123; s. c, 32 Am. R. 700. t. Sawyer, 47 Barb. 1 1 6. Disting'd (Notice of appeal from justice's decision) in Bishop v. Van Vechten, 10 Abb. If. G. 220, 224. v. Schultz, 4 Johns. 240 ; s. a, ZIf.Y. Gom. L. Law. ed. 809, with brief note; 4 Am. Dec. 270. See Dykers v. Townsend. Explained (When payment is deemed voluntary) in Tutt v. Ide, 3 Blatchf. G. Gt. 250, 253. Reviewed with Ripley v. Gelston, 9 Johns. 201 ; Clinton v. Strong, Id. 370, in Chase v. Divinal. 7 Greenl. (Me.) 134; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 352, 354. v. Siegel, 7 Lans. 206 ; s. c, 13 Abb. —Pr. K S. 178. Affd, it seems, jn 53 If. Y. 607, but without opinion. Miller ». White, 59 Barb. 434, here relied on (Effect of judg- ment against corporation as evidence of stockholder's liability) was rev'd in 50 If. Y. 137. v. Stryker, 29 Barb. 105; s. c, more fully, 9 Abb. Pr. 342. Rev'd in 27 N. Y. 596. Decision in 29 Barb, disting'd (Right of attaching creditor to assail fraudulent assignment) in Schlussel v. Willett, 34 Id. 615, 619; Jacobs v. Remsen, 35 Id. 388. Disapproved in Thayer v. Willet, 5 Bosw. 344, 361. v. Suydam, 6 Barb. 83. Followed and approved (What is probable cause in actions for malicious prosecution) in Shafer v. Loucks, 58 Id, 426, 432. v. Tuttle. *6 Hill, 38; a. c, 40 Am. Dee. 382, with note," as to entry of judg- ments, and kindred points. v. , 2 Wend. 475. Disting'd (Re- plevying property in custody of law) in Lynch v. St. John, 8 Daly, 142, 146. v. Waterbury, 5 Abb. If. G. 356. An- other proceeding in Id. 374; s. c., 57 How. Pr. 131. v. Wilson, 16 Barb. 548. See Powell v. Waters. Disting'd (Necessity that de- fense of usury be pleaded) in Haywood v. Jones, 10 Hun, 501. Approved (Note, when usurious as having had no legal incep- tion) in Eastman u. Shaw, 65 If. Y. 528. Cited with Magie v. Baker, 30 Barb. 246 (Rights of bona fde holder of negotiable paper) in Phelan v. Moss, 67 Perm. 59; s. c, 5 Am. R. 402, 406. Hallahau v. Herbert, 4 Daly, 209; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 326. Aff'd on somewhat different grounds, in 57 If. Y. 409. Decis- ion in Id. applied (Personal judgment in proceeding to enforce mechanics' lien) in Burroughs v. Posteran, 2 Abb. N. G. 333, 341. Disting'd (Remedy, when action and not special proceeding) in Gallagher v>, Karns, 27 Hun, 375. Hallenbeck v. De Witt, 2 Johns. 404; s. c, 3 K Y. Gom. L. Law. ed. 429, with brief note. 318 IIALLEN13ECK— HALSEY. v. Garner, 20 Wend. 22. Applied (Who liable in summary proceedings) in People ex rel. Higgins «. McAdam, 84 N. Y. 287, 293. Disting'd in Terrett v. Cowenhoven, 11 Hun, 320, 324 Haller, Matter of, 3 Abb. N. C. 65. Applied (Words less significant than acts) in People ». O'Reilly, 9 Abb. N. C. 77, 98. Hal let, Matter of, 8 Paige, 375. Compare (Meaning of terms "child," "grandchild," &c. as used in wills) Cutter n. Doughty, 7 Hill, 305. Hallet v. Columbian Ins. Co., 8 Johns. 272 ; s. c, 4 N~. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 538, with brief note. Examined with other cases (Lia- bility of owner of vessel for master's acts) in Stedman v. Feidler, 20 K Y. 437; Clark- son v. Edes, 4 Cow. 470, 481. Hallett t. Carter, 19 Hun, 629. See brief mem. denying re-argument in 21 Id. 108. Y. Hallett, 2 Paige, 15. Compare (Par- ties to " proceedings to enforce claims of residuary legatee) in Cromer ». Pinkney, 3 Barb. Ch. 466. Commented on and ap- plied to proceeding to enforce stockholder's liability in Thompson s. Reno Sav'gs B'k (Sup'm. Ct., Nev., 1885), 7 Pae. Rep. 68, 73: - — t. Harrower, 33 Barb. 537. Followed (Effect of description of plaintiff in com- plaint) in Cordier v. Thompson, 8 Daly, 172, 175. Examined and reviewed (Cor- porate creation and existence) in 8 South. L. Rev. N. S. 530. T. Novion, 14 Johns. 273. Rev'd in 16 Id. 327. See Swords v. Owen. t. Peyton, 1 Cat. Cos. 28. Collated with other cases (Abandonment of vessel dependent on actual state of affairs) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 678. V. Righters, 13 How. Pr. 43. Disting'd. but approved (Jurisdiction and amendment) in Talcott e. Rosenberg, 8 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 287. T. Thompson, 5 Puige, 583. Reviewed with other cases (Extent to which equitable interests are subject to the payment of. debts) in Heath v. Bishop, 4 Rich. (So. Gar.) Eq. 46 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dee. 654. Discussed in 4 Kent Gom. 811, n. b. Cited with other cases (Restrictions on estates) in 9 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 400. v. Wylie, 8 Johns. 44 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 457; 3 N. Y. Gom. L. Law. ed. 522, with brief note. See Graves v. Berdan. In- cluded (Rent in case of premises destroyed) •in Lawson's Lead. Gom. L. Cas. Simplified, 165. Hallgarten v. Eckert, 67 Barb. 59. Further decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 102 ; mem. s. c, 1 Hun, 117. Also mem. of decision in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 681 ; ' s. c. 3 Hun, 219. Halliday v. Hart, 30 K Y. 474. See Gahn ». Niemcewicz. Disting'd (Consideration for extension of payment) in Hubbard v. Ga.-ney, 64 N. Y. 457, 468. r. McDougall, 20 Wend. 81. Rev'd in 22 Id. 264. See Chanoine' v. Fowler; Whiting ». Sterling. Decision in 20 Wend. approved in Bowen . Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1 ; Swift v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 If. 7. 528, 534. ■ v. Van Orden, 4 Hun, 709. Re-aff d on rehearing in 5 Id. 654, but without further opinion. Hamblin v. Dinneford, 2 Edw. 529. Dis- ting'd (Remedy in equity to compel per- formance of services) in Daly u. Smith, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 158, 167. Applied with De Revafinoli v. Corsetti, 4 Paige, 264; Sanquircio v. Bcnedetti, 1 Barb. 315, in Blanchard v. Detroit, Lansing, &c. R. R. Co., 31 Mich. 43; s. c, 18 Am. It. 142, 153. Hamersley v. Lambert, 2 Johns. Ch. 509. Disting'd (Remedy against estate of do- ceased joint debtor) in Stahl v. Stahl, 2 Lans. 60. Denied in Executors of Fisher v. Executors of Tucker, 1 McCord Ch. (So. Car.) 173. Followed (In equity partnership debt is several as well as joint) in Camp v. Grant, 21 Conn. 41; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 321, 326, with note. t. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 67 Barb. 35. Aff'd in 56 If. 7. 533. Hamill v. Gillespie, 48 If. Y. 556. Collated with Calvo v. Davies, 8 Hun. 222; 73 If. 7. 215; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 Id. 268; King n. Whitely. 10 Paige, 465; Trotter v. Hughes, 12 If. '7. 74; Burr « Beers, 24 Id. 178; JEtna. Nat. B'k v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 46 Id. 82 ; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 Id. 233 ; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 Id. 253 ; Campbell i). Smith, 71 Id. 26 ; Vrooman -o. Turner, 69 Id. 280; Cpmstock v. Drohan, 71 Id. 9 (Liabilities created on conveyance subject to mortgage) in 26 Am. B. 660, n. Hamilton v. Accessory Transit Co., 26 Barb. 46. Decision on motion for receiver in 13 How. Pr. 108; s.« c, more fully, 3 Abb. Pr. 255. Decision in 26 Barb, explained (Dis- solution and revival of corporation) in Ang. & A. on Corp. 779 a, 11 ed. v. Butler, 4 Bobt. 654; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 446; 30 How. Pr. 36. See (Costs of pro- ceedings for new trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3251, n. v. Cummings, 1 Johns. Ch. 517. Fol- lowed (Jurisdiction of equity to order can- cellation of obligations) in McHenry v. Hazard, 45 If. 7. 580. Dicta disapproved in Hotchkiss v. Elting, 36 Barb. 38, 47. Followed in Jones v. Perry, 10 7erg. (Tenn.) 59; s. e., 30 Am. Dee. 430, 444, with note. Applied in Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co , 17 Blatehf. C. Ct. 142, 145. Followed with Pettit v. Shep- herd, 5 Paige, 501 ; Downing ». Wherrin, 19 If. H. 9 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 139, 146. Criticised as going beyond the length of the more modern cases, — in Coulson v. Portland, Deady, 481, 491. See cases collected in 13 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 39. v. Douglas, 46 If. 7. 218. See Zimmer- man «. Erhard. Applied (Right of married woman to become member of partnership) in Zimmerman d. Erhard, 8 Daly. 811, 313. v. Eno, 16 Hun, 599. Afi'd in 81 If. 7. 116. - — T. Ganyard, 34 Barb. 204. Aff d in 3 Keyes, 45; s. c, 2 Abb. Ct. Apip. Dec. 314. T. Gridley, 54 Barb. 542. See mem. of decision in Ct. of App., 2 Alb. L. J. 458. v. Lomax, 26 Barb. 615. Followed (Promise of marriage by infant not binding) in Lcichtweiss v. Treskow, 21 Hun, 487. T. McPlierson, 28 If. Y. 72. See Costigan v. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co. Applied (Duty of injured party to alleviate^ damages) in Gillis v. Space, 63 Barb. 181 ; Bixby v. Bennett, 3 Daly, 232; Polk v. Daly, 4 Id. 415; Milton v. Hudson River Steamboat Co., 37 If. 7. 215 ; Leonard ». N. Y, kc. Tel. Co., 41 Id. 580; Northrop v. Hill, 57 Id. 356. Compared with other cases in City of Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 47' Id. 484. Relied on with Milton v. Hudson River Steamboat Co., 31 Id. 210; Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co, 45 Id. 744, 753, in Grindle v. Eastern Ex- 320 HAMILTON— HAMMOND. press Co., 67 Me. 317; s. c, 24 Am. R. 31, 38. Approved with Milton v. Hudson River Steamboat Co. ; Diaper v. Sweet, 66 Barb. 145, in Jones v. George, 61 Tex. 345; s. c, 48 Am. R. 280, 294. See also cases in the several States collected in 23 Moah Eng. 100. Included in Sedgw. Cas. on Dam. 165. Quoted and explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1327, n. 7 (Corbin's 4"Am. ed.). Y. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 51 K Y. . 100. See Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. R. Co. ; Luby v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Overruled in effect (Instructing jury to dis- regard incompetent evidence) in Ganson c. Tift, 71 N. Y. 56. Qualified with conflict- ing cases, in Abb. Tr. Brief, xvii., 15. Cited as authority with -Beebe v. Ayres, 28 Barb. 275 (Railroad ticket does not entitle holder to stop over without consent) in Stone v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 47 Iowa, 82 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 458. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 9 Paige, 171. Explained (Right of abutting property holders to compensation for railway) in 1 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 198. —r- t. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 118 ; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 318; 44 How. Pr. 294. Rev'd in 53 N. Y. 25. Further decisions in 48 How. Pr. 50; 40 Super. Ct. («/". & S.) 376 ; 41 Id. 538. Decision in 53 N. Y. explained (Ejection of passenger for nonpayment of fare) in Towns- end v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 56 Id. 295, 209. Disting'd, and Hamilton v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 51 Id. 100; Townsend ■a. N. Y. Centre], &c. R. R. Co., 56 Id. 295, relied on in Jerome v. Smith, 48 Vt. 230 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 125. Followed, and Towns- end v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 56 A 7 ". Y. 295, disting'd in Lake Erie & West- ern R'y Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381 ; s. c, 45 Am. R. 464. See to the contrary (Damages for mental suffering) Covington St. R'y Co. v. Packer, 9 Bush {Ky.) 455; s. c, 15 Am. R. 725. See also Abb. Tr. En. 599. Dis- tinguished (Liability for acts of conductor) in Parker v. Erie R'y Co., 5 Hun, 59. y. Van Rensselaer, 43 Barb. 117 ; s. c, 28 How Pr. 192. AfPd, in part, and rev'd, in part, in 43 N. Y. 244. Decision in Id. disting'd (Interest when included in guar- anty of payment) in Ilurd ». Callahan, 5 Red/. 393. Disting'd (Interest accruing after maturity) in Melick v. Knox, 44 JV. Y. 676. Cited in O'Brien v. Young, 95 Id. 428; s. c, 47 Am. R. 64, with note, where the doctrine is discussed. v. White, 4 Barb. 60. Afl'd in 5 K Y. 9. Decision in Id. quoted (Easement of way, how abandoned) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 341, n. v. Wilson, 4 Johns. 72 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 253. See Greenby v. Wilcocks. Fol- lowed (Covenants of seisin do not run with the land; in Moore v. Merrill, 17 N. H. 75 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 593, 595, with note. v. Wright, 37 N. Y. 502. See addi- tional opinion by Clebke, J., in 5 Transc. App. 1. Discussed (Authority of attorney in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 421. See (Ejectment for land held adversely) Code Civ. Pro. 1881 § 1501, n. Hamilton & Deansville Plank-road Co, v. Rice, 7 Barb. 157. See Mills v, Stewart. Applied (Subscription to stock as condtion precedent to corporate exist- ence—Liability on subscription) in Schen- ectady & Saratoga Plank-road Co v. Thatcher, 11 If. Y. 102. Disting'd (Lia- bility on subscription) in Bray v. FarweH 81 Id. 600, 614. Hamilton College t. Stewart. See Trustees of Hamilton College v. Stewart. Hamlin v. Diiigman, 41 How. Pr. 142. Rev'd in 5 Lans. 61. Decision in Id. collated with Wilcox v. Smith, 5 Wend. 231 ; Nelson v. People, 23 iV. Y. 293 ; People v. Cook, 8 Id. 67; Woolsey ». Village of Rondout, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 639, and cases from other jurisdictions (Proof of official character in 29 Alb. L. J. 86. See to the contrary Cum- mings ». Clark, 15 Vt. 653. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 198. Hammersley v. Barker, 2 Paige, 373. Ap- proved and followed (Costs on dismissal of complaint) under the Code, in Pennell v. Wilson, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 466, 477. Hammett v. Barnard, 1 Hun, 198. Aff d, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 615, but without opinion. v. Linneman, 48 A 7 ". Y. 399. See Kein v. Tupper. Applied (Effect of sale for cash on delivery) in O'Brien v. Jones, 47 Super.. Ct. {J. & 8.) 67, 72. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 358 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Hammon v. Huntley, 4 Cow. 493. See Johnson ■». Beardslee. Criticised as obiter (Effect of admission by one executor to take case out of statute of limitations) in Cayuga Co. B'k v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 236. Hammond v. Baker, 3 Sandf. 704. Applied (Staying proceedings in another court) in Liftchild v. Smith, 7 Robt. 306. v. Dean, 4 Hun, 131; s. c. reported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 337. v. Earlc, 5 Abb. JV. C. 105. Further proceeding in 58 How. Pr. 426. v. Hazard, 1 E. D. Smith, 314. Affg 10 K Y. Leg. Obs. 56. v. Hudson River Iron & Machine Co., 11 How. Pr. 29. Decision on demurrer re- ported in 20 Barb. 378. v. Pennock, 5 Lans. 358. AfPd in 61 N. Y. 145. v. Terry, 3 Lans. 186. Cited as authority (Waiver of objection to counter- claim) in Walker v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 149. V. Tillotson, 18 Barb. 332. See Crane v. Sawyer. Dictum disapproved (Proceedings to determine claims to real properly) in Burnham v. Onderdonk, 41 JSf. Y. 425. v. Varian, 54 N. Y. 398. Cited (Rec- ognition of agent's unauthorized signature) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. \ 705. See Weed v. Carpenter, 4 Wend. 219; Morris ». Bethel, HAMMOND— HAMMER. 321 L. R. 3 C. P. 47; 4 7. Goodrich, though disap- proved in the prevailing opinion, being ap- proved in the .opinion of Shepmy, J. Hanking v. Baker, 46 W. Y. 666. Approved but disting'd with Moss v. Rossie Lead Co., 5 Hill, 137 (Ratification as relating back) in Shuenfeldt v. Junkerman, U. S. Gir. Ct., N. D., Iowa, 20 Fed. Rep. 357, 359. Hanks v. Drake, 49 Barb. 186. See Cairnes v. Bleecker. Overruled with Sterling v. Jaudon, 48 Id. 459 (Right of broker to sell stocks held on margin, without notice to principal) in Markham v. Jaudon, 41 H. Y. 235. t. Hanks, 3 Edw. 469. Quoted (Evi- dence to justify divorce from bonds of matrimony) in 2 Bisli. on Mar. & Div. § 90, " n. 1, 6 ed. Hankinson r. Giles, 29 How. Pr. 478; s. c, more fully, 17 Abb. Pr. 25. Hanlon v. Supervisors of Westchester, 57 Barb. 383. Questioned (Municipal assess- ments) in Matter of Ford, 6 Bans. 92. Haunter v. Wilsey, 17 Wend. 91. See Rctan v. Drew. Applied (Right of one illegally taking property to show subsequent ap- plication of it) in "Wehle v. Butler, 12 Abb. Pr. K S. 146 ; Wehle v. Haviland, 42 How. Pr. 406; Prices). Keyes, 1 Hun, 190; Tif- fany v. Lord, 65 K Y. 313; Otis v. Jones, 21 Wend. 394, 397; Green v. Burke, 23 Id. 495. Approved -with Otis n. Jones, 21 Wend. 394, in Cotton v. Reed, 2 Wise. 484, comparing Higgins v. Whitney, 22 Wend. 379 ; Sherry v. Schuyler, 2 Hill, 204. Dis- ting'd in Ball »>. Liney, 44 Barb. 516, which was rev'd in 48 N~. Y. 14, which see. Ex- plained in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 635, a, n. 3. Cited as authority (Mere tender will 322 HANN— HARGEE. not bar action for tort) in McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 303, 314. Approved and explained in Savage v. Perkins, 11 How. Pi: 19. Explained (Com- mencement of suit) in Johnson v. Oomstock, 6 Hill, 11. So referred to in Diefendorf v. Elwood, 3 How. Pr. 285. Disting'd (Neces- sity of including costs in tender) in Hull v. Peters, 7 Barb. 332. Hann v. Van Voorhis, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 79. Subsequent decision in 5 Hun, 425. Decision in Id. disting'd (Right of creditor to reach surplus income of trust) in Miller v. Miller, 1 Abb. N. C. 30, 37. Decision in 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. overruled in Williams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270, 278. Ha una v. Mills, 21 Wend. 90; s. c, 34 Am. Dee. 216. Relied on (Failure to execute note, when ground of action) in O'Connor v. Dargley, 26 Gal. 22, as well as in N. Y. See also Gibson v. Stevens, 3 McLean, 554. Hannah v. McKellip, 49 Barb. 342. Fol- lowed (Impeachment of witness) in Berner v. Mettnacht, 2 Sweeny, 582; Burvee v. People, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 289. Hannahs v. Hannahs, 5 Hun, 644. Further decision in 68 N. Y. 610. See (Additional allowance by surrogate) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, | 2562, n. Hanover Company v. Sheldon, 9 Alb. Pr. 240. Criticised (Arrest of copartner in ac- tion against firm for fraud of another partner) in Sherman v. Smith, 42 How. Pr. 198, as shaken by fact that same judge had pre- viously delivered contrary opinion in anonymous case, in 6 Abb. Pr. 319, n. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 657. Rev'd in 58 N. Y. 215. Further decision in 3 Hun, 630 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 127. See Bache v. Doscher. T. , 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 221. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 651, but without opinion. Hanse v. Cowing, 1 Lam. 288. See Mayor, &c. of Albany v. Cunliff. Disting'd (Liability of one who has parted with possession of or property in land for nuisance thereon) in Helwig v. Jordan, 53 Ind. 21 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 189, 191. Hanvey v. City of Rochester, 35 Barb. 177. Quoted and collated with other cases (Muni- cipal liability for torts committed ultra vires) in Field on Ultra Vires, 538; Happy v. Mosher, 47 Barb. 501. Rev'd in 48 N. Y. 313. Decision in Id. applied (Lien upon vessel, when not affected) in King v. Greenway, 71 Id. 413, 416. Ex- plained (What is maritime contract) in Wilson v. Lawrence, 82 Id. 409. Shown (Constitutionality of statute providing for enforcement of liens on vessels) in 48 Am. Dec. 275, n., to be contrary to Parsons v. Russell, 11 Mich. 113. Hnrbeck v. Sylvester, 13 Wend. 608. Com- pare (Action by grantee on guaranty for payment of rent) in Allen v. Culv.er, 3 Den. 284. v. Vandcrbilt, 20 K Y. 395. Applied (Effect of payment of obligation, to ex- tinguish it) in Kellogg v. Ames, 41 Barb. 223 ; Booth v. Farmers' & Mech. Nat. B'k, 74 iK Y. 232, which afl'd 11 Hun, 264, which see. Disting'd in Champney v. Coope, 32 N. Y. 550, which rev'd 34 Barb. 544, which see; Hubbell v. Blakeslee, 71 N. Y. 63, 71 ; Townsend v. Whitney, 75 Id. 429. Disting'd and criticised in Marsh «. Benedict, 14 Hun, 319. Hard v. Rearing, 44 Barb. 472. Rev'd as Rockwell v. Nearing, 35 K Y. 302. v. Seeley. See Van Marter v. Babcock. v. Shipman, 6 Barb. 621. See Fergu- son v. Crawford. Followed (Effect of want of jurisdiction) in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 166. Harden v. Corhett, 6 Hun, 522. Disting'd (Action founded in tort, not referable) in Wood v. Hope, 2 Abb. K C. 186, 189. ■ Hardenbergh v. Van Kenren, 4 Abb. F. C. 43. Rev'd in 16 Hun, 17. Harder v. Harder, 2 Sand/. Ch. 17. Fol- lowed (Agreement to leave lands by will as affected by statute of frauds) in Gould v. Mansfield, 103 Mass. 408 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 573. Hardinann v. Bowen, 39 N. Y. 196. Dis- ting'd (Validity of acts of officer, &c, who has not complied with requirements of au- thorizing statute) in Board of Education v. Fonda, 77 Id. 350, 357. Explained and disting'd (Acknowledgment of assignment for creditors) in Lowenstein v. Flauraud, 82 Id. 494, 496. Applied in Rennie v. Bean, 24 Hun, 124. Explained (Effect of subse- quent illegal acts to invalidate assignment) in Shultz «. Hoagland, 85 K Y. 464, 468. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. § 351, n. 2, 4 ed. Hardt y. Schulting, 21 Hun, 618; s. c, fully reported, 59 How. Pr. 353. Previous pro- ceeding in 13 Hun, 537. Subsequent decis- ion in 24 Id. 345, which was affd in 85 1ST. Y. 624 ; s. c, more fully. 12 Weekly Dig. 514. Hardy v. Jandon, 1 Robt. 261. Said in 41 N. Y. 619 to have been rev'd on condition in Ct. of App., Sept., 1869, Hare v. Van Deusen, 32 Barb. 92. Disting'd (Waiver of vendor's lien) in Mills v. Bliss, 55 If. Y. 139, 145. Harger v. Edmonds, 4 Barb. 256. Criticised as weakened by qualifications at close of opinion (Opinions of witness as evidence) in Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y. 183. v. McCullongh, 2 Den. 119. See Corning v. McCullough. Reviewed with Bird t>. Hayden, 1 Robt. 383 ; Woodruff & Beach Iron Works v. Chittenden, 4 Bom. 417; Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119; Weeks v. Love, 50 Id. 568; Merchant's B'k v. Bliss, 1 Robt. 391 ; Corning v. Mc- Cullough, 1 K Y. 47 ; Jones v. Barlow, 62 Id. 202; Ex parte Van Riper, 20 Wend. 614, and other cases (Nature of personal liability of stockholder or trustee of corporation) in HARGER- HARPER. 323 Flash v. Conn, 16 Fla. 428; «. c, 26 Am. R. 721. 723-726, 729. v. Wilson, 63 Barb. 237. Applied (Evi- dence as to bona fide character of holder of note) in Bailey v. Griswold, 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 68, 74. Hargous v. Ablon, 5 Bill, 472. Affd in 3 Den. 406. Decision in 5 Hill quoted and explained (Proximate damages) in 3 Pars, on Oontr. 180, n. w. t. Stone, 5 N. Y. 73. See Dike v. Eeitlinger. Said with Reed v. Randall, 29 Id. 358; Dutchess Co. v. Harding, 49 Id. 321, to be modified 1 by later cases (Remedies for failure of quality in sales of personalty), — in Bagley v. Cleveland Rolling Mill Co., U. S. Oir. Gt. K D. N. Y, 2L Fed. Sep. 159, where Gaylord Manuf. Co. 0. Allen, 53 N. Y. 519; Gurney v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 58 Id. 358 ; Day v. Pool, 52 Id. 416; Park v. Morris Axe & Tool Co., 54 Id. 587, were also cited and commented on. Explained in 1 Pars, on Oontr. 585, n. t. Quoted in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 970, n. f (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. § 977, n. 29. Harker v. Anderson, 21 Wend. 372. Fol- lowed (Necessity of presentment of check for payment) in Judd ». Smith, 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 255. Discussed and ques- tioned in 3 Kent Com. 104, n., a. Harman v. Brotherson, 1 Ben. 537. Applied (Affidavit of information and belief) in Mil- ler v. Adams, 52 A 7 ". Y. 409, 415. Harmon V. N. T. & Erie R. R. Co., 28 Barb. 323. Explained (Parol evidence as to goods covered by general terms in bill of lading) in Ang. on Carr. § 229, n. a, 5 ed. Harlem Gas Light Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Robt. 100. Affd in 33 AC Y. 309. Harley v. Eleventh Ward Bank, 7 Daly, 476. Affd in 76 A 7 ". Y. 618. v. Ritter, 18 How. Pr. 147; s. c, more fully, 9 Abb. Pr. 400. Harmony v. Bingham, 1 Duer, 209. Affd in 12 K Y. 99. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Effect of unconditional agreement to perform) in Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt, 21 Barb. 32; Hyland v. Paul, 33 Id. 245; Worth v. Edmonds, 52 Id. 44. Applied in Niblo v. Binsse, 44 Id. 62 ; in dissenting opinion of Clebke, J., in Dexter v. Norton, 55 Id. 287; Kein v. Tupper, 42 How. Pr. 451; Wheeler v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 16 Hm, 321 ; Tompkins v. Dudley, 25 N. Y. 275; Price v. Hartshorn, 44 Id. 102. Cited as settled law with Beebc v. Johnson, 1 9 Wend. 500; People v. Bartlett, 3 Hill, 571, in Cobb v. Harmon, 23 JSF. Y. 148, 150, 154. Examined with other cases in Bald- win v. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 3 Bosw. 545 ; Jenkins v. Wheeler, 37 How. Pr. 470. Quoted in Benj. on Sales, § 570, n. a (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted and ex- plained in 2 Id. § 864, n. 14 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted in 2 Ghitty on Contr. 1078, n. Jr., 11 Am. ed. Applied (Duress) in Commercial B'k of Rochester v. City of Rochester, 41 Barb. 341 ; Stenton v. Jerome, 54 A 7 ". Y. 485 ; Scholey «. Mumford, 60 Id' 501 ; Peyser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 70 Id- 501; McPherson v. Cox, 86 Id. 472, 479; Gould v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 23 Hun, 325. Approved in dissenting opinion of E. D. Smith, J., in Commercial B'k of Rochester «. City of Rochester, 42 Barb. 504. Recognized and illustrated with Scholey v. Mumford, 60 N. Y. 498. in Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 569, 575. Ap- plied in Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1 ; s._c, 8 Am. R. 287, 293. Quoted in Wait on Fraud, Coiw. § 479. Collated with Wolfe ®. Howes, 20 N. Y. i97; Dexter i\ Norton, 47 Id. 62 ; Jones v. Judd, 4 Id, 411; Lantry v. Parks, 8 Oow. 63, and other cases (Recovery for services rendered, on quantum meruit) in 31 Am. R. 100, n. Harmony Ins Co., Matter of, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 347. Affd in 45 N. Y. 310. Decision in Id. explained (Power of court to extend time) in People ex rel. Att. Gen"l v. Secur- ity Life Ins., &c. Co., 79 Id. 272. Decis- ion in 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. followed (Proof of claim against insolvent corporation) iu Smith ». Manhattan Ins. Co., 4 Hun, 127. Harp v. Osgood, 2 Mill, 21 6. See Hatch v. Mann. Quoted (Contracts with agent) in 1 Ohitty on Contr. 11 Am. ed. 316, n. o. Harpeiuling v. Shoemaker, 37 Barb. 270. Followed (Amendment at trial) in Knapp v. Roche, 37 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 395; 407. Harper's Case. See Hayward -o. Liverpool, &c. Ins. Co. Harper v. Albany Mnt. Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 194. Disting'd with Bryant v. Pough- keepsie Mut. Ins. Co., Id. 200 (Construc- tion of insurance policy) in Hayward v. Liverpool & London Ins. Co., 3 Keyes, 456. Followed in Harper v. N. Y. City Ins. Co., 22 N. Y. 441, 442, 445. Cited as authority in Franklin Fire Ins. Co. ti. Chi- cago Ice Co., 36 Md. 102 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 469, 478. Applied with Bryant «. Poughkeepsie Mut, Ins. Co., 17 A 7 ". Y. 200 ; Williams v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 54 Id. 569, in Carlin v. Western Assurance Co. of Toronto, 57 Md. 515 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 440. Col- lated with Bryant v. Poughkeepsie Ins. Co. ; Harper e. N. Y. City Ins. Co., 22 A 7 : Y. 441 ; Hall v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 58 Id. 292; Steinbach «. La Fayette Fire Ins. Co., 5ild. 90; Langdon v. Equitable Ins. Co., 1 Hall, 225; 6 Wend. 623; Williams v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co , 54 N. Y. 569 ; Williams v. People's Fire Ins. Co., 57 Id. 274; Westfall v. Hudson River Ins. Co., 14 Id. 289 ; Meads v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 7 Id. 530; Wood v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 46 Id. 421 ; Buchanan v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 61 Id. 26; Watson v. Farm Building Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 415, and other cases (Use of hazard- ous materials that will avoid fire policy) in 24 Am. R. 150, n. v. Fairley, 53 K Y. 442. See Winchell ■b. Hicks. Disting'd (Payment that re- moves bar of statute of limitations) in Smith v. Ryan, 39 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 489, 324 HAEPEK-HAEKIS. 499, which was affd in 66 N. Y. 352, 355, which see. Disting'd in Nat. B*k of Dela- van v. Cotton, 53 Wis. 31, 35. t. Harper, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 351. See Pollock v. Pollock, See (Duty of proponent of will to give evidence of tes- tator's sanity) 24 Alb. L. J. 59. v. leal, 10 Sow. Pr. 276. See Kneettle •». Newcomb. Followed with Kneettle v. Newcomb, 31 Barb. 169; 22 iv". Y. 249; Crawfood v. Lockwood, 9 Sow. Pr. 54 (Invalidity of agreements to waive benefit of exemption laws) in Moxley v. Ragan, 10 Bush (Ky.) 156; s. c, 19 Am. E. 61. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1404, n. v. N. T. City Ins. Co., 1 Bom. 520. AfTd in 23 N. Y. 441. See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. ; St. John v. Am. Mut. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Decision in 22 IT. Y. disting'd (Condition in fire policy against use of dangerous article) in United ■ Life, Fire, &c. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 22 Ohio St._ 340; s. c, 10 Am. R. 735. Both de- cisions included in Lawson's Lead. Oom. L. Cas. Simplified, 187; Lawson on Usages and Customs, 148, with note. Harrington t. Dorr, -3 Robt. 275. Explained (Liability on accommodation paper taken after maturity) in First Nat. B'k of Salem ii. Grant, 71 Me. 374; s. c, 36 Am. R. 334. v. Higliam, 13 Barb. 660. Further decision in 15 Id. 524. Decision in Id. followed (Judgment against defendants jointly liable) in Quigley v. Walter, 2 Sweeny, 175. T. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 10 Sun, 248. Aff'd, it seems, in 70 N. Y. 604, but with- out opinion. Decision in Id. followed (Municipal contracts) in Callmeyer v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 Id. 116, 120. Decision in 10 Sun collated with other cases in 5 Abb. XT. C. 46, n. v. People, 6 Barb. 607. See Jackson ». Roberts. Disapproved (Inquiry into jurisdiction) in Reed o. Vaughan, 15 Mo. 137; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 133. Harriott v. N. J. R. R. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. 284. See Humiston v. Ballard. General Term de- cision also reported in 2 Silt. 262. Spec- ial Term decision rev'd in 1 Daly, 377, and disting'd (Costs on dismissing complaint for want of jurisdiction) in King v. Poole, 36 Barb. 248. Decision in 2 Silt, disting'd and criticised with McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 JV. Y. 308 (Jurisdic- tion over foreign corporation) in Pease v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Daly, 459. Disting'd in McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 303, 308. Compare Code Civ. Pro. §§263, 264, 1780. Harris v. American Bible Soc'y, 46 Barb. 470. Rev'd, in part, in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 316 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 421. Decis- ion in Id. applied (Limitations on bequests, &c. to charitable, &c. corporations) in Cur- ran v. Sears, 2 Red/. 526, 540. See also Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. K C. 317. t. Biirdett, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 57. Aff'd in 76 JV. Y. 583. Motion to dismiss appeal denied in 73 Id. 136. See Wright v. Hunter. t. Clark, 2 Barb. 94. Aff'd in 3 K Y. 93; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 852, with note, col- lecting citations. See Hutter v. Ellwanger; Winter v. Drury; Wright v. Wright. De- cision in 3 If. Y. approved and followed with Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, Id. 243 (Operation of check or draft as assignment of fund) in Lunt v. Bank of North America, 49 Barb. 221. Disting'd in Munger v. Shannon, 61 K Y. 251, 258. Limited with Attorney-Gen'l «. Continental Life Ins. Co., 71 Id. 325, in Coates v. First Nat. Bank of Emporia, 91 Id. 20. Approved and fol- lowed in preference to Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598 (Gifts causa mortis) in Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 602, 611. Collated with Martin v. Funk, 75 IT. Y. 134, and other cases (Assignment or appropriation of fund that constitutes gift) in 26 Am. R. 684, n. T. , 7 K Y. 242. Explained (Equitable conversion) in Gourley v. Camp- bell, 6 Sun, 218, 222, which was, however, rev'd in 66 N. Y. 169. v. Cone, 10 Sow. Pr. 259. Denied as in conflict with Corwin v. Freeland, 6 A 7 ! 7. 760 (Right to arrest as affected by allega- tions in complaint) inSellar v. Sage, 13 Sow. Pr. 234. v. Eagle Fire Co. of N. Y., 5 Johns. 368 ; s. c, 3 N. F, Com. L. Law. ed. 1048, with brief note, on valuation. v. Ely, 25 N. Y. 138. See Tucker v. Tucker. Doubted (Surrogate's jurisdiction to decide validity of release) in Bevan «. Cooper, 72 N. Y. 317, 329. — — v. Equitable Life Assnr. Soc'y, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 108; s. c, more fully, 3 Sun, 724. Aff'd in 64 IT. Y. 196. De- cision in 3 Sun disting'd (Duty of party seeking relief against contract to restore what he has received) in Anthony s. Day, 52 Sow. Pr. 35. Approved in 3 Abb. N. C. 93, n. v. Fly, 7 Paige, 421. See Reynolds . Stanton, 14 JV. Y. 289, in Bucks. First Nat. B'k of Paw-Paw, 27 Mich. 293; s. c, 15 Am. R. 189. T. Schultz, 40 Baro. 315. Disting'd (Trover' for property intrusted to agent) in Grand Trunk R'y Co. v. Edwards, 56 Barb. 408. v. Slaglit, 46 Barb. 470. Modified in Harris v. Am. Bible SoC, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 316; s. a, 4 Abb. Pr. JV S. 421. De- cision in 46 Barb, disting'd with Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 JV. Y. 434 (Objections to charitable devises and bequests) in Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 177. v. Thompson, 15 Barb. 62. Applied (Assignments bv corporations) in Cheever 1>. Gilbert Elev. R'y Co., 43 Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) 478, 487. Disting'd in Excelsior Petroleum Co. r. Embury, 67 Barb. 261, 266. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 65, 4ed. t. Tumbridge, 8 Abb. JV. G. 291. Aff'd in 83 JV. Y. 92; s. c, 38 Am. R. 398. See Bigelow v. Benedict. Decision in 83 JV. Y. collated with Cassarcl v. Hinman, 1 Bosw. 210; 6 Id. 13; Yerkes v. Salomon, 11 Sun, 473 (Execution of option contracts) in 22 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 615, 618, n. Discussed in 1 Add. on Contr. 60, n., Abb. ed. De- cision in 8 Abb. JV. 0. followed (Broker when not allowed to interpose defense of custom) in Lawson on Usages and Customs, 49. v. Uebelhoer, 75 JV. Y. 169. Disting'd (Negligence in parties engaged in joint enterprise) in Platz *. City of Cohoes, 24 Eun, 101, 103. v. Warner, 13 Wend. 400. Cited (Lia- bility to contribution of one who signs as surety after others) in Pitkin v. Flanagan, 23 Vt. 160; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 60, as show- ing tendency of N. Y. cases. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 36, n. x. Y. White, 81 JV. Y. 532. Disting'd (Violation of statute against betting and, gaming) in Costello v. Curtis, 13 Weekly Dig. 20. v. Wilson, 7 Wend. 57; s. c, 11 JV Y. Com. L. Law. ed., with brief note of other cases on cross-examination as to collateral facts. See Whitney v. Ferns. v. You man, Hoffm. 178. See Mills v. Dennis. Quoted (Decree against infant) ia Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf. &c, 237. Harrison v. Bockee, 66 Barb. 549. AfFd, it seems, in 56 N". Y. 668, but without opin- ion. v. Clark, 4 Hun, 685. Explained (Jus- tice when liable for false imprisonment) in MoaKs UnderhUVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 191. T. Close, 2 Johns. 448 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. - 444. See Rowley v. Stoddard ; Seymour e. Minturn. Disting'd (Effect of part pay- ment by one of joint debtors) in Ludding- ton«. Bell, 77 JV.T. 138. Collated with Blum v. Hartmann, 3 Daly, 47; Keeler v. Salisbury, 33 JV. Y. 648, and other cases from N. Y. and most of the other States (Compositions with creditors when void for want of consideration) in 17 Cent. L. J. 302. 326 HAEEISON— HAET. v. Glover, 9 Sun, 196. Reversed in 72 N. Y. 451. Previous decision in 4 Sun, 121. v. Harrison, 42 Barb. 162. Aff'd in 36 N. Y. 543. See Savage «. Burnham. Decision in 42 Barb, commented on (Sus- pending power of alienation) in Gerard Titles to Real Est. 2 ed. 234. v. McMahon, 1 Bradf. 283. Eev'd in 10 Barb. 659 ; and that aff'd in 6 JST. Y. 443. -^— v. Newton, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 311. An- other decision in action between same par- ties in Id. 347. v. People, 50 N. Y. 518; s. c, 10 Am. R. 517. Followed (Sufficient carrying away to constitute offense of larceny) in State v. Chambers, 22 W. Va. 779 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 550, 559. T. Boss, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 230. Aff'd it seems, in 80 N. Y. 646, but without opinion. v. Sawtel, 10 Johns. 242; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 337. See Johnson v. Gilbert. Com- pared (Parol contracts of indemnity) in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 476. v. Simons, 3 Edw. 394. Approved (Ef- fect of death of party in foreclosure pro- ceedings) in Hays v. Thomas, 56 W. Y. 522. Applied in Grant «. Griswold, 21 Sun, 509, 512. t. Stevens, 12 Wend. 170. Reviewed with Holmes v. Seely, 17 Id. 75; Hinman v. Booth, 21 Id. 267 ; Gillett v. Stanley, 1 Sill, 121 ; Cole v. Irvine, 6 Id. 634 ; Truax v. Thorn, 2 Barb. 156 (Complaint in eject- ment) in Ballance v. Rankin, 12 III. 420 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 412, with note, as indicat- ing a fluctuating condition in the opinions of the N. Y. courts. See, however, collated with these and, other cases, in 54 Am. Dec. 415, n., Underwood v. Jackson, 1 Wend. 95 ; Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 13 Id. 578 ; Vrooman v. Ward, 2 Barb. 330; Van Rens- selaer v. Jones, Id. 643 ; Neilson 11. Neil- son, 5 Id. 573 ; which are said to establish the law in N. Y. that under a claim for the whole the plaintiff in ejectment may recover any part to which he proves title. Dis- cussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 438. v. Wilkin, 69 W. Y. 412. Further de- cision in 78 Id. 390. With decision in 69 Id. see (Undertaking in replevin) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1699, n. v. Williamson. See Cowperthwait v. Sheffield. v. Wood, 2 Duer, 50. See (Judgment dismissing complaint) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1209, n. Harrod v. Barretto, 1 Sail, 156. Further decision in 2 Id. 302. Decision in 1 Id. followed (Courts of Common Pleas in other States to be regarded as courts of record) in McCulloch v. Norwood, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 180, 186. Applied with Shumwny v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 292; (Requisites of plea denying jurisdiction of court) in Welch «. Sykes, 3 dim. {III.) 197; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 689, with note. Harrold v. N. T. Elevated R. R. Co., 21 Sun, 268. See Walsh v. Sayre. Applied (Examination before trial) in Shaw v. Van Rensselaer, 60 Sow. Pr. 144. Com- pare Tenney v. Mautner, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 64, 71. Harrovrer v. Heath. See Putnam v. Wise. v. Bitson, 37 Barb. 301. Cited as au- thority (Right " of individual to abate ob- struction in highway) in Phifer v. Cox, 21 Ohio St. 248; s. c, 8 Am. R. 58, 61. Quoted and commented on in Wood on mis. 2 ed., §§ 252, 740. Hart v. City of Brooklyn, 36 Barb. 226. Held to conflict with Howell v. City of Buf- falo, 15 JV. Y. 512, and to be therefore over- ruled (Application of L. 1859, c. 262, § 2, respecting recovery of costs against muni- cipal corporations) in McClure ». Supervis- ors of Niagara, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 202, which dismissed appeal from 50 Barb. 594, 600, which see. Explained and qual- ified (Liability of corporation for neg- ligence) in Grant v. City of Brooklyn, 41 Id. 381. v. Cleis, 8 Johns. 41. Relied on with Fleming «. People, 27 -V. Y. 329 (Negativ. ing exception in statute) in Commonwealth v. Jennings, 121 Mass. 47; s. c, 23 Am. R. 249, 253. Followed in State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 528. — - v. Direet U. S. Cable Co. See Young v. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Erie R'y Co., 3 Alb. L. J. 312. Dis- cussed with numerous authorities (Effect of omission of railroad company to give cus- tomary. signals) in 1 Add. on Torts, 582, n. Wood's ed. v. Hart. 14 Sow. Pr. 418. Overruled by further decision in 22 Barb. 606. De- cision in Id. applied (Right to withdraw from contract on ground of dissatisfaction) in Spring v. Ansonia Clock Co., 2iSun, 175. Followed with Tyler v. Ames, 6 Lans. 280, in Wood Reaping & Mowing Co. ». Smith, 50 Mich. 565; s. c, 45 Am. R. 57. v. , 2 Edw. 207. Commented on (Evidence to prove adultery) in 2 Greenl. on Eo. 14 ed., § 41, n. a. v. Hoffman, 44 Sow. Pr. 168. See Cook v. Kroemeke. Followed (Presump- tion as to solvency of purchaser of real estate) in Goss v. Broom, 31 Minn. 484. v. Hudson, 6 Duer, 294. Applied (Ef- fect of taking note to discharge surety) in Maier v. Canavau, 8 Daly, 272, 276. v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 80 N. Y. 622. Followed (Negligence as question of fact) in Jones v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 28 Sun. 364, which affd 10 Abb. N. C. 200, 203, which see. Followed in Con- way «. City of Albany. 14 Weekly Dig. 62 1 ; Urquehart v. City of Ogdenburgh, 13 Id. 108; Morrell v: Peck, 24 Sun, 37. v. Kennedy, 14 Abb. Pr. 432 ; s. c, 23 HAKT— HAETFIELD. 327 How. Pr. 417. Rev'd in 39 Barb. 186; S. c, 15 Abb. Pr. 290 ; 24 How. Pr. 425. T. Lauinan, 29 Barb. 410. Collated with other cases (Change of plan in mun- icipal contracts) in 5 Abb. N~. C. 48, n. v. Mayor, &c, of Albany, 9 Wend. 571 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 165, with note, contain- ing citations. Previous decisions in 3 Paige, 213; Id. 381. See Irvin e. Wood; Livingston v. Livingston; Eockwell v. Nearing; Storrs v. City of Utica. Decision in 9 Wend, disting'd (Restraining permanent encroachment on highway) in People v. Horton, 64 K Y. 620. Followed in People v. City of St. Louis, 5 Gilm. (III.) 351; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 339, 344, with note. Cited as authority (Forfeiture of property by municipal corporation) in Kneedler v. Borough of Norristown, 100 Pa. St. 368 ; s. c, 45 Am. B. 383. Examined with Matter of Long Island R. R. Co., 19 Wend. 37 (Bnforciug forfeiture of property of corporator for violation of by-law) in Cahill v. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 138. Applied (Municipal authority to require summary removal of nuisance) in King v. Davenport, 98 III. 305; s. c, 38 Am. R. 89. Commented on in Wood on iTuis. 2 ed., § 739. Decision in 3 Paige, 213 followed in Mayor, &c. of Monroe v. Gerspach, 33 La. Ann. 1011. Disting'd (In- junction pending appeal) in Fellows v. Heer- mans, 13 Abb. Pr. if. 8. 11. Applied in Doughty v. S. & E. R. R. Co., 3 Halst. Ch. (if. J.) 629; s. c, 51 Am. Dee. 267, 270, with note. Examined (Doctrine of nuis- ance) in People b. Carpenter, 1 Mich. 289 ; citing Pierce v. Dart, 7 Gow. 609. v. Messenger, 2 Lans. 446. Rev'd (Lia- bility on bond of indemnity against claims on banking business) in 46 if. Y. 253. v. Palmer. See Rosa v. Brotherson. T. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 8 i\T. Y. 37; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 447, with note. See Bostwick v. Champion; Milnor v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. ; Van Santvoord v. St. John; Weed v. Saratoga & Sehenec- tady R. R. Co.. Followed (Liability of car- rier beyond its own line) in Schroeder v. Hudson River R. R. Co , 5 Duer, 55. See also Babcoek v. Lake Shore, &c. R R. Co., 43 Bow. Pr. 317. Disting'd in Milnor v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 53 K. Y. 363, 370. Followed in Texas & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ferguson, 1 Tex. Gt. App. (Ch. Gas ) 726. Collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 116. v. Reynolds, 3 Cow. 42, n. See Mechanic's B'k v. Minthorne. Disting'd (Amendment of judgment) in Grant v. Griswold, 21 Hun, 509, 511. — <■ v. Seixas. See Foot v. Stevens. — v. Taylor, 5 Hun, 288. Subsequent decision in 82 N. Y. 373. — v. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. Oh. 62. Said in 1 Gow. 744, n. a, to have been rev'd in Ct. of Errors. Case by respondent in Ct. of Errors published at Albany in 1815. See Dunham «. Jackson. Followed and ap- proved as settling the doctrine (Answer as evidence of disbursements, on bill to ac- count) in Ringgold v. Ringgold, 1 Harr. & G. (Md.) 11 ; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 250, 266. Followed (Rule of damages in case of con- founding of property) in Hall v. Page. 4 Ga. 428; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 235, 238, with note. Shown in 1 Am. D.c. 518, »., citing Tyler on Usury, 648, to be contrary to the No. Carolina decisions (Remedy by pledgor by bill in equity, to redeem pledge). v. Wright, 17 Wend. 267. Affd in 18 Id. 449. See Holden v. Dakin; Howard v. Hoey; Moses v. Mead. Decision in 17 Wend, followed with Moses v. Mead, 1 Den. 378 (Warranty on sale of provisions) in Howard v. Emerson, 110 Mass. 320; s. c, 14 Am. B. 608. Reviewed and collated with other cases in 22 Am. L. Beg. if. 8. 232. Opinion of Cowen, J., cited and favorably commented on in 2 Kent Com. 479. Hartean t. Deer Parft Blue Stone Co., 1 Hun, 493. Fuller mem. in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 763. Hartfleldv. Roper, 21 Wend. 615; s. c, 13 if. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1209 with brief note of conflicting cases, also s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 273, with note, wherein it is shown to be a leading authority. Applied (Imputing negligence of infant to parent) in Mangam v. Brooklyn R. R. Co.. 38 if. Y. 457, which affd 36 Barb. 238, which see. Followed as the law of this State in Mowrey v. Central City R'y, 66 Barb. 51, 53. Disting'd in Thurber "v. Harlem, &c. R. R. Co., 60 if Y. 326, 333. Criticised in G. H. & H. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 59 Tex. 64; s. c, 46 Am. B. 265; also in article in 1 Am. L. J. 153, where it is compared with authorities in other States. Disting'd and doubted in Robinson v. Cone, 22 Vt. 213; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 67, with note. Approved with Mangam n. Brooklyn R. R. Co., 38 if. Y. 455 in Fitzgerald v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. R., 29 Minn. 336 ; s. c, 43 Am. B. 212, with note. Cited in 5 Am. B. 148, »., as the leading American case on the point. Doctrine of this case fol- lowed in Holly v. Boston Gas Light Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 123; Callahan v. Bean, 9 Al- len (Mass.) 401, but opposed in many States. See Daley v. Norwich & W. R. R. Co., 26 Conn. 598 ; Robinson «. Coe, 22 Penn. 226 ; Ranch v. Lloyd, 31 Id. 358, 370 ; Penn. R. R. Co. v. Kelly, Id. 372 ; Phil. R. R. Co. v. Spearen, 47 Id. 305; Smith v. O'Connor, 48 Id. 218 ; City of Chicago v. Mayor, &c, 18 III. 360, 42 Id. 356; City v. Kirby, 8 Minn. 169 ; Boland v. Missouri, 36 Mo. 490; Whirley v. Whittemore, 1 Head (Tenn.) 620; B. & I. R. R. Co. v. Snyder, 18 Ohio St. 399. Included with note in Lawson's Lead. Gom. L. Gas. Simplified, 239; 2 Thomps on Negh 1121. Commented on in Id. 1180, 1184,_ 1187. Applied (Contributory negligence in one injured on highway) in Barker v. Sav- 328 HARTFORD— IIARTWELL. age, 45 K Y. 191. Followed in Ken- nard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 249, 254, with note. Relied on with Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592 (Contribu- tory negligence as bar) in New Orleans, ■ Jackson & Northern R. R. Co. 1>. Harrison, 48 Miss. 112; s. c, 12 Am. P. 356, 366. Hartford v. Palmer, 16 Johns. 143. Cited as authority (Competency of witness as af- fected by want of understanding) in Coleman v. Commonwealth, 25 Oratt. (Va.) 865; s. c, 18 Am. P. 711. Hartford & New Haven E. E. Co. t. Cros- well, 5 Sill, 383 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 355, I with note. See Spear v. Crawford, 5 Sill, i 383. Commented on, as an extreme case, i (Effect of change, on liability of subscribers i for stock) in Schenectady & Saratoga Plank- road Co. v. Thatcher, 11 K Y. 102, 109, 114. Doubted in Buffalo & N. Y. City R. ! R. Oo. v. Dudley, 14 Id. 336, 355. See | other authorities collected in 16 Am. L. Rev. 101, 106. Approved (Power to incur Dew liabilities without consent of stockhold- ers) in McCullough v. Moss, 5 Den. 580. v. N. ¥. & New Ha veil E. E. Co., 3 Robt. ill. Relied on with Stauton ». Allen, 5 Den. 434; Hooker d. Vandewater, 4 Id. 349, (Invalidity of contracts in restraint of trade) in Denver, &c. R. R. Co. v. Atchison, &c. R. Co., U. 8. dr. Ct. D. Col, 16 Vent. L. J. 211. Collated with Hooker v. Vandewater, 4 Den. 349, and other cases in note by Fbancis Whakton, to Sharp v. Whiteside, 19 Fed. Rep. 169. Quoted in Morawetz on Corp. § 495. Hartford & N. T. Steamboat Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 12 Hun, 550. Aff'd in 78 K Y. 1. Hartley v. Harrison, 24 JST. T. 170. See Chamberlain v. Dempsey. Disting'd (Right to set up usury in mortgage) in Knicker- bocker Life, Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 78 N. Y. 137, 153; Chapin v.. Thompson, 23 Hun, 12, 17. Compared (Right of grantor of mort- gaged premises to release grantee from personal liability) in Thomas on Mort. 194. v. James, 18 Abb. Pr. 299. Further decision on the merits in 50 N. Y. 38. — — v. Tatham, 24 How. Pr. 505. Fully re- ported in 10 Bosw. 273. Subsequent decis- ion in 1 Robt. 246; s. c, 26 Sow. Pr. 158, which was modified in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 333 ; s. c, mis-reported in 1 Keyes, 222. Decision in 26 Sow. Pr. criticised as obiter dictum (Right of grantee of mortgaged premises to question amount due on mort- gage) in Thnmas on Mort. 299. Hartman, Matter of, 9 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 124. Superseded (Proceedings to compel change of route) by L. 1871, c. 560. Hartness v. Boyd, 5 Wend. 503. Approved (Practice on inquest) in Kerker v. Carter, 1 Hill, 101. v. Thompson, 5 Johns. 160. See Van Bramer v. Cooper. Followed (Plea of in- fancy by one in assumpsit against two or more) in Cutts v. Gordon, 13 Me. 474 ; s c 29 Am. Dec. 520. Hart ne tt v. Wandell, 2 Sun, 552; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 98. Rev'g Matter of Alexander's Will, 16 Abb. Pr. K S. 9; but itself rev'd and "the latter affd in 60 N. Y. 346; s. c, 19 Am. P. 194; 16 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 383. See (Posthumous designa- tion of executor) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2640, n. Hartshorne v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 538. Affd in 36 N. Y. 172. Hartt v. Harvey, 10 Abb. Pr. 321; s. c, 32 Barb. 55. Approved (Quo warranto as remedy for trying title to office) in subse- quent decision in 13 Alb. Pr. 332, 334. Applied 1 (Effect of judgment in quo war- ranto proceeding) in People ex rel. Gilchrist v. Murray, 8 Daly, 347, 355. Collated with other cases (Canvassing election returns) in Brightly's Cas. on Elect. 313. Hartung v. People, 22 N. Y. 95. Subsequent decision in 28 Id. 400; s. c, £5 Sow. Pr. 221, which is a repetition of the same case, previously better reported in 26 N. Y. 167, where opinion of Ehott, J., at full length, and an opinion by Balcom, J., are given, Decision here rev'd reported in 23 Sow. Pr. 314. Decision in 22 N. Y. commented en (Pi post/ado laws) in Mongeon v. People, 55 Id. 613, 618. Followed with Shepherd v. People, 25 Id. 406 ; Green v. Shumway, 39 Id. 418, in Kring e. State of Missouri, 107 U. S. 221, 230. Collated with Shep. herd i>. People; Green v. Shumway, and many other cases, in 18 Cent. L. J. 277. Cited in 1 Kent Com. 409, ». 1, Holmes, ed. Quoted and discussed in Cooky on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 327. Decision in £6 N. Y. followed in Moore «. Stale, 14 Trocm (N~. J.) 203; s. c, 39 Am.. £. 558, 573. Decision in 22 N. Y. cited as authority (Effect of repeal, &c. of law on proceedings under indictment) in Commonwealth r. . Penn. Canal Co., 66 Pa. 41 ; s. c, 5 Am. P. 329, 337. Followed (Judgment reviewed, by what law controlled) in Colei). Mahoncy, 67 Bow. Pr. 226. Hartwell v. Armstrong, 19 Barb. 160. Cited with Lawton v. Comm'rs of Cam- bridge, 2 Cai. 279; Belknap a. Belknap, 2 Johns. Ch. 463, and Haight v. Bay, 1 Id. 18; Mooers v. Smedley, 6 Id. 28; Magee v. Cutler, 43 Barb. 239; Wiggin v. Mayor of N. Y., 9 Paige, 16; Van Doren v. Mayor, &c, Id. 388; Heywood «. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 534 ; Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors of Broome, 25 Id. 312, disting'd on the ground of peculiarities of statute and practice (Remedy for exceed- ing statutory power conferred on court of inferior and limited jurisdiction) in English «. Smock, 35 Ind. 115; s. c, 7 Am. B. 215, 219. Collated with Matter of Ryers, 72 N. Y. 8 ; Beekman v. Saratoga, &c. B. R. Co., 3 Paige, 73, and cases from other States (Legislature as proper authority, to determine public necessity to uphold emi- HAET WELL— HASTINGS. 329 nent domain) hi Smcaton v. Martin, 57 Wis. 304, 369, 373. Commented on (Draining swamplands) in Wood on Nu.it. 2 ed., § lib. v. Root, 19 Johns. 345; s. c, 10 Am. Dee. 232. See Schermerhorn i>. Talman. Applied (Presumption that every man does his duty) in Doe v. Henderson, 4 Oa. 148 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 216, 220, with note. Harty v. Central R. R. of N. J., 42 N. 7. 468. See Johnson «. Hudson River R. R. Co. Collated with Kenyon «. N. Y., &e. R. R. Co., 5 Sun, 449 ; Willets v. Buffalo, &c. R. Co., 14 Barb. 505 ; Holbrook v. Utica, &c. R. Co., 12 N. 7. 236; Morrison b. Erie R. Co., 56 Id. 302; Burroughs «. Erie R. Co., 63 Id. 506; Gonzales ». N. Y., &c. R. Co., 50 How. Pr. 126, and numerous other cases (Acts connected with railroads ■which are negligent per se) in 19 Gent. L. J. 95, n. Harvey v. Cherry, 12 Hun, 354. Aff'd in 76 N. 7. 436. v. Diinlop. See Conklin v. Thompson. v. Large, 51 Barb. 222. See (Costs in justice's courts) Code. Gin. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. v. Olmsted, 1 K Y. 483. AfFg 1 Barb. 102. Decision in 1 N. T. reasserted in Olmstead v. Olmstead, 4 Id. 56, a case in- volving construction of same will. v. Rickett. See Dana v. Tucker. : v. Skillman, 22 Wend. 571. Overruled (Right to costs, as affected by omission of personal representative to publish notice to present claims) in Bullock v. Bogardus, 1 Den. 276. Rarwav v. Lott, 5 Weekly Dig. 440. Aff'd in 80 N. 7. 645. Harwood v. Kirby. See Wotton v. Cope- land. Hasbrook v. Paddock, 1 Barb. 637. Fol- lowed (Executed and executory contracts) in Springsteen v. Samson, 32 N. 7. 703. Hasbronck v. Buuce, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 309. Rev'd in 62 N. 7. 475. Decision in Id. explained (Ejectment by tenant in com- mon, &c.) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 299. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881 ' § 1500, n. v. Hasbronck, 37 Barb. 579 ; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 24. Rev'd in 27 N. 7. 182. V. Tappen. See Bagley ^ Peddie ; Keating v. Price. v. Vaiidervoort, 4 Sandf. 596. Aff'd in 9 N. 7. 153. Decision in Id. cited as authority (Policy of rule forbidding hus- band and wife to testify one for the other) in Gee«. Scott, 48 Tex. 510; s. c, 26 Am P. 331. ; T. Weaver^ 10 Johns. 247. See Com- missioners of Excise of Wayne v. Keller. Quoted (Liability of husband for acts of wife) in Commissioners of Excise of Wayne B. Keller, 20 How. Pr. 280, and the latter approved, in Commissioners of Excise of Orange v. Dougherty, 55 Barb. 332. Quot- ed and collated with other cases in 1 Ben- nett & H. Gas. on Crim. L. 86. Hascall t. Life Assoc, of America, 5 Hun, 151. Aff'd, it seems, in 66 N. Y. 616, on opinion below. Haskell v. Village of Penn Tan, 5 Bans. 43. Limited (Indemnity to village) in Village of Fulton v. Tucker, 3 Htm, 529. Raskin v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 129. Aff'd, it seems, in 56 N. 7. 608, on opinion below. Haskins, Matter of. See matter of Dakin. Haskins v. Kelly, 1 Robt. 160 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 63. Deemed overruled (Officers' liability in replevin) in Manning v. Keenan, 9 Hun, 686, C89. Explained (Effect of chattel mortgage assigned as security for debt) in Thomas on Mort. 432. v. People, 16 N. 7. 344. Cited as au- thority (Place for trial of criminal offense) in Pentlarge v. Kirby, V. S. Dist. Ct., 8. D.N. 7., Id Fed. Rep. 505. Haslam v. Adams Express Co., 6 Bono. 235. Followed (Delivery by carrier) in Mierson v. Hope, 2 Sweeny, 561, 569. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 319, n. a, 5 ed. Hassan v. City of Rochester, 6 Bans. 185. Rev'd in 65 N. 7. 516. Further decision in 67 Id. 528. Decision in Id. followed (Exemption from taxation, when not ex- emption from assessment) in Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 84 Id. 108, 113. Disting'd (Liability of State property to assessment for local improvements) in State v. City of Hartford, 50 Conn. 89 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 622. Hassard v. Rone, 11 Barb. 22. See Eckford i>. DeKay. Explained (Improving infants' property with money belonging to their trustees) in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 606. Hastie v. De Peyster, 3 Cai. 1 90. Approved (Liability of re-insurer) in Strong ■». Phoenix Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 289; s. c , 21 Am. R. 424; N. Y. State Marine Ins. Co. v. Pro- tection Ins. Co., 1 Story O. Ct. 458. Hastings v. Belknap, 1 Den. 190. See Fris- bey v. Thayer; Martin v. Black. Criticised and limited with Frisbey v. Thayer. 25 Wend. 396 (Who can attack sale as made in fraud of creditors), in Rinchey v. Stryker, 28 N. 7. 45. Collated with other cases (Effect of provision in assignment for bene- fit of creditors, for exacting releases) in Bishop on Assign. § 199. V. Drew, 50 How. Pr. 254. Aff'd, in effect, in 76 N. 7. 9. Decision in Id. ap- plied (Judgment against corporation as evidence of stockholders' liability) in Ste- phens v. Fox, 83 Id. 313, 317. See Lewis v. Armstrong, 8 Abb. N. O. 385, 389. Cited with Tinkham v. Borst, 31 Barb. 407, and other cases in 12 Am. Dec. 239, 243, »., as establishing the jurisdiction of equity to take charge of the assets of a dissolved cor- poration. v. Ellis, 3 Barb. 492. Rev'd in 1 N. 7. 293. v. Farmer, 4 JV. 7. 293. Applied (Act forbidden by statute) in Farish v. Austin, 25 Hun, 430, 432. 330 HASTINGS— HATHAWAY. T. Lnsk, 22 Wend. 410; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 330. See Perkins v. Mitchell. Refer- red to in 34 Am. Dee. 340, n., as having been approved and followed in N. Y. (Privilege as to words spoken in judicial proceedings) Included in Bigel. Cos. on Torts, 121. v. McKfnley, 1 E. D. Smith, 273. Affd in Seld. Notes, No. 4, 19. Former decision in. 3 Code R. 10. Decision in 1 K D. Smith disting'd (Defect of parties) in Tif- fany «. Williams, 10 Abb. Pr. 205. Decis- ion in 3 Code R. approved and followed (Nature of motion for new trial) in Molony i. Dots, 9 Abb. Pr. 86, 88. t. Westchester Fire I us. Co., 12 Hun, 416. AfE'd in 73 N. Y. 141. Reargument said in 13 Hun, v. to have been denied Apr. 26, 1878. Decision in 73 JV. Y. disting'd (Rights of mortgagee under fire policy) in Heilman v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 75 Id. 7, 12. Applied in Graham v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 8 Daly, 421. Followed in Hart- ford Fire Ins. Co. v. Olcott, 97 III. 455, 459. Has well v. Bussing, 10 Johns. 128. Limited (New trial for receiving improper evidence) in Meyer v. Clark, 2 Daly, 498, 520. v. Goodchild, 12 Wend. 373. Explained (Burden of proof of payment for work done under contract) in Rudd v. Davis, 1 Hill, 277. Hatch T. Bowes, 54 How Pr. 439; s. c, more fullv, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & &)-426. v. Central Nat. B'k, 78 2V. Y. 487. See Deane «. O'Brien. Followed (Power to set aside judgment) in Underwood v. Sutcliffe, 21 Hun, 357. v. Cobb, 4 John*. Ch. 559. See Ellis «. Hoskins ; Wright v. Moore. Disting'd with Benedict v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. 371 (Acts or omissions of purchaser in contract for sale of land such as justify vendor in rescinding) in Falls v. Carpenter, 1 Dev. & B. (JV. C.) 237; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 592, 613, with note. T.Coleman, 29 Barb. 201. Disting'd (Necessity that contract, to afford founda- tion for mechanics' lien, be in writing) in "Neilson v. Iowa Eastern R. R. Co., 51 Iowa, 184; s. c, 33 Am. R. 124. v. Mann, 15 Wend. 44. Rev'g 9 Id. 262. See City Bank v. Bangs. Decision in 15 Wend, disting'd with Parker v. New- land, 1 Hill, 87; Harp v. Osgood, 2 Id. 216 (Right of public officer to extra compensa- tion) in Gregg v. Pierce, 53 Barb. 387. Ap- plied in Crofut u. Brandt, 5 Daly, 124, 127. Collated with City B'k v. Bangs, 2 Edw. 95 ; Gregg v. Pierce, 53 Barb. 387 ; Fitch v. Snedaker, 38 .If. Y. 248; Howland v. Lounds, 51 Id. 654: Brennan ». Haff, 1 Hilt. 151 ; Jones o. Phoenix L'k, 8 K Y. 228, and other cases (Nature and effect of offer of reward for arrest) in 26 Am. R. 5, n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 45 Super. Ct. J. &S) 599. Rev'd in 82 HT. Y. 436. See Astor v. Hoyt. t. Pengnet, 64 Barb. 189. Collated with Hobart v. Hobart, 62 JV Y. 80; Mat- toon t>. Young, 45 Id. 696 ; Cary v. White, 59 Id. 336; Hier v. Grant, 47 Id. 280, and numerous other cases (Effect of Code Pro. § 399 [ Code Civ. Pro. § 829] and similar statutes) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. §§ 467, n., 468, n. Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18 JV Y. 86. See to the contrary (Proof of executor's official character) 3 Williams on Executors, 6 Am. ed. 2060. See also Abb. Tr. Ed. 56. HatJeld t. Lasher, 17 Hun, 23; s. c, 57 How. Pr. 258. Aff 1 in 81 JV Y. 246. T. Reynolds, 34 Barb. 612. Disting'd (Authority of attorney) in Wardrop v. Dun- lop, 1 Hun, 325, 330. v. Sneden, 42 Barb. 615. Rev'd in 54 Jf.Y. 280. Decision in Id. disting'd (Provision in will, when for life, with remainder to issue as purchasers) in Crom- well v. Kirk, 1 Dem. 383. Collated with other cases (Executory devise as divesting dower) in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 350. Collated with other cases (Estate by curtesy how affected by statute) in Id. 289. Decision in 42 Barb, explained in 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 171, 265. Hathaway, Matter of, 9 Hun, 79. AfE'd in 71 JV. Y. 238. Hathaway v. Howell, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 453; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 270. Affd, it seems, in 70 JV. F. 610, but without opin- ion. Previous decision in 54 Id. 97. Decis- ion in Id. followed (Necessity of levy dur- ing life of execution) in Smith •». Smith, 60 Id. 161, 164. Disting'd in Stewarts. Beale, 7 Hun, 405, 413, 421. V. Johnson, 55 If. Y. 93. Applied (Ar- rest for fraud of agent) to case of attach- ment for absconding ef copartner, inBogert v. Dart, 13 Weehly Dig. 190. T. Payne, 34 Jf. Y. 92. Applied (Na- ture of interest of purchaser in contract for sale of real estate) in Germond v. Home Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 540. Cited, as authority (Eftect of deed delivered to third person for grantee) in Prutsman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 644; s. c, 11 Am. R. 592. Explained in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 301. t. Qnimby, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 386. Crticised as technical and as hardly in ac- cordance with the Code (Sufficiency of allegations in complaint in trover) in Pomeroy on Rem. % 535. v. Russell, 45 Super.. Ct. (/. & S.) 538; s. c, 7 Abb. JV. C. 138. AfE'd in 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 103. t. Town of Cincinnatus, 62 If. Y. 434. Applied (Action in name of supervisor of town) in Sutherland?). Carr, 85 Id. 105, 113. Examined with other cases in Gleasons. Youmaps, 9 Abb. If. C. 107. 110. y. Town of Homer, 5 Lans. 267. Revd in 54 JV. Y. 655. See Patrick «. Metcalf. Decision in 54 If. Y. applied (Right of action for moneys, title to which is claimed by two persons) in Decker v. Saltzman, 59 HATHOKN— HAWKINS. 331 Id. 275, 279. Both decisions examined with other cases (Actions by supervisor in favor of town) in Gleason »;. Youmans, 9 Abb. HT. 0. 107, 110. Decision in 54 N. Y. commented on in Hathaway ». Town of Cincinriatus, 62 Id. 434, 447. Decision in 5 Lang, applied (Extent of capacity of public officer to sue) in Victory v. Blood, 25 Hun, 515, 517. ll.it horn v. Germania Ins. Co., 55 Barb. 28. Cited (Effect of provision in policy, enabling company to cancel it) in HollingSr worth B. Germania Ins. Co., 45 Ca. 294; s. c, 12 Am. R. 579. Hatter's Bank v. Phillips, 38 N. Y. 128. See opinion of Millbk, J. , in 6 Transc. App. 502. Hauck v. Craighead, 4 Hun, 561. Further decision in 8 Id. 237, which was rev'd in 67 K Y. 432. See Risley «. Brown V. ilu nd, 1 Bosw. 431. Referred to as overruled by Moore «. Cross, 19 N. Y. 227 (Evidence to vary liability of indorser) in Lewis v. Jones, 7 Bosw. 366, 371. Haughwout t. Garrison, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 550. Affd in 69 K Y. 339. Hanlenbeck v. Gillies, 2 Hilt. 238. Dis- ting'd (Conclusiveness of justice's judg- ment) in Blum v. Hartman, 3 Daly, 117. Hauptinan v. Catlin, 3 E. D. Smith, 666; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. 472. Aff'd in 20 N. Y. 247. Prior decision in 1 E. D. Smith, 729. Decision in 20 K Y. disting'd (Lia- bility of estate of married woman) in Jones v. Walker, 63 Id. 613. Decision in 1 E. B. Smith limited (Competency of em- ployer to prove correctness of books of ac- count) in McGoldrick ». Traphagen, 88 iV. Y. 334. Hauselt v. Vilmar, 2 Abb. W. C. 222. Affd in 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 574; and that aff'd in 76 N. Y. 630. Decision in Id. cited as authority (Costs when in discre- tion of court) in Black v. O'Brien, 23 Hun, 82, 85. Hauseinan v. Sterling, 61 Barb. 347. Ap- proved (Inspection of books, &c.) in De Bary i>. Stanley, 5 Daly, 412. Havemeycr v. Hnvemerer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. 6 S.) 506. Affd in 86 JSf. Y. 618. Other proceedings in 44 Super. Ct. (J. S S.) 170; 45 Id. 464. Havens v. Bush, 2 Johns. 387. See Cun- ningham v. Morrell; Seers v. Fowler. Over- ruled (Dependent and independent coven- ants) in Cunningham v. Morrell, 10 Johns. 203. See Evans ». Harris, 19 Barb. 416. Denied in Leopold v. Salkey, 89 III. 412 ; s. c, 31 Am. B. 96. v. Erie K'y Co.', 53 Barb. 328. Rev'd in 41 N. Y. 296. See Dascomb «. Buf- falo & State Line R. R. Co. Grounds of dissent of Lott, Ch. C, explained (Neg- ligence in one approaching railroad cross- ing) in Eaton v. Erie R'y Co., 51 Jf. Y. 548. t. Huntington, 1 Cow. 387; s. c, 7 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 554, with brief note of cases on effect of payment. v. Hussey, 5 Paige, 30. See Deming v. Colt; Egberts v. Wood: Cited with Egberts v. Wood, 3 Paige, 517; Hitchcock v. St. John, Hoffm. 511 (Assignment for creditors made by one partner) in Story on Partn. 7 ed., § 101, n. See also Welles v. March, 30 JV. Y. 344; Palmer t>. Myers, 43 Barb. 509 ; Kemp v. Carnley, 3 Duer, 1 ; Mabbett v. White, 12 N. Y. 442 ; Graser v. Stell- wagen, 25 Id. 315, and other cases, cited in Story on Partn. § 102, p. 172, n. Ex- plained and quoted in 1 Pars, on Contr. 178, n. t. Discussed in Bwrrill on Assign. § 73, 4 ed. Quoted and collated with other cases in Holcombe Lead. Cos, on Com. Law, 76. t. Klein, 49 How. Pr. 95. Head-note corrected in Id. 53S. Further proceeding in 51 Id. 82. Decision in Id. explained and compared with other cases (Ancient lights) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed., § 151, «. 1. v. Nat. City B'k of Brooklyn, 4 Hun, 131; s. c. reported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 346. v. Patterson, 43 JST. Y. 218. Followed (Contracting party refusing to perform can- not recover money paid) in Lawrence v. Miller, 86 Id. 131, 139. v. Sackett, 15 N. Y. 365. Approved as accurately setting forth the question (Demise of entire property and simply an interest) in 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 488, n. 1. v. Sherman, 42 Barb. 636. Applied (Statutory proceedings to divest title to real estate must be strictly pursued) in Stilwell ■o. Swarthout, 81 N. Y. 109, 114. y. Van Den Bnrgh, 1 Ben. 27. Ex- plained (Revocation of will by subsequent marriage and birth of child) in 4 Kent Com. 527, 7i. e. Haviland v. Bloom, 6 Johns. Ch. 178. See Kenny «. Udall; Swaine v. Perine. Cited and discussed (Wife's maintenance in equity out of her property on husband's appli- cation to dispose of same) in 2 Kent Com. 141. r. Halstead, 34 K Y. 643. Approved, but disting'd (Marriage contract governed by lex loci) in Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 Id. 18, 26. Examined with other cases in Marshall v. Marshall, 2 Hun, 238, 240. v. Johnson. 7 Baly, 297. Explained (Sale of specific chattels conditionally) in 1 Benj. on Sales, % 430 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Myers. See Kenny v. Udall. V. White, 7 How. Pr. 154. Approved (What is special proceeding) in People ®. Heath, 20 How. Pr. 304, 307. Hawes v. Lawrence, 8 Sandf. 193. Affd in 4 N. Y. 345. Decision in Id. quoted and explained (Statement in contract of sale of goods to arrive) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 559, n. y. Hawkins v. Appleby, 2 Sandf. 421. Quoted 332 HAWKINS— HAWLEY. (Partnership liability for torts of individual partner) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 185, n. u. v. Avery. 32 Barb. 551. Collated with other cases (Civil salvage on quantum meruit) in Waples on Proe. in Rem, § 510. v. Dutchess & Orange Steamboat Co., 2 Wend. 452. Quoted and discussed (Lia- bility of carrier by water for injury caused by collision) in Ang. on Can: § 663, 5 ed. v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586; s. a, 41 Am. Dec. 767, with note, wherein are collected citations. See Andersons. Nicholas; Orange County B'k v. Brown ; Pardee v. Drew. Disapproved, and Orange Co. B'k v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85 ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co., 19 Id. 534, approved (Liability for baggage) in Taylor v. Monnor, I Abb. Pr. 325, 329. Explained and criti- cised in Merrill v. Giinnell, 30 iV. T. 610. Disting'd in Needles v. Howard, 1 IS. D. Smith, 60. Limited in Butler v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 3 Id. 573. Applied in Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 45 Barb. 223 ; Nevines v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. 234; Cohen v. Frost, 2 Duer, 335, 341 ; Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith, 99 ; Davis e. Cayuga & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 10 How. Pr. 332; Hopkins v. West- cott, 6 Blatchf. O. Ct. 64, 69. Cited as containing what has been generally regarded as a correct exposition, — in Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85; s. c, 14 Am. R. 716, 723 ; Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly, 162, being also cited as author- ity. Cited with Orange County B'k v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85, and the latter ap- proved in Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. (Tenh.) 620; s. c, 51 Am. Dee. 682, with note. Quoted in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 221, n. 7 ; 1 Ghitty on Contr. 698, n. h., II Am. ed. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 254, n. d. Quoted and discussed in Id. 255, n. e. Included, with note, in 2 Bedf. Am. Railw. Cas. 96. Commented on (Ac- tion on case against common carrier, con- taining count in trover) in Ang. on Carr. § 433, 5 ed. v. Peinberton, 6 Robt. 42 ; s. c., 35 How. Pr. 376. Rev'd in 51 N. T. 198; s. c, 44 How. Pr. 102 ; 10 Am. P. 59o~. See Hoe v. Sanborn; Seixas v. Woods. De- cision in 51 If. T. followed (Warranty, on sale of chattels) in White v. Miller, 71 Id. 118, 129. Approved with White v. Miller, and Seixas v. Woods, 2 Cai. 48; Swett v. Colgate, 20 Johns. 196, disapproved and said to be overruled in N. Y. and other States, in Fogg's Adm'r v. Rogers, Ky. Super. Ct., Jan. 1884. 8 Ky. L. Rep. & J. 584; note in 29 Alb. L. J. 165. Relied on in Wolcott v. Mount, 36 i\7. J. (7 Vroom) 262; s. c , 13 Am. R. 438, 440. Followed in Wolcott ». Mount, 9 Vroom. 496 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 425, 426, and ' said to repudiate the ground on which Seixas c. Woods. 2 Cai. 48, rests. Refer- red to in 6 Am. Dec. 115, n. as a well con- sidered case, and as asserting a very im- portant doctrine. Approved' and other cases collected in 15 Am. L. Rev. 667. Hawks v. Winans, 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 451. Aft'd, it seems, in 74 N. Y. 609, but without opinion. Haw ley v. Bradford, 9 Paige, 200; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 391. See Swaine v. Perine. Explained (Dower in mortgaged premises) in Kling v. Ballenfcine, 11 Weekly L. Bui. 9, Suppl. Dictum approved (Rights as surety, of wife mortgaging separate estate to secure husband's debt) in Savage v. Winchester, 15 Gray (Mass.) 456. v. Bntler, 48 Barb. 101. Further decision in 54 Id. 490. T. Clowes, 2 Johns. Ch. 122. Criticised as extreme (Injunction as between tenants in common) in Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill Ch. {So. Car.) 277; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 72, 86, with note. v. Cramer, 4 Cow. 717. See Jones v. Caswell. Applied (Trustee not to purchase trust property) in Terwilliger v. Brown, 59 Barb. 13 ; Star Fire Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 209. Commented on in O'Donnell v. Lindsay, 39 Id. 533. Dis- ting'd in Faulds j>. Yates, 57 111. 416 ; s. c. f 11 Am. R. 24. Applied (Allowance to trustee who is made to account for pro- ceeds of fraudulent sale) in Currie v. Cowles, 6 Bosw. 402. Applied (Time within which cestui que trust may avoid sale) in Ilohnan v. Holman, 06 Barb. 224. Applied (When too late to object that com- plainant has remedy at law) in Ramsey v. Harris, Clarke, 331 ; Heyer v. Burger, Hoffm. 15 ; Pumpelly v. Village of Owego, 45 How. Pr. 240;"Ketchum v. Hawks, 2 KT. T. Leg. Obs. 384. v. Foote, 19 Wend. 516. See Russell n. Lytle. Explained (Accord and satisfaction) in Nevins v. Depierries, 1 Edm. Set. Co*. 196. Applied, and Coit ». Houston, 3 Johns. Cas. 247 explained in Young v. Jones, 64 Me. 563; s. c, 18 Am. R. 279. Explained in 2 Ghitty on Contr. 1126, n. a, 1127, 11 Am. ed. V. James, 5 Paige, 318. Rev'd in 16 Wend. 61. Subsequent decision in 7 Paige, 213. See Coster v. Lorillard; Hone v. Van Schaick. See case published at Albany in 1836 and report upon accounts of executor, 1832-1837. See (Validity of trust estates) Bowers v. Smith, 10 Paige, 193; Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76. Decision in 16 Wend, applied (Equitable conversion) in Fellows v. Heermans, 4 Lans. 230, 240. Disting'd (Trust, when void as inactive) in Scofield v. St. John, 65 How. Pr, 292. Said to be an authority of great weight (Court will endeavor to carry out intention of testator, even if form fail) in Everitt v. Everitt, 29 K Y. 39, 80. Applied in Colton v. Fox, 6 Hun, 49. Collated with other cases (Suspending power of alienation) in Gerard's Titles to Real Est. 2 ed. 231, 273. Decision in 5 Paige explained (Con- sistency of trust estate with power of sale) in HAWLEY— HAY. 333 Fellows v. Heermans, 4 Lans. 252. Ap- proved (Power to call in and reinvest does not relieve trust from imputation of illegal perpetuity) in Williams v. Williams, 8 JV Y. 525, 531. Discussed (Suspension of power of alienation) in 4 Kent Com. 271, »._ g. Applied (Resulting trust in favor of heirs, in case of provision in will failing in part) in Betts «. Betts, 4 Abb. JV C. 317, 420. Followed in Mahorner «. Hooe, 9 Smedes & M. {Miss.) 247; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 706, 714, with note. Explained (Implied trust in case of legacy for maintenance) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed., § 117. Explained (Conveyance by assignee for creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 415, 4 ed. See (Dower in lands -under contract) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2794, n. Explained (Trust to pay annuities out of rents and profits of estate) in 4 Kent Com. 311, n. b. v. Keeler, 62 Barb. 231. AfE'd in 53 JV Y. 114. See Howard v. Daly. Decis- ion in 53 JV. Y. cited with Bank of U. S. v. Davis, 2 Sill, 451' (When one of several joint agents may act singly) in Whart. Com. on Ag. % 141. Explained (Law does not compel performance of idle acts) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 859, n. 7 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Northern Central By. Co., 17 Hun, 115. Aff'd in 82 JV. Y. 3T0. See Wright e. N. Y. Central E. R. Co. Decision in 17 Hun, explained and applied (Contributory negligence a question of fact) in McMahon v. Port Henry Iron Ore Co., 24 Hun, 49. Explained (Master's liability for servant's torts) in MoaVs Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 63. v. Boss, 7 Paige, 103. Not followed (Vesting of trusts on death of trustees of personalty) in Matter of Howell, 61 How. Pr. 179. Followed in Wells v. Wallace, 2 Bed/. 58, 63. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 348. Explained (Par- ties to proceedings for appointment of new trustee) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 282. — v. Sackett, 3 Hun, 605 ; s. c, reported fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 322. v. Smith, 25 Wend. 642; s. c, 14 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed., 973, with brief note. Quoted and explained (Innkeeper's liabili- ty) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 155, n. r. Hnwn t. Banks, 4 Edw. 664. Explained and applied (Lapse of legacy given to one and his heirs) in Williams v. Seaman, 3 Bed/. 151. Haxtnn v. Bishop, 3 Wend. 13. See Bank of Niagara v. McCracken ; Wolcott v. Van Santvoord. Examined and disting'd (Assign- ment in view of insolvency) in Robinson v. Bank of Attica, 21 JV. Y. 406, 411 ; and see . Eastern Bank v, Capron, 22 Conn. 644. Criticised as unsatisfactory in Paulding v. Chrome Steel Co., 94 JV Y. 338. Quoted and explained in Burrill on Assign. § 65, 4 ed. Applied (When bills of bank cannot be set oft in action by indorsee of note) in Baxter «. Little, 6 Mete. ( Mass.) 7 ; S. c. 39 Am. Dec. 707, 710, with note. t. Corse, 4 Edvs. 585. Aff'd in 2 Barb. Ch. 506. See Kilpatrick v. Johnson. De- cision in 2 Barb. Ch. explained (Effect of proof of debt in bankruptcy proceedings as bar) in Hoyt o. Freel, 8 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 220, 223. Cited as authority in Brandon Manu- facturing Co. v. Frazcr, 47 Vt. 88; s. c, 19 Am. B. 118 ; in Ansonia Brass, &c. Co. t>. New Lamp Chimney Co., 53 JV Y. 123, being also cited in this connection. Fol- lowed in Bennett v. Goldthwait, 109 Mass. 494; s. c, 12 Am. B. 742. Followed with Brereton v. Hull, 1 Den. 75, in Wales v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 284. Explained (Validity of provision for accumulation) in McQrath v. Van Stavoren, 8 Daly, 454. 457. Applied with Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76 ; Kil- patrick v. Johnson, 15 JV. I*. 322 ; Manice v. Manice, 43 Id. 384 ; Pray v. Hegeman, 92 Id. 502 ; Barbour v. Do Forest, 95 Id. 13, in Cook v. Lowry, 95 Id. 103. Hay v. Cohoes Co., £ Barb. 42. Affd in 2 JV Y. 159; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 279, with note, wherein it is said to have been exten- sively recognized as authority in the cases there cited. Tremain v. Cohoes Co., 2 JV. Y. 163, is frequently cited as a companion case to it. See Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; McAllister v. Hammond; Panton e. Holland ; Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brook- lyn. Decision in 2 JV J . limited (Liabili- ty for injury resulting from lawful use of one's land) in Losee v. Buchanan, 51 Id. 476, 479. Disting'd in Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co., 55 Id. 538, 558. Examin- ed with other cases ^in Heeg v. Licht, 80 Id. 579, 583. Followed in St. Peter c. Denison, 58 Id. 416, 421, 423. Applied in Caro v. Metrop. Elev. Ry. Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 138, 169; McAndrews v. Collerd, 13 Vroom (JV. /.) 189; s. c, 36 Am. B. 508, 510; Washburn v. Oilman, 64 Me. 163 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 246. Cited with approval with Tremain v. Cohoes Co., 2 JV Y. 163 in City of Tiffin v. McCormack, 34 Ohio St. 638; s. c, 32 Am. R. 408, 412. Cited and Panton u. Holland, 17 Johns. 92; La Sala o. Holbrook, 4 Paige, 169 ; Clark v. Foot, 8 Johns. 421 ; Livingston v. Adams, 8 Cow. 175 ; disting'd Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hill, 531 ; 2 Den. 433, also being cited, and Radcliff's Ex'rs v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, i If. Y. 195, disapproved, in CahillD. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324; s. c, 10 Am. B. 184, 187, 194, 198. With this case and St. Peter v. Denison, 58 JV Y. 41fi, com- pare Beauchamp v. Saginaw Mining Co., 50 Mich. 163 ; s. c, 45 Am. B. 30. Collated with other cases in Bigel. Cos. on Torts, 499. Explained in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 130. Included in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 72. Col- lated with other cases in Id. 105. Limited with Schile v. Brockhahus, 80 JV. Y. 614; Manhattan Real Estate Ass'n, 89 Id. 498 ; St John v. Mayor, &c, 6 Duer, 315 (Lia- bility of trespasser) in Taylor v. Metropoli- tan Elev. Ry. Co., 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 311, 329. Disting'd (Liability for negligent 334. HAY-HArXEK. blasting done by agent) in McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. K. R. Co., 01 N. Y. 178, 185. • t. Star Fire Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 496. Affd in 77 N. Y. 235 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 607. See Attorney-General v. North Am. Life Ins. Co. ; Mayor, etc. of N. Y. v. Ham- ilton Fire Ins. Decision in 77 iV. Y. ap- plied (Limitation of action by clause in policy) in Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 61 How. Pr. 144, 146. Decision in 13 Hun, disting'd in Arthur v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 78 F. Y. 462, 470. Haycrofty. Lake Shore & M. S. R'v Co., 2 Han, 489; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 49. Affd in 64 K Y 636. With decision in 2 Hun, see other cases collected (Contrib- utory negligence of child) in 6 Alb. J7". C. 112, n. Hayden t. Agent of Auburn Prison, 1 Sand/. Ch. 195. Disting'd (Discharge of surety by acts or omissions of creditor) in Board of Supervisors v. Otis, 62 Jf. Y. 94. t. Brooklyn Savings Bank, 15 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 297. Disting'd (Negligence in payment by savings bank) in Allen v. Wil- liamsburgh Sav'gs B'k, 69 fl~. Y. 320. v. Deniets, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 344. Aff'd in 53 N. Y. 426. See Dustan e. McAndrew. Decision 53 N. Y. fol- lowed (Sufficiency of tender) in Stokes v. Kecknagel, 38 Super. Ct. {j. & S.) 368, 389. Explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1125, n. 6 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Applied -with Dustan e. McAndrew, 44 2f. Y. 72 (Ven- dor's right to recover contract price of arti- cle manufactured) in Smith v. Wheeler, 7 Oreg. 49; s. c, 33 Am. R. 698, with note. • v. Palmer, 2 Hill, 205. Affd in 7 Id. 385. Haydock v. Stow, 40 N. Y. 363. Disting'd (Duty of agent to make contract on most favorable terms) in Argus Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Albany, 55 Id. 495, 502. Haye y. Robertson, 38 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 59. Opposed (Clerk's power to award costs) in Williams v. Cassady, 22 Hun, 180. Hayes v. Adams. 2 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 593. Collated with other cases (Evidence of hand- writing) in 35 Am. R. 635, n. v. Bement, 3 Sandf. 394. Approved (Claim of special partner) in Hayes v. Hey- er, 35 K Y. 326. t. Carrington, 12 Abb. Pr. 179. See (Exoneration of bail) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 601, n. y. Heyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. 485. See Deming v. Colt. Discussed (Power of partner to make assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. §§ 78, 79, 4 ed. y. Huffstater, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) Add. 6; s. c, more fully, 65 Barb. 530. y. Kershow, 1 Sandf. Ch. 258. Disap- proved (Enforcing agreement void at law) inDuvollfl. Wilson, 9 Barb. 487. Cited in 1 Add. on Contr.' 4, n., Abb. ed. Re- viewed with Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. 329 ; Shepard i>. Shepard, 7 Id. 63, and other cases in Marling v. Marling, 9 W. Va. 79 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 535, 543. 545* 647. v. People, 15 Abb. Pr. 163; s. c, 5 Park. 325. Affd, in 25 2?. Y. 390. Opin- ion of Weight, J., in Ct. of App. re- ported in 24 How. Pr. 452. Decision in 25 Jf. Y. applied (What will support indict- ment for bigamy) in People e. Brown, 34 Mich. 339 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 531, 533. Dis- cussed (Formalities of marriage contract) in 2 Add. on Contr, 848, n., Abb. ed. v. Piielan, 4 Hun, 733. See dissenting opinion in 5 Id. 335, n. See Aldrich v. Sager; Dubois *. Miller. Decision in 4 Hun, in effect overruled (Right of action under Civil Damage Act) in Jackson v. Brookins, 5 Hun, 530 ; Smith v. Reynolds, 8 Id. 128. Explained in Dubois v. Miller, 5 • Id. 333; Quain v. Russell, 8 Id. 319. Re- viewed with Brookmire v Monaghan, 15 Id. 16; Jackson v. Brookins, 5 Id. 530; Smith v. Reynolds, 8 Id. 128 ; Quain v. Russell, Id: 319, in Mead v. Stratton, 87 N. Y. 493. Cited as authority in Kirchner v. Meyers, 35 Ohio St. 85 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 598. Referred to in 48 Am. Dec. 630, n., as overruled in N. Y. v. Sy mo nds, 9 Barb. 260. Cited (Re- peal by implication) in Peck -o. Peck, 8 Abb. N. 0. 400, 402. v. Thompson, 15 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 220. Said in Id. 221, n. to have been affd by General Term. Another proceeding in 2 Hun, 518; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & 0.) 713. v. Ward, 4 Johns. Ch. 123; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 554," with note, wherein it is said to have been extensively followed. See Schroeppell v> Shaw. Followed with King v. Baldwin, ' 2 Johns. Oh. 562 (Right of surety to compel principal to discharge debt) in Pride v. Boyce, Rice Eq. (So. Car.) 275 ; s. c, 33 Am. Dee. 78. Thought in Abcr- crombie v. Knox, 3 Ala. 728; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 721, 723, with note, not to conflict with the general rule. Applied (Duty of creditor having lien on two funds) in In- .galls v. Morgan, 10 If. Y. 188. Followed and approved (Liability of creditor to surety for property taken as security) in Baker n. Briggs, 8 Pick. {Mass.) 121 ; s.' c, 9 Am. Dec. 311, 316, with note. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am.Lead; Cos. 5 ed. 397, 399. Referred to in Bank of Manchester v. Bartlett, 13 Verm. 315; s. c, 37 Am. Dee. 594, as lucidly discussing povisions of civil law in favor of sureties. Commented on (Restraining suits in other States) in 1 High on Inj. 2 ed., § 105, n. 1. Approved (Sureties' rights and remedies) in Story on Eq. Jur. §§ 324, 327. v. Willio, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 167. Rev'd in 4 Daly, 259. Dictum of Daly, J., in 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. approved (Injunction as remedy against violation of contract for theatrical services) in Daly v. Smith, 38 Super. Ct. (J.& S.) 158, 170. Hayner t. American Popular Life Ins. Co., HAYNES— HEAKSEY. 335 85 Super. Ct. (7. & S.) 266. Modified on further argument in 36 Id. 211, which was aff'd, it seems, in 62 If. Y. 620, but without opinion. Further proceeding in 69 Id. 435. See Cohen «. N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co. Decision in 36 Supqr. Ct. (J. & S.) disting'd (Ground for reargument) in Butterfield v. Radde, 40 Id. 169. Decision in 69 If. Y. reviewed with Cohen v. N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 00 Id. 610 (Remedy in case of refusal by insurance company to receive premiums) in Day i>. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 45 Com. 480; s. c..29 Am. E. 693, 702. Haynes, Ex parte, 18 Wend. 611. Applied (Proof by swearing to belief) in Noble v. Halliday, 1 -If. Y. 330, 336. Disting'd in Miller v. Adams, 52 Id. 409, 414. Haynes v. Kudd, 17 Hun, 477, Rev'd in 83 N. Y. 251. Hays t. Berryman, 6 Bosw. 679. Examined with other cases (Pracf.ce on assessment of damages) in Thompson v. Lumley, 7 Daly, 74, 80. t. (Jonrley, 1 Hun, 38; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 115. Another decision aris- ing under provisions in same will in Gburley v. Campbell, 66 If. Y. 169, which rev'd 6 Sun, 218, which see. v. Hathorn. See Hays v. Southgate. v. Miller, 6 Sun, 320. Aff'd in 70 If. Y. 112. t. People, 1 Sill, 351. Explained and rec- onciled with English cases (Rape on child) in People ». Bransby, 32 If. Y. 525, a case of an adult. Followed in Singer v. People, 13 Sun, 418, 420. Dissented from in State B.Pickett, llNev. 255; s. c, 21 Am. E. 754. v. Southgate, 10 Sun, oil. Rev'd as Hays v. Hathorn in 74 If. Y. 485. Decis- ion in Id. applied (Necessity that action be in name of real party in interest) and Wet- more ». Hegeman, 88 Id. 69 disting'd in Iselin v. Rowlands, 30 Sun, 488. Disting'd (Plaintiff's title to note, &c. in suit) in Freeman v. Falconer, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 383. Decision in 10 Sun, disting'd in Bell «. Tilden, 16 Id. 346. T. Stone, 7 Hill, 1 28. Aff'd in 3 Ben. 575. v. Thomae, 56 If. Y. 521. Cited as au- thority (Effect of death of mortgagor pend- ing foreclosure action) in Grant v. Griswold, 21 Sun,' 509. Hay ward v. Liverpool, &c. Ins. Co., 7 Bosw. 385. Aff d in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 349 ; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 142. See St. John ■b. Am. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Decis- ion in 7 Bosw. opposed (Contradictory clauses in insurance policy) in Hayward v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 19 Abb. Pr. 116, •where it is considered as overruled by Harper's Case, 22 If. Y. 44. v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 19 Abb. Pr. 116. Overruled (Liability under policy, for loss happening by explosion) in Hayward v. Liverpool & London Ins. Co., 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 142. Hazard v. Fiske, 18 Sun, 277. Aff d in 83 If. Y. 287. , ' v. Hefford, 2 Hun, 445. Questioned (Undue influence over testator) in McCoy v. McCoy, 4 Eedf. 54, 58; Van Kleeck v. Phipps, Id. 99, 127. v. Spears, 2 Abb: Ct. App. Dec. 353. Cited (Effect of words and acts of principal as ratification) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 84. Haze well v. Courseii, 45 Super. Gt.(J. & S.) 22. Rev'd in 81 If. Y. 630. Previous de- cision in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 459. Hazleton v. Wakeman, 3 Sow. Pr. 357. Followed with Wakeman v. Price, 3 If. Y. 334 (Order- not appealable) in Buffalo Savings Bank v. Newton, 23 Id. 160, 162. Hazmaii v. Hoboken Land and Improve- ment Co., 2 Daly, 130. Confirmed on further decision in 50 N. Y. 53. Heacock v. Saratoga Mnt. Fire Ins. Co. Unreported (Ct. of App. Sept. 27, 1856). Followed (Severability of contract of insur- ance) in Merrill v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 73 If. Y. 452, 462, which aff d 10 Sun, 428, which see. Head v. Stevens, 19 Wend. 411. See Cross v. Huntley. Approved (Uselessness of patent as defense) in McDougal v. Fogg, 2 Bosw. 391. Followed (Jurisdiction of State court to inquire collaterally into validity of patent) in- Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 6 Blatchf. C. Ct. 356, 361. Heady's Will, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 211. Rev'd as Hitchcock v. Thompson, 6 Sun, 279. See Sisters of Charity v. Kelly. Decision in 15 Abb. Pr. If. 8. explained and dis- ting'd (Effect of leaving blank in body of will) in Matter of Collins, 5 Eedf. 20, 20. Healey v. Dry Dock, &c. R. K. Co., 11 Weekly Dig. 441. Reported in full as Healey v. Same, 46 Super. Ct. (J.S 8.) 473. v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 115. Approved and followed (Surrogate's salary) in Spring v. Wait, 22 Sun, 441. Health Department of N. Y. v. Police De- partment of N. Y., ,51 Sow. Pr. 481. Aff'd, in 41 Super... Ct. (J. & S.) 323. Healyv. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Sun, 708. See other cases collected (Contributory neg- ligence of disabled, &c. person) in 6 Abb. K C. 117, n, Heaney v. Heeney, 2 Den. 625. Explained (Use of piers) in button v. Strong, 1 Black. 23. Heard v. City of Brooklyn, 60 K Y. 242. Further decisions as Strong v. City of Brooklyn, 68 Id. 1 ; 12 Hun, 453. These decisions disting'd (Title to land taken for railroad purposes) in Terry v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 67 How.Pr. 439. v. Horton, 1 Den. 165. Disting'd (Meaning of term " heirs ") in Cushman v. Horton, 59 If. Y. 149, 152. Hearsey v. Pruyn, 7 Johns. 179; s. c, 4 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 289, with brief note. See Sims ». Brown. Cited (What is notice to agent not to pay over) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 516; Ripley v. Gclston, 9 Johns. 201 ; Frye v. Lockwood, 4 Cow. 456, be- 336 HAERTT— HEIDENBACH. ing also cited in § 619, as to the necessity of such notice. Heartt v. Livingston. 53 How. Pr. 487. Aff'd in 14 Hun, 245. Heath, Ex parte, 3 Hill, 42 ; s. c, 15 N. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 508, with brief analy- sis of subsequent citations of this case. Applied (Necessit}' of clearness in act which is to divest jurisdiction already vested) in Crane v. Reeder, 28 Mich. 527; s. c, 15 Am. R. 223, 227. Quoted and collated with other cases (Canvassing elec- tion returns) in Brightly 1 s Cos. on Elections, 305. Heath v. Barmour, 49 Barb. 496. Affd in 50 N. 7. 302, but overruled as to the rever- ter. v. Hnbbell, 6 Daly, 183. Followed (Transfer of cause to N. Y. Marine Court) in Farrington v. O'Conner, 6 Daly, 209. v. Ross. See Jackson s. Ramsay ; Jack- son v. Raymond. Hebbard v. Haughiau, 70 K 7. 54. See Whiting v. Barney. Compared with other cases (Communications to attorney, when not privileged) in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Bed/. 181, 183. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 835, n. Hebrew Benevolent Orphan Asylum, Mat- ter of, 10 Hun, 112. Affd in part and rev'd in part in 70 N~. 7. 476. Decision in Id. applied (Omission of dollar mark in tax proceedings) in American Tool Co. v. Smith, 14 Abb. JV. C. 378. Heckinann v. Pinkney. 8 Daly, 466; s. c, 6 Abb. N. C. 371. Affd in 81 N. 7. 211. Decision in 6 Abb. N. C. cited (Repeal by implication) in Peck v. Peck, 8 Id. 400, 402. Heckscher v. McCrea, 24 Wend. 304. See Clark v. Marsiglia. Applied (Effect of con- tract for freight, entered into irrespective of charter-party) in 406 Hogsheads of Mo- lasses, 4 Blatchf. C. Ct. 319, 322.' Hedges v. Bungay, 3 Han, 594; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 304; more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. K S. 313. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 Rpbt. 119. Rev'd in 49 N: 7. 223. v. Sealy, 9 Barb. 214. Approved (Holder of unindorsed note, not a bona fide holder) in Haydon v. Nicoletti, 18 Nev. 290, 300. Heeg v. Liclit, 16 Hun, 257. Rev'd in 80 JV. 7. 579; s. c, 8 Abb. JST. C. 355; 36 Am. R. 654, with note. Heeney, Matter of, 2 Barb. Ch. 326. Dis- ting'd (Trustees' accounting) in Stephens «. Marshall, 23 Hun, 641. Heeney v. Brooklyn Benev. Society, 33 Barb. 360. Aff'd in 39 K 7. 333. Heerinance v. Taylor, 14 Bun. 149. Ex- plained (Acceptance required by statute of frauds) in Ben}, on Sales, § 155, n. o (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.). Discussed in Id. § 158, n. (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). , t. Vernoy, 6 Johns. 5. Relied on with Holmes, v. Tremper, 20 Id. 29; Cresson v. Stout, 17 Id. 121 (Machines, &c. as fix- tures) in dissenting opinion of Tod, J., in Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R. (Penu.) 413; s. c, 17 Am. Dee. 680, 685, with lengthy note, collating cases. Applied (Sale of personal property annexed to realty implies warranty of title, to sale of patent rights) in Faulks v. Kamp, 17 Blatchf . C. Ct. 432, 434. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed., § 1062, n. 3. Collated with othercases (Essentials of trespass upon property) in Bigel. Cos. on Torts, 379. Discussed in 1 Add. on Torts, 459, «.., Wood's ed. v. Yeomans {Unreported). Cited with approval with Sands v. Taylor, 5 Johns. 395 (Vendor's right to resell goods on buyer's refusal to take them away) in Gilly v. Henry, 8 Mart. (La.) 402; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 291. Heermans v. Ellsworth, 3 Hun, 473; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct.(T.& C.) 605. Aff'd in 64 XT. 7. 159. v. Robertson, 3 Hun, 464; s. c, more ful'.y, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 596. Aff'd in 64 JST. 7. 332. Further decisions affect- ing construction of deed here involved, in Heermans rS. Burt, 78 H. 7. 259; Heer- mane v. Schmaltz, U. S. Cir. Ct, E. D. Wis., 7 Fed. Rep. 566, 569. Hegeman v. Cantrell, 50 How. Pr. 188. Aff'd in 43 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 550. An- other proceeding in 40 Id. 381, Decision in 50 How. Pr. cited as authority (Practice on trial of special issues) in Carroll v. Deimel, 13 Weekly Dig. 401. Questioned in Chapin v. Thompson, 58 Bow. Pr. 46. v. Fox, 1 Red/. 297. Aff'd in 31 Barb. 475. Doctrine of decision in Id. discussed and limited (Domicile) in Am. L. Beg. N. S. 739. Collated with ether cases in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 360. v. Hegeman, 8 Daly, 1. Applied (As- signment of trade-mark) in Matter of Swezey, 62 How. Pr. 215, 218. v. Western R. R. Corporation, 16 Barb. 353. Aft'd in 13 2V. 7. 9; s. c, 64 Am. Bee. 517, with note. See Benson e. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Camden & Amboy R. R. & Transp. Co. v. Burke; Teall v. Barton. Decision in 13 N. 7. criticised, but applied (Duty of railroad company to furnish roadworthy vehicles) in Alden i>. N. Y. Central R. It. Co., 26 Id. 103. Compare Tiriney v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 62 Barb. 218, and cases cited. Quoted in Ang. on Larr. § 538, n. a, 5 ed. Included in Thomps. on Carr. of Pass. 160. Collated with other cases in 2 Red/. Am. Bailw. Cos. 415. Cited as authority (Risk assumed by pas- senger) in The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 453, 462. Decision in 16 Barb, explained as not shaking rule in Collins «. Albany; & Schenectady R. R. Co., 12 Id. 492; Clapp v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 19 Id. 461 (Damage for personal injury, when not ex- cessive) in Murray v. Hudson River R. K. Co., 47 Id. 196, 203. Heidenbach v. Schland, 10 How. Pr. 447. HEIDENHEIMEK— HENDRICKS. 337 Applied (Domicil and residence) in Eyall ». Kennedy, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 347, 361, which was afE'd in 67 N. Y. 379, 386, which see. Applied with Matter of Wrigley, 4 Wend. 602, in Swaney v. Hutching, 13 Neb. 268. Collated with other cases in Thomps. on Prov. Hem. 359. Heidenheiuier v. Mayer, 42 Super. Ct. (■/. & S.) 506. Affd, it seems, in 74 iV. Y. 607, but without opinion. Decision in 42 Supier. Gt. (. Wallace. Heins T. Peine, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 568. Affd 56 N. Y. 610. V. , 6 Eobt. 420; Cited with Enoch v. Wehrkamp, 3 Bosw. 398 (What is cover- ed by factor's lien) in Whart. Gom. on Ag. § 767. Heislion r. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 34. Eev'd in 77 N. Y. 278. Decision in Id. applied (Examina- tion before trial) in Kelly v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 60 Wis. 480, 490. Helmer y. Shoemaker, 22 Wend. 137; s. c, 14 Jf. 7. Gom. L. Law. ed. 86, with brief note. See Jackson v. Bull. Helms v. Goodwill, 4 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & G.) 645 ; s. c, more fully, 2 Hun, 410. Rev'd in 64 N. Y. 642. Hemenway v. Wilson, 1 Hun, 721. Fuller mem. in 5 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & G.) 669. Aff'd, it seems, in 59 N. Y. 633, but with- out opinion. Hemiup, Matter of, 3 Paige, 305. Disap- proved (Review of surrogate's jurisdiction to order sale) in Bostwick v. Atkins, 3 iV. Y. 53. Vol. I.— 22 Hempstead v. N. Y. Central It. R. Co. See Bostwick ■». Champion. v. Weed, 20 Johns. 64 ; s. c, 11 Am. Deo. 244. Applied (Powers of outgoiog sheriff as to prisoners in custody) in Feerick v. Conner, 60 Bow. Pr. 506, 508. Henderson v. Brown, 1 Cat. 92; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 164; 2 N. Y. Gom. L. Law. ed., 78, with brief note on officers', liability. v . Cairns, 14 Barb. 15. Disting'd as concerning judgment recovered before R. S. (Presumption as to payment of judgment) in Malloy v. Vanderbilt, 4 Abb. K G. 127, 132. See Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 377, n. v. Henderson, 3 Den. 314. Followed (Presumption of payment of assessment) in Fisher v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Hun, 64, 66, which was rev'd in 67 N. Y. 73, 80, which see. — — v. Jackson, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 293. Dis- approved (Misjoinder) in Barton v. Speis, 5 Hun, 60. But see Harris v. Eldridge, 5 Abb. W. G. 278. v. Marvin, 31 Barb. 297 : s. c, more fully, 11 Abb. Pr. 142. Disting'd (Liability of guarantor) in Western N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Clinton, 66 N. Y. 332 ; Stewart v. Ranney, 23 How. Pr. 205, 207. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., IS Barb. 222. Rev'd in 16 iY. Y. 97. Further decis- ion in 17 Hun, 344 ; and that aff'd in 78 iY. Y. 423. See Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Decision in 78 N. Y. disting'd (Ejectment to recover possession of street) in Troy & Boston R. R. Co. v. Boston, &c. Ry. Co., 86 Id. 127. v. Scott, 25 Hun t 59. Abridgt. s. c, in 12 Weekly Dig. 363. v. Spofford, 10 Abb. Pr. IV. S. 140 ; s. c, 3 Daly, 361. Aff'd in 59 iV Y. 131. v. Sturgis, 1 Daly, 336. Followed (Mechanic's lien in case of assumption of contract) in Murry -u. Hutcheson, 8 Abb. N. O. 423, 426. Hendricks v. Bloodgood, 18 Wend. 670. Explained (Necessity of giving notice of signing of referee's report) in Anonymous, 2 Hill, 389. v. Bouck, 4 E. D. Smith, 461 ; s. c, more fully, 2 Abb. Pr. 360. v. Carpenter, 2 Robt. 625; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. K S. 213. Aff'd in 4 Bobt. 665. v. Franklin, 4 Johns. 119. Overruled (Rate of exchange recoverable in action on bill) in Graves v. Dash, 12 Id. 17. v. Judah, 2 Cat. 25 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 213, with note. Followed (Title of as- signees in bankruptcy to lease or term) in Be Washburn, 11 Banhr. Reg. 66. v. , 1 Johns. 319. See Bank of Orleans v. Barry. Compare (Set off as de- fense to action on note) Bridge v. Johnson, 5 Wend. 342 ; Burrough v. iMoss, 10 Barn. 6 O. 558. Criticised and questioned with O'Callaghan v. Sawyer, 5 Johns. 118 ; Bank of Niagara v. McCracken, 18 Id. 493 ; Ford v. Stuart, 19 Id. 342, in Robinson v. Ly- man, 10 Conn. 30; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 52, 338 HENDRICKS- HEPBURN. with note. See to the contrary Holland v. Makepeace, 8 Mass. 418. y. Robinson, 2 Johns. Ch. 283., Afi'd as Hendricks v. Walden, 17 Johns. 438, but without opinion. Decision in 2 Johns. Oh. disting'd with Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 4 Id. 677 (Judgment at law as condition preced- ent to granting creditor relief in equity), as inapplicable to proceedings against personal representative, in Birely's Ex'rs e. Staley, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 432; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 303, 309, with note. Cited as settled law with Nicoll v. Mumford, 4 Johns. Oh. 522 (Debtor's right to prefer creditors) in Dea- ver v. Savage, 3 Mo. 252 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 437. Followed (Validity of con- tract made to secure future debt) in Calkins v. Lockwood, 16 Conn. 276 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dee. 143, 147. Explained (As- signment for benefit of creditors as dis- tinguished from mortgage) in Burrill on Assign. § 8, n. 1, 4 ed. v. Stark, 37 W. Y. 106. Explained (Party-wall as incumbrance) in Brooks v. Curtis, 50 Id. 639, 644. Hendrickson t. People, 10 N. Y 13; s. c, 9 Sow. Pr. 155; 1 Parh. 416, n. Aff'g Id. 406; s. c, 8 How. Pr. 404. Dis- senting opinion of Selden, J., in Ct. of App. is in 1 How. Pr. 155. Opinion of Whight, J., on granting writ of error, &c, is in 1 Parh. 396. Decision in 10 N. Y. followed and disting'd from Mc- Mahon v. People, 15 Id. 384 (Admissi- bility of statements of prisoner) in Teach- out v. People, 41 Id. 7. Explained in McMahon v. People, 15 Id. 384, 392. But see People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 207, 251, and criticism in 5 MoaTc. Eng. 168, n. Disting'd in Murphy v. Peo- ple, 63 N. Y. 590. Decision in 1 Parh. ex- plained (Stay of judgment) in People t>. O'Eeilly, 9 Ml. N. O. 77, 91. Henn T. Walsh, 2 Edw. 129. Quoted and commented on (Receiver of partnership prop- erty) in High on Receiv. § 474, n. 2. Hennequin t. Butterfield, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 411., Aff'd, it seems, in 76 N. Y. 598, but without opinion. v. Clews, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 108. Kev'd in 77 W. Y 427; s. c, 33 Am. B. 641, with note. Prior decision in 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.), 411, and that aff'd in 76 N. Y. C98, but without opinion. Another decis- ion in 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 330, and that aff'd in 84 N. Y. 676, which was aff'd in 111 U. S. 676. See Palmer v. Hussey. Decision in 77 K Y. followed (Debts not affected by discharge in bankruptcy) in Bergen «. Patterson, 24 Hun, 250, 252; Stratford v. Jones, 48 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 427. Disting'd in Bradner v. Strang, 89 If. Y. 299, which aft'd 23 Hun, 445, which see; Hardenbrook ®. Colson, 24 Id. 475. Followed with Rowe i>. Guilleaume, 18 Id. 556, in Guilfoyle ». Anderson, 9 Daly, 64. Relied on in Maxwell v. Evans, 90 Ind. 596 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 234. Hennessey v. People. See People ». Allen. Hennessy t. Patterson, 85 N. Y. 91. Decis- ion here aft'd (but construction overruled) is reported as Foley v. Foley, 17 Hun, 235. v. Wheeler, 51 How. Pr. 457. Rev'd in 69 XT. Y. 271 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 188, with note as to infringement of trade-mark. Henrique* v. Hone, 2 Edw. 120. Disting'd with Osborne v. Moss, 7 Johns. 161 (Con- veyance in fraud of creditors) in Fox v. Clarke, Walk Oh. {Mich.) 538. Compare Hyslop v. Clark, 14 Johns. 458 ; Austin v. Bell, 20 Id. 442; Jackson v. Roberts, 11 Wend. 422; Drinkwater v. Drinkwater, 4 Mass. 354; Reiker i>. Hare, 14 Id. 137. Henry t. Bank of Salina, 5 Hill,'52S. Rev'g Bank of Salina v. Henry, 1 Id. 555. Decision in 5 Id. followed (Witness, when obliged to give testimony criminating himself, if pro- tected by statute) in People v. Hackley, 24 N. Y. 74, 85. v. Bishop. See Fox «. Reil. v. Brown, 19 Johns. 49. Examined (Variance) in 1 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 69, n. 1. v. Cuyler. See Gelston v. Hoyt; Tenny v. Filer. v. Davis, 7 Johns. Oh. 40. Aft'd as Clark v. Henry, 2 Cow. 324. See Dey v. Dunham. Decision in 7 Johns. Ch. disting'd (Effect of conveyance absolute on face, on mortgage) in Morrison v. Brand, 5 Daly, 40, 42. Explained in Thomas on Mort. 433. Followed (Invalidity of agreement tending to alter nature of mortgage) in Youle ®. Richards, 1 Saxton Ch. (JV. J.) 534; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 722, with note. Cited with other cases in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 690. v. Henry, 3 Root. 614; s. c, more fully, 17 Abb. Pr. 411; 27 How. Pr. 5. Ques- tioned as overlooking 2 R. S. 147, § 53 (Right of adulterous wife to limited di- vorce) in Doe v. Roe, 23 Hun, 19, 22. Superseded (Counter-claim in matrimonial action) by Code Civ. Pro. § 1770, as am'd by L. 1881, c. 702. V. Root, 33 N. Y. 526. See Robinson «. Dauchy. Collated with other cases (Ratification, by infant, of contract) in 25 Am. R. 30, n. Quoted in Schouler on Dora. Rel. 3 ed., § 434. Reviewed at length in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed., § 55. Discus- sed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. §§ 493, 494. v. Wilkes, 37 JV. Y. 562. Disting'd (Effect of unauthorized payment of incum- brance) in Fitzhugh v. Sackett, 50 Id. 699. Henschel t. Mahler, 3 Hill, 132. Affd in 3 Den. 428. Decision in 3 Hill collated with other cases (General requisite of negotiable paper) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 390. Hentz v. Long Island R. R. Co., 13 Barb. 646. See First Baptist Church v. Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co. Explained (Right of abutting property holders to compensa- tion for railway) in 1 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 198. Hepburn v. Hoag, 6 Cow. 614. Followed (Claim for uncertain damages not to bo HERBECK— HERKICK. 330 used as set-off) in Drew v. Towle, 27 If. S. 412; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 380. Herbeck, Matter of, 16 Abb. Pr. JV. 8. 214. ■ Approved (Power of surrogate's court to appoint guardian of person or e9tate) in Matter of Hosford, 2 Red/. 168. See Code Civ. Pro. § 2821. Herbert v. Smith, 6 Bans. 493. See also (What is compliance with obligation to dis- charge incumbrances on property contracted to be sold) Rinaldo v. Housmann, 1 Abb. If. C 312 Herforth. v. Herforth, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 489. Disapproved (What will warrant order granting temporary alimony) in York v. York, 34 Iowa, 530. Herkimer v: Rice, 27 N. Y. 163. See Rohr- bach v. Mtna, Ins. Co. ; Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Allen. Explained (In- surable interest of administrators, &c.) in Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 45 N. T. 454. Followed in Sheppard ». Peabody Ins. Co., 21 W. Va. 368, 386, as sustained by Phelps «. Gebhard, 9 Bom. 404 ; Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 45 If. Y. 454; Beach v. Bowery- Ins. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. 261. Cited as contain- ing an elaborate argument, — in 20 Am. Dec. 515, to. Approved and followed (Insurable interest of creditor) in Rohrbach v. Ger- mania Fire Ins. Co., 62 If. Y. 47, 57. (Re- viewed with other cases (What is insurable iuterest) in Trade Ins. Co. v. Barracliff, 16 Vroom (N. J.) 543 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 792. Herkimer County Bank v. Brown, 6 Hill, 232. Applied (Preference of prior execu- tion, when not lost by delay) in Ohlson ». Pierce, 55 Wis. 205, 214. Herkimer Mau'f Co. v. Small, 21 Wend. 273. Further decision in 2 Hill, 127, and thatrcv'din2 If. Y 330. Decision in 21 Wend, followed (Effect of provision author- izing corporation to sell stock for non-pay- ment of subscription) in Selma & Tennessee R. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787; s. c., 39 Am. Dec. 344, 349, with note. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 551, 11 ed. Herkimer County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fuller. Sj3e Thomas v. Whallon. Herman v. Lyons, 2 Abb. If. C. 90; s. c. re- ported in 10 Hun, 111. Hermance v. Supervisors of Ulster, 71 If. Y. 481. Disting'd and limited (Tax illegally imposed) in Matter of N. Y. Catholic Protectory, 77 hi. 342, 345. Hermann v. Aaronson, 8 Abb, Pr. If. S. 155. See (Deposit in lieu of bail) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 586, n. Hernandez v. Carnobeli, 4 Duer, 642. See Corwin v. Freeland. Disapproved with . Bank of Mexico v. Arangois. 11 Mow. Pr. 1 (Vacating order of, arrest) in Barret v. Gracie, 34 Barb. 20, 25. Explained (Right of parent as to correcting child) in 3 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 63, n. a. Hemsteln v. Mattliewson, 5 How. Pr. 196. Opposed with Floyd v. Blake, 11 Abb. Pr. 349 (Attachment in case of tort) in Gordon •c. Gaffey, 11 Abb. Pr. 1, 3. See Barnes v. Buck, 1 Lane. 268. Also Code Civ. Pro. 1881, Ch. vii., Tit. iii., Art. 1, to. Heroy v. Kerr, 8 Bourn. 194; s. c, with points of counsel, 21 How. Pr. 409. Aff'd, on the merits, in 2 Reyes, 582; s. c, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 359. Herrick v. Auies, 1 Key en, 1 90. It does not appear that a majority of the court were agreed upon the grounds in which the judg- ment in this case was aff' d. The decision has no value as a precedent. v. Bennett, 8 Johns. 374. Applied (When facts may be specially Set forth in pleading without stating legal effect) in Okie v. Spencer, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 253; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 251, 256, with note. Included (Note when payable, when time of payment is not fixed) in 1 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 93. v. Blair, 1 Johns. Oh. 101. Applied (Effect of error by arbitrator) in Frederick ». Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 308, 378. v. Borst, 4 Hill, 650. See Pain v. Packard. Applied (Release of surety by neglect to sue principal) in Maier v. Cana- van, 8 Daly, 272, 274 Followed in Marsh v. Dunckel, 25 Hun. 1 67, as not shaken by later decisions. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars. onContr. 24, ?;. «.. v. Carman, 10 Johns. 224. Subsequent , decision in action on same note in 12 Id. 159. See Hallo. Ncwcomb; Tillman v. Wheeler. Decision in 12 Johns, explained with Tillman v. Wheeler, 17 Id. 326, and dicta disapproved (Liability of irregular indorser) in Hall v. Ncwcomb, 7 Hill, 416, which aff'd 3 Id. 233, which see. Cited with approval in Phelps «. Vischer, 50 i\T. Y. 69. Disapproved in Burton v. Hansford, 10 W. Va. 470; s. c, 27 Am. P. 573. With Nelson v. Dubois, 13 Johns. 175; Campbell v. Butler, Id. 349, shown in 3 Am. Dec. 571. to., to have been overruled in Dean v. Hall, 17 Wend. 214 ; Hall v. Newcomb, 7 Hill, 416; Spies v. Gilmore, 1 N. Y. 321. See also in same note Waterbury t>. Sinclair, 7 Ab'i. Pi: 404; Moore v. Cross, 19 If. Y. 227 ; Meyer i\ Hibsher, 47 Id. 279 ; Phelps v. Vischer, 50 Id. 69, cited as showing liability of such a person to payee, Ellis v. Brown, 6 Barb. 282, being classed with cases inapplicable or overruled, and Brown ». Curtiss; 2 N. Y. 22"), disting'd as a case of express contract of guaranty. Applied in Arnott's Adm'r v. Seymonds, 85 Penn. St.. 99; s. c, 27 Am. R. (i30. Examined at length with Tillman t. Wheeler, 17 Johns. 326; Nelson n Dubois, 13 Id. 175; Camp- bell v. Butler, 14 Id. 349, in Nash t. Skin- ner, 12 Verm. 219; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 338, with note. Explained with Nelson t. Dubois, 13 Johns. 175; Campbell v. Butler, 14 Id. 349 ; Labron v. Woram, 1 Jli.ll. 93, and their effect compared with that of later N. Y. cases in Rothschild v. Grix, 31 Mich. 150; s. c, 18 Am. R. 171, 174. Reviewed at length with Tillman v. Wheeler, 17 atv iUSK-KlUii.— li-UT&KLL. Johns. 326; Nelson v. Dubois, 13 Id. 175, in Stoney v. Beaubien, 2 Mcitull. (So. Oar.) 313; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 128, 130, with note. Critically examined with Nelson v. Dubois, 13 Johns. 175; Campbell v. Butler, 14 Id. 349; Dean v. Hall, 17 Wend. 214, in Camden v. McCoy, 3 Scam. (111.) 437; s. c, 88 Am. pec. 91, 93 with note. Decision in 10 Johns, compared with other cases (Evidence to explain, &c. contract of indorsement) in Phelps v. Vischer, 50 K Y. 69. Followed with Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. 224, 231; Skelding v. Haight, 15 Id. 274, in Hill v. Ely, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 363; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 376. Disting'd in Chaddock v. Vanness, 35 K J. 517; s. c, 10 Am. R. 256, 259. Reviewed and applied in John- son v. Martinus, 4 Halst. (N. J.) 144; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 464. Relied on in Smith v. Morrill, 54 Me. 49. Applied in Perkins v. Catlin, 11 Conn. 213; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 282, 294, with note. y. Catley. See Joslin v. Cpwee. T. Lapliam, 10 Johns. 281. Followed (Opinions as evidence) in Donnell v. Jones, 13 Ala. 490; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 59, 70, with note. V. Manly, 1 Gai. 253. Overruled (Lia- bility of one causing arrest) in Coats v. Darby, 2 Hf. Y. 517. v. Stover, 5 Wend. 580. See Cady v. Pairchild Disting'd with Tucker v. Rankin,, 15 Barb. 471 (Sufficiency of notice of pro- posed route of road) in N. Y. & Albany R. R. Co. v. N. Y., West Shore, &c. R. R. Co., 11 Abb. N. C. 386. v. Whitney, 15 Johns. 240; s. c, 5 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed., 1076, with brief note. t. Woolverton, 41 N. Y. 581. Rev'g 42 Barb. 50. Decision in Id. disapproved with Scovil v. Scovil, 45 Id. 517; Payne v. Slate, 39 Id. 634 (Running of statute of limitations against demand note) in Hirst . Mut. Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 195. Ex- plained with Bartley v. Richtmyer, 4 Id. 39 ; White o. Nellis, 31 Id. 405 ; Briggs v. Evans, 5 Id. 16 (Maintenance of action for seduction) in Blagge v. Ilsley, 127 Mass. 191 ; s. c, 34 Am. R. 361, with note. See also, 4 Am. Dec. 403, n.; 44 Id. 162, n. Ap- proved, in Lee ». Hodges, 13 Graft. (Va.) 726. Hewitt v. Hewitt, 3 Brad/. 265. See (Post- poned execution of decree for sale of real estate) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, §2762, n. v. Howell, 8 How. Pi: 346. Opposed (Effect of variance between summons and complaint) in City of Fond du Lac «. Bone- steel, 22 Wise. 251. v. Northrup, 9 Sun, 543. Aff'd in 75 If. Y. 506. Hewlett v. Brown, 7 Abb. Pr. 74; s. c, 1 Bosw. 655. See (Right of party to witness fees) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 3288, n. v. Coek, 7 Wend. 371. See Ridgeley s>. Johnson. Followed with Jackson ». Luquere, 5 Cow. 225; Jackson v. Laroway, 3 Johns. Cos. 283 (Ancient documents in evidence) in Gibson v. Poor, 21 MS. 440; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 216, 220, with note. Followed with Jackson v. Lamb, 7 Gow. 431 ; Jackson v. Welden, 3 Johns. 283 ; Willson v. Betts, 4 Den. 201, in Harlan v. Howard, 79 Ky. 376. v. Wood, 55 S. Y. 634. Further pro- ceeding in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 453; s. c, less fully, '1 Sun, 478. Still further proceeding in 3 Id. 736, appeal from which was dismissed -in 62 1ST. Y. 75. Also further proceedings in 7 Hun, 227; 67 Jf. Y. 394. Decision in 55 Id. followed (Opinions of witnesses as to mental condi- tion of another) in Spence v. Brown, 17 Weekly Dig. 518. Approved and collated with other cases in 6 Am. Dec. 61, n. Hews v. Hollister, 7 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 11. Overruled (Right of action to recover money lost by betting) in Ruc'.anan a. Pitcher, 20 K Y. 9. Hexter v. Knox, 39 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 109. Aff'd in 63 N. Y. 561. See Knox v. Hexter. With decision in 63 If. Y. see (Measure of damages for non-repair) Arnold v. Clark, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 252, 256. Discussed in Sedgw. Gas. on Dama. 86. , Heyde v. Heyde, 4 Sand/. Oh. 092. Dis- ting'd (Pleading in actions for divorce) in Mitchell fl. Mitchell, 61 N. Y. 398, 408. Quoted in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. % 604, 6 ed. Heyer v. Deaves, 2 Johns. Vfo 154. Fol- lowed (Sale under decree, to be by person authorized, in person) in Sebastian v. John- son, 72 III. 282; s. c, 22 Am. It. 144, with note, collating cases. v. Pmyn, 7 Paige, 405; s. c, 34 Am. Dee. 355, with note, wherein are collected citations. See Borst v. Corey; Jackson v. Wood. Approved and followed (Presump- tion of payment of mortgage from lapse of time) in N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Covert, 6 Abb. Pr. K S. 154, which rev'd 29 Barb. 435, which see. Compare Bel- knap i>. Gleason, 11 Conn. 160, 166; Jack- son v. Sackett, 7 Wend. 94. Examined in Almy v. Wilbur, 2 Woodb. & M. 404. Commented on in Ang. on Limit. § 73, 6ed. Heyliger v. N. T. Fireman's Ins. Co., 1 1 Johns. 85. See Bradhurst v. Columbian Ins. Co. Disting'd (Freight, &c, when an ex-, pense to be contributed for in general aver-, age) in Hugg v. Baltimore & Cuba S. & Mu Co., 35 Md. 414; s. c, 6 Am. R. 425, 431. Heyman v. Beringer, 1 Abb. N. O. 315. Compare (Authority of attorney to accept payment of incumbrance) Josephthal v. Heyman, 2 Abb. N. C. 22. Heyne t. Blair, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 263. Rev'd in 62 N. Y. 19. Heyward, Matter of, 1 Sand/. 701. Collated with Matter of Leland, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 64, and other cases (State legislation with refer- ence to fugitive criminals) in 32 Am. R. 355, n. Heyward v. Maypr, &c. of N. T., % Barb. 486; s. c, 8 XT. Y. Leg. Obs. 244. Aff'd in 7 if. Y. 314. Decision in Id. applied (Power of legislature to determine time and occasion of exercise of right of eminent domain) in Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. Townsend, 24 Barb. 665. Explained in Matter of Townsend, 39 K Y. 174. Dis- ting'd (Evidence that use is public one) in Matter of Deansville. Cemetery Assoc, 66 Id. 572. Examined with other cases (Ex- tent of interest in land taken by corpora- tion by right of eminent domain) in Bartow v. Draper, 5 Doer. .148. Applied in Sweet v. Buffalo, N. Y., &c. R'y Co., 79 If. Y. 300. Decision in 8 Barb, collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Sighw. 3 ed. 37. Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 534. See Hartwell v. Armstrong. Applied (Equitable relief against assessment) in Howell v. City of Buffalo, 2 Abb. Gl. App. Dec. 415; Mutual Benefit Life Assur. Co. b. Sup'rs of N. Y., 8 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 346, which aff'd 33 Barb 322, which see; Haulon v. Sup'rs of Westchester, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 268; Crevier v. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 12 Id. 348; Baldwins. City of Buffalo, 29 Barb. 399; Miigee v. Cutler, 43 Id. 247 ; Hebrew Free School Assoc, v. Mayor, 342 HIBBAED— HICKS: &c. of N. Y., 4 Sun, 446, 451 ; Hassan v. City of Rochester, 67 iV. Y. 536 ; Lea vis v. City of Buffalo, 1 Sheld. 84 ; Longley «. City of Hudson, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 354. Commented on and applied in Mann v. Board of Education, 53 How. Pr. 297. Ap- plied to lease by dock department, in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. North Shore Staten Island Ferry Co., 9 Sun, 620, 622. Applied to application of proceeds of tax, in Kilbourne f. St. John, 59 K T. 26, which affd 7 Lans. 356, which see. Cited as author- ity with Susquehanna B'k v. Supervisors of Broome, 25 JST. Y. 312, in Douglass v. Town of Harrisville, 9 W. Va. 162; s. c, 27 Am. R. 549. Commented on and cases cited to the contrary in 1 High on Tnj. 2 ed., § 485, n. 2. Disting'd (Jurisdiction to sustain acts of municipal corporation) in Matthews v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 14 Abb. Pr. 212. Applied in Kilbourne v. Allyn, 7 Lans. 357. Explained (Relief to be had on certiorari) in People v. Board of Police, 39 If. Y. 513. Applied (Ground of equitable relief) in Marsh v. Benson, 11 Abb. Pr. 247; Hyatt v. Bates, 35 Barb. 317; Smith v. Gage, 41 Id. 75. Hibbard v. N. Y. & Erie, R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455. See O'Brien e. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. ; Townsend v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Criticised and disting'd (Liability for expulsion of passengers from railroad car) in Isaacs v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 126. Disting'd in Higgins v. Water- vliet Turnpike Co., 46 Id. 29. Applied in Townsend v. N. Y. Central, &c.R. R. Co., 56 Id. 295, 300 ; Downs v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 287; s. c, 4 Am. R. 77. Included with note in 1 Red/. Am. Rail. Cos. 96 ; 2 Id. 447. Hibernia Nat. B'k v. Lacombe, 21 Sun, 166. Aff'd in 84 JST. Y. 367 ; s. c, 38 Am. R. 518. Decision in 21 Hun, applied (Authority of foreign assignees in- bank- ruptcy) in Lee v. Pfeffer, 25 Id. 97, 99. With decision in 21 Id. compare Kilmer v. Hobart, 8 Abb. N. 0. 426 ; a case of a re- ceiver appointed in another State. Compare Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Jaynes, 87 111. 199; Bagly v. Atlantic, &c. R. R. Co., 86 Penn. St. 291, the latter being, however, a case of a receiver appointed in the same jurisdic- tion. Hickock v. Seribner, 3 Johns. Cas. 311 ; s. c, IN. Y. Com. L. Law. e^d. 708, with brief note of cases on necessity of joining all affected by the demand. Hickok v. Hickok, 13 Barb. 632. See Staf- ford v. Richardson. Collated with other cases (Limitation of action as affected by demand) in Throop's Justice's Man. 2 ed., 188; Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. v. Trustees of Plattsbnrgh, 15 Barb. . 427. Said in note to Conrad v. Trustees of Ithaca, 16 N~. Y. 161. to have been rev'd in Ct. of App. on Sup'm. Ct. opinion by Sei.den, J., in Weet «. Trustees of Brock- port. Other decision in 41 Barb. 130. See Bailey v. Mayor, &c, of N. Y.; Conrad v. 'trustees of Ithaca; Morey v. Town of Ncvr- l'ane ; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester. Followed but disapproved (Lia- bility of municipal corporation for injury caused by defect in highway) in Clark v. City of Lockport, 49 Barb. 582. Applied in Hines v. City of Lockport, 41 Bow. Pr. 450. Disapproved in Detroit?). Blakeby, 21 Mich. 84 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 455 ; City of Nava- sota «. Pearce, 46 Tex. 525 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 283. Followed and applied (Liability of officers charged with care of public roads, &c.) in Garlinghouse c. Jacobs, 29 N. Y. 297,' 311. Collated with other cases in Cook's High. L. 4 ed. 49. Cited as authority (Private action for violation of duty impos- ed by statute or ordinance) Ilceney v. Sprague, 11 R. 1. 456; s. c, 23 Am. R. 502, 507, where Jones v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2 Daly, 307; Bell v. Quinn, 2 Sandf. 146, were disting'd. Hickox v. Fay, 36 Barb. 9. Disapproved as overruled (Exemption from execution) in Snyder v. Davis, 1 Sun, 350. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1391, n. Hicks v. Brown, 12 Johns. 142 ; s. c, 5 it- Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 334, with brief note. Followed {Lex loci as governing liability of drawer and indorser) in Freese v. Brownell, 35 N. J. 285 ; s. c, 10 Am. R. 239.. v. Cleveland, 39 Barb. 573. Further decision in 48 N. Y. 84. Decision in Id. quoted and explained (Parol evidence to supply omission of memorandum required by statute of frauds) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 212, n. 12 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Explained in Browne on Stat, of Frauds. § 138/, 4 ed. v. Dorn, 1 Lam. 81. Aff'd in 42 iV. Y. 47; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 47. v. Foster. See Lincoln v. Saratoga & Schenectadv R. R. Co. v. Hinde, 9 Barb. 528. Included (Negotiable paper made by agent) in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 221 ; also in Thomps. Liab. of Off. & A. 39, with notes. v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch. 297; s. c, 11 Am. Bee. 472. -See Mather v. Bush. Dis- cussed (State law impairing obligation of contract) in 1 Kent Com. 421. — -- r. McGrorty, 2 Duet; 295. Disapproved (Assignee for benefit of creditors, entitled to protection as assignee for value) in Schieffelin v. Hawkins, 17 Abb. Pr. 112, 117. Cited as authority (Set-off against as- signees of insolvent) in dissenting opinion of Bockes, J., in Seymour v. Dunham, 24 Hun, 93, 98. v. Mintnrn, 19 Wend. 550. Cited with Bush». Cole, 28 JV. Y. 261 ; Hoffman v. Carow, 20 Wend. 21 ; 22 Id. 285 ; Cham- bers v. McCorinick, 4 IT. Y. Leg. Obs. 342 (Liabilities of auctioneers) in Whart. Com. on Ag. \% 648-652. v. Sheppard, 4 Lans. 335. Cited as an- tagonistic to several judgments of Ct. of App. (Availability of equitable defense) in Pomeray on Rem. § 91, n. 1. HICKS- HIGHLAND TURNPIKE CO. 343 v. Smith. See Stewart v. Saratoga & Whitehall R. K. Co. v. Whitniore, 12 Wend. 548. Disting'd, but point not clearly indicated, in Adams v. Ives 63 N. Y. 6-il. Followed (Auction sales, as affected by statute of frauds) in Craig v. Godfroy, 1 Cal. 415; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. '299, with note. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 270, n. 70 (Corbm's 4 Am. ed.). Collated with other cases in support of what is said to be the established rule in this country and in England, in 22 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 8. Hicksville, &c. R. IS. Co. v. Long Island It. R. Co., 48 Barb. 855. See statement of facts explained in 49 Id. 668, n. Hidden y. Waldo, 7 Alb. L. J. 79. Eev'd in 55 N. Y. 294. Hier v. Abrahams, 82 If. Y. 519. See Messerole v. Tynberg. Applied (Trade- marks) in American Grocer v. Grocer Pub. Co., 2o Sun, 398, 402. Disting'd, and Amoskeag M'f'g Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf. 599, applied, in Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Sherrell, 93 If. Y. 331. v. Grant, 47 If. T. 278. See Hatch v. Peugnet. Disting'd (Evidence as to personal transaction with deceased person) in Maverick v. Marvel, 90 If. Y. 650. Higbe v. Leonard, 1 Den. 187. Reviewed with Edwards v. Russell, 21 Wend. 63; Cain «. Ingram, 7 Cow. 478 ; Foot v. Morgan, 1 Sill, 654, and other cases (What is rela- tion by affinity) in Kelly v. Keely, 12 Arh. 657; s. u., 50 Am. Dec. 288, with note, col- lating cases. Higbie v. Guardian Mnt. life Ins. Co., 66 Barb. 402. Aff'd in 53 N. Y. 603. Decis- ion in Id. explained and disting'd (Opinions of witnesses) in Harrington v. Chambers, 3 Utah, 94, 113. Thought in 19 Am. P. 410., n., to contain in head-note a state- ment not justified by case. Higby v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 3 Bosw. 487. Collated with other cases (Note or bill taken for debt) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 270. Higgins v. Allen, 6 Bow. Pr. 30. See .(Action on undertaking given on injunc- tion) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 625. n. — — v. Delaware, L. & Western R. R. Co., 60 If. Y. 553. Explained (Sale of chattel not specific) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 479 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Freeman, 2 Duer, 650. Approved (Voluntary appearance) in Wellington v. Classon, 9 Abb. Pr. 175, 177. See (Dis- missal of complaint) Code Civ. Pro. 1881 § 821, n. — — v. Moore, 6 Bosw. 344. Rev'd in 34 If. Y. 417. See Knapp D.Wallace. Decision in 34 N. Y. disting'd (Authority of broker to receive purchase price) in Talmage v. Nevins, 2 Sweeny, 38. Cited as authority in Butler v. Dorman, 68 Mo. 298 ; s. c, 30 Am. P. 795. Applied in Crosby v. Hill, 39 Ohio St. 104. Reviewed at length with other cases (Proof of knowledge of custom) in Walls v. Bailey, 49 If. Y. 464, 474. v. Murray, 4 Run, 565. Aff'd, in effect, in 73 If. Y. 272. Decision in Id. quoted and explained (Effect of contract of' sale in passing property) in Benj. on Sales, § 399, n. I (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Ex- plained in 2 Id. % 587 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). t. Newtown & Flushing R. R. Co., 3 Sun, 611. Aff'd in 66 If. Y. 604. y. People, 1 Sun, 307. Aff'd in 58 If. Y. 377. t. Phoenix Mut Life Ins. Co., 10 Sun, 459. Aff'd in 74 iv". Y. 6. v. Water vliet Tnrnpike, &e. Co., 46 If. Y. 23; s. c, 7 Am. B. 293. See Isaacs v. Third Ave. R. R. Co. Applied (Master's liability for servant's wrongful act) in Peck v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Sun, 287, which was affd in 70 If. Y. 591, which see. Approved and explained in Isaacs v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 125. Applied in Jackson v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., Id. 277; Rounds v. Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co., 64 Id. 133. Disting'd in Gillett v. Mo. Valley R. R. Co., 55 Mo. 315; s. c, 17 Am. P. 656. Followed in Bass v. Chicago & Northwestern R'y Co., 36 Wis. 450; s. c, 17 Am. B. 495, 502. Collated with llaack «. Fearing, 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 297; Shea «. Sixth Ave. R. It. Co., 62 If. T. 180; Rounds v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., 64 Id. ] 20 (the contrary doctrine of Isaacs i>. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 122, said to have been substantially overruled) ; Drew v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 26 Id. 49 ; Mott v. Consumer's Ice Co., 73 Id. 543 ; Ccsgrove «. Ogden, 49 Id. 255 ; King v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 00 Id. 181, in 40 Am. P. 226, n. Collated with Garvey v. Dung, 30 Sow. Pr. 315; Haack v. Fearing; 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 297; Shea v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 180; Isaacs v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 122; Cosgrove v. Ogden, 49 Id. 255 ; King v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 Id. 181, and other cases, in 26 Alb. L. J. 64. v. Whitney, 24 Wend. 379. See Hanmer v. Wilsey. Disting'd (Mitigation of damages in action for trespass, &c.) in Sprague v. McKinzie, 63 Barb. 60, 62. Questioned in Curtis i>. Ward, 20 Conn. 208. See, also, Hanmer v. Wilsey, 17 Wend. 91. Approved with Sherry v. Schuyler, 2 Sill, 204; Ball v. Liney, 48 If. Y. 6, in Howard v. Manderfield, 31 Minn. 337, 339. Explained in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed., § 635 a, n. 3. Higham v. Dillon, 5 Weekly Dig. 179. Affd in 75 N. Y. 598. Highland Turnpike Co. v. McKeon, 10 Johns. 154; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 324. See Jen- kins v. Union Turnpike Co. Cited as authority (Necessity of payment on stock subscription) in Excelsior Grain Binding Co. v. Stayner, 61 Sow. Pr. 456, 461. Dis- cussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. % 528, 11 ed. 344 HIGHLANDS CHEMICAL & MINING CO.- HILL. Followed (Corporate books as evidence) in North River Meadow Co. ». Shrewsbury, 2 Zabr. (K J.) 424 ; s. c, 53 Am. Dee. 258, with note. See to the contrary, Union Gold M. Co. v. Rocky M. Nat. Bk. 2 Col. 565. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 49. Highlands Chemical & Mining 1 Co. v. Mat- thews, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 39. Modifi- ed and affd in 76 N. Y. 145. Decision in Id. explained (Effect of acceptance by purchaser of less than is required) in 2 ' Benj. on Sales, § 1032, n. 19 (Corbin's 4 Am. cd.). Higinbotham v. Stoddard, 9 Hun, 1. Aff d in 72 N. Y. 94. Hilderbrand t. People, 1 Hun, 10 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & G.) 82. Affd in 56 N. Y. 394; s. c, 15 Am. R. 435. See Smith v. People. Decision in 56 iV. Y. applied with Loomis v. People, 67 Id. 326 ; People v. McDonald, 43 Id. 61 ; Smith v. People, 63 Id. Ill (Property intrusted for specific purpose, when subject of larceny) in Jus- tices of Special Sessions, People ex ret v. Henderson, 90 Id. 12. Disting'd in Zink v. People, 77 Id. 127. Cited in 33 Am. R. 458, n., as supported by Reg. v. McKale, 11 Gox 0. 0. 32. See also Reg. v. Hollis. 49 L. T. Rep. 572 ; mem. s. c, 29 Alb. L. J. 177. Decision in 1 Hun ; examined with other cases (Judgment record in criminal cases) in Manke 11. People, 74 JV. Y. 415, 422. Followed in Woodin v. People, 6 Hun, 654. Hildebrant v. Crawford, 6 Lam. 502. Affd in 65 N. Y. 107. Decision in 6 Lans. ex- plained (Evidence as to conversation between deceased and third person) in Brague v. Lord, 41 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 193, 196. Limited (Costs where two actions are tried together) in Koch v. Koch, 1 City Gt. 255. Cited (Liability of principal for agent's act performed incidentally in the discharge of his office) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 130. Hi Id re th v. Ellice, 1 Cai. 192. See Jackson «. Anderson. Followed (Attorney's liability for sheriff's fees) in Van Kirk v. Sedgwick, 23 Hun, 37, 39. Explained with Parsons «. Bowdoin, 17 Wend. 14; Adams v. Hopkins. 5 Johns. 252; Scott v. Shaw, 13 Id. 378 '; German-American B'k v. Morris Run Coal Co., 68 N. Y. 590 (Sheriffs right to pound- age), in Peck ». City Nat. B'k of Grand Rapids, 51 Mich. 353; s. c, 47 Am. R. 577. v. Sands, 2 Johns. Gh. 35. Affd as Sands o. Hildreth, 14 Johns. 493. See Bank of U. S. »,. Housman ; Schemerhorn v. Vanderhayden. Decision in 2 Johns. Gh. followed with White v. Williams, 1 Paige, 508 (Right of parties claiming under judg- ment, to benefit of position - of judgment creditor) in Byers v. Fowler, 12 Arh. 218; s. c. 54 Am. Dee. 271, 291, with note. Ap- plied with Bank of U. S. ■». Housman, 6 Paige, 526 (Deed concealed or not pursued, when fraudulent as to creditors) inBlenner- hassett v. Sherman, 105 U. 8. 100, 117. Explained (Effect of fraudulent intent on part of grantor) in Brooks v. Marbury, 11 Wheat. 90. See Waterbury v. Sturtevant 18 Wend. 365. v. Shepard, 65 Barb. 265. Cited aa authority (Uusury as determined by law of place) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs B'k v. Low 6 Abb. K G. 76, 89. Cited (When party already examined may be called on re- examination to contradict testimony offered in his own behalf) in 1 Whart. Com. on &. § 485, 556. Hill v. Beebe, 13 JST. Y. 556. Applied (Effectof failure to refile chattel mortgage) in Bissell v. Pearse, 21 How. Pr. 137. y. Draper, 10 Barb. 454. See to the contraiy (Possession as evidence) Dclancey v. McKeen. 1 Wash. G. Gt. 354. And see Abb. Tr. Mb. 692. v. Gibbs, 5 Hill, 56. See Austin v. Hall ; Sherman v. Ball ou. v. Heermans, 17 Hun, 470. Subse- quent decision in 22 Id. 455, which was affd as Wadsworth «. Heermans in 85 N. Y. 639. Other decisions in 6 Hun, 661 ; 59 N. Y. 396, in actions arising out of same general contest. Decisions in 22 Hun, and 85 N. Y. disting'd (Evidence as to trans- action with deceased person) in Pease v. Barnett, 30 Hun, 525. v. Hill, 4 Barb. 419. Disting'd (Va- lidity of remainder after bequest) in Smith v. Van Ostrand, 64 If. Y. 278, 284. Ap- proved, and cases in support cited (Estoppel in deed) in 3 Am. L. keg. N. S. 151. v. McKenzie, 1 Hun, 110. Fully re- ported in 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 122. v. Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Den. 206. Affd in 7 N. Y. 152. v. Newichawanick Co., iSBow. Pr. 427. Affd in 8 Hun, 459, and that affd, it seems, in 71 JV. Y. 593, but without opinion. Decision in 8 Hun, disting'd (Who entitled to dividends) in Boardman v. Lake Shore 6 M. S, Ry Co., 84 iV. Y. 157, 159. De- cision in 48 How. Pr. disting'd in llerrman v. Maxwell, 47 Super. Gt. (J. S S.) 347, 352. v. Northrop, 1 Hun. 612. Fully re- ported in 4 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 120. v. People, 20 JSf. Y. 363. Points of counsel in 18 How. Pr. 289. Disting'd (Trial before magistrate without jury) in People v. Burleigh, 1 If. Y. Crim. R. 522. Compare People ex rel. Comaford v. Butcher, 83 N. Y. 2*40, 242. v. Ressegieu. See Gazlcy «. Price. T Spencer, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 304. Rev'd in 61 A". Y. 274. v. Syracuse B. & N. Y R. R. Co., 8 Hun, 296. Rev'd in 73 N. Y. 301; s. c, 29 Am. R. 163, with note. Previous de- cision in 2 Hun, 114 ; s. c, ISup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 095. Statement in 5 E-un, v, that decision in 2 Id. was affd, seems to be an error; as decision in 63 JV. Y. 101 ap- pears to be in an entirely different proceed- ing. See Elmore «. Sands. Decision in 63 N. Y. applied (Eftect of refusal of passenger to pay fare) in Nelson v. Long Island H. R. Co., 7 Hun, 140, 144. HILL— HINMAK 345 — T. Thacter, 3 How. Pr. 407. See (What complaint must contain) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 481, n. Hills v. Bannister, 8 Cow. 31. See Barker «. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co. ; Stanton v. Camp. Opposed (Liability on contract exe- cuted as agent) in Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 41. See Hicks ■». Hinde, 6 How. Pr. 1. Reviewed with Barker v. Mechanic's Ins. Co., 3 Wend. 94; Mott o. Hicks, 1 Cow. 513, in Kean «. Davis, 1 Zah. {N. J.) 683; s. c, 47 Am. Dee. 182. 183, 186, 188, where Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 40; Palmer «. Stephens, 1 Den. 471 ; Pentz «. Stanton, 10 Wend. 271, were reviewed (Parol evidence to determine true character of such contract), Pentz v, Stanton being reconciled with Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat. 326. Followed in Burlingame v. Brewster, 79 III. 515; s. c, 22 Am. R. 177. Said in 2 Am. R. 332, n. not to be in harmony with the other cases cited, and not to have been followed. Said in 2 Am. Dee. 517, «., to be of questionable authority and opposed to Brockway «. Allen, 17 Wend. 40. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 523. Applied (Warranty on sale by agent) in Horner v. Fellows, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 55. Explained (Warranty of fitness) in 1 Para, on Contr. 592, n. h. y. Miller. 3 Paige, 254 ; s. -a, 24 Am. Dec. 218, with note containing citations. See Coming v. Lowerre. Reconciled with Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510; Barrow v. Richards, 8 Id. 350 (Charg- ing land with burden of covenant) and Brouwers. Jones, 23 Pari. 153, apparently doubted in West Va. Transp. Co. v. Ohio River Pipe Line Co., 22 W. Va. 600; s. c, 46 Am. R. 527, 545. Quoted and explained (Ancient lights) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. S 152. Hillyer v. Bennett, 3 Edw. 222. Explained and reconciled (Right to repudiate contract, made when infant, without returning con- sideration) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 38. See cases cited in 1 Hcmd: W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 320. v. Larzelere, 9 Johns. 160. Followed (Effect of appearance by infant without guardian) in McMurray v. McMurrav, 60 Barh. 117. ■ v. Rosenberg, 11 Abo. Pr. N. S. 402. Examined with other cases (Time of mak- ing affidavit on petition for discharge of debtor) in Richmond v. Prairn, 24 Hun, 578. 580. ' Hilton v. Bender, 2 Hun, 1 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm Ct. {T. & G.) 270. Rev'd in 69 N. Y. 75. v. Fonda, 86 JST. Y 339. Prior proceed- ing as Stewart v. Fonda, in 19 Bun, 191. Hilts v. Colvin, 14 Johns. 182. Disting'd (Parol evidence of conviction of witness, in- competent against objection) in Perry v People, 86 If. Y. 353, 358. Cited as au- thority with Jackson v. Frier, 16 Johns. 193 (Admissibility of parol testimony where bet- ter evidence is unattainable) in Jackson v. Cullum, 2 Blaehf. (lnd.) 228; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 158. Hincken v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 6 Lans. 21. Aff' d in 51 N. Y. 657, but without further opinion. Hinckley v. Emerson, 4 Cow. 351; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 383. See Putnam v. Payne. Ap- plied (When killing of dog is unjustifiable), in Brent v. Kimball, 60 III. 211 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 35. Followed (Dog is property), People v. Maloney, 1 Park. 593, being further cited (Dog as subject of larceny), — in Harrington v. Miles, 11 Kans. 480; s. c, 15 Am. R. 355, with note collating cases. v. Kreitz, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 413. Rev'd in 58 If. Y. 583. Decision in Id, Disting'd (Limit of liability on undertaking on appeal) in Church v. Simmons, 83 Id. 261, 265, which rev'd 19 Hun, 220, which see ; Lowry v. Tew, 25 Id. 257, 259. Ap- plied in Babbitt -a. Finn. 101 U. S. 7, 14. Applied (Form of such undertaking) in Moses v. Hasbrouck, 63 How. Pi: 84, 88. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1332, n. Dis- ting'd (Primary liability as between two sets of sureties) in Higgins v. Healey, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 207, 209; Smith s. Falconer, 11 Hun, 481, 483. v. Smith, 51 If. Y. 21. See Morange v. Morris. Followed (Incumbrance as barring specific performance) Reeder v. Schneider, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 104, 106. Explained and applied in Rinaldo v. Housmann, 1 Abb. N. C. 312, 314. Hinde v. Smith, 6 Lans. 464. Cited (Dam- ages recoverable from factor who sells at price less than specified) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 759. Hinds v. Barton, 25 If. Y. 544. See Shel- don v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Applied (Evidence in actions for negligence) in Quinlan v. City of Utica, 11 Hun, 217, 220. t. Doubleday, 21 Wend. 223. Applied (Powers of outgoing sherift in relation to prisoners in his custody) in Feerick v. Con- ner, 60 How. Pr. 506, 509. v. Myers, 4 How.' Pr. 356. Applied (Right to costs, as affected by distinction between legal and equitable actions) in Black v. O'Brien, 23 Hun, 82, 85. Hine v. Handy. See Pattison v. Hull. v. Hine, 39 Barb. 507. Followed (Evi- dence of intention of testator) in Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Red/. 265, 285. Hines v. City of Lockport, 5 Lans. 16; s. c, 60 Barb. 378; s. c, more fully, 41 How. Pr. 43*5. Aff'd in 50 N. Y. 236. See Lloyd u. Mayor, &c of N. Y. v. Strong, 46 How. Pr. 97; mem. s. c, 1 Sap'm. Ct. (T. & C), Add. 19. Aff'd, it seems, in 56 N. Y. 670, but without opinion. Hinkley v. N. T. Central, &c. B. K. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (2'. & C.) 281. Aft'd in 60 If. Y. 644. Hinman y. Booth, 21 Wend. 267. See Harri- son v. Stevens. See to the contrary (Allega- tions as to interest of plaintiff in eject- ment) Gillet v. Stanley, 1 Hill, 121 ; Cole 346 HIN MAN— HITCHCOCK. v. Irvine, 6 Id. 634. See also All. Tr. Eo. 692. Y. Jndson, 13 Barb. 629. Explained (Redemption of mortgaged chattels after condition broken before sale) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 570, n. p. Hinnenian v. Rosenback. See Reynolds v. Commerce Fire Ins. Co. Hinsdale v. Bank of Orange, 6 Wend. 378. See Rowley v. Ball. Followed (Recovery on half of divided note) in State Bank of Illinois v. Aersten, 3 Scam. (III.) 135; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 536. Cited in 13 Am. Dec. 47, «., as to the right to such recovery being settled in this country. Quoted and collated with other cases in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 706. Hinsdell v. Weed, 5 Den. 172. See Batter- man ». Pierce. Opinion of McKissock, J., approved (Right to freight as affected by loss of part of goods carried) in Davis v. Pattison, 24 F. Y. 317, 324. Hintermister v. First Nat. Bank of Chittenango, 3 Hun, 345: s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 484. Modified and aff d in 64 F. Y. 212. Decision in Id. applied (Forfeiture for usurious exaction by na- tional bank) in Nat. B'k of Auburn v. Lewis, 75 Id. 521. Disapproved in Lebanon Nat. B'k v. Karmany, 98 Pa. St. 65, 76. See, also, Crocker v. First Nat. B'k of Chetopa, 4 Dill. 358. Followed (Limitation of time within which to bring action against national bank for usury) in Lynch ■». Merchant's Nat. B'k, 22 W. Va. 554; s. c, 46 Am. S. 520. Compare Nat. State B'k of Newark v. Boylan, 2 Abb. F. C. 216. Criticised as opposed to weight of authority, — in 6 South. L. Rev. (F. 8.) 525. Hinton t. Locke, 5 Hill, 437. See Coit v. Commercial Ins. Co. Approved (Evidence of usage to explain contract) in Walls v. Bailey, 49 F. Y. 464. 468. Discussed in 2 Pars, on Contr. 539, n. h. See cases cited in 4 Am. L\. Reg. F. 8. 350. Hiscock v. Harris, 74 F. Y. 108. Further proceeding in 80 Id. 402. Decision in Id. disting'd (What judgment may be entered, after affirmance by Court of Appeals) in Peoples. Denison, 8 Abb. F. C. 128, 145. v. Phelps, 2 Lans. 106. Further decis- ion on the merits in 49 F. Y. 97. State- ment in latter report that it is "reported below, 2 Lans. 106," is incorrect. See vol. 218 Cases in Ct. of App , Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. Decision in 2 Lans. explained (Who to be served with notice in case of appeal) in Morrison i>. Morrison, i9 Hun, 509. Decision in 49 F. Y. explained (Exe- cution against partnership) in 2 Collyer on Partn. § 793, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Cai. 460; s. c, 2 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 225, with brief note. See Hubbell v. Coudrey. Over- ruled (Conclusiveness of judgment of sister State) in Andrews v. Montgomery, 19 Johns. 162. Compare to the contrary Bissel t>. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462. Disapproved in W,». cox v. Kossick, 2 Mich. 168. Said with Taylor v. Bryden, 8 Johns. 173; Hubbell v. Coudrey, Id. 132, to have been overruled in the U. S. ,Sup'm. Ct. and to be opposed to the decisions of other States,— in Wil- liams v. Preston, 3 J. /. Marsh. (Ky.) 600; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 179, 184, with note. Said to be decided by a highly respectable court, and with Borden e. Fitch, 15 Johns. 144; Andrews v.' Montgomery, 19 Id. 16?, followed in Evans v. Tatem, !) Scrg. & R. (Pa.) 252; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 717. See, also, 2 Am. Dec. 42, n. ; 1 Id. 206, n. Also Aldrich «. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 151. Referred to with Hubbell v. Coudrey, 5 Johns. 132, and other cases in Napier v. Gidiere. 1 spear's Eg. (So. Car.) 215; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 613, with note, as contrary to later decisions. Reviewed with Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121 ; Shumway v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 292, in Hall ». Williams, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 232 ; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 356, with note. Explained in 2 Pars on Contr. 609, n. y. v. Cadmus, 2 Barb.' 381. Discussed (Clause to continue business in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign, § 212, 4 ed. v. Carpenter, 9 Johns. 344. Deemed overruled'by Sparrow v. Kingman, 1 F. Y. 242 (Estoppel of grantee of husband as against widow claiming dower) in Finn v. Sleight, 8 Barb. 401. V. Covill, 20 Wend. 167. Affd, in 23 Id. 611. See Mowrey v. Walsh. v. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290; s. c, 4 F. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 129, with brief note ; 5 Am. Dec. 229, with note. See Jackson ». DeWitt ; Jackson «. Willard. Cited as au- thority with Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. 278; and the latter said to be a leading case (Dower in equitv of redemption) in Mills ».. Van Voorhies, 20 iK Y. 412, 416, 420. Ap- proved (Mortgagor as legal owner) in Orvv. Hadley, 36 JV. H. 575. Shown in note in 5 Am. Dec. to have been frequently cited but not to have been uniformly followed in N. Y. as an authority (Right of dower, when mortgage is paid off by one deriving title from mortgagor) Popkins v. Bumstead, 8 Mass. 491 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 113, being con- trary thereto as appears from comparison in 1 Scribner on Dower, 498. Cited, however, as an authority in Carter «. Goodin, 3 Ohio St. 75, 79. v. Linsly, 17 Hun, 556. Applied (Separate suits by distributees) in Haueustein v. Knll, 59 How. Pr. 24. v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 26 F., Y. 68. Limited (Transfer of interest covered by policy) in Savage v. Howard Ins. Co., 52 N~ Y. 502, 506, which rev'd 43 How. Pr. 462, which see. Disting'd in Gernweed v. Home Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 5!0. v. St. John, Hi,ffm. 511. See Egberts v. Wood; Hnvens v. Hussey; Bobin,-on «>. Mcintosh. Disting'd and limited (I'ovrer of HOAG— IIODGMAN. 347 one partner to transfer firm assets), in Paton v. Wright, 15 How. Pr. 481. Discussed in BurriU on Assign. § 76, 4 yl. Quoted and collated with other cases in Holcombe Lead. Cas. on Com. L. 78 ■ 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Oas. 5 ed. 548. Explained in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 178, n. t. Quoted and discussed (De- livery of possession) in BurriU on Assign. § 280, 4 ed. Hoag v. Lamont, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 91. Affd as against defendant" Walbridge, and rev'd as to others, in 60 If. Y. 96; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 369. Decision in Id. explained (Jurisdiction of local court) in Whitehead v. Kennedy, 6 Daly, 548. Disting'd in Gemp v. Pratt, 7 Id. 197, 199. Applied in Wheelock v. Lee, 74 If. T. 499. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, pp. 98, 99,* n. y. McGinnis, 22 Wend. 163. Cittfd as strongly declaring preference of the law (Sum mentioned in contract, when regarded as penalty), on 2 Sedgw. on Meas. of Dama. 7 ed. 239, 240. t. Owen, 60 Barb. 34. Affd in 57 If. Y. 644. Hoagland t. Bell. See Matter of Barker. t. Miller, 16 Abb. Pr. 103. Overruled (Directing exception to be heard at General Term, in case of nonsuit) in Huntingdon v. Claffin, 38 N. Y. 182. Criticised in Brown t>. Conger, 8 San, 625, 628. Su- perseded by Code Civ. Pro. § 1000, as amended in 1882. v. Stodolla, 1 Code P. N. S. 210. Com- pare (Certificate of interest in attachment proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 651, n. Hoard v. Garner, 3 Sandf. 179. Affd in 10 N. Y. 261. Decision in Id. disting'd with Eemsen v. Beekman, 25 Id. 552 (Duty of creditor to enforce collateral securities) in Corning v. Pond, 29 Hun, 129. Discussed in 1 Am. L. Rev. If. S. 713. Hobart v. Frost. See Viburt v. Same. v. Hobart, 23 Hun, 484. Rev'd in 86 If. Y. 636. v. , 62 N. Y. 80. See Hatch v. Peugnet. Disting'd (Party "interested in event" under Code Civ. Pro. § 829) in Church v. Howard, 79 Id. 420. Hobbs v. Francais. See Fetridge v. Wells. — — v. Wetherwax, 38 How. Pr. 385. Ap- plied (Enforcing parol agreement respect- ing real estate) in Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Hun 67, 73. ' Hochstetter v. Isaacs. See Woodruff v. Dickie. Hodge v. City of Buffalo, 1 Abb. If. C. 336. See also (Testimony of parties) Miller v. Ins. Cp. of No. Amer., 1 Abb. N. C. 470. v. Denny, 6 Alb. L. J. 192. Followed (New trial for newly discovered evidence) in May v. Strauss, 8 Abb. If. C. 274, 276. Hodges v. City of Buffalo, 2 Ben. 110. See Donovan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Weismer v. Village of Douglas. Disting'd (Author- ity of common council) in People ex rel. Smith p. Flagjr, 5 Abb. Pr. 234; Reynolds v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 8 Barb. 601; Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, 21 Id. 304. Applied in Boom v. City of Utica, 2 Id. 108; Halstead v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 If. Y. 433; Boyland v. City of N. Y., 1 Sand/. 30; Smith v. City of BufFalo, 1 ■ Sheld. 498. Discussed in Cooky on Const. Lim. 5 ed. 261. ' Followed (Power of municipal corporation to contract debt for celebration) in New London v. Brainard, 22 Conn. 556. Compare Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Col. 255. Approved and ap- plied (Ratification by corporation, when ineffectual) in McCullough v. Moss, 5 Den. 582. Applied (Want of authority to bind corporation) in Jollinghaus v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 6 Buer, 5. Disting'd (Rights of party to contract made by corporation in excess of its powers) by Boswortii, J., in Mechanics' B'k v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. , 4 Duer, 557; Harlem Gas Light Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 3 Eobt. 124. Applied in McDonald v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 176. y. Sliuler, 24 Barb. 68. Affd in 22 If. Y. 114. Decision in Id. followed (Re- quisites of negotiable instrument) in Hos- statter v. Wilson, 36 Barb. 307. Applied in Hotchkiss v. National Banks, 21 Wall. 354, 357. Relied on in Zimmerman v. An- derson, 67 Penn. St. 421 ; s. c, 5 Am. 5.447. Included in 1 Ames »Cas.- on B. & If. 65. Decision in 24 Barb, collated with other cases in Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 10; Bigel. on B. & If. 2 ed. 17. v. Tennessee Marine & Fire Ins: Co., 8 If. Y. 416. Followed (Effect of instru- ment absolute in terms, as a mortgage) in Van Dusen v. Worrell, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Deo. 474; Tyler v. Strang, 21 Barb. 201; Mc- Burney «. Wellman, 42 Id. 402; Smith v. Beattie, 31 If. Y. 544; Mason v. Lord, 40 Id. 487; Horn ». Keteltas, 46 Id. 010. Ap- plied in action at law, in Despard v. Wal- bridge, 15 If. Y. 378. Disting'd as in- applicable to official conveyances. — in Ryan v. Dox, 25 Barb. 4AT ; as not authority for proving trust for grantor, — in Sturtc- vant v. Sturtevant, 20 If. Y. 39. Followed in Manufacturer's B'k v. Rugee, 18 Norihw. Rep. 251. Applied (Admissibility of parol proof of agreement respecting land, to pre- vent fraud) in Ryan v. Dox, 34 N. Y. 313. Examined with other cases (Effect of trans- fer of interest of party to policy) in Shot- well v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 258. Hodgkin v. Atlantic & Pacific R. K. Co., 5 ^465. Pr. N. S. 73. Approved and fol- lowed (Party to action not compellable to make affidavit for motion) in Cockey v. Hurd, 12 Abb. Pr. K S. 307. Hodgkins v. Montgomery Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 34 Barb. 213. Said in 41 If. Y. 620 to have been rev'd by Ct. of App., Dec. 1869. Decision in 34 Barb, denied as standing alone (Sufficiency of service of notice and proof of lossl in Dean v. iEtna Life Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 358, 371. Hodgmau y. People, 4 Den. 235. Disting'd 348 HODGMAN— HOPFMAK and limited (Several counts in indictment) in People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 if. Y. 559, 578. v. Smith, 13 Barb. 302. Disting'd (When participation in profits constitutes partnership) in Burnett v. Snyder, 76 if Y. 344, 351. v. Western K. B. Corporation, 7 Sow. Pr. 492. Confirmed (Assignability of right of action for tort) in McKee v. Judd, 12 U~. Y. 622. Followed in Hyde ». Tuffts, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 56, 58. Hoe v. Sanborn, 21 if. Y. 552. Subsequent decision in 24 Sow. Pr. 26 which was aff'd in 36 if Y. 93; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. if. S. 189 ; 35 Sow. Pr. 200. Decisions in 24 Id. and 36 if. Y. explained (Costs on offer of judgment) in Scoville ». Kent, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 17. Decision in 21 if. Y. approved as a leading case (Implied war- ranty on sale of personal property) in Kel- logg Bridge Co. ■». Hamilton, 110 U. S. 114. Collated with Douncc v. Dow, 64 if Y. 411 ; Hawkins v. Pemberton, 51 Id.l9S ; White v. Miller, 7 Sun, 427; 71 if. Y. 118; and other cases in 24 Am. R. 102, 105, 106, 113, n. Collated with other cases in 17 Am. L. Rev. 423. See also cases collated in note by John D. Lawson, to Reynolds v. Palmer, 21 Fed. Rep. 441. Quoted and explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 986, n. 33 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Hoes v. Van Hoesen, 1 Barb. Ch. 379. Aff d, in 1 JT. Y. 120. Hoey v. Kinney, 10 Abb. Pr. 400. See (Sale of decedent's real estate) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2797, n. Hoffman r. .Etna Fire Ins. ,00., 1 Robt. 501 ; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 325. Aff'd in 32 JT. Y. 405. See Livingston v. Stickles; Wilson v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. Decision in 32 JT. Y. applied (Construction of insurance policy) in Wright v. Williams, 20 Sun, 323- Applied (Effect of condition against transfer of insured partnership property) in Keeney v. Home Ins. Co., 71 JT. Y. 4U2, ■which rev'd 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 482, which see. Followed and fully approved in Texas Banking & Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 47 Tex. 406 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 298, 301; Wyman v. Wyman, 26 JT. Y. 254, being also cited as authority. Followed and approved in West •b. Citizens Ins. Co., 27' Ohio St. 1; s. c, 22 Am. R. 294, 298, 300. Cited as authority with Wilson v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Barb, oil, — in Burnetts. Eufaula Home Ins. Co., 46 Ala. 11 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 580. Cited as probably the leading case, but disting'd in Hathaway v. State Ins. Co., 64 Iowa, 229. Cited as sustained by the weight of authority, in Powers v. Guardian Fire and Life Assur. Co., 136 Mass. 108. Decision in 1 Robt. examined and reconciled with other cases in 28 Am. Dee. 287, n. v. Armstrong, 46 Barb. 337. Aff'd in 48 K. Y. 201. T. Barry, 2 Sun, 52 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 253. Limited (Costs on appeal from decision on demurrer) in Van Gelder v. Van Gelder,. 1# Bun, 1 18, 120. Applied in Scott v. McMillan, 8 Daly, 320, 327. T. Carow, 22 Wend. ,285. Affg 20 Id. 21. See trial reported in Anth. Jf. P. 323. See Hicks v. Minturn ; Van Bus- kirk v. Purinton ; Williams v. Merle. De- cision in 22 Wend, examined with Saltus v. Everett, 20 Id. 267; Mowrey v. Walsh, 8 Cow. 239 (Right of innocent purchaser of stolen property) in Newkirk «. Dalton, 17 111. 415. Followed (Liability of auctioneer , selling stolen goods) in Rogers v. Hine, 1 Cal. 429; s. c, 54 -4m. Dec. 300, with note; but criticised and disapproved in Rogers »• Hine, 2' Cal. 571 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dee. 363. Collated with other cases in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 21. Followed and Marshall v. Davis, 1 Wend. 109 ; Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348 ; Pierce v. Van Dyke, 6 Id. 613; Nash v. Mosher, 19 Wend. 431 disapproved (Reme- dies for wrongful taking of goods, as against bona fide purchaser,.mortgagee, &c.) in Stan- ley v. Gaylord, 1 Cash. (Mass.) 536 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 643, 647, 650, with extended note. Followed (Presumption as to laws of another State) in McCulloch v. Norwood, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 180, 188. v. Conner, 13 Sun, 541. Further de- cision on appeal from judgment ou second trial in 76 N. Y. 121. Statement in latter report that it is " reported below, 13 Bun, 541," is incorrect. See Vol. 480, of Cases in Ct. of App. in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. Decision in 76 N. Y. disting'd (Evidence of value of property) in Flannagan v. Mad- din, 81 Id. 623. v. Delihanty, 13 Abb. Pr. 388. Ap- proved (Liability for use and occupation) in Hall v. Western Transportation Co., 34 if. II 284. v. Bunlop, 1 Barb. 185. See (Composi- tion by joint debtors) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1942, n. v. Hoffman, 55 Barb. 269. Aff'd in 46 JT. Y. 30; s. c, 7 Am. R. 299. See Shuni- way ». Stillman. Decision in 46 N. Y. dis- ting'd (Effect of judgment, of divorce rendered in another jurisdiction) in Hunt v. Hunt, 72 Id. 217, 240. Followed in Sewall i). Sewall, 122 Mass. 156; s. c, 23 Am. R. 299. Cited as authority with Kerr v. Kerr, 41 if Y. 272; Borden v. Fitch, 15 JohnsA21, 141, in Litowich v. Litowich, 19 Kans. 451; s. c, 27 Am. R. 145. Followed with Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272, in Van Fossen v. State, 37 Ohio St. 317; s. c, 41 Am. R. 507. Cited with numerous author- ities (Jurisdictional recitals in judgments of another State) in 1 Kent Com. Holmes' ed., n. 1, 262. v. Lacliman, 1 Cio. Pro. R. 278, n.; s. c, 62 Bow. Pr. 335. Followed (Husband's liability for torts of wife) in Fitzsimons v. Harrington, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 360, 362. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 450, n. HOFFMAN— HOLD ANE. 349 T. N. T. Central, &c. E. E. Co., 13 Hun, 589. Affd in 76 N. Y. 605. See Nichol- son v. Erie R'y Co. T. Seaton, 35 Super. Ct.lJ. & S.) 566. Affd in 65 N. Y. 568. v. Tread well. 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 57. Followed (Presumption of authority- derived from possession by husband of instrument made by wife to person other than him) in Smith v. Fellows, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 36, 47. v. Tredwell, 6 Paige, 308. See (Bring- ing in new parties, on death or transfer of interest of party) Code Civ. Fro. 1881, § 760, re. v. Union Ferry Co., 4 Hun. 274. Aft'd in 68 JV; Y. 385. Previous decision in 47 Id. 176. See McGrath a. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. v. Tan Nostrand, 42 Barb. 174. See (When demand is necessary to set statute of limitations in operation) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. Hoffmire v. Hoffmire, 3 Edw. 173. Affd in 7 Paige, 60. Decision in Id. quoted (Sub- sequent cohabitation as constituting con- donation of adultery) in 2 Bish. on. Mar. & D. § 43, n. 5, 6 ed. Hofheimer v. Campbell, 7 Bans. 157. Affd in 59 N. Y. 269. Hoffnagle v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 346. Rev'd (Lia- bility of master to servant for injuries attributable to negligence of co-servant) in 55 N. T. 608. Hogan v. City of Brooklyn, 62 K Y. 282. Explained (Trespass and dispossession) in Monk's VhderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 373. T. Cregan, 6 Bolt. 138. See People v. Ab- bott ; People v. Jackson. Criticised and dis- ting'd (Action for seduction, when maintain- able) in Lawrence v. Spence, 29 Hun, 169. Disapproved in Damon v. Moore, 5 Bans. 454. Cited (Right to contradict witness on cross-examination) in 1 Whart. Com. on En. § 552. t. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 68 K Y. 17. See (Limit of cost of public work) People ex rel. Murphy -a. Kelly, 5 Abb. N. C. 383, 468. v. Short, 24 Wend. 458. Appoved, but disting'd (Set-off in case of factor) in Bliss v. Bliss, 7 Bosw. 339, 345, 351. Relied on in Bernshouse v. Abbott, 16 Vroom (If. J.) 531 ; s. c, 46 Am. P. 789. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 789. Explained (Waiver of right of set-off) in Gutchess ». Daniels, 49 if. 7. 605, 611. Hoglitaling v. Osborn. See Butler v. Kelsey; Story v. Elliot; Van Vechten v. Paddock. Hogle v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 4 Abb. Pr. 2T. S. 346 ; s. c, 6 Pobt. 567. Collated with Ruppert v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. , 7 Id. 155, and other cases (Who may maintain action on life policy) in 19 Am. P. 331, n. ■ v. Stewart, 8 Johns. 104. Examined (Limitation of action for dower) in May v. Rumney, 1 Mich. 10. Holbrook t. Receivers of American Fire Ins. Co., 6 Ikiige, 220. Discussed and approved (Set-off in case of insolvent corporation) in Osgood v. De Groot, 36 2f. Y. 348. Explained and applied in New Amsterdam Sav'gs B'k v. Tartter, 4 Abb. Jf. C. 215, 218. v. Orgler, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 33; s. C, 49 How. Pr. 289. Followed (Supple- mentary proceedings — appointment of re- ceiver in proceedings for examination of third party) in Morgan v. Kohnstamm, 60 How. Pr. 161. T. Henderson, 4 Sand/. 619. Cited ap- provingly (Ambassador's privilege) in 1 Kent Com. 39, n. c. v. Murray, 5 Wend. 161. Said (Effect of judgment void as to one defendant) in 32 Am. Dec. 604, n., not to be supported by , Richards v. Walton, 12 Johns. 434. Shown in same note to be inconsistent with St. John v. Holmes, 20 Wend. 609; Green v. Beals,. 2 Cai. 254; Crane v. French, 1 Wend. 311; Brittin v. Wilder, 6 Hill, 242, and thought to be supported neither by principle nor by authority. Cited in New- burg v. Munshower, 29 Ohio St. 617; s. c, 23 Am. P. 769, where such a judgment was held not void as to other defendant. t. N. J. Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 616. See N. Y. . Monteath, 13 Barb. 353 ; Dorr v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 11 K T. 485; 4 Sandf. 13G Commented on in Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. ». Chase, 1 R D. Smith, 115, 134. Followed with Cole «. Goodwin, in Moses v. Boston &. Maine R. R., 24 N. H. 71 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 222, 230. Disap- proved with Cole «. Goodwin, in Swindler D. Hilliard, 2 Rich. {So. Car.) 286; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 732. Followed with Camden & Amboy, &c. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. 355; Cole v. Goodwin ; Gould v. Hill, 2 Sill, 623 ; Alexander v. Greene, 3 Id. 9, 20, in Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 393, 401, et seq. with note, as sustain- ing a sound principle of the common law. Denied in Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. ' Hale, 6 Mich. 243, 260. See to the con- trary Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Aid. 21. Shown with Cole v. Goodwin, in 32 Am. Dec. 468. n., to have been extensively cited both in N. Y. and elsewhere. These cases are also referred to on p. 495 of same note as clearly and fully stating the law on this subject, and admirably giving the his- tory of the decisions and of the legislative enactments on the subject up to the time when they were rendered, their doctrine as to a common carrier not being able to restrict or limit his common law liability by general notices, being shown by cases cited on p. 502, to be the settled American rule on this subject. Commented on in Ang. on Oarr. § 234, 5 ed., Id. §§ 237, 238, 250, 255, 321. Commented on in 2 Bed/. Am. Bailw. Gas. 54. Included in Thomps. on Oarrs. of Pass. 489 ; Lawson Lead. Com. L. Oas. Simplified, 205. Quoted and ex- plained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 238, n. n. Cited approvingly with other authorities in 2 Kent Com. 608, n. b. Quoted with decis- ions to the contrary in 2 Story on Gontr. 5 ed. §§ 947, 951, and n. 4. Collated with Cole v. Goodwin, and cases from other States (Price for services rendered by car- rier, in absence of contract) in 22 Am. L. Reg. K S. 47. Quoted (Responsibility of common carrier) in Ang. on Oarr. § 153, 5 ed. Hollister Bank of Buffalo v. Vail, 15 N. Y. 593. Disting'd (Appeal in case of judg- ment on demurrer as frivolous) in Manuf'rs 6 Builders B'k v. Kiersted, & Daly, 160. Holloway v. Stephens, 2 Sup'm. Gt.' (T. & G.) 658; s. c, more fully, 46 How. Pr. 363. Motion for reargument denied in 2 Sup'm 'Gt. {T. & G.) 652. Further proceeding in 1 Ilun, 308, in which reargument was denied in 2 Id. 384: s. c, 4 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & G.) 674; s. c, with opinion, 48 How. Pr. 129. Appeal from decision in 1 Hun dismissed in 58 N. Y. 670, but without opinion. Y. Stevens. See Holloway v. Stephens. Hollywood v. People, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 376; s. c, 3 Keyes, 55. Collated with other cases (Effect of firing or striking at one, and hitting another) in 19 Am. R. 2, n. Holinan v. Holman. See Thomas v. Crofut; Webster v. Bond. Holmes, Ex parte, 5 Cow. 426. Ex- plained (Voting on corporate stock held by corporation itself) in Matter of Barker, 6 Wend. 509. Followed in Brewster v. Hart- ley, 37 Gal. 15, as not questioned by Matter of Barker. Quoted and discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. f 131, 11 ed. Holmes, Matter of. See People v. Mercein. Holmes v. Anderson, 18 Barb. 420. Quali- fied (Contradictory expressions of opinion not admissible) by doctrine of Schell v. Plumb, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 19, which was aff d in 55 K Y. 592, which see. v. Bronghton, 10 Wend. 75; s. a, 25 Am. Dec. 536. See Mills v. Martin ; Thomp- son v. Ketcham. v. Carley, 32 Barb. 440. Affd in 31 N. Y. 289. Decision in Id. cited as au- thority (What is contiguous territory) in People v. Shepard, 36 Id. 285. Cited (Statutory construction) in Hudler ». Golden, Id. 446. Cited with approval in U. S. v. Falkenhainer, U. S. Oir. Gt. E. D. Mo., 21 Fed. Rep. 624. y. Clark, 48 Barb. 237. See Savage v. Murphy. See cases cited (Voluntary con- veyances) in 16 Alb. L. J. 196. v. Cock, 2 Barb. Ch. 426. See (Revoca- tion of letters) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 2685, n. v. Davis, 21 Barb. 265. Rev'd in 19 N. Y. 488. Decision in Id. explained (Measure of recovery for mesne profits) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 666. v. Gvant, 8 Paige, 243. Examined (Conveyance, when to be treated a mort- gage) in Swetland a. Swetland, 3 Mich. 488. Approved in Thomas on Mort. 22. Dis- cussed in 8 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 603. v. Holmes, 3 Paige, 363. See Swaine v. Perine. v. , 12 Barb. 137. Aff'd in 9 JST. Y. 525. Decisibn in Id. disting'd (Evi- dence of waiver, under plea of performance) in Edminster v. Cochrane, 8 Daly, 138. Applied (Waiver of tender) in Hartley v. James, 50 N. Y. 38. v. , 8 Abb. Pr. 1; s. c, 57 Barb. 305. Rev'd in 4 Bans. 388. Decision in Id. followed (Foreign divorce, when invalid) in Moe v. Moe, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 647. Applied (Service of process must be within jurisdiction of court) in Shepard v. Wright, 59 Sow. Pr. 512, 514. Applied (Inap- plicability of doctrine of estoppel to actions affecting status of husband and wife) in Finn i>. Finn, 62 How. Pr. 83, 88. v. Lansing, 3 Johns. Gas. 73. Approved (What "impairs obligation of contract") in Morse v. Goold, 11 N. Y. 281, 287. Dis- ting'd (Jail liberties) in Wemple v. Glavin, 5 Abb. N. O. 360, 367. 35a HOLMES— IIOLTZ. v. McDowell, 15 Hun, 535. .Affd, it seems, in 76 N. Y. 596, but without opinion. v. Mead, 52 N. Y. 332. Followed (Statutory abolition of charitable uses) in Little v. Willford, 31 Minn. 176. T. Nuncaster, 12 Johns. 395. See Wil- liams «. Rogers. See to the contrary (Jus- tification by officer executing process) Underhill v. Reinor, 2 Hilt. 319. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 632. v. Pettingill, 1 Hun, 316. Afl'd, it seems, in 60 JV. Y. 646. With decision in 1 Hun see other cases collected (Usage to vary contract) 1 Abb. W. 0. 472, n. v. Reinsert, 4 Johns. Oh. 460 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 581, with note. Subsequent decision in 20 Johns. 229 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dee. 269, with note. See Embree 1>. Hanna; Mather «. Bush; Plestoro v. Abraham. Decision in 4 Johns. Oh. criticised (Terri- torial effect of statutory assignment) in Ackerman ». Cross, 40 Barb. 485. Disap- proved in Blake v. Williams, 6 Pick. {Mass.) ' 286 ; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 372, with note; Paine v. Lester, 44 Conn. 196; s. c, 26 Am. R. 443. Cited in 4 Kent Com. 405 in connection with decision in 20 Johns. Collated with other cases in 1 Holcombds Lead. Cos. on Gom. L. 417. Compared with the English rule in 7 South. L. Rev. N. S. 258. Opinion of Platt, J., in 20 Johns, approved in Ackerman «. Cross, 40 Barb. 485; Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 JST. Y. 343, which rev'd 3 Sandf. 424, which see; Kelly v. Crapo, 45 N. Y. 96. Approved and decis- ion in 4 Johns. Oh. disapproved in Plestoro v. Abraham, 1 Paige, 237, which was rev'd in 3 Wend. 538, 548, 562, which see. De- cision in 20 Johns, approved in 3 Am. Dec. 436, n. Cited with approval in Robinson v. Crowder, 4 McO. (So. Car.) 519; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 762, with note. Quoted in 3. Pars, on Contr. 453, n. x. Discussed in Id. 454, n. y. Cited with other cases in Story on Gonfi. of L. §416, n. Shown by recent cases cited in 8 Am. Dec. 597, n., to have been fol- lowed in N. Y. in preference to decision in 4 Johns. Oh., which is however thought to con- tain a' sound principle as to the law governing the distribution of personal property. See in accord with decision in 20 Johns., Milne v. Moreton, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 353 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 466, with note. Both decisions examined with others in Willitts v. Waite, 25 JV. Y. 577. Approved in Hibernia Nat. B'k 1>. Lacombe, 84 Id. 367, 385. Reviewed in Varnum v. Camp, 1 Green L. (N. J.) 326 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 476, 480, with note. Decision in 20 Johns, applied (Right to col- lect debt as affected by garnishment pro- ceedings in another jurisdiction) in Simon v. Huot, 8 Hun, 382; Duggan v. Lake Shore, &c. R. R. Co., 1 Sheld. 401. Deci s- ion in 4 Johns. Ch. cited as authority (Validity of transfer of personal property as affected by law of domicil) in Rue High, Appellant, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 522. v. Seely, 17 Wend. 75. See Harrison «. Stevens. Overruled (Recovery of undivided part uuder claim of whole in ejectment) in Vrooman v. Weed, 2 Barb. 330; Van Rensselaer v. Jones, 2 Id. 643, 655. Quoted (Ejectment by guardian in socage and general guardian) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 199. v. , 19 Wend. 507. Followed with Williams ». Safford, 7 Barb. 309 ; Newkiik v. Sabler, 9 Id. 652 (Traveler going from highway upon adjoining land when not a trespasser) in Campbell v. Race, 7 Gush. (Mass.) 408; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 728, with note. v. Smith, 3 Hun, 413. Reported in 6 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & G.) 57. v. Tremper, 20 Johns. 29 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 238, with note. See Heermance v. Vernoy. Followed (Tenant's right to fix- tures and improvements) in McCullough v. Irvine, 13 Pa. St. 438, 441, which was fol- lowed in Cannon v. Hare, 1 Term. Ch. 22 f 27. Cited in 2 Kent Gom. 347. as contain- ing a just and enlarged view of the subject. Discussed in 1 Add. on Torts, 459, n. Y Wood's ed. Criticised with Loughran v. Ross, 45 JK Y. 792, in 11 Am. Dec. 241, n. y. United Ins. Co. See Mumford v. Mcoll. T. Weed, 19 Barb. 128. Disting'd (Lia- bility to indemnify, as affected by assign- ment of contract) in Clark v. Dickinson, 74 Ni F. 47, 51. v. Williams, 10 Paige, 326; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 250, with note. See Aeby v. Rapelye; Powell «. Waters. Said in 40 Am. Dec. 256, n., to have been frequently referred to as authority (Sale of negotiable- paper when not usurious). Included in Redf. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 280. Holridge v. Gillespie, 2 Johns. Ch. 30. Ap- proved (Right of trustee, &c. to take renewal of lease) in Mitchell i>. Reed, 61 K Y. 123, 129. Applied to case of vendee buying in incumbrance, in Champlin v. Dotson, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 553 ; s. c'. t 53 Am. Dec. 102, with note. Holsapple v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 86 .iV. Y. 275. Previous decision in 3 Weekly Dig. 244. See Poucher v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Holsman v. l)e Gray, 6 Abb. Pr. 79. Dis- ting'd (Liability of assignee of lease for rent) in Tate «. McCormick, 23 Hun, 218, 291 Holt v. Ross, 59 Barb. 554. Affd in 54 JJ. Y. 472 ;"s. c, 13 Am. R. 615, Decision in Id. cited in illustration (Duty of agent to disclose his agency) in Whart. Com. on Ag. % 497. Holtz v. Schmidt, 36 Super. Ct. (J.&S) 575. Rev'd, it seems, in 59 K Y. 253. Former proceeding in 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 28. Further proceeding in 44 Id. 327. Decision in 59 N. Y. quoted and explained (Mistake unknown to one party to sale) in 1 Benj. on Sales, % 610, ». 5 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). HOLYOKE— HOOK. 353 Holyoke v. Adams, 2 Sup]m. Gt. (T.&C.)1; s. e, with further decision in 1 Hun, 223. Confirmed and appeal dismissed in 59 JT. Y. 233. Decision in Id. followed (Leave to file supplemental answer setting up dis- charge in bankruptcy) in Harding v. Minear, 54 Gal. 506. Disting'd (Effect of discharge in bankruptcy on attachment proceedings) in Goodhue v. King, 55 Id 377, 379. v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 75. Affd in 84 iV. Y. 648, with opinion below. Homaii t. Brinckerhoff, 1 Den. 184. See Kelly v. Archer. Explained and limited (Duty of showing jurisdiction of justice to issue attachment) in Whiley v. Sherman, 3 Den. 185. Disting'd in Northrup v. Garrett, 17 Hun 497 499. v. Earle,'l3 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 402. Affd in 53 N. Y. 267. Decision in Id. explained and approved (Evidence in action for breach of promise) in 7 South. L. J. N. S. 61. Home Ins. Co. v. Green, 19 XT. Y. 518. Approved (Notice of protest) in Eank of Cooperstown v. Woods, 28 Id. 545, 559. v. Watson, 1 Hun, 643 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 226. Rev'd in 59 XT. Y. 390. v. Western Transp. Co., 4 Robt. 257; s. c, 33 How Pr. 102. . Affd in 51 N. Y. 93. Home Life Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 46 K Y. 370. Disting'd (Dispossession, as defense to action for rent) in Mattoon v. Monroe, 21 Hun, 74, 82. Homer v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 67 XT. Y. 478. Disting'd (Extension of time of payment of insurance premium) in Marvin v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 16 Hun, 494. Hone v. Boyd, 1 Sandf. 481. Approved (In- solvency of insurance company no defense to action on premium note) in Sterling u. Mercantile Ins. Co., 32 Pena. 75. v. Henriquez, 13 Wend. 240; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 204, with note containing cita- tions. Disting'd (Right of one assenting to sign ment for. creditors, to assail the same) in McConnell v. Sherwood, 84 Xf. Y. 522, 530. v. Kent, 11 Barb. 315. Rev'd in 6 XT. Y. 390. See case and points in No 14 of Charles O' Conor's "My Own Cases, "in Law Jnst. Libr. N. Y. City. v. Mutual Safety Ins. Co., 1 Sandf. 137. Affd in 2 XT. Y. 235. Decision in 1 Sandf. followed (Liability under contract of re-insurance) in Blackstone v. Alcmannia Fire Ins. Co., 56 N. Y. 104, 106. Dissent- ed from in Illinois Mut. Ins. Co. v. Andes Ins. Co., 67 III. 362; s. c, 16 Am. li. 620, 622. ■■ v. Van Schaick, 7 Paige, 221. Aff'd in 20 Wend. 564. See further proceeding arising under same will in 3 Edw. 474, which was rev'd in 3 Barb. Ch. 488. and that rev'd in 3 XT. Y. 538. See Marsellis v. Thalhimer. With decision in 7 Paige compare (Validity of trusts in personal property) Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. 641 ; Arnold v. Gilbert, 5 Barb. I.— 23 190 ; Cruger v. Cruger, Id. 265. Decision in 7 Paige, applied (Annuity to widow when not affected by void provisions in will) in McCormack v. McCormack, 60 How. Pr. 196, 198. Decision in 20 Wend, relied on with Coster v. Lorillard, 14 Id. 265 ; Hawley v. James, 10 Id. 61; Boynton v. Hoyt, 1 Den. 53 ; Tucker v. Tucker, 5 XT. Y. 408 ; Jennings ». Jennings, 7 Id. 547 ; Irving v. De Kay, 9 Paige, 521 ; Converse v. Kellogg, 1 Barb. 590 ; Burrill v. Board- man, 43 XT. Y. 254 ; Rose v. Rose, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 108 (Suspension of power of alienation) in De Wolf v. Lawson, 61 Wis. 469, 475. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand & T. ed. 511, n. Discussed in 4 Kent Com. 271, n. g. v. Woolsey, 2 Edw. 289. Disting'd (Revocation of assignment for creditors) iu Whitcomb v. Fowle, 7 Abb. XT. O. 295. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 362, n. 4, 4 ed. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 251. Honegsberger v. Second Ave. U. R. Co., 1 Daly, 89. Rev'd, in Z&How. Pr. 193; s. c, 1 Keyes, 570 ; 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 378. Decision in Id. not followed (Negli- gence in child) in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 220. Overruled in Thurber v. Harlem, &c. R. R. Co., 60 XT. Y. 326, 334. Honsee v. Hammond, 39 Barb. 89. Follow- ed (Evidence of rental, &c. value, &c. to ' show damages) in Schioeder », DeGraff, 28 Minn. 299. Quoted and discussed (Pollut- ing water) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 450, n. Hoodv. Hallenbeck, 1 Hun. 362. Disting'd (Individual liability of those contracting for association) in Whitford v. Laidler, 25 Id. 136, 139. Followed in Stearns v. Allen, Id. 559. See to the contrary, cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 402, n. 9. v. Hood, 19 Hun, 300. Motion to dis- miss appeal denied, it seems, in 81 N. Y. 640, but without opinion. Rev'd in 85 Id. 561. Other proceedings affecting same es- tate in Matter of Hood, 27 Hun, 579, which _ was rev'd in 90 XT. Y. 512. Also in 1 Dem. 392. See Dodge v. Pond ; Stilwell ». Mills. Decision in 85 N~. Y. followed (Power in trust, when given to executor as such) in Mott v. Ackerman, 92 Id. 539. v. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co., 2 Duer, 191. Rev'd in 11 N. Y. 532. Hoodless v. Brundnge, 8 How. Pr. 263. Ex- plained (Jurisdiction of justice, as deter- mined by amount in dispute) in Lund v. Brodhead, 41 How. Pr. 146. Hooglanil v. Hudson, 8 How. Pi: 343. See (Contents of demurrer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 490, n. v. Watt, 2 Sandf. Gh. 148. Followed (Dower when barred by wife joining in deed) in Elmendorf v. Lockwood, 57 N. Y. 322, 327. Explained iu 1 WasJib. on Heat Prop. 4 ed. 253. Hook v. Gray, 6 Barb. 398. Rev'd in 4 XT. Y. 449, 354: hook-horgak:. t. Pratt, 14 Hun, 396. Affd in 78 N. 7. 371. Hooker v. Cuminings, -20 Johns. 90; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 249. See Palmer v. Mulligan, Overruled (Right of fisheries) in People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. 7. 461. Followed with Commissioners v. Kempshall, 26 Wend. 404 ; Ex parte Jennings, 6 Cow. 518; Gould v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 K 7 522 ; Peoples. Piatt, 17 Johns. 195; Rogers v. Jones, 5 Wend. 237; Trustees of Brook- haven «. Strong, 60 If. 7. 56 ; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 Id. 178 (Application in this State of common law rule respecting navigable rivers) in Smith v. City of Rochester, 92 Id. 463, 481. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 47. v. Eagle B'k of Rochester. See Myers v. Davis. t. Utica & Minden Turnpike Co., 12 Wend. 371. Approved (Reverter of land taken for public use) in Dunham v. Wil- liams, 36 Barb. 136, 162. v. Vandewater, 4 Den. 349. See Chap- pel v. Brockway ; Hartford & New Haven R. R. Co. v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. Dis- ting'd (Agreement to prevent competition) in Marsh v. Russell, 66 N. 7. 293. Dis- ting'd (Conspiracy against trade or com- merce) in Hatch». Amer. Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. A 7 . 0. 223, 233. Hooley v. Gieve, 7 Abb. K C. 271. Aft'd, it seems in 73 AT 7. 599, but without opinion. v. , 82 A 7 ". 7. 625. Reported in 9 Abb. A 7 ! C. 8. See Barlow v. Ifeomans. Compare (Tracing trust funds) Ex parte Hardcastle, 44 L. T. R. N. S. 523. Com- pare (Creditor's action) Hardenburgh v. Blair, 30 N. J. Eg. 646. Hooper v. Hudson River Fire Ins. Co., 15 Barb. 413. AS' d in 17 A 7 . 7. 424. Decis- ion in Id. applied (Effect of assent to assign- ment of policy) in Steen v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 61 How. Pr. 144, 148. - v. Tuckerman, 3 Sandf. 311. Ques- tioned (Power of assignees in insolvency or bankruptcy) in Betton v. Valentine, 1 Curt. C. Ct. 168. Discussed (Avoidance of as- sigment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 503, 4 ed. Explained (No disposition of surplus) in Id. § 208, n. 3. Hoover v. Greenbauni, 62 Barb. 188. Aff d in 61 A 7 ". 7. 305, and that affd as Hoovers. Wise, in 91 U. 8. 308. See Sims». Brown. Decision in 61 N. 7. explained and dis- ting'd (Client not liable for attorney's fraud) in Poucher v. Blanchard, 86 Id. 256, 262. Decision in 91 IT. S. disting'd as in- applicable to case of agent employed by col- lecting bank, — in Guelich v. Nat. State B'k of Burlington, 56 lown, 534; s. c, 41 Am. R. 110. Disting'd in First Nat. Bk. r. Reno Co. Bk., U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Minn.10 Reporter, 797. Hope v. Balen, 58 N. 7. 380. Aff g Hope e. Smith, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 458. See Barker v. Bradley ; Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Decision in 58 XT. 7. disting'd (Parol evidence to explain contract) in Parsons v. Reby, 14 Weekly Dig. 500. Compare Van Brunt v. Day, 8 Abb. A 7 ". C. 336, 341. v. Smith. See Hope v. Balen. Hope Fire Ins Co. v. Cambrel ling. 1 Hun. 493. Fully reported in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. . Keller. Disting'd (Quantum of evidence in civil cases) in Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Hun, 251, 253. Examined with other cases in 15 Alb. L. J. 444. y. Van Valkenburgh, 16 Hun, 3. Fol- lowed (Jurisdiction of surrogate over dis- puted claims) in People ex rel. Adams v. Westbrook, 61 How. Pr. 138, 141. Hopping v. Quin, 12 Wend. 517. Followed (Liability of attorney to client for negli- gence) in Von Wallhoffen v. Newcombe, 10 Hun, 236. Hop pock v. Donaldson. See Stebbins «. East Societv of M. E. Church. y . Tiieker, 1 Hun, 132; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 653. Affd in 59 K 7. 202. Decision in Id explained (Legatees, when taking as a class) in Betts v. Bctts, 4 Abb. N. C. 317, 424. Hoppough v. Strnble. 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 664. Rev'd in 60 A 7 ., 7. 430, unless modi- fied by consent. Decision in Id. discussed (Answer in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, \ 488. Horgan t. Kruinwiede, 25 Hun, 116. Fuller abridgt. in 12 Weekly Dig. 549. 1I0BN— 1I0TCIIKISS. Horn v. Keteltas, 46 K Y. 005. Disting'd (Absolute conveyance, when to be deemed mortgage) in Morrison v. Brand, 5 Daly, 42 ; Fullerton v. McCurdy, 55 N. Y. 630; Ran- dall v. Sanders, 23 Ilun, 614. Applied to transfer of policy, — in Matthews v. Sheehan, 69 N. Y. 592. Collected with numerous other cases in 15 Am. Dee. 47, n., as to the current of modern decisions being in favor of the doctrine maintained therein. v. Pullman, 10 Hun, 471. Affd in 72 N. Y. 269. See Children's Aid Society v. Loveridge; Jackson v. Kniffen. Compare (Admissibility of declarations of those tak- ing under will) Matter of Ames, 51 Iowa, 596. Hornbook v American Bible Soc'y, 2 Sand/. Gh. 133. Applied (Bequest to treasurer of society, in legal effect a bequest to the so- ciety) in Effroy v. Foundling Asylum, 5 Red/. 557, 560. Compared with other cases in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 274. — — v. Westbrook. See Jackson «. Cory. Hornby, Matter of, 2 Bradf. 420. Followed (Declarations of testator) in Stevens o. Stevens, 2 Red/. 263, 284. Home v. Barney. See Fish v. Weather- wax. Hornfager v. Hornfagcr, 6 How. Pr. 13. Cited with Beck v. Stephaui, 9 Id. 193 (Proper mode of bringing in new parties) in Lee v. O'Shaughnessy, 20 Minn. 173. florsfall, Matter of, 59 How. Pr. 265; s. c, more fully, 8 Daly, 190; 5 AN). K O. 289. ' Appeal dismissed in 77 iV. Y. 514. Horton v. II ernlei-shot, 1 Hill, 118. Dis- ting'd (Sheriffs liability for attachment) in Deutsch v. Reilly, 8 Daly, 132. Disting'd (Rights of sheriff under levy) in Hill v. Haynes, 54 N. Y. 153, 157. V. Horton, 2 Cow. 589. Approved with People v.. Douglass, 4 Id. 26; Oliver v. ' Trustees of First Presb. Ch. of Springfield, 5 Id. 284; People v. Ransom, 7 Wend. 423 (Irregularities when not ground for setting aside verdict) in Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 535. V. , 2 Bradf. 200. See (Sale of decedent's real property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2773, n. v. Morgan, 6 Duer, 56. Aft'd in 19 N. Y. 170. See Nourse ». Prime. Decision in 19 N. Y. disting'd (Liability of broker for sale of stock belonging to customer) in Clark ii. Meigs, 13 Abb. Pr. 468. Explained in Markham e. Jaudon, 41 A'". Y. 213. Ap- plied (One dealing with brokers is bound by their custom of dealing in their own names) in Peckham v. Ketchum, 5 Bosw. 512. v. Shepherd, 24 Hun, 343. Reported in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 26: abridgt. s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 89. v. Town of Thompson, 7 Hun, 452. Rev'd in 71 N. Y. 513. Decision in Id. approved (Power of legislature to validate defective action in issuing of town bonds) in Rogers v. Stephens, 86 Id. 623, 625. Applied in Rogers v. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 44, 46. Applied (Limit of legislative power over municipal action for private purposes) in People ex rel. Manhat- tan Sav'gs Inst. n. Otis, 24 Ilun, 523. Fol- lowed (Invalidity of town bonds issued for railroad stock) in Scipio v. Wright, 101 U. S. 665, 676. Not followed (Uncon- stitutionality of act validating town bonds) in Town of Thompson ». Perrine, 103 Id. 806, 81.6; Perrine v. Town of Thomp- son, 17 Blatehf. C. Ct. 19. Disapproved in Gray v. Town of York, 15 Id. 335, 342. Hosack v. Rogers. 6 Paige, 415. Rev'd in 18 Wend. 319. Further decision in 8 Paige, 229, end that affd in 25 Wei d. 313. Hosford v. Ballard, 39 How. Pr. 162. Affd in 39 N. Y. 147. Decision in Id. ap- proved with Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 35 Id. 393 (Right of action of ejectment for breach of condition contained in lease in fee for payment of rent) in Cruger n. Mc- Laury, 41 Id. 219, which affd 51 Barb. 642, which see. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1504, n. y. Merwin, 5 Barb. 51. Disting'd (What may be determined in action for par- tition) in Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 JV. Y. 427, 434. v. Nichols, 1 Paige. 220. Examined with other cases (Presumption as to foreign laws) in Wright v. Delafield, 23 Barb. 515. Disting'd (Usury as determined by law of place) in Dickinson v. Edwards, 77 A". Y. 585. Reviewed with Fanning v. Consequa, 17 Johns. 511 ; in Peck v. Mayo, 14 Verm. 33; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 205, 207. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 584, n. h, Hosley v. Black, 28 JV". Y. 438. Cited and approved with Purchase v. MattisonJ 6 Duer, 587 ; Belknap v. Sealey, 14 N. Y. 143; Catlin v. Gunter, 11 Id. 368; Place v. Minster, 65 Id. 89 (Variance and waiver thereof by failure to object to evidence) in Owens v. Traveler's Ins. Co., Sup'm. Ct. Ind. 13 Ins. L. J. 651. Hossack v. Heyerdahl, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 391. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 60 NjY. 634, hut without opinion. Decis- ion in 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) followed (What is long account) in Camp v. Inger- soll, 47 Id. 535. Hosstatter v. Wilson, 36 Barb. 307. Includ- ed (Note payable in money or goods) in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & iV. 67. Hotaling v. Marsh, 13 Abb. Pi: 297, n. Rev'd in 14 id 161. See Eaitburn v. Kirke. Hotchkins v. Hodge, 3S Barb. 117. Cited with other cases (Promise to marry when implied) in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 68. Hotchkiss v. Artisans' Bank, 42 Barb. 517. Aff'd in 2 Keyes, 564; s. c, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 403. v. Banks, 36 How. Pr. 61. Followed (Notice of appeal from justices' judgment) in Putnam v. Heath, 41 Id. 262. See Code Cin. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. 356 H0TCHKIS8- HO YET. t. Clifton Air Cure, 4 Reyes, 170. Commented on (Duty of referee on sale of mortgaged premises) in Koch v. Purcell, 45 Super. Gt. (/. & 8.) 1£2, 172. v. Commercial Ins. Co., 1 Robt. 489. Rev'd, it seems, in 48 N~. Y. 656 but with- out opinion. t. Crocker, 15 How. Pr. 407. See (What complaint must contain) Code Civ. Pro. 18S1, § 481, -n. v. Germauia Fire Ins. Co. See People v. Vane. v. Lothrop, 1 Johns. 286 ; s. c, 3 N~. Y. Com. L. Law. eil. 144, with brief note. Ap- plied (Admissibility of libelous matter other than that directly involved in action) in Morehead v. Jones, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 210 ; 36 Am. Dee. 600. v. McVickar, 12 Johns. 403. See Earl v. Camp; Marsh®. Lawrence; Savacool o. Boughton. Limited (Lien of levy of execu- tion) in Roth v. Wells, 29 JV. Y. 471, 490, citing Lambert v. Paulding, 19 Johns. £11. ■■ v. Mosiier, 48 K Y. 478. See Ryan «. Ward. Disting'd (Certificate of deposit) in Pardee v. Fish, GO K Y. 265. 269. v. Oliphaut, 2 Hill, 510. Quoted (Action for libel against publisher of news- paper) in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. v. Piatt, 7 Sun, 56. Aff'd, it seems, in 66 N. Y. 620, but without opinioiij An- other proceeding in 8 Hun, 46. Houck v. Lasher, 17 How. Pr. 520. Dis- ting'd (Appealability of order changing place of trial for convenience of witnesses) in Fisk ». Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 41 How. Pr. 365. Hough v. Gray, 19 Wend. 202. Examined at length with Luqueer v. Prosser, 1 Hill, 256; Prosser v. Luqueer, 4 Id. 420; Manrow b. Durham, 3 Id. 584 ; Leggett v. Raymond, 6 Id. 639 (Guaranty of note, as affected by statute of frauds) in Hall v. Farmer, 5 Den. 584, and sec De Ridder *. Schcrmerhorn, 10 Barb. 638. Houghtaliiig v. Honghtaling, 5 Barb. 379. Commented on (License creating interest in land) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 29, 4 ed. v. Eelderhouse, 2 Barb. 149. Aff'd, in 1 -N~. Y. 530. These decisions disting'd (Evidence of good reputation of plaintiff when admissible) in Sheehey v. Coklcy, 13 Iowa, 183; s. c, 22 Am. It. 236, 238. v. Lewis, 10 Johns. 297. See Howes v. Barker; Witbeck v. Waine. Disting'd (Re- covery by purchaser for deficiency in quan- tity of land conveyed by deed) in Murdock v. Gilchrist, 52 JST. Y. 242, 247. Honghton v. Anlt, 16 How. Pr. 77. Collated with other cases (Attachment as affected by law of domicile) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 359. v. McAnliffe, 2 Abb. Gt- App. Dec. 409. s. c, 20 How. Pr 270. Disting'd (Power of insurance company to transfer negotiable paper) in Wood v. Wellington, 30 N. Y. 218 ; Brookman v. Metcalf. 32 Id. 591, which aff'd 5 Bosw. 429, which see. See to the contrary (Burden of proof on as- signee) Caryl v. McBlrath, 3 Sand/. 176. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 7. Houk v. Bishop, 4 Weekly Dig. 437; s. c, as Howk v. Bishop, 10 Hun, 509. House Avenue, Matter of, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 770; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 350. House v. Agate, 3 Red/. 307. Disting'd (Proceedings to obtain payment of legacy, when barred) in Drake v. Wilkie, 30 Hun B37. Followed in Cole v. Terpenning, 25 Id. 482, 484. T. Burr, 24 Barb. 525. Disting'd (Lessee, when entitled to renewal or exten- sion of lease) in Western Transp. Co. of Buffalo v. Lansing, 49 2V. Y. 499, 506. v. Grant. See Coutaut v. Schuyler. v. House. 10 Paige, 158. Questioned with Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28, and the latter disting'd (Fixtures) iu Ford v. Cobb, 20 Jf. Y. 344. Commented on in Willard on Executors, 260. Followed (Contribution by life tenant) in Moseley v. Marshall, 22 K Y. 200, 202, 206. v. Jackson, 50 K Y. 16). Followed (Dower) in Powers v. Jackson, 57 Id. 654, a case involving substantially the same facts. Commented on (Distinction be- tween vested and contingent reminders) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 550, n. — v. Low. See Ensign v. Webster. v. McConnick, 57 2f. Y. 310. Dis- ting'd and limited (Adverse possession by grantor with covenant of warranty) in Sher- man v. Kane, 86 Id. 57, 68, which aff'd 46 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 310, 325, which see. Houston v. Shindler. See Shindler v. Hous- ton. Hover v. Barkhoof, U N. Y. 113. Disting'd (Liability of commissioners of highways for injuries resulting from defect in bridge) in Day v. Crossman, 1 Hun, 572. Collated with other cases in GooJs's Highw. L. 4 ed. 50. Cited as settled law (Liability for min- isterial officer for omission of duty) in Clark v. Miller, 54 AT. Y. 534. Disting'd (Public officer, to whom liable) in Day v. Reynolds, 23 Hun, 133. Disting'd (L:abib ity of officer in action against him person- ally) iii Donavan v. McAlpin, 46 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) Ill, 116. Hovey v. Hill, 3 Lans. 167. Disting'd (Ef- fect of filing lis pendens) in Laraont t. Cheshire, C5 N. Y. 39. v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 33 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 522. Aft'd in 57 N. Y. 119; s. c, 15 Am. i?. 470. Other proceeding in 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 360; s. c, less fully, 85 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 81, which was aff'd in 50 K Y. 335. Also other proceedings in 14 Abb. Pr. N^S. 66; 47 How. Pr. 289; 38 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 428. Decision in CO N. Y. followed (Damages on injunc- tion) in McDonald v. James, 38 Super. Ct^ (J. & S.) 76, 79; Troxell v. Haynes, 5 Daly, 389, 391. Explained in Newton «. Russell, 24 Hun, 40, 43. Decision in 57 JSf. Y. fol- lowed (Action to restrain publication of &OVEY-HOWARD. 357 notices injurious to one's business, when maintainable as for slander of title) in Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.. 13 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 375. Explained in Moatts UnderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 181. y. Ten Broeck, 3 Robt. 316. Approved and followed, and held not to be overruled by Coffin v. Reynolds, 37 N. Y. 642 (" Laborers," &c. for whose services stock- holders are liable), — in Vincent v. Bamford, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 252. Criticised in Kin- caid v. Dwinel'e, 59 if Y. 548. Disting'd in Wakefield v. Fargo, 90 Id. 213. Howard v. Albany Ins. Co., 3 Den. 301. Disting'd (Transfer of policy between part- ners) in Hoffman v. iEtna Ins. Co., 32 if. Y. 405. v. City Fire Ins. Co., 4 Den. 502. Followed (Allowing questions irrelevant to issue but tending to discredit witness) in Great Western Turnpike Co. v. Loomis, 32 N. Y. 127, 137. See to the contrary (Preliminary proofs) Jones o. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 36 N. J. (7 Vroom), 29; s. c, 13 Am. R. 405. See Abb. Tr. Ev. 490. . v. Daly, 01 if. Y. 361. Commented on (Waiver of conditions precedent) by Dwight, Referee, in Marie v. Garrison, cit- ing also Hawley v. Keeler, 53 if. Y. 114; Woolner v. Hill, 93 Id. 576, and other authorities. Cited with Moody v. Leverich, 14 Abb. Pr. if S. 145; Shaw v. Republic Ins. Co., 69 if- Y. 286, and many other cases from N. Y. and elsewhere (Damages for breach of contract for services for speci- fied period) in 19 Cent. L. J. 342. Refer- red to in 43 Am. Dec. 206, n., as n leading case, and as repudiating the doctrine of constructive service in case of a discharged employee suing for wages, what is said in Thompson v. Wood, 1 Silt. 93, in support of that doctrine being criticised as a dictum. See Moodyi). Leverich, 4 Daly, 402. Col- lated with other cases (Breach of contract before time of performance by declaration of intention not to perform) in Pappen- heimer Hardware Co. v. Harrison Wire Co., 9 Week Gin. L. Bui. 132. See Daniels v. Newton, 114 Mass. 530; s. c, 19 Am. R. 385, with note. v. Doolittle, 3 Duer, 464. See Dyett v. Pendleton; Witty v. Matthews. Ap- proved (Landlord not bound to protect against excavation by adjoining owner) in Sherwood v. Seaman, 2 Bosw. 127, 130. v. Duncan, 3 Lar.s. 174. Denied (Ratification of forgery) in Workman v. Wright, 33 Ohio St. 405; s. c, 31 Am. R. 548, with note. Criticised in 5 Id. 447, n., as poorly considered and not sus- tained by the authorities. v. Easton, 7 Johns. 205. Relied on (Effect of taking possession of land, in case of action for purchase price) in Johnson v. Hanson, 6 Ala. 351 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 54, with note. Quoted in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 231, 4 ed. — v. Farley, -IS Abb. Pr. 367; s. c, 29 Htm. Pr. 4. Aff'd in 3 Robt. 599. An- other decision in 19 Abb, Pr. 126; s. c, 3 Robt. 308. v. Freeman. 6 Robt. 511. Further decision in 7 Id. 25; s. c, more fully, in 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 292.. Decision in Id. examined and criticised (Remedy of defend- ant defeated on motion for postponement of trial) in Gregg v. Howe, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 420, 425. v. Hatch, 29 Barb. 297. Rc-aff'd (Ne- cessity of recording affidavits, to pass title to purchaser of mortgaged premises) in Frink ». Thompson, 4 Lans. 487, 491. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. v. Henriques, 3 Sandf. 725. See Mat- sell v. Flanagan. Followed (Retaining use of name of hotel on coach) in Deiz v. Lamb, 6 Robt. 537. Applied to name of newspaper in American Grocer v. Grocer Pub. Co., 25 Hun, 398, 403. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, bj, n. I. Explained in Moah's UnderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 621. v. Hocy, 23 Wend. 350; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 572, with note. Followed with Gal- lagher !). Waring, 9 Wend. 28 (Implied warranty of fitness on contract to furnish article for specific purpose) in Getty t>. Rouutree, 2 Pinn. (Wise.) 379; s. c, 2 Chand. 28; 54 Am. Dec. 138, with note. Hart v. Wright, 17 Wend. 267, being dis- ting'd, and Sands v. Taylor, 5 Johns. 395 ; Oneida Man'f'g Society v. Lawrence, 4 Cow. 440, also reviewed. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed., § 1074, n. 4. v. Ives, 1 Hill, 263. See Mead v. Engs. Explained and followed (Time of mailing notice of dishonor) in Farmer's Bank of Bridgeport v. Vail, 21 if Y. 485. Followed in Chick v. Pillsbury, 24 Me. 458; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 394, 397. with note. Included in 2 Ames Cas. on B. ' & N. 390 ; 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Oas. 5- ed. 488. v. Lee. 3 Sandf. 281. Quoted'and dis- cussed (Bone boileries as nuisances) in Wood on N~uis. 2 ed. § 590. v. McDonougll, 8 Daly, 365. Affd in 77 if Y. 592. Decision in Id. compared with other cases (Memoranda as evidence) 3> Am. R. 56, n. v. Moot, 2 Hun, 475; s. c, 5 Snp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 427. Aff'd in 64 H. Y. 262. See Hand v. Ballou. v. Norton, 65 Barb. 161. Cited (Au- thority to sign instrument in writing, when question for jury) in Vthart. Com. on Ag. % 46, n. V. Robbing, 1 Lans. 63. Applied (Power of village trustees to determine what is nuisance) in Marvin v. Pardee, 64 Barb. 353, 361. v. Sexton, 1 Den. 440 ; subsequent de- cision iu 4 if Y. 157. See Vincent v. Ger- mond. Decision in 4 if Y. approved (Proof of repetition of slander) in Johnson v. Brown, 57 Barb. 118. Followed in 338 HOWARD— HOWELL. "Whitney v. Elmer, 60 Id. 250. Explained, in Titus v. Sumner, 44 ^V. Y. 266. Both decisions followed (Waiver of arbitrator's oath) in Day v. Hammond, 57 Id. 479, 483. Followed with Browning v. Wheeler, 24 Wend. 258; Kelsey v. Darrow,. 22 Hun, 125, in Pross v. Bradstreet, 9 Gin. L. Bui. 244 Followed in Hill ». Taylor, 15 Wise. 190; Tucker v. Allen, 47 Mo. 488. Disapproved in Inslee v. Flagg, 26 N. J. L. 368, 371. Compare Hepburn ». Jones, '4 Col. 98. Decision in 1 Den. examined with other cases (Perjury) in Lambert v. People, 6 Abb. 2f. C. 181, 195. Decision in 4 N. Y. commented on in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 135, b, 4 ed. ■ v. Sheldon, 11 Paige, 558. Followed (Necessity of execution against all of joint debtors, in order to maintain creditor's action) in Field v. Chapman, ■ 13 Abb. Pr. 320, 327. v. Smith, 33 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 124; s. c, 42 Bow. Pr. 300. Further decision in 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 131. v. Thompson, 21 Wend. 342 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 238, with note, wherein are col- lected citations. Followed (Proof of want of probable cause required in slander) in Viele v. Gray, 10 Mb. Pr. 1, 11. Disting'd with O'Donohue v. McGovern, 23 Wend. 26 (Communications to those in authority ■when privileged) in Worthington v. Scrib- ner, 109 Mass. 487 ; s. c, 12 Am. B. 736. Included with notes in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 175. Howard Ins. Co. v. Halsey, 4 Sandf. £65. Aif d in 8 K Y. 271 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dee. 478, with note. See Williamson v. Brown. Decision in 8 J¥. Y. collated with N. Y. Central Ins. Co. v. Nat. Protection Ins. Co., 20 Barb. 468, and other cases (Notice to agent when deemed notice to principal), and limited to case of agent who is attorney or legal adviser,— in 13 Weekly" L. Bui. 182. Criticised as extreme (Constructive notice to purchaser, &c.) in 2 Pomeroy on Ea. Jur. 68, n. . v. Scribner, 5 Hill, 298. Overruled (Effect of subsequent insurance) in Ogden v. East, 50 N. Y. 388. So referred to in Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65 Id. 20. Followed and approved in Sloat v. Royal Ins. Co., 49 Pa. St. 14, 18. Compare 28 Am. Dec. 123, n. Howe, Matter of, 1 Paige, 124; s. c, 19 Am. Dee. 695, with note containing cita- tions. Criticised and doubted (Claim of judgment creditor when postponed to prior equitable claim) in Hulett «. Whipple, 58 Barb. 224. Followed, in Cook v. Kraft, 60 Id. 409. , , 1 Paige, 214. Followed (Validity of bequest to corporation, partially subject to trust) in Cumin v. Sears, 2 Bed/. 526, 534. Quoted and explained in Any. & A. on Corpor. § 168, 11 ed. Howe v. Buffalo, N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 38 Barb. 124. Aff'd in 37 N. Y. 297. Decision in Id. disting'd ' (Implied prem- ise to indemnify) in Bennett v. Cook, 45 Id, 268. Disting'd in People, ex rel. Van Keuren v. Auditors of Esopus, 10 Hun 551. Both decisions cited as authority in Turner v. Jones, 1 Lavs. 147, notwithstand- ing St. John «. St. John's Church, 15 Barb. 346. v. Carpenter. See Beebe v. Hutton. ¥. Deuel, 43 Barb. 504. Followed as a controlling authority (Receiver of corpora- tion cannot be appointed in action by stock- holder) in People v. Erie R'y Co., 36 How. Pr. 129. Followed also in Gilman v. Green Point Sugar Co., 4 Lans. 483. v. Hasbrouck, 1 How. Pr. 67. Applied (Affidavit of merits) in State Bk. of Syra- cuse v. Gill, 23 Hun, 407. v. Howe, 5 Weekly Dig. 460. Followed (Attachment for non-payment of counsel fees, &c. in divorce) in Pritchard v. Pritch- ard, 4 Abb. N.. C. 298, 300. v. Peckliam, 10 Barb. 656. Thought to be doubtful (Cause of action for driving against and injuring plaintiff and his horse and carriage, is a single one) in Pomeroy on Bern. §460, n. 11. v. Potter, 61 Barb. 356. Disting'd (Usury on sale of note) in Eastman v. Shaw, 65 K Y. 530. v. Savory, 49 Barb. 403. Aff'd in effect in 51 N. Y. 631. v. Searing, 10 Abb. Pr. 264; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 14; 6 Bosw. 354. Collated with other cases (Right to use of name, as in- cluded in good will of business) in 35 Am. B. 550, n. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, bs. n. u. Howe Machine Co. t. Farrington, 16 Him, 591. Aff'd in 82 N. Y. 121. Decision in Id. followed (Exoneration of surety by delay to proceed against principal) in Thayer v. King, 31 Hun, 437. v. Petti bone, 12 Hun, 657.- Appeal dis- missed in 74 N. Y. 68. Decision in Id. disting'd (Service by publication) in Carle- ton v. Carleton, 85 Id. 313, 316. Howell v. Adams, 1 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 425. Aff'd in 68 K Y: 314. t. Baker, 4 Johns. Ch. 120. Followed (Attorney purchasing at execution sale, when deemed trustee) in O'Donnell v. Lind- say, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523, 533. Com- mented on in Blisrht's Heirs v. Tobin, 7 T. B. Monr. (£~y.) 612; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 219, 223, with note. Explained in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 135, n. 2. Relied on with Troup v. Wood, 4 Johns. Ch. 228 ; Tiernan ®. Wood, 6 Id. 411 ; Woods v. Monell, 1 Id. 502 (Power of court of equity to revise execution sales) 'in Blights' Heirs v. Tobin, above. v. Blodgett, 1 liedf. 323. Disapproved (Power of surrogate to authorize compound- ing of debts) in Berrien's Estate, 16 AM. Pr. N. S. 23; Shepard v. Saltus, 4 Bed/. 232. T. Chicago & North Western R. R. HOWELL— ROWLAND. 359 Co., 51 Barb. 378. Opposed (Jurisdic- tion over foreign corporations, as affected by Code provisions) in De Benier v. Drew, 57 Barb. 438; Prouty v. Mich. S. & N. Ind. R. R. Co., 1 Hun, (558. Explained (Stock dividends) in Williams 8. Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. JV. C. 419, 425. v. City of Buffalo, 15 JV. Y. 512. See Barneys. City of Buffalo; Hart s. City of Brooklyn. Explained (Necessity of presenta- tion of claim against principal corporation, arising out of tort) in Childs e. Village of West Troy, 23 Hun, 68, 70. Explained ("Demands or claims" as including cause of action for tort) in Kelley 8. City of Madison, 43 Wis. 638; s. c, 28 Am. R. 576. v. , 37 JV. Y. 267. See cases col- lected (Taxes imposed on particular prop- erly) in Am. L. Reg. JV 8. 164. v. — — , 2 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 413. Commented on (Relief against assessment proceedings) in Astor 8. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 539, 580. v. Demiiston, 3 Gai. 96. Cited with Thomas v. Douglass, 2 Johns. Gas. 226 ; De- peyster 8. Warue, 2 Gai. 45 ; Stewart 8. At- kins, 3 Cow. 67; Olney v. Bacon, 3 Gai. 132, in Browning v. Roane, 9 Ark. 354; s. c, 50 Am. Dee. 218, as showing the extent to which the N. Y. courts have gone in ad- mitting exceptions to the rule requiring merits to be shown in order to relieve a party against a default. v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 19 Abb. Pr. '.17; s. c, 3 Bobt. 232. Rev'd in 44 JV. Y. 276. See Roehner v. Same. Decision in 44 JV. K "disting'd (What ex- cuses non-payment of premiums) in note to Sands u. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 50 Id. 626. Applied (Payment of premium by other than insured) in Warden v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 39 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 317, 329. Decision in 19 Abb. Pr. applied (In- admissibility of oral evidence to control written agreement between insurer and in- sured) in Pohalski v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 234, 250. v. Mills, 7 Lans. 193. Aff' d in 56 JV. T. 226. See Sullivan v. Sullivan. Decision in 56 JV. Y. disting'd (Who may bring partition) in Sullivan v. Sullivan, 66 Id. 40; Harris 8. Larkins, 22 Hun, 488, 490. Ap- plied with Ailing v. Fahy, 70 JV. Y. 571 (Review of discretionary orders) in Walsh 8. Schulz, 6 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 126. Explained in Livermore v. Bainbridge, 56 JV Y. 72, 74. v. People, o Ilun, 620. AfTd as People 8. Howell, on opinion of Learned, J., in 69 JV Y. 607, but without further opinion. • v. Ransom, 1 JV. 1'. Leg. Obs. 10. AfTd in 11 Paige, 538. Decision in Id. follow- ed (Dealings between attorney and client) in Wise o. Hardin, 5 So. Car. 325 ; Shank- lin ix Meyler, Ky. Super. Ct. Oct. 18S0, 5 Ky. L. Rep. c£ /. 206, 301. v. Ripley, 10 Paige, A3. Applied (Right of subsequent incumbrancer to income of re- ceivership in foreclosure) in Washington Life Ins. Co. v. Fleischauer, 10 Ilun, 117, 119 Cited as authority iu Miltenberger v Logansport R'y Co., 106 U. S. 286. v. Haggles, 5 JV. Y. 444. Cited (Char- ter of eity as evidence) inl Wliart. Com. on Ev. § 63H. v. Van Siclcn, 8 Hun, 524. Aff'd in 4 Abb. JV C. 1 ; s. c, 54 How. Pr. 264 ; also, it seems, in 70 JV. Y. 595, but without opin- ion. Previous proceeding in 6 Hun, 115. See Union Trust Co. v. Whiton. Decision in 8 Hun disting'd with Matter of Protest- ant Episcopal School, 86 JV. Y. 396 ; Union Trust Co. 8. Whiton, 78 Id. 491; First Nat Bk. of Meadville r. Fourth Nat. Bk, 84 Id. 469 (Costs on appeal) iu Revere Copper Co. 8. Dimmock, 29 Hun, 299. Followed in Isaacs s. N. Y. Plaster Works, 4 Abb. JV. G. 4, 9 ; First Nat. Bk. of Mead vile 8. Fourth Nat. Bk. of N. Y., 22 Huh, 564, which was, however, rev'd in 84 JV. Y. 469, which compare. Followed in Donovan «. Board of Education, &c , 1 Civ. Pro. R. 312, n.; Harameyer v. Havemeyer, 62 How. Pr. 477. Examined with other cases in Lotti 8. Kra- kauer, 1 Civ. Pro. E. 312, 315, n. Decis- ion in 6 Ilun examined with other cases (Evidence as to personal transaction with deceased) in Marsh v. Gilbert, 2 Red/. 465, 47.x Howes v. Barker, 3 Johns. 506 ; s. c, 3 Am,. Dec: 526. See Schemerhorn v. Vanderhey- den ; Witbeck r. Waine. Explained with Houghtaling 8. Lewis, 10 Johns. 297 \ (Mer- ger of preliminary contract in deed of land) in Morris e. Whitcher, 20 JV. Y. 41, 47. Disting'd (Recovery for deficiency in amount of land sold) Murdock v. Gilchrist, 52 Id. 242, 247. v. Davis, 4 Abb. Pr. 71. Followed (Executor's commissions) in Betts 8. Betts, 4 Abb. JV. C, 317, 442. Howk v. Bishop. See Houk v. Same. v. Eckert, 2 Hun, 1 1 3. Reported in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 300. Hon land v. Edmonds, 33 Barb. 433. Rev'd in 24 JV. Y. 307. See Downes 8. Phcenix Bank; Wenman 8. Mohawk Ins. Co. Ap- plied (Limitation of action on note payable on demand) in Hirst 8. Brooks, 50 Barb. 336. Commented on in Herrick 8. Wool- verton, 41 JV Y. 581, 596, 602. Followed in Wheeler 8. Warner, 47 Id. 519. Applied in Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 605, 607. Disting'd (Necessity of demand before suit) in Payne v. Slate, 39 "Barb. 641, which was affd in 29 JV. Y. 146, 170, which see. Applied in Miller v. City of Buffalo, 1 SUId. 491. Approved in Brown 8. Brown, 28 Minn. 501. Followed with Bell 8. Yates, 33 Barb. 627 (Limitation of action on original stock uote) in Sands 8. St. John, 36 Barb. 638 ; Colgate v. Bucking- ham, 39 Id. 178. Applied in Sands 8. Campbell, 31 JV. Y. 346 ; Csgood v . Strauss, 55 Id. 072. 360 HOWLAND— HOYT. T. Eldredge, 43 K T. 457. See People ex rel. Francis ». Common Council of Troy. Applied (Power of assessors to determine question of assent of majority of taxpayers to subscription to railroad stock) People ex rel. Yawger v. Allen, 52 AT. Y. 538, 540. Ap- proved (Mandamus to officer having discre- tion to act) in Territory v. Nowlin, Sup'm Gt. Bah. 1884, 20 Northw. Rep. 482. v. Lounds. See Hatch v. Mann. v. Myer. 3 IT. Y. 290. Aff'g 2 Sanclf. 180. Decision in 3 'K Y. followed (Trans- . fer of note by insurance company) in Brook- man v. Metcalf, 5 Bosw. 429, 440, 442. Dictum questioned in Smith v. Hall, Id. 319, 325. v. Union Theological Sera., 3 Sandf. 82. Rev'd in 5 N. Y. 193. Decision'™ Id. • relied on (Effect of omissions in operative part of will) in Graham v. Graham, 23 W. Va. 36 ; s. c, 48 Am. R. 364, 373. v. Willetts, 5 Sand/. 219. Aff'd in 9 Jf. Y. 170. Previous decision in 3 t'andf. 607. Decision in 9 iV. Y. disting'd (Competency of indemnitor as witness) in Jessop v. Miller, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 453. Decision in 3 Bandf. commented on in con- nection with later decisions (Right of action of mortgagee of chattels for levy thereon under execution against mortgagor) in "Wisser v. O'Brien, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 151. Hoxie v. Allen, 38 N. Y. 175. Disting'd (Opinions as evidence) in Haggerty v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Abb. Nl G. 104, 132, ™. v. Green, 37 How. Pr. 97. Disting'd (Affimative of the issue) in Penhryn Slate v. Meyer, 8 Daly, 61. Hoy v. Reade, 1 Sweeny, 626. Cited with Gihon v. Stanton, 9 N. Y. 476 (Agent's lien not exclusive of his other rights) in Whart. Corn, on Ag. § 821 ; Muller v. Pondir, 55 N. Y. 326, being also cited in this connec- tion in a note. Hoyle v. Plattsburgh & Montreal R. R. Co., 51 Barb. 45. Aff'g Bement n. Same. 47 Barb. 107. Rev'd in 54 JV. Y. 314; s. c, 13 Am. R. 595. See Randall v. Elwell; Voorhees v. McGinnis. Decision in 54 N. y. applied with Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sherman, 30 Barb. 553 ; Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y. 527, 535 (Power of directors of corporation to contract in matters affecting corporate interests) in Metropolitan Elevated R'y Co. v. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. If. G. 103, 255. Quoted in Morawetz on Corp. § 243, n. 2, 245. See to the con- trary (Rolling stock as real property) Far- mer's Loan & Trust Co. v. Hendrickson, 35 Barb. 484. Approved in Thomas on Mort. 50. Hoyt v. Adee, 3 Lam. 173. Cited (Inquisi- tion of lunacy as prima facie evidence of incompetency as witness) in 1 Whart. Com. on-Ev. § 403. v. Alien, 2 Hill, 322. Disting'd (Col- lateral transaction ,by partnership on fictiti- ous names) in Lunt «. Lunt, 8 Abb. N: G. 76, 81. v. American Exchange Bank, 1 Ouer, 652 ; s. c, 8 How. Pr. 89. Cited as a lead- ing case (Discovery and inspection) in Pegram ». Carson,. 10 Abb. Pr. 340, 342. v. Bounett, 58 Barb. 529. Aff'g Whit- lock's Case, Tuck. 491. Rev'd in 50 F. Y. 538. See Jenkins v. De Groot ; Matter of Whitlock. Compare (Limitations of suits against estate of decedent) Orendorlf v. Utz, 48 Md. 298. T. Dillon. See Jackson v. Roberts. v. Gelston, 13 Johns. 139. Aff'd iu Id. 561. Applied (Effect of title of one in pos- session as against wrongdoer) in Barron v. Cobleigh, 11 N. H. 557; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 505, 509, with note. Quoted (Appeal from order dissolving injunction) in 2 High on Irtj. 2 ed., § 1709, n. 1. v. Hoyt, 8 Bosw. 511. Disting'd (Re- cording assignments of mortgages) in Belden v. Meeker, 2 Lans. 470. v. , 17 Bun, 192. Aff d in 85 N. Y. 142. See Lupton «. Lupton. Decision iu 17 Hun applied (Legacy, when charged on real estate) in Finch «. Hull, 24 Id. 226. Followed in Manson «. Manson, 8 Abb. N. G. 123, 127. v. Hudson, 12 Johns. 207. See Greene Burke. Qualified (Effect o f levy as satis- faction) in Denvrey v. Fox, 22 Barb. 522. Disting'd in Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich. 302. Collated with other cases in 58 Am. Dec. 356, n. v. Mackenzie, 3 Barb. Ch. 320; s. c, 6 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 346; 49 Am. Dec. 178. See Wetmore v. Scovell. Questioned (Letters as literary compositions entitled to protec- tion) in Woolsey v. Judd, 11 Bow. Pr. 49. Compare Eyre v. Higbee, 35 Barb. 502. Thought in 49 Am. Dec. 181, n., to be con- trary to view supported by reason and weight of authority. v. Martense, 8 How. Pr. 196. Rev'd in 16 H. Y. 231. See Sice v. Manhattan Co. Decision in 16 N. Y. disting'd and limited with Slee v. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige, 48 (Rights unaffected by decree of foreclosure) in Bloomer v. Sturges, 58 Id. 168, 176. Cited as authority in Thomas on Mort. 371. v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 17 Bun, 169. Aff d as Kent v. Same, 78 N. Y. 159, which also aff'd in part 12 Hun, 53. An- other proceeding in 23 Id. 199. v. Thompson, 3 Sandf. 416. Rev'd in 5 2V. Y. 320. Subsequent decision in 19 Id. 207. Other proceedings as Hoyt «. Sheldon, in 4 Abb. Pr. 59; 3 Bosw. 267. See McCullough v. Mooss. Decision in 3 Bosw. explained (By-laws of private corpora- tion) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 343, n. 1, 11 ed. Remarks of WooDHUFr, J., on p. 302 applied with those of Dueb, J., in 3 Sana\f. 421 (Effect of construction placed on statutes of another State by courts of that State) in Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 441, 449. Decision in 5 Id. explained in con- HOTT— HUBBELL. 361 nection with Abraham v. Plestoro, 3 Wend. 540 (Validity of claim or title under foreign statutory bankrupt proceedings) in Matter of Bristol, 16 Abb. Pr. 187. Compared with other cases in Hibernia B'k «. Me- chanics', &c. B'k, 21 Hun, 175. Followed in Hunt «. Jackson, 5 Blatehf. 0. Gt. 349, 351. Applied (Use of corporate seal when not binding on corporation) in Luse v. Isthmus Transit R'way Co., 6 Oreg. 125; s. c, 25 Am. R. 506. Reconciled (Juris- diction in matters affecting receivers ap-. pointed in another jurisdiction) in Taylor v. Atlantic & Gt. Western R. R. Co., 57 How. Pr. 15. Quoted in High on Receiv. § 47,. ». 2. Opinion of Paige, J., approved (As- signability as test of survival of Bight of action) in Purple v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 4 Duer, 78; Hyde v. Tufts, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 58. Criticised as obiter dic- tum in Hyslop i>. Randall, 4 Duer, 78, 661. Cited (Limit of authority of bank officer) in Whart. Com. on Ag § 677. Applied to superintendent of railroad, in Mahone v. Manchester, &c. R. R. Co., Ill Mass. 72; s. c, 15 Am. R. 9, 12. Applied (Transfer of personal property, as affected by law of place) in Ackerman ®. Cross, 40 Barb. 484. Decision in 19 if. T. applied in Nichols v. Mase, 25 Hun, 640, 642. Ex- amined with other cases (Rights of cred- itors, purchasers, &c. , as against mort- gagee) in dissenting opinion of Hoffman, J., in Thompson v. Van Vechten, 6 Bosw. 411. Cited as authority with Willitts v. Waite, 25 V. T. 587; Kelly v. Crapo, 45 Id. 86 (Effect to be given to insolvent laws of an- other jurisdiction) in Paine ». Lester, 44 Gonn. 196; s. c, 26 Am. P. 4A% Followed with Peterson v. Mayor of N. Y., 17 If. Y. 449 (Ratification by corporation of unau- thorized act of agent) in Rich v. State Nat. B'k of Lincoln, 7 Neb. 201; s. c, 29 Am. P. 382. Cited (Proof that satisfies aver- ment that act was done with authority) in Hubbard v. Town of Williamstown, 61 Wis. 397. Applied (Only errors of law to be corrected by Court of Appeals) in Davis v. Spencer, 24 Jf. Y. 390 ; Wright v. Hunter, 46 Id. 412. Disting'd in Peterson ®. Raw- son, 34 Id. 371. Cited as authority (Au- thority of directors of corporation) in Flagg v. Manhattan R'y Co., TJ. S. Oir. Gt. S. D. N. Y, 21 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 781, with note. Decisions in 5 If. Y. and 19 Id. reviewed with Moore ». Rector, &c. of St. Thomas, 4 Abb. Jf. G. 51; Murray o. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb. 140 (Corporation when estopped to assert invalidity of contract made by it or its agents) in Seeley v. Morgau, 49 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 346. Followed (Effect to be given to foreign statutory bankruptcy pro- ceedings) in Willits v. Waite, 25 If. Y. 583, 587. v. Van Alstyne, 15 Barb. 568. Approved (Evidence of exemption from execution) in Wilcox®. Hawley, 81 If. Y. 648. Reviewed with Cantrell v. Conner, 51 How. Pr. 45 ; Frost «. Mott, 34 JV: Y. 253; Wilcox v. Hawley, 31 Id. 648; Seaman®. Luce, -23 Barb. 240; Smith «. Slade, 57 Id. 637; Lockwood v. Younglove, 27 Id. 506 (Ex- emption from execution, when waived) in Russell v. Dean, 30 Hun, 242. v. Wildfire, 3 Johns. 518. Discussed (Seaman's wages) in 3 Kent Com. 188, n. c. Hubbard t. Briggs, 31 If. Y. 518. Fol- lowed (Contradicting witness by proof of inconsistent statements) in Romertz v. East River Nat. B'k, 2 Sweeny, 82, which was rov'd in 49 Jf. Y. 577. 580, which see. v. Gnruey, 64 N. Y. 457. See Camp- bell®. -Tate; Sisson v. Barrett. Approved (Parol evidence to show suretyship) in Irvine ». Adams, 48 Wis. 468; s. c, 33 Am. R. 817. Cited from at length (the portion cited including citations of Camp- bell v. Tate, 7 Bans. 370 ; People v. Jansen, 7 Johns. 331 ; King v. Baldwin. 17 Id. 384; Artcher v. Douglass, 5 Ben. 509; Neimce- wicz ®. Qahn, 3 Paige, G14; Barry v. Ransom, 12 If. Y. 465) in 17 Am. Dec. 416, n. See other cases collected in 17. Hook's Eng. 183; 23 Id. 155. Approved in Preston v. Gould, 64 Iowa, 44. Disting'd (Release of surety by extension of time for payment) in Scott v. Stockwell, 65 How. Pr. 249. Examined with other cases in Maier v. Canavan, 8 Daly, 272, 275. Limited in Converse ®. Cook, 25 Hun, 44, 47. v. Gnild, 1 Duer, 662. Cited (Right of solvent partner to administer firm assets) in Story on Partn. 7 ed., § 341, n. v. Hubbard, 12 Barb. 148. Affd in 8 If. Y. 196. See Ex, parte Thompson. Both decisions discussed (Nuncupative will) in Willard on Executors, 1 1 fl. v. Matthews. See Gates v. Beecher. v. National Protection Ins. Co., 11 How. Pr. 149. Applied (Right to have trial in proper county, irrespective of con- venience of witnesses) in Gifford v. Town of Gravesend, 8 Abb. If. O. 246, 248. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. See Brainerd t>. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Russell, 24 Barb. 404. Compared with other cases (Liability for continuance of nuisance) in Conhocton Stone Road v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 51 JV Y. 573, 578. Cited with Foster v. Newbrough, 58 Id. 481 (Necessity of notice to produce docu- ments in hands of opposite side) in 1 Whart. Gom. on Ev. § 152. Hubbell v. Alden, 4 Lans. 214. Rev'd in 50 Jf. Y. 480 as Hubbell v. Meigs. V. Ames, 15 Wend. 372. Explained, and reporter's abstract corrected (Appoint- ment of trustees as evidence of jurisdiction to issue, attachment against absconding or concealed debtor) in Matter of Faulkner, 4 Hill, 598. v. Blakeslee, 8 Hun, 603. Rev'd in 71 N. Y. 63. See Kellogg v. Ames. v. Carpenter, 2 Barb. 484. Rev'd in 5 Id. 520, and that rev'd in 5 If. Y. 171. 362 HUBBELL— HUDSON RIVER R. R. CO. But see decision in 5 Barb, approved in Lafarge v. Herter, 9 N. Y. 245, as aff'd in 5 Id. — v. Condrey, 5 Johns. 132. See Hitch- cock v. Aicken» Overruled with Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Gai. 460; Bissell v. Hall, 11 Johns. 108 (Effect of judgment of sister State) in Andrews v. Montgomery, 19 Id. 162; Gulick ■». Loder, 1 Green, 68. — v. Denison, 20 Wend. 181. Examined and disting'd (Lien on vessel) in Low v. Austin, 20 N. Y. 181, 183; citing also •Andrews «. Durant, 11 Id. 35. Disting'd in King v. Greenway, 71 Id. 413, 416. — v. Great Western lus. Co., 10 Hun, 167. Rev'd in 74 N. Y. 246. — v. Lerch, 62 Barb. 295. Aff'd in 58 N. Y. 237. Decision in Id. discussed (Parties in action to recover real property) in Sedgw. 6 W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 450. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1503, n. — v. McCulIocli, 47 Barb. 287. Applied (Establishing boundary line by practical location) iii Jones v. Smith, 5 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 490, 492. v. Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480. Rev'g Hub- bel v. Alden, 4 Lans. 214. Decision in 50 iV". Y. Explained (Reversal as to one or more defendants) in Johnson v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 54 Id. 429. v. Monlsou, 53 K Y. 225. Examined with other cases (Respective rights of mort- gagor and mortgagee) in dissenting opinion of Gbay, C, in Trimin v. Marsh, 54 Id. 599, 628. Approved in Everett v. Buchanan, 2 Dak. 249, 263 citing many cases. Cited as authority (Liability to account for rents and profits . Vail. Disting'd (Who entitled to accumulations of rents and prof- its) in Grant v. Grant, 3 Red/. 2i>7, 2D9 ; Robison v. Robison, 5 Lans. 165. v. L'Eplattiiuer, 49 How. Pr. 500. Modified and, as modified, aff'd in 5 Daly, 534. See Bergh's Case. - — v. Marvin, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 420. Aff'd, it seems, in 59 N. Y. 652, but with- out opinion. v. Peters, 7 ifari. 331. Disting'd, and in part approved (Tender when effectual to bar recovery, without payment of costs) in Knight v. Beach, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 241. Followed in Randall v. Bacon, 49 Vt. 20 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 100. v. Ruggles, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 18; s. c, 65 Barb. 432. Aff'd in 5? N. Y. 424. Decision in Jd. disting'd with Arnott ». Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., 68 Id. 558 (Sales for illegal purpose) in Lewin v. Johnson, 32 Hun, 408. Followed (Defini- tion of lottery) in Kohn v. Koehler, 96 N. Y. 362. Relied on in Hudelsfm v. State, 94 lnd. 426; s. c, 48 Am. It. 171, v. Stevenson, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 196. Said in 58 How. Pr. 135, n., to have been rev'd. — — v. Supervisors of Oneida, 19 Johns. 259 ; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 223; 6 N. Y. Com. L. Law ed. 793, with brief note. Approved with People ex rel. Wilson v. Supervisors of Albany, 12 Johns. 414; People u. Supe- rior Court of N. Y., 5 Wend. 114 (Man- damus to control discretion) -in People v. Board of Supervisors of La Salle County, 84 III. 303; s. c, 25 Am. R. 461, 464. Cited as authority in Arberry v. Beavers, 6 Tex. 457 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 791. v. Thomas, 3 Edw. 236. Applied (When injunction becomes binding) in Cape May & S. L. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 8 Stew. (JV. J.) 422, as having- been ap- proved in Endicott v. Mathis, 1 Slock 110, 114. Referred to in 55 Am. Dec. 722,' n., as the leading case. v. Wheeler, 7 Abb. Pr. 411. Followed (Indorser's liability, as affected by law of place) in Weil v. Lange, 6 Daly, 549. Humbert v. St. Stephen's Church, 1 Edw. 308; Approved. (Authority to fix salary of Episcopal clergyman) in Youngs v. Ransom, 31 Barb. 49, 53. v. Trinity Church, 7 Paige, 195. Aff'd in 24 Wend. 587; s. c, 14 N. Y. Com. L. Law ed. 716, with brief note. See Allen v. Mille; Troup v. Smith. Decision in 24 Wend, compared with Livingston r. Peru Iron Co., 9 Id. 511 (What constitutes ad- verse possession, as affected by distinction between statute of limitations and that against champerty) in Cravy v. Goodman, 22 JV. Y. 170, 177. Examined and followed (Adverse possession as bar), in Overinp 1 v. Russell, 32 Barb. 263. Quoted in Sedgw. & W. on TV. of Tit. to Lands, §§ 726, 701. Discussed in Id. §§ 757, n. 1, 765, 769, 770, 777. Both decisions cited with Van Hook v. Whitlock, 7 Paige, 375 ; Muir v. Trustees, &c, 3 Barb. Cli. 477, and other cases in Perkins v. Rogers, 35 lnd. 124; s. c, 9 Am. li. 039, 652, as showing a decided tendency in later decisions to hold that defense of statute of limitations may be raised by demurrer, the law being thought, however, to be settled otherwise in Indiana and many other States. Decision in 7 Paige commented on in Ang. on Limit. § 294, 6 ed. Home v. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Htm, 674. Rev'd in 74 N. Y. 264; s. c , 57 Bow. Pr. 359. Previous decision in 47 N. Y. 635. See Kelly v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze. Humerton v. Hay, 65 jv". Y. 380. See (Lia- bility on undertaking given on appeal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3050, n. Humiston v. Ballard, 39 Bow. Pr. 93. Modified on further decision in 40 Id. 40. Subsequent decision in 63 Barb. 9. With decision in 39 How. Pr. see (Offer to compromise, on appeal in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. Decision in 40 How. Pr followed (Costs where case is certified to Supreme Court, on appeal from justice's decision) in McLaughlin v. Smith, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 522. Deci- sion in 63 Barb, explained with King »., Poole, 36 Id. 247; McMahon v. Mut.' Benefit Life Ins. Co., 3 Bcsw. 645; Harriot v. N. J. R. R. Co., 1 Daly, 377; Cumber- land Coal & Iron Co. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co., 39 Barb. 16 (Costs in proceedings where court has no jurisdiction) in Bunnel v. Ranney, 2 Dem. 327. Humphrey v. Chamberlain, 11 N- Y. 274.. Disapproved as a dictum (Court cannot en- large time to appeal) in Haase v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 14 How. Pr. 430. v. Persons, 23 Barb. 313. Qualified (Necessity of appearance) in Turner v. Van Riper, 43" How. Pr. 33, 38. v. Phinney, 2 Johns. 484. See Shaw v. White. Followed (Valuation of aliened laud for dower. Pleading in action for • dower) in Allan v. Smith, 1 Cow. 180, 188. Collated with other cases in Shanw. & B. Cas. on- Real Prop. 399, 400. Discussed in 4 Kent. Com. 69 re. d. Disting'd with Dorchester v. Coventry, 11 Johns. 510; Shaw v. White, 13 Id. 179; as resting on a statutory provision, in Thompson ». Mor- row, 5 Serg\ & R. (Pa.) 289 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 358, with note. HUMPHREYS— HUN T, 36$ Humphreys t. Hnrtt, 50 How. Pr. 291. Aff'd, in 20 Han. 398. Previous proceed- ing in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & (7.) 433; mem. s. c, in 3 Hun, 216. Hun v. Carv, 59 How. Pr. 426. Aff'd in 82 If. Y. 65 ; s. c, 59 How. Pr. 439. Deci- sion in Id. disting'd (Liability of trustee of savings bank) in Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 K Y. 38, *5. Doctrine ' discussed in 15 Am. L. Itev. 160. Decision in 59 How. Pr. (p. 426) disapproved (Effect of record of vote in minutes of board) in Metropolitan R'y Co. v. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. If. 0. 102, 298. Hungerford's Bank v. Dodge. See Same v. Potsdam & Watertown R. R. Co. v. Potsdam & Watertown R. R. Co., 9 Abb. Pr. 124. Rev'd in 10 Id. 24; 19 How. Pr. 39 ; s. c, as Hungerford's Banks. Dodge, in 30 Barb. 626. Decision in Id. approved (Right of accommoda- tion indorser for corporation to set up usury) in Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge, 7 Bosw. 543, 552, 558. Questioned but fol- lowed in Smith v. Alvord, 63 Barb. 415; Strong v. N. Y. Laundry M'f'g. Co., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 279, 283. Hunn v. Miiiiii, 1 Sup'm. Ol. (T. & O.) 499. See (Privileged communications) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 836, n. Hiuinier v. Rogers, 55 Barb. 85. Aff'd as Kinnier v. Rogers, in 42 if. Y. 531. Hunt v. Amidon, 1 Hill, 147. Rev'd in 4 Id. 345; s. c, 15 N. 7. Cm. L. Law ed. 842, with brief note. Decision in Id. <;ited as authority (Liability of vendor of incumbered property, to purchaser, as for money paid) in Sargent v. Currier, 49 If. H. 310; s. c, 6 Am. P 524. Commented on as extreme in Reasoner v. Edmundson, 5 hid. 393. t. Bennett, 4 K D. Smith, 647. Affd in 19 If. Y. 173. See Snyder v. Andrews. Decision in 19 If. Y. explained (Damages in actions for libel) in 2 Qreenl. on Be. 14 ed. § 254, n. a. \. Bloomer, 13 If. Y. 341. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Followed (Time for service of case; in French v. Powers. 80 If. Y. 146, 149. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 994, n. See (When case must be made) Id. § 998, n. See (Motion for new trial) Id. § 1002, n. — — v. Cliapin. 6 Lans. 139. Followed (abil- ity of member of non-trading firm to bind it by note) in Smith v. Sloan, 37 Wis. 285 ; s. c, 19 Am. It. 757; Levi v. Latham, 15 If eh. 509; s. c, 48 Am. P. 301. Followed, and Doty v. Bates. 11 Johns. 544, disap- proved as unsupported by authority, in.' Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128; s. c., 47 Am. R. 95. Cited (Authority implied from appointment to conlinueu3 service) in Wlutrt. Cum. an Ag.% 40. t. Chapman, 51 If. Y. 555. Further proceeding in 62 Id.. 333; s. c, 49 How. • Pr. 377. See Bockes v. Hatborn. Decision in 51 If. Y. explained (Costs on foreclos- ure) in Lossee v. Ellis, 13 Hun, 655, 657. Compared with other cases in Bathgate v. Haskin, 63 If. Y. 265. Decision in 62 Id. 333, explained in connection with L. 1876, c. 431 (Amount of allowance in fore- closure) in Bockes v. Hathorn, 17 Hun, 85. t. City of Utica, 23 Barb. 390. Aff'd in 18 If. Y. 442. v. Hunt, 9 Hun, 622. Aff'd in 72 XT. Y. 217; s. c, 28 Am. B. 129. See People v. Baker. Decision in 72 If. Y. 236, fol- lowed (Binding effect of construction given to statutes of another State by the courts of that State) in Jessqp *. Carnegie, 80 Id. 441, 450. Disting'd (Validity of foreign divorce) in Collins v. Collins, Id. 7; Peo- ple v. Baker, 76 Id. 78, 83. Commented on in Bish. on Mar. & D. § 692, a. n. 6, 6th ed. Followed (Conclusiveness of decree of court of competent jurisdiction) in Chapman it. Phoenix Nat. Bk. of N. Y., 5 Abb. If. C. 118, 127. Collated with People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78 ; Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 Id. 257 ; Murray «. Starbuck, 5 Wend. 148, and other cases in 26 Am. P. 27, n. Folceb, J. 's, definition of jurisdiction approved in 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 129, n. 1. y. , 65 Barb. 577; mem. s. c, in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) add. 6. Rev'd in 58 If. Y. 666, for error in construction of contract. v. Johnson, 44 If. Y. 27; s. c, 4 Am. P. 631. See Minier v. Minier. Applied (Effsct of deed as between husband and wife) in Townshend v. Townshend, 1 Abb. If. C. 83. Disting'd as to promissory note, by husband to wife, in Whi taker v. Whitaker, 52 If. Y. 373. Approved as ex- haustive in 11 Am. Dec. 400, n. Followed (Distinction between power of wife and of husband) in Perkins s. Perkins, 62 Barb. 531, 541. Followed (Statutes of other States not to be read for first time on ap- peal) in Prouty v. Michigan S. & N. Ind. R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 669. Approved in Law- son v. Pinckney, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & £.) 201. Cited at length in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 312. -— v. , Idlf.Y. 293. Disting'd (Suffi- ciency of certificate of acknowledgment of deed) in Fryer v. Rockefeller, 63 Id. 273. Criticised and disapproved in Melntyre v. Kanim, 7 Pac. Pep. 27, 29. Followed, as the prevailing doctrine (Conveyance of equitable interest in land is within record- ing acts) in Edwards v. McKernau, 22 Northw. Pep. 20, 22. v. Knicker backer, 5 Johns. 327. Fol- lowed (Recovery founded on illegal con- tract, not allowable) in Seidendender v. Charles, 4 Serg. & P. (Pa.) 151; s. c, 8 Am. Pec. 682, with note; Bank of Michi- gan v. Niles, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 401 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 575, 583. Approved in 17 Am. Dec. 426, n., as settling a rule founded in good sense and sound reason. - v. Mitchell, 1 Hun, 621. Fully reported in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 57. , 366 HUNT— -nUED. V. Mootrie, 3 Bradf. 323. Aff'd as Moultrie v. Hunt, 26 Barb. 252. See Brinck- erhoof v. Eemsen. — — r. N. Y. & Erie R. K. Co. See Bost- wick v. Champion. - — y. Peake, 5 Cow. 475 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 475. Followed (Invalidity of infant's contract to marry) in Leichtweiss t>. Tres- kow, 21 Hun, 487. Cited as authority with Willard v. Stone, 7 Cow. 22, in Rush v. Wick, 31 Ohio St. 521; s. c, 27 Am. R. 523. Included in Lawson's Lead. Com. L. Cos. Simplified, 13. - — v. People, 76 N. Y. 89. Followed ' (What writ of certiorari in criminal case brings up) in cases of Lynch and Burns, 9 Abb. K 0. 69, 74. v. Purdy, 82 K Y. 486. See Pain v. Packard. Disting'd (Duty of holder of guaranty of pa}'ment or collection) in Tif- fany v. Willis, 30 Hun, 266. v. Roberts, 45 N. Y. 691. See Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Barnes. Followed (Right of surety to revoke obligation given by him) in McKccknie v. Ward. 58 N. Y. 541, 551. v. Singer, 1 Daly, 209. Said in 41 N.Y. 620 to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. in Dec. 1869. - — v. Smith. See Trevor v. Wood. V. Wallis, 6 Paige, 371. Followed (Judgment in foreclosure not opened on affidavit simply excusing default) in Powers ■o. Trenor, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 231, 233. v. Westervelt, 4 E. D. Smith, 225. See (New trial in justices' court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. Hunter, Matter of. See Van Eps ». Mayor of Schenectady. Hunter v. American Pop. Life Ins. Co., 4 Hun, 794. See statement of decision on appeal from judgment on second trial, in 71 N. Y. 604. See vol. 440 of Cases in Ct. of App. in Law Inst. Libr. of N. Y. City. v. Bnrtis, 10 Wend. 358. Held to be inapplicable (Actions by non-residents in justices' courts) since enactment of Code Civ. Pro. %% 2869, 2876,— in Bird v. Crane, 1 26 Hun, 53*1. See Code Ok. Pro. 1881, § 2369, n. v. Hatfield, 12 Hun, 381. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in 73 iV. Y. 600, but without opinion. v. Hunter, 19 Barb. 631. Disting'd (Delivery of gift inter vivos) in Montgomery v. Miller, 3 Red/. 162. v. Trustees of Sandy Hill, 6 Hill, 411. Cited as authority with Talmage o. East River Bank, 26 N. Y. 108 (Right retained by owner in land dedicated to the public) in Stevenson v. City of Chattanooga, V. S. Cir. Ct. E. D. Tenn. 20 Fed. Rep. 590. Cited with other cases (Cemeteries) in 13 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 80. ■ v. Wetsell, 57 ¥. Y. 375: s. c, 15 Am. R. 508. Subsequent decision in 64 N. Y. 632. Also another decision in 17 Hurt, 135, i ^vhich was aff'd in 84 N. Y. 549 ; s. c, 38 Am. R. 544. Decisions in 57 N. Y. and 84 Id. quoted and explained (Effect of pay- ment subsequent to parol sale within stat- ute of frauds) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 192, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Decision in 84 N. Y. quoted and explained (Delivery) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1018, n. 7. Explained (Action against buyer for refusal to accept) in Id. § 1125, n. 6. Huntington v. Ballon, 2 Lans. 120. Ap. proved (Payment by joint debtor) in Nat. Bank of Delavan v. Cotton, 53 Wis. 34. v. Brinkerhoff, 10 Wend. 278. Quoted (Judicial process as affecting operation of statute of limitations) in Aug. on Limit. § 325, 6 ed. v. Chilli u, 10 Bosw. 262. Aff'd in 38 JUT. Y. 182. v. Conkey, 33 Barb. 218. Disting'd (Affirmative of issue, when on defendant) in Penrhyn Slate Co. v. Meyer, 8 Daly, 61, 65. v. Dinsmore, 4 Hun, 66. Reported in 6 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 195. Disting'd (Limitation of carrier's liability) in Wood- ruff v. Sherrard, 9 Hun, 322. : v. Forkson, 7 Hill, 195. See (Writ of possession) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1529, n. v. Gilinore, 14 Barb. 243. Followed (Gifts causa mortis require delivery) in Case v. Dennison, 9 R. I. 88; s. c, 11 Am. R. 222. v. Mather, 2 Barb. 538-, s. c, 6 IT. Y. Leg. Obs. 206. Overruled (Distinction be- tween mortgage and pledge of stocksV in Wilson v. Little, 2 N. Y. 443. v. Ogdeiisburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 33 How. Pr. 416. Examined '(Recovery by servant discharged before expiration of term)4n Moody v. Leverich, 14 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 145, 151. Disapproved in Howard v. Daily, 61 N. Y. 362, 373. Huntley v. Merrill. See Hyde v. Goodnow. Hurd, Matter of, 9 Wend. 465. Disting'd (Attachment against absconding debtor) in Noble v. Halliday, 1 N. Y. 330, 333. y. Beeman, 8 How. Pr. 254. Approved (Mode of bringing errors of fact before the court) in Cook v. Swift. 10 Abb. Pr. 212, 215. v. Cass, 9 Barb. 366. Followed (Cur- tesy, as affected by statute) in Clark v. Clark, 24 Id. 581. Opposed, in Billings v. Baker, 28 Id. 343, 355. Re-asserted in Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. 21, which rev'd 1 Id. 508, which see. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 289. • v. Cook, 75 K Y. 454. Quoted and explained (Effect of contract of sale to pass property) in 1 Ben}, on Sales, § 311, n. 5 (Corbin"s 4 Am. ed.). v. Green, 17 Hun, 327. For decision involving questions mainly identical, see Hurd a. Kelly. Followed with Hurd v. Kelly, 17 Hun, 327, n. ; 78 N. Y. 588 (Liability of trustees of savings bank) in Hun «. Salter, 14 Weekly Dig. 419. KURD— IltJTCHINS. 807 — — t. Kelly, 17 Hun, 327, n. AfE'd in 78 N. T.588; s. c, 34 Am. R. 5T37. See Kurd «. Green. v. West, 7 Cow. 752. See Marsh •». Wick- ham ; Phoenix v. Dey. Followed, and error in marginal note to Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. 39, corrected (Inadmissibility of decla- rations of vendor of personal property as against vendee) in Whitaker v. Brown, 8 Wend. 490. Doubted with Whitaker v. Brown ; Kent v. Walton, 7 Wend. 256, but followed on principle of stare decisis, — in Beach v. Wise, 1 Mill, 613. Denied in Gibblehouse v. Strong, 3 liawle (Pa.) 4")0. Applied with Spraguo v. Kneeland, 12 Wend. 161, in Donaldson v. Johnson, 2 Chand. (Wise.) 167, to mortgagor. Fol- lowed (Passing of title to property delivered with an alternative) in Dearborn v. Turner, 16 Me: 17; s. c, 33 Am.. Dec. G30 ; Bus- well «. Bicknell, 17 Me. 344 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 262; Seymours. Brown, 19 Johns. 47, being doubted. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 133, n. v. Hulbert v. Dean, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 428 ; s. c, 2 Keyes, 97. Collated with other cases (Right of firm and individual creditors in case of assignment for benefit of credit- ors) in Bishop on Assign. § 188. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 211, n. 4, 4 ed. Hurlburt v. Banks, 1 Abb. N. 0. 157; s. c, less fully, 52 How. Pi: 196. Aff'd as Peo- ple ex rel. Comm'rs. of Washington Park v. Banks, 07 N. Y. 368. Decision in 52 How. Pr. applied (Constitutionality of law au- thorizing improvement of highway) to law authorizing use of steam as motive power on railroad track, — in People V: Long Is- land R. R. Co., 9 Abb. JSf. G 181, 203. Hurl hut v. Carter, 21 Barb. 221. See (Powers of assignees of insurance companies) L. 1854, c. 224. Explained in Burrill on Assign. % 299, 4 ed. v. Post, 1 Bosw. 28. Followed (Liabil- ity of lessee -who occupies part of demised premises) in Knox v. Hextcr, 42 Super. Ct. (J.&S.)&,\\. v. Root, 12 How. Pr. 511. Said in Williams v. Lakey, 15 Id. 206, 208, to have been aff'd at General Term in 1856. v. Seeley, 11 How. Pr. 507. Collated with other cases (Attachment as affected by law of domicile) in Thomps. on Prov. Pern. 360. Hurley v. Van Wagner, 28 Barb. 109. See Jackson ». Walker. Views of Bhown, J., approved (Construction of statute forbid- ding contributions for political purposes) in Sizer v. Daniels, G6 Barb. 42fi. 431. Hurst, Matter of, 7 Wend. 239. Followed (Amendment in insolvency proceedings) in Small v. Wheaton, 2 Abb. Pr. 175, 182, where, however, it is thought that the power should not be earned further. Col- lated with other cases in Bishop on Assian. H3. Hurst v. Harper, 14 Hun, 2S0. Disting'd (Enforcing parol agreement respecting land) in Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Id. 67, 70. v. Litchfield, 39 K T. 377. Not fol- lowed (Effect of agreement to arbitrate) in Weeks v. Little, 47 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 1, 10, where it is thought to be practically overruled by Delaware & Hud. Canal Co. v. Pa. Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250. Criticised and explained in Id. 250, 265. Husou v. Young, 3 Lans. 63. Followed with Bakeman v. Talbot, 31 K Y. 370 (Extent of privilege created by grant of private right of way) in Baker i>. Frick, 45 Md. 337 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 506, 511. Husted t. Dakin, 17 Alb. Pr. 137. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bowen. Disap- proved as contrary to principle and author- ity, and as based on a misapprehension of Shepard v. O'Neil, 4 Barb. 125 (Right of judgment debtor to redeem lands sold on execution) in Elsworth ■o. Muldoon, 46 How. Pr. 250. Overruled (Inquiry as to right to surplus on foreclosure) in Bergen v. Snedeker, 8 Abb. N. C. 50, 54, 58. Col- lated withother cases in Colby on Forecl. 25, 39, 42. Compare Thomas on Mort. 380. v. Ingraliain, 75 K Y. 251. Quoted and explained (Sales of specific chattels un- conditionally) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 352 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). y. Mathes, 77 iV. F. 388. Disting'd (Liability of married woman for materials used on her premises) in Gurner v. Scott, 17 Weekly Dig. 13. Applied (Mechanics' lien in case of contract made with consent of owner of land) in Otis v. Dodd, 24 Hun, 538. v. Weber, 1 Hun, 120. Fully reported in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 147. Hutclieson v. Peck, 5 Johns. 196. Quoted (Abandonment of husband by wife) in Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 41 ; Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 335, 336. Hatchings v. Miner, 46 N. Y. 456. See Garnsey «. Rogers. Cited with other cases as showing a tendency to limit application of doctrine of Lawrence v. Fox (Right under contract in favor of one not part}' thereto) in Pardee v. Treat, 82 K Y. 385, 393. See to the contrary, Exchange Bk. of St. Louis ». Rice, 107 Mass. 37; s. c, 9 Am. R. 1. But sec Abb. Tr. Eo. 386. t. Hunger, 41 Barb. 396. Aff'd, but deduction disapproved, in 41 N. Y. 155. Decision in Id. explained (Presumption of authority derived from possession of note) in Wardrop v. Dunlop, 1 Hun, 325, 329. Hutcliins v. Hebbard, 34 N. Y. 24. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Cited (Parol proof of purpose for wnich written contract was executed) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1020, n. v. Hutcliins. 7 Hill, 104. Relied on (Action for conspiracy, when maintainable) in Kimball v. Harman, 34 Md. 407; s. c, 6 Am. R. 340. Included with notes in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 207. Explained in 2 Add. on Torts, 61, n. 1, Wood's ed. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 62. Applied 368 HUTCHINS— Hl'DE: (Action for being deprived of expected ad- vantagej when not maintainable) in Iley- wood v. Tillson, 75 Me. 225; s. c, 40 Am. R 373 ■ - v. Merrill, 4 Sutfm. Ct. (71 & G.) 077. Fully reported in 1 Hun, 476. v. Smith, 63 Barb. 251. Discussed (Nuisance as created by smoke) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 508. Hutchinson v. Brand, 6 How. Pr. 73. Aff' d in 9 N. Y. 208. Decision in 6 How. Pr. applied (Amount of recovery in action against sheriff for escape) in Renick v. Orser, 4 Bom. 384, 390. Decision in 9 N. Y. applied in McCreery t. Willett, 4 Bosw. 643, 645, which was aff'd in 23 How. Pr. 129, 132, which see. Limited (Execution of void process) in Josuez ». Conner, 7 Daly, 448, 403. v. Market B'k of Troy, 48 Barb. 302. See other cases collected (Testimony of par- ties) in 1 Abb. K C. 364, n. Cited as a weighty authority (Account stated, when conclusive) in Wharton v. Anderson, 28 Minn. 305. Hutson v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 5 Sandf. 289. Affd in9 N. Y. 163; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 526, with note. See Bailey®. Mayor, &c. of N.Y.; Bartlett v. Crozier; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze ; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester. Decision in 5 N. Y. applied (Negligence of corporate authorities as ground of action) in Wolfe v. Supervisors of Richmond, 11 Abb. Pr. 272; Davenport v. Ruckman, 10 Id. 345, which was afl'd in 37 N. Y. 572, which see ; Hines v. City of Lockport, 60 Barb. 384, which was affd in 50 i£ Y. 239, which see. Approved in Baldwin v. City of Oswego, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 74. Disting'd in Hickok v. Trustees of Pittsburgh, 15 Barb. 443; Norton ». Wiswall, 26 Id. 6a7 ; Griffin v. Mayor, &c. of N. J., 9 JST. Y. 457 ; Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 Id. 500. Cited as settled law, in Conrad v. Trustees of Ithaca, 16 Id. .173. Explained in Requa v. City of Roches- ter, 45 Id. 135. Relied on with Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 Id. 161, n. ; Conrad v. Trustees of Ithaca, Id. 158; Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 Id. 104; Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 Id. 489 ; Lee v. Trus- tees of Sandy Hill, 40 Id. 442, and numerous other cases in the dissenting opinion of Coolet, J., in Detroit -v. Blakeby, 21 Mich. 84; s. c, 4 Am. R. 450, 463. Decision in 5 Sandf. commented on at length in Weet . Sampson, 59 Me. 568 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 442, 449. Cit~d with Jackson o. Farmer. 9 Wend. 201 ; People v. Fieids, 1 Bans. 242 ; 52 Barb. 198; and many other cases in Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217; s. c, 12 Am. R. 80, 96, 97, as maintaining an established doctrine. Hyde, Matter of, 15 Hun, 477. Rev'd (Vacating assessment) on authority of Mat- ter of Burraeister, 76 N. Y. 174, in Id. 629, but without opinion. Hyde v. Cookson, 21 Barb. 92. See Silsbury v. McCoon. Examined at length with Sils- burv v. McCoon, 6 Hill, 425; 4 Den. 3;)2; 3 N. Y. 381, and other authorities (Dam- HYDE— INDIG. 3G9 ages recoverable in case of property enhanced in value) in Railway Co. v. Hutchins, 32 Ohio St. 571 ; s. c , 30 Am. R. 629. Com- mented on in 24 Am. Dec. 84, n. v. Goodnow, 3 N. 7. 266. Examined with other, cases (Law of place governing commercial paper) in Hibeinia Nat. Bank v. Lacombe 84 N. Y. 367, 378. Approved in Tilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. 241, 247. Dis- ting'd with Western v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co., 12 N. Y. 258; Huntley «. Merrill, 32 Barb. 656 (Locality of contract made with foreign insurance company) in Cromwell v. Royal Canadian Ins. Co., 49 Md. 366; s. c, 33 Am. R. 262. v. Lnthrop, 3 Keyes, 596; s. c, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 436. Explained (Sale of specific chattels conditionally) in Ben), on Sates, § 319, n. c, Bennett's 4 Am. ed. v. Lynde, 4 N. 7. 387. Quoted (Receiver of corporation) in Hj,gh on Receiv. % 39, n. 1. • v. Paige, 9 Barb. 150. Cited as a strong case (Personal liability of agents) in Snelling v. Howard, 7 Rcbt. 400. • v. Stone, 9 Cow. 230; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 501. See Mersereau v. Norton ; Wilson v. Reed. Commented on (Evidence in action of trover) in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 646. n. 1, 637. v. Tanner, 1 Barb. 75. See Ferguson v. Broome. Explained (Effect of power to sell decedent's lands for debts, as a lien) in Fonda v. Chapman, 23 Hun, 119, 122. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2750, n. Hj land v. Stafford, 10 Barb. 558. Disting'd (Sale of premises in parcels, on mortgage ■ sale) in Wolcott ». Schenck, 23 How. Pr. 385, 390. Hynds v. Schenectady County Mnt. Ins. Co., 16 Barb. 119. Aff'd, in 11 N. Y. 554. See St. John v. American Mut. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Decision in 16 Barb, relied on with Gates ». Madison County Fire Ins. Co., 5 N. Y. 469 ; Matthews v. Howard Ins. Co., 11 Id. 9; 1 Duer, 371 (Negligence of insu- rer when not a defense) in Gove v. Farmers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 48 N. H. 41 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 168. Hynes v. McDermott, 7 Abb. N. C. 98. A. Richtmyer, 4 A 7 ! Y. 38, 47. Ap- proved (Exemplary damages for seduction) in Lee s. Hodges, 13 Qratt. ( Va.) 726. Fol- lowed with Knight v. Wilcox, 18 Barb. 212 ; . : . Badgley «. Decker, 44 Barb. 577 ; Damon e. Moore, 5 Lans. 454; Lipe v. Eisenlerd 32 A 7 ". Y. 229, in Lavery v. Crooke, 52 Wis. 612 ; s. c, 38 Am. £. 768. Cited as authority (Inadmissability of evidence of offer of marriage, in such action) in White s. Murtland, 71 111. 250 ; s. c, 22 Am. JR. 100. t. Mnngain, 24 Sun, 202. Aff'd in 84 N~. Y. 622 ; s. c, 61 Sow. Pr. 149. Deci- sion in Id. followed (Personal service in proceedings against infants) in Bellamy v. Guhl, 62 Sow. Pr. 460. v. N. Y. Central, Ac. R. R. Co., 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 416; mem. s. c, in 4 Sun, 277. Aff'd it seems in 66 K Y. 612, but without opinion. -. — v. Van Bokkclin. See Van Bokkelin v. Ingersoll. Ingraham, Matter of, 4 Sun, 495. Aff'd in 64 A 7 . Y. 311. Decision in Id. disting'd (Liabilities in case of sewer laid on private property) in McCaffrey v. City of Albany, 11 Sun, 613, 615. Ingraham v. Baldwin, 12 Barb. 9. Aff'd in 9 A r . Y. 45. See Jackson v. Gumaer. Dictum in 12 Barb, disapproved (Joinder of husband in wife's action) in Ackley v. Tivrbox, 29 Barb. 512. Decision in 9 N. Y. collated with other cases, in article on presumption of payment, in 30 Alb. L. J. 104. v. Disbrough, 47 A'. Y. 421. Applied (Assignee of mortgage, as subject to equities) in Scamoni v. Ruck, 53 Sow. Pr. 318. Ap- plied to judgment, in Cutis v. Guild, 57 .». Y. 233. Applied to non-negotiable certifi- cate, in Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 If. S. 572. v. Gilbert, 20 Barb. 151. See Geer v. Archer; Nash n. Russell. Disapproved with Geer®. Archer, 2 Barb. 420; Nash o. Russell, 5 Id. 556 (Moral obligation, as con- sideration for promise) in Goulding s. Davidson, 26 N. Y. 605, citing Doty v. Wilson, 14 Johns. 378. v. Hammond, 1 Sill, 353. Doubted (Answer of title in third person) in Stowell v. Otis, 71 N. Y. 36, 38. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1723, n. Ingram v. Young, 1 Sun, 487. Fully reported in 3 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 491. Inmnn v. Foster, 8 Wend. 602. See Matson v. Buck ; Root v, King ; Thomas v. Cros- well. Explained and applied (Admissibil- ity, in action for slander, of evidence of slanderous words, an action for which would be barred by statute of limitations), in Titus v. Sumner, 44 2K Y. 266. Dis- ting'd Frazier v. McCloskey, 60 Id. 387. Applied to slanderous words for which ac- tion had been brought but discontinued, in Flanders v. Groff, 25 Sun, 553. Relied on (Plaintiff's character when in issue, in such action) in Rhodes «. Ijames, 7 Ala. 574; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 604. Explained (Damages in such action) in 3 Pars, on Cont. 168, n. w. t. Western Fire Ins. Co., 12 Wend. 452. See Fowler v. -flStna Fire Ins. Co. ; Oakley ». Morton. Examined and approved with McMastcrs v. Westchester Ins. Co., 25 Wend. 379 (What is due diligence in giving notice of loss) in St. Louis Ins. Co. v. Kyle, 11 Mo. 278; s. C, 49 Am. Dec. 74, with note. Followed with Mtna. Ins. Co. s. Ty- ler-, 16 Wend. 385, 391, 401; Turley ». No. American Ins. Co., 25 Id. 374 (Production of certificate from magistrate, as condition precedent to action on policy) in Johnsons. Phoenix Ins. Co., 112 Mass. 49; s. c, J7 Am. E. 65. Innes v. Lansing, 7 Paige, 683. Explained (Remedy in case of insolvency of special partnership) in La Chaise v. Lord, 1 Abb. Pr. 216 ; Artisans' B'k v. Treadwell, 34 Barb. 564 ; Van Alstvnc v. Cook, 25 JV. Y. 492 ; Robinson v. "Mcintosh, 3 E. D. Smith, 230. Applied in Levy v. Levy, >6 Abb. Pr. 91 ; Jackson «. Sheldon, 9 Id. 133; Greene v. Breck, 1 Id. 43, which was rev'd in 32 Barb. 74, which see. Applied to in- solvent corporation in dissenting opinion of Mullin, J., in Galwcy v. U. S. Steam Sugar Refining Co., 30 Id. 2G3. Disting'd (Maintaining creditor's action without issu- ing of execution) as inapplicable to case of ordinary partnership, in dissenting opinion of Clekke, J., in Fassett v. Tallrnadge, 18 Abb. Pr. 63 ; in Robb v. Stevens, Clarle, 198. Applied in Dillon v. Horn, 5 How. Pr. 36, but see it disting'd from Dillon «. Horn in Crippen «. Hudson, 13 N. Y. 161, 167. See Nicholson v. Leavitt, 4 Sandj. INNES— IRVING. 371 301. Applied to proceeding to set aside fraudulent transfer by administrator, in Everingham v. Vanderbilt, 51 How.Pr. 186. Doctrine herein said not to have been dis- turbed, — in Whitcomb v. Fowle, 7 Abb. K G. 295; s. c, 1 Am. Insolv. R. 100. Ap- plied (Equitable relief against violation of rights created by statute) in People v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 82. Applied (Stay of proceedings brought for same cause of action) in Groshon v. Lyon, lfi Barb. 466. Applied (Parties in creditors' proceedings against limited partnership) to proceeding against corporation, in Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. 60. Applied (Discontinuance by creditor suing for him- self and others) in Tremain v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 11 Hun, 288. Applied , (Status of such other creditors) in Derby ». Yale, 13 Hun, 279. v. Purcell, 1 Hun, 318. AfFd in 58 N. Y 388. Another proceeding in 2 Sup' in. Gt. (T. & C.) 538. With decision in Id. compare (Referee's fees in foreclosure) Code Giv. Pro. § 3297; T/wmas on Mart. 326. See to same effect with decision in 58 N. Y. (Appeal from default forbidden) Code Gin. Pro. § 1294. Inslee v. Hampton, 8 Hun, 230. Further decision in 11 Id. 156. See Schwinger v. Raymond. International Bank v. Bradley, 19 N. Y. 245. See Curtis v. Leavitt. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of superior city courts) in Gemp ». Pratt 7 Daly, 197, 199. Criticised in Landers v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 53 N. r. 450, 459. Ireland v. Ireland, 18 Hun, 362. Rcv'd in 84 N. Y. 321. v. Kip, 10 Johns. 490. Further decision in 11 Id. 231. Trial reported in Anth K P. 195. See Chapman v. Lipscombe. Reviewed with Reid v. Payne, 10 Johns. 218, and other cases (Notice of dis- honor sent by mail) in Patrick v. Beaz- ley, 6 How. (Miss.) 609; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 456, with note : Reid v. Payne being thought not to be authority for position for which it is relied on in Bunk of Columbia v. . Lawrence, 1 Pet. 584. Disting'd in Fish v. Jackman, 19 Me. 467; s. c, 36 Am. Bee. 769, with note. Approved with Babcock r. Burnham, 4 Hill, 129; Ransom v. Mack, 2 Id. 587, in Forbes v. Nat. B'k of Omaha. 10 Neb. 338 ; s. c, 35 Am. Ic. 480. with note. v. Litchfield, 8 Bosw. G34. See (Execu- tion after creditor's death) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 1376, n. v. Nichols, 2 Sweeny, 289. Affd in 40 N. Y. 413. Another decision in 1 Sweeny, 208; s. c, 37 How. Pr. 222; also in 9 Abb. Pr. M. S. 71 ; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 85. See Guernsey v. Powers. Rule in decision in 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. as to injunction being vaca- ted notwithstanding appeal pending, said in Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 05 How. Pr. 32G, not to have been charged by Code Civ. Pro. Decision in 37 How. Pr. doubted (Receiver pendente lite) in Guernsey i). Powers, 9 Hun, 78. Commented on in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 014. v. Oswego, Hannibal & Sterling Plank Eoad Co., 3 N. Y. 526. Approved with Kellers. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 How. Pr. 177 (Negligence as a question of law or of fact) in Gonzales v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 39 How. Pr. 407. Applied in Ochsenbein v. Shapley, 85 XT Y. 214, 224. Relied on in Townley v. Chicago, &c. R'y Co., 53. Wis. 632. Disting'd (Duty of fencing highways) in Chapman v. Cook, 10 R. I. 304; s. c, 14 Am. R. 680. 689. Relied on in Munson v. Town of Derby, 37 Conn. 298 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 332, 337. Quoted and explained in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 327, H..1. Irish v. Nutting, 47 Barb. 370. Sec Dex- heimer v. Gautier. Followed (Gift inter vivos) in Matter of Ward, 2 Red/. 251. Irvin v. Fowler. See Irvine v. Wood. V. Wood. Sec Irvine v. Wood. Irvine v. Cook, 15 Johns. 239. Limited (Error in admitting improper evidence, when cured) in Meyer v. Clark, 2 Daly, 498, 520. v. Forbes, 11 Barb. 587. Cited (Liabil- ities of members of joint-stock companies to third persons) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 104, n. v. Millbank, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 204; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 408. Affd 15 Id. '378; mem. s. c, 56 N. Y. 635. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of agree- ment with one joint debtor, as discharge of the others) in Mitchell v. Allen, 2> Hun, 543, 545. See Code Civ. Pro. § 1943. v. Wood, 51 N. Y. 224; s. c, 10 Am. R. 603. Aft'g Irvin v. Fowler, 5 Robt. 482. Previous decision as Irvin v. Wood, in 4 Id. 138. See Brown v. Cayuga & Susquehanna R. R. Co ; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis ; Creed v. Hartman ; Storrs ». City of Utica. Decision in 51 N. Y. applied (Liability of city arising from unsafe condition of streets, irrespective of negligence) in Dickinson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 61 How. Pr. 2.35, 257. Quoted and discussed in Wood on Kuis. 2 ed. § 2G0. Disting'd (Liability of abutting owner arising from unsafe condition of side- walk) in Wcnzlick «. McCotter, 87 iV. Y. 132, 128. Decision in 4 Robt. cited with Congreve v. Morgan, 18 N. Y. 84; Hart v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 9 Wend. 607; Dygert v. Schenck, 23 Id. 440 (Inability of city to exempt itself from liability, resulting from unsafe condition of streets) in City of Lincoln v. Walker, Sitp'm. Ct. Neb. July, 1884, 20 Northw. Rep. 115. Irving v. Be Kay, 9 Paige, 521. Aff'd, in o Ben. 046. Sec Hone v. Van Schaick. . v. Excelsior Fire Ins. Co., 1 Bosw. 507. Limited and disting'd (Estoppel of insurer to show error in statements in proof of loss) in McMastcr v. Ins. Co. of North. Am., 55 N. Y. 222, 229; Compared and doubted in 372 IRVING-JACKSOX. Neill v. American Pop. Life Ins. Co., 42 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 259, 261. Opposed in Waldeck v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 53 Wis. 133. t. Bnnkine, 13 Hun, 147. Affd, it seems, in 79 N. Y. 036, but ■without opin- • ' ion. Irving Bank v. Wetherald, 34 Barb. 323. Affd in 36 N. Y. 335. Decision in Id. applied (Liability of bank certifying note to be good) in Second Nat. B'k of Bal- timore v. Western Nat. B'k of Baltimore, 51 Md. 128; s. c, 34 Am. R. 300, 302. Irwin v. N. T. Central, &c. It. R. Co., 1 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 473. Aff'd in 59 .N~. Y. 653. Isaacs v. Beth Hamedrash Soc, 19 N. Y. 584. Followed (Judgment on award, to be reviewed by writ of error) in Freeman v. Kendall, 41 Id. 518. Both these decisions followed, as settled law, in Turnbull v. Martin, 45 Id. 600. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1293, n. v. N. Y. Plaster Works, 40 Super. Ct. <.(•/".'<& S.) 277.. Rev'd in 07 N. Y. 124. Further proceeding in 4 Abb. N. C. 4; s. c, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 397. See Union Trust Co. v. Whiton. Decision in 67 At. Y. explained (Conditions precedent) in 2 Ben), on Sates, § 855, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed. ); Id. § 1024, n. 15. Decision in 43 Super. Ct. applied (Costs on appeal) in Havemeyer : v. Havemeyer, 62 How. Pr. 476 ; Donovan • v. Board of Education, &c, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 312, n. Compare First Nat. B'k cf Mead- ville v. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 84 N. Y. 469. ■■ t. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 122; s. c, 7 Am. It. 418. See Higgins v. Water- vliet Turnpike Co. Disting'd (Master's liability for wilful acts of servant) in Shea ■». Sixth Ave. R. It. Co , 62 N. Y. 180, 184, which affd 5 Daly, 224, which see; Cohen v. Dry Dock, &c. B. E. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 368, 374. Followed in Hughes'!). N.Y. & New Haven R. It. Co., 36 Id. 222, 227. Compared and doubted in Hoffman*. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 44 Id. 1, 6. Approved in Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co., 73 If. Y. 543, 548. Relied on in McKinley r>. Chicago & North Western R. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 314; s. c, 24 Am. R. 748. Said in 40 Am. R. 227, n., to have been substanti- ally overruled by Rounds v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., 64 K Y. 120 ; Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co., 73 Id. 543, and other cases. Com- pared and doubted in 17 Moak Eng. 300. Discussed in MoaFs UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 31. Collated with Mott v. Con- sumers' Ice Co., 73 iV. Y. 543; Higgins ». Watervliet Turnpike, &c. Co., 46 Id. 23, in .23 Am. L. Beg N. S. 243. Collated with Drew v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 3 Keyes, 429, and other cases, in 8 Am. It. 310, n. Doc- trine discussed in 14 Alb. L. J. 240. Isenliart v. Brown, 2 'Edw. 341. Limited and explained (Evidence to deny considera- tion) iu Anthony 1>. Harrison, 14 Hun, 198, 214. Followed (Right of legatee to interest on value of unproductive property) in Piatt v. Moore, 1 Item. 191. Disting'd (Prefer- ence to legacy given in lien of dower) in Tickel v. Quinn, 1 I)em. 425, 429. I sham v. Davidson, 52 K Y. 237. Further decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T.&C.) 745 ; mem. s.c, in 1 Han, 114. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Proof of transfer of interest in cause of action) in Smith v. Zalinski, 26 Hun 225. v. Gibbons, 1 Brad/. 69. Approved (Residence and domicil) in Stowe v. Stowe, 1 Bed/. 305. Applied in Matter of Stover, 4 Id. 82, 85. Collated with other cases in Thomps. on Pro. Rem. 357. Approved and applied (Jurisdiction of surrogate to take proof of foreign will) in Russell «. Hartt, 87 N. Y. J 9, 24. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2695, n. v. Kelchnm, 46 Barb. 43. Aff'g Ketch- um v. Ketchum, 1 Abb. Pr.N. S. 157. See Tracy v. First Nat. Bank of Selma. Deci- sion in 46 Barb, disting'd (Right to move to set aside attachment; in Jacobs v. Hogan, 85 N. Y. 243. v. Schafer, 60 Barb. 317. Quoted (Creditor reaching improvements) in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 26. Ives v. Holden, 14 Hun, 402. Disting'd (Additional papers on motion to vacate attachment) inTrow's Printing, &c. Co. v. Hart, GO How. Pr. 190, 193' ; Hirsch v. Hutchison, 64 How. Pr. 366. ■ v. Ives. See Hyatt v. Wood ; Wilde v. Cantillon. v. Miller, 19 Barb. 196. Followed (Counter-claim between partners) in Ham- mond v. Terry, 3 Lans. 186. Disapproved in Waddell v. Darling, 51 K Y. 327, 332. v. Van Epps. See Batterman «. Pierce. Jack v. Martin, 12 Wend. 311. Aff'd in 14 Wend. 507. Jackett v. Judd, 18 How. Pr. 385. Opposed (Taxation of term-fees) in Malam o. Simp- son, 12 Abb. Pr. 225. Jacks v. Nichols, 3 Sandf. Ch. 313. Rev'd in 5 Barb. 38, and that rev'd in 5 JT. Y. 178. Decision in Id. explained (Usury, as determined by law of place) in Wayne Co. Savings Bk. v. Low, 6 Abb. N. C. "76. 87. Followed in Bowman t> Miller, 25 Graft. ( Va.) 331 ; s. c, 18 Am. It. 686, 691. De- cision in 5 Barb, followed in Sheldon v. Haxtun, 91 N. Y. 124. Jackson, Matter of, 6 Hun, 513. Affd as Matter of Price, in 67 N. Y. 231. Jackson v. Adams, 7 Wend. 367. See Mooers v. White. Approved (Descent of land held by alien) in Duke of Cumberland v. Graves, "l N. )'. 305. Approved (Dis- tinction between a citizen and an alien dy- ing without heirs') in Bvm'Vpv r. Dwight, 02 How. Pr. 300, 302. Criticised (Necessity JACKSON. 373 of inquest of office, to perfect title of State to escheated lands) in 2D Am. Dec. 234, n., and there referred to as disregarded, iu Mc- Caughal «. Ryan, 27 Barb. 876 ; Ettenhei- mer v. Heffernan, fi6 Id. 374 ; see in same note People v. Cutting, 3 Johns. 1, referred to (Right of one who traverses inquisition of office and shows that the people have no title) as not in accord with French v. Com- monwealth, 5 Leigh (Va.) 518. v Allen, 3 Cow. 220. Applied (Effect of acceptance of rent, as waiver of forfei- ture) in Conger v. Duryee, 24 Hun, 617, 619. Opinion of Sutheuland, J., referred to in 2 Waslib. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 19, n. 5. v. Ambler, 14 Johns. 96 ; s. c, 5 N. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 788, with brief note as to awards. — , — v. Anderson, 4 Wend. 474. See Woodcock v. Bennett'. Followed with Jackson ». Cadwell, 1 Cow. 622 (Effect of proceedings taken under satisfied judg- ment) in Reed v. Austin's Heirs, 9 Mo. 722; s. c, 45 Am. Den. 336, 341, with note. Applied with Swan v: Saddlemire, 8 Wend. 681 ; Wood v. Colvin, 2 Hill, 566 ; Deyo ». Van Valkenburgh, 5 Id. 242, in Hreck e. Blanchard, 20 N. H. 323; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. ilft, 227, with note. Applied, and Hil- drethrc. Ellice, 1 Cai. 192; Bolton t>. Law- rence, 9 Wend. 437, disting'd (Right of sheriff to fees, in case of satisfaction of judgment) in Gordons v. Maupin, 10 Mo. 352; s. c, 47 Am. Dec 118. v. Andrew, 18 Johns 431. Disting'd (Ejectment for waste) in Patrick «. Sher- wood, 4 Blatchf. C. Ct. 112, 114. Quoted (Effect of laches in bringing action for •waste) in 1 Add. on Torts, 382, n. 1, Wood's ed. v. Andrews, 59 N. T. 244. Disting'd (Reformation of contract) in Kilmer v. Smith, 77 Id. 226, 231. Followed in Heelas v. Slevin, 53 How. Pr. 356 ; Moran McLarty, 1 1 Han, 66, 68. v. Ayers, 14 Johns. 224. Criticised and disapproved (Estoppel between landlord and tenant) in Franklin «. Merida, 35 Gal. 558. v. Babcock. 12 Johns. 389. Collated with other cases (Enlarging devise into fee) in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 64. y. , 4 Johns. 418. Applied (Effect of parol license to perform act on land) in Prince «. Case, 10 Conn. 375 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 675, 680, with note. Collated with other cases and discussed in 28 Alb. L. . J. 144. Collated with other cases (Transfer of license to third person) in 2 Hare <& W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 550. • v. Bailey. See Wilbur v. Selden. V. Bard, 4 Johns. 230; s. c, 4 Am. P. 267. See Brandt v. Ogden; Waring v. War- ren. Applied (Possession, when not adverse) in Jackson v. Camp, 1 Cow. 610 ; Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Id. 91 ; Jackson ». Walker, 7 Id. 643. ApplicVl (Admissibility of declaration of one in possession of lands) in Jackson r. Cole, 4 Cow. 534; Jackson v. Myers, 11 Wend. 536. Disting'd in Vrooinan «. King, 36 2T. Y. 483; VVhitaker v. Brown, 8 Wend. 491. Disting'd with Jackson «. Vreden- burg, 1 Johns. 3 60 ; Jackson «. McCall, 10 Id 377; in Carpenter v. Hollister, VAVerm. 552; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 612, 614. Disting'd with Jackson «. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. 147 (Dower right, as affecting competency of witness) in Snyder e. Snyder, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 483; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 493. v. Bnrringer, 15 Johns. 471. Followed ■with Jackson «. Hubble. 1 Cow. 617 ; Jack- son v. Moore, 6 Id. 717; Mann v. Pearson, 2 Johns. 40 ; Jackson o. Wilkinson, 17 Id. 147 (Construction of description in deed) in Doe v. Porter, 3 Ark. 18; s. c, 36 Am. Dee. 448, 451. Followed in Rutherford v. Tracy, 48 Mo. 325 ; s. c, 8 Am. P. 104, 106; Melvina. Proprietors, 5 Mete. (Mass ) 15 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 384, 388, with note. v. Bartlett, 8 Johns. 361. See Crary v. Turner; McElroy o. Mancius; Reynolds v. Corp. Disting'd (Effect of action by creditor for escape, upon his other reme- dies) in Ex parte Voltz, 37 Ind. 175, as not in conflict with McElroy v. Mancius, 13 Johns. 121 ; Littlefield v. Brown, 1 Wend. 398; Ravvson v. Turner, 4 Johns. 469. Followed (Eironeous process is merely voidable and net void) in Day v. Sharp, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 339 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 509, 511. Followed with Jackson v. Delancey, 13 Johns. 538; Ingraham v. Belk, 2 Strob. . (So. Gar.) 207; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 591, 595. v. Bateman. See Foote v. Colvin. y. Beach, 1 Johns. Cas 399; s. c, 11 N. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 367, with brief note on rights of aliens as to real property. See Mooers v. White. — t. Bell, 19 Johns. 168. Explained (Right of lessor in ejectment to release the action) in Jackson v. McClaskey, 2 Wend. 541. v. Betts, 9 Cow. 208. Rev'd in 6 Wend. 173. Prior decision in 6 Cow. 208. See Jackson v. Kniffen. Decision in 6 Cow., though questioned in that of 6 Wend., yet approved (Admissibility of testator's decla- rations) in Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. Y. 157. Thought in 3 Am. Dec. 397, n., to be of doubtful authority. Decisions in 9 Cow. and 6 Wend commented on (Cancellation of will) in Hillard on Executors, 126. v. Blanxhtin, 3 Johns. 292; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 485, with note, wherein it is shown to have been well sustained as an authority re- specting what is an executory devise ; though not uniformly followed in N.Y. as to admissi- bility of ancient documents in evidence, Clark v. Owens, 18 N. Y. 437, being thought by the editor to hold the correct doctrine on the lat- ter point, and one which has been supported elsewhere. Also reported in 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 610, 612, with brief notes of con- trary authorities. Subsequent decision in Johns. 54; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 188; 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 50, with brief note. See 374 JACKSON. Itidgeley v. Johnson. Decision in 3 Johns. ■ questioned (Proof of ancient document) in that in 6 Id. Disapproved in Hewlett!). Cock, 7 Wend. 371. Commented on in 1 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 144, n. 1 ; Id. 570, n. 2. Ap- pears to conflict with English authorities cited in 1 Taylor on Ev. 105. Followed with Moffat v. Strong, 10 Johns. 12; Jackson v. Staats, 11 Id. 337; Anderson v. Jackson, 16 Id. 382 (Effect of devise over in case of first taker "dying without issue) in Lewis v. Claiborne 5Yerg. (Tenn.) 369; s. c. 26 Am. Dec 270. Decision in 6 Johns, adhered to (Reading " and " as " or ") in Iioome v. Phil- lips, 24 N.Y. 463, 469. Followed in Say- ward v. Sayward, 7 Greenl. {Me.) 210; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 191, 197; Janney v. Sprigg, 7 GUI {Md.) 197; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 557, with extended note wherein (on p. 567) Jackson i). Blanshan is referred to as a leading case. v. Blodget, 5 Cow. 202 ; s. c, HN.Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 625, with brief note. See Jack- son v. Willard. Referred to with Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johns. 43, in 1 7 Am. It 91, n. as contrary to Bailey v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 396 (Effect of mortgage given at same time with note, and to secure payment of it). Applied with Jackson v. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Cas. 114 (Necessity that, grantee in deed assent to re- ■ ceive it), in Kingsbury v. Burnside, 58 III. 810; s. c, 11 Am. '£. 67,72. v. Bowen, 1 Oai. 358; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. . 193; 2 JV. Y. Com. L. Law ed. 182; with brief note on contradicting by parol. See Wendell v. Jackson. Explained (Loss of title by abandonment) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 65. v. , 7 Cow. 13. See Green v. Burke; Woodcock v. Bennet. Disting'd (Rights of assignee, etc., as affected by prior usu- rious transaction) in Gray v. Green, 77 i\T. Y. 619. Followed (Effect of deed from assignee of mortgage) in Niles v. Ransford, 1 Mich. 338 ; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 95, 99, with note. Ap- plied (Rights of purchaser at irregular judi- cial sale) in Davis v. Gaines, 104 U. S. 386, 406. y. Bradford, 4 Wend. 619. Explained (Leases operating by way of estoppel) in 4 Kent Com. 99. v. Bradt, 2 Cai. 169. See Jackson v. Harder. Compare (What is tenancy frorn year to year) Jackson v. Wilsey, 9 Johns. 267. Compared with Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Cai. Cas. 314, and other cases in Rich i>. Bolton, 46 Vt. 84; s. u., 14 Am. It 615. Quoted (Ejectment as between tenants in common) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §297. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1500, n. Quoted (Ejectment against tenant at will) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 384. Discussed (partition without deed) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 68, 4 ed. ■ — v. Bronson, 19 Johns. 325. Followed (assignment of mortgage) in Wilson v. Troup, 2 Cow: 195, 231. — v. Brookius, 2 Hun, 530. See Aldrich v. Sager; nayes v. Phelan. Sustained (Joint demurrer) in Hoffman v. Wheelock 22Mrthw. Hep. 713, 716. — v. Brooks, 8 Wend. 426. AfFd in 15 Id. Ill, but without opinion. These decisions collated (Expert testimony on issue of genuineness of ancient documents) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. % 704. — v. 14 Wend. 649. Discussed (Judi- cial powers as affecting operation of statute of limitations) in Ang. on Limit. % 314, 6 ed. — v. Brown, 4 Cow. 550. See People v. Steuben Com. PI. — y. 15 Johns. 264. Overruled (Validity of title derived from Indian) in Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Id. 693. — v. Brownell, 1 Johns. 267; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 326. See Stewart v. Doughty ; Taylor v. Bradley. Doubted (Nature of contract to work farm on shares) in Putnam «. Wise, 1 Hill, 234. Reviewed and modified in Taylor v. Bradley, 39 N. Y. 129. v. Browner, 18 Johns. 37. Reviewed with Alexander v. Chamberlain, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 600, and other cases (Hearsay evidence in matters of pedigree) in Northrop v. Hale, 76 Me. 306. Explained in 2 Add. on Torts, 613, n. Wood's ed. Quoted in 2 Best on Ev. § 498, n. a, Wood's ed. T. Brownson, 7 Johns. 227; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 258. Disting'd (Ejectment for waste) in Patrick *. Sherwood, 4 Blatchf. C. Ct. 112, 114. Collated with Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 30, and other cases, and substantially approved (What is not waste by life tenant) in Wil- kinson v. Wilkinson, 59 Wis. 561. v. Bryan, 1 Johns. 322. Disting'd with Jackson v. Laughhead, 2 Id. 75 ; Jackson v. Wheeler, 6 Id. 271 (Tenant at will, when entitled to six months' notice to quit) in Rich v. Bolton, 46 Vt. 84 ; s. c. 14 Am. £. 615. v. Biiel, 9 Johns. 298. Discussed (For what interest ejectment lies) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 99. v. Bull, 1 Johns. Cas. 81 ; s. c , 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 250, with brief note. See Jackson v. Raymond. Disapproved with Jackson v. Murray, 12 Johns. 201 (Estoppel created by conveyance without covenant of warranty) in Pike «. Galvin, 29 Me. 188 (cited in 54 Am. Dec. 635, n.), and thought to huve been overruled by Pelletreau v. Jack- son, 11 Wend. 110. These two cases also thought, in Williams v. Gray, 3 Oreenl. {Me.) 207; s. c, 14 Am. Dec 234, not to have been decided on the ground of estop- pel, technically considered. v. , 10 Johns. 19; s. c, 4 if. Y. Com, I. Law. ed. 917, with brief note. Followed (Limitation over after devise, when void) in McKenzie's Appeal, 41 Conn. 607; s. c. 19 Am. R. 525. Followed with Jackson v. Robins, 15 Johns. 169; in Burbank r. Whitney, 24 Pick. {Mass.) 146; s. c, 35 . Am. Dec. 312, 317, with note. Reviewed JACKSON. 375 , with Jackson v. Robins, in Smith v. Bell, 1 Mart. & Y. (Tenn.) 302; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 798. See Cruise's Dig. tit. 38, c. 11, §§ 11, — 12 and 1(5. Followed with Helmer v. Shoemaker, 22 Wend. 137 ; in Rona'B. Meier, 47 Iowa, 607; s. c, 29 Am. It. 493. Ap- proved in Howard v. Oarusi, 109 U. S. 725, 731. v. Bull, 10 Johns. 148 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 321. Approved (Devise when enlarged into fee) in Jackson v. Babcock, 12 Johns. 389 ; Jackson ». Martin, 18 Id. 81. Quoted and collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 07. v. Burchin, 14 Johns. 124 ; s. c, 5 R. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 799, with brief note. See Dominick v. Michael ; Jackson v. Carpenter. Approved in part (Avoidance of infants' voidable acts) in Breckenridge's Heirs e. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 236; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 71, 81 with note. Ap- proved in 2 Kent Com. 238, and cited in Id. n. c, as approved by Stoky, J., in Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 73. Commented on in Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf. &c. 90. Quoted and explained in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 325, a. u. v. Biirgott, 10 Johns. 457; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 349, with note. Followed (Effect of unrecorded deed, as against purchaser with notice) in Draper ». Bryson, 17 Mo. 71; s. c, . 57 Am. Dec. 257. Approved in Givens v. Branford, 2 McGord {So. Car.) 152; s. c, 13 Am. Dee. 702, as applicable to case of unrecorded marriage settlement. Explained in 4 Kent Gom. 172. v. Burton, 11 Johns. 64. Commented on (Proof of handwriting of subscribing witness) in Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Wend. 178, 199. v . 1 Wend. 341. Disting'd and applied (Tenant's possession when not ad- verse) in Sherman v. Kane, 86 N. Y. 57, 67, which aff'd 46 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 310, 317, which see. v. Bush, 10 Johns. 223. See Jackson v. Graham. Followed with Gorham «. Gale, 7 Cow. 737 (Validity of sheriff's deed exe- cuted by deputy) in Haines' Lessee v. Lind- sey, 4 Ohio, 88; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 586, with note. See 7 Com. Dig. Viscount, p. 542 (B.) v. Cadvvell, 1 Cow. 622. See Jackson v. Anderson ; Jackson v. Roberts ; Wood v. Colvin ; Woodcock «. Bennet. Followed with Jackson v. Walker, 4 Wend. 462 (Sher- iff's sale when not invalidated by irregulari- ties) iii Minor v. Natchez, 4 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 602- s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 488, 492, with note ; Jackson v. Shepard, 7 Cow. 88, being disting'd as a case arising out of a tax collector's deed. Discussed ( What will sus- tain covenant to stand seized; in 3 Washb. on Seal Prop. "4 ed. 372. v. Camp, 1 Cow. 605. See Jackson v. Waters ; Laf rombois v. Jackson. Followed with Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. 230 (Requisites of adverse possession) in Ca- sey's Lessee v. Inloes, 1 Gill (Md.) 430; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 658, 675. v. Carey. See Jackson v. Stevens. v. Carpenter, 11 Johns. 541. Followed with Jackson v. Burchin, 14 Johns. 124 (Dis- affirmance of infant's conveyance) in Cres- inger «. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 565, 568, with note; Tucker v. More- land, 10 Pet. 58, 72. Approved in Phillips v. Green, 3 A. K. Marsh, (Ki/.) 7; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 121, with note. With Voorhies v. Voorhies, 24 Barb. 150; MeMurray ». McMurray, 66 N. Y. 175. Collated with contrary cases (Delano v. Blake, 11 Wend. 85 ; Bostwick v. Atkins, 3 N~. Y. 53; Chapin v. Shafer, 411 fd. 407 ; Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. 641) ; and the rule of reasonable time followed in preference to the statute of limi- tations, in Goodnow v. Empire Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 4C8; s. c, 47 Am. It 798; 2:! Am. L. Reg. N. S. 329, with note. See also Anderson v. Soward, 40 Ohio St. 325, ap- proving Taft v. Sergeant, 18 Barb. 320. Approved in 2 Kent Com. 238. Quoted and explained (Ratification after majority) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 325, n. u. v. Catlin. 2 Johns. 248 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 415. Aff d in 8 Johns. 520. See Artcher A.Whalen; Bracketts. Barney. Decision in 2 Johns, followed (Deed when delivered as escrow) in Stone v. Duvall, 77 III. 475 ; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 40, n. Disting'd (Sheriffs sales, as affected by statute of frauds) iru Pomeroy a. Winship, 12 Mass. 513; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 91, 97. Both decisions cited as authority in Nichol v. Ridley, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 63"; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 254. Cited approving (Limitation of operation of pri- vate statutes) in 1 Kent Com. 460. v. Chapin, 5 Cow. 485. Disting'd (Effect of parol declarations of person having title to land) in Keator v. Dimmick, 46 Barb. 153. v. Christman, 4 Wend. 277. Quoted and collated with other cases (Proof to es- tablish will) in Red/. Lead. Gits, on Wills, 675. v. Clark, 3 Johns. 42i. Applied with Jackson v. Myers, Id. 383 (Instrument, when regarded as agreement for future con- veyance) in Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 227; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 607, with extended note. Y. , 7 Johns. 217. Followed (Effect of words superadded to description in grant, &c.) in Sharp ». Dimmick, 4 Lans. 490, 499. Applied (Postponement of mortgage sale) to execution sale, in Frederick ». Wheeler, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 210, 213. v. Claw, 18 Johns. 346. See Starr v. Peck; Matter of Taylor. Followed (Pre- sumption of marriage) in Durand v. Durand, 2 Sweeny, 315. Approved in Blanchard v. Lambert, 43 Iowa, 228; s. c, 22 Am. R. 248. Disting'd with King v. Paddock, 18 Johns. 326 (Presumption of death of hus- band or wife) in Machini «. Zaisoni, 5 Red/. 492. Applied (Rebutting presumption of marriage) in Weatherford v. Weatherford, 20 Ala. 548 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 206. Cited as authority in Sneed v. Ewing, 5 J. J. 376 JACKSON. Marsh (Ey.) 460; s. ,c, 22 Am. Dec. 41, 70, with note. v. Cody. See Jackson v. Stanley. v. Colden, 4 Cow. 266. Explained (Making deed to mortgagee, on sale under power in mortgage) in Hall v. Bliss, 118 Mass. 554 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 476. y. Cole. See Day o. Alverson. v. Coleman. See Jackson v. Robins. Collated with other cases (Enlarging devise into fee) in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 64. v. Collins, 3 Cow. 89; s. c, 8 N. T. Com. L. Law. Ed. 61, with brief note. Fol- lowed (Continuation of authority of deputy, after sheriff goes out of office) in Jackson v. Tuttle, 9 Cow. 239 ; People v. Baker, 20 Wend. 604. Followed with People v. Baker, in Tyree v. Wilson, 9 Oratt. ( Va.) 59 ; s. c, 68 Am. Dec. 213. Applied (Construction of statutes) in Rice v. Mead, 22 How. Pr. 449. Opposed (Adverse possession under sheriffs sale) in Cook v. Norton, 48 III. 20. v. , 11 Johns. 1. Explained with Jackson v. Vincent, 4 Wend. 633 (Forfei- ture of estate for parol denial of tenancy) in Delancey ». Ganong, 9 iV. Y. 9, 20, 27. v. Combs, 7 Cow. 36. Affd in 2 Wend. 153. v. Cooley, 8 Johns. 128. Cited (Ad- missibility of writings of deceased relative to prove a pedigree) in 1 W/iart. Com. on Ev. § 210. v. Cornell, 1 Sandf. Ch.- 348. Cited (Preference of partnership creditors) in 3 Kent Com. 66, n. d, as adjudged on good consideration. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 189. Quoted in 1 Pars, on Contr. 211, n. I. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 211, 4 ed. Com- mented on (Delivery of possession) in Id. § 277, n. 2. v. Cory, 8 Johns. 385. Applied with Hornbeck t>. Westbrook, 9 Id. 73 (Grant, &c, when void for uncertainty of grantee) in Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn, 293 ; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 58, 64, with note. v. Covert. See Bennett v. Hull. v. Crafts, 18 Johns. \ 10. Doubted (Ef- fect of tender of money due on mortgage, if made after law-day) in Post v. Arnot,' 2 Den. 344. Approved in Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 343, 349-373. Said to be denied in Merritt v. Lambert, 7 Paige, 344, and — with Edwards b. Farmers' Fire and Loan Ins. Co., 21 Wend. 467 ; 26 Id. 541 ; Arnot v. Post, 6 Sill, 65; Kortright v. Cady, 21 K Y. 343 — disapproved, as contrary to all authority, in Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. 490; s. c, 3 A m. R. 256, 262, where Post v. Arnot, 2 Den. 344, was also referred to as maintain- ing a contrary doctrine. v. Crysler, 1 Johns. Cas. 125. Explained (Effect of parol assent to destroy effect of express condition in deed) in 44 Am. Dec. 746, n. Quoted and collated with other cases (Forfeiture and entry for breach of condition) in Shai-sw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 144. v. Davenport, 18 Johns. 295. AfTd in 20 Id. 537. See Raymond v. Squire. De- cision in 20 Johns, applied (Limilation of doctrine enabling deed executing power to relate back) in Shaftner v. Briggs, 36 Ind. 55; s. c, 10 Am. R. 1. v. Davis, 5 Cow. 123; s. c, 15 Am. Dei. 451, with note. Further decision respect- ing title to lands in question, — in Jacksou v. Vincent, 4 Wend. 633. See Jackson v. Pratt ; Jackson -o. Willard ; Jackson v. Wood; Ridgeley . Rosevelt, 13 Johns. 97, in Coxe ■». Blanden, 1 Watts (Pa.) 533; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 83, 86, with note. Decision in 13 Johns, questioned with Jackson v. Robins, 16 Id. 576 (Validity of execution sale had after death of judgment debtor) in Lessee of Massie's Heirs v. Long, 2 Ohio, 287; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 547, 550, with note. Approved (Execution, when not void for want of renewal of judgment) in Collingsworth v. Horn, 4 Slew. & P. (Ala.) 237; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 753, 760, with note. Explained (Passing of trust under general words in will relating to realty) in 4 Kent Com. 311, n. e. v. , 4 Cow. 427; s. c, 8 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 437, with brief note. Deed in question explained on subsequent adjudication thercupi n, — in Rogers v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 9 Wend. 611. Discussed (Consideration to support covenant to stand seized) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 372. v. Demarest, 2 Gai. 382. Disapproved with Jackson v. Walsh. 2 Johns. 226; Jackson v. Stewart, 6 Id. 34; Jackson v. Ellsworth, 20 Id. 180 (Presumption of re- entry by lessor for non-payment of rent) in JACKSON. 377 Alexander v. Walter, 8 Gill. (Md.) 239; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 688, 697, with note. — v. Do ui so u. See Day v. Alverson. — v. De Witt, 6 Cow. 316. See Stow «. Tiffc. Overruled with Cunningham v. Knight, 1 Barb. 399 (Dower in case of mortgage given for purchase-money) in Mills «. Van Voorhis, 23 Id. 125. Ap- proved with Hitchcock v. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290 ; Collins ». Torrey, 7 Id. 278; Runyan v. Stewart, 13 Barb. 537 (Dower in mortgaged property) in Bartlett v. Mus- liner, 28 Hun, 235. v. Deyo, 3 Johns. 422. See Jackson v. Wheeler. Followed (Necessity of notice to quit dispensed with by tenant denying land- lord's title) in Vincent v. Corbin, 85 N. 0. 112. — — v. Dickenson, 15 Johns. 309; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 236. See Dana v. Tucker; John- son v. Stagg. Disting'd (Extension back of legal title by relation) in Laurissini v. Corquette, 25 Miss. 177; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 200. Followed (Admissibility of affidavits of jurors to impeacli verdict) in Little v. Larrabee, 2 Oreenl. {Me.) 37; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 43. See also Proffatt on Jury Trial, §§ 408-410, 456-464. • v. Dieffeudorf, 3 Johns. 267. Followed with Jackson v, Oltz, 8 Wend. 440 (Recovery in ejectment, on proof of adverse posses- sion) in Armstrong ». Risteau, 5 Md. 256; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 115-122. v. Dubois, 4 Johns. 216. Disting'd (Effect of lien of which no notice is given by registry) in Kanfelt v. Bower, 7 Serg. & It. {Pa.) 64; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 428, 438. Cited {Bona fide purchaser in case of judi- cial sale) in Martin v. Baldwin, 30 Minn. 540. v. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Gas. 114; s, c, 1 Am. Dec. 100; 1 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 263, with brief note. See Church v. Gilman ; Jackson v. Bodle. Collated with Stephens v. Buffalo & N. Y. City R. R. Co., 20 Barb. 332, and other cases (What constitutes effectual delivery of deed) in 40 Am. It. 217, n. v. Dniisbagh, 1 Johns. Gas. 91; s. c, 1 IV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 254, with brief note. See Stow v. Tifft. Denied with Jackson v. Swart, 20 Johns. 87. (Deed of bargain and sale to commence infuturo) in Wallis v. Wallis, 4 Mass. 136; Welsh v. Foster, 2 Id. 90. Also cited with Jackson v. Swart, Jackson a. McKenny, 3 Wei.d. 233; Rogers v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 9 Id. 611, in Trafton v. Havves, 102 Mass. 533; s. c, 3 Am. It. 494, as contrary to doctrine in Mass. Quo- ted and discussed in 2 Washb. on Meal Prop. 4 ed. 418. Explained (How use in real property may be raised) in 2 Id. 450, 454. v. Durland. See Jackson v. Woods. v. Dysling, 2 Gai. 198; s. c, 2 JV! Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 388, with brief note. Followed with Jackson v. Pierce, 2 Johns. 224 (Parol agreement as to boundary line) in Sawyer v. Fellows, 6 IV. H. 107; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 452. Disting'd with Kip v. Norton, 12 Wend. 127; in Crowell v. Maughs, 2 Gilm. {III.) 419; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 62, with note. v. Eddy, 2 Cow. 598. Followed (Pay- ment of costs as condition precedent to pro j ceeding in action) in Somers v. Sloan, 3 Harr. {N. J.) 46 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 526. v. Edwards, 7 Paige, 386. Affd in 22 Wend. 498. Remarks of Bbonson, J., in Id. disapproved (Purchaser, when excused by delay in perfecting title) in Mer- chants' Bank v. Thomson, 5b iV. Y. 7, 15. Decision in 7 Paige followed (Valuation of inchoate right of dower) in Doty v. Baker, 11 Bun, 222. Discussed (Power of appointment to married woman) in Kent Com. 325, n. c. v. Ellis, 13 Johns. 118. See Smith v. Burtis. Followed with Clapp v. Bromag- ham, 9 Cow. 530 ; Jackson v. Woodruff, 1 Id. 276 (Entry under color of title as con- stituting adverse possession, in Beverly v. Burke, 9 G-a. 440 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 351, with note. Explained in Ang. on Limit. § 414, 6 ed. v. Els worth, 20 Johns. 180. See Jack- son v. Demarest. Re-aff'd (Determination of lease for life, on violation of condition therein) in Allen v. Brown, 5 Lam. 280 ; and see Same v. Same, 60 Barb. 39. v. Esty, 7 Wend. 148. Approved (Stat- ute to be strictly construed, in proceedings to divest one of property) in Sears v. Terry, 20 Conn. 273. Followed as a decisive authority in Bunner v. Eastman, 50 Barb. 639. v. Farmer, 9 Wend. 201. See Hyatt v. Wood. Relied on (Right of one having legal right of entry, to enter by force) in Low v. Ehvell, 121 Mass. 309; s. c, 28 ',4m. It. 272, 277. v. Fassett. 17 How. Pr. 453 ; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 137. Aff'd in 12 Id. 281; s. c, 33 Barb. 645; 21 How. Pr. 279. Opinion and head-note in 33 Barb, corrected in B'erguson v Hamilton, 35 Id. 427, 439. See Acby v. Rapelye. Decision in 33 Barb. explained (Motion for new trial, to what cases limited) in Van de Wiele v. Callanan, 7 Daly, 386, 391. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1002, n. v. Fish, 10 Johns 456. Disting'd and Jackson v. Wright, 14 Id. 193; Jackson v. Winslow, 9 Cow. 18; Jackson v. Peek, 4 Wend. 305; Jackson «. Hubble, 1 Cow. 613, followed (After-acquired title will not pass by quit-claim deed) in Frink ». Darst, 14 III. 304; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 575, with note. Explained (Uses In real prop- erty) in 2 Wash, on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 450. v. Florence, 16 Johns. 47. Disting'd (Consideration to support deed) in Spalding v. Hallenbcck, 30 Barb. 298. Followed with Palmer v. Plank-road Co., 11 IV. Y. 389 (Deed, when insufficient to show pro- missory undertaking) in Closer. Burlington, C. R. & N. R'y Co., 64 Iowa, 149, 152. 378 JACKSON. T. Foster. See Jackson v. Hart. v. Freer, 17 Johns. 29. Followed (When public grant may refer to plan of survey) in Hagan v. Campbell, 8 Port. (Ala.) 9; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 267, 273, with note. y. French, 3 Wend. 337; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 699. Examined with Ooveney v. Tan- nahill, 1 Bill, 33 (Privileged communica- tions) in Bray ton v. Chase, 3 Wise. 460. ?. Frier. See Hilts v. Colvin. v. Gardner, 8 Johns. 394. Explained (Assignment and surrender of interest in lands) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 44, 4 ed. v. Garnsey, 16 Johns. 189. See Osborne v. Moss. Collected with Stewart v. Ackley, 52 Barb. . 283 ; Scholey v. Worcester, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 574; and many other cases in 15 Am. Dec. 599, n. as showing the law to be perfectly well settled (Effect of illegal conveyance as between parties). Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 395. v. Gilchrist, 15 Johns. 69. Approved (Resort to preamble, in construction of statute) in Robinson v. Tuttle, 37 K H. 243. Thoroughly examined in Constantino v. Van Winkle, 6 Hill, 177. • v. Given, 8 Johns. 137; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 328, with note. Reviewed with other cases (Notice sufficient to supply place of prior registry) in McMechan v. Griffing, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 149; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 198. v. , 16 Johns. 167. Examined and dicta disapproved (Execution of ' power) in Taylor v. Morris 1 K Y. 341, 353. v. Goes, 13 Johns. 518 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 399. Applied (Extrinsic evidence to to identify grantee) in Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 569. v. Goodell, 20 Johns. 188. Rev'd in Id. 693. v. Gould, 7 Wend. 364. Compared with other cases (Altered deed, as evidence to sustain title) in Woods v. Hilderbrand, 46 Mo. 284; s. c, 2 Am. R. 513. - — v. Graham, 3 Cai. 188. Followed with Jackson v. Bush, 10 Johns. 223 (Outstand- ing title in third person not to be set up by debtor sued in ejectment by purchaser at , sheriffs sale) in Avent v. Read, 2 Port. (Ala.), 480; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 663. v. Green, 4 Johns. 186; s. c , 3 K T. Com. L. Law. ed. 789, with brief note. See Jackson v. Laughhead. v. , 7 Wend. 333. Followed (Inheri- tance between children of alien parents) in Renner v. Muller, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & &1 535, 049. v. Groat, 7 Cow. 285. Discussed (Con- ditions in deed restraining alienation) in 4 Kent Com. 124, n. c. v. Guinaer, 2 Cow. 552. Collected with Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 45, and other cases, in 15 Am. Dec. 364, n. as showing the prevailing tendency in this country to re- i gard the deed or other contract of an insane person as voidable rather than void. Com- pare (Sufficiency of certificates of acknowl- edgment) Hiles v. La Flesh, 59 Wis. 465, 470. v. Halsteart, 5 Cow. 216. Applied (In- closure sufficient for purposes of adverse possession) in Trustees of East Hampton v. Kirke, 84 JV. Y. 215, 220. v. Hammond, 1 Cai. 496. Followed with White v. Lovejoy, 3 Johns. 448 (Substitu- tion of copies in case of loss or destruction of records) in McLendon e. Jones, 8 Ala. 298 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 640. v. , 2 Cai. Cos. 337. Discussed with McCartec v. Orphan Asylum Soc, 2 Cow.- 461 (Power of corporation to take by de- vise) in Any. & A. on Corp. § 177, 11 ed. v. Harder, 4 Johns. 202; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 262, with note, wherein it is shown to have beeu well recognized in N. Y. as an au- thority (Validity of partition by parol), and to be in harmony with the decisions on the point in Miss., Pa., So. Car., Va., Ohio and Tex., though in conflict with those in Mass. and Me., citing Freem. on Cotenancy, &c. §§ 397, 398. See Smith v. Burtis. Explained and questioned with Jackson v. Vosburgh, 9 Johns. 270 ; Jackson v. Livingston, 7 Wend. 141 ; Corbin v. Jackson, 14 Id. 625 ; Ryeisss. Wheeler, 25 Id. 436 ; Jackson v. Bradt, 2 Cai. 169 (Parol partition of land); in Dow v. Jewell, 18 N. E. 340; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 371, 377, with note. Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 68, 4 ed. — v. Harris, 8 Johns. 141. Commented on (Words carrying fee by implication) in Jack- son v. Bull, 10 Id. 148; Jackson v. Bab- cock, 12 Id. 389. 392.' — v. Hart, 12 Johns.11; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 280. Cited with Jackson v. Foster, 12 Johns. 488 (Parol evidence to show insertion of wrong name in contract, by mistake) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1030, n. — v. Hartwell, 8 Johns. 422. Explained (Powers of private corporation relating to property) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 168, 11 ed. v. Hasbrouck, 12 Johns. 213. See Jack- son v. Pratt. Approved and followed with Barrie v. Dana, 20 Id. 307 (Execution with- out judgment) in Townshend v. Wesson, 4 Duer, 342. — v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. 447 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 263, with note. See Jackson v. Louw. Disting'd (Highway when -not in- cluded in conveyance of land bounded on it) in Adams v. Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co., 11 Barb. 452 ; Lozier v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 42 Id. 468. Applied in Sizer v. Devereux, 16 Id. 163. Explained and applied in Dunham v. Williams, 36 Id. 155. Applied to river bed, in Child n. Starr, 4 Hill, 373, which rev'd 20 Wend. 163, which see. Disting'd (Title to land taken for highway purposes) in Heath v. Barmore, 50 N~. Y. 306. Examined with Whitbeck v. Cook, 15 Johns. 4K3 (Rever- . siou of dedicated land) in Gardner v. Tis- dale, 2 Wise. 195. Applied (Rights in land taken for highway purposes) in Town of JACKSON. 379 Suffield v. Hathaway, 44 Conn. 521 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 483. Relied on in Pomero'y v. Mills, 3 Verm. 279 ; a. c, 23 Am. Dee. 207, 209. Approved and applied (Land cannot pass as appurtenant to land) in Law- rence v. Delano, 3 Band/, 340. Followed (Ejectment by owner of land over which highway passes) in Brown v. Galley, Hill & D. 310. Cited with Dunham v. Wil- liams, 36 Barb. 136 ; Carpenter v. Oswego & Syracuse E. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 655, in 28 Am. Dec. 304, n. Applied in Cole ». Drew, 44 Vt. 49; s. c, 8 Am. R. 363, to action for trespass. ■ v. Haviland, 13 Johns. 229. Approv- ingly reviewed with other cases (Effect of proceedings in ejectment on statute of lim- itations) in 54 Am. Dec. 545, n. v. Hawks. See Fox 11. Smith. v. Henry, 10 Johns. 185; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 328. See Roberts ». Anderson. Ex- plained and limited with Jackson v. Slater, 5 Wend. 295 (Rights of bona fide, purchaser under statute foreclosure) in Cameron v. Irvrin, 5 Mill, 272. Applied (Necessity of deed, ori sale of mortgaged premises) in Jackson v. Golden, 4 Oow. 281. Approved (Assignee, when not prejudiced by notice to his assignor) in Bush v. Lathrop, 22 iV". Y. 549. Disting'd in Schafer v. Reilly, 50 Id. 68; Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 Id. 117. Disting'd {Bona fide purchaser of mortgaged premises, as affected by usury) in Hylund v. Stafford, 10 Burl. 563; Jackson v. Dominick, 14 Johns. 441. Followed in Elliott «. Wood, 53 Barb. 306. Disting'd (What is evidence of usury) in Booth v. Swezey, 8 N. Y. 281. Disting'd (Effect of usury in contract on subsequent transactions) in McCraney v. Alden, 46 Barb. 277; Gray v. Green, 77 N. Y. 619. Commented on in Little n. Barker, Roffm. 494. : v. Hiinnnn, 10 Johns. 292. Referred to as substantially overruled (Estoppel in deed) in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 151. • v. Hobby, 20 Johns. 357. Disting'd (Return of commission) in Pendell v. Coon, 20 N. Y. 134, 136. v. Hoffman, 9 Cow. 271 ; s. c, 9 N. Y. Com. L Law. ed. 639, with brief note. v. Hogeboom, U Johns. 163. Explained (Ejectment for non-payment of rent) in De Lancey v. Ganong, 9 N. Y. 9, 20. v. Holladay, 3 Red/. 379. Compare for conflicting authorities (Ordering sale for executor's relief) 7 South. L. Rev. iV. 8. 649. v. Holloway, 7 Johns. 394. Disting'd (Effect of alteration of will) in Lovell «. Quitman, 25 Ilun, 537. Followed with McPherson v. Clark, 3 Bradf. 99 ; Eschbach v. Collins, 01 lid. 478; s. c, 48 Am. R. 123. Cited as authority in Probate of Will of Penniman, 20 Minn. 245 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 368. Cited as authority with IJePherson v. Clark, 3 Bradf. 92, in Matter of Ladd's Will, 60 Wis. 187, 193, 200, where also Jackson ». Kniffen, 2 Johns. 31; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 JK 7. 157, were cited as authority (Inadmissibility of testator's decla- rations). Explained in Willard on Execu- tors, 123. v. Hooker. See Jackson v. Kenney. v. Hopkins. See Jackson v. Laugh- head. v. Hornbeck, 2 Johns. Cos. 115; s. c, Col. & C. Cas. 137. Overruled (Enlarging time for making case) in Block v. Brown, 9 Johns. 264. v. Hotchkiss, 6 Cow. 401. See to the contrary (Presumption of payment) Dedlake ■o. Robb, 1 Woods, 680. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 812. y. Housel, 17 Johns. 281 ; s. c, 6 N. Y. Com. L. Ijaw. ed. 366, with brief note. Compare (Meaning of "property") Stief v. Hart, 1 N. Y. 20, 24; and see Owen v. Smith, Zi Barb. 041, 646. v. Howe, 14 Johns. 405. Quoted (Ad- verse possession of wild lands) in Ang. on Lim. § 394, 6 ed. v. Hubbard, 1 Cai. 82. Examined (Priority of deeds of military lots) in Jack- son 11. Harrington, 6 Cow. 136. v. Hubble. See Jackson v. Barringer ; Jackson v. Fish ; Jackson v. McCall; Jack- son v. Wright. v. Hull, 10 Johns. 481. Disapproved (Sale of mortgaged property, under judg- ment for mortgage debt) in Davis v. Hamil- ton, 50 Miss. 213. Examined (Effect of de- fault in payment of mortgage debt) in Mundy v. Monroe, 1 Mich. 71. Followed and approved in Rice v. Wilburn, 31 Arlc. 108; s. c, 25 Am. R. 549, 551. Explained in Fosdick v. Risk, 15 Ohio, 84; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 562. v. Humphrey, 1 Johns. 498. Said in Lessee of Moore v. Vance, 1 Ohio, 13, to have been overruled (Oath when void as extra judicial). v. Hunter, 1 Johns. 495. Overruled (Rectification of mistake in location of boundary of lot of public land) in Jackson v. Cole, 1 6 Id. 257, 263. v. Huntley, 5 Johns. 59. Approved (Limitation of time within which to bring action, after award respecting title to land) in Wain v. Shearman, 8 iierg. & R. {Pa.) 357; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 624, with note, as applicable to case of laud sold for taxes. v. Ing'raham, 4 Johns. 103. Quoted and explained (Adverse possession) in Ang. on Limit. § 411, 6 ed. v. Ireland, 3 Wend. 99. Discussed (Estoppel as created by recitals in deeds) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 101. V. Jackson, 39 N. Y. 153. Subsequent proceeding in Jackson's Estate, Tuch. 259. Decision in 39 N. Y. disting'd (For- malities of execution of will) in Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 7 Run, 294, which was rev'd in 67 iV. Y. 413, which see ; Williamson T, Williamson, 2 Red/. 449. Followed in Rugg v. Rugg, 21 Hun, 384; Matter of 380 JACKSON. Collins, 5 Red/. 20. Reviewed with other cases in Norton 0. Norton, 2 Id. 6, 17. Cited as authority in Estate of Johnson, 57 Gal. 529. Approved with Gilbert 0. Knox, 52 N. Y. 125, in 10 Am. Dec. 516, n. T. , 1 Johns. 424. See Kinnier 0. Kinnier. Disting'd (Effect of foreign divorce) in Kinnier 0. Kinnier, 45 A 7 ! Y. 535. Followed with Borden 0. Fitch, 1 5 Johns. 140 ; Bradshawi). Heath, 13 Wend. 423, in Forrest v. Forrest, 2 Edm. 3d. Gas. 180. Referred to in People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247; s. c, 12 Am. R. 260, 272, as overruled by Kinnier v. Kinnier. Disting'd in Harding v. Alden, 9 Greenl. (Me.) 140 ; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 549, 555. Approved and cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 215. Reviewed with other cases in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 686. Dis- cussed in 2 Kent Com. 109. Applied with Dunn 0. Dunn, 4 Paige, 425 (Setting aside decree of divorce, when obtained by fraud) in Edson v. Edson, 108 Mass. 590; s. c, 11 Am. R. 393, 399. Applied with Borden 0. Fitch. 15 Johns. 421 (Foreign judgment may be impeached for fraud) in Dunlap 0. Cody, 31 Iowa, 260 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 129, 136, with note. v. Johnson, 5 Cow. 74; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 433, with note, wherein it is said to have heen frequently cited and followed. See Jackson e. Schoonmaker. Followed (Con- veyance by trustee, &c, as foundation of adverse possession) in Bradstreet 0. Clarke, 12 Wend. 675. Applied (Effect of acts of trustee of realty) in Bennett 0. Garlock, 79 N. Y. 321. Commented on (When posses- sion of tenant begins to be adverse) in Jack- son 0. Miller, 6 Cow. 755. Followed (Run- ning of statute of limitations against re- mainderman, &c.) in Fogal 0. Pirro, 17 Abb. Pr. 128; Jackson 0. Mancius, 2 Wend. 369. Disting'd (Adverse possession by one hold- ing under contract to purchase) in Kellogg 0. Kellogg, 6 Barb. 128. Explained in Vrooman 0. Shepherd, 14 Id. 454. Compare Clapp 0. Bromagham, 9 Cow. 530; "Whitney 0. Wright, 15 Wend. 181. Applied (Seizin to support curtesy) in Graham 0. Ludding- ton, 19 Hun, 251. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cas on Real Prop. 264. Discussed in 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 cd. 181 n. Commented on (Disabilities with respect to real property) in Ang. on Limit. § 481, 6 ed. Quoted (Ejectment) in Id. % 371. v. , 11 Bun, 509. See Johnson v. Hartshorne. Conditionally rev'd in 74 N. Y. 607, but not on either of points reported below. v. Jones. See Jackson 0. Pratt ; Jack- son 0. Streeter. v. King, 4 Cow. 207; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 354, with note, wherein it is considered as a most valuable case (Defence of lunacy) and one. that has never been overruled, at least in N. Y. though sometimes thought rather 6trict. See Culver 0. Haslam; Jackson 0. Van Dusen. v. , 5 Cow. 237; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 468. See cases cited to the contrary (Proof of identity) in Abb. Tr. Ev. n. 7. v. Kingsley. See Smith 0. Stewart. v. Kinney, 14 Johns. 186. Disting'd with Jackson 0. Hooker, 5 Cow. 207 (New trials on ground of newly discovered evi- dence) in State 0. Carr, 21 2f. B. 166; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 179, with note. v. Kniflen, 2 Johns. 31 ; s. c , 3 Am. Dec. 390, with note, wherein it and Waterman 0. Whitney, 11 M Y. 157, are examined and said to be generally regarded as authorita- tive. See Jackson 0. Holloway ; Waterman i>. Whitney. Approved as a leading case (Inadmissibility of testator's declarations) in Waterman s. Whitney. 11 N. Y. 157, 162. Reviewed at length with Dan 0. Brown, .4 Cow. 483 ; Jackson 0. Betts, Id. 377 ; Betts 0. Jackson, 6 Wend. 173 ; Knapp v. Knapp,10 K Y. 276 ; Bulkley 0. Redmond, 2 Bradf. 281; Waterman 0. Whitney, 11 JST. Y. 157; Sisson 0. Conger, 1 Svp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 564; Cudneyn. Cudney, 68 iV. Y. 148; Horn 0. Pullman, 72 Id. 269; Marx 0. McGlynn, 88 Id. 357; Eighmy 0. People, 79 Id. 546 ; in Hamersley 0. Lockman, 2 Dem. 524. Re- viewed with other cases in Shailer 0. Bum- stead, 99 Mass. 112, 123. Disapproved in Reel v. Reel, 1 Hawks. (A 7 . C.) 248; s. c , 9 Am. R. 632. Approved in Comstock 0. Hadlyme Society, 8 Conn. 254; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 100, 105, with note. v. Lamb, 7 Cow. 431. See Hewlett v. Cock ; Jackson 0. Lunn. Disting'd (Re- lease, as evidenced by statement in lease) in McKinnon 0. Bliss, 21 K Y. 206, 211. v. Laroway, 3 Johns. Cas. 283. See Hewlett 0. Cock. Followed (Proof of an- cient deed) in Jackson 0. Luquere. 5 Caw. 221 ; Hewlett 0. Cock, 7 Wend. 371. Com- mented on in 1 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 144, n. 1. v. Laughhead, 2 Johns. 75. See Jack- son 0. Bryan. Denied (Necessity of notice to quit in ejectment against mortgagor) in Ellis 0. Paige, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 48. Shown with Jackson 0. Green, 4 Johns. 186 ; Jack- sou 0. Hopkins, 18 Id. 487, and other N. Y. cases, — in 42 Am. Dec. 136, «., to be contrary to the rule prevailing at common law and in most of the States. v. Law, 5 Cow. 248. Aff'd in 9 Id. 641, but without opinion. Case of deft in Ct. of Errors, published at Salem, in 1825. Decision in 5 Cow. disting'd (Effeot of tender of amount of judgment) in Tiff- any 0. St. John, 65 N. Y. 320. v. Lawton, 10 Johns. 23; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 311, with note. Followed (Impeach- ment of patent collaterally) in Winter 0. Jones, 10 Ga. 190; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 379, 391 ; Overton 0. Campbell, 5 Bayw. (TenvS 165 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 780. Referred to in 2 Am. Dec. 570, n. as a leading case. Quoted in 3 Washb. on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 198. v. Leek. See McArthur 0. Sears. JACKSON. 381 — t — V. Leggett. See Town of North Hemp- stead v. Town of Hempstead. v. Leonard, Wend. 534. See Brandt v. Ogden. Qualified (Action for mesne profits abolished) in Leland v. Tousey, 6 Mill, 828. — — v. Lervey, 5 Cow. 397. Applied (Mar- riage of slaves) in Minor v. Jones, 2 Redf. 289, 295. v. Lowis, 13 Johns. 504. Aff'd in 17 Id. 475. See Gilbert v. Sheldon. Fol- lowed (Impeachment of female witness by evidence of prostitution) in Gilchrist v. McK.ee, 4 Watts (Pa.) 380 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 721, with note. Followed ■with Bakeraan v. Rose, 14 Wend. 105 ; 18 Id. 146, in Commonwealths. Churchill, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 538; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 229, with note. See to the contrary Common- wealth v. Murphy, 14 Mass. 387. i v. Livingston, 7 Wend. 130; s. c, 11 If. Y. Gam. L. Lam. ed. 82, with brief note, on declarations by possessor of land. See Jackson v. Harder. v. Lloyd. Cited in Jackson v. Woodruff, 1 Cow. 286. Followed (Adverse possession in case of occupancy by mistake) in Crary v. Goodman, 22 N. Y. 170, 17S. Approved in Pope v. Hanmer, 74 Id. 240, 244. V. Loorais, 18 Johns. 81. Aff'd in 19 Id. 449. Decision in subsequent action for mesne profits, in 4 Com. 168; s. c, 15 Am. Dee. 347, with note. Decision in 4 Cow. followed (Right of innocent purchaser of land to set-off value of improvements) in Byers v. Fowler, 12 Ark 218; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 271, 292, with note ; Murray s.Gouver- neur, 2 Johns. Cas. 441, being also re- lied on. Quoted and commented on (Im- provements after suit brought) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 705. r- v. Losee, 4 Sandf. Ch. 381. Explained (What passes under assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 100, n. 3, 4 ed. v. Lonw, 12 Johns. 255. Followed with Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Id. 453 (Owner- ship of road, &c, dividing two tracts of land) in Witter v. Harvey, 1 McC. (So. Car.) 67; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 650. Followed (Description in deed, of a line as running uj) or down river, &c.) in Pike v. Monroe, 36 Me. 309; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 751. V. Lucett, 2 Cai. 363. Approved with Williams ». Jackson, 5 Johns. 489 ; Van Gordon v. Jackson, 5 Id. 440 (Construction of grants of determinate breadth extending along river or other irregular l'ine) in Win- throp v. Curtis, 3 Oreenl. (Me.) 110; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 210. ■ v. Lun n, 3 Johns. Cas. 109. Explained and disting'd with Doe v. Phelps, 9 Johns. 169; Jackson v. Lamb, 7 Cow. 431 (Effect . of recitals'.in deeds) in McKinnon v. Bliss. 21 N.. Y. 206. Overruled (Inheritance by alien) in Orser v. lloag, 3 Dill, 79. Quoted and collated with other other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 507. Disting'd (Evidence of title, furnished by acts of ownership and possession of lands) in Thompson v. Burhans, 79 Jf. Y. 107. Approved with Jackson v. McCall, 10 Johns. 377; Clinton v. Campbell, Id. 475; Jackson v. Russell, 4 Wend. 543 (Presumptions re- specting conveyances, arising from long possession) in Stevenson's Heirs v. McReary, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 9; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 102, 107. v. Luquere, 5 Cow. 221. See Hewlett v. Cock. Followed, but dictnm doubted in subsequent decision arising under same will,— in Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119. v. McCall. 10 Johns. 377; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 343. See Jackson v. Bard ; Jackson v. Lunn ; Waring v. Warren. Followed, and explained as not conflicting with Shepherd v. Thompson, i If. 11. 213 (Statements by deceased owner of land, — effect of, as bind- ing on heirs) in Pike v. Hayes, 14 N~. H. 19 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec: 171. Relied on with Jackson v. Murray, 7 Johns. 5; Jack- son v. Hudson, 3 Id. 375 (Long-continued possession when presumed to have been lawful in origin) in University of Vt. v. Reynolds' Ex'r, 3 Vt. 542; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 234, 243. Disting'd with Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. 381 (Presumption of grant, derived from lapse of time) in Campbell v. Smith, 3 Dalst. (if. J.) 140; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 400, 407, 414. Cited in 1 Taylor on En. 145. r. McChesney, 7 Cow. 360 ; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 521, with note; wherein it is thought to be ful'y supported by Wood v. Chapin, 13 If. Y. 509 (Acknowledgment in deed, of receipt of consideration, as jirima facie evidence that grantee is purchaser for value). See however doubts expressed in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 234; Peck v. Ma.l- lams, 10 If. Y. 528. Compare Morse v. Shattuck, 4 If. H. 229; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 419. See also 2 Co. 70 a. with learned note (G. 1), and references. Criticised with Wood v. Chapin in Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 418. See also dissenting opinion, p. 425. Compare 2 Whart. Com. on Ed. § 1043. v. M'Connell, 12 Wend. 421; s. c, 12 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 180, with briaf note. Subsequent decision in proceedings between same parties, in. 19 Wend. 175. See Baldwiu v. Brown ; Barber v. Harris ; Torrcy v. Torrey. Decision in 19 Wend, crit- icised and disapproved as not sustained by the cases relied upon (Power of husband over estate held by him and wife as tenants by the entirety) in Chander v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 891, 402. Cited in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 260, as in conflict with the doctrine there maintained. v. McKenny. See Jackson v. Dunsbagh. V. McVey, 18 Johns. 330. Cited (Wit- ness not to be discredited by failure to recall the precise terms of written paper as to which he is testifying) in 1 Whart. Com. on Mv. § 412. 382 JACKSON. T. Malin, 15 Johns. 293. See Eees v. v. Overbaugh. Overruled (Devise as avoided by alteration in will) in Herrick v. Malin, 22 Wend. 388. v. Marsh, 6 Cow. 281. See Loomls v. Jackson. Applied (Grant, -when not frus- trated by addition of false description) in Morton v. Jackson, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 494: s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 107, with note. v. Mather, 7 Cow. 301. Commented on (Fraud in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 339, 4 ed. — — y. Matsdorf, 11 Johns. 91 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 355. See Boyd v. McLean. Explained as not authority since R. S. (Resulting trust in favor of person paying considera- tion on sale of lands) in Everett v. Everett, 48 N. Y. 218, 223. Followed with Jack- son v. Wright, 14 Johns. 93 (Mortgagee when estopped by covenant of warranty) in Rigg®. Cook, 4 Qilm. (111.) 336; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 462, 470, with note. Cited with Jackson v. Wright, in 1 Taylor on Ev. 109. v. Merrill, 6 Johns. 1S5 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 213. Followed with Fox v. Phelps, 17 Wend. 393; 20 Id. 437 (When fee passes by will) in Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Penn. St. 87; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 634, with note. t. Miller, 6 Cow. 751. Affd in 6 Wend. 228; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 310. Deci- sion in Id. commented on (Partition of land, when to be presumed) in Kincaid v. Meadows, 3 Head (Tenn.) 188. v. , 7 Cow. 747. See Jackson v. Moncrief. t. Moncrief, 5 Wend. 26. Followed with Jackson v. Miller, 7 Cow. 751 (Eject- ment, without notice to quit, against one in • possession under contract to purchase) in Chapman, v. Glassell, 13 Ala. 50 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 41, 44, with note. V. Moore, 6 Cow. 706. Rev'd in Moore v. Jackson, 4 Wend. 59. See Mann v. Pear- son; Steere «. Steere. Explained and dis- ting'd (Eftect of mistake in description in conveyance) in Belknap v. Lealey, 14 N. T. 143. Approved in Johnson v. Simpson, 36 v. , 13 Johns. 513; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 398. Cited with other cases in 36 Am. Dec. 68, n., as indicating the position sustained by the weight of authority (Running of statute of limitations in case of descent to infant heir). Collated with Fleming v. Griswold, 3 Hill, 85, and other cases, in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 cd. § 116. v. Morse, 16 Johns. 197; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 306. Followed (Resulting trust) in Arnote. Beadle, Hill & D. 181. Followed with Rogers v. Murray, 3 Paige, 3C8 : Green e. Drummond, 31 Mel. 71 ; s. c, 1 Am. JR. 14, 17. v. , 18 Johns. 441. See Varick v. Tallman; Wheeler 0. Anthony ; Woodcock Bennett. v.- Murray, 7 Johns. 5. Trial at nisi prius reported in Anth. K P. 143. See Jackson v. McCall. r. , 12 Johns. 201. See Jackson «. Bull. v. , 1 Cow. 156; s. c, 13 Am. Dee. 517. Commented on (Amendment enabling defense of statute of limitations to be set up) in Beach v. Fulton B'k, 3 Wend. 586. v. Myers, 3 Johns. 388 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dee. 504. See Jackson v. Clark ; Smith v. Bur- tis. Commented on (Agreement to convey) in Jackson 0. Blodget, 16 Johns. 172. Re- ferred to as a leading case (When words of present grant do not convey title) in 48 Am. Dec. 45, n. Collated with other cases (En- larging estate in fee) in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Heal Prop. 55. Explained (Uses in real property) in 2 Washb. on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 450. v. , 18 Johns. 525. Applied (RighJ; to show fraudulent character of deed) in Smith v. Salomon, 7 Daly, 216, 222. Relied on (Who entitled, as creditor, to show conveyance to be fraudulent) in Hutchison v. Kelly, 1 Rob. ( Va.) 23 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 250. 259. — t. Neely, 10 Johns. 374. Doubted (Effect of depositing conveyance that recites power of attorney) in Wendell u. Wadsworth, 20 Id. 659 ; Jackson v. Bowen, 6 Cow. 146. — ■ v. Nestles, 3 Johns. 115. Approved and applied (Trial of right to office of trus- tees of religious corporation) in Parish of Bellport v. Tooker, 29 Barb. 256. 276. — v. Newton. See La Frombois i>. Jack- son. — v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 Sup'm. Cl. (T.& C.) 653. Aff'd in 58 N. T. 623, on opinion below. See Duncomb v. N. Y. Housatonic, &c. R. R. Co. T. >'. Y. Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Cas. 191. See D'uguet v. Rhinelander. Overruled (Neutral character of property held by naturalized citizen) in Duguet v. Rhine- lander, 2 Johns. Cas. 466 ; s. c, 1 Cai. Cas. XXV. v. Olitz. See Jackson 0. Dieffendorf. v. Osborn, 2 Wend. 555 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 649. Followed (Witness not to be impeached by proof of particular fact) in Berncr v. Mittnacht, 2 Sweeny, 582. Com- mented on in 1 Best on £v. § 130, 11. a, Wood's ed. Reviewed with other cases (Presumptions arising from erasures and interlineations) in Bailey v. Taylor, 11 Conn. 521 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dee. 321, 325. Ex- plained in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1163, n. c, 11 Am. ed. v. Page, 4 Wend. 585. Relied on with Swan v. Saddleinire, 8 Id. 670 (Title of pur- chaser at execution sale, when not invali- dated by variance between judgment and execution) in Sprott v. Reid, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 489; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 549. — v. Parker, 9 Cow. 73. See Foote «. Colvin. Disapproved (Possession of land under, contract for purchase-, subject to levy JACKSON. SS3 and sale on execution) in Kerchnal s.Wood, 3 Mich. 513. Disting'd in Rhea v. Hughes, 1 Ala. 219 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 772, as not applicable to case of mere permissive occu- pation. v. , 3 Johns. Cas. 134. See Smith v. Burtia. v. Parkhurst. See Denn v. Cornell. v. Pearcc. See Jackson v. Dysling. v. Peck. See Jackson v. Fish. v. Perkins, 2 Wend. 308. Applied (Rec- ord of deed as evidence of its delivery) in Lawrence «. Farley, 24 Hun, 293, 295. Re- viewed with Gilberts. North Am. F. Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 43; Jackson v. Phipps, 12 Johns. 418; Jackson v. Richards, 6 Cow. 017, and other cases in Union Mut. Ins. Co. a Camp- bell, 95 111. 267; s. c , 35 Am. It 166, 168. V. Phillips, 9 Com. 94; s. a, 9 XT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 578, with brief note on un- recorded deeds. Disapproved (Who is sub- scribing witness) in Hollenbach u. Fleming, 6 Hill, 303. Overruled (Comparison of sig- natures) in Miles v. Loomis, 75 N. Y. 288, 293. v. Phipps, 12 Johns. H8. See Jackson ». Perkins. Followed (What is insufficient delivery of deed) in Barns v. Hatch, 3 If. II. 304; B.C., 14 Am. Dec. 369, with note; Herbert ». Herbert, Breese (HI.) 354; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 192, 197. See also Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Muss. 307; s. c, 12 Am. Dec.GT. Disting'd in Merrills v. Swift, 18 Conn. 257; s. c, 46 Am. Dee. 315, 318. v. Pierce, 2 Johns. 221. See Town of No. Hempstead v. Town of Hempstead. v. , 10 Johns. 414. See Baileys. Jack- son. Followed with Bailey «. Jackson, 16 Johns. 214 (Lapse of time as presumptive bar to action) in Gulick «. Loder, 1 Green L. (If. J.) 68; s. c. 23 Am- Dec. 711, with note. Criticised (Mortgagee as bound by partition made by mortgagor) in Col- ton v. Smith, 11 Pick (Mass.) 311; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 375. Disting'd (Mortgage of in- terest of one of two or more trnants in com- mon) in Green v. Arnold, 11 B. I. 364 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 466, 469. v. Pike, 9 Cow. 69. See (consideration to support deed of real property) Spalding v. Hallenback, 30 Barb. 292, 298 Ex- plained in 3 Washb. on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 370. v. Plumbe, 8 Johns. 378. See Bank of Michigan v. Williams; Bank of Utica i). Smallcy ; Dutchess Cotton Manufactory n. Davis. Denied with Bank of Auburn s. Weed, 19 Johns. 300; Clark v. Niblo, 6 Wend. 236; Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 2 Cow. 770; Proprietors, &c. of. Southold v. Horton, 6 Hill, 501 (Necessity that corpora- tion suing prove its existence, &c. under general issue) in Alderman v. Finley, 10 Ark. 423; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 244, with note ; as contrary to principle and author- ity. Reviewed and criticised with Over- seers of Stephentown D.Whitman, 15 Johns. 208 ; Bank of Auburn v. Aiken, 18 Id. 137; Same v. Same, 19 Id. 300 ; in Prince v. Com'l Bank of Columbus, 1 Ala. 241 : s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 773, 776. Compare Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 4 Pet. 450. v. Post, 9 Cow. 120. Subsequent deci- sion in 15 Wend. 588. See Jackson «. Bur- gott. Decision in 9 Cow. explained (Purcha- ser at judgment sale as affected by prior conveyance by judgment debtor) in Jackson v. Chamberlain, 8 Wend. 026. Followed ■with Jackson v. Burgott, 10 Johns. 461 (Effect of unrecorded deed) in Floyd v. Ricks, 14 Ark. 280; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 379. De- cision in 15 Wend, applied (Sheriff's deed as subject to prior equity) in Sieman v. Aus- tin, 33 Barb. 19. Commented on and ex- plained in Hooker v. Pierce, 2 Hill, 651. Applied (Effect of notice of deed) in Van Rensselaer v. Clark, 17 Wend. 30. Applied (Effect of voluntary conveyance of debtor) in Dunlap v. Hawkins, 59 if. Y. 342, 347. T. Potter, 9 Johns'. 312. See McKin- non v. Thompson. Compared with other cases (Formalities necessary to republica- tion of will) in Carey v. Baughn, 36 Iowa, 540; s. c, Am. S. 534, 537. v. , 4 Wend. 672. See Smith v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Collated with Saun- ders v. Springsteen, 4 Wend. 429 ; Smith v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 43 Barb. 225 ; Wil- kins v. Earle, 44 JV. Y. 172 ; Nixon v. Palmer, 10 Barb. 175 ; Walrod v. Ball, 9 Id. 271 ; Cooper v. Dedrick, 22 Id. 516 ; Smith «. Smith, 4 Paige, 432 ; People v. McLeod, 1 Hill, 407; Gelston v. Hoyt, 1 Johns. Ch. 543; People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351, and other authorities (Presumption of continuance) in 28 Alb. L. j. 284. v. Pratt. 10 Johns. 381. See Bissell v. Kip ; Jackson v. McCall ; Jackson v. Street- er ; Jackson v. Willard ; Raynor v. Wilson. Reviewed and disting'd with Jackson t>. Streeter, 5 Cow. 530, and other cases (Re- citals in sheriffs deeds) in Tanner v. Stinc, 18 Mo. 580 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 320. Fol- lowed with Jackson v. Jones, 9 Cow. 182, in Doe v. Rue, 4 Blaclcf. (Ind.) 263; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 368, 371, with note. Follow- ed with Jackson v. Davis. 18 Johns. 7, in Armstrong v. McCoy, 8 Ohio, 128 ; s. c , 31 Am. Dec. 435, 437. Disting'd with Jackson i>. Jones, on statutory grounds, in Den v. Despreaux, 7 Ilalst. (if. J.) 182; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 485, where Jackson v. Hasbrouck, 12 Johns. 213, was cited as au- thority. v. Ramsay, 3 Coin. 75; s. c. 15 Am.. Dec. 242, with note. See Johnson v. Staggj Applied with Heath v. Ross, 12 Johns. 140 (Doctrine of relation) in Stout v. Keyes, 2 Doug. (Mich.) .184; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 465, 468, with note. Followed in Clark f.West, 23 Mich. 242. Cited as authority with Van Rensselaer v. Sheriff of Onondaga, 1 Cow. 449; .in Whipple v. Farrar, 3 Mich. 447. Though subsequently modified by statute, said in 15 Am. Dec. 255, n., to have been referred to in many cases in N. Y. and else- where as an authority. See many other 384 JACKSON. citations in same note. [Owing to mistake in printing the ■ original report, this case is sometimes erroneously cited as Jackson v. McMichael, or Jackson v. McCall. ] v. Ransom, 18 Johns. 107. Followed (Extrinsic evidence as to what figure in in- strument was intended to be) in Arthur v. Roberts, 62 Barb. 580. v. Raymond, 1 Johns.Gas. 85. Followed with Jackson s. Bull, Id. 81 ; Heath v. Ross, 12 Johns. 140 (Relation back of deed) in Ferguson v. Miles, 3 Gilm. (III.) 358; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 702, 706, with note. i v. Rayuer, 12 Johns. 2!)1. See Simpson v. Patten. Limited (Original and collateral promises to pay debt of another) in Mal- lory v. Gillett, 21 K Y. 412, 426, 444. Approved and relied on with Leonard v. Vredenbergh, 8 Johns. 29 ; Farley v. Cleve- land, 4 Cow. 432 ; in Nelson ». Boynton, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 396; s. c, 37 Am. Dee. 148, ■with note. Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 170, 4 ed. • v. Richards, 2- Cai. 343. See Osborn v. Moncure. Recognized as authority but disting'd (Insolvency of maker, &e. of note, as excuse for notice of non-payment) in Barton v. Baker, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 334 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 620. Relied on by Hos- meb, J., in Buck v. Cotton, 2 Conn. 126 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 2"il. Quoted with cases to the contray in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 379. v. , 6 Cow. 617. See Jackson v. Perkins. • v. Richtmyer, 13 Johns. 367. Afi'd in 16 Id. 314. V. Roberts, 7 Wend. 83. Aff'd in 11 Id. 422. See Benham v. Cary. Decision in 7 Wend, followed with Jackson e. Cadwell, 1 Cow. 644 (Conclusiveness of sheriff's deed) in Newton v. State B'k, 14 Ark. 9; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 363, with note. Followed with Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johns. 167; Jackson ». Sternberg, 20 Id. 49, in Reed v. Austin's Heirs, 9 Mo. 722 ; v s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 336, 341, with note. Decision in 11 Wend, applied to collector's sale in Alexanders. Walter, 8 Gill. (Md.) 239; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 68a, 700, withnote. Collated with Varick «. Tallman, 2 Earb. 117; Harringtons. People, 6 Id. 611; Hoyt v. Dillon, 19 Id. 644, and other cases, in 17 Am. Dec. 505, n., as establishing the rule that neither a tax deed nor its recitals are evidence of compliance with the statutory requisites; Sharps. Speir, 4 Hill, 86, being approved as containing a clear and cogent statement of the principles on which this doctrine is based, and Jackson v. Shepard, 7 Cow. 88, being said to be at variance with various cases cited. v. Robins, 15 Johns. 169. Aff'd in 16 Id. 537. Sec Jackson ». Bull; Jackson v. Delancey. Decision in 16 Johns, followed (Fee when carried by creation of interest with power of disposal) in McDonald v. Wal- grove, Sand/. Gh. 278 ; Bradstreet v. Clarke, 12 Wend. 662. Cited and Jackson v. Cole- man, 2 Johns. 392, disting'd in Burleigh v. Clough, 52 N. H. 267; s. c, 13 Am. li. 23, 27, 32, 39. Examined and approved as a well-considered case in Rubey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 112, with ex- tended note. Followed in Smith v. Starr, 3 Whavt. (Pa.) 62; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 498, 500, with note; Reinders v. Koppelmann, 68 Mo. 482; s. c, 30 Am. R. 802. Com- pare 4 Kent Com. 319, 320; 2 Jarm. on Wills, 268, n. 1 ; and 295, n. 1, 5 Am. ed. ; Redf. on Wills, 2 ed. 277; Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500-504. Approved and applied (Ef- fect of judgment on scire facias) in Thomp- son v. Hammond, 1 Edw. 504. Examined (Effect of sale under irregular execution) in Woodcock v. Bennet, 1 Cow. 737. Fol- lowed in Mitchell v. Evans, 5 How. (Miss.) 548; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 169; Byers v. Fow- ler, 12 Ark. 218; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 271, 277, with note; Simonds s. Catlin, 2 Cai. 61, being disting'd as a case of .a void exe- cution. Followed with Thompson e. Skin- ner, 7 Johns. 556 (When by reason of lapse of time judicial proceedings will not be set aside for irregularity) in Ingram o. Belk, 2 Strob. (So. Car.) 207; s. c. 47 Am. Dee. 591, 595. v. Robinson, 4 Wend. 436. See Bloom v. Burdick. Followed (Necessity of proof of surrogate's jurisdiction) in People ex rel. Meyer ». Hartman, 2 Sweet.y, 576. Ap- proved in preference to Hannum v. Day, 105 Mass. 33, 35 (Validity of license to one of several administrators or executors to sell real estate) in 7 South. L. Rec. N. S. 647. v. Rogers, 1 Johns. Cas. 33; s. c, 2 Cai. Cas. 314; 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 233, with brief note on parol gifts of land. See Jackson v. Bradt. Explained (Adverse possession) in Ana. on. Limit. § 407, 6 ed. T. Root, 18 Johns. 60. Explained (Uses in real property) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 450. v. Rosevelt, 1 3 Johns. 97. See Jackson v. Delancey. Approved but disting'd (Rights under purchase at sheriff's sale) in Arm- strong v. Jackson, 1 Black, (jnd.) 210; s. c, 12 Am: Dec. 225. Applied in Rector v. Hartt, 8 Mo. 448 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 650, 658, with note. T. Rowan. See Smith v. Stewart. v. Rowland, 6 Wend. 666 ; s. c, 10 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1231, with brief note on escrow. Applied (Tenant, when not to dispute his landlord's title) in Bigler®. Fur- man, 58 Barb. 555; Hilton v. Bender, 2 Hun, 5; Despard v. Walbridge, 15 A 7 . Y. 377. Cited as authority with Nellers -n. Lathrop, 22 Wend. 121, in Beall v. Daven- port, 48 Ca. 165; s. c, 15 Am. R. 656, 658. Compared (Defenses in ejectment against tenant of mortgagor) in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 151. v. Riimsey, 3 Johns. Gas. 234. Applied (Probate of will as evidence) in Bailey o. Stewart, 2 Redf. 212, 232. v. Russell, 4 Wend. 543. Aff d as Bus- JACKSON. 385 sell v. Jackson, in 22 Wend. 276. See Jackson v. Lunn. Decision in 4 Wend. explained (Sufficiency of search for missing paper) in Josuez «. Conner, 7 Daly, 443, 454. v. Sackett, 7 Wend. 94; s. c, 11 1ST. Y Com. L. Law. ed. 66, with brief note. Questioned (Presumption of payment of mortgage) in Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Paige, 470. Questioned and disting'd in Belknap v. Gleason, 11 Conn. 160; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 721,' with note. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. § 73, 6 ed. Criticised and compared in 14 Alb. L. J. 209. T. Sample, 1 Johns. Cos. 231. Eelied on (Right of one of several tenants in com- mon to recover on his separate demise) in Bawls v. Doe ex dem. Kennedy, 23 Ala. 240; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 289. v. Schauber, 4 Cow. 78. Quoted (Con- solidation of actions of ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 638. v. , 7 Cow. 187. Rev'd in 2 Wend. 13. Decision in 7 Cow. explained (Effect of direction in will for executors to sell lands) in Moncrief o. Ross, 50 N~. Y. 431. Followed in Doe v. Lanius, 3 Ind. 441 ; s. C, 56 Am. Dec. 518. Disting'd (When heir may be disinherited by implication) in dissenting opinion of Tucker, P., in Bois- seau v. Aldridges, 5 Leigh (Va.) 222; 8. c, 27 Am. Dec. 590, 604, with note. V." ,4 Wend. 216. Approved (Stay of proceedings, until payment of costs) in Pelt v. Amidon, 48 Wis. 66, 74. v. Sclioon maker, 2 Johns. 230. See Johnson v. Camp. Explained (Inclosure requisite for purposes of adverse possession) in Trustees of East Hampton «. Kirk, 84 N. Y. 215, 220. Criticised in Conyers v. Kenan. 4 Ga. 308; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 226, 230, with note, as laying down too strict a rule. Approved in Bailey «. Irby, 2 Noit. & McC. (So. Car.) 343; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 609. Followed in Kennebec Purchase v. Saboree, 2 Oreenl. (Me.) 275 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 79, 97. Applied with Jackson v. Warford, 7 Wend. 65, in Smith i>. Hosmer, 7 A 7 . H. 436; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 354,' with note. Applied (Parol evidence to control date of deed) in Barmore v. Jay, 2 McCofd (So. Car.) 371; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 736. V. , 4 Johns. 390. Followed with Jackson o. Sellick, 8 Johns. 262 : Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cow. 96 (Remaindermen, &c. not affected by running of statute of limi- tations) in McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 207; s. c.,'39 Am. Dec. 105, 172, with note. Explained in Ang. on Limit. §§ 371, 395, ed. V. Scliutz, 18 Johns. 174 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 1 95, with note. See De Peyster v. Michael. Limited and explained (Restraints on alienation) in Livingston n. Stickles, 1 Hill, 253 ; Ovcrbagh v. Patrie, 8 Barb. 28. Disapproved in Mandlebaum s. McDonell, 29. Mich. 78; s. c, 18 Am. It. 61, 77. Col- lated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. I.— 25 Lead. Cas. on Real Prop. 133. Discussed in 4 Kent Com. 124, n. c. y. Scott, 18 Johns. 94. Followed (Pos- session of land under contract of purchase is subject to sale under execution) in Jack- son v. Parker, 9 Cow. 73. See, also, For- syth v. Clark, 3 Wend. 637 ; Kellogg v. Wood, 4 Paige, 578; Ellsworth d. Cuyler, 9 Id. 418. v; Sebring, 16 Johns. 515; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 357, with note wherein it is said to have been followed in N. Y., N. H., Ohio and R. I., though not in Mass. (Considera- tion to support covenant to stand seized). See, on general subject, Cheney's Lessee v. Watkins, 2 Am. Dec. 530; Wallis v. Wallis, 3 Id. 210. Reviewed with other cases from N. Y., and elsewhere, in Thompson t. Thompson, 17 Ohio St. 649, 660 Disap- proved in Trafton v. Hawes, 102 Mass. 537; s. c, 3 Am. E. 497. Explained in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 372. v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., it N. Y. 274. Followed (Liability for acts of ser- vants) in Shea v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 5 Daly, 223, which was aff d in 62 N.-Y. 185; which see ; Hoffman v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1, 4. Disting'd in Hughes v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 36 Id. 222, 226. v. Sellick, 8 Johns. 262. See Jackson ■o. Schoonmaker. Applied (Adverse pos- session of wild lands) in Jackson v. Gil- christ, 15 Johns. 89, 117. Explained, in Ang. on Limit. § 483, 6 ed. v. Seward, 5 Cow. 67. Rev'd, in 8 Id. 406. Another proceeding concerning the same conveyance in 6 Paige, 02, which was affd in 18 Wend. 375: All these cases examined (Fraudulent convevance) in Bab- cock .«. Eckler, 24 IT. Y. 623^ 627. v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 163; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 267; 4 AT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 713, with brief note. See Bank of U. S. v. Davis; Brandt v. Ogden ; Byrne v. Van Hoesen v. , 14 Johns. 472. Overruled (Validity of conveyance by Indian) in Jack- son v. Goodell, 20 Id. 693. v. Shearman. See Brown v. Bowen. v. Sheldon, 9 Abb. Pr. 127. Qualified (Equality among creditors) in Artisan's Bank a. Treadwell, 34 Barb. 553, 563. Quoted (Receiver of partnership) in High on Eeceiv. § 508, n. 2. v. SUepard, 7 Cow. 88; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 502, with note. See Jackson v. Cad- well ; Jackson v. Roberts. Followed (Pro- visions of statute directing tax sale, to be strictly construed) in Scales v. Alves, 12 Ala. 617; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 269. v. Sidney. See Same v. Woods. v. Sill, 11 Johns. 201, with note, wherein it is referred to as a very strong case (Inadmissibility of parol evidence as to testamentary provisions). See Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum v. Emmons. Fol- lowed and approved in Brown v. Salton- stall, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 427; Tucker v. Sea- 386 JACKSON. man's Aid Society, 7 Id. 208. Cited as authority with Mann v. Mann, 1 Johns. Ch. 231, in Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 HI. 514; s. c, 8 Am. R. 665, with note. Applied (False description when immaterial) in Sharp ■». Dirnmiek, 4 Lans. 496, 499. v. Silvernail, 15 Johns. 278. Applied (What is breach of covenant against sale, &c ) in Hammel v. Queen's Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 72, 77. v. Slater. See Jackson v. Henry. v. Staats, 11 Johns. 337; s. ft, 6 Am. Dec. 376. See Jackson v. Blanshan. Cited with Moffat v. Strong, 10 Johns. 12 (Effect of limitation over in case of death of first taker without issue) in Deihl v. King, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 29; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 407, 410. v. Stanley, 10 Johns. 133; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 319. Questioned with Jackson v. Cody, 9 Cow. 140 (Impeaching grant collaterally) in Sykes v. Mcltory, 10 Ca. 465; s. c, 54 Am/Dec. 402, with note. Compare Winter v. Jones, 10 Oa. 190; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 379, with note.. v. Sternberg. See Jackson v. Roberts. v. Sternbergh, 1 Johns. Cos. 153. Fol- lowed (Sheriff's return on execution sale not essential to validity of purchaser's title) in Mitchell v. Lipe, 8 Terg. (Tenn.) 179; s. e.j 29 Am. Dec. 116, with note. Relied on with Jackson v. Walker, 4 Wend. 462, in Brooks v. Rooirey, 11 Ga. 423; s. c, 56 . Am. Dec. 430. v. Stevens, 16 Johns. 110. See Beach v. Hollister. Followed with Rogers s. Benson, 5 Johns. Ch. 421 (Effect of conveyance to husband and wife) in Taul v. Campbell,. 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 319; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 508, 511, with note. Followed with Sutliff v. v. Forgey, 1 Cow. 89; Doe v. Howland, 8 Id. 277, in Brownson v. Hull, 16 Verm. 309; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 517; Gibson v. Zimmerman, 12 Mo. 385; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 168, 170, with note. Followed with Jack- son i>. Carey, 16 Johns. 305, in Den v. Har- denbergh, 5 Halst. (N. J.) 42; s. c, 18^.m. Dec. 371, 376, with lengthy note. Com- pare Co. Lit. §§ 29t, 065; 1 Co. 76, b. n. (D. I.); 2 Id. 5a 2nd; 2 Kent Com. 132; 7 Abb. N. C. 310, n.\ Abb. N. 7. Dig. Supp. 002, n. 3 ; Abb. Annwl Dig. 1882-3, 132, §28, collecting cases; Id. 242, § 16, n. See to the contrary Whittlesey c. Fuller, 11 Conn. 337; and sec Sauford v. Button, 4 Day, 310. • V. Stewart. See Adams v. Gilbert ; Jackson ». Demarcst. v. Stiles, 3 Cat. 93. Disting'd (Suffi- cient affidavit of merits) in Briggs v. Briggs, 3 Johns. 449. v. , 3 Cow. 356. Disting'd (Sepa- rate consent rules in ejectment) in Jackson v. Scoville, 5 Wend. 96. v. , 5 Cow. 282. See Wilkinson v. Johnson. v. , 10 Johns. 07. Explained (In- solvent's discharge as affecting right to come in and defend in ejectment) in Sedgw. &W on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 253. v. SI one, 13 Johns. 447. Followed (Conclusiveness of recovery in ejectment, as to right to recover mesne profits) in Drexel v. Man, 2 Penn. St. 271; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 195, 197, with note. Followed with Morgan v. Varick, 8 Wend. 587, in Trubee v. Miller, 48 Conn. 347; s. c, 40 Am. R. 111. v. Streeter, 5 Cow. 259. See Jackson D.Pratt. Followed with Jackson v. Joues, 9 Cow. 182; Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. 381 (Effect of mis-recital of execution, in sheriff's deed) in Howard v. North, 5 Tex. 290; 8. c, 51 Am. Dec. 769, 782. v. Striker. See Parsons v. Johnson. v. Swart, 20 Johns. 85. See Jackson v. Dunsbagh. Applied (Operation of deed as covenant to stand seized) in Eysaman v. Eysaman, 24 Sun, 430, 432. v. Tallmadge, 4 Cow. 450; s. c, 8 .ft". Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 446, with brief note. v. Thomas. See Byrne v. Van Hoesen; Jackson v. Waters. v. Thompson,,, 6 Cow. .118; s. c, 8 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 873. with brief note on construction of the word " children." v. Tibbitts, 9 Cow. 241 ; s. c, 9 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 628, with brief note as to possession by one tenant in common. Ex- plained in Ang. on Limit. § 429, 6 ed. v. Tiniiiierman, 7 Wend'43%. Explained (Contract for sale of goods) in Ghitty on Contr. 571 n. y\ 573, 11 Am. ed. Quoted (Fraud in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 339, 4 ed. v. Titus, 2 Johns. 430. Quoted (Effect of sealing and signing under statute of frauds) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 12a, 4 ed. v. Todd, 2 Cai. 183; s. a, 2 JUT. Y. Con. L. Law. ed. 381, with brief note. Quoted (Adverse possession) in Ang. on Limit. § 385, 6 cd. v. , 3 Johns. 300; s. c, 3 K Y. Com. L. Law.^d. 613, with brief note. V. , 6 Johns. 257. See Van Bramer v. Cooper. v. Topping, 1 Wend. 388; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 515. Denied with Cole v. Patterson, 25 Wend. 450 (Right of one of several heirs to maintain action affecting his separate portion) in Cruger v. McLaury, 41 N. Y. 219, 226. Cited with other cases (Entry as necessary to defeat estate, on breach of con- dition) in 9 Am. L. Peg. K S. 524. v. Town, 4 Cow. "599; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 405, with note. Commented on (Rights of purchaser under judgment, as against prior deed) in Jackson v. Chamberlain, 8 Wend. 626. v. Townsend (cited in 7 Wend. 379). Overruled (Resulting trust as defense in ejectment) in Moore v. Spellman, 5 Den. 225. v. Turner, 7 Wend. 458. Followed (What mortgage may be foreclosed by ad- JACKSON.' 387 vertisement) in Mowry v. Sanborn, 62 Barb. 223. v. Tnttle, 9 Cow. 233. Rev'd in 6 Wend. 213. See Lion «. Burtis. — — v. Van Antwerp, 1 Wend. 295. Over- ruled (Costs against landlord defending in name of tenant) in Livingston v. Clement, 1 Hill, 648. Approved in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kursch, 5 N. Y. 558. v. Van Corlear. See Terry v. Chandler. v. Vande.rheyden, 17 Johns. 167; s. c, 8 Am. Dee. 378. See Edwards ». Davis; Jackson e. Roberts. Applied (Estoppel arising from married woman's deed) in Mar- tin o. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 14. Cited as author- ity in Bank of America ». Banks, 101 U. S. 240, 246. Disapproved in Hill v. West, 8 Ohio, 222; 31 Am. Dec. 442, with note, as unsupported by American authority. Also denied as contrary to authority in King v. Eea,'56 Ind. 1, 18. Followed with Teal v. Woodworth, 3 Paige, 470 ; in Gonzales v. Hukil, 49 Ala. 260; s. c, 20 Am. B. 282. Referred to in 43 Am. Dec. 426, n., as a leading case, and holding a doctrine which is said to have been frequently affirmed. Said in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 210, to be in accordance with the general doctrine of the common law, though contrary to the decisions in some of the States. Quoted and discussed in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 114. Included with notes in Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf. &c. 310. - — v. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. 144. See Jack- son t>. Bard ; Sprague v. Duel. Applied with Babbott v. Thomas, 31 Barb. 271 (In- competency of wife as witness under Code Civ. Pro. § 829, by reason of interest) and Eckford v. DeKay, 6 Paige, 565 ; Farns- worth v. Ebbs, 2 Hun, 438. Disting'd in Scherrer v. Kaufman, 1 Dem. 39. S.ee to the contrar}' Steele v. Ward, 30 Bun, 555. Discussed with Delafield v. Parish, 25 N. Y. 34; Ea-n v. Snyder, 46 Barb. 232; Allen n. Public Adm'r 1 Bradf. 378; Gombault «. Public Adm'r 4 Id. 244 ; Jackson v. King, 4 Cow. 207; Phelan's Case. 9 Alb. Pr. 286 (Burden of proof of insanity in will con- tests) in 18 Cent. L J. 283. Quoted (Per- sonal disabilities of testators) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand & T. ed. 105, n. v. Van Hoesen, 4 Cow. 325. Included with note (Words of limitation in lease) in Sliarsio. & B. Cos. on Seal Prop. 191. v. Van Slyke, 44 Barb. 116. Further decision in 52 N. Y. 645. v. Valkeiibnrgh, 8 Cow. 260. Denied (Contructive notice) irv Williams ». Birbcck, Hoffm. 374. Explained in Williamson o. Brown, 15 N. Y. 356. Approved (Assignee, when not bound by notice to his assignor) in Bush v. Lathrop, 22 Id. 549. Disting'd in Schafer v. Eeilty, 50 hi. 208; Trustees of Union Coll. v. Wheeler, CI Id. 117; DeLancey r. Stearns, CG Id. 161 ; Westbrook v. Gleason, 79 Id. 31. Examined with other cases in Bank for Savings v. Frank, 45 Super. Ct. (J. S S.) 412. Rule herein declared obsolete in Decker v. Boice, 83 N. Y. 215, 219. Explained (Computation of time under stat- ute of limitation) in Ang. on Limit. § SO, n. 5, 6 ed. — v. Varick, 7 Cow. 238. Aff d in 2 Wend. 106. Decision in 7 Cow. followed (One who has iniroduced a witness cannot question his competency) in Stockton v. Demuth, 7 Watts. {Pa ) 39 ; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 735, with note. Explained (Interest in land capable of devise) 4 Kent Com. 512. — v. Verinilyea, 6 Cow. 677. Disting'd, and head-note said to be too broad (Effect of possession under lease, as adverse) in Bedell v. Shaw, 59 A". Y. 46, 50. — v. Vincent, 4 Wend. 633. See Jackson i). Collins. Explained (Effect of parol dis- claimer of landlord's title) in De Lancey v. Ganong, 12 Barb. 120, which was affd in 9 N. Y. 9, 23, 27. which see. — v. Virgil, 3 Johns. 540. See Laimbeer v. Allen. Applied (Sufficiency of signature) in Weisbrod v. Marquardt, 8 Abb. N. C. 243, 246. Disapproved with Millius v. Shafer, 3 Den. 60; Haff v. Spicer, 3 Cai. 190; in Wright v. Fallon, 47 Wis. 488. — v. Vosbnrgh, 9 Johns. 270 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 276. See Brown v. Bowen ; Jackson v. Haider. Discussed (Partition without deed) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 68, 4 ed. — v. Vredenbergli. See Jackson v. Bard. — v. Waldron, 13 Wend. 178. Afl'g Pel- letreau v. Jackson, 11 Id. 110. See subsequent decisions arising under same will in Edwards v. Varick, 5 Den. 664, 691, which rev'd Hoffm. 282. Decision in 13 Wend, explained and disting'd (Assign- ment of contingent interest) in Miller v. Emans, 1 9 N. Y. 384, 397. Criticised with Edwards *. Varick, 5 Den. 644, in Grayson o. Tyler's Adm'x, 80 Ky. 358, 361. Disting'd in 8 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 152. Explained in 4 Kent Com. 202, n. a. Applied (Es- toppel created by recital in deed) in Ester- brook v. Savage, 21 Bun, 145, 153. Ap- proved in Casey's Lessee v. Inloes, 1 Gill. (Md.) 430; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 659, 671, with note. Criticised (Proof of instrument in absance of subscribing witness) in 2 Taylor on En. 1583. — v. Walker. 5 Bill, 27. Affd in 7 Id. 387, the court being equally divided and no opinion reported. See Bissell v. Kip; Foote v. Colvin ; Jackson v. Cadwcll ; Jackson v. Stcrnbcrgh. Decision in 5 Hill, criticised and limited (Contract for election purposes, when illegal) in Hurley v. Van Wagner, 28 Barb. 112. Criticised with Hurley v. Van Wagner ; Sizer v. Daniels, 66 Id. 426, in Murphy v. English, 04 How. Pi: 302. Commented on in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 772, ??. 5. Included with notes in Brightly Cos. on Elect. 013. Col- lated with other cases (Lease for unlawful purposes) in McAdam on Landl. & T.% ed. 388 JACKSON". § 77. Explained (Consideration illegal by st&tute) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 459, n. d. -*-?- v. Walsh, 3 John*. 226. Sec Jackson v. . Demurest. Explained (Common seal of private corporation) in Ang. & A. on, Corp. § 225, 11 ed. Considered (Entries in books of corporation as evidence) in Id. § 679. v. , 14 Johns. 407. See Roberts v. Anderson. Discussed (Purchase by trustee or agent) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 88, n. o. v. Warford. See Jackson v. Schoon- maker. v. Waters, 12 Johns. 365. Explained (Possession when under claim of title, so as . to be adverse) in La Frombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 089, 606, 613. Relied on with Jack- son v. Thomas, 16 Johns. 293 ; Jackson v. Camp, 1 Cow. 605; La Frombois v. Jack- son, 8 Id. 589, in Link v. Doerfer, 42 Wis. 391 ; s. c, 24 Am. P. 417. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. § 411, 6 ed. v. Welden, 3 Johns. 283. Sec Hewlett v. Cock. Discussed (Effect of statute of limitations as to landlord and tenant) in Ang. on Limit. § 445, 6 ed. v. Wendell. See Wendell v. Jackson. v. Wheat. See La Frombois v. Jackson. v. Wheeler, 6 Johns. 271. See Jackson r>. Bryan. Followed with Jackson v. Deyo, 3 Johns. 422 (Tenant denying land- lord's title, not entitled to notice to quit) in Vincent?. Corbin, 85 21. C. 10S, 112. v. Wilkinson. See Jackson v. Bar- ringer.. Approved and followed (Construc- tion of grant) in Jackson v. Sprague, 1 Paine, 497. v. Wliitbeck, 6 Caw. 632; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 454. Disting"d (Adverse possession by tenant in common) in Kathan ». Rockwell, 16 Bun, 90. 92. Followed in Johnson v. Tou'lmin, 18 Ala. 50 ; s. c, 52 Am. Pec. 212, 214, with note. v. White, 20 Johns. 313. Discussed (Duty of allegiance) in 2 Kent Com. 41. ' — v. Willard, 4 Johns. 41. Applied (Mortgage as incident to debt) in Cooper v. Newland, 17 Abb. Pi: 344; Beck ». McGillis, 9 Barb. 55; Waring i>. Sn>ith, 2 Barb. Gh. 128; Campbell v. Parker, 9 Bom. 329 ; Jackson v. Blodgot, 5 Cow. 200 ; Purdy ■v. Huntington, 42 2T. Y. 346. Explained. (Passing of title to mortgage) in Trustees of Dnion College v. Wheeler, 01 Id. 118. Explained (Extent of interest of mortgagee of land) in Jackson v. Dubois, 4 Johns, 221. Applied in Phyfe v. Riley, 15 Wend. 255. •Followed with Hitchcock v. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290 (Mortgagor when to be deemed legal owner) in Perkins' Lessee . Davis, 1 8 Joans. 7; Jackson v. Blodget, 5 Cow. 202, be- ing also followed in Perkins' Lessee v. Dib- ble (Satisfaction of mortgage causes estate to revert to mortgagor without conveyance). Cited as authority with Hitchcock v. Harring- ton, 6 Johns. 294 ; Collins *. Torrey, 7 Id. 278 ; Jackson ». Pratt, 10 Id. 381 ; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 454 ; Giles v. Barremore, Id. 552; Aymar v. Bill, Id. 570 (When payment of mortgage will divest mortgagee of title) in Breckenridge-'s Heirs v. ' Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 236; s. c, 19 Am. Bee. 71, 90, with note. Relied on with Wilkes v. Fer- ris, 5 Johns. 335; Hagaman v. Jackson, 1 Wend. 502 (What is interest that may he sold on execution) in Bowman v. People, 82' III. 246; s. c, 25 Am. R. 316, 31 9. Applied to execution against trustee in Bostick v. Keizer, 4 J. J. Marsh (Ey.) 597 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 237, with note. v. Wilsey, 9 Johns. SSJ; s. c, tl T Com. L, Law. ed, 78^, with brief note. Commented oo (Right of tenant at will to notice to qirit) in Ang. on Limit. § 453, n. 1, 6-ed. — — t. Winne, TWend. 47; s. c, 22 Am. Bee. 563, with note, wherein it is said to be consid- ered one of the cases settling the propdsition in N. Y., that consent of the parties is the only requisite to the marriage contract. See Fenton v. Reed. V. Willow, 9 Cow. 18. See Jackson v. Fish. v. , 2 Johns:. 81. Quoted and dis- cussed (Ejectment by State or people) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 192. v. Wisebiirn, 5 Wend. 136. Disting'd (Power to extend statutory time for per- forming an act) in Burnham v. Hays, 3 Cal. 115 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 389, with note. v. Wood, 12 Johns. 73 ; 8. c, 5 F. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 307, with brief note. Explained (Necessity of seal for convey- ance) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 6, n. 1, 4 ed. v. — — , 12 Johns. 242; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 315. Collated with Livingston «. Living- ston, 4 Johns. Gh. 287 ; Dunham v. Minard, 4 Paige, 443 ; lleyer n. Pruyn, 7 Id. 465 ; Collins v. Tenney, 7 Johns. 279; Jackson is. Davies, 5 Cow. 130, and other authorities (Presumption of payment of mortgage) in 30 Alb. L. J. 85. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. § 454, 6 ed. v. , 24 Wend. 443. Quoted (In- terest on mesne profits) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 670. v. , 3 Wend. 27. See Wood v. Jackson. v. Woodruff, 1 Cow. 276; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 525. See Jackson v. Ellis. Applied (Necessity of actual occupancy to create adverse possession) in Lane v. Gould, 10 Barb. 257; J;.ckson v. Camp, 1 .Cow. 610; Pope v. llanmer, 8 Uun, 270, which was affd in 74 IT. Y. 244, which see. Approved and applied in Thompson v. Burhans, 61 Id. 69. Quoted in Ang. on Limit. \ 4n3, 6 ed. Applied- (Necessity of rightful title, to adverse possession) in La Frombois v. Jack- son, 8 Cow. 609; Swettenham t. Leary, IS Bun. 286 ; Proprietors of Enfield 1>. Day, 7 2V. 77. 457; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 360, 363. Quoted in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §§ 769, 774. JACKSON— JAMES. 3S9 V. Woods, 1 Johns. Cas. 163. Disap- proved with Jackson v. Durland, 2 Id. 314 (Wife as competent witness to will contain- ing devise to husband) in Sullivan ». Sulli- van, 106 Mass. 474 ; s. c, 8 Am. B. 356. v. , 5 Johns. 278. Relied on with Jackson v. Sidney, 12 Id. 185 (Recovery for several distinct parcels in one action of ejectment) in Den v. Snowhill, 1 Green. (if. J.) 23 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 496, 501. Fol- lowed and approved in Lessee of Bayard v. Colefax, 4 Wash. C. Ct. 38.' v. Woolsey, 11 Johns. 446. Denied (Purchase of ward's property by guardian) in Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 3G1, .379. Applied (When execution of deed may be presumed) in Armstrong ». McCoy, 8 Qhio, 128 ; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 435, with note. T. Wright, 14 Johns. *1U3. See Jackson ■o. Fish ■, Jackson v. Matsdorf. Followed with Jackson s. Hubble, 1 Cow. 616 (In- terest passing by deed containing no war- ranty) in Brace ». Luke, 9 Kaws. 201 ; s. c, 12 Am. R. 491. Jacobowski v. People, 6 Hun, 524. AfTd in 64 If. Y. 659, on opinion of Daniels, J., below. Decision in 6 Hun followed (What is a disorderly house) in Barnesciotta v. Peo- ple. 10 Id. 137, 139. Jacobs v. Hogan. 15 Hun, 197. Rev'd in 85 if. Y. 243. ■ v. Miller, 10 Hun, 230. Further pro- ceeding in 11 Id. 441. V. Moraiige, 1 Daly, 523. Rev'd (Re- lief against mistake of law) in 47 if. Y. 57. See Holdrodge v. Webb. v. Reinsen, 35 Barb. 384; s. c, 12 Alb. Pr. 390. Subsequent decision in 36 if. Y. 668. Decision in Id. quoted (Preferences in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in BurHU on Assign. § 160, 4 ed. Explained (Fraudulent debts) iu Id. § 117, n. 4. Jacobson v. Fountain, 2 Johns. 170. Dis- cussed (Exclusive right of fishery in navig- able waters) in 3 Kent Com. 417. v. Le Grange, 3 Johns. 199; s. c, 3 if. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 576, with brief note. Followed (Implied agreement for compen- sation for personal services) in Eagan v. Korgill, 1 Dem. 464, 468. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 54, n.f. Jacoby v. Johnston. See Larkin v. Robbins. Jacquin v. Buisson, 11 How. Pr. 387. Dis- cussed (Executor carrying on partnership) ' in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 178, n. 2, Wood's Am. ed. Jaeger v. Kelly, 44 How. Pr. 122. Aff'd in 52 if. Y. 274. Decision in Id. reconciled and approved (Proof necessary to invalidate sale as fraudulent against creditors) in Sher- man v. Hogland, 73 lnd. 477. Cited (Agent cannot establish agency by his own declar- ations) in Whart. Com. on Ay. § 103. Jafle v. Harteau, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 203. Aif'diuSO N. 1'. 398. Jaffray v. Brown, 74 N. Y. 393. Further proceeding in 17 Hun, 675. Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker, 43 Super. Ct. (J. SS.) 275. AfTd in 76 If. Y. 521. Decision in Id. quoted (Payment and ten- der) in 2 Ben], on Sales, § 1081 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). See, also, Id. § 1 110, n. p. James v. Andrews. See James v. Stull. v. Burcliell, 7 Daly, 531. AfTd in 82 If. Y. 108. v. Chalmers, 5 Sandf. 52. AfTd in 6 if. Y. 209. Decision in Id. followed (Actions by parties not in interest) in Eaton t. Alger, 57 Barb. 179. Explained as not in conflict with Brisbane v. Pratt, 4 Den. 63 (Effect of declarations of prior holder against holder for value) in Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 K Y. 548, 554. y. Cowing, 17 Hun, 256. Rev'd in 82 If. Y. 449. v. Delevan, 7 Wend. 511. Disting'd (Effect of failure of plaintiff to pay costs on discontinuance) in People v. Tweed, 5 Hun, 393. v. Hamilton, 2 Hun, 630; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 183. Aff'd, it seems, in 63 If. Y. 616, but without opinion. v. James, 4 Paige, 115. Explained, as turning on peculiar words in the will (Effect of residuary devise of real estate) in low- ers v. Smith, 10 Id. 193. Doubted in Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76, 102. Explained with Van Kleeck ■». Dutch Church, 6 Paige, 600 ; 20 Wend. 458, in Youngs v. Youngs, 45 W. Y. 254, 258. v. Le Roy, 6 Johns. 274. Aff'g Anth. If. P. 159. Decision in 6 Johns, followed (Right of owner of runaway apprentice to value of his service) in Trongott v. Byers, 5 Cow. 480, as applicable to slave. v. Johnson, 6 Johns. Ch. 417. Rev'd as James v. Morey, in 2 Cow. 246. See Bebee v. Bank of N. Y. ; Dey v. Dunham; Stafford t. Van Rensselaer; Wendell n.Wnds worth ; Decision in 2 Cow. reported in 14 Am. Dec. 475, 512, with note, wherein its doctrine as to merger is said to have been frequently cited and approved. Decision in 6 Johns, Ch. explained (Mortgage, as security for future advances) in Truscott v. King, 6 Barb. 350, which was rev'd in 12 If. Y. 147, 166, which see; Bank of Albion ». Burns, 2 Lans. 57. Examined with other cases in Ackorman v. Hunsicker, 21 Hun, 55, which was however rev'd in 85 If. Y. 43. Followed in Mclntyre v. Humphreys, Hoffm. 36; Curtis e. Leavitt, 15 if. Y. 209. Deci- sion in 2 Cow. disting'd in Mead v. York, 6 If. Y. 452. Followed with Brinkerhoft v. Lansing, 4 Johns. Ch. 73, in Commercial B'kt. Cunningham, 24 Pick. (Mass) 270; s. c. 35 Am. Dec. 322, with note. Cited as contrary to the prevailing authority in Jones on Chat. M. § 96, «. Both decisions exam- ined with other cases in Townscud v. Em- pire Stone-Dressing Co., Duer, 217. Applied in Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. 83. Decision iu 2 Cow. disting'd (Rights of assignee of mortgage) in Hartley v. Tatham, 10 Bosw. 282; Purser v. Anderson. 4 Kdw. 17, 21; Vanderkemp v. Skelton, 11 Paige, 390 JAMES— JAQUES. 37. Approved in Van Keuretl v. Corkins, C6 N. Y. 80. Criticised at length and referred to as overruled, — in Bush *. La- throp, 12 Id. 542. So referred to in Trus- tees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 Id. 88, 105. Both decisions applied (Necessity of recording conveyance intended as mortgage) in White v. Moore, 1 Paige, 554. Decision in 2 Cow. commented on (Judgment by confession — as to whom fraudulent) in Kendall v. Hodgkins, 7 Abb. Pr. 315. Applied (Merger of mortgage) in Casey v. Buttolph, 12 Barb. 639; Russell v. Austin, 1 Paige, 195; Mickles v. Towusend, 18 N. Y. 582 ; Champney v. Coopc, 32 Id. 548 ; Bascom v. Smith, 34 Id. 329. Approved and explained in Schermerhorn v. Merrill, 1 Barb. 516. Explained in Clift v. W'hite, 15 Id. 76, which was rev'd in 12 N. Y. 527, which see. Explained with Roberts v. Jack- son, 1 Wend. 484, in Decker v. Hall, 1 Edm. Set. Cas. 282. i Both decisions explained in Van Dyne v. Thayre, 19 Wend. 170. Deci- sion in 2 Cow. applied (Record, when not constructive notice) in Williams ». Birbeck, Hoffm. 369. Both decisions applied (Mort- gagee as bona fide purchaser) in Daly v. Matthews, 12 Abb. Pr. 407. jn. v. Patten, 8 Barb. 344. Rev'd in 6 K Y. 9; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 370, with note containing citations (Construction of stat- utes. How far decision is authority). See (Subscription required by statule of frauds) Vielie v. Osgood, 8 Barb. 130. v. Schmidt, 5 Alb. L. J. 216. Rev'd in 57 W. Y. 686. v. Stall, 9 Barb. 482. Aff'd as James v. Andrews, in Seld. Notes, No. 1, 6; s. c, 1 Liv. Law. Mag. 147. v. Stuyvesant, 3 Sanrtf. 665, n. See notes on this case in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 425. v. Woodruff, 10 Paige, 541. Aff d in 2 Den. 574, but without opiniou. Jauiiesou v. Jaiuieson, 53 How. Pr. 112; s. c, 11 Hun, 38. See also in 3 Abb. N; C. 3, n., affidavit on which order of arrest was granted. See Longendyke v. Longendyke. Jamison v. Cornell, -3 Hun, 557. Reported fully in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 628. Jandon v. Randall, 13 Weehly Dig. 37; s. c. in full, as Jandon v. Randall, 47 Super. Ct. (J.& S.) 374. ' Jansen v. Cairnes, 2 Barb. Ch. 350. Further decision as Emmons v. Cairns, 3 Barb. 243, which rev'd 2 Sandf. C%. 369. v. Stoutenbergh, 9 Johns. 369. Over- ruled (Action of debt again t sheriff for escape, cognizable in justice's court) in Brown v. Genung, 1 Wend. 1 15. Jaques'v. Greenwood, 12 Ahb. Pr. 232. Commented on (Assignment hindering and delaying creditors) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 341. v. Marquaiid. 6 Cow. 497. Explained, and dictum as to assent of partners, disap- proved (Liability of firm for money bor- rowed by member thereof) in Whittaker v. Brown, 16 Wend. 505. Disting'd and ex- plained in- Ontario Bank v. Hennessv, 48 . H. Y. 551. Followed with Nat. B'k of Sa- lem v.- Thomas, 47 Id. 15, in Peterson v. Roach, 32 Ohio St. 374; s. c, 30 Am. S. 607, 009. — v. Methodist Episcopal Chnrch, 17 Johns. 549; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 447, with note, wherein it is said to be one of the leading cases in the country. See Yale v. Dederer. Applied (Property rights of mar- ried woman) in Firemen's Ins. Co. of Al- bany «. Bay, 4 Barb. 413, which was aff d in 4 J¥. Y. 12, which see; Strong v. Skin- ner, 4 Barh. 553; Cruger v. Cruger, 5 Id. 268; American Home Miss. Soc. v. Wad- hams, 10 Id. 604; Colvin v. Currier, 22 Id. 380; Gage v. Daiichy, 28 Id. 625; Gibson v. Walker, 20 N. Y. 481 ; North Am. Coal Co. v. Dyett, 7 Paige^ 15, which was aff'd in 20 Wend, 573, which see. Examined at length with other cases in Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 42 N. Y. 629. Fol- lowed in Calhoun v. Calhoun, 2 Strobh. Eg. (So. Car.) 231; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 667. Cited with Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 526, and the latter preferred in Bank of Louisiana v. Williams, 46 Miss. 618 ; s. C, 12 Am. R 319, 325. Approved with Strong v. Skinner, 4 Barb. .546; Gardner v. Gardner, 7 Paige, 112; 22 Wend. 528; Curtis ii. Engel, 2 Sandf. Ch. 287 ; Dyett v. North American Coal Co., 20 Wend. 510; Knowles v. McKamly, 10 Paig#, 343; Yale v. Dederer, 18 K Y. 265; 22 Id. 450; in Kimm v. Weippert, 46 Mo. 532; s. c, 2 Am. R. 541, 550. Approved in Smith v. Thompson, 2 McArth. 291; s. c. 29 Am. R. 621, where decision in 3 Johns. Ch. was de- nied. Reviewed/ at length with Curtis v. Engel, 2 Sandf. 287 ; Yale v. Dederer, 18 N. Y. 265; '22 Id. 450; 68 Id. 329; Second Nat. B'k of Watkins «. Miller, 63 Id. 639 ; Corn Insurance Co. v. Babcock, 42 II. 013, in 5 Am. Dec. 589, »., as show- ing the fluctuating course and chaotic con- dition of the N. Y. decisions. Reviewed with Yale v. Dederer, 18 N. Y. 265 ; 22 Id. 450 ; 68 Id. 329 ; and many other cases from N. Y. and elsewhere, in extended note in 30 Am. Dec. 236 n. Disapproved in Mc- Clintic ». Ocheltree, 4 W. Va. 249. Ap- proved in Knowles v. Dodge, Sup'm. Ct. Dist. Columbia; 9 Wash. L. Rep. 227, 331. Discussed and commented on unfavorably in 2 Kent Com. 160. Discussed, and cases following it cited in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 154. Collated with cases pro and con from other States in 17 Cent. L. J. 27. Included with note in Dawson's Lead. Eg. Cos. Sim- plified, 77. Criticised (Implied restriction on power of alienation) in 1 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 667. Followed (Effect of appeal from final decree, in opening up prior orders) in Atkin- son v. Manks, 1 Cow. 702. Explained in Bank of Orange County v. Fink, 7 Paige, 93 ; Kane v. Whittick, 8 Wend. 233. Criti- cised (What is final decree) in Jenkins v. Wild, 14 Wend. 543 JAQUES— JENKINS. 391 v. Public Administrator, 1 Bratlf. 499. Compare (Marriage with lunatic) Stuckey v. Mathea, 24 Hun, 461, 463. v. Todd, 3 Wend. 83. Included with notes (Express and implied agent) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 670. Jarvis v. Drigjrs. 69 N. T. 143. Disting'd with Keogh v. Westervelt, 66 Id. 636 (What questions may be raised on appeal) as appli- cable only to the appellate power of the. Court of Appeals, in Mandeville v. Marvin, 30 Hun. 2S2. See to the contrary (Proof of tenancy) Boiler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523. See AM. Tr. Ed. 523. See to the contrary (Conclusiveness of record in summary proceedings, as to amount of rent) Brown v. Mayor &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 481. But see All. Tr. Ev. 528. T. Furman, 25 Hun, 391. Followed (Evidence of value) in Thorn v. Sutherland, Id. 435. v. Hatheway, 3 Johns. 180; s. c, 3 Am. Dee. 473. Followed (Language iu com- plaint by one church member against another — when is not libelous) in Remington v. Congdon, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 310; s. C, 13 Am. Dee. 431, with note. v. Peck, Hoffm. 479. Affd in 10 Paige, 118. See Van Marter «. Babcock. Decision in Hoffm. followed (Covenant, when not in restraint of trade) in Alcock v. Giberton, 5 Duer 76. Commented on in 2 Ghitty on Cont. 1001, n. h, 11 Am. cd. Decision iu 10 Paige followed (Effect of contract containing valid and invalid pro- visions) in Aruot r>. Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., 2 Hun, 591, 594. Doubted in 1 Pars, on Contr. 381, n. v. Janncey v. Thorne, 2 Barl. Ch. 40; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 424, with note wherein are collected citations. See Tarrant v. Ware. Followed (Proof to establish will) in Norton v. Norton, 2 Red/. 6, 13. Included with notes iu Rei/f. Lead. Cos. on Wills, 655. Commented upon in Id. 677. Collected with Nelson ». McGiffert, 3 Barl. Ch. 158 ; Thompson ■». Seastedt, 6 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & C.) 78; and other cases in 15 Am. Dec. 127, »., as showing the settled doctrine of most of the States (When will of realty may be established by oue only of attesting wit- nesses). Jay v. De Groot, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 670. Fully reported in 2 Dun, 205. Applied (One arguing motion is concluded by it) in Schrauth v. Dry Dock Savg's B'k, 8 Daly, 106, 109. v. Martine, 2 Duer, 654. See (Execu- tion after creditor's death) Code Cio. Pro. 1881, § 1376, n. Jaycox v. Caldwell, 37 How. Pr. 240. Aff'd in 51 N. Y. 395. Decision in Id. applied (Separate property of wife) in Treadwell v. Hoffman, 5 Dali/, 207, 212. v. Collins, 26 How. Pr\*496. Followed (Curtesy, as affected by statute) in Beamish «. Hoyt, 2 Robt. 307. Examined with other cases in Matter of Winne, 1 Bans. 508, 521, which was, however, rev'd in 2 Id. 21. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cm. on Real Prop. 239. Jefferson County Bk. v. Chapman. See Bank of Niagara v. McCracken. Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Cotlical, 7 Wend. 72 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dm. 567.' Reviewed with other cases (Opinions of witnesses as to what is material to risk), in Hartford Prot'n Ins. Co. v. Harmer, 2 Ohio St. 452; s. c, 5D Am, Dee. 084. Reviewed with Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend.Vil, 104; Fish v. Dodge, 4 Den, 311; Lincoln v. Saratoga & Schenec- tady R. R. Co., 23 Wend. 425; in Hills. Lafayette Ins. Co. 2 Mich. 476 (cited in 1 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 507). See to the contrary, casts cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 494, n. 1. Followed with Snyder v. Farmers' Ins. & Loan Co., 13 Wend. 92 (Warranty in fire policy not to be created by construction) in Hartford Prot'n Ins. Co. v. B.a.rmer u supra, 698 (59 Am. Dec.). Jeffres v. Cochrane, 47 Barl. 557. Affd. it seems, in 48 N. Y. 671 ; but without opinion. Decision in Id. disting'd (Application of doctrine of lis pendens to commercial paper, &c.) in Holbrook v. N. J. Zinc. Co., 57 Id. 616, 631. Jeffrey v. Bigelow, 13 Wend. 518; s. c , 28 Am. Dee. 476, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently cited. See Dunckle v. Kocker ; Tice v. Gallup. Com- mented on and explained with Sandford e. Handy, 23 Wend. 260. and other cases (Lia- aaility of principal for agent's deceit which he has neither authorized nor ratified) in Whart. Com-, on Ag. § 473. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 74, n. h. Discussed with numerous cases in Biqel. Cas. on Turtt, 24. Jcllin-liaiis v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 4 Sand/. 18. Further decision on the merits, in 6 Duer, 1 ; on the practice, in 5 Bosw. 678 ; and on the merits again, in 8 Id. 281. Jeiuison v. Citizens' Sav'srs Bk. of Texas, 24 Hun, 350. Rev'd in 85 N. Y. 546. Jencks v. Smith, 1 N. Y. 90, mem. s. c, 3 Den. 592 ; aff'g 1 Id. 580. See argument of counsel in Ct. of App. in How. App. Cas. 150. Jenkins v. Continental Ins. Co., 12 How. Pr. 66. Disapproved (Right" to compel assign- ment as flowing from right to redeem) in Ellsworth v. Lockwood, 42 N. Y. 89, 97. v. I)e Groot, 1 Cai. Cas. 122. Approved (Liability of separate estate of partner for firm debts) in Bardwell v. Perry, 19 Vt. 292: s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 687, 690, with note; Murray v. Murray, 5 Johns. Ch. 60, being referred to as f ullv and clearly stating the history of the subject. Collated with Hara- mersley v. Lambert, 1 Johns. Ch. 508; Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan House ■€. Lawrence, 11 Paige, 80; 2 Den. 577; Voorhis v. Childs, 17 N. Y. 354; Richter v. Poppenhausen, 43 Id. 74; Hoyt e. Bon- nctt, 50 Id. -538 ; Pope v. Cole, 55 Id. 124, and many other cases in 19 Cent. L. J. 467, 392 JENKINS— JENNINGS. where N. H., Vt., Conn., N. J., Ala., Ark., Tenn., Fla., Tex.„Ind., Miss., and 111., are said to authorize immediate remedy against the estate, while the contrary is held l>y N. Y., Ga., Wis., Penn., Ohio, and probably N. and S. Oar. Approved (Right arising from survivorship not favored by the courts) in dissenting opinion of Archer, J., in Waters Representatives «. Riley's Adm'r, 2 Harr. & O. (Aid.) 305; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 3C2, 309. - v. Fahey, 11 Bun, 351. Rev'd (Sale of estate in remainder belonging to infant) in 73 N. Y. 355, and so referred to in Matter of Haight, 14 Bun, 176 .See Code Civ, Pro. 1881, § 2348, n. v. Freyer, 4 Paige, 47. See McDowl v. Charles ; Marsellis v. Thalhimer. Collated ■with other cases (Who are comprehended in devise or bequest to " children" of a certain person) in 28 Am. B. 486, n. v. Pell, 17 Wend. 417. Aff d in 20 Id. 450. t. Union Turnpike Co., 1 Gai. Cas. 86 ; s. c, 2 N. Y. Gom. L. Law. ed. 724, with brief note. Rev'g Union Turnpike Co. ■». Jenkins, 1 Gai. 381 ; s. c, Col. & G. Cas. 264; also s. c, 2 A 7 . Y. Com. L.Law.ed. 193, with brief note. Both decisions explained (Liability on subscription to stock) in Fort Edward, &c. P'k Road Co. v. Payne, 17 Barb. 573 ; Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. - 493 ; Herkimer Manuf. &c. Co. v. Small, 21 Wend. 275. Applied in dissenting opin- ion in Knowlton v. Congress & Empire Spring Co., 57 A 7 . Y. 542. Decision in 1 Gai. discussed in Ang. on Corp. §§ 527, 530, 11 ed. Followed, as unaffected by reversal (Expectation of, profits, as consideration) in Smedes v. Utica B'k, 20 Johns. 382. Deci- sion in 1 Gai. Cas. doubted (Effect of statu- tory provision requiring payment on stock a"t time of subscription) in Rensselaer & W. Plank-road Co., 16 N. Y. 457, n. Explained in Dutchess Cotton Manuf. ». Davis, 11 Id. 238, 244, citing also Goshen, &c. Turn- pike Road v. Hurtin, 9 Id. 217. Relied on in Excelsior Grain Binder Co. V: Stayner, 25 Bun, 91, 95. Approved with Goshen Turn- jiike Co. v. Hurtin, 9 Johns. 218; Highland Turnpike Co. v. McKean, 10 Id. 154; Dutchess Cotton Manuf. Co. v. Davis, 14 Id. 238, in Southern Life Ins. and Trust Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 448. . Criticised and disapproved with .Highland Turnpike Co. «. McKean, 11 Johns. 98; Crocker v. Crane, 21 Weud.2ll, in Minneapolis & St. Louis R'y Co. v. Bas- sett, 20 Minn. 535; s. c, 18 Am. R. 376, where Beach v. Smith, 30 JV. Y. 116; Black River & Utica R. R. Co. ». Clarke, 25 Id. 208, were disting'd; and Rensselaer & Washington R. R. Co. v. Barton, 16 Id. 457, cited as doubting conclusion in Jen- kins v. Union Turnpike Co. Followed with Goshen Turnpike Co. v. Hurtin, 2 Johns. 217; Highland Turnpike Co. «. McKean, 11 Id. 98, in Hibernia T. Corp. v. Henderson, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 219; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 593, with note. See however dissenting opinion of Duncan, J. v. Van Schaack, 3 Paige, 242. .Disting'd (Conclusiveness of judgment in partition) in Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 N. Y. 427, 434. T. Waldron, 11 Johns. 114; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 359. Followed (Liability of inspector of election for refusing vote) in Goetchens v. Matthewson, 5 Dans. 217 ; People v. Boas, 29 Bun, 381. Followed in Wheeler v. Patterson, 1 JV. B. 88; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 41. Included with notes in Brightly Gas. on Elect. 190. Followed (Liability of officer having discretionary power) in McCormick v. Burt, 9 III. 163 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 163, 166. v. Wheeler, 4 Rolt. 575. AffM in 2 Alb. Ct. App. Dec. 442 ; s. c, 3 Reyes, 645. Jenks v. Brown, 4 Bun, 128. Aff'd in 66 JST. Y. 629. v. Hallet, 1 Gai. 60. Aff'd in 1 Cai. Cas. 43. y. Robertson, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 225. Aff'd. it seems, in 58 A 7 ". Y. 621, but without opinion. T. Smith. See Jencks ®. Smith. Jenner r. Joliffe, 6 Johns. 9. Subsequent proceeding in 9 Id. 381. These decisions explained and limited (Property in custody of law, not to be made subject of new and separate action) in Fairbanks v. Bloomfield, 5 Duer, 434. Jennery v. Olinstead, 24 Bun, 602; abridg't' s. c. as Jenney v. Olmstead, 12 Weekly Dig. 379. Rev'd in 90 N. Y. 363. Jennings, Ex parte, 6 Cow. 518; s. c, 8 if. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 991, with brief note ; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 447, with note (contain- ing citations) wherein it is said to have been frequently approved in N. Y. (Rights of riparion owners, in case of nou navigable stream) though its doctrine is thought by the editor not to be appKcable to large rivers, since People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 A r . Y. 468, which is referred to as according with the prevalent doctrine in the U. S. See Hooker v. Cumraings. Approved in Che- nango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 N. Y. 1 78, 185. Applied with Child v. Starr, 4:. Bill, 369; Halsey ». McCormick, 13 ^V. J'. 296, in Holbert v. Edens, 5 Lea (Tenn). 204; s. c, 40 Am: R. 26. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Bighw. 3 ed. 47. Jennings v. Camp, 13 Johns. 94; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 367, with note. See McMillan v. Van- derlip. Followed (Part performance of entire contract entitles to no recovery) in Winstead v. Reid, Busbee's (A 7 ! G.) L. 76 ; a. c, 57 Am. Dec. 571, with note. v. Chenango County Mut Ins. Co., 2 Den. 75. See Bidwell v. Northwestern Ins. Co. ; Brown v. Cattaraugus County Mut. Ins. Co. ; Farmers' Ins. & Loan Co. ». Snyder. Approved but disting'd (War- ranty as to condition of insured premises) in Gates v. Madison County Mut. Ins. Co., 2 AT. Y. 51; 5 Id. 473; Smith v. Mechanics' &c. Ins. Co., 32 Id. 401. Followed in Wil- JENNINGS-JETTEE. 393 son e. Herkimer County Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Id. 59 ; ChaflEee v. Cattaraugus County Mut. Ins. Co., 18 Id. 379. Applied in Bryce ». Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 401. Questioned and disting'd in Hartford Protection Ins. Co. v. Harmer, 2 Ohio St. 452; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 699, and thought to have been overthrown by Gates v. Madison, &c. Ins. Co., 2 N. Y. 43; 5 Id. 4G9; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 360.- Examined iff Glondale Manuf. Co. «. Protection Ins. Co., 21 Conn. 34. Cited as authority in Kelsey ■o. Universal Life Ins. Co., 35 Conn. 225. Applied (Whether warranty must be mater- ial) in Fitch v. Am. Popular Life Ins. Co., 2 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 252. Disting'd (Evi- dence of knowledge of parties to modify conditions of insurance policy) in Harris v. Columbiana Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 Ohio, 116 ; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 448, with note. Reviewed with Vandevoort v. Columbian Ins. Co., 2 Oai. 155 ; Plumb V- Cattaraugus Ins. Co., 18 K Y. 392; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 36 Id. 550; Rohrbach ». Germa- nia Ins. Co., 62 Id. 47, 63 ; Maher ». Hiber- nian Ins. Co., 67 Id. 283 ; Van Schoick o. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 68 Id. 438, in Frank- lin Fire Ins. Co. v. Martin, 11 Vroom (K. J.) 568 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 271, 277, as show- ing the law in N. Y. to be unsettled and unsatisfactory on this point. Followed and approved with Brown v. Cattaraugus Mut. Ins. Co., 18 iV. Y. 387 (Effect of knowl- edge by insurer's agent, of falsity of war- ranty) in Chase v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 20 Id. 56. Referred to with Brown «. Cat- taraugus County Mut. Ins. Co., in 2 Whart. Com. on En. § 1172, as qualifying the con- clusion there reached, but also referred to as overruled by later N. Y. cases. These two cases also criticised and disapproved in North American Fire Ins. Co. v. Throop, 22 Mich. 146; s. c, 7 Am. E. 638. Reviewed with Turlcy v. North Am. Ins. Co., 25 Wend. 374 (Construction to be put on stipulations in contract of insurance) in Hartford Protection Ins. Co., supra (59 Am. Dec. 697). Applied (Right of insured to repair) in Townsend -it. Northw. Ins. Co., 18 AC Y. 1$5. v. Confooy, 10 Eun, 77; Rev'd in 73 N. y. 230. v. Jennings, 5 Sandf. 174. Aft'd in 7 N. Y. 547. See Hone v. Van Schaick. De- cision in 5 Sandf. discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand and T. ed. 513, ra. t. Merrill, 20 Wend. 9. Cited with Cartwright v. Wilmerding, 24 JV: Y. 521 ; Walther v. Wetinore, 1 E. D. Smith, 7; Stevens «. Wilson, 6 Hill, 512 ; 3 Den. 472 ; Pogram «. Carson, 10 Bosw. 505, and other cases (Factor's statutory right to pledge) in Whart. Com. on Ag. §§ 753, 754. v. Whittemore, 2 Sup'm. Cl. (T. & C.) 377. Affd, it seems, in 58 N. J 7 : 675, but without opinion. Jermain t. Denniston. See Paige v. Cag- win. v. Pattison, 46 Barb. 9. Discussed (As- signee taking possession under assignment for benefit of creditors) iu Burrill on As- sign. § 374, n. 3, 4 ed. v. Worth, 5 Den. 342. Rev'd in Jer- main v. Denniston, 6 N~. Y. 276. Jcruiaine v. Waggener, 1 Hill, 279. Rev'd in 7 Id. 357. Jerome v. Boeram. See Krekeler v. Thaule. „. Koss, 7 Johns. Ch. 315; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 484, with note, wherein it is said to have been extensively followed. See Liv-_ ingstou v. Livingston. Denied (Necessity* that statute authorizing private property to be taken for public use, provide method for obtaining compensation) in Bloodgood v. Mohawk, &c. R. R. Co., 9 Wend. ; 18 Id. 9, 17. Applied (Injunction to restrain tres- pass) in Troy & Boston R. R. Co. v. Boston, Hoosac T &c. R'y Co., 86 N. Y. 107, 123; Quackenbush ». Van Riper, 2 Green. Ch. (N. J.) 350; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 716, 720, with note. Disting'd, and Stevens v. Beek- man, 1 Johns. Ch. 318, cited in Scudder v. Trenton Del. Falls Co. 1 Saxt. Ch. (N. J.), 694; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 756. Reviewed in White v. Flannigain, 1 Md. 525 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 668. Referred to in Smith v. Pet- tingill, 15 Verm. 82; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 667, as elaborately discussing the doctrine and placing it on its true ground. Followed and approved in Amelung v. Seekamp, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 468, 473. Quoted and explained in 1 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 713, n. 4. Jervis v. Smith, 7 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 217, Col- lated with other cases (Payment of dividends by assignee for benefit of creditors) in Bishop on Assign. § 398. Jessup v. Carnegie, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 260. Rev'd in 80 N. Y. 441. Another proceeding in 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 310. v. Hulse, 29 Barb. 539. Rev'd in 21 N. Y. 108. See Brigham v. Tillinghast. Decision in 21 iV. Y. followed as decisive (Validity of assignment for creditors, giving assignee discretion as to time of sale) in Benedict v. Huntington, 32 Id. 219, 225. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 209. Commented on and collated with other cases in Id. § 195. Jesnp v. Jones, 32 How. Pr. 191. See (Jurisdiction in supplementary proceedings as determined by residence of debtor) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2458, n. Jessurun v. Mackie, 24 Hun, 624; s. c, 61' How. Pr. 261. Appeal dismissed in 86 .V. Y. 022. Jetter, Matter of, 55 How. Pr. 67; s. c, less fully, 14 Hun, 93. Rev'd in 78 K Y. 601. Decision in Id. followed, but point not indicated, in Matter of Trustees of Pres- bytery of N. Y., 80 Id. 642. Jetter v. N. Y. & Harlem It. tt. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 458 ; s. c, 2 Keyes, 154. See Brown v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. Fol- lowed (Violation of ordinance, as evidence of negligence) in Devlin v. Gallagher, 6 Daly, 494. Limited and disting'd in Knup- 3M JEWELL— JOHNSON. fle «. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 N. 7. 488, 491. Cited as authority in Ryan v. Thom- son, 38 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 133, 135. Ap- proved in Baker v. Pendergast, 32 Ohio. St. 494; s. c, 30 Am. R. 620, 622. Cited as authority with McGrath v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 63 JST. Y. 522, in Meek «. Penn. R. R. Co., 38 Ohio St. 633. See cases collated (Contributory negligence of par- ents, &c.) in 6 Abb. N. 0. 115, n. Jewell v. Harrington, 19 Wend. 471. Ex- amined with other cases (Defences open to grantee who has taken subject to dower, mortgage, &c.) in Thomas on Mort. 298. v. Schroeppel, 4 Cow. 564. See Linn- ingdale ». Livingston. Commented on (Recovery for work done under special con- tract) in Pullman v. Corning, 9 N. 7. 93. Recognized as authority (Assumpsit, in case of parol contract, wherein are incorpor- ated stipulations of a deed) in Vicary v. Moore, 2 Watts (Pa.) 451 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 323, with note. y. Wright, 12 Abb. Pr. 55. Rev'd in 30 JST. 7. 259; s. c, 18 Abb. Pr. 80; 27 How. Pr. 481. See Bowen v. Bradley ; Cook v. Litchfield. Decision in 30 N. 7. explained (Usury as determined by law of place) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs Bk. v. Low, 81 Id. 566, 570, which aff'd 6 Abb. N. G. 76, 84, which see. Opposed and Moss v. Rainey, Buffalo Super. Gt. (1866), preferred in Bowen v. Bradley, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 395. Criticised and doubted in First Nat. Bank of N. Y. e. Morris, 1 Hun, 680, 682. Followed in Dickinson v. Edwards, 13 Id. 405, which was afPd in 77 JST. 7. 573, which see. Disting'd in Sheldon ». Ilaxton, 24 Hun, 196. Jewitt v. Banning, 23 Barb. 13. Affd in 21 N. 7. 27. Decision in Id. approved (Evidence of ill-will as tending to show com- mission of crime) in Stokes v. People, 53 Id. 164, 175. v. Kecnholts, 16 Barb. 193. Limited (Effect of debts as lien on decedent's real estate) in Fonda v. Chapman, 23 Hun, 119, 122. v. Miller, 10 N. Y. 402. See Torrey v. Bank of Orleans. Quoted (Receiver as pur- chaser of trust property) in High on Receiv. § 194, n. 3. v. Palmer, 7 Johns. Ch. 65; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 401. See Frost v. Beekman. '■ v. Woodward, 1 Edw. Ch. 195. Dis- ting'd (Validity of provision in assignment for benefit of creditors, enabling assignee to compromise) in McConnell v. Sherwood, 84 N. 7. 522. 530. Explained in Burrillon Assign. § 314, 4 ed. Jcx v. Board of Education, 1 Hun, 157. Disting'd (Declarations of agent) in Pierson ». Atlantic Nat. Bank, 77 N. 7. 304, 310. v. Jacob, 19 Hun, 105 ; s. c, more fully, 7 Abb. N. C. 452. Followed (Effect of recovery lor portion of indivisible claim) in Althof v. Fox, Hamilton Go. Ohio Dist. Gt. Compare Burritt v. Belfy, 47 Conn. 323. Joannes v. Jennings, 6 Step'm. C(.' (T. & C.) 138. Followed (Practice on motion for new trial) in Aifaro «. Davidson, 39 Super. Ct (J. & S.) 463, 406. John and Cherry Streets, Matter of, 19 Wei.d. 659. See Matter of Albany Street. Explained (Change of ownership in real prop- erty by legislative act) in • 3 Washb. on Real .Prop. 4 ed. 214. Johns, Matter of, 1 Month. L. Bui. 75. See to the contrary (Waiver of misnomer of defendant in supplementary proceedings) Muldoon b. Pierz, 1 Abb. N." G. 309. Johnson, Ex parte, 3 Cow. 371. Examined with Judges of Oneida C. P. «. People, 18 Wend. 79 (Exercise of discretion by inferior jurisdiction, when not reviewable) in People v. Stout, 11 Abb. Pr. 17, 21, 25. Johnson v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 40 How. Pr. 193. Rev'd in 5 Lans. 222, and that aff'd in 54 2f. Y. 416; s. c, 13 Am. E. 607. v. Bank of North America, 5 Rdbt. 554. It appears from 6 Id. 573, that Monell, J., dissented. Reasserted (Payment of draft by check of drawers) in Smith v. Miller, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 234. v. Beardslee, 15 Johns. 3 ; s. c, 5 F. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 990, with note citing cases to contrary. See Dean v. Pitts ; Mooers v. White; Smith v. Ludlow; Van Keuren v. Parmelee. Overruled (Effect of promise of joint debtor to remove bar of statute of limitations) in Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 K Y. 523. Denied with Pat- terson v. Choate, 7 Wend. 441 ; the cases of Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 2f. Y. 523; Shoemakers. Benedict, 11 Id. 176; Win- chell v. Hicks, 18 Id. 558, being followed in Kallenbach v. Dickinson, 100 111. 426 ; s. c, 39 Am. R. 47, 59. Explained with Hammon a>. Huntley, 4 Cow. 493; Mooers v. White, 6 Johns. Ch. 360 (Effect of prom- ise by executor, &c.) in Henderson v. llslcy, 11 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 9; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 41, 43, with note. Examined with Ham- mon v. Huntley, 4 Cow. 493; Cayuga Co. Bank v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 236, and authori- ties from other jurisdictions in Shreve t>. Joyce. 36 N. J. (7 Vroom.) 44^ s. c, 13 Am. R. 417. Commented on in Ang. on Limit. § 264, 6 ed. v. Bidden, 2 Lans. .433. Afl'd in 47 JV. Y. 130. See'Losee t* Clute. v. Bloodgood, 2 Cai. Cas. 303; s. c, 1 Johns. Cas. 515; 1 Am. Dec. 93; 1 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 239, with brief note- Sec Anderson v. Van Alen. Explained (Rights of assignee for creditors, as assignee for value) in Schieftelln v. Hawkins, 14 Abb. Pr. 112, 117. Approved (Notice of assign- ment of chose in action, when presumed) in Tritt v. Colwell, 31 Penn. 228. v. Bridge, Cow. C93. Affd in 5 Wend. 342. Decision in 6 Cow. applied (Set-off, when only available) in Chandler v. Drew, 6 N. H. 409; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 704, with note. JOHNSON. 395 v. Brown, 5T Bart. 118. Followed (Amendment of complaint before verdict) in Knapp v. Roche, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 395, 407. v. Casey, 3 Bobt. 710. Reported in 28 Bow. Pr. 492. v. Caulking, 1 Johns. Cos. 116; s. c, 1 Am. Dee. 102, with note, wherein its doc- trine i9 shown to have been subsequently approved in N. Y., us in Willard v. Stone, 7 Cow. 22; Palmer v. Andrews, 7 Wend. 142 (Evidence of plaintiff's character in action for breach of promise of marriage). Fol- lowed in Green v. Spencer, 3 Mo. 318; s. c, 26 Am. Bee. 672, with note. Explained (Defence that performance of contract has become impossible to other party) in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 675, to. to. v. Conger, 14 Abb. Pr. 195. Disting'd (Lessee's option as to renewal of lease) in Bruce v. Fulton Nat. B'k, 79 If. Y. 165. v. Corbett, 11 Paige, 265. See Bates v. Underbill. Disregarded (Power of sur- rogate as to disputed claim) in Glacius v. Fogel, 4 Bed/. 516. 519; and compare Same o. Same, 88 N. Y. 434. v. Crane, 40 Barb. 78. Compare (Effect of prior unrecorded deed) Ring v. Steele, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 68. v. Crofoot, 37 Horn. Pr. 59 ; s. c , 53 Barb. 574. Disting'd (Leviable interest in pro- ducts of leased premises) in McCombs v. Becker, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 550, 552; Schroeppel ». Dingman, 17 Weekly Dig. 257. * v. Dalton, 1 Cow. 543; . s. c, 13 Am. Dee. 564, with note, wherein it, with Gardner v. Thomas, 14 Johns. 136. is said to have been frequently approved in N. Y. and else- where (Jurisdiction of torts committed on high seas). — - v. Daverne, 19 Johns. 134; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 198. Disting'd (Letter or tele- graphic dispatch as evidence) in Howley v. Whipple, 48 N~. II. 483-90. v. Dixon, 1 Daly, 178. Criticised (as decided by a divided court, without allu- sion to principles previously announced in Walker v. Swayzee, 5 Ahb. Pr. 136) in Flynn v. Halton, 43 How. Pr. 333, 351. v. Dodd, 50 K Y. 76. Applied (Execu- tion of power delegated to several) in First Nat. B'k of North Bennington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 Vt. 87; s. c, 30 Am. II. 734, 741. \. Elwood, 53 H. Y. 431. Modified on reargument in 56 Id. 614. Further pro- ceeding in 15 Hun, 14; and that rev'd in 82 K Y. 362. See Van Rensselaer v. Witbeck. v. First Nat. B'k of Hoboken, 6 Hun, 124. Aft'd on opinion of Daniels, J,, in 68 N. Y. 010. v. Gere, 2 Johns. Ch. 540. Questioned . (Claim of title-by third person, as ground of relief against payment of purchase- money) in Miller v. Avery, 2 Barb. Ch. 0S2. * ' v. Gibson, 4 E. D. Smith, 231. Sec Burliugame v. Burlingame. __ v . Gilbert, 4 Bill, 178. Applied with Brown v. Curtis, 2 2f. Y. 225; Harrison v. Sawtell, 10 Johns. 242 (Guaranty, when not within statute of frauds) in Gainer ■». Hud- gins, 46 Mo. 399; s. c. 2 Am. It. 520, 524. Quoted and explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 26, n. v. v. Hart, 3 Johns. Gas. 322. See Mooers v. White. Disting'd (Assignor of mortgage as party to foreclosure proceeding) in Chris- • tie v. Herrick,, 1 Barb. Ch. 259 ; Whitney v. McKinney, 7 Johns. Ch. 147. Followed in Kittle®. VanDyck, 1 Sandf. Ch. 78. Fol- lowed as never having been questioned, — in Bard v. Poole, 12 N. Y. 508. , Explained (Transfer of title to mortgage) in Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 Id. 118. Approved (Effect of purchase by alien) in Jackson v. Lunn, 3 Johns. Cas. 113. v. Hartshornc, 52 N. Y. 173. Disting'd (Interest on advances by co-partner) in Gil- hooly v. Hart, 8 Daly, 176, 179. Cited with Jackson v. Johnson, 11 Bun, 509; Boacham v. Eckford, 2 Sandf. Oh. 116, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 182, n., as indicating the weight of authority as to allowance of such interest. Cited (Termination of con- tinuing contract with partnership, by change in partnership) in Story on, Partn. 7 ed. § 249, to. • v. Hicks. See Waterman v. Whit- ney. v. Hudson Kiver R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 21. Further decision in 6 Id. 633, aff'd in 20 N. Y. 65. See Button v. Hudson R. R. R. Co. ; Teal v. Barton. Deci- sion in 20 JY. Y. approved (Contributory negligence, as question for jury) in ■ Jet- ter e. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 460. Explained and followed (Contributory negligence as matter of de- fence) in Urquhart v. City of Ogdensburgh, 23 Bun, 75, 77. Decision in 5 Duer fol- lowed and approved in Hoyt v. Hudson, 41 Wis. 105; s. c , 22 Am. B. 714, 717. Cited as authority in Cassidy ®. Angell, 12 B. I. 447 ; 34 Am. B. 690, with note collating Reynolds v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248 ; Cordell v. Same, 75 Id. 330, and other cases. See also, for extensive collation and discussion of N. Y. cases, 18 Alb. L. J. 144, 164, 184, 204; 20 Id. 359. Decision in 20 N. Y. followed (Degree of care required of railroad company) in Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 Id. 209, 213. Limited (Duty to give warning at crossings) in Weber v. N. Y. Central, . Johnson, 104 U. S. 271. See Cram v. Hen- dricks. Decision 74 JV. Y. explained and applied t (Right of bank to discount) in Atlantic State B'k of Brooklyn v. Saverv, 82 Id. 291, 302. Disting'd in Hine v. Mar- molejo, 60 Oal. 229, 232. v. N. ¥. Central K. R. Co., 31 Barb. 196. In effect rev'd, in further decision, in 33 JV. Y. 610 ; and that reaff'd on another appeal, 39 How. Pr. 127. See Barkers. Havens. Decision in 33 JV. Y. followed (Duty of carrier to observe principal's in- structions) in Wilts v. Morrcll, 66 Barb, 511, 513. Applied in MoEwen v. Jefferson- ville, &c. R. R. Co., 33 Ind. 368; s. c, 5 Am. R. 216. Decision in 39 How. Pr. ex- plained (Torts produced by negligence) in Moah's UnderMIVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 320. v. Oppenlieini, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 416 ; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 449; 43 How. Pr. 433. Further decision in 35 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 440, which was affd in 55 JV. Y. 280. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of lease to preclude proof of verbal , agreement) in Lewis v. Seabury, 74 Id. 409, 413. Com- pare (Evidence of oral condition) Van Brunt •». Day, 81 Id. 251 ; s. c, 8 Abb. JV. C. 330, fohich rev'd 17 Hun, 166, which see. Applied (Effect of lessor's making erection on premises adjoining those leased) in Doylo v. Lord, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 433. Followed in Ililliard v. N. Y. & Cleveland Gas Coal Co., 41 Ohio St. 662, 608. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 2253. v. People, 4 Den. 304. Distjpg'd (Evi- ' dence to sustain conviction for larceny of bank-notes) in Rcmsen v. People, 57 Barb. 324, 336. v , 65 Barb. 342. Affd in 55 JV. Y. 512. Decision in 05 Barb, overruled in effect (Omission of averment in indictment) in Wood v. People, 53 JV. Y. 511. v. Rich, 9 Barb. 080. Approved (Con- stitutionality of law passed subject to popu- lar vote) in Bull v. Read, 13 Graft. (Va.) 78, 95. Overruled in Barto n. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 4Q3 ; and see Bradley v. Baxter, 8 JOHNSON— JO#ES. 397 How. Pr. 18 ; Clarkou. City of Rochester, >. 28 K Y. 605. x. Smith, 8 Johns*, 383. See Manny v. Harris. , v. , M Abb. Pr. 421. See (Docket- ing judgment in justices' court) Code Civ. .Pro. 1881. | 8021, ». Collated with other cases in Throop's Justices' Man. 2 ed. 71. v. Steamboat Sandusky, 5 Wend. 510. 3ee to the contrary (Meaning of " sup- plies ") Clark v. .Smith, 14 III. 361. — — V. Slag;?, 2 Johns. 510. Relied on with Jackson «. Dickenson, 15 Id. 309 ; Jackson . Van Ness, 11 Johns. 412. Followed in Porter v. Tal- cott, 1 Cow. 359, 384. Followed with Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns. 68, in Steamboat Charlottes. Hammond. 9 Mo. 58; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 536, 639, with note. Followed (Return of valueless note, when unneces- sary) in Pope ii. Nance, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 351; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 60. -* — y. Wetmore, 12 Barb. 433. See (Con- tents of demurrer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 490, n. v. White, 11 Barb. 194. Disting'd (Removal of fixtures from mortgaged prem- ises) in Sullivan v. Toole, 20 Bun, 203. Doubted (Restraining waste of mortgaged premises) iu Thomas on Mort. 53. ; v. Wnitlock, 13 A 7 ! Y. 344. Ques- tioned, and said to be superseded (Separate findings of fact by referee) in Manley v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 1 Luns. 20; Vanslyke *. Hyatt, 46 A. Y. 263. See (Exceptions) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 994, n. Applied (Time of ser- vice of case) in French v. Powers, 80 N. Y. 146, 149. See (Necessity of case) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 998, n. Sec (Motion for new trial) Id. § 1002, n. v. Williams, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 547. Aff d, it seems, in 63 A. Y. 622, but without opinion. v. Wygant. See Seers v. Fowler. v. Yeomans, 8 How. Pr. 140. Explained and applied*(Security for costs, pending ap- peal) in Flint v. Van Deusen, 24 Bun, 440, 442. v. Zink, 52 Barl. 396. Affd in 51 K Y. 333. Decision in Id. applied (Subroga- gation to benefits of mortgage) in Twombley v. Cassidy, 82 Id. 155, 159. Followed (Sale of land subject to mortgage) in Lewis v. Day, 53 Iowa, 579. Johnston v. Allen, 39 Bow. Pr. 506. See People v. Humphrey. Cited (Repudiation of relation of husband and wife) in 2 Whart. Com. on Et>. § 1 151. v. Johnston, 1 Robt. 642; s. c, 16 AM. Pr. 43. Not followed (Writ of ne exeat abolished by Code) in Collins v. Collins, 1 7 Bun, 598. Disapproved with' Fuller v. Eunice, 2 Sandf. 626, in Beckwith v. Smith, 4 Lans. 182. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § . 548, n. Johnston Harvester Co. v. Meinhardt, 24 Hun, 489. Reported in 9 Abb. A 7 ". C. 393. Joneo, Matter of, 4 Sandf. Oh. 615. Dis- ting'd (Commissions of trustees) in Matter of Moffat, 24 Hun, 325, 327. v. Bach, 48 Barb. 568. Rev'd as Wood v. Bach, in 54 Id. 134. v. Baker, 7 Cow. 455. Approved (Ac- tion for damages for injury caused by con- spiracy among employees) in Mapstrick v. Ranege, 9 A'e5. 390 ; s. c, 31 Am. P. 415, 417. v. Barlow, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 142. Rev'd in 62 N. Y. 202, unless plaintiff should stipulate to modify. See Harger v. McCullougli. Decision in 62 N. Y. applied (Liability of trustees of corporation for its debts) in Bruce v. Piatt, 80 Id. 379. 388; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 Id. 73. Explaiued in Duckworth .». Roach, 8 Daly. 159, 161, which was aff'd in 81 A 7 . Y. 49, which see. Disting'd in Robinson ». Attrill, 66 Bow. Pr. 121 ; Anderson v. Speers, 21 Bun, 568, 571? which rev'd 8 Abb. N. C. 383, which soe. Disting'd with Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. v. Bliss, 27 A 7 ". Y. 297, in Vernon v. Palmer, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 231 Applied (Right of creditor to main- tain separate action to enforce such liability) in Wiles v. Suydain, 10 Hun, 578. v. Benedict, 17 Hun, 128. Aff'd in 83 A 7 ". 1". 79. v. Butler, 51 A 7 ! Y. 658. Rev'g, in effect, 80 Barb. 641 ; s. c, 20 Bow. Pr. J 89. Further proceeding in 11 Hun, 413. See Bostwick v. Atkins ; Jackson v. Carpenter. v. Carroll, 3 Hun, 556. Fully reported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 631. — - v. Case, 38 How. Pr. 349. Disting'd (Trial fee on discontinuance) in Sutphcn v. Lash, 10 Bun, 120, 122. v. Caswell, 3 Johns. Cas. 29; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 134, with note. See Doolin v. Ward. Reviewed and recognized as author- ity with Doolin v. Ward, 6 Johns 194; Troup v. Wood, 4 Johns. Ch. 228; Hawley v. Cramer, 4 Cow. 718 (Invalidity of agree- 398 JONES, ments not to bid) in James v. Fulcrod, 5 Tex. 512; s. c, 55 Am. Uec. 743, 749. Followed and approved with Troup-e.Wood, 4 Johns. Ch. 254; Thompson ». Davies, 13 Johns. 113; in Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2 Rick, Eq. (So. Oar.) 355; s. c, 46 Am. Bee. 58, 61. Followed and approved with Troup v. "Wood, 4 Johns. Ch. 254, in Dudley v. Odom, 5 S. C, 181 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 6, 9, 10. Ap- proved with Doolin «. Ward, 6 Johns. 194; ' Wilbur v. How, 8 Id. 444; Thompson v. . Davies, 13 Id. 112; in Gulick ». Ward, 5 Hoist. (N. J.) 87, s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 389, 394, with note. v. Chantry, 1 Hun, 613. Fully reported in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 63. Explained (Nuisance in highway) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 263, n. 1. Discussed in 1 Add. on Torts, 2 n. 1 Wood's ed. r. Clark, 20 Johns. 51 Followed (At- tornment of tenant of mortgagor to mortga- gee) in Magill ». Hinsdale, 6 Conn. 464a. ; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 70, with note. See Co. Litt. 309a, n. 272. v. Cook, 1 Cow. 309. See Mclntyre v. Rowan. - — ■ v. , 11 Hun, 230. See (Notice of appeal in justices' court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, : n. ' — v. Dana, 24 Barb. 395. Cited as author- ity (When only validity of incorporation ■ maybe impeached) in Laflin and Rand Pow- der Co. v. Sinsheimer, 46 Md. 315; s. c, 24 Am. R. 522. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2 Daly, 307. Afi' d in 51 JT. Y. 318. SeeHickokn. Trustees of Plattsburgh. * , - — v. Gardner, 10 Johns. 266. Followed (Inchoate right of dower as incumbrance) in Porter v. Noyes, 2 Oreenl. (Me.) 22; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 30.^' -, — v. Grant, 10 Paige, 350. Disting'd (Adjudication between co-defendants) in Dusenbury v. Fisher, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 482, 487. . v. Hake, 2 Johns. Cos. 60; s. c, 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 438^ with brief note as to effect of purchaser of negotiable paper receiving usurious interest. See Aeby v. Rapclye. Applied with Wilkie v. Roosevelt, 3 Johns. Cas. 66, 206 (Effect of usury on subsequent transactions) in Bridge v. Hub- bard, 15 Mass. 96; s. 'a, 8 Am. Dec. 86. . v. Hay, 52 Barb. 501. Disting'd (Recovery where contract is void under statute of frauds) Van Vaulkenburg «. Croffut, 15 Hun, 147, 150. v. Jones, 18 Run, 438. Appeal dis- missed in 81 N. Y. 35; In head note of decision in Id. for section of Code in 8th line from bottom, read " 190," not " 198." ■ v. Jndd, 4 N. Y. 411. See Harmony v. Bingham. Explained and applied (Recov- er)' oh quantum meruit in 'case of special contract) in Marsh «. Holbrook, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 180 ; Wolfe «. Howes, liiBarb. 176, which was aff'd in 20 N. Y. 197, 202, ■which sec; Heine v. Meyer, 01 Id. 176. Disting'd in McCoriihe v. N. T. & Erie R R. Co., 20 Id. 40; Clark o. Gilbert, afi Id. 284. Corhpare Same v. Same, 32 Barb. 576,, 584. Explained (Performance of con- tract, when excused) in Niblo v. Binsttc 44 Barb. 59, n., which was rev'd in 3 Abb] Ct. App. Dec. 375, 381, which see: First Nat. B'k of Ballston Spa e. Ins. Co. of N. America, 5 Bans. 205. ' Applied (Contract when terminated through the act of the law) on Hildreths. Buell, 18 Barb. 110; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Hillvard, 8 Vroom (N. J.) 444; s. c, 18 Am. R.'lil, 751. v. Kent, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 66. Rev'd in 80 JT. Y. 585 ; s. c, 8 Abb. N. C. 300. — <- t. Lawlin, 1 Sandf. 722. Overruled (Requisites of affidavit to obtain examina- tion of judgment debtor) in Anon., Sid. 725. y. Merchants' Bank of Albany, 4 Rolt. 221. This is not the opinion of the court. See decision reported in 6 Id. 162. v. Morrill, 42 Barb. 62.3. Disting'd (Boarding-house keepers) in Cady v. Mc- Dowell, 1 Lans: 484. v. N. T. & Erie R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 633. See Conger ». Hudson River R. R. Co.; Wib- ert v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. Followed (Damages for failure of carrier to deliver) in Eirkland v. Leary, 2 Sweeny, 677- v. Norwich &N. Y. Transportation Co., 50 Barb. 193. Dictum disapproved (Time of objection tp want of jurisdiction over for- eign corporation) in McCormick . Allen, 15 Hun, 4. Followed in Lauer v. Bandow,,43 Wise. 556; s. c, 28 Am. R. 571, 574. y. Welwood, 9 Hun, 166. Affd .in 71 8. Y. 208. Another proceeding in 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) Add. 11. Jordan v. National Shoe & Leather Bank, 12 Hun, 512. Aff'd in 74 8. Y. 467; s. c, 30 Am. B. 312. Another proceeding in 45 Super: Ct. (J. & S.) 423. Decision in 74 8. Y. applied (Right of set-off) in Taylor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 82 Id. 10, 17; Sey- mour v. Dunham, 24 Hun, 93, 95, 97. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 503, n., 506, n. Explained (Counter-claims in actions by executors or administrators) in note by M. H. Tnuoop, 3 Civ. Pro. R. '{Browne) 226. v. Poillon, 77 8. Y. 518. Disting'd (Completion of purpose where title is doubt- ful) in Onderdonk v. Ackerman, 62 How. Pr. 318, 322. Approved and disting'd (Parties to proceedings for sale of real estate of decedent) in Matter of Dolan, 88 8. Y. 309. : y. Van Epps, 19 Hun, 520. Affd in 85 8. Y. 427. Compare (Inchoate right of dower ,is affected by proceedings in parti- tion) Code Civ. Pro. § 1570. , v. Volkening, *14 Hun, 118. Previous proceeding in 72 8. Y. 300. Josephine, The, 39 8. Y. 19. See Brook- man v. Hamill. Commented upon and disting'd (Constitutionality of State stat- ute giving lien on vessel) in Shepherd v. Steele, 43 8. Y. 52. Explained and lim- . ited in Brookman v. Hamill. Id. 555. Lim- ited in Fisher v. Luling, 33' Super. Ct. (J, & S.) 337, 345. Disapproved, but followed as controlling, Ferran a. Hosford, 54 Barb. 200. Explained in King v. Greenway, 71 N. Y. 413, 418. ReafPd in Poole v. Kermit, 59 Id. 554, 556. Followed in The B. F. Woolsey, 18 Blatchf. C. Ct. 344, 348; Re Surplus and Remnants of the Proceeds of the Ship Edith, 11 Id. 451, 453, 456 ; The Cir- cassian, Id. 472, 479. Joseph thiil v. Heyinan, 2 Abb. 8'. C. 22. For a similar action between apparently the same parties, see Josephthal v. Steffen. y. Steffen, 8 Weekly Big. 61.. Rev'd in 83 8. Y. 612, but without opinion. See Josephthal v. Heyman. Joslin v. Cowee,. 60 Barb. 48. Rev'd in 52 8'. Y. 90. Further decision in 56 Id. 626. See Rowe v. Stevens ; Silsbury v. McCoon. Decision in 52 8. Y. cited (When factor may bind principal by sale of goods, with- out receiving money in payment) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 742, n. Decision in 56 8. Y. cited (When agent may, with prin- cipal's consent, accept adverse interest) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 244. Also cited with Warren v. Sprague, 4 Edw. 416; Her- rick v. Catley, 1 Daly, 512; in Id. §573, with respect to attorneys. Joslyn y. Fisk, 59 Barb. 308. It seems from Id. 313, that the court did not adopt the opinion here reported. Josiiez y. Conner, 7 Daly, 448. Appeal dis- missed in 7o 8. Y. 156. v. Murphy, 6 Daly, 324. Further decision in Id. 404. Jonrneay v. Brackley, 1 Hilt. 447. Col- lated with other cases (When assignee of lease is liable for rent) in MeAdam on Landl. S Ten. 2 ed. § 132, Joy v. Hopkins, 5 Den. 84. Collated with other cases (Opinion of value) in 36 Am. R. 437, n. See to the contrary Graves v. Moses, . 13 Minn. 335. But see Abb. Tr. En. 347. Joyce v. Adams, 2 Sand/. 1. Rev'd in 8 8. Y. 391. Decision in Id. cited as a case in which the general rule is succinctly stated by Jewett, J. (Sale of specific chattels un- conditionally) in Benj. on Sales, % 319 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed ) — - y. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 12 Abb. Pr. 309. Explained (Review of order judgment open- ing judgment) Ramsay v. Gould, 4 Bans. 476, 479. V. Williams, 14 Wend. 141. Disting'd (Liability of firm on firm note) in Osgood v. Glover. 7 Daly, 367, 372. J. Rnssell Manuf. Co. v. New Haven Steam boat Co. See Russell v. Same. Judah y. Harris, 19 Johns. 144. See Keith 400 JUDAH— JUSTICE. v. Jones. Approved (Negotiability of .in- strument) in Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265, 270. See to the contrary McCormick «., Trotter, 10 Serg. & R. {Pa.) 94. Compared in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 344. Included in 1 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 47. v. Randal, 2 Cai. Cas. 324. Approved and applied (What constitutes total loss) in Williams v. Hartford Ins. Co., 54 Cal. 442 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 77. Jndd v. Fox, 9 Cow. 259. Shown in 9 Am. Dee. 105, n. to be contrary (Replevying prop- erty taken on execution from judgment debtor's possession) to what is now settled law in N. Y., as laid down in Dunham v. Wyckoff, 3 Wend. 280 ; Rogers «. Weir, 34 iV. Y. 403, and adapted in various States. v. Fulton. See Cornell v. Moulton. v. O'Brien, 21 N. Y. 186. Applied (Suf- ficiency of notice of sale on foreclosure) Candee ». Burke, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 143, 146. - — t. Seeking, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 266. AfF d in 62 N. Y. 266. Jndd Linseed, &c. Oil Co. v. Ilnbbell, 76 K Y. 543. Disting'd (Right of co-surety to' contribution as affected by entry of judg- ment against him) in Waggoner v. Walrath, 24 Hun, 443, 445. Judge v. Hall, 5 Lans. 69. Disapproved (Complaint in action in County Court) in Holbrook v. Baker, 16 Hun, 176. Judges of Oneida Common Pleas t. People, 18 Wend. 79. See Ex parte Johnson. Cited approvingly with other authorities (Manda- mus not the process to review judicial er- rors) in 1 Kent Com. 322 n. b. Jndson v. Easton, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 598. Aff'd in 58 IT. Y. 664. v. Gibbous, 5 Wend. 224. Not fol- lowed under R. S. (Power of executor before letters granted) in Humberts. Wur- ster, 22 Hun, 405. Confirmed (Retraction of renunciation) in Code Civ. Pro. § 2639. v. Gray, 11 N. Y. 408. See Adams v. Hopkins; Schemerhorn v. Vanderheyden. Followed as settled law (Liability of attor- ney for fees of officer) in Birkbeek v. Staf- ford, 14 Abb. Pr. 285, 289. Also followed in Campbell v. Cothran, 65 Barb. 536, which was aff'd in 56 Jf. Y. 281, which see. Explained and applied in Bonynge v. Waterbury, 12 Hun, 535. Quoted and col- lated with other cases in Smith on Sheriffs, 524. v. S til well, 26 How. Pr. 513, 523. Qualified (Defenses in action by undisclosed principal) in 38 Am. Dee. 619, n. Juhel V. Church, 2 Johns. Cas. 333 ; r. c, 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 534, with brief note. With this case and Buchanan v. Ocean Ins. Co., 6 Cow. 318 ; Bunn v. Riker, 4 Johns. '426. Compare (Validity of wager- ing contract) Amory v. Gilman, 2 Mass. 1 ; Babcook v. Thompson, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 446; Adams v. Penn. Ins. Co., 1 Rawle (Pa.) 107. See 1 R. S. 662, §§ S, 9, 10. v. Rhinelaiider, 2 Johns. Cas. 120. . Aff'd in Id. 487. These decisions criticised (Disclosure to underwriter as to insurance of contraband of war) in 3 Kent Com. 209, n. a. Juliaud v. Rath bone, 39 Barb. 97. Disap- proved as to validity of assignment, but aff'd on other grounds, in 39 N. Y. 369 Decision in 3'J Barb, examined and ex- plained with Van Vleet v. Slauson, 45 Id. 317; Evans v. Chapin, 12 Abb. Pr. 161; 20 How. Pr. 289; Barbour v. Emerson, 16 Abb. Pr. 366 (Provisions in Assignment Act, when directory) in Hardman v. Bowen, 39 N. Y. 196. Decision in Id. disting'd (As- signment when invalidated by failure to conform to requirements of statute) in Worthy v. Benham, 13 Hun, 176. Dicta herein overruled in Brennan v. Willson, 4 Abb. Jf. C. 279, 287, which aff d 7 Daly, 59, which see. Followed in Hedges v. Bilb- gay, 6 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 304. Rule herein said to be abrogated, — in Produce Bank v. Morton, 67 IT. Y. 199. Julke v. Adams, 1 Red/. 454. Disting'd (Declarations of legatee, &c, as tending to show undue influence) in La Bau v. Vander- bi!t, 3 Id. 404. v. Jumel, 7 Paige, 591. Explained with Ferris v. Crawford, 2 Den. 595 ; Tillot- son v. Boyd, 4 Sand/. 516; Murray ,% Smith, 1 Duer, 412 (Effect of clause in deed, declaring it to be subject to mortgage) in Stebbins v. Hall, 29 Barb. 524. Explained (Power of surrogate to enforce right of sub- rogation) in Leviness v. Cassebeer, 3 Red/. 497. Applied (Conversion of equitable into legal estate) in Bowen v. Chase, 94 U. S. 812, 819. r. Marine Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 412; s. c, ' 5 Am. Dec. 283. See Robinson v. United Ins. Co. Justh v. National B'k of Commonwealth, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 273; s. c, 45 U. Webb, 24 Hun, 347, 349. Doubted in Roby «. Hal- lock, 5 Abb. K 0. 86, 88. Applied (Issues between co-defendants) in Lansing v. Hadr sail, 26 Hun, 619. Commented on as an extraordinary decision and as being probably an inadvertence (Defendants in foreclosure suits) in Pomeroy on Bern. § 336 n. 1, p. 387. Kayser v. Sichel, 34 Barb. 84. Afi'd as Wigand v. Sichel in 4 Abb. Ct. App.. Dee. 692 ; s. c, less fully, 3 Eeyes, 120; 33 How. Pr. 174. Kearney's case. See Mitchell's case. Kearney r. Missionary Society of St. Paul, 10 Abb. JV. C. 274. See Barnes v. Under- wood. Disting'd (Administration by hus- band) in Fry v. Smith, 10 Abb. JV. C. 224, 234. Kearny t. Post, 1 Sand/. 105. AfTd in 2 JV. Y. 394. Keating v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 3 Lans. 469. Afi'd in 49 JV. Y. 673, but without opinion. T. Price, 1 Johns. Cos. 22; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 92, with note; 1 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 226, with brief note. See Fleming v. Gilbert; Freeman v. Adams; Fulton v. Mathews; Lattimore d. Harsen. Reviewed and explained with Miller v. Holbrook, 1 Wend. 318 ; Fleming v. Gilbert, 3 Johns. 520 ; Frost v. Everett, 5 Cow. 498 ; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Butler, 1 Barb. 337, Esmond v. Van Benschoten, 12 Id. 368; Franchot v. Leach, 5 Cow. 506 ; Hasbrouck, 0. Tappan, 15 Johns. 200; Dearborne t. Cross, 7 Cow. 48 ; Clark v. Dales, 20 Barb. 45 ; Stone v. Sprague, Id. 509; French s. New, Id. 482; Friess v. Rider, 24 JV. Y. 367; Blanchard v. Trim, 38 Id. 225 ; Erwin v. Saunders, 1 Cow. 249; Parmelee v. Thompson, 45 JV. Y. 58 (Performance of terms of contract,, when waived by subsequent agreement) in Hill v. Blake, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 253. Fol- lowed in Baker v. Whiteside, , Breese (HI.) 133 ; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 168, with note. Ken tor v. Ulster & Delaware Plank Rd. Co., 7 How. Pr. 41. Followed (Waiver of referee's oath) in Nason e. Ludington, 8 Daly, 149. Keck v. Werder, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 339. Appeal dismissed in 86 JV. Y. 264. Ecefe v. People, 40 JV. Y. 348; s. c. 7 Alb. Pr. JV. S. 76. Followed (Upon trial of common law. indictment for murder, defend- ant may be convicted of murder in the KEEG AM — KEISSELBR ACK. 403 " second decree) in People o. Thompson, 41 If. Y. 1. Keegaii v. Western R. R. Co., 8 N. 7. 175; s. c, 59 A^m. -D 6B - 470, with note. See Wright v. N. Y. Central R. R. .Co. Dis- ting'd (Liability for injuries caused by negligence of co-servant) in Baulec v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 316. Disting'd in Wright v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 25 if. Y. 567. Reviewed with other cases in Warner v. Erie R'y Co., 39 Id. 477. Applied in Cone t. Delaware, Lack. &e. R. R. Co., 15 Hun, 177. Explained and ap- plied (Liability for injuries caused to servant by defective machinery, &c.) in' McMillan e. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co., 20 Barb. 452. Approved and applied in Smith v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 230. Disting'd in Loonam v. Brockway, 28 Bow. Pr. 474. Followed in Byron v. N. Y. State Printing Tel. Co., 20 Barb. 39. Com- mented on in 2 Thomp. on Negl. 991. Keeler v. Field, 1 Paige, 312. See Steel- yards v. Singer. See authorities collected (Validity of conditional sales as to third persons) in Lewis v. McCabe, 49 Conn. 141, 148; s. c, 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 217, with extended note. v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 3 Hill, 250. Disting'd (Seaworthiness as affected by omission to take pilot) in Borland v. Merc. Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 433, 443. t. Pouglikeepsie, &c. Planlc-Road Co., 10 How. Pr. 11. Opposed (Power to com- pel a reference) in Whittaker v. Desfosse, 7 Bosw. 678, 681. - v. Salisbury, 33 JV. Y. 648. See Har- rison v. Close. Disting'd (Effect of pay- ment by debtor of sum less than that due) in Luddington ». Bell, 77 N. Y. 138. Ap- plied (Ratification of act of agent) in Thomp- son ». Craig, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 32. v. Vandervere, 5 Lans. 313. Applied (Contract to be executed distributively) in Aldrich v. Pyatt, 64 Barb. 391, 396. Ex- plained (Sales of specific chattels condition- ally) in Benj. on Sales, § 403 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.)! Eeenan v. Dorfling-er, 19 How. Pr. 153. See McDowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Doubted (Settlement between parties to action) in Christy v. Perkins, 6 haly, 237. Eeene v. Clark, 5 Robt. 38. Approved and followed (Reproduction of uncopyrighted drama) in Palmer v. De Witt. 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 130. Reviewed at length, however, and in part disapproved in subsequent decision, in Palmer v. De Witt, 2 /Sweeny, 530. Re- viewed in connection with subsequent liti- gation in 8 South. L. Rev. 19. Cited in Tompkins d. Halleck, 133 Mass. 32. v. La Fargre, 1 Bosw. 671. Compare (Effect of death of sole defendant after issue joined) Livermore v. Bainbridge, 43 How. Pr. 272, 273. Keeney v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 59 Barb. 104. ' Aft'd in 47 2V. Y. 525. See Poucher «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Deci- sion in 59 Barb, collated with other cases (Common carrier limiting responsibility by contract) in 2 Redf. Am. Ruilw. Cos. 1TA. v. Home Ins. Co., 3 Sup'm Ct. {T. & C.) 478. Ruv'd in 71 N. Y. 396; s. c, 27 Am. R. 60. Decision in 3 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) explained (Change of title to insured prop- erty) in Browning -o. Home Ins. Co. of Columbus, 6 Daly, 522, 524. Keenholts v. Becker. 3 Ben. 346. Applied (Recovery of damages for slanderous words) in Olmsted v. Brown, 12 Barb. 662, 666; Knight v. Wilcox, 18 Id. 220; Bassil v. Elmore, 65 Id. 634, which was affd in 48 2V. Y. 567, which see. Followed irt Frazier «. McCloskey, 60 Id. 337. Doubted in Titus B. Sumner, 44 Id. 269. Keep v. Kauffuian, 36 Super. Ct. (.7! & S.) 141. Affd in 56 JST. Y. 332. Further pro- ceeding in 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 476 ; and that affd, it seems, in 63 N. Y. 643, but without opinion. Decision in 56 Id. cited as authority (Joinder of causes of action) in Thompson v. St. Nicholas Nat. B'k, 61 How. Pr. 163. v. Keep, 16 Han, 141. Further decis- ions in 17 Id. 152; 58 How. Pr. 139; 7 Abb. N. C. 240. With decision in 17 Hun, see (Submission bv married woman to arbi- tration) Code Gw" Pro. 1881, § 2365, n. v. Lord, 2 Duer, 78; s. c, 11 Leg. Obs. 178. Criticised, and dissented from (Set- off against assignee of insolvent) in Maas v. Goodman, 2 Hilt. 275; Schieffelin b. Haw- kins, 14 Abb. Pr. 112, 115, which was affd in 1 Daly, 289, which see. See also Mar- tin v. Kuntzmuller, 38 JV. Y. 396. Quoted and explained in Burrill on Assign. § 403, n. 4, 4 ed. Keese v. N. Y., New Haven, &<;. R. R. Co. See Kuse ». Same. Keilcy v. Dusenbnry, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 238. Affd, it seems, in 77 JST. Y. 597, but without opinion. Another proceeding in 2 Abb. K C. 360; s. c, 52 How. Pr. 277: and that icv'd in People ex rel. Keiley «. Speir, 12 Bun, 70; s. c, 54 How. Pi: 73, and less fully 2 Abb. N. G. 466. With decision in 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) compare (Time to object that remedy is at law) De . Bussiere v. Hollarlay, 4 Abb. K C. 111. Kein v. Tapper, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 465 ; s. c , 42 How. Pr. 437. Affd in 52 K Y. 550. Decision in Id. applied (When title passes to goods sold) in Cooke v. Millard, 65 Id. 367. Disting'd in Burrows v. Whita- ker, 71 Id. 295. Disting'd with Hammett v. Linneman, 48 Id. '399; Rodgers v. Phil- lips, 40 Id. 519, in Smith v. Edwards, 29 Hun, 493. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 416, (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted and discussed (Implied contracts of sale) in Id. § 48, n. 12. Keirsted v. Avery, 4 Paige, 9. Approved (Judgment, as subject to prior equities) in Cook v. Craft, 60 Barb. 409. Kelssclbrack V. Livingston, 4 Johns, Ch. 40± KEITH— KELLOGG. 144. Followed (Correcting mistake by oral evidence) in Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 565. Referred to as a leading case in 2 Pomeroy on Eg. Jar. 330, n. Keith v. Jones, 9 Johns. 120. Doctrine of this case and Judah v. Harris, 19 Id. 144 denied (Negotiability of note payable in bank bills) in Gray v. Donahoe, 4 Watts ' (Pa.) 400; McCormick v. Trotter, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 94 ; 3 Kent Gem. 75. Com- pared in 4 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 344.- Kellam v. McKinstry, 6 Hun, 381. Aff'd in ' : 69 A 7 ". Y 264. Decision in Id. explained (Effect of license to sever portion of realty) in Lacustrine, &c. Coi v. Lake Guano, &c. Co., 82 Id. 476, 482. Examined with other cases in Allegany Oil Co. v. Bradford Oil Co., 21 Hun, 26, 31. Keller v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 17 flow. Pr. 102. Aff'd in 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 4S0; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 172. See Ireland v. Oswego, Hannibal, &c. Plank Rd. Co. ; Rawls v. American Mut. Life Ins. Co. De- cision in 24 How. Pr. cited with approval (When negligence question for jury) in Barton v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. R. Co., 52 Mo. 253; s. c, 14 Am. E. 418. v. Philips, 40 Barb. 390. AfTd in 39 TV. Y. 351. Kellett v. Rathbnn, 4 Paige, 102. Applied (Service of citation on infant, when insuffici- ent) in Hood v. Hood, 85 TV. Y. 561, 578. Kelley's Estate, 1 Abb. TV O. 102. Cited as authority with McFeeley's Estate, 2 Redf. 541, 543 (Statutory requirements essential) in proceedings for sale of real estate for v debts) in 7 South. L. Rev. TV S. 643. Kelley v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 4 Hill, 263 (Liability of municipal corporation on draft, &c.) in Lake v. Trustees of Williams- burgh, 4 Den. 524. Disting'd (Draft, when payable out of particular fund) in Van Wagner v. Terrett, 27 Bnrb. 186. Applied in Brill v. Tuttle, 15 Hun, 290, which was rev'd in 81 TV. Y. 461, which see. Fol- lowed and applied in Carran v. Little, 40 Ohio St. 399. Discussed (Contract by cor- poration) in Aug. & A. on Corp. % 253a, 11 ed. ■ T. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 E. D. Smith, 291. Rev'd in Kelly v. Same, 11 TV Y. 432. v. People, 55 TV. Y. 563. Affg Arsmby v. People, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & .G.) 157. Decision in 55 TV Y. collated with other cases (Challenge for principal cause) in 6 Abb. TV. G. 18. n. Compare /,. 1858, c. 322, §§*T, 10; Code Gin. Pro. §§ 1027, 1175. v. Upton, 5 Duer, 336. Followed (Contract for transfer of stock, wheu exe- cutory) in Currie b. White, 7 Robt. 637. Kellogg, Matter of, 7 Paige, 265. Followed (Commissions of executors, &c.) in Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. TV. C. 317,442; Ward o. Ford, 4 Redf. 34,41. Kellogg v. Adams, 39 TV. Y. 28. Followed (Usury affecting assignee of mortgage) in ,. Patterson v. Birdsall, 6 Htm, Q32, 639, 040, 641. Disting'd iu Wyeth v. Brariiff, 84 2V. Y. 627, 633. v. Ames, 41 Barb. 218. Rev'd in 41 TV Y. 259. Decision in Id. collated and discussed with Marvin v. Vcdder, 5 Cow. 671; Truscott v. King, 6 TV. Y. 162; Stick- les v. Townsend, 18 Id. 575; and Hubbellv. Blakesley, 71 Id. 10 (Merger of mortgages) in26.4». L. 7.506. v. Gilbert, 10 Johns. 220; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 335. See Crary v. Turner. v. Griffin, 17 Johns. 274. See Crary v. Turner. Cited approvingly (Preference oE prior execution, how lost) in Ohlson v. Pierce, 55 Wis. 214. Followed in Palmer v. Clarke. 2 Dm. (TV. G.) 354; s. c, 12 Am. Dee. 340, with note. T. Howell, 62 Barb. 280. Affd in 53 TV. Y. 609, but without opinion. v. Kellogg, 6 Barb. 116. Disting'd (Whether agreement for sale of land gives right of possession) in Miller v. Ball, 64 TV Y. 286, 294. See (Action by joint tenant, &c. to recover real property) Code Gin. Pro. 1881, § 1500. n. v. Klock. 2 Code R. 28. Followed (Effect of appearance by infant without guardian ad litem) in McMurray v. McMur- ray, 60 Barb. 117. Disting'd in Graham v. Pinclcney, 7 Robt. 147. Compare Barnes v. Gill, 18 Abb. Pr. AT. S. 169. Referred to as holding same doctrine with Simmons v. Simmons. 6 Jnd. 8; Randall v. Wilson, 24 Mo. 76, in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 31. v. N; Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 79 -TV Y. 72. Followed with Davis v. Same, 47 Id. 400 (Negligence as a proper question for jury) in Kelly v. St. Paul, M. &. M: R. R. Co., 29 Minn. 1, 4. Followed in prefer- ence to the doctrine of Penn. R. R. Co. v. Beale, 73 Penn. St. 504, in Plummer v. Eastern R . R. Co., 73 Me. 593; s. c. f 26 Alb. I. J. 131 ; 14 Reporter, 367. v. 01 instead, 28 Barb. 96. Aff'd in- 25 TV Y. 1 89. Decision in Id. followed (Consid- eration for promise to extend time of pay- ment) in Parmelee v. Thompson, 45 Id. 58. v. Paine, 8 How. Pr. 329. Followed (Precluding proof of account included in bill of particulars) in Dowdney v. Volkin- ing, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 313, 319. y. Richards, 14 Wend. 116. See Boyd ■». Hitchcock: Van Ostrand v. Reed. Dis- ting'd and explained (Conclusiveness of re- ceipt) in Ryarf v. Ward. 48 A 7 ". Y. 207. Applied with Boyd v. Hitchcock, 20 Johns. 76 (Sufficiency of accord and satisfaction) in Mitchell v. Wheaton, 46 Conn. 315; s. c, 33 Am. R. 24, 26. Quoted in 2 Greenl. on En. 4 ed. § 28, n. a. v. Schuyler, 2 Den. 73. See Thompson v. Hewitt. Cited with approval with Thompson v. Hewitt, 6 Hill, 254 (Judgment as barred by prior discharge in bankruptcy) in Woodbury v. Perkins, 5Cush. (Mass.) 86; s. c, 51 Am. Dee. 51, with note. v. Slauson, 11 TV. Y. 302. Affg 15 Barb. .56.. See opinion of Johnson, J.,- in KELLOGG— KELLY. 405 Ct. of App. in 3 Liu. Law. Mag. 39. See Nicholson «. Leavitt ; Brighani v. Tilling- hast. Decision in 11 N. Y. explained (Au- thority to assignee to sell on credit) in Brig- ham d. Tillinghast, 13 Id. 215. Regarded as direct adjudication on this point, in Wilson v. Robertson, 21 Id. 587. 589. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 211. Commented on in Wait on Fraud. Corn). § 332. Explained (Description of property) in Burrill on Assign. § 134, 4 ed. § 139, n. 1. Discussed and quoted (Terms of sale) in Id. § 224, n. 1. v. Smith, 26 K Y. 18. See Williamson ». Brown. Disting'd with Brown v. Bly- denburgh, 7 N. Y. 141 (Necessity for pro- duction or surrender of mortgage bond) in Bacon v. Van Schoonhoven, 87 Id. 446. Disting'd in Van Keuren v. Corkins, 66 Id. 81.. Disting'd as case of purchaser of bond and mortgage, and noj of grantee of land, in Purdy o. Huntington, 46 Barb. 389. v. Sweeney, 1 Lans. 397. Modified in 46 N. Y. 291. Decision in Id followed (Verdict for conversion of gold, should be in gold) in Phillips v. Speyers, 49 Id. 653. v. Witherhead, 4 Hun, 273. Reported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & C.) 525. Explained (Agreements for work and labor as dis- tinguished from sales) in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. y. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) Ex- plained (Acceptance required by statute of frauds) in Id. § 155, ??. o. Kellum, Matter of, 6 Lans. 1. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 298. Another decision in 52 Id. 517. See Dan «. Brown. Decision in 52 N. Y. applied (Proof of due execution of will) in Rugg v. Rugg, 21 Hun, 383 ; which was affd in 83 K Y. 592, which see. Decision in 50 Id. disting'd (Power of sur- rogate to open decree of probate) in Bailey ■o. Stewart, 2 Redf. 212, 225. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2647, n. Kellum v. Durfoo. See Kellum v. Knecht. v. Knecht, 17 Hun, 583. Appeal dis- missed in Kellum v. Durfoo, 78 JV. Y. 484. See Wilson v. Reed. Kelly, Matter of, 3 Hun, 636 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 117. Appeal dismissed in 62 N. Y. 198. Previous proceeding in 59 Id. 595. See Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Artcher. Decision in 62 N. Y. dis- ting'd (Liability of attorney for failure to pay costs) in Mack v. Cohn, 27 Hun, 463. Decision in 59 N. Y. cited approvingly with Matter of Eldridge, 82 Id. 161 (Dis- barring attorney) in Re Orton, Sup'm Ct. Wis. 26 Alb. L. J. 213. Kelly's Application, 10 Abb. Pr. 208. Ap- proved and followed (Proceedings to enforce payment of personal tax) in Smyth v. Inter- national Life Ass. Co. of London, 4 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 11. Kelly v. Archer, 48 Barb. 68. Disting'd (When jurisdiction of justice of peace in attachment suit may be attacked) in North- rap v. Garrett, 17 Hun, 497, 499. Followed (Affidavit to obtain attachment) in Taylor ». Reed, 54 How. Pr. 27. Disting'd, and Hcman v. Brinckerhoff. 1 Den. 184, disap- proved (Defoci s in bond required by stat- ute) in Whitney v. Coleman, 9 Daly, 238. v. Baker, 2 Hilt. 531. See Deming v. Colt; Robinson v. Mcintosh. Collated with other cases (Power of partner to make assignment for benefit of creditors) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 549. v. Bernlieimer, I Hun, 112. Fullv re- ported in 3 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 140; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 62. v. Brensing, 32 Barb. 601. Affd in 33 Id. 123. v. Christal, 16 Hun, 242. Affd in 81 K Y. 619. v. Countryman, 15 Hun, 97. Approved (Effect on attachment if statute is not com- plied with) in Blossom v. Estes, 84 N~. Y. 614, 618. v. Crapo, 41 Barb. 603. Rev'd in 45 N. Y. 86, and the latter rev'd as Crapo v. Kelly in 16 Wall. 610. See Hoyt v. Thompson. Decision in 45 If. Y. disting'd (Effect of foreign statutory transfer) in Kerstadt v. Reilly, 55 How. Pr. 373. Applied in Dug- gan v. L. S. & M. S. R. R. Co., 1 SheU. 401. Reaffd on this point in Hibernia Nat. B'k o. Lacombe, 84 N. Y. 367, 385. Followed in Pond v. Cooke, 45 Conn. 126; s. c, 29 Am. It. 668, 672. Decision in 45 XT. Y. not followed, and that in 16 Wall. adopted (State jurisdiction over vessel on the high seas) in McDonald v. Mallory, 77 K Y. 546, which rev'd 44 Super. Ct. {J. & ■ S.) 80, 88. which see. v. Downing, 42 JV. Y. 71. The first two head-notes seem to be contrary to the opinion (Equitable action by sheriff to reach funds) which treats the action as appropriate if sustained by proof. See (Demurrer as answer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1207, n. v. Fall Brook Coal Co., 4 Hun, 261; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 183. s v. Griffin. See Bliss v. Ball. v. Kelly, 5 Lans. 443. Affd in 61 K Y. 47. v. Lane, 28 How. Pi: 128; s. c, more fully, 42 Barb. 594; 18 Abb. Pr. 229. Dis- senting opinion herein referred to in Green- leaf v. Mumford, 50 Barb. 543 (Action to subject property to attachment) as sustained in Lawrence v. B'k of Republic, 35 I/. Y. 320. v. McCarthy, 3 Brad/. 7. Cited as authority (Law of place as determining marriage rights) in Minor v. Jones, 2 Med/. 289, 295. v. McCormick, 2 E. D. Smith, 503. Affd in 28 JT. Y. 318. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Surety on attachment estopped from setting up want of seal as defense) in Avery v. Town of Springford, 14 Blatch/. C. Ct. 272. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 11 N. Y. 432. See 406 KELLY— KELTY. Blake v. Ferris ; City of Buffalo v. Hollo- way ; King v. N. Y. Central It. R. Co. ; Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Storrs v. City of Utica. Applied (Liability for negligence resulting from negligence of contractor, &c.) in Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 623; Fish v. Dodge, 38 Id. 172; Schular v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 39 Id. 655; Treadwell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Daly, 128; Gilbert v. Beach, 5 Bosw. 449; O'Rourke . Gearty, in Douglass v. Wells, 18 Id. 91. Applied in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 78 if. Y. 153. Disting'd in Freund 11. Import- ers' & Traders' Nat. B'k, 12 Hun, 537, 540. v. Scott, 49 K Y. 595. Writ of error dismissed in Scott v. Kelly, 22 Wall. 57. Decision in 49 N. Y. applied (Estoppel, as against one making advance on strength of representations) in Barnett v. Zacharias, 24 Hun, 304, 306. Cited (Separate estate of partner, when considered partnership prop- erty) in Story on Bartn. 7 ed. § 372, n. — v. Scripture, 9 Hun, 283. Disting'd (Arrest of factor) in Trunninger v. Busch, 7 Daly, 124, 126. — - — t. Sheehan, 76 if. Y. 325. Disting'd (Time within which to appeal) in Heilner v. Walsh, 47 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 269, 272! Followed with Kilmer v. Hathorn, 78 K Y. 229, in Langdon v. Evans, 29 Hun, 652. v. Tilton, 2 Abb. Ot. App. Dee. 495. Followed (Liability of one keeping vicious animals) in Lynch v. Mc'Nallv, 7 Daly, 126 132. Kelsey v. Barney, 12 if Y. 425. See Teall v. Barton. Followed (Liability for collision) in Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co 22 if Y. 209, 213. v. Bradbury, 12 if. Y. Leg. Obs. 222. Aff'd in 21 Barb. 531. - — - t. Campbell, 38 Barb. 238. Explained as referring to Ct. of App. (Appeal with- out security) in Etching v. Diehl, 40 Id. 433. v. Deyo, 3 Oow. 133. Explained (Real estate when charged with testator's debts) in 3 Jarm. on W. Rand, and T. ed. 403, n. v. King, 32 Barb. 410; s. c, 11 Abb. Br. 180. Aff'd in 33 How. Br. 39 : s. c, 1 Transc. App. 133. See Milhau «. Sharp. Decision in 33 How. Br. collated with other cases (Compensation to owner of fee of highway, for construction of sewer therein) in Cook Highw. L. 4 ed. 9. Colla- ted with other cases (What rights are acquired by dedication) in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 68. v. Murray, 18 Abb. Br. 294. See other cases collected (Application to inter- vene) in 6 Abb. if. O. 306, n. T. Northern liirht Oil Co., 54 Barb. 111. Aff'd in 45 K Y. 505. v. Rourke, 50 How. Br. 315. Explained (Personal judgment in proceeding to enforce mechanics' lien) in Burroughs v. Fosteran, 2 Abb. if. 0. 333, 339. V. Ward, 16 Abb. Pr. 98. Aff'd,- in part, in 38 N. Y. 83; Yates v. Fassett. Decision in 38 N. Y. applied (Liability for occupation of part of demised premises) in Knox v. Hexter, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 8, 11. Kelso v. Kelly, 1 Daly, 419. Approved and followed (Specific performance of convenant to renew lease) in Vianv v. Ferran, 5 Abb. Br. if S. 1 10. Relied on (Effect of contin- uance in possession by lessee after expira- tion of term) in Delashman 1>. Berrv, 20 Mich. 292; s. c, 4 Am. B. 392. v. Lorillard, 8 Daly, 300. AfTd in 85 K Y. 177. See Van Kleeck v. Reformed Dutch Church. v. Tabor, 52 Barb. 125. See Barnett v. Lichtenstein ; Perkins ». Perkins. Said in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 475, to have been overruled (Married woman as surety on bond or undertaking) in so far as it con- flicts with Woolsey v. Brown, ,11 Hun, 52; 74 N. Y. 82. Kelty v. Second Nat. Bank of Erie, 52 Barb. 328. Cited with Benedict v. Fields, KEMBLE— KENNEDY. 407 16 K Y. 595 ; Roberts v. Fisher, 43 Id. 159; Lightbody «. Ontario Bank, 11 Wend. 1; 13 Id. 101, and many other cases (Im- plied warranty of solvency of bills and notes) in 19 Cent. L. J. 427. Kemble v. Bowne, 1 Cai. 75. Belied on in dissenting opinion of Nott, J. (Materiality of position of insured vessel at time of exe- cuting policy) in Stoney v. Union Ins. Co., 3 Mc(Jord(So. Car.) 387 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dee. 637. Kemp v. Carnley, 3 Duer, 1. See Havens v. Hussey ; Robinson v. Mcintosh. Explained (Power of partner to make assignment for benefit of creditors) in Iiurrill on Assign. § 80, 4 ed. v. Cftuglitry, 11 J6hn». 107. See Colt v. McMechen. Disting'd from admiralty causes with Williams v. Nichols, 13 Wend. 58 (Liability for failure to return proceeds of cargo) in The Now Hampshire, JJ. S. Dist. Ct. E. D. Mich 1880, 21 Fed, Hep. 926. Cited as authority in Hart ». Leach, U. S. Dist. Ct. D. Md. 1884, 21 Fed. Rep 80. Followed in Emery v. Hersey, 4 Oreenl. (Me.) 407; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 268, with note ; Harrington v. McShane, 2 Watts (Pa.) 443; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 321, with note. Explained as resting on a particular custom, in The Waldo, Daveis (2 Ware) 161; Newhall v. Dunlap, 14 Me. 180; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 45. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 104, 5 ed. Quoted in 2 Par's, on Contr. 211, n. o. See Story on Bailm. %% 547, 548. v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 51 Sow. Pr. 31. Rev'd in 69 If. Y. 45. See Bagley v. Peddie. Decision in 69 iP". Y. disting'd (Right to maintain action for mutual mis- take when complaint is for fraud) in McMichacl v. Kilmer, 76 Id. 36, 40. Dis- ting'd (Construction of contract for supply of ice) in Winch v. Mut. Benefit Ice Co., 86 Id. 618. Kempshall v. Burns, 4 Sill, 468. Explained (Right to examine plaintiff, to prove usury) in Henry v. Bank of Salina, 5 Id. 523. v. Stone, 5 .Johns. Ch. 193. Explained (Jurisdiction of equity as to claim for dam- ages) in Hammond «. Pennock, 61 N. Y. 145, 156. Kendall v. Brill, 4 Run, 664. Aff'd, it seems, in 64 If. Y. 638, but without opin- ion. y. Holland Purchase Ins. Co., 2 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 275. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 If. Y. 682, but without opinion. - — Y. Niebuhr, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 542: s. c, 58 How. Pr. 156. Aff'd in 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 544, and this aff'd in Ken- dall v. Woodruff, 87 If. F. 1. v. Rider. See Luckley v. Buckley. - v. Stone, 2 Sancif. 269. Rev'd in 5 ST. Y. 14, without passing on question of exemplary damages. Decision in Id. quoted and collated with other cases (Mal- ice as element of slander of title) in Bigel. Cos. on Torts, 57. T. Washburn, 14 How. Pr. 43. Dis- ting'd but approved (Amendment of sum- mons Served by publication) in Talcott v. Rosenburg, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 287, a case of attachment. Disting'd in Maples ». Mackey, 15 Huh 533, 538, a case of admission of service. v. Woodruff. See Kendall v. Niebuhr. Kendenbnrg; v. Morgan, 18 How. Pr. 409. Followed (Execution against the person) in Molenaer v. Koerner, 13 Ahb. Pr. 241, 242, n. See also Stelle v. Palmer, 11 Id. 62, 64. Kennedy v. Barandon, 4 Hun, 642; s. c, more fullv, 67 Barb. 209. v. City of Troy, 14 Hun, 308. Rev'd in 77 If. Y. 498. v. Cotton, 28 Barb. 59. Quoted and collated with other cases (Allegation in pleading of corporate existence in action against corporation) in Throop's- Justice's Man. 2 ed. 289. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1775, n. v. Crandcll, 3 Lans. 1. Applied (Effect of fraudulent afteration of written evidence of contract) in Meyer v. Huneke, 55 If. Y. 412, 418. v. Eilau, 26 How. Pr. 197; s. c, more fully, 17 Abb. Pr. 73. — — v. Gifford, 19 Wend, 296 ; s. c, 13 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 613, with brief note. v. Kennedy, 73 If. Y. 369. Subsequent decision in 60 How. Pr. 151. Decision in 73 N. Y. relied on (Cruelty, as between husband and wife) in Carpenter v. Carpen- ter, 30 Kans. 712; s. c, 46 Am. R, 108. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 73 N. Y. 365 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 169. Disting'd (Liability of municipal corporation for injuries result ing from unmanageableness of horse) i;i Moss t). City of Burlington, SO Jowa, 438; s. c., 46 Am. R. 82. Relied on in Spauld- ing v. Inhabitants of Winslow, 74 Me. 528, 536; s. c, 28 Alb. L.J. 14. v. , 79 N. Y. 301. Followed (Ap- pointment of janitor of public buildings in N. Y. city) in Fagan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 84 Id. 348, 351. v. Newman. See Tallmadge v. Wallis. v. People, 39 If. Y. 245; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 147. See Fitzgerald v. Same; People v. Rogers. Compare (Misnomer in indictment) Crowley i>. People, 8 Abb. If. C. 1. Disapproved (Sentence under gen- eral verdict of guilty on indictment not showing degree) in Hogan v. State, 30 Wis. 428; s. c, 11 Am. R. 578. v. Ryall, 67 K Y. 379. Affg Ryall v. Kennedy, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 347. Further proceeding in 41 Id. 531; s. c, 52 How. Pr. 517. Decision in 67 If. Y. applied (Domicil of infant is that of parent) in Von Hoffman e. Ward, 4 Red/. 244, 258. v. St. Lawrence County Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Barb. 285. See Bidwell v. North West- ern Ins. Co. Disapproved (Estoppel of insurance company to deny written state- ment that it has causid insurer to make) in 408 .KENNEDY— KERN. Lasher «. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., 55 How. Pr. 318, 322. T. Simmons, 1 Hun, 603. See also (What county judge may act) Code Civ. Pro. § 773. t. Strong, 14 Johns. 128. See Sche- merhorn v. Van Volkenburgh. Followed with Fountain v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 293 ; Bennett v. American Art Union, 5 Sandf. 614 (Effect of forfeiture declared by statute) in Oakland R. R. Co. v. Oakland, Brooklyn, &c. R. R. Co., 45 Cal. 365; s. c, 13 Am. R. 181, 186. v. Thorp, 2 Daly, 258; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 131. Rev'd in 51 N. Y. 174. With decision in 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. compare (Fraud as ground of attachment) Place v. Miller, 6 Id. 178. Kenner y. Morrison, 12 Hun, 204. Ex- plained (Justice liable for false imprison- ment) in Moak's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 192. Kenny t. Clarkson, 1 Johns. 385; s. c, 3 Am. Dee. 336 ; 3 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 183; with brief note on effect of bottomry bonds and prior insurances. t. People, 31 N. 7. 330. Affg 18 Abb. Pr. 91 ; s. c, 27 How. Pr. 202. Decision in 31 it. Y. applied (Intoxication as excuse for crime) in Flanigan v. People, 86 Id. 554, 560. v. Cdall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464. Modified and aff'd in Udall v. Kenney, 3 Cow. 590. Decision in 5 Johns. Ch. followed and approved with Haviland v. Myers, 6 Id. 25 (Equity of wife where husband or those claiming under him seek to obtain posses- sion of her estate) in Elliot v. Waring, 5 T. B. Monr. (K~y.) 338; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 69. Followed with Haviland v. Bloom, 6 Johns. Ch. 178, in Duvall v. Farmers' Bank, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 282 ; s. c, 23 AmJ Dec. 558, with note. Disting'd as inapplicable where the husband was in actual possession of the property, and had incumbered it with judg- ments and executions, — with Haviland «. Myers, 6 Johns. Ch. 25 ; Haviland v. Bloom, Id. 178, — in Thomas ■». Sheppard, 2 MaCord, Ch. (8o. Car.) 36; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 632. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 140, as a case contain- ing a review of the principal authorities on the subject. Kent v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 278. See Conger v. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Wibert v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. Disap- proved (Measure of damages for failure of carrier to deliver) in Jones v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 633. See also Wibert v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 19 Id. 36. .v. Kent, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 630; mem. s. c, 1 Hun, 529. Rev'd in 62 N. Y. 560 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 502. See contrary to decision in Id. (Judgment against executor, as evidence) Harvey v. Wilde, L. R. 14 Eg. C. 438; s. c, 3 Moak's Eng. 811. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 160, n. 9. Followed (Contract when not void as not to be performed within a year) in Smith v. Conlin, 19 Hun, 234. v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 12 Hun, 53. Aff d in part, in 78 K Y. 159 which also aft'd 17 Hun, 169. Another proceeding in 23 Id. 199. See Garnsey v., Rogers; Scott v. Depreyster. Decision in 78. N. Y. applied (Ratification of corporate contracts - made ultra vires) in Sheldon Hat Blocking Co. v. Eickemeyer Hat Blocking Co., 90 Id. 607. Applied to third person dealing with corporation in Tone v. Columbus, 39 Ohio St. 281; s. c, 48 Am. R, 438,451. Ex- plained in Morawetz on Corp. § 77. Quo? tedin Id. §'79. Disting'd with Gunlach v. Germania Mechanics' Ass'n, 4 Hun, 339; Coyle v. Father Mathew, &c. Society, 17 Weekly Dig. 17 (Provision made by associ- ation, when invalid as affecting rights of members) and McCabe v. Father Mathew Society, 24: Hun, 149. Applied in Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Id. 49. Quoted in Moraw- etz on Corp. § 368. Considered as an authority (Power of corporation to issue preferred stock without a charter provision to that effect) in 18 Am. L. Rev. 43, where other cases are discussed. Discussed in 20 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 634, etc., citing other cases. Quoted and explained in Morawetz on Corp. § 353, n. 2. v. Walton, 7 Wend. 256. See Hurd v. West. Included with notes (Usury as de- fense to action on note) in 2 Ames Gas. on B.&.N.MZ. v. Welch, 7 Johns. 258; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 266. See Frost v. Raymond ; Greenby v. Wilcocks. Kentish v. Tatham, 6 Hill, 372. Followed , (Staying second suit until payment of costs of former suit) in Hill v. Grant. 2 Sup'mJ Ct. {T. & C.) 467. Kentucky v. liassford. See Commonwealth of Kentucky v Bassford. Kenyon v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 479. Further proceeding in 76 iV". Y. 607. See Harty v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J. With decision in 5 Hun, see other cases collected (Contributory negli- gence of child) in 6 Abb. N. C. 106, n. v. People, 26 N. Y. 203. Followed (Evidence as to character for chastity) in Kauffman v. People, 11 Hun, 86. Applied (Evidence to sustain conviction for seduc- tion) in Crandall v. People, 2 Lans. 312; Armstrong v. People, 62 N. Y. 43. Dis- ting'd in Cook v. People, 2 Sup'm Ct. (T. & G. ) 410. Followed in Callahan «. State,. 63 lad. 198 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 211, 214. Kenzcl v. Kirk, 37 Barb. 113; s. c, 21 How. Pr. 184. Aff'd in 32 How. Pr. 269. Kercheis v. Schloss, 49 How. Pr. 284. Quoted and collate 1 with other cases (De- claring future preferences in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Bishop on Assign. § 212. Kern v. Rachow, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 239. Previous proceeding as Kern v. Ractow, in 44 How. Pi: 443. v. Towslcy, 45 Barb. 150. See Rundcll KEENOCIIAN— KERSLAKE. 409 v. Lakey. Doctrine discussed (Lien of taxes) in 1 Alb. L. J. .514. Kernochan r. N. Y. Bowery Fire Ins. Co., 5 Duer, 1. Affd in 17 JV. Y. 428. See Benjamin «. Saratoga County , Mut Ins. Co. Decision in 17 If. Y. explained (In- surance of mortgaged premises) in Bradford v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. 267. Disting'd inShotwell i>. Jefferson Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 262 ; Foster v. Van Reed, 70 If. Y. 26. Dictum explained in Excelsior Fire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 55 Id. 356. Fol- lowed iu Norwich Fire Ins. Co. a>. Broomer, 52 III. 442; s. c, 4 Am. R. 618. Cited, with numerous other cases, in Dick i>. Frank- lin Fire Ins. Co., 10 Mo. App. 376, 385. Kerr, Matter of, 42 Barb. 119. Relied on (Right to take franchise or property of one corporation for purposes of another) in ( Grand Rapids, &c. R. R. Co. «. Grand Rapids & Indiana R. VL. Co., 35 1 Mich,. 265; s. c.,.24 Am. R. 545. Kerr v. Blodgett, 25 How. Pr. 303; s. c, more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. 137. Another deci- sion in 48 N. Y. 62. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (What creditors ai'e entitled to divi- dends from debtor's assigned estate) in Matter of Currier, 8 Daly, 119, which was, however, overruled in Matter of Bailey, 5S How. Pr. 440, which see. Compare (Par- ties in creditor's action) Anonymous, 18 Abb. Pr. 87. Referred to in 34 Am. Dec. 723, %., as an instructive illustration of the doctrine {Cestuis que trust as parties, in case of their being numerous). y. Dougherty, 59 How. Pr. 44. Mod- ified and affd in 17 Hun, 341 ; and that aff'd in 79 If. Y. 327. See Chamberlain v. Chamberlain. Decision in 79 If. Y. ex- plained (Lapsed legacies when included in residue) in Matter of Benson, 90 Id. 499. Disting'd in Matter of L'Hommedieu, 32 Hun, 10. Disting'd with Stephenson v. Short, 92 If. Y. 433 ; Lcfevre v. Lefevre, 59 Id. 134 (Bequests to corporations) in Hollis v. Drew Theological Seminary, 95 Id. 166. Disting'd in Riley v. Diggs, 2 Dem. 184. Followed with Lefevre «. Lefevre, 59 If. Y. 434, in Stephenson v. Short, 02 Id. 433. See L. 1881, c. 641. v. Hays, 35 N. Y. 331. Followed (Parol evidence as to matters passed on in former suit) in Pierce v. Tuttle, 58 Id. 651. • v. Kerr, 41 If. Y. 272. See Hoffman, s. Hoffman ; Huggins v. King ; Kinnier v. Kinnior ; Shumway v. Stillman. Followed (Effect of foreign divorce) in Phelps v. Baker, 60 Barb. 110; People v. Baker, 70 If. Y. 83. Disting'd in Hunt v. Hunt. 9 Hun, 624; which was aff'd in 72 2f. Y. 217, 240, which see. Applied (Effect of judgment rendered on unauthorized appearance) in dissenting opinion of Gbover, J., in Brown «. Nichols, 42 Id. 40, and see note thereto. Applied (Inquiry into jurisdiction of court other State) in Sheriffs. Smith, 47 How. Pr. 471. Doctrine declared applicable to do- mestic judgments in Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 K Y. 261. Cited in 1 Kent Com. 262, n. 1, Holme's ed., with many authorities pro and con. See (Revocation of letters) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2685,». v. McGuire, 28 If. Y. 446. See (Ser- vice of papers) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 796, n. v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 3 Edw. 315. Approved (Extent of interest of lessee of apartment) in Graves v. Berdan, 29 Barb. 100. Followed in Stockwell ». Hunter, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 448; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 220, 224, with note. Cited with approval in Curtiss v. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 154; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 149, 155, with note, where it was held that the possession of the lessor was such as to enable him to maintain trespass for the destruction. v. Mount, 28 XT. Y. 659. Explained and disting'd with- Lyon v. Yates, 52 Barb. 238 (Protection afforded by erroneous process) in Hall v. Munger, 5 Bans. 110. Disting'd in Day v. Bach, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 460, 466. Opposed (Time of issuing attachment) in Corson v. Ball, 44 Barb. 452. Applied in Taddiken «. Cantrell, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 222. Explained as decided before amendment of Code Pro. § 227, — in Wallace ■n. Castle, 68 If. Y. 370. Disting'd in Webb v. Bailey, 54 Id. 164. v. Purdy, 50 Barb. 24. Rev'd in 51 If. Y. 629. See Ketchum v. Evertson. v. Shaw, 13 Johns. 236. Disting'd (What is breach of covenant for quiet enjoy- ment) in St. John v. Palmer, 5 Hill, 602 ; Webb v. Alexander, 7 Wend. 285. Exam- ined with other cases in dissenting opinion of Dwigiit, C, in Shattuck o. Lamb, 65 If. Y. 512. Applied (What constitutes evic- tion) in Lansing v. Van Alstyne, 2 Wend. 564, n. Explained (Sufficiency of memor- andum required by statute of frauds) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 231, n. 2, 4 ed. Cited as sustaining the English doc- trine in Benj. on Sales, § 232, n. u (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.). Kerraius v. People, 60 N. Y. 221. Exam- ined and applied (Distinction between occu- pancy as servant and as tenant) in Chatard v. O'Donovan, 80 Ind. 20; s. c, 41 Am. R. 782 ; 21 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 401, 463. Kerrigan t. Force, 9 Hun, 185. Aff'd in 68 If. Y. 381. See People ex rel. Comm'rs of Washington Parks. Banks. Kerrisou v. Kerrison, 8 Abb. If. C. AAA. Followed (Marriage when valid though prohibited by statute) in Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 80 If. Y. 18, 27. Kershaw v. Thompson, 4 Johns. Ch. 609. Followed (Jurisdiction of court of chancery to decree possession of land) in Irvine's Heirs ». McRee, 5 Humph. (Term.) 554 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 468. Kerslalte v. Schooinnaker, 1 Hun, 436. Fully reported in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 524. Collated with other cases (Rejection of com- petent evidence by referee) in Hoffm. on Referees, 72. 410 KERW1N— KETELTAS. Kerwin, Ex parte, 8 Cow. 118. Disapproved with Woolly «. Constant, 4 Johns. 60 (Parol proof, of authority to fill in blanks of deed) in Williams v. Crutchev 5 How. (Miss.) 71; s. a, 35 Am. Bee. 422, with note. Cited with Hanford v. McNair, 9 Wend. 54 ; Blood v. Goodrich, Id. 68 ; Worrall v. Munn, 5 N. T. 229; Knight v. Sabler, 30 Barb. 218, in 10 Am. R. 268, n., as showing the question to be not settled in N. Y. Compared, and rule in other States stated, in 12 Am. L. Reg. K S. 713. Kesler v. Haynes, 6 Wend. 547. Overruled (Effect of omission of sheriff to take suffi- cient security in replevin) in Smith v. Mc- Fall, 18 Id. 521 ; Wilson v. Williams^ Id. 581. Kessel v. Albetis, 56 Barb. 362. Cited (Dis- missal of action on transaction violating revenue laws) in 1 Whart. Com. on Eh. § 283. Kessler v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co.. 7 Lans. 62. Aff'd in 61 N. Y. 538. See Bostwick v. Champion ; Quimby v. Vander- bilt. Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. 144; s. c, 5 Am. Bee. 197. Explained with Marquand v. N. Y. Manuf. Co., 17 Johns. 525; Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Id. 513, as not authorities (Power of partner to dissolve partnership made for specified time) in Ferrero v. Buhl- meyer, 34 Bow. Pi: 33. Followed with National B'k v. Norton, 1 Bill, 572 ; Davis v. Allen, 3 iV. Y. 168; Austin v. Holland, 69 Id. 571 (Power of partner to bind firm after its dissolution) in National Shoe & L. B'k «. Herz, 89 N~. Y. 629. Quoted in 2 Oollyer on Parln. § 536, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. v. Hiller, 48 Barb. 596. Disting'd and applied (Option of delivery of goods sold) in Brooklyn Oil Refinery •». Brown, 38 How. Pr. 444. v. Woodruff, 24 Barb. 147. See to the contrary (Remedy for review of judgment on award) Isaacs v. Beth Hamedrash Soc, 19 N. Y. 584. Ketchell v. Burns, 24 Wend. 456. See Lamourieux v. Hewitt; Packer i>. Willson. Disting'd (Negotiability of guaranty) in Hayden 11. Weldon, 14 Vroom (N. J.) 133. Commented on in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 139. Explained in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 3, n. a. Ketchum v. Bank of Commerce, 19 K Y. 499. Doctrine discussed and cases collected (Payment of forged paper) in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 337. \. Barber, 4 Hill, 224. Aff'd in 7 Id. 444. Opinion of Bbonson, J., in 4 Bill, explained (Sale of credit, when not usurious) in More v. Howland, 4 Ben. 264. Compare (Contents of notary's certificate of protest) Code Oiv. Pro. § 923. v. City of Buffalo, 21 Bar b. 294. Aff'd in 14 N. Y. 350. Decision in Id. followed (Implied powers of municipal corporations to incur debt) in City of Williamsport v. Commonwealth, 84 Penn. St. 487; s. c, 24 Am. R. 208, 222. Disting'd in Pratt e. Luther. 45 Ind. 250. Applied in Smith n. City of Newbern, 70 K O. 14; s. c, 18 Am. R. 766, 708. Reviewed in 30 Am. Bee. 193, n., as illustrating distinction between power of municipal corporation to borrow, and to create indebtedness in pursuit of its municipal powers or duties; see also Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 269; Curtiss v. Leavitt, 15 jV. Y. 269 (dis- senting opinion of Selden, J.), collated as to the implied power of private corporations to borrow. v. Durkee, Hoffm. 538. Rev'd in part, in 1 Barb. Gh. 480 ; s. c, 45 Am. Bes. 412, with note wherein are collected citations. See Deveau e. Fowler. Decision in 1 Barb. Ch. doubted (Rights of creditors, on disso- lution of partnership) in Cory v. Long, 2 Sweeny, 491. y. Evertson, 13 Johns. 359; s. c, 7 Am. Bee. 384. See Battle ». Rochester City B'k; Ellis v. Hoskins ; Gazley v. Price; Van Eps v. Mayor of Schenectady. ' Limited to contracts for a single thing (Forfeiture on failure to perform contracts to purchase land, &c.) in Tipton v. Feitner, 20 N. Y. 423, 428. Approved and applied as having been constantly re-asserted, and acted upon, in Monroe v. Reynolds, 47 Barb. 574. ,, Applied in Davison ». Associates of the Jersey Co., 6 Hun, 470, 473 ; Reviewed with Raymond «. Bernard, 12 Johns. 274, and other cases, in Packer v. Button, 35 Vt. 188, 193. Distiug'd in Baston v. Clifford, 68 III 67 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 547, 550. See cases collected in 7 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 79. Cited with Robinson v. Cropsey, 2 Edw. 147; Wells v. Smith, 7 Paige, 22; Kerr v. Purdy, 51 A T . Y. 629; Peoples' Bank v. Mitchell, 73 Id. 400 (Time as essence of contract to purchase) in Steele v. Bond, 32 Minn. 14, 22. v. Ketchum, 1 Abb. Pr. K S. 157. Aff'd as Isham v. Ketchum, 46 Barb. 43. See Tracy v. First Nat. Bank of Selma. Decision in 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. denied (Motion after judgment to vacate attachment) in Zeregal v. Benoist. 7 Robt. 199, as suffi- ciently answered by Thompson ». Culver, 15 Abb. Pr. 07. See Code Civ.' Pro. 1881, § 682, n. See (When atachment may be granted) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. VII, tit III, art. 1, n. v. Miln, 3 Selderis Notes, 152. See Rawson v. Copland. Followed (Set-off against personal representative) in Jordon v. Shoe & Leather Nat. B'k 12 Hun, 512, 514. Explained and followed in Patterson v. Patterson, 59 N. Y. 574, 577. v. Stevens, 6 Buer, 463. Aff'd in 19 N. Y. 499. Keteltas, Matter of. See Ketteltas, Matter of. Keteltas v. Coleman, 2 E. B. Smith, 408. See Keteltas v. Murphy. See authority reviewed (Sub-leases and assignments) in 16 Am. L. Rev. 30. v. Fleet, 7 Johns. 324. Trial at nisi prills, reported in Anth. N. P. 52.. KETELTAS— KILLMER. 411 — i- T. Green. See Keteltas ». Keteltas. ¥. Keteltas, 53 How. Pr. 65. Another proceeding in 72 N. Y. 312 ; s. c, 2S Am. R. 155. Also another proceeding as Ket- eltas v. Green. 9 Hun, 599. See Murdock v. Ward ; Wright v. Trustees of Moth. Epis. Church. Decision in 53 IIow. Pr. distiug'd (Who may sue for construction of will) in Duncan v. Duncan, 4 Abb. K G. 275, 278. Decision in 72 if. Y. disting'd (Widow's right, as next of kin, to share in estate) in Betsinger v. Chapman, 24 Hun, 15, 18. With decision in 9 Id. compare (Title must be clear to give surrogate jurisdiction to distribute) Code Civ. Pro. § 2719. v. Murphy, 11 if. Y. Leg. Obs. 151. AfF d as Keteltas v. Coleman, in 2 E. D. Smith, 408. ; v. Myers, 3 E. D. Smith, 83 ; s. c, more fully, 1 Abb. Pr. 403. Rev'd on the ques- tion of the sufficiency of the complaint, in 19 N. Y. 231. t. Penfold, 4 E. D. Smith, 122. Cited with Rindge v. Baker, 57 N. Y. 209 (Effect of party-wall agreement) in Roche *. Ull- man, 104 III. 11, 20. See also Hazlctt v. Sinclair, 76 lnd. 488; s. c, 40 Am. E. 2)4. Collated with other cases in McAdam Landl. & T.I ed. § 233. v. Wilson, 36 Barb. 298. Collated with other cases (Acts showing intention to de- lay creditor) in Bishop on Assign. § 222. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. § 331, n. i, 4 ed. Quoted (Expenses of the trust) in Id. § 418, n. 5. Ketteltas, Matter of. 2 Hun, 221 ; s. c, less fully, 48 How. Pr. 116 ; mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& 0.) C57. Modified, it seems, as Matter of Keteltas, in 62 JV. Y. 624, but without opinion. Kentgen v. Parks, 2 Sandf. 60. See Rams- dell v. Morgan. Disapproved with Pringle v. Phillips, 5 Sandf. 60 ; Danforth v. Dart, 4 Duer, 101 (Who is bona fide holder) in Belmont Branch B'k v. Iloge, 35 K Y. 65. Keyser, Matter of, 10 Abb. Pr. 481. Quali- fied (Meaning of "fraud or legal irregular- ity ") in Matter of Babcock, 23 How. Pr. 118. Keyser v. Harbeck, 3 Duer, 373; s. c, 12 K Y. Leg. Obs. 201 ; 2 Liv. Law Mag. 548. Compare with this case and People v. Adlcr, 3 Park. 249; Ward v. People, 3 Hill, 398 (Disqualification of witness) Shay v. People, 22 N. Y. 317. v. Kelly, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 22. Another proceeding in 4 Iicdf. 157. Kiah v. Grenier, 1 Snp'm Ct. (T. S C.) 3S8. Aff d in 56 M Y. 220, without passing on anything but the construction of the will. Decision in Id. disting'd (Who may main- tain action for construction of will) in Chip- man 0. Montgomery, 63 Id. 221, 231. Kidd v. Chapman, 2 Barb. Ch. 414. See Fitzpatrick v. ISrady. Followed (Surrogate's power to decree payment of judgment) in McNulty v. Hurd, 11 Hun, 339, 341. Ap- plied (What is rejection of claim, by exec- utor, &c.) in Hoyt v. Bonnett, 50 AT. Y. 538, 544. v. McCormiek, 83 N. Y. 391. Quoted and explained (Damages in actions on con- tract) in 2 Greenl. on En. 14 ed. § 261, n. a. Kidder t. Horrobin, 72 K Y. 159. Followed (Right of assignee in bankruptcy to sue in state court) iu Wetmore t>. McMillan, 57 Iowa, 344, 349. See also Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. N. C. 72. Kiernan, Matter of, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 320; mem. s. c, 3 Hun, 623. Eev'd in 62 N. Y. 457. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of L. 1859, c. 213, respecting local improve- ments in'Brooklyn) in People ex rel. Ross ». City of Brooklyn, 69 N. Y. 605. Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria E. R. Co., 1 Hun, 151; s. c , 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 662. Further decision in 54 How. Pr. 29, which was rev'd in 69 N. Y. 343; s. c, 55 How. Pr. 51; 25 Am. R. 199. Previous proceeding in 44 How. Pr. 379. Decision iu 69 N. Y. disting'd with Briggs 1). Par- tridge, 64 Id. 357; Taft «. Brewster, 9 Johns. 334 ; Stone v. Wood, 7 Cow. 453 ; Guyon v. Lewis, 7 Wend. 26 (Individual liability of agent executing contract) in Whitford v. Laidler, 94 N. Y. 145, which rev'd 25 Hun, 136, which see. Compare (Action for use and occupation under deed) 6 Am. L. Rev. 17, 18; Abb. Tr. Ev. 352. Kiff v. Youmans, 30 Hun, 123. Rev'd in 86 N. Y. 324. See Kipp v. Youmans ; Phelps v. Nowlen. Kilboiirne v. Allyn, 7 Lam. 352. Affd as Kilbourne v. St. John, 59 N. Y. 21 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 291. Decision in Id. disting'd (Action by tax-payer to prevent waste of county funds) in Newton ». Keech, 9 Hun, 3.15. Commented on in 2 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 1296, n. 1. v. St. John. See Kilbourne «. Allyn. Kilburn v. Coe, 47 How. Pr. 467. Further proceeding in 48 How. Pr. 144. See Christy v. Kiersted. v. Low, 25 Hun, 61. Abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 556. v. Partridge. • Reported under Mason v. Partridge, 4 Hun, 621. . Aff'd in 66 N~. Y. 633. v. Woodivorth, 5 Johns. 37; s. c, 4 Am. Dee. 321. Disting'd (Validity of for- eign judgment) in Holmes v. Holmes, 8 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 3. Examined with other cases in Harrod v. Barretto, 1 Hall, 161. Followed in Robinson v. Ward, 8 Johns. 90; Fenton v. Garlick, Id. 197; Bradshaw v. Heath, 13 Weud. 418. Cited approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 261, n. 5, with many other authorities. Killmer v. Hobart, 58 How. Pr. 452. See Runk v. St. John. Relied on with other cases (Right of foreign receiver to posses- sion of property held by him as receiver) iu Chicago, Milwaukee, &c. R'y Co. v. Keo- kuk, &c. Packet Co., 108 111. 317; s. c, 48 Am. R. 557. 412 ZILLMOKE-KING. Killinore t. Cttlver, 24 Bwrb. 656. Over- ruled (Denial of plaintiffs title to note) in Hays e. Southgate, 10 Hun, 511, 514; which was, however, rev'd in Hays v. Hath- orn, 74 N. Y. 486. ■ v. Hewlett, 48 K T. 569. See Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary. Followed (Con- tract for cutting of timber as affected by statute of frauds) in Boyce v. Washburn, 4 Hun, 792. Explained in 1 Ben], on Sales, § 117, n. 5 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Explained (Agreements for work and labor, dis- tinguished from sales) in Id. § 109, n. y (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Kilmer v. Bradley, 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.). 585. Appeal dismissed in 80 N. Y. C30. — — v. Hathorn. See Bockes v. Hathorn ; Kelly v. Sheehan. Disting'd (Time within which to appeal) in Heihier v. Walsh, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 269, 272. r. O'Brien, 13 Hun, 224. Further pro- ceeding as Kilner v. O'Brien, 14 Hun, 414. v. Smith, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 461. Aff'd in 77 K Y. 226. See Welles v. Yates. Decision in 77 N. Y. applied (Reformation of deed) in Albany City Savgs. Inst. v. Burdick, 87 Id. 40, 48; Smith v. Truslow,' 84 Id. 660. Kilner v. O'Brien. See Kilmer v. O'Brien. Disting'd (Effect of usurious transaction on subsequent contract) in Tyler v. McNeil, 16 Weekly Dig. 389. Kilpsitrick v. Johnson, 15 K Y. 322. See Haxtun v. Corse. Followed with Hnxtun v. Corse, 2 Barb. 506 ; Robison c. Robison, 5 Bans. 165 (Disposition of income of prop- erty unlawfully directed to be accumulated) Vail v. Vail, 4 Paige, 317, disapproved, and Phelps v. Pond, 23 JT. Y. 69 ; Hull e. Hull, 24 Id. 647, criticised in Cook ». ; Lowry, 29 Hun, 20. Explained in McGrath v. Van Stavoren, 8 Daly, 454, 457. v. People, 5 Hen. 277. Collated with other cases (Malicious mischief when in- dictable) in 1 Bennett & H. Cols, on Grim. L. 18. Kimball v. Davis, 19 Wend. 437. Rey'd as Brown v. Kimball in 25 Wend. 259.; See Mott v. Doughty. Desision in 19 Wend, ap- proved (Effect of formal defects in return to commission) in Rust s. Eckler, 41 H. Y. 497. Decision in 25 Wend, limited (Proof of deed) in Northrup v. Wright, 7 Hill, 476. See (Admissibility of declarations of witnesses to contradict their depositions) Evertson v. Carpenter, 17 Wend. 419; How- land v. Conway, 1 Abb. Adm. 281, and caoes cited in note. v. Hamilton Ins. Co. See JEtna Fire Ins. Co. v. Tyler ; Deming v. Colt. Y. Huntington, 10 Wend. 675; s. c, 25 Am»Dec. 590. See Andrews v. Beecker; Russell v. Whipple. Recognized as author- ities (Effect of pica puis darrein continuance after plea in bar) in True v. Iluntoon, 54 JV. U. 121. v. Newell, 7 Hill, 116. Followed (Lia- bility of surety on married woman's con- tract) in Davis v. Statts, 43 2nd. 103 ; s. c, 13 Am. H. 382; Osborn v. Robbins, 36 N. Y. 365, being disting'd as the case of a note procured by duress. Followed in Hicks v. Randolph, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 352 ; s. c, 27 Am. H. 760. Followed in Wagoner ». Watts, 15 Vroom {N. J.) 126. Citing also Reinsen v. Graves, 41 N. Y. 471. Kimberly v. Patchin, 19 N. Y. 330. Dis- ting'd (Passing of title, on sale of personal property) in Cooke «. Millard, 65 Id. 365 ; Higgins v. Delaware. L. & W. R. It. Co., 60 Id. 553. Explained and disting'd in Foot v. Marsh, 51 Id. 288, 292. Followed and approved in Hurff v. Hires, 11 Vroom (iV. J.) 58l'; s. c, 29 Am. R. 282, 291. Denied in Ferguson v. Northern Bank of Kentucky, 14 Bush (Ky.) 555; s. c, 29 Am. R. 418, 423. Disapproved in Commercial Nat'l B'k v. Gillette, 90 Ind. 268; s. c, 46 Am. It. 222. Discussed in Benj. on Sales, § 347, n. e. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.); Id. % 352, n. a. Explained in 1 Id. (Corbin's 4. Am. ed.). Quoted and explained in Id. § 478; Id. §§ 484, 485. Followed and applied to case of severance of personalty between tenants in common, in Channon v. Lusk, 2 Lans. 211. Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70, 75. Kincaid v. Archibald, 10 Hun, 9. Aff'd in 73 AT. Y. 189. v. Dwindle, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 326. Aff d in 59 2V. Y. 548. See Hovey v. Ten Broeck ; People v. Globe Mut. Ins. Co. With decision in 59 N. Y. compare (Rights of creditor of corporation, as affected by appointment of receiver) Chamberlain «. Rochester Seamless Paper Vessel Co., 7 Hun, 557; Hetzel v. Tannehill Silver Mining Co., 4 Abb.N. C. 40. Applied (Effect of judg- ment against corporation, as against stock- holder) in Wheeler v. Miller, 24 Hun, 541, 544. Applied with People t>. Albany k Susquehanna R. R. Co., 1 Lans. 308 ; 5 Id. 25 (Effect of injunction against corporation) iu Society of Italian Union e. Montedonico, Ky. Super. Ct. Ky. L. Rep. & J. 587. v. Richardson, 9 Abb. N. C. 315. Aff'd by Gen. Term, 4th Dept. Oct. 1881. King v. Baldwin, 2 Johns. Ch. 554. Rev'd in 17 Johns. 384; s. c, % Am. Dec. 415, with note ; 6 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 404, with note, collating conflicting authorities. See Boardsley v. Warner: Gahn ». Niem- cewicz ; Hayes v. Ward ; Hubbard v. Gur- ney ; Pain «. Packard; People v. Berner; People v. Jansen, Schroeppell v. Shaw. Decision in 2 Johns. Ch. examined with other cases (Rights of suiety in equity) in Pardee i>. Van Anken, 3 Barb. 540. Ap- proved iu Hcllams v. Abercrombie, 15 So. Car. 110. Decision in 17 Johns, criticised and doubted in Schroeppell v. Shaw, 8 N. Y. 454. Included with notes in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 372. Decision in 2 Johns. Ch. disting'd (Surety as affected by failure of. creditor to proceed against debtor) in Supervisors of Monroe v. Otis, 62 N. Y. 94. Approved in Caston v. Dunlap, Rich KING. 413 Eq. (So. Oar.) 77 ; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 194, with note, notwithstanding Pain i>. Pack- ard, 13 Johns. 174, and decision in 17 Id. Followed in Smith v. Tunn, 1 McCord's Ch. (So. Gar.) 443; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 617, with note. Included in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 cd. 364. Approved (Author- ity of TothilVs Reports) in Bcall v. Hilliary, 1 Md. 86 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 049, 651, with note. Decision in 17 Johns disting'd (Surety as affected by failure of creditor to proceed against debtor) in Euggles v. Hol- den, 3 Wend. 217. Criticised and limited in Warner v. Beardsley, 8 Wend. 198. Applied in Row v. Pulver, 1 Cow. 247; Field v. Cutler, 4 Lans. 197; Albany Dutch Church «. Vedder, 14 Wend. 171. Approved in Hubbard v. Gurney, 54 N. Y. 464. Dis- approved with Pain v. Packard, 13 Johns. 174, in Herrick v. Borst, 4 Hill, 656. Pol- lowed as settled law in Ilemsen v. Beekman, 25 N~. Y. 550 ; Colgrove «). Tallman, 67 Id. 99 ; Toles «. Adee, 84 Id. 222, 239. Limited in Converse v. Cook, 25 Hun. 44, 47. Referred to in 34 Am. Dec. 580, n., as (though always having been followed in N. Y, and to some extent elsewhere) being against the weight of authority in America and England. Decisions in 2 Johns. Oh. and 17 Johns commented on at length with Pain v. Packard, 13 Johns. 174, in Sprigg v. Bank of Mount Pleasant, 10 Pet. 257, 266. Decision in 12 Johns, approved (Proof at law, that one is bound as surety) in Harmon v. Hale, 1 Wash. 422 ; s. c, 34 Am. E. 810, 820. Followed with Post v. Kim- •berly, 9 Johns. 470 ; Rathbone v. Warren, 10 Id. 595, and LeGuen v. Gouverneur, 1 Johns. Gas. 436; disting'd (Equitable relief on grounds available at law) in Hempstead i. Watkins, 6 Ark. 317; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 606, 704, 706. v. Bardean, 6 Johns. Ch. 38 ; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. .312. Explained and followed (Specific performance of contract of sale of real estate) in Beyer v. Marks, 2 Sweeny, 715. Disting'd in Stokes v.< Johnson, 57 AT. Y. 673, 075. v. Brown, 2 Hill, 485. See Shute v. Dorr. Doubted (Remedy for money paid, &c, on void contract) in Ilellmans, Strauss, 2 Hilt. 9,11. Explained in Jack v. M'Kee, 9 Burr (Penn.) 235. Differently explained in Malaun's Administrator v. Amnion, 1 Grants (Penn.) Cas. 123, 142. See Erben v. Lorillard, 19 2f. Y. 299. Applied with cast's from N. Y. and elsewhere in Williams v. Bemis, 108 Mass. 91; s. c, .11 Am. R. 318. Discussed in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1323, h. b, U Am. ed. Explained in Id. 852, n. h, 854. v. Butler, 15 Johns. 281. Disting'd with Olney v. Wickes, 18 Id. 125 (Liability of successors of overseers of the poor) in Grant o. Fanchcr, 5 Cow. 309, 312. v. Dcspard, 5 Wend. 277. Commented on (Guaranties as affected by statute of frauds) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, % 204, n. 1, 4 ed. Explained in CJiitty on Contr. 753, n. n, 11 Am. ed. v. Dowdall, 2 Sandf. 131. Followed (Sunday when included in computation of time) in Cressey «. Parks, 75 Me. 387; s. c, 46 Am. R. 406. y. Fitch, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 508. Fol- lowed (Evidence of prior fraudulent rep- resentations) in Coffin v. Hollister, 31 Hun, 81. See to the contrary (Testimony of par- ties) Learned v. Ryder, 61 Barb. 552. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 620. ■■ v. Galvin, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. <& C.) 467; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 258. Appeal dismissed in 62 If. Y. 238. Decision in Id. applied (Right to appeal, as determined by amount in controversy) in Roosevelt v. Linkert, 67 Id. 447 ; Brown v. Sigourney, 72 Id. 122. Followed, but point not indicated, in Nat. B'k of Fort Edward i>. Washington County Nat. B'k, Id. 606. • y. Greeinvay, 71 N. Y. 413. See Fralick v. Betts. Explained (Maritime contracts) in Wilson v. Lawrence, 82 J¥. Y. 409. T. Harris, 30 Barb. 471. Affd in 34 N. Y. 330. Decision in Id. followed (Lien of judgment as affected by decision rever- sing decision by wliich judgment was vacated or reversed) in Underwood v. Green, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 481, 485. v. Havens, 25 Wend. 420. See (Double, &c, damages) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1184, n. v. Knapp, 66 Barb. 225. Affd in 50 K Y. 462. See Phillip v. Gallant. v. Leighton, 22 Hun, 419. Compare other proceedings in 58 N. Y. 383 ; also mem. in 23 Han, 533. Decision in 58 N. Y. followed (Party to action, when not to be compelled to be examined) in Burnett v. Snyder, 41 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 342, 347. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 885, n. v, Lenox, 19 Johns. 235. Followed with Satterlee ». Groat, 1 Wend. 272 ; Allen v. Sewall, 2 Id. 327 (Liability of carrier for loss of goods shipped under contract with agent) in Jones v. Sims, 9 Port. (Ala.) 236; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 313, 316. Appears to be limited with Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Wend. 272 (Who are net liable as common carriers) in Jones v. Pitcher, 3 Steut. & P. (Ala.) 135 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 710, 741. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 146, 5 ed. v. Livermore, 9 Hun, 298. Aft'd, it seems, in 1\. N. Y. 005, but without opin- ion. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 36 N. Y. 183. Followed as decisive (Appeal to General Term in proceedings to take land for streets) in Matter of widening Broadway, 6t Barb. 485 ; Matter of Kingbridge Road, 4 Hun, 604. Followed (Conclusiveness of decision of General Term in such proceedings) in Slatter of Comm'rs of Central Park, 50 N. Y. 497. v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 5 JSl. Y. 547. Examined and applied (Implied power of corporation to borrow money) in Curtis a. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 63, 220. 414: KING— KINGSBUEY. v. N. T. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 769. Eev'd in 66 JST. Y. 181 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 37. Mem. of further appeal iu 72 Jf. Y 607. See Higgins v. Watervliet Turnpike Co. Decision in 72 N. Y. applied (Admis- sibility of evidence of a collateral nature) in Saulsbury v. Village of Ithaca, 24 Hun, 12, 15. Disting'd (Negligent use of derrick) in Derrenbacher v. Lehigh Valley R'y Co., 87 2V. Y. 636. Decision in 4 Bun, disting'd in Marvin v. Muller, 25 Id. 163, 165. De- cision in 66 Jf. Y. followed (Existence of relation of master and servant) ; Coughtry ». Globe Woolen Co., 56 Id. 124, being dis- ting'd in Larock v. Ogdensburg & L. C. R. R. Co., 26 Hun, 382. Collated with Mc- Cafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. R. Co., 61 W. Y. 178 ; Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Id. 222; Kelly «. Mayor, &c. of K Y., 11 Id. 432 (Liability of employer for wrongful acts of employee) in 18 Am. L. Rev. 635, 641. - — v. O'Brien, 38 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 49. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 57 N. Y. 653, but without opinion. T. Orser, 4 Duer, 431. Disting'd (Offi- cer's liability in replevin) in Manning v. Keenan, 9 Hun, 686, 689. = y. Phillips. See Wood 0. Same. v. Piatt, 37 N. Y. 155. Other proceed- ings in 34 How. Pr. 26. See Collier v. Whipple. Decision in 34 How. Pr. cited as authority (Time for appealing from final orders) in Jarvis ». Hamilton, 37 Wis. 87. Decision in 37 N. Y. followed (Setting aside judicial sale) in Kellogg 1>. Howell* 62 Barh. 280, 291. y. Poole, 36 Barb. 242. See Humiston n. Ballard. Followed and approved (Right of successful party to costs where suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction) in Bitz v. Meyer, 11 Vroom (iV". J.) 252; s. c, 29 Am. R. 233. • y. Eoot, 4 Wend. 113; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 102, with note containing citations of the case. See Root v. King. Quoted and commented on (Action against newspaper for libel) in Gooley on Guns. Limit. 5 ed. 561. v. Bundle, 15 Barb. 139. Compare (Bequests, &c. to religious corporations) Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 525. Col- lated with other cases in Gerard') Titles to Real Est. 2 ed. 298. v. Sarria, 7 Htm, 167. Aff'd in 69 iV. Y. 24; s. c, 25 Am. R. 128. Decision in Id. followed (Enforcing and recognizing foreign partnership' law) in Lawrence v. Batcheller, 131 Mass. 504, 509. — v. Stow, 6 Johns. Oh. 323. Overruled (Validity of sale of mortgaged land by one loan commissioner) in Powell v. Tuttle, 3 N. Y. 396. T. Talbot, 40 W. Y. 76. Aff'g 50 Barb. 453. Decision in 40 K Y. followed (Duty of trustees as to investments) in Goodwin v. Howe, 62 How. Pr. 134, 136; Gillespie v. Brooks, 2 Red/. 349, 358. Disting'd in Juddfl. Warner, 2 Bern, 104. Collated with other cases in other jurisdictions holding a less strict rule, in Lamar v. Micou, 112 IT. 8. 452, 468. Collated with other cases in 7 Am. R. 33, n. Included in Zinn's Lead. Gas. on Trusts, 322. Commented on in Hoffm: on Referees, 110. Disting'd (Charging trustees at reduced rate of inter- est) in Whitney v. Phcanix, 4 Red/. 180, 199. Applied in Livermore v. Wortman,' 25 Hun, 341, 343. Reviewed and explained with Shuttleworth v. Winter, 55 K Y. 624 ; .Haskins v. Teller, 3 Redf. 323 ; Wheeler v. Ruthven, 2 Id. 495; Hoffman v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 1 Hem. 118. Fol- lowed and approved in Micou v. Lamar, IT. S. Gir, Ct. S. D. N. Y, 12 Reporter, 39 j s. c, 7 Fed; Rep. 180. Disting'd (Interest on advances by trustees) in Cook v. Lowry 29 Hun, 20. v. Van Dusen, 25 Hun, 60 ; Abridg't,-s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 562. v. West, 10 How. Pr. 333. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bowen. Overruled (Deter- mination of claims as to surplus money's in ■ foreclosure) in Bergen ». Carman, 79 JW. Y. 152. Compare Thomas on Mort. 380. Col- lated with other cases in Colby on Forecl. 42. v. Whitely, Hoffm. 477. Aff'd in 10 Paige, 465. See Hamill v. Gillespie; Trotter v. Hughes. Decision in 10 Paige, followed (Liability of purchaser of iucum- bered property) in Ford v. David, 1 Bosw. 600. Reviewed with other cases in Gamsey v. Rogers, 47 N. Y. 236; Real Estate Co. v. Balch, 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 531 ; Pardee «. Treat, 82 N. Y. 385, 388. Explained in Douglass v. Wells, 18 Hun, 91. Approved and applied in Trotter v. Hughes, 12 N. Y. 77. Explained and commented on with Trotter v. Hughes, Burr v. Beers, 24 JV. Y. 178, in Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co , 48 Id. 253. Said in Vrooman ». Turner, 69 Id. 285, not to have been overruled by Lawrence v. Fox, 20 Id. 268. Disapproved in dissenting opinion in Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 Id. 39. v. Woodlmll, 3 Edw. 7«, Commented on with other cases (Void gifts included in residuary legacies) in Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. N. G. 317, 420. Compared (Bequest to unincorporated society) in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 274. Explained in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 748, n. Kinghorn v. Wright, 45 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 615. Aff'd in 83 N. Y. 604. Kingman v. Hotaling. See Both v. Palmer. Kingsbridge Road, Matter of, 4 Hun, 599. Aff'd, it seems, in 02 K Y. 045, but without _ opinion. Another decision iu 5 Ilun, 146. Kingsbury v. Kirwin, 43 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 451. Aff'd as Kingsbury v. Kirwan, in 77 N. Y. 012. Decision in Id. reviewed with Bigelow v. Benedict, 70 Id. 202 ; Mark- ham ». Jaudon, 41 Id. 235 ; Baker o. Drake, 66 Id. 518; Gruman v. Smith, 81 Id. 25 ; Wicks v. Hatch, 62 Id. 535; Knowlton v. Fitch, 52 Id. 288; in Flagg v. Baldwin, 38 N. J. Eq. (11 Stew.) 219; s. c., 48 Am. R. 308, 315; where the N. Y. cases arc ap- KINGS COUNTY ELEVATED E. R. CO.— KIP. 415 proved as to their doctrine, that a contract relating to differences in prices is a wager contract, but are disapproved as to their doctrine respecting the nature of dealings in stock on a margin. Kings County Elevated Ry. Co., Matter of, 18 Hun, 378. Further decisions in 78 N. Y. 383 ; 20 Hun, 217, an appeal from which was dimissed in 82 A 7 ". Y, 95. Kingslaud v. Chittenden, 6 Lans. 15. AfPd, it seems, in 61 AT. Y. 618. See cases cited (Determining boundaries of adjoining owners in respect to water surface) in 5 Abb. N. 0. 174, n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 448. Collated with other cases (Municipal con- tracts) in 5 Abb.N. 0. 43, n. Collated with other cases (Limit of cost in execution of public works) in Id. 468, n. Kingsley v. Balcome, 4 Barb. 181. See Cliapin v. Merrill ; Leonard v. Vredenbergh. Qualified (When promise to pay debt of an- other is within statute of frauds) in Mallory v. Gillett, 21 K Y. 412, 427. Followed, not- withstanding Mallory v. Gillett, in Baker®. Dillman, 12 Abb. Pr. 313, 316. Approved in Stern v. Drinker, 2 E. D. Smith, 401. Compared in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 242. Quoted in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 212, n. 2, 4 ed. -.— v. City of Brooklyn, 5 Abb. A 7 ". 0. 1. Aff'd in 7 Id. 28; s. c, 78 XT. Y. 200. Pre- vious proceeding in 1 Abb. N~. 0. 108. With decision in 5 Id. see also (Ratification of payment, by legislative acts) People ». Denisou, 8 Id- 128, 143, ,v. v. Vernon. See Commercial B'k of Buf- falo v. Warren. Kingston B'k t. Eltinge, 40 K Y. 391. Subsequent proceeding in 5 Sun, 653 ; and that aft'd in 66 N. Y. 653. See Canal B'k i). B'k of Albany. Decision in 40 A 7 ". Y. extended and applied (Effect of negligence on right to recover money paid by mistake) in U. S. v. Nat. Park B'k, U. S. Dist. Gt. S. D. K Y. ; 6 Fed. Rep. 854. v. Gay, 19 Barb. 459. Approved in dis- senting opinion (Set-off of amount deposited in bank) in Seymour o. Dunham, 24 Hun, 93, 97. Kinne v. City of Syracuse. See Kinney ». Same. v. Ford, 52 Barb. 194. Affd in 43 N. Y. 587. Kinney v. Bascli, Sup'm 'Ct. Special Term, 1877; 16 Am. L. Reg. K S. 597. Fol- lowed (Infringement of trade-mark by colorable imitation) in Enoch Morgan's Sons' Co. !).Schwachofer, 5 Abb. N.G. 2G5, 271. Followed (Trade-marks in numerals) in Collins v. Reynolds Card Mfg. Co., 7 Id. .17. v. City of Syrnciise, 30 Barb. 349. Affd, as Kinnc «. City of Syracuse, in 3 If eyes, 110; s. c, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 534. v. Kiernan, 2 Lam. 492. Rcv'd in 49 N. Y. 164, v. Watts, 14 Wend. 38. Approved (Damages for breach of covenant of war- rantv,'&c.) in Baxter v. Ryeiss, 13 Barb. 283;" Moak v. Johnson, 1 Hill, 99. Doubted (Provisions of R S. respecting implied cov- enants in conveyances — whether applicable to leases, — how far applicable to lands out- side the State) in Tone v. Brace, 8 Paige, 567; 11 Id. 566. Disapproved and Tone v.. Brace approved (Application of such pro- visions to leases) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Mabie, 13 A 7 . Y. 151. Commented on in 1 Washb. on Real Prop, 4 od.>487, n. 6. v. Winter. See Winter v. Kinney. Kinnicr v. Kinnier, 53 Barb. 454; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 425; 35 How. Pr. 66. Aff'd in 58 Barb. 424 ; and the latter aff'd in 45 N. Y. 535 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 132. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of foreign divorce) in Hunt v. Hunt, 9 Hun, 022, which was affd in 72 N. Y. 217, which see. Explained in People v. Baker, 76 Id. 83. Compare Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 Id. 30. Followed in Johnson v. Johnson. 67 How. Pr. 144. Questioned in so far as contrary to PawliDg v. Bird, 13 Johns. 192; Borden v. Fitch, 15 Id. 121; Vischerfl. Vischer, 12 Barb. 640; McGiffert «. McGiffert, 31 Id. 63; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272 ; Todd v. Kerr, 42 Barb. 317, in People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247 ; s. c , 12 Am. R. 271, where it is thought to overrule in terms only Jackson v. Jackson, 1 Johns. 424. Disting'd (Questioning judg- ment of divorce collaterally) in Kamp v. Kamp, 59 N. Y. 223. Followed (Binding effect of divorce obtained by fraud and col- lusion) in Ruger v. Heckel, 21 Hun, 491, which was affd in 85 N. Y. 483, which see. v. Rogers, 42 N. Y. 531. Aff'g Hun- nier v. Rogers, 55 Barb. 85 See Lupton v. Lupton ; Reynolds v. Reynolds. Decision in 42 XT. Y. followed (Effect of power of sale given to executor) in Hetzell 11. Barber, 6 Hun, 540. Disting'd in McCarty v. Dem- ing, 4 Lans. 443. Kinsey v. Bailey, 9 Hun, 452. Followed (What is personal property, though annexed to realtv) in Sisson ». Hibbaid, 10 Hun, 420, 424. y. Ford. See Carpenter v. Goodwin. Kip, Matter of, 1 Paige, 601. Applied (Affidavit to obtain examination of party before trial) in Hynes v. McDermott, 7 Daly, 513, 519. Cited as settled law (Tes- timony by corporator by or against corpora- tion) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 052, 11 ed. Kip v. Brig-ham, 7 Johns. 1G8. Previous decision in 6 Id. 158. See Doty v. Brown. Decision in 7 Johns, explained (Contract of indemnity when broken) in Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 A 7 ". 1'. 550, 562. Cited as a simi- lar case (When record of former suit is admissible) in Pope v. Nance, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 354; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. CO, 66. De- cision in C Johns, applied (Estoppel of sure- ties on bond of sheriff, &c.) in Crisman ». Matthews, 1 Scam. (III.) 148; s. c, 2(? Am. Dec. 417, 421, with note. Both decisions 416 KIP— KLOCK. approvingly reviewed in Masser v. Strick- land, 17 Serg. & R. 354 ; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 668, 670, with note; but see dissenting opinion. v. Deniston, 4 Johns. 23. See Bates v. Underbill. Explained (Liability of execu- tors, &o. for defaults of co-executors, &c.) in Lacey v. Davis, 5 Red/. 301, 306. Re- viewed with Shephard v. Little, 14 Johns. 210, and other cases (When and for what purposes consideration expressed in deed may be contradicted) in Morse v. Shattuck, 4 N. H. 229; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 419. Compare 1 Go. 175; 2 Id. 76. Dysling. Kipp v. Yeomaiis, 9 Weekly Dig. 461. Re- ported as Kiff v. Youmans, 20 Hun, 123; Rov'd in 86 K Y. 324. Kirby v. Carpenter, 7 Barb. 373. Disting'd (Power of surrogate in distributing estate) in Harris v. Meyer, 3 Red/. 456. v. Fitzgerald, 31 N. Y. 417. Applied (Statement on confession of judgment) in Union Bank v. Bush, 36 Id. 631, 637. v. Hewitt, 26 Barb. 607. Erroneously reported as a Special Term case. The de- cision was at General Term. v. Kirby, 1 Paige, 261. Subsequent decision in Id. 565. Decision on p. 565 relied on (Settlement between parties as affecting attorney's lien) in Christy ». Per- kins, 6 Daly, 237, 240. Decision on p. 261 quoted (Alimony pendente lite) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 395, n. 3, 6 ed. v. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. Oh. 46; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 16C, with note, wherein are collected citations of the case. Quoted and collated, with other cases (Rights of firm and individual creditors) in Bishop on Assign. §§ 188, 189. Quoted and dis- cussed in Burrill on Assign. §§ 210, 211, 4 ed. v. Taylor, 6 Johns. Ch. 242. Followed (Effect of settlement between guardian and ward) in Aaron v. Mendell, 78 Ky. 427 ; s. c., 39 Am. R. 248. Disapproved (Distinc- tion between release given by ward to his guardian and gift or conveyance to guard- ian) in Furguson v. Lowery, 54 Ala. 510; s. c, 25 Am. R. 718, 720. Kirk, Matter of, 1 Park 67. See Mr. Jay's argument in 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 02. Kirk v. Blashflcld, 4 liun, 269. Reported mQSup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 509. Kirklnnd r. Diiisinore, 2 Hun, 46; s. c, 4 Sutfm. Ct. (T. S C.) 304. Rev'd in 62 N. Y. 171 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 475. Decision in Id. disting'd (Limitation of carrier's lia- bility) in Woodruff «. Sherrard, 9 Bun, 322. Explained in Madan v. Sherrard, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 353, 364. Kirkpatrick v. Stainer, 22 Wend. 244. Ap- proved (Liability of foreign principal's agent) in Green v. Kopke, 18 C. B. 555. See to the contrary, cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 302, n. 2. Relied on in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 791. Discussed in 1 Pars, on Cont. 96, n. b. Quoted in Benj. on Sales, § 237, n. 37 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) Kissam v. Forrest, 25 Wend. 651. Rev'd in 7 Hill, 463. T. Hamilton, 20 How. Pr. 369. Dis- ting'd (Abatement of action by death of party) in Robinson v. Brisbane, 7 Hun, 182. Cited as authority with Ayrault v. Sackett, 17 How. Pr. 461 ; Putnam v. Crombie, 34 Barb. 239 (Decision after expiration of term) in Cain v. Libby, 32 Minn. 491. v. Marshall, 10 Abb. Pr. 424. To sim- ilar effect see (Amendment of warrant of attachment) Heilner v. Walsh, 47 Super. Ct. {J. &'S.) 269, 271. Kissenger v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 572. Aff d, it seems, in 56 IT. Y. 538. Kitchen v. Lee, 11 Paige, 107. Followed (Duty of an infant who rescinds contract of sale, to restore consideration) in Carr v. Clough, 26 ,N. H. 280; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 345. v. Place, 41 Barb. 465. See Gould v. Segee. Disting'd (Filling blank in note) in McGrath v. Clark. 56 JST. Y. 34, 37. Kittell v. Osborn, 1 Hun, 613. Fully reported in 4 Supra. Ct. (7. & C.) 45. Kitts v. Massasoit Ins. Co., 56 Barb. 177. Collated with. Marcus v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 68 N. Y. 625; Cromwell v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 39 Barb. 227, and other cases (What constitutes assignment of policy) in 56 Am. Dec. 753, n. Said with Savage «. Long Island Ins. Co., 43 How. Pr. 462, in 59 Am. Dec. 310, n., to be overruled by Savage v. Howard Ins. Co. 52 JV. Y. 502. Klein v. Klein, 11 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 450; s. c, 42 How. Pr. 166, and more fully, 34 Super. Ct. («/". & S.) 48. Klinck v. Colby. See Streety v. Wood. v. Kelly, 7 Alb. L. J. 93. Fully reported in 63 Barb. 622. Kline v. Baucndahl, 6 Sup'm Ct. (7. & C.) 546 ; mem. s. c, as McDonnell v. Bauendahl, 4 Hun, 265. Aff'd it seems in G4 N. Y. 638, but without opinion. v. L'Amoureux, 2 Paige, 419 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 652, with note containing cita- tions (Inquisitions of lunacy). v. Queen Ins. Co , 7 Hun, 267. Aff'd, it seems, in 69 K Y. C14, but without opinion. Klock v. C ron 1; hi to, 1 Hill, 107. Reasserted (Judgment creditor must go into equity to KLOCK— KNICKERBOCKER LIFE INS. CO. 417 redeem from mortgage) in Arnot v. Post, 6 Id. 65 v. People, 2 Pwrh. 676. Relied on with People v. Olcott, 2 Johns. Cas. 301 ; People v. Barrett, 2 Cai. 100, 304 (Proceed- ings when equivalent to acquittal) in Lee «. State, 26 Ark 260; s. c, 7 Am. B. 611. Kuapp, Matter of, 8 Abb. N. ft 308; s. c, 59 How. Pr. 367; brief mem. in 22 Hun, 479. Rev'd in 85 N. Y. 284. Kuapp v. Alvord, 10 Paige, 205. Relied on (Agency coupled with interest, not closed • by principal's death) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 105. Cited as authority (Property delivered to creditor as security, when a pledge) in Thomas on Mort. 432. v. Anderson, 7 Hun, 295. Affd in 71 N. Y. 466. See Gibbons v. Bernard. v. Brown, 45 N. T. 207; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 118. See Glackin v. Zeller. Disting'd (Mechanic's lien for work by per- mission of owner) in Burkitt «. Harper, 14 Hun, 584, which was aff'd in 79 N. Y. 277, which see. Followed in Muldoon v. Pitt, 54 Id. 272. Disting'd (Waiver of right to appeal) in Barker «. White, 58 Id. 211. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §1294, n. y. Dags, 18 Sow. Pr. 165, See Chap- man v. New Haven R. R. Co. Disapproved (Imputing negligence of driver of convey- ance) in Brown i>. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 81 Barb. 385. Criticised and compared (Joint negligence) in 4 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 25. v. Maltby. See Bagley v. Peddie. y. Meigs, 11 Abb. Pr. K S. 405. See (Attachment of property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, c. VII., art. 1, n. y. North Western Mut. Life Ins. Co., 79 N. Y. 634. Compare (Bond given on removal of cause to U. S. court) Nye v. Northern Central R'y Co., 24 Hun, 556, 559. v. Roche, 37 Super. Ct. («/". & S.) 395. Rev'd in part in 62 N. Y. 614. Subsequent decision iu 94 Id. 329, which was followed (Effect of part payment by one wrongdoer upon recovery against another) in Muser v. Lewis, 50 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 431. v. , Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 200. Affd in 82 N. Y. 366. v. Simon, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 225. Rev'd in 86 N. Y. 311. Subsequent decis- ion in 49 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 17, rev'd in 96 N. Y. 284. y. Smith, 27 Ni Y. 277. See Walsh v. Kelly. Followed (Liability of wife's sepa- rate estate managed by husband as agent) in Kluender ». Lynch, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 549 ; Merchant v. Bunnell, 3 Id. 284 ; Buckley v. Wells, 33 N Y. 521 ; Gage v. Dauchy, 34 Id. 296 ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Id. 846 ; Dingens v. Clancey, 67 Barb. 568. Applied (Fraudulent character of such arrangement when question for jury) in O'Leary v. Walter, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 447. Applied (Her right to prove her ownership Of business) in Garlinghouse v. Whitwell, I.— 27 51 Barb. 208, 212. Applied (Extent of her power in carrving it on) in James v. Taylor, 43 Id. 530, 532. Applied (Property rights independently of /,. 1860, c. 90) in Griffin ». Banks, 37 N. Y. 624. Applied (Testi- mony as to ownership) in Caspars. O'Brien, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 404. Disting'd in Nico- lay i>. Unger, 80 N. Y. 57, a case of a ques- tion as to fact of sale. v. Wallace,41 K Y. 477. Relied on with Stillman v. Mitchell, 2 Bobt. 523 ; Higgins v. Moore, 24 N. Y. 417 ; Heinrich v. Korn, 4 Daly, 74 ; Mooney v. Elder, 56 N. Y. 238; Barnard v. Monuot, 3 Keyes, 203 (When a broker is entilled to commissions) in Love v. Miller, 53 Ind. 294; s. c, 21 Am. B. 182, 197. Euanth v. Bassett, 34 Barb. 31. Overruled in effect (Effect of assignment of partner- ship assets, preferring individual creditors) in Hurlbert v. Dean, 2 Ahb. Ct. App. Dee. 429. Quoted and collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 1 65. Kneettle v. Newcomb, 31 Barb. 169. Affd in 22 N. Y. 249. See Harper v. Leal. Ap- plied (Construction of statute exempting property from execution) in Becker v. Becker, 47 Barb. 499; Wilcox v. Hawley, 31 A"! Y. 654. Decision in 22 Id. ap- plied, and that in 31 Barb, examined with Crawford v. Lockwood, 9 How. Pr. 547 (Effect of agreement to waive benefit of statute) in Shaplcy v. Abbott, 42 JV. Y. 451. Relied on with Woodward v. Murray, 18 Johns. 400 ; Harper v. Leal,. 10 How. Pr. 276, iu Phelps v. Phelps, 72 III. 545 ; s. c, 22 Am. B. 149, 152. Followed in Wallingsford v. Bennett, Sup'm. Ct. Dist. Col. 9 Wash. L. B. 819, 822. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1.404, n. Kueib v. People, 6 Hun, 238. Reported in 50 How. Pr. 140. Kneiss v. Seliginan, 9 How. Pr. 425. Col- lated with other cases (Contract for im- moral purposes) in McAdam on Landl. & T.I ed. §§ 76, 77. Knickerbocker v. Seymour,. 46 Barb. 198. Disting'd (Widow, when included in " next of kin") in Murdock v. Ward, 67 N. Y. 387, 390. v. Shipherd, 3 Cow. 383. Questioned (Sheriff's fees, as lien) in Batik of Whitehall v. Weed, 8 How. Pr. 104, 110. Knickerbocker v. People, 57 Barb. 365. Affd. in 43 K Y. 177. Decision in 57 Barb, quoted (Presumption of larceny arising from possession of stolen goods) in 1 Best on Ev. § 2 14, n. .a. Wood's ed. Knickerbocker Bank, Matter of, 19 Barb. 602. Quoted and explained (Appoint- ment of creditor as receiver) in High on Beceiv. § 73, n. 2. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Ecclesine, 6 Abb. Pr. K S. 9. Affd in 11 Id. 385; s. c, 42 How. Pr. 201. See Shoe & Leather Bank v. Thompson. v. Hill, Supm. Ct. {T. & ft) 285; s. c, 3 Hun, 577; 16 Abb. Pr, N. S. 321. 418 KNICKERBOCKER LIFE INS. CO.-KOLGERS. Doctrine discussed (Who may set up usury) in 13 Alb. L. J. 39, 71. v. Nelson, 13 Hun, 321. Aff'd in 78 N. Y. 137; s. c, 7 Abb. xV. 0. 170. Previous proceeding in 8 Hun, 21 ; also mem. of another in 52 Id. 616. See further litiga- tion in Russell v. Nelson, 99 K Y. 119. v. Patterson, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 547. Aff'd in 75 N. Y. 589. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Liability of assignee of lease for rent) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 132. Kniffen v. McConnell, 30 N. Y. 285. See Lewis ». Chapman ; Wells v. Padgett. Dis- cussed, and reconciled with Sbuthard v. Rexford, 6 Cow. 254 (Allegations of unchas- tity of plaintiff in action for breach of prom- ise as aggravating damages) in Thorn v. Knapp, 42 IT. y.474-7. Quoted in 2 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 273 n,. a. Included with note in Sedgw. Cos. on Dama. 760. Knight v. Cunnington, 6 Hun, 100. See (Books of account, as evidence) Clarke v. Smith, 46 Barb. 30. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 372. v. Lang, 4 E. D. Smith, 381; s. c, more fully, 2 Abb. Pr. 227. v. Weatherwax, 7 Paige, 182. Com- pared with other cases (Gifts by will to heir as purchaser) in 2 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 617, n. 17. v. Wilcox, 15 Barb. 279. Further deci- sion in 18 Id. 212, and that rev'd in 14 N. Y. 413. See Ingersoll v. Jones. Decision in 14 N. Y. disting'd (Loss of service as basis of action for seduction) in White v. Nellis, 31 JV. Y. 405. Questioned (Action for seduction not followed by pregnancy) and White «. Nellis, 31 N. Y. 405; Inger- son «. Miller, 47 Barb. 47, followed in Le- loup ii. Eschausse, N. Y. Daily Reg. June, 11, 1884. See cases cited in 34 Am. R. 366, n. Kiiiskcrn t. Lutheran Churches, 1 Sandf. Ch. 439. See Miller v. Gable; Yates v. Yates. Overruled (Removal of trustees of religious corporation) in Robertson v. Bul- lions, 11 If. Y. 243, 253, 271. Reasserted (Charitable uses) in Shotwell ». Mott, 2 Sandf. Ch. 50. Approved with Shotwell v. Mott, in Boyce v. City of St. Louis, 29 Barb. 657. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 2S8, n. a, as a very learned and able judgment. See cases collected in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 360, n. Quoted in 1 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 304, n. 1. Knoepfel v. Kings County Fire Ins. Co., 39 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 553. Aft'd in 66 K Y. 639. Other proceedings in 47 How. Pr. 412, and 48 Id. 208. Knolls v. Barnhart, 9 Hun, 443. Aff'd in 71 N. Y. 474. Decision in Id. explained (Rights between tenants in common as to rents and profits) in Moals's Underhill's, Torts, 1 Am. ed. 380. Knotho v. Kaiser, 2 Hun, 515. Reported in 5 Sw'm. Ct. (71 & C.)4. Knowlcs v. McKamly. See Jaques v. M. E. Church. Knovrlton v. Congress & Empire Spring Co., 57 N. Y. 518. See to the contrary (Decision made after removal to, U. S. Cir. Ct.) Spring Co. «. Knowlton, 103 U. ' S. 49, which aff'd 14 Blotch/. C. Ct. 364. See Woodworth v. Bennett. Decision in 103 U. S. examined and disting'd (Recovery back of money paid illegally) in Birkett v. Chat- terton, 13 R. I. 302; s. c, 12 Reporter, 441. See also Smart v. White, 37 Me. 332; s. c, 40 Am. R. 356. Decision in 57 2f. Y. quoted in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 1 11, n. a. t. Fitch. See Kingsbury v. Kirwin. , — — v. Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co., 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 370. Confirmed in further decision in 53 If. Y. 76; which rev'd 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 370. Decision in 53 If. Y. followed (Right to proceed in State courts to enforce shipowners liability for loss) in Checkley v. Providence & Ston- ington Steamship Co., 60 How. Pr. 510. Knox v. Hexter, 71 If. Y. 461. Rev'g 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 8. See other proceed- ings in Id. 496; also in Hexter v. Knox, 39 Super. Ct (J. & S.) 109, which was affd in 63 If. Y. 561. Decision in 71 Id. disting'd (Right to bring new action for severable cause of action sued on in former action) in Davies v. Mayor, &c. of N Y., 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 194. Decision in Id. quoted and collated with other cases (Taking posses- sion under lease) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 78. v. Jones, 47 N. Y. 389. Applied (Sepa- ration of void trust from valid provision in will) in McCormack®. McCormack, 60 How. Pr. 19fi, 198. Disting'd in Van Schuyver «. Mulford, 59 N. Y. 426, 431. Knupfle v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 23 Hun, 159. Rev'd in 84 N. Y. 488. See McGrath v. N Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Kobbe v. Clark, 4 Seld. Notes, 11. Compare (Effect of check as payment of draft) Smith v. Miller, 43 N. Y. 171. Koch v. Purcell, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 162. See also (Terms of sale by referee) Buttron v. Tibbitts, 10 Abb. JST. C. 41. v. Village of Edgewater. 14 Hun, 544. Further decision in 18 Id. 407. Koelges v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 57 iV. Y. 638. Previous decision, as it seems, as Kolgers v. Same, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 176. Koenig v. Steckel, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 167. Aft'd in 58 2V. Y. 475. Kohler v. Koliler, 2 Edio. 69. Disting'd (Charging expenses in case of sale of mort- gaged premises) in Rayuor v. Solraes, 52 If. Y. 579, 582. v. Mattlage, 42 Super. Ct. (J.&S.) 247. Aff'd in 72 N. Y. 259. Kohn v. Koehler, 21 Hun, 466. See mem. in Id. 618, giving leave to go to Ct. of App. Kohner v. Higgius, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 4. See cases cited (Liability created by assumption of mortgage) in 5 Abb. If. C. 230, n. Kolgers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. See Koelges v. Same. KOLLS— KRENDER. 419 KoIIst. l)e Leyer, 41 Barb. 208; s. c, 17 Abb. Pr. 312; 26 How. Pr. 468. Explained (Power of married woman to contract) in Coakley «. Chamberlain, 8 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 37. Referred to with Sigel v. Johns, 58 Barb. 620, in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 erl. § 458, as holding a more consistent doctrine than that of cases such as Coakley v. Chamber- lain. Konitzky v. Meyer, 49 JST. Y. 571. See Chapin v. Merrill. Collated with Dobsen v. Pearce, 12 N. Y. 156, and other cases (Effect of foreign judgments on actions of which thev are the foundation) in 17 Am. L. Rev. 421. Koou vl Gtreenman, 7 Wend. 121. Reviewed and relied on with Ladue v. Seymour, 24 Id. 60 ; Vanderbilt v. Eagle Iron Works, 25 Id. 665, and other authorities (Amount recoverable on special contract for work or materials, partly performed or furnished) in McKinney v. Springer, 8 Ind. 59; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 470, 476, with note. Explained in 2 Ohitty on Contr. 830, n. I, 11 Am. ed. v. Thurman, 2 Hill, 357. Explained ("Costs to abide event") in Mott v. Con- sumers' Ice Co., 8 Daly, 244, 246. Ex- plained and followed in First Nat. B'k of Meadville v. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 84 K Y. 469. Kortright v. Blunt. See Kortright v. Cady. v. Buffalo Commercial Bank, 20 Wend. 91. Affd as Commercial B'k of Buffalo v. Kortright, 22 Id. 347. See Bank of Utica v. Smalley ; Matter of Barker; Shipley v. Mechanics' Bank. Decision in '20 Wend, examined and limited (Damages for conversion, &c, of stockl in Baker v. Drake, 53 N. T. 211, 222. Applied with McNeil b. Tenth Nat. B'k, 46 Id. 329; Moore v. Metropolitan B'k, 55 Id. 41 (which is said to overrule Bush o. Lathrop, 22 Id. 535) (Rights of transferee of stock certifi- cates, &c.) in International Bank v. German Bank, 71 Mo. 183; s. c, 36 Am. R. 468. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 565, 1 1 cd. Decision in 22 Wend, disting'd (Transfer of stock certificate in blank) as inapplicable to case of mortgage, — in Chaun- ccy v. Arnold, 24 N. Y. 330, 334. Fol- lowed in McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 Id. 325. Discussed (Remedy where transfer of shares is wrongfully refused) in MoraweU on Corp. § 338. v. Cady, 23 Barb. 490. Rev'g Kort- right*. Bluntz, 12 flow. I'r. 424. Rev'd in 21 A". Y. 343. See Jackson ». Crafts. Decision in 21 N~. Y. applied (Effect of tender made after law-day, of amount due on mortgage) to case of pledge, in Ilaskins v. Kelly, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 75. ' Disting'd as inapplicable to tender by junior mortgagee, — in Frosts. Yonkers Sav'gs B'k, 8 Hun, 28. Commented on and limited in Harris v. Jex, 66 Barb. 237, which was affd in 55 JV. Y. 423, which see. Disting'd in Hal- stead v. Swartz, 46 How. Pr. 292, a case of a chattel mortgage. Compare Jones on Chat. If. §§ 034, 637. Applied in Groff v. Flanders, 13 Weekly Dig. 382. Denied in Tompkins®. Batie, 11 Neb. 147; s. c, 38 Am. II, 361, a case, however, of a chattel mortgage. Disapproved; and Merritt v. Lambert, 7 Paige, 344, relied on, as sustain- ing a contrary doctrine, — in Crain v. McGoon, 80 111. 431 ; s. c. 29 Am. It. 37. Approved in Ketchum v. Crippen, 37 Old. 223, not- withstanding Pcrre o. Castro, 14 Id. 519. Explained with Edwards v. Farmers' Fire Ins. & Loan Co., 21 Wend. 467, in Mitchell «. Roberts, IT. S. Cir. Ct. E. D. Arlc. 17 Fed. Rep. 776, 779, with note. Decision in • 23 Barb, relied on (Effect of payment of taxes by mortgagee) in Hogg v. Longstreet, 97 Pa. St. 259. Disting'd (Effect of tender) in Dodge v. Fearey, 19 Hun, 277. Applied to tender by judgment debtor to sheriff, — in Tiffany v. St John. 65 N. Y. 318. Applied (Effect of possession by mortgagee) in Trimm t>. Marsh, 54 Id. 606 (and see pp. 614, 622, 625) ; Madison Ave. Church v. Oliver St. Church, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 378. Quoted (Mortgagee's interest until foreclosure) in 2 Waihb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 103. Kortz v. Carpenter, 5 Johns. 120. Over- ruled (What is breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment) in Shattuck v. Lamb, 65 . N. Y. 504. Blowing v. Manley, 2 Abb. Pr. 1ST. S. 377. Further decision in 57 Barb. 469 ; and the latter rev'd in 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 276 ; s. c, 49 N. Y. 1 92. Decision in . Id. applied (Husband as party to action for wife's tort) in Berrien v. Steel, 62 How. Pr. 335, n. Approved as an exhaustive decision in Pom- eroy on Rem. § 320, n. 1. Explained (Com- parison of handwritings) in Miles v. Loomis, 10 Ilun, 372, 377. Cited with Merchants' Will. Tuck. 151 ; in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. % 718. Followed (Liability of gratui- tous bailee for unauthorized disposition of property) in Jenkins v. Bacon, 111 Mass. 373; s. c, 15 Am. R. 33, 38. Discussed in 1 Add. on Torts. 649, n. Wood's ed. Kranshaar v. Meyer, 72 N. Y. 602. Dis- ting'd (Evidence of conversation with de- ceased) in Gorham «. Price, 25 Hun, 11, 13. Erekoler v. Hitter, 62 N. Y. 372. See Man- deville v. Reynolds; Verplanck v. Van Buren. Sec to the contrary (Former judg- ment as estoppel) Bigel. on Estoppel, 520. See also Abb. Tr. Ed. fc<28. Cited with Mil- ler ii: White, 50 Id. 143 (Former judgment as evidence, when not pleaded) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 765, n. Explained with Hawley v. Mancine, 7 Johns. Ch. 182 (Im- peaching judgment for fraud) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. f 797. v. Thaule, 7 Daly, 152. Affd in 73 N. Y. 608. Other proceeding in 49 How. Pr. 13S. Decision in Id. cited with Jerome v. Bowman, 1 Wend. 393 (Necessity that change of attorney be by court order) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 036. Kreuder v. Woolcott, 1 Hilt. 223. Disting'd 420 KEOM— LADUE. (Liability for safe delivery of goods received for carriage) in Robinson v. Chittenden, 69 jst. r. 535. Eroin v. Began, 4 How. Pr. 225: s. c, 2 Code R. 144. Dictum disapproved (Viola- tion of injunction, as answer to motion to dissolve it) in Smith v. Reno, 6 How. Pr. 124. ■ v. Levy, 1 Hun, 171; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 97; 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 704. Reargu- ment denied in 6 Id. 253 ; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 79. Appeal dismissed in 60 N~. Y. 1 26. v. Sclio'oii maker, 3 Barb. 647. Fol- lowed (Disproportionate damages as ground for new trial) in Murray v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 47 Id. 196. Explained (Liability of lunatic for his own tort) in Karow v. Con- tinental Ins. Co. of N. Y., 57 Wis. 56; s. c, 46 Am. R. 17. Included in Lawson's Lead. Com. L. Cas. Simplified, 52. Included ■with notes in Ewell. Lead. Cos. on Inf. &e. 638. Eromer v. Heim, 44 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 237. Aff'd in 75 A 7 ! Y. 574; s. c, 31 Am. R. 491. See Russell v. Ly tie. Decision in 75 iY. Y. followed with Noe v. Christie, 51 Id. 273 (Accord and satisfaction) in Brennan v. Ostrander, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 426. Krnlder v. Ellison, 47 JST. Y. 36 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 402, with note. See Bank of Rochester v. Jones; Green v. Clark. Disting'd with Thompson v. Fargo, 49 If. Y. 188; Bailey v. Hudson River R. R. Co., Id. 70 (Effect of delivery of goods to car- rier) in Porter Manuf'g Co. v. Edwards, 29 Hun, 509. Approved wfth Allard v. Grea- sert, 61 JV. Y. 1, in Keiwert v. Meyer, 62 Ind. 587; s. c, 30 Am. R. 206, 210. See Rogers v. Phillips, 40 N. Y. 519. Collated with other cases (Consignee's right of action against carrier) in 7 South. L. Rev. JV~. S. 274, 283. Eulilniau v. Orser, 5 Duer, 242. See Wilson v. Duncan. Followed as settled law (Requi- sites of notice of attachment) in O'Brien v. Mechanics', &c. Fire Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J.&S.)U0. Knhn v. Stevens, 36 How. Pr. 275. Disting'd (Parol agreement in discharge of sealed contract) in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 Hun, 198, 210. Eundolf v. Thalheinier, 17 Barb. 506. Rev'd in 12 N. Y. 593. See Frees v. Ford. Decision in 12 JV. Y. disting'd (Jurisdiction of county court) in Doubleday v. Heath, 16 Id. 80. Criticised and questioned in Ar- nold v. Rees, 18 Id. 57. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2944, n. Eunz v. Baclinian, 24 Hun, 662. Reported in 61 How. Pr. 519; s. c, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 281. Knnzler v. Kohnns, 5 Hill, 317. Cited with Sackett ». Andross, Id. 327, as establishing what is now the law of the land (Power of Congress to pass insolvent laws) in Gecry's Appeal, 43 Conn. 289; s. c, 21 Am. R. 6.">3. Followed with Sackett v. Andross, in Mat- ter of Reynolds, 8 R. I. 485; s. c, 5 Am. R. 615. Discussed in 8 Pars, on Cont.432, n. p. Ennzze T. American Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 2 Robt, 443. Compare subsequent decision in 41 N. Y. 412. Ense v. N. Y., New Haven, Ac. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 673; s. c, more fully, as Keese v. Same, 67 Barb. 205. Eyle v. Kyle, 3 Hun. 458 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 648. Rev'd in 67 N. Y. 400. See Gardner v. Gardner; Tuckers. Tucker. Decision in 67 JV. Y. disting'd (Passing on validity of claims as between executor and estate) as inapplicable to case of assignment for creditors, — in Matter of Raymond, 27 Hun, 508. Followed in Boughton %. Flint, 5 Abb. N. C. 217. Disting'd (Recovery of rents and profits by one entitled to dower) in Witthaus v. Schack, 31 Hun, 590. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1600, n. L. Labar v. Eoplin. See Fox v. Smith. La Bean v. People, 34 2V". Y. 223. Followed (When evidence offered to discredit witness may be excluded) in Canaday v. Krum, 83 xV. Y. 67, 74. Labrou v. Worani. See Herrick v. Carman. Lacour v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Duer, 406. See Wilson v. Same. Disting'd (Injuries through defective public works) in Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 K Y. 489, 500. Dis- ting'd, and Wilson v Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Ben. 595 ; Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 iV! Y. 489, followed in Detroit v. Beekman, 34 Midi,. 125 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 507,509. Followed (Damages, where cause is remote), in Morey v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co., 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 185, 188. See cases collected (What municipal duties are judi- cial) in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 43. Lacker v. Rhoades, 45 Barb. 499. Rev'd in 51 N. Y. 041. Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano, &c. Co., 56 How. Pr. 370; s. c, 16 Hun, 484. Further decision in 19 Ld. 47 ; and that aff'd in 82 K Y. 476. Ladil v. Arkell, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 35. Further decision in 40 Id. 150. v. Moore, 3 Sand/. 589. See Nellis v. Bradley. Applied (Duty of one seeking to disaffirm contract) Harris v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc, 3 Hun, 724, 735; s. c, 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 108. Criticised in Gould v. Cayuga, &c. Nat. B'k, 21 Hun, 293, as having been distrusted and repudiated in other cases. Approved in Pearse v. Pettis, 47 Barb. 276. Questioned in Weed v. Page, 7 Wis. 503, 512. Ladne v. Griffith, 25 iV. Y. 364. See Blos- som v. Griffin; McDonald v. Western R. R. Co. Limited (Liability of intermediate car- rier) in Fcnner v. Buffalo & State Line R. R Co., 44 2V~. Y. 505. v. Seymour, 24 Wend. 60. See Koon v. Greenman. Followed (Proof of contract LADY SUPER10K— LAMB. 421 defeats action on quantum meruit) in Alger v. Raymond, 7 Bosw. 418, 427. Lady Superior v. McNainara, 3 Barb. Ch. 375. Cited as authority (Naming grantee in deed, &c.) in Sherry v. Gilmore, 58 Wis. 324, 333. La Farge t. Herter, 3 Den. 157. Subsequent proceedings in 4 Barb. 346; 11 Id. 159; and the latter aff'd in 9 N. Y. 241. See Billingtonu. Wagoner; Witherby v. Mann. Decision in 9 N. Y. disapproved (Effect of usury in security upon a valid claim em- braced therein) in Underbill v. Clennan, 14 Weekly Big. 1. Lafond Yi Deems, 52 How. Pr. 41 ; s. c, 1 Abb. IV. C. 318. Rev'd in % Id. 344; s. c, 81 N. Y. 507. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Good standing in benefit asso- ciations) in 19 Cent. L. J. 154, n. With de- cision in 1 Abb. N. C. compare (Voluntary associations) Ferris v. Shaw, 5 Mo. App. 279 ; Ash v. Guie, 97 Pa. St. 493. La Froinbois v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 589 ; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 463, with note containing citations of the case. See Jackson v. Waters. Explained (Foundation for claim of adverse possession) in Wiseman v. Luck- singer, 84 N. Y. 81, 46. Approved and ap- plied with Briggs v. Prosser, 14 Wend. 227; Fosgate *. Herkimer M'f'g Co., 12 Barb. 352, in Cawley v. Johnson, IT. S. Cir. Gt. W. D. Wis., 21 Fed. Rep., 494. Approved and relied on with Smiths. Burtis, 9 Johns. 180 ; Jackson 1>. Wheat, 18 Id. 40; Jackson v. Newton, Id. 355; Jackson v. Camp, 1 Cow. 605 ; in McClellan v. Kellogg, 17 III. 501. Compare 14 Am. Dee. 581, n. Fol- lowed with Smith i). Burtis, 9 Johns. 180, in Moody v. Fleming, 4 Ga. 115; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 210, 215, with note. Followed in Conyers v. Kenan, 4 Ga. 308: s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 226, 234, with note. Relied on in dissenting opinions of Hastings, C. J., in Suflol v. Hepburn, 1 Cal. 290; Wood worth . Houston. Lambert v. Paulding, 18 Johns. 811. See Haggerty v. Wilber; Hotchkiss v. Mc Vicar ; Marsh v. Lawrence. Disting'd (Rights of sheriff under execution, before levy) in Hath- away v. Howell, 54 N. Y. 97, 111. Applied with Marsh v. Lawrence, 4 Cow. 461 (Pri- ority of execution lien, &c, as determined by priority of delivery of warrant) in Evans v. Walsh, 12 Vroom (If. J.) 281; s. c, 32 Am. It. 201, 206. v. People, 14 Hun, 512. Rev'd in 76 If. Y. 220; s. c, 6 Abb. Jf.C. 181 ; 32 Am. R. 293. v. , 7 Cow. 166. Rev'd in 9 Id. 578. Decision in Id. followed (Requisites of in- dictment for conspiracy) in People ex rel. Lawrence v. Brady, 56 If. Y. 182, 189. Compared with other cases in Common- wealth'!). Hunt, 4 Mete. {Mass.) Ill; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 346, 350, with note. Followed in Commonwealth «. Eastman, 1 Cush. {Mass.) 189; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 596, 607, with note. Considered, and the minority opinion approved, in People v. Richards, 1 Mielt. 216; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 75, with note. Collated with other cases in 1 Barb, on Crim. L. 3 ed. 247, n. Lambertsou v. Van Boskerck, 4 Hun, 628. Reported in 49 How. Pi: 266. La in br edit, Estate of, Gould's Ann. Dig. for 1881, 72, 179. Rev'd in If. Y. Daily Peg. Apr. 23, 1881. Compare (Renuncia- tion of appointment as testamentary guar- dian) Geoheganrc. Foley, 5 Redf. 501. Lament v. Haight, 44 How. Pr. 1. Ap- proved and applied (Personal liability of highway commissioners for injuries from defect, when out of funds) in Warren «. Clement, 24 Hun, 472, 475. Lamerson v. Marvin, 8 Barb. 9. Approved and followed with Griswold «. Fowler, 24 Id. 135 (Sale of mortgaged premises in gross) in Ilubbell ». Sibley, 5 Lans. 51. Disting'd in Wolcott v. Schenck, 23 How. Pr. 385, 388. Lanikin v. Starkey, 7 Hun, 479. Disting'd (Exemption of witness from service of pro- cess) in Frisby v. Young, 11 Id. 474. Lamont v. Cheshire, 6 Lans. 234. Affd in 65 If. Y. 30. Decision in Id. followed (Priority of attachment) in Wilson v. Kelly, 31 Hun, 75. Reconciled in Porter v. Pico, 55 Oal. 175. Disting'd (Right of pur- chaser at execution sale to attack prior con- veyance by debtor) in Bergen v. Snedeker 79 If. Y. 146. With decision in 6 Lam. see (Application of notice of lis pendens) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1670, n. Lainoree's Case, 11 Abb. If. C. 274. Ap- proved but disting'd (Appointment of stran- ger as committee of lunatic, &c. without assent of next of kin) in Matter of Owens 5 Daly, 288, 290. L'Amoreux v. Gould, 7 If. Y. 349; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 524, with note. Applied with Willetts v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 45 If. Y. 45 ; Sands v. Crooke, 46 Id. 564 ; White «. Baxter, 71 Id. 254; Marie «. Garrison, 83 Id. 26 (Subsequent performance as consid- eration) in Miller v. McKenzfe, 95 Id. 575. L'Amonreux v. Crosby. See Lewis v. Jones. Lamonrienx v. Hewit, 5 Wend. 307. Dis- ting'd (Effect of guaranty of promissory note, &c.) in Myrick ■». Hasey,- 27 Me. 9; s. c , 46 Am. Dec. 583, 585. Applied with Ellis v. Brown, 6 Barb. 282 ; McLaren . e. Landt v. Hilts. See Taylor s. Trask. Lane, Matter of, 3 Red/. 402, n. See (Sur- ' rogate's power to punish for contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. Lane v. Cole, 12 Barb. 680. See (Effect of failure to produce document, as contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3001, n. v. Gilbert, 9 How. Pr. 150. Examined with others cases (Practice on assessment of damages) in Thompson v. Lumley, 7 Daly, 74, 80. v. Hitchcock, 14 Johns. 213. Approved with Bank of Rome «. Molt, 17 Wend. 554 (Liability for act done with intent to dimin- ish value of mortgaged premises) in Gard- ner v. Heartt, 3 Den. 232. T. King, 8 Wend 585; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 105. Criticised and disting'd (Right of mortgagee or one claiming under him to growing crops) in Willis v. Moore, 59 Tex. 628; s. c, 46 Am. R. 284. v. Losee, 2 Abb. Pr. 129 ; s. c, more fully in How. Pr. 360. v Morse, 6 How. Pr. 394. Disting'd and limited (Affidavit as affected by omis- sion of venue) in People ex rel. Mosher v. Stowell, 9 Abb. N. C. 456, 461. v. Salter, 4 Robt. 239. Rev'd in 51 N. Y. 1. Decision is Id. commented on (Judg- ment against one joint debtor when not bar to action against another) in Organ v. Wall, 19 Hun, 184, 186. Decision in 4 Robt. commented on (Evidence of negligence) in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 1232. v. Scherinerhorii, 1 Hill, 97. Quoted (Ejectment by committee of lunatic) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. <%, 454, 457. Deemed overruled with Griffin «. Ford, 1 Bosw. 123 (What will not cure invalidity of trust that unlawfully suspends power of alienation) in Odell v. Youngs, 64 How. Pr. 56. Collated with other cases in Gerard Titles to Eeal Est. 2 ed. 270, 273. With decision in 1 Duer, see (Judgment by default) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1526, n. Langdon v. Astor's Executors, 3 Duer, 477. . Bev'd in 16 N~. Y. 9. Decision in Id. Followed (What only is revocation of will) in Ordish v. McDermott, 2 Red/. 460, 463. Explained in Willard on Executors, 120. t. Bael, 9 Wend. 80. See Wilson v. Little. Followed with Case v. Boughton, 11 Wend. 106 (Pledgee's right to proceed personally against pledgor) in Sonoma Val-. ley Bank v. Hill, 59 Cal. 110. v. N. T. Equitable Ins. Co., 1 Hall, 226. AfTd in 6 Wend. 623. See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. Decision in 1 Hall followed and approved (Extent of use of insured building for business purposes) in Bafferty i>. N. Brunswick Ins. Co.. 3 Harr. (iV. J.) 480; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 525, 527, with note. Lange v. Benedict, 48 How. Pr. 465. Rev'd in 8 Hun, 3C2, which was aff d in 73 N. Y. 12 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 80, with note. Writ of error dismissed in 99 U. S. 68. See also Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163. Decision in 73 JV. Y. followed (Judicial decision when not to be impeached) in Chapman v. Phoenix Nat. B'k of N. Y., 5 All. N. C. 118, 127. Collated with other cases (Non-liability cf judicial officer) in dissenting opinion of Poweks, J., in Vaughan v. Congdon, 56 Vt. 125. Also collated with other cases in 23 Am. R. 693, a. Thought in 6 Am. Dee. 303, n., to have carried the doctrine farther than any other case, but likely to be regarded as a leading case from the singularity of the facts and the importance of the principles involved. Examined and said to be con- trary to the great weight of authority, in 15 Am. L. Rev. 441. Doctrine extended to case of arbitrator in Jones v. Brown, 54 Iowa, 74, 78. Langley v. Warner, 1 Sand/. 209. Bev'd in 3 M Y. 327. Another decision in 1 Id. 606. Decision in 3 Id. disting'd (Restitution of money paid to creditors) in Matter of Guardian Sav'gs Instu., 78 Id. 408, 413. Langworthy v. Oswego, &c. Ins. Co., 8 Weekly Dig. 458. Aff'd in 85 K Y. 632. Further decision on merits in 11 Reporter, 744. v. Smith, 2 Wend. 587; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 652. See Fleming v. Gilbert; Free- man v. Adams. Lanigan v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 70 If. Y. 454. Disting'd (Power to audit) in Matter of Murphy, 24 Hun, 592, 596. Laning v. N. T. Central E. R. Co., 49 F. Y. 521; s. c, 10 Am. R. 417. For facts see Brickner v. Same, 2 Lans. 506 ; the lat- ter being aff'd in 49 K Y. 672, but without opinion. See Corcoran v. Holbrook ; Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co. Decision in ' 49 i^. Y. applied (Duty of master to ser- vant, to keep machinery in safe condition) in King v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 770; Kirkpatrick s.'Same, 79 N. Y. 245; Hoffnagle v. Same, 1 Sup'm. Ci. (T. & C.) 350. Explained in DeGrafffl. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 3 Id. 257. Ap- proved and applied in Smith v. Oxford Iron Co., 13 Vroom (N. J.) 467; s. c, 36 Am. R. 535, 538. Explained (Liability to servant for injury resulting from negligence of co-servant) in Ross v. N. Y. Centrai, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 494. Applied in Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 K Y. 552, 554; Chapman v. Erie R'y Co., 55 Id. 583, which rev'd 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 526, which see; McCorker v. Long Island R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 500. Disting'd at length, in Malone v. 'Hathaway, 64 N. Y. 9. Dis- ting'd in Besel v. N. Y. Central. , &c. B. R. Co., 70 Id. 174. Disting'd with Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 Id. 517, in Conboy a. Donaldson, JST. Y. Daily Reg. Jan. 26, 1884. Applied with Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 549; Booth v. Same, 73 Id. 39 ; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 Id. 46, in Mann v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 91 Id. 495. Also, with Cone v. Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co., 81 Id. 206 applied, and Slater v. Jewett, 85 Id. 61, disting'd in Sheehan v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 91 Id. 332. Reviewed with Flike. v. Loston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 Id. 549; Brickner v. N. Y. Central II. R. Co., 2 Lans. 506 ; Corcoran o. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517, and other cases, in 16 Am. R. 495, n. Applied with Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 K Y. 549; Corcoran v. Hol- brook, 59 Id. 520 ; Brickner v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co , 2 Lans. 506, in Dobbin v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., 81 JST. O. 446; s. c, 31 Am. R. 512, 514. Included in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 932. Disting'd (Power of General Term to affirm on condi- tion of reduction of damages) in Whitehead v. Kennedy, 69 N. Y. 462, 470. Applied (Contributory .negligence in servant, as question for jury) in Hawley v. Northern Central R'y Co., 17 Hun, 118; Marsh n. Chickering, 25 Id. 405. 407. Lannen v. Albany Gas Light Co., 46 Barl. 264. AfTd in 44 N. Y. 459. Decision in Id. disting'd (Gas company's liability for explosion caused by leakage) in Schermer- horn v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co., 5 Daly, 144, 150. Explained in 1 Add. on Torts', 590, n. Wood"s"ed. Lanning v. Carpenter, 23 Barl. 402. AfTd in 20 N. Y. 447. Previous decision in 12 How. Pr. 191. See Freligh v. Brink Sub- sequent decision in 48 N. Y. 408. Decision in 23 Barl. qualified (Confession of judg- LANNING. 425 ment) in Daly ». Matthews, 12 Abb. Pr. 403, 405, n. In Lyon ». Sherman, 14 Id. 393, it is held to have overruled Olaflin v. Sanger, 11 Id. 338; Moody v. Townsend, 3 Id. 375; Davis v. Moms, 21 Barb. 152. Approved with Freligh v. Brink, 22 Barb. 418, in Frost v. Koon, 30 If. Y. 428, 442. Decision in 48 Id. disting'd (Action for waste of judgment debtor) in Vandemark v. Schoonmaker, 9 Hun, 16, 22. v. Streeter, 57 Barb. 33. Overruled in effect (Creditor's action to enforce attach- ment) in Thurber «. Blanck, 50 If. Y. 80. Lansing v. Caswell, 4 Paige, 519. Approved (Laying out highway through yard, &c.) in People ex rel. Miller v. Comes, 1 Sun, 530. v. Easton, 7 Paige, 364. Disting|d (Fine for contempt in violation of order) in Marshall «. Hitchcock, 3 Bed/. 464. v. Eddy, 1 Johns. Ch. 49. Followed (Excuse for neglect to defend) in Hamel v. Grimm, 10 Abb. Pr. 150, 152. v. Fleet, 2 Johns. Cas. 3 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dee. 143; 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 418, with brief note. Shown in 1 Am. Bee. 153, n , to have been approved in later cases in N. Y., though the dissenliug opinion of Radcliff, J., was approved in Carthrae v. Clarke, 5 Leigh (Va.) 288 (Power of sheriff to retake and detain after voluntary escape). v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 422; 3 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 391, with brief note. See Foot v. Sabin ; Hackley v. Patrick; Sanford v. Mickles. Followed (Note takes effect from delivery, and not from date) in Woodford v. Dorwin, 3 Verm. 82 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 573, 576 ; Inglish v. Breneman, 5 Ark. 377; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 96. Cited with other cases (Fjrm paper executed after dissolution) in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 546. v. Goelet, 9 Cow. 346. Cited as accord- ing with the weight of authority, with Holden v. Sackett, 12 Abb. Pr. 473 ; Packer v. Rochester & S. R. R. Co., 17 If. Y. 287 (What interest passes to purchaser in fore- closure sale) in Poweshiek County v. Denni- son, 30 Iowa, 24A ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 521, 524. Examined in Weiner v. Heintz, 17 III. 2(31. Explained (Equity of redemption as barred without express decree of foreclosure) in 4 Kent Com. 181, n. b.; Id. 184. v. Gulick, 20 How. Pr. 250. See (Cur- tesy as affected by statute) Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. 508, 522; which was rev'd in 2 Id. 21. Collated with other cases in 1 Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 289. v. Lansing:, 41 How. Pr. 248. Rev'd in 4 Lans. 377. See Valentine v. Valen- tine ; Vischer v. Yates ; Westerfield s. Wes- terfield. Decision in 4 Lans. disting'd and questioned (Proceedings for non-payment of alimony) in Strobridge v. Strobridge, 21 Hun, 288, 291. Criticised in Park v. Park, -18 Id. 466, which wasaff'd in 80 If. Y. 156, which latter decision is thought, in Bouci- cault v. Boucicault, 21 Hun, 431, 436, to have shaken Lansing «. Lansing. Recon- ciled with Park v. Park, 18 Hun, 466 in Gane v. Gane, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 218, 220. Followed with Strobridge v. Stro- bridge, 21 Hun, 283 ; Baker «. Baker, 23 Id. 356 : People ex rel. Fries v. Riley, 25 Id. 587 ; Randall «. Dusenbury, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 456; Watson v. Nelson, 69 If. Y. 536 ; O'Gara v. Kearney, 77 Id. 423 (Commitment for non-payment of money) in Myers v. Becker, 95 Id. 486. v. , 45 Barb. 182. Applied (Com- missions of executors, &c.) in Hall v. Hall, 78 If. Y. 535, 539. Explained in Ward v. Ford, 4 Red/. 34, 45. V. , 18 Johns. 502. Explained and qualified (Proper form of judgment) in People v. judges of Erie, 4 Cow. 445. v. McKillip, 3 Gai. 286. Explained (Words "value received" as evidence of consideration) in Jerome -v. Whitney, 7 Johns. 323. v. McPherson, 3 Johns. Ch. 424. Fol- lowed with, Duncan t>. Dodd, 2 Paige, 99 (Setting aside mortgage sale) in Hill v Hoo- ver,' 5 Wis. 376; citing Cotton v. Strong, 1 Id. 471. v. Montgomery, 2 Johns. 382. Ap- proved (Estoppels operate only on parties and privies) in Alexander v. Walter, 8 Gill (Md.) 239; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 688, 692, with note; Welland Canal Co. «. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 483; Dezell v. OdeU, 3 Hill, 215; Presbyterian Congregation of Salem «. Wil- liams, 9 Wend. 147, also being reviewed (Nature of estoppel in pais). Opposed (Estoppel not to be taken by inference, but to be relied on in pleading) in Adams n. Barnes, 17 Mass. 368 ; Howard i>. Mitchell, 14 Id. 241. v. North River Steamboat Co., 7 Johns. Ch. 162. Cited and discussed (Control of Federal over State courts) in 1 Kent Com. .413. v. Pine, 4 Paige, 639. Compare (Ven- fication of complaint) 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 44 ; Explained in Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 Woodb. & M. 120. t. Qiiackenbnsh, 5 Cow. 38. Followed (Relief in equity from sale on execution) in O'Donnell v. Lindsay, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523, 539. v. Russell, 3 Barb. Ch. 325. Explained (Expert evidence as to genuineness of signa- ture) in Rowing v. Manly, 49 If. Y. 1 92. v. Smith, 8 Cow. 146; s. c, 9 M Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 340, with brief note. Aff'd in 4 Wend. 9 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 89, with note containing citations of the case. See Bellin- ger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Chapman v. Albany & Schenectady R. R. Co. ; Dygert v. Schenck ; Marshall v. Guion. Decision in 4 Wend, followed (Public rights in navigable stream) in Bailey v. P., W. & B. R. R. Co., 4 , Ilarr. (Del.) 389 ; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 593, 598, 611, with note. Disting'd with People v. Tibbetts, 19 iV. Y. 553; in Morrill v. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co., 26 Minn. 426 LANSING— LATHERS. 222 ; s. o., 37 Am. R 399. Decision in 8 Cow. followed in Hollister v. Union Co., 9 Conn. 436 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 36, 40, with note. With Gould o. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 XT. Y. 022 ; Furman ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y.,10 Id. 567, not considered authority in Van Dolsen ft Mayor, &c. of N. Y., U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. K Y., \1Cent. L. J. 231. Quoted and explained in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 663, 732. Quoted in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 674, n. 1. Y. Starr, 2 Johns. Ch. 150. Disting'd with Roosevelt v. Mark, Id. 289 ; Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Id. 90 (Equitable aid to claims that are barred at law) in Belknap v. Gleason, 11 Conn. 160; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 721, with note. v. Tremain. See People ex rel. McCann v. Kilbourn. Y. Turner, 2 Johns. 13. Reviewed with Bailey v. Ogden, 3 Id. 399, and other cases (Constructive delivery of persoual property) in Cobb *>. Haskell, 14 Me. 303; s. c, 31 Am. Dee. 56, with note. v. Wiswall, 5 Den. 213. AfFd as Wis- wall v. Lansing, but without opinion, in 5 Mow. Pr. 77. See Dygert v. Schenck. v. Woodworth, 1 Sandf. Ch. 43. Lim- ited (Security for future advances) in Ack- erman e. Hunsicker, 85 N. Y. 43, 51 ; which rev'd 21 Run, 53, which see. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 356, 4 ed. Lantry v. Parks, 8 Cow. 63. See Harmony v. Bingham; McMillan o. Vanderlip. Dis- approved (Recovery for partial performance of special contract for labor) in Britton ». Turner, 6 N. H. 481; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 713, 716, with note. Relied on in Miller v. Goddard, 34 Me. 102 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dee. 038. Explained in 2 Chitty on Contr. 844, n. d\ 845, 11 Am. ed. Lantz v. Buckingham, 4 Lans. 484; s. c, 11 ^446. Pr. N. 8. 64. See Buffalo City Cem- etery v. City of Buffalo. Disting'd (Mort- gage of cemetery lot) in Thompson- v. Hickuy, 8 Abb. N. C. 159, 165. Lapliam v. Rice, 63 Barb. 485. Reargument denied in 66 Id. 487. Aff'd on ground that plaintiff had no cause of actipn, but in other respects overruled in 55 N. Y. 472. With decision in Id. compare (Town in which to bring action before justice) Code Civ. Pro. § 2869. La Place Y. Aupoix, 1 Johns. Cas. 406. Followed (When trover will lie without proof of demand and refusal) in Jamison v. Hendricks, 2 Black/, (lnd.) 94; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 131. Lappin v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 58 Barb. 325. Followed (Fire policy annulled by change of title) in Sherwood v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 593, which was aff'd in 73 N. Y. 447, which see. Explained in Browning ct. Home Ins. Co. of Columbus, 6 Daly, 522, 524. Questioned in 4 Alb. L. J. 37. * Laraway v. Perkins, 10 JV. 7. 371. Applied (Damages for breach of covenant to build) in Kidd v. McCormick, 83 Id. 391, 395. Lark in v. Bobbins, 2 Wend. 505. See Mil- ler v. Van Anken. Collated with Ex parte Wright, 6 Cow. 399 ; Jacoby v. Johnston, 1 Hun, 242 ; Ensign ». St. Louis & San Fran- cisco R. Co., 62 How. Pr. 123; Buel v. Dewey, 22 Id. 342 ; Van Slyke v. Lettice, 6 Hill, 610; Grosvenor v. Hunt, 11 How. Pr. 355; Baldwin v. Barrett, 4 Hun, 119; Frets v. Frets, 1 Cow. 335; Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. «. Penn. Coal Co., 50 N. . Y. 259 (Effect of agreement to submit to arbitration) in 56 Am. Dec. 381, n. Larned v. Hudson, 57 JV. Y. 151. Explained (Claim in ejectment for mesne profits) in Candee v. Burke, 10 Hun, 350, 357. Dis- ting'd in Cagger v. Lansing, 64 N. Y. 417, 431. Discussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 653. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1496, n. Explained (Ejectment against tenant at will) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 384. Larrabee v. Van Alstine, 1 Johns. 307; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 333; 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 152, with brief note. Larreau v. Davignon, 5 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 367. Superseded (Descent of land from natural- ized citizen) by amendment. L. 1874, c. 261; L. 1875, c. 38. Larue y. Rowland, 7 Barb. 107. See Tom- linson v. Borst. DistiDg'd (Physician's books of account as evidence) in Knight v. Cun- nington, 6 Hun, 100, 103. Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige, 169; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 524. See Farrand v. Marshall ; Hay v. Cohoes Co.; Panton ■». Holland; Radclifffl. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. Dictum disapproved (Right to lateral support from adjoining soil) in Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 1 N. Y. 195. Collated with other cases in Bigel Cas. on Torts, 552 ; McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 222. Quoted in 2 Washb. on Peal Prop. 4 ed. 361. Explained in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 2, n. 1. Quoted in Id. §§ 174, 188, 191. Lasher v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., 55 How. Pr. 324. Rev'd in 18 Hun, 98 ; s. c, 57 How. Pr. 222. Another proceeding in 55 How. Pr. 318. y. St. Joseph Fire& Marine Ins. Co., 9 Weekly Dig. 457. Aff'd in 86 K Y. 423. v. Williamson, 55 2K F. 619. Dis- ting'd (Defense bv surety) in Bookstaver v. Jayne, 60 Id. 146", 150. Latham v. Edgerton, 9 Cow. 227. Doubted (Sufficiency of appeal bond) in Van Deusen v. Hay ward, 17 Wend. 69. v. Richards, 12 Hun, 360. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 72 If. Y. 607; but without opinion. Another proceeding in 15 Hun, 129. With decision in 12 Id. see (Limitation of cost of public works) People ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly, 5 Abb. N. C. 383, 408. y. Westervelt, 16 Barb. 421. Further decision in 26 Id. 256. Lathers v. Fish, 4 Lans. 213. Applied (Guardian canuot submit a controversy) as LATHEOP— LAWRENCE. 427 authority against allowing guardian to con- sent to distribution of assets) in Carman 1>. Cowles, 2 Red/. 414, 418. Lathrop v. Bramhall, 5 Svp'm. Ct. (T. &G.) 680; mem. s. c, 3 Hun, 894. Atfd in 64 K Y 365. v. Clapp, 40 JST. Y. 328. Affg 23 How. Pr. 423. v. Dnnlop, 4 Hun, 213; s c, less fully, 6 Svp'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 512. Affd, it seems, in 63 2V. Y. 610, but without opinion. See Matter of Thompson. Compare (Dis- tinction between effect of express and of implied revocation) Dowd's Will, 8 Abb. N. G. 118, 120. v. Heacock, 4 Lans. 1. Dictum disap- proved (Necessity of service of process on wife, where husband is served) in Northrup v. Wheeler, 43 How. Pr. 122. v. Hoyt, 7 Barb. 59. Approved (Effect of parol agreement respecting land, as foundation of trust) in Wheeler v. Reynolds, 66 N. Y. 236. y. Lathrop, 47 How. Pr. 532. Collated with other cases (Use of partnership name . after dissolution) in 35 Am. R. 550, n. v. Morris, 5 Sandf. 7. See Dc Zeng s. Fyfe. Questioned (Pledgee of accommoda- tion paper as security for pre-existing debt, as bona fide holder) in Bowman v. Van Kuren, 29 Wis. 209; s. c, Am. It. 557. v. Singer, 39 Barb. 396. See Schouton !). Kilmer. Followed (Homestead exemp- tion not applicable to cases of tort) in Fra- zier v. Baker, Sup'm. Gt. App. Va., 12 Reporter, 670. V. Smith, 35 Barb. 64. Affd in 24 N. Y. 417. Decision in Id. followed (Qualifi- cation of one claiming administration, as a relative) in Butler v. Perrott, 1 Hem. 9, in preference to Public Adm'r v. Watts, 1 Paige, 382 ; Public Adm'r v. Peters, 1 Brddf. 100. Latimer v. Wheeler, 30 Barb. 485. Affd in 3 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 35 ; s. c, 1 Heye.% 468. Latorre v. O'Brien, 5 Abb. Pr. H. S. 223 ; s. c, as People ex rel. Latorre v. O'Brien, 54 Barb. 38. Affd, except as to costs, in 6 Abb. Pr. K S. 63. Latourette y. Clarke, 45 Barb. 327 ; s. c, 30 How. Pr. 242, where opinion of Clerke, J. , is erroneously given as opinion of court. Rev'd in 51 N. Y. 639. Compare (Jurisdic- tion in action of tort between citizens of other jurisdictions) Johnson v. Whitman, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. Ill; Dewitt ». Buchanan, 54 Barb. 31 ; Barney 1>. Burstenbinder, 64 Id. 212; Brown v. Ashbough, 40 How. Pr. 226; Dike 11. Erie R'y Co., 45 N. Y. 113. v. Williams. SeeNcufvillea. Thompson. Latsou, Matter of, 1 Duer, 696. See (Surro- gates' power to punish for contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, Ij 2555, n. Lattimer v. Livermore, 72 N. Y. 174. Modifying Lottimer v. Livermore, 6 Daly, 501. See People v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co; People v. N. Y. and Staten Island Ferry Co. Decision in 72 N. Y. applied (Basis of extra allowance) in Wil- liams a. Western Union Tel. Co., 61 How. Pr. 305, 308. Lattiinore v. Harsen, 14 Johns. 330. See Dearborn v. Cross. Explained (Discharge of specialty by subsequent parol agreement) in Dearborn v. Cross, 7 Cow. 48. Ex- plained with Dearborn v. Cross, in Allen v. Jaquish, 21 Wend. 628. See also Eddy «. Graves, 23 Id. 82. Cited as authority with Dearborn ®. Cross; Fleming v. Gil- bert, 3 Johns. 528 ; Keating v. Price, 1 Johns. Gas. 22; Ballard v. Walker, 3 Id. 64; Erwin v. Saunders, 1 Cow. 250 ; in Munroe e. Perkins, 9 Pick {Mass ) 298; s. c, 20 Am. Bee. 475, with note. See Grafton B'k v. Wood- ward, 5iV. H 99 ; s. c, 20 Am. Bee. 566. Approved (Validity of contract made on can- - cellation of existing one) in Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 91 N. Y. 392. Lattin v. McCarty, 17 How. Pr. 239; s. c. more fully, 8 Abb. Pr. 225. Rev'd, in 21 H. Y. 107. Decision in Id. explained and commented on (Joinder of claims against debtor by creditor) in Wait on Fraud. Conn. % 54. Cited as a leading case (Distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity) in Pomeroy on Bern. § 68, n. 1; 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 354, n. 1, p. 383. Laub v. Buckmiller, 17 N. Y. 620. Explained (Joinder of actions of ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 639. Laughran v. Smith, 11 Hun, 811. Afi'd in 75 N. Y. 205. See Thomas v. Nelson. Laurence v. Hopkins, 13 Johns. 288. Dis- cussed (New promises and acknowledg- ments) in Ang. on Limit. § 214, 6 ed. Laverty v. Burr, 1 Wend. 529. Cited (Partner's authority to bind firm by signing its name to note) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 127, n. v. Moore, 32 Barb. 347. Affd in 33 N. Y. 658. Decision in 32 Barb, discussed (Estoppel as created by agreement respect- ing boundary lines) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 85. v. Snethen. 68 N. Y. 522. Applied with Covell v. Hill, 6 Id. 374 (Disposition of property by agent, when a conversion) in Second Ave. R. R. Co. v. Mehrbach, 50 Super. Ct. {J. <& S.) 1. Explained in Moah's UnderhiU's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 571. Law v. Ford, 2 Paige, 310. Collated with Marten v. Van Schaick, 4 Id. 479, and other cases (When receiver of partnership property will be appointed) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 330, n. v. McDonald, 9 Hun, 23. Examined with other cases (Costs in equitable actions) in Black v. O'Brien, 23 Id. 82, 85. Lawless v. Hackett, 10 Johns. 149. Ex- plained as not authority, under the Code (Form of confession of judgment) in Acker «. Acker, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 1. Lawrence, Ex parte, 4 Cow. 417; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 386, with note. See Green v. Burke. 428 LAWRENCE. Lawrence t. Ball, 14 K Y. 447. Followed (Presumption of payment created by statute of limitations is not ground for affirmative relief) in Johnson «. Albany & Susquehanna R. It. Co., 54- Id. 416, 425. Discussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 751, n. 2. — v. Bank of the Republic, 3 Robt. 142. Rev'd in 35 JH..Y. 320; s. c, 31 How. Pr. 602. Decision in Id. approved aud followed notwithstanding criticisms in Greenleaf v. Mumford, 50 Barb. 543 (Attachment as basis for proceeding to remove fraudulent obstruction) in Thurber v. Blanck, 50 N. Y. 80. Recorded with other cases in Gross v. Daly, 5 Daly, 540, 543. Followed (Judg- ment debtor as necessary party to creditor's action) in Miller v. Hall^ 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 262, 268. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 128. Collated with other cases (Set-off in actions by assignee for creditors) in Bishop on Assign. § 318. v. Barker, 5 Wend. 301 ; s. c, 1 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 857, with brief note. See Feeter v. Heath ; McArthur v. Sears. Overruled with Feeter v. Heath, 11 'Wend. 485 (Memoranda as evidence) in Guy v. Mead, 22 H. Y. 462, 46>, citing Merrill v. Ithaca & Owego R. R. Co., 16 Wend. 599; Bank of Monroe v. Culver, 2 Hill, 531; Halsey v. Sinsebaugh, 15 iV. Y. 485. Lim- ited in Thurman v. Mosher, 1 Hun, 344, 348. • v. Bayard, 7 Paige, 70. Cited as con- clusive authority (Whether mere possibility, coupled with interest, is capable of being conveyed) in Freeborn v. Wagner, 49 Barb. 43. Explained in Moore, v. Littel, 41 AT. Y. 66. v. Bowne. See Crygier v. Long. v. Clark, 36 K Y. 128. See Breck v. Cole; Phoenix Ins. Co. «. Church; Stalker v. McDonald. Applied (Who is not holder for value) in Weaver v. Barden, 49 JV. Y. 295. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas 5 ed. 241. T. Cornell, 4 Johns. Oh. 542. See Schwinger ®. Hickock. Reviewed with other cases (Correction of judgment) in Rockwell v. Carpenter, 25 Hun, 529, 531, and (dissenting opinion) 535. ■ v. Bale, 3 Johns. Oh. 23. Affi'd in McNeven «. Livingston, 17 Johns, 437, but without opinion. v. Davis, 7 How. Pr. 354. See Butch- ers', &c. Bank of Providence v. Jacobson. Criticised (When judgment for plaintiff on demurrer entitles him to costs) in Van Valkenburgh v. Van Shaick, 8 How. Pr. 271. Compare Pardee v. Schenck, 11 Id. 500. ■ v. Embree, 3 Bradf. 364. See Bradner v. Faulkner. Held to be overruled by Bradner «. Faulkner, 12 N. Y. 472 (Inter- est on legacies) in Matter of Fish's Estate, 19 Abb. Pr. 209, which was, however, rev'd in Campbell v. Cowdrey, 31 How. Pr. 172, which see. Corrected in Matter of Lynch, 52 How. Pr. 367 ; citing Matter of Fish's Estate, 19 Abb. Pr 209; Brnddonu Halker, 12 K Y. 72; Cooke v. Meeker, 36 id. 15. —r~ v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 15 How. Pr.57. Rev'd in 13 K Y. 200. Opinion of Crippen, J., in Id. 642 See Cooper v. Whit- ney. Decision in 13 A r . Y. limited to lands in the State (Sale of mortgaged premises under power) in Elliott v. Wood, 45 N. Y. 71. Applied in Shillaber v. Robinson, 97 U. 8. 68, 77. Explained in 2 Washb. on Peal Prop. 4 ed. 75. Decision in 15 How. Pr. 57, criticised and explained (Decision from which appeal may be taken to General Term) in Smith «. Lewis, 1 Daly, 452. v. Fox, 20 N. Y. 268. See Hamill «. Gillespie. Applied (Action on contract made with third person) in Secor «. Law, 4 Alb. Ot. App. Dec. 190; Scliindler v. Enell, 45 How. Pr. 35 ; Campbell i>. Smith, 71 H. Y. 28, which afE'd 8 Hun, 6, which see; May v. Nat. B'k of. Malone, 9 Id. 112 ; Burr v. Beers-, 24 JV. Y. 180 ; Becker v. Torrance, 31 id. 643 ; Van Schaick v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 38 Id. 354; Hutchings v. Miner, 46 Id. 400 ; Claflin v. Ostrom, 54 Id. 584 ; Connor «. Williams, 2 £obt. 51 ; Glen v. Hope Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C.) 465, which was afi'd in 56 N. Y. 381, which see ; Hand v. Kennedy, 83 Id. 149, 154. Cited as settled law, but disting'd, in Barlow v. Myers, 64 Id. 4, which rev'd 3 Hun, 720, which see. Exam- ined with other cases in Douglass v. Wells, 18 Id. 92. Disting'd in Hoffman v. Schwae- be, 33 Barb. 194; Gridley *>. Gridley, Id. 252; Johnson v. Morgan, 68 N. Y. 496. which affd 6 Daly, 333, 337, which see '; McCafferty v. Decker, 12 Hun, 459 ; Davis v. Morris, 36 N. Y. 575 ; Kelly v. Roberts, 40 Id. 438; Garvey v. Jarvis, 46 Id. 312; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 Id. 237; Brisbane v. Beebe, 48 Id. 631, 636 ; Merrill v. Green, 55 iH.273 ; Simson v. Brown, 08 Id. 358 ; Vroo- man ^.Turner, 69 Id. 283 ; Belknap «.Bender, 75 Id. 449 ; Rogers' Locomotive, &c. Works v. Kelly, 19 Hun, 390. 405; Bean 8. Edge, 84 N. Y. 514; Dunning v. Leavltt, 85 Id. 30, 35 (and see dissenting opinion 39). Disting'd with Burr v. Beers, 24 Id. 178, in Seward v. Huntington, 94 Id. 104. Lim- ited in Storrs n. Flint, 46 Super. Ct. [J. & S.) 498, 521. Explained and applied in Hen- man ». Bowen, 3 Hun, 193. Explained in Kingsbury?). Earle, 27 Id. 141. Rule herein referred to as one that recent cases show a disinclination to extend,— in Pardee v. Treat, 82 N. Y. 385. Explained and limited in ^Etna Nat. B'k v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 46 Id. 92. Relied on with Burr ». Beers, 24 Id. 178; Blyer t„ Monholland, 2 Sand/. Oh. 478, in Schmucker v. Sibert, 1H Iians. 104; s. c, 26 Am. It 765, 769. See to the contrary Exchange B'k of St. Louis v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37; s. c, 9 Am. Ii. 1. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 386. With Garnsey ■«. Rogers, 47 N. Y. 233 ; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 Id. 280, and Lake Ontario Shore R. R. Co. «. Cur- LAWRENCE— LAWTOK 429 tiss, 80 Id. 223, compared and regarded as representing an oscillation of opinion on the rule, "in note by Fkancis Wharton, in 18 Fed. Rep. 525. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 1 74. Commented on in Wait, on Fraud. Gone. § 43. See also 17 Moah Eng. 765, compar- ing and citing other cases. v . French, 25 Wend. 438. Aff'd in 7 Hill, 519, but without opinion. v. Gallagher, 42 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 309. Aff'd in 73 N. Y. 613. T. Hunt, 10 Wend. 80; s. c, 25 Am. Bee. 539. with note, wherein it is shown to be supported by recent adjudications, and by subsequent decisions in N. Y. (What parties are bound by former judgment).- See Green v. Cl.irk ; Jackson v. Wood ; Wood v. Jackson. Cited with other cases as showing rule prevailing in America, though not in England (Effect of judgment offered in evidence, but not pleaded by way of estoppel) in 2 Taylor on Ev. 1435. See to the contrary Bigelow on Estoppel, 520. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 828. « T. Jones, 15 Abb. Pr. 110. See Persse & Brooks Paper Co. v. Willet. Disting'd, and also criticised as conflicting with Gar- butt v. Hauff, 15 Abb. Pr. 189 (Time of motion' to vacate attachment for irregularity) in Swezey v. Bartlett, 3 Abb. Pr. A 7 . S. 444. v. Kemp. See Shaw v. Lenke. v. Kidder, 10 Barb. 641. See Chappel v. Brockway ; Curtis v. Gokey ; Dunlop v. Gregory ; Maier v. Homan. Relied on (In- validity of contract in restraint of trade) in West Va. Transp. Co. ». Ohio River Pipe Line Co., 22 W. Va. 600 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 527. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 521, n. a, Bennett's 4 Am. ed. Quoted in 1 Story on Gontr. 5 ed. § 680, n. 1 ; § 681, n. 3 ; § 683, n. 7. v. Leake & Watts Orphan House, 2 Den. 577. Aff'g 11 Paige, 80. See Calkins . Wain. 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 229; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 642, 647, 650. Commented on (Adjustment of general average) in 3 Kent Com. 243. v. Packer, 52 Bm-b. 132. Followed with Vassear b. Livingston, 13 A'". Y. 248; Pattison v. Richards, 22 Barb.- 143; Mat- toon v. Baker, 24 Sow. Pr. 329 ; National Fire Ins. Co. v. McKay, 21 A 7 ! J'. 191 (Definition of counter-claim) in Heckman v. Swartz, 55 Wis. 173. Leavitt v. Blatchford, 5 Barb. 9. Rev'd in part, and affd in part, as Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 A 7 ". Y. 19. Subsequent proceeding arising out of transaction here involved in 17 Barb. 390, and that affd in 17 N. Y. 521. See Curtis v. Leavitt. Decision in 17 A 7 ". Y. approved (Provisions of R. S. relating to moneyed corporations do not apply to bank- ing associations under Act of 1838) in McLean v. Eastman, 21 Sun, 312. Dis- cussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § SS, n. 5, 11 ed. v. Cruger, 1 Paige, 421. Followed (When service of process on husband in foreclosure proceedings makes service on wife unnecessary) in Watson v. Church, 5 Sup 1 ™. Ct. (T. & C.) 243, 241. v. Dabney, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 873; s. c, 40 Sow. Pr. 277. See Lawton v. Green. Followed (Liability on injunction undertak- ing) in Hovev v. Rubber -Tip Pencil Co, 38 Super. Ct. " (J. & S.) 428, 430 ; Randall «. Carpenter, 47 Id. 205. v. DeLannay, 4 Sand/. Ch. 281. Rcv'U in 4 N. Y. 303. v. Palmer, 3 N. Y. 19; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 333, with note collecting citations thereof; s. c, as Leavitt v. Blatchford, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 53, with copy of deed of trust. See Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank. Commented on in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 AT. Y. 9, 101, 180, 231, 271, a decision arising LEA V ITT— LEE. 431 out of same transactions here involved. Compare (Validity of corporate actB in vio- lation of statute) Bissell v. Michigan South- ern R. R. Co., 22 Id. 258, 302. Followed (Mistakes in law) in Garnar v. Bird, 57 Barb. 277. Language of Buonson, J., quoted (Consideration in part illegal) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 457, n. u. v. Pell, 24 Barb. 322. Affd on the ground that the power was lawful, and the mortgage within its terms, in 25 2f. Y. 474. v. Putnam, 1 Sandf. 199. Rev'd "in 3 N. Y. 494; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 322. See Berry v. Robinson. Cited (Liability of indorse!' after maturity) in Scott v. First Nat. B'k, 71 Ind. 448. Included in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & N~. 784. Also in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 129. Commented upon in Id. 138. Included with note in Bed/. & B. Lead. Cos. on B. ofExch. 156. v. Stanton, Hill & D. 413. Applied (Liability of bank to depositor for paying forged check) in Frank v. Chemical Nat. B'k, 45 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 457. v. Thompson, 56 Barb. 542. Rev'd in 52 W Y. 62. See Cook v. Gregg. Decision in 56 Barb, disapproved (Constitutionality of act as to trespass by animals) in Squares v. Campbell, 60 Id. 391. See Campbell v. Evans, 45 A 7 ! Y. 356. See (Action by owner of animal seized) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3108, n. v. Woods, 10 Wend. 558. Overruled (Effect of condition annexed to confession of judgment) in Heeox v. Ellis, 19 Id. 157. v. Yates, 4 Edw. 134. Cited with Tay- lor v. Hutton, 43 Barb. 195, in Wharf. Com. on Ag. § 681, as showing supreme control exercised over bank by its directors. Explained (Expenses of trust in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Bur- rill on Assign. § 417, 4 ed. Quoted and ■explained (Receiver, when appointed) in High on Rcceiv. § 6, n. 2. Leavy v. Roberts, 8 Abb. Pr. 310. Affd in 2 Hilt. 285. Leaycraft v. Dempsey. See Murray v. To- land. v. Simmons, 3 Bradf. 35. Quoted (Ex- ecution and attestation of will) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 218, n. 17. Explained (Old age of testator) in Willard on Executors, 86. . Ie Blanc, Matter of, 4 Abb. N. G. 221 ; s. c, 14 Hun, 8. Affd, it seems, in 75 N. Y. 598, but without opinion. See Martin o. Funk. Decision in 14 Hun applied (Lien created by specific appropriation of fund), and People v. Merchants' & Mechanics' B'k, 78 N. Y. 269, distiug'd, in People v. City B'k of Rochester, 96 Id. 32. Disting'd in People v. Merchants' & Mechanics' B'k, 78 Id. 269, 273; Peckham v. Van Wag- enen, 83 Id. 40, 45. Compare Attorney General v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 7 Id. 325. Le Breton v. Miles, 8 Paige, 261. Followed (Law of actual domicil as governing future acquisitions) in Fuss v. Fuss, 24 Wis. 256 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 180, 182. Relied on in Besse v. Pellochoux, 73 III. 285 ; s. c, 24 Am. M. 242. Le Clare v. Stewart, 8 Hun, 127. Disting d (Evidence of personal communication, &e. with deceased) in Lathrop v. Hopkins, 29 Id. 608. Examined with other cases in Marsh v. Gilbert, 2 lied/. 465, 475. See 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 471 ; Abb. Tr. En. 63. Le Couteulx v. Supervisors of Erie, 7 Barb. 249. Approved (Validity, force and con- struction of L. 1846, c. 327) in City of Buf- falo v. Le Couteulx, 15 H. Y. 451. Ledwith v. McKhn, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 304. Affd as Ledwich v. McKim, 53 JSf. Y. 307. Decision in 53 Id. explained and lim- ited (Title, &c. to non-negotiable paper) in Holbrook v. N. J. Zinc Co., 57 Id. 616, 623. Disting'd (Effect of allegations in complaint to determine character of action, as in tort or on contract) in Beard v. Yates, 2 Hun, 467 ; Peck v. Root, 5 Id. 549. Approved in Pomeroy on Hem. § 559, re. 1, p. 607. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 339, citing Code Civ. Pro. § 549. See (Form of summons) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 422, n. Ledyanl v. Butler, 9 Paige, 132; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 379. Cited as authority (Title of bona fide purchaser from a fraudulent grantee) in Sedgwick n. Place, 10 Nat. Bank. Reg. 37; s. c, 12 Blatchf. 174. v. Jones, 4 Sandf. 67. Affd in 7 N. Y. 550. Lee v. Adsit, 37 W. Y. 78. Followed (Parol evidence to vary writing in case of insurance) in Richardson v. Home Ins. Co., 47 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 138, 155. v. Chadsey, 3 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 43 ; s. ■ c, 2 Eeyes, 543; 3 Id. 225. Applied (Mode of impeaching witness) in "Wilder v. Pea- body, 21 Hun, 380. Applied (Effect of evi- dence of impeached witness) in White v. McLean, 57 How. Pr. 199 ; Deering v. Met- calf, 74 II Y. 505. Followed (Usury as determined by acceptance of tonus by agent) in Estevez v. Purdy, 06 Id. 449. Disting'd with Estevez v. Purdy ; Bell v. Day, 32 Id. 165; Condit v. Baldwin, 21 Id. 219, in Erickson v. Bell, 53 Iowa, 627; s. c, 36 Am. R. 246. v. Clark, 1 Hill, 56. See Bartlett v. Campbell ; Doty v. Brown. Upheld (Judg- ment, &c. against principal as evidence against surety) in Stephens v. Shnfer, 48 Wis. 63, citing many cases. v. Dill, 39 Barb. 516; s. c, 16 Abb. Pr. 92. Said in 41 JV. Y. 619, to have been affd, with costs, in Ct. of App. March, 1869. v. Gargulio, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 695. Affd, it seems, in 81 JSf. Y. 643, but without opinion. v. Grinncll, 5 Duer, 400. Explained (Right to benefit of general average as affected by success of the sacrifice) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 328, n. m. Language of 432 LEE— LEFLEE. DtJER, J., criticised (Denial of contribution where value of article is gone at time of sacrifice) in 3 Kent. Com. 234, n. 1 (c), Holmes' ed. v. Lee, 39 Barb. 172 ; s. c, more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. 127. Followed (Surrogate's award of costs) in Noyes v. Childrens' Aid Soc, 10 Hun, 289, 291. v. Pittsburgh Coal & Mining Co., 56 How. Pr. 373. Affd, it seems,in 75 N. Y. 601, but without opinion. v. Salter, Hill & D. 163. Included with note (Demanding freight on goods car- ried) in 2 Eedf. Am. Railw. Cos. 219. ■ T. Selleck, 32 Barb. 522; s.c., 20 How. Pr. 275. Aff'd in 33 N. Y. 615. Decision in 32 Barb, explained (Law of place of con- tract governing promissory notes, &c.) in Artisans' B'k v. Park B'k, 41 Id. 599. Decision in 33 N. Y. commented on and applied in Hibernia Nat. B'k v. Lacombe, 84 Id. 367, 378, 381. Applied in Weil v. Lange, 6 Daly, 549. Approved in Tilden e. Blair, 21 Wall. 241, 247. Included in 2 Ames Cos. on B. & N. 237. v. Stanley, 9 How. Pr. 272. Collated with other cases (Attachment as affected by law of domicile) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 359. v. Tillotson, 24 Wend. 337; s. c, 14 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 629, with long brief note; and s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 624, with note wherein are collected citations of the case. See Story ■». Furmau. Followed (Constitu- tionality of laws providing for reference of causes) in Holmes v. Hunt, 122 Mass. 505 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 381. Disting'd as a case of a right exercised before the adoption of the constitution, — in St. Paul & Sioux City R. R. Co. v. Gardner, 19 Minn. 132; s. c, 18 Am. R. 334. v. Village of Sandy Hill, 40 N. Y. 442. See Hutsons. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Roches- ter White Lead Co. «. City of Rochester ; Sandford v. Handy. Followed (Liability of municipal corporation for acts of officer) in Peters ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Hun, 405. Disting'd in Smith v. City of Rochester, 76 JST. Y. 506, 510. Followed in Hunt «. City of Boonville, 65 Mo. 620; s. c, 27 Am. R. 299. Included in Field on Ultra Vires, 513. Collated with other cases in Id. 582. v. Woolsey, 19 Johns. 319; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 230. Applied with Willis v. For- rest, 2 Duer, 310 ; Dolan v. Fagan, 63 Barb. 73 (Evidence to mitigate damages in action for assault) in Kieser v. Smith, 71 Ala. 481 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 342. Cited with approval in Rawlings v. Commonwealth, 1 Leigh (Va.) 581; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 757. Fol- lowed in Fullerton «. Warrick, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 219; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 99. Cited with approval and applied to case of action in trespass for personal injury in Cummins v. Crawford, 88 111 312; s. c, 30 Am. R. 558, 261. Lee & Co's Bank, Matter of, 21 N. Y. 9. Followed (Validity of State constitutional provision that has retroactive effect) in Mat- ter of Reciprocity B'k, 22 Id. 9. Followed with Matter of Reciprocity B'k, in Bender ». Crawford, 33 Tex. 745 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 270, 276. Quoted mGooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 43, n. 1; Id. 76, n. 2. Applied (Power of legislature to amend or repeal law under which corporation acts) in Pough- keepsie, &c. Plankroad Co. v. Griffin, 24 TV". Y. 156; Albany Northern R R. Co. v. Brow- nell, Id. 350. Applied (Subscription to capital stock, when not defeated by amend- ment of charter) in Union Hotel Co. «. Her- see, 79 Id. 459. Leeds v. Bowen, 1 Robt. 10; s. c, 2 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 43. See Russell v. Miner. Approved (Auctioneers compensation) in Russell v. Miner, 25 Hun, 114. Doubted in Same v. Same, 61 Barb. 534. v. Brown, 5 Abb. Pr. 418. Opposed (Examination of party) in Watson v. Gage, 12 Id. 215. Leefe, Matter of, 4 Edw. 395. See Oakley v. Aspinwall. Collated with others cases (Effect of statutes on rights of aliens) in Sliarsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 519. Leetch v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., iDaly, 518. Followed (Power of courts to allow amend- ments) in Matter of Christern, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 523, 528. Lefevre v. Lefevre, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 330. Rev'd on other grounds in 59 N. Y. 434. See Gallup v. Wright; Harris i). Slaght; Kerr v. Dougherty. With decision 59 If. Y. see (Bequests to benevolent, &c. corporations) Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. N. C. 317, 319. Explained in Dowd's Will, 8 Id. 118, 122. Applied in Kerr v. Dougherty, 09 How. Pr. 44, 56. Explained (What is intes- tacy) in Fry e. Smith, 10 Id. 224, 230. Quoted (Misdescription in will) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. &, T. ed. 662, n. Lefferts v. Brampton, 24 How. Pr. 257. Followed as conclusive (Right to inspection of books and documents) in Union Paper Collar Co. v. Metropolitan Collar Co., 3 Daly, 171. • v. Hollister, 10 How. Pr. 383. See other cases collected (Pleading statute of limitations) in 8 Abb. JV. C, 197, n. Lefliugwell v. White, 1 Johns. Cos. 99; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 97, with note.' See Mechan- ics' B'k v. Griswold. Criticised as against the preponderance of legal authority (Notice of dishonor excused by proof of indorser's verbal promise) in Allen v. Rundle, 50 Conn. 9; s. c, 47 Am. R. 599. Lefler v. Field, 42 How. Pr. 420. Further decision in 47 N. Y. 407. Also, as it seems, in 50 Barb. 407; 52 N. Y. 621. Decision in 50 Barb, explained (Practice on find- ings by referee on settlement of case) in Excelsior Petroleum Co. ». Lacy, 5 Suji'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 305. See (Exceptions to rul- ings on questions of fact) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 992, n. Decision in 52 K Y. dis- ting'd (Sufficiency of allegations of fraud) in Dudley v. Scranton, 57 Id. 424, 428. LEGER— LE GDEN. 433 Lcgcr T. Bonnaffe, 2 Barb. 475. See Des Arts v. Leggett; Ontario Bank o. Light- , body. Explained (Mistake of fact) in 1 Story on Cohtr. 5 ed. § 539. Legg V. Dorshcim, 19 Wend. 700. Eeferred to as superseded by statute (Right to move for change of venue, in action against maker and indorscr) in Sherman v. Gregory, 42 How. Pr. 481 v. Overbagh, 4 Wend. 188; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 115, with extended note as to power of appellate court after remittitur. v. Stilluian, 2 Cow. 418. Applied with Bromley v. Smith, 2 Hill, 517 (Sufficiency of service of defendant in justice's court) in Shaw t\ Moser, 3 Mich. 73. Leggett v. Bank of Sing Sing, 25 Barl. 826. Rcv'd in 24 N. Y. 283. See Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers' & Traders' Bank. Deci- sion in 24 N. Y. disting'd (Corporate power to regulate transfer of stock) in Driscoll v. West^ &c. Manf g Co., 59 Id. 96, 107 v. Boyd. 3 Wend. 376. Followed (Dis- cretionary power of court as to delay of trial for purpose of procuring attendance of witness) in Taylor v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. 695. Approved (Refusal to admit evi- dence after close of case, — on ground for new trial) in Sanford M'f'g Co. v. Wiggin, 14 If. H. 441 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 198, 203. y. Dubois, 5 Paige, 114; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 413. Prior decision in 2 Paige, 114. Decision in. 5 Id. approved and applied (Enforcing trust arising out of illegal trans- action) in Millers. Davidson, 3 Oilm. (III.) 518; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 715, 720, with note. Approved in Redmond v. Packcnham, 06 111. 435. Disting'd (Proof of resulting trust by parol evidence) in Bayles v. Bax- . ter, 22 Gal. 579. Cited as authoritv in U. S. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 11 Blatehf. C. Ct. 402. With decision in 2 Paige see (Proceedings on death of party) Code Civ. Pro. § 760, n. t. Heimebergcr. See Leggett v. Hyde ; Manhattan Brass & Manuf. Co. v. Sears. Decision in 19 N. Y. explained as not designed to overrule Powers v. Bergen, 6 Id. 358 (Power of legislature to authorize sale of lands in which adults have interest) in Brevoort v. Grace, 53 Id. 245, 256. Both decisions explained and applied (Right of remaining trustees after resignation, &c. of one, to sell land) in Matter of Bernstein, 3 Red/. 26. v. Hunter, 25 Barb. 81. Affd in 19 N. Y. 445. See Powers v. Bergen. v. Hyde, 58 Jf. Y. 272; s. c, 17 Am. E. 244. Aft'g Leggett v. Ilenneberger, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 418. See Gibson v. Stone ; Richardson v. Hughitt. Decision in 58 A r . Y. applied (Partnership as created by participation in profits) in Williams v. Gillies, 53 How. Pr. 430; Haas v. Roat, 10 Hun, 526. Disting'd in Smith v. Bodinc, 74 N. Y. 33 ; Richardson v. Hughitt, 76 Id. 58 ; Eager v. Crawford, Id. 101 ; Burnett v. Snyder, Id. 351, and see Same v. Same, 81 I. -28 Id. 555. Disting'd in Harvey n. Childs, 23 Ohio St. 319; s. c, 22 Am. R. 387, 390. Pol- lowed, and Richardson v. Hughitt, 76 K Y. 91, disting'd, in Rosenfield v. JIaigh, 53 Wis. 250; s. c, 40 Am. R. 77. Explained and criti- cised in 30 Alb. L. J. 28. Quoted and dis- cussed in 1 Collijer on Partn. § 47, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Cited with Haas v. Roat, 16 Hun, 526, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. 850, n. Explained and disting'd (Relation of principal and agent, as between members of a firm) in King v. Sarrta, 69 i\T. Y. 35. Explained (Effect of direction cf verdict in favor of a party) in Wombough v. Cooper, 2 Hun, 431. Applied in Hagaman v. Burr, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 425. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 64 Barb. 23. Rev'd in 53 N Y. 394. Previous decision in 50 Barb. 016. See Bagley v. Peddie. v. Perkins, 2 N. Y. 297. further decis- ion involving effect of same will, in Leggett v. Hunter. 25 Barb. 81, 98, which was aft'd inl9iV. Y. 445, 454. Also further decision in Post v. Post, 47 Barb. 72. Applied (Validity of trust to receive and pay over rents and profits) in SToyes v. Blakeman, 3 Sand/. 541, which was afi'd in N. Y. 567, 581, which see. Followed, as of unques- tioned authority, in Moore v. Hegeinan, 72 Id. 384. Applied with Moore », Hegeman, while Donovan v. Van de Mark, 78 N. Y. 244; Ireland v. Ireland, 84 Id. 321; Wil- letts ». Titus, 14 Hun, 554, were disting'd in Murray v. Bronson, 1 Dem. 217. Dis- ting'd (Extent of trustee's discretion) in Rodman v. Munson, 13 Barb. 82. Applied (Trust in real estate, when created by will) in Killam «. Allen, 52 Id. 608. Followed in Tobias v. Ketchum, 32 JST. Y. 319, 330. Disting'd (Validity of trust in real estate, created by will) in Donovan v. Vandemark, 18 Hun, 200. Disting'd (Devise of trust estate by implication) in Post v. Hover, 33 K Y. 600. • v. Raymond, 6 mil, 639. See Hough v. Gray ; Lamourieux v. Hewitt ; Packer v. Willson. Overruled (Liability of guarantor of note) in Brown v. Curtiss, 2 N. Y. 225. Disting'd in llayden v. Wcldon, 14 Yroom (N. J.) 133. Commented on in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 138. v. Rogers. See Varick «. Tallman. Legrand v. Manhattan Mercantile Assoc., 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 562. Aff'd in 80 N. Y. 638. Le Guen v. Gouverneur, 1 Johns. Cos. 436 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 121 ; 1 W. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 381; with collection of subsequent cases in which it is cited. See King v. Baldwin. See cases and argument (Alb. and N. Y. 1797-1800) collected in 5 vols, at State Library in Albany. Applied (Dam- ages iu cases of violation of instructions given to factor respecting sale) in Whclan v. Lynch, 05 Dark 328. Cited as a case of considerable magnitude,— in 2 Sedgw.- on Dama. 7 ed. 68. Applied (What may be considered on appeal) in Beckniau s. Frost, 434 LEHMAN— LEONARD. 18 Johns. 560; Reid v. Vanderheyden, 5 Cow. 735. Explained in Bank of Orange County v. Fink, 7 Paige, 91. Explained and approved in Kane v. Whittick, 8 Wend. 232. Examined with other cases (Costs on appeal) in Mott ». Consumers' lee Co., 8 Italy, 244, 246. Criticised and disting'd (Conclusiveness of judgment) in Lewis v. Smith, 11 Barb. 157; Yates v. Fassett, 5 Den.' 29. Approved but. disting'd in Bel- mont ». Erie Ry. Co., 52 Barb. 646 ; Simson v. Hart, 14 Johns. 11. Applied in Vanden- heuvel v. United Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Gas. 156 ; Binck «. Wood, 43 Barb. 319. Dis- ting'd in Mason ». Alston, 9 A7". Y. 28, 35. Limited in Barnum v. Reynolds, 38 Cal. 643. Followed with Simson v. Hart, 1 Johns. Oh. 91 ; in Emery v. Goodwin, 13 Me. 14; s. c , 29 Am. Dec. 475, 479. Cited and fully approved in McClure v. Miller, 1 Bailey {So. Car.) 107; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 522, 525. Lehman t. City of Brooklyn, 29 Barb. 234. See Oldfleld v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. Opposed (Measure of damages for injury to child) in Baltimore, &c. R. R. Co. ». State, 30 ltd. 47. Quoted and commented on in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 1293. Collated with other cases (Negligence in keeping . well open) in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 599. Leichtweiss v. Treskow, 21 Hun, 487. Cited as stating what is the American rule, wher- ever the common law prevails (Effect of infant's promise to marry) in 20 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 459, n. Leitcli v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 66 N. Y. 100. Disting'd (Conclusiveness of expert testimony) in Cornish v. Farm Buildings Fire Ins. Co., 74 Id. 295, 298. . y. Hollister, 4 A 7 . Y. 211. Dictum dis- approved (Trust created for creditors, when invalid as also creating trust for grantor) in Curtis e. Leavitt, 15 Id. 9, 118. 176. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 209, 4 ed. Explained (Assignment for creditors as dis- tinguished from mortgage) in Id. § 6. v. Wells, 48 Barb. 637. Rev'd in 48 N. Y. 585. , With . decision in Id. compare (Application of doctrine of lis pendens to stocks) Dovey's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 162. Leland, Matter of. See Matter of Heyward. Leland v. Cameron, 31 fl~. Y. 115. Applied (Effect of entries made in course of profes- sional or official employment) in Livingston v. Arnoux, 56 Id. 507, 518; Mandeville v. Reynolds, 68 Id. 436. — v. Douglass, 1 Wend. 490. See Van Allen v. Vanderpool. Compare (Evidence of usage as to sale by agent for cash) Clark v. Van Northwick, 1 Pick. {Mass.) 343; Stewart u. Scudder, 24 N. J. L. 96. v. Smith, 11 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 231. Modi- fled, on appeal, in 3 Daly, 309. v. Tousey, Rill, 328. Disting'd (Action for mesne profits, when maintain- able) in Thompson v. Bower, 60 Barb. 403. Discussed in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 369. Lcnien v. Wood, 16 How. Pr. 285. See to same effect (Costs against, executors) Tindal v. Jones, 11 Abb. Pr. 258. Lenimon v. People, 26 Barb. 270. See errata, Id. 4. Affd in 20 JST. Y. 562. See'statc- ments and points in Ct. of App. Cas. in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. See also Vol. 34 of Charles O'Conor's "My own Cases," in same Library. Lcnioine v. Gauton, 2 E. D. Smith, 343. Cited as authority (Effect of misrepresenta- tions by vendor as to who manufactured goods sold) in Miller Tobacco Manufactory i>. Commerce, WVroom. {IT. J.) 18; s. c, 46 Am. R. 750. Lemon v. Trull, 1 3 How. Pr. 248. Affd in 16 Id. 576, n., but without opinion. Lenaban v. People, 3 Hun, 164; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 265. Aff'd. it seems, as People v. Lenahan, in 62 M. Y. 623, but without opinion. Lenihan v. Hamann, 14 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 274. Affd in 55 A 7 ". Y. 652, but without opinion. With decision in 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. see also (Performance of contract for sale of land) in Rinaldo v. Housmann, 1 -455. N.C. 312, Lennon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 347. Affd in 55 N. Y. 361. Decision in Id. followed (Constitutionality of L. 1872, c. 580, § 7, prohibiting vacating assessments) in Eno v. Mayor. &c. of N. Y., 68 Id. 214, 217. Applied (Effect of such act) in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of K. Y., 39 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 120, 127. Collated with other cases (Remedies against illegal taxation) in 20 Am. L. Reg. JST. S. 15. Lennox v. Eldrcd, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & a) 140. Compare (Husband as necessary party to action against wife for debt contracted 'be- fore marriage) Heller v. Rosselle, 6 Hun, 631. Lenox v. United Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 178; s. c, 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 660, with brief note. See Smith o. Wright. Over- ruled (Foreign adjustment of average" loss not conclusive) in Strong v. N. Y. Firemens' Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 323; Lewis ». Williams, 1 Hall, 430; Depau v. Ocean Ins. Co., 5 Cow. 63. Leiitilhon v. Moffatt, 1 Edw. 451. Discussed (Provision for releases in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign,. § 192, 4«cd. Lenton v. Gnntlier, 4 nun, 142. Affd, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 634, but without opin- ion. Leonard v. Bell, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 608. Aff'd. it seems, in 58 & Y. 076, but with- out opinion. - v. Barker, 5 Den. 220. Dictum disap- proved (Effect of prior judgment as estoppel against indorsor) in Barker t. Cassidy, 16 Barb. 177. v. City of Brooklyn. See Leonard v. Reynolds. v. Columbia Steam Nay. Co., 84 A 7 . Y. 48. See Whitford v. Panama R. R. Co. Approved (Right of action for death hap- LEONARD. 435 poning in another State) in Dennick v. Rail- road Co., 103 U. S. 11,21. Explained as turning on the ground that the Connecticut statute is in all material respects the sama as that of N. Y., — in Vawter s. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., Sup'm. Ot. Mo. 1884; 20 Cent. L.J. 352. Explained and collated with other cases in Morris v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 65 Iowa, 731. Fowler, 44 If. Y. 289. See Salisbury v. Stainer. Explained (Sale by average sam- ple) in Benj. on Sales, § 654 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 2 Id. § 981 (Corbin's 4 Am. cd.). T. Huntington. See Wendovcr ». Hogeboom. v. Martin, 52 Bard. 113. Discussed (Accounting between partners) in 1 Collyer on Partn. §334, n. 3, Wood's Am. ed. t. Mason, 1 Wend. 522. Disting'd (What is bill of exchange) in Munger v. Shannon. 01 N. Y 251, 257. Included in 1 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 57. Collated with other cases in liedf. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of JEuzh. 10; also in Bigel. on B. & If. 2 ed. 17. y. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co., 41 N. Y. 544; s. c, 1 Am. R. 446. See Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co. ; Breese a. U. S. Tel. Co. ; De Rutte v. N. Y., &c. Tel. Co.; Grif- fin v. Colver; Staats ». Ten Eyck. Followed (Liability- of telegraph company for failure to transmit message) in Rittenhouse v. Inde- pendent Line of Telegraph, 44 If. Y. 203. Cited with approval with De Rutte v. N. Y. Teleg. Co., 30 How. Pr. 405; Rittenhouse v. Independent Teleg. Co., 44 2f. Y. 265; Bry- ant «. American Teleg. Co., 1 Daly, 590; Sprague v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 6 Id. 201, in McKay v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 16 Nev. 222. Examined with Baldwin v. Tel. Co., 54 Barb. 505; 1 Lans. 125; 45 A 7 ". Y. 744 ; Landsberger v. Magnetic Tel. Co , 32 Barb. 530 ; Lowery «. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 N. Y. 198; in First Nat. B'k of Barnesville v. Telegraph Co., 30 Ohio St. 555; s. c, 27 Am. R. 485, 489, where Bry- ant v. American Telegraph Co., 1 Daly, 575, and other cases w^. m disting'd. Relied on with Elwood ii. Western Union Tel. Co., 45 If. Y. 544 ; while Landsberger v. Magnetic , Teleg. Co., 32 Barb. 530; Baldwin v.~U. S. Teleg. Co., 45 N. Y. 744. were disting'd in Daughtery v. American Union Teleg. Co., 57 Ala. 171; s. c, 46 Am. R. 631, n. Ques- tioned in Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Bert- ram, Sup'm. Ot. 'lex. 1881; 12 Reporter, 798. Approved and applied in 23 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 287. Cited approvingly in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 257b, to. u. Explained in Id. 257c, n. b; Id. 257/, n. e; Id. 257 i, n. m; Id. 257 m,n. s. Quoted and explained in Id. 2o7w, n. e. — - v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 44 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 575. AfFd, it seems, in 80 If. Y. 659, but without opinion. Prior decision in 42 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 225. v. Pitney, 5 Wend. 30. See Allen v. Miller ; Troup v. Smith. Commented on (Fraud as affecting operation of statute of limitations) in Ang. on Limit. § 185, 6 ed. See Code Cio. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. v. Reynolds, 7 Hm, 73. Afi'd as Leonard v. City of Brooklyn, in 71 N. Y. 498; s. c, 27.4m. II. 80, with note. See City of Rochester . Koeh- ler, 7 Daly, 350 ; Barker ». Bucklin, 2 Den. 54; May «. Nat. B'k of Malone, 9 Hun, 110; Aliens. Eighmie, 14 //. 561; Skel- ton v. Brewster, 8 Johns. 377 ; Cold n. Phillips, 10 Id. 414 ; Myers v. Morse, 15 Id. 427 ; Brown v. Curtiss, 2 If. Y. 229 ; Sanders v. Gillespie, 59 Id. 252 ; Larson v. Wyman, 14 Wend. 247. Fol- lowed with Mallory «. Gillett, 21 A r . Y. 42 ; Paine v. Koehjer, 77 Id. 91 ; while Roe e. Barker, 82 If. Y. 431 ; Pfeiiler v. Adler, 37 Id. 164; Duffy v. Wunsch, 42 Id. 243; Brown v. Webber, 38 Id. 187; Smith t>. Ives, 15 Wend. 182; Watson v. Randall, 20 Id: 201, were disting'd in White p. Rintoul, 49 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 421. Followed with Bailey v. Freeman, 4 Johns. 280 ; Gates v. McKee, 13 N. Y. 232" 1 , Church v. Brown, 21 Id. 315; Douglass v. Rowland, 24 Wend. 35; Rogers v. Kneeland, 10 Id. 218; while Union Bank t>. Coster, 3 If. Y. 211; New- comb v. Clark, 1 Den. 226; Brewster v. Silence, 8 If. Y. £07 ; Draper v. Snow, 20 Id. 331. were superseded in Evansville Nat. B'k v. Kaufman, 93 N. Y. 273, which by confirming Speyers v. Lambert, 6 Abb. Pr. If. S. 309, in effect overruled Castle v. Beardsley, 10 Hun, 343. Followed in Dear- born v. Parks, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 81 ; s. c., 17 Am. Dec. 206 ; Jones r. Palmer, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 379, 382. Collated with other cases in Townsend c. Long, 77 Penn. St. 143; s. c, 18 Am. R. 438. Criticised in Muller N. S. 313. Disting'd in Spicer v. Norton, 13 Barb. 548 ; Hall v. Farmer, 5 Ben. 488; 'in opinion of Jewett, O. J., in Durham v. Manrow, 2 JT. Y. 550. Disting'd and dis- approved in Brewster v. Silence, 8 Id. ■ 211, but reaff d in Church v. Brown, 21 Id. 333. Commented on at length and fully 1 approved in Houghton v. Ely, 26 Wis. 181 ; s. c, 7 Am. P. 52, where Brewster v. Silence, JT. Y. 211 ; Church v. Brown, 21 Id. 333, were disapproved in so far as they conflict with Leonard v. Vredenburgh, and Union Bank «. Coster's Executors, 3 IT. Y. 209; Richards v. Warring, 1 Keyes, 576, were approvingly cited. See also cases collated in note. See to the contrary, Deutsch v. ■Bond, 46 Md. 164; Palnior v. Haggard, 78 III. 607. See also Abb. Tr. M. 471. Quoted and discussed in Id. § 407. Quoted and collated with other cases in Holeombe Lead. Gas. on Com. 427. Cited in Benj. on Sales, § 232, n. u. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) as sustaining the English doctrine. Cited as a case in which the distinction between "bargain " and '' agreement " was recognized, in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 248, n. 45 (Corbin's Am. Ed ). Applied (Proof of consideration to support guaranty) in Tyler v. Stevens, 11 Barb. 487; Wheel- . wright v. Moore, 1 Hall, 207, and see Same ■a. Same, Id. 652; 2 Id. 149. Followed '(Guaranty as part of same transaction as making of note) in Higgins v. Watson, 1 ; - Mich. 429, a case of indorsement. Relied on • with Bailey v. Freeman, 11 Johns. 221; !-' iu Read®. Cutts, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 186; s. c, '■ 22 Am. Bee. 184, with note. Explained' in 2 Pars, on Contr.'t, n. r. Leonardsville Bank v. Willard, 1G Abb. Pr. •'111. Aff'din 25 N. Y. 574. Le Page v. McCresi, 1 Wend. 164; s. c, 19 Am. Bee. 469, with note. See VVitherby ?>. '■• Mann. Lequeer v. Prosser, 1 Rill, 256. Affd in 4 (•■Id. 420. See Allen v. Rightmero; Hough v. Gray; Manrow v. Durham; Packer v. Will- son ; Russell v. Whipple. Decision in 1 Hill commented on and disapproved (Liability 1 of quarantor of note) iu Brewster v. Silence, ■ 8 AT. Y. 207. Cited as authority (Liability '"' of surety and of guarantor on note is the same) in Houghton v. Ely, 26 Wis. 181 ; s. c, 7 Am. It 52, 66. Leltoy v. Globe Ins. Co., 2 Edw. 657. Fol- lowed (Stockholders acquire vested right in ,; ' dividend when declared) in Van Oyck v. ■McQuade, - 80 IT. Y. 38. 52. Disting'd in " Peckham ».-Van Wngenen, 83 Id. 40, -45. v. Gouverneur, 1 Johns. Cos. 226. Com- mented on with Magrath v. Church, 1 Cai. 196; Neilson v. Columbian Ins. Co., 3 Id. 108; Saltus v. Ocean Ins. Co., 14 Johns. 138; Moreauu. United States Ins. Co., 1 Wheat. 219; De Peyster v. Sun, &c. Ins. Co., 19 JT. Y. 272 (Doctrine of con- structive total loss in insurance) in Waller- stein v. Columbian Ins. Co., 44 N. Y. 204, 218 v. Market Fire Ins. Co., 39 JT. Y. 60, 90. Further decision in 45 Id. 80. v. Mayor, &c. of New York, 20 Johns. 430; s. c, 11 Am. Bee. 289. Prior decision on application for assessment in 4 Johns. Oh. 352. Decision in 20 Johns, applied (Review of assessment proceedings) in Peo- ple v. City of Brooklyn, 23 Barb. 174; Peo- ple v. County Court of Jefferson, 56 Id. 148; Whitney v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Paige, 648. Criticised in Matter of Morris Square, 2 Hill, 25. Applied in Bouton v. Presi- dent, &c. of Brooklyn, 2 Wend. 398. Explained in People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hill, 11; People v. Supervisors of Alle- gany, 15 Wend. 209; Exp. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 23 Id. 282. Applied to proceed- ings of canal board, in People ex rel. Sey- mour v. Canal Board, 7 Lans. 222. Criti- cised as limited by subsequent decisions (Power to award writ of certiorari) in Peo- ple v. Supervisors of Livingston, 43 Barb. 235. Decision in 4 Johns. C'h. quoted and explained (Injunction against taxes) in 1 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 490, n. 4. y. Park Ins. Co., 39 JT. Y. 90. See Le Roy v. Market Fire Ins. Co. v. Piatt, 4 Paige, 77. Disting'd (When right to flood land passes as collateral privi- lege) in Tabor t>. Bradley, 18 JT. Y. 113. v. United Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 343. Dis- cussed (Adjustment of partial loss) in' 3 Kent Com. 336. Lcslier v. Roessner. See McGregor v. Com- stock. Leslie v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 2 Han, 610; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & 0.) 193. Affd in 63 JT. Y. 27. And see L. 1876, c. 341. Decision in 63 N. Y. followed (Fail- ure to give notice of amount of premium, when waiver of prompt payment thereof) in Meyer v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 516, 528, which aff'd, in effect, 51 How. Pr. 263, which see. v. Leslie, 6 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 183. Another decision in 3 Baly, 194, and that affd in 10 Abb. Pr. A 7 . S. 64. Further decision in 11 Id. 311. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Enforcing payment of alimony) in Allen e. Allen, 8 Abb. JT. 0. 175, 187. Decision in 11 Abb. Pr. JT. S. disting]d (Calendar practice in action for divorce) in Oompton v. Compton, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 579. With decision in 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. sec (Power to grant alimony) Code Ok. Pro. 1881, § 1709, n. Lesser v. People, 12 Hun, 668. Aff'd in 73 1 M.- Y. 78. Decision in Id. disting'd (False LESTER— LEVY. 437 representation of existing fact) in People «. Blanchard, 90 Id. 314. Lester v. Crary, 1 Den. 81. See (Action, how commenced in justice's courts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2870, n. - — v. Jewett, 12 Barb. 502. Rev'd in 11 K Y. 453. v. Rome, Watcrtown, &c. R. B. Co., 2 ' Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 072. Rule said to be changed by Code Civ. Pro. (Practice on appeal from County Court) in Kilmer v. O'Brien, 13 Hun, 224. v. Thompson, 1 Johns. 300. Followed (Conclusiveness of discharge of insolvent debtor) in Sheets v. Hawk, 14 Serg. & P. (Pa.) 173; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 486, with note. Letson v. Dodge, 61 Baro. 125. Followed (Extent of liability on bond given on com- mencement of replevin action) and applied to appeal bond, — in Hinckley v. Kreitz, 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 413, 424. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1733. n. Leatze v. Batterfleld, 51 How. Pr. 89 ; s. a, 1 Abb. K 0. 18. Rev'd in Id. 367 ; s. a, 52 How. Pr. 367 ; 7 Daly, 24. Decision in 1 Abb. N. C. 3G7, confirmed (Removal of causes) in Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U. H. 81. Leveu y. Smith, 1 Den. 571. Followed (Conditional sale of chattels) in Miller v. Jones, 66 Barb. 148, 150. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales. § 338 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Leverick \. Meigs, 1 Cow. 645. See Wolff v. Koppel. Followed (Effect of contract of guaranty entered into by factor) in Sharp v. Emmet, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 2S8 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 554,i. with note. With Cartwright v. Greene, 47 Barb. 9 ; said not to be consis- tent with the present current of adjudica- tion, — in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 784. citing Wolff v. Koppel, 5 Hill, 458; 2 Den. 368; Holbrook v. Wright, 24 Wend. 109, while Boston Carpet Co. v. Journeay, 36 N. Y. 384 ; Heubaeh v. Rother, 2 Duer, 227, were cited in note. Levi v. Jakeways, 4 How. Pr. 126; s. c, as .Linn v. Jakeways, in 2 Code P. 29, where facts are stated. Disting'd with Williams v. Sargeant, 46 AT. Y. 481 ; Quinby v. Straus, 90 Id. 664 (Objection to competency of witness) in Sanford v. Eilithorp, 95 7m. Ct. (T. & C.) 436 ; s. c, 3 Bun. 221. See People ex rel. Com- missioners of Washington Park v. Banks. Lexington & Big Sandy E. K. Co. v. Good- man, 15 How. Pr. 85 ; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. 492 ; 25 Barb. 469. Doubted as not authoritative (Joinder of fraudulent transferror and trans- ferees as parties) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 482. Lexow v. Julian, 14 Hun, 152. Further decision in 21 Id. 577 ; and that aff'd in 86 JV. Y. 638, but without opinion. Libbey v. Strasburger, 14 Hun, 120. Fol- lowed (Action on debt created by fraud, not barred by composition in bankruptcy) in Scott v. Olmstead, 52 Vt. 215. Libby v. Bosekrans, 55 Barb. 202. See Palmer v. Lockwood. Questioned (Remedy against order respecting sale by receiver) in Hack ley v. Draper, 60 JV. Y. 88, 93. Cited as authority (Error, when not to be corrected by motion), in Bullard v. Sher- wood, 85 Id. 253, 257. Liddel v. -Paton, 7 Hun, 195. Appeal dis- missed in 07 JV". Y. 393. Decision in Id. followed (Appeal in case of order vacating order of arrest) in Dixon v. Beach, 80 Id. 641. Applied to order exonerating bail in Douglass v. Haberstro, 82 Id. 572, 574. Liddle v. Market Fire Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. 178. Further decision, in 29 JV Y. 184. Lieber v. Goodrich, 5 Cow. 186. Disting'd (Negotiability of instrument) in Pardee %. Fish, GO JV Y. 203, 270. Liegcois v. MeCrackan, 22 Hun, 69. Appeal dismissed in 83 JV. Y. 024, without opinion. Liefmann v. Soloman, 7 Abb. Pr. 409, n. Compared with other cases (Actions for breach of promise to marry) in 11 Am. L. Beg. JV S. 72. Life and Fire Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 7 Wend. 31. Compare (Corpora- tion may be bound by unlawful act) Bissell v. Michigan Southern & Nothern Indianna B. It. Cos., 22 JV. Y. 258, 265 ; Goodspeed v. East Iladdam Bank, 22 Conn. 537. Ap- proved (Acts of directors the acts of cor- poration) in Smith v. Eathbun, 66 Barb. 402, 403. Followed (Void contract for loan of money cannot be foundation of action) in Re Jaycox, 12 Blatchf. C. Ct. 209, 216. Lightbody v. North American Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 18. See Whittaker v. Farmers' Union Ins. Co. Approved (Insurance on property already lost) in Hallock v. Ins. Co., 2 Dutch. (JV. J.) 268. v. Ontario Bank, 11 Wend. 11. AfTd in 13 Id. 101; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 179. See Kelty v. Second Nat. B'k of Erie. Both decisions examined and approved (Effect of payment in notes of insolvent bank, &c.) in Benedict v. Field, 4 Duer, 154. Discussed at length and denied in Bayard v. Shunk, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 92; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 441, with note. Followed and fully ap- proved in Frontier Bank v. Morse, 22 Me. 88; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 2S4, 280, with note. Followed in Wainwright v. Webster, 11 Verm. 576; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 707, 710; Markle v. Hatfield, 2 Johns. 458, being also cited as sustaining the decision. Like v. McKinstry, 41 Barb. 180. Aff'd in 4 Reyes, 397. Lillie v. Sherman, 39 How. Pr. 287. Cited as authority (Error when not to be corrected by motion) in Bullard v. Sherwood 85 JV. Y. 253, 257. Disapproved (Term " dol- lars," as including dollars in U. S. legal ten- der currency) in Ransford v. Marvin, 8 Abb. Pr. JV S. 432. Lillis v. O'Connor, 49 How. Pr. 497. Aff'd in 8 Hun, 280. With decision in Id. com- pare (Costs where title to real property is involved) Code Civ: Pro. § 3248. Lima, Matter of, 77 JV Y. 170. See Peyser fl. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Vacating of assessment) in Matter of Hughes, 93 JV. Y. 512. Disting'd in Horn v. Town of New Lots, 83 Id. 100, 104; Matter of Rust, 24 Hun, 229, latter being case of application to reduce assessment. Lincoln v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. K. Co., 23 Wend. 425. See Jefferson Ins. Co. 1). Cotheal; Norman v. Wells. Applied (In- admissibility of opinions of , witness as to damage) in Hargers. Edmonds, 4 Barb. 259; Troy & Boston R. R. Co. t>. Northern Turn- pike Co., 10 Id. 103. Reviewed at length with other cases in Clark i>. Baird. 9 JV. Y. 190. Explained (Damages for personal in- jury whereby one is prevented from attend- ing to business) in' Masterton v. Village of Mount Vernon, 58 Id. 395. Applied (Com- pensation for bodily suffering) in Ransom v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 Id. 423. Doc- trine applied (Approximate damages) in Starbird v. Barrons, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 686. Explained (Allowing damages for 4±0 LINBAUEPv^-LlTCHFIELD expenses incurred in conducting suit) in Hicks v. Foster, 13 Barb. 667. Collated with Hicks v. Foster; Elliott ®. Brown, 2 Wei, d. 500; Waffle v. Dillenbeck, 38 K Y. 53, in 27 Am. R. 528, n. Opposed with Blythe t>. Thom'pkins, 2 Abb. Pr. 428, in IG Fed. Rep. 95, n. But see Strang v. Whitehead, 12 Wend. 64. Belied on and approved iu dissenting opinion of Waite, J., in Linsley «. Bushnell, 16 Conn. 225 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 79, 85, with note. Lindauer v. Fourth National Bank, 55 Barb. 75. Followed (Bights of bank receiving draft for collection) in Dod v. Same, 49 Id. 265. liinden v. Graham, 1 Duer, 670. See Ship- man v. Burrows. Explained (Pleading in action for slander) in Havemeyer v. Fuller, 10 Abb. N. G. 9, 13. v. Hepbnrn, 3 Sandf. 668; s. c, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 80, where points of counsel are given. Qualified (Sub-lease and assign- ment) in Oonstantine v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, . 239, 248. See authority reviewed in 16 Am. L. Rev. 30. Discussed in 1 Was7ib. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 512. Lindenmnller v. People, 33 Barb. 548. Ap- proved (Constitutionality of act prohibiting dramatic performances on Sunday) in Neu- endorf! «. Duryea. 69 N. Y. 557, 561, 563; which affd 6 Daly, 276, which see. Stated ' in 49 Am. Dec. 618, n., to be opposed to some decisions elsewhere (Common law as it existed April 20, 1777, —is part of the law of the State) see cases cited. Lindner v. Sabler. SeeBradstreets. Clarke. Lindsay v. Jackson, 2 Paige, 581. Disting'd (Set-off, in case of demand not due) in Keep v. Lord, 2 Duer, 82; Chance v. Isaacs, 2 Edw. 356, which was aff'd in 5 Paige, 595, which see ; Bradley «. Angell, 3 N. Y. 478. Applied in Mel v. Holbrook, 4 Edw. 542. Followed as never having been questioned, in Smith v. Felton, 43 N. Y. 422. Compare Seymour s. Dunham, 24 Hun, 93. Followed with Bradley v. Angel, 3 N~. Y. 475, in Spaulding v. Backus^ 122 Mass. 553; s. c, 23 Am. R. 391, 395. Fol- lowed (Set-off in case of insolvency) in Thrall v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Mb. 295; s. c, 25 Am. R. 488, 491. v. People, 5 Hun, 104; s. c; fully re- ported, 67 Barb. 548. Affd in 63 JV. Y. 143. See People v. Costello. Reviewed with other cases (Evidence of accomplices) in 17 Alb. L. J. 420. y. Sherman, 5 How. Pr. 308; s. c, 1 Code 11. N. 8. 25, 232. Approved in Frederick v. Decker, 18 How. Pr: 96 (Re- quisites of affidavit of assignee of judgment, seeking to examine judgment debtor) in preference to Orr's Case, 2 Abb. Pi: 457. Lindsley v. Simonds, 2 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 69. Said to be overruled by Shellington v. How- land, 67 Barb. 14 (When liability of stock- holder of manufacturing company attaches) in Handy t>. Draper, 23 Uun, 256, 259. Linn v.Ja'keways. See Levi v. Same.. Linningdale v. Livingston, 10 Johns. 36. Explained (Recovery on quantum meruit in case of special agreement) in Jennings v. Camp, 13 Id. 94. Disting'd in Helm i>. Wilson, 4 Mo. 41; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 336, with note. Followed with Jewell v. Schrocp- pel, 4 Cow. 564, in Davis v. Fish, 1 Q. Greene {Iowa), 406 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 387. Reviewed and applied with Porter v. Talcott; 1 Cow. 359, in Pool v. Tuttle, 11 Me. 408; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 552, with note. Lintz v. Howard, 18 Hun, 424. See Ward v. Howard.' Lion v. Bnrtis, 18 Johns. 510. Subsequent decision, as it seems, in 20 Id. 483. Deci- sion in Id. commented on (Effect of limita- tion over, on death without issue) in Vedder v. Evertson, 3 Paige, 231. Discussed in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 695. Decision in 18 Johns, relied on with Jackson v. Tut- tle, 6 Cow. 590 (Amendment of time of de- mise in ejectment) in Den v. Snowhill, 1 Green (iV. J.) 23 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 49(5, 505; and Every v. Merwin, 6 Cow. 366, relied on as to amendments generally. Liotard v. Graves, 3 Cai. 226 ; s. c, 2 iK Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 619, with brief note. Lipe T. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229. (See dis- senting opinion, on p. 729.) See Ingersoll i>. Jones. Followed (Charge of crime as affecting credibility of witness) in Berner Mittnacht, 2 Sweeny, 582. Explained (Who may maintain action for seduction) in dis- senting opinion of Mebwin, J., in Certwell «. Hoyt, 6 Hun, 582. Applied in Gray v. Durland, 51 Nl Y. 429. Explained in 2 Greenl. on Ed. 14 ed. § 572, n. c. Applied (Damages in action for seduction) in Badg- ley v. Decker, 44 Barb. 595. Applied (Gravamen of action for seduction) in Holli- day v. Parker, 23 Hun, 71. Lisk v. Sherman, 25 Barb. 433. Applied (Recovery for services rendered in pursu- ance of void contract) in Bailey ». Gardner, 6 Abb. iv". G. 147, 150. Applied (Specific performance of uncertain contract) in Shake- speare v. Marltham, 10 Hun, 311, 324, which was aff'd in 72 iV. Y. 400, which see. Lister y. Wright, 2 Hill, 323. Disting'd (Mitigation of damages for libel) in Palmer v. Lang, 7 Daly, 33. Litchfield v. Harwell. See Van -Rensselaer v. Chadvvick. v. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 123. See People ex rel. Griffing i>. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. Applied (Burden of proof on one suing for recovery of assessment) in Weinberger v. Fauerbach, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 92. Disting'd (Effect of determination by common council in assessment proceedings) in Matter of •Kiernan, 62 JK Y. 459. Applied (Extent of taxing power of legislature) in People ex rel. N.Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 47 How. Pr. 514; Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 562. Sec cases collected in 10 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 163. v. White, 3 Sandf. 545. Affd in 7 K Y. 438; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 534. Decision LITCHFIELD— LIVINGSTON". 441 in 8 Sandf. followed with approval with Barney v. Griffin, 2 JV. Y. 365 ; Nicholson v. Leavitt, 6 Id. 510 (Effect of provisions re- specting assignee's liability, contained in assignment for creditors) in Hutchinson v. Lord, 1 Wis. 286; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 381, with note. Compare Keep v. Sanderson, 2 Wis. 42; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 404, with note. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 460, 4 ed. Decision in 7 JV Y. quoted and discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 334. Compared in 15 Am. L. Rev. 170. Decision in 3 Sandf. quoted (Unusual stipulations in debtor's favor) in Burrill on Assign. § 183, 4 ed. Jiitchfleld Iron Co. y. Bennett, 7 Cow. 234. Quoted and explained (Evidence to prove ■who are directors of company) in Morawetz on Corp. § 74, re. 71. Littaner v. Goldman, 8 'Bun, 231. Eev'd in 72 JV Y. 506; s. c, 28 Am. R. 171. Decision in Id. disting'd (Warranty of title by vendor of negotiable paper) in "Wood v. Sheldon, 13 Vroom (JV. J.) 421 ; s. a, 36 Am. R. 523. Explained in Benj. on Sales, 607, n. e (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 1 Id. § 619, n. 10 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Little, Matter of, 5 Sup-m. Ct. (T. & C.) 343 ; mem. s. c, 3 Sun, 215. Bev'd in 60 , JV Y. 343. Decision in Id. followed (Effect of failure to give notice required by statute, of proceedings for laying assess- ment) in Matter of De Pierris, 82 Id. 243, 245. Disting'd (Designation as corporation paper) in Matter of Anderson, 60 Id. 457, 461. Little v. Banks, 20 Hun, 143. AfE'd in 85 JV. T. 258. v. Denn. 1 Keyes, 235 ; s. o., 34 How. Pr. 68. See subsequent decision made after ■ reargument and in which different conclu- '. sion was reached, — in 34 JV Y. 452. t. Harvey, -9 Wend. 157. Belied on with Graft v.. Kip, 1 Edw. 620; Tufts v. Tufts, 18 Wend. 622; Dickenson «. Gilli- land, 1 Cow. 481; Roe d. Swart, 5 Id. 294; "Wood i). Colvin, 5 Hill, 228; Mower v. Kip, 6 Paige, 90; Crosier v. Acer, 7 Id. 140 (Levy of execution during continuance of. judgment lien does not continue lien beyond statutory period) in Trapnall v. Eichardson, 13 Ark. 543; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 3S8, 346, with note. See .Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1251, n. v. Martin, 3 Wend. 219; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 688. Discussed (Effect of verbal con- tract within statute of frauds, as evidence) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds. § 125, 4 ed. v. Phoenix Bank, 2 Hill, 425. Aff'd in 7 Id. 359. Decision in 2 Id. approved (Effect of delay in presentment of check) in Casei;. Morris, 31 Penn. 100. Explained in Woodin v. Frazee, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 190, 195. Cited in 3 Kent Com. 1C4, v. c, as a case in which the distinction be- tween checks and notes has been judicially settled. v. Willetts. See Eawson v. Penn. E. ,R. Co. Littlefield v. Brown. See Jackson t>. Bart- lett; McEIroy'j). Mancins. v. Story. See Andrews v. Beecker. Littlejohn v. Greeley, 13 AU. Pr. 41. Fur- ther decision in Id. 311 ; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 345. See arguments and points of counsel in volume published at N. Y. in 1861, and to be found in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. Livcrmore v. Bainbridge, 42 How. Pr. 53. A'ffd in 61 Barb. 358 ; s. c. 43 How. Pr. 272, which was aff'd in 49 JV. Y. 125. Further proceeding in 44 How. Pr. 357. ■which was affd in 14 Abb. Pr. JV. 8. 227; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 350. Appeal from latter dismissed in 56 JV. Y. 72 ; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 436 ; 47 How. Pr. 354. See Gray -e. Fisk. v. Northrup, 44 JV. Y. 107. Beviewed with Beynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323 (Effect of offer to return converted property) in 11 Am. Dec. 523, n. Criticised as extreme (Assumption by debtor, of payment of debt of third person) in First Nat. Bk. of Apple- ton v. Bertschy, 52 Wis. 454. v. Rhodes, 27 How. Pr. 506. Followed (When threats of assignment will sustain attachment) in Anthony v. Stype, 19 Hun, 265. Livingston, Matter of, 9 Paige, 440. Aff'd in 2 Den. 575. Decision in 9 Paige criti- cised and qualified (Compensation to com- mittee of lunatic) in Matter of Colah, 6 Daly, 51. Livingston, Matter of, 34 JV. Y. 555. Disting'd (Trusts to receive rents and prof- its of land) in Heermans v. Robertson, 3 Hun, 464, 468, which was afTd in 64 JV. Y. 332, dissenting opinion of which see. Explained in dissenting opinion of Miller, J., in Fel- lows v. Heermans, 4 Lann. 253. Explained at length and dieter, criticised (Rehearing, when granted) in Belmont v. Erie R'y Co., 52 Barb. 651. Explained in Riggs v. Pur- sell, 74 JV. Y. 379. Applied (Reviewing decision of another judge) in Kamp v. Kamp, 46 How. Pr. 144. Followed, but joint not stated, in Matter of Schell, 49 JV. Y. 653. Livingston v. Adams, 8 Cow. 195. See Hay v. CohoesCo. Relied on {Casus as defense, ■where agent is sought to be held for loss of principal's property) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 254! v. Arnoux, 56 JV. Y. 507. Affg Liv- ingstone v. Arnoux, 15 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 158. Decision in 56 JV Y. disting'd (To whom redemption of lands sold on execution is to be made) in People ex rel. McAllister v. Lynch, 68 Id. 473, 478- See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1476 n. See also (Acknowledgment- and record of certificate of redemption) Id. § 1470, n. Cited at length (Receipts of de- ceased public officer as evidence) in 1 Whart. Com. on E<<. «■ 239. v. Bishop, 1 Johns. 290 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 380. See Eawson v. Turner. Fol- lowed (Enforcing liability of joint trespass- ers, &c.) in Hawkins v. Hatton, 1 Nott & 442 LIVINGSTON. McC. (So. Car.) 318, ; s. c. A 9 Am. R. 700 ; Wright v. Lathrop, 2 Ohio, 33'; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 529, 532, with note. Compared with English anthorities in Gunther v. Lee, 45 Md. 60; s. c, 24 Am. R. 504. Followed with Osterhout v. Roberts, 8 Cow. 43 ; in Blann v. Crocheron, 19 Ala. 647; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 203, with note; wherein Living- ton v. Bishop is referred to as the leading case in the U. S. on this subject, and the one that may be regarded as having settled the law, and formed the basis of judicial decis- ion. Collated with Thomas v. Rumsey, 6 Johns. 30, and other cases, as showing a weight of authority strongly enforced by reason and analogy, in Elliott v. Porter, 5 Dana(Ky.) 299; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 689. Followed with Thomas v. Rumsey, 6 Johns. 26, in Sheldon v. Kibbe, 3 Conn. 214; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 176. Approved in Love- joy «. Murray, 3 Wall,. 1. T. Cueetham, 1 Johns. 61. _ Subsequent decision in 2 Id. 479. See W. Sampson's publication, N. Y. 1807. v. Clements, 1 Bill, 648. See (Costs against landlord who defends in name of . tenant) Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Kursch, 5 If. Y. 558. v. Curtis, 54 How. Pr. 370; s. c, more fully, 12 Hun, 127. y. Dean, 2 Johns. Ch. 479. See Beebe . v. Bank of N. Y. ; Murray v. Lylburn ; Staf- ford v. Van Rensselaer. Followed (As- signee of mortgage, subject to what equities) in Mott v. Clark, 9 Penn. St. 399; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 566, 569, with note. Disapproved in Thomas on Mart. 106 ; citing Bush v. Lathrop, 22 If. Y. 535. Referred to as overruled, — in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 170, n. v. Gibbons, See Norton o. Hayes. v. Gordon, 7 AU. If. C. 53. Aff d as Livingston v. St. Joseph's Home, 21 Hun, 233 ; which was aff d as Livingston v. Gor- don, 84 If. Y. 136. v. Greene, 6 Lans. 50. AfE'd in 52 N. Y. 118. Decision in Id. followed (Vested remainder when created by will) in Acker- man i>. Gorton, 6 Hun. 301 ; which was rev'd in 67 If. Y. 63, which see ; Drake «. Lawrence, 19 Hun, 115. Disting'd in Buel «. Southwick, 70 If. Y. 586. Applied in Bedell v. Guvon, \1Hun, 396; McKinstryfl. Sanders, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 194; Em bury v. Sheldon, 68 If. Y. 236. v. Hammer, 7 Bosw. 670. Disting'd (Action on undertaking in replevin) in Hager v. Clute, 10 Hun, 447, 450. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1733, n. v. Harris, 3 Paige, 528. Aff'd in 11 Wend. 329. Decision in Id. disapproved (Surety, as borrower, within meaning of usury act) in Vilas v. Jones, 1 N. Y. 274, 279, which was approved and decision in 11 Wend, disting'd in Allerton v. Belden, 49 JV. Y. 373, which rev'd 3 Lans. 494, which see Decision in 3 Paige disting'd (Offer to pay sum due, as condition of relief against usurious contract) in Ceoper v. Tappan, 4 Wis. 370. — t. Hastie, 2 Cai. 246. See Foot a. Sabin. Disapproved (Contesting considera- tion of negotiable paper) in Kennedy v. Goodman, 14 Neb. 585. — t. Iiollenbeck, 4 Barb. 9. Approved (Effect of L. 1846, c. 327) in Chemical Bank «.' Mayor of N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. 79; City of Buffalo j>„ Le Couteulx, 15 JV. Y. 451. Approved- (Enjoining-xollection of taxes) in Dodd «.- City of Hartford, 25 Conn. 232. — v. Hubbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 124. Cited as authority (Ignorance of defence at law, not ground for interfering with judgment) in Wixon e. Davis, Walk. Ch. {Mich.) 18. — t. Keech, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 547. Cited (Extent of .cross examination of party) in 1 Whart. Com. on Bv. § 481. — v. Kiersted, 10 Johns. 362. Cited as authority with Sisson v. Conger, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 564: Rivara v. Ghio, 3 JL U. Smith, 264 (Impeachment of mental capac- ity of witness) in Alleman v. Stepp, 52 Iowa, 626; s. c, 35 Am. li. 288, with note, collating cases. v. Livingston, 2 Johns. Ch. 537. Cited as authority (Decree against infant holding land in trust) in "Walsh v. Walsh, 116 Mass. 377; s. c, 17 Am. R. 162, 166. Included (Contract by married woman with husband) in Eicell Lead. Cas. on In/.-t&e. 293. Cited approvingly and discussed in 2 Kent Com. 167. V. , 8 Johns. Ch. 51. Referred to in Gridley i>. Gridlcy, 24 N. Y. 130, 133, as over- ruled by Spraker v. Van Alstyne, 18 Wend. 200 (Payment of debts, &c. when not per- sonal duty of devisee). — v. , 3 Johns. Ch. 148. Not followed (Right of administrator to sue to set aside fraudulent conveyance by intestate) in Bar- ton «. Hosner, 24 Hun, 467. — v. , 3 Johns. 189. Approved with Beecker v. Beecker, 7 Id. 99 (Pa}'ment of debts, &c. when not personal duty of devi- see) in Brown v. Furer, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 213; s. c, 8 Am.- Dec. 693. Cited with Beecker ». Beecker; Van Orden v. Van Orden, 10 Johns. 30; as fully sustaining the position (Legacy charged on land when recoverable in court of law) in Woodward !>. Woodward, 4 HaUt. (If. J.) 115; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 462. — v. , 4 Johns. (Presumption created failure to pay rent) in Central Bank of Troy v. lleydorn, 48 If. Y. 265. v. . 6 Johns. Ch. 497; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 353. Disting'd (When equity will grant injunction) in Troy & Boston R. R. Co. v. Boston, Hoossc T. & Western R'y Co., 8C N. Y. 107, 126. Examined with Jerome «. Ross, 7 Johns. Ch. 315, in Wil- liams o. Mayor of Detroit, 2 Mich. 582. Reviewed and followed with' Hart v. Mayor of Albanv, 3 Paige, 213; Mohawk & II. R. R. Co. si. Artcher, 6 Id. 88; Oakley v. Ch. 294. Disting'd by long-continued LIVINGSTON. 443 Trustees of Williamsburgh, Id. 264 ; Pettit v. Shepherd, 4 Paige, 501; in Lyon v. Hunt, 11 Ala. 295; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 216. v. Lynch, 4 Johns. Ch. 573. See Eb- binghousen v. Worth Club. Compare (Members of private association, how bound) Wilkins v. Pearce, 5 Den. 541. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 125. Denied as contrary to what is settled law (Joint stock company, whether partnership} in Town- send ». Gocwey, 19. Wend. 424. Collated with other cases (Ultra vires contract for carriage of goods) in 2 Red/. Am. Pail. Cas. 151. v. Mclnlay. See Brinkerhoft v. Marvin. T. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 8 Wend. 85 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 622, 634, with note con- taining citations. See Matter of Mercer St.; Wyman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Examined and disting'd with Wyman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 11 Wend. 486; Champlin v. Lay- tin, 18 Id. 411 (Effect of grant of land abutting on street) in Bissell v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. K. Co., 23 N. Y. 61, 67. Disting'd in Matter of Fourth Avenue, 11 Abb. Pr. 189, 199; and see Newcomb v. Smith, 1 Ghand. ( Wis.) 86. Followed with Wiggin v. Mayor. &c. of N. Y., 9 Paige, 23 (Right of State to confer on subordinate jurisdictions authorit}' to take private property for pub- lic use) in Alexander v. Mayor, 5 Gill (Md.) 383 ; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 630, 634, with note. Applied (Compensation for land taken) in Long Island R. R. Co. v. Bennett, 10 Hun, 91, 93. Followed with Beekman v. Sara- toga & Schenectady R. R. Co. , 3 Paige, 45 (Limitations to right to trial by jury) in Anderson v. Caldwell, 91 lnd. 451 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 613. Applied in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 539, 568. Relied on (Constitutionality of- assess- ments for local improvements) in McMastcrs v. Commonwealth. 3 Watts (Pa.) 292; McMasters v. Commonwealth being followed on this point in Ilammettfl. Philadelphia, 65 Perm. St. 146 ; s. c, 3 Am. It. 615. • v. Mildi-nm, 19 JV. Y. 440. Applied (Directing sale of mortgaged premises for benefit of subsequent incumbrancers) in Barnes v. Stoughton, 10 Hun, 14, 10. Fol- lowed (Sale of all of mortgaged premises) in Dc Forest v. Farley, 4 Id. 640. Applied (What equities are before court in foreclos- ure suit) in Bergen v. Snedeker, 8 Abb. iV. C. 50, 56. v. Miller, 7 How. Pr. 219. Applied (Amendment of cases &c. on appeal) in O'Gormant'. Kamak, 5 Daly, 517, 51'J. v. Murray, 67 Barb. 214; Mem. s. c, 4 Sun, 619. Modified in 68 N. Y. 485. Decision in Id. disting'd (Rights of legatee for life of specific property) in Getman v. McMahon, 30 Bun, 531. Followed in Mont foitu. Montfoit, 24 Id. 121. v. Newkirk, 3 Johns. Ch. 312. See McICinnon v. Thompson ; Reed v. Pruyn. Followed (What lands chargeable with tes- tator's debts) in Stires v. Stires, 1 Halst. Ch. (K J.) 224; b. c, 43 Am. Dee. 626, 628, with note. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. E. Co., 8 Hun, 502. Mem. of further decision on appeal after second trial in 76 N. Y. 631. T. Painter, 24 How. Pr. 231; s. c, 15 Alb. Pr. 360, n. Rev'd in 19 Id. 28; s. c, 28 How. Pr. 517: 43 Barb. 270. v. Peru Iron Co., 2 Paige, 390. Rev'd in 9 Wend. 512. See Humbert v. Trinity Church. Decision in 9 Wend, disapproved (What is adverse possession) in Humbert v. Trinity Church, 24 Id. 587, with which it is reconciled in Crary v. Goodman, 22 A T . Y. 170. See, also, Woodward v. McReynolds, 1 Ghand. ( Wis.) 250. Said in McMahon v. Allen, 34 Barh. 56, 63, to have been qualified, or to be deemed overruled by Humbert v. Trinity Church. Disting'd with Crary v. Goodman, 22 N. Y. 170; Moody v. Moody, 16 Hun, 189 (Deed when void as purporting to convey lands held adversely) in Van Voorhisfl. Kelly, 13 Hun, 293. Discussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 757; Id. § 767; Id. § 776. Decision in 2 Paige, criticised as opposed to all sound equitable principles (Effect of suppression of material fact to avoid contract) in Pome- roy on Sp. Per/. § 270, n. T. Prosens, 2 Hill, 526. Followed and approved (Effect of deed by disseizee) in McMahan v. Bowe, 114 Mass. 140; s. c, 19 'Am. B. 3il, 323. y. Radcliff, 6 Barb. 201. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 583, n., as showing modification of rule (What attorney may receive in payment of debt). v. Reudiill, 59 Barb. 493. Applied (Judgment against deceased) in Grant v. Griswold, 21 Hun, 509, 512. SeeCode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1210, n. v. Rogers, 1 Cai. Cas. 27. Followed (Secondary evidence of contents of lost in- strument) in Bank of U. S. v. Sill, 5 . Conn. 106; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 44, with note. v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. 251 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 273, 288, with note, wherein it is said to be regarded as an important case on the law of partnership, especially in N. Y. See Calkins v. Smith; Dob v. Halsey; Foot v. Sabin. Doctrine herein confirmed (Power of partner to bind firm) in Mercein v. Mack, 10 Wend. 461; Nichols v. Hughes, 2 Bailey (So. Gar.) 109 ; Wolcott v. Canfield, 3 Conn. 194, 198 ; Thomas v. Harding, 8 Chreenl. (Me.) 417: Cocke «. Branch Bank, 3 Ala. 175 ; Goode v. Linecum, 1 How. (Miis.) 2S1; Eastman ®. Cooper, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 276. Examined with other cases in Osgood v. Glover, 7 Daly, 307. 370. Applied in Crosthwait v. Ross, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 23; s.' c, 34 Am. Dec. 613, 615. Included in 1 Hare & W. Lead. Cas. 507. Disting'd with Dobs. Halsey. 1 Johns. 34 ; Evernghim v. Ensworth, 7 Wend. 326 (Validity of transfer of partnership prop- erty in payment of separate debt of part- 444" LIVINGSTON— LOCKPORT. * ner) in Locke ®. Lewis, 124 Mass. 1 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 631, 640. — — v. St. Joseph's Home. See Livingston v. Gordon. t. Stickles, 8 Paige, 398. Affd in 7 Sill, 253. Decision in Id. explained i (Effect of condition in restraint of alienation) in Overbagh v. Patrie, 8 Barb. 28. Decision in 8 Paige discussed in 4 Kent Com. 124, n. c. Decision in 7 Sill applied with Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co , 8 JV. Y. 299, 305 ; Herrman «. Adriatic Fire Ins. Co., 45 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 394 (Con- - struction of conditions providing for dissa- bilities and forfeitures) Carr v. Roger Wil- liams' Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 446; s. c, less . fully, 60 N. S. 512, 519 ; citing Hoffman v. ./Etna Ins. Co., 32 JT. Y. 405, 414. ■ v. Tanner, 12 Barb. 481. Rev'd in 14 K Y. 64. • Decision in 12 Barb, followed (Evidence of damages for withholding pos- session of lands) in Larned v. Hudson. 57 If. Y. 151, 154. Quoted and collated with other cases (When notice to tenant to quit is not necessary) in lie Adam on Landl.- & T. 2 ed. § 107. — — v. Ten Broeck, 16 Johns. 14; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 287, with note. Explained and reconciled (When right of common is ap- portionable) in Hall ». Lawrence, 2 R. I. 218; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 715. v. Tompkins, 4 Johns. Oh. 415; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 598. Disting'd as to facts, but approved as to principle (Equity will not aid in working forfeiture) in Smith v. Allen, 1 Saxt. (N. J.) 43; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 33-37, with note. — — v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. 507. Approved and followed (Protection to one exercising franchise conferred by statute) in McGowen •». Stark, 1 Nott. &McO. (So. Oar.) 387 ; s. c, 1 9 Am. Dec. 712. See Newburgh Turnpike Road ». Miller, 5 Johns. Oh. 101; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 274, with note. Distirg'd in > Sullivan v. Redfleld, 1 Paine, 448. Ex- plained and compared with Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, in North River Steam- boat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. 713 as to the effect and validity of the laws in question. ' Applied (When State has authority to re- strain use of patent right) in Patterson v. Commonwealth, 11 Bush? (Ky.) 311 ; s. c, 1 Am. P. 220, 222. Collated with other cases in 22 Am. R. 67, n. Cited, as entitled to great weight, in Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 Jf. S. 508. Quoted approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 391. Livingstone v. Arnoux. See Livingston v. Arnoux. Llamosas v. Llamosas. 4 Supm. Ct. (T. & O.) 574; s. c, as DeLlamosas v. DeLlamo- sas, 2 Sun, 380. Appeal dismissed jn 62 N. Y. 618. Lloyd v. Brewster, 4 Paige, 537 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 88. See Mowry v. Walsh. Ex- ' amined with Colt i>. Ross, 2 Paige, 396 (Bill with double aspect) in Hart v. McKeen, Walk Oh. (Mich.) 420. Approved (Right to j disaffirm sale for fraud) in Bliss v. Cottle, 32 Barb. 322, 324. Applied in Henshaw u. Bryant, 4 Seam. (111.) 107. Followed with Bk. of Beloit v. Beale, 34 K Y. 473; Mor- ris v. Rexford, 18 Id. 552; Rodermund v. Clark, 46 Id. 354; Field 11. Bland, 59 Bow. Pr. 85 ; Sanger v. Wood, 3 Johns. Oh. 416 (Remedies, when not inconsistent) in Bowen v. Mandeville, 29 Hun, 42. v. Bnrjis, 38 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 423. Affd, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 651, but without opinion. v. Carrier, 2 Bans. 364. Applied (In- terest on advances by co-partner) in Gilhooly v. Hart, 8 Daly, 176, 180. v. Matthews, 51 K Y. 124. See also (brokers commissions) Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 Id. 378, 382. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 5 N. Y. 369; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 347, with note containing citations of the case. See Bartlett v. Crozier; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Bailey; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze ; Rochester White Lead Co. ». City of Rochester. Followed with Barton v. City of Syracuse. 36 iv". Y. 54; Weed v. Village of Ballston Spa, 76 Id. 329 ; Hincs v. City of Lockport, 50 Id. 236 (Lia- bility for neglect of corporate duty) in Levy v. Salt Lake City, 3 Utah, 68. Explained in Eastman » Meredith, 36 N. B., 284. Com- pared with other cases (Negligence of con- tractors) in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 359. Lobdell v. Hopkins, 5 Cow. 516. See Good- win ». Holbrook; Vance v. Bloomer. Fol- lowed with approval (Right of action on contract to pay in specific articles) in Rag- land 9. Wood, 71 A la. 145; s. c, 46 Am. R. 305, with note collating cases. Followed in Bailey v. Simonds, 6 N~. B. 159; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 454. T. Lobdell, 36 N. Y. 327. Disting'd (Evidence of personal communication with deceased) in Ross v. Harden, 42 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 427, 435. Followed in Marsh «. Gilbert, 2 Red/. 465, 476. Explained in Brayne v. Lord, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 193, 196. Followed with Freeman d. Freeman, 43 N~. Y. 34 (Compelling conveyance of legal title of laud claimed under parol gift) in Burkholder v. Ludlam, 30 Oratt. ( Va.) 255 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 668, 670. v. Stowell, 37 Sow. Pr. 88. Aff'd in 51 N. Y. 70. Decision in 37 Sow. Pr. followed as a binding and conclusive authority (Conversion, as between tenants in common) in Channon v. Lusk, 2 Lans. 211, ft, Decision in 51 N~. Y. compared (Sale of chattel not specific) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 478 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Locke v. Mabbett, 2 Keyes, 457 ; s. c, 3 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 68. Disting'd (Right of creditors to reach surplus income) in Wil- liams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270. 276. Lockhart v. Public Adm'r, 4 Bradf. 21. Followed (Investments by administrators, &c.) in Gillespie v. Brooks, 2 Red/. 349," 359. Lockport & Buffalo R. R. Co., Matter of, LOCKWOOD— LONG ISLAND E. R. CO. 445, 15 Hun, 365. Rev'd in 77 If. Y. 557. Another proceeding in 19 Hun, 38. Lockwood y. Barnes, 3 Hill, 128 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 620, with note; 15 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 538, with brief note. Followed (Validity under statute of frauds, of agree- ment to deliver colt that may be raised from .' marc) in Groves v. Cook, 88 Ind. 1G9; s. c, 4G Am. R. 402 Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 280, 4 ed. . Followed (Effect of non-performance of portion of contract void by statute of frauds) in Weir v. Hill, 2 Lans. 278. Approved in Galvin v. Prentice, 45 If. Y. 102, which also cited Dowdle ». Camp, 12 Johns. 451 ; Abbot v. Draper. 4 Den. 51 ; Collier ®. Coates, 17 Barb. 471. y. Thornc, 12 Barb. 487. Rev'd ia 11 'If. Y. 170. Subsequent decision in 24 Barb. 391, and that rev'd in 18 XT. Y. 285. See Murray e. Toland. Decisions in 11 and 18 jv".* Y. applied (Conclusiveness of • account stated) in Hutchinson v. Market B'k of Troy, 48 Barb. 324 ; Gilchrist v, Brook- lyn Grocers' Manuf'g Assoc, GO Id. 401. Decision in 11 If. Y. disting'd in Porter ». Lobach, 2 Bosw. 194; Carpenter v. ft ick- erson, 7 Daly, 425. Decision in 18 N. Y. approved in Quincey v. White, 63 Id. 377. Applied in Baker v. Hoff, 52 How. "Pr. 384; Bucklin v. Chaplin, 1 Lans. 447. Cited as weighty authority in Wharton v. Anderson, 23 Minn. 305. Decision in 11 N. Y. disapproved (Account stated be- tween other than merchants) in Anding . Allen, 57 N. Y. 508, 514. v. Vreeland, 18 Abb. Pr. 195. Aff'd in 15 Id. 122; s. c, 24 How Pr. 31G. v. Wilkinson, GO Barb.- 607. Other proceedings in 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 179; 56 Barb. 593. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) said in 5 Id. to have been aff'd. Lorillaid v. Clyde, 80 N. Y. 384. Prior decision in action between same parties, in 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 556. LOKILLAKD— LOUGIIEAN". 447 — — v. Coster, 5 Paige, 172. Itev'd in 14 Wend. 265 ; on ground of invalidity of trust. v. Palmer, 15 Johns. 14. Rev'd in 16 ■ Id. 348. v. Robinson. See McDowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. v. Silver, 35 Barb. 132. Rev'd in 36 If. Y. 578. Decision in 33 Id. followed (Effect of making payment for work condi- tional) in Murray v. Baker, 6 Bun, 204. Disting'd (Sale on agreement to share advance) in Jones ii. Kent, 80 If. Y. 585, 590. v. Town of Monroe, 12 Barb. 101. Affd in 11 N. Y. 392. See Pack v. Mayor, &c. of -N. Y. Applied (Limitation on right of town to sue or be sued) in Town of Fish- kill v. Fishkill, &c. Plank Road Co., 22 Barb. 645 ; Town of Galen v. Clyde, &c. Plank Road Co., 27 Id. 551 ; Ouderdonk v. City of Brooklyn, 31 Id. 507; Gailor v. Derrick, 42 Id. 85 ; McLanahan v. City of Syracuse, 18 Hun, 264; Town of Guilford «. Supervisors of Chenango, 13 If. 7. 147; Swift v. City of Poughkeepsic, 37 Id. 515 ; People ex ■ rel. Van Kcuren v. Auditors of Esopus, 74 Id. 310; City of Rochester s. Town of Rush, 80 Id. 311. Applied to count}-, in De Grauw ». Supervisors of Queens, 13 Bun, 385. Disting'd in Hatha- way v. Town of Homer, 5 Lans. 274 ; Bank of Commonwealth v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 43 2V~. Y. 189; Newman ». Supervisors of Livingston, 45 Id. 682. Applied (Defini- tion of town) in Chicago & N. W. R'y Co: v. Town of Oconto, 50 Wis. 189; s. c, 36 Am. P. 840, 843. Loring v. U. S. Vulcanized Gntta Perclia Co., 30 " Barb. 644. Approved as to inva- lidity of assignment, but rev'd because of giving plaintiff preference, in 36 Id. 329. Losec v. Buchanan, 01 Barb. 8G. Rev'd in 51 N. Y. 470 ; s. c, 10 Am. Ii. 623. Pre- vious decision as Losee v. Saratoga Paper Co., 42 Bow. Pr. 385. Decision in 51 if. Y. disting'd (Liability of owner of danger- ous premises) in Mullen v. St. John, 57 Id. 507, 572. Cited, and Moore «. Goedel, 34 Id. 527, 530, approved, in Simonton v. Loring, 08 Me. 104; s. a, 28 Am. P. 29, with note wherein Robbins v. Mount, 4 Robt. 553, and other cases are collated, and wheroiii remark quoted from Moore v. Goe- del is said to be obiter. Followed in Mar- shall v. Wchvood, 9 Vroom (2V. J.) 339; s. c, 20 Am. Ii. 394, 399. Included in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 47. Collated with other cases in Id. 112. Collated, and cases cited to the contrary, in Bigd. Oas. on Torts, 498, 499, 500. Relied on and applied to case of unmanageable horse, in Brown v. Collins. 53 If. //. 442; s. c, 10 Am. R. 372, 378. ' v. Billiard, 54 IIow. Pr. 319. First part affd in effect in 79 N. Y. 404.. See Huguenot Nat. Bank v. Studwell. Decision in 79 If.- Y. followed (Duty of trustees of corporation to file report) . in Cornell v. Roach, 9 Abb. If. G. 275. Applied in Bruce i>. Piatt, 80 N. Y. 379, 388. — — v. Cljnte, 51 If. Y. 494 ; s. c, 10 Am. P. 638. Aff'g, in part, Losee ». Saratoga Paper Co., 42 Bow. Pr. 385. Decision as to other defendants limited on further decision in Losee «. Buchanan, 01 Barh. 86. See Thomas v. Winchester. Disting'd (Liability for negligence) in Coughtry v. Globe Woolen Co., 50 If. Y. 124, 127. Cited with City of Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 47 Id. 471, as against right of action by stran- gers for breach of constructive duty, — in 19 Cent. L. J. 108, where also Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 If. Y. 389 ; Johnson «. Bel- den, 47 Id. 1 30, were disting'd as cases of statute contract with State, and Thomas v. Winchester, 6 Id. 397, was regarded as founded on negligence. Colktcd with other cases in Bigel.Cas. on Torts, 618. Included in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 233. v. Dunlcin, 7 Johns. 70; s. c, 5 Ant. Dec. 245. See Sice v. Cunningham. In- cluded with notes (Transfer of overdue note) in 1 Ames Cas. on B. & If. 782. y. Losee, 2 Bill, 609. Cited and ap- proved (Statements of Subscribing wit- ness to will as evidence) in Otterson v. Hof- ford, 30 If. J. (7 Vroom) 129 ; s. c, 13 Am. P. 4:9, 431. v. Mathews, 5 Alb. L. J. 26. Rev'd in 61 N. Y. 627. v. Morey, 57 Barb. 561. See other > cases collected (Testimonv of parties) in 1 Abb. N. O. 303, n. v. Saratoga Paper Co. See Losee®. Clute. Lossee V. Ellis, 13 Bun, 635. Further decis- ion as to costs in Id. 655. Decision in Id. 635, disting'd (Effect of covenant to stand seized) in Evsaman v. Eysman, 24 Id. 430, 433. Lott v. Swezy. See Forest v. Mayor, &c of N. Y. v. Wyckoff, 1 Barb. 565. Affd in 2 If. Y. 3.">5. ' Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of limitation over, created by will) in Dumond v. Stringbam, 20 Barb. 104 112, 117. Followed in Barlow v : Barlow, 2 If. Y. 386. Lottimer v. Livermore, 6 Paly, 501. Modi- fled on appeal in Lattimcr v. Livermore, 72 If. Y. 174. Loucks v. Van Allen, 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 427. Approved and applied (Disposal of surplus on foreclosure) in Fleiss v. Buckley, 24 B"un, 514, 516. Followed in German Sav'gs B'k v. Sharer, 25 Id. 409, 41 3. Longlnau v. Ross, 45 If. Y. 792; s. c.,GAm. Ii. 173. Sec Holmes v. Trernper. Disting'd (Tenant's right to remove fixtures, as affected by renewal of lease) in Livingston v. Sulzor, 19 Hun, 375, 381, Disapproved in Kerr v. Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150 ; s. c, 33 Am. P. 305. Relied on in Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. G94, 099. Followed in Marks v. Ryan, G3 Cal. 107, 111. 448 LOUGHBAM"— LOWEBY. v. Smith, 75 K Y. 205. Examined with other cases (Tenancies fro'm year to year) in 19 Alb. L. J. 46. Collated with other cases (When relation of landlord and ten- ant commences) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 29. Lounsbcrry v. Snyder, 31' N. Y. 514. See Dyett v. Pendleton. Cited with approval with Smith v. Niver, 2 Barb. 180 (Etfcct of transfer by tenant of his interest, "when con- trary to statute of frauds) in 2 Wharf. Com. on Ev. § 800. Collated with other cases (Eviction of tenant) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 212. Lounsbnry v. Potter, 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.)' 57. See also (Rights of purchaser in can- tract for sale of incumbered land) Binaldo v. Housmann, 1 Abb. N. 0. 312. Y. Purdy, 11 Barb. 490. Affd in 16 Id. 370; and that aft'd in 18 N. Y. 515. See Botsford v. Burr. Decision in 18 N: Y. disting'd (Trust in case of laud paid for one person, title being taken by another) in Brown u. Cherry, 59 Barb. 628. Applied, in Fairchild v. Fairchild, 5 Bun, 412, which was aff'd in 64^ If. 7. 476, which see ; Sie- mon v. Schiirck, 29 Id. 612. Examined with other cases (Amendment of pleadings) in Williams v. Birch, 6 Bosw. 677. Fol- lowed as decisive (Parol evidence to estab- lish trust) in Swinburne «. Swinburne, 28 N. T. 571. Collated and compared with other cases in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 330. Love t. Palmer, 7 Johns. 159. Examined with Dole v. Bull, 2 Johns. Cas. 239, and other cases (Security when invalid, as taken colore officii) in Richardson v. Crandall, 48 K Y. 359. Lovecraft v. Stanley, 25 Hun, 59. Abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 509. . Lovelaml v. Atwood, 31 How. Pr. 467. See (Notice of appeal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. ■ v. Burnham. See Lawton v. Green. . v. Sliepard. See Moakcly v. Riggs. ' Lovell T. Martin, 21 How. Pr. 238. Subse- quent motion for leave to renew denied in ' 12 Abb. Pr. 178. Lovett , v. Adams, 3 Wend. 380. Applied (Effect of written instruments, &c, condi- tionally executed) in People v. Bostwick, 32 2F. Y. 445. Cited as authority with Bran- son?). Noyes, 7 Wend. 188; People a. Bost- wick, 43 Barb. 9 ; 32 JV. Y. 445, in Ayres v. Milroy, 53 Mo. 51G ; s. c, 14 Am. E. 465, 460, 409. Collated with Bronson' v. Noyes, 7 Wend. 88 ; People •». Bostwick, 32 N. Y. 445, in 25 Am. E. 700, n. ; People «. Bostwick, being thought to be shaken, 1 if [ not overruled, by Russel v. Freer, 50 N. Y. 67. Criticised and disting'd with Bronson v. Noyes, 7 Wend. 188; People v. Bostwick, 32 N. Y. 445, in State v. Potter, 63 Mo. 212 ; s. c, 21 Am. E. 440, 445. Followed in Hall v. Parker, 37 Mich. 590 ; s. c, 20 Am: E. 540. j v. Buloid, 3 Barb. CK. 107. Followed. (Gift by will, when vested at testator's death) in Meyer's Will, 6 Abb. N. C. 438, 443. v. Gillender, 35 N. Y. 617. Afl'g Lov- ett v. Kingsland, 44 Barb. 500. See papers bound up in No. 79, of Charles O'Conor's "My Own Cases," in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. v. Robinson, 7 JIow. Pr. 105. Approved (Liability of wife's separate estate) in Glann ' v. Younglove, 27 Barb. 480 ; Gales . Brown. Approved and followed (Effect of part performance of parol agreement) in Dvgert v. Remerschnider, 32 N. Y. 629, 644. Lowther v. Crummie. See Bowen v. Bell. Luby v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 17 A 7 ". Y. 131. See Anderson v. Rome, &c. R. R. Co. Applied (Effect of declaration of agent, as against principal) in Greenes. Gonzales, 2 Daly, 414. Applied with White v. Miller, 71 N. Y. 136, in Darling v. Oswego Falls Manf'g Co., 30 Hun, 276. Relied on in Ryan v. Gilmer, 2 Mont. 517; s. c, 25 Am. R. 744. Followed in Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112; s. c, 47 Am. R., 403 ; Hawker v. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 455 ; s. c, 36 Am. R. 820, 827, with note. Approved in Bellefontaine R'y Co. v. Hunter, 33 lnd. 335 ; s. C, 5 Am. R., 205. Reviewed at length with Hamilton v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 51 JV. Y. 100; Whitaker v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., Id. 295 ; People v. Davis, 56 Id. 95 ; Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 Id. 273 ; Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 78 Id. 518; Swift v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Oo., 63 Id. 186 ; Schnicker v. People, 88 Id. 192 (Ad- missability of declarations as part of res gestae) in Waldele v. N. Y. Central, &c. R R. Co., !)5 Id. 274. Lucas v. Jeflerson Ins. Co., 6 Core. 635. Collated and reviewed with other cases (Liabilities of successive insurers) in 28 Am. Bee. 122, n. • v. Johnson, 8 Barb. 244. See Boyce v. Bates. Explained (Ejectment against trus- tees of religious corporations) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 243. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. See Safford V. Drew. I.— 29 Luce t. Carley, 24 Wend. 451; s. c, 35 Am. Bee. 637, with note wherein are collected citations. See Child v. Starr. Followed (Boundary of land on stream) in Warren v. Thompson, 75 Me. 329 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 397. Explained in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4cd. 411. v. Dunham, 7 Hun, 202. Aff'd and rev'd in part, and modified in 69 N. Y. 36. See Murdock v. Ward; Wright v. Trustees of Meth. Epis. Church. Decision in 69 N. Y. disting'd (Widow, as next of kin) in Betsinger v. Chapman, 24 Hun, 15, 18. Followed in Keteltas v. Keteltas, 72 K Y. 312, 316. Disting'd (Effect of gift to "heirs") in Loomis v. White, 16 Weekly Big. 407. v. Hartshorn, 7 Lans. 331. Aff'd in 56 IT. Y. 621. v. Trempert, 9 How. Pr. 212. See (Service of copy of complaint) Cod'e Civ. Pro. 1881, § 479, n. Lndden v. Hazen, 31 Barb. 650. See Steel- yards v. Singer. Disting'd (Effect of condi- tional sale, as to third persons) in Powell v. Preston, 1 Hun, 513. See authorities col- lected in Lewis n. McCabe, 49 Conn. 141, 149; s. c, 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 217, with notOj also collating authorities. Luddington v. Miller, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 1. Aft'd, it seems, in 53 N. Y. 643, but without opinion. Further proceeding in 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 478. Ludington v. Bell, 43 Super. Ct. (I. & S.) 557. Rev'd in 77 JST. Y. 138; s. c, 33 Am. R. 601. Another proceeding in 45 Super. Ct. (X & S.) 513. Ludlain v. Ludlain, 31 Barb. 486. AfPd in 26 A r . F. 356. Decision in Id. cited (Citi- zenship of children born abroad of Ameri- can citizens) in 2 Kent Com. 49, n. 6, Holmes' ed. ; and compared with Ch. J. Cockbukn's work on Nationality, ch. 1, § 2. Ludlow v. Bowne, 1 Johns. 1 ; s. c, 3 JV.. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 35, with brief note. Approved and followed (Effect of shipment from neutral to belligerent) in N. Y. Ins. Co. v. De Wolf, 2 Cow. 56, 106. Cited with De Wolf v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 20 Johns. 214, as contrary to the doctrine in the text, in Waples Proc. in Rem, § 292. Y. Dale, 1 Johns. Cos. 16. Rev'd, in 2 Id. 451. See other cases collated (Effect of foreign sentence in prize court of admiralty) in 2 Kent Com. 121, n. e. v. Dole, 1 Hun, 715 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (7'. S C.) 65r>. Affd in 62 N. Y. 617. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 Lans. 128. Further decision in 4 Hun, 239; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 420. Decision in 6 Lans. quoted and discussed (Nuisance as affecting support of lands) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 208, v. Hurd, 19 Johns. 218. See Barrow v.- Paxton; Beals v. Guernsey. Commented on (Effect of retention of possession by ven- dor of goods) in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 666, n. 2. 450 LUDLOW- -LUSH. 1 — - v. N. T. & Harlem E. R Co., 12 Barb. 440. Explained (Waiver of forfeiture for breach of condition) in 2 Washb. on Peal Prop. 4 ed. 20. T. Simoiid, 2 Gai. Gas. 1 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 291, with note, wherein it is shown to have been extensively cited and indorsed both in the Federal courts and elsewhere as an authority. See Mackay v. Bloodgood ; Pain ». Packard ; Rochester City Bank v. Elwood ; Woodworth ». Bank of America. Applied (Jurisdiction of equity in matters of account) in Hawley v. Cramer, 4 Cow. 727. Followed and appioved (Objection to jurisdiction of equity, when too late) in Bees ®. Smith, 1 Ohio, 124; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 599, with note. Cited as uniformly sustained (Equitable liability of surety) in Kelso v. Tabor, 52 Barb. 181. Applied to liability of married woman's separate estate,— in Yale «. Dederer, 18 N. Y. 276, but explained on this point in Corn Ex- change Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 42 Id. 643. Cited with approval (Principles regulating liability of surety) in Citizen's Loan Ass'n of Newark v. Nugent, 11 Vroom (N. J.) 215 ; s. c. 29 Am. P. 230. Followed in W. W. Kimball Co. v. Baker, 62 Wis. 530. Applied (Effect of sealed agreement execu- ted by partner for firm) in Cram «. Seton, 1 Hall, 272. Approved and relied on with Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285 ; Skin- ner v. Dayton, 19 Id. 513; Randall v. Van Vechten, Id. 60; Gram v. Seton, 1 Hall, 262, in Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 379, 382, with note. v. Tan Rensselaer, 1 Johns. 94 ; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 70, with brief note (Validity of contract as determined by law of place). v. Village of Yonkers, 43 Barb. 493. Explained (Damages for nuisance) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 873. Luff v. Pope, 5 Hill, 413. Affd in 7 Id. 577. Seo Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield; Hut- ter v. E'lwanger. Both decisions applied (Right of action on promise to accept or pay draft) in Exchange B'k of St. Louis v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37; s. c, 9 Am. P. 1 Luhrs v. Eiiuer, 15 Hun, 399. ASM in 80 N.Y. 171. Luke v. City of Brooklyn, 43 Barb. 54. See Atlantic Dock Co. ■». City of Brooklyn. Followed (Boundary between N. Y. and Kings counties) in Atlantic Dock Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 24. Explained and disting'd in Orr v. Same, 36 N. Y. 661. Luling T. Atlantic Mnt. Ins. Co., 45 Barb. 510; s. c, 30 How. Pr. 69. Rev'd in 50 Barb. 520; and that afl'd in 51 K Y. 207. Lombard v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. R. Co., 04 Barb. 609. Rev'd in 55 N. Y. 491. Fur- ther decision in 62 Id. 290. Decision in 55 Id. followed (Mechanic's lien, when not to be acquired by material man fo sub-con- tractor) in Crane «. Genin, 60 Id. 127, 129. Lunuuls V. Kasson, 43 Barb. 373. Followed (Effect of offer of indemnity on liability of sheriff) in Dolson n. Saxton, 11 Hun, 565. Followed and approved in Wadsworth v. Walliker, 45 Iowa, 395; s. c, 24 Am. P. 788, 791. Lund v. Seaman's Bank, 20 How. Pr. 461. Further decision in 37 Barb. 129 ; s. c, 23 How. Pr. 258. Decision in Id. disting'd (Interpleader by bank) in Bruggemann v. Bank of Metropolis, 1 City Ct. 86. Dis- ting'd (Claim by third person, when a defense) in Matheny «. Mason, 73 Mo. 677; s. c, 39 Am. E. 641. Luiit v. Bank of North America, 49 Barb. 221. Cited as authority with Chapman v. White. 6 N. Y. 412; ^Etna. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 46 Id. 82; Duncan v. Berlin, 60 Id. 151 ; Attorney-General v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 71 Id. 325 (Effect of check as assignment) in Dickinson v. Coats, 79 Mo. 250, 253 ; s. c, 45 Am. P. 355, n.; where also the doctrine in said to be supported-by the weight of authority, by U. S. Sup'm. Ct. . and courts of last resort in Md., Mass., N. Y., & Pa. as against Iowa, So. Car. and the case of Munn v. Burch, 25 III. 35. Lupin V. Marie, 2 Paige, 169. Aff'd in 6 Wend. 77 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 256, with note, wherein it is said to have been fre- quently approved in N. Y. (No property passes to one purchasing goods with pre- conceived design of not paying for them) in Bidault e, Wales, 19 Mo. 36 ; s. c, 19 Am. Dee. 327. Lupto.i v. Lupton, 2 Johns. Ch. 623. See Rey- nolds «. Reynolds. Reviewed and disting'd with Myers®. Eddy. 47 Barb. 263 ; Spilane «>. Duryea, 51 How. Pr. 260; Babcock v. Stod- dard. 3 Sup'm. CI. (T.& C.) 207; Kinnieru. Rogers, 42 N. Y. 531 ; Hoyte. Hoyt, 85 Id. 142, 147; Bevan v. Cooper, 72 Id. 317; Shulters v. Johnson, 38 Barb. 80 ; Tracy v. Tracy, 15 Id. 503 ; R. C. Church v. Wach- ter, 42 Id. 43 ; Ragan v. Allen, 7 Hun, 537; Hall v. Thompson, 23 Id. 334; Taylor v. Dodd, 58 N. Y. 335 ; Lcfevre v. Toole, 84 Id. 95; Finch v. Hull, 24 Hun, 227; Man- son v. Manson, 8 Abb. JV. C. 123 (Legacies; when chargeable on real estate) in McCorn v. McCorn, 30 Hun, 171. Followed in Bab- cock v. Stoddard, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 207, 209. Dist:ng' d with Bevan v. Cooper, 72 IT. Y. 317; in Scott v. Stebbins, 91 A". Y. 605. Followed as always having been regarded as a leading authority,— in Stod- dard «. Johnson, 13 Hun, 606. Approved .and followed, in Myers n. Eddy, 47 Barb. 263, 270. Explained in Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 N. Y. 142, 149. Disting'd in Ragan v. Allen, 7 Hun. 537. Disting'd (Liability of executor to legatees in case of waste of assets) in Johnsou v. Johnson, 2 Hill Ch. (So. Car.) 277; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 72, 85, with note. v. Smith, 3 Hun, 1; s. c, more fully, 48 How. Pr. 261 ; 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) Lush T. Alburtis, 1 Bradf. 456. Explamcd LUSH— LYNDE. 451 (Parties to be cited to probate of will) in Willard on Executors, 155. v. Druse, 4 Wend. 313. See Loomia v. Jackson ; Kemsen v. Conklin. Followed and approved (Interest on arrears of rent) in Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 5 Den. 135. Disting'd (Evidence of market price) in CO N. Y. 4G9, 474. Lusk v. Campbell, 3 Hun, 607. Affd in G3 H. Y. 019. T. Hastings, 1 Rill, 656. Approved and followed (When powers of attorney of record terminate) in Doane v. Glenn, 1 Col. 454. v. Lusk. See Lusk i>. Smith. v. Smith. 8 Barb. 570 ; s. c, as Lusk v. Lusk, 4 How. Pr. 418; s. a, 3 Code B. 113. Disting'd (Power of judge at Special Term to hear motion for new trial) in Van de Wiele v. Oallanan, 7 Daly, 386, 391. Cited with other cases (Surviving partner cannot execute firm note) in 11 Am. L. Beg. XT. S. 545. Lutes v. Brings, 5 Hun, 67. Rev'd in 64 N. Y. 404. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Change of plan of publie work) in 5 Abb. XT. C. 44, n. Lyddy v. Kenny, N. Y. Daily Beg. Feb. 10, 1879. Disapproved (Costs to abide event) in Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co., 8 Daly, 245, 247, where Carvey v. Eider, 2 Cow. 617, was followed in preference. Lyke v. Van Leuven, 4 Den. 127. Affd in 1 N. Y. 515. Both decisions followed (Lia- bility of owner of trespassing animal) in Chunot v. Larson, 43 Wis. 536 ; s. c, 28 Am. B. 567. Lyle v. Murray, 4 Sandf. 590. Applied (When statute of limitations begins to run) in Mills'!). Hicks, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 527, 530. Collated with other cases in Throop's Justices Man. 2 ed. 188. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. v. Smith, 13 How. Pr. 104. See, also (Appointment of guardian ad litem in par- tition suit) Varian v. Stevens, 2 Duer, 635. See to the contrary Townley v. Harrison. 25 Row. Pr. 266. Lyman v. Cartwrigkt, 3 E. D. Smith, 117. See (Effect of payment by person indebted to judgment debtor) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2450, n. v. Mutual Ins. Co. See Fulton ■». Math- ews. v. Parsons, 28 Barb. 564. Aft'd as Parsons v. Lyman, in 20 N. Y. 103 ; but different directions given as to principles of accounting. v. United Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Cos. G30. Aff'd in 17 Johns. 373; s. c, 6 H. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 400, with brief note. See Wiser v. Blachly. Decision in 17 Johns. approved by Wkioiit, J. (Reformation of contract for mistake) in Rider v. Powell, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 63, 07. Lynch, Ex parte, 2 Hill, 46. Opinion of Nelson, J., followed (Action for neglect of corporate duty to pay debt) in Brown v. Town of Canton, A.Lans. 409, 412. Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Oh. 583. Criticised (Citizenship of person born of alien parents within U. S.) in 12 Wash. L. B. 729. Cited as a case containing extensive discussion (Distinction between aliens and citizens in in law) in 2 Kent Com. 39, n. a. v. Crary, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S] 461. Rev'd in 52 K Y. 181; s. c, more fully, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 85. Decision in Id. cited as authority (Extent of power to levy on debt) iu Smith v. Longmire, 24 Hun, 257, 259 v. Cunningham, Abb. Pr. 94. Ex- plained (Effect of failure to pay interest on 'mortgage, when due) in Asendorf v. Meyer, 8 Daly, 278, 281. v. Davis, 12 How. Pr. 323. Explained and criticised (Right of husband to recover ' for injury causing death of wife; in Green v. Hudson River R. R Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 280, 284. But sec L. 1860, c. 90. v. Johnson, 46 Barb. 56. Aff'd in 48 B~. Y. 27. With decision in Id. see (Ap- plication in supplementary proceedings of property of debtor to payment of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2450, n. v. Livingston, 8 Barb. 463. Aft'd in 6 N. Y. 422. v. McNally, 7 Daly, 126. Aff'd in 73 N. Y. 347. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 76 N. Y. 60 ; s. C, 32 Am. B. 271, with note on obstruc- tion of surface water. Followed (Liability of municipal corporation for error of judg- ment) in Burford?). Grand Rapids, 53 Mich. 98, 101. v. Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co., 24 Hun, 506. Aft'd in 90 H. Y. 77. Decision in Id. commented on (Common -carrier de- taining passenger after trip is, completed, to collect ticket) in 1 Add. on Contr. 507, n. 1, Abb. ed. Decision in 24 Hun quoted and collated with other cases in Lawson Lead. Can. Crim. L. Simplified, 190. \. Meyers, 3 Daly, 256. See (Taxation of sheriff's fees, how obtained) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3287, n. v. Mosher, 4 How. Pr. 86. See Barnard «. Wheeler. Opposed (Time of motion to change place of trial) in Schenck v. McKie, 4 How. Pr. 240. See Mixer v. Kuhn, Id. 409. v. Stone, 4 Den. 356. Explained (Es- toppel created by declarations of agent of the State who takes water for canal pur- poses) in Walrathfl. Baxter, 11 Barb. 382; VValrath v. Redficld, 1-8 N. Y. 457. Dis- ting'd (Exercise. of power confided to canal commissioners) in St. Peter v. Denison, 58 N. Y. 416, 422. v. Ctica Ins. Co. See Foote v. Colvin. Lynde v. Biuld, 2 Paige, 191 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 84, with note containing citations of the case respecting infants' contracts. — v. Hough, 27 Barb. 415. Explained (Condition not to underlet, whether broken by assignment of the entire term) in 1 Washb. on Beal Prop. 4 ed. 473. 452 LYNDE— McALLISTEE. v. Lynde, 4 Sandf. Oh. 373. Affd in 2 Barb. Oh. 62. These decisions 4 Sand. Oh. 373, explained (Alimony pendente lite) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 457, n. 1, 6 ed. v. Noble, 20 Johns. 80. Examined and followed (Effect of certiorari) in Devlin v. Plait, 1 1 Abb. Pr. 398, 400. Lynes v. Townsend, 33 If. Y. 558. Applied (When subsequently acquired lands will pass by will) in Quinri v. Hardenbrook, 54 Id. 83, 89. Explained in Youngs v. Youngs, 45 Id. 254. Cited with Byrnes v. Baer, 86 Id. 210; Lent v. Lent, 24 Hun, 436; Quinn v. Hardenbrook, 54 A 7 ! Y. 83 ; Jew- ell v. Toles, 17 Hun, 76; Woods v. Moore, 4 Sandf. 579; Hancock v. Hancock, 22 A 7 ". Y. 568, in reporter's note to Ex'r of Gard- ner?). Gardner, 10 Stew. (37 N. J. Eg.) 487; s. c, 29 Alb. L. J. 190. Quoted in I Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 604, n. Lyon v. Bakesly, 19 Him, 299. Followed (Allegations in affidavit for attachment) in Trow Printing, &c. Co. v. Hart, 60 How. Pr. 190. T. Blossom, 4 Ihier, 318. Applied (Duty of "third arbitrator") in Day v. Hammond, 57 N. Y. 479, 484. v. Chase, 51 Barb. 14. Disapproved (Presumption of payment of rent) in subse- quent decision in 63 Id. 89, 96. Decision in 8 N. Y. disting'd (Amount of recovery on bond) in Beers v. Shannon, 73 Id. 292, 303; which rev'd 12 Hun, 61, which see. Reviewed with Braiuard v. Jones, 18 A 7 ". Y. 35, and other cases in 1 Am. Dec. 338, n. Commented on in 2 Sedgw. on Dama. 7 ed. 262, n. v. Jerome, 15 Wend. 569. Rev'd in 26 Id. 485. . v. Mitchell, 36 iV. Y. 235. Dissenting opinion of Gkover, J., is at p. 682. See decision below in 2 liobt. 523. Decision in 36 A 7 . Y. explained and followed (Invalidity of claim .for lobby service) in Russell v. Burton, 66 Barb. 539, 544. Examined with other cases (Broker's commissions, when earned) in Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 If. Y. 378, 382. v. Platuer, 11 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 87. Collated with other cases (Assignee for benefit of creditors, selling on credit) in Bishop on Assign. § 21 1. v. Richmond, 2 Johns. Cli. 51. Rev'd as Lyon v. Tallmadge, in 14 Johns. 501. See Clark v. Dutcher; Shotwell v. Murray. Decision in 2 Johns. Ch. followed (Relief against mistake of ■law) in Fellows v. Hcer- mans, 4 Lans. 230, 243. Reviewed with Hall v. Reed, 2 Barb. Ch. 503 ; Champlin v. Laytin, 18 Wend. 423; 1 Edw. 467, and other cases in State v. Panp, 13 Ark 129 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 303. Approved in Waterman on Sjj Per/. § 356, n. Doctrine discussed in 3 Alb. I. J. 449. v. Smith, 11 Barb. 124. See Butler v. Benson. Quoted (Execution and attestation of will) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 222, n. 19. v. Snyder. See Van Tuyl v. Van Tuyl. — - v. Tallmadge. See Lyon v. Richmond ; Shotwell v. Murray. v. Valentine, 33 Barb. 271. See to the contrary (Broker's commissions) Elting.'o. Sturtevant, 41 Conn. 176. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 380. v. Yates, 52 Barb. 237. See Kerr »., Mount. Disting'd (Liability for acting under erroneous process) in Day v. Bach, 46 Super. Lt.(J.& S.) 460, 46.6. Explained and disting'd in Hall v. Munger, 5 Lans. 100. Lytle t. Beveridge, 7 Lans. 225. Affd in 58 A 7 ". Y. 592. » See Davoue v. Fanning. Decision in 58 A 7 ". Y. quoted (Voidable pur- chases by trustees) in Wait on Fraud. Cone. § 470. M. Maas t. Goodman, 2 Hilt. 275. Approved (Set-off against assignee) in Schieffelin e. Hawkins, 14 Abb. Pr. 112, 115. .Overruled in Martin v. Kunzmuller, 37 N. Y. 396. v. Missouri, Kansas & T. R. R. Co., 11 Hun, 8. Further decision in 83 N. Y. 223. v. O'Brien, 14 Hun, 95. Applied (Effect of bankrup'tcy proceedings on imprisonment under State law) in matter of Fitzgerald, 8 Daly, 18B, 190. Mabbett v. White, 12 A 7 ". Y. 442. See Havens v. Hussey. Followed (Power of one partner to transfer partnership prop- erty) in McClelland v. Remsen, 14 Abb. Pr. 335; Graser v. Stellwagen, 25 N. Y. 317. Followed as established law, in Van Brunt v. Appjegate, 44 Id. 547. Disting'd in Pettee v. Orser, 6 Bosw, 136. Compare Welles v. March, 30 If. Y. 350 ; Palmer e. Myers, 29 How. Pr. 9. Collated with Egberts v. Wood, 3 Paige, 5 J 7; Everit v. Strong, 5 Hill, 103; 7 Id. 583; Hudson®. McKenzie, 1 E. D. Smith, 358, and author- ities from other States in 22 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 37. Followed as decisive (Objection when too general) in Murphy v. People, 63 N. Y. 595. McAdam v. Cooke, 6 Daly, 101. Followed (When one is not bona fide holder of note for value) in Ayres v. Leypoldt, Id. 91, 94. Mc Adams, Matter of, 19 Hvn, 292. Compare (Costs in lunacy proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. § 2336. McAllister v. Hammond, 6 Cow. 342. Dis- ting'd with Guille v. Swan, 19 Johns. 381; Hay v. Cohocs Co., 2 N. Y. 159 (Liability of one engaged in lawful act, for accidental injury) in Miller J). Martin, 16 Mo. 508; s. c, 67 Am. Dec. 242. v. Reab, 4 Wend. 483. ' Affd as Reab v. McAllister, in 8 Id. 109. See Batterman v. Pierce; Pcchner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Decision in 4 Wend, explained (Duty of one sued for purchase price to set up breach of warranty, &c.) in McDonald v. Christie, 42 Barb. 36, 40; Barth v. Burt, 17 Abb. Pr. 353. Approved in 2 Sedgw. on Meas. of McALPiN— McCaffrey. 453 Dama. 7 cd. 289. For extension of rule see (Proof of accuracy of books) Foster v. Cole- man, 1 E. D. Smith, 85. See also All. Tr. Ev. 325. Criticised as incorrect (Presumption that uniform custom of merchant is known to customers, &c.) in Lawson on Usages and Customs, 52. Applied (Recoupment in cases other than those of fraud) in Allaire Works v. Guion, 10 Barb. 58; Batterman v. Pierce, 3 Hill, 177; Whitbeck v. Skinner, 7 Id. 55. Decision in 8 Wend, disting'd in Walker v. Shoemaker, 4 Hun, 579, 581, a case of action for rent. Head-note to 4 Wend, corrected (Interest on running account) in Eslerly v. Cole, 1 Barb. 236. McAlpin v. Powell, 1 All. N. C. 427. Rev'd in 70 N. Y. 126; s. c, 55 How. Pr. 163; 29 Am. R. 555, with note. See Man- gam D. Brooklyn R. R. Co. Decision in 1 Abb. N. 0. approved (Liability of land- lord for failure to provide sufficient fire- escapes) in - Willy v. Mulledy, 6 Abb. N. G. 97, 103, notwithstanding reversal ia 70 N. Y. Decision in Id. collated with Church of Ascension v. Buckhart, 3 Hill, 193; Mullaney v. Spence, 15 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 319, and other cases- (Negligence and contributory negligence in case of injuries received bv children) in 31 Am. R. 206, n. McAndrew v. Whitlock, 52 *K T. 40. See Place v. Union Express Co. ; Redmond v. Liverpool, &c. Steamship Co. Collated with other cases (When liability of carrier ends) in 8 Am. Dec. 215, n. McArdle v. Barney. 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 228 ; s. c, 50 How. Pr. 97. See McCardle v. Barney. Approved (Who may be appointed receiver) in Chamberlain v. Greenleaf, 4 All. N. C. 92, 95. McArthur v. Sears, 21 Wend. 190. Followed with Lawrence v. Barker, 5 Id. 305 ; Jack- son v. Leek, 12 Id. 105 (Contradicting one's own witness) in Swamscot Machine Co. v. Walker, 22 N. H. 457; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 172. Followed (Carrier's exemption from liability for loss arising from "perils of the sea") in Plaisted v. K. & K. S. N. Co., 27 Me. 132; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 587, 590, with note. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 155, n. 5, §§ 196, 199, 5 ed. Approved in Hutchinson on Carr. § 181. Included with notes in 2 Bed/. Am. Railw. Cases, 11. " v. Sonle, 66 Barb. 423. Further deci- sion in 5 Hun, 63. McAnley v. Billinger, 20 Johns. 89. See Trustees of Hamilton College v. Stewart. Examined (Subscriber's liability) in Trus- tees of Hamilton College v. Stewart, 1 N. Y. 581, 584. See cases collected (Limit of cost in execution of public undertaking) in 5 Abb. N. C. 468, n. McAvery v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. See Mc- Avoy v. Same. McAvoy v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 54 How. Pr. 245. Previous decision briefly reported as McAvery ■». Same, 4 Weekly Dig. 538. With decision in 54 How. Pr. com- pare (City officers as public agents) Sage «. City of Brooklyn, 8 Abb. N. C. 279 McBride v. Farmers' Bank, 25 Barb. 657. Aff'd, on somewhat different grounds, in 26 N. Y. 450. Decision in Id. followed and explained (Title to notes, &c, received bv bank for collection) in Commercial Bank oi Clyde v. Marine Bank, Abb. Pr. N. S. 40. Followed in Lindauer v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 55 Barb. 84. Disting'd in Dickersont). Wason, 48 Id. 235. Cited as authority with Commercial Bank of Clyde v. Marine Bank, 3 Keyes, 337, in Blaine v. Bourne, 11 B. I. 119; s. c, 23 Am. R. 429. Followed (Antecedent debt, when not a consideration) in Philbriok v. Dallett, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 426. Applied (Effect of assignment of demand, made to avoid difficulty as to juris- diction) in Petersen v. Chemical B'k, 32 N. Y. 48. Followed as decisive (Title to pro- ceeds of negotiable paper) in Comstock v. Hier, 73 Id. 277. Applied (Power of judge at trial to direct hearing at General Term) in Dickerson v. Wason, 48 Barb. 513. v. Ilagan. See Buckley v. Buckley ; Green v. Beals. McBurney v. Wellman, 42 Barb. 390. Aff'd as Podge v. Wellman, 1 Alib. Ct. App. Dec. 512 ; s. c, 43 How. Pr. 427. Decision in 42 Barb, followed (Right to show that grant, absolute on its face, is iutended as mortgage) in Carr v. Carr, 52 JV. Y. 251, 259; which aff'd 4 Bans. 314, 326, 330, which see. McButt v. Hirsch, 4 A bl. Pr. 441. Disting'd ■with Mallory v. Loach, 14 Id. 449 (Merger of original cause of action for fraud in judgment) in Warner v. Cronkhite, U. S. Cir. Ct. E. D. Wis., 13 Nat. Banhr. Reg. 52. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 552, n. McCabe v McCabe, 18 Hun, 153. Explained . (Compensation as between tenants in com- mon) in Moah's UndendlVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 384. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1589, n. McCafferty v. Decker, 3 Hun, 604. Further proceedings in 12 Hun, 455. v. Spuytesi Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 178; s. c, 19 Am. R. 267, and less 1 fully, 48 How. Pr. 44. See Blake v. Ferris ; King v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Applied (Liability of one employing contractor) in Martin v. Tribune Ass'n, 30 Hun, 391. McCaffrey v. Woodin, 62 Barl. 316. Rev'd in 65 N. Y. 459 ; s.c, 22 Am. R. 644, with note. See Gardner v. McEwen. Decision in 65 N. Y. explained and followed (Mort- gaging after-acquired property) in Kennedy v, Nat. Union Bank of Watertown, 23 Hun, 494, 497. Followed in Moure v. Byrum, 10 So. Car. 452; s. c, 30 Am. R. 58, with note collating cases. Approved in Fejavary e. Broesch, 52 Iowa, 88; s. c, 35 Am. R. 261. Approved in Parker v. Jacobs, 14 So. Car. 114. " Collated with other cases in McAdam , on Bandl. &T.1 ed. §§ 121, 150. Quoted and explained and applied to sales in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 80, n. 4 (Corbiu's 4 Am. ed.) 454 McCAHILL— MoCAETNEY. McCaliill T. Hamilton, 20 Sun, 888. Sec Amsbey v. Hinds. Disting'd (BRght of purchaser to refuse doubtful title) in Onder- donk v. Ackerman, 62 Bow. Pr. 318, 322. McCall v. McCall, 54 If. Y. 541. Examined with other cases (Correction of judgment) in Rockwell v. Carpenter, 25 Bun, 529, 532. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 642. Followed (Contributory negligence in one driving across railroad track) in Bronk v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 5 Daly, 454, 457. Disting'd in Stackus v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 79 K Y. 408. y. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 39 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 330. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 505. McCann v. Bradley, 15 Sow. Pr. 72. Op- posed (Costs against executors) in Tindal v. Jones, 11 Abb. Pr. 258. Overruled in Mer- ritt v. Thompson, 27 If. Y. 225. Com- pared and denied in 25 Moah Eng. 83, n. v. People, 3 Parle. 272. Rev'd in People v. McCann, 16 If. Y. 58. See opin- ions in both courts, in 15 Sow. Pr. 503, with charge of Gould, J., on third trial. Decision in 6 Parle, stated to be practi- cally overruled (Review in criminal cases) in 1 Alb. L. J. 33. McCardle v. Barney, cited in Chamberlain v. Greenleaf, 4 Abb. If. 0. 92, 95, is reported as McArdle' i>. Barney, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 228; s. c, 50 Sow. Pr. 97. McCarney v. People. Explained (Participa- tion as principal or accessory) in 3 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 40, n. a. McCarron v. People, 2 Park. 183. AfTd in 13 If. Y. 74. McCartee -v. Camel, 1 Barb. Ch. 455. See Stouvenel v. Stephens. Disting'd with Clark v. Chadeagne, 10 Sun, 97; Clark v. Ford, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Deo. 359; Loder v. Hatfield, 71 If. Y. 102 ; Warren v. Pa'ff, 4 Brarlf. 260 (Limitation of action on claim of legatee) in Foster v. Town, 2 Dem. 333. ■ v. Orphan Asylum Soc'y, 9 Cow. 437 ; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 510, with note show- ing it to have been often approved on the points decided. See case, &c, bound with that in Seymour v. Delancey, at State Libr. in Albany. See Coggeshall v. Pelton; . Downing v. Marshall ; Jackson v. Hammond. Examined (Devises to corporations) in Mc- Caughal v. Ryan, 27 Barb. 385 ; Wright v. Trustees of Meth. Epis. Church. Hoffm. Ill ; King v. Woodhull, 3 Edw. 87 ; Ayres v. Methodist Church, 3 Sandf. 302. Exam- ined at length in Downing v. Marshall, 23 If. Y. 384, and sec dissenting opinion of Davies, J., in 23 Sow. Pr. 10. Applied in Attorney-General ». Rcf'd Prot. Dutch Church, 33 Barb. 313. Explained in Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 551. Opion- ion of Jones, Chancellor, followed and reversal explained, in Theological Sem. of Auburn v. Childs, 4 Paige, 424. Commented on in Morawetz on Corp. § 100. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. §§ 178, 182, 11 ed. Opinion of Jones, Chancellor, approved, in Levy v. Levy, 3J If. Y. 134, as exhaustively examining subject of charitable trusts. Opinion in Ct. of Errors likewise approved in Bascom v. Albertson, 34 If. Y. 608. Ap- proved with Attorney-General v. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 389, in Moore's Heirs «. v. Moore's Devisees, 4 Dana (Ey.) 354; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 417, 420, with note. See cases collected in 13 Am. L. Beg. If. S. 81. Followed (Repeal by implication) in Peck u. Peck, 8 Abb. If. C. 400, 402. t. Teller, 2 Paige, 511. Aff'd in 8 Wend. 267. See Shotwell v. Murray. De- cision in 2 Paige commented on (Agree- ment of infant not to claim dower) in ■Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 355. McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 46 K Y. 194. See Mills v. City of Brooklyn. Applied (Liability of public officer) in Bassett v. Fish, 12 Sun, 210, which was rev'd in 75 If. Y. 310, which see. Applied (Liability of municipal corporation for neglect of offi- cers) in Bastable v. City of Syracuse, 8 Bun, 587, 593 ; Nims v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 5fl If. Y. 508, which aff'd 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 7, which see. Disting'd (Duty of muni- cipal corporation to keep streets, &c., in re- pair) in Hartford & N. Y. Steamboat Co. v. Mayor, &c. of. N.Y., 12 Bun, 554; Smith e. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.. 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 686. Applied (Liability as affected by want of notice of defect) in Irvine v. Wood, 51 If. Y. 229 ; and see dissenting opinion of Monell, Ch. J., in Ham v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 479. v. McCarthy, 54 Sow. Pr. 97. Rev'd in 13 Sun, 579. Further decision in 55 How. Pr. 418, aff'd in 16 Hun, 546 ; and that aff'd, but without opinion, in 84 If. Y. 671. v. Noble, 5 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 380. Col- lated with other cases (When objections to summary proceedings arc to be made) in McAdam on Landl. & T.I ed. § 264. v. Peake, 18 How. Pr. 138. Further decision in 9 Abb. Pr. 164. Decision in Id. applied (Right of court first acquiring jurisdiction, to proceed) in Harrington v. Libby, 6 Daly, 259, 265. Explained in Litchfield v. Smith, 7 Eobt. 306. v. Whalen, 19 Hun, 503. AfTd in 87 If. Y. 148. Compare brief mem. in 21 Bun, 103, denying motion for leave to go to Ct. of App. McCartney v. Bostwick, 31 Barb. 390. Rev'd- in 32 If. Y. 53. See Garfield «. nat- maker. Decision in 32 N. Y. applied (Rights of creditor in equity as affected by failure to exhaust legal remedies) in Kamp «. Kamp, 46 Bow. Pr. 147. Explained in Sloan v. Waring, 55 Id. 64; Olcott v. Ocean Nat. B'k, 46 7K Y 20 ; and sec Chil- lingworth v. Freeman, 67 Barb. 379, 383, as to effect of Olcott v. Ocean Nat. B'k. Referred to in Evans ». Hill, 18 Bun, 405, as overruled by Estcs v. Wilcox, 67 K Y. 264. Disting'd in Elwcll v. Johnson, 3 Bun, 559; Davis v. Bruns, 33 Id. 049. Eftect of this and other earlier cases, such McCAETNEY— MoCONNELL. 455 as Garfield ®. Hatmaker, 15 N. Y. 475; Wood v. Robinson, 22 Id. 564, compared with effect of later decisions, such' as Ocean Nat. B'k v. Olcott, 46 N. Y. 12 ; Dunlap v. Hawkins, 59 Id. 342; 2 Stip'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 292, in Pomeroy on Eg. Jar. 615. Dis- cussed in Wait on Fraud. Oonv. § 83. — — v. Welch, 44 Barb. 271. Affd in 51 XT. Y. 626. These decisions explained (Prefer- ence to loan made by wife) in Burrill on Assign. § 119, 4 ed. McCarty v. Demiug, 4 Lans. 440. Cited as authority (What may be proved by declara- tions of deceased persons) in Southwest School District v. Williams, 48 Gonn. 504. v. McPherson, 11 Johns. 407. Applied with Sprague v. Shed, 9 Id. 140 (Discon- tinuance of suit brought before justice) in Martin v. Fales, 18 Me. 23; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 693. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. McCaughal v. Ryan, 27 Barb. 376. See Jackson ». Adams. Approved (Charitable uses) in 27 Barb. 260, 276. Collated with other cases in Gerard Titles to Seal Est. 2 ed. 299. Followed (No proceedings neces- sary for escheat) in Ettenheimer v. Heffer- nan, 66 Barb. 374, 377. McCangliey v. Smith, 27 K Y. 39. See Card v. Miller; Chappel v. Spencer; Muir v. Dcmaree; Partridge v. Colby. Followed (Alteration of note when not material) in Card v. Miller, 1 Bun, 506. Disapproved as deciding no principle, and as clearly erron- eous, in McVeau v. Scott, 46 Barb. 379, 387. McCay v. Wait, 51 Barb. 225. See (Action for waste) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1651, n. McClaughry t. Wetmore, 6 Johns. 82; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 194. Followed (Language used by party or his counsel when not privileged) in Mower v. Watson, 11 Verm. 536; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 704, 707. McClave v. Paiue, 2 Sweeney, 407; s. c, 41 Mow. Pr. 140. Affd 49 N. Y. 5G1; s. c, 10 Am. R. 431. See Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co.. Decision in 49 iV. Y. followed (Broker's commissions, when earned) in Dolan v. Scanlon, 57 Cal. 265. McCleary v. Edwards, 27 Barb. 239. See Hall v. Barton. v. Kent, 3 Duer, 27. Applied (Doctrine of respondeat superior) in Sulzbacher v. Dickie, 6 Daly, 469, 479. Explained in 1 Add. on Torts, 591, n. Wood's ed. JScClelland v. Remsen, 36 Barb. 622; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. 331. AfTd in 3 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 74; s. c, Abb. Pr. N. S. 250; 3 Keyes, 454. Decision in 14 Abb. Pr. quoted and collated with other cases (Assignment of part of debtor's property), in Bishop on Assign. §• 167. McClosky v. Stewart, 63 How. Pr. 137. Discussed (Creditor reaching property sub- stituted or mingled) in Wait on Fraud. Com. § 28. McClure v. Erwin. See Woods v. Rowan. v. Supervisors of Niagara, 50 Barb. 594; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 202. Appeal dismissed in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 83 ; s. c, Abb. Pr. N. 8. 202. Decision in 50 Barb, explained (Right to costs, as affected by failure to present claim to fiscal officer for allowance) in Uhilds v. Village of West Troy, 23 Sun, 68, 70. McClusky v. Cromwell, 11 If. Y. 593 See Rochester City Bank v. El wood. Followed (Liability of surety) in Smith v. U. S., 2 Wall. 219. MeColl v. Snn Mutual Ins. Co., 34 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 313. AfTd in 50 N. Y. 332; s. c, 44 How. Pr. 452, where opinions in both courts are given. Another proceeding on the merits in 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 313; also further decision in 39 Id. 330, which was rev'd in 66 N. Y. 505. With decision in 50 Id. see (When commission may issue) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 888, n. v. Western Union Telegraph Co. See Landsberger v. Magnetic Tel. Co. ; Young v. Western Union Tel. Co. McCollum v. Seward. 62 N. Y. 316. Dis- ting'd (Opinion of witness, based on state- ment of another) in Hagadorn v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Bun, 249, 262. Followed in Seymour v. Fellows, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 124, 129. Reviewed with other cases (Allowance of interest) in White v. Miller, 78 K Y. 393, 397. McComl) v. Wright, 4 Johns. Gh. 659. Fol- lowed (Authority of auctioneer to make memorandum required by statute of frauds) in Episcopal Church v. Wiley, 2 Hill (So. Gar:) 584; 1 Riley, 156; s. c", 30 Am. Dec. 386; Walker v. Herring, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 078; s. c. 8 Am. R. 616, 618. Reluctantly followed in Meadows v. Meadows, 3 AlcCord (So. Car.) 458 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 645, with note. v. , 5 Johns. Ch. 2(53. Collated with numerous cases illustrating the rule (Pre- sumption that person unmarried when last heard from, died childless) in 29 Alb. L. J. 348. McCombs T. Allen, 18 Hun, 190. Aff'd in 82 N. Y. 114. McCouihe v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 A r . Y. 495. See Bement v. Smith; Stephens v. Wider. Followed with Andrews v. Du- rant, 1 1 N. Y. 35 (Passing of title to articles contracted to be manufactured) in Shaw v. Smith, 48 Conn. 306; s. c, 40 Am. R. 170. McConnell v. Hampton. See Lewis*. Chap- man. v. Pyne, 5 Alb. L. J. 25. See history of this case in note to title " Brokers " in 7 Abb. Dig. (Suppl.) v. Sherwood, 19 Hun, 519; s. c , 58 How. Pr. 453. Affd in 84 N. Y. 522; s. c, 38 Am. It. 537, with note, and 01 How. Pr. 67. Decision in Id. explained (Power to compound and compromise debts) in Bur- rill on Assign. § 228, 4 ed. Quoted (Fraud- ulent assignment void per se.) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 322, n. 1. v. Aerman. 56 Barb. 534. See Cook v. 456 McCON OCHIE— McCEE A. Gregg. Reviewed (Constitutionality of law to prevent animals running at large on high- ways) in Leavitt v. Thompson, 56 Barb. 542. Disapproved in Squares v. Campbell, 60 Id. 391. McConochie v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 99. Rev'd, on the ground that the notice was insufficient, in 26 N. Y. 477. McCool v. Boiler, 14 Hun, 73. Followed (Order for service by publication) in Johen- ning v. Johenning, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 145, n. McCoon v. Smith, 3 Mill, 147. Included (Estoppel in ejectment against infant) in Ewell Lead. Cas. on Inf. &e. 220. McCord v. People, 46 XT. Y 470. Followed and approved with People i>. Stetson, 4 Barb. 151; People v. Clough, 17 Wend. 351 (Conspiracy, to be criminal must be against innocent person) in State «. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 719, 725. v. Woodhull. 27 Mow. Pr. 54. Followed (Running of statute of limitations as affected by non-residency) in Tioga R. R. v. Bloss- burg & C. R. R., 20 Wall 137, 150. McConuick, Matter of, 2 Bradf. 169. See (Ancillary letters upon foreign probate) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2695, n. McConuick v. Barnuin. See Baldwin v. Brown. v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. E. Co., 49 iV. Y. 303. Rev'g decision noted in 3 Alb. L. J. 129. Subsequent decision in 80 N. Y. 353. See Downs v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.; Harriot v. N. J. R. R. &c. Co. ; Hulbert v. Hope Mut. Ins. Co. Decision in 49 N. Y. explained (Jurisdiction over foreign corpor- ation) in Gibbs v. Queen Ins. Co., 63 Id. 130. Applied (Consent as conferring juris- diction) in Spyer v. Fisher, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 104. ■ v. Sarson, 1 Sweeny, 161 ; s. c, 38 Mow. Pr. 190. Affd in 45 JST. Y. 265. See Reed v. Randall. Decision in 45 JH. Y. dis- ting'd (Purchaser's remedy for defect in quality) in Day v. Pool, 52 Id. 420, which aff'd 63 Barb. 522, which see. Dissents herein explained in Gaylord Man'f'g Co. v. Allen, 53 XT. Y. 519. Compare Harris v. Rathbun, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 326; Pike v. Nash, 3 Id. 610. Explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 977, n. 29 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). McCosker v. Brady, 1 Barb. Ch. 329. Affd in 1 N. Y. 214. v. Golden, 1 Bradf. 64. Applied (Dis- position of estate of married woman dying intestate) in Fry v. Smith, 10 Abb. iV. C. 224, 231. v. Long Island R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 500; s. c, 69 How. Pr. 258. Rev'd in 84 N. Y. 77. See Crispin v. Babbitt. McCotter v. Hooker, 8 K Y. 497. Aff'g 1 Code R. IT. S. 217. v. McCotter, 25 How. Pr. 478 ; s. c, more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. 265. . v. Mayor &c. of N. ¥., 35 Barb. 609. Aff'd in 37 N. Y. 325. McCotin v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Lans. 75. Aff'd in effect as to right of appeal but overruled as to form of summons in 50 N. Y. 176. Further proceeding on the mer- its in 66 Barb. 338. McCoy v. Artcher, 3 Barb. 323. Followed and approved with Edick v. Crim, 10 Id. 445 ; Hopkins v. Grinnell, 28 Id. 533 (Im- plied warranty of property on sale of chattel out of possession) in Scranton «. Clark, 39 N. Y. 220. Followed in Hunt- ington v. Hall, 36 Me. 501 ; s. c, 58 Am. Pec. 765. Reviewed, and other cases cited, in 15 Am. L. Rev. 659. Explained and highly commended in 1 Pars, on Contr. 575, n. e. v. Curtice, 9 Wend. 1 7 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 113, with note containing citations on other points, and as to when majority may execute power delegated to several ; its doc- trine on this point being said to have been adopted into the R. S. v. Huffman, 8 Cow. 84. See Medbury v. Watrous. Overruled (Recovery by in- fant, &c. for what he has advanced under contract) in. Medbury v. Watrous, 7 Hill, 110. Disapproved in Shurtlcfl v. Mitlard, 12 R. I. 272; s. c, 34 Am. R. 642. Fol- lowed in Harney v. Owen, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 337 ; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 662. Reviewed in Judkins v. Walker, 17 Me. 38; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 229, with note. Commented upon in 1 Chitty on' Contr. 200, n. 4, 11 Am. ed. v. Hyde, 8 Cow. 68. Disting'd (Use of old affidavit) in Mojarrieta v. Saenz, 80 2f. Y. 547, 551. v. O'Donnell, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. &C). 671. Aff'd, it seems, in 59 N. Y. 656, but with- out opinion. McCrauey v. Alden. See Cope v. Wheeler. McCrea v. McCrea, 58 How. Pr. 220. Over- ruled in effect (Striking out answer not allowed) in Walker v. Walker, 8 Abb. N. C. 436. v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 103, with note, wherein it is shown to be recognized both in N. Y. and elsewhere as a valuable authority. Aff'g Attorney- General v. Purmort, 5 Paige, 620. See Bingham v. Weiderwax; Bowen v. Bell ; Fellows v. Prentiss ; Murray v. Smith ; Shephard v. Little ; Soulden v. Van Rensselaer. Examined (Parol evidence of consideration lor deed) in Frink v. Green, 5 Barb. 457. Cited as authority in Grout v. Townsend, 2 Den. 340. Applied to bond and warrant of attorney, — in Averill v. Loucks, 6 Barb. 24. To assignment of lease,— in Adams v. Hull, 2 Hill, 310, 312, 316. To assignment of claim, -in Hender- son v. Fullerton, 64 How. Pr. 425. To chattel mortgage, — in McKinster «. Bab- cock, 26 N. Y. 380. Explained at length and disting'd in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 Hun, 210, a case of a note under seal. Lim- ited to inquiries between parties to instru- ment, in Halliday v. Hart, 30 K Y. 495. Referred to in 3 Am. Dec. 306, n. as a lead- ing case, and said to settle the doctrine in N. Y. Cited as authority in. Thomas, on McCREADY— McDONALD. 457 Mort. 57. Explained in 2 Cliitty on Gontr. 1119, n. y, 11 Am. ed. Approved and applied (Distinction between release and receipt) in Stearns v. Tappin, 5 Duer, 297. Applied (Admission that removes bar of statute of limitation) in Watkins v. Stevens, 4 Barb. 179; Philips v. Peters, 21 Id. 359. Disting'd under the Code in Shapley •». Abbott, 42 N. Y. 446. Followed (Effect of agreement signed by one party) in Justice t>. Lang, Id. 524; Johnson v. Dodge, 17 III. 442. Disting'd (Right of grantee to recover from grantor amount paid to dis- charge incumbrance) in McCoy v. Lord, 19 Barb. 19. Both decisions applied (Relief against payment of mortgage) in Hunt v. Amidon, 4 Hill, 350. McCready v. Rumsey, 21 How. Pr. 271. This report attributes to Oaklet, C. J., an opinion of Boswobth, J. See correct re- port, where all the opinions are given, and the facts stated in 6 Duer, 574. See Fat- man v. Lobach. Decision in 6 Duer dis- ting'd (Lien on stock) in Driscoll v. West, &c. Manuf'g Co., 59 N. Y. 90, 107. v. TUorn, 51 2V. Y. 454. Cited (Right of master of vessel appointed by majority of part owners to bind the rest) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 445, n. Also cited (When part owners,- &c. are justified in borrowing money on credit of owners) in Id. 446, n. MeCreery v. Willett, 4 Bom. 643. Affd in 23 How. Pr. 129. McCue v. Garvey, 14 Hun, 562. Rev'g Gar- vey v. McCue, 3 Redf. 313. Decision in 14 Hun followed (Charging wife's estate with expenses of her funeral) in Jackson v. West- erfield, 61 How. Pr. 399, 403 ; Freeman v. Coit, 27 Hun, 447. McCulloch v. Hoffman, 10 Hun, 133. Affd in 73 N. Y. 015, but apparently upon other points. Decision in 10 Hun included ( Want of consideration of negotiable paper when not to be shown) in 2 Ames Gas. on B.&N. 257. v. Norwood, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 180. Modified in 58 X Y. 562. Decision in Id. followed (Invalidity of proceedings had after dissolution of corporation) in Sturges ■v. Vanderbilt, 73 A T . Y. 38S, which modi- fied 11 Hun, 136, which see. Followed in Matter of Norwood, 32 Id. 196. Reviewed with Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384, in 40 Am. Dec. 737, n. Cited (Notoriously peculiar domestic rule not presumed to obtain in another State) in 1 Whart. Com,, on Ev. § 315. McCullough v. Colby, 4 Bosw. 603. Further proceeding in 5 Id. 477. See North Ameri- can Fire Ins. Co. v. Graham. Decision in 5 Bosw. approved (Execution necessary to sustain creditor's suit) in Paynes. Sheldon, 43 How. Pr. 1, 3. v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 23 Wend. 458. Questioned with People ex rel. Griffin ». Steele, 2 Barb. 397 (Compelling corpora- tions, &c. by mandamus to exercise their functions) in People v. Supervisors of Che- nango, 11 N. Y. 563. And see People ex rel. Hacklcy v. Croton Aqueduct Board, 49 Barb. 259. .*, /T , v. Moss, 5 Den. 575. Applied (Power of directors of corporations) in Matter of Excelsior Fire Ins. Co., 16 Alb. Pr. 15. Explained with Hoyt v. Thompson, 19 N. Y 207, in Metropolitan R'y Co v. Manhat- tan R'y Co., 14 Alb. K G. 103, 251. Ex- plained and applied (Power of corporations to incur debts) in Ketchum v. City of Buf- falo 14 iV. Y. 363. Commented on in Ang. & A. on Corp. %% 271, 616, 11 ed. Explained (Liability of corporation, as party to note, &c.) in Merchants' B'k'g Assoc, v. Spring Valley, &c. Co., 25 Barb. 420; Belmont v. Coleman, 1 Bosw. 195. Syllabus criticised as unsupported by opin- ions, in Fink v. Canyon Road Co., 5 Greg. 301, 307, where Moss v. McCullough, 7 Barb. 284, is examined at length. McCullough's Lead Co. v. Strong;, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 21. Further decision in 56 N. Y. 660. AfFg 36 Super. ^ Ct. (J. & S.) 571, in which there is no opinion. McCullum v. Gourlay, 8 Johns. 147; s. c, 4 if. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 496, with brief note. Followed (Recovery of money paid under wagering contract) in Allen v. Dodd, 4 Humph (Tenn.) 131 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 632, 635, with note. McCutchen v. McGahay, 11 Johns. 281 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 373. Followed and approved (Liability of husband for debts of wife con- tracted after decree for alimony) in Bennett v. O'Fallon, 2 Mo. 09 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 440. Cited in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. § 230, as holding what is the law (Effect of offer of wife to return to husband after desertion). See cases collected in 9 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 347. McDermett v. City of Kingston, 6 Alb. i\T. O. 246. Rev'd as McDermott e. Same, 19 Hun, 198. McDermott v. Palmer. 11 Barl. 9. Rev'd in 8 N. Y. 383. See comments in 2 E. D. Smith, 548, n. Decision in 11 Barl. over- ruled ("Owner" within meaning of mechan- ics' lien law) in Loonie v. Hogan, 9 N. Y. 435. v. Strong, 4 Johns. Ch. 687. See Ed- meston v. Lyde. Followed with Austin v. Bell, 20 Johns. Ch. 442 (Effect of setting aside deed as fraudulent against creditors) in Gracey v. Davis, 3 Strolh. Eq. (So. Car.) 55 ; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 663. Applied as often cited and never questioned (Preference acquired by creditor's bill) in Freedman's Savings & Trust Co. «. Earle, 110 U. S. 710, 717. McDonald t. Bunn, 3 Den. 45. See to the contrary (Action for false return) Bliven v. Bleakley, 23 How. Pr. 126. See also All. Tr. Ev. 611. v. Christie, 42 Barl. 36. See to the contrary (Opinion of witness) Graves v. Moses, 13 Minn. 335. But see Alb. Tr. Ev. 347. 458 MoDONALD— McDOWLE. v. Mallory, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 80. Rev'd in 77 N. Y. 546; s. c, 7 Abb. N. 0. 84 ; 33 Am. R. 664. See Whitford «. Pan- ama R. R. Co. Decision in 77 N. Y. ap- proved as just and reasonable (Proof re- quired in action on foreign statute) in Leon- ard ». Columbia Steam Nav. Co., 84 Id. 48, 53. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 177; mem. s. c, 1 Hun, 719. Aff'd in 68 K Y. 23 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 144. Statement in 68 If. Y. that it was an ap- peal from judgment entered upon verdict is incorrect. It was upon report of a referee. Decision in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) disting'd (Contracts of municipal corporation) in Har- rington v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 10 Hun, 248, 253. With decision in 68 If. Y. see also Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. N.O. 51. and Id. 65, n. ; People ex rel. Mur- phy v. Kelly, Id. 383, 392. Collated with other cases in Id. 49, n. Compared with right to recover back money wrongfully paid, and disting'd (Implied promise to pny for goods received) in People v. Denison, 19 Hun, 137, 149. v. Walgraie, 1 Sandf. Ch. 274. Col- lated with other cases (Enlarging devise into fee) in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 64. — r- v. Walter, 40 If. 7. 551. Disting'd (New trial for insufLcient damages) in Wavle. v. Wavle, 9 Hun, 125. Explained and followed in Platz v. City of Cohoes, 8 Abb. N. ft 392, 395. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 999, n. v. Western R. R. Corporation, 34 If. Y. 497. See Fenner o. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co. ; Gould v. Chapin ; Smith v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co. ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenec- tady R. R. Co. Applied (Liability of inter- mediate carrier) in Lamb v. Camden & Am- boy R. R. &c. Co., 2 Daly, 491. Followed and approved in Irish ®. Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co., 19 Minn. 376; s. c, 18 Am. R. 340, 342. Applied with Rawson v. Holland, 59 2f. Y. 611, in Bancroft v. Mer- chants' Transportation Co., 47 Iowa, 262; s. c, 29 Am. R. 482. Explained (Termina- tion of carrier's liability) in Northrop v. Syracuse, &c. R. R Co., 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 390; Fenner v. Buffalo & State Line R R. Co., 44 If. Y. 508. Relied on with Uoold v. Chapin, 20 Id. 259; Van Sant- voord «. St. John, 6 Hill, 167; Blossom v. Griffin, 13 K Y. 5(39 ; Miller v. Steam Navi- gation Co., 10 Id. 431 ; Ladue «. Griffith, 25 Id. 364, in Hooper v. Chicago & North Western R. R. Co., 27 Wis. 81 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 439, 444. All these cases except Van Santvoord v. St. John, are cited on a point nearly identical, in Wood v. Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co., 27 Wis. 541; s. c, 9 Am. R. 465, 470. Approved with Mills v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 45 If. Y. 622, in Condon v. Marquette, II. & 0. R. Co., 55 Mich. 220, where the same doctrine is said to be laid down in Wis., Minn., Ohio, Ark., Tenn. and the U. S. Sup'm. Ct. Said in Rice«. Hart, 118 Mass. 20] ; s. c, 19 Am Ii. 433,440, to be in coillict with Denny v. N. Y. Central R. R., 13 Gray (Mass) 481, 487; Judson v. Western R. R., 4 Allen (Mass.) 620, 523. Cited with Van Sant- voord ». St. John, 6 Hill, 157, in Lawrence e. Winona & St. Peter R. R. Co., 15 Minn. 390; s. c, 2 Am. R. 130, 138, with note collating cases. McDonnell v. Banendahl, 4 Hun, 265; s. c, more fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. A ft) 546. Aff'd, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 638, but without opinion. See Kline v. Same. v. Bnffiim, 31 How. Pr. 154. Applied (Damages for false return by. justice) in Brooks •». St. John, 25 Hun, 541. McDonongli v. Loughliii, 20 Barb. 238. Followed (Signature by witness to will after attestation clause) in Williamson v. William- son, 2 Redf. 449, 451. Followed (Executor as competent attesting witness) in Stewart B. Harriman, 56 If. H. 25 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 408, 413; Burritt v. Silliman, 16 Barb. 198, being referred to as overruled by. McDonough v. Loughlin. McDougal v. Walling, 48 Barb. 364. With this case, and Meech v. Stoner, 19 If. Y. 26, see (Right to recover money lost in betting) Brown v. Thompson, 14 Bush. (R'y.) 538; s. c, 29 Am. R. 416, and note. See also (What claims may be assigned) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1910, n. McDougall v. Sitcher. See Willard v. War- ren. McDowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 4 Bosw. 670. Examined with Rasquin v. Knicker- bocker Stage Co., 12 Abb. Pr. 324; Owen «. Mason, 18 How. Pr. 156 (Effect of settle- ment of suit between parties on right of attorney) in Pulvor v. Harris, 62 Barb. 500, 507, where the first case is approved as carefully examining the question; but all are criticised as ' decided without allusion to Benedict t>. Harlow, 5 How. Pr. 347; People ex rel. Stanton v. Tioga Common Plcas^ 19 Wend. 73, reliance being also had on Shank v. Shoemaker, 18 N. Y. 489. Collated with Bildersee v. Aden, 12 Abb. Pr. 325 ; Keenan v. Dorflinger, 19 How. Pr. 153; Lorrillard i>. Robinson, 2 Paige, 276 ; Matter of Southwick, 1 Johns. Ch. 22 ; Wiggins «. Armstrong, 2 Id. 145 (Attorney's lien) in Stewart v. Flowers, 44 Miss. 513 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 707, 713, 717. McDowl v. Charles, 6 Johns. Ch. 132. Col- . lated with Jenkins v. Freyer, 4 Paige, 51 ; Woodin v. Bagley, 13 Wend. 453; Beecher v. Crouse, 19 Id. 306 ; Black's Estate, Tuck. 145; as showing a well-established doctrine (Suits by heirs, devisees, or lega- tees in their own names to recover personal property) in 23 Am. Dec. 202, n. McDowle, Matter of, 8 Johns. 328. Compare Matter of Waldron. Followed as according with the weight of authority (Validity of McEACHROK— MoGAEY. 459 ' agreement by parent to surrender custody of infant child) in Bonnctt v. Bonnett, 61 Iowa, 198; s. c, 47 Am. R. 810. Cited with People ex rel. Barbour v. Gates, 43 N. Y. 40; in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. § 97. McEachron v. Randies, 34 Barb. 301. Over- ruled (Necessity of notice of time and place of sale by vendor on vendee's default) in Pollen «. LeRoy. 30 # Y. 540. Denied in McGibbon v. Schlessinger, 18 Sun, 225, as overruled by Pollen v. LeRoy. Macedon & Bristol Plant Road Co. v. Lap- ham, 18 Barb. 312. See other authorities collected (When amendment of charter releases subscriber for stock) in 16 Am. L. Rev. 101, 115. McElroy v. Mancins, 13 Johns. 121. See Jackson v. Bartlett. Cited as authority with Littlefleld «. Brown, 1 Wend. 398; Bawson v. Turner, 4 Johns. 469 (Effect of action by creditor against sheriff, for escape of prisoner in execution) and Jackson v. Bartlett, 8 Johns. 361, disting'd in Ex parte Voltz, 37 Ind. 175; s. c, 10 Am. 11 80. McElvey v. Lewis. See McKelvcy v Lewis. McElwaiu v. Corning, 19 Abb. Pr. 16. Ap- plied (Amendment by substitution of party) in N. Y., &c. Milk Pan Co. v. Remington's Agric. Works, 25 Hun, 475, 477, and see dissenting opinion, p. 480. T. Willis, 3 Paige, 505. Affd in 9 Wend. 548. See Stoors v. Kelsey. Ap- plied (Proceedings on execution as basis of creditor's proceedings in equity) in Fenton v. Flagg, 24 Bow. Pr. 501 ; Heye v. Bolles, 2 Daly, 235. Reconciled in Gross v. Daly, 5 Id. 542. Disting'd in Adee v. Biglcr, 81 N. Y. 349. Approved in Crippen v. Hudson, 13 Id. 165. Explained in No. Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. Graham, 5 Sandf. 202. Followed in McKibben v. Barton, 1 M\ch. 214. Reviewed at length with Mechanics' Bank v. Dakin, 51 K Y. 519, 522 ; Adsit v. Butler, 87 Id. 585 ; Genessee River Nat. Bank®. Mead, 13 Weekly Big. 356 ; ISJSwn, 303 ; Buswcll v. Lincks, 8 Baly, 518; Shaw v. Dwight, 27 N. Y. 244, 249; Fox v. Moyer, 54 Id. 125; Geery v. Geery, 63 Id. 252, 256; Pardee v. De Cala, 7 Paige, 132 ; in Royer Wheel Co. v. Fielding, 31 Bun, 274. McEnroe v. Dccfier, 58 How. Pr. 251. Ques- tioned (Form denial in pleading) in Haines v. Herrick, 9 Abb. K C. 379, 384. Opposed in Smith v. Gratz, 59 How. Pr. 274. McEntee v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 45 W. Y. 34 ; s. c, Am. R. 28, with note. Approved (Common carriers deliver goods at their peril) in Houston, &c. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 49 Tex. 748; s, c, 30 Am. R. 116, 119. McEteere v. Little, 8 Daly, 167 ; s. c, 7 Abb. N. C. 374. Approved and followed (Power to review Marine Court decisions) in Farley v. Lyddy, 8 Duly, 514, 517. ' Compare Code Civ. Pro. §§ 3188-3195. McEvers v. Lawrence, Boffm. 171. AfPd but without opinion in 2 Ch. Sent. 25. v. Mason, 10 Johns. 207. Relied on (What amounts to acceptance of bill of exchange) in Kennedy v. Geddes, 8 Port. (Ala.) 263; s. c, 33 Am. Dee. 289. Col- lated with other cases in Red/. & B. Lead. Cos. on B. ofExch. 49; Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 50. McEwen v. Brewster, 17 Evn, 223. Further decision in 19 Id. 337. With decision in 17 Id. compare (Reaching trust income) Code Civ. Pro. § 1879. v. Montgomery County Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Sill, 101. See Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co. Explained and followed (Notice of sub- sequent insurance) in Hamilton v. Aurora F. & M. Ins. Co., 15 Mo. App. 59, 67. McFadden v. Kingsbury, 11 Wend. 667. Doubted (Parol proof of contents of paper relating to collateral fact) in Frank v. Manny, ,1 Daly, 92. McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co., 4 Den. 392. Disting'd (Effect of irregularity in case of stock subscriptions) in Excelsior Grain Binding Co. v. Stayner, 25 Sun, 91, 97. Approved (Regularity of organization of corporation, when only to be questioned) in Swartwout v. Michigan, &c. R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389, 394. v. Watson, 4 Sow. Pr. 128. Explained (Remittitur on dismissal of appeal) in Lang- ley v. Warner, 2 Code R. 97. McFarland v. Crary, 8 Cow. 253. AfTd in 6 Wend. 297. Both decisions followed (Rigbt of officer to double costs) in Wheeler v. McFarland, 2 Den. 183. T. Wheeler. See Wheeler v. McFarland. McFarren v. St. John, 14 Sun, 387. Fol- lowed (Defective offer of judgment) in Riggs v. Waydell, 17 Bun, 515. Followed with Riggs v. Waydell, and Eagan v. Moore, 2 Civ. Pro. B. {Browne) 3U0, disapproved, in Werbolowsky v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 14 Abb. K. C. 96. McFeeleys, Matter of. See Estate of Kelly. McCaffln v. City of Cohocs, 74 N. Y. 387 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 307. Afl'g McGuffin v. City of Cohocs, 11 Sun, 531. McGahay v. Williams, 12 Johns. 293. Said not to be authority (Liability of husband after wife's return for necessaries fur- nished during desertion) in Oinson v. Heri- tage, 45 Ind. 73; s. c, 15 Am. R. 258. See, however, 2 Kent. Com. 147. McGarry v. Loomis, 63 N. Y. 104. Collated with other cases (Contributory negligence of parent in case of injury to child) in 2 Thomp. on Ncgl. 1187. v. People. See McGary v. People. McGary v. People, 45 N. Y. 153. Rev'g McGarry v. People,. 2 Bans. 227. See Bran- don v. People. Decision in 45 N. Y. dis- ting'd (Proof respecting existence of cor- poration) in Carncross v. People, 1 N. Y. Grim. R. 518. Decision in 2 Lans. collated with Stover r. People, 56 N. Y. 315; Cran- dall «. People, 2 Lans. 309 ; Ruloff v. Peo- ple, 45. S. Y. 213, and other cases (Rights of accused person testifying in his own behalf) in 10 Am. R. 348, n. 460 McGAET— McGEEGOE. t. Supervisors of N. T., 7 Bolt. 464. Further proceeding in 1 Sweeny, 217. McGiffert v. McGiffert, 31 Barb. 69. See Bradshaw v. Heath ; Kinnier ». Kinnier. Doctrine discussed and cases cited (Validity of foreign divorce) in 3 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 214. Commented In 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 163, n. a, 6 ed. McGiuity v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 5 Duer, C74. Followed (Liability of town for in- juries from street excavations) in Parker «. City of Cohoes, 10 Sun, 531. Collated with Davenport v. Ruckman, 16 Abb. Pr. 341 : 37 N. Y. 568; Garrison?). Mayor, &c. of N.' Y, 5 Bosw. 497 (Necessity of giving notice to municipal corporation) in 7 Am. B. 43, «. McGinness v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 26 Hun, 142 ; s. c, as McGuiness v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Weekly Dig. 522. Overruling in effect previous decision, in 52 Sow. Pr. 450. McGivney v. Phenix. Ins. Co., 1 Wend. 85. Collated with other cases (What is insurable interest) in 2 Hare & W.Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 808. McGlashan v. Tallmadge. See Dyett v. Pendleton McGovern v. N. T. Central R. K. Co., 67 N. Y. 421. See Oldfield v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. Explained and followed (Con- tributory negligence of infant) in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 220, 227. Explained in 8 South. L. Rev. 68, 70. v. Payn, 32 Barb. 83. Followed (Arrest in action arising from fraud) in Mallory v. Leach, 14 Abb. Pr. 453. Applied (Right to enforce provisional remedy, when lost by uniting claim with others) in Hickox «. Fay, 36 Barb. 14 ; Union Consol. Mining Co. v. Raht, 9 Sun, 211. Relied on in Madge v. Puig, 71 .ST. Y. 608. Disting'd in Niver ». Niver, 19 Abb. Pr. 15 ; Redfleld v. Frear, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 452. Disting'd (Imposing condition not to sue, on vacating process) in Faulkner v. Morey, 22 Hun, 385. McGowan v. Deyo, 8 Barb. 340. Applied (Bond, when not invalid as taken colore officii) in People ex rel. Commrs. of Chari- ties, &c. of N. Y. v. Lyons, 7 Daly, 182, 186. • v. McGowan, 2 Duer, 57. Collated with other cases (Suspension of power of alienation) in Gerard Titles to Beal Est. 2 ed. 231. Discussed in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 512, n. v. Newman, 4 Abb. K ft 80. See (Referee's oath) Exchange Fire "ins. Co. ■». Early, Id. 78 ; Browning v. Marvin, 5 Id. 285; Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1016, n. McGrath v. Bell, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 195. Applied (Effect of retention of employee by employer after breach of contract) in Bast ■o. Byrne, 51 Wis. 531 ; b. c, 37 Am. B. 841. v. Clark, 56 K Y. 34 ; s. c, 15 Am: B. 372. See Redlich v. Doll. Applied (Effect of alteration of note) in Reeves v. Pierson, 23 Sun, 185, 187. Followed and approved in Jones «. Bangs, 40 Ohio St. 13U; s. c, 48 Am. B. 664, with note, wherein are col- lated Weycrhauser v. Dun, 29 N. Y. 479, and other cases. Included in 1 Ames Gas. on B. &N. 584. Criticised in 17 Am. It. 99. Examined with other cases in 15 Alb. L. J. 116. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 144; s. c, 19 Sow. Pr. 214. See Jetter v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. Approved (Negli- gence,as question for jury) in Phillips v. Rens- selaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 57 Barb. 644, 651. v. N. Y. Central, &e. R. R. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T.&C.) 243. Re-afPd on fur- ther decision, mem. of which is in Id. 776, and 1 nun, 437 ; but latter decision rev'd in 59 N. Y. 468; s. a, 17 Am. B. 359, with note. Further decision on third trial in 63 N. Y. 522. See Grippen v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co. ; Johnson v. Hudson , River R. R. Co. Decisions in 59 and 63 iV. Y. explained (Effect of absence of flagman at railroad crossing) in Casey «. N. Y; Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Abb. N. C. 125, which was afi'd in 78 JSf. Y. 518, 524, which see. Approved in Pittsburg, Cincinnati, &c. R'way Co. v. Yundt, 78 hid. 373 ; s. c, 41 Am. B. 580. Decision in 63 N. Y. applied to failure to ring boll of engine, — in Cos- grove «. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 13 Sun, 330. Compare (Violation of muuU cipal ordinance as affecting question of negligence) Massoth v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 64 N. Y. 532. Examined with other cases in Knupftefl. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 84 Id. 488, 491. Followed with Massoth v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 64 Id. 524 ; Knupfle v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 Id. 488; Hoffman v. Union Ferry Co., 68 Id. 385 (Liability for injuries caused by one doing lawful act in manner forbidden by law) in Burbank v. Bethel Steam Mill Co., 75 Me. 373 ; s. c, 464m. R. 400. Applied (Liability of company operat- ing trains on road of another) in N. Y. Central. &c. R. R. Co., 42 Super. Ct. {J, & S.) 233. Cited with other cases (Admis- sions may be by acts as well as by words) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1081. McGraw v. Godfrey, 14 Abb Pr. N. S. 397. Afi'd in 16 ^166. Pr. N. S. 358; mem. s. c, 56 K Y. 610. v. Morgan, 5 Daly, 493. Appeal dis- missed it seems in 63 N. Y. 642, but with- out opinion. McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. 7. 114. See Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary. Explained (Waste as question of law and fact) in Agate v. Loweuhein, 57 K Y. 604, 611. Sec cases cited (What is parcel of the realty) in 5 Abb. N. C. 174, n. v. Buell, 1 Keyes, 153. See Eldridge «. Strenz. Compare (Practice on return of remittitur) in Eldridge v. Strenz, 39 Super. Ct. (J.SS.) 295. v. Comstock, 16 Barb. 427. AfFd in 17 N. Y. 162. MoGEEGOR— MACKAY. 401 t. , 28 K Y. 237. Cited with Haight ■»., Holcomb, 16 How. Pr. 173; Lesher v. Roessner, 3 Sun, 217 (Record as notice of attorney's claim in case of judg- ment for costs) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 627. McGregory v. Willett, 17 Sow. Pr. 439. See (Rights, &c. of sheriff when liable as bail) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 595, n. McGrill v. Lake Shore & M. K. R. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) Add. 18. Judgment of appeal on subsequent trial, aff'd, it seems, in 66 N. Y. 617, but without opinion. McGuckin v. Coulter, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 324; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 128. Further decision in 33 Super Ct. (J. & S.) 328. McGuffin v. City of Cohoes. See McGaffin*>. Same. McGniness t. Mayor, &c. of N. T. See McGinness v. Same. McGuiiity v. Herrick. See Earl v. Camp. McGuire v. O'Halloran, Sill & D. 85. Ex- plained (Partnership liability) in 1 Collyer on Partn. % 416, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. v. People, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & U.) 682; s. c, 3 Han, 213. Reported in 48 How. Pr. 517. v. , 2 Park 148. Reviewed (Neces- sity of issuance of precept by district attor- ney to sheriff) in People ». Cummings, 3 Id. 343, 347. McHarg v. Eastman, 35 How. Pr. 205 ; s. c, 7 Pout. 137. Earlier decision in 4 Id. 635. Decision in 35 How. Pr. disting'd (Liabil- ity of trustee of corporation) in Duckworth v. Roach, 8 Daly, 159, 161. Followed, in Weymouth v. Dimock, 41 How. Pr. 92. Explained (Judicial notice of statute) in 1 Be.*t on JEv. § 33, n. a, Wood's ed. McHenry v. Hazard, 45 Barb. 657. Over- ruled in effect as to maintaining the action, in subsequent decision, in 45 N. Y. 580. Machin v. Geortener, 14 Wend. 239. Fol- lowed (Possession, without enclosure, as suf- ficient for maintaining trespass) in Chandler v.. Walker, 21 N. S. 282; s. c, 63 Am. Dec. 202, with note. Compare, as to posses- sion of note, Lowremore v. Berry, 19 Ala. 130 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 188. Macino v. People, 12 Bun, 127. Disting'd (What constitutes larceny) in Thorn ■». Turck, 13 Weekly' Dig. 550. Mclnstry v. Tanner. See Parker v. Baker ; People v. Collins ; People v. Dean. Mcintosh v. Lown, 49 Barb. 550. , See Guernsey v. Carver. Disapproved (Separate actions on demands that constitute but one cause of action) in Jex v. Jacob, 7 Abb. 2V. C. 452. y. Mcintosh, 12 How. Pr. 289. Doubted (Joinder of causes of action for divorce) in Doe v. Roe, 23 Hun, 19, 22. Mclutyre v. Barnard, 1 Sandf. Ch. 52. Ap- plied (Effect of agreement giving right to remove timber) in Kellam v. McKenstry, 6 Sun, 381, 383. Applied to agreement respecting removal of soil, —in Lacustrine, &c. Co. v. Lake Guano, &c. Co., 82 N. Y. 476, 482, v. Bowne, 1 Johns. 229. Approved (Liability of owner of vessel) in First Nat. B'k of Marquette v. Stewart, 26 Mich. 83. Cited in 3 Kent Com. 137, as a case in •which this subject was much discussed. v. Mancius, 3 Johns. Ch. 45. Rev'd in 16 Johns. 592. y. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., 47 Barb. 515. Afl'd in 37 N. Y. 287; s. c, 35 How. Pr. 3(5. Previous decision in 43 Barb. 532. See' Tilley v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Decision in 37 N. Y. applied (Proof of damages caused by death) in Mitchell v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Hun, 539. Applied (Negligence in passenger leaving car by direction of employee) in Filer ». N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 49 JST. Y. 54. Decision in 43 Barb, applied (Question of negligence in railway passenger, as affected by infirmity of his nature) in Mowrey o. Central City Ry., 66 Id. 57. v. Rowan, 3 Johns. 144. Applied (When error in process does not render it void) in People ex rel. Brown v. Van Hoesen, 62 How. Pr. 77. Followed with Bissell v. Kip, 5 Johns. 100 ; Cramer v. Van Alstyne, 9 Id. 386 ; Jones v. Cook, 1 Cow. 309, in Bank of Whitehall v. Pettes, 13 Verm. 395; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 600. v. Trnmbnll, 7 Johns. 35. Relied on in dissenting opinion of Hall, J. (Action against deputy for breach of official ■ duty ) in Coltraine 11. McCaine. 3 Dev. L. (N. ft) 308; s. c„ 24 Am. Dec. 256, 262, with note- Mack v. Bnrt, 5 Sun, 28. Result of Schuy- ler v. Smith, 51 JST. Y. 309 (Effect of hold- ing over by tenant) said in Worthington v. Globe Rolling Mill, 9 Am. L. Sec. 693 ; s. C, 6 Gin. L. Bui. 235, to be incorrectly stated herein, but to be correctly stated in Smith v. A lit, 4 Abb. N. C. 205. v. Patchin, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 67 ; s. c, 29 Sow. Pr. 20. Aff'd in 42 N~. Y. 167; s. c, 1 Am. P. 506. Decision in Id. disting'd (Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment in lease) in McKinney v. Holt, 8 Sun, 339. Explained (Implication of such covenant) in Gallup ». Albany Ry., 7 Bans. 478. Explained, as not changing rule (Damages for breach of covenant of war- ranty of title) in Burr v. Stenton, 43 N. Y. 467. Disting'd in Atkins v. Hosley, Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 322, 328. Followed in Lani- gan v. Kille, 97 Penn. St. 120; s. c, 39 Am. P. 797. Applied (Damages for eviction) in Denison v. Ford, 10 Daly, 412. Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285. See Ludlow v. Simond. Followed with Lud- low v. Sinlonds, 2 Cai. Cos. 1 (One seal serving for two or more obligors in sealed instrument) in Pequawkett Bridge i\ Mathes, 7 S. S. 230; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 737; Davis u. Burton, 3 Scam. (111.) 41 ; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 511, 513, with note. v. Lewis, 54 Sow. Pr. 503. Another decision in 73 N. Y. 382. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Stipulation for judgment absolute) in 8 Abb. N. ft 147, n. 462 MACKAY— MACKIE. t. N. T. Central, &c. R. B. Co., 35 2V. Y. 75. Explained (Negligence in one cross- ing railroad track) in Wilcox e. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Id. 3C5. Applied in Richardson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 Id. 851 ; Ingersojl v. Same, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 419. Disting'd in Cordelia. N. ¥. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 70 JV Y. 123. y. Rliinclander, 1 Johns. Cos. 408 ; s. c, 1 JV. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 370, with brief note on the materiality of representa- tions, in marine insurance. McKay v. City of Buffalo, 9 Hun, 401. Afl'd, it seems, in 74 JV. Y. 619, but without opinion. Decision in 9 Hun applied with Maxmilian v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 62 JV Y. 160; Ham v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Id. 459; Tone v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Id. 157 (Liability of municipal corporation for acts or omissions of agents or servants) and Tor- mey v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 12 Hun, 542 disting'd in Bamber «. City of Rochester, 26 Id. 587. T. Harrower, 27 Barb. 463. See (Exe- cution to issue to sherifl who has levied un- der attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 644, n. 706, n. v. Laidlaw, 13 How. Pr. 129. See (De- mand of copy of complaint) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 479, n. JIcKeage t. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 16 Hun, 239. AfPd in 81 JV. Y. 38 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 471, with note. See Voorhees v. McGin- nis. Decision in 81 JV. Y. disting'd (What are fixtures) in Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 Id. 413, 420. Examined with conflicting au- thorities in Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 128. Collated with other cases in 34 Am. R. 354, n. McKecknie v. Ward, 58 JV. Y. 541. Ex- plained and followed (Liability of surety as affected by forbearance extended to prin- cipal) in Howe Machine Co. v. Farrington, 82 Id. J 21, 128. McKee r. Judd, 12 JV Y. ,622; s. c, 64 Am. Dec. 615, with note. See Scribner v. Kelley. Followed (Assignability of right of action) in Smith v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 28 Barb. 606 ; Whittaker ». Mer- rill, 30 Id. 390 ; Weissenstein v. Elias, 14 Hun, 533 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 JV. Y. 612 ; Fulton Fire Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 Id. 650. Disting'd in Duell v. Cudlipp, 1 Hilt. 168; Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 JV. Y. 332. Explain- ed in Genet v. Howland, 45 Barb. 566; Sheldon v. Wood, 2 Bosw. 277. Explained in Burr ill on Assign. § 100, n. 3, 4 ed. v. Nelson, 4 Cow. 355; s. c, 15 Am. Bee. 384, with note, wherein it is said to be generally admitted by the N. Y. courts to be a sound decision, and to be often referred to as a recognized exception to the general rule (Opinions as evidence). See DeVVitt ■b. Barley. Disting'd in Hardenburgh v. Cockcroft, 5 Daly, 79, 83. Relied on in Clark v. State, 12 Olio, 483; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 479, 487, with note. Reviewed in Robertson v. Stark, 15 JV H. 109. Collated with People®. Eastwood, 14 JV. Y. 562, and other cases, in Commonwealth v. Stuitivant, 117 Mass. 122; s. c, 19 Am. R. 401, 406, with note collating cases. v. People, 32 JV. Y. 239. Approved in further decision in 36 Id. 113; s. c, 3 Alb. Pr. JV. S. 216 ; 34 How. Pr. 230. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Declarations of defendant in criminal case as part of res gestm) in 10 Am. R. 28, n. McKelsey v. Lewis. See McKelvey v. Lewis. McKelvey v. Lewis, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 561. Another proceeding as McElvey ». Lewis in 76 JV. Y. 373. Also as McKelsey v. Lewis,"3 4». JV. C. 61. McEeiuia v. People, 18 Hun, 580. Rev'd in 81 JV Y. 360. McKinsie v. Farrell, 4 Bosw. 204. Followed (Under agreement of suretyship for rent, no demand necessary) in Turnure v. Hohenthal, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 79. McKenzie v. McKenzie, 21 How. Pr. 467. Rev'd, as McKenzie v. Rhodes, in 13 Abb. Pr. 337. v. Smith, 27 How. Pr. 20. Aft'd in 48 JV. K 143. McKeon v. Caherty. See Dudleyji. Mayhew; Yates «. Foot. v. Lee. See McKeon v See. v. See, 4 Robt. 449. Aff'd in 51 JV. Y. 300; s. c, 10 Am. R. 659. Modifying McKeon v. Lee, 28 How. Pr. 238. Decision in 51 JV. Y. applied (Waiver of trial by jury) to case of referee's oath, — in Nason v. Lud- ington, 8 Daly, 149, 152. Decision in 4 Robt. collated with other cases (Nuisance as caused by dangerous works upon one's land) in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 499. Dis- cussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 548, 634, 642, 713. McKernan v. Frazer. See McKernan v. Robinson. v. Robinson, 84 JV. Y. 105 ; s. c, as McKernan e. Frazer, 23 Alb. L. J. 255. Affg 23 hun, 289. McEerras v. Gardner, 3 Johns. 137. Dis- cussed (Effect of statute of limitations as to torts quasi ex contractu) in Aug. on Limit. § 136, 6 ed. Mackey v. Auer, 8 Hun, 180. See (Demur- rer") Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 488, n. McKibbin v. Peck, 39 JV 7. 262. See addi-. tional opinion by Miller, J., in 6 Transc. App. 69, 73. Mackie v. Cairns, Hopk. 373. Rev'd in 5 Cow. 547; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 477, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently cited and approved in N. Y. ' See Austin v. Bell ; Bayard v. Hoffman ; De Caters «. Le Ray De Chanmont ; Grover v. Wakeman ; Van Dyck v. Van Beuren. Dis- ting'd (Validity of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Bishop v. Halsey, 3 Abb. Pr. 403 ; Wilson v. Forsyth, 24 Barb. 120 ; Win- tringham v. Laf oy, 7 Cow. 738 ; Hastings v. Belknap, 1 Den. 197; Beck v. Burdett, 1 Paige, 310. Applied in Buidick v. Post, 17 MoKILLIP— McKYPJNG. 463 Barb. 178 ; D'Invernois v. Leavitt, 23 Id. 81; Goodrich u. Downs, 6 Hill, 440; in opinions in Grover v. Wakeman, 11 Wend. 187. Explained in Curtis v. Leavit't, 15 N. Y. 116. Relied on in McClurg v. Lecky, 3 Penr. & W. {Pa.) 83; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 64, 70, with note. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 199, 4 ed. ; Id. § 200. Disting'd (Effect of assignment for creditors) in Pills- bury «. Kingon, 33 XT. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 287; s. c, 36 Am. R. 556, 564. Explained (Extent to which fraudulent conveyance is invalid) in Henriques v. Hone, 2 Edw. 124. Applied in Storm !>.' Davenport, 1 Sandf. Gh. 138. Disting'd (Effect of reservation to grantor) in Seward *. Jackson, 8 Cow. 433. Disting'd (Validity of confession of judgment, as affected by fraud in assign- ment) in Lansing v. Woodworth, 1 Sdndf. Gh. 45. Discussed in Id. % 356. Disting'd (Costs on appeal) in Murray v. Blatchford, 2 Wend. 224. McKillip v. Burhans. See McKillop v. Burhans. v. McKillip, 8 Barb. 552. Disting'd and explained with Hawley v. Morton, 23 Id. 255 ; Loomis v. Loomis, 35 Id. 624 (Agreements for maintenance) in Cornell v. Cornell, 96 N. Y. 108. Disting'd in Loomis v. Loomis. 35 Id. 624, 627. Disting'd (Action in napae of committee of lunatic) in Fields «. Fowler, 2 Hun, 400. Quoted in Sedgyi. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 203. McKillop t. Burhans, 24 Run, 140. Abridg't s. c, as McKillip v. Burhans, in 12 Weekly Big. 185. McKineron v. Bliss, 31 Barb. 180. Aff'd as McKinnon ». Bliss, in 21 N. Y. 206. McKinley v. Lamb, 56 Barb. 284. Further proceeding is in 64 Id. 199. v. Tucker, 59 Barb. 93. Overruled, in further decision, in 6 Lans. 214. MeKiunon v. Bliss, 21 XT. Y. 206. Disting'd (Presumption of grant} in Mackinnon v. Barnes, 66 Barb. 91, 101. Cited (Books of history as evidence of facts recited therein) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 664. v. Thompson, 3 Johns. Gh. 307. Fol- lowed with Livingston v. Newkirk, Id. 312 (Effect of devise of after-acquired lands) in Meador v. Sorsby, 2 Ala. 712; s. c, 36 Am. Bee. 432. Followed with Jackson v. Potter, 9 Johns. 312, in Bruen v. Bragaw, 3 Green. Gh. {N. J.) 261; s. c, 38 Am. Bee. 519. McKinster v. Babcock, 37 Barb. 265. Rev'd in 26 XT. 7. 378. Decision in Id. applied (Proof of consideration of mortgage) in Youngs v. Wilson, 27 Id. 356. v. Bank of Utica, 9 Wend. 46. AfFd in 11 Id. 473. Decision in 9 Id. cited as au- thority (Duty of bank with which negotiable paper is left for collection) in Blanc v. Mut. Nat. Bank of Orleans, 28 La. Ann. 621 ; s. c, 26 Am. B. 119. McKinstey v. Davis, 3 Cow. 339; s. c, 15 Am. Bee. 269. Corrected (Liability of mar- ried woman to arrest) in Hovey v. Starr, 42 Barb. 435. t. Pearsall, 3 Johns. 319 ; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 619, with brief note of other cases. t. Sanders, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 181. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 K Y. 6G2, on opinion below. v. Solomons, 2 Johns. 57. Aff'd, in 13 Id. 27. Macklin v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 7 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 229. See "Weeks *. N. Y, New Haven & H. R. R. Co. Approved but dis- ting'd with Mudgett v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 1 Baly, 131 ; Gore v. Norwich & N. Y. Transportation Co., 2 Id. 254 (Regulations by carrier as to passenger's baggage) in Glea- son v. Goodrich Trans. Co , 32 Wis. 85 ; s. c, 14 Am. B. 716. Commented on in 2 Bed/. Am. Railw. Cos. 141. McKnight v. Devlin, 52 N. 7. 399. Fol- lowed (What constitutes breach of warranty of title on sale of chattel) in Atkins v. Hos- ley, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 322, B27. Ex- plained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 948, n. 18 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) v. Dunlop, 5 XT. Y. 537; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 370, with note containing citations of the case. Previous decision in 4 Barb. 36. See Seymour v. Davis. Decision in 4 Barb. questioned (Defendant's pleadings in re- plevin) in Stowell v. Otis, 71 XT. Y. 36, 38. Decision in 5 Id. followed (Acceptance required by statute of frauds) in Thompson v. Menck, 4 Abb. Ct. App.Dee. 404; Chapin . Sheffield ; Hutter v. Ellwanger ; Peyton ■». Hallet; Weston i>. Barker. v. Murray, 3 Johns. Ch. 435. Ex- amined (Effect of insolvent's discharge on foreign contracts) in Ritchie v. Garrison, 10 Abb. Pr. 246, 252. Considered with Mur- ray v. De Rottenham, 6 Johns. Ch. 52 ; Hicks o. Hotchkiss, 7 Id. 312 ; Penniman v. Meiss. 1.— 30 h ' 9 Johns. 325 ; Soule v. Chase, 39 K Y. 342, in McDougall ». Page, 55 Vt. 187; s. c, 45 Am. R. 602. 607. Reviewed with' other cases (Right of debtor in failing circum- stances to give preferences) in Crawford v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 282; s. c, 28 Am. P. 704, 714. McMichael v. Kilmer, 12 Hun, 336. Rev'd in 76 N. Y. 36. Further proceeding in 20 Hun, 176. McMillan v. Cronin, 13 Hun, 68. Appeal dismissed in 75 iV. Y. 474 ; s. c, as McMil- len v. Cronin, 57 How. Pi: 53. See Roberts • v. Roberts. v. Saratoga & Washington E. E. Co. See Wright v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. Seneca Lake Grape & W. Co., 5 Hun, 12. Rev'd as Rodbourn v. Seneca Lake, &c. Co., 67 iV. Y. 215, on the ground that the expenditures were not "payments." v. Vanderlip, 12 Johns. 105 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 299, with note; 5 A 7 ". Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 343, with brief note. Criticised and explained with Jennings v. Camp, 13 Johns. 94 ; Reab v. Moor, 19 Id. 337 ; Cun- ningham v. Morrcll, 10 Id. 203; Lantry «. Parks, 8 Cow. 63 ; Monell v. Burns, 4 Den. 121 ; Wolf v. Howes, 20 N. Y. 197 (Entirety of contract for services, &c.) in Tipton v. Feitner, Id. 423, 429. Cited with VVebb v. Duckingfleld, 13 W. Y. 390; Sickels v. Pat- tison, 14 Wend. 257; Lantry v. Parks, 8 Cow. 63; Jennings v. Camp, 13 Johns. 94; Reab v. Moor, 19 Id. 337, as leading cases, but explained in Wolf v. Howes, 20 N. Y. 197, 200. Approved with Reab v. Moor, 19 Johns. 3.37; Smith v. Brady, 11 K Y. 173, in Cunningham v. Jones, "20 Id. 486. Cited as containing an elaborate review of English authorities, in Jenkins v. Wheeler, 3 Keyes, 645. Followed in Moses v. Banker, 2 Sweeny, 267. Followed with Reab v. Moor, 19 Johns. 337, in Hutchinson v. Wet- more, 2 Gal. 310 ; s. c , 50 Am. Dec. 337. Followed with Jennings v. Camp, 13 Johns. 94; Reab v. Moor, 19 Johns. 337, in Stark v. Parker, 2 Pick. 267, 274; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 425, 429, with note; Thorpe v. White, 13 Johns. 53, being disting'd. Referred to in 7 Am. Dec. 302, n., as having been particularly noticed ; Tipton i>. Feitner, 20 N. Y. 429, being also referred to as well stating the principle of the decisions. Ex- plained in 2 Chitty on Contr. 847, n. d', 11 Am. ed. McMorris v. Simpson, 21 Wend. 610. Cited (Right of factor to transfer his authority) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 756. McMurray v. McMnrray, 9 Abb. Pr. N~. S. 315; s. c, 41 How. Pr. 41; 60 Barb. 117. Compare further proceeding in 6G A 7 ". Y. 175. See Jackson v. Carpenter. Decision in 9 Abb. Pr. If. S. applied (Remedy in case of proceedings against infant) in Jcs- surun v. Mackie. 24 Hun, 626. Approved in Matter of Becker, 28 Id. 207. See (When motion may be made to set aside 466 MoMUERAY— McPHERSOIT. judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 1283, n., 12U0, n. Disting'd (Service of amended complaint) in Weil v. Martin, 1 Civ. Pro. It 133, 141. v. Noyes, 72 K Y. r 523. Discussed (Guaranties of payment and collection) in 17 Alb. L. J. 360. y. Kiiwson, 3 Hill, 59. Overruled (Account as between others than mercantile partners) in Kelly v. Kelly, 3 Barb. 419. McNair v. Gilbert. See Pintard v. Tacking- ton. McNamara v. Dwyer, 7 Paige, 239; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 627, with note citing cases' and wherein it is shown to hold what is the settled doctrine in N. Y. (Liability of exec- utors in foreign jurisdiction for property of decedent) and is thought to rest on sound principle, though doubted in Story on Coffl. of L. 7 ed. §§ 504 (a.), 513, and there thought to be at variance with the view adopted by the U. S. Supreme Court. See, 35 Am. Dec. 484, n. See Williams v. Ayrault. Approved as irresistible in its conclusion, but head note criticised in Cureton v. Mills, 13 So. Oar. 409; s. c, 36 Am. B. 700, 711. v. McNamara, 2 Hilt. 547; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 18. Superseded (Counter-claim in matrimonial action) by L. 1881, .p. 939, c. 702. Amcl'g Code Civ. Pro. § 1770. McNamee v. Wilson, 74 K Y. 597. Aff'd in 102 U. S. 572. McNaughton v. Chave, 5 Abb. K C. 225. See (Power of surrogate to complete work of predecessor) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2481, subd. 9, n. v. McNaughton, 41 Barb. 50. Affd in 34 JSf. Y. 201. McNeil v. Tenth National Bank, 55 Barb. 59. Modified on appeal in 46 K Y. 325 ; s. c, 7 Am. B. 341. See Bush «. Lathrop; Kortright v. Buffalo Commercial Bank ; N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Go. v. Schuyler. Followed (Estoppel to assert title to stock certificates) in Zulick v. Markham, 6 Daly, 131 ; Holbrook v. N. J. Zinc Co , 57 N. Y. 622. Disting'd in Merchants' Bank v. Liv- ingston, 74 Jd. 220. Applied to assignment of mortgage, — in First Nat. Bank of Corry v. Styles, 22 Hun, 346, but disting'd in case of mortgage, in Davis v. Bechstein, 69 N'. Y. 442. To certificate of indebtedness, in Moore' v. Miller, 6 Latin. 400. Applied to certificate of deposit in International Bank v. German Bank, 71 Mo. 183; s.- c, 36 Am. B. 468, 475, 479. Approved in Cherry v. Frost, 7 Lea {Tenn.) 1, 10 ; s. c, 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 02, to which is subjoined note discussing many authorities. Approved in Barstow v. Savage Min. Co., 64 Cal. 38S, 393. Followed in Arnold «. Johnson, Sup'm. Ct. Cal. Feb. 1885, 4 Pac. Bep. 196. Applied with Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 55 N. Y. 48 (Owner of property, when estopped to set up title) and Ballard v. Burgett, 40 Id. 314, disting'd in Allien v. Wotherspoon, 50 Ct. {J. & S.) 417. Approved in Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 D. S. 572. Disting'd in Hamilton v. Kingsbury, 17 Blatchf. C. Ct. 460, 465. Reart'd (Rights of assignee of non-negotiable chose in action) in Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 55 K Y. 49. Explained in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 163, 164, n. Discussed in Pomeroy on Bern. §1 60, n. 1. Quoted in 1 Benj. on Sales, §450 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed,) Followed (Effect of delivery of stock certificate signed in blank to pass title) in Smith v. Am. Coal Co. of Alleghany, 7 Lam. 321. See also Brisbane v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 25 Hun, 438, 440. Conflicting cases in several States collected in 10 Am. L. Bee. 276. Quoted and explained in Morawetz on Corp. § 329. McNcilly t. Richardson, 4 Com. 610. Ex- plained (Effect of discharge of insolvent) in Anonymous, 1 Edm. 188. McNulty v. Kurd, 11 Hun, 339. Modified on appeal in 72 N. Y. 518. Further pro- ceeding in 18 Hun, 339; and that aff'd in 86 N. Y. 547. With decision in 72 Id. com- pare (Jurisdiction of surrogate on applica- tion for payment of claim) Code Cm. Pro. § 2718. .Macomb v. Miller, 9 Paige, 265. Aff'd in 26 Wend. 229. Macoinber y. Dunham, 8 Wend. 550. See Miller v. Burroughs. Dissented # from (Rate of interest after maturity of obligation, wherein rate is fixed) in Overton v. Bolton, 9 Heisk. {Tenn.) 762; s. c, 24 Am. B. 367, 371. Approved with TJ. S. Bank v. Chapin, 9 Wend. 471 in Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. (U. S.) 118. v. Mayor. &c. of N. Y., 17 Abb. Pr. 35; s. c, 1 Buff. Super: Ct. (Sheld.) 377. Dis- approved (Judgment on voluntary appear- ance) in Schwinger v. Hickox, 46 How. Pr. 114. Macondray v. Wardle, 7 Abb. Pr. 3; s. ,c, erroneously reported as motion at Special Term, in 26 Barb. 612. Decision in 7 Abb. Pr. opposed with Smith v. Smith, 15 How. Pr. 165 ; Sweet v. Sweet, Id. 169 (Husband and wife 'as witnesses) in Shoemaker v. Mc- Kee, 19 Id. 86, 91. Followed in Chamber- lain v. Dcmpsey, 36 N. Y. 144. Sec, how- ever, 2 L. 1867, c. 887. McPadden v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 47 Barb. 247. Rcv'd 44 iV. Y. 478. Com- pare (Liability for injury resulting from condition of railroad track) Dcyo v. The Same, 34 Id. 9. Decision in 47 Barb, col- lated with other cases in 1 Bed/. Am. Bailw. Gas. 483 ; 2 Id. 420. Questioned in 1 Alb. L. J. 7. McParlin v. Boynton, 8 Hun, 449. Affd, it seems, in 71 iV. Y. 604, but without opinion. McPIierson v. Clark, 3 Bradf. 92. See Jack- son v. Hollovvay. Overruled (Partial revo- cation of will), and Quinn v. Quinn, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 437; Matter , of Prescott, 4 Bed/. 178, approved, in Lovell . «. Quitman, 88 N. Y. 377. which aff'd 25 Hun, 537, which see. Opposed in Estate Mcpherson— Mow iioeter. 467 ' of Gallagher, 19 JV. Y. Daily Reg. No. 25 ; s. c, Gould's Ann. Dig. JSf. Y. Rep. 1881, p. 353. v. Cox, 2L Hun, 493. Rev'd in 86 iV. r. 472. v. Rathbone. See Halliday v. McDoug- all ; Whitney v. Sterling. McQueen v. Babcock, 41 Barb. SSI; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. 268; 22 How. Pr. 229. Afi'd in 3 Keyes, 428; s. c, 3 .466. Ct. App. Dec. 129. See Allen v. Mapes. Decision in 3 Keyes followed (Amendment of answer) in Barnett v. Meyer, 10 Hun, 109. Decis- ion in 41 Barb, disting'd (Injunction against interfering with property, when violated by bringing action) in Fincke «. Funke, 25 Hun, 617. v. Middletown Manuf. Co., 16 Johns. 5. See Faulkner v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co. Applied (Jurisdiction over for- eign corporation) in St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 354. Doubted in North Missouri R. R. Co. ■». Akers, 4 Kans. 453, 469. Quoted and discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 403, 11 ed. McRea v. Central Nat. Bank of Troy, 50 How. Pr. 51. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 489. De- cision in Id. followed (What are fixtures) in Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 Id. 413, 419. Disting'd in Wells v. Maples, 15 Hun, 90. Critically considered in Hinkley, &c. Iron Co. e. Black, 70 Me. 473; s. c, 35 Am. R. 346, 348. McSorley v. McSorley, 4 Sandf. Oh. 414. Followed (Jurisdiction of surrogate over testamentary trustees) in Savage v. Olm- stead, 2 Red/. 478, where the case is wrong- ly cited from 2 Bradf. 188. McSpedon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.,-15 How. Pr. 462. Aff'd in 7 Borne. 601; s. c, 20 How. Pr. 395. Decision in Id. com- mented on and doubted (Recovery on quantum meruit, where there is no valid contract) in Harlem Gaslight Co. v. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Robt. 100. Decision in 15 How. Pr. disting'd (Power of common council to incur expense) in Jones i>. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Robt. 209. v. Troy City Bank, 33 Barb. 81. AfFd in 3 Abb. Ct.' App. Dec. 133. McStea v. Matthews, 3 Daly, 349. Afl'd in 50 N. Y. 166, and that aff'd as Matthews v. McStea, in 91 U. S. 7. Motion to dismiss appeal denied in 20 Wall. 646. Decision in 50 JV". Y. followed (When war of rebel- lion commenced so as to affect commercial interests) in Burnside v. Matthews, 54 Id. 78, 81. Mactier T. Frith, 1 Paige, 434. Rev'd in 6 Wend. 103; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 2G2, with note; 10 JSF. Y. Com. L. Zaio. ed. 1033, with brief note citing other cases. See Tre- vor v. Wood. Decision in 6 Wend, fol- lowed (Effect of acceptance of offer by let- ter) in Vassar v. Camp, 14 Barb. 354, which was aff'd in 11 N. Y. 447, which sec; But- terfield v. Spencer, 1 Bosw. 25. Applied in Myers i>. Smith, 48 Barb. 631. Applied to telegraphic despatch, — in Trevor v. Wood, 36 JV. Y. 309, which rev'd 41 Barb. 255, 269 which see. Followed in Wheat «. Cro.3s, 31 Md. 99; s. c, 1 Am. R. 28. Collated with numerous other cases in 16 West. Jur. 337. See, also, 29 MoaVs Eng. 347, n. Included in 1 LangdelVs Gas. on Contr. 2 ed. 77. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 68 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Criticised in Pomeroy on Sp. Per/. § 05, n. Applied (Sale as consummated by acceptance of oJfer to sell) inBerly v. Taylor, 5 Hill, 587. McVeau v. Scott, 46 Barb. 379. See Ghap pel v. Spencer ; Partridge v, Colby. Op- posed (What is material alteration in note) in Card v. Miller. 1 Hun, 504, 506. McVeany v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Hun, 35; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 131. Rev'd in 80 K Y. 185; s. c, 59 How. Pr. 106. See Conner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 1 Hun disting'd (Jurisdiction of court to determine right to office of alderman) in People ex ret Hatzel ». Hall, 80 N. Y. 117, 126. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1948. McVey v. Cantrell, 6 Hun, 528. Aff'd in 70 K Y. 295 ; s. c , 26 Am. It. 605. Further proceeding in 8 Hun, 522. Decision in 70 N. Y. disting'd (Proof that debt was con- tracted for benefit of married woman's sepa- rate estate) in Nash ». Mitchell, 71 Id. 199, 203. Applied in Scott v. Otis, 25 Hun, 33. With decision in 8 Hun, see (Irrelevant, etc., matter in pleading) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 545, n. McVicar v. Alden, 1 Cai. 58. Overruled (Preference of causes in which public offi- cers are concerned) in Anonymous, 2 Id. 246. McYickar v. Greenleaf, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 452; s. c, 30 How. Pr. 61; 4 Robt. 657. Approved (Examination of adverse party before issue joined) in Haclley v. Fowler, 12 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 244. Followed in Glen- ney v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. dS.) 92, 95. v. Ketcliuin, 19 Abb. Pr. 24. Affd in 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 452. Decision in Id. dis- approved (Examination of adverse party before issue joined) in Bell «. Richmond, 50 Barb. 572. v. Wolcott, 4 Johns. 510. Quoted (Ap- peal in case of injunction) in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 1694, re. 3. McWhorter v. AgiieTV, Paige, 111. Fol- lowed (Extinguishing of trust created for benefit of married woman) and Douglass v. Cruger, 80 N. Y. 15, disting'd, in Theband v. Schermerhorn, 30 Hun, 332, which rev'd 10 Abb. N. C. 72, 76, which see. v. Benson, Hoph 42. Applied (Basis for calculation of compensation of trustees, etc.) in Phoenix v. Phoenix, 28 Hun, 629. Disting'd in Matter of Colah, C Daly, 51, 63, 67. Approved and applied in Matter of Ilulbcrt, 9 Abb. N. C. 1^2, 135. v. McMahan, Clarke, 400. Aff'd in 10 Paige, 386. See Dykcrs n. Townsend. Decision in 10 Paige applied (Existence of incumbrance, when. not sufficient to justify 468 Mc WILLIAMS— MAGOFFEK refusal to take title) in Pangbiirn v. Miles, 10 Abb. N. 0. 42, 46. McWillianis v. Mason, 6 Duer, 276. Sub- sequent decision in 1 Robt. 576; s. c, 2 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 211; and that aff'd in 31 F. Y. 294. Decisiou in Id. applied (Liability to innocent third person of one signing note under misapprehension) in Carey «. Miller, 25 Hun, 28, SI. Marian v. Covert, 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 135. Decision on second trial in 45 Id. 245; which was aff'd it seems, in 81 JV. Y. 629, but without opinion. See Vol. 526 Ct. App. Oas. Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. v. Sherrard, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 353. Aff'd in 73 JV. Y. 329; s. c, 29 Am. R. 153. Madge v. Puig, 12 Hun, 15. Eev'd in 71 JV Y. 608. Madison Ave. Baptist Chnrch v. Baptist Church in Oliver Street, 19 Abb. Pr. 105. Rev'd in 3 Robt. 570 ; s c, 1 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 214 ; 30 How. Pr. 455. Decision, after second trial, in 1 Sweeny, 109, which was rev'd in 11 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 132; s. c, 46 JV Y. 131. Subsequent decision in 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 369 ; which was aff'd in part and rev'd in part in 73 JV. Y. 82. Further proceeding in 43 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 151. See Phyfe v. Riley. Decision in 30 How. Pr. with Pratt v. Short, 53 Id. 510; Whit- ney Arms Co. «. Barlow, 63 JV Y. 71 ; Town of Verona v. Peckham, 66 Barb. 113; Steam Navigation Co. v. Weed, 17 Id. 381; Cheever «. Gilbert Elevated R'y Co., 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 84, to be scarcely recon- cilable with N. Y. State Loan, &c. Co. v. Helmer, 77 JV. Y. 71 (Right to enforce con- tracts of a corporation ultrd vires) in 40 Am. Bee. 381, n. Rule in decision in 73 JV. Y. applied (Relief in equity) in Hender- son v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 Id. 423, 438. Commented on (Ejectment as distin- guished from action to redeem and foreclose mortgages) in Sedgw. & IF. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 180. Madison County B'k v. Gould, 5 Hill, 309. Applied (Liability as special partner) in Bell v. MerriSeld, 28 Hun, 219; Levy v. Lock, 5 Daly, 46, 49. Disting'd in Van Ingen v. Whitman, 62 JV. Y. 513. Magce v. Badger, 30 Barb. 246. Affd, in 34 JV. Y. 247. See Baker v. Bliss. Decision in 34 JV. Y. followed (Purchaser of note, when put upon inquiry) in Heard v. Dubuque County B'k, 8 Neb. 10; s. c, 30 Am. R. 811. v. Cutler. See Hartwell «. Armstrong. v. Osborn. See Magie v. Osborn. v. Vcdder. See Bank of Poughkeepsie «. Hasbrouck ; Tucker v. Tucker. Maggrath v. Church, 1 Cai. 196; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 173, with note, wherein it is shown to be a leading case. Sec Le Roy v. Gouverneur. Cited (Liability of insurers for jettison loss) in Griswold v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Blatchf. C. Ct. 231, 234 236. Followed with Vandenheuvcl v. United Ins. Co., 1 Johns. 412 (When right of insured to recover for loss to which others are bound to contribute, is complete) in Faulkner v. Augusta Ins. Co., 2 McMvM {So. Car.) 158; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 119. Collated with other cases (When recovery may be had as for total loss) iu 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 732. Maghee v. Camden, &c, B. B. Transp. Co., 45 JV Y. 514. See Root v. Great Western Ry. Co. ; Van Santvoord v. St. John. Applied (Liability of carrier receiving goods for point beyond its line) in King v. Macon 6 Western R. R. Co., 62 Barb. 174; Bab- cock v. Lake Shore & M. S. R'y Co., 49 JV. Y. 497. Disting'd in /Etna Ins. Co. v. Whee- ler, Id. 620 ; Rogers v. Wheeler, 6 Lam. 422. Explained (Effect of deviation by carrier) in Cochran v. Dinsmore, 49 JV. Y. 254. Applied in Hinckley v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 56 Id. 434. Magie v. Baker. See Hall v. Wilson. T. Osborn, 1 Robt. 689. Rev'd, as Magee v. Osborn, in 32 JV. Y. 669. Decis- ion in Id. explained (Proof of handwriting) in 1 Bent on Ev. % 234 k. a, Wood's ed. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 182. Rev'd in 53 JV. Y. 652, but with- out opinion. Decision in 56 Id. 168, is on appeal from second trial not reported below. See interlocutory judgment as to extra allowance to defendant after second trial, in 47 How. Pr. 11, and as to costs in 15 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 331; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 297. Decision on appeal from judgment on the third trial is in 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 248; which was rev'd in 62 N. Y. 35; s. c, 20 Am. R. 442. Decision on appeal from judgment on fourth trial is in 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 512; which was confirmed in 42 Id. 16, which was on appeal from judgment rendered at Special Term in pursuance of decision in 40 Id. 512, and affd in 70 N. Y. 410; s. c, 26 Am. R. 608. See Belger v. Dinsmore; Cole v. Goodwin; Magnin e. Adam's Express Co. ; Smith v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co. Decision in 56 JV. Y. fol- lowed (Requisites of contract limiting carri- er's liability for negligence) in Westcott v. Fargo, 61 Id. 554; Mynard v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 71 Id. 1»5. Decision in 62 Id. disting'd (Necessity of proving gross negli- gence on part of carrier) in Curtis v. Dela- ware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co., 74 Id. 123. Disting'd (Fraud on part of shipper) in Baldwin i>. Liverpool & Gt. Western S. S. Co., Id. 131, which aff'd 11 Hun, 499, which see. See contrary to decision in 40 Super. Ct. (/. & 8.) Little v. Boston & Me. R. R. Co., 4 Law & Eg. R. 136. See, also, Abb. Tr. Ev. 575. Decision in 70 N. Y. examined in 19 Alb. L. J. 44. Followed (Defense in action against carrier for con- version) in Ilirschbcrg v. Dinsmore, 67 How. Pr. 103. Magoffen v. Patton, 3 Edw. 65. Followed (Executrix, when excluded from being trustee) in Matter of Moke, 2 Red/. 429, 433. MAGOWN— MALINS. 469 Magown T. Sinclair, 5 Daly, 63. Collated with other cases (What cases are referable) in 1 Abb. N. 0. 110, n. Maguire v. Woodside, 2 Hilt. 59. Followed (Damages for breach of contract of employ- ment) in Everson v. Powers, 60 How. Pr. 166. Mahan, Matter of, 20 Hun, 301. Affd, it seems, in 81 If. Y. 621, but without opin- ion. See Matter of Merriam. Decision in 20 Run followed (Validity of assessment, as affected by partial withdrawal from compe- tition of prices for work done) in Matter of Metropolitan Gas Light Co., 23 Id. 329, which was modified in 85 If. Y. 528, which see; Matter of Manhattan Sav'gs Inst., 82 Id. 144. Explained in Matter of Merriam, 84 Id. 603. Followed in several cases in 22 Hun, 614, which were, however, modified in 84 N. Y. 672. Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. 261; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 461, with note. See Parker v. Foote; Pickard «. Collins. Referred to in Gerber v. Grabel, 16 III. 220, and Banks v. American Tract Society, 4 Sandf. Oh. 464, as an authority to the effect that the Eng- lish doctrine of ancient lights, is in force in N. Y., though, as appears *rom citations in 28 Am. Dec. 463, »., that doctrine does not prevail there; see also citations on other points. Quoted (What is actionable nui- sance) in Wood on Ifuis. 2 ed. § 7; 1 Add. on Torts, 3, n. 1, Wood's ed. Malianey v. Penman, 4 Duer, 603 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. 34. Cited as authority (Judg- ment as contract) in Lewis 8. Armstrong, 8 Abb. If. O. 385, 390. Maher v. Central Park, &c. K. K. Co., 39 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 155. Affd in 67 If. Y. 52. Decision in Id. followed (Negli- gence in getting on or off front platform of street car) in Lax v. Forty-second St. &c. R. R. Co., 46 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 448, 454. v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 6 Hun, 353. Afi'd in 67 N. Y. 283. See Jennings v. Chenango Mut. Ins. Co. Mahler v. Norwich & N. Y. Transportation Co., 45 Barb. 226 ; s. c, 30 How. Pr. 237. Rev'd in 35 If. Y.. 352. Decision in Id. disting'd (Construction of the boundary act) in Reyser v. Coe, 9 Match/. 0. Ot. 32, 48. Malum v. Hall, 2 Hun, 154. Reported in 4 Sup'm. Ot. (V. & O.) 390. y. N. Y Central R. R. Co., 24 If. Y. 658. See Presbyterian Society in Waterloo ■u. Auburn '&, Rochester R. R. Co. Ex- plained (Right of landowner injured by building of railroad, to recover prospective damages) in Plate v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 37 A r . Y. 472. Disting'd in Henderson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 Id. 423, 435. Collated with other cases in Gook Highw. L. 4 ed. 18. Mahoney t. Decker. See Thayer v. Van Vleet. T. People, 3 Hun, 202; s. c, 5 Buttm. Ot. (T. & G.) 329; 48 How. Pr.. 185. Affd, it seems, in 59 If. Y. 659, but with- out opinion. Decision in 3 Hun followed (Presumption indulged by appellate court, in absence of all of evidence given at trial) in Howard e. Hayes, 47 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 89, 102. Compared (Force sufficient to constitute offense of robbery) in People v. McGhty, 24 Hun, 62, 64. Maigley v. Hauer. 7 Johns, 341. See Schem- erhorn v. Vanderheyden. Applied (Prov- ing consideration not expressed in deed) in Betts v. Union Bank, 1 Harr. & O. (Md.) 175; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 283. Compare Marsh v. Shattuck, 4 N. H. 229; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 419. See also 17 Am. Dec. 523. n.; 2 Go. 76a, with learned note (G. 1), and references; 4 Go. 3b.; Com. Dig. tit. Cove- nant, G. 3, collating contrasting cases. Maier v. Hoffman, 4 Daly, 168. See Curtis ». Gokey. Collated with Curtis v. Gokey, 68 If. Y. 300 ; 5 Hun, 555 ; Lawrence v. Kidder, 10 Barb. 641; Chappel v. Brock- way, 21 Wend. 157 ; Murray v. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb. 140 ; Saratoga Co. B'k v. King, 44 If. Y. 87, and many other authorities (Con- tract void as in restraint of trade) in 19 Gent. L. J. 62. Main v. Cooper, 26 Barb. 468. Affd in 25 If. Y. 180. v. Feathers, 21 Barb. 646. See (Effect of covenant to pay rent, reserved on grant in fee) Van Rensselaer ». Hays, 19 If. Y. 78, 93. v. Green, 32 Barb. 448. Further opin- ion to same effect, in 33 Id. 136. v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 E. D. Smith, 273. See Goodrich n. Jones. Applied with Free- land v. Southworth, 24 Wend. 191 (What constitutes a fixture) in Rahway Sav'gs Inst. v. Baptist Church, 9 Stew. {If. J.) 61. See, also, N. Y. cases cited, in Hendy v. Dinkerhoff, 57 Gal. 3; s. c, 40 Am. P. 107; also in 21 Am. L. Peg. If. S. 56, n. Mairs v. Remsen, SGode P. 138. See (Change of venue) Oode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 986, n. Major & Kiiapp M'f g, &c. Co. v. Werner, 25 Hun, 118. Abridg't, s. a, 12 Weehly Dig. 468. Malcolm v. Rogers. 5 Cow. 188; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 464, with note, wherein it is said to be in accordance with settled law (Meaning of "may" in construction of statutes). See Newburgh Turnpike Co. v. Miller. Mali v. Lord. 39 If. Y. 384. Applied (Ex- tent of master's liability for servant's acts) in Lynch v. Metrop. Elev. R'y Co., 24 Hun, 506, 508; Carter-©. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290; s. c, 34 Am. P. 311, 315. Dis- ting'd in Garretzen .. Duenckel, 50 Mo. 104; s. c, 11 Am. P. 405. 409; also disting'd in 23 Am. L. Reg. If. S 452, n. Malius v. Brown, 4 If. Y. 403. See Hess v. Fox. Applied (Enforcing agreement void by statute of frauds) in Bennett v. Abrams, 41 Barb. 625; Pope v. O'llara, 48 N. Y. 453; Green v. Green, 2 Redf. 411. Ap- proved with Lowry v. Tew, 3 Barb. Ch. 413, 470 MALLARD— MALONEY. in Dygert v. Remerschnider, 32 JV". Y. 629, 043. Mallard, Ex parte. See Ex parte Davis. Malloney v. Horan. See Maloney v. Horan. Mallory v. Burrett. See Travis v. Thomp- son. t. Commercial Ins. Co., 18 How. Pr. 395. Rev'd in 9 Bosw. 101. T. Gillett, 23 Barb. 610. Aff d in 21 N. Y. 412. See Ohapin ». Merrill ; Church v. Brown ; Farley v. Cleveland ; Kingsley v. Balcome; Leonard v. Vredenburgh; Watson ■b. Randall. Decision in 21 JV". Y. applied (Promise to pay debt of another, when within statute of frauds) in . Sanders v. Gillespie, 64 Barb. 634, which was aff'd in 59 JST. Y. 252, which see; Bau- singer v. Guenthner, 66 Barb. 188 ; Bene- dict v. Dunning, 1 Daly, 241; Prime v. Koehler, 7 Id. 351, which was aff'd in 77 N. Y. 95, which see ; Watson v. Parker, 1 Hun, 018; May v. National B'k of Malone, 9 Id. Ill ; McCafferty v. Decker, 12 Id. 459; Cocks. Moore, 18 Id. 32; Duffy v. Wunsch, 42 N. Y. 245; Meriden Brittania Co. «. Zingsen, 4 Bobt. 320, which was aff'd in 48 N. Y. 250, which see. Disting'd in Fowler v. Moller, 10 Bom. 380; Booth v. Eighmie, 60 N. Y. 241. Limited in Belknap v. Ben- der, 75 Id. 451, which afFd 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 613, which see. Explained in Connor v. Williams, 2 Bobt. 53. Much of the opinion disapproved, as dictum, in Baker v. Dillman, 12 Abb. Pr. 313. Ex- plained in Hbile v. Bailey, 58 Wis'. 434, 450. Cited as authority with Cardell v. McNeil, 21 N. Y. 336; Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Den. 45, in Putnam v. Farnham, 27 Wis. 187; s. c, 9 Am. B. 459. Thought in 5 Am. Dec. 324, n, — adopting the view in Arnold v. Stedman, 45 Pa. St. 189, — not to conflict with the rule in Leonard v. Vredenburgh. 8 Johns. 29 ; Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. 439, since in Mallory v. Gillett, the promising party derived no benefit from his promise; Wills i). Brown, 1 118 Mass. 138, holding that the consideration must move fi;om the credi- tor to the promisor is shown, in same note, to conflict with Mallory v. Gillett. Approved as containing a most satisfactory exposition of the subject, — in Wyman v. Goodrich, 26 Wis. 21. Decision in 23 Barb, disting'd in Quintard v. De Wolf, 34 Id. 102. v. Leach, 14 Abb. Pr. 449, n.; s. c, 23 Row. Pi: 507. See McBuft v. Hirsch. See (Effect of foreign judgment on right of arrest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 552, n. — T. Norton, 21 Barb. 424. Explained (Equitable jurisdiction of Supreme Court) in Marsh v. Benson, 11 Abb. Pr. 241, 249, 251. Sec to the contrary (Judgment for interfer- ing with exempt property) Andrews v. Rowan. 28 How. Pr. 126. v. Tioga R. R. Co., 39 Barb. 483. Aff'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 139; s. c, 36 now. ' Pr. 202; 3 Keyes, 354; 5 Abb. Pr. K S. 420. Decision in 39 Barb, followed (Lia- bility for injury to railroad cars) as applica- ble to case of oil tanks, — in Spears ». Lake Shore, &c. R. R. Co., 67 Id. 513, 518. Approved in Peoria, &c. R. R. Co. v. Chi- cago, &c. R. R. Co., 109 III. 135, 142; s. c, 19 Cent. I. J. Ill, with note wherein are collated Spears v. Lake Shore, &c. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 518, and other authorities. With decision in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. com- pare (Limitations no defense for foreign corporations) discussion in 18 Alb. L. J. 223. t. Travelers' Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 52. Followed, but point not indicated, in Same v. Same, 54 Id. 651. v. Vanderbilt, 4 Abb. JV. O. 127. Fol- lowed (Presumption of payment from lapse of time) in Pangburn v. Miles, 10 Id. 42, 47. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 376, n. v. Vanderheyden, 3 Barb. Ch. 9. Rev'd in 1 m. Y. 452. v. Willis, 4 K Y. 76. Quoted (Sale as distinguished from bailment) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 2, n. 4, (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 133, n. v. • v. Wood, 6 Duer, 657; s. c, 14 How. Pr. 67 ; and more fully, as Malloy v. Wood, in 3 Abb. Pr. 369. See (Verdict subject to opinion of court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1184, n. Malo. e v. Clark, 2 Hill, 657. Cited as au- thority with Woods v. Randall, 5 Id. 264 (What may be considered on appeal from justice's decision) in Shaw v. Moser, 3 Mich. 75. v. Hathaway, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 1 ; mem. s. c, 3 Hun, 553. Rev'd in 64 H. Y. 5; s. c, 21 Am. B. 573, with note. See mem. of former decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 664. See Flike v. Boston & Al- bany R. R. Co. Decision in 64 N. Y. fol- lowed (Liability for negligence of co-em- ployee) in Fort v. Whipple, 11 Hun, 591; Stevenson v. Jewett, 16 Id. 212. Approved in Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 53. Com- pared in Barringer v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 19 Hun, 219. Cited with Cor- coran v. Holbrook, 59 K Y. 517 ; Booth v. Boston & A. R. R. Co., 73 Id. 38, in Brown v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. R. Co., 31 Minn. 555. Applied in State v. Malster, 57 Md. 287, 308. Though said in Smith v. Oxford Iron Co., 13 Vroom. (N. J.) 467; s. c , 36 Am. B. 535, 539, on the authority of Whart. Com. on Negl. § 229, to be in harmony with the American cases, yet also said not to be assented to by the English courts. Approved in dissenting opinion in Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 322. Disting'd with Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 470 (Liability for injury caused by defects in machinery, etc.) in Delaney v. Hilton. 50 Svper. Ct. (J. & S.) 341, 354. v. Stilwell, 15 Abb. Pr. 425. Sustained (Joint demurrer) in Hoffman v. Wheelock, 62 Wis. 434, 441. Compare (Action by or against married woman) Code Civ. Pro. §450. Maloney v. Horan, 53 Barb. 29 ; s. c, 36 MALONY— MANHATTAN CO. 471 Bow. Pr. 260. Eev'd as Malloney v. Horan, in 49 N. Y. Ill ; s. c. as Malony v. Horan, 12 All. Pr. K 8. 289; 10 Am. R. 335. Decision in Id. explained (Release of dower) in Elmcndorf v. Lockwood, 57 N. Y. 329. Compare Ridgway v. Masting, 23 Ohio St. 29-1; s. c, 13 Am. R. 251. See also Morton v. Noble, 57 III. 170; s. a, 11 Am. R. 7. Followed (Doctrine of merger, when not applicable) in Richardson ». Wyman, 02 Me. 280; s. c, 16 Am. R. 459. Commented on (Mods of transfer of title, after deed has been set aside as fraudulent) in Dawley v. Brown, 05 Pari. 107, 128. Explained (Judgment as estoppel) in Bloomer «. Sturges, 58 K- Y. 176. Cited in 2 Whart^ Com. on En>. § 786. Decision in 53 Pari, followed (Extinguishment of dower by wife joining husband in convey- ance) in Elmendorf v. Lockwood, 4 Lans. 393, 398. Quoted and collated with other cases in SAarsw. S P. Gas. on Real Prop. 382. Malouy v. Horan. See Maloney v. Horan. Maloy v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 58 Pari. 182. Collated with Rector v. Pierce, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 416 ; Vale. ». Bliss, 50 Pari. 358, and other cases (What is negli- gence in one traveling in dark) in 45 Am. R. 648, n. Maltby t. Greene, 3 All. Gt. App. Pec. 144; s. c, 1 Eeyes, 548. Explained (Personal judgment in case of mechanics' lien) in Bar- ton v. Herman, 8 Alb. Pr. N. S. 403 ; Don- nelly v. Libby, 1 Sweeny, 270, 283, Applied in Schaettler 11. Gardiner, 4 Daly, 59. See (Appeal from judgment) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 1294, n. v. Harwood, 12 Pari. 473. Explained (Liability for board or services among fam- ily) in Van Schoyck v. Backus, 9 Bun, 63, 70. Reviewed with other cases (What operation an imperfect contract of appren- ticeship may have) in 34 Am. Dee. 539, n. Mauahau v. Gibbons, 19 Johns. 109. AfTd in Id. 427. Both decisions disting'd (Lia- bility as among those jointly liable) in Bates v. Underhill, 3 Red/. 372. Manchester Iron Mfg. Co. v. Sweeting, 10 Wend. 162. Explained (Discharge of ac- commodation party, as surety) in Converse •o. Cook, 25 Bun, 44, 47. Mandell r. Barry, 9 Johns. 234. Rev'd in 10 Id. 563. Mandeiille v. Guernsey, 38 Pari. 225. Explained (Privileged communication be- tween attorney and client) in 1 Pest on Pd. § 184, n. a, Wood's ed. T. Mandeville, 8 Paige, 475. See Wood v. Wood. Followed (Revocation of letters testamentary for disqualification, &c.) in Martin v. Duke, 5 Red/. 597, 600. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2685, n. v. Reed, 13 All. Pr. 173. Compare (Mechanics' lien) L. 1863, c. 500, repealing L. 1830, c. 330. v. Reynolds, 5 Hun, 338. Aft'd in 68 N. Y. 528. Decision in Id. disting'd (Questioning regularity of satisfaction of judgment) In Bennett v. Baglcy, 22 llun, 411, a case of an execution sale. See to the contrary (Impeaching judicial record for fraud, &c.) Krokelcr v. Ritter, 02 H. Y. 372; Mattingly «. Nye, 8- Wall. 370. See also All. Tr. Ed. 741, 834. Collated with other cases, and contrasted with the Eng- lish rule (Power of attorney to comprom- ise) in Whipple v. Whitman, 13 R. I. 514. Mangain v. Brooklyn City It. R. Co., 30 Pari. 230. Aff'd in 38 N. Y. 450. See Hartfield v. Roper. Decision in 38 N. Y. applied (Negligence in those having care of children) in Mullaney v. Spence,. 15 All. Pr. K S. 328; Ihl v. Forty-Second St., &c. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 322; Fallon v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 64 Id. 13, 18. Com- mented on with Mullaney v. Spence, 15 All. Pr. K S. 319 ; McAlpin v. Powell, 55 How. Pr. 163, and other conflicting cases, and disapproved in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 453, 464. Quoted and commented on in 2 Thomps. on Negl. .1180. Applied (Infantile negligence) in Pcndril v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 43 Bow. Pr. 410. Decision in 36 Pari. explained in Mowrey ». Central City Railw., 60 Id. 43, 56. Followed (Effect of con- tributory negligence) in Parrott n. Knicker- bocker Ice Co., 2 Sweeny, 93. Manhattan Brass Manufg Co. v. Sears, 1 Sweeny, 426. Rev'd in 45 A T . Y. 797; s. c, 6 Am. R. 177. Decision in Id. applied (Liabil- ity as partner, as determined by participation in profits) in Haas v. Roat, 10 Bun, 527; Leggett v. Henneberger, 1 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & G.) 418, which was aff'd in 5S V. Y. 278, which see. Disting'd in Butler v. Finck, 21 Bun, 212, 215; Burnett i>. Snyder, 70 K Y. 351 ; Smith o. Bodine, 74 Id. 30, 33. Cited with Leggett v. Henneberger, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 418; Tournade r. Hagedorn, 5 Id. 288; Greenwood v. Brink, 1 Bun, 227, and other cases in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 38, n. Quoted and explained in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 18, n. 4, Wood's Am. ed. v. Thompson, 53 N. Y. 80. See Yale v. Dederer. Decision in 53 K Y. applied (Married woman's liability) in Nash v: Mit- chell, 8 Hun, 473, Woolsey v. Brown, 11 Bun, 52, 54 ; which was aff'd in 74 JV. Y. 82, which see. Approved and dissenting judges said to have intended to overrule Yale «. Dederer, 23 Id. 450, — in Yale v. Dederer, 08 Id. 329. Discussed in 1 Penj. on Sales, § 30, n. 39 (Corbin, 4 Am. ed.) Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, Paige, 457. Followed (Extinguishment of dower in con- veyance in which wife joined) in Elmen- dorf v. Lockwood, 4 Lans. 396. Compare Maloney v. Horan, 12 All. Pr. N. S. 289; which rev'd 53 Pari. 29, which see. Dis- ting'd in Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven (Chan. Div. Apr. 1877,) 34 Law limes R. N. S. 310. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & P. Cas. on Real Prop. 382. 472 MANHATTAN CO.— MANN. t. Greenwich Bank, 4 Edw. 315. Dis- cussed (Powers of assignee for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 315, 4 ed. v. Lydig, 4 Johns. 377; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 289 ; 3 N. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 853, with brief note. Disting'd (When payment to bank's officer is payment to bank) in East . River Nat. B'k v. Gove, 57 M 7. 597, 602. Quoted and explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 244, 11 ed. ; Id. § 247. Ap- proved with Weisser v. Denison, 10 N. 7. 68 (When the fraudulent acts of agent are not binding upon principal) in Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51 Md. 562 ; s. c, 54 Am. R. 325, 330. Followed (Bank when concluded as to amount of deposit, by entry in depositor's bank book) in Hepburn v. Citizens' B'k of La. ; 2 La. Ann. 1007; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 564. v. Osgood, 15 Johns. 162. Rev'd in 3 Cow. 612. Another decision in 1 Id. 65. See Anthoine v. Coit. See (Withdrawal of assignment of errors) Powell v. Waters, 8 Cow. 756. Manhattan Oil Co. v. Camden, &c. Transp. Co., 52 Barb. 72 ; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 289. Aff'd in 54 K 7. 197. Decision in 52 Barb, limited (Liability of connecting carrier) in Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. 402 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 374. Manhattan Savings Inst., Matter of, 82 A r . Y. 142. See Matter of Merriam. Eeaff'd (Validity of assessment, as affected by par- tial withdrawal from competition, of prices for work done) in Matter of Merriam, 84 N. 7. 596, 603. Ma nice V. Manice, 1 Bans. 348. Modified in 43 K 7. 303. SeeHaxtuns. Corse ; Van Schuy- ver i>. Mulford. Decision in 45 N. 7. applied Application to personalty, of rules respecting estate in land) in Lane v. Brown, 20 Sun, 387. Applied (Bequest to foreign corporation) in Draper v. Pres't, &c. of Harvard College, 57 How. Pr. 270. Applied (When executors, &c. take no estate in trust) in Matteson v. Armstrong, 11 Hun, 248. See Bennett v. Garlock, 79 N. 7. 302, and dissenting opin- ion of Rapallo, J. (p. 324). Applied (Estate when vested) in McKinstry ». San- ders, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 186 ; Chapman v. Nichols, 61 How. Pr. 275, 279. Applied (Who entitled to income under 1 R. S. 726, § 40) in Grant v. Grant, 2 Red/. 296 ; Van Emburgh v. Ackerman, Id. 501. Applied (Gift by will to officer of corporation, when gift to corporation) in Currin v. Panning, 13 Hun, 467,whichaffd2 Red/. 533, which see; Effray v. Foundling Asylum, 5 Id. 557, 560. Approved, but disting'd (Separation of void provision from valid provisions in will) in Knox v. Jones, 47 N. 7. 398, and see Van Schuyver v. Mulford, 59 Id. 432. Applied in Woodgateu. Fleet, 647a!. 574. Disting'd in Richards v. Moore, 5 Red/. 278, 282. Disting'd (Suspension of power of aliena- tion) and Colton v. Fox, 67 N. 7. 348; Everitt v. Everitt, 29 Id. 39 ; Warner v. Durant, 76 Id. 136; Smith v. Edwards, 88 Id. 92, followed in Hobson v. Hale, 94 Id. 588, 613. Explained and disting'd in Beardsley v. Hotchkiss, 96 Id. 201, 215. T. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 JV. 7. 120. Examined and followed (Authority of cor- poration of N. Y. to make assessment for street improvements) Matter of Petition of Roberts, 81 Id. 62. Maniort v. Roberts, 4 E. D. Smith, 83. Ex- plained (Effect of note payable to fictitious person) in Merchant's L. & T. Co. v. B'k of Metropolis, 7 Daly, 137, 141. Manke v. People, 17 Bun, 410. Afl'd in People v. Manke, 78 N. 7. 611. Previous decision as Manke v. People, in 74 Id. 415. Decision in 17 Hun disting'd (Admissibil- ity of opinion of expert) in People v. Schewe, 29 Id. 122. Compare (Challenge to juror) Points of Law in Ouiteau's Case, p. 83 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1881.) Mauley v. Patterson, 3 Code R. 89. Fol- lowed (Effect of excepting to sureties, in replevin action) in Cullen v. Miller, 5 .466. N. C. 282. v. People, 7 N~. 7. 295. Error in re- port corrected (In what county indictment may be found for larceny) in Haskins v. People, 16 Id. 344. Followed as decisive (Construction of State boundary act) in Mahler v. Transportation Co., 35 Id. 352. Applied in Keyser v. Coe, 9 Blatchf. C. Ct. 32, 47. Mann t. Butler, 2 Barb. Ch. 362. See, also (Voluntary associations) Ebbinghausen v. Worth Glub, 4 Abb. K C. 300- v. Currie, 2 Barb. 294. See Adderly v. Storm. Compared (Who liable for amount unpaid on stock) in Wintringham i>. Rosen- thal, 25 Hun, 580, 582. Disting'd and limited in Cutting v. Damerel, 88 N. Y. 416. t. Delaware & Hudson Caiial^tSo., 12 Weekly Dig. 7. Followed (Liability for ac- cident resulting from insufficiency of track system) in Dwyer v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 13 Id. 98. v. Eckford, 15 Wend. 502. See Swift v. Beers. Explained (Want of considera- tion in sealed instrument) in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 Hun, 198, 207. Applied with Parker v: Parmalee, 20 Johns. 134 ; Vroo- man v. Phelps, 2 Id. 177 (Basis of rule ex- cluding parol evidence) in Donley ». Tin- dall. 32 Tex. 43; s. c, 5 Am. R. 234, 239, ■with note collating cases. v. Fairchild, 5 Barb. 108. Overruled (Buying demands for suit) in subsequent decision arising from same transactions in 14 Id. 548. Further decision in 2 Key eg, 106; s. c, 3 ^66. Ct. App. Dec. 152. De- cision in Id. applied (Judgment of non-suit, ■when not proper) in Gescheidt ». Quirk, 5 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 38. v.- Lawrence, 3 Brad/. 424. See Val- entine v. Valentine; Westcrfield v. Wester- field. Compared with other cases (Double commissions to executors) in Hall v. Hall, 78 N. 7. 535, 539. MANN-MANUFAOTUKEES' & MECHANICS' BANK. 473 T. Mann, 75 IV. T. 614. Examined (What will justify allowance of alimony, &c.) in Collins v. Collins, 80 Id. 1, 7. V. , 1 Johns. Oh. 231. Aff'd in 14 Johns. 1; s. c, 7 -Am. Dec. 416. See Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum v. Emmons. Decision in 1 Johns. Ch. explained and applied (Parol evidence to explain will) in Reynolds «. Robinson, 82 K Y. 103, 106. Followed and approved, citing Gillespie i>. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. 5S5,— in Avery v. Chap- pel. 6 Conn. 270; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 53, with note. Followed in Iddings v. Iddings, 7 Serg. & R. {Pa.) Ill ; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 450 ; Pickering v. Pickering, 50 2V. H. 349 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 74, n. Applied in Dun- ham v. Averill, 45 Gonn. 61 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 642, 649 ; Grimes Bx'rs v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198; s. c, 9 Am. R, 690, 696. Com- mented on in 4 Am. Dec. 663, n. See also 3 Id. 395, n. ; 9 Id. 636, n. Included with notes in Red}. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 527. v. Marsh, 35 Barb. 68. Disting'd (De- murrer to joint action) in Bates !). Merrick, 2 Hun, 568, 572. • y. Pearson, 2 Johns. 37; s. c, 3 iV Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 291, with brief note. See Jackson v. Barringef. Examined and disting'd with Jackson o. Moore, 6 Cow. 706 ; Morris Canal Co. v. Emmett, 9 Paige. 168 (Relief against land contract, in case of deficiency) in Belknap v. Sealey, 14 IV. Y. 143. Cited with approval in Smith v. Evans, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 102 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 436, with note. Followed (Known and vis- ible monuments in deed prevail as against ■ measurements) in Howe v. Bass, 2 Mass. 380; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 59. v. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Gh. 257. Rev'd in 3 IV. Y. 415. Decision in Id. applied (Lien on assets of insolvent corporation) in Angell v. SilBbury, 19 How. Pr. 49; Tinkham v. Borstal Barb. 411; Graham i>. Hoy, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 515. Compare McDon- ough v. Phelps, 15 How. Pr. 380. Reviewed and contrasted with Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435, — in Winans v. McKeon R. R., &c. Co., 6 Blatchf. O. Ct. 215. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1785. Decision in 2 Sandf. Gh. cited approvirgly in 2 Kent Com. 314, n. b. Decision in 3 N. Y. applied (Na- ture of liability of stockholders) in Chase t>. Lord, 77 2V. Y. 21 ; Griffith v. Mangam, 73 Id. 612, which affd 42 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 374, which see. v. People, 15 Han, 155: Affd as Peo- ple v. Mann, 75 2V. Y. 484; s. c, 31 Am. It. 482. Decision in 15 Hun followed (Signing without authority not forgery) in State *. Willson, 28 Minn. 55. See Penal Code, § 509. v. Swnnn. 14 Johns. 270. Compare (Party to promissory note, as witness to prove usury) in Stafford v. Rice, 5 Cow. 23. v. Whitbeck, 17 Barb. 388. Discussed (Terms of sale under assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 224, 4 cd. Manning V. Manning, 1 Johns. Ch. 527. See Green v. Winter. Applied (Effect here of principle established in English courts of equity) in Walker v. Walker, 8 Abb. IV C. 436, 440. Commented on (Compensation to trustees for time and trouble) in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 916. v. Monaghan, 1 Bosw. 459. Rev'd in 23 IV Y. 539. Further decision in 10 Bosw. 231; which was rev'd in 28 IV. Y. 585. The statement in Id. that judgment was aff'd is an error. Decision in 23 Id. dis- ting'd (Finding by jury of specific questions of fact) in Jones v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co.', 61 Id. 79, 83. v. Moscow Presbyterian Society, 27 Barb, 52. See (Mortgage by religious cor- poration) Moore v. Rector, &c, of St. Thomas, 4 Abb. IV O. 51. v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 24 Hun, 360. See Boardman v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co. Applied (Right to dividends, &c.) in Brisbane v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 25 Hun, 438, 440. T . Tyler, 21 N. Y. 567. Disting'd (Suf- ficiency of answer setting up usury) in Dagal v. Simmons, 23 N. Y. 491, 494. Ma lining. Bowman & Co. v. Keenan, 9 Hun, 686. Affd in 73 N. Y. 45. Manny v. Harris, 2 Johns. 24; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 386; 3 IV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 286, with brief note. Followed, and Rice v. King, 7 Johns. 20 ; Johnson v. Smith, 8 Id. 383, disting'd (Conclusiveness of record of former trial) in Smith v. Sherwood. 4 Conn. 270 ; s. c. 19 Am. Deo. 143. Cited with Jackson v. Wood, 3 Wend. 27, in 2 Whart. Com. on En. § 785. Cited with approval in Standish v. Parker, 2 Pick (Mass.) 20 ; s. c., 13 Am. Dec. 393, with note. Manrow v. Durham, 3 Hill, 584; s. c, 15 IV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 692, with brief note. Aff'd in 2 N. Y. 533. See Hough v. Gray; Packer v. Willson. Decision in 3 Hill, commented on and disapproved (Lia- bility on guaranty of note) in Brewster v. Silence, 8 If. Y. 207, 214. Referred to with Luqueer v. Prosser, 4 Id. 420, as over- ruled,— in Draper v. Snow, 20 IV. Y. 331, 337. Commented on in Bigel. on B. & IV. 2 cd. 139. Collated with other cases in Red/. <£ B. Lead. Cos. on B. of Exch. 111. Manton v. Cabot, 4 Hun, 73. Reported in 6 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 203. v. Pool, 67 Barb. 330; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 638. Said in 5 Id. VI. to have been affd Oct. 5, 1875. Manuel V. People, 48 Barb. 548. Disting'd (New trial in criminal cases) in Buel v. People, 78 IV. Y. 492, 502. Manufacturers' & Builders' Bank v. Kier- stetl, 6 Daly, 160. Applied (Appeal from General Term of marine court) in Merceron v. Fowler, 8 Id. 536. Compare Code Civ. Pro. §319!. Manufacturers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Boyd. See Same v. St. John. v. Cowden, 3 Hill, 461. See {Functus m MANUFACTURERS' &c. BANK— MARINE RANK. officio) Bigler ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb.. If. 0. 51 and 52, n. Disting'd and limited (Venue of affidavit) in People ex rel. Mosher v. Stowell, 9 Id. 456, 461. y. St. John, 5 Mill, 497. Re-aff'd (For- eign warrant of attorney will not uphold judgment here) in Manufacturers' & Mechan- ics' Bank v. Boyd, 3 Den. 257. Manufacturers' & Traders' Bank t. Hazard, 30 M. Y. 226. Cited as not having been disputed or questioned in this State (Not necessary to equitable estoppel that party should design to mislead) in Continental Nat. B'k v. Nat. B'k of Commonwealth, 50 Id. 582. Explained in Vietor v. Internat. Nav. Co., 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 143. Dis- ting'd with Petrie v. Feeter, 21 Wend. 172, in Hefner v. Vandolah 57 111. 520; s. c, 11 Am. R. 39, 44. Manufacturers' & Tra. B'k of Buffalo v. Farmers' & Mech. Nat. B'k, 2 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & 0.) 395. Modified in 60 If. Y. .40. Manufacturers' Bank of Rochester v. Hitch- cock, 14 Bow. Pr. 406. Examined with other cases (Striking out defense as sham) in McCarty «. O'Dounell, 7 Robt. 634. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank of Troy v. Cox. 2 Hun, 572; s. c, 5 Supm. Gt. {'I. & C.) 126; s. c, 2 Run, 572. AfTd, it seems, in 59 if. Y. 659, but without opinion. Many v. Noyes, 5 Hill, 34. Disting'd (De- mand against vessel) in King v, Greenway, 71 If. Y. 413, 417. Mapes v. Snyder, 2 Sutfm. Gt. (T. & G.) 318. Aff'd in 59 if. Y. 450. v. Weeks, 4 Wend. 659. See Matson v. Buck. Collated with Root ■». King, 7 Cow. 613, and other eases (What facts, &c, may be shown in mitigation of damages in action of slander) in 11 Am. Dec. 130, n., as show- .ing a great preponderance of authority in support of the rule. Examined with Gil- man v. Lowell, 8 Wend. 573 ; Purple v. Horton, 13 Id. 2-5, in Thompson «. Bovvers, 1 Doug. {Mich.) 327. v West, 25 Sun, 118. Abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 574. Maples v, Mackey, 15 Run, 533. Further decision in 22 Id. 228 ; and that affd in 82 .N. Y. 146. With decision in 15 Run, see (Service of summons) Gode Giv. Pro. 1881, § 434, n. Marble v. Lewis, 53. Barb. 432. See Shaw v. White. Collated with other cases (Valu- ation of land for dower) in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 399. V. Whitney, 28 N. Y. 297. Disting'd (Effect of 1 R. S. 521, § 99, respecting laying out of highways) in Beckwith v. Whalen, 70 Id. 430. Marcellus v. Countryman, 65 Barb. 201. Compare (Estoppel created by former judg- ment) Moras v. Osborn, 64 Id. 543; Rey- nolds e. Garner, 66 Id. 310. . v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile, 4 Run, 466. Aff'd, it seems, in 64 JSf. Y. 645, but without opinion. Marchant v. Langworthy, 6 Rill, 646. Aff'd in 3 Den. 528, hut without opinion. Marcly v. Shults, 29 N. Y. 346. Sec Rus- sell ■». Hudson ltiver R. R. Co. Disting'd (Right to maintain height of dam) in Adams v. Couover, 22 Run, 426. Applied (Memo- randa as evidence) in Driggs v. Smith, 45 How. Pr. 451; Wilcox Silver Plate (Jo. v. Green, 9 Run, 348; Kennedy v. Crandell, 3 Lang. 5. Explained in Reed v. TJ. S. Ex- press Co., 48 M Y. 468. Disting'd iu Squires v. Abbott. 01 Id. 535. Marcus v. St. Louis Mtit. Life Ins. Co., 7 Run, 5. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 625. See Kitts v. Massasoit Ins. Co. Decision in 68 If. Y. collated with St. John v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 13 Id. 31 ; Earl v. Shaw, 1 Johns. Gas. 314 (Consent of insurers to assignment of policy) in 56 Am. Dec. 748, n. Marcy v. Dunlap, 5 Lans. 365. Followed (Effect of material alteration in mortgage) in Smith . Fellows, 41 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 36, 51. Maretzek v. Canldwell, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 407; s. c, 5 Robt. 660. Prior decision in 19 Abb. Pr. 35; s. c, 2 Robt. 715. Decision in 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. disting'd (Juror dis- qualified by prejudice against profession to which defendant belonged) in U. S. v. Noelke, 17 Blatehf. G. Gt. 554, 563. Deci- sion in 2 Robt. disting'd (Motion in libel to make answer more definite, &c). as inapplicable to motion for bill of particulars in action for slander, in Daniel v. Daniel, 2 Giv. Pro. R. {Browne) 238, with note. Mariield v. Douglass, 1 Sand/. 360. Kev'd in 3 AT Y. 62. v. Goodhue, 3 N. Y. 62. Cited as settled law (Duty of factor under advances, as to sales) in Hilton i>. Vanderbilt, 82 Id. 591, 593, 597. Margraf v. Muir, 57 If. Y. 155, Disting'd (Damages for breach of contract for sale of lands) in Timby ». Kinsey, 18 Run, 255. Discussed in Sedgw. Gas. on Dam. 86. Approved in Waterman on Sp. Per/. § 579, n. Marie v. Garrison, 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 157. Rev'd in 83 K Y. 14. See L'Amor- eux i>. Gould. Decision in 83 If. Y. fol- lowed (Implications from averments) in De Silver «. Holden, 50 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 236. Disting'd (Contracts, when not void as against public policy) iu Munson v. Syra- cuse, &c. li'y Co., 29 Run, 76. Marine Bank v. Clements, 3 Bosw. 600. Further decision in 6 Id. 166; and that aff'd in 31 N. Y. 33. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Negotiable paper made void by statute) in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. o/ Exch. 234. v. Fiske, 9 Run, 363. Aff'd in 71 If. Y. 353. Decision in Id. followed (Owner wheu not estopped from reclaiming property tortiously disposed of) in Hazard v. Fiske, 18 Hun, 277. v. Van Brunt, 61 Barb. 361. AfTd in 49 If. Y. 160. Further proceeding iu 11 MAKINE BANK— MAEKS. 475 Hun, 379. See Alden v. Clark. See (Exe- cution against property of decedent) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1380, a. As to the appli- cation of this provision, see Coda Civ. Pro. % 3347, subd. 10. See also Id. §§ 1825-6. v. Wright, 46 Barb. 45. Affd in 48 N. Y. 1. Decision in Id. followed (Con- signee without title to goods if he- refuses to accept consignor's draft) in Dodge ». John- son, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 237, 239. Explained (Rights of one discounting draft with bill of lading attached) in Security B'k of Minn. i>. Luttgren, 29 Minn. 305, citing Farmers' & Mech. Nat. B'k v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 568. Marine Nat. Bank y. National City Bank, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 470. Rev'd in 59 K Y. 67; s. c, 17 Am. B. 305. Decision in Id. referred to in 39 Am. Dec. 523, n. as well expressing reason of doctrine estab- lished in N. Y. (Effect of certifying check) which doctrine is said to prevail in the U. S. Sup'm. Ct.; see Espy v. Bank of Cincin- nati, 18 Wall. 604. Collated with Farmers' Bank v. Butchers' Bank, 16 N. Y. 125 ; Cooke v. State Nat. Bank of Boston, 52 Id. 96; First Nat. Bank of Jersey City v. Leach, Id. 350 ; Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Nat. Mechanics' Bank'g Assoc, of N. Y., 55 Id. 211, and other cases in Louisiana Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank of Louisiana, 28 La. Ann. 189; s. c, 26 Am. B. 92, 97, and note, the decision in the Louisiana case that the bank is estopped to deny the amount certified, being contrary to the N Y. rule. Followed in Parke ». Roser, 67 Ind. 500. Included in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 587. Applied (Liability in case of raised check) in Susquehanna Valley Nat. Bank v. Loomis, 85 JV. Y. 207, 213. Dis- ting'd with National Bank of Commerce ». National Mech. Bank'g Assoc, of N. Y., 55 Id. 211; White*. Continental Bank, 64 Id. 317, in Crawford v. West Side Bank, 49 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 68. Followed (Grounds for re-argument) in Auburn City Nat. Bk. «. Hunsiker, 72 N. Y. 252-259. Marine & Eire Ins. Bank v. Jauncey, 1 Barb. 486. See Hutter v. Ellwanger. See (Pleading corporate existence) as to private or foreign charter, Hahnemannian Life Ins. Co. «. Beebe, 48 III. 87; s. c, 1 With: Corp. Gas. 420. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 18. Marine Ins. Co. v. United Ins. Co. See Scott v. Libby. Mark v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 56 How. Pr. 108. See Hayes v. Forty-second St. &c. R.. R. Co. Collated with Weed v. Vil- lage of Balston Spa, 76 JST. Y. 329; Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co., 43 Id. 502; and many other cases (Contributory negligence) in 55 Am. Dec. 666, n. Markey v. Brewster, 10 Run, 16. Aff'd on opinion below, in 70 N. Y. 607. Markliani v. Jandon, 49 Barb. 462; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 286. Rev'd in 41 N. Y. 235. See Cortelyou e. Lansing; Kingsbury v. Kirwan. Decision in 41 JV. Y. criti- cised (Damages for conversion of securities) in Read ». Lambert, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 436, Overruled in Baker v. Drake, 53 Jf. Y. 211, but reaff'd on other points in Same v. Same, 66 Id. 522. See Gruman v. Smith, 81 Id. 27. Applied in Morgan «. Jaudon, 40 Sow. Pr. 383. Referred to in Devlin v. Pike, 5 Daly, 86, as overruled by Baker v. Drake. Disting'd in Hopper v. Smith, 63 How. Pr. 34, 37. Cited as a leading case in 2 Sedgw. on Heas. of Dama. 7 ed. 384, n. Applied (Liability for selling stock without notice) in Upton v. Bedlow, 4 Daly, 216, 218; Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N. Y. 483. Disting'd in Stewart v. Drake, 46 Id. 452 ; Bryan v. Baldwin, 52 Id. 236. Dissented from with Stenton u. Jerome, 54 Id. 480 ; Baker v. Drake, 66 Id. 518; Gruman n. Smith, 81, Id. 25, in Covell v. Lond, 135 Mass. 41; s.' c, 46 Am. B. 446. Disting'd in Corbett v. Underwood, 82 III. 324 ; s. c, 25 Am. B. 392. Cited as a leading case, in 7 Am. Dec. 296, n. Commented on in 1 Add. on Gontr. 60, n. Abb. ed. Followed (Rights of broker buying stocks in his own name for customers) in Northrup v. Shook, 10 Blatchf. C. Ct. 243, 251. Approved in Patterson v. Keys, 1 Cine. (Ohio) 94. Dis- ting'd (Damages for conversion) in Whelan v. Lynch, 65 Barb. 329, which was aft'd in 60 Of. Y. 472, which see. Applied in Lob- dell v. Stowell, 51 Id. 76. Examined with other cases (Effect of usage) in 7 South. L. J. N. S. 35. v. Stowe. See Garwood v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co. Markle v. Hatfield, 2 Johns. 455; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 446 ; 3 2f. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 448, with brief note. See Lightbody n. Ontario Bank.; Roget v. Menitt. Cited as authority (Validity of payment in worthless money) in Gilman v. Peck, 11 Vt. 516; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 702, with note. Approved in Pope t>. Nance, 1 Stew. (i\T. J.) 351 ; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 60, 65. Disting'd in Scruggs v. Gass, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 175; s. c, 29 Am. Dee. 114, with note. Followed in Boyd v. Mexico Southern Bank, 67 Mo. 537; s. c, 29 Am. B. 515, 517; Bun-ill v. Watertown Bank, &c, 51 Barb. 105, being followed (What is reasonable time in which to return money so paid, is a question for a jury.) Dicta herein criticised in Atvrood v. Corn- wall, 28 Mich. 336; s. c, 15 Am. B. 219. Followed (Warranty on transfer of note) in Thrall v. Newell, 19 Vt. 202 ; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 682, with note. Applied with. Hughes i>. Wheeler, 8 Cow. 77, in Goodrich v. Tracy 43 Vt. 3i4; s. c, 5 Am. B. 281. Marks v. King, 67 Barb. 225 ; mem. s. c, 1 Sun, 435; 3 Sup'm. Ct. (3 T. & C) 778 AfPd in 64 K Y. 628. Decision in Id. applied (Discretion of court as to retaining evidence not objected to) in Pontius v Peo- ple, 82 Id. 339, 347. v. Pell, 1 Johns. Ch. 594. Quoted and discussed (Time as bar to redemption of mortgage) in Ang. on Limit. § 459, 6 ed. 476 MARKS— MARSH. t. Reynolds, 20 How. Pr. 338. Rev'd in 12 Abb. Pr. 403. Marlett v. Marlett, 14 Hun, 313. Followed (Jurisdiction of action for construction of will) in Wager v. Wager, 21 Id. 93, 95. Mnrquaiid v. N. Y. Maiinf. Co., 17 Johns. 525. See Ketchams. Clark; Smith «. Mu- lock. Disting'd (Dissolution of partnership by transfer of one partner's interest) in Sis- tare v. Oushing, 4 Hun, 503, 505. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 1 95, n. I. Cited with Morss i). Gleason, 04 If. Y. 204, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 308, n. . v. Webb, 16 Johns. 89. See Anthoine v. Coit. Reconsidered and applied (Co- partner as witness against firm) in Pierce v. Kenny, 5 Hill, 82. With Osgood v. Man- hattan Co., 3 Cow. 612 ; People i>. Wiley, 3 Hill, 214, held, to be modified by later decisions (New trial for improperly receiv- ing evidence which might not have had con- trolling influence upon jury) in People v. Gonzalez, 35 If. Y. 49. Marquart v. LaFarge, 5 Duer, 559. Ex- plained (Damages for loss of profits) in Mitchell v. Cornell, 54 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 401, 405. Disting'd in Denison v. Ford, 10 Daly, 412. Marqnat v. Marqnat, 7 How. Pr. 417. Kev'd in 12 If. Y. 336. See Reubens v. Joel. Decision in 12 N. Y. explained with Astor «. L'Amoreux, 8 Id. 107 (Power of Gen- eral Term as to judgment) in Crittenden v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 3 Abb. Pr. 74. Disting'd in Cuff v. Dorland, 57 N. Y. 565. Applied in Meyer . Prince, 40 Barb. 218; Genet v. Howlaud, 45 Id. 569. Applied in Davis «. Grove, 2 Robt. 641; Caswell v. West, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 385. Com- mented on in N. Y. Ice Co. v. North West- ern Ins. Co., 31 Barb. 75. Disting'd in Lewis e. Mott, 36 N. Y. 398 ; Sinclair e. Fitch, 3 E. D. Smith, 690. Decision in 7 How. Pr. applied in Herrington v. Robert- son, 7 Hun, 368, 371. Marsclinltz v. McGreery, 21 Hun, 409. See Marshuetz v. McGreevy, 23 Id. 408. Marsden v. Cornell, 2 Hun, 449; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & O.) 27. Aff'd in 62 N. Y. 215. See Thurst v. West. Marsellis v. Thalliiiner, 2 Paige, 35 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 66. Cited with approval with Jenkins i>. Freyer, 4 Paige, 47 ; Bowman v. Tallman, 27 How. Pr. 212 ; Mason ». Jones, 2 Barb. 229 ; Hone v. Van Schaick, 3 Barb. Oh. 488 (Status of unborn child) in Gil- lespie v. Nabors, 59 Ala. 441; s. c, 31 Am. R. 20. Cited (Estate by curtesy, as determined by birth of child after death of mother) in 1 Washb. on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 179, n. 5. Criticised in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 281. Marsh, Matter of, 10 Hun, 49. Rev'd in 71 N. Y. 315. , 21 Hun, 582. Aff'd in 83 N. Y. 431. Marsh v. Benson, 11 Abb. Pr. 241; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 415. Rev'd in 34 If. Y. 358. Decision in 11 Abb. Pr. followed (Jurisdic- tion of court of'equity as affected by amount in controversv) in Hyatt v. Bates, 33 Barb-. 308, 315. But see Sarsfield e. Van Vaugh- ner, 15 Abb. Pr. 65 ; L. 1863, c. 392, § 2. v. City of Brooklyn, 2 Hun, 142 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ot. {T. & G) 413. Rev'd in 59 If. Y. 280. Sec Peyser v. Mayor, &c. of M. Y. Applied (Proceedings to remove cloud on title, when maintainable) in Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 402; Boyle v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 33 ; Washburn a. Burnham, 63 If. Y. 134; Guest v. City of Brooklyn, 69 Id. 514. Disting'd in N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. «. Trustees of Morrisa- nia, 7 Hun, 654 ; Mayor, &c. of If. Y. v. North Shore Staten Island Ferry Co., 9 Id. 620, 622. Followed in Briggs v. Johnson, 71 Me. 235. v. Bodge, 5 Lam. 541. Further deci- sion in 4 Hun, 278; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 568; and that rev'd in 66 If. Y. 533. Decision in 4 Hun followed with Marston «. Swett, 66 N. Y. 206 (Invalidity of patent as defense to action for royaltv) in Jones «. Burnham, 67 Me. 93 ; s. c, 24 Am. P. 10, 13 ; Saxton «. Dodge, 57 Barb. 84, being referred to as overruled by Marston v. Swett. v. Elsworth, 36 How. Pr. 532; s. c, more fully, 1 Sweeny, 52. Further decision as Marsh v. Ellsworth, in 2 Id. 589, and that affd in 50 If. Y. 309. See Perkins e. Mitchell. Decision in 50 If. Y. referred to in 2 Am. Dec. 431, n., as clearly stating the doctrine (Privileged expressions in judicial proceedings). Applied in Aylesworth v. St. John, 25 Hun, 156. — — v. Falker, 40 If. Y. 562. Followed (Liability for fraudulent representations) in Brown v. Ashbough, 40 How. Pr. 238 ; Van Vliet ». McLean, 23 Hun, 208; Meyer v. Amidon, 45 If. Y. 170 ; Wakeman v. Dal- ley, 51 Id. 31. 34. Disting'd in Westcott 1). Ainsworth, 9 Hun, 57; Dudleys. Scran- ton, 57 If. Y. 428. Examined with other cases in Livingston v. Keech, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 553; Morehouse v. Yeager, 41 Id. 146. Approved and followed in Lynch v. Mercantile Trust Co., U. S. Cir. Ct. E. D. Minn. 17 Pejjorter, 71; s. c, 18 Fed. Pep. 489. Cited as authority with Chester «. Comstock. 40 If. Y. 575; Meyer v. Amidon; 45 Id. 169; Oberlander v. Spiess, Id. 175, in Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 198. Reviewed with Addington v. Allen, 11 Wend. 374, and other cases in Einstein «. Marshall, 58 Ala. 153; s. c, 29 Am. P. 729. , Quoted and explained in 2 Add. on Torts, 405. n. 1, Wood's ed. v. Holbrook, 3 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 176. Compare (Attorney's fees in case of settle- ment by client) Bryon v. Durrie, 6 Abb. If. G. 135. T. Howe, 36 Barb. 649. Discussed MAESH-MAETLN. 477 (Privileged communication between attor- ney and client) in 1 Best on Ev. § 184, n. a, Wood's ed. — v. Lawrence, 4 Cow. 461. Collated with Sandford v. Roosa, 12 Johns. 163; Ilotchkiss «. McVickar, Id. 403 ; Wells v. Marshall, 4 Cow. 411 ; Champenois v. White, 1 Wend. 92 ; Lambert v. Pauld- ing, 18 Johns. 311, and other cases (Priority of execution liens) in Rogers v. Dickey, 1 Oilm. {III.) 636; s. c, 41 Am. Dee. 204, 207, with note. v. Lowry, 26 Barb. 197 ; s. c, 16 How. Pr. 41. See (Change of venue) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 986, n. v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 14 Barb. 364. Disapproved (Liability for injury to cattle straying on railroad track) in Corwin v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 13 iV. Y. 42. v. Oneida Central B'k, 34 Barb. 298. Collated with JEtna National B'k ». Fourth National B'k, 46 N. Y. 82, and many other cases, as indicating a settled rule of the law of banking (Eftect of general deposit) in 19 Am. Dec. 418, n. Compared (Application of payments) in 5 Am. L. Reg. £T, S. 263. v. Pike, 1 Sandf. Ch. 210. Aff'd in 10 Paige, 595. Subsequent decision respecting same mortgage in McLean v. Tovvle, 3 Sandf. Ch. 118. See Burr v. Beers. Decis- ion in 10 Paige applied (Liability created by assumption of mortgage) in Cornell v. Prescott, 2 Barb. 19. Explained in Steb- bins v. Hall, 29 Id. 530, 536 ; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 £T. Y. 230 ; Marshall v. Davies, 78 Id. 421. Reviewed with Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 Id. 239; Rubens v. Prindle, 44 Barb. 336 ; Mills v. Watson, 1 Sweeny, 374 ; Torrey v. Bank of Orleans, 9 Paige, 649 ; 7 Hill, 260, in Snyder . v. Summers, 1 Lea {Tenn.) 534; s. c, 27 Am. R. 778. Criticised and disting'd (Rights of sureties) in Slauson v. Watkins, 86 N. Y. 597, 602. Applied in Woodruff v. Erie R'y Co., 93 Id. .609, 626. v. Potter, 30 Barb. 506. Approved (Husband and wife, as witnesses) in Cham- berlain v. People. 23 iV. Y. 85, 88 ; Hooper ■v. Hooper, 43 Barb. 292. v. Rouse, 44 N. Y. 643. Explained (Delivery and acceptance required by statute of frauds) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 174, 2, n. 21, (Corbin's 4 Am. cd.) ; Id. § 179. Quoted in I'd. § 179 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Russell, 2 Lam. 340. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 288. Decision in Id. reviewed with other cases (What is illegal contract of part- nership) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 6, n. v. Titus, 3 Bun, 550; s. c, reported fully, Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 29. v. Town of Little Valley, 1 Hun, 554 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 116. Affd in 64 N. Y. 112. v. Wickain, 14 Johns. 167. Disting'd with Hurd v. West, 7 Cow. 752 (Distinction between sale and bailment) in Blood v. Pal- mer, 11 Me. 414; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 547, 550, with note. T. Wyckoff, 10 Bosw. 202. Disting'd (Eftect of inability of vendor of land to per- form contract) in Hinckley v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 21, 26. Marshall v. Davies, 16 Hun, 606. Rev'd in 78 N Y. 414; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 231. Decision in Id. followed (Liability created by assumption of mortgage) in Fleishhauer i>. Doellner, 9 Abb. K C. 372, 374. v. Davis, 1 Wend. 109; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 463, with note. See Hoffman v. Carow; Pangburn v. Patridge. Limited (Vendor, etc. of personal property, as wit- ness for vendee) in Fuller v. Townsend, 5 Den. 184. v. Guion, 4 Den. 581. Overruled in subsequent decision in 11 JV. Y. 461. See Whitney v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 4 Den. explained (Right to wharfage) in Whitney v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. JV. ft 329, 341. Decision in 11 N. Y. applied with Voorhees v. Burchard, 55 Id. 98 ; Hut- temeicr v. Albro, 18 Id. 48 ; Lansing v. Smith, 8 Cow. 146; 4 Wend. 9, 22, 24; Gould v. Hudson River R. Co.. 6 iV. Y. 522 (Incorporeal hereditaments, how de- rived) in Turner v. Peoples' Ferry Co., IT. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. 1ST. Y., 31 Fed. Rep. 90, a case of riparian rights. v. Hitchcock, 3 Red/. 461. Further decision as People v. Marshall in 7 Abb. N~. ft 380, 389. With decision in 3 Red/, see (Power of surrogate to punish for contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. y. Marshall, 2 Hun, 238. Followed on principle of stare decisis (Validity of mar- riage in evasion of divorce) in Van Voorhis v. Brinmall, 23 Hun, 260, 263, which was rev'd in 86 N. Y. 27. Questioned in Kerri- son v. Kerrison, 8 Abb. N. ft 444. Fol- lowed in Thorp v. Thorp, 60 How. Pr. 295. Approved as a well considered case in 8 Am. Dee. 134, n. Collated with other cases in 18 Am. ffi. 521, n. v. Meech, 51 N. Y. 140. See Rooney v. Second Ave. R. Co. Followed (Attorney's lien on judgment for costs) in Matter of Bailey, 31 Hun, 608. Disting'd in Murray r>. Jibson, 22 Id. 386, 388. Disapproved in Horton v. Champlin, 12 R. I. 550 ; s. C, 34 Am. R. 723. ' v. Moseley, 21 K Y. 280. Approved (Apportionment of rent) in Fay v. Ilolloran, 35 Barb. 295. Disting'd in Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. N. ft 317, 416. v. N. Y. Ceutral R. R. Co., 45 Barb. 502. Affd, it seems, in 48 N. Y. 660; but without opinion. See Place v. Union Ex- press Co. v. Peters, 12 How. Pr.,218. See Ward v. People. Disapproved (Right to ice) in Myer v. Whitakcr, 5 Abb. K ft 172, 177. Collated with Myer ». Whitakcr; Deals v. Stewart, 6 Bans. 408, and other cases in 57 Am. Dec. 692, n. v. Vnltee, 1 E. D. Smith, 294. Over- ruled, in subsequent decision in Marshall v. Guion, 11 2K 7. 461. 47S MAKSHUETZ— MAETIN. Marslmetz t. McGreevy, 23 Hun, 408. See Marshultz v. McGreery. Quoted and ex- plained (Sale by sample) in Ben], on Sales, § 977, n. 29 (Oorbin's 4 Am. ed.) Marston v. Haggerty. See Forrest v. For- rest. v. Swett, 4 Hun, 153 ; s. c, less fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & a) '534. Rev'd in 66 K Y. 206; s. a, 23 Am. B. 43. Further pro- ceeding in 82 N. Y. 526. See Marsh v. Dodge. Decision in 82 N. Y. followed (Licensee of parent, when estopped from asserting its invalidity) in Hyatt v. Ingalls, 49 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 375. Decisions in 66 N. Y. and 82 Id. cited with approval in White v. Lee, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Mass. 14 Fed. Bep. 789. Decision in 66 N. Y. ap- plied in Jones v. Burnham, 67 Me. 93, 98. Examined in 13 Alb. L. J. 410. v. Vultee. See Russell v. Winne. Martin v. Black, 9 Baige, 641. Applied (Receiver's liability for rent) in People v. Nat. Trust Co., 82 N. Y. 283, 288. Relied on with Coles v. Marquand, 2 Hill, 447'; Hastings v. Belknap, 1 Ben. 190 (Removal of goods from demised premises, when good as against landlord, afterward distraining for rent) in Hadden v. Knickerbocker, 70 111. 677; s. c, 22 Am. B. 80. v. Cope. See Wilbur v. Selden. v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 9 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 245, with note, wherein it is said to be a leading case (Effect of instruments defect- ively executed or acknowledged by married wpmeri). Applied in Carr ■». Williams, 10 Ohio, 305; s. c, 36 Am. Bee. 87, 89, with note. Reviewed, with other cases, in 19 Am. Bee. .230, n. Included in Ewell Lead Gas. on Inf., &e. 298. v. Fnrnsworth, 33 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 246 ;s. c, 41 How. Br. 59. Affd iu 49 N. Y. 555, without determining questions of law. v. Franklin, 4 Johns. 124; s. c, 3 H. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 766, with brief note. See Scofleld v. Day. Followed (Allowance of rate of exchange, as damages) in Ladd «. Arkell, 40 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 150, 155. v. Funk, 75 N.Y. 134; s. c, 31 Am. B. 446, with note. Followed (Trust as created by deposit in bank) in Mabie v. Bailey, 95 If. Y. 206; Willis v. Smyth, 91 Id. 297; Gerrish v. New Bedf. Inst, for Sav'gs, 128 Mass. 159; s. c, 35 Am. B. 365, 370. Ex- plained in Pierson v. Drexcll, 11 Abb. 31. G. 150. Disting'd in Boone i>. Citizens' Savgs. B'k of N. Y., 84 N. Y. 83, 86 ; Pope v. Burlington Savgs. Bank, 56 Vt. 284; s. c, 48 Am. B. 781. Applied (Trust when created) in Watts v. Shipman, 21 Hwn, 598, 606. Disting'd iu Young v. Young, 80 N. Y. 422, 440. Applied with Matter of Le Blanc, 14 nun, 8 ; Rogers' Locomotive Works v. Kelly, 19 Id. 399, and Kelly u. Roberts, 40 N. Y. 432 ; Kelly c. Babcock, 49 Id. 318, disting'd in Hurd v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 63 How. Pi: 314. v. Hawks, 15 Johns. 405. Sec Pinder •». Morris. Disting'd (Attorney's lien and remedy) in Murray v. Jibson, 22 Hun, 380, 388. Relied on in Hobson v. Watson, 34 Me. 20; s. c, 56 Am. Bee. 632. v. Hicks, 6 Hun, 238; s. c, more fully, 1 Abb. K C. 341. v. Hill, 12 Barb. 631. Applied (Law of place as determining title to personalty) in Edgerly v. Bush, 81 JST. Y. 199, 205; Nich- ols v. Mase, 25 Hun, 640. v. Kunzmuller, 10 Bosw. 16. Affd in 37 K Y. 396. See Bradley ». Angel ; Myers v. Davis. Decision in 37 N. Y. approved in dissentin6 opinion of Bockes, J. (When demand not due may br set-off against as- signee of insolvent) in Seymour ». Dunham, 24 Hun, 93, 98. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 403, 7;. 4, 4 ed. v. McCorinick, 4 Sandf. 366. Rev'd in 8 N. Y. 331. See Schwinger e. Hickock. Decision in 8 N. Y. disting'd (Relief against contract for sale for land, in case of mistake as to title) in Granger v. Olcott, 1 Lans. ' 169. v. Martin, 43 Barb. 172. Pronounced unsound (Power to sell as terminated on infant reaching majority) in Hetzell v. East- erly, 66 Barb. 443, 451. v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 1 Hill, 545. See Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Liability of municipal corporation for omis- sion of duty by officer) in dissenting opin- ion of Daly, F. J., in Stilwell e. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 19 Abb. Br. 390. Applied in Lorillard v. Town of Monroe, 12 Barb. 166, which was affd in 11 iV. Y. 396, which see; Hickok v. Trustees of Pittsburgh, 15 Barb. 439; Maximilian 0. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Sup'm. Ct. (2'. & C.)495; 62 K Y. 164; McKay 11. City of Buffalo, 9 Hun, 406 ; N. Y., &c. Saw-mill Co. v. City of Brooklyn. 71 N. Y. 587, which affd 8 Hun, 37, which see. Disting'd in Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 N. Y. 467. Followed in Prather v. City of Lexington, 13 B. Monr. {By.) 559; s. c, 56. Am. Dec. 585, with note collating cases. Compare (Effect of confirmation of report, in proceed- ings to acquire land for public use) Matter of Bhinebeck & Conn: R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 246. Applied in Matter of Comm'rs of Washington Park, 56 Id. 156. — v. Mayor, &c. or N. Y., 11 Abb. Pr. 295; s. c, 20 How. Br. 86. Affd in 12 Asb. Br. 243. — v. O'Conner, 43 Barb. 514. Questioned (Distinction between assignment and sub- lease) in Woodhull t>. Rosenthal, 01 N~.- Y. 382, 391. Explained in connection with People v. Robertson, 39 Barb. 9, in Constan- tino v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, 239, 250. See authority reviewed in 16 Am. L. Bev. 30. Discussed in 1 Washb. on Ileal Brop. 4 ed. 513. — v. Payne, 9 Johns. 387; s. c, 6. Am. Bee. 288. See Bartley v. Richtmyer. Ap- proved (Right of action for seduction as determined bv existence of relation of mas- MAETTN— MAEVIN. 479 ter and servant) in Nickleson v. Stryker, 10 Johns. 115. Followed in Mulvehall v. Mill- ward, 11 XT. Y. 343. Followed and ap- proved with Nickleson v. Stryker, 10 Johns. 115, in Boyd v. Byrd, 8 Blaclcf. (lnd.) 113; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 740, with note. Applied in Lavcry ». Crookc, 52 Wis. 618. Fol- lowed as according with the weight of authority, in Emery v. Gowcn, 4 (freenl. (Me.) 38; s. c, 16 Am. Dee. 233, with note. Followed in Fernsler v. Moyer, 3 Watts & 8. (Pa.) 416 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dee. 33. Included with notes in Bigel. (las. on ' Torts. 286. See 4 Am. Dee. 403, n. Followed with Nicklesbn v. Stryker, 10 Johns. 115; Clark v. Fitch, 2 Wend. 459; Bartley v. Richt- myer, 4 JY. Y. 38; Mulvehall ». Millward, 11 Id. 343, in Kennedy v. Shea, 110 Mass. 147; s. c, UAm. B. 584. v. Smith, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 20. Aff'd in 58 N. Y. 672. v. Still well, 13 Johns. 275 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 374. Collated with other cases (Charge of crime involving moral turpitude) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Oas. 5 ed. 99. v. Supervisors of Greene, 29 N. Y. 645. Examined with other cases (Right of action against towns or counties) in dissent- ing opinion in Brown v. Town of Canton, 4 Dans. 417. v. Van Scliaick, 4 Paige, 479. See Law «. Ford; "Williams v. Wilson. Quoted and discussed (Appointment of receiver of part- nership property) in 1 Colly er on Partn. § 375, Wood's Am. ed. Commented on in Id. % 385, n. 1. v. Wagener, 60 Barb. 435. Further decision in 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C), 509. v. Williams; 17 Johns. 330. See Mooers «. White. Explained (Running of statute of limitations as affected by acknowl- edgment by agents, executors, &c.) in Ang. on Limit. § 208, 6 ed. v. Windsor Hotel Co., 10 Bun, 304. Appeal dismissed in 70 N. Y. 101 ; s. c, 53 Row. Pr. 422. y. AVood, 7 Wend. 132. Disting'd (Writ of habeas corpus, when sustainable) in Matter of Lampert, 21 Hun, 154, 157. T. Wright, 13 Wend. 460; s. c, 28 Am. Dec 468. Approved (Effect of understand- ing as to compensation, to be made by will) in Shakespeare v. Markham, 10 Hun, 311, 326, which was aff'd in 72 N. Y. 400, 406, which see. Martiue v. International Life Assur. Soc. of London, 5 Lans. 535 ; s. c, more fully 62 2?«»*.'181. Rev'd in 53 N~. Y. 339 ; s. c, 13 Am. Ji. 529. See Griswold v. Wad- dington. See contrary to decision in 53 H. Y. (Payment of premium on life policy excused during war of rebellion) N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 IT. S. 24. Cited as authority (Agency of firm, as deter- mined by death of member of firm) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 109; where Stoi-y on Bailm. § 202, is, however, referred to as in- timating a contrary opinion. v. Lowenstein, 6 Hun, 225; s. c, 51 How. Pr. 353. Confirmed, and appeal dis- missed, in 68 N. Y. 456. With decision in Id. see (Notice to defendant in default) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1219, n. Martinhoff, Matter of, 4 liedf. 286. I am informed by counsel that the order was aff'd in Sup'm. Ct., and also in Ct. of App. Marvin v. Bennett, 8 Paige, 312. Aff'd in 26 Wend. 169; s. c, 14 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1047, with brief note. See Penny i). Martin. Decision in 26 Wend, disting'd and limited (Relief against mistake in con- veyance of lands, in respect to quantity) in Paine v. Upton, 21 Hun, 306, 311. Decis- ion in 8 Paige, collated with other cases in Pomeroy on Sp. Per/. § 250, n. - — v. Brewster Iron Mining' Co., 55 N~. Y. 538; s. c, 14 Am. £. 322. Re-argu- ment denied in 56 N. Y. 671. Decision in 55 Id. cited as maintaining the principle ap- plied (Duty of mine owner to surface- owner) in Yandes v. Wright, 66 hid. 310-; s. c, 32 Am. R. 109, 114. See 12 Alb. L. J. 182. Commented on in Wood on JYuis. 2 ed. § 204. v. Buchanan, 62 Barb. 468. Cited (Prin- cipal as bound for fraudulent outlays by agent) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 318. v. Ell wood, 11 Paige, 365. Commen- ted on (Liability of attorney as to moneys collected for his client) in Suris v. Brown, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 5, 8. Approved and followed (Bailee estopped to dvny bailor's title) in Nudd v. Montanye, 38 Ms. 511; s. c, 20 Am. JR. 25, 27. v. Inglis. See McMahon v. Allen. v. Lewis, 61 Barb 49. Discussed (Al- lowance to occupant for taxes and assess- ments) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. cf Tit. to Land, § 688. v. Marvin, 52 How. Pr. 97; s. c, 1 Abb. N. C. 372. Former proceeding in 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 102, and other proceedings in 75 R. Y. 240; 78 Id. 541 ; Id. 610. Decision in 11 Abb. Pr. 2V S. commented on (New trial in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land. § 595. v. Prentice, 49 How. Pr. 385. Subse- quent decision, opinion on which is not reported, was aff'd in 79 N. Y. 622. See Vol. 527, Cas. in Ct. of App., Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. v. Smith, 50 Barb. 600. Aff'd in 46 N. Y. 571. Decision in 56 Barb, disting'd (Limitation of absolute gift to life estate) in Colt v. Heard, 10 Hun, 189, 193. Decis- ion in 46, N. Y. followed (Effect of married woman's deed to release dower) in AVilber v. Wilbcr, 52 Wis. 301. v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 494. Aff'd in 85 JST. Y. 298 ; s. c, 39 Am. B. 657. See Walsh v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. Decision in 85 N. Y. disting'd (What constitutes payment of premium) in Matter of Booth, 11 Abb. N. C. 14.3 ; s. c, as Peo- ple v. Globe Mutual Life Ins Co., 65 How. Pr. 239. Disting'd (Authority of general 480 MARYIN— MASSON. agent of insurance company to waive condi- tion) in Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 JT. Y 327. v. Wilber, 52 JK F. 270. Rev'g 3 Alb. L. J. 211. Decision in 52 N. Y. followed (Effect of representations of assumed agent) in Scott v. Stevenson, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 705. Marvine v. Hyiners. 12 K Y. 223. Followed (Usury in discount by banks) in Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bk. v. Walbridge, 19 N. Y. 143; International Bk. v. Bradley, Id. 254. Ap- plied to discount by individual, in Mosher *. Randall, 52 Id. 649. Rule said to obtain in most of the States, in 1 Alb. L. J. 433. Marx, Matter of, 5 Abb. N. C. 224. Cited with Freeman v. Coit, 27 Hun, 447 as opposed to the general rule (Liability of father for support of minor children) in 57 Am. Dec. 226, n. ; Harring v. Coles, 2 Bradf. 349, being also cited as furnishing an exception to the rule. See (Costs in surrogates' courts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2562. n. v. People, 63 Barb. 618. Applied (Inad- missibility of irrelevant statement of witness to contradict his testimony) in Stape «. People, 21 Hun, 399. Maryott v. Thayer, 39 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 417. Applied to equitable defense (What cases are referable) in Blackstone Bank of Boston v. Bogart, 41 Id. 292, 294. Col- lated with other cases in 1 .,465. N. C. 109, n. Mason, Matter of, 1 Barb. 436. See (Ap- pointment of committee of lunatic, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2322, n. Mason v. Alston, 9 H. Y 58. Cited (Effect of admitting in pleading due execution of will) in 2 Whart. Cum. on Ev. § 837. v. Anthony, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 207; s. c, 35 How. Pr 477 ; 3 Reyes, 609. Fol- lowed (Estoppel to set up usury) in Smyth v. Lombardo, 15 Hun, 417. Cited as settled law, in Payne v. Burnham, 62 N. Y. 72. Explained in Shapley v. Abbott, 42 Id. 450. v. Brown, 6 How. Pr. 481. Disting'd (Convenience of witnesses as ground for opposition to motion for change of venue) in Gifford v. Town of Gravesend, 8 Abb. K C. 246, 248. Considered sui generis in Park v. Carnley, 7 How. Pr. 355. v. Decker, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 115. Affd in 72 N. Y. 595. Decision in Id. quoted (Note or memorandum in writing on sale of personal property) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 254, n. 49 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed). Quoted and explained (Sale of specific chat- tels unconditionally) in Id. § 339, v. Denison, 15 Wend. 64. Affg 11 Id. 612. Decision in 15 Id. explained at length (Effect of judgment against infant) in Phillips v. Dusenberry, 8 Hun, 348. Compare Castledine v. Mundy, 1 Nev. & M. 635; 4 B. & Adolph. 90 ; Burgess v. Merrill, 4 Taunt. 468 ; Gibbs v. Same, 3 Id. 307. Explained and cases cited to the contrary in Ewell Lend. Cas. on Inf. &c. 235, n. t. Franklin, 3 Johns. 202. See Wel- don v. Buck. Compared (Acceptance of bill of exchange) in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed 250. v. Jones, 2 Barb. 229. Aff'g Mason v. MasOn, 2 Sandf. Ch. 432, and, as appears from 4 Id. 623, n. itself affd in Ct. of App. by a divided court, as to which, see decision in 3 N. Y. 375. Another proceeding as Mason v. Mason in 4 Id. 623, which was aff'd as Mason ■». Jones, in 13 Barb. 461. Still further proceeding in 2 Bradf. 325. See Marsellis v. Thalhimer. See collection of cases, briefs, &c. at State Libr. in Albany. Decision in 2 Bradf. explained (Who may avail himself of revocation of probate) in Willard on Executors, 233. v. Libbey, 51 How. Pr. 436; s. c, 1 Abb. W. C. 354. Further proceeding in 2 Id. 137 ; and as Mason v. Libby in 54 How. Pr. 104; and that affd as Mason v. Libbey, in 19 Hun, 119. v. lord, 40 JST. Y. 476. See Bush v. Lathrop; Dix v.- Van Wyck. Applied (Right to avoid mortgage for usury) in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 16 Abb. Pr. K S. 328. Followed in Carow v. Kelly, 59 Barb. 239. Applied (Remedy for omis- sion to find material fact that is supported by evidence) in People v. Albany & Susque- hanna R. R. Co., 57 Id. 210. Disting'd (Finding of fact without evidence, how to be reviewed) in Carpenter v. Beare, 4 Hun, 510, a case of inadequate damages. v. Mason, 2 Sandf. Ch. 432. See Mason v. Jones. v. , 1 Edw. 279. Examined with Barrere v. Barrere, 4 Johns. Ch. 187 (Divorce on ground of cruelty) in Johnson v'. John- son, 4 Wise. 141. v. Moore, 2 How. Pr. 70. Applied (Affidavit of merits) in State B'k of Syra- cuse v. Gill, 23 Hun, 406. v. Partridge, 4 Hun, 621. Affd in 66 y. Y. 633. V. People, 26 JT. Y. 200. Applied (De- fect in indictment, when cured by statute of jeofails) in Case ®. People, 6 Abb. N. C. 151, 157. Applied (What is a dwelling) in Levy v. People, 80 N. Y. 327, 334. v. White, 11 Barb. 173. Questioned and limited (Reformation of sheriffs deed) in Bartlett v. Judd, 31 K Y. 200. v. Whitely, 4 Duer, Gil; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. 85. Applied (Extent of right to amend pleading) in Robertson ■». Bennett, 1 Abb. K C. 476. Mason & H. Organ Co. t. Bancroft, 1 Abb. i\T. C. 415. Followed (Discharge of one partner) in Hill v. Trainer, 49 Wis. 537, 546. Massachusetts Mnt. Life Ins. Co. v. Carpen- ter, 2 Sweeny, 734. Affd in 49 iV. Y. 0G8, but without opinion. Masson v. Boret, 1 Den. 69; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 651, with note, wherein are collected citations of the case. See Roth v. Palmer. MASSOTH— MASTERTON". 481 Applied (Duty of one seeking to rescind contract) in King v. Fitch, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 518; Moyer v. Shoemaker, 5 Barb. 323; Bliss v. Cottle, 32 Id. 324; Royce v. Watrous, 7 Daly, 91; Rich «. Niagara Sav'gs B'k, 3 Hun, 484 ; Ladd e. Moore, 3 tfarei/. 592; Fisher e. Conant, 3 .E .D. Smith, 199, 203. Explained in Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Barb. 598. Examined with other cases in Tallman v. Turck, 26 M 171. Stevens v. Hyde, 32 Id. 175, 177. Cited at length and approved, in Hammond v. Pen- hock, 61 N. Y. 153. Cited as authority with Mattiwan Co. v. Bentley, 13 Barb. 641 ; Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Id. 594, in Negley v. Lindsay, 67 Pa. St. 217; s. c, 5 Am. R. 427, 431. Disting'd with Fisher B. Fredenhall, 21 Barb. 82, in Hoopes v. Strasburger, 37 Md. 3'JO ; s. c, 11 Am. B. 538. Cited in 2 Pars, on Contr. 680, n. a ; Id. 781. Massotli r. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 6 Bun, 314. Aflfd in 64 N. Y. 524. See McGrath v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Both decisions applied (Contributory negli- gence, as question for court of jury) in Hawley v. Northern Cent. R'y Co., 17 Hun, 117; O'Mara v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 18 Id. 192, 195. Decision in 64 K Y. applied (Negligence in one crossing railroad track) in Lowrey v. Brooklyn City, &c. R R. Co., 4 Abb. iV. C. 39. Examined with other cases (Effect of contributory negligence of third person) in dissenting opinion of Bockes, J., in Perry v. Lansing, 17 Hun, 42. Applied (Municipal ordinance as bear- ing on question of negligence) in City of Rochester ». Montgomery, 72 N. Y. 69. Examined with other cases in Knupfle v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 Id. 488, 491. Masten v. Deyo, 2 Wend. 424. Followed (Probable cause as question for jury) in Heyne v. Blair, 62 N. Y. 19, 22. Approved in Besson v. Southard, 10 Id. 236. v. Olcott, 60 How. Pr. 105. Rev'd in 24 Hun, 587. v. Webb, 19 Hun, 172. Further decis- ion in 60 How. Pr. 302; and that rev'd in 24 Hun, 90. Masters v. Madison County Hut: Ins. Co., 11 Barb. 624. See Conover v. Mutual Ins. Co. of Albany ; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co. Followed (Effect of mortgage of insured premises as change of title) in Commercial Ins. Co. v. Spankneble, 52 III. 53 ; s. c, 4 Am. B. 582, 588. Cited as authority with Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 36 K Y. 550 ; Ames v. N. Y. Union Ins. Co., 14 Id. 253 ; Plumb v. Cattaraugus Ins. Co., 18 Id. 392 (Extent of authority of insurance agent) in Miner«. Phoenix Ins. Co., 27 Wis. 693; s. c, 9 Am. B. 479, 484. Master Stevedores' Association v. Walsh, 2 Daly, 1. Compare (Conspiracies of work- men to control wages, &c.) 1 L. 1870, c. 19, amending provision of B. S. here referred to. Referred to in 28 Am. Dec. 511, n., as a very elaborately considered case, and dis- I.-31 ting'd from State ». Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. (3 Vr.) 151. Masterson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 84 K Y. 247. Followed (Imputing negli- gence of driver of conveyance) in Callaghan v. Rome, W. & 0. R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Big. 395. v. Sliort, 3 Abb. Pr. M S. 154; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 481 ; 7 Bobt. 241. Subsequent decision in 35 How. Pr. 299; s. c, 7 Bobt. 299. Both decisions disregarded as incon- sistent (Nuisance as created by municipa. ordinance) in Trenor «. Jackson, 15 Abb. Pr. JSf. S. 115, 128. Masterton v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 7 Hill, 61 ; s. a, 42 Am. Bee. 38, with note, wherein it is shown to have been fre- quently approved and applied in N. Y. and elsewhere. See Clark v. Marsiglia ; Griffin «. Colver; Staats v. Ex'rs of Ten Eyck. Applied (Recovery for speculative profits) in Horner v. Wood, 16 Barb. 389; Wibert v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 19 Id. 40, 48 (and see Noyes v. Burton, 29 Id. 631); Lacour v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Buer, 420. Dis- ting'd in Allamon v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 43 Barb. 39. Explained in Kent v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 22 Id. 278, 294. Ex- amined with other cases in Griffin v. Colver, Id. 591, which was afTd in 16 N. Y. 494, which see. Explained and applied in Davis v. Talcott, 14 Barb. 624. Commented on in Wolcott v. Mount, 36 jV. J. (7 Vroom), 262 ; s. c, 13 Am. B. 438, 445. Explained in U. S. v. Bchan, 110 V. S. 338, 344. Approved in Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Rail Co. v. Hinckley, U. S. Cir. Ct. K D. III. 17 Fed. Bep. 284, 2S8. Referred to as the leading case on this subject in this country,— in U. S. v. Speed, 8 Wall 77. Discussed and disting'd in Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran, V. S. Cir. Ct. W. B. Pa. 24 Alb. L. J. 389. Quoted and explained in 3 Pars, on Cunt. 184, n. y. Included in Sedgw. Gas. on Bama. 247. Applied (Cause of action for breach of contract, when complete) in Taylor v. Bradley, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 365. Explained and applied in Shaffer v. Lee, 8 Barb. 417. Examined in Atwood v. Norton, 27 Id. 648. Ap- proved and followed in Dugan v. Anderson 36 Md. 567; s. c, 11 Am. B. 509, 513. Approved and followed (Sub-contract not to be considered in estimating damages for breach of principal) in Story v. N. Y. & Harlem It. R. Co., 6 K Y. 90. Approved and followed with Story v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., in Dunn v. Johnson, 33 Ind. 54; s. c, 5 Am. R. 177, 180. v. Village of Mount Vernon, 58 N. Y. 391. See Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Disting'd (Loss of profits resulting from personal injury) in Ehrgott v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 90 iv". Y. 264. Approved as a sound exposition of the law in Bierbach v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 54 Wis. 208; s. c, 41 Am. R. 19. Applied in Clifford v. Dam, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 391. Disting'd 482 MATHEE— MATTHEWS. (Liability of municipal corporation for in- jury caused by defect in street) in McDer- mett v. City of Kingston, 6 Abb. JV. G. 246, 248, which was rev'd in 19 Hun, 198, which see. Collated with other cases in 2 Thomp. on Negl. 767, n. Mather v. Bush, 16 Johns. 233 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 313, with note. See Roosevelt v. Ce- bra. Followed with Hicks v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch. 297 (Effect of discharge of con- tract by law of country where it was made and to be performed) in May v. Breed,, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 15; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 700, 710, with note; Holmes «. Remsen, 4 Johns. Ch. 400; 20 Johns. 229, and other cases being disting'd (p. 713), and 2 Kent. Com. 405, also referred to as contrary to opinion in Holmes v. Remsen, 4 Johns'. Ch. 460. Disting'd (Presumption that contract made made in reference to law in force at time) in Smith v. Mead, 3 Conn. 253 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dee. 183, as inapplicable to an unconstitu- tional law. Discussed in 1 Kent Com. 421. Mathews v. Aikin, 1 JV Y. 595. Applied (Right of surety to benefit of creditors rem- edies) in Goodyear v. Watson, 14 Barb. 485. Explained (Right of surety to com- pel creditor to proceed against principal debtor) in First Nat. B'k v. Wood, 71 JV. Y. 411. v. Daly, 7 Abb. Pr. JV. 8. 379 ; s. c, 37 How. Pr. 382 ; 3 Daly, 214, n. Followed in Barton v. Herman, 8 Abb. Pr. JV S. 399, as having been aff'd at General Term. v. Duryee; 45 Barb. 69; s. c, 17 Abb. Pr. 256. Aff'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 220. Decision in 45 Barb, approved (Dower in surplus) in Taylor v. Bent ley, 3 Redf. 34. T. Harsell, 1 E. D. Smith, 393. Ex- plained (Right of finder of lost property) in Hamaker v. Blanchard, 90 Penn. St. 377; s. c, 35 Am. 11. 664. Collated with other cases, in 30 Am. B. 180, n. v. Howard Ins. Co., 13 Barb. 234. Aft'gll JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 171, but rev'd, in 11 N. Y. 9. See Hynds v. Schenectady Coiinty Mut. Ins. Co. Decision in 13 Barb. collated with other cases (Liability 'of insurer for injuries caused by insured vessel to another) in 54 Am. Dec. 7S6, n. Decis- ion in 11 JV Y. cited with other cases, 13 Am. L. Reg. K S. 17. v. Poultuey. See Seymour v. Wilson. Matscll v. Flanagan, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 459. See Messerole v. Tynberg. Cited as author- ity with Amoskeag Manuf'g Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf. 599; Lea «. Wolf, 15 Abb. Pr. JV S. 1; Gillott v. Esterbrook, 47 Barb. 455; Howard v. Henriques, 3 Sandf. 725 (Protec- tion of trademarks) in Robertson ». Berry, 50 Md. 591 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 328 (a case of a name of a publication), with note summar- izing cases taken from Solicitor's Journal. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257 bj. , n. I. Matson v. Cucli, 5 Cow. 499. Followed with Root v. King, 7 Id. 613; Cole v. Perry, 8 Id. 214; Mapcs v. Weeks, 4 Wend. 659; Inman v. Foster, 3 Id. 602 (Evidence of general reports in slander) in Pease v. Ship- pen, 80 Penn. St. 513; s. c, 21 Am. R. 110. v. Farm Building Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 415. Rev'd in 73 JV. Y. 310; s. c, 29 Am. R. 149. See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. Matteawan Co. v. Beutley, 13 Barb. 641. See Masson v. Bovct. Applied (Duty of one seeking rescission of contract) in Gould v. Cayuga, &c. Nat. Bk., 21 Sun. 293, 302. Disting'd in Newbery v. Garland, 31 Barb. 121, 128. Matter of . See name of party in its alphabetical place in this table. Matteson, Matter of. Reported under Thompson v. Taylor, 72 JV Y. 32. Aff'g ' 11 Dun, 274. Matteson v. Monlton, 11 Hun, 268. Aff'd in 79 JV. Y. 627. v. N. T. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 76 JV. Y. 381. See Matti son v. Same. v. , 35 JV. Y. 487. Compare deci- sion in second action by both husband and wife in 62 Barb. 364. Decision in Id. seems doubted (Husband and wife as wit- nesses for and against each other) in Finn v. Finn, 12 Hun, 339. See to the contrary (Damages for mental suffering) Covington St. Ry. Co. u. Packer, 9 Bush. (Ky.) 455 ; ■ s. c, 15 Am. R. 725. See also Abb. Tr. Ed. 599. Decision in 35 JV. Y. collated with Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 Id. 597; Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 Id. 416; Werely v. Persons, 28 Id. 344, and other cases (Admissibility of complaints, &c. of injured party) in 33 Am. R. 828, n. Matthews v. Beach, 5 Sandf. 256. Rev'd in 8 JV. Y. 173. See Newman v. Otto. v. Chicopee M'fg Co., 3 Robt. 711. Explained (Effect of release of joint wrong- doer) in Mitchell v. Allen, 25 Hun, 543. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1942 n. v. Coe, 56 Barb. 430. Rev'd in 49 JV Y. 57. Further decision in 70 Id. 239 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 583. Decision in 49 JV. Y. commented on (Damages for conversion) in Price v Keyes, 1 Hun, 192. Compare Baker v. Drake, 53 JV. Y. 213, 224; Whe- lan ■». Lynch, 60 Id. 472. Disting'd and limited -in Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 Id. 77. Cited with approval with Suydam v Jen- kins, 3 Sandf. 614, in Boylan ». Iluguct, 8 JVot. 345. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 20 Hun, 427. Explained (Private nuisances affecting realty) in Monk's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. cd 4.55, 495. v. Duryee, 45 Barb. G9; s. c, 17 Abb. Pr. 256. Aft'd in 4' Key e.i, 525. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Exceptions to referee's report as to surplus moneys on foreclosure) in Colby on Forecl. 33. Collated with other cases (Inchoate dower right) in Id. 54. v. Matthews, 1 Edw. 5C5. Applied (Decedent's debts not a lien on his real estate) in Fonda v. Chapman 23 Hun, 119, 121. Referred to in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. MATTHEWS-MAXWELL. 483 '2 ed. § 393, as overruled by later K. Y. cases (Inchoate right of dower not barred by sale of laud in partition suit). v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 132. Followed (Liability of N. Y. city for acts and omissions of public administrator) in Glovers. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Hun, 232. v. Meyberg, 4 Hun, 78. Aff'd in 03 N. Y. 656. Decision in Id. followed .(Ques- tions raised on exception to denial of motion for new trial on minutes) in Fay v. Lynch, m Y. Daily Reg. Aug. 21, 1883. v. JSheelian, 69 N. Y. 585. Said in 50 Am. Dee. 197, m., not to be necessarily in conflict with Henly v. Hotaling, 41 Cal. 22, and similar cases (Oonstruiug contract to be mortgage rather than conditional sale). v. Stone, 1 Hill, 565. Rev'd in 7 Id. 428. T . Wood, 10 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 328. Sec "Van Allen v. American Nat. Bank. See (Costs in case of refusal of new trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3239, n. Mattliewson v. Johnson. See Bool v. Mix. v. Weller, 3 Den. 52. Overruled (Ex- empt property, when to be taken on execu- tion) in Cole v. Stevens, 9 Barb 676. Compare Danks «. Quackenbush, 1 N. Y. 129, 137; Morse v. Gould, 11 Id. 281. Mattice v. Allen, 33 Barb. 543. Rev'd in 3 Abb Ct. App. Dee. 248; s. c, 3 Keyes, 492. Decision in Id. quoted (Earnest in case of sale of goods over fifty dollars) in Ben'}, on Sales, § 192, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Gifford, 16 Abb Pr. 246. Compare (Injunction where right depends on nature of action)~<7o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Daly, 544, 546, which was rev'd in 79 If. Y. 511, which see. Applied (Recovery of 1 money paid by mistake) in U. S. v. Nat. Park Bk. U. S. Dist. Gt. S. D. N. Y. 6 Fed. Rep. 854. Decision in 2 Hun applied in Dietrich v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Id. 422. v. Mode, 14 Hun, 155. Followed (De- fenso to action on check) in Prazicr v. Trow's Printing, &c. Co., 24 Id. 281, 284. T. Moller, 1 Hilt. 491. See to the con- trary (Oral evidence to vary lease) Mann v. Munn, L. J. 43 C. P. 241. But see Abb Tr. Ev. 524. t. People, 80 JST. Y. 364. Applied (Evidence of similar transactions competent to show intent) in Shipply v. People, 86 Id. 375, 380. Maynard v. Downer, 13 Wend. 575. Judg- ment herein said in Camp v. Bennett, 16 Wend. 51, to have been recalled, and judg- ment of reversal entered. t. Thompson, 8 Wend. 393. See (Transcript by justice after expiration of term) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3023, n. Mayne v. Griswold, 3 Sandf. 463 ; s. c, 9 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 25. Rule herein thought in Foot v. Farrington, 41 JX. Y. 164, to have been changed by the Code (Time within which to seek relief on ground of fraud). Mayor, &c. of Albany v. Cnnliff, 2 Barb. 190. Rev'd in 2 If. Y. 165. See Blunt v. Aiken. Decision in 2 If. Y. dis- ting'd (Liability of corporation for negli- gence in performance of public work) in Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburgh, 15 Barb. 442; Sewell v. City of Cohoes, 75 If. Y. 50. Examined with other cases (Liability for injury resulting from neglect of duty) in Cook v. Pres't, &c. of N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 1 Hilt. 444. Applied in Losee v. Clute, 51 If. Y. 496. Applied with Wil- link v. Vanderveer, 1 Barb. 599, in Ham- mond v. Hussey, 51 If. H. 40; s. c, 12 Am. E. 41. Applied (Liability for continu- ance of nuisance) in Walsh v. Mead, 8 Bun, 391. Explained in Hansen. Cowing, 1 Lans. 288, 293. Severely criticised with Hanse v. Cowing, 1 Lans. 288 ; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis, 63 Barb. Ill, in 14 Am. Dec. 337, n. Explained (Liability of builder of structure for injury caused by defect therein) in Devlin v. Smith, 89 If. Y. 477. Applied (Powers of common council) in Hunt v. City of Utica, 23 Barb. 395. Applied (Right of judge to act or seek redress in court of which he is a mem- ber) in People v. Edmonds, 1 5 Barb. 531. v. Trowbridge, 5 Hill, 71. Affd in 7 Id. 429. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn t. Meserolc, 26 Wend. 132; s. c, 14 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1036, with analytic list of cases citing this one. Applied (Equitable relief against illegal assessment, &c.) in Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 1 Abb. Pr. 30; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Supervisors of N. Y., Id. 253; Howell v. City of Buffalo, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 415; Bouton v. City of Brooklvn, 15 Barb. 386, 397 ; Woodruff v. Fisher, 17 Id. 235; Blake v. City of Brooklyn, 26 Id. 301, 304; Douglas v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Duer, 115; Mace v. Trustees of Newburgh, 15 How. Pr. 102; Heywood v. City of Buf- falo, 14 If. Y. 538 ; Guest v. City of Brook- lyn, 69 Id. 512. Disting'd in Johnson v. Stevens, 13 How. Pr. 133: Astor ®. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 580. MAYOE, &c. OF HUDSON— MAYOll, &o. OF K Y. 485 Applied (Proceedings of subordinate tribu- nals, when cot reviewable by court of equity) in Hyatt v. Bates, 35 Barb. 317, ■which was aff'd in 40 N~. Y. 166, which see. Disting'd (Restraining acts of munic- ipal corporations) in Matthews v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 14 Abb. l'r. 212. Explained in Baldwin v. City of Buftalo, 29 Barb. 399. Mayor, &c. of Hudson v. Thorne, 7 Paige, 261. See City of Troy v. Winters. Dis- ting'd (Right of city to establish fire limits) in City of Troy v. Winters, 2 Bun, 63, 65. Applied in Rye v. Peterson, 45 Tex. 312 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 608, 611. Cited with approval with Schuster v. Metropolitan Board of Health, 49 Barb. 450 (AidiDg by injunction, enforcement of municipal ordinances) in Waupun v. Moore, 34 Wis. 450; s. c, 17 Am. R. 446. Mayor, &c. of N. T., Matter of, 49 N. Y. 160. See Outwater v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Fol- lowed (Power of court to set aside report of commissioner of estimate and assessment) in Garrison e. City of N. Y., 21 Wall. 196, 202. Disting'd in Matter of Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 85 N~. Y. 489, 494. , 11 Johns. 77. Applied with Buffalo City Cemetery *. City of Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 506; Chegaray v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Id. 220 (Statutes, when not so construed as to exempt from taxation) in People ex rel. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 91 Id. 574. Deemed overruled (Assessment of church property for local improvements) in People v. Mayor of Syracuse, 2 Bun, 433. Citing Matter of Furman Street, 17 Wend. 649 ; Matter of William & Anthony Streets, 19 Id. 690; Troy & Boston R. R. Co. v. Lee, 13 Barb. 169. Followed (Assessment, when not regarded as tax) in Roosevelt Hospital v. Alayor, &c. of N. Y, 84 N. Y. 108, 112. Relied on in Broadway Baptist Church v. McAtee, 8 Bush. {Ky.) 508; s. c, 8 Am. R. 480, 487. Cited with approval with People ex rel. Grifflng u. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419; Bleeker «. Ballou, 3 Wend. 263 ; Sharp v. Speir, 4 Mil, 76, in Boston Seamens' Friend Society v. Mayor, &c. of Boston; 116 Mass. 181; s. c, 17.4m. R. 153, 157. Followed in Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 50 Mo. 155; s. c, 11 Am. R. 412. Approved and applied in Wors- ley o. New Orleans, 9 Rob. (La.) 324; s. c, 41 Am. Dee. 333, 337, a case involving question of right to levy wharfage. Dis- cussed at length with People v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 6 Barb. 209; 4 K Y. 419; People ex rel. Crowell ». Lawrence, 41 Id. 123 (Constitutionality of assessments for local improvements) in Town of Macon v. Patty, 57 Miss. 378; s. c, 34 Am. R. 451, 453, 455, 457. Followed in Alexander v. Mayor, 5 QUI (Md.) 383; s. c, 46 Am. Dee. 630, 635. Disting'd with Matter of Albany St., 11 Wend. 150 (Basis of valua- tion, in making assessments for local im- provements) and Matter of William & Anthony Sts., 19 Wend. 678, cited with approval in State v. Mayor, &c. Newark, 35 N. J. 157; s. c. 10 Am. R. 223, 231. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Bailey, 2 Den. 433. Affg 3 Bill, 531. See Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze. Decision in 2 Den. applied (Liability for injury resulting from construc- tion of public work) in Moshier s. Utica, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Barb. 434; Lacourfl. Mayor, &c. of N. Y , 3 Duer, 415; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 R. Y. 468. Explained in Robinson o. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 28 Barb. 523 ; Garrison v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Bosw. 503. Com- mented on bv Strong, J., in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Cunliff, 2 N. Y. 179. Approved in City of Madison i>. Ross, 3 Ind. 236 ; s.- c, 54 Am. Dec. 481, with note. Applied in Browning v. Springfield, 17 III. 143. Ap- proved and applied (Doctrine of respondeat superior) in City of Buffalo ». Holloway, 14 Barb. 111. Questioned in Gilbert v. Beach, 5 Bosw. 455. Examined with other cases in dissenting opinion of Dwight, C, in McCaf- ferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 199. Explained in Norton v. Wis- wall, 26 Barb. 624 ; Blake v. Ferris, 5 A 7 ". Y. 64. Disapproved in Wrights. Holbrook, 52 K B. 120; s. c, 13 Am. R. 12, 15, where, however, Blake v. Ferris, 5 JY. Y. 48 ; Stevens v. Armstrong, 6 Id. 435, were, with other cases, referred to as maintaining a dif- ferent doctrine. Collated with Gardner v. Heartt, 2 Barb. 165, and conflicting cases in 23 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 602, n. Applied (Municipal corporation, when to be regarded as private in respect to its property) in Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Barb. 238. Applied (Power of legislature to determine what powers shall be conferred on municipal cor- porations) in Clarke v. City of Rochester, 5 Mb. Pr. 126. Explained (Liability of municipal corporation for injury resulting from misfeasance, &c. of officer) in Hickok v. Trustees of Pittsburgh, 15 Barb. 435; Maximilian v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Bun, 267; Smith v. City of Rochester, 13 Id. 'ill, which was aff'd in 70 N. Y. 512, which see. Applied with Richards v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 48 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 315, and Maximil- ian v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 62 ST. Y. 160; Ham v. Mayor, &c, 70 Id. 459; N. Y. &c. Sawmill Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 71 Id. 580, disting'd in Ehrgott ■». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 96 Id. 264. Followed in Ross s. City of Madison, 1 Ind. 281 ; s. a, 48 Am. Dec. 361, 363, with cote. Disting'd with Del- monico v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 1 Sandf. 223 ; Lloyd v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 K Y. 369; Rochester White Lead Co. ■». City of Rochester, 3 N. Y. 463, in Elliott v. City of Philadelphia, 75 Penn. St. 342; s. c, 15 Am. R. 591, 594. Disting'd (Liability of ripa- rian proprietor, resulting from use of water- course) in Pixley v. Clark, 35 K Y. 524. Followed in Gray z. Harris, 107 Mass. 492; s. c, 9 Am. R. 61. Discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2-ed. 345, n. 2. Applied (Liability on claim arising from construction of Croton 486 MAYOR, &c. OF N. T. aqueduct) in People ex rel. Baldwins. Haws, 15 Abb. Pr. 117. v. Board of Health. See Metropolitan Board of Health v. Heister. v. Britton, 12 Abb. Pr. 367, n.\ s. c, 21 How. Pr. 251. Explained and limited (Pri- vate character of property of municipal cor- poration) in Darlington «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 If. Y. 164, 201. Referred to in Whitney v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. If. 0. 342, «., as in MSS. Applied in Whitney v. Mayor, &p. of ST. Y., 6 Id. 329, 338, n. v. Broadway & Seventh Ave. B. K. Co., 12 Hun, 571 ; s. c, 54 How. Pr. 323. Decision on the merits in 17 Hun, 242. v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 41 Barb. 231. Aff'd in 4 Keyes, 465 ; s. c. 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 251. Decision in 41 Barb, followed (Parol evidence to vary contract of insur- ance) in- Pohalski v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 234, 250. v. Butler, 1 Barb. 325. See Keating v. Price. See also (Functus officio) JLigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. N. 0. 51, and cases cited in Id. 52, n. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 599, as showing a concur- rence of high authority in support of the position (Examination of arbitrators as wit- • nesses). v. Colgate, 2 Duer, 1. Aff'd in 12 N. Y. 140. Decision in Id. applied (Remedies for collection of assessment, &c.) in Litch- field «. McComber, 42 Barb. 293 ; Fisher ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hun, 652. Ap- proved in Rector, &c. of Trinity Church v. Higgins, 48 JV. Y. 539. Disting'd (Statute of limitation as bar to enforcement of lien on land) in Borst v. Corey, 15 Id. 511. Fol- lowed as decisive, in Fisher v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 67 Id. 78. v. Cornell, 9 Hun, 215. Compare (Re- view of taxation of costs) Code Civ. Pro. § 3265. . v. Erben, 10 Bosw. 189; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 358. Aff'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 255. Opinion published in 38 . N. Y. 305, was a dissenting opinion. So stated in Matter of N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 64 N. 'Y. 63 ; Matter of Kingsbridge Road, 4 Hun, 599, ,605. See Bowery Ex- tension case. Decision in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. disting'd with Southwick v. First Nat. B'k of Memphis, 84 If. Y. 420 (Demand as condition precedent to liability for money paid or received by mistake) in Sharkey v. Mansfield, 90 Id. 227. See to the contrary Calais v. Whidden, 64 Me. 249; Utica Bank v. v an Geisen, 18 Johns. 485. But see Abb. Tr. En. 281. Decision in 38 If. Y. applied (Conclusiveness of coufirmntion by Supreme Court, of report of commissioner in proceed- ings for opening streets, &c.) in Master of Commissioners of Cent. Park, 50 Id. 493. v. Flagg, 6 Abb. Pr. 296. Applied (Rights of officer de facto) in People ex rel. Steinert v. Anthony, G Hun, 142, 147. Fol- lowed (Injunction against rival claimants of office) in Palmer- v. Foley, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 14, 24. v. Furze, 3 Hill, 612; s. c, 15 N. Y. Com. L. law. ed. 702, with brief note. See Bailey ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Bartlett ». Crozier ; Mills v. City of Brooklyn ; Roches- ter White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester. Applied (Authority conferred by statute, when mandatory) in People ex rel. Raymond v. Connolly, 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 376 ; Hogan v. Devlin, 2 Dahj, 185 ; Pacey v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 3 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 104 ; People u. Supervisors of Otsego, 51 If. Y. 407. Dis- ting'd in Cole v. Trustees of Medina, 27 Barb. 220; Bennett v. Matthews, 40 How. Pr. 430. Explained in Peck v. Village of Batavia, 32 Barb. 644. Applied (Municipal liability for injury resulting from defect ia public work) in Barton v. City of Syracuse, 37 Id. 295, which was affd in 36 If. Y. 55, which see; Lewenthal v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 61 Barb. 520 ; Lloyd «. Same, 5 If. Y. 370 ; Nims e. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 51 Id. 508. Applied to platform in thoroughfare, in Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 Id. 162, 171, n.; to vault, in Delmouico v. , Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 225. Ap- plied to case of culvert, in Rochester White Lead Co. «. City of Rochester, 3 If. Y. 468. Followed as settled law in Hutson «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Id. 168, which aff'd 5 Sandf. 301, which see, a case of street excavation; also in Conrad v. Trustees of Utica, 16 K Y. 173, a case of a bridge. Disting'd in Mills o. City of Brooklyn, 32 Id. 499. Ex- plained in Garrison v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Bosw. 503, a case of a defective pier; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Den. 600, a case of defective grading. Approved with Conrad v. Trustees of Ithaca, 16 If. Y. 158; Requa v. City of Rochester, 45 Id. 129 ; Hutson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 9 Id. 163; Davenport v. Ruckman, 37 Id. 568 ; Hume v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 74 Id. 264, in Ehr- gott v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 96 Id. 264. Disapproved in City of Navasota v. Pearce, 46 Tex. 525; s. c, 26 Am. B. 280. Applied with Rochester White Lead Co. ®. Roches- ter, 3 If. Y. 463 : Barton «i City of Syra- cuse, 36 Id. 54, in Gillison v. City of Charlestown, 16 W. Va. 282; s. c, 37 Am. B. 763. Reviewed with Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hill, 531; 2 Ben. 433; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Roches- ter, 3 If. Y. 463 ; Hume v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. , 47 Id. 639, in Rowe v. Portsmouth, 56 If. H. 291; s. c, 22 Am. R. 464, 467, 463. Reviewed with Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 If. Y. 463 ; Lloyd v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Id. 369; Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 3 Hill, 531, in Aldrich v. Tripp, 11 B. I. 141; s. c, 23 Am. It. 434, 437. Explained (Liability of mu- nicipal corporation for misfeasance, &c, of officer) in Lorillard t>. Town of Monroe, 12 Barb. 166, which was affd in 11 If. Y. 396, which see. Disting'd in Howell v. City of Buffalo, 15 Id. 522. Disapproved with MAYOR, &c. OF N. T.— MEACHAM. 4S7 Adsit d. Brady, 4 IRK, 032 ; Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 iV. F. 389 (Liability of public officer in private action for negli- gence) In McOonnell v. Dewey, 5 Neb. 385, as laying.down a doctrine contrary to that of the earlier N. Y. cases. Explained (Negligence as test of liability) in Congreve v. Morgan, 4 Duer, 446. Applied in Mayor. &c. of Albany v. Cunliff, 2 N. Y. 173. Compared (Negligence of contractor) in 3 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 359. v. Genet, 4 Hun, 487; AfI'd in 63 N. Y. 646. Decision in 4 Hun collated with other cases (What cases are referable) in 1 Abb. N. 0. 109, n. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. 537. Affd in 39 N. Y. 45. See Ames «. N. Y. Union Ins. Co. Decision in 39 N. Y. fol- lowed (Limitation of action on policy) in Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 61 How. Pr. 144, 146. Examined with other cases*in Barbers. F. & M. Ins. Co., 16 W. Va. 676. Approved with Hay v. Star Fire Ins. Co., 77 N. T. 241 ; Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 Id. 315, in Spare v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., U. S. Gir. Ct. D. Oreg. 17 Fed. Rep. 568, 570. Applied in Chandler v. St. Paul Fire 6 Marine Ins. Co., 21 Minn. 85; s. c, 18 Am. R. 385, 388. Collated with Ames u. N. Y. Union Ins. Co., 14 N. Y. 253; Ripley e. J5tna Ins. Co., 30 Id. 136 ; Wilkinson v. First National Fire Ins. Co. of Worcester, 72 N. Y. 499 ; and other cases in 25 Am. R. 104, n. , Disting'd (Amount of loss, when payable) in Hastings v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 141, 152. v. Lord, 17 Wend. 285. Afi'd in 18 Id. 126. See Russell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 17 Wend, explained and ap- plied (Liability for loss of property destroyed to prevent spread of fire) in Russell v. May- or, &c. of N. Y., 2 Den. 477. Cited as con- clusive, in People ex rel. Brisbane v. Com- mon Council of Buffalo, 76 N. Y. 562. Followed in Bishop ». Mayor, &c. of Macon, 7 Oa. 200; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 400, with note. Cited with approval in Field ». City of Des Moines, 39 Iowa, 575; s. c, 18 Am. R. 46. Followed and approved in Ameri- can Print Works v. Lawrence, 3 Zdbr. (N. J.) 590; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 420, with note. Decision in 18 Wend, explained by Ed- wards,, Senator, in Stone v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 25 Id. 159. See, also, Id. 177. Ap- plied in Struvefl. Droge, 10 Abb. N. O. 142, 146. Applied (Equitable construction of stat- utes) in Ayers v. Lawrence, 59 N. Y. 199. t. Mabie, 2 Duer, 401. Rev'd in 13 N. Y. 151. Decision in Id. disting'd (Implied covenant in lease) in Schermerhoin v. Gouge, J3 Abb. Pr. 316. Applied in Mof- fat v. Strong, 9 Bosw. 76 ; Mack v. Patchin, 29 How. Pr. 28 ; Vernam v. Smith, 15 N. Y. 333. Explained (Liability on covenant in lease) in Doupe v. Gennin, 37 How. Pr. 8 ; Edgerton v. Page, 20 N. Y. 286. Dis- ting'd (Estates for years, when regarded as " real estate ") in Wilmont v. Meserole, 41 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 277, a case of "real property." Also disting'd in Olendorf v. Cook, 1 Lans. 39. Examined with other cases (Counter-claims under the Code) in Xenia Branch B'k v. Lee, 7 Abb. Pr. 377. v. Marrener, 49 How. Pr. 36. Compare (Bill of particulars in case of fraud) People v. Tweed, 5 Hun, 353. T. Mason, 4 E. D. Smith, 142; s. c, more fully, 1 Abb. Pr. 344. v. N. Y. & Staten Island Ferry Co , 49 How. Pr. 250. Aff'd in 40 Super. Ct. (). Rawson, 40 Ga. 356; s. c, 2 Am. R. 581, 583; Eugel v. Scheuerman, 40 Ga. 206; s. c, 2 Am. R. 573. Commented upon in 1 High, on Inj. 2 ed. § 105, n. 1. t. Mitchell, 5 Abb. Pr. 92. Afi'd in 17 N. Y. 210. Decision in Id. disting'd (Power to sell contingent interests of un- born persons) in Bowman v. Talhnan, 27 How. Pr. 225. Cited as settled law in Clemens v. Clemens, 37 N. Y. 70. Applied in Brevoort v. Grace, 53 Id. 253. Followed in Brevoort v. Brevoort, 70 7^»140. Dis- ting'd (Who may maintain partition suit) in Harris ». Larkins, 22 Hun, 490. Examined with other cases (What are vested interests) in Moore v. Littel, 41 N. Y. 82. v. Northwestern Ins. Co. See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 1 Sand/. Gh. 83. Explained (Power of assignee for benefit of creditors to defend suits) in Burrill on Assign. § 230 4 ed. v. Shepard, 54 Barb. 474. Commented on (Partner's implied powers) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 412, Wood's Am. ed.; Id. 414, n. 3. — — v. St rat ton. See Aldiichfl. Sager; Hill v. Berry. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 3 Hun, 608. Aff'd in 64 K Y. 453. Decision in Id. followed (Reformation of written instru- ment) in Heelas v. Slevin, 53 Sow. Pr. 356. y. York, 6 N. Y. 449; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 467, with note. Disting'd with Trus- cott v. King, 6 N. Y. 147 (Mortgage when extinguished) in dissenting opinion of Hoff- man, J., in Thompson ». Van Vechten, 6 Bosw. 373, 406. Meads v. Gleason. See Stannard v. Mattice. v. Lansingh, Hopk. 124. Cited (When mortgagor cannot set up falsity of consider- ation of mortgage) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1056. t. Merchants' Bank of Albany. See Willets v. Phoenix Bank. v. Walker. See Slee v. Bloom. Mcakings v. Cromwell, 2 Sand/. 512 ; s. c, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 140. Aff'd in 5 N. Y. 136; s. c, 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 201,— where points of counsel in Ct. of App. will be found. Mears v. Kearney, 1 Abb. F. G. 303. Com- pare (Note charging separate estate, fore- closed as a mortgage) Third Nat. Bk. v. Blake, 73 iV. Y. 260 ; s. c, 2 Browne's Nat. Bk. Gas. 300. Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank v. Capron, 15 Johns. 467. See Buel v. Gordon. Applied (When insolvent not discharged) Rome Ex- change Bank ■». Eames, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 83, 93. v. Rider, 5 How. Pr. 401. Commented on as superseded by Code amendment of 1851 (Defendant as witness for co-defendant) in Beal v. Finch, 11 N. Y. 128. v. Smith, 19 Johns. 115. Explained (Remedy in case of accounts kept with bank) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 244, 11 ed. v. Schuyler, 7 Cow. 337. Applied (Lia- bility to bona fide holder, of one who indor- ses paper in blank) in Spitler v. James, 32 Ind. 202 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 334, with note. Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank of Albany v. Wixon, 46 Barb. 218. Aff'd in 42 N. Y. 438. MECHANICS' &c. BANK— MECHANICS' BANK 489 Mechanics' & Traders' B'k v. Crow, 5 Daly, 191. Aff'd in 60 N. Y. 85. Decision in Id. explained (Limit of protection to bona fide purchaser) in Dows s. Kidder, 84 Id. 121, 135. Examined with other cases (Effect of surrender of paper to constitute holder for value) in Phenix Ins. Oo. v. Church, 81 Id. 218, 225. With decision in 5 Daly, see to same effect (Deposit of notice of protest in lamp-post box) Greenwich Bank v. De Groot, 7 Hun, 210. Mechanics' & Traders' B'k of Buffalo v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. B'k, 60 A 7 ! T. 40. Modifying 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& C.) 395. See Baker i>. Drake; Thayer «. Manley. Subsequent decision based on transactions here involved, — in Farmers' & Mech. B'k «. Erie R'y Co., 72 A 7 . Y. 188. Explained (Construction of factor's act) in Bates v. Cunningham, 12 Hun, 29, 33. Mechanics' & Traders' Bank of Jersey City v. Dakin, 28 How. Pr. 502. Aff'd in 50 Barb. 587; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 316, and the latter re v'd in 51 N. Y. 519. Further deci- sions in 54 XT. Y. 681; 8 Hun, 431. See McElwain v. Willis; Thurber v. Blanck. Examined and disting'd (Equitable assets as affected by lien acquired by service of at- tachment) in Gross «. Daly, 5 Daly, 541, 543, 555. See Thurber v. Blanck, 50 K Y. 80, followed in preference, in Conner v. Weber, 12 Han, 583 ; Smith v. Long- mire, 24 Id. 259. Applied in Bills «. National Park B'k of N. Y., 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 302, 309 Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 86. Decision in 50 Barb. examined with other cases (Who may bring action upon choses in action levied upon) in Lupton v. Smith, 3 Hun, 2. Mechanics' & Traders' Savgs. Inst. v. Rob- erts, 1 Abb. Pr. 381. Disting'd (Who are bound by decree of foreclosure) in Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 134, 137. Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Niagara, 9 Wend. 410. Disting'd (Assignee of mort- gage not subject to equity on favor of as- signor) in Granger v. Crouch, 86 XT. Y. 494, 499. v. Edwards, 1 Barb. 271. AfTd in 2 Id. 545 ; s. c, more fully, as Cotheal v. Mechanics' B'k, 6 A 7 ". Y. Leg. Obs. 159. See Ohio v. Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Kasson. Decision in 1 Barb, disapproved (Usury as a personal defense) ifi Morris v. Floyd, 5 Id. 130, 133. Approved in Sands v. Church, 6 K Y. 347, 351. Disting'd in Fish v. De | Wolf, 4 Bom. 573, 582. Collated with other cases in Colby on Forecl. 41. ■ v. Griswold, 7 Wend. 165. See Sice v. Cunningham. Compared with other cases (Liability of indorser without notice) in Susquehanna Val. Nat. B'k v. Loomis, 85 A 7 . Y. 207, 213. Explained (Right to de- mand and notice, as affected by taking se- curity) in Seacord v. Miller, 13 Id. 55. Followed in Stephenson v. Primrose, 8 Port. (Ala.) 155; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 281, 286, with note. Disting'd with Leffingwell v. White. 1 Johns. Cos. 99, in Kramer v. Sand- ford, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 328; s. c, 36 Am. Deo. 92, 94, with note. Quoted and collated with other cases in Holcombe Lead. Gas. on. Com. L. 325. : v. Levy, 3 Paige, 606. Limited (Fol- lowing money obtained by fraud) in Justh v. Nat. B'k of Commonwealth, 56 N. Y. 478, 484. v. Miiithorne, 19 Johns. 244. See Mil- ler v. Burroughs. Applied (Amendment of judgment, &c.) to amendment of complaint after satisfaction of judgment, in Hatch v. Central National Bank, 78 A 7 ". Y. 487, 489. See, also, Rockwell -». Carpenter, 25 Hun, 529, 531, and see dissenting opinion, p. 535. Relied on with Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cow. 39 ; Hart v. Reynolds, 3 Id. 42, n. a. in Lewis v. Ross, 37 Me. 230 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 49. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 4 Duer, 480. Rev'd in 13 A 7 ". Y. 599. See Bank of Utica v. Smalley ; Stebbins v. Phenix Fire Ins Co. See subsequent decisions arising out of transactions here involved, — in N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. i>. Schuy- ler, 17 How. Pr. 464; 17 JST. Y. 592; 34 Id. 30 ; Woodruff v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 18 How. Pr. 419. Decision in 13 N. Y. disting'd (Liability incase of stock- fraudulently' issued) in Cross v. Sackett, 6 Abb. Pr. 270. Applied in 8eizer». Mali, 11 Id. 131. Approved and applied as conclu- sive, in dissenting opinion of Strong, J., in Ketchum v. Bank of Commerce, 19 A". Y. 513. Applied to drafts made by agent, in Exchange Bk. ». Monteath, 24 Barb. 374; and see Same v. Same, 26 A". Y. 5u9. Applied, also to draft by agent, in Bank of Deer Lodge v. Hope Mining Co., 3 Mont. 146; s. c, 34 Am. R 458, 460. Applied to bill of lading obtained by fraud, in Dows v. Per- rin, 16 K Y. 335. Explained in N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. u. Schuyler, 38 Barb. 546. Disting'd in Farmers' & Mech. B'k v. Butchers' & Drovers' B'k, 14 N. Y. 633 ; 16 Id. 140 ; 28 Id. 436, a case of a check certi- fied without authority. Followed with N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. i>. Schuyler, 34 A 7 ". Y. 30 ; Lathrop «. Kneeland, 46 Barb. 432; in Scovil v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 148. Followed (Negotiability of certificates of corporate stock) in Barstow v. Savage Min. Co., 64 Cal. 392. Cited, with ap- proval, in Sherwood v. Meadow Valley Min- ing Co., 50 Cal. 412. Compared with N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30. in Moores v. Citizens' Nat. Bk. of Piqua, Ohio, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. Ohio, 15 Fed. Rep. 141. Applied (Office of certificates of stock) in Atkins v. Gamble, 42 Cal. 86 ; s.- C, 10.4m. R : 282, 290. Followed (Rights of assignee of stock certificate) in McCready «. Rumsey, 6 Duer, 580-2. Relied on in dissenting opinion of Allen, J., in Bank of Attica e. Manufrs' & Traders' B'k, 20 A 7 ". Y. 512. Sought to be harmonized in 9 Weekly Gin. L. Bui. 1, where cases from other States are also discussed. Quoted in Ang. 490 MECHANICS' BANK— HEHAK & A. on Corp. § 560* »., 11 ed. Explained at length and limited (Liability for representa- tions made by agent) in Griswold v. Haven, 25 N. Y. 595. Regarded in 2 Iromeroy on Eq. Jur. 401, n., as entirely overruled Dy subsequent cases. Disting'd in 1 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 303. Discussed in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 692. Language of Comstock, J., quoted approvingly (Destina- tion between general and special agent) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 44, n. g. v. Straiton, 3 Keyes, 365; s. c,. 5 Alb. Pr. N. S. 11. Included (Check payable to fictitious payee) in 1 Ames Cos. on B. & N. 574. Mechanics' Bank of Brooklyn v. Townsend, 29 Barb. 569. See Chamberlain v. Towns- end. Followed (Estoppel to set up usury) in Weyh v. Boylan, 85 N. Y. 394, 401. Mechanics' Banking Assoc, v. Kiersted, 10 How. Pr. 400. Followed (Motion for new trial as carrying costs) in Muller v. Higgins, 13 Abb. Pi: N. S. 207. v. N. T. & Saugerties White Lead Co., 23 How. Pr. 74; s. c, less fully, 20 Id. 509. Aff'd in 35 N. Y. 505. v. Spring Valley Shot & Lead Co., 13 How. Pr. 227. Rev'd in 25 Barb. 419. Medbury v. Rochester, &c. Stone Co., 19 Han, 498. Disting'd (Who may maintain action for dissolution of corporation) in Byrne v. N. Y. Brick & Cement Co., 16 Weekly Big. 139. Followed in Kittredge«. Kellogg Bridge Co., 8 Abb. K G. 168, 171. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1786, n. v. Swan, 46 K. Y. 200. Followed (Al- lowance of supplemental pleading) in Bar- stow ». Hausen, 2 Hun, 333, 336 ; Beach ■». Reynolds, 53 N. Y. 7, 9. Explained in Holyoke v. Adams, 59 Id. 233, 237. -Ap- plied in Clark v. Spencer, 14 Kan. 398 ; s. c, 19 Am. P. 96. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 544. v. Watrons, 7 Hill, 110. Followed (Rights of infant who repudiates contract) in Shurtleff v. Millard, 12 B. I. 272 ; s. c, 34 Am. R. 640, 642. Followed with YVhit- marsh v. Hall, 3 Den. 375, in Derocher v. Continental Mills, 58 Me. 217; s. c, 4 Am. P. 286, where Medbury v. Watrous is said to overrule McCoy v. Huffman, 8 Cow. 84. Included in Ewell Lead. Cos. on Inf. &e. 102. Meddaugh v. Bigelow, 3 Sutfm.Ot. {T. &C.) 775 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 106. Medical Institution of Geneva College v. Patterson, 1 Dm. 61. Aff'd in 5 Id. 618. Compare (Medical institution as corpora- tion) People ex rel. Swinburne v. Albany Med. Coll., 10 Abb. If. C. 122. Mcech v. Allen, 17 H. Y. 300. Relied on and approved with Wilder v. Keller, 3 Paige, 171; Mower v. Kip, 6 Paige, 88; Averill v. Loucks, 6 Barb. 470 (Liens that will be enforced in equity) in Loudeu v. Ball, 93 Ind. 236. v. Calkins, 4 Hill, 534. Applied (Sufficiency of affidavit of merits) in State Bk of Syracuse v. Gill, 23 Hun, 400. v. Loom is. 23 How. Pr. 484; s. c, 28 Id. 209; also, more fully, in 14 Abb. Pr. 428. — — v. Patch in, 14 K Y. 71. Explained with Gregory v. Thomas, 20 Wend. 17(Effect of filing chattel mortgage, as recording) in Vail v. Knapp, 49 Barb. 299. Cited as au- thority with Dillingham v. Bolt, 37 N~. Y. 198; Ely v. Carnley, 19 Id. 496; Porter v. Parnley, 52 Id. 185 (Necessity of refiling chattel mortgage) in Frank v. Playter, 73 Mo. 676. v. Smith, 7 Wend. 315. See Dusenbury v. Ellis. Explained (Liability of agent con- tracting without authority) in Dung v. Par- ker, 52 iV. Y. 494, 501. Disting'd as a case where the contract was not in writing, in Hegerman v. Johnson, 35 Barb, 200, 205. v. Stoner, 19 N. Y. 261. See McDou- gall v. Walling. Followed (Assignability of right of action for money lost in betting or gaming) in McDougall v. Wallir.g, 48 Barb. 364. See Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 1910, n. Median v. Forrester, 52 JST. Y. 277. Cited (When person ratifying act of agent will be presumed to be cognizant of facts) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 65. See it also cited in § 89, n. v. Williams, 2 Daly, 367; s. c, 36 How. Pr. 73. Disting'd (Effect of permitting performance of contract after time there- for has expired) in Ruff v. Rinaldo, 55 N. Y. 664. Re-aff'd (Effect of filing mechan- ics' lien on right to have fraudulent convey- ance set aside) in Gross v. Daly, 5 Daly, 540, 544. Disting'd (Rights of sub-con- tractors) in Schneider «. Hobein, 41 How. Pr. 232. Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 JV. Y. 349. See Myers v. Davis. Disting'd (Judgment against one, as precluding action against another) in Maple v. Cincinnati, Hamilton, &c. R. R. Co, 40 Ohio St. 313; s. c, 48 Am. P. 685; 17 Reporter, 182. Quoted (Agent contracting in writing as principal) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 238, n. 88 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed. v. Rensselaer, 15 Wend. 397. See Moody ■». Supervisors of Niagara. Ques- tioned (Abatement of public nuisance) in Moody v. Board of Supervisors of Niagara Co., 46 Barb. 659. Discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§'735, 743. v. Wriglit, 11 Hun, 533. Rev'd in 76 K Y. 262; s. c, 7 Abb. iV. C. 299. See Goelet*. Gori; Miller v. Miller; Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. Decision in 76 N. Y. followed (Contracts between husband and wife) in Sherman v. Butts, 13 Abb. K G. 20, n. Meeks v. Bowerman, 1 Daly, 99. See Sta- ples v. Anderson. Collated with other cases (Lease, how affected by fraud) in Me- Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. §73. Mehan v. Syracnse, R. & N. Y. R. R.. 73 N. Y. 585. Applied (Contributory negligence in servant injured, as a question of fact) in McMahon v. Port Henry Iron Ore Co., 24 MEHLE— MERCHANTS' BANK. 491 Hun, 48. Followed as decisive (Liability for injury to servant) in Fullers. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46, 52. Mehle v. Ton Der Wulheke, 2 Lans. 267. Aff'd in 46 JT. Y. 539. Mellen v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 5 Duer, 101. Aff d in 17 K Y. 609. With decis- ion in Id. compare (Notice of subsequent insurance) Bigler 1>. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 22 Id. 400, 412. Explained and followed in Hamilton v. Aurora F. & M. Ins. Co., 15 Mo. App. 66. Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 K Y. 146; s. c, 11 Am. B. 683. See Dimon v. Hazard; "Wilson v. Robertson. Examined and other decisions collected (Rights of creditors as to partnership assets) in 20 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 466, n. Followed as decisive in Osborn v. McBride, 16 Bankr. Beg. 22. Cited upon the N. Y. doctrine, voiced by Chan- cellor Kent, in Johnson ». Hersey, TO Me. 74; s. c, 35 Am. B. 303, with note collat- ing cases. Cited as fully sustaining the gen- eral principle, in Fiske v. Gould, O. S. Gir. Gt. N. D. III. 14 Beporter, 2; s. c, 12 Fed. Bep. 3T2. Collated with Aitkins v. Saxtun, IT N. Y. 146, in 14 Fed. Bep. 6 IT, n. Ap- proved, in preference to Pennsylvania cases, in 19 Am. L. Bev. 45. Collated with other cases in Story on Partn. 1 ed. § 358, n., 360, n. Mendenhall v. Klinck, 50 Barb. 634. Aff'd on other grounds in 51 N. Y. 246. Meneely v. Meueely, 1 Hun, 367 ; s. c, 3 Supm. Ct. {T. & G.) 540. Aft'd in 62 XT. Y. 42T ; s. c, 20 Am. B. 489. See Cas- well v. Davis ; Clark®. Clark. Decision in 62 JV. Y. applied (Restraining use of per- son's own name as trademark) in Decker v. Decker, 52 How. Pr. 218. Approved in a similar case Marshall v. Pinkham, 52 Wis. 585. Included with note in Lawson's Lead. Oas. in Eq, Simplified, 1T5. Menges v. City of Albany, 56 JV". Y. 3T4. Disting'd (Mode of ascertaining comsensa- tion for land taken for public use) in People ex rel. Kilmer v. McDonald, 69 Id. 362, 368. Mentz v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 2 BoU. 356. Aff d in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 2T4. Decis- ion in Id. applied (Prudence required in one crossing street in which cars are run- ning) in O'Donnell v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 409, 412. Mercantile Mnt. Ins. Co. v. Calebs, 20 K Y. 173. Cited as authority (Rights and liabilities of carrier in respect -to insurance effected by shipper of goods) in Rintoul v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., U. S. Gir. Ct. S. D. N. Y. 13 Ins. L. J. 544; Castaira «. Mechanics' & F. Ins. Co., U. S. Gir. Ct. D. Md. 18 Fed. Bep. 473. Disting'd in Dick «. Franklin, 10 Mo. App. 376, 391, a case of mortgaged premises. v. Chase, 1 E. D. Smith, 121. Ap- proved (Distinction between carriers and forwarders) in Read v. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. 395, 404. See cases collected in 5 Am. L. Beg. K S. 453. Mercein v. Andrns, 10 Wend. 461. See Ell- wood v. Monk ; Leonard v. Vredenburgh. Explained and limited (Consideration for promise to pay debt of another) in Mallory v. Gillett, 21 JST. Y. 412, 424, 445. Dis- ting'd (Liability of firm on firm note) in Os- good v. Glover, T Daly, 367, 371. v. People, 25 Wend. 64; s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 653, 668, with note wherein it is shown to have been frequently cited, both in N. Y. and elsewhere, on the various points deci- ded. Subsequent decision in 3 Hill, 399. See Ahrenfeldt «. Ahrenfeldt ; Case of Yates. Decision in 25 Wend, followed (Decision on habeas corpus proceeding, as_ res adjudicata) in People ■». Burtnett, 18 Abb. Pr. 8, 10; Matter of Price, 12 Hun, 511 ; Matter of Jose Da Costa, 1 Park. 136. Disting'd in People ex rel. Eldridge v. Fan- cher, 1 Hun, 27 ; People ex rel. Lawrence v. Brady, 56 K Y. 182, 192; Ex parte Kaine, 3 Blatehf. G. Ct. 1, 4, which was followed in Matter of Reynolds, 6 Park. 321. Ap- plied to proceedings for discharge of debt- or—in Matter of Thomas, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 116. Remarks of the chancellor explained (Review of habeas corpus proceedings on certiorari) in People v. Kling, 6 Barb. 366, 370. See (Custody of infants) People v. Cooper, 1 Duer, 723; 8 How. Pr. 293. Shown with Matter of Waldron, 13 Johns. 418, in 20 Am. Dec. 333-4, n. to lay down a doctrine which is supported by a long line of American authorities. Discussed with many authorities in 1 Kent Com. 195, n. c. Mercer Street, Matter of, 4 Cow. 542. Overruled with Matter of Seventeenth street, 1 Wend. 262 ; Matter of Lewis street, 2 Id. 472; Livingston v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Id. 85 ; Wyman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 11 Id. 486; Matter of Furman street, 17 Id. 650; Champlin v. Laytin, 18 Id. 407; Matter of Thirty-second street, 19 Id. 128; Matter of Twenty-ninth street, 1 Hill, 189 ; (Construction of deed of land bounded by- street) in Bissell «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 23 K Y. 61, 66. Commented on with reference to later decisions in Hammond v. McLachlan, 1 Sandf. 323. Mercer v. Vose, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 218. Aff'd in 66 K Y. 56. Decision in Id. explained and compared with other cases (Interest as damages) in White v. Miller, 78 Id. 393, 397. Collated with other cases (Opinion of value) in 36 Am. B. 437, 438, n. Merchant's Estate. See Kowing v. Manly. Merchant y. fielding 1 , 4 Hun, 671; s. c, more fully, in 49 How. Pr. 344. v. Merchant, 2 Bradf. 432. Included with notes (Gifts causa mortis) in Bed/. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 713. v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 2 Code B. 66, 87. See better report, in 2 Sandf. 669. Merchants' Bank v. Birch, 11 Johns. 25; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 367. Applied, and Cayuga County Bank v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 235, cited as authority (Notice sufficient to charge in- 432 MERCHANT'S BANK— MERRICK. dorser's estate) in Goodnow o. Warren, 122 Mass. 79 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 289. Included in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 426. v. Bliss, 1 Robt. 391; s. c , 13 Abb. Pr. 225; 21 How. Pr. 365. Aff'd in 35 N. Y. 412. See Corning ■». McCullough; Harger v. McCullough ; Wiles v. Suydam. Decision in 35 If. Y. disting'd (Liability of trustees for debts of association, when a penalty) in Glen's Falls Paper Co. v. White, 58 How. Pr. 172; Easterly v. Barber, 65 Barb. 255. Applied in Bank of California v. Collins, 5 Hun, 210. Followed in Wiles v. Suydam, 64 JT. Y. 177. Doubted in Pier e. George, 14 Hun, 571. Explained (Limitation of ac- tion against trustees) in Jones v. Barlow, 62 N. Y. 607, which rey'd 33 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 147, which see. v. Elderkiu, 25 If. Y. 178. Explained (Demand of payment of note) in 2 Qreenl. onEv. 14 ed. § 178, n. b. ■ y. Griswold, 9 Hun, 561. Aff'd in 72 If. Y. 472 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 159. v. Holland, 4 Hun, 420. Aff'd in 66 If. Y. 648, on opinion of referee, and of General Term, without further opinion. — - v. Livingston, 17 Hun, 321. AfTd, it seems, in ^9 If. Y. 618, but without opin- ion. Previous decision in 74 Id. 223. See N. Y. & New Haven R. R Co. v. Schuyler. v. Mclntyre, 2 Sandf. 431 Referred to in 39 Am. Deo. 522, »., as similar in facts and conclusions to National B'k of North America v. Bangs, 106 Mass. 441 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 349 (When bank may recover money paid on forged check). v. Spalding, 12 Barb. 302. Aff'd in 9 N. Y. 53. L. 1830, c. 295, here referred to (Circulation of notes of banks of other States) has been repealed by L. 1885, c. 93. v. Thompson, 55 N. Y. 7. See Hub- bell v. Von Schoening. Explained and fol- lowed (Prior lien of dower not affected by decree in foreclosure) in Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 134, 136. v. Union R. R. & Transp. Co., 8 Hun, 249. Aff'd in 69 N.'Y. 373. Compare (Effect of duplicate bills of lading adversely held) Glyn e. East India Dock Co., 29 Weekly Rep. 316; s. c, 43 L. T. R. N. S. 684. — — V. Woodruff. See Woodruff v. Mer- chants' Bk. of N. Y. Merchants' Exchange Nat. Bank v. Com- mercial Warehouse Co., 33 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 317. Rev'd in 40 If. Y. 635. An- other proceeding in 35 Super: Ct. {J. & S.) 214. See Ohio & Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Kasson. Opinion of Jones, J., at Special Term approved (Who may set up defense of usury) in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 78 2f. Y. 150, which affd 13 Hun, 823, which see. Followed in More v. Deyoe, 22 Id.. 218. Decision in 49 AT. Y. applied (Question of usury, how determined) in Tyng v. Com. Warehouse Co., 58 Id. 314. Followed (Sufficiency of plea of usury) in National Bk. of Auburn v. Lewis, 75 Id. 520. Followed (Corporation, when allowed to set up usury) in Strong v. N. Y. Laundry Manuf'g Co., 37 Super. Ct?(J. & S.) 283, 286. Disting'd as to indorser of paper of corporation, in Union Nat. Bank of Pittsburgh v. Wheeler, 60 If. Y. 613. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co. v. Grant, 2 Edw. 544. Doubted (Effect of clause in will directing payment of debts, to confirm mort- gage executed by testator while an infant) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 45 ; Smith i>. Mayo, 9 Mass. 62, being referred to as laying down a different doctrine. Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Hininan, 15 How. Pr. 182. Disting'd (Who are included as " next of kin ") in Murdock v. Ward, 67 N. Y. 387, 390. Merchants' Nat. Bank t. Macnauguton, 1 Abb. If. G. 293, n. Superseded (National bank not a foreign corporation) by Code Civ. Pro. § 3343, subd. 18. Merchants' Nat. Bk of N. Y. v. Supervisors of N. Y., 3 Hun, 156; s. c. more fully, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (7". & 0.) 393. Aff'd, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 629, but without opinion. Merchants' Nat, B'k of Whitehall v. Hall, 18 Hun, 176. Aff'd in 83 If. Y. 338; s. a, 38 Am. R. 434. See Yale v. Dederer. Meredith v. Hinsdale, 2 Cai. 362. Over- ruled (Remedy on instrument executed with scroll seal, as determined by law of place) in Andrews v. Herriot, 4 Cow. 508. Meriam v. Harsen, 4 Edw. 70. Affd in 2 Barb. Gh. 232. Decision in Id. followed with Dennis v. Tarpenny, 20 Barb. 376 (Sufficiency of certificate of acknowledgment by married woman) in Belcher v. Weaver, 46 Tex. 293 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 267, 270. Merian v. Funck, 4 Ben. 110. Aff'd, but without opinion, in How. App. Cos. 659. Cited as settled law (Liability of assignee of bill of lading, for freight) in N. Y. & Havre Steam Nav. Co. v. Young, 3 E. D. Smith., 192, and see Id. n. Meriden Brittania Co. t. Zingsen, 4 Robt. 312. AfTd in 48 If. Y. 247. Meriden Tool Co. v. Morgan, 1 Abb. If. C. 125. See to same effect (Effect of failure to file duplicate certificate of incorporation) Raisbeck e. Oestenicher, 4 Abb. If. C. 444. Merriam, Matter of, 84 If. Y. 596. Fol- lowed with Matter of Pelton, 85 Id. 651 (Including surveyor's fees in expenses of assessment) in Matter of Lowden, 89 Id. 548, 553, which modified 25 Hun, 434, which see. Disting'd (Assessment, when to be vacated in part) in Matter of Stephens, 26 Id. 22. Applied with Matter of Mahan, 81 K Y. 621 ; 20 Hun, 301 ; Matter of Manhattan Savings Bank, 82 N. Y. 142 (Effect of withdrawing from competition an item in expense of local improvement) in Matter of Paine, 26 Hun, 431. Followed in Matter of Pelton, 85 If. Y. 651. Applied in Matter of Metropolitan Gas Light Co., Id. 526, 529. Merrick v. Bartholick, 47 Barb. .253. Affd in 36 N. Y. 44; s. c, 34 How. Pr. 129. MERRICK— MERRITT. 493 v. Brainard, 38 Bail. 574. Aff'd in part, and rev'd in part, as Merrick «. Van Santvoord, in 34 F. Y. 208. See Abbey v. Steamboat " R. L. Stevens." Decision in 38 Barh. followed (Deduction for loss cov- ered by insurance, in action for loss caused by negligence) in Carpenter ». Eastern Transp. Line, 67 Id. 573, which was aff'd in 71 F. Y. 679, which see. Fol- lowed, but criticised, in Collins 1>. N. Y. Central, &c. R..R. Co., 5 Hun, 506. Ex- plained (Validity of acts of foreign corpora- tion done in this State) in Smith v. Alvord, 63 Barb. 423. Compare (Effect of transfer of partner's interest) Troy Iron & Nail Fac- tory v. Corning, 45 Id. 242, a case of an association. v. Gordon. See Champion v. Bostwick. v. Van Santvoord. See Abbey ». Steamboat "R. L. Stevens;" Merrick ». Brainard. Merrill v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 428. Aff'd in 73 F. Y. 452; s. c, 29 Am. R. 184. Decision in Id. applied conversely (Separable breach of contract of insurance.) in Herrman i>. Adriatic Fire Ins. Co., 85 IV. Y. 162, 171. Followed in Sunderlin v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 18 Bun, 522. See also Dacey v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 21 Id. 83. Cited, with other cases, in Baldwin v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 60 F. H. 424. v. Anderson, 10 Bun, 604. Rev'd as Attorney General v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 71 F Y. 325; s. c, 27 Am. R. 55. Compare (What amounts to equitable assign- ment of fund) Matter of LeBlanc, 4 Abb. F. p 221 v. Calkins, 10 Bun, 495. Affd in 74 F Y. 1. v. George. See Hopkins «. Coburn. v. Green, 66 Barb. 582. Aff'd in 55 JV. Y. 582. Decision in Id. followed (Right of action on agreement to pay debts of firm) in Hinman v. Boweu 3 Bun, 194. Disting'd in Arnold v. Nichols, 64* F. Y. 117, 119. Applied (Right of action of promise made for benefit of another) in Par- dee i). Treat, 82 Id. 385, 393. Examined in connection with Claflin v. Ostrom, 54 Id. 81, in Real Estate Trust Co. v. Balch, 45 Super. Ct-. {J. & S.) 535. See li Alb. L. J. 121; 13 Id. 362. v. Grinnell, 30 F. Y. 594. Approved (Liberal rule as to what is passenger's bag- gage) in Dexter i>. Syracuse, Binghampton, &c. R. R. Co., 42 2V. Y. 326. Collated with other cases (Opinion of value) in 36 Am. R. 438, n. v. , 10 How. Pr. 31. See ("What complaint must contain) Code Civ. Pro § 481, n. v. Ithaca & Owego R. R. Co., 16 Wend. 586; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 130, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently recognized as authority. See Bank of Mon- roe t>. Culver ; Lawrence v. Barker. Followed (Memoranda, &c. as evidence) in Bank of Monroe v. Culver, 2 Bill, 535 ; Cole v. Jessup, 10 F. Y. 100. Examined with other cases in Guy v. Mead, 22 Id. 465. See also Union Bank-i). Knapp, 3 Pick. {Mass.) 96; Elmsu. Chevis, 2 McCord (So. Gar.) 349; Philadei-' phia Bank v. Officers, &c, 12 Serg. & li. (Pa.) 49; and Welsh v. Barrett, 15 Mais. 384. See to the contrary, Cummings v. Nichols, 13 IV. H. 420. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 323. Followed with Brewster v. Doane, 2 Hill, 537; Sickels v. Mather, 20 Wend. 72 ; Bank of Monroe ». Culver, 2 Hill, 532, in Spann v. Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301 ; s. c, 46 Am. Bee. 346, 360, with note. Followed with Guy v. Mead, 22 F. Y. 465, in Ins. Co. v. Weide, 9 Wall. 677. v. Townsend, 5 Paige, 80. Disting'd with Ex parte Beatty, 12 Wend. 229 ; Prince v. Camman, 3 Edw. 413 ; Bull v. Mellis, 13 Alb. Pr. 243, and Parker v. Spear, 62 How. Pr. 394 approved (Imprisonment for non- payment of costs) in Jix parte Bergman, 18 Fev. 342. Merrills v. Law, 9 Cow. 65. Rev'd in 6 Wend. 268. Merrimack Manuf. Co. v. Garner, 4 E. D. Smith, 387; s. c, more fully, 2 Abb. Pr. 318. Approved (Right to imitate and sell style of goods made by another, unless label used deceives purchasers as to their true character) in Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr. 69 ; Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co., 57 Barb. 526 ; which was, however, rev'd in 10 Abb. Pi: F. S. 348. Opposed in Falkenburg v. Lucy, 35 Gal. 52. Collated with other cases in Thomp. on Prov. Rem. 261. Merritt, Matter of, 5 Paige, 125. Aff'd in Merritt v. Lyon, 16 Wend. 405. Merritt v. Benton, 10 Wend. 116; s. c, 11 F. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 799, with brief note of cases on usury. Included in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & F. 206. v. Briggs. See Richmondville Union Seminary v. McDonald ; Sweet v. Tuttle. v. Brinkerhoff, 17 Johns. 306, 321; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 404. Applied (Rights of owners of land on stream) in Dumont t. Kellogg, 29 Mich. 420; s. c, 18 Am. R. 102, 106; Arnold ». Foot, 12 Wend. 331, being disting'd. v. Carpenter, 30 Barb. 61. Rev'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 285 ; s. c, 2 Keyes, 462 ; 3 Id. 142 ; 33 Bow. Pr. 428. Decis- ion in 30 Barb, disting'd (Arrest in action to recover possession of real property) in Brush v. Mullen, 12 Abb. Pr. 242. Decision in 3 Keyes disting'd in Bruce v. Kellv, 5 Hun, 231. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §549, n. v. Clason, 13 Johns. 102; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 286, with note. Affd as Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484. Both decisions ex- plained, and decision in 14 Id. cited as authority (Memorandum of sale signed by one party, as within requirements of statute of frauds) in Justice ». Lang, 42 F. Y. 493, 505. Both decisions explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 6, n. e. Followed (Validity of pencil writing) in Closson v. Stearns, 4 494 MER RITT— MERSEEEATT. Verm. 11 ; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 245. Fol- lowed with Brown v. Butchers' & Drovers' B'k, 6 Hill, 443, in Myers v. Vanderbelt, 84 Penn. St. 510 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 227. V. Cole, 9 Hun, 98. Further decision in 14 Id. 324. v. Barle, 31 Barb. 38. Aff'd in 29 K Y. 115. Decision in Id. approved and fol- lowed with Wood e. Erie R'y Co., 72 Id. 196 ; Carroll ». Staten Island R. R. Co., 58 Id. 126 (Liability for injury received by one acting in violation of statute) in Platz «. City of Cohoes, 89 Id. 219. Followed in Sutton v. Town of Wanwatosa, 29 Wis. 21 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 534, 537. Explained (Ex- tent of carrier's liability) in Ang. on Oarr. § 197, n. a. 5 ed. v. Johnson, 7 Johns. 473 ; s. c, 5 Am. Deo. 289. Disting'd with Betts *. Lee, 5 Johns. 347; Curtis v. Groat, 6 Id. 169; (Right of owner of personal property to claim it in an altered state) in Lampton's Ex'rs v. Preston's Ex'rs, 1 J. J. Marsh {R'y.) 454; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 104, 107, 114, with note. Cited in 2 Kent Cam. 362, as ac knowledging the Roman and English law. v. Lambert, 7 Paige, 344. Subsequent proceeding in Hoffm. 166. See Kortright v. Cady. Decision in 7 Paige overruled (Effect of tender of mortgage debt after de- fault) in Farmers' Fire Ins. Co. «. Edwards, 26 Wend. 241; Kortright v. Cady, 21 XT. Y. 343. But see Post ». Arnot, 2 Den. 344. -. t. , 10 Paige, 352. Aff d as Wallis ■o. Loubat, 2 Den. 607. Decision in 10 Paige disting'd (Contracts between attorney and client) Hall v. Crouse, 13 Sun, 557, 561. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. % 618. v. Millard, 5 Bosw. 645. Further deci- sion in 10 Id. 309 ; and the latter aff'd in 4 Eeyes 208; s. c, 3 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 291. See Woodworth v. Bennett. Decision in 4 Reyes disting'd (Recovery of money paid on illegal contract) and Staples e. Gould, 9 N. Y. 520; Bettinger v. Briden- becker, 63 Barb. 395, applied in English v. Ruinsey. 32 Hun, 486. Applied in Spring Co. s. Knowlton. 103 U. 8. 49, 60. t. Sawyer, 6 Sup'm. Ot, (7. & G.) 100; s. c, as Merritt v. Scott, 3 Hun, 657. v. Seaman, 6 Barb. 330. Rev'd in C N. Y. 168. See Austin v. Munro. Decision in 6 N. Y. followed (Appe'x, when descriptio persona) in Gould v. Glass, 19 Barb. 184; Murray v. Church, 1 Hun, 50. Applied in Sheldon e. Hoy, 11 How. Pr. 14. Applied (Right of executor to maintain action in representative capacity) in Eagle v. Fox, 28 Barb. 475. Disting'd in Beers v. Shannon, 12 Hun, 163. Superseded by Code Civ. Pro. §1814. Followed (Set-off against executor) in Patterson v. Patterson, 47 How. Pr. 242, which was aft'd in part in 59 N. Y. 577, ■which see. . v. Thompson, 3 B. D. Smith, 283. Sub- sequent decision in Id. 599 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. 223; 10 How. Pr. 428; also in 27 JV. Y. 225 ; also, as it seems, in 1 Hilt. 550. See Meyers ■». Trimble. Decision in 1 Hilt. followed (Presumption of death) in Matter of Ackerman. 2 Red/. 521, 523. Decision in 27 N. Y. disting'd (Power of court as to confirmation of award) in Matter of Kings Co. Elev. Ry. Co., 82 Id. 95, 101, a case of report of commissioners. Disting'd (Costs against executors, &c.) in Burnham •». Har- rison, 3 Red/. 345. : v. Todd, 23 JV. Y. 28. Explained (Lia- bility on note, &c, payable on demand) in Sand v. St. John, 36 Barb. 637 ; Hirst e. Brooks, 50 Id. 334; Herrick v. Woolverton, 41 N~. Y. 587, which rev'd 42 Barb. 50, which see. Explained in Bartholomew v. Seaman, 25 Hun, 619, 620. Disting'd in Eisenlord v. Dillenback, 15 Id. 25 ; Wheeler v. Warner, 47 N. Y. 520; Alexander v. Parsons, 3 Lans. 334 ; McMullen ». Raffertv, 24 Hun, 364; Parker v. Stroud, 31 Id. 578. Reconciled with Howland v. Edmonds, 23 How. Pr. 152, in Payne v. Slate, 39 Barb. 640. Applied in Payne v. Gardiner, 29 N. Y. 172. Referred to as shaken by sub- sequent decisions, — in Pardee v. Fish, 67 Bark 407, which was aff'd in 60 K Y. 271, which see. Disting'd with Pardee v. Fish, 60 Id. 265, and Wethey v. Andrews, 3 Hill, 582, applied in Crim v. Starkweather, 88 2V". Y. 342. Disapproved as contrary to entire current of authority, in Thielman v. Gueble, 32 La. Ann. 260; s. c, 36 Am. R. 267. Explained in 2 Ames Cas. on B. '& N. 303. Quoted and explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 260, n. 2 (Keller's ed.). t. Village of Portchester, 8 Hun, 40. Rev'd in 71 JST. Y. 309 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 47. See Peyser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 71 -Jf. Y. applied with People e.r rel. Gil- lies v. Suffern, 68 Id. 321; Bradley v. Ward, 58 Id. 401; Bellingers Gray, 51 Id. 610;Westfall v. Preston, 49 Id. 349; Van Rensselaer v. Whitbeck, 7 Id. 517 (Affida- vits, &c. in assessment proceedings, when defective) Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. «. Supervisors of Erie, 48 Id. 93 ; Parish v. Golden, 35 Id. 462, being disting'd in Bre- voort v. City of Brooklyn, 89 Id. 128. Explained and reconciled with Matter of Kendal, 85 Id. 302 (Assessments by offi- cers de facto) in Dows v. Village of Irving- ton, 13 Abb. N. C. 162. Merry v. Hallet. See Putnam v. Wcstcott. v. Sweet, 43 Barb. 475. Aff'd as Hale ». Sweet in 40 K Y. 97. Merseran v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 66 K Y. 274. Disting'd (Waiver by agent of condition in policy) in Goodwin v. Massa- chusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 491. Merserean v. Lewis, 25 Wend. 243. Ap- proved with Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Den. 45, 60 (Promise to answer for debt, &c. of another, to whom to be made) in Green v. Brookins, 23 Mich. 48; s. c., 9 Am. R. 74. — — y. Norton, 15 Johns. 179. f5ee White v. MERSEREAU— METROPOLITAN BANK. 495 Osborn; "Wilson v. Reed. Followed \vith Hyde v. Stone, 7 Wend. 354; Gilbert «. Dickerson, id. 449 (Action by one tenant iii common against co-tenant for destruction of property held in common) in Herrin v. Eaton, 13 Me. 193; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 499; Sheldon «. Skinner, 4 TPercfZ. 625, being applied to show what is sufficient evidence of such destruction. v. Pearsall, 19 N. 7. 108. Disting'd (Judgment as estoppel) in Bush v. Knox, 2 Hun, 576, 579. v. Ryerss, 3 K 7. 261. Applied (Proof required in action by creditor against heirs) in Blossom v. Hatfield, 24 Hun, 276. Mervin t. Kumbel, 23 Wend. 293. See Starbuck v. Murray. Cited as illustrating the rule in N. Y. (Action on judgment against all of joint debtors, only part of whom have been served) in Wood v. Wat- kinson, 7 Conn. 500; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 562, 568, with extended note. Merwin v. Hamilton, 6 Duer, 249. Fol- lowed (Broker's right of action against prin- cipal) in Whitehouse v. Moore, 13 Abb. Pr. 142, 145. v. Star Fire Ins. Co., 7 Hun, 659. Affd, it seems, in 72 N. 7. 603, but without opinion. Mescrole v. Archer, 3 Bosw. 376. Collated with other cases (Waiver of tender) in Mc- Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 154. v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 8 Paige, 198. Rev'd in 26 Wend. 132. Messenger v. City of Buffalo, 21 N. 7. 196. Collated with other cases (Changes of plan in case of municipal contract) in 5 Abb. N. C. 1, 45, n. v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 48 How. Pr. 542. Affd in 6 Daly, 190. v. Holmes. See Bowman v. Ely. Messerole v. Tynberg, 4 Abb. Pr. (ZV*. S.) 410 ; s. c, 36 How. Pr. 14. Reviewed with Matsella. Flanagan, 2 Abb. Pr. 2V S. 459; Hier v. Abrahams, 82 2V. 71 519 ; Morgan Sons e. Troxell, 11 Abb. K O. 86 ; Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr. 64; Town v. Stet- son, 3 Daly, 53 ; Godillot v. Harris, 81 2V 7. 263; Caswell v. Davis, 58 Id. 223 (Words that may be used as trade- marks) in Electro-Silicon Co. v. Hazard, 29 Hun, 369. Approved, but disting'd, in Town v. Stetson, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 218. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 251bm, n. n. Messmoro v. N. ¥. Shot & Lead Co., 40 N. 7. 422. See Davis «. Talcott;. Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Explained (Damages for breach of contract for delivery of merchan- dise) in Kemp v, Knickerbocker Ice Co., 51 How. Pr. 43. Applied in Booth v. Spuy- ten Duyvil Rolling Mill Co., 60 N. 7. 493, 497, which affd 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 372, which see; Parks v. Morris Ax & Tool Co., 54 N. 7. 592. Disting'd in Cassidy v. Le Fevre, 45 Id. 568. Explained in 2 Benj. on Sales,^ § 1337 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Ex- plained in Id. § 882d, (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) Included in Seilg. Cos. on Dama. 303.- Messner v. People, 45 N. 7. 1. Applied (Practice on writ of error in criminal cases) in Dent v. People, 46 How. Pr. 265; Gra- ham v. People, 63 Barb. 478, 480. Exam- ined with other cases in Manke v. People, 74 If. 7. 424. Referred to in Whart. Com. on Ev. § 268, as an extreme illustration of the principle (Effect of declarations of per- son given in evidence to show character of injury received by him). Messonier v. Kaninan, 3 Johns. Ch. 3. Dis- cussed (Revocation of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 362, 4ed. Metcalf v. Baker, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 10; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 431. Affd, it seems, in 52 2V. 7. 649, but without opinion. Fur- ther decision on the merits in 57 Id. 662. See Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co. - — r V. Clark, 5 Johns. 361. Overruled (Requisites of affidavit, on motion to change venue) in Swartwout v. Hoage, 16 Id. 3. v. Stryker, 31 Barb. 62; s. c, more fully, 10 Abb. Pr. 12. Affd in 31 if. 7. 255. See Gallarati v. Orser. "With decision in 10 Abb. Pr. see (Rights, &c. of sheriff when liable as bail) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 595, n. v. Van Brunt, 37 Barb. 621. Disting'd (Revocation of assignment) in Whitcomb v. Fowle, N. 7. Com. PL, 1 Am. Insohi. B. 160, 162. Methodist Churches of N. T. v. Barker. See Carpenter v. Wright. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jacques, 1 Johns. Ch. 65. Subsequent decisions in Id. 450; 2 Id. 543; 3 Id. 1 ; Id. 77; 17 Johns. 548; Hoph. 453. See Yale v. Dederer. Decision in 3 Johns. Ch. 77, examined (Capacity of married women to contract)' in Yale v. Dederer, 22 2V 7. 450. Followed (Wife's power over her separate estate) in Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle {Pa.) 231 ; s. c, 18 Am. Dee. 625, 631, with note. Dis- cussed in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. §§ 660, 661. Decision in 1 Johns. Ch. relied onnn Smyley v. Reese, 53 Ala. 89; s. c. 25 Am. B. 598. t. Tryron, 1 Den. 451. Examined (Proof of existence of corporation plaintiff) in Smith v. Village of Adrian, 1 Mich. 498. Methodist Episcopal Union Church v. Pickett, 23 Barb. 436. Affd in 19 2V. 7. 482. Decision in Id. applied (What is nec- essary to establish existence of a corpora- tion de facto) in Van Buren v. Reformed Church of Gansevoort, 62 Barb. 497 ; Bank of Toledo 11. Internat. B'k, 21 if. 7. 543 ; De Witts. Hastings, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 474. Quoted in Morawetz on Corp. § 139. See cases collected in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 548. Metraz v. Pearsall, 5 Abb. 2V. C. 90. See Stent v. Continental Nat. B'k. See (Alle- gations in verified pleading) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 524, n. Metropolitan Bank v. Lord, 1 Abb. Pr. 185. Disting'd (^Denial of plaintiffs title to note) METROPOLITAN BANK— MICK. in Hays v. Southgate, 10 Sun, 511, 513; which was, however, rev'd in Hays v. Ha- thorn, 74 F. Y. 486. ■ v. Van Dyke, 27 F. Y. 400. Argument of ex-Judge Pouter is reported in Snyder's Great Sp. 421. Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrio, 34 F. Y. 657. See People ex rel. Beller n. Wright; Wynehamer v. People. Applied (Nature of liquor license) in People ex rel. Beller v. Wright, 3 Sun, 308. Cited as authority (Legislature not to bargain away police power of State) in Stone v. Missis- sippi, 101 U. S. 814, 818. Metropolitan B'd of Health v. Heister, 37 F. Y. 661. See Milhau v. Sharp. Followed (Legislative power to give authority to enact ordinances) in People ex rel. Oox b. Special Sessions, 7 Sun, 216. Re-aff'd (Power to make police regulations) in Health Depart- ment v. Knoll, 70 F. Y. 536. Applied in Cronin v. People, 20 Sun, 137, 140. Col- lated with Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Board of Health, 31 Sow. Pr. 385; Polinsky «. Peo- ple, 73 F. Y. 65, and other cases in 23 Am. R. 212, n. Metropolitan Gas Light Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 9 Sun, 706. Compare (Practice on exception to findings of fact) Code Civ. Pro. §992. Metz v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 58 F. Y. 61. Cited as authority (Liability of railroad company while property is in hands of re- ceiver) in Davis v. Duncan, V. S. Cir. Ot. S. D. Miss. 19 Fed. Rep. 481. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 482. Metzger, Matter of, 1 Barb. 248; s. c, 1 Park. 108, where petition for writ is given. In consequence of this decision the act of Congress, August 12, 1848, was passeJ, giving effect to certain treaty stipulations. Meyer v. Ainidon, 45 F. Y. 169. Subsequent decision in 23 Sun, 553. See Case v. Boughton; Marsh v. Falker. Disting'd (Liability for false representations) in West- cott ». Ainsworth, 9 Sun, 57; Salisbury v. Howe, 87 F. Y. 135. Applied in N. Y. Kingston, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Sun, 297; Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 F. Y. 35; Still v. Little, 63 Id. 432. Compared in Morehouse ». Yeager, 41 Super. Ct. {J. S S.) 135, 146. v. City of Louisville, 7 Abb. Pr. 6; s. c, erroneously reported as decision at Spec- ial Term, in 26 Barb. 609. ■ f. Clark, 2 Daly, 497.. Rev'd in 45 F. Y. 285. Decision in Id. disting'd and applied (Curing error in charge) in People v. Greenfield, 23 Sun, 454, 472, which was aff d as Greenfield v. People, in 83 F. Y. 75, which see. v. Hibsher. See Moore v. Cross. V. Huneke, 65 Barb. 304. Rev'd in 55 F. Y. 412. v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 51 Sow. IV. ,263. Aff'd in effect in 73 F. Y. 516; s. c, 29 Am. R. 200. v. Lathrop, 10 Sun, 66. Affd in 73 2V. Y. 315. Decision in 10 Hun, over- ruled (Grantor as surety of grantee ussum. ing mortgage) in Paine v. Jones, 14 Id. 577- See cases cited in 5 Abb. F. C. 230, n. v. Lent, 16 Barb. 538. Rev'd in 7 Abb. Pr. 225. Compare Code Pro. § 401 us am'd in 1862, giving power to appoint ref- eree to take affidavit for purposes of motion. v. Meyer, 7 Weekly Dig. 535. Referee's opinion in 49 Sow. Pr. 3il. See Williams ». Fitch. Decision in 7 Weekly Dig. ex- amined with other cases (Setting aside ref- eree's report in divorce case) in 30 Sun, 154, 156, n. Decision in 49 Sow. Pr. collated with other cases (Divorce for fraud) in 8 Abb. F. C. 204, n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 F. Y. 455. Extended and applied (Effect of negligence in making payment of monev) in U. S. v. Nat. Park B'k, U. S Dist. C't. S. D. F. Y. 6 Fed. Rep. 854. t. Mohr, 1 Robt. 333; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 299. Followed (Fraudulent conveyance to which wife is party operates as extinguish- ment of dower) in Elmendorf v. Lockwood, 4 Lans. 393, 398. But compare Maloney ». Horan, 12 Abb. Pr. F. 8. 289, which rev'd 26 Sow. Pr. 260, which see. Collated with other cases in Sharsio. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 382. •■ v. Peck, 33 Barb. 532. Affd in 28 F. Y. 590. Decision in Id. applied (Estoppel created by bill of lading) in Miller v. Han- nibal & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 24 Sun, 607, 610. Explained and followed (Effect of stipula- tion in bill of lading, respecting deficiency in quantity.) in Abbe «. Eaton, 51 AT. Y. 410, 413. Explained in Bissel v. Campbell, 54 Id. 356. v. Schultz, 4 Sandf. 664. Overruled (Pleading mitigating circumstances in action for slander) in Bush v. Prosser, 11 A 7 ". Y. 347. v. Van Coll em, 7 Abb. Pr. 222. Ap- proved (Remedy for superfluous matter in complaint) in Ward v. Ward, 5 Abb. Pr. F. S. 147. Meyers v. Trimble, 1 Abb. Pr. 220. Disap- proved with Merritt ■». Thompson, Id. 223 (Enforcing order for payment of money admitted to be due) in Dusenberry v. Wood- ward, Id. 443. Miaghan v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 12 Sun, 321. Plaintiff subsequently recovered on policy without reformation. Michaels y. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 30 F. Y. 564? Followed (Liability of railroad receiving goods from connecting company) in Dunham*. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 70 Me. 164; s. c, 35 Am. R. 314, 317. See cases collected (Proof of excepted loss in carrier's contract) in 10 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 365. Discussed (Act of God) in 1 Add. on Torts, 714, n. 1, Wood's ed. Mick v. Mick, 10 Wend. 379. Disting'd with SutlifE v. Forgey, 1 Cow. 89;' .5 Id., 713; Priests. Cummings, 20 Wend. 338; Curriu v. Finn, 3 Den. 229 (Alienage as affecting capacity to take lands) in \V right v. Saddler, 20 F. Y. 320. MICKLES— MILK. 407 Micklcs t. Dillaye, 17 if. Y. 80. See Mick- les «. Townsend; Phyfe v. Riley. Dis- cussed (Allowance to mortgagee in posses- sion for improvements) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 710. T. Hart, 1 Deri. 548. Explained and disting'd (Effect of acts, of, plaintiff in exer cution, on liability of sheriff for neglect by deputy) in McKinley v. Tucker, 59 Barb. 93, 102. v. Rochester City B'k, 11 Paige, 118; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 103, with note, wherein are collected citations of the case. . See City of Utica v. Churchill. Followed (Proceed- ings by stockholders for dissolution of cor- , poration) in Kittredge ®. .Kellogg Bridge Co., 8 All,.' XT. 0. 168; Masters v. Eclectic Life Ins. Co., 6 Daly, 455, 457. , v. Townsend,- 18 N. Y. 575. . Other decisions arising out of transactions herejn- volved in Micklcs «. Dillaye, 17 if Y. 80; 15 Hun, 296. See Kellogg v. Ames ; Phyfe v. Riley. Decision in 18 N~. Y. followed (Mort- gage, -when extinguished by covenant of war- ranty) in Stoddard v. Rotton, 5 Bosw. 3.88. Doctrine said to be one that ought not to he extended, — in 3 Am. L. Reg. if S. 149. Ex- amined with other cases (Rights of assignee of mortgage) in dissenting opinion of Hoff- man, J., in Thompson v. Van Vechten, 6 Boms. 410. Examined with other cases (In- terest of mortgagee) in Hubbell v. Moul- son, 53 if. Y. 227; also in dissenting opin- ion of Gray, C, in Trimm v. Marsh, 54 Id. 624. Quoted in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 108. Approved as very clearly stating the principle (Merger as arising from union of legal and equitable estates) in Champ- ney v. Coope, 32 if. Y. 549. Middlebrook v. Broadbent, 47 if Y. 443. See Cross v. Huntley. Disting'd (Jurisdic- tion of State courts in action involving validity of patent) in Hovey ». Rub. Tip Pencil Co., 57 if. Y. 119, 124. v. Corwin, 15 Wend. 169. Followed (Right to manure, in case of lease for agri- cultural purposes) in Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa St. 262 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 550. t. Merchants' Bank, 14 All. Pr. 462 n.\ s. c, 24 How. Pr. 267. Aff'd in i'\ Burl. 481 ; s. c, 18 Abl. Pr. 109; 27 How. Pr. 474 ; and that aff'd in 3 Reyes, 135 ; s. c, 3 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 295. Decision in 27 How. Pr. approved (Enforcing right derived from foreign executor) in Petersen v. Chemical Bank, 32 if Y. 21. Decisions in 41 Barb., 27 How. Pr. and 3 Alb. Ct. App. Dec. applied (Right to maintain action to compel transfer of stock) in Cushman « Thayer M'f'g Jewelry Co., 76 if Y. 365 368, which aff'd 7 Daly, 330, which see. Decision in 3 Keyes explained in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 587, n. a, 11 ed. Middle District Bank, Matter of, 1 Paige, 585; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 452. See Niagara Bank v. Rosevelt. Followed, but a state- ment corrected (Set-off against insolvent bank) in Diven v. Phelps, 34 Barb. 224, 230. I.— 32 Mid?eley T. Slocomb, 2 All. Pr. if S. 275, Collated with other cases (Paying dividends under assignment for benefit of creditoj-s) in Bishop on Assign. § 399. Mier v. Cartledge, 7 N. Y. Leg. Ols. 371 ; .8.. c„ 4 How. Pr. 115. . Rev'd in 8 Barb. 75. Milhnnk v. De.mstoun, 1 Bosw. 246. Rev'd .in 21 if Y. ;386; s. a, 19 How.Pr. 126: Further decision, in 10 Bosw. 382. j Milhnvn v. Belloni, 34 Barb. 607; s. a, 12 All. Pr. 454; 22 How. Pr. 18. Rev'd in 39 if' Y.53. See Passinger v. Thpr- burn. Decision in 39 N. Y- followed (Lia- bility for defects in, personal property sold) in White' v. Miller, 7 Hun, 427, 439, whjch was rev'd in 71 if. Y. 118, 133, which see. Miles v. Clark, 2 Bosw. 709. AfFd in 4 }d. 632. ' — — v. Loomis; 10 Hun, 372. Aff'd in 75 JT.Y. 288 ; s. c., 31 Am.' R. 470. Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Barb: 193. Further decisions in 17 Id. 435; s. c, 9 How. Pr. l'02, which was aff'd in 7 All. Pr. 220; s. c, 28 Barb. 228, and that again aff'd in -27 if Y. 611. See Adriance v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Christopher v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Story v. N. Y. Elevated R-R. Co. Decision in 27 if. Y. explained (Pre- sumption of finding, in aid of judgment) in Meyer 1>. Amidon, 45 Id. 173. Applied (Joinder by separate owners in action to restrain nuisance) in Gillespie v. Forrest^ 18 Han, 112. . Applied (Damages for construc- tion of railroad on highwav) in Henderson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 78 if Y. 431. In Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 90 Id. 122 ; Milhau v. Sharp, and the fol- lowing cases are to a greater or less extent limited on this and kindred points ; Kelsey v. King, 33 How. 39, 46; Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Keyes, 387, 417; N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Forty-second St. &c. R. R. Co., 32 Bow. Pr. 481, 497; Knox v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 38 How. Pr. 67, 72 ; Metropolitan Board of Health v. Heister, 37 K Y. 661, 672 ; Craig v. Rochester City & Brighton R. R. Co., 39 Id. 404, 412; Coster v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 43 Id. 399, 414; Matter of Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 if Y. 574, 577; Tompkins v. Hodgson, 2 Hun, 146, 148 ; Wallack 1>. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Id. 97, 104 ; Fearing v. Irwin, 55 N~. Y. 486, 490; People ex rel. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 16 Abb. Pr if. S. 219; Haight v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 49 How. Pr. 20; Matter of Main & Hamburgh St. Canal, 50 How. Pr. 70, 73 ; Matter of N. Y. Elevated R'y Co., 7 Hun, 239, 241; Matter of City of Buffalo, 68 if Y. 167, 171; Washington Cemetery v. P. P. &C. I. R. R. Co., Id. 591, 593; Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. R. Co., 43 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 292. 318. Military Parade Ground, Matter of, 48 How. Pr. 285; mem. s. c, 2 Hun, 374; 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 671. Aff'd in 60 if Y. 319. Milk v. Christie. See Franklin v- Tahnadge. 498 MILKS— MILLER. Milks v. Rich, 15 Bun, 178. Afi'd in 80 B. Y. 269 ; s. c, 38 Am. R. 615. Decision in Id. disting'd with Bruce v. Burr, 67 Id. 237; Cardellfl. McNiel, 21 Id. 336 (Effect of oral guaranty of note of another) in Dow v. Swett, 134 Mass. 140; s. c, 45 Am. B. 310. Millar v. Thompson, 1 Wend. 447. Disap- proved (Right of -action for seduction) in Parker v. Meek, 3 Sneed {Tenn.) 29, 38. Millard v. Brown, 35 B. Y. 297. Disting'd (Exemplary damages, when to be allowed) in Thompson v. Lumley, 7 Daly, 74, 84. ■ v. Jenkins, 9 Wend. 298. Disting'd (Action for false return to certiorari) in Rector v. Clark, 78 B. Y. 21, 29. Limited in Brooks v. St. John, 25 Sun, 540, a case of return by justice. v. McMnllin, 5 Bun, 572. Modified as to rents and profits, and afPd in 68 B. Y. 345. v. Missouri, K. & T. R. R. Co., 86 B. Y. 441. Afl'g 20 Bun, 191. v. Thorn. See Arnold v. Camp. Millbank v. Broadway Bank, 3 Abb. Pr. B. S. 223. Explained as not bearing on the point (Action in name of attaching creditor) in Lupton v. Smith, 5 Sup'm. 01. (T. & O.) 274. Miller's Case. See People v. Morrisette. Miller v. Adams, 7 Lam. 131. AfPd in 52 B. Y. 409. T. Adsit, 16 Wend. 335. Explained (Costs against party in interest defending in name of another) in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 5 1 F. 558. To the contrary (Replevin lies by receiptor of goods, which have been taken in execution) Norton v. People, 8 Cow. 137; Dillenbaek v. Jerome, 7 Id. 294; Mitchell v. Hinman, 8 Wend. 667; Phillips v. Hall, 8 Id. 614; Collins v. Butts, 10 Id. 399 ; Waterman ». Robinson, 5 Mass. 303; Ludden v. Leavitt, 9 Id. 104; Perley v. Foster, 9 Id. 112; Warren v. Le- land, Id. 265; Commonwealth «. Moor, 14 Id. 217; Bond v. Paddleford, 13 Id. 394; Prownell v. Manchester, 1 Pick. (Mans.) 232. See, also, Story on Bailm. 72-93 ; Fisher v. Bartlett, 8 Oreenl. (Me.) 122; Johns v. Church, 12 Pich. (Mass.) 557; Bursley «. Hamilton, 15 Id. 40; Collins «. Evans, 15 Id. 63; and see Parr v. Farley, 3 Fair/. (Me.) 328; Woodman ». Trafton, 7 Oreenl. (Me.) 178. v. Auburn & Syracnse R. R. Co., Hill, 61. See Sayles v. Smith ; Thompson v. Gregory. Applied (What is revocable license) in Hobbs v. Wetherwax, 38 How. Pr. 385, 388. Explained and applied in Eggleston «. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co , 35 Barb. 162, 169, 174. Examined with other cases in Babcock v. Utter, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 27, 49. Disting'd in Wiseman ». Lucksinger, 84 B. Y. 31, 41. Collated ■with other cases in 2 Bare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 565; Id. 576. Quoted and dis- cussed in Wood on Buis. 2 ed. § 361. V. Barber, 4 Bun, 802. Afi'd in C6 B. Y. 558. Decision in ■ Id. cited (Measure of damages on sale of property induced by fraudulent * representations) in Herfort v. Cramer, 7 Col. 491, 493. Explained in ] Benj. on Sales, § 641, n. 8 (Corbin's 4 Am, ed. vol. 1). v. Bear. See Kane v. Bloodgood. v. Bowles; 58 If. Y. 253. Rev'g deci- sion under Appleton v. Bowles, 2 Sup'm. (It. (T. & 0.) 568. Decision in 58 B. Y. fol- lowed (Effect of assignment in bankruptcy on attachment) in Duffield ». Horton, 10 Bun, 140, 143 ; which was aff'd in 73 B. Y. 218, which see. v. Brenliam, 7 Bun, 330. AfTd in 68 B. Y. 83. With decision in Id. compare (Foreign statute of limitations no bar here) Code Civ. Pro. § 390. v. Brinkerhoff, 4 Den. 118 (Protection afforded by affidavit presented to obtain at- tachment) in Decker v. Bryant, 7 Barb. 190. Applied to warrant for arrest in Pratt v. Bogardus, 49 Id. -94. v. Burke, 6 Daly, 171. Aff'd, it seems, in 68 B. Y. 615, bat without opinion. v. Burroughs. 4 Johns. Gh. 436. Col- lated with Van Buren v. Van Gaasbeck, 4 Cow. 496 ; U. S. Bank v. Chapin 9 Wend. 471 ; Mechanic's Bank v. Minthorn, 19 Johns. 244; Macomber v. Dunham, 8 Wend. 550; Ritter v. Phillips, 53 N. Y. 590, and other cases (Rate of interest pay- able after maturity of contract) in 30 Am. E. 47, n. Followed in Wernwag b. Brown, 3 Black/. (Ind.) 457; s. a, 26 Am. Dec. 433. y. Church, 2 Sup'm. Cl. (T. & C.) 259. Followed on further decision in 5 Bun, 342. See Conhocton Stone Road Co. -o. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co. v. Coates, 4 Sufm. Ot. (T. S C.) 429 ; mem. s. c, 2 Bun, 156. Rev'd in 66 B. Y. 609. Decision in 2 Bun, 668; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 690, is different proceeding. v. Collyer, 36 Barb. 250. Cited at length (Enforcement of judicial sale) in Wil- lets v. Van Alst, 26 Bow. Pr. 325. Col- lated with Willets v. Van Alst, 26 Bow. Pr. 325; Riggs v. Purssell, 66 B. Y. 198; Goodwin v. Simonson, 74 Id. 133, and other cases, in 27 Alb. L. J. 508. v. Cray ton, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 360. Included (Transfer of overdue negotiable paper) in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & B. 888. v. Drake, 1 Cat. 45. Overruled, it seems (Sufficiency of offer to perform "con- tract for conveyance of land) in Williams v. Healey, 3 Den. 363. Cited as sustaining the doctrine (Action on contract for benefit of third person) in 1 Add. on Contr. 7, n. 1, Abb. ed. v. Eagle Life & Health Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 268. Approved (Insurable inter- est) in Iloyt v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 440, 447. Compare Freeman v. Fulton. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. 393. Qualified with Pierce v. Thomas, 4 R D. Smith, 354 MILLER. 409 (Effect of second judgment on prior judg- ment that has been allowed to stand as security) in Heineman v. Waterbury, 5 Bosw. 686, 689. v. Earle, 24 N. Y. 110. Followed (What is valid confession of judgment) in Roraback v. Stebbins, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 100, 104. v. Emans, 19 H. Y. 384. Disting'd (Nature of contingent interest given by will) in Kingsland v. Leonard, 05 How. Pr. 7. Explained and followed (Effect of release on contingent interest) in Wilson v. Wilson, 32 Barb. 328. Disting'd in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 152. v. Fenton, 11 Paige, 18. See Cun- ningham v. Pell ; Peck v. Ellis. Cited with Peck. v. Ellis, 2 Johns. Ch. 131 ; Andrews v. Murray, 33 Barb. 334; Wehle v. Haviland, 42 How. Pr. 399, 410 (No contribution among tort feasors) as authority for the rule, and the rule limited, in The "Hudson," U. 8. Dist. Ct. S. D. XT. Y. 15 Fed. Rep. 162. Disting'd and limited in Armstrong County v. Clarion County, 66 Pa. St. 218; s. C, 5 Am. R. 368. Followed in Boyd v. Gill, U. S. Cir. Ct. 8 D. N. Y. 17 Repor- ter, 132. v. Franklin, 20 Wend. 630. Disting'd and approved (Liability of assignee of claim for costs) in Peck v. Yorks, 75 H. Y. 424. Dictum herein overruled in Taylor v. Bol- mer, 2 Den. 193. v. Gable, 2 Den. 492. Rev'd in 10 Paige, 627. See Baptist Church in Hart- ford v. Withorell; Field v. Field. Ap- proved with Kniskern v. Churches of St. John, &c, 1 Saudf. Ch. 439 (Diversion of charitable fund to religious purposes other than those intended) in the Dublin Case, 38 H. H. 4")9, 611. See cases collected in 13 Am. L. Reg. K 8. 80. T. Oarlock, 8 Barb. 153. Quoted (Ease- ments by prescription through adverse en- joyment) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 323. v. Gaston, 2 Hill, 188. See Packer v. Willson. Re-afE'd (Guarantor of note, not liable as indorser) in Brown v. Curtiss, 2 N. Y. 225. v. Hackley, 5 Johns. 375 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 372, with note, wherein it is said to have in its syllabus a statement which has been overruled (Bill drawn in one State upon another place in the United States, but not within that State, is an inland bill). See Duryee v. Dennison. Overruled in Bruckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 580. See Halli- day v. McDougall, 20 Wend. 81 ; 22 Id. 264. Disapproved in Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn. 485, 499; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 433. Shown in 4S Am. Dec. 218, n., to have been everywhere overruled. Approved (What is sufficient and competent evidence of notice of dishonor of a bill) in Bell v. Perkins, Peck (Term.) 261 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 745. Collated with many other cases in 28 Alb. L. J. 328. T. Hall, 40 Super Ct. (J. & S.) 262. Aff'd in 70 N. Y. 250. Decision in Id. explained (Parties' defendant in creditor's actions) in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 128. v. Hooker. See Swift v. Wells. v. Hooper, 19 Hun, 394. Followed (Exemption of earnings from execution) in Zimmerman v. Coon, 23 Id. 532. For pres- ent statute see Code Civ. Pro. § 2463. v. Illinois Cent. R. K., 24 Barb. 312. Applied (Stock dividends) in Williams ». Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. N. C. 437, 446. v. Irish, 67 Barb. 256 ; mem. s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 707; 3 Hun, 352. Aff'd in 63 N. Y. 652. v. Johnson, 12 Wend. 197. Overruled, it seems (Right of plaintiff to question form of notice of rent due under 1 11. 8. 746, § 1 2) in Olcott v. Frazer, 5 Bill, 562. v. Kent, 21 Han, 617. Fully reported in 59 How. Pr. 321. Other proceedings in 60 Id. 388 ; mem. s. a, 23 Han, 657. Also in 60 How. Pr. 451. v. Levi, 44 N. Y. 289. Disting'd (Con- dition subsequent and conditional limitation in lease) in Penoyer v. Brown, 13 Abb. H. C. 82. Collated with other cases in Mc- Adam on Landl. & Ten. 2 ed. § 27. Col- lated with other cases (Summary proceed- ings) in Id. § 260. v. Lewis, 4 N. Y. 554. Compare (Right to redeem real property sold on execution, when not prej udiced) Code Civ. Pro. % 1440. v. Lockwood, 32 N~. Y. 293. See Ford v. Williams. Approved (Effect of posses- sion by mortgagor under chattel mortgage) in Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Alb. N. C. 190. Explained in Russell v. Winne, 37 AT. Y. 595. Applied in Frost v. Warren, 42 Id. 207, and see dissenting opinion (p. 210). v. Loeb, 64 Barb. 454. Disting'd (Effect of discharge Of receiver) in Davis v. Dun- can, U. 8 Cir. Ct. D. Miss. 19 Fed. Rep. 481. Cited as authority in High, on Receiv. §§ 268, 848. v. Long Island R. R. Co., 9 Hun, 194. Rev'd in 71 N. Y. 380. Decision in Id. quoted (Requisites of possession unaccom- panied by title) in Sedguo. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to land, § 719. Explained (Adverse possession) in Id. % 733. v. McCan, 7 Paige, 451. Explained (Principal debtor, as party to proceedings by surety against creditor) in Vilas v. Jones, 1 N. Y. 274. v. MuComh, 26 Wend. 229 ; s. c, 14 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1067, with brief note. v. Manice, Hill, 114. Followed with Young v. Rummell, 2 Id. 480 (Former recovery may be given in evidence under general issue) in Wann v. McNulty, 2 Gilm. (III.) 355; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 60. Cited (Party estopped by former adjudication, notwithstanding his failure to submit suffi- cient proof to jury) m 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 788. Quoted and explained (Liability of partnership for money borrowed by partner) in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 183, n. h. __ 500 MILLER— HILLERD. t. Miller, 8 Johns. 74. See Fox v. Van- derbeck. Applied (Statement, when slan- derous, though not direct and positive) in Waters ». Jones, 3 Port. {Ala.) 442 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 264, 203, with note. Followed as conclusive in Treat v. Browning, 4 Conn. 408; s. c, 10 Am. Dec 156. Applied (Not necessary, in action for slander, to prove precise words averred) in Desmond ». Brown, 29 Iowa, 53; s. c, 4 Am. R. 194. T. —,.9 Abb.. Pi: N. S. 444. See Beach v. Hollister ; Goelet t>. Gori. Pisap- ;■ prpved (Effect of conveyance to husband and wife) ,in Meeker ». Wright, 76 N. Y. 262, 269. Discussed and classified with Farmers' <§r M. Nat. B'k ■». Gregory, 49 Barb. 155; Goelet v. Geri, 31 Id. 314; Meeker v. Wright, 76 N. Y. 262; Beach. v. Hollister, 3 Hun, 519, and other cases in, 18 Gent. L. J. 326. v. , 7 Hun, 208. Further decision , in 1 Abb. N. C. 30. See eases cited (Necessity of judgment before commencing creditor's action) in 5 Id. 184, n. See (Reaching surplus income by creditor's action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1879, «. v. , 18 Hun, 507. Iiev'd in 91 JV. Y. 315. Decision in 18 Hun followed (Who is an illegitimate child) in Matter of Mcriclo, 63 How. Pr. 62, 64; Bollermann .«. Blake, 24 Hun, 187, 190. Decision in 91 K Y. collated with other cases (Rights of inherit- ance of bastard) in 56 Am. Dec. 261, n. — — v. Montgomery, 78 N. Y. 282. Aff'g in effect Montgomery v. Miller, 3 Red/. 154. v. Mostyn, 2 Hun, 157, reported as Miller v. Coates, in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (2". & U) 429. ; v. N. T. & Erie R R. Co., 21 Barb. 513. Disapproved (Power of legislature to author- ize construction of highway across railroad track) in Albany Northern R. R. Co. v. Brownell, 24 N. Y. 345, 351. Applied to statute forbidding change of gauge, in State v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., 73 K C. 527 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 473, 477. v. , 18 How. Pi: 374; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. Pr. 431. v. O'Kain, 5 Hun, 39. Further decision in 13 Id. 594. v. People, 5 Barb. 203. Collated with other cases (Exposing person) in 1 Bennett & H. Cas. on Crim. L. 8, 456. Commented on in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 62, 63. v. Piatt, 5 Duer, 272. Limited (Effect of estoppel to create transfer of title to real estate) in Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595, 608. v. Plnmb, 6 Cow. 665; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 456, with note. Disting'd (Fixtures) as a case between grantor and grantee, — in Cross v. Marston, 17 Verm. 533; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 353, 355. v. President, &c. of Junction Cannl Co., 53 Barb. 590. Aff'd in 41 N. Y. 98. v. Rossman. See Cushman v. Johnson. Y. Schuyler, 20 N. Y, 522. Explained with reference to amendment of Code Pro. § 268, in 1860 (Practice on appeal from prder of General Term granting new trial) in Wright v. Hunter, 46 Id. 409, 412. —r- v. Smith, 16 Wend. 425. See Daby o. Ericsson. Disting'd (Evidence of pecuniary . ability^ to show payment of judgment) in Daby v. Ericsson, 45° JST. Y. 786. .;.„,_ v. Steam Navigation Co., 1 3 Barb. 361. Affd in 10 N. Y. 431. See McDonald*. Western R. R. Co. Decision in 10 if. Y. disting'd (Loss of goods by carrier before storage. or. deli v.ery) in Goold v, Chapin, 20 iV". Y. 259, 265. Limited in Fenner ». Buf- falo & StateLine R. R; Co., 44 i^-505. Explained \nAng. on Carr, § 156, n. a, 5ed. Decision in 13 Barb, quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 197, n. g. Quoted iu 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed,. § 943, n. 2. T. Talcott, 46 Barb. 167. Aff'd in 54 K Y. 114. • See Winchell v. Hicks. v. Van Anken, 1 Wend. 516. See Camp i>. Root. Examined with Larkin ■«. Robbins, 2 Id. 505; Towns ». Wilcox, 12 Id. 503 ; Van Slyke v. Lettice. 6 Hill, 610 ; Exp. Wright, 6 Cow, 399 (Eftect of submis- sion to arbitration) in Mackey v. Pierce, 3 Win. 309. Disting'd in Van' Slyke v. Let- tice, 6 Hill, 610. Disting'd (Effect of appeal from justices' judgment) in Burns «. Howard, 9 Abb. H. C. 321, 325. v. White, 8 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 46; s. c, less fully, 57 Barb. 504. Further decision iu- 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 385; s. c, 59 Barb. 434; which was rev'd in 50 N. Y. 137? s. c, 13 Alb. Pr. N. S. 185, n. Also in 4 Hun, 62; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 255. See Hall b. Sigel; Krekelera. Ritter; Wiles v. Suydam. Decision in 50 N. Y. disting'd (Proof of judgment against corporation, as evidence against trustees, &c.) in Lewis v. Armstrong, 8 Abb. H. C. 386; Jones v.. Barlow, 62 K Y. 207, which rev'd 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1.45, which see. Followed in Esmond v. Bullard, 16 Hun, 67; Reed v. Keese, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 274. Dis--. ting'd in Hastings v. Drew. 76 N. Y. 15; which affd 50 How.Pr. 259, which see; Stephens v. Fox, 17 Hun, 438,, which was aff'd in 83 K Y. 317, which see; Schenck- v. Andrews, 57 Id. 148. A different rule applied in Grand Rapids Sav. Bank v. War- ren. 52 Mich. 501. Relied on with McMa- hon v. Macy, 51 K Y. 162; and the latter approved as giving a lucid recapitulation of the N. Y. authorities, in 2 Whart. Com. on Eii. § 761. Decision in 59 Barb, fol- lowed as an authority until reversed in Hall v. Sigel, 7 Lans. 20. See to the contrary (Sufficient proof of judgment) authorities cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 537, n. 2. v. Winchell, 3 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 795. Affd iu 70 N. Y. 437. Millerd v. Thorn, 56 N. Y. 402. Applied (Liability of retiring partner) in Dodd 0. Dreyfus, 57 How. Pr. 320. Approved in Smith v. Sheldon, 35 Mich. 42; s. c, 24 Am. £. 529, 534. Approved in Vary?!.- M1LLETT— MILLS. 501 . Norton, U. S.; Cir. Ct. W. D. Mich. ~6 .Ft.l Rep. 811, citing other cases. See cases cited in 20 Am. L. lleg. (X. S.) 470, n. Exam- ined with other cases in 18 Alb. L. J. 304. Millet t t. Baker, 42 Barb. 215. Approved and followed (Seal upon justice's commit- ment unnecessary) in Gano v. Hall, 42 A" 31 67. Milligan t. Bropliy, 2 Code R. 118. See (Change of venue) Code Cic. Pro. 1881, § 986, n. t v. Robinson, 5S Horn. Pr. 380. Fol- lowed (Costs, in case of two or more defend- ants) inEoycer. Jones, 23 Hun, 453. Dis- ting'd in Williams r. Cassady, 22 Id. 180, 1S6. Mllligaii & Welchinans' Case. See Williams' case. Milliken t. Dehon, 27 X 31 364. Followed (Sale of pledge without notice) in Genet v. Howland, 45 Barb. 503 ; Wicks r. Hatch, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 113, 116, which was aff'd in 02 X. 31 535, which see. Com men ted on in Hanks r. Drake, 49 Barb. 1SS. 200. Examined with other cases in Taylor v. Ketchum, 35 Hoie. Pr. 300. Disting'd in Markham r. Jaudon, 41A1 Y. 243. Ap- plied in Durant e. Einstein, 33 How. Pr. 244. Milliman t. Neher, 20 Barb. 37. Limited (Effect of mortgage, &c, of property not in existence) in Stover r. Eyeleshimer, 3 Keyes. 620. Approved, hut limited, in Conderman r. Smith, 41 Barb. 404. Disting'd in Mc- Caffrey r. Wooden, 05 A". Y. 467, which rev'd 68 Barb. 316, 323, which see Followed ■with Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crarv, 1 Barb. 542; Otiss. Sill, S Id. 102, in Hutchinson v. Ford, 9 Bush. (K~y.) 31S; s. c, 15 Am. B. 711, 713. Reviewed with Bank of Lan- singburgh d. Crary, 1 Barb. 542 ; Van Hooker «. Corv, 34 Id. 9, in Huling v. Cabell, 9 W. Ya. 522; s. c, 27 Am. R. 562. Collated with Bank of Lansingbut'nh «. Crary, 1 Barb. 543 ; Edgell r. Hart, 9 A! Y. 213"; Gardner r. McEwen, 19 Id. 123; Yates r. Olmstead, 56 7c/. 623 ; 65 Barb. 43; Otis v. Sill, S Id. 102, and the subject discussed in 1 Am. L. J. 355. v. N. T. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 585; mem. s. c, 4 Hun, 409. Affd in 66 A" T. 642. See other cases collected (Contributory negli- gence of disabled, Ac, person) in 6 Abb. A'. C. 116, n. 3Iillins t. Sliafer, 3 Ben. 60. See Jackson v. Virgil. Approved (Sufficiency of execu- tion of undertaking) in Weisbrod v. Mar- quardt, 8 Abb. X. C 243, 246. Mills' Case. See Williams' case. Mills T. Argall. 6 Paige, 577, 582. Correct- ness conceded (Rights of special partners) in Haves v. Bement, 3 Saiuir'. 394; White r. Hackett, 20 A". Y. 178, 180. Compare Bowen u. Argall, 24 Wend. 496. Disting'd (Revocation of assignment for creditors) in Whitcomb*. Fowlc, 1 Am. Insole. R. 160, 162. -; — v. Bliss, 55 X. Y. 139. Disting'd (Vendor's lien, as affected by fraud) in His- cock v. Norton, J 2 Kick. 324. Compare (Filing and canceling lis pendens) Code Cio. Pro. §§ 1070, 1074. v. City of Brooklyn, 32 X Y. 489 ; s. c, 5 Am. L. L\'j. X. J. 33, with note. See Bartlctt r. Crozier; Hutson r. Mayor, &e. of X. Y. ; Weet f. Trustees of Brock- port ; Wilson e. Mayor, Ac of N. Y. Dis- ting'd (Liability of municipal corporation for injury resulting from defect in public ■work) in Lewcnthal v. Mayor, &c. of X. Y., 61 Barb. 520; Beach v. City of Elmira, 22 Hun, 163; Clemence r. City of Auburn, 00 X. Y. 339. Approved and explained in Brtstable v. City of Syracuse, 8 Hun, 592. Applied in Hartford & N. Y. S'b't Co. ;. Mayor, &c of X. Y., 7S A r . Y. 5. Approved and applied with Smith r. Mayor, &c. of X. V., 66 AT Y. 295, in Fair'r. City of Philadelphia, S8 Penn. St. 309; s. c, 32 Am. R. 455, 457; Mayor, &c. of X. Y. v. Furze, 3 Hill, 612, being disting'd. Ap- proved in Allen r. City of Chippewa Falls, 52 7Fi's. 430; s. c, 38 Am. R. 748. Approved and applied in Horton o. Mayor and Citj Council, 4 Lea ( Tenn.) 39 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 1. Disapproved with Urquhart v. City of Ogdensburg, 91 A". Y. 67, in Gould v. City of Topeka, 32 Han. 4'.I0 ; citing also Clemens o. City of Auburn. 66 X. Y. 334. Applied in Hoyt c Citv of Hudson, 27 Wis. 650 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 473, 47S. Collated with Roches- ter White Lead Co. o. Citv of Rochester, 3 A: Y. 463; Mayor, &c. of X. Y. r. Furze, 3 Hill, 612; Barton e. City of Syracuse, 36 X. 31 54; Lcwenthal r. Mayor, &c. of X. Y., 61 Barb. 511; McCarthy r. City of Syra- cuse, 40 A1 31 194 ; and other cases in Van Pelt v. City of Davenport, 42 Iowa, 308; s. c, 20 Am'R. 022, 026. Denied in Gillison v. City of Charleston, 16 W. Ya. 782 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 705. v. Corastock, 3 Johns. Ck. 214. See Gardner c. Astor. Followed (Defeasance of recorded title) in Sioddard v. Rotton, 5 Bosw. 378, 384. v. Davis, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & $.) 355. Appeal dismissed in 53 A1 31 349. v. Dennis, 3 Johns. Ch. 367. With this case, and Harris v. Truman, Hoffm. 1 78. see to the contrary (Effect of decree obtained against defendant by default) Shields r. Powers, 29 Mo. 315, "cited in l\ler on Inf. & Cot. 2 ed. § 119. Included in Eicell Lead. Can. on Inf. &c. 229. Language of Kent, C, quoted (Change by guardian of ward's estate) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 131, ;». b. v. Garrison, 3 Keyes, 40. Disting'd (Waiver of right to rely on judgment as defence) in Jex r. Jacob, 19 Hun, 105, 10S ; Burritt r. Belfy, 47 Conn. 323; s. c, 36 Am. R. 85. Y. Gould, 1 Abb. X. C. 93. Further decision in 42 Super. Ct. (J. <£• S.) 119. Y. Hall, 9 Wend. 315; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 160, with note, whereiu it is said to 502 MILLS— MILNEK have been frequently referred to as author- ity. Followed (Prescriptive right to main- tain public nuisance) in Lewis v. Stein, 16 Ala. 214; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 177, 180, with Dote. Cited as authority with Renwick e. Morris, 3 Hill, 621 ; People ». Cunningham, 1 Den. 524, in State v. Franklin Falls Co., 49 N. H. 240; s. c, 6 Am. R. 513, 520. Approved as an authority in Woodruff v. Northern B. G. Min. Co., U. S. Cir. Gt. D. Oal. 18 Fed. Rep. 753, 788. Quoted and explained in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 727. Commented on (Private actions for such nuisance) in Id. § 677. v. Hildreth, 7 Hun, 298. Appeal dis- missed in 81 H. Y. 91. Another proceeding in 5 Hun, 364. See other proceedings as Mills 13. Rodewald, 13 Id. 43'J, and 17 Id. 297. Decision in 81 N. Y followed (Ap- pealability of order) in Douglass t. Haberstro, 82 Id. 572, 574. T. Hong-, 7 Paige, 18; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 271, with note, wherein it is referred to as having been frequently cited as au- thority (What is final decree). Cited as authority in Stovall v. Banks, 10 Wall. 587; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. (U. 8.) 285. v. Hunt, 17 Wend. 333. Aft'd in 20 Id. 431. See Bush v. Cole'; Van Eps v. Mayor of Schenectady. Decision in 20 Wend, dis- ting'd and applied (Contract to be executed distributively, when entire) in Aldrich v. Pyatt, 64 Barb. 391, 395. Quoted and ex- plained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 135, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Decision in 17 Wend: followed in Coffman v. Hampton, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 377 ; s. c, 37 Am. Dee. 513. Collated with Bush v. Cole, 28 2V. 7". 261, and other cases (Auctioneer's personal res- ponsibility to buyer to fulfil sale) in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 20. Decision in 20 Wend. disting'd (Individual liability of agent, &c.) in Adams v. Ives, 63 iV. Y. 651. — — v. Levy, 2 Edw. 183. Discussed (Re- leases in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 192, 4 ed. ■ v. Lewis, 55 Barb. 1 79. Explained . (Reformation of assignment) in O'Donnell v. Harmon, 3 Daly, 424. T. Martin, 19 Johns. 7. See Foot v. Stevens ; Wheeler v. Raymond. Language explained (Right to set up want of jurisdic- tion against judgment) in Sheldon v. Wright, 5 N. Y. 517. Followed with Holmes 1>. Broughton, 10 Wend. 75 ; Wheeler v. Raymond, 8 Cow. 311, in Gay v. Lloyd, 1 0. Greene (Iowa) 78; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 499, 504, with note. Applied (Sufficiency of avowry in replevin) in Cleve- land v. Rogers, 6 Wend. 442. Overruled (Amenability of militia to U. S. court mar- tials) in Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19. v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 45 K Y. 622. See Fenner v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co.; McDonald v. Western R. R. Co. Followed and approved (Liability of intermediate carrier) in Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. ». Mitchell, 58 111. 471 ; s. c, 18 Am R. 5C4, 567. v. Mills, 36 Barb. 474. Aff'd in 40 iV. Y. 543. Decision on motion for injunction is in 21 How. Pr. 437. Decision in 40 Ni. Y. quoted and collated with other cases (Contracts to influence legislation) in Field on Ultra Vires, 60. v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co., 2 Robt.. 326. Said in 41 if. Y. 019, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. in Sept. 1869. v. Porter, 2 Bun, 524; s. c, reported 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 63. v. Rodewald. See Mills v. Hildreth. v. Shult, 2 E. D. Smith, 139. Doubted (Action against owner of steamship foe breach of condition set forth in hand-bill), in 1 Pars, on Maritime Law, 131, n. v. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384. Aff'g in. effect 62 Barb. 444. Decision in 41 N. Y. disting'd with Tracy v. Tates, 18 Barb. 152; Seymours. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134; Hamilton & Deansville Plank Road Co. v. Rice. 7 Barb. 159 (What constitutes liabil- ity as stockholder) in Wheeler ». Millar, 90 K Y. 353. v. Thnrsby, 11 How. Pr. 113. Ex- amined (Power to* refer in case of long account) in Cameron 1>, Freeman, 10 Abb. Pr. 333, 335. v. Van Voorllis, 23 Barb. 125. Rev'd in -20 JST. Y. 412; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. 152. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of foreclosure on dower interest if wife is not made a party) in Ross v. Boardman, 22 Hun, 527, 529. Disting'd in Brackett v. Baum, 50 N. Y. 8, 11. Commented on (Seisin requisite for dower) in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 325. v. Watson, 1 Sweeney, 374. See Marsh v. Pike. See to the contrary (Evidence of payment) Mills v. Hyde, 19 Vt. 59. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 261. v. Young, 23 Wend. 314. Applied (Deputy sheriff not to execute process for or against himself) in Holbrook v. Brenuan, 6 Daly, 46, 48. Millspaugh v. McBride, 7 Paige. 509; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 360, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently approved in N. Y. (Merger of mortgage and equity of redemption). See Baxter v. Lansing. v. Putnam, 16 Abb. Pr. 380. Approved and followed (When deposit in bank in ■ trust constitutes a gift) in Martin v. Funk, 75 K Y. 138. Approved in Minor v,. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512; s. c, 16 Am. R. 69, 73. Collated with Geary i>. Page, 9 Bom. 290;.Fiero». Fiero, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 151 ; Champney ». Blanchard, 39 K Y. Ill ; Cooper v. Burr, 45 Barb. 9; Allerton v. Lang, 10 Born. 3 62, and other cases in 23 Am. R. 451, n. Miln v. Spinola, 4 Hill, 177. Aff'd in 6 Id. 218. Milner v. Milner, 2 Edw. 114. Disting'd with Prouty v. Lake Shore R. R. Col, 85 K Y. 292 (What may be set up in supple- MILNOR— MITCHELL. mental complaint.) in Cornwall v. Cornwall, 30 Hun, 573. Disting'd in Prouty v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co., 85 2V. Y. 272, 275 Mil nor v. N. T. & New Haven K. R. Co., 4 Daly, 355. AfFa in 53 If. Y 363. See Bostwick v. Champion. . Discussed, com- pared and applied with Hart . Williams, 4 McLean, 581), in Bosnian v. Akeley, 39 Mich. 710 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 448. Disting'd with Stafford v. Low, 16 Johns. 67; Beekman i>. Hale, 17 Id. 134; Tilghman v. Wheeler, Id. 326, in Cobb v. Little, 2 Oreenl. (Me.) 261 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec 72. Cited with Thomas v. Woods, 4 Cow. 173; Taylor v. Bullen, 6 Id. 624 ; Cumpston v. McNair, 1 Wend. 457 ; White v. Case, 13 Id 543; Loveland v. Shepard, % Hill, 139; Vanderveer v. Wright, 0' Barb. 547; Newell®. Fowler, 23 Id. 628 ; Gallagher v. White, 31 Id. 92; Mosier n. Waful, 56 Id. 80 ; Craig ». Parkis, 40 N. Y. 181, in Allen «. Bundle, 50 Conn. 9; s. c, 47 Am. R. 599, where the authorities , are reviewed, the N. Y. doctrine being criticised and disapproved. Questioned with ' Cumpston v. McNair, 1 Wend. 457 ; Craig , 1>. Parkis, 40 If. Y. 181, as against the , weight of authority, in Brackett v. Rich, 23 'Minn. 485; s. c, 23 Am. R. 703. Ex- plained (Enforcing engagement to perform ' act on previous performance of another act) .in Baldwin v. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 3 Bosw. 530, 543. Mockey v. Grey, 2 Johns. 192. Approved (Authority of justice to appoint guardian ad litem for infant) in Bullard v. Spoor, 2 Cow. 430. Applied to surrogate in Brick's , Case, 15 Abb. Pr. 12, 40. Followed (Effect of appearance of infant without guardian) in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117, 121. Moehring v. Mitchell, 1 Barb. Ch. 264. Affd as Moehring v. Mitchell, in How. App. ' Cas. 502. See Newell ». Nichols. Decision in 1 Barb. Ch. disregarded as obiter dictum (Power of married woman to make will) in Wadhams v. American Home Missionary 'Soo., 12 N. Y. 415. Criticised (Presump- tion of survivorship) in Newell v. Nichols, 12 Hun, 604, 617. Explained in 2 Best on 'JSv. § 410, n. a, Wood's ed. Applied (Right of husband, on wife's death, to policy for her benefit) in Olmsted ». Keyes, 85 If. Y. 593, 602. Moeller t. Bailey, 14 How. Pr. 359. See Roy v. Thompson. Explained with refer- ence to Rule 27 of 1858 (Right to move to dismiss complaint) in Bowles v. Van Home, 11 Abb. Pr. 85. Moett t. People, 85 If. Y. 373. Aff'g People v. Mbett, 23 Hun, 60. Previous decision in 58 How. Pr. 467. See newspaper slips, statements, points and error-book in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Decision in 85 If. Y. collated with Peoples. McCann, 16 Id. 58, and other authorities (Necessary evi- dence of insanity) in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 194 n. Moffat v. Mount, 17 Abb. Pr. 4; s. c, fully reported, as Moffat s. Moffat, 10 Bosw. 468. Cited (Evidence of notes of deceased counsel made in relation to office business) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 249. Moffatt v. Ford. See Dodd v. Curry. v. Strong, 10 Johns. 12; s. c, 4 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 914, with brief note. See- Jackson v. Blanshan; Jackson ». Staats. v. Wood, Seld. Notes, No. 5, 14. Qual- ified (Right to sue on tort or contract) in Roth v. Palmer, 27 Barb. 652. Moffet v. Sackett, 18 If. Y. 522. See Sears ». Conover. Applied (Power of General Term to alter amount of judgment) in Burl- ing v. Gunther, 63 How. Pr. 68, 71. Dis- ting'd in Boyd v. Foot, 5 Bosw. 110, 121. Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. €o., Matter of, 19 Wend. 135. _ Disting'd (Effect of failure to take prescribed oath in statutory form) in Merritt v. Village of Portchester, 71 If. Y. 309, 313. Mohawk & Hudson River R. Co. v. Artcher, 6 Paige, 83. See Livingston v. Livingston. Applied with People v. Canal Board, -55 If. Y. 390; Western R. R. Co. v. Nolan, 48 Id. 513; Matter of Kelly, 3 Hun, 636 ; 62 If. Y. 198; Stage Horse Cases, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 51 ; Tribune Ass'n v. Sun Ass'n, 7 Hun, 175 (Enjoining public authorities) in Man- hattan Iron Works Co. v. French, 12 Abb. If. C. 446. v. Clute, 4 Paige, 384. See Thomson v. Ebbets. Approved (Mode of taxation of railroad companies) in People v. Fredericks, 48 Barb. 185; People v. Cassity, 2 Lans. 298, which was aft'd in 46 If. Y. 53, which see. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Pri. Corp. § 446, 11 ed. Followed (Interpleader in case of double taxation) in Dorn v. Fox, 6 Lans. 164, which was rev'd in 61 If. Y. 268, which see. Disting'd (Equitable relief against assessment) in Wilson v. Mayor of N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. 29; Van Rensselaer v. Kidd, 4 Barb. 18. Applied in Hanlon v. Supervisors of Westchester, 8 Abb. Pr. If. S. 269. v. Niles, 3 Hill, 162. Cited (Liability of connecting carriers as co-partners) in Story on Partn. T ed. § 58, a. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 586, 5 ed. Mohawk Bank v. Atwater, 2 Paige, 54. See Clarkson v. Depeyster. Applied (Effect of - fraudulent conveyance, where grantee is not party to fraud) in Rathbun v. Plainer, 18 50,6 MOHAWK BANK— MONKOE. Barb. 274 ; Smart v. Harring, 52 How. Pr. 507. Disting'cl in Dart v. Farmers' B'k of Bridgeport, 27 Barb. 345. Dictum ex- plained (Suing out execution, as condition precedent to maintaining creditor's action) in McCullough ». Colby, 5 Bosw. 496. t. Broderiek, 10 Wend. 304. Aff'd in 13 Id. 133; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 321, with brief note ; and 27 Am. Dee. 192, with citations of the case respecting time when check is to be presented for pay- ment. See Gough v. Staats. T.Corey, 1 Hill, 513. See Schepp v. Carpenter. Explained and followed part- ing with value, .that constitutes holder for value) in Bank of the State of N. Y. v. Van- derhorst, 32 iV. Y. 553 ; which aff'd 1 Robt. 211, which see. Sustained in 5 Ey. L. Rep. & J. 412. Included with note in Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 267. Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co., 6 Paige, 554. Quoted and ex- plained (Injunction against nuisance) in 1 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 742, n. 4. Mohl v. Von Der Wnlbeke, 2 Lans. 267. Approved as to last point, and appeal dis- missed, iu 46 Jf. Y. 539. Moir v. Brown, 14 Barb. 39. See Wilkes v. Ferris. Disting'd (Effect of omission of annex schedule to assignment for creditors) in Hegeman v. Hegeman, 8 Daly, 1, 8, in case of failure to specify certain property in schedule. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 139, 4 ed. Commented on (Delivery) in Id. § 260, n. 1. Discussed (Terms of sale) - in Id. § 224. Colhvted with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 211. Mojarrictta v. Saenz, 80 N. Y. 548. Applied (Jurisdiction to grant attachment) in Blos- som v. Estes, 84 Id. 614, 618. Moke, Matter of, 2 Bed/. 429. Modified in Moke ». Norrie, 14 Hun, 128. Molony v. Dows, 8 Abb. Pr. 316. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of action for personal injury) in dissenting opinion of Brady, J., in Trubee v. Aldon, 6 Hun, 75, 78. Said in Dewitt v. Buchanan, 54 Barb. 32, not to be regarded as authority in Supreme Court, and said to overlook U. S. Const. Art. IV. § 2; Dewitt o. Buchanan being followed in preference to Malonee. Dows in Newman «. Goddard, 3 Hun, 71. See Farley v. De Waters, 2 Daly, 192. Monarque v. Monarque, 19 Hun, 332. Rev'd in 80 K Y. 320; s. c, 8 Abb. N. O. 102; 1 Am. Prob. B. 494, with noie. See Savage v. Burnbam. Decision in 80 ]¥. Y. disting'd (Protection of contingent interests by de- 1 cree in partition) in Rockwell v. Decker, 5 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 62. Compare Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1557, 1542, 1538, 1540. Ap- plied (Gift of income to four persons for life, equivalent to devise for life of one- fourth the property in severalty) in Dickie, v. Van Vleck, 5 Red/. 284, 296. T. Requa, 53 How. Pr. 438. Overruled in subsequent proceeding in Monarque v. Monarque, 80 JH. Y. 320. Monerief v. Ely, 19 Wend. 405. Disting'd with Birdsall v. Edgerton, 25 Id. 619- (Lia- bility of putative father of bastard for its support) in Todd v. Weber, 95 N. Y. 181. Cited in Good v. Towns, 56 Vt. 410; s. c, 48 Am. R. 799, as stating the result of the cases, both English and American. Followed in Simmons v. Bulb, 21 Ala. 501; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 257. v. Monerief, 10 Abb. Pr. 315. Opposed (Appeal from order granting alimony) in Leslie v. Leslie, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 193. v. Boss, 50 JST. Y. 431. Applied (Right to income and profits of real estate directed to be sold by will) in Betts n. Betts, 4 Abb. iV. C. 317, 417; Kearney v. Missionary Socy. of St. Paul, 10 Id. 274, 278. Followed in Shumway *. Harman, 4 Hun, 411. v. Ward. See Brittin v. Wilder. Moncll v. Bums. See McMillan v. Vander- lip. t. Coldcn, 13 Johns. 395; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 390. Approved (Action for deceit) in Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. 305, 308, 314. Followed in Brown v. Castles, 11 Cush. {Mass.) 350. Cited as authority with Cul- ver v. Avery, 7" Wend. 380, in Gwinther v. Gerding, 3 Head. {Tenn.) 197. v. Lawrence, 12 Johnsi 521. Dic- tum overruled (Constructive notice of de- crees in chancery) in Holbrook v. N. J. Zinc Co.. 57 N. Y. 616. 628. v. Monell, 5 Johns. Ch. 283; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 298. See Bates v. Underhill. See cases collected (Liability for acts of co- trustee) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 175. Followed and approved in Deaderick v. Cantrell, 10 Yerg. {Tenn.) 263; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 576, 578, with note. Followed in Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill Ch. {So. Car.) 277 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 72, 84, with note. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 463, 4 ed. v. Northern Cent. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 531. Aff'd in 16 Hun, 585. Mongeon v. People, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & G.) 128. AfTd, but overruled in 55 N. Y. 613. Mounell v. Weller, 2 Johns. 8. Explained and limited (Conclusiveness of justice's judgment given without costs) in Blum v. Hartman, 3 Daly, 47. Monnot v. Ibert, 33 Barb. 24. Cited as a prevailing authority (Limit of extent of security, in case of mortgage for future ad- vances) in Jones on Chat. M. § 96, n. Monroe v. Douglas, 4 Sand/. Ch. 126. Aff'd' in 5 iV. Y. 447. See Cummings ». Banks. Decision in 4 Sand/. Ch. approved with Cummings v. Banks, 2 Barb. 601 (Conclu- siveness of foreign judgment) in Lazier v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146. Cited in 2 Pars, on Contr. 609, n. y, as a case in which the whole doctrine is examined with great abil- ity. Referred to iu Waples Proc. in Bern, § 111, as clearly stating the doctrine (Con- clusiveness of a decree in proceedings in, rem). See cases collected in 6 Am. L. Beg. K S. 4. v. Hoff, 5 Den. 360: Dicta herein and MONEOE— MOOEBS. 507 in Porter v. Talcott, 1 Cow. 383, disregarded (Effect of note or bill taken for debt) in Noel «.' Murray, 1 Duer, 385, 390. Collated •with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Ca3. 5 ed. 300. v. Monroe. See Carter v. "Werner; Simmons «. Sherman. v. TJpton, 6 Lans. 255. Affd in 50 If. Y. 579. Decision in Id. disting'd with Clark ». Rowling, 3 Id. 216 (Discharge in bankruptcy, when bar to action on judg- ment) in Kevere Copper Co. v Dimock, 90 Id. -33. Monroe Savings Bank v. City of Rochester, 37 If. Y. 365. Cited with other authorities, State and Federal (State tax on Federal operations) in 1 Kent Com. 429, n. 1, Holmes ed. Montejo v. Owen, 5 Abb. If. O. 110; s. c, 56 How. Pr. 202. Compare (Equitable de- fenses not available in common law action) Kirk «. Hamilton, 102 U. S. 68. . Monterey, &c. BR. Co. v. Chamberlain, 32 if. Y. 659. Fpllowed in another similar case nearly identical in name in 33 N. Y. 46. Montgomery v City of Bochestcr, 4 Weekly Dig. 146. Fully reported under its proper title, City of Bochestcr i: Montgomery, 9 Hun, 394, and affd in 72 If. T. 65. v. Ivers. 17 Johns. 33. Explained (Stat- ing an account) in 2 Chitty on Cuntr. 962, n. U l , 11 Am. ed. v. Miller, 3 JRedf. 154. Affd in effect in Miller v. Montgomery, 78 K Y. 282. Montgomery County B'k v. Albany City B'k, 8 Barb. 396. Kev'd in 7 N. Y. 459. See Allen v. Merchants' B'k. Decision in 7 If. Y. approved (Liability of bank re- ceiving notes, &c, for collection, for default of its agents and correspondents) in Com- mercial B'k of Penn. «. Union B'k of N. Y., 11 If. Y. 203 ; Reeves s. State Bank, 8 Ohio (If. 8.) 465. Cited as estab- lishing the doctrine, in Exchange Nat. B'k t>. Third Nat. B'k, 112 U. S. 276, 282. See to the contrary, citing many cases, Guelick v. Nat. State Bank of Burlington, 56 Iowa, 436. Approved in 12 Cent. L. J. 151. Dis- ting'd (Title to paper deposited with baDk) in Metropolitan Nat. B'k v. Loyd, 25 Hun, 101, 104. Montrose v. Clark, 2 Sandf. 115. Collated with other cases (Consideration for negoti- able papers) in 1 Hare & W. An. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 423. Moody v. Andrews, 39 Super. Cf (J. & S.) 302. Aff'd. it seems, in 64 N. Y. 641, but without opinion. v. Baker, 5 Cow. 351. Relied on (When misrepresentations are actionable) in Paull «. Halferty, G3 Pa. St. 46 ; s. c, 3 Am. E. 518. Collated with other cases (Special damages for slander) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 cd. 120. v. Buck: See Wilson v. Reed. v. Levericb, 4 Daly, 401. See Howard v. Daly. Applied (Damages in action by servant for wrongful discharge) an Everson . Paine, 39 Barb. 619. Explained in Phelps v. Vischer, 50 If. Y. 73. See note to Cromwell «. Hewitt, 40 Id. 492. Dis- ting'd (Parol evidence to vary contract of indorsement) in Lewis v. Jones, 7 Bosw, 371. Applied in Coulter .v. Richmond, 59 If. Y. 481; Burkhalter e. Pratt, 1 City Ct. 22. Explained and applied (Sufficiency of complaint against indorser) in Woodruff v., Leonard, 1 Hun, 633, which was disting'd in Lynch v. Levy, 11 Id. 146, where Moore v. Cross was applied. Collated with Bacon v. Burnham, 37 If. Y. 616; Meyers. Hibsher, 47 Id. 265 ; Phelps v. Vischer, 50 Id. 69; Clothier v. Adriance, 51 Id. 322; Griswold v. Slocum, 10 Barb. 402; Richards ■». Warring, 39 Id. 42 ; Cromwell !>. Hewitt,. 40 N. Y. 491 (Effect of indorsement of note by stranger thereto) in 27 Am. R. 580. n. Referred to as a leading ease in 3 Am. Bee. 572, «.., collating other cases. Included in 1 Ames Cas. on. B. & N: 264. v. Bes Arts, 2 Barb. Ch. 636. Aff'd in 1 If. Y. 359. v. Eastman, 1 Hun, 578. Applied (In- fant's liability for tort) in Hewitt «. War- ren, 10 Id. 560, 563. t. Evans, 14 Barb. 524. See Cole v. Goodwin ; Welles v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Examined with other cases (Right of carrier to limit liability) in Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 364. Commented on in Ang. on Carr. § 239a, 5 ed. Denied as against authority (Burden of proof on owner of goods to prove want of care in carrier) in Indianapolis & Cincinnati R. R. Co. v. Cox, 29 Ind. 360. — v. Fox, 10 Johns. 244; s. c, 6 Am. Bee. 338. Followed with Crookshank v. Bur- rell, 18 Johns. 58 (Statute of frauds as affecting agreement to be performed on con- tingency that may not happen within one year) In Gadsden v. Lance, 1 McMull Eq.. (So. Car.) 87; s. c, 37 Am. Bec.MS. Cited in 3 Pars, on Contr. 36, ». g. — v. Gardner, 5 How. Pr. 243. Applied (Change of venue, on ground of convenience of witnesses) in Gifford v. Town of Graves- end, 8 Abb. K C. 246, 248. — v. Goedel, 7 Bosw. 591. Aff'd in 34 N. Y. 527. See Casey v. Mann; Losee v. Buchanan ; Willy v. Mulledy. — v. Hamilton, 48 Barb. 120. Aff'd in 44 If. Y. 666. Decision in Id. disting'd and MOORE. 509, ' explained (Effect of revival of action) in Crogin v. Brooklyn Cross-town R. R. Co., 83 Id. 595, 598. v. liegeman, 6 Hun, 290. Further pro- ceeding in 72 K Y. 376. See Leggett ■«. Perkins. -v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. 292 ; s. c, .10 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 613, with, brief note on bailee's lien. Explained (Mechan- ic's lien) in 3 Pars, on Gontr. 254, n. p. . -: — y„ Hudson River R. R. Co., 12 Barb. 156. Doctrine discussed (Contracts.payable . in. depreciated paper) in, 4 Am. L. Reg? N,- S. 349. - — - v. Jackson, 4 Wend. 58. Explained, (Disabilities wifh .respect to real property) in Ang. on Limit. § 483, 6 ed. ,v. Littel, 40 Barb. 488; s. c, 3 Am. R. • Beg. N. S. 144, with note. Further decis- ion in 41 R. Y. 60. Other decisions affect- ing estate here involved, as House v. Jack- son, 50 Jf. Y. 161 ; Jackson y. Sheridan, Jd. 000; Jackson v. Littell, 5.6 Id. .108; House v. McCormick, 57 Id. 310. Decision in 41 Id. followed (Creation of vested inter- est by grunt, &c. to one and his heirs) in Chism v. Keith, 1 Hun, 590; Drake v. Law- rence, 19 Id. 114. Disting'd in Livingston «. Greene, 52 N. Y. 123, which aff'd 6 Lam. 55, which see; Smith is. Scholtz, 68 N. Y. 61. Explained in Hennessy v. Patterson, 85 Id. 91, 104. Compared with other cases ; in 2 J arm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 617, n. 17. Commented on in 2 Washb. on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 550, n. v. Lyons, 25 Wend. 119. Followed ("Words of survivorship in will, to what period referred) in Meyer's Will, 6 Abb. JST. O. 442 ; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1 Hun, 355 ; "Weed v. Aldrich, 2 Id. 534; Livingston «. Greene, 52 £f. Y. 123; Emburys. Sheldon, 68 Id. 235 ; Johnson v. Valentine, 4 Sandf. 44. Disting'd in Kelso i>. Lorillard, 8 Daly, 302, which was aff'd in 85 iV Z 181, which see. Cited as according with the weight of authority, in Branson v. Hill, 31 Md. 181.; s. c, 1 Am. E. 40, 43. Explained in 4 Kent Com. 202, n. a. Applied (Re- mainder, when vested) in Williamson v. Field, 2 Sandf. Oh. 551. Applied to vest- ing of legacies in McKinstry v. Sanders, 2 Sup'm. Ot. (T.S O.) 186. v. McCarthy, 4 Hun, 261 ; s. c, reported in C Sup'm. Ot. (T. & O.) 451. v. Mansert, 5 Lam. 173. Aff'd in 49 N. Y. 332. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 4 Sandf. 456. Aff'd in 8 K Y. 110 ; s. c, 59 Am Dec. 473, . with notes on various points. See Doughty v. Hope. Decision in 8 iV". Y. limited (In- choate right of dower, when cut off) in Simar v. Canaday, 03 Id. 298, 303. As to how far limited in Siiuar v. Canaday, see Doty «. Baker, 11 Hun, 224. Commented on and collated with other cases in SAarsw. & B. Uas. on Heal Prop. 333. - V. , 4 Hun, 545. Rev'd in 73 AT Y. 238 ; s. c, 29 Am. B. 134. - — t. Meacham, 10 N. Y. 207. Applied- (Request to charge, when insufficient) in Van Akin v.. Caler, 48 Barb. 58, 61. Ex- plained (Account-book entry as evidence) in Peck v. Von Keller, 15 Hun, 471. Dis-- ting'd (Evidence of extrinsic facts to explain contract) in Levy v. Burgess, 38 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 438. . v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 55 IT. Y. 41. See Bush t>. Lathrop; Kortright v. Buffalo Commercial B'k;. McNeil % Tenth ' Nat. B'k; N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler. Followed '(Estoppel to .assert- title to non-negotiable chose in action) .in . . Zulick n. JMarkham, 6 . Daly, 133. Applied in First Nat. B'k of Corry v. Stiles. 22 Hun, 347 ; Armour v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 65- IT. Y. 123i Disting'd in Trustees of Union Coll. «.' Wheeler, 61 Id. 114; Greenes. Warnick, 64 Id. 224; Davis v. Bechstein, 69 Id. 442; Hamilton i>. Kingsbury, 17 Blatchf. O. Ot. 460, 465. Explained in In- . .ternational Bank v. German Bank, 71 Mo. 183 ; s. c. 36 Am. E. 468, 476, 480. Op- posed in l'omeroy on Rem. § 161, n. 1 ; 2- Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 165, 166, n. Compare (Presumption of payment of consideration named in instrument) in "Wood v. Mc- Clughan, 2 Hun, 150, and reporter's note- thereto. T. Moore, 4 Sandf. Oh. 37. Aff'd in 5 N. Y. 256. Decision in Id. followed (Trustee, &c. not to purchase trust property), in Terwilliger s. Brown, 59 Barb. 9, 13. V. , 2 Bradf. 261. See Rutherford v. Rutherford. Disting'd (Sufficient publi- cation of will) in Neugent o. Neugent,. 2 Redf 369, 372. Followed in Burk's "Will, Id. 239, 242. Included with note in Redf. Lead. Oas. on Wills, 181. : v. -^- 21 How. Pr. 211. Applied (Im- plied promise to pay for services) in Ross v. Ross, 6 Hun, 182, 185. v. , 47 iV. Y. 467. See Peeple v. Gates. Applied (Partition in equity) in ■ Green v. Arnold, 11 R. I. 364; s. c, 23. Am. R. 466, 472. Cited with other author- ities (State tax on Federal operations) in 1 Eent Com. 429, n. 1, Holmes' ed. See (Unstamped instruments as evidence) 7 Alb. L. J. 49. v. , 8 Abb. N. O. 171. See (Re- marriage after divorce) Green's Case, 8 Abb.. JV". O. 450. See, also, Brenner v. Brenner, 48 Ind. 262. See Code Civ. rro. § 1701. V. Noble, 53 Barb. 425. Referred to as overruling Quintard v. Newton, 5 Robt. 72 (Sufficiency of complaint in action for de- ceit on sale of horse) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 560, n. 2. v. Paine, 12 Wend. 123. Followed (Surety who has been indemnified, when not discharged) in Chilton v. Robbins, 4 Ala. . 223 ; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 741. Applied in Smith v. Estate of Steele, 25 Verm. 427 ; s. c, 00 Am. Dec. 270, with note. v. People, 53 K Y. 639. Brief note of . decision below in 7 Alb. L. J. 94. 510 MOOKE— MOEE W OOD. t. Ryder. See Padgett v. Lawrence ; Stalker v. McDonald. y. ShaW, 15 Hun, 428. Appeal dismis- sed in 77 N. 7. 512. T. Sloan, 50 Barb. 442. Disapproved (Sufficiency of record of assignment of mort- gage) in Viele *. Judson, 82 K' Y. 32, 38. t. Tracy, 7 Wend. 229. Disting'd (Fraudulent conduct in transfer of property, ■when ground for action) in Moody «. Bur- ion, 27 Me. 427 ; 3. c, 46 Am. Dec. 612, 616. ■ r t. Westervelt, 1 Bosw. 357. Rev'd in 21 N. Y. 103. Further proceeding in 9 Bosw. 558, which was aff'd in 27 N. Y. 234 ; s. c, less fully, 25 How. Pr. 277. T. Willett, 35 Barb. 663. Disting'd (Effect of statutory transfer of personal property, on title to vessel at sea) in Kelly v. Crapo, 45 If. Y. 86. Cited as authority respecting personal property generally, in Johnson u. Sharp, 31 Ohio St. 611; s. c, 27 Am. B. 529. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 261. ■ v. Wood, 19 How. Pr. 405. Followed (Remedy in case of too small verdict in one's own favor) in Carpenter v. Besre, 4 Hun, 509. v. , 12 Abb. Pr. 393. Collated with other cases (Removal of fixtures upon expir- ation of lease) m MeAdam on Latidl. & T. 2 ed. §§ 102, 122, 247. Moores v. Lunt, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 166. Rev'd in 1 Bun, 650; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & O.) 154, and that aff'd, it seems, in 60 JV. Y. 649, but without opinion. Decis- ion in 4 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & G) approved with Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 554 (Remedy by State law for enforcement of lien on vessel) in Be Petition of Ins. Co, of State of Pa., U. S. List. Gt. HT. D. N. Y. 21 Fed. Rep. 114. Mootrie v. Hunt, 4 Bradf. 173. Approved (Appointment of special administrator) in Crandall v. Shaw, 2 Bed/. 100, 105. Mora v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 304; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 60. Disting'd (Right to precept for costs of demurrer) in Henderson v. Jackson, 2 Sweeny, 603. Moran v. Bogcrt, 3 Hun, 603. Reported in full in 16^.66. Pr. N. S. 303. Compare (Hear- ing before umpire) Code Civ. Pro. § 2367. v. Chase, 52 N. Y. 346. Followed (Ex- pense of constructing sidewalk, as lien on premises of abutting owner) in Eenney v. Apgar, 93 K Y. 539, 549. Explained (Per- sonal judgment in proceeding to enforce mechanics' lien) in Burroughs v. Fosteran, 2 Abb. N. C. 333, 341. v. Darrin, 1 Han, 490; mem. s. c, 3 . Sup'm. Ct. {T. & O.) 761. Aff'd, it seems, in 60 N. Y. 637, but without opinion. v. Dawes, Hopk. 365 ; s. c, 14 Am. Deo. 550. Subsequent decision in 4 Cow. 412. Decision in Id. followed (Proof of loss of service in action for seduction) in Davidson v. Abbott, 52 Vt. 573. Criticised (Recovery of medical expenses incidental to loss of service) in 8 South. L. Rev. If. S. 85. v. McClearns, 60 Barb. 388; s. c, 4 Lans. 288; 41 How. Pr. 289. Further de- cision, on the merits in 63 Barb. 185. Decis- ion in Id. disting'd (Liability for drainage) in Gould «. Booth, 66 N. Y. 65. v. , 43 How. Pr. 77. See (Notice of appeal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. v. McLarty, 11 Hun, 66. Aff'd in 75 K Y. 25. v. Morrissey, 28 How. Pr. 100; s. c, more fully, 18 Abb. Pr. 131. v. N. Y. Central, &c. K. R. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G) 770 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 96. Morange v. Morris, 32 Barb. 650; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. 164; 20 How. Pr. 257. Further decision, as it seems, in 34 Barb. 311, which was aff'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 314; s. c, 3 Keyes, 48; 32 How. Pr. 178. Decision in Id. approved and followed as a decisive and controlling authority (Necessity of tender of bond and mortgage by purchaser in contract for sale of real estate) in Karker v. Haverly, 50 Barb. 79, 84. Applied (Recovery of money paid on contract lor sale of land) in Hartley v. James, 50 If. Y. 44. Disting'd in Bigler v. Morgan, 77 Id. 318. Questioned (Duty of vendor to have liens discharged at time of conveyance) in Rinaldo v. Housmann, 52 How. Pr. 191. Applied in Wood v. Squires, 1 Hun, 483. Shown in 49 Am. Dee. 5S1, n., to have been modified in later decisions ; but see Hinkley v. Smith, 51 If. Y. 21. v. Mudffe, 6 Abb. Pr. 243. Overruled (Liability of sureties on statutory bonds, whether several or joint) in Wood « Fisk, 63 N. Y. 245. Disapproved in Tannen- baum v. Cristalar, 5 Daly, 141, 143. More v. Bennett, 48 Barb. 229; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 177. Rev'd in 48 F. Y. 472. v. Howlaitd, 4 Den. 264. See decision at circuit in 1 Edm. 371. v. Smcdbnrgli, 8 Paige, 600. Aft" d in 26 Wend. 238. Morehouse v. Crilley, 8 How. Pr. 431. Ap- proved (Pleading in actions for statute pen- alties) in Abbott v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. If. S. 465, 467. v. Mathews, 2 If. Y. 514. Explained (Opinions of witnesses) in De Witt v. Barly, 17 Id. 344. Disting'd in Townsend v. Brun- dage, 4 Hun, 264. r. Yeager, 38 Super. Ct. (/. . Short, 53 How. Pr. 510; Whitney Arms Co. ». Barlow, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 564. Followed in State of Indiana o.Woram, 6 Hill, 37. Quoted and collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 188. Thought in 40 Am. Dec. 381, n., to have been overruled by McCullough v. Moss, 5 Den. 567, the latter decision be- ing thought to lay down the true rule. Hol- lowed (Rule as to effect of subsequent confirmation or consent applies to corpora- tions) in Planter's Bank v. Sharp, 4 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 75; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 470, with note. Mosselmaii v. Caen, 34 Barb. 66. Subsequent decision in 4 Snp'm. Ct. (T. & G) 171. See Barclay «. Quicksilver Mining Co. De- cision in 34 Barb, disting'd and criticised (Right of foreign assignee in bankruptcy to sue in courts of this State) in Hunt v. Jack- son, 5 Blatchf. C. Ct. 349, 351. With deci- sion in 4 Sap in. Ct. (T. & C.) compare Barclay v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 6 Lans. 25. Mott v. Burnett, 1 Coda R. N. S. 225. Rev'd, because order was broader than motion, in 2 E. D. Smith, 50. v. Connolly, 50 Barb. 516. Compared (Right of de facto officer to salary) in 10 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 448. v. Consumer's Ice Co., 2 Abb. If. O. 143; s. c, 52 How. Pr. 148. Aft'd in Id. 244. Further proceedings in 73 If. Y. 543, and 8 Daly, 244. See Higgins v. Water- vliet Turnpike Co.; Isaacs v. Third Av. R. R. Co.; Union Trust Co. v. Whiton. Deci- sion in 73 JV./ Y. applied (Master's liability for servant's acts) in Poucher o. Blanchard, 86 Id. 256, 260. Commented on in Moak's Underhill's Torts. 1 Am. ed. 32. v. Doughty, 1 Johns. Cas. 230; s. c, 1 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 30", with brief note (Proof of handwriting of subscribing witness). Approved with Sluby v. Ohamp- lin, 4 Johns. 401; Kimball v. Davis, 19 Wend. 437, in Lyons v. Holmes, 11 So. Car. 429 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 483, 494. 516 MOTT— MOUNT. T. Dunn, 10 How. Pr. 225. Disapproved , (Distinction between law and equity abol- ished) in Reubens v. Joel, 13 If. Y. 488. < v. Havana Nat. B'k, 22 Hun, 354. Ex- plained (Sales of specific chattels condition- ally) in 1 Ben], on Sales, § 435 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). i v. Hicks, 1 Cov>. 513 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 550, with note containing citations of many cases from N. Y. and elsewhere, where it has been followed and regarded as a leading case. See Hills v. Bannister. Followed in Babcook v. Beman, 11 If. Y. 201 (Liability of one contracting as agent) as having been followed in principle in Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 41; Hicks v. Hinde, 9 Barb. 528. Followed in Davis v. Henderson, 25 Miss. 549; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 229. Applied with Taft v. Brewster, 9 Johns. 334, in Gillespie v. Wesson, 7 Port. (Ala.) 454; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 715, 719. Cited as authority with Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 40, in Gott- fried v. Miller, 104 U. S. 521, 527. Thought in 1 Daniel on Ifeg. Inst. § 302, not to be an authority to the extent that it is relied on in Babcock v. Beman, 11 _ZV. Y. -200. Explained in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 271, 11 ed. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 8 Bosw. 3.45. Further decision in 1 Bolt. 585. See Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co. Cited (Testimony of brakeman as to time required to stop train) in 1 Whart. Com. or. Ed. \ 344; Hamilton v. R. R , 36 Iowa, 31 ; Mul- downey v. R. R., Id. 402, being cited to the contrary. v. Kip. See Crary v. Turner. — — v. Lansing, 5 Lans. 516. Further decision on the merits in 57 N. Y. 112. Decision in Id. followed (Lien upon canal boat) in King v. Greer.way, 71 Id. 413, 410. Decision in 5 Lans. distiug'd with Bouton v. Bouton, 40 How. Pr. 217; 42 Id. 11 (Enlarging time to appeal) in Lavalle v. Skelly, 90 N. Y. 546. v. Mott, 8 Hun, 474. Modified in 68 N. Y. 246. See Barnes v. McAllister; Dakin d. Williams ; Nobles v. Bates. -r— v. Palmer, 1 If. Y. 564. Followed (Things annexed to the freehold, that are part of realty) in Richtmyer v. Morss, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 57. Applied in Greeu v. Col- lins, 20 Hun, 476, which was rev'd in 86 If. Y. 251, which see ; Ford v. Cobb, 20 Id. 350, 352. Cited as authority in Godard v. Gould, 14 Barb. 666. Distiug'd in Burke ■o. Nichols, 34 Id. 432. v. Small, 20 Wend. 212. Rev'd in 22 Id. 403. v. Union Bank, 8 Bosw. 591. AfFd in 38 K Y. 18; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 270; 35 How. Pr. 332. Mottram v. Heyer, 2 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 25. . Afl.'d in 1 Den. 483 ; and that nff'd in 5 Id. 629. Decision in 1 Den. said (Right of stop- page in transitu, as ended by goods reach- ing custody of customhouse authorities) in Frascheris v. Henriques, 6 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 251, 258, not to have been rev'd in Ct. of Errors, as assumed in Harris «. Pratt, Q Duer, 606, 626; 17 If. Y. 252, but thought, never- theless, to have been practically rev'd by approval given in Hai-ris v. Pratt to the chancellor's opinion. Decision in 5 Den. cited as an important case, and explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 603, n. c. v. Mills, 2 Sandy. 189. Approved (Lia- bility of consignee on acceptance) in Gihon v. Stanton, 9 If. Y. 476, 483. Moiiltou v. Beeclier, 1 Abb. If. G. 193. Rev'd in Id. 204, 233; mem. s. c, 8 Rvn, 100. Further proceedings to change venue in 1 Abb. If. G. 235; Id. 237; s. c, 52 How. Pr. 162. Also motion for extra allow- ance in 1 Abb. N. 0. 245 ; s. c, 62 Btw. Pr. 230; which was aff'd in 53 Id. 86; mem. s. c, 11 Hun, 192. Decision in 8 Id. approved (Sufficient termination of proceeding to be basis of action for malic- ious prosecution) in Wood worth v. Mills, 61 Wis. 49, an action for false imprisonmont. Compare Redway v. McAndre'w, L. It. 9 Q. B. 74; s. c, 7 HoaVs Eng. 126. With decisions in 1 Abb. N. G. 193 and 237, see (Effect of order to change place of trial) Code Cm. Pro. § 989. v. Norton, 5 Barb. 286. See Waterbury v. Westervelt. Disapproved (Joint action against sheriff and diputv) in Waterbury v. Westervelt, 9 N. Y. 598, 605. Moultrie v. Hunt, 3 Bradf. 322. Affd in 20 Barb. 252; which was rev'd, in 23 If. Y. 394; s. c, with note, 1 Am. L. Iieg. If. S. 148, 162. Decision in 23 If. Y. disting'd (Sufficiency of attestation of will) in Matter of Griswold, 15 Abb. Pr. 300. Followed (Validity of execution of will, by what law governed) in Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 560. See (Probate of foreign will of per- sonal property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2695, ii. Reviewed at length in 2 Am. Dec. 454, n., as a case of much importance (Validity of disposition of personal property by will, by what law governed). Approved in 1 Bed/, on Wills, 403. Moiinsey v. Brake, 10 Johns. 27. Approved (Performance, when not excused) in Jones v. Judd, 4if! Y. 411 See Beebe v. John- son,. 19 Wend. 502; Wolf v. Howes, 20 N. Y. 197. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & If. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 117. Mount, Matter of, 2 Bed/. 405. Explained (Commissions of negligent executors) in Ward v. Ford, 4 Id. 34, 39. Mount v. Mitchell, 31 If. Y. 356 ; s. c, as Mitchell o. Mount, 19 Abb. Pr. 1; which rev'd, 17 Abb. Pr. 265. Decision on motion for re-argument herein, as it seems, in 32 If. Y. 702. Decision in Id. followed (Basis of motion for re-argument) in Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283 ; Marine' Nat. B'k v. Nat. City B'k, 59 If. Y. 67, 73. With decision in 31 If. Y. see (Appeal from surrogate's order) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2552 n v.' Morton, 20 Barb. 123. Followed MOUNT— MU1R. 517 (Estoppel created by partition) in Garner v. Boyd, 07 Id. 277, 289. v. YVaile, 7 Johns. 434. With this case and Campbell v. Richardson, 10 Id. 406, see (Validity of wagering contract) Juhel v. Church, and citations thereunder. Mount Morris Square, Matter of, 2 Hill, 14. Disapproved (Certiorari only allowed to re- view judicial decisions) in Camden v. Mul- ford, 2 Dutch. (N. J.) 49. Mowatt v. Carow, 7 Paige, 328; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 641, with note containing cita- tions of the case on the points decided re- specting wills, &c. See Collins v. Hoxie; Cromer v. Pinckney. v. Wright, 1 Wend. 355; s. c, 19 Am. D*ec. 508, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently cited in N. Y. as au- thority. See Clarke v. Dutcher; Shotwell v. Murray. Applied (Recovery of money paid under mistake of fact) in Barker v. Clark, 12 All. Pr. N. S. 113; Granger v. Olcott, 1 Bans. 171; Rheel v. Hicks, 25 N. Y. 291. Collated with Clark v. Dut- cher, 9 Cow. 674, and other cases in 17 Cent. L. J. 22, 25. Quoted (Sale as im- plied by recovery in trover and payment of judgment) in Benj. on Sales, § 49, n. 14 (Corbin's-4 Am. ed). Mower v. Kip, 2 Edw. 165. Rev'd in part in 6 Paige, 88; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 748, with note collating citations of the case. See Little v. Harvey ; Meech v. Allen. Decision in 6 Paige approved (Liability of principal in bond beyond penalty) in Tasewell v. Saunders, 13 Gratt. ( Va.) 854,366. Dis- ' ting'd in Fraser v. Little, 13 Micji. 195. Mowers v. Fetliers, Lans. 112. Rev'd in 6\. JST. Y. 34; s. c. 19 Am. R. 244. Deci- sion in Ld. followed with Griimell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485; Ingallsbee v. Wood, 36 Barb. 455 ; 33 N. Y. 577 (When common-law lia- bility of innkeeper does not arise) in Healey ». Gray, 68 Me. 489; s. c, 28 Am. R. 80. Mowrey v. Central City Railway, 66 Barb. 43. Aff d in effect in 51 N. Y. 666. Deci- sion in Id. explained and followed (Contribu- tory negligence) in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., G Abb. Jf. C. 104, 128, with note, collating cases. v. Walsh, 8 Cow. 238. Examined with other cases (Rights of one deriving title to personal property from wrong-doer) in Tall- man v. Turck, 26 Barb. 170. Disting'd in Farrington v. Park B'k, 39 Ld. 648 ; Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 272, 279. Explained and re-affd with Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 275, in Stevens v. Hyde, 32 Barb. 171, 178. Criticised at length and disting'd in Ash v. Putnam, 1 Hill, 306. Followed in Keyser v. Harbeck, 3 Duer, 388. Cited as authority, but explained as an exception to the general rule, in Lewis v. Palmer, Hill & D. 68. Reviewed with Caryc-. Hotailing, Hill, 306; Lloyd v. Brewster. 4 Paige, 537; Hitchcock v. Covill, 20 Wend. 167, in Thompson v. Rose, 1G Conn. 71; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 121, 124, with note. Cited as authority in Jennings v. Gage, 13 Lll. 610 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 476. Followed (Fraudu- lent purchaser, <&c. not guilty of larceny) in Ross i). People, 5 Hill, 294 ; Zink v. People, 77 N. Y. 127. Rule herein said in Fassett v. Smith, 23 Ld. 257, not to have been changed by R. S. (thus overruling Andrew v. Dieterrch, 14 Wend. 35). Criticised in 15 Am. L. Rev. 367. Mo wry v. Bishop, Paige, 98. Disapproved (Agreement to pay interest on interest when usurious) in Stewart v. Petree, 55 & Y. 621, 623. Explained in Young v. Hill, 67 Id. 169. v. Sanborn, 62 Barb. 223. Rev'd in 65 K Y. 581. Further decision in 68 Id. 153; rev'g 7 Hun, 380. Also in 72' JSf. Y. 534; rev'g 11 Hun, 545. With decision in 72 N. Y. see (Passing of title on foreclosure by advertisement, as ' affected by failure to record affidavits) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. T. Silber, 2 Bradf. 133. Disting'd (Proof of undue influence on testator) in Booth v. Kitchen, 3 Red/. 52, 62. Moyer v. Hininan, 17 Barb. 137. Modified in 13 JSf. Y. 180. Decision in Id. applied (Right of judgment creditor as affected by contract for sale of land) to case of such right as affected by foreclosure sale,^*in Warner v. Blakeman, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 539. Applied to case of mortgagee as affected by such contract,— in Young v. Guy, 12 Hun, 327; Trustees of Uuion Col- lege v. Wheeler, 61 N. Y. 107. Decision in 17 Barb, questioned in Smith v. Gage, 41 Id. 60, 72. Decision in 13 N. Y. disting'd (Possession of land as constructive notice) in Brown v. Volkening, 64 Ld. 83. Muber v. Held, 3 Abb. Pr. 110. See (Notice of appeal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. Muckey v. Howenstiue, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 28. Explained (Delivery in case of sale) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1018, n. 7 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Mudgett v. Bay State Steamboat Co. See Macklin v. New Jersey Steamboat Co. ; Weeks v. N. Y., New Haven, &c. R. R. Co. Mnir v. Demaree, 12 Wend. 468. See Par- tridge v. Colby. Cited with approval with McCaughey v. Smith, 27 IV. Y. 39; Brownell v. Winnie, 29 Ld. 400 (Addition of signa- ture to note, when material alteration) in Miller v. Finley, 26 Mich. 249; s. c, 12 Am. R. 306, 308. v. Schenck, 3 Hill, 228; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 633, wilh note. Followed (Priority of right, as between assignees of -non-negotiable chose in action) in Parks v. Innes, 33 Barb. 42. Examined and approved iu Bush v. Lathrop, 22 N. Y. 546. Disting'd in Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. Bk.. 55 Id. 41, 49. Followed (Effect of assignment of chose in action without notice to obligor) in Richardson v. Ainsworth, 20 How. Pr. 530. Criticised in 36 Am. Dec. 477, n., and said to be opposed to Murdock v. Fiu- 518 MUIR— MULOCK. ney, 21 Mo. 138, and a dictum in Pellman i). Hart, 1 Pa. St. 265. Referred to in 38 Am. Dec. 636, n., as opposed to Vanbuskirk v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 141 ; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 473. v. Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan House. See Humbert v. Trinity Church. ■ v. United Ins. Co., 1 Gai. 49. Applied (Charges that may be included in loss to be borne by marine insurer) in Lamar Ins. Co. v. McGlashon, 54 III. 513; s. c, 5 Am. E. 162, 166. Muldon v. Whitlock, 1 Cow. 290. Disting'd (Effect of note taken for debt) in Ranken v. De Forest, 18 Barb. 143, 149; Ferdon v. Jones, 2 E. D. Smith, 111. Followed in King v. Lowry, 20 Barb. 539. Applied in Rathbone ■». Tucker^ 15 Wend. 501. Fol- lowed in Barque Chusan, 2 Story, 455, 470. See to the contrary Palmer v. Priest, 1 Sprague, 512. See also Abb. Tr. Kv. 806. Thought in 1 Am. Dec. 5, n., to confirm Pateshall v. Apthorp, Quincy (Mass.) 3, the later cases in Mass , however, being said to settle the rule differently. Colhited with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 153. Mnldoon t. Blackwell, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 635. Aff'd in 84 JST. Y. 646. v. Pitt, 4 Daly, 105. Aff'd in 54 K Y. 269. Decision in Id. disting'd (Mechanic's lien under contract with lessee) in Burkitt i). Harper, 79 Id. 273. 277. Muldowney v. Corney. See Silverman o. Henant. Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 30 N~. Y. 370. Explained (Negligence in alight- ing from car) in Mettlestadt ». Ninth Ave. R. R. Co., 4 Robt. 383. Cited (Exhibiting injured part to court and jury in case of personal injury) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 346. Mullaley v. People, 12 Weekly Dig. 236; mem. s. c, 24 Hun. 656. Aff d as Mul- laly ». People, 86 N. Y. 3C5. Decision in Id. cited with approval (Animal, when sub- ject of larceny) in Haywood v. State, 41 Ark. 479; s. c, 47 Am. R. 765, n. Doc- trine adopted in State v. Brown, 9 Baxt. (Tetin.) 53; s. c, 40 Am. li. 81, with note. Mullaly v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Bun, 661 ; s. e., 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 168. Aff'd, it seems, in 62 iV". Y. 636,' but without opinion. v. People. See Mullaley v. People. MiiUaney v. Spence, 15 Abb. Pi: N. S. 319. Sec McAlpin «. Powell ; Mangam v. Brook- R. R. Co. Applied (Liability of one having dangerous structure on his promises) in McAlpin ». Powell, 1 Abb. N. C. 427, 432; which was, however, rev'd in 70 N. Y. 126. Compare Ryan v. Wilson, 45 Super. Ct- (J. & S.) 273. Collated with other cases (Lia- bility for negligence injuring trespasser) in 6 Abb. K. C. 119, n. Followed (Liability for injury to child) in Brausom's Adm'r. v. Labrot, 81 Ky. 644. Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 567. Followed with Lyons v. Rosenthal, 1 1 Hun, 46 • Edgerton v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co,, 3ii J¥. Y. 227 (Presumption of negligence) in Cummins v. National Furnace Cd., Sup'm Ct. Wis. Mar. 1884, 18 Reporter, 126. Con- sidered in Rose v. Stephens Transp. Co U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. 1'., 21 Am. L. Reg. 524, with note at p. 525, discussing and collating various cases on explosions. Col- lated with other cases in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 599. MuUer v. Eno, 3 Drier, 421, Rev'd in 14 N. Y. 597. Decision in Id. applied (Dam- ages for breach of warranty on sale) in Wells v. Selwood, 61 Barb. 245 ; Passinger v. Thorburn, 34 iV. Y. 639. Followed (Right to recover on warranty, without return of goods sold) in Messenger ». Pratt, 3 Lain. 236; Parks v. Morris Ax & Tool Co., 54 JST. Y. 591 (also on question of t damages, in Id. 593). For rule in case of executory contract, see cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 348, n. 5. v. Higsriiis, 13 Abb. Pr. K S. 297; s. c, 44 How. Pi: 224. Disregarded (Costs of motion for new trial) in Naugatuck Cutlery Co. v. Rowe, 5 Abb. N. G. 142. v. McKesson, 10 Hun, 44. Aff'd in 73 K Y. 195 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 123. Decision in Id. followed (Negligence in case of injur- ies from vicious dog) in Lynch v. McNally, Id. 349. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Hun, 282. Rev'd in 63 K Y. 353. Decision in li. fol- lowed (Municipal contract ultra vires) in Blcecker *. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Daly, 439. v. Pondir, 6 Lam. 472. Aff'd in 55 N. Y. 325 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 259. See Hoy v. Reade. Decision in 6 Lans. relied on (Incidental authority of agent) in Whurt. Com. on Ag. § 135. Decision in 55 N. Y. quoted and explained (Stoppage in transitu) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1231, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. San tier. See.Calhoun v. Lee. v. Striippmann, 55 How. Pi: 521 ; s. c, more fully, 6 Abb. If. 0. 343 (Sale of in- fants' lands not allowed, when it would de- feat instrument under which title would be acquired) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2357, n. Mulligan v. Elias, 12 Abb. Pr. K S. 259. Quoted (Nuisances causing bodily injuries) in Moah's UnderhUl's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 243. Miillincr v. Guardian Mat. Life Ins. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & C.) 448. Disting'd (Ad- missibility of statements of insured) in Swift v. Mass. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 63 H. Y. 186, 192. Mullins v. People, 24 N. Y. 399. Applied (What may not be reviewed on certiorari in criminal cases) in Cases of Lynch aud Burns, 9 Abb. N. O. 69. 75. Mnlock v. Mulock, 1 Edw. 14. Quoted and explained (Evidence in action of divorce for adultcrv) in 2 Bish on Mar. «•£ D. § 624, 6 ed. MULVEHALL— MUNN. 519 Mnlveliall t. Millward, 11 If. 7. 343. See hartley v. Richtmyer; Martin v. Payne. Applied (Right to maintain action for seduc- tion) to grandfather, in Hoyt v. Cantwell, 6 Hun, 575, 577; to mother, in Gray v. Dur- land, 51 If. T. 424, 428. Followed in Lav- cry v. Crooke, 52 Wis. 619. Mninford v. American Life Ins. & Trust Co., 4 If. Y. 463. See Carroll v. Far- mer's Loan & Trust Co. : Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Carroll. Disting'd (Effect of voluntary payment of usurious loan, &c.) in Smith 1>. Marvin, 27 N. Y. 137, 142. t. Brown, 6 Cow. 475; s. c, 16 Am. Dee. 440, with note (containing citations) wherein it is said to have been approved in a number of subsequent cases in N. Y. and elsewhere. Followed (Co-tenants liability for repairs and -improvements made without his assent) in Kidder v. Rixfor'd, 16 Verm. 169 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 504, 507. Criticised as containing dicta, in Calvert t>. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74, 77, where a contrary doctrine was maintained. v. Church, 1 Johns. Cas. 147; s. c, 1 If. Y. Corn. L. Law. ed. 278, with note citing cases. Criticised (Right to abandon- ment, as determined by information had by assured at time) in Ilallett v. Peyton, 1 Cai. Cas. 38. See to the contrary, Rliinelander v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 4 Craneh, 29 ; Peele «. Merchants' Ins. Co., 3 Mason. 27, and cases cited; Humphrey v. Union Ins. Co., Id. 429; Dickey v. American Ins. Co., 3 Wend. 658; 4 Cow. 222; Queen v. Union Ins. Co., 2 Waxh. C 0. 335; Maryland Ins. Co. t. Bathurst, 3 QUI. & J. (Md.) 159. - — v. Commercial Ins. Co., 5 Johns. 262. Explained (Common carrier's right to freight) in Ang. on Carr. § 403, 5 ed. v. Hallett, 1 Johns. 433. Commented on (Policy on profits) in 3 Kent Com. 273. v. McKay, 8 Wend. 442; s. c, 24 Am. Den. 34. Commented on (Evidence in actions of trover) in 2 Greenl. on Bo. 14 ed. § 646, n. 1. v. McPherson, 1 Johns. 414; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 339; 3 JK Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 193, with brief note. See Vandervoort v. Smith. Disting'd with Bayard v. Malcom, 1 Johns. 452; Van Ostrand v. Reed, 1 Wend. 424; Filkins v. Whyland, 24 2V. Y. 338 (Evidence of parol agreement, in case of written con- tract of sale) in Silliman ». Tuttle, 45 Barb. 171. Applied in Smith v. McCall, 1 McCord (So. Car.) 220; s. c , 10 Am. Dec. 666. See, also, for limitation of doctrine (Sound price as implying warranty of soundness) notes to 1 Am. Dec. 84; LI. 621; Id. 652; 2 Id. 669. v. Murray, 6 Johns. Ch. 1. Compared (Liability of»trustees) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 179. v. Nicoll. See Nicoll v. Mumford. v. Stocker, 1 Com. 178. Applied (Ef- fect of judgment recovered on judgment) to judgment on bond given on appeal from judgment,- in Planter's Bank v. Calvit, 3 , Smedes A M. (Miss ) 143; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 616, with note. v. Whitney, 15 Wend. 380; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 60, with note, wherein it is said to be a leading authority, and is shown to have been frequently followed in N. Y. See Pierrepont v. Barnard; Thompson v. Greg- ory. Reviewed with other cases (Effect of parol authority to do acts on land) in I Washb. on Ileal Prop. 400, n. (which was approved and adopted in Babcock v.' Utter, 1 Abb. Ct App. Dec. 35). Explained in Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 507; Rathbone «. McConnell, 20 Id. 320. Approved in dissenting opinion in Rathbone v. McCon- nell, 21 N.Y. 472. Followed in Eggleston v. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 35 Barb. 174; Brown v. Galley, Dill & D. 310. Ap- proved and applied in Pierrepont v. Bar- nard, 6 If. Y. 287 (and see dissenting opin- ion, p. 300). Applied in Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf. Ch. 91. Referred to in Stevens v. Stevens, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 251; s. c, 45 Am. Die. 203, with note, as ably reviewing and discussing the cases. Collated with other cases in Hazelton n. Putnam, 3 Pinn. {Wise.) 107; s. c, 3 Chand. 117; s. c, 54 Am,. Dec. 158, with note. See cases cited in 5 Abb. if. C. 174, n. Explained (State- ment, &c. of party, when to be taken as a whole) in Rouse v. Whited, 25 N. Y. 175. Mumper v. Rnshmore, 14 Hun, 591. Aff d in 79 If. Y. 19. Decision in 14 Hun quoted (Delivery in case of sale) in Benj. on Sales. § 696, n. b (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Munch v. \. Y. Central R. R. Co. See Cor- win v. N. Y. & Erie R. R, Co. Mundorff v. Mnndorff, 1 Hun, 41 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & O.) 171. Appeal dis- missed iu 59 If. Y. 635. Hunger v. Baker, 1 Sup'm Ct. (T & C.) 122; s. c, with points of counsel, 05 Barb. 539. v. Shannon, 61 If. Y. 251. See Cook v. Satterlee. Followed (Effect of order pay- able out of special fund) in Ehrichs v. De Mill, 75 If. Y. 373. v. Tonawauda R. R. Co. See Tona- wanda R. R. Co. v. Munger. Mnnn's Estate, Tuck. 130. Aff'd as Col- lier o. Munn, 7 Abb. Pi: If. S. 193; s. c, 41 If. Y. 143. Munn v. Commission Co. ,-15 Johns. 44; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 219, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently approved in N. Y. and Federal decisions. See Aeby «. Rapelye ; Powell v. Waters. Applied (Transfer of bill or note, when usurious) in Powell v. Waters, 8 Cow. 686, 706; Same v. Same, 17 Johns. 181; Bennct v. Smith, 15 Id. 357; Cobb i>. Titus, 10 N. Y. 200; East- man v. Shaw, 0") Id. 527; Rice e. Mather, 3- Weyid. 65. Applied to bond and mortgage, — in Rapelye v. Anderson, 4 Ilill, 482. Explained in llolford r. Blatchford, 2 Sandf. Ch. 154, as inapplicable to sale of foreign exchange. Followed with Powell v. Waters, 17 Jolms. 176, iu Ruffin v. Arm- 520 MUNKO'S ESTATE— MURPHY. I strong, 2 HawTcs (K C.) 411 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 774, with note. Doctrine herein recog- nized and explained in Nichols v. Fearson, 7 Pet. 107. Followed (Limit of recovery on note transferred at discount greater than legal rate) in Cook v. Clark, 4 E D. Smith, 214; -Cram v. Hendricks, 7 Wend. 596. Limited in Oakley v. Boorman, 21 Id. 593. Collated with other cases (Agency implied from course of dealing) in 1 Mare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 689. Mnnro's Estate, 15 Alb. Pr. 363. Applied (Practice with respect to signing surrogate's decrees) in McNaughton v. Chave, 5 Abb. N. C. 225, 228. Muiuo v. Merchant, 26 Barb. 383. Rev'd in 28 AT. Y. 9. Decision in Id. limited (Adverse possession of portion of tract, when constructive possession of whole) in Thompson ». Burhans, 61 Id. 52, 69. Dis- cussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 774. With decision in 26 Barb. see Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 370, n. Fol- lowed with Belden v. Meeker, 47 N. T. 307 (Proof of death) in Carroll v. Carrol!, 2 Hun, 609. Mu n roe v. Guilleauine, 3 Keyes, 30. Cited (What is proof of foreign statutes) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 309. Munsell v. Lewis, 4 Hill, 635. Rev*d in 2 Hen. 224. See Dan forth v. Suydam. Decision in 4 Hill denied (Assignability of simple expectancy) in Stover v. Eycleshimer, 3 Keyes, 620, as overruled in Field v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 N. Y. 179. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 100, n. 1, 4 ed. Deci- sion in 2 Den. applied (Assignability of public contract for work) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 2f. Y. 8, 19. Disting'd (Validity of law providing for extra allow- ance to canal contractor) in dissentirig opin- ion in People ex rel. Williams v. Dayton, 55 Id. 367, 390. Mnnsou v. liegeman, 10 Barb. 112; s. c, less fully, as Munson v. Hagerman, 5 How. Pr. 223. Rev'd in Seld. Notes, No. 2, 26. v. Ilnngerford, 6 Barb. 265. See Mor- gan e. King. Disting'd (Capacity of stream for floatage, as criterion pf public right of servitude) in Moore v. Sanborne, 2 Mich. 519; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 209. Mnrdock v. Aiken, 29 Barb. 59. Said in 25 How. Pr. 594, to have been aft'd with deduction in Ct. of App. Sept. 1863. See Starin v. Town of Genoa. Latter decision followed (Town officer, when not to ques- tion legality of town bonds) in Ross «. Cur- ti'ss, 31 N. Y. 609. Decision in 29 Barb. disting'd in Shepherd's Fold v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Weekly Dig. 572, a case of moneys levied under invalid law. . v. Chenango Its. Co.. 2 N. Y. 210. See Babcock ». Bonnell ; Roberts v. Chenango Ins. Co. Explained (Rights under policy, as affected by transfer of interest between insured) in Hoffman «. Mtna, Fire Ins. Co., 19 Abb. Pr. 340; which was aff d in 32 N. Y. 407, which see. Followed as decisive in Tillou v. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Id. 407 ; but see Grosvenor v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 17 Id. 398. Explained, as decided under the old system respecting parties to actions, and without reference to the Code, in Manley v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 1 Lam. 30. Disapproved in State v. McLoughlin, 27 Ohio St. 1 ; s. c, 22 Am. E. 301. Applied (Necessity of showing interest in assured to enable recovery on policy) in Fowler v. N. Y. Indemnity Ins. Co., 26 N. Y. 4.24, Examined and applied' (Effect of promissory representation in policy) in Bilbrough v. Metropolis Ins. Co., 5 Duer, 692. Limited (Insurance policy, as affected by extrinsic documents) in Ruse v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 23 N. Y. 519. Cited as authority (Increase of risk that avoids policy) in Ditt- mer v. Germania Ins. Co., 23 La. Ann. 458; c, 8 Am. R 600. Explained (Continu- Pars. on Contr. 430, ing warranty) in 2 n. b. Murdock v. Gifford, Murdock v. Harris, 18 AT. Y. 28. Rev'g 20 Barb. 407. See House v. House. Decision in 18 N. Y. fol- lowed (What are fixtures) in Beardsley », Ontario B'k, 31 Barb. 619. Applied in O'Dougherty v. Felt, 65 Id. 225; Wells v. Maples, 15 Hun, 92. Explained in Bement ■e. Plattsburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 47 Barb. 104, 116; which was aff'd in Hoyle v. Same, 51 Id. 62 ; which was rev'd iu 54 N. Y. 322, which see; Ford v. Cobb, 20 Id. 347. Disting'd in McRea v. Central Nat. B'k, 50 How. Pr. 54 ; which was aff'd in 06 N. Y. 497, which see ; Potter «. Cromwell, 40 Id. 292. Examined with other cates in dissent- ing opinion of Gray, C, in Voorhees v. McGinnis, 4S Id. 287. Collated with Wal- ker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 056; Potters - . Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287, and other cases in Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. «. IJawley, 44 Iowa, 57 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 719, with note collating cases. Approved in Thomas on Mort. 48. See cases collected in 5 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 325. v. Gilchrist, 52 N. Y. 242. Brief note of decision below in 1 Alb. L. J. 124. t. Harris. See Murdock v. Gifford. v. Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 10 Hun, 598. Rev'd in 73 JST. Y. 579. Decis- ion in Id. followed (Right to construct rail- road over premises without having made compensation) in Jamaica & B. Plankr. Co. «. N. Y. & Manhattan Beach Ry. Co., 25 11 un 585 V.' Ward, 8 Run, 9. Rev'd in 67 N. Y. 387. Sec Wright v. Trustees of Meth. Epis. Church. Decision in 67 N. Y. dis- ting'd with Luce v. Dunham, 69 Id. 36; Keteltas . Clark, 9 Pa. St. 399 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 566, 569, with note. Disting'd in Green- well «. Hay don, 78 Ky. 332 ; s. c, 38 Am. It 234. Followed with Livingston v. Dear., 2 Johns. Ch. 479, in Moore v. Hol- combe, 3 Leigh (Va.) 597; s. e., 24 Am. MUltEAY— MUSSINA. Dec. 683, with note. Disapproved in Thomas on Mort. 106, citing Bush ». Lathrop, 22 N. Y. 535. Referred to in 2 Pomeroy on Eg. Jur. J 70, n., as overruled. T. Mumford, Cow. 441. Trial at nisi prius reported in Anth. If. P. 294. See Van Keuren fl.'Parmelee. Decision in 6 Cow. explained (Surviving partner's rights) in 2 Collyer on Partn. § 62a, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. — — v. Murray, 5 Johns. Ch. 60. See Jen- kins v: De Groot. Recognized as authority (Parties to action affecting assets of insol- vent partnership) in Halsey v. Norton, 45 Miss. 703; s. c, 7 Am. R. 745. Cited (Rights of joint and separate partnership creditors) in 3 Kent Com. 65, ». b. for his- tory of the rule and its fluctuations. Cited as containing a review of the history of the English rule, in 1 Pars, on Contr. 211, n. I. Collated with other cases in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 363, •».. — — v. N. Y.. Lift Ins. Co., 19 Run, 350. Rev'd in 85 N. Y. 236; s. c, 9 Abb. N. C. 309. Decision in Id. collated with Jones ®, Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 79; Van Valkenburg v. Am. Popular Life Ins. Co., 9 Sun, 583 ; 70 JST. Y. 605 (Burden of proof as to suicide, in insurance cases) in 16 Cent. L. J. 367. v. Richards, 1 Wend. 58. Applied (Who to bear loss happening between sale and delivery) in Aspinwall v. Balch, 4 Abb. If. C. 193, 198. v. Riggs, 2 Johns. Ch. 565. Rev'd in 15 Johns. 571. See Hyslop v. Clarke. Both decisions considered at length and explained (Effect of reservation contained in assignment for creditors) in Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. 555. Decision in 15 Johns, considered at length in Austin v. Bell, 20 Id. 447; Grovcr v. Wakeman, 11 Wend. 187. Referred to as overruled, — in Goodrich v. Downs, 6 Hill, 439. Cited disapprovingly, discussed, and compared, in 2 Kent Com. 536, n. a. Followed (Void deed as incapable of confirmation) in- Chess v. Chess, 1 Pen. S W. (Penn.) 32; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 350, 357, with note. Compare Co. Litt. 295 b. §515. Qualified with Duncan v. Lyon, 3 Jims. Ch. 359 (Right of equitable set-off) in Lane v. Bailey, 47 Barb. 403. v. Smith, 1 Duer, 412. Subsequent de- cision, as it seems, in 9 Bosw. 689. See Bingham v. Weiderwax; Fellows ^.Pren- tiss; Hess v. Fox; Jumel ». Jumcl; Mc- Crea v. Purmort. Decision in 1 Duer explained with Fellows v.. Prentiss, 3 Den. 512; McCrea «. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460; Bingham . Carman, 79 if. Y. 146, 152, Collated with other cases in Colby on Forecl* 41. Examined with other cases in Thomas on Mort. U80 ; citing also King v. West, 10 How. Pr. 333; Husted v. Dakiu, 17 466. Pr. 137. v. Wake, I Abb. N. C. 381. Aff'd in 87 N. Y. 257. Decision in 87 Id. followed with Simonson v. Falihce, 25 Hun, 570 (Effect of mistakes by recording officer) in Bedford v. Tupper, 30 Id. 174. With, decis- ion in 1 .466. iV". C. see other cases pro and con (Index, as part of record) in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 95, n. v. Davies. 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 172. Followed (Liability of one assuming pay- ment of mortgage) in Fleishhauer v. Doell- ner, 9 Abb. JV". C. 372, 374. v. Hoyt, 10 Weekly Dig. 275. Rev'd in 86 N. Y. 615. v. Hunt, 79 AT. Y. 541. Explained (Contract of lunatic) in Riggs v. American Tract Soc'y, 84 Id. 330, 337. Followed in Shoulters ». Allen, 51 Mich. 531. v. Ross, 10 Abb. Pr. 260, n. Followed and approved (Printed subscription) in Bar- nard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. 62. v. Salem, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 246; s. c, 3 Hun, 117. Examined with other cases (Practice on reference as to surplus moneys on foreclosure sale) in Thomas on Mort. 381. Compare Bergen v. Carman, 79 ■Jf. Y. 146. - — v. Wager, '27 Barb. 354. Applied (Waiver by insurer) in Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Minch, 53 N. Y. 151. Collated with other cases in 35 Am. R. 775, n. Applied (Effect of false representation, to avoid policy) in Foot v. .(Etna Life Ins. Co., 6 1 N. Y. 577, which rev'd 4 Daly, 2'J3, which see. Thought with Clarke v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674, in 45 Am. Dec. 633, n.,— though followed in Story on Eq. §§ 146-148 ; Snell on Eq. 376, — to state a rule broader than is sustained by authority (Relief against mistake of fact). Dicta herein referred to in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 322, n., as inconsistent with other decisions, and as haying been expressly overruled. Mutual Safety Ins. Co. v. Hone, 2 N.Y. 235. Followed (Construction of words, " parties interested," in insurance policies) in Acer v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 68, 82. Muzzy T. Shattuck, 1 Den, 233. Affd in 7 Hill, 584, n. See Bartlett v. Crozier; Looney v. Hughes; Supervisors of Albany ®. Dorr; Swartwout «. Mechanics' B'k of N. Y. Decision in 1 Den. approved (Lia- bility of public officer who re.ceives moneys) iu State of Missouri v. Gratzweiler, 49 Mo. 17; s. c, 8 Am. R. 119. Disting'd in York County e. Watson, 1 5 So. Car. 1 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 675; Followed in State ex rel. Township ■». Powell, 67 Mo. 935 ; s. ft, 29 Am. R. 512. v. Whitney, 10 Johns. 226. Disting'd and explained (Partnership, as created by participation in profits) in Simpson v. Fcltz, 1 McCord's Ch. {So. Car.) 213; s. c, \6Am. Dec. 602, with note. Approved in Hazard v. Hazard, 1 Story, 371, 375. See, also, Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 32, n., also Id. 43, n., as to liability in such case to third per- sons. Discussed in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 39, Wood's Am. ed. Myer v. Cole. 12 Johns. 349. Denied (Join- der of action arising after testator's death with one arising in his lifetime) in Hapgood «. Houghton, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 154. Com- pare Austin v. Monroe, 47 N. Y. 360. Rule herein said to have been changed by statute (Executor's liability as to funeral expenses) in Patterson v. Patterson, 59 If. Y. 574, 585. Rule said to be well settled (Personal liability of executor, administrator, &c.) in 15 Am. L. J. R. 449. v. Fisher, 15 Johns. 504. Followed (Recovery of money paid on contract void by statute of frauds) in Allen v. Booker, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 21; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 33, 36, with note. v. Whitaker, 5 Abb. N. C. 172. See Marshall v. Peters; Ward v. People. Criti- cised (Property in ice forming on mill-pond) in Dodge v. Berry, 26 Hun, 246. Explained in 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 320, n. Compare (Artificial water-courses) Roberts v. Rich- ards, 50 L. J. Clianc. Div. 297; 51 Id. 944. Myers v. Burns, 33 Barb. 401. Aff'd in 35 JV". Y. 269. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of clause in lease, as covenant re- specting condition of premises) in Johnson v. Oppenheim, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 454; • AVhite». Albany R'y, 17 Hun, 100. Fol- lowed in Ward «. Kelsey, 38 N. Y. 81. Followed (Damages for breach of lessor's covenant to keep premises in repair) in Mack v. Patchin, 42 Id. 170 ; Cook «. Soulc, 56 Id. 423; Ilextcr v. Knox, 63 Id. 5C5, 868 ; which aff'd 39 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 109, 117, which see. Followed (Damages . for loss of profits) in Cassidy v. LeFevre, 45 -V. Y. 502, 568. v. Davis, 26 Barb. 367. Rev'd in 22 N. Y. 489. Decision in Id. disting]d (Set-off against assignee for creditors) in MYEES-MYNARD. 525 Schieffelin «. Hawkins, 14 Abb. Pr. 112, 110. Applied in dissenting opinion in Sey- mour v. Dunham, 24 Hun, 93, 08. Cited vrith Martin v. Kunzmuller. 37 If. T. 396; Roberts v. Carter, 38 Id. 107 ; as according with the law of Ohio, in Puller v. Steiglitz, 27 Ohio St. 355; s. c, 22 Am. R. 312, 316. Explained in Bui-rill on Assign. § 403, n. 4, 4 ed. Explained (What is such condition of claims as to enable set-off) in Taylor v. Mayor, &c.'ofN. Y., 82 KY. 10, 17. Reviewed with Bush v. Lathrop, 22 Id. 547 ; Cummings v. Norris, 25 Id. 625 ; Hooker v. Eagle B'k of Rochester, 30 Id. 87 ; Petersen ». Chemi- cal Bank, 32 Id. 45 ; Allen v. Brown, 44 Id. 228; Meeker v. Claghorn, Id. 349 (Effect of assignment of chose in action under N. Y. Code) in Levy v. Levy, 78 Penn. St. 507; s. c, 21 Am. R. 35, 38. v. De Mier, 4 Daly. 343. Aff'd in 52 N. Y. 647. Decision in 4 Daly cited as authority (Time as essence of contract to sell land) in Emerson v. Roof, 13 Abb. If. G 358. 361. v. Dixon. See Freeman v. Adams. v. Eddy, 47 Barb. 2G3. See Lupton v. Livpton; Reynolds'!). Reynolds. Explained (Legacy, when a charge ou realty) in Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 If. Y. 142, 149. Explained as turning on extrinsic circumstances, in Man- son v. Manson, 8 Abb. If. C. 123, 127. Ex- plained (Parol evidence to explain will) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 727, n. v. Feeter. Sec Barnard v. Wheeler; Bcardsley v. Dickerson. v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. 537 ; s. c, more fully, 9 IT. Y. Let). Obs. ITS, where deci- sion at Special Term is also given. See Dyett v. Pendleton; Lampman ». Milks; Palmer a. Wctmore; Parker v. Foote. Fully recognized as authority (Easements in light and air) in Doyle v. Lord, 64 If. Y. 439, which rev'd 39 Super. Ct. (J.SS) 421, 433, which see. Relied on with Palmer v. Wctmore, 2 Sand/. 316, in Mullen v. Strieker, 19 Ohio, 135; s. c, 2 Am. It 379. Cited with Parker v. Foot, 1 9 Wen±l. 309, as indicating what is the manifest ten- dency, — in Powell v. Sims, 5 W. Va. 1 ; s. c, 18 Am. It 629, 634. Commented on in 2 Washb. on Heal Prop. 4 ed. 345, n. 7. Explained in Wood on Nuis. 2 cd. 155. V. Malcolm, 6 Hill, 292 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 744, with note, wherein are collected citations. Explained (Evidence of pecuni- ary circumstances of defendant) in Lewis «. Chapman, 19 Barb. 256. Limited in Kniffcn v. McConnell, 30 If. Y. 289. Fol- lowed (Keeping gunpowder, when a nui- sance) in Bradley v. People, 50 Barb. 73. Applied in Hecg v. Licht, 80 If. Y. 579, 584; s. c.,8Abb. JV. C. 355, 361, which rev'd 10 Hun, 259, which sec. ■ v. Overton, 4 E. D. Smith, 428; s. c, more fully, 2 Abb. Pr. 344. Followed (Service by party a mere irregularity) in Hunter's. Lester, 10 Id. 260, 263. Disap- proved with Hunter r. Lester, 18 How. Pr. 347, in Toenniges v. Drake, 1 Col. 474. v. Smith, 48 Barb. 614. Disapprovep (Who may apply to cure defect in instru- ment not properly stamped) in Schermcr- horn v. Burgess, 55 Id. 422, 426. Explained (Effect of omission of stamp) in New Haven & Northampton Co. ■». Quintard, 6 Abb. Pr.. If. S. 128. Discussed and followed (What constitutes acceptance by letter) in Martin «. Northwestern Fuel Co., U. S. Cir. Ct. I). Minn. 22 Fed. Rep. 599. v. Trimble, 3 E. D. Smith, 607; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. 220. Followed (Contempt, when excused by inability to pay money) in Rus- sell v. Kelly, 44 Cal. 475 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 167. See (Severance of action) Code Civ. Pro. § 511. v. Welles, 5 Mill, 403. Applied (Effect of taking note, as an extension of credit) in Hart v. Hudson, 6 Duer, 304. Denied and Elwood v. Diefendorff, 5 Barh. 298, applied, in Shaw v. Associated Ref'd Presb'n Church, 39 Pa. St. 234; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 258, n. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 277. v. White, 37 Bow. Pr. 393. See (Notice of appeal from justice's decision) . Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. Mygratt v. N. Y. Protection Ins. Co., 21 If. Y. 52. Followed (Power of mutual com- panies to issue policies for cash premiums) in White v. Havens, 4 Abb.Ct.Ayp. Dee. 582. v. Washburn, 15 N. Y. 316. See People ex rel. Mygatt v. Supervisors of Chenango. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of assessors) in Bell v. Pierce, 48 Barb. 52, which was aff'd in 51 N. Y. 16, which sec; Dorn v. Backer, 01 Barb. 010; Boyd*. Gray, Si Row. Pr. 332 ; Stewart v. Fonda, 19 Hun, 195. Followed jn Clark i>. Norton, 58 Barb. 437, which was aff'd in 49 N. Y. 240, which sec; Pal- mer v. Lawrence, ' 6 Bans. 292; Nat. B'k of Chemung v. City of Elmira, 53 N. Y. 53 ; Dorwin v. Strickland, 57 Id. 495. Explained in Ovcriug v. Foote, 05 JV. Y. 270, 273. Disting'd (Personal liability of assessor) in Barhyto v. Shepherd, 35 Id. 244, 254. Followed with Barhyte o. Shepherd, in Wade v. Mathcson, 4 Lang. 158, 103. v. Wilcox, 1 Bans. 55. Aff'd in 45 If. Y. 306. Decision in Id. explained (Interest ou attorney's account) in Gallup v. Perue, 10 Hun, 527; White v. Miller, 78 N. Y. 396. Applied (Running of statute of limi- tations against attorney's claim) in (Justine *. Stoddard, 23 Hun, 101. See 6 Alb. L. J. 258. Applied (Interest on unliquidated demand) in McCollum v. Seward, 62 If. Y. 318. Examined with other cases in White v. Miller, 78 Id. 396. Myuard v. Syracuse, Biiiarhnmton & C. R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 399. Rev'd in 71 If. Y. ISO; s. c, 27 Am, It 28. See Gould <,-. Hill ; Place v. Union Express Co.; Pouchcr v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.; Smith «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Wells v. Steam Nav. Co. Decision in 71 If. Y. followed (Con- 526 MY NDERSE— NATIONAL BANK OF CHEMUNG tract exempting carrier from liability for negligence) in Holsapple v. Rome, Water- town & O. R. R. Co., 86 Id. 275, 278. Dis- ting'd in Potter v. Sharp, 24 Hun, 180. See 19 Alb. L. J. 308. Disting'das inapplicable to telegraph companies iu Schwartz «. At. & Pac. Tel. Co., 18 Hun, 157, 159. Myudersev. Snook, 1 Lana. 488. Approved as containing an elaborate discussion (Joint and separate demands and judgments) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 754, n. 0. N. Nagle v. Taggart, 4 Abb. A 7 ! C. 144. See (Effect of service of summons on husband, as service on wife) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, . § 450, n. Napier v. McLeod, 9 Wend. 120. See Gram ■b. Cadwell. Explained and disting'd (Part- ner's authority over factor on dissolution of co-partnership) in Hilton v. Vanderbilt, 82 A", r. 590, 593 599. Nase v. Peek, 3 Johns. Cos. 128. Discussed (Statute of limitations in case of real actions) in Aug. on Limit. § 346, 6 ed. Nash, Matter of. See Yates v. Lansing. Nash v. Kemp, 49 How. Pr. 522. Aff d in 12 Hun, 592. v. Manufacturers' & Trad. Bk. of Buffalo, 5 Him, 508. Rev'd in 68 A 7 ". Y. 396. v. Mitchell, 8 Hun, 471. Rev'd in 71 N. Y. IPO; s. c, 27 Am. Ii. 3S; 3 Abb. N. C. 171, with note. See Yale v. Dederer. Decision in 3 Abb. A. C. disting'd (Liability of married woman on contract made with husband) in Truman v. Allen, 15 Hun, 48. See cases cited in 5 Abb. N. C. 230, «. v. Mosher, 19 Wend. 431. Sec Hoff- man v. Carow. Followed (Trover against lien-holder) in Whitlock v. Heard, 13 Ala. 776; s. c, 4S Am. Bee. 73, with note. Col- lated with other cases and compared (Essen- tials of tresspass upon property) in Bigel. Cos. on Torts, 3S5. v. People, 33 How. Pr. 3S4; s. c, more fully, 36 A'. Y. 007. Disting'd (Juris- diction of city judge of N. Y.) in Marry v. James, 37 How Pr. 52. v. Knsscll, 5 Barb. 550. See Gecr v. Archer; Ingraliam )'. Gilbert. Disapproved with Gcer i: Archer, 2 Jl/trb. 420; Ingra- liam v. Gilbc7-t, 20 Id. 151; and Doty -v. "Wilson, 14 Johns. 378, approved (Previous obligation as consideration for promise) in Goulding v. Davidson, 26 jV. )'. 005. Re- lied on with Gccr v. Archer, 2 Barb. 420 ; Smith ii. Warde, 13 Johns. 237; Ehle ft. Judsou, 24 Wend. 07; Watkins 1>. Ilal- stcad, 2 Sand/. 311, in Porterneld v. But- ler, 47 Miss. 165; s. c, 12 Am. 11. 329, 333, where Colliding v. Davidson, 20 JV. Y. 604, was disting'd as exceptional. v. Tupper, 1 Gal 402; s. c, 2 A 7 ". J". Com. L. Law. ed. 202, with brief note; and 2 Am. Bee. 107, with note, wherein it is shown to have been cited as authority by Kent Parsons, and Story. Followed (Effect of lex fori and lex loci as to limitation of ac- tion) in Graves «. Graves, 2 Bibb. (Ky.) 207; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 697. Followed with Ruggles v. Keeler, 3 Johns. 261, in Levy v. Boas, 2 Bailey (So. Car.) 217; s. c, 23 Am. Bee. 134, with note. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. § 66, 6^ed. v. White's Bk of Buffalo, 5 Hun, 568. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 396. See Cram i>. Hen- dricks. To same effect (Usury by National banks) see National Rank ». Johnson, 104 U. S. 271, 275; which aff'd 74 N. Y. 329, which see. Nason v. Luddington, 55 How. Pr. 342. Aff'd in 56 Id. 172 ; s. c, 8 Daly, 149. Nathan v. Whitlock, 3 Edw. 215. Aff'd in 9 Paige, 152. Decision in Id. explained (Liability of members of private corpora- tion) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 603, 11 ed. Decision in 3 Edw. reviewed at length with Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 2S0, and other cases (What is included in capital stock of corporation, as to credi- tors) in Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486; s. c, 52 Am. Bee. 412, 418, 421. National B'k r. Norton, 1 Hill, 572. See Baker «. Stackpoole; Ketcham v. Clark; Vernon v. Manhattan Co. ; Welsh v. Ger- man American Bank. Disting'd (Authority of officer of corporation) in Jellinghaus's. N. Y. Ins. Co., 6 Duer, 5. Disapproved (Effect of notice to bank director) in West- field B'k v. Cornen, 37 A 7 ! Y. 323. Applied to knowledge by president, in Getman v. Second Nat. B'k, 23 Hun, 498, 503. Fol- lowed (Power of partner after dissolution) in Gale v. Miller, 1 Bans. 456 ; which was aff'd in 54 If. Y. 539, which see; Van Keu- ren t, Parmelcc, 2 Id. 531. National B'k of Auburn v. Lewis, 10 Hun, 468. Rev'd in 75 A 7 ". Y. 516; s. c , 31 Am. II 484; 2 Browne's^ Nat. B'k Cas. 305. Upon re-argument, ordered in consequence of decision in Barnet v. Muncie, 98 U: S. 555, decision in 75 N. Y. was overruled in 81 Id. 15. Decision in Id. distiug'd (Application of partial payment on security drawing interest) in Morehouse v. Second Nat. B'k of Oswego, 30 Hun, 628. Ap- plied conversely (Usurious discount as off- set against national bank) in Id. ; also in Nash v. White's Bank of Buffalo, 13 Weekly Dig. 141. Also followed in Farmers' Nat. Gold B'k v. Stover, 60 Cal. 393. Compare Fii-st IS" at. B'k of Peterborough v. Childs, 130 Mass. 519. See criticisms in 24 Alb. I. J. 103. National B'k of Baltimore v. Sackctt, 2 Dull/, 395; s. c, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 286. See Robinson v. Mcintosh. Commented on (Power of partners to make assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. % 85, 4 ed. National B'k of Chemung v. City of Elmira, li Lans. 116. Rev'd in 53 N. Y. 49. Pre- vious decision on another point in 39 How. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE— NEELY. 527 Pr. 373. Decision in 53 K Y. followed (Jurisdiction of assessors) in Matter of N. Y. Catholic Protectory, 8 Hun, 95, which •was nffd in 77 N. Y. 342, which see; Mat- ter of Ulster. Co. Sav'gs B'k, 20 Hun. 48,4. Applied in Williams v. Weaver. 75 N. Y. 34. "Disting'd in People ». Supervisors of Ulster, 10 Hun, 546; Stewart v. Fonda, 10 Id. 195; Robinson «. Howland, 26 Id. 501 ; Hilton v. Fonda, 86 N. Y. 339, 348. Applied to inspectors of election, in Goetcheus v. Mat- thewson, 61 Id. 429; to case of insolvent discharge, in Morrow a. Freeman, Id. 517. Disting'd (Recovery of money illegally col- lected by municipal corporation) in Dewey v. Supervisors of Niagara, 2 Hun, 394; City of- Rochester v. Town of Rush, 80 N~. Y. 311. Applied in Union St'b't Co. v. City of Buffalo, 82 Id. 351, 357. National B'k of Commerce r. National Mechanics' B'k Assoc, 46 How. Pr. 374; s. c, 35 Super. Gt. (/. & S.) 282. Aff'd in 55 N. Y. 211 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 232, with note. See Marine Nat. B'k v. National City B'k. Decision in 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) followed (Recovery by bank for payment on raised certified check) in Marine Nat. Bank v. Nat. City Bank, 36 Id. 459, 477. Decis- ion in 55 N. Y. applied to payment on altered note, in Fraker n. Little, 24 Earn. 599 ; to payment on forged draft, — in U. S. v. Nat. Park B'k, IT. S. Dist. Ct. S. D. N. Y., Fed. Pep. 854. National B'k of Ft. Edward v. Washington Co. Nat. B'k, 5 Hun, 605. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in 72 N. Y. 606, but with- out opinion. See, Willets i>. Phoenix Bank: Decision in 5 Hun doubted {Bona fide holder of a certificate of deposit) in Tripp 1>. Curtenius, 36 Mich. 494; s.. c, 24 Am. P. 613. Included in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & W. 799. National B'k of Gloversville v. Wells. 15 Hun, 51 ; s. c, less fully, 2 Browne's Nat. B'k Gas. 333. Rev'd in 79 . N. Y. 498. Decision in 15 Hun collated with other cases (Discounting of note by national bank) in Field on Ultra Vires, 100. National B'k of Nevt'burgh v. Bijrler, 18 Hun, 400 Aff'd in 83 A 7 ". Y. 51. v. Smith, 5 Hun, 183. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 271 ; s. c, 23 Am. P. 48, with note. Decision in Id. followed (Application by bank of moneys deposited, to payment of note) in Peoples' Bank of Wilkesbarre i>. Legrand, 103 Pa. St. 315. • National B'k of Norwalk v. Lanier, 7 Hun, 623. Cited as authority with Wadsworth v. Wendell, 5 Johns. Gh. 224; Schenck v. Ellingwood, 3 Edw. 175 (Supplying de- fective execution of mortgage) as applica- ble to mortgage taken by foreign corpora- tion in Lebanon Sav'g B'k v. llalleubeck, 29 Minn 325. National B'k of Salem v. Thomas. See Jaques v. Marquand. National B'k of Schnvlcivillc t. Lasher, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 313. Subsequent deci- sion as Nat. B'k of Schuylerville v. Van- dcrwerker, 74 N. Y. 234. v. Vanderwerker. See Nat. B'k. of Schuylerville v. Lasher. National B'k of Watertown v. Lanson, 45 N. Y. 440. Disting'd (Liability of stock- holders as partners after expiration of char- ter) in Central City Savings B'k v. Walker, 66 Id. 429. National Exch. B'k of Lansingburgh v. Sill i man, 65 N. Y. 475. Further proceed-, ing in 4 Abb. N. G. 224. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Loomis, 11 Paige, 431. Reviewed (Effect of by-bidding at auction sales) in Towle v. Leavitt, 23 N. H. 360; s. c, 55 Am. Dee. 195, 200. v. McKay, 21 N. Y. 191. See Leaven- worth 1>. Packer. Applied (Counter claim in foreclosure) in Lathrop v. Godfrey, (i Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 96, 100. Disting'd in Smith v. Hathorn, 25 Hun, 159, 162. Approvingly quoted (Definition of counter- claim) in Dietrich v. Koch*, 35 Wis. 618, 626 ; -Heckman v. Swartz, 55 Id. 174. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 501, n. National Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 466. Aff'd, it seems, on opin- ion below, in 59 N. Y. 649, without further opinion. v. Minch, 6 Lans. 100. Rev'd in 53 IT. Y. 144. Further decision in 5 Sup>'m. Ct. (T. & C.) 545; mem. s. c, 3 Hun, 354. See Smith v. Glens Falls Ins. Co. Decision in 53 JV. Y. cited (When notice to agent is notice to principal) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 180. National Park B'k v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 138. Rev'd in 46 N. Y. 77. ■ v. Ninth Nat. B'k, 7 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 120; s. c, 55 Barb. 87. Rev'd in 46 N. Y. 77. See Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank. Decision in 46 N. Y. distiDg'd (Recovery of money paid on forged check) in Nat'l B'k of Commerce v. Nat'l B'k'g Ass'n, 55 Id. 211, 214. National State B'k of Troy v. Hibbard, 45 How. Pr. 280. Followed (Object of exceptions) in Roberts v. White, 43 Super. Ct. (J. ct- S.) 455, 460. National Trust Co. v. Gleason, 77 N. Y. 400; s. c, 33 Am. P. 632, with note on disqualification of witness. Naylor v. Hoffman. See Rock River Bank v. Same. •Nazro y. Fuller, 24 Wend. 374. See Bank of America n. Woodworth ; Redlich v. Doll; Woodworth v. Bank of America. Disting'd (Effect of alteration of note, &c.) in Griggs v. Howe, 31 Barb. 100, 104. Applied in Morohead v. Parkersburg Nat'l B'k, 5 W. Va. 74; s. c, 13 Am. P. 636. Neely y. Onondaga Co. Mnt. Ins. Co., 7 Hill, 49. Disting'd (Liability of member of mutual aid association to assessment) in McDonald v. Ross-Ltwin, 29 Hun, 87. Relied on and applied to insurance com- 528 NEFF -NELSON. pany — in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Buckley, 83 Penn. St. 293 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 172. Neff v. Clute. See Olcott v. Rathbone. Neftel v. Liglitstone, 77 N. Y. 96. Applied (Cause of action, when on contract) in Spar- man v. Keim, 9 Abb. i\7! C. 1, 6. Disting'd and explained in Salisbury v. Howe, 87 iV. Y. 135. Rule said in Rowe v. Patterson, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 249, to Lave been changed by Code Civ. Pro. § 549, subd. 4. Negley t. Devlin, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 210. Applied (Illegality of foreign lotteries) in Kohn ii. Koehler, 21 Hun, 466. Negus, Matter of, 7 Wend/. 499. See Rector, &c. of Trinity Church v. Higgins. Applied (When contract of indemnity may be en- forced) in Lathrop v. Atwood, 21 Conn. 125. Explained with Thomas v. Allen, 1 Hill,,U5; Churchill v. Hunt, 3 Den. 321; Douglass 1>. Clark, 14 Johns. 177, in Forbes v. McCoy, 15 Neb. 636. Applied with Port®. Jackson, 17 Johns. 239; Thomas v. Allen, 1 Bill, 145 ; Churchill v. Hunt, 3 Den. 321, in Stout v. Folger, 34 Iowa, 71 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 138. Neidig v. Eifler. See Steelyards v. Singer. Neilson v. Columbian Ins. Co., 3 Cat. 108. See Le Roy v. Gouverneur; Saltus v. Ocean Ins. Co. Collated with other caseB (Terms of memorandum of insurance) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 732. v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Duer, 455. Followed (Liability under policy for leakage) in Borland ». Merc. Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 433, 446. v. McDonald, Johns. Ch. 201. Rev'd in 2 Vow. 141. Decision in 6 Johns. Ch, followed (Sheriffs sale, when void for fraud) in Farr v. Sims, Rich. Eq. {So. Gar.) 122; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 396,401, with note. Also followed at p. 399 (When defendant in equity may be witness). v. Neilson See Harrison i>. Stevens. Neimcewicz v. Gahn. 3 Paige, 614. AfPd in 11 Wend. 312. See Hubbard v. Gurney. Decision in 3 Paige disting'd (Parol evi- dence of suretyship) in Campbell v. Tate, 7 Lans. 371. Approved (Effect of taking new security) in Gary v. White, 52 JSf. Y. 145. Referred. to (Effect of extension of time) as unimpaired on this point, in Thomas on Mort. 74, where the decision is erroneously said to have been rev'd. Applied (Rights of wife as surety) in Van Home v. Everson, 13 Barb. 530. Disting'd in Re Williams, 1 Red/. 212. . Nellis v. Bellinger, 6 Hun. 560. Explained and applied (Mechanic's lien against owner for erections made with his assent) in Otis ®. Dodd, 24 Id. 538. v. Bradley, 1 Sand/. 560. Explained (Duty of one seeking rescission of contract of sale) in Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Barb. 594. Approved with Nicholas v. Michael, 23 K Y. 264; Ladd v. Mocre, 3 Sand/. 539; Fraschieris v. Henriques, 36 Barb. 276; Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Id. 594, in Warner v. Vallily, 13 R. I. 487. v. Clark, 20 Wend. 24. Subsequent decision in 4 Hill, 424. See Osborne v. Moss; Thallhimer n. Brinkerhoff. Both decisions applied (Contract in fraud of , creditors, not enforceable) in Chamberlain «. Barnes, 2C Barb. 162; Briggs v. Merrill. 58 Id. 399. Disting'd in Haynes v. Rudd, 17 Hun, 480. Disting'd as to executed con- tracts, in Moseley «. Moseley, 15 iV. Y. 335. Disapproved in Gary®. Jacobson, 55 Miss.- 204; s. c, 30 Am R. 515. Followed with approval in McCausland «. Ralston, 12 Nev. 195; s. c, 28 Am. R. 781, 785, 790, the distinction sought to be drawn in dissenting opinion of Nelson, C. J., being disapproved. Decision in 4 Hill considered a conclusive authority, in Merrick®. Butler, 2 Lans. 103, 105. Followed in Johnson v. Morlcy, Lalor, 29. Disapproved in Springer ■». Dro.sch, 32 Ind. 486; s. c.,.2 Am. R. 357. Collated ■with Moseley v. Moseley, 15 N. Y. 335, and other cases in 30 Am. R. 517, n. Decision in 20 Wend, said in 34 Am. Dec. 766, v., to be opposed by a dictum in James v. Bird, 8 Leigh (Va.) 510; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 668. Followed in Goudy v. Gebhart, 1 Ohio St. 266. Disting'd (Right of action based on illegal contract) in Morgan t>. Groff, 4 Barb. 529 ; Merritt v. Millard, 5 Bosw. 650. Criticised in Marie v. Garrison. 13 Abb. K C. 328, n. See cases collected in 6 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 209. v. Lathrop. See Jackson ®. Rowland; Thomas ». Crofut. v. McCarn, 35 Barb. 115. Disapproved (Opinions of witnesses as to damages) in Armstrong v. Smith, 44 Id. 120, as contrary to numerous cases there cited. T. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 505. Compared (Exaction of illegal fares) in Bordeaux ■». Erie R'y Co., 8 Bun, 579, 581. Contrasted with contrary deci- sions in 16 Am. X. Rev. 818, 828. Nelson v. Belmont, 5 Duer, 310. Aff'd in 21 N. Y. 36. Decision in Id. discussed (General average) in 3 Kent Com. 234, «., Holmes' ed. — v. Bostvfick, 5 Hill, 37; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 310, with note, wherein are collected citations. Applied (Necessity of demand before suit) in Gillett v. Bafcom, 6 Barb. 370, 373. Explained (Liability on bond for security for costs) in Smith v. Nerval, 2 Code R. 14. Dicta explained (Entry of judgment against joint debtor) in Orleans Co. Nat. B'k «. Spencer, 19 Hun, 573. v. Cowing, 6 Hill, 336; s. c, 16 M Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 379, with brief note. See Nixon v. Hyserott; Tice ®. Gallup. Fol- lowed (Authority to warrant, when included in authority to sell) in Tice v. Gallup, 2 Hun, 446. Disapproved in Cooley v. Per- rine, 12^ Vrovm, K J. 322 ; s. c, 32 Am. It. 216. Regarded with Smith ®. Tracy, 36 JV. Y. 79 ; Ahern ®. Goodspeed, 72 Id. 108, as not applicable in McCormick v. Kelley, 28 Minn. . 1S5, 139. Opinion of BiiotiSQN, J., referred to in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 945, n. NELSON— NEVICJS. 529 16 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Dictum explained (BuMen of proof as to consideration of note) in Oatlin v. Hansen, 1 -Liter, 309, 324 . — v. Du Bois, 13 Johns. 175. See Herrick v. Carman. Questioned (Parol evidence to explain indorsement) in Seabury ». Hunger- ford, 2 Hill, 80. Overruled in Hall v. Newcomb, 7 Id. 416; Moore v. Cross, 19 If. Y. 227. Followed with Tumbull v. Trout, 1 Hall, 336, in Perkins e. Catlin, 1 1 Conn. 213; s. c, 29 Am. .Dec. 282, 295, with note. Applied with approval in Barrows o. Lane, 5 Verm. 161 ; s. c, 26 Am. Dee. 293, 296. Cited with other cases in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 22. v. Eaton, 15 How. Pr. 305. Eev'd in 7 Abb. Pr. 305, but latter rev'd, and former aff'd, in 26 N. Y. 410; s. c , with points of counsel, 16 Abb. Pr. 113. Decision in Id. followed (Power of pledgee of note to collect same) in Farwell v. Importers', &c. Nat. Bank, 13 Weekly Dig. 36. v. lusrersoll, 27 How. Pr. 1. Applied (Necessity of special findings) in Empire Trans. Co., 37 Super. Ct. (J! & S.) 12, 15. v. Kerr, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 299. Aft'd in 59 N. Y. 224. V. Luling, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 544; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 355. AfTd in 62 XT. Y. 645. Decision in 46 How. Pr. discussed (Quality of fraudulent misrepresentations) in 2 Add. on Torts, 405, ■«. 1, Wood's ed. T. McGiffert, 3 Barb. Oh. 158; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 170, with notef wherein are col- lected citations of the case on the points decided. See Jauncey ». Thome ; Smith v. Wait; Tarrant v. Ware. Reviewed with Simmons v. Simmons, 26 Barb. 68, and other cases (When cancellation of subsequent will operates to revive former one) in Pick- ens v. Davis, 134 Mass. 252; s. c, 45 Am. ■ P. 322, with note. See, also, Matter of Simpson's Will, 56 How. Pr. 125. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 nun, 190. Eev'd in 63 N. Y. 535. Decision in Id. disting'd (Liability of municipal corpora- tion on void contract) in Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. If. C. 51, 70. See Id. 65, n. Limited in McDonald v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 68 If Y. 23, 27. Disting'd in Smith*). City of Newburgh, 77 Id. 130, 137. Applied to the State, .in People v. Denison, 19 Hun, 137, 149. Collated with other cases in 5 Abb. K C. 49, n. v. People, 5 Park. 30. Aff'd in 23 N. Y. 293. See Hamlin v. Dingman ; People «. Bush. v. Plimpton Fire-proof Elevating Co., 8 Abb. L. J. 29. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 480. — v. Recknagcl, 3 Bosw. 459. We are in- formed that decision mentioned in Id. 474, »., was rev'd in Ct. of App. in Juno, 1803. — v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 417. Aff'd in 71 N. Y. 453. Decision in Id. followed (Expert testimony to define words in written contract) in Hatch L-34 v. Douglass, 48 Conn. 116; s. c, 12 Rep. 744. Nesinith v. Clinton Fire Ins. Co., 8 Abb. JV. 141. Followed (Review of trial for ir- regularity, before what judge to be had) in Plunkett v. Appleton, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 159, 171. Applied with Reynolds v. Champlain Transp. Co., 9 ZTow. Pr. 7 (Set- ting aside verdict for improper influences on jury) in Bradbury v. Cony, 62 Me. 223; s. c, 16 Am. Ii. 449, with note collating Nessle v. Reese, 19 Abb. Pr. 240; s. c, 29 How. Pr. 382. Further decision on the merits, in 49 Barb. 374. See Barnes v. Mc- Allister. See (Refusal of injunction in case of provision for remedy in damages) Pheuix Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 266, 273. Nestle v. Jones. See Barber v. Crossett. y. Van Slyck, 2 Hill, 282. See (Proof of precise words) Townshend on Slander & Libel, 622 § 365. See, also, Abb. Tr. En. 660. Ncmlecker t. Kohlbergr, 3 Daly, 407. Dis- cussed (Partnership accounting) in 1 Coll- yer on Partn. § 334, n. 3, Wood's Am. ed. Neuendorff v. Dnryea, 6 Daly, 276. Aff'd in 69 If. Y. 557; s. c, 25 Am. R. 235, with note. Neufville v. Thompson, 3 Edw. 92. See Shepherd -a. Shepherd. Approved with' Latourotte v. Williams, 1 Barb. 9 (Gift or alienation from husband to wife is good in equity) in Dening v. Williams, 26 Conn. 226. Ncmuan v. Goddard, 48 How. Pr. 363; s. c. as Newman v. Goddard, 3 Hun, 70; 5 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & C) 299. Further pro- ceeding in 20 Hun, 563. Nensbamn v. Keini, 1 Hilt. 520; s. c, 7 Abb. Pr. 23. Rev'd in .24 AT. Y. 325. Decision in Id. examined and disting'd (Sufficiency of confession of judgment) in Thompson v. Van Vechten, 27 Id. 568, 584. Re-aff d in Acker v. Acker, 1 AbbX't. App. Dec. 1. Nenstadt v. Joel, 2 Duer, 530. AfTd as Reubens v. Joel, in 13 If. Y. 488. Neville v. Neville, 22 How: Pr. 500. See Forrest v. Forrest ; Fuller v. Emcrie. See (Ife exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, n. Nevin v. Ladue, 3 Den. 43. Rev'd in part, in Id. 437. Decision on p. 43 cited as authority, and that on p. 437 explained (Whatare spirituous liquors) in Commission- ers of Tompkins v. Taylor, 21 AT. Y. 173. Decision on p. 437 followed with People v. Wheelock, 3 Park. 9; Comm'rs of Excise v. Taylor, 21 If. Y. 173; Rau v. People, 03 Id. 277, in Briffitt v. State, 58 Wis. 39; s. c, 46 Am. R. 621. Explained iu State v. Adams, 51 If. II. 568.. Nevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co., iBosw. 225. Explained (Common earner, how long, liable for passenger's baggage) in Ang. on Carr. § 114, n. a, 5 ed. • Nevius t. Dunlap, 33 If. Y. 670. Applied 530 NEW— NEWELL. (Reformation of contract) in Moran v. Mc- Larty, 11 Hun, 68. Applied in Derringer e. Schaefer, 52 How. Pr. 69. Disting'd in 0'J)onnell v. Harmon, 3 Daly, 428'; Whittemore v. Farrington, 7 Hun, 395. New v. Nicoll, 12 Hun, 431. Aff'd in 73 if. Y. 127; s. c, 2^ Am. R. 111. Decision in Id. followed (Personal liability of trustees, &c.) in Goepper . Stone. Disapproved with Matthews v. Beach, 5 Sand/. 256 (Requisites of answer setting up mitigating circumstances) in Gorton v. Keeler, 51 Barb. 475, 483. Com- pare Code Civ. Pro. § 508. v. People, 6 Lans. 460 ;s. c, more fully, 63 Barb. 630. v. Supervisors of Livingston, 1 Lans. 476. Modified in 45 N. Y. 676. See Peyser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ;. Van Rens- selaer . City of Buffalo, 1 Abb. N. 0. 360; Nichol- son v. Conner, 8 Daly, 212, 215; Elw.ood v. Western Union Tel. Co., 45 N. Y. 553. Examined with other cases (Burden of proof as to bailee's negligence) in Coleman *. Liv- ingston, 36 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 39. v. Porter, C9 K Y. 133; s. c, 25 Am. B. 152. Previous decision in 5 Lans. 416. Compare (Following proceeds of sale of stolen securities) Warren v. Haight, 65 A 7 ! Y. 171; Porter c. Knapp, 6 Lam. 125. Decision in 69 N. Y. disting'd in Howell v. Earp, 21 Hun, 395. Followed (Time for objecting to depositions) in Mason and Hamlin Organ Co. v. Pugsley, 19 Hun, 282. v. Sweet. See Belding ■». Conklin. • N. ¥. African Socy. v. Varick, 13 Johns. 38. Applied (Effect of obligation to trustees) to will in Curran v. Sears, 2 Bed/. 526, 532. Cited with 'Bank of Genesee v. Patchin, 19 N. Y. 312; Bank of N. Y. v. Bank of Ohio, 29 Id. 619 ; First Nat. Bk. of Angelica v. Hall, 44 Id. 395, in 12 Am. Dee. 715, n., as fully sustaining the doctrine (Suits by cor- porations on obligations given to agents). Followed (Suing on obligation in different • name from that mentioned therein) in Mc- Kinney v. Barter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 385 ; s. c, 43 Am. Deo. 96, with note. Applied in Nicholay ». Kay, 6 Ark 59; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 680, with note collating cases. N. Y. & Boston It. R. Co. v. Godwin, 12 Abb. Pr. A 7 . S. 21. Approved (Sufficiency of map filed in proceedings to condemn land) in Matter of Boston, Hoosac T. & W. R. R. Co., 10 Abb. N. 0. 104. 107. N. Y. & Brooklyn Saw Mill Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 37. Aff'd in 71 N. Y. 580. See Mayor, &c. of N. Y. «. Bailey. Collated with other cases (When officers act for State, and not for municipal corpor- ation) in 8 Abb. N. O. 282, a. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., Matter of, 1 1 . Abb. Pr. N. 8. 90. Aff'd as N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Kip, in 46 N. Y. 540. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Forty-second Street, &c. R. R. Co., 50 Barb. 285 ; s. c, 26 How. Pr. 08. Aff'd in 50 Barb. 309; s. C, 32 How. Pr. 481. See Milhau *. Sharp. v. Haws, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 872. Rev'd in 56 K Y. 175. Decision in Id. ap- proved (Rights of finder of lost property) in Tancil v. Seaton, 28 Oratt. (Va.) 001; s. c, 20 Am. B. 380. Collated with other cases in 23 Am. B. 531, n. Compare Ila- maker r. Blanchard, 90 Penn. St. 379. V. Kip, 40 N. Y. 546. Subsequent pro- ceeding as Kip v. N. Y. & II. R. Co., 6 Hun, 24, which was aff'd in G7 2f. Y. 227. See Matter of N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. Decision in 46 N. Y. applied (Limits of right of acquisition of land by railroads) in Mattef of N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 429 ; N. Y. &> Canada R. R. Co. «. Gunnison, 1 Hun, 497; N. Y. Central, &e R. R. Co. «. Met. Gaslight Co., 5 Id. 206 which was affd in 63 AT. Y. 330, which see.' Disting'd in Strong v. City of Brooklyn, 68 Id. 9. t. Marsh, 12 AT! Y. 308. See Forrest®. Mayor, &c. of N." Y. Disting'd (Recovery of monev paid on illegal assessment) in Pey- ser v. Mayor, &c, 70 N. Y. 497, 502. v. Story, 6 Barb. 419. Rev'd in 6 N. Y. 85. v. Trustees of Morrisania, 7 Hun, 652. Compare (Assessment of railroad property for local improvement) People ex rel. Troy Union R. R. Co. v. Assessors of Troy, 2 Abb. Pr. B~. O. 86. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Ketchtmi, 3 Koyss, "24. See Batterman «. Finn ; N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler. Re- viewed with Pitt v. Davison, 37 N. Y. 235 ; Batterman ■». Finn, 40 Id. 340 ; Sudlow v. Knox, 7 Abb. Pr. K S. 411; Erie R'y Co. v. Ramsay, 45 A 7 ". Y. 637 (Appealability of order adjudg-ing contempt, and proscribing punishment therefor) in Brinkley v. Brink- ley, 47 Id. 40 ; Sudlow v. Knox being fol- lowed and approved. v. Lyon, 16 Barb. 651. Explained (Assessment of non resident) in Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 224, 237. Disapproved (Assessment on railroad com- pany) in People ex rel. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. v. Fredericks, 48 Barb. 173. v. Schuyler, 1 Abb. Pr. 417. Rev'd in 17 N. Y. 592; s. c, more fully, 7 Abb. Pr. 41. Subsequent decision in '38 Barb. 534; which was affd in part, and rev'd. in part, in 34 Jf. Y. 30. Decision in Id. re- asserted on second appeal, as N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. •». Ketchum, in 3 Keyes, 363 ; s. c, 34 How. Pr. 302. Another proceed- ing in 28 Id. 187. See Bank of Utica v. Smalley ; Mechanics' B'k v. N. Y. & New Haven It. R. Co. Decision in 17 A 7 ". Y. explained (Personal liability of directors of corporation) in Gardiner v. Pollard, lOBosw. 692. Followed (Demurrer for misjoinder of parties defendant) in Richtmyer v. Richt- niyer, 50 Barb. 59. Applied (Cancellation of spurious stock, as cloud on title) to set- ting aside ferry lease, in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. «. Union Ferry Co , 55 How. Pr. 144; to enjoining proceedings to enforce dower right, in Wood v. Seely, 32 K Y. 113; to deed,' in Fonda r>. Sage, 48 Id. 186. Decis- ion in 34 Id. disting'd (Estoppel Created by apparent authority given to agent of corporation) in Dabney v. Stevens, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 51 ; in People ?. Bank of No. Am., 75 N~. Y. 502, a case of an agent of the State. Disting'd in Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7,11. Applied to agent of individual, in Merchants' B'k v. Griswold, 72 ' A 7 ! Y. K Y. & OSWEGO, &c. R. R. CO.-N. Y. CENTRAL INS. CO. 533 478. Citedin Whart. Com. on Ag. §151,11. Decision in 17 A 7 . Y. explained in 2 Add. on Torts, 410, n. 1, Wood's ed. Decision in 34 N. Y. applied (Liability on spurious stock) in Titus v. Great Western Turnpike Itoad, 5 Lans. 253 ; which was aff'd in 61 iV. Y. 245, which see ; Bruft v. Mali, 36 Id. 205. Disting'd with Titus v. Great West- ern Turnpike Road, 61 A T . Y. 2517 ; Bniff v. Mali, 36 Id. 200; McNeil v. Tenth Nat. B'k, 46 Id. 32.3 ; Moore v. Metropolitan B'k, 55 Id. 41; Holbrook v. N. J. Zinc Co., 57 Id. 616 ; Merchants' B'k v. Livingston, 74 Id. .223, in Moores v. Citizens' Nat. B'k of Piqua, 111 If. S. 161. Followed and ap- proved with Titus ii. Great Western Turn- pike Road, 5 Lans. 250, 255, in Tome v. Parkersburg R. R. Co., 39 Md. 36 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 540, 553; U. S. v. Davis, 2 Sill, 461, being also relied on as analo- gous. Explained as' turning on ratification by the corporation, in Citizens' Nat. B'k v. Cincinnati, New Orleans, &c. Ry. Co., Super. Ct. Gin. 11 Weekly L. Bui. 86. Fol- lowed (Bights of transferee of stock) in Cady •». Potter, 55 Barb. 463, 468 ; McNeil v. Tenth Nat. B'k, 40 A 7 . Y. 331. Approved with McNeil v. Tenth Nat. B'k, Id. 325, in Scott ». Pequonnock Nat. B'k of Bridgeport. U. S. Gir. Ct. S. D. N. Y., 15 Reporter, 137. See also Sibley *. Quinsig- amond Nat. B'k, 133 Mass. 515. See con- flicting cases in several States, collected in 12 Gent. L. J. 199; same article in 10 Am. L. Bee. 270. Explained with other cases (Jurisdiction of equity, where remedy may be had at law) in Genet v. Hovvland, 45 Barb. 570. Applied (Joinder of defendants in proceedings for cancellation of stock) to town bonds, in Town of Venice «. Breed, 65 Id, 603. Both decisions disting'd (Maintain- ing action to prevent multiplicity of suits) in Supervisors of Saratoga v. Deyoe, 15 Sun, 532, which was rev'd in 77 A 7 ". "Y. 525, which see. Disting'd in Town of Venice v. Woodruff, 62, Id. 470. Decision in 17 Id. disting'd in Mcllenry v. Hazard, 45 Barb. 662. Explaiued with Third Avenue R. R. Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 54 A 7 ! Y. 159, in Manhattan Ry. Co. ». N. Y. Elevated Ry. Co , 29 Sun, 309. Applied in Erie Ry. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 AT! Y. 648. Cited as con- taining an elaborate opinion in 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 261, n. 1. Decision in 34 N Y. disting'd in Buffalo Grape Sugar Co. v. Alberger, 22 Sun, 352. Decision in 28 Sow. Pr. collated with Paddock v. Wells, 2 Barb. Oh. 331; Ex parte Hopper, 5 Paige, 489; Underhill v. Dennis, 9 Id. 202; Bank v. flicKee, 7 Sow. Pr. 300 (Disqualification of judges by affinity) in 12 Weekly L. Bui. 4. Decision in 34 N. Y. quoted and col- lated with other cases ( Ultra vires) in Field on Ultra Vires, 160; Id. 546. Quoted and commented on in Morawetz on Corp. § 62. Explained in Id. §§ 67, 88. N. Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 21. Y. 473. Applied (When law does not operate prospectively) in Carpen- ter v. Shimer, 24 Sun, 464. Commented on (Municipal powers) in Coolcy on Const. ' Limit. 5 ed. 287, n. N. Y. & Sharon Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. 412. Collated with CatskillBank v. Gray, 14 Barb. 471 (Corporation as member of partnership) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 14, n. N. Y. & Virginia State Stock Bank v. Gib- son, 5 Duer, 574. Disting'd (Promise to accept draft, when conditional) in Mer- chant's B'k v. Griswold, 72 XT. Y. 472, 479. See to the contrary, dissenting opinion of D wight, C, in Shaver «. Western Union Tel. Co., 57 N. Y. 467. But see Abb. Tr. En. 420. N. Y. Balance Bock Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Hun, 247. See also (Remedy against municipal board) Swift v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 N. Y. 528, 535. N. Y. Bowery Fire Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Fire Ins* Co., 17 Wend. 359. Relied on (Effect of omission by insured to disclose risk) in Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ins. Co., 107 U. S. 485, 510. Disting'd in Hill e. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2 Mich. 476. N. Y. Bridge Co., Matter of, 4 Sun, 635; s. c. reported in 67 Barb. 295. N. Y. Catholic Protectory, Matter of, 8 Sun, 91. Aff'd in 77 N. Y. 342. Deci- sion in 8 Sun cited (When county court may order illegal tax refunded) in People ex rel. Hermance v. Supervisors of Ulster, 10 Hun, 546; which was aff'd in 71 A 7 ! Y. 481, which see. Decision in 27 Id. dis- ting'd (Assessors not liable for erroneous decision as to jurisdictional facts) in Hilton v. Fonda, 86 Id. 339, 348. N. Y. Central Ins. Co. v. National Pro- tection Ins. Co., 20 Barb. 468. Rev'd in 14 A 7 ". Y. 85. See Howard Ins. Co. v. Halsey. Both decisions followed (In- capacity of agent to act for his own in tcrest) in Conkey v. Bond, 34 Barb. 287 ; Claflin v. Farmer's, &c. B'k, 25 JST. Y. 297. Decision in 14 Id. followed in Pratt v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 9 Bosw. 100; Bentley v. Columbia Ins. Co., 17 K Y. 423. Dis- ting'd in dissenting opinion in Fellows v. Northrup, 39 Id. 125. Applied in Marie v. Garrison, 13 Abb. A 7 ". C. 214, 229. Dis- ting'd (Effect of admission of evidence out- side of issue made by pleadings) in Williams v. Mech. & Trad. Fire Ins. Co., 54 A 7 ! Y. 577, 581. Considered a peculiar case, — in Pomeroy on Bern. § 96, n. 3. Dictum in 20 Barb, explained (Estoppel created by acknowledgment of receipt of premium) in Sheldon i>. Atlantic Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 26 N. Y. 462. Thought in Robert •». New England Mut. Ins, Co., 2 Dim. (Ohio) 106, 113, not to be supported by the authorities cited. Approved in Ilallock v. Ins. Co., 2 Hutch. (A 7 ! J.) 268, 277, 283. v. Snfford, 10 Sow. Pr. 344. Sec (Un- dertaking on injunction) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 625, n. 534 N. Y. CENTEAL, &c. E. E. CO.— N. T. FIEEMEN INS. CO. N. Y. Central, &c. B. R. Co., Matter of, 15 Hun, 63. See Matter of Utica, &c. 11. R. Co. , 63 A 7 ". Y. 326. Aff'g 5 Hun, 201. De- cision in 63 N. Y. collated with Matter of Rochester Water Commissioners, 60 Id. 413, and other cases (Right of legislature to cause property of corporation to be appro- priated in exercise of right of eminent domain) in 24 Am. R. 551, n. , 4 Hun, 380 ; s. c, as N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Cor v. Sweeney, C Sup'm. Ct. {T. & 0.) 669. , 5 Hun, 86. Affd in 66 XT. Y. 407. Another proceeding in 60 Id. 112. Also in 2 Hun, 482 ; s. c; 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 84; which was aff'd in 60 N. Y. 116. Decision in 5 Hun followed (Requisites of petition in proceedings to acquire lands) in Matter of Marsh, 10 Id. 41), 52; which was rev'd in 71 N. Y. 315. , 5 Hun, 105. Appeal dismissed in 64 N. Y. 60. Decision in Id. followed (Power to set aside report of commissioners ap- pointed to appraise land taken for railroad purposes) in Matter of N. Y., Lackawanna, &c. R'y Co., 29 Hun, 602; which was aff'd in 93 N. Y. 385, which see. Explained and applied in Matter of Kings Co. Elev. Ry. Co., 82 Id. 95, 100. N. Y. Central It. R. Co. v. Marvin, 11 N. Y. 276. Followed as having been re-aff'd in People v. Betts, 55 Id. 600 (Conclusive- ness of determination of Supreme Court in land condemnation proceedings) in Matter of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 69 Id. 209. Followed in King v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 36 Id. 186. Followed in Matter of Comm'rs of Central Park, 50 Id. 497. Ap- proved iu Matter of Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 85 Id. 489, 497. Applied to decision at Special Term, in Bowery Exten- sion Case, 2 Abb. Pr. 372 ; but see Albany, &c. R. R. Co. ». Dayton, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 183 ; Matter of Comm'rs of Central Park, 61 Barb. 46. Applied (Effect of statutes pro- viding for appeals) in Matter of Dodd, 27 N. Y. 632. v N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co, v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co., 5 Hun, 201. Aft'd in 63 N. Y. 326. ^ Another proceeding in Hun, 149. v. People, 12 Hun, 195. Modified in People v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 74 A 7 ". Y. 302. , v. Sweeney, C Sup'm. Ct. (T. <£• C.) C69; s. c. as Matter of N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 381. N; Y. Cordivainer's Case, printed by J. Riley, N. Y., 1810. Approved (Legality of combinations among workmen to inilucnce rate of wages) in Master Stevedores' Associ- ation v. Walsh, 2 Daly, 1, 3, 8. Nv Y. Dry Dock Co. v. Am. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 215. Aff'd in 3 N. Y. 344. v. Stillinan, 30 K Y. 174; Explained (Trust, when deemed power in trust) in Ford v. Belmont, 7 Holt, 97. Applied in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 334. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., Matter of, 1 Hun, 239.- Affd in 70 A 7 ". Y. 327; s. c, 3 Alb. N. G. 401. Sec Milhau ». Sharp. Decision in 70 AT. Y. followed (Distinction between general and local act) in Matter of Church, 92 Id. 1. Followed (Authority given to N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., by L. 1875, c. 595) in Mattlage v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 07 How. Pr. 232, 237. Applied with Matter of Gilbert Elevated R'y Co, 70 N. Y. 361 ; Matter of Brooklyn, &c. R. R. Co., 75 Id. 333 (Constitutionality of amendments of private or local bills) in People v. Petrea, 92 Id. 128, 140. Applied in Negus v. City of Brooklyn, 10 Abb. H. C. 180, 180. Disting'd (Ability of legislature to waive corporate forfeiture since constitution of 1874) in Matter of Brooklyn, W. & N. It. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 339. Explained (Dam- ages to abutting owners) in Caro v. Metrop. Elev. R'y Co., 46 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 138, 161. Compare Washington Cemetery v. Prospect Park, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. N. G. 15. Explained (Conclusiveness of de- termination of commissioners in land con- demnation proceedings) in Matter of Kings Co. Elev. R'y Co., 82 JST. Y. 95, 101. See cases cited {Ultra vires) in 4 Abb. N. C. 59, n. Quoted and explained (Dissolution of private corporations) in Morawetz on Corp. §§ 654, 655. N. Y. Equitable Ins. Co. v. Langdon, 6 Wend. 623. Affd in 1 Hall, 226. See Gates t. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. Co. Decision in 6 Wend, followed (Effect of provision in fire policy against storing, &c. hazardous arti- cles) in Moore v. Protection Ins. Co., 29 Me. 97; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 514, 518, with note. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Contr. 423 n. n. Explained in Id. 425, n. s. N. Y. Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 3 Bom. 86. Further decision in 5 Id. 593; which was rev'd in 31 A 7 ! Y. 273. N. Y. Firemen Ins. Co. v. Ely, 2 Cow. 678; s. c, 7 A 7 ". Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 928, with brief note. See People ex rcl. Attorney General v. Utica Ins. Co. Disting'd (Au- thority of corporation to make loans, &c.) in Utica Ins. Co. «. Scott, 8 Cow. 718; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. . Hunt, 14 Id. 576. Collated with other cases ^in Ilolcombe Lead. Cas. on Com. L. 174. Compared in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. ' S. 326. N. Y. FIEEMEN INS. CO.— NEXSEN. 53:5 Quoted and explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 130, n. y; Id. 132, n. b. V. Sturges, 2 Cow. 664. See Same «. Ely; People v. Utica Ins. Co. Discussed -(Contracts by private corporation) -in Ang. 6 A. on Corp. § 260, 11 cd. ; Id. 2G6. v. Walden, 12 Johns. 513. Cited ap- provingly (Necessity of communicating in- formation to underwriter) in 3. Kent Com. 285. N. Y. Floating Derrick Co. v. N. J. Oil Co., 3 Duer, 648. For a stricter rule, see (Bur- den of proof of corporate acts) People ex rel. Town of Rochester v. Deyoe, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 142. See, also, Abb. Tr. Ev. 36. N. Y. Guaranty & Ind. Co. v. Flynn, 65 Barb. 365. Aff d in 55 If. Y. 653. With decision in Id. see (Contents of verdict in action for chattel) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1726, n. T. Glcason, 53 How. Pr. 122. Other proceedings in 43 Super. Ct. (. White, 7 How. Pr. 154; Morewood v. Hollister, 6 If. Y. 3u9, 315. Sec, also, Benjamin v. Benjamin, 5 Id. 383. Nicholas v. N. T. Central, &c. Co., 4 Hun, 327; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 606. In case of this name, re-argument ordered in Ct. of App. Nov. 29, 1881. Disregarded (Power of carrier to contract against its own negligence) in McKinney v. Jewett, 24 Hun, 19. Criticised in Lawsonh Contr. of Carr. §§ 28, 130. Nicliolls v. Van Valkenburgh, 15 Hun, 230. Disting'd (Evidence of pecuniary means) in Gorham v. Price, 25 Id. 11. Cited with other cases in Pontius v. People, 21 Id. 328 331. Nichols, Matter of, 4 Red/. 288. Disting'd (Presumption from award of costs against administrator or executor) in Matter of Miller, Id.' 302. , 54 If. Y. 62. Applied with Bell ■o. Pierce, 51 Id. 12 (Presumption of continuance of domicile until satisfactory evidence of abandonment) in Nugent v. Bates, 51 Iowa, 77; s. c, 33 Am It 118. Nichols v. Chapman, 9 Wei.d. 455. Criti- cised and disapproved (Entry of judgment after defendant's death) in Livingston v. Rendall, 59 Barb. 493. Superseded by statute as to which see Grant «. Griswold, 21 Hun, 509, 512. Followed in Matter of Dun, 5 Red}. 27, 30. Discussed in Wil lard on Executors, 282. v. Drew, 19 Hun, 490. Mem. granting re-argument, as it seems, in 21 Id. 109. v. Dusenbury. See Batteiman v. Pierce. - v. Goldsmith! See Butler ». Wright. v. Ketchani, 19 Johns. 84. Followed with Russell v. Gibbs, 5 Cow. 396 (One who bids at sale under his own execution cannot be required to advance money on his bid) in Fowler d. Pearce, 2 Eng. {Ark.) 28; s. c, 44 Am. Dec, 526, 529. v. Kingdom Iron Ore Co., 56 IT. F.618. See Richmond ville Union Seminary d. Mc- Donald ; Sweet t>. Tuttle. Disting'd (Ques- tion calling for witness' opinion) in Murray ■u. Deyo, 10 Hun, 3, 6. Followed in Den- man n. Campbell, 7 Id. 88. v. McEwen, 21 Barb. 65. Affd in 17 If. Y. 22. Decision in Id. explained and limited (Provision for counsel fees to assignee for creditors) in Campbell v. Wood- worth, 24 Id. 304. Quoted and dis- cussed in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 335. Explained in Burrill on Assign. % 232, 4 ed.; Id. § 424. v. McLean, 25 Hun, 118. Abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 461. - v. Mead, 2 Lans. 222. Affd, but with- out opinion, in 47 If. Y. 653. v. Michael, 23 N. Y. 264. Prior decis- ion as Nichols v. Pinner, 18 Id. 295. See Nellis v. Bradley. Decision in 23 If. Y. followed (Liability in detinue, &c., of one who has parted with possession! in Dunham «. Troy Union R. R. Co., 1 Abb: Ct. App. Dec. 568; Latimer v. Wheeler, 3 Id. 38; Ellis v. Lersner, 48 Barb. 546 ; Ross v. Cas- sidy, 27 How. Pr. 416, 422; Barnett v. Selling, 70 If. Y. 494, which modified 9 Hun, 237, which see. Disting'd in Christie v. Corbett, 34 How. Pr. 25. Approved in McBrian v. Morrison,. 55 Mich. 301, 354. Followed (Sufficiency of production of notes at trial) in King v. Fitch, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 516. Explained in dissenting opinion in Fraschieris v. Henriques, 36 Barb. 283. Followed and "approved in Miller v. Woods, 21 Ohio St. 485; s. c, 8 Am. R. 71. Ex- plained (Effect of fraud in rendering sale voidable) in Joslin v. Cowce, 60 Barb. 5a. NICHOLS— NICOLL. 537 Examined (Effect cf concealment of insol- vency by purchaser) in Byrd v. Hall, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 287. . Decision in 18 N. Y. disting'd in Brown v. Montgomery, 20 Id. 292. Applied in Peoples' B'U of N. Y. v. Bogart, 81 Id. 108. Explained in John- son v. Monell, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 477; Hennequin e. Naylor, 24 N. Y. 140. Fol- lowed in Ellison i>. Bernstein, 60 How. Pr. 145, 148. Decision in 23 & Y. collated with other cases in 27 Am. li 504. v. People, 17 iV. Y. 114. Rev'g 21 Park 579. y. Pinner. See Nichols v. Michael. v. Sixth Ave. It. It. Co., 10 Bosw. 260. Aff'd in 38 N~. Y. 131. Decision in Id. disting'd with "Wilcox ®. Rome, Water- town, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Id. 358; Gonzalez v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 38 Id. 440 (Question of care and diligence, when for court) in Greenleaf v. Illinois Central R. ,R. Co., 29 Iowa, 14; s. c, 4 im. JR. 181, 185. Compared (Negligence in. leaving railroad car) in 23 Alb. L. J. 12C. v. Tifft, 2 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 314. Rev'd in 56 K Y. 644. v. Voorhis, 9 Hun, 171. Appeal dis- missed in 74 JV. Y. 28. Further decision in 18 Ilun, 33. Decision in 74 K Y. disting'd as not authority (Construction of Code Pro. § 304) in Black v. O'Brien, 23 Hun, 82. v. Williams, 8 Cow. 13. Approved (Necessity of notice to quit) (citing Post «. Post, 14 Barb. 255) in Park v. Castle, 19 How. Pr. 29, 32. Cited approvingly in 4 Kent Com. 115. - — • v. Wilson. See Pattison v. Hull. Nicholson v. Erie It'y Co., 41 JSF. Y. 525. Disting'd (Liability for injury to one on private premises) in Beck v. Curter, Hun, 604, 608. Reviewed with other cases in Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, &c. R. R. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364; s. c, 23 Am. IL 751, 755. Reviewed and disting'd with Sutton v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 06 N. Y. 243, in Davis v. Chicago & North- western R'y Co., 58 Wis. 640; s. c, 40 Am. 12. 667, 073, 678; Hoffman v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 87 JV". Y. 25; Rounds «. Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. R It. Co., 64 Id. 129; Driscoll v. Newark & Rosen- dale Lime, &c. Co., 37 Id. 037, being with other cases, relied on in this connec- tion. Collated with other cases in 30 Am. Ii. 687, n. Commented on in Iloak's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 264. v. Halsey, 1 Johns. Ch. 417. Explained (Merger) in Do Lisle v. Herbs, 25 Hun, 485, 488. v. Leavitt, 4 Sandf. 252. Rev'd in G N. Y. 510; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 499, with note. See opinion of Emion-ds, J., in Ct. of App. in 10 N. Y. 591. See Litchfield «. White. Applied (Effect of provision in assignment, for sale on credit) in" D'Invernois «. Leavitt, 23 Barb. 80; Jcssup v. Iiulse, 29 Id. 542; Schufeldt v. Aberncthy, 2 Duer, 537. Applied, and Kellogg v. Slcu- son, 11 XT. Y. 302, explained and qualified in Brigham v. Tillinghast, 13 Id. 218. Dis- ting'd in Grant v. Chapman, 38 Id. 294 ; Kel- logg v. Slauson, 11 Id. 305. Applied to provision for contiuuance of business by as- signee, in Dunham v. Waterman, 17 Id. 17. Applied in case of trust deed given by cor- poration in Curtis v. Leavitt, 17 Barb. 316. Followed with Brigham v. Tillinghast, 13 N. Y. 215; Rapalee v. Stewart, 27 Id. 310, in McCleery v. Allen, 7 Neb. 21 ; & C, 29 Am. R. 377; Woodburn v. Mosher, 9 Barb. 255, being also cited as authority. Decision in 4 Sandf. disapproved in Burdick v. Post, 12 Barb. 171. Decision in. 6 N. Y. quoted and discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 221, n. 5, 4 ed. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 211. Quoted and explained (Hindrance and delay) in Burrill on Assign. §§ 329, 330. Commented on (Preferences) in Id. § 166. Decision in 4 Sandf. quoted and collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 182. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 211. Quoted and collated (Firm and individual debts) in Bishop oh Assign. %% 187, 188. Collated with other cases (Fraud at time of making assignment) in Id. § 226. v. Waful, 6 Hun, 685. Rev'd in 70 N. Y. 604. See Green v. Disbrow. Decision in 70 N. Y. disting'd (Evidence of pecu- niary condition) in Nicholls v. Van Valken- burgh, 15 Hun, 230, 233. Cited with other cases in Pontius v. People, 21 Id. 328, 331. Niekelson v. Wilson, 4 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 105; mem. s. c, 1 Ilun, 615. Rev'd in 60 N~. Y. 362. Decision in Id. approved (Validity of agreement tending to influ- ence result of criminal proceeding) in Waterman on Sp. Perf. § 217, n. Nickerson v. Ruger, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 258. Rev'd in 76 N. Y. 279. Another de- cision in 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 571, affd in 84 N. Y. 675 ; s. c, more fully, 12 Weekly Dig. 146. In decision in 76 N. Y. in fourth line of head-note for '•defendant" read "plaintiff." Nicklesou v. Strykcr, 10 Johns. 115; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 318. See Martin v. Payne. Explained and disting'd (Grounds of recov- ery for seduction) in Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229, 236. Disapproved, in Parker v. Meek, 3 Sneed (Tcnn.), 29, 38. Nicoll v. Burke, 45 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 75. Modified in 78 N. Y. 580; s. c, 8 Abb. N. C. 213. Further proceeding in 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 526. Decision in 78 N. Y. explained (Execution of agreement by agent, when to be enforced by principal) in 1 Add. on Contr. 226, n. 1. Abb. ed. Com- pare (Reduction of rent) U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53; 12 Ct. Claims, 67 — — v. Mumford, 4 Johns. Ch. 522. Rev'd in 20 Johns. 611. See Hendricks v. Robin- son. Both decisions reviewed (Lien of part owner of vessel for advances) in McDonald v. Black's Adm'r, 20 Ohio, 165; s. c, ~" Am. Dec. 448. Also cited in Story oo on 538 NICOLE— NIXON. Partn. 7 ed. § 444, n., Williams v. Law- rence, 47 N. Y. 492, being cited (at end of note) (Rights of assignee of one of part-ow- ners). Both decisions followed as establish- , ing the principle (Nature of interest of such part-owners) in Jones v. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 135 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 716, 733. Cited with Dunham v. Jarvis, 8 Barb. 88, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 417. Decision . in 4 Johns. Ch. followed in Knox v. Camp- bell, 1 Penn. St. 306; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. •139, , with note; decision in 20 Johns. being disting'd (Rights between such part- owners). Decision in Id. explained (Shar- ing in profits as constituting partnership) in Collyer on Partn. § 47, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Cited with Post ». Kimberly, 9 Johns. 470; Holmes®. Unit. Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Gas. 329, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 56, n. Decision in 4 Johns. Ch. followed (Trust created by assignment for creditors may be enforced for their benefit) in Ingram «. Kirkpatrick, 6 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 403; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 428, with note. Quoted (Right to make such assignment) in Burrill on Assign. § 13, n. 3, 4 ed. N. ¥. & Erie R. R. Co., 12 Pari. 460.' Afl'd in 12 N. T. 121. Decision in Id. disting'd (Rights of action passing by transfer of property) in McMahon v. Allen, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 80. Explained (Effect of dissolution of corporation on its property) in Owen v. Smith, 31 Barb. 646. Collated ■with other cases (Railroad taking fee in lands) in 1 Redf. Am. Bailw. Gas. 259. T. Nicoll, 16 Wend. 446. See Pinder v. Morris. Followed (Right of set-off, as af- fected by attorney's lien) in Martin v. Kan- ouse, 9 Abb. Pr. 371, n.; Brooks ». Han- ford, 15 Id.. 342, 346. Followed as deci- sive in Perry v. Chester, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 230, which was rev'd in 53 N. Y. 243. Doubted, but followed, in Ferguson v. Basset, 4 How. Pr. 171. Cited at length in Firmenich v. Bovee, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 98, 101. Disting'd by Daly, P. J., in Ely v. Cook, 9 Abb. Pr. K S. 377, in Davidson v. Alfaro, 1 6 Bun, 360 ; Roberts v. Carter, 38 N. Y. 110. Followed, as to cases arising on motion, in Fitch ®. Baldwin, Clarke, 428. Disting'd, as to cases arising on motion, in Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 68. Disapproved in 1 Am. L. Beg. If. S. 423. v. TValvforth, 4 Den. 385. Disting'd and explained (Powers of trustees over trust estate) in Bennett v. Garlock, 79 If. Y. 318. Nicolls v. Ingersoll, 7 Johns. 145. Disting'd (Effect of giving bail, on sheriff's liability) in Wemple v. Glaviu, 5 Abb.N. C. 360, 367. Disting'd as inapplicable to case of officer seeking to recapture prisoner arrested on civil process (Right of bail to arrest princi- pal in another State) in Bromley v. llutch- ins, 8 Verm. 194; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 4G5. Niles v. Iiattershall, 18 Abb. l'r. 161; s. c, 27 How. Pr. 381 ; s. c. f with another opin- ion, 2 Bobt. 146. t. Culver, 3 Barb. 205. See 'Tan Ostrand v. Reed. Criticised as dictum, and disting'd (Joint right of action on written contract) in Silliman v. Tuttle, 45 Barb. 171. v. Vanderzee, 14 How. Pr. 547. Ex- plained (Evidence authorizing granting of attachment) in Easton v. Malavazi, 7 Daly, 147, 149. ' Niminons t. Reunion, 2 Sweeny, C63. Doubted (Effect of obligation payable at subsequent date, as "existing debt" of corporation) in Haight v. Tavlor, 5 Daly, 219, t. Tappan, 2 Sweeny, 652. See Osborne & Cheeseman Co. «. Croome. Deemed over- ruled (Limitation of action, in case of suc- cessive default by trustees of corporation in filing annual report) in Cornell v. Roach, 9 Abb. K G. 275. Nims v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 3 Sup'm. Ct. T. & C.) 5. Afl'd in 59 N. Y. 500. See Wilson ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 59 If. Y. disting'd (Liability of city for obstruction to sewers) in McCaffrey v. City of Albany, 11 Hun, 613, 615. Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) disting'd in Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Id. 685. Ninth Ave. R. R. Co. v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 7 Daly, 174 ; s. c, more fully, 3 Abb. If. C. 347. Another proceeding in Id. 22. Compare (Liability for consequential injuries resulting from construction of rail- road in street) Washington Cemetery v. Prospect Park, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. If. C. 15. Nitchie v. Townsend, 2 Sandf. 299. Over- ruled (Third filing of chattel mortgage) in Newell v. Warren, 44 If. Y. Z4A. Niveu v. Belknap, 2 Johns. 589. Relied on in dissenting opinion of Huston, J. (Estop- pel to set up title to land) in Alexander v. Kerr, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 83; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 616, 623, with note. v. Mnnii, 13 Johns. 48. Approved with Crookshank v. Gray, 20 Id. 344 (Necessity of averment of jurisdiction in action of slan- der for words charging perjury) in Gove v. Blethcn, 21 Minn. 80; s. c, 18 Am. U. 380 ; Chapman ■». Smith, 13 Johns. 78, be- ing also cited in this connection, and Ayrcs v. Covill, 18 Barb. 260, disting'd. . v. Spickerinan, 12 Johns. 401. Dis- ting'd (Action by agent, of unincorporated company) in Clap v. Day, 1 Oreenl. (Me.) 305; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 99, with note. Nixon v. Hyserott, 5 Johns. 58. See Uibson v. Colt. Disting'd (What is included in authority to sell) in Peters v. Farnsvvorth, 15 Vt. 155; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 671,073, where Wilson v. Troup, 2Cow. 195; Gibson . Little, 12 K H. 29. v. Smith, 2 Johns. 52; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 399. Eelied on (Sufficiency of delivery of symbol, to perfect gift) in Elam v. Keen, 4 Leigh (Fa.) 333; s. a, 2G Am. Dec. 322. - Quoted in Benj. on, Sales, § 675, n. d. (Ben- nett's Am. ed.) Nobles v. Bates, 7 Cow. 307. Cited with Webb v. Noah, 1 Edw. 604; Dakin v. Williams, li Wend. 67; Curtis v. Gokey, 68 2f. Y. 300; Mott v. Mott, 11 Barb. 127; Niver v. Eossman, 18 Jd. 50; Uullen v. Vettel, 25 How. Pr. 250; Weller v. Hersee, 10 Hun, 431 ; Ewing v. Johnson, 35 How. Pr. 202 ; Chappel v. Brockway, 21 Wend. 159 ; Dunlop v. Gregory, 10 IT. T. 241 ; Ward e. Hogan, 10 Abb. ST. C. 478, other cases (Contracts in restraint of trade) in 19 Cent . L. J. 202. Quoted and explained in 2 Para, on Contr. 748, n. z. Nodii.e v. Doherty, 46 Barb. 59. Disting'd ■ (Proof of conversion of property delivered under contract of bailment) in Smith v. Rol- lins, 11 B. I. 464; B. c, 23 Am. It. 509, 515. v. Greenfield, 7 Paige, 544 : s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 363. Disting'd with Williamson ■o. Field, 2 Sandf. Ch. 503 (Parties in fore- closure) in Lockman v. Reilly, 95 2V. Y. 64. Disting'd (Divesting of interest given by will) in Saxton's Estate, Tack. 32. Relied on (Decree, when binding on one having a contingent interest) in Sohier v. Williams, 1 Curt. 493. Noc v. Christie, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 346; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 496. Another proceeding in 51 N. Y. 270. See Kramer o. lleim. Decision in 51 N. Y. relied on as authority (Agency of person appointed by one of joint principals) in Wliart. Com. on Ag. § 55. .With decision in 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. see, also (Execution where debtor has been taken and is in custody) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1491, n. t. Gibson, 7 Paige, 513. Followed (Liability of property held by a receiver) in Smith «. McNamara, 15 Hun, 448. Cited as authority in People ex rel. Tremper v. Brooks, iOMich. 333; s. c, 29 Am. It. 534. Disting'd in Hills v. Parker, 111 Mass. 508; s. c, 15 Am. B. 63; Parker v. Browning, 8 Paige, 388, being cited as authority. Disting'd (Contempt in disturbing posses- sion of receiver) in Albany City B'k v. Schermerhorn, 10 Paige, 265. Noel v. Hurray, 1 Buer, 385. Affd in 13 N. Y. 107. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of note as payment) in Dauber v. . Blackney, 38 Barb. 437. Explained in Westcott v. Keeler, 4 Bosw. 572. Quoted and explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1081, n. 17 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Decision in 1 Buer explained, and dictum in 13 N. Y. explained in Darnall v. Morehouse, 36 How. Pr. 526. Both decisions explained (Effect of receipt) in Earle v. Crane, 6 Buer, 572. Noltoii v. Moses. See Elliot v. Brown. v. Western' K. R. Co., 10 How. Pr. 97. Aff'd in 15 N. Y. 444. See Brand v. Schenectady & Troy R. R. Co. Decision in 15 N. Y. explained (Liability of carrier for negligence, in case of voluntary undertak- ing) in Boniface ». Relyea, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 268. Applied by Selden, J., in Bissell v. Mich. South, &c. E R. Co., 22 N. Y. 307. Approved in Perkins v. N. Y. Central E. R. Co., 24 Id. 201. Followed with Blair v. ErieE'y Co., 66 Id. 313 (Liability of rail- road company for injuries to mail agents, &c.) in Seybolt v. Lake Erie, &c. R. R. Co., 95 Id. 562, 570. Disting'd with Perkins v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 Id. 196, iu Flint & Pere Marquette R'y Co. v. Wier, 37 Mich. Ill; s. c, 26 Am: S. 499, 501. Relied on with Welles v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 26 Barb. 641 ; Bissell v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 25 K Y. 442; Perkins v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 Id. 196, in Kinney v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J., 34 N. J. 513; s. c, 3 Am. B. 265. Explained in Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90 ; s. c, 35 Am. It. 450,. 456. Included with notes in Thomps. on Carr. of Pass. 37. Noonau v. City of Albany, 79 N. Y. 470 ; s. c, 35 Am. B. 540, with note. Cited with approval (Right of municipal corporation to cast surface water on land of proprietor) in Inhabitants of West Orange i>. Field, 37 JST. J. Eq. (10 Stew.) 600; s. c, 45 Am. B. 670. Cited in 32 Am. Bee. 123, n. Explained in MoaJc's UnderhilVs Torts, 470, n. 1. Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. 136. See Jef- ferson Ins. Co, v. Cotheal. Approved Explained in Rochester, &c. It. R. Co. v. Budlong, 10 Barb. 295 ; De Witt «. Barly, 17 N. Y. 345. Approved with Lincoln v. Saratoga E. R. Co., 23 Wend. 425 ; opinion of Vehplanck, S., in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Pentz, 24 Id. 673 ; in Clark v. Baird, 9 K Y. 510 NOEMINGTON— NORTH EIVEE BANK. 183, 194. Applied (Covenants running with the land) in Wevman's Ex'rs v. Rin- gold, 1 Bradf. 62 ; Verplanck v. Wright, 23 Wend. 511. Disting'd in Tallman . House, 5 Duer, 125, 130; Ballin ». Dillaye, 37 N. Y. 37; Conlin v. Cautrclh 51 Bow. Pr. 314; Quassaic Nat. B'ko. Waddell, 1 Bun, 128. Disting'd in Curtis v. Engel, 2 Sandf. Ch. 288. North American Fire Ins. Co. v. Graham, 5 Sandf. 197. Followed and approved (Neces- sity of execution to sustain creditor's suit) in McCullough i>. Colby, 5 Bosw. 487. Ap- proved and explained with McCullough ?. Colby, in Payne «. Sheldon, 63 Barb. 174, which rev'd 43 How. Pr. 1, 3, which sec. Followed in Geery v. Geery, 63 N. Y. 256. Approved and followed (Impeachment of discharge in bankruptcy) in Caryl v. Russell, 18 Barb. 430, which was rev'd in 13 N. Y. . 198, which see. North America Gutta Percha Co., Case of, 9' Abb. Pr. 79. Approved and followed (Priority of judgments) in Rich «. Loutrel, Id. 356; in preference to Rutter v. Tallis, 5 Sandf. 610. Northern Ins. Co. v. Wright, 13 Run, 166. Aff'd in 76 2V. Y. 445. With decision in 13 Bun, see (Effect of neglect to comply with request to foreclose mortgage) Loomis v. Balheimer, 5 Abb. N. C. 263. Disting'd in Converse v. Cook, 25 Hun, 44, 48, a case of request from accommodation indorser to maker. Northern R. R. Co. v. Miller, 10 Barb. 260. Followed (Effect of subscription to stock, as agreement to pay money) in Buffalo & N. Y. City R. R. ■». Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336, 344, 348, 350. Northern R. R. Co. of France t. Carpentier, 3 Abb. Pr. 259. Followed (What injury to property will authorize arrest of fe- male) in Duncan v. Katen, 6 Hun, 2. North River B'k v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 262; s. c, 15 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 584, with brief note, and (at p. 589) analysis of subsequent cases citing this. See Exchange Bank v. Montcath. Applied (Notice of lim- itation on agent's authority) in B'k of State of Indiana v. Bugbee, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 91; Clarke Nat. B'k v. B'k of Albion, 52 Barb. 598; Greenwood v. Spring, 54 Id. 381; Mtirsh v. Gilbert, 2 Hun, 61; Mer- chants' B'k v. Griswold, 72 K Y. 478. Followed in Exchange B'k v. Monteith, 17 Barb. 176; but see Same v. Same, 24 Id. 372, where new trial was granted because of reversal of decision in 3 Hill. Examined in Mechanics' B'k v. N. Y. & N. II. R. R. Co., 13 JV. Y. 599, 632, which rev'd 4 Duer, 480, 537, which see. Followed in Griswold v. Haven, 23 N. Y. 601. Followed not- withstanding reversal, in Farmers' & Mech. B'k v. Butchers', &c. B'k, 14 Id. 031; 16 Id. 137; 28 Id. 435; Exchange B'k v. Mon- teath, 26 Id. 508; N. H. & N. II. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 Id, 73; Westfleld B'k v. Cornen. 37 Id. 322; Reynolds v. Kenyon, 43 Barb. 601. Disting'd in Dabney v. Ste- vens. 10 Abb. Pr. AT. 6'. 50; B'k of No. Am. v. Embury, 33 Barb. 325. Followed with Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers' & Drovers' B'k, 14 N. Y. 633, in Houghton v. First Nat. B'k of Elkhorn, 26 Wis. 663; s. c, 7 Am. R. 107, 110. See Bank of Ben- al v. Mac Leod ; Same v. Fagan, 7 Moore fal v '. C. Cos. 35* 61. NORTH RIVER STEAMBOAT CO.— NOTES. 541 North River Steamboat Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Johns. Ch. 300. Overruled (Validity of State law giving exclusive right of naviga- tion) in North River Steamboat Co. v. Liv- ingston, 3 Cow. 713 ; Gibbons v. Ogden, 19 Wheat. 1. v. Livingston, HopJc. 149. Aff'd in 3 Cow. 713. Decision in Id. applied (What is a coasting vessel) in Walker v. Blackwell, 1 Wend. 560. Discussed and explained (Power of Congress to regulate commerce) in 1 Kent Com. 438. Northrop v. Hill, 61 Barb. 136. Aff'd in 57 N. Y. 351 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 501. v. Syracuse, &c. R. E. Co. See Goold v. Chapin. v. Van Dozen, 5 How. Pr. 134. Dis- ting'd (Granting motion costs not asked for in notice of motion) Jones v. Cook, 11 Hun, 230. v. Wright, 24 Wend. 221. Rcv'd in 7 Hill, 4:16. Contrary to decision in 24 Wend. see (Possession as evidence) Dclancey v. McKedn, 1 Wash. C. Ct. 354, and see Abb. Tr. En. 092. Northrup v. Foot, 14 Wend. 248. Discussed (Sales of goods on Sunday) in 2 Chilty on Contr. 1017, n. z, 11 Am. ed. v. Noithrnp. 6 Cow. 290. Included (In- dependent covenants and promises in con- tracts) in 2 LangdelVs Cas. on Contr. 2 ed. 721. v. People, 37 N. T. 203; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 227. Rev'g People v. Northrup, 50 Barb. 147. Compare (Adjournment of court) People v. Clews, 4 Abb. iV. C. 262, 267; and 11 Alb. L. J. 175. ' ' v. Railway Passenger Assn. Co., 2 Lans. 160. Rev'd (Liability of accident insurance companies) in 43 If. Y. 516. Norton v. Abbott. 28 How. Pr. 388. Exam- ined -with other cases (Examination before trial) in Phoenix v. Dupuy, 7 Daly, 238, 242. v. Colt, 2 Wend. 250. Explained (Power of deputy county clerk to take affi- davit) in Lucas ». Ensign, 4 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 142, 145. v. Coons, 3 Den. 130. Confirmed by subsequent decision in 6 If. Y. 33. Decis- ion in Id. disting'd (Right of contribution between eo-suroties) in Wells v. Miller, 6G Id. 258. Doctrine of Gardner, J., doubted in Oldham v. Brown, 28 Ohio St. 41, 52. Decision in 3 Den. followed as not having been rev'd or questioned, in Cornes v. Wilkin, 14 Hun, 428. Both decisions explained in Barry v. Ransom, 12 If. Y. 460. v. Hayes, 4 Den. 245. Relied on (Suffi- cient entry of appearance) in dissenting opinion of Brady, J., in Chatham Nat. Bank ». Merchants' Nat. Bank of W. Va., 4 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 190, 202. Ex- plained -with Vandervoort v. Palmer, 4 Duel; 677; Livingston v. Gibbons, 4 Johns. Ch. 94 (Necessity that all of several defend- ants unite in application to remove cause) in Cooke v. State Nat. Bank, 1 Lans. 494, 502. v. Mallory, 1 Hun, 499; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 640. Aff'd in 63 N. Y. 434. See Williams v. Fitch. Decision in 63 If. Y. disapproved (Distinction between law and equity in respect to exceptions to evi- dence) in Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Mason, 7 Daly, 64, 69. v. Norton, 2 Sandf. 296. Disting'd and explained (Extent of trustees' interest in trust estate) in Bennett v. Garlock, 79 If. Y. 319. Quoted in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 312. v. Rhodes, 18 Barb. 100. Overruled (Liability of husband for money, expended for support of his wife as a pauper) in Goodale v. Lawrence, 88 If. Y. 513; which rev'd Goodale v. Brockner, 25 Hun, 621, the latter afl'g 61 How. Pr. 421, which see. v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 618. See Blake v. Ferris. Disting'd (Liability of lessor of franchise) in Abbott o. Johnstown, &c. R. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 29. v. Woodruff, 2 N. Y. 153. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. ; Walrath ». Thompson. Explained (Sale as distinguished from bail- ment) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 2, ». 4 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.). • v. Woods, 5 Paige, 249. Further decis- ion to the contrary, in 22 Wend. 520. Norwood t. Resolute Fire Ins. Co., 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 552 ; s. c, more fully, 47 How. Pr. 43. Nottebohm v. Mans, 3 Robt. 249. Explained (Set-oft in action by pledgee against pur- chaser) in Carrington i>. Ward, 71 N. Y. 360, 307; which aff'd 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 571, which see. Nonrse v. Prime, 4 Johns. Ch. 490; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 606. Subsequent decision in 7 Johns. Ch. 6!) ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 403. See Wilson v. Little. Decision in 7 Johns. Ch. applied (Duty of one receiving stock to deliver identical shares) in Horton a. Mor- gan, Duer, 61; which was aff'd in 19 If. Y. 170, 173, which see. Disting'd in Allen v. Dykers, 3 Hill, 597. Decision in 4 Johns. Ch. followed and approved with Allen v. Dykers, 3 Hill, 593, in Gilpin v. Howell, 5 Penn. St. 41 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 720, 727, with note. Both decisions ap- plied with Horton v. Morgan, 19 If. Y. 170; Baker o. Drake, 53 Id. 211, in Barclay v. Culver, 30 Hun, 1. Cited as authority in Hubbell v. Drexel, U. S. Cir. Ct. E. I). Penn. 21 Am. L. Reg. Jv. S. 452, 454, with note. Applied (Commissions, when usuri- ous) in Seymour v. Marvin, 11 Barb. 84; Smith v. Marvin, 27 If. Y. 140. Noycs v. Blakeman, 3 Sandf. 531. Afl'd in 6 If. Y. 5C7. See Chouteau v. Suydam. Applied (Nature of interest of married woman in property, interest of which she is to receive for life) in Bloodgood v. Mickle, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 107; Embreo v. Franklin, 23 Hun, 205. Disting'd (Authority of trus- 542 NO YES— OAKLEY. toe, &c, to charge estate) in Ferrin u. Myrick, 41 K Y. 322; which rev'd 53 Barb. 95, which see; Stanton v. King, 8 Hun, 5. Explained and criticised in Fearn •». Mayers, 53 Miss. 458, 466. See cases cited in 15 Am. L. Ren. 450, 451. T. Burton, 17 How. Pr. 449; s. c, 29 Barb. 631, in which latter the decision appears to have heen at General Term. Disting'd (Necessity of commencement of proceedings to bring mechanic's lien to a close) in McDermott v. McDonald, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 153. ■ v. Butler, 6 Barb. 613. Approved (Effect to be given to judgment rendered in another State.) in Judkins v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 37 N. H. 470. Cited with numer- authorities pro and con in 1 Kent Com. 262, n. 1, Holmes' ed. Explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 608, n. x. Approved (Statements in record not conclusive as to jurisdictional facts) in Sears v. Terry, 26 Conn. 273, 284. ■ v. Children's Aid Soc'y, 10 Sun, 289; s. c, 53 How. Pr. 10. Affd in 70 K T. 481; s. c, 3 Abb. K C. 36. Decision in 70 N. Y. applied (Limit of allowance by surrogate) in Down ». McGourkey, 15 Hun, AAA. Followed with Down «. Mc- Gourkey; Hurd n. Warren, 16 Id. 622, in Matter of Gray, 91 N. Y. 502, 515. Followed (Allowance by surrogate to coun- sel) in Matter of Lockman, 4 Abb. K. C. 173, 175; Kearney n. McKeon, 85 N. Y. 136, 142. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2557, n., 2561, n. v. Clark, V Paige, 179; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 620, 623, with note, wherein it is said to have been repeatedly recognized in sub- sequent cases (Effect of condition in mort- gage as to default in payment of interest). Explained in Asendorf v. Meyer, 8 Daly, 278, 281. Disting'd in Bennett v. Steven- son, 53 N. Y. 508, 510. v. Hewett, 18 Wend. 141. Followed (Rule governing review of justice's judg- ment) in Burnham v. Butler, 31 ]¥. Y. 480, as aff'g rule in Stryker v. Bergen, 15 Wend. 491, and as overruling Whitney ». Sutton, 10 Id. 412; Columbia Turnpike ». Hey- •vvood, Id. 425. v. Phillips. See Bagley v. Peddie. 0. Oakey v. Bend, 3 Edw. 482. AfE'd on the grounds here stated, but without opinion, in 4 Ch. Sent. 15. Oakley, Matter of, 1 Am. Insoh. R. 50. See Kerr ■». Blodgett. Not followed (Necessity for presentation of claim by creditor named in schedule filed under assignment) in Mat- ter of Burdick, 10 Daly, 49. Opposed in Matter of Bailey, 58 How. Pr. 446. Com- pare Matter of Currier, 8 Daly, 119. Oakley v. Aspinwall, 2 Sandf. 7. Ilev'd bv Ct. o/App. in 8 K Y. Leg. Obs. 123. On motion reversal was sot aside on ground of consanguinity of one of the judges, in 3 N'. Y. 547 ; the judgment, however, being again rev'd on re-argument, in 4 Id. 513. Sub- sequent decision in 1 Duer, 1 ; s. c, 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 79, sustaining nonsuit granted at new trial. Latter aff d in 13 N. Y. 500, where point decided in 4 Id. was rc-aff d and ex- plained. See People «. Morrell ; Robertson v. Smith. Decision in 4 N. Y. applied (Effect of judgment against joint debtor, part only of whom were served) in Foster v. Wood, 1 Abb. Pr. ST. S. 152; Matter of Lowenstein, 6 How. Pr. 102. Explained and applied in White's B'k of Buffalo «. Ward, 35 Barb. 640. Approved and applied in Newman v. Marvin, 12 Hun, 241. Ex- plained in Dean v. Eldridge. 29 How. Pr. 222 ; Lane v. Salter, 51 N. Y. 5. Applied (Effect of judgmeut against non-resident) in Fitzsimmons «. Marks, 66 Barb. 335. De- cision in 3 N. Y. approved (Construction of constitution) in Thome v. Cramer, 15 Barb. 120. Quoted and commented on in Cooley on Const. Limita. 5 ed. 86,- n. Ap- plied (Disqualification of judge who has an interest) in Carrington v. Andrews, 12 AH. Pr. N. S. 350 ; Converse v. McArthur, 17 Barb. 412 ; Darling v. Pierce, 15 Hun, 549. Disting'd in People v. Wheeler, 21 K Y. 86. Disapproved in People ex rel. Flint n. Cline, 23 Barb. 197, 200. Reviewed in Chambers v. Clearwater, 1 Keyes, 310, 313. Collated with Matter of Leefe, 2 Barb. Ch. 39; H. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Rand, 8 How. Pr. 35; Id. 352; Chambers ®. Clearwater, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 341 ; 41 Barb. 400, in 2 Weekly L. Bui. 5. Applied (Court of Appeals, when without jurisdiction) in People v. Clark, 1 Park. 363. v. Boornian, 21 Wend. 588. See Hall v. Newcomb ; Packer v. Willson. Disap- proved (Effect of failure to express consider- ation for guaranty) in Brewster v. Silence, 8 N. Y. 207, 214. Followed in Skofield v. Hazey, 22 Me. 164; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 307. v. Farringtoii, 1 Johns. Can. 130 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 107. Explained (Slander against one in professional capacity) in AlualSs Un- derhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 122. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. (Cited in West v. Mayor, &c, 10 Paige, 540) Disting'd (Injunction to restrain prosecution of mul- tiplicity of suits) in Third Ave. R. R. Co. «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 54 ST. Y. 159, 162. v. , 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 549. AfFd in 70 N. Y. 612. v. , 4 Ilun, 72 ; s. c, reported in 6 Sufm. Ct (T. & C.) 221. t. Morton, 11 K Y. 25. Explained (Performance of contract, when excused) in Wolfe v. Howes, 24 liarb. 606. Applied by Davies, Ch. J., in Jenkins v. Wheeler, 37 Bow. Pr. 469; in dissenting opinion of Mullin, J., in Pnttridge •». Gildermeister, 1 Keyes, 99. Explained with Inman v. West- ern Ins. Co., 12 Wend. 452; Bcebee v. Johnson, 19 Id. 500, in Baldwin v. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 3 Bosw. 530, 545., OAKLEY- OCEAN INS. CO. 51C v. Schoonmaker, 15 Wend. 226. Ap- proved (" Expiration of term" [2 B. S. 513, § 28] does not embrace forfeiture) in Beach i. Nixon, 9 If. Y. 35. v. Sears, 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 368; s. c, 1 Robt. 73. Followed (New trial for newly discovered evidence) in May i>. Strauss, 8 Abb. If. 0. 274, 278. v. Stanley, 5 Wend. 525. Followed (Passage of water right as incident to land conveyed) in Morgan v. Mason, 20 Ohio, 401; S. c, 55 Am.. Dec. 469; Hathorn v. Stihson, 10 Me. 224; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 228. v. Trustees of Williamsburgli. See Livingston v. Livingston. v. Tan Horn, 21 Wend. 305. Followed (Effect of failure to raise objection on trial before justice) in Jencks v. Smith, 1 If. Y. 90, 93. Oates y. Haley, 1 Daly, 338. Followed (Enforcing mechanic's lien against assignee for creditors) in Murry v. Hutcheson, 8 Abb. If. O. 423, 426. Oaths of Attorneys, Matter of, 20 Johns. 493. See Matter of Wood. Approved (■' Offi- cer," within meaning of provision requiring officers to take oaths) in Wilcox v. Hem- ming, 58 Wis. 144, 149. O'Beinie v. Lloyd, 1 Sweeny, 19; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 387. Rev'd in 43 If. Y. 248. Decision in Id. followed (Entirety of cause of action for several breaches) in Jex v. Jacobs, 19 Hun, 105. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 788. Oberlander v. Rosswog, 4 Hun, 6C5. Rev'd as Oberlander v. Spiess, 63 N. Y. 634. Previous decision in 45 Id. 175. See Marsh «. Falker. Decision in 45 N. Y. followed (Liability for false representations) in Meyer v. Amidon, Id. 170. Applied in Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 Id. 35; Stitt v. Little, 63 Id. 432. Examined with other cases in Livingston v. Keech, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 556 ; More- • house v. Yeager, 41 Id. 146. Disting'd (Finding, when only to be implied, to sus- tain judgment) in Phillip v. Gallant, 62 If. Y. 265. v. Spiess. See Oberlander v. Rosswog. Obcrwarth v. M'Lean, 2 Abb. N. O. 210; s. c , more fully, 7 Daly, 70 ; 52 How. Pr. 491. See also (Execution on judgment in Marine Court) Palmer v. Clark, 4 Abb. N. O. 25. Obregon v. De Micr, 52 How. Pr. 356. Other proceedings in 54 Id. 390; and 58 Id. 301. O'Brien v. Brieteubaeli, 1 Eilt. 304. Col- lated with other cases (Lease for immoral purposes) in MoAdam on Landl. & T. 2 cd. § 70. v. Browning 1 , 11 Eun, 179. Appeal dismissed, it seems; in 77 If. Y. 630, but without opinion. Another proceeding in 49 How. Pr. 109. • ■ t. Commercial Fire Ins. Co., 33 Super. Ct. (6 /. & 8.) 517. Rev'd in 63 N, Y. 108. Different proceeding in 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 4, and also a further proceeding in 41 Id. 224. Decision in 38 Id. applied (Costs for drawing interrogatories) in Johnson v. Chappell, 7 Daly, 43. v. Glenville Woolen Co., 50 If. Y. 128. Previous decision, allowing plaintiff's attor- ney to continue action after plaintiff's death, is in 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 85; s. c, 00 Barb. 371. With decision in 50 N. Y. see (Exe- cution of warrant of attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. VII. tit. III. art. 2, n. v. Hagan, 1 Buer, 664. Reviewed with Bonnell v. Rome, &c. R. R. Co., 12 Hun, 218 ; Miller a. Finkle, 1 Parle. 374; Davis v. Duffle, 8 Bono. 617; 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 478 (Rights of convict as party to civil proceeding) in Bowles 1>. Haberman, 95 If. Y. 246. Disapproved in Bonnell v. Rome, &c. R. R. Co., 12 Hun, 218. t. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co., 35 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 70. Subsequent pro- ceeding in 54 How. Pr. 213, and this aff'd in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 110; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 314; 45 How. Pr. 453, which latter decision was rev'd in 56 If. Y. 52 ; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 222; 46 How. Pr. 429. See Clarke v. Goodridge. With decision in 56 If. Y. see (Sufficiency of notice of attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 649, n. Compare (Examination of person having debtor's property) Code Civ. Pro. § 651. T. Merchant's Ins. Co., 48 How. Pr. 448; s. c, fully reported in 3S Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 482. Another proceeding in 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 212; s. c, 48. How. Pr. 13. Decision in Id. followed (Discontinuance of proceedings commenced by sheriff) in Bowe v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 27 Hun, 312. v. N. T. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 9 Weekly Dig. 529. Aff'd in 80 If. Y. 236. Deci- sion in Id. followed (Rights of person ejected from train for non-payment of fare) in Swan v. Manchester & Lawrence R. R. Co.. 132 Mass. 116, 121. Collated with Hibbard v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455, and other cases in 15 Fed. Pep. 91, n. v. People, 48 Barb. 274. Aft" d in 36 N. Y. 276; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 368. See People v. Rogers. Decision in 36 If. Y disting'd (Opinion that disqualifies juror) in Greenfield v. People. 6 Abb. If. C. 8 ; which rev'd 13 Hun, 252, which see. Compare Points of Law in Ouiteau's Case, 70 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1881). Explained (New trials in criminal cases) in Levy v. People, 80 If. Y. 327, 337. Deci- sion in 48 Barb, collated with other cases (Insanity as a defense) in 1 Barb, on Crim. I. 3 ed. 265, n. O'Callaghan v. Sawyer, 5 Johns. 118. See Ford v. Stuart. See Hendricks v. Judah. Followed (Rights of transferee of overdue note) in Ferguson v. Hill, 3 Stew. {Ala.) 485; s. c, 21 Am. Bee. 041, 044. Ocean Ins. Co. v. Francis, 2 Wend. 04; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 549. Compare (Conclu- 544 OCEAN NAT. BANK— OGDEN. siveness of sentence of foreign court of admiralty) Crondson v. Leonard, 4 Cranch, 434; Dempsey v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 1 Binn. {Pa.) 299, n. ; Baxter v. New England Ins. Co., 6 Mass. 277 ; Stewart v. Warner, 1 Day {Conn.) 143. Ocean Nat. Bank y. Carll, 55 XT. Y. 440. Subsequent proceedings in 7 Hun, 237, and 9 Id. 239. Decision in 85 N. Y. disting'd (Entry in account-book as evidence) in Der- ham v. Lee, 47 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 174, 183 ; First Nat. B'k of Whitehall v. Tisdale, 84 N. Y. G55. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on Mo. § 601. v. Olcott. 46 N. Y. 12. See Chautau- qua Co. Bank v. White; Estes v. Wilcox; McCartney u. Bostwick. Explained (En- forcing trust in case of grant to one, consid- eration being paid by another) in Chiiling- worth v. Freeman, 67 Barb. 381. Quoted and discussed in Wait on Fraud. Gowo. § 82. Followed (Effect of discharge in bankruptcy) in Dusenbury v. Hoyt, 14 Abb. Pr. K S. 135 ; Am. Exch. B'k v. Brand- reth, 12 Hun, 385. Distingd in Dewey «. Moyer, 9 Id. 479 ; which was aff d in 72 N. Y. 75, which see ; Poillon v. Lawrence, 77 Id. 216; which rev'd 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 388, which see ; Smith v. Tighe, 46 Id. 270, 273. Followed in Bailey v. Corruthers, 71 Me. 172, 174; Marshall v. Sumner, 59 JT. H. 218; s. c, 47 Am. R. 194; Wiley v. - Pavey, 61 2nd. 457 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 677, 679; Way*). Howe, 108 Mass. 502; s. c, 11 Am. R. 386, 390. To the contrary, see authorities cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 820, n. Followed (Necessity of having execution issued, in orderto maintain creditor's action) in Adsit i>. Sanford, 23 Hun, 48 ; Allyn v. Thurston, 53 K Y. 623. Ockermnii v. Cross, 54 If. Y. 29. Disting'd (Effect of assignment for creditors, made in another jurisdiction) in Warner ■». Jaf- fray, 96 Id. 248. Followed in Chafee v. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 71 Me. 514 ; s. c, 36 Am. R. 345, 347. Compare Atwood v. Protection Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 555. Commented on in Burrill on Assign. §§ 304, 308 n. 4, 4 ed. O'Connor, Matter of, 48 Barh. 258. Applied (Validity of act of Congress prohibiting State courts from interfering with enlist- ments in army) in Re Neill, 3 B.latchf. C. Ct. 156, 163. Oddie v. Nat. City B'k, 45 N. Y. 735; s. c, 6 Am. R. 100. Disting'd (Demand of pay- ment of check) in Viets v. Union Nat. B'k of Troy, 31 Hun, 484. Criticised and dis- 1 ting'd (Receiving checks on deposit, — as cash, or for collection) in Nat. Gold B'k & Trust Co. ». McDonald, 51 Cal. 64; s. c, 21 Am. R. 701. Odell v. Dnrant, 62 N. Y. 524. Disting'd (Lease of agricultural land) in Witherbce v. Stower, 23 Hun, 27. See Clark v. Barnes, 76 N. Y. 301. Y. Montross, 6 Hun, 155. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 499. Decision in Id. discussed (Di- vesting of mortgagor's interest) in 'Sedan, d W. on Tr. of Tit, to Land, § 344. O'Donaghue r. McGoveni, 23 Wend. 26. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 22, n. d. as in conl formity with the English, and what is the better and more authoritative American rule (Privileged communications in libel). O'Donncll v. Kelsey, 4 Stand/. 202. Aff'd in 10 N. Y. 412. Decision in itf. followed (Ad- joining riparian owners bound by acquies- cence in line of separation) in Stockham t. Browning, 18 JST. J. Eq. {C. E. Greeii) 390.' v. N. Y. & Harlem B. E. Co., 8 Duly, 409. Aff'd, it seems, in 77 N. Y. 625, but without opinion. v. Rosenberg. See Bagley v. Peddie. ——v. Smith, 2 E. D. Smith, 124. Inclu- ded (Parties to negotiable paper,, not guar- antors within statute of frauds) in 2 Ames Cos. on B.&N. 712. O' Donohiie t. Mc Govern. See Howard v. Thompson. O'Dougherty \. Aldrich, 5 Den. 385. Dis- ting'd (Partition suit, when maintainable) in Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 N. Y. 427, 434. Oertel v. Wood, 4U How. Pr. 10. Further proceeding dissolving injunction reported as Oertel v. Jacoby, in 44 Id. 179. Offinger v. Be Wolf, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 446. Further proceeding in 43 Id. 144. O'Gara v. Clarkin, 2 Suym. Ct. {T. & C.) 675. Rev'd as O'Gara v. Clearkin in 58 K Y. 663, but apparently for error in not allowing full value of services. v. Eisenlohr, 38 N. Y. 296. See Fen- ton v. Reed; Starr v. Peck. Reviewed with other cases (Presumption of marriage) in Wright v. YVright, 48 How. Pr. 7. Re- viewed with other cases (Presumption of death) in Matter of Ackerman, 2 Red/. 523. See to the contrary 1 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 453; Kelly v. Drew, 12 Allen {Mass.), 107. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 84.' Followed (Dec- larations, to prove marriage) in Alexanders. Chamberlain, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 601. Og'dcit v. Andre, 4 Bosw. 583. Said in Ogden «. Raymond, I Keyes, 42, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. v. Astor. See Young «. Hill. y. Columbia Ins. Co., 10 Johns. 273. Followed (When right of action on contract accrues before time contemplated by parties) in Allegre t>. Maryland Ins. Co., 6 Harr. & J. {Md.) 408 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 289/298. v. Cowley. Sec Chapman v. Lipscombe; Stewart v. Eden. — — v. Bes Arts. See Benedict v. Stuart. v. Bobbin, 2 Hall, 112. Followed (Ne- cessity of formal demand in case of nolo made payable at bank) in State Bank v. Napier, Humph. {Tenn.) 270; s. c, 44 Am. Dee. 308, 310. v. East River Ins. Co. See Hand o. Willia'rnsburgh City Ins. Co. v. General Mnt Ins. Co., 2 Ducr, 204. Disting'd (Liability as for total loss of freight) in Robertson v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 442, 436. OGDEN— OLCOTT. 513 Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 738. y. Gibbons, 4 Johns. Oh. 150. Aff'd in 17 Johns. 488, which was, however, rev'd in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. See North River Steamboat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. 713; Hoplc. 149. Decision in 4 Johns. Oh. followed with Newburgh & Cochecton Turn- pike Road v. Miller, 5 Id. 101-110 (Right to establish ferry, &c. to detriment of another's rights) in Enfield T. B. Co. v. Hartford R. R. Co., 17 Conn. 40; s. c, 4a Am. Dec. 716, 726, with note. Quoted in 2 Washb. on Seal Prop. 4 ed. 294. All decisions dis- cussed (Power of Congress to regulate com- merce) in 1 Kent Com. 435, 436. v. Jennings, 66 Barb. 301. Aff'd in 62 N. Y. 536. v. Lathi-op, 35 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 73. Rev'd in 65 If. Y. 158. Previous decision in 1 Sweeny, 643. v. Lee, 6 Hill, 546. Aff'd in Fellows v. Lee, 5 Den. 628.- y. Marshall, 8 K Y. 340. Limited and explained (Damages for breach of car- rier's contract to receive goods to transport) in Nelson v. Plimpton Fire-proof Elevating Co., 55 Id. 480, 485, a case of contract to receive grain for storage. Included in Sedgw. Gas. on Dam. 123. v. N. T. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Johns. 177. Aff'd in 12 Id. 25. See Robinson v. United Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Mutual Ins. Co., 4 Eosw. 447. Further decision in 8 Bosw. 248; which was aff'd in 35 N. Y, 418. v. Peters, 15 Barb. 560. Aff'd, in ef- fect, in 21 If. Y. 23. Decision in ] 5 Barb. quoted (Assignment by debtor supposing himself to be solvent) in Bivfrill on Assign. § 61, n. 6, 4 ed. Quoted (Other transfers in connection therewith) in Id. § 358, m,. 3. Decision in 21 If. Y. quoted (Unusual pro- visions) in Id § 183, n. 1. Collated with other cases (Directions as to time of sale) in Bishop on Assign. § 209. Quoted (Who may make assignment) in Wait on Fraud. Com. § 340. v. Raymond, 5 Bosw. 16. Aff'd in 1 Keyes, 42. v. Rollo, 9 Abb.- Pr. 8, n. Rev'd in 13 Id. 300. v. Sanderson, 3 E. D. Smith. 1C6. Collated with other cases (Eviction of lessee) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed § 212. Ogdensburgh & Champlnin R. R. Co. v. Vermont & Canada R. R. Co., 16 Abb. Pr If. S. 249. Aff'd in 4 Hvn, 712. Motion to dismiss appeal denied in 63 N. Y. 176. Another proceedincr in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 488; , mem. s. c.^ * Sun, 208. See Hul- bert v. Bor)K Mut. Ins. Co. ; People v. Al- bany & Susquehanna R. R. Co. ; People v. N. Y. & Staten Island Ferry Co. Decision in 63 If. Y. applied (Basis of extra allow- ance). in Potter v. Farrington, 24 Hun, 551. Explained aud applied in Williams ■». Wes- tern Union Tel. Co., 61 How. Pr. 305, 308. Disting'd and explained (Effect of demurrer in precluding defense of want of jurisdic- tion) in Wheelock v. Lee, 74 If. Y. 495, 498. Ogilby t. Wallace, 2 naJV, 553. Applied with Mauran v. Lamb, 7 Cow. 174 (Right of action on note, &c, payable to bearer, or indorsed in blank) in Pearce v. Austin, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 489; s. c, 34 Am. Dee. 523. Ogilvie v. Hull, 5 Sill, 52. Collated with , other cases (Eviction of lessee) in McAdam on Landl & T.I ed. § 212. O'Hagan v. Dillon, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 456. Rev'd in 76 If. Y. 170. O'Hara v. Dever, 46 Barb. 609; s. c, as • O'Hara v, Sullivan, 30 How. Pr. 278. Aff'd in 2 Keyes, 558; s. c, more fully, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 418 ; 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 407. v. Sullivan. See O'Hara v. Dever. Ohio, &e. R. R. Co. v. Kasson, 37 If. Y. 218. Followed with Bullard v. Raynor, 30 Id. 197 ; Mechanics' Bank v. Edwards, 1 Barb. 271 (Usury is defense personal to borrower) in Lee v. Feamster, 21 W. Va. 108; s. c, 45 Am. It. 549 ; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. i>. Bowen, 47 Barb. 618; and Merchants' Ex. Nat. Bank v. Com. Warehouse Co., 49 If. Y. 642 ; being also reviewed in this connection. Olcott v. Lilly. See Cathcart v. Cannon. v. Low, 5 Weekly Dig. 108. Further decision in. 8 Id. 176 ; which was aff'd in 82 If. Y. 621, but without opinion. v. McLean, 10 Hun, 277. Rev'd in 73 If. Y. 223, Other proceedings in 50 How. Pi: 455; also in 11 Hun, 394; appeal from which was, it seems, dismissed in 73 If. Y. 603, but without opinion. Decision in 10 Him disting'd (Jurisdiction of State court of actions affecting bankrupt) in Brewers' & M. Ins. Co. v. Davenport, Id. 264, 269. Disapproved in Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. 2V. C. 72, 78. Decision in 11 Hun said in Tul- lis v. Miller, 13 Id. 363, to conflict with Wente v. Young, 12 Id. 220. Compare (Costs against one in representative capac- ity) Code Civ. Pro. % 3246. v. Rathbone, 5 Wend. 490. Collated with Winsted B'k v. Webb, 39 If. Y. 325 ; First Nat. B'k v. Morgan, 6 Bun, 346 ; Neff v. Clute, 12 Barb. 466 ; Arnold v. Camp, 12 Johns. 409, and other cases (Effect of new note as payment of old one) in Nightin- gale ». Chafee, 11 R. 1. 609; s. c, 23 Am. B. 531. t. Robinson, 20 Barb. 148. Rev'd in 21 If. Y. 150. See Wood v. Moorehouse. Decision in 21 If. Y. applied (Sufficiency of publication of weekly notice) in Steinle v. Bell, 12 Abb. Pr. If. S. 177 ; Wood v. Terry, 4 Lans. 85. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1434, n. Both decisions explained (Effect of irregularity in giving notice of sheriff's sale) in Wood ». Morehouse, 1 Lans, 412; which was aff'd in 45 N. Y. 375, which see; also in Hackley «. Draper, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 622, a case of a sale by a receiver. . 546 OLCOTT— OLMSTED. — t. Tioga R. E. Co., 26 Barb. 147. Rev'd in 20 Jf. Y. 210. Subsequent decision in 40 Barb. 179, aff'd in 27 If. Y. 546. Decis- ion in 20 Id. followed ("Non-resident, as affected by statute of limitations) in Power v. Hathaway, 42 Barb. 217. Disting'd in Londriggan v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 12 Abb. IT. 0. 273. Followed in Bloss- burg & Corning R. R. Co. v. Tioga R. R. Co., 5 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 387, 390 ; Tioga R. R. e. Blossburg & C. R. R. Co., 20 Wall. 137, 151. Shown in 52 Am. Dec. 256, n., not to have been followed in other States. Compare Penn. Co. v. Sloan, 1 Bradw. (III.) 364, 370. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 390, n. Decision in- 27 JT. Y. disting'd (Sufficiency of sealed instrument) in Brackett v. Miller, 24 Hun, 560. Examined and disting'd in De Grau v. King, 28 Minn. 119. Approved and applied (Right of mortgagee of chattels to purchase at sale thereof) in Hall v. Dit- son, 5 Abb. JV.- O. 211. Approved in Thomas on Wort. 454, as in harmony with what has always been the practice in this State. Applied (Holding over by officer elected for a year) in People ex rel. Faile v. Ferris, 16 Hun, 224. Disting'd (Evidence of similar transactions, to show authority of agent) in Smith v. Kidd, 68 IT. Y. 138. v. Wood, 15 Barb. 644. Aff'd in 14 IT. Y. 32. Oldfield t. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co.. 3 R D. Smith, 103. Aff'd in 14 If. Y. 310. See Quin v. Moore. Decision in 14 IT. Y. followed (Court of Appeals without power to set aside verdict as against weight of evi- dence) in Young v. Davis, 30 Id. 135; Standard Oil Co. v. Amazon Ins. Co., 79 Id. 510. Followed (Action for injury caus- ing death maintainable without proof of damage) in Keller n. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 482 ; Green v. Hud- son River R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 263 ; see also Same v. Same, 32 Id. 32. Also followed in Mclntyre v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 43 Id. 537. Followed with Ihl v. Forty^second Street, &c. R. R. Co., 47 If. Y. 317; Mc- Govern v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 67 Id. 417 (Power of jury to assess damages for injuries causing death of child) and Lehman v. City of Brooklyn, 29 Barb. 234 : disap- proved in Hooghkirk v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 11 Abb. JT. O. 72. Doctrine discussed and cases collected in 5 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 477. Explained in 8 South. L. Rev. 08. 72. Olendorf v. Cook, 1 Bans. 37. Discussed (Ejectment by tenant for years) in Sedw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 216. Dis- cussed (Amending description of property) in Id. § 464. Olery v. Brown, 57 How. Br. 92. See White v. Brownell. Followed (Action against president of voluntary association) in Fritz v. Muck, 62 How. Fr. CO, 73. See cases cited in 4 Abb. If. 0. 306, n. Oliphant v. Mathews, 16 Barb. 608. See Bank of Rochester v. Monteath. Disting'd and explained (Liability on note of partner- ship having individual name) in Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Beatson, 42 L. T. R. JT. S 445 ; s. c, 22 Alb. L. J. 9, 13. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 ed. §"139, n. Oliver v. First Presbyterian Church. See Horton v. Horton. v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 1 Edm. 589. Discussed (Warranty by carrier, of sound condition of road or vehicle to passenger) in A.ng. on Carr. § 538, and n. 2, 5 ed. Oliver Lee & Co's Bank, Matter of. See Matter of Lee & Co's Bank. Oliver Lec,& Co's Bank v. Talcott, 19 If. Y. 148. Collated with other cases (Assign- ing only part of debtor's property) in Bishop on Assign. § 167. Collated with other cases (Conditional preferences) in Id. § 200. Quoted and commented on (Fraud in law or in facts) in Wait on Fraud. Com*. §10. v. Walbridge, 19 If. Y. 136. Applied (Rate of exchange, when not allowed as damages) in Ladd v. Arkell, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 150, 166. Explained (Usury as determined by allowance for difference of exchange) in Price v. Lyons Bank, 33 If. Y. 55. Olmstead v. Webster, 8 If. Y. 413. Applied (Effect of judgment against part only of joint debtors) in Waggoner v. Walrath, 24 Hun, 443, 445. Olmsted v. Brown, 12 Barb. 657. Overruled, (Action for slanderous words spoken of wife) in Wilson v. Goit, 17 If. Y. 442. See (Proof of precise words) 2'ovmshend on Slander & Libel, 662, § 365. See also Abb. Tr. Bh. 660. T. Dennis, 77 If. Y. 378. For "plaint- iff" in third line of statement read "de- fendant." v. Elder, 2 Sandf. 325. Rev'd in 5 K F, 144. See Phyfe v. Riley. Decision in 5 If. Y. overruled (Power of loan commis- sioners) by Pell «. Ulmar, 18 JT. Y. 139; White v. Lester, 1 Keyes, 316. v. Harvey, 1 Barb. 102. Aff'd in 1 If. Y. 483. v. Hotailing-, 1 Hill, 317. See Cary v. Hotailing. Followed (Replevin against one ■who has parted with possession) in Brock- way v. Burnap, 16 Barb. 314. Explained in Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill, 350 ; Roberts v. Rand el, 5 How. Pr. 332: and see Drake ■c. Wakefield, 11 Id. 108. Explained (Title as affected by sale procured by fraud) in Stevens v. Hyde, 32 Barb. 175. Approved and extended in Castle v. Bullard, 23 How. (U. S.) 172. v. Keyes, 85 If.Y. 593. See St. John v. Am. Mut. Fire & Marine Ins. Co.; St. John v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co. V. Loomis, 6 Barb. 152. Modified in 9 If. Y. 423. See Garwood v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Compare (Injunction, where right depends on nature of action) Code Civ. Pro. § 603. v. Miller, 1 Wend. 506. Followed (Suf- ficiency of proof of speaking of words OLNEY— ONONDAGA COUNTY BANK. 'A7 in action for slander) in Slocumb v. Kuy- kendall, 1 Seam. {III.) 187 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 764, with note. Olney v. Bacon. See Howell v. Denniston. ■ v. Olney, 7 Abb. Pr. 350. See (Answer in matrimonial action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1757, n. v. Wickes, 18 Johns. 122. See King a. Butler. Followed (Who may be. held to be public agent) in Ogden v, Raymond, 22 Conn. 379; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 429. Olypliant v. Baker, 5 Den. 379. Explained (Sale of specific chattels conditionally) in Benj. on Sales, § 348 (Bennett's 4 Am. od.). Explained in 1 Id. § 396 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. McNair, 41 Barb. 446. Said in 41 N. Y. 619, to hive been aft'd by Ct. of App. Cited (Restrictions on agent in- structed to buy limited amount of goods) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 186. Olzen t. Schierenberg, 3 Daly, 100. Dis- cussed (Jurisdiction of courts of common law, in suits between foreign seamen and masters for acts done on the high seas) in 3 Kent Com. 199, n. 1, Holmes' ed. O'Mahoney v. Belmont, 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 223, 380. . Aff'd in 02 if. T. 133. An- other proceeding in 48 Sow. Pr. 29. O'Mara r. Hudson River R. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 445. Applied (Contributory negligence in child) in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Abb. if C. 104, 128; with extended note, which see, at p. 110; Costello v. Syra- cuse, &c. R. R. Co., 6."> Barb. 101 ; Pendril e. Second Ave. R. R. Co , 43 How. Pr. 411. Applied (Negligence in running of engine by fireman, without engineer) in Keating v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co , 3 Lans. 473. Disting'd in Culhane «. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co.,. 60 N. Y. 137. Ombony v. Jones, 21 Barb. 520. AfE'd in 19 N. Y. 234. Decision in Id. disting'd (Erections by tenant, when removable) in Livingston v. Sulzer, 19 Hurt, 375, 379; Richtmyer v. Morss, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 55, 58. O'Meara v. Commissioners. &o. of Allegany, 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 235. Rev'd in 59 if Y. 316. See France v. Erie R'y Co.; Petition of Freeholders of Cattaraugus County. Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & O.) applied (Power of State to construct high- way on Indian reservation) in France «. Erie R'y Co., 5 Id. 12. ■ v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Daly, 425. Approved (Exemption of municipal corpor- ation from liability for negligence of fire- men) in Jevvett v. City of New Ilavfcn, 38 Conn. 308; s. c, 9^1m. R. 382, 389; Sheurm. &Redf. onNegl. § 139. Onderdonk v. Ranlett, 3 Hill, 323. Applied (Refusal of adjournment in justice's court) in Bush v. "Weeks, 24 Hun, 545, 547. See (Jurisdiction of justice) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2869, n. One Hundred and Thirty-eightli Street, Matter of, 00 How. Pr. 290 Appeal dis- missed in 61 Id. 284. See People ex rel. City of Rochester v. Briggs. Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank, 21 N. Y. 492. Applied (Actions by assignee) in Mc- Mahon v. Allen, 3 Abb. Pr. If. S. 79; Pil- cher v. Brayton, 17 Hun, 431 ; Freeman v. Auld, 44 if Y. 57; Gerwig v. Sitterly, 50 Jd. 218. Applied (Right of action based on illegal transaction) in Hayncs v. Budd, J 7 Huu. 480; Madison Ave. Church v. Oliver St. Ch., 41 Super. Ct. (J. .& S.) 369, 385; by Hunt, J., in Mayor v. Ray, 19 Wall.,484. Disting'd in Knowlton v. Corgress, &c. Spring Co., 57 1ST. Y. 533. Explained and disting'd in Matter of Jaycox, 13 Blatehf. C. Ct. 70, 79. Approved in Draper v. Town of Springport, 104 U. S. 501. Quo- ted and collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 349. Criticised in 51 Am. Dec. 342, n., where Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 iV. Y. 19, and other cases are collated. Oneida Common Pleas v. People, 18 Wend. 79. Examined (Review of exercise of dis- cretionary authority) in People v. Stout, 11 Abb. Dr. 17, 22. Oneida Manuf. Soc'y t. Lawrence, 4 Cow. 440. See Chapman v. Murch; Howard t. Hoey. Examined (Implied warranty on sale by sample) in dissenting opinion of Paige, Senator, in "Waring v. Mason, 18 Wend. 425, 441. Oneida Nat. Bank v. Stokes, 53 Barb. 508. Modified in 49 if. Y. 675," but without opinion. O'Neil v. Martin, 1 E. D. Smith, 404. Dic- ta explained (Jurisdiction of marine court, in action on administrator's bond) in Maho- ney v. Gunter, 10 Abb. Pr. 432, 436. O'Neill v. James, 43 if Y. 84. Explained (Effect of omission to request submission of question to jury) in Stone v. Flower, 47 Id. 568 ; Clemence v. City of Auburn, 06 Jd. 338; Trustees of East Hampton v. Kirk, 68 Jd. 405 ; First Nat. B'k of Spring- field v. Dana, 79 Id. 116. \. N. ¥. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & C.) 399. Rev'd in 60 if. Y. 138. See Dung v. Parker. Decision in 60 if. Y. explained (Third parties as affected by ver- bal contract within statuto of frauds) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 138,/ 4 ed. O'Niel v. Buffalo Fire Ins. Co., 3 if. F 122. See Mtnn Fire Ins. Co. v. Tyler ; Gates v. Madison County Mut. Ins. Co.; Smith v. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co. Followed (Effect of description in policy as warranty") in Smith v. Mechanics' & Traders' Fire Ins Co., 32 if. T. 399. Applied in Browning v. Home Ins. Co. of Columbus, 6 Daly, 522, 524. Onondaga County Bk. v. Bates, 3 Hill, 53 ; s. c., 15 if. Y. Com. L. Late. ed. 512, with brief note. Followed (Power of notary to perform by deputy duty of demanding pay- ment of negotiable paper) in Donegan », "Wood, 49 Ala. 242; s. c, 20 Am. II. 275. Included with notes (Action by indorsee against indorser) in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & if. 548. 548 ONTARIO BANK-OUCUTT. Ontario Bank v. Bunnell, 10 Wend. 186. Examined (Taxation of corporations) in People i). Detroit & Pontiac It. R. Co., 1 Mich. 460. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. % 441, n. 8, 11 ed. v. Hennessey, 48 JV. Y. 545. Disting'd (When participation in profits constitutes partnership) in Burnett v. Snyder, T6 Id. 344, 351. Followed in Haas v. Roat, 16 Hun, 527. Disting'd, and its effect as au- thority questioned (Name of individual, when to be regarded as name of firm) in "Williams v. Gillies, 75 K Y. 203. T. Lightbody, 13 Wend. 101; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 179, with note, wherein it is said to have been followed in 111., Me., N. H., Ohio, So. Car., Vt., and Wis., and to be in harmony with the doctrine maintained in England, and in Story on l'rom. Nutes, § 389 (Effect of payment in bills of insol- vent bank, &c.) many respectable authori- ties, however, following the contrary doc- trine of Bayard v. Shuuk, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 92. Reviewed with Whitbeck ■». Van- ness, 11 Johns. 409; Markle v. Hatfield, 2 Id. 455; Rpget v. Merritt, 2 Gal 117; Johnson v. Weed, 9 Johns. 310 ; Porter i). Talcott, 1 Vow. 359, and other cases in Corbit v. Bank of Smyrna, 2 Harr. (Del.) 235; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 634, 637, 639, 642. Considered and approved with Thomas v. Todd, 6 Hill, 340; Roberts o. Fisher, 43 N. Y. 159; Baldwin v. Van Duzen, 37 Id. 489; Houghton v. Adams, 18 Barb. 545; Leger v. Bounaffec, 2 Id. 475; Stewarts. Orvis, 47 Dow. Pr. 519, in Har- ris v. Hanover Nat. Bank, IT. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. Y, 15 Reporter, 390; s. c, 75 Fed. Sep. 780. Included in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 651. Included with notes in liedf. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 025. — — v. Munlford, 2 Barb. Ch. 506. Dictum criticised (Bond not to be reformed as against surety) in Prior «. Williams, 2 Keyes, 530. Cited as authority (Right of action in assignee) in Rhoades v. Blackiston, 106 Mass. 334 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 332. Col- lated with other authorities in Haywood v. Andrews, 106 U. S. 672, 677. Discussed and quoted in 1 Pars, on Contr. 224, n. d. v. N. Y. Steamboat Co., 5 Daly, 117. Aft'd in 59 K Y. 510. v. Petrie, 3 Wend. 457. Overruled (Operation of defective notice of dishonor) in Ransom v. Mack, 2 Hill, 593 ; see Routh v. Robertson, 11 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 389. T. Rathburn, 19 Wend. 291. Quoted and explained (Process that saves attaching of statute of limitations) in Ang. on Limit. § 321, 6 ed. v. Root. See Genet v. Bookman. v.. Walker, 1 Hill, 652. Disting'd and questioned (Effect of judgment against sev- eral parties to bill or note) in Corey v. White, 3 Barb. 12, 15. Onthank v. Lake Shore, &c. E. 11. Co., 8 Hun, 181. Aff'd in 71 H. Y. 194; s. c, 27 Am. R. 35. Decision in Id. disting'd (Ex- tent of grant of right to draw water) ia Read v. Erie R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 321; Oothout v. Thompson. See Troup v. Smith Optlyke t. Marble, 18 Abb. Pr. 266. Order as to striking out scandalous portions of affidavits, aff d in Id. 375. See (Irrelevant, &c, matter in pleading) Code Civ. Pro 1881, § 545, n. T. Merwin, 13 Hun, 401. Applied (Usury, as determined by law of place) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs B'k v. Low, 6 Abb. N. C. 76, 88. Oppenheim v. Wolf, 3 Sand/. Ch. 571. Fol- lowed (Presumption of death) in Matter of Ackerman, 2 liedf. 521; Cited (Judicial notice of demonstrable conclusions of science) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. §§ 335, 339. Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 129, with note. Previous decision in 3 Wend. 158. See Hawkins v. Hoffman ; Pardee v. Drewi Approved (Effect of concealment from car- rier, of real value of goods shipped) Magnin ■v. Dinsmore, 62 H. Y. 35, 42 ; which rev'd 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 248, 254, which see. Disting'd in Baldwin v. Liverpool & G. W. S. S. Co., 74 N. Y. 125, 130. Approved (Money, &c. when included in term "bag- gage " ) in Taylor v. Monuot, 1 Abb. Pr. 328. Relied on in-Chamberlain v. Western Transportation Co., 45 Barb. 223. Applied (What is'baggage for loss of which a carrier is liable) in American Contract Co. v. Cross, 8 Bush, 472; s. c, 8 Am. R. 471. Dis- ting'd in Hellman v. Holladay, 1 Woolw. 370. Reviewed with Hawkins t. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 589 ; Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wendt 458, and other authorities in Dibble «. Brown, 12 6a. 217; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 460, 406. Reviewed with Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 251 ; Weed v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co., 19 Wend. 534, and other cases in Woods v. Devin, 13 III. 747; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 48S. Explained in Ang. on Carr. §| 115, 258, 262, 264, 266, 5 ed. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 255, n. e. Approved (General notice limiting' liability of carrier, when binding on his employer) in Oppenheimer v. U. S. Express Co., 69 III. 62 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 596, 599. Discussed (Delivery of baggage, such as to create liability in carrier) in Ang. on Carr. § 141, 5 ed. Decision in 3 Wend, said in Fern e. Vanderbilt, 13 Abb. Pr. 72, 75, to have been abrogated by the Code (Nume- rous counts for same cause of action) but to be still an authority (Choice of remedies against carrier). Quoted and discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 426, 5 ed. Orchard v. Binninger, 4 Abb. Pr. K 8. 308. See (Suspension of judgment lien)' Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1256, n. Orcutt v. Pettit, 4 Den. 233. Doubted (Right to have verdict directed) in Ges- cheidt v. Quirk, 5 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 38. Disapproved (Necessity of examination of plaintiff, to raise question respecting pur- O'EEILLY-OSBORN 549 chase of chose in action by attorney) in Mann «. Fairchild, 2 Keyes, 106, 117. O'Reilly v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1 Hun, 460; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) ' 487. Eev'd in CO N. Y. 169; s. c.' 19 Am. R. 151. - — ■ t. People, 86 N. Y. 154; &. c, 10 Abb. tf. 0. 53. Rev'g People v. O'Reilly, 9 Id 83. Organ v. Stewart, 1 Hun, 411 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 598. Rev'd in CO N. Y. 413. Decision in Jd. commented on (Parol evidence respecting memorandum required by statute of frauds) in 1 Ben), on Sales, % 214, n. 17 (Corbm's 4 Am. ed.'). O'Riley v. Mnt, Life Ins. Co., 2 Abb Pr. N. 8. 167. Doctrine discussed (Non-payment of premium in time of war) in 1 Alb. L. J. 349. Cited in 9 Am. R. 169, n., as sustain- ing the decision in Dillard «. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 44 Ga. 119; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 1C7. Orleans Co. Nat. B'k v. Spencer, 19 Hun, 5C9. Disting*d (Effect of entry of judgment against part only of joint obligors) in Wag- goner v. Walrath, 24 Id. 443, 446. Orines v. Daucliy, 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 85. Aff'din 82 N~. Y. 443 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 583, with note. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Contracts respecting lotteries in other States, when illegal) in People v. Noelke, 29 Hun, 461 ; s. c, 1 JST. Y. Grim. R. 252, which was aff'd in 1 Id. 496, which see; and where Van Voorhis i>. Brintnall, 86 N. Y. 418, was also disting'd (Extra-territo- rial operation of State laws). Criticised in 24 Alb. L-. J. 220. Ormiston v. Olcott, 22 Hun, 270. Rev'd in 84 N. Y. 339. Ormsby v. Douglass, 2 Abb. Pi: 407. Another proceeding in 5 Duer, 665. Decis- ion on the merits in 37 N. Y. 477. Decis- ion in Id. disting'd (Liability of mercantile agencies) in Sunderlin v. Bradstreet, 46 Id. 188, 192. Applied in Jeffras v. McKillop & Sprague Co., 2 Hun, 351, 353. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 204. v. Vermont Copper Mining Co., 05 Barb. 360. Rev'd, it seems, in 56 N. Y. 623. Another decision arising out of same transactions as Hughes v. Same, 72 Id. 207. See Thayer ®. Manley. Decision in 56 IT. Y. followed (Damages for conversion) in Mechanics' and Trad. Bank ». Farmers' & Mech. Nat. Bank, 60 Id. 40, 52. O'Rourke y. Hart, 7 Bosw. 511. Re-affd and followed in subsequent decision in 9 Id 301. v. People, 3 Hun, 225 ; s. c, more fullv 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 496. Orr's Case. See Lindsay v. Sherman. Orr v. Bigelow, 20 Barb. 21. AfTd in 14 . JSf. Y. 556. t. Gilmore, 7 Bans. 345. Discussed (Judgment in creditor's actions) in Wait on Fraud. Gonv. § 171. v. Mayor, &e. of N. ¥., 64 Barb. 106. See to the contrary, cases cited (Opinion as to quality) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 311, n. 6. Orser v. Glenville Woolen Co., 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 85. Aff'd but questioned in O'Brien v. Same, 50 ■ N. Y. 128, 136. v. Hong, 3 Hill, 79. Quoted and col- lated with other cases (Alien's right to take realty by descent) in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real. Prop. 507. v. Orser, 24 If. Y. 51. Followed (Proof of execution of will) in Norton v. Norton, 2 Red/. 6, 14; Williamson v. Wil : liamson, Id. 449, 452* :- v. Storms. 9 Cow. 687; s. c, 18 Am. Bee. 543, with extended note (Possession neces- sary to maintain trespass in cases of chattels). Ortley v. Messere, 7 Johns. Oh. 139. Ex- plained and applied (Action in name of committee of lunatic) in Fields v. Fowler, 2 Hun, 400. Orvis t. Dana, 1 Abb. K O. 268; s. c, as Orvis i>. Jennings, 6 Daly, 4Si. Followed (Bill of particulars) in Dwight v. Germania Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 167, 172; Stilwell v. Hernandez, 7 Daly, 485, 488. v. Jennings. See Orvis ». Dana. Osborn t. Bell. See Roth v. Palmer. v. Gantz, 38 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 148. Aff'd in 60 1ST. Y. 540. Decision in Id. applied (Delivery, whether absolute or conditional) in Parker v. Baxter, 86 Id. 586, 593. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 339 • (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted (Warranty) in 2 Id. § 929, n. 1. v. Heyer, 2 Paige, 343. Approved with Bloodgood «. Clark, 4 Id. 574; Fitzburgh 1). Everingham, 6 Id. 29 ; Bank of Monroe v. Schermerhorn, Clarice, 214 (Appoint- ment of receiver in judgment creditors' actions) inTurnbull v. Prentiss Lumber Co., 55 Mich. 387, 393. v. Keech, 3 Hun, 223; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 679. AfFd, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 640, but without opinion. v. Lobdell, 2 Code R. 77. Disapproved (Sufficiency of affidavit on motion to vacate injunction) in Newbury v. Newbury, 6 How. Pr. 182. -=— ^ v. McCloskey, 55 How. Pr. 345. Dis- ting'd (Effect of summons that omits name of county) in Wallace v. Dimmick, 24 Hun, 635. See to the contrary, Wiggins «. Rich- mond, 58 How. Pr. 376, a case of omission of attorney's address. v. Merwin, 50 How. Pr. 183. Rev'd in 12 Hun, 332. With decision in Id. see (Recorded affidavits, as evidence of foreclos- ure sale) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. v. Moncure, 3 Wend. 170. See Cornell v. Moulton. Disapproved (When right of action accrues on bill or note, payment of which is refused) in Staples ». Franklin B'k, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 43; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 345, 353, with note; Jackson v. Richards, 2 Cat 344; Corp v. McComb, 1 Johns. Gas. 328, being, however, cited as authority (When notice of such non-payment may be given.) Included in 2 Ames Cos. on B. &N. 86, and with notes in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. ofExch. 493. 550 OSBOEN— OSTEEIIOUT. v. Nelson, 59 Barb. 37o. Followed (Eight of deserted wife to sue alone) in Phelps v. Walther, 78 Mo. 320 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 112. V. Bobbins, 37 Barb. 481. Rev'd in 36 N. Y. 365; s. c.,iAbb. Pr. N. S. 15. See Kimball v. Newell. v. Schenck, 18 Hun, 202. ASM in 83 H. Y. 201. Decision in Id. disting'd with "Van Doren v. Baity, 11 Hun, 239 (Conver- sion as between tenants in common) in Thomas s. Williams, 32 Id. 257. Both decisions explained and applied in Potter ■». Neal, 62 How. Pr; 158, 161. Explained in Moak's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 599. v. Taylor, 5 Paige, 515. Explained (Effect of lis pendens in removing necessity for injunction) in Cornell v. Utica. Ithaca, &c. R. R. Co., 61 How. Pr. 184, 196. Osborne & Cheesman Co. v. Croome, 14 Hun, 164. Aff d, it seems, in 77 K Y. 629, but without opinion. Contrary to decision in 14 Hun see (Necessity of proof of assent to election as trustee) Nimnions v. Tappan, 2 Sweeny, 652. See also Abb. Tr. Et. 709. Osborne v. Betts, 8 How. Pr. 31. Said in Coates v. Goddard, 34 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 125, to be superseded (Extra itllowance) by Code Pro. § 309, as amended in 1805. v. Moss, 7 Johns. 161 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 252, with note. See Bayard v. Hoffman ; Henriques «. Hone. Approved with Jack- son v. Garnsey, 16 Johns. 89, though said to conflict with Nellis v. Clark, 20 Wend. 24; 4 Hill. 424 ; Moseley t. Moseley, 15 H. Y. 335 (Effect of fraudulent agreements as between parties) in Clemens ». Clemens, 28 . Wis. 637; s. c, 9 Am. It. 520, 520. Dis- ting'd (Rights of creditors of fraudulent grantor) in Kent v. Lyon. 4 Fla. 474; s. c., 56 Am. Dec. 404. Followed with Babcock v. Booth, 2 Hill, 181 ; Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige, 210 (Administrator cannot avoid voluntary deed of his intestate) in C'hoteau v. Jones, 11 111. 300; s.V., 50 Am. Dee. 460, 464, with note. Also disting'd as to assignee for creditors in Pillsbury v. Kin- onon, 33 H. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 287; s. c, 36 Am. R. 556, 565. Osbrey v. Reimer, 49 Barb. 265. Modified in 51 N. Y. 630. Decision in 49 Barb. explained (Partnership profits as compen- sation) in 1 Gollyer on Part. § 47, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. Osgood v. De Groot, 36 K Y. 348. Ques- tioned, and followed reluctantly (Setoff between insurance company and insured) in Pardo v. Osgood, 5 Robt. 348. y. Franklin, 2 Johns. Gh. 1; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 513 ; with note wherein it is shown to have been frequently approved in the Federal courts. See also citations on other points. Aff d in 14 Johns. 527. See Greer v. Tweed ; Raymond v. Squire. Decision in 2 Johns. Ch. criticised (Effect of power given by will, to sell lauds) in Bloomer v. Wal- dron, 3 Hill, 361, 305. Followed with Thompson v. Brown, 4 Johns. Gh. 619 (Ex- ecutors, trustees, &c, not liable beyond what they receive, unless for gross negligence) in Konigmacher «. Kimmel, 1 Penr, & W. (Penn.) 207; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 374, 378, with note. Approved as in accordance with numerous decisions in the English courts (Survivorship of powers) in Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. 565. Approved (Inade- quate consideration as ground for rescission) in Jenkins «. Einstein, 3 Biss. 137. Ap- proved (Application whether for rescission or lor specific performance) in Bowen s. Waters, 2 Paine, 9. v. laytin, 48 Barb. 463. AfPd in 3 Keyes, 521 ; s. C, 5 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 1 ; 37 Hov). Pr. 63. Decision in 3 Keyes approved (Recovering back dividend fraudulently paid) in Osgood v. Ogden, 4 Id. 70, 85 ; Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 H. Y. 38, 46, which rev'd 45 Super. Gt. (,/. & S.) 620, which see. Disting'd (Enforcing lien of creditors ou assets of insolvent corporation)' in Bart- lett v. Drew, 60 Barb. 658 ; McLean v. East- man, 21 Hun, 312. Applied (Right of re- ceiver to maintain proceeding to set aside fraudulent transfer) to administrator, in Bar- ton v. Hosner, 24 Hun, 467, 469. Quoted and explained in High on Receiv. § 321, n. 3. T. Magnire, 61 Barb. 54. Aff'd in 61 iV. Y. 524. See (Dissolution of corporation) Gode Giv. Pro. 1881, § 1786, n. T. Manhattan Co.. 3 Cow. 612; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 304. Rev'g 15 Johns. 162. Other decisions arising out of facts here'inyolved, — in Wood v. Genet, 8 Paige, 137; Woods. Jackson, 8 Wend: 10. See Anthoine «. Coit ; Dan v. Brown ; Marquand v. Webb. Decision in 15 Johns, explained (Charging fraudulent grantee with decedent's debts) in Loomis v. Tifft, 16 Barb. 546. Decision in 3 Cow. disting'd (Effect of admission of improper evidence) in Murray e. Smith, 1 Duer, 433. Followed in Anthoine o. Coit, 2 Hall, 50. Referred to as modified by later decisions, — in People «. Gonzalez, 35 N. T. 59. t. Osgood, 2 Paige, 621. Followed (Alimony, in action for divorce for adultery) in Monk s. Monk, 7 Robt. 153. v. Strauss, 65 Barb. 383. Aff'd in 55 JT. Y. 672. __ v. Toole, 1 Hun, 167; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 701. AfTd in 60 N. Y. 475. v. Whittelsey, 10 Abb. Pr. 134; s: c, 20 How. Pr. 72. AfTd at General Term, 1860, but no opinion is reported. Ostell v. Brough, 24 How. Pr. 274. Collated with other cases (Arrest of agent) in Tliomp. on Prov. Rem. 31. Osterhout v. Roberts, 8 Cow. 43. See Cur- tis v. Groat; Livingston ». Bishop. Dis- ting'd (Effect of election of remedies) in Bank of Beloit v. Beale, 7-Bosw. 611, 631. Followed in Hyde «. Noble, 13 N. H. 494; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 508, 511, with note. Opposed with Curtis v. Groat. 6 Johns. 106 . (Effect of judgment to pass title) in Marsh OSTERHOUT— OVERSEERS OF FORT ANN. 551 v. Pier, 4 liawle (Pa.) £88, citing English cases. ComparoMurrellu. Johnson's Adm., 1 Henn, & M. ( Va.) 49 ; White e. Philbrick, 5 6ree.nl. (Me.) 147; Campbells. Phelps, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 62. Followed with Curtis e. Groat, 6 . Champlaiu Transporta- tion Co., 23 Vt. 186; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 80 ; Gibson «. Culver, 17 Wend. 305, being also cited. Applied in Eagle v. White, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 505; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 434. Disting'd in Cope v. Cordova, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 203, 212. Relied on as authority in Ang. on Carr. §§ 291, 300, 305, 323. Explained in 2 Pars, on, Contr. 191, n. w. v. Walter. See Green v. Burke. O'Sullivau v. Roberts, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 360. Further decision in 42 hi. 282. Oswego v. Oswego Canal Co., 6 N. Y. 257. Collated with other cases (Acceptance of highways by public) in Mills 2'homps. on Highw. 3 ed'. 64. Oswego Starch Factory v. Dolloway, 21 N. Y. 449. Explained and followed (Place of taxation of corporation) in Union St'b't. Co. v. City of Buffalo, 82 Id. 351, 355. Fol- lowed in Hudson River Bridge Co. v. Pat- terson, 11 Hun, 525. Otis v. Jones, 21 Wend. 394. See Hanmer e. Wilsey. Commented on (Damages for trespass) in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 635 a, n. 3. -: v. Ross, 8 IIow. Pr. 193, Disting'd (Sufficiency of denial) in Meehan i>. Harlem Savings Bank, 5 llun, 440. Disting'd (Ap- pealability of order amending pleading) in Salters v. Genin, lO^JJ. Pr. 478, 480. v. Sill, 8 Barb. 102, Sec Milliman v. Naher. Disting'd (Mortgage of after-ac- quired property) in McCaffrey ». Wpodin, 65 2K Y. 467. Followed in Ross v. Wilson, 7 Bush (Ky.) 29. Recognized as author- ity in Apperson v. Moore, 30 Arfc.bti; s. c, 21 Am. R. 170; Seymour v. Canandaigua, &c. R. R. Co., 25 Barb. 288, being, how- ever, relied on (Equitable lien on property not in esse). Followed (Necessity of change of possession in case of mortgage) in Steele v. Benham, 84 N. Y. 634, 640. Applied (Effect of lease taken by one member of firm) in Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 116, 121. See Story on Partn. § 98, n. v. Spencer, 8 How. Pr.*171. Compare (Motions and orders out of court) Code Civ. Pro. § 772. O'Toole v. Garvin, 1 Hun, 92; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 118. Further proceedings in 1 Hun, 313 ; s. c, 3 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) '756. See Swords t. Owen. Decision in 1 Hun, 92, followed with Honegger n. Wett- stein, 13 Abb. N. C. 393 (Necessity of pleading illegality of contract sued on) in May v. Burras, Id. 384. Followed in Stod- dart v. Key, 62 How. Pr. 137, 146. Dis- ting'd (Effect of contract made under fic- titious firm name) in Bull's Head B'k v t ' McFeeters, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 218. Olsego Co. Bank v. Warren, 18 Barb. 290. Followed and approved (Waiver of protest) in Gawtry®. Doane, 48 Id. 148. Ott y. Schroeppel, 3 Barb. 60. Further deci- sions as to validity of award here involved, in 4 Id. 250 ; 7 Id. 431, the latter being rev'd in 5 XT. Y. 482. Onsterhout v. Bay, 9 Johns. 114. See Adams ». Hopkins. Disting'd (Enforcing payment of fees of officer of court) in Geib v. Topping, 83 If. Y. 46, 48. Ontcrbridge t. Phelps, 45 Super. Ct: (J. & S.) 555; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 77. See Lamp- man v. Milks. Applied (Implied reserva- tion of right of way) in Schrymsers. Phelps, 62 How. Pr. 1, 3, a case involving same premises. Ontwater'v. Bodge, 6 Wend. 397. Applied (Evidence of acceptance, as required by statute of frauds) in IT. S. Reflector Co. «. Rushton, 7 Daly, 410, 413. y. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 18 How. Pr. 572. Followed with Matter of Mayor, &c. ofN.Y., 49 N. Y. 150 (Power of courts to set aside judgments or orders for fraud, &c.) in Mat- ter of Hudson Avenue, 2 Hun, 580. Ap- proved (Constitutionality of L. 1859, c. 489, § 5) in Joyce v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 12 Alb. Pr. 309. Ovenshire v. Adee, 27 How. Pr. 368. Ap- proved (Right to new trial in county court, as determined b3' amount stated in plead- ings) in Hobbs ». Wetherwax, 38 Id. 385. Over bagli v. Patrie, 8 Barb. 28. AfTd in 6 K Y. 510. Overing v. Foote, 43 K. Y. 290. Subse- quent decision in 65 Id. 263. Decision in Id. approved (Necessity of aotice in pro- ceedings for enforcement of taxes) in Stuart v. Palmer, 74 Id. 183, 193. Overseers of Fort Ann v. Overseers of , . Kingsbury, 14 Johns. 365. See Putnam v. 552 OVERSEERS OF NEW BERLIN— PACIFIC IRON WORKS. "Wise ; Taylor v. Bradley. Modified (Con- tract to farm on shares) in Taylor v. Brad- ley, 39 JV. Y. 129. Overseers of New Berlin v. Overseers of Norwich, 10 Johns. 229; s. c, 4 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1010, with brief note cit- ing additional authorities. Disting'd (Es- toppel of third persons to introduce parol evidence to contradict written contract) in Reading v. Weston, 8 Conn. 117; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 97," with note. See 3 Alb. L. J. 161. Overseers of Pittstown v. Overseers of Plattsburgh, 15 Johns. 436. Overruled (Ca- pacity of overseers of the poor to sue) in subsequent decision in 18 Id. 407. Decis- ion in Id. applied to action by commissioner of highways, in Victory v. Blood, 25 Hun, 515,517. Overseers of Plattekill v. Overseers of New Platz. See Mauran v. Lamb. Overseers of St'ephentowu v. Whitman. See Jackson v. Plumbe. Ovialt v. Hughes, 41 Sari. 541. Followed (Existing debts for which trustee of corpor- ation is liable) in Nimmons v. Hennion, 2 Sweeny, 663, 668. Owen v. Boerunr, 23 Barb. 187. Disting'd (Defenses in actions on awards) in Knowl- ton v. Micldes, 29 Id. 465, 470. v. Cawley, 36 Barb. 52; s. c, 13 Abb. Br. 13; 22 How. Br. 10. Subsequent pro- ceeding in 42 Barb. 105; which was affd in 36 JV. Y. 600. See Tale v. Dederer. Decision in 36 JV. Y. applied (Charging separate estate of married woman) in Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, !) Abb. Br. If.. S. 176 ; Maxon v. Scott, 55 JV. Y. ,251. v. Dupignac, 17 Bow. Br. 512. Misre- ported. Opinion here given as that of the court, is a dissenting opinion. See correct report in 9 Abb. Br. 180. v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 518. For facts, see 10 Abb. Br. N. S. 166, n. Said in Baggerly ». Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 72 N. Y. 601, to have been affd by Ct. of A pp. See Underwood *. Same. Applied (Waiver by agent of in- . surer) in Dohn v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 5 Lans. 277; Whitwell v. Putnam Fire Ins. Co., 6 Id. 168. Questioned in Under- wood v. Farmers', &c. Co., 57 If. Y. 500, 506. Followed in Goodwin «. Massachu- setts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 480, 493. , For the rule where the policy requires a wai- ver in express terms, see Birmingham «. Farmers' Joint Stock' Ins. Co., 67 Barb. 595. Disting'd (Judgment as incumbrance on insured property) in Bailey v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 16 Hun, 504. - — v. Hudson River It. R. Co., 2 Bom. 374. Further decision in 7 Id. 329; which was affd in 35 ST. Y. 516. Decision in 2 Bom. collated with Button v. Hudson River It. R. Co., 18 JV. Y. 256 ; Silliman *. Lewis, 49 Id. 379; Tonawanda R. R. Co. ». Munger, 5 Hen. 255; Brownell v. Flagler, 5 Hill, 282; Loomis v. Terry, 17 Wend. 496 ; Bush . Bay, 20 Johns. 037; Root b. French, 13 Wend. 570; Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93 ; Dickerson v. Tilling- hast, 4 Paige, 215; Moore B. Ryder, 65 N. Y. 441, thought in 12 Am. Dec. 136, n. to sustain a rule which, though supported by a slight preponderance of the authorities, is now losing ground. Paff v. Kinney, 1 Bradf. 1. See (Limita- tion of action on surrogate's decree) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 376, 382, subd. 7. 554: PAGE— PAIN". Page T. McDonnell, 46 How. Pr. 52. AfFd in 55 AT. Y. 299. Decision in Id. explained (Refusal to perform contract) in Davison n. Associates of the Jersey Co., 6 Hun, 470, 473. y. Morrell. See Mitchell ». Culver. v. Waring, 76 K Y. 463. See (Pur- chaser not bound by record made prior to title vested in his vendor) 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 100, n. Paliquioque Bank y. Martin. See Cook v. Litchfield ; Price v. McClave. Paige v. Cagwiu, 7 Bill, 361; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 68, 80, with note, wherein it is said to have settled the rule (Admissibility of declarations of prior owner) inN. Y., though thought in Christie v. Bishop, 1 Barb. Oh. 115, to be a departure from well-established legal doctrines. See Stafford v. Rice. Applied in Smith v.- Webb, 1 Barb. 233 ; Hoostine v. O'Donnell, 5 Hun, 473 ; Booth «. Swezey, 8 N. Y. 27'J; Reviewed with other cases in Savage v. Murphy, 8 Bosw. 87. Explained in Johnson »>. Hicks, 1 Lnns. 159; Bullis v. Montgomery, 3 Id. 258. Disting'd in Jermain v. Dennison, 6 N. Y. 278. Examined with Smith v. Webb, 1 Barb. 230; and Booth v. Sweezy, 8 M Y. 276 ; Jermain v. Denniston, ' 6 Id. 276 ; qualified and explained in Foster v. Beals, 21 Id. 247, 250. Followed as conclu- sive in Tousley v. Barry, 16 Id. 500. Cited as settled law, but disting'd as to real estate, in Chadwick v. Fonner, 69 Id. 407. Limited to cases of purchasers for value, in Von Sachs ». Kretz, 72 Id. 555. As to extension of the rule, see cases cited in Abb. Tr. JEv. 13, n. Explained (Possession of note, as evidence of ownership) in James ». Chalmers, 6 N. Y. 213. v. Hazard, 5 Hill, 603. Followed (Effect of general objection to question call- ing for opinion) in Rodgers v. Fletcher, 13 Abb. Pr 299. v. Ott, 5 Den. 406. Disting'd (Entirety of contract 'of sale) in Talmage v. White, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 222; Avery v. Willson, 81 K Y. 341, 346. Explained and com- mented on in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1032, n. 19 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed). v. People, 6 Park 683. Applied (Jur- isdiction to review proceedings in criminal cases) in Hitchins .«. People, 39 N'. Y. 457. Disting'd (Sufficiency of averment of signa- ture, &c.) in Bonnell v. Griswold, 68 Id. 299. v. Willet, 38 K Y. 28. Cited (How far judicial confession is conclusive) in 2 Whart. Corn, on E. % 1110, n. Pain v. Packard, 13 Johns. 174; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 369, with note, wherein it is said to have been followed and its principle to have have been adopted with restrictions as part of the statute law in several States. See Beardsley?). Warner; Gahn v. Niemceweicz; King «. Baldwin ; People ». Jansen. Dis- approved (Discharge of surety by neglect of creditor to sue debtor, on request) 1 in Her- rick v. Borst, 4 Hill, 656. Examined and re-afFd in King v. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 390 ; which rev'd 2 Johns. Ch. 563, which see. Followed in Colgrove ■». Tallman, 5 Hun, 103 ; which was aff'd in 67 N.' Y. 99, which see. Disting'd in Fulton «. Matthews, 15 Johns. 434; Wells v. Mann, 4'5 N. Y. 330; Ruggles v. Holden, 3 Wend. 217; Beardsley v. Warner, 6 Id. 612 ; which was aft'd in 8 Id. 198, which see; Converse v. Cook, 25 Hun, 46. Disting'd with King v. Baldwin^ 17 Johns. 384; Remsen v. Beek- man, 25 K Y. 552 ; Colgrove v. Tallman, 67 Id. 95, in Newcomb v. Hale, 90 Id. 326. Followed and approved with King v. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 381, in Hempstead-ii. Watkins, 6 Arh. 317; s. c, 42 Am. Dee. 696, 699, with note. Criticised with King ». Baldwin, 2 Johns. Oh. 544, and their authority denied, in Smith «. Freyler, 4 Mont. 389; s. c, 47 Am. B. 358; 29 Alb. L. J. 448 ; s. c, 1 Pacific Pep. 214. Crit- icised with King v. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 384; Fulton v. Matthews, 15 Id. 433; Powell v. Waters, 17 Id. 176; Ludlow v. Simond, 2 Cai. Gas. 30, in Hunt v. Bridgham, 2 Pick. {Mass.) 581; s. c, 13 Am. Dee. 458, with note. Reviewed with King i>. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 384, and other cases in Kennebec Bank v. Tuckerman, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 130; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 209, with note. Fol- lowed in Martin v. Skehan, 2 Col. 614, 618 ; Bruce v. Edwards, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 11; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 33. Criticised and disapproved with King v. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 384, in Page v. Webster, 15 Me.. 249; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 608, 612, with note, where they are thought to have been de- stroyed as authorities by Warner v. Beards- ley, 8 Wend. 194. Disapproved with King «. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 384, in Pintard v. Davis, 1 Zdb. (K J.) 632 ; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 172. Declared unsound, — notwithstand- ing its recognition in Hopkins v. Spurlock, 2 Heish. (Tenn.) 155, — in Jackson «. Huey, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 184; s. c, 43 Am. B. 301. Disting'd and doubted with King v. Bald- win, 17 Johns. 403, in Crane v. Newell, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 612; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 461, with rote. Disapproved, and King V; Bald- win, 2 Johns. Oh. 654, approved in Dane v. Corduan, 24 Oal. 157, 164, citing also Herrick v. Borst, 4 Hill, 656. Denied with King v. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 384, as contrary to authority, — in Harris v. Newell, 42 Wis. 687, 692. Included in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 362. Collated with King ». Baldwin, 2 Johns. Ch. 554; 17 Johns. 884 ; Remsen v. Beekman, 25 AT. Y. 552 ; Warners. Beardsley, 8 Wend. 194; Herrick v. Borst, 4 Hill, 650 ; Schroeppell v. Shaw, 3 A 7 ". Y. 454 ; Hunt «, Purdy, 82 Id. 486; Colgrove v. Tallman, 67 Id. 95, in 34 Am. P. 580, n. Explained and applied (Parol evidence of suretyship on note) in Hubbard v. Gurney, 64 & Y. 464. PAINE— PALMER, 555 Paine v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & 0.) 619. Approved (Occupancy, within meaning of insurance policy) iu Cummins r. Agr. Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 554; which was rev'd in 67 N. Y. 260, which see. Explained in Herrman v. Adriatic Fire Ins. Co., 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 396. Col- lated with Whitney v. Black River Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 39, and other cases in Cook v. Con- tinental Ius. Co., 70 Mo. 010; s. c , 33 Am. B. 438, with note, collating N..Y. and other cases. Collated with other cases in 28 Am. R. 230, n. v. Bouney, 4 B. D. Smith, 734. Dis- ting'd as inapplicable since 1303 (Expiration of mechanic's lien) in Mathews v. Daley, 7 Abb. Pr. B. S. 379. v. Jones, 14 Hun, 577. Affd in 76 JV. Y. 274. Another decision in 75 Id. 593. Decision in Id. followed (Power of court of equity to reform contract) in De Jarnatt v. Cooper, Sup'm. Ct. Gal. 1881, 13 Cent. L. J. 252. v. McCarthy, 1 Hun, 78; mem. s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 755. In 3 Hun. vii; 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) iv, motion to dismiss appeal said to have been granted. v. Noelke, 53 How. Pr. 273. Afl'd in 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 176; s. c, 54 How. Pr. 333. See Robinson ». Dauchy. v. Timelier, 25 Wend. 450 ; s. c, 14 B~. T. Com. L. Law. ed: 905, with brief note. Paleu v. Buslurell, 18 Abb. Pr. 301. Rev'd in 46 Barb. 24. Decision in Id. discussed (Creditor uniting causes of action against debtor) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 55. T. Johnson, 46 Barb.- 21. Affd in 50 B~. Y. 49. Decision in Id. applied (Limita- tion of action to recover usurious interest ; taking objection thereto by demurrer) to case of national bank in Nat. State B'k of New- ark v. Boylan, 2 Abb. B. C. 216, 220. Palmer v. Adams, 22 How. Pr. 375. Op- posed (Compelling affidavit of party, to be used on motion) by Oockey v; Hurd, 14 Abb. Pr. B. S. 183, 186. T. Aldridge, 16 Barb. 131. Cited (Judicial notice of regulations adopted by particular branches of State service) in 1 Whart. Com. on Bv. § 318. v. Avery. 41 Barb. 290. Said in 41 B. Y. 619, to have been affd by Ct. of App. in Sept. 1869. v. Bagg, 64 Barb. 641. Affd in 56 B. Y. 523. v. Conly, 4 Den. 374. Affd in 2 iv". Y. . 182. Both decisions applied (Retrospective operation of statute) in Meyer v. Roosevelt, 25 Ho.w. Pr. 107. Decision in 4 Hen. ex- plained in Fisher v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 644, 656. Cited in Peo- ple ex rel. Egan v. Marine Court, 8 Abb. B. G. 377, 380. Both decisions explained (Vested right in penalty) in Fisher v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 656. • v. Davis, 28 N. Y. 242. Disting'd (Waiver of disability in plaintifl) in Fair- weather ». Satterly, 7 Rdbt. 547. Approved (Remedy for misjoinder of parties) in Richt- niyer v. Richtmyer, 50 Barb. 61. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 488, subd. 5. Disting'd (Power of married woman to make submis- sion to arbitration) in Keep v. Keep, 17 Hun, 154. See (Submission to arbitration, of claim to real property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2365, n. v. DeWitt, 2 Sweeny, 530; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 293. Affd in 47 B. Y. 532. Another proceeding in 7 Bobt. 530. See Shook v. Daly. Decision in 7 Bobt. ^ re- viewed at length (Injunction against viola- tion of copyright) in 8 South. L. Rev. 20. Opinion of Monell, J., in 2 Sweeny, ap- proved in 8 South. L. Bev. 21. Decision in 47 iv". Y. approved in Id. 22. Quoted in 2 ' High, on Inj. 2 ed. §§ 1038, 1039. v. Foley, 44 How. Pr. 308. Modified in 36 Super. Ot. (J. & 8.) 14; s. c, 45 How. Pr. 110. Further proceeding in 2 Abb. K O. 191; which was affd in 42 Super. Ot. (J. & 8.) 365; but the latter rev'd in 71 N. Y. 106. See Carpenter v. Wright; Drummond v. Husson. Decision in 36 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) disapproved (Injunction to restrain interference with dis- charge of duties of office) in Morris v. Whe- lan, 11 Abb, BT. C. 64. Decision in 71 B. Y. followed (Liability on injunction bond, as affected by discontinuance of action) in Benedict «. Dixon, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 477, 480; Johnson e. Elwood, 82 N. Y. 362, 365. Disting'd in Bishop v. Bascoe, 9 Weekly Gin. L. Bui. 111. Quoted (Distinction between void and voidable acts) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 444, n. 1. v. Fort Plain & Cooperstown Plank- road Co., 11 i\7i Y. 376. See Jackson v. Florence. Disting'd and limited (What is covenant and not condition) in Booth v. Cleveland Mill Co., 74 B. Y. 15, 22. Dis- approved as obiter (When commissioners of highways, &c, act as agents of town in con- veying to plank-road company) in Town of Galen v. Clyde & Rose Plank- road Co., 27 Barb. 552. v. Guernsey, 7 Wend. 248. Questioned (Absolute conveyance when construed as mortgage) in Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 95, ^\); Baker v. Thrasher, 4 Den. 493. Disting'd and questioned in Macaulay v. Porter, 71 B~. Y. 173, 179. v. Hand, 13 Johns. 434; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 392, with note. See Haggerty v. Pal- mer. Examined with Smith v. Lynes, 5 B'. Y. 41 (Rights of subsequent bona fide purchaser as against lien of original vendor) in Matthews v. Hobby, 48 Barb. 167, 170. v. Haskins. See Lewis v. Chapman. v. Hicks, 6 Johns. 133. Doctrine ap- plied (Fishery rights) in Trustees of Brook- haven o. Strong, 60 Bf. Y. 56, 65. Ex- plained (Presumptions) in 2 Best on Bv. § 381, n. a, Wood's ed. — — v. Horn, 20 Hun, 70. Affd in 84 B'. 556 P ALMEE— PA2s T GJ3URN. Y. 516, Decision in Id. disting'd with Barstow 0. Goodwin, 2 Brudf. 413; Hamlin v. Osgood, 1 Redf. 409 (Provision in will for " issue " or descendants) in Murray v. Bronson, 1 Dem. 217. — v. Hussey, 65 Barb. 278. Aff d in 59 N.. Y. 647. — v. Kelly, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 571. Rev'd in 56 N. Y. 637. -t— y. Lawrence, 3 Sandf. 161. Affd in 5 N. T. 389. See Spear v. Crawford'. Decis- ion in 3 Sandf. applied (When stockholder, &c, cannot question regularity of organiza- tion or- power of- corporation) •• in Eaton v. Aspinwall, 3 All. Pr. 422; Steam Nav. Co. v. Weed, 17 Barb. 3,82; Whitney Arms \Jo. v. Barlow, 63 N.T. 71, which rev'd 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 563, which see. Dis- ting'd in N. Y. State Loan and Trust Co. ■». Helmer, 77 N. Y. 64, 70. Quoted and col- lated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 189. Quoted in Aug. <& A. on Corp. §519, n. 1, 11 ed. ; Morawetz on Corp. § 142. Decision in 5 N. Y. collated with Peo- ple v. Edwards, 15 Bark 529; Libby ». Rosenkrans, 55 Id. 202, and other cases (.Disqualification of judges, by reason of interest) in 12 Weekly L. Bui. 3. v. Lorillard, 15 Johns. 14. Rev'd in 16 Id. 348. See Gelston «. Hoyt. Decision in 16 Johns, approved and reviewed (Con- tract of affreightment when not terminated by delay) in Clark v. Mass. F. & M. Ins. Co., 2 Pick. {Mass.) 104; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 400, with note. Commented on in 3 Eet.t Com. 224. Included with notes in 2 Redf. Am. Railw. Cas. 185. — v. Manning, 4 Ben. 131. Disting'd (Sufficiency of admission of making of note) in Bardin v. Stevenson, 75 & Y. 164, 168. v. Miller, 25 Barb. 399. See Dominick v. Michael. Included (Mortgage by infant) in Euoell Lead. Cas. on, Inf. &c. 18 1. v. Mulligan, 3 Cai. 307 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dee. 270, with note, wherein, it is shown to have been extensively cited as authority. Previous decision, as it seems, in 2 Cai. 380. See People ex rel. Loomis *. Canal Appraisers; Piatt v. Johnson. Decision in 3 Cai. applied (Extent of right to use stream) in Thomas v. Brackney, 17 Barb. 657. Applied in Bullard «. Saratoga, &c. Manuf. Co., 77 If. Y. 530. Explained and applied in Piatt v. Johnson, 15 Johns. 218. Explained with Piatt v. Johnson, in Wadsworth v. Tillotsou, 15 Conn. 366; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 391, 397, with note. Cited (When dam is nuisance) in Simpson v. Seavey, 8 Qreenl. (Me.) 138; s. c, 22 Am. Dee. 228. Approved and applied (Right of public servitude in stream) in Morgan v. King, 30 Barb. 17. Elaborately examined with other cases, in People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 472. Followed with Hooker v. Cummings. 20 Johns. 100, in Enfield T. B. Co. v. Hartford R. R. Co., 7 Conn. 40; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 716, 725, with note. Quoted and collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 46. "Decision in 2 Cai. applied (What relief must be demanded in one motion) in Mc- Lean v. Hoyt, 56 How. Pr, 353. v. Myers, 43 Barb. 5,09. See Havens u. Hussey ; Robinson v. Mcintosh. Explained (Power of partners to make assignment for benefit of creditors) in Bun-ill on, Assign. § 85, 4 ed. — - v. Palmer, T. Paige, 276. See Fry, v. Fry. Said never to have been questioned in N. Y. (Statutes of this State as to divorce exclusive of the law of England) in Camp- bell v. Craropton, 18 Blatchf. C. Ct. 150, 160; s. c, 8 Alb. N. C. 363. Quoted (Divorce for cruelty on husband's applica- tion) in 1 Bishop on Mar. & D. § 761, B.cd. v Phoenix Ins. Co,, 22 Hun, 224! Ap- proved (iSup'm. Ct. Rule 32, as affected by Code Civ. Pro. § 1023) in Goimerly v. Mc- Glynn, 84 JSf. Y. 284, 287. v. Smedley, lS.Abl. Pr. 185. Disting'd (Issuing precept for costs of demurrer) in Henderson v. Jackson, 2 Sweeny, 603. Compare (Power of court to direct order. of trial of issues) Code Civ. Pro. § 967. v. Stephens, 1 Den. 471. See Dusen- berry v. Ellis ; Hills v. Bannister ; Rossiter v. Rossiter. Applied (Fictitious signature, when binding) in David v. Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co., 83 iV. Y. 265, 269. Said to be inconsistent with Walker v. Bank of N. Y., 9 Id. 582; White v. Madison, Id. 117,— in Bartletts. Tucker, 104 "' 336; s. c. .5 Am. R. 240, 245,— where also Brown v. Butchers' & Drovers' B'k, 6 Hill, 443, was disting'd. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 257, n. 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Cited (Liability of partnership on note, &c, signed in name of one partner) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 142, n. v. Wetmore, 2 Sandf. 316. See Dyett «. Pendleton ; Myers v. Gemmell. Fol- lowed (Implied easement of light, and air) in Doyle v. Lord, 39 Super. Ct. ■ (J. & 8.) 421, 432,. which was rev'd in 64 N. Y. 432, which see. Approved with Myers v. Gem- mell, 10 Barb. 537, in Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204; s. c, 15 Am. R. 80, 91 ; opin- ion in Lampman v. Milks, 21 Jf. Y.. 505, 512, being criticised as dictum. Palmeter v. Wagner. See Welch v. Pullman Palace Car Co. . Pam v. Yilmar, 54 How. Pr. 235. Overruled (Mode of objecting that plaintiff's remedy is at law) in De Bussiere v. Holladay, 4 AM. K C. Ill, 119. P. & F. Corbin v. Gordon. See Corbin, P. & F. v. Gordon. Pangburn v. Bull, 1 Wend. 345. Cited with Vanduzor v. Linderman, 10 Johns. 106 (When action will lie for malicious prosecu- tion) in Lockenour v. Sides, 57 hid. 360; s. c, 26 Am. R. 58. Applied in Closson v. Staples, 42 Vt. 209; s. c, 1 Am. R. 316, 324. v. Miles. See Rinaldo v. Housmann. V. Patridge, 7 Johns. 140; .s. c, 5 Am. PANGBOUEN— PARISH. 557 Dec. 250. ■ Sou Thompson v. Button. Fol- lowed with Thompson v. Button, 14 Johns. 84; Clark v. Skinner, 20 Id. 465 ; Marshal «. Davis, 1 Wend. 109 (When replevin may be maintained) in Bruon v. Ogden, 6 Hoist. (N. J.) 370; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 593, 595, ■with note, a case of goods taken on execu- tion. Followed and approved in Gist v. Cole, 2 Nott. & McO. (So. Car.) 456; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 610, with note, as denying the position taken in Gilbert on Replevin, 1 54. See, to same effect, 12 Am. Jur. 104. Fol- lowed in Daggett v. Robins, 2 Blade/. (Ind.) 415; s. c, 21 Am. Dec, 752, with note. — ~- v. Rams;iy, 11 Johns. 141. Followed (Effect of verdict in curing defect in plead- ing) in Hall v. Kitson, 4 CKand. ( Wise.) 22. Pan ton v. Holland, 17 Johns. 92; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 369. See Clark v. Foot; Farrand v. Marshall ; Hay v. Cohoes Co. ; Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. Disting'd (Whether acts legal in themselves become actionable if done with malice) in Phelps 1>. Nowlon 72 If. Y. 39. Approved in Ches- ley«. King, 74 Me. 164, 177. For a review of decisions, see Washb. on Easements, 488-492, 3 ed. . Applied (Extent of right to excavate soil) to municipal corporation, in Humes v. Mayor of Knoxville, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 403; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 657, with note. Cited as authority with Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 P.aige, 109 ; Hay v. Cohoes Co., 2 Jf. Y. 159, 162, in Gilmore v. Driscoll, 122 Mass. 199; s. c, 23 Am. It. 312, 320. Approved in Callender v. Marsh, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 418, 434. Collated with other cases in Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 552. Included in Lanson's Lead. Com. L. Cas. Simplified, 220. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 222. Included in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 249. Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. 459; s. c, 14 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 908, with brief note. See Orange County Bank v. Brown. Ex- plained (Carrier's liability for loss of bag- gage) in Magnin v. Dinsraore, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 248, 254; which was rev'd in 62 N. Y. 35, which see. Reviewed with Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend.'So ■ Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R Co., 19 Id. 534, and other cases in Jordan v. Fall River R. 11. Co., 5 Gush. (Mass.) 69; s. c, 5 1 Am. Dec. 44, 46, with note. v. Fish, 67 Barb. 407. Affd in 60 N. Y. 26D; s. c, 19 Am. It. 176. See Mer- ritt v. Todd. Decision in 60 If. Y. dis- ting'd (Necessity for demand for payment of demand note) in Eisenlord v. Dillenback, 15 Ilun, 23, 25 ; Crim v. Starkweather, 88 If. Y. 342. Applied (Necessity for demand of payment of certificate of deposit) in Munger v. Albany City Nat. B'k, 85 Id. 580, 587. See cases cited (Negotiable char- acter of certificate of deposit) in 24 Am,. It. 610, n. Applied (Right to recovery of money as affected by laches) in U. S. v. Nat. Park B'k, U. S. Dist. Ct. S. D. If. Y., C Fed. Rep. 854. v. Robertson, 6 Hill, 550. See Patter- son v. Westervelt. Commented on and doubted (Proof in action for neglect to return fieri facias) in Stevens v. Rowe, 3 Den. 327, 33 1 ; which was, however, over- ruled in Ledyard v. Jones, 7 If. Y. 550. v. Tilton, 58 How. Pr. 476. Fully re- ported in 20 Hun, 76. v. Treat, 18 Hun, 298. Rev'd in 82 If. Y. 385. v. Van Anken, 3 Barb. 534. Applied- with Dauchy v. Bennett, 7 How. Pr. 375 (Right to redeem from mortgage) in Belden i>. Slade, 26 Hun, 635. Discussed in 4 Kent Com. 162, n. 1, Comstock's ed. Ex- plained (Right to assignment of mortgage) in Ellsworth v. Lockwood, 42 If. Y. 89, 97, 99. Criticised in Thomas on Mort. 223. Pardo v. Osg-ood, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 305. Rev'd (Set-ofl) in 5 Robt. 348. Parfitt v. Warner, 13 Abb. Pr. 471. See Sternhaus v. Schmidt. Applied (Defective undertaking on appeal) in Dinkel v. Wehle, 61 How. Pr. 159. Parham v. Moran, 4 Hun, 717. Affd, it seems, in 71 If. Y. 596, but without opinion. Parisen v. Parisen, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 642. Appeal said, in 5 Id. iv, to have been dismissed. Parish Will Case, 8 Abb. Pr. 336 ; s. c, 29 Barb. 627. See Delafield v. Parish. See (Costs in surrogate's courts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2558, re. Proceedings before surrogate published with medical opinions, at N. Y. in 1857. See case, &c, in vols. 102-106 of Ct. of App. Cas. in State Libr. at Albany. Also statement of facts and opinion of Ct. of App. published at N. Y. in 1862. Also tes- timony, &c, published in 6 vols, at N. Y; in 1864. Also, argument of J. W. Edmonds before surrogate, in 1857. Also that of A. M. Sherman in Sup'm. Ct., in 1858. Also statement of facts by J. K. Porter and J. B. Jewctt, published at Albany, in 1862. Also argument of J. K. Porter, before Ct. of App. in 1862. See Mr. O'Conor's copy of report of case in 7 large vols., in Law Inst. Libr., N. Y. City. Other reports in same library. Parisii v. Golden, 35 If. Y. 462. See Mer- ritt v. Village of Portchestcr; Van Rensse- laer v Witbcck. Disting'd from Van Rens- selaer v. Witbeck, 7 If. Y. 517 (Requisites of affidavit annexed to assessment roll) in Westfall v. Preston, 49 Id. 349, 355; which rev'd 3 Lans. 151, which see. Dis- ting'd in Hinckley v. Cooper, 22 Run, 253, 257. v. Parish, 42 Barb. 274. Affd in Del- afield v. Parish, 25 If.- Y. 9. Decision in 42 Barb, superseded (Appeal from surro- gate's decision) by Code Civ. Pro. § 2568. t. Wheeler, 22 Jf. Y. 494. See Whit- ney Arms Co. v. Barlow. Applied (Effect of contract ultra vires) in Buffi t v. Troy & 558 PARISH OF BELLPORT— PARKER. Boston R. R. Co., 36 Barb. 426 ; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 iV". Y. 71. ' Ex- plained in Town of Verona v. Peckham, 66 Barb. 114. Approved, but disting'd, in Thomas v. R. R. Co., 101 U. S. 71, 86. Quoted and explained in Morawetz on Corp. § 118; Ang. & A. on Corp. 256, n. a, 11 ed. Quoted and collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 182. Explained (Damages in troyer by mortgagee of chattels against mortgagor) in 52 Am. Dec. 679, n. Approved, as clearly stating principle, in 2 Sedgw. on Mem. of Dama. 7 ed. 393, n. Relied on (When mortgages, &c, do not cover subsequently acquired interests) in Emerson v. North American R'y Co., 67 Me. 387; s. c, 24 Am. R. 39. Parish of Bellport v. Tooker, 29 Barb. 256. Aff'd as Petty v. Tooker, in 21 N. Y. 267. Park v. Caniley, 7 How. Pr. 355. Followed (Change of venue) in Gifford v. Town of Gravesend, 8 Abb. N. C. 246, 249. ■ v. Church, 1 Code B. N. S. 47; s. c, more fully, 5 Mow. Pr. 381. v. Musgrave, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 571. Further proceeding in 6 Hun, 223. T. Park, 18 Hun, 466. AfFd in 80, K Y. 156. Decision in Id. applied (Remedies available in action for absolute divorce) in Boucicaultfl. Boucicault, 21 Hun,A31, 434. Disting'd (Enforcing payment of alimony) in Gane •». Gane, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.\ 219. See, also, Strobridge o. Stro- bridge, 21 Hun, 288. Explained (Punish- ment by contempt, for disobedience of order) in Baker «. Baker, 23 Id. 356, 360. — — v. People, 1 Bans. 263. Aff'd as Peo- ple . Stryker, 27 If. Y. 596, 604. Recognized as authority in Parker v. Smith, 1 Gilm. (6 III.) ±15; Jackson v. Hob- son, 4 Scam. (III.) 418 (Protection in execu- tion of process regular on its face). Limited in Leachman v. Dougherty, 81 III. 327 ; where Webber v. Gay, 24 Wend. 487 ; and Clearwater v. Brill, 4 Hun, 730, are "doubted. Parker Mills v. Commissioners of Taxes. See People ex rel. Parker Mills n. Commis- sioners of Taxes; Williams v. Supervisors of Wayne Co. Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt, 1 Johns. Ch. 273. Rev'd in 14 Johns. 15; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 427. See Abeel v. Radcliff ; Clason v. Bailey; Phillips!). Thompson. Decision in 14 Johns, followed (Effect of part perform- ance to take contract .out of statute of frauds) in Green v. Green, 2 Red/. 408, 410. Cited as authority in Townsend «. Houston, 1 Ilarr. (Del.) 532; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 732, 740, with note. Frequently re- ferred to in the notes to Woollam •». Hearn, 2 White & Tudor Lead. Cas. in Eq. 484 ; where the distinction between seeking and resisting specific performance, as to the admission of evidence, is discussed. Com- mented on in 3 Pars, on Contr. 395, n. g. Decision in 1 Johns. Ch. approved in Pome- roy on Sp. Per/. § 104, n.. as stating a now thoroughly established principle. De- cision in 14 Johns, relied on (Necessity of memorandum in case of sale of real estate) in Gwathney v. Cason, 74 If. C. 5 ; s. c, 21 Am. It. 484. Decision in 1 Johns. Ch. recognized as authority with Benedict v. Lynch, Id. 374 (Necessity that remedy be mutual; to entitle one to decree of special performance) in De Cordova ■». Smith, 9 Tex. 129; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 136. Followed with Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 1- Johns. Ch, 354; Town v. Needham, 3 Paige, 554 (Compensation for improve- ments made under bona fide claim of title) in Horton v. Sledge, 29 Ala. 478, 499. Parkinson v. Jacobson, 13 Bun, 317. Aff'd as Parkinson v. Sherman, in 74 If. Y. 88 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 268. Further proceeding in 18 Run, 353. Decision in Id. explained and followed (Rights under title derived from heir) in Fonda v. Chapman, 23 Id. 560 PAEKINSON— PAESONS. 119, 122. Compare (Limit of time of lien) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2750, 2751. v. Scoville, 19 Wend. 150. Said in Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn. 280, to be overruled by Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223 (Extra-territorial effect of discharge under State insolvent law). Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 439, n. w. r t. Sherman. See Bumpus v. Platner ; Parkinson ». Jacobson. Parks y. Harder, 4 Brad/. 15. Collated with ot'her cases (Valuation of land for dower) in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 399. r. Jackson, 11 Wend. 442 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 656, with note containing citations. Effect of this case stated (Judgment against vendor of land, as affected by payment made subsequently by purchaser) in Moyer v. Hinman, 13 N. Y. 180. v. Morris Ax & Tool Co., 4 Lans. 103; s. c, 60 Barb. 140; 41 Sow. Pr. 18. Affd in 54 N. Y. 586. See Hargous v. Stone ; Reed v. Randall. Decision in 54 27. Y. fol- lowed (Application of warranty in case of executory contract of sale) in Brown «. Burhans, 4 Sun, 227, 230. Approved and applied in Nichols v. Townsend, 7 Id. 378. Examined, and other cases cited, in 15 Am. L. Rev. 661. r. Parks, 19 Abo. Pr. 161. Disapproved (Validity of proceedings by or against infant without guardian) in Wolford v. Oakley, 43 Sow. Pr. 118, as. rendered without benefit of Rutter v. Puckbofer, 9 Bosw. 638. Dis- ting'd in Fairweather v. Satterly, 7 Bolt. 546; McMurrayrc. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. r. , 9 Paige, 107. Followed (Effect of valid coupled with illegal provisions in will) in Van Schuy ver v. Mulford, 59 A T . Y. 426, 433. Parmelee v. Egan, 7 Paige, 610. Said to be defectively reported, and also explained (Right of judgment creditor to attack fraud- ulent gale) in Cooke v. Smith, 3 Sandf. Ch. 333, 338. r. Hoffman Ins. Co., 54 K Y. 193. Approved as clear and emphatic (Contradic- tion of proof of loss made bv mistake) in Waldeck v. Springfield F. &"M. Ins. Co., 53 Wis. 129, 133. r. Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 7 Barb. 599. Affd in 6 JST. Y. 74. - Decision in Id. applied (Lessor when not bound to enter, to enforce forfeiture) in Allegany Oil Co. «. Bradford Oil Co., 21 Sim, 26, 32. V. Thompson, 45 J¥. Y. 58. Sec Keat- ing v. Price. Explained (Sufficiency of consideration to extend time of payment of debt) in Tammien v. Clause, 07 Barb. 431. Parmenter r. Roth, 9 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 385. Explained and extended (Limitations upon jurisdiction of county judge with respect to orders) in Town of Middletown v. Roundout & Oswego R. R. Co., 12 Id. 270. Parinly r. Tenth Ward Bank, 3 Edw. 395. Aff'd in 2 Ch. Sent. 20, but without opin- ion. Parrott r. Colby, 6 Sun, 55. Aff'd, it seems, in 71 N. Y. 597, on opinion below. Decision in 6 Sun applied (Stockholder's liability as affected by note given by cor- poration for debt) in Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 275, 28fl! Quoted in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1081, n. 17 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). r. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 2 Sweeny, 93. Rev'd in 46 N. Y. 301. Decision in Id. followed (Recovery of interest on preperly lost or destroyed by negligence) in Duryea v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 26 Sun, 120, Also followed with Walrath v. Redfield, 18 JK Y. 457, in Mairs v. Manhattan Real Estate Asso'n, 89 Id. 498. Quoted in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 670. Parsell v. Stryker, 41 N. Y. 480. Disting'd (Specific performance of contract to devise) in Shakespeare v. Markham, 10 Sun, 311, , 324. Followed (What is violation of con- stitutional provision against leases of agri- cultural lands) in Rutherford v. Graham, -i Id. 796. Parshall v. Eggart, 52 Barb. 367. Rev'd in 54 N. Y. 18. See Delaware v. Ensign. Decision in 54 N. Y. disting'd (Effect of chattel mortgage as to creditor becoming such before filing, though judgment is obtained afterwards) in Matter of Collins, 12 Blatchf. C. Ct. 548, 550. Parsons v. Barnard, 7 Johns. 144: s. c, 4 II. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 277, with brief note. Approved (Federal courts have ex- clusive cognizance of suits for infringement of patents) in Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. 582 ; Gibson v. Woodworth, 8 Paige, 134; Smith v. Mercer, 4 West. L. J. 53. r. Bowdoin, 17 Wend. 14. See Hil- dreth v. Ellice. Explained (Right of sheriff to poundage) in Campbell v. Cothran, 56 N. Y. 279, 284. Followed (Attorney's liability for sheriff's fees) in Van Kirk v. Sedgwick, 23 Sun, 37, 39. v. Brown, 5 Sun, 112. Leave given in 78 V. Y. 613, to withdraw appeal, and go to new trial before jury. v. , 15 Barb. 590. Approved and followed (Evidence of possession of real estate) in Hardenburgh v. Crary, 50 Id. 32. See to the contrary, Thistle v. Frostburgh Coal Co., 10 Md. 129. See, also, Abb. Tr. Ev. 692. Approved and followed (Right to use force in defending possession) in Sage v. Harpending, 49 Id. 166. v. Hardy, 14 Wend. 215; s. c, 12 N.Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 592, with brief note. Explained (Delivery by common carrier) in Ang. on Carr. § 332, 5 ed. v. Hughes, 9 Paige, 591. Disting'd (Effect of settlement by defrauded party, on his right to relief) in Baker v. Spencer, 47 K Y. 564. r. Johnson, 68 N. Y. 62. Collated with Voorhees i>. Burchard, 55 Id. 95 ; Comstock «. Johnson, 46 Id. 615 ; Huttemeier t. Albro, 18 Id. 48 ; Adams v. Conover, 87 Id. 422 ; Simmons v. Clooman, 47 Id. 3; Lampman PARSONS- PASSENGER. 5C1 «. Milks, 21 Id. 505; Jackson v. Striker, .1 Johns. Cas. 284, and cases from other jurisdictions (What passes as incident to grant of land) in 40 Am. R. 381, n. Ex- plained in Moah's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 433. T. Loucks, 4 Root. 216. AfTd in 48 N. Y. 17. Decision in Id. disting'd (When contract to manufacture is sale within stat- ute of frauds) in Cooke v. Millard, 65 Id. 360. Followed in Deal v. Maxwell, 51 Id. 652. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. y (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Lyman, 4 Bradf. 268. Rev'd in part as Lyman v. Parsons, 28 Barb. 566, and the latter aff'd, though with different directions as to the accounting, and without passing on the construction of the will, in 20 N. Y. 103; s. c, 18 How. Pr. 193. Decision in Id. applied (Transfer of personal property, by what law governed) in. Acker- man v. Cross, 40 Barb. 483. Approved and followed (Authority of foreign executor or administrator) in Stone v. Scripture, 4 Lans. 188. Commented on in 11 Am. Dec. 394, n., citing other cases. See Code Gj>. Pro. 1881, § 2701, n. v. Monteatli, 13 Barb. 353. See Cole v. Goodwin ; Gould n. Hill ; Hollister v. Now- len; Welles v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Explained (Right of carrier to limit his liability) in Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 364. Commented on in Ang. on Carr. § 239, a, 5 ed. t. Sutton, 39 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 544. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 92. Decision in Id. quoted and explained (Remedies of buyer in case of special damage) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1322, n. 6 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). — v. Tilden, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) aff'd in 59 K Y. 639. v. Travis, 5 Duer, 650. See (Payment into court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 743, n. Fartenheimer v. Tan Order, 20 Barb. 479. With Guille v. Swan, 19 Johns. 381, ap- plied to case of trespass (Joint liability for injury arising from acts of several act- ing independently) in Blaisdell «. Stephens, 14 Nev. 17; s. c, 33 Am. R. 525. Com- mented on in Throop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 115. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3109, n. Partridge v. Badger, 25 Barb. 146. Colla- ted with Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Co , 1 Sandf. Ch. 280; Beers v. Phoenix Glass Co., 14 Barb. 338 ; De Ruyter v. St. Peter's Church, 3 N. Y. 238 ; Clark v. Titcomb, 42 Barb. 122; Central Gold Mining Co. v. Piatt, 3 Daly, 263, and other cases in 23 Am. Dec. 740, n., as establishing, the principle beyond question {Jus disponendi as incident of own- ership in corporations). v. Colby, 19 Barb. 248. Cited with Mc- V-ean v. Scott, 46 Id. 379 ; Muir v. Demaree, 12 Wend. 468; McCaughney v. Smith, 27 AT. Y. 39 (Effect of adding to note after is- sue, additional maker's name) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 626, n. T. Eaton, 3 Hun, 533 ; s. c, more fully, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 625. Aff'd in 03 iv". Y. 482. See also (Rights in pond) Myer v. Whitaker, 5 Abb. N. C. 172, n. v. Gilbert, 3 Duer, 184. AfTd in 15 N. Y. 601. See Lampman v. Milks ; Sherred v. Cisco. Decision in 15 N. Y. explained (Right to increase height of party wall) in Brooks i. Curtis, 50 Id. 639, 643. Colla- ted with other cases in McAdam on Landl. 6 T. 2 ed. § 233. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 221, 226, 230, 234, 238, 242. Ap- plied with Sherred v. Cisco, 4 Sandf. 480 (Destruction of easement in party wall, by destruction of the wall) in Hoffman v. Kuhn, 57 Miss. 746; s. c, 34 Am. R. 491, 493, where, however, the wall itself was left standing. v. Gildermeister, 6 Bosw. 57. Aff'd in 1 Reyes. 93; s, c, 3 Abb. Gt. App. Dee. 461. v. Me nek, 2 Sandf. Ch. 622. Aff'd in 2 Barb. Ch. 101 ; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 281, with extended note, and the latter aff d in How. App. Cas. 547. See Fetridge v. Wells. Decisions in 2 Sandf. Ch- and 2 Barb. Ch. applied (Violation of right in trademark) in Merrimack Manf'g Co. v. Garner, 2 Abb. Pr. 325 ; Swift v. Dey, 4 Robt. 612. Decis- ion in 2 Sandf. Ch. applied in Corwin v. Daly, 7 Bosw. 228. Collated with other cases in Thomps. on Prov. 'Rem. 261. Col- lated with other cases in 35 Am. R. 549, n. Opinion of Walwouth,' Chancellor, quoted in 2 Pars, on Contr. Z57bh, n. i. That of Sandfokd, V. C, quoted in Id. %h1bz, n.f. Decision in 2 Barb. Gh. explained in New- man v. Alvord, 49 Barb. 596. Applied. in Glen & Hall Manf'g Co. v. Hall, 61 A 7 . Y. 233 ; Godillot v. Hazard, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 430. Cited as authority in Manf'g Co. o. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51, 62. Decision in How. App. Cas. followed in Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Br. 155; Hobba v. Francais, 19 How. Pr. 571. Decisions in 2 Sandf. Ch. and How. App. Cas. applied in Fetridge v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr. 157. v. Westervelt, 13 Wend. 500. Applied (Authority of outgoing sheriff) in Fcerick v. Conner, 60 How. Pr. 506, 509. Paskoag Bank t. Hnnt, 3 Edw. 583. Questioned (Right to follow in equity, secu- rities illegally obtained) in Newton «. Por- ter, 5 Lain. 416, citing Bank of America v. Pollock, 4 Edw. 583. Passaic M'f'g Co. v. Hoffman, 3 Daly, 495, Explained and compared (When contract to manufacture is sale within statute of frauds) in Cooke -o. Millard, 65 N Y. 363. Ex- plained in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. y (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.). Passenger v. Thorburn, 35 Barb. 17. Aff'd in 34 N~. Y. 634. See Cary v. Grumafl. Decision in 34 N. Y. disting'd (Representa- tions that amount to warranty) in dis- senting opinion in Brown v. Tuttle, 06 Barb. 178. Limited (Damages for breach of special warranty) in Whitney ». Tay- lor, 54 Barb. 539. Disting'd in Ed- wards v. Collson, 5 Bans. 328. Ex- 562 PATCHEN— PATTERSON. plained (Allowance of expected gains as damages for breach of contract for delivery of merchandise) in Kemp v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 51 How. Pr. 42; Albert v. Bleecker St. K. R. Co., 2 Daly, 394. Followed in "White v. Miller, 7 Hun. 438, which was rev'd in 71 If. Y. 132, which see ; Schutt v. Baker, 9 Hun, 557; Parks v. Morris Ax & Tool Co., 54 JV. Y 592. Disting'd in Van "Wyck «. Allen, 69 Id. 67. Approved in Milburn v. Belloni, 39 Id. 54. Cited ap- provingly with White v. Madison. 26 AT. Y. 117 ; White «. Miller, 71 Id. 118, in Herring *>. Skaggs, 62 Ala. 180 ; s. C, 34 Am. R. 4. Followed with Schutt v. Baker, 9 Hun, 556 ; Van Wyck v. Allen, 69 If. Y. 62; Milburn v. Belloni, 39 Id. 53 ; White v. Miller, 71 Id. 118, in Jones v. George, 61 Tex. 345; s. 3., 48 Am. R. 280, 289. Followed in Lewis D. Rountree, 79 N. ft 122; s. c, 28 Am. B. 309. Included with note in Sedgw. Gas. on Dama. 533. Patclicu v. Devin, 37 Barb. 430. Rev'd as Bevin v. Patching 26 N. Y. 441; a. c, less fully, 25 How. Pr. 5. Patchiu v. Trustees of Brooklyn, 2 Wend. 377. Affd in 8 Id. 47. See Striker v. Kelly. Decision in 2 Wend, approved with Striker v. Kelly, 2 Den. 32;S; Matter of Canal Street, 11 Wend. 154 (What is a judi- cial power) and applied to case of admission of attorneys, in Matter of Cooper, 22 If. Y. 67, 83. Paterson v. Bangs, 9 Paige, 627. Said to have been overruled, and also criticised and disting'd (Intervention of court of equity after judgment) in Pollock v. Gilbert, 16 Oa. 398; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 732, with note. Paton v. Westervelt, 5 How. Pr. 399. Re- ferred to in 1 Am. Dec. 342, •«., as over- ruled (Perpetuation of testimony, as matter of right). Cited (Depositions in perpetual memory, when to be taken) in 1 Whart. Com. on Bv. § 183, n. v. Wriglit. See Demihg v. Colt. Patrick v. Commercial Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 14. Questioned (What is predominating and efficient cause of loss under marine policy) in Brown v. St. Nicholas Ins. Co., 61 If. Y. 332, 343. Disting'd in Sauter v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 Id. 53, a case of a railroad accident. t. Excelsior Life Ins. Co., 4 Hun, 263 ; s. c, more fuXy, 67 Barb. 202. v. Hallett, 1 Johns. 241. Followed with Talcot «. Commercial Ins. Co., 2 Id. 120 (When presumption of unseaworthiness may ' be repelled) in Snethen v. Memphis Ins. Co., 3 La. Ann. 474; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 462, with note. v. Ludlow, 3 Johns. Gas. 10; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 130 ; IK Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 600, with brief note on deviation. v. Metcalf, 9 Bosw. 483.' Affd on the merits in 37 N. Y. 332. Decision in Id. followed (Right of action against one re- ceiving payment under claim of right, to the exclusion of another's claim) in Butter- worth v. Gould, 41 Id. 456. Followed with Butterworth v. Gould, in Osby v. Conant, 5 Lans. 310. Followed in Rowe v. Bank of Auburn, 51 If. Y. 674; Peckham v. Van Wagenen, 83 Id. 40, 45. Disting'd in Carver v. Creque, 48 Id. 389 ; Hathaway v. Town of Cincinnatus, 62 Id. 434, 445; Lake v. Devoe Manufacturing Co., 7 Daly, 161, 163. Approved with Butterworth ». Gould, 41 A 7- Y. 450 ; Rowe v. Bank of Auburn, 51 Id. 674; Hathaway v. Town of Homer, 54 Id. 655 ; Decker v. Salzman, 50 Id. 275, in Nolan v. Manton, Sup'm. Ct. If. J. 1884, 18 Reporter, 402. Patrie v. Murray, 28 How. Pr. 312. Cora- pare (Power of Congress to confer original jurisdiction on U. S. circuit courts) in Peo- ple v. Murray, 5 Park. 577. Patten v. Accessory Transit Co., 4 Abb. Pr. 139. Rev'd in 4 Id. 235. V. Harris, 10 Wend. 633. Disting'd (Granting leave to plead, after judgment on demurrer) in Fisher v. Gould, 81 N. Y. 228, 231 v. N. T. Elevated R. R. Co., 3 Abb. N.C. 306. Appeal from affirmance of injunction dismissed in 67 N. Y. 484. Decision in 3 Abb. If. G. disting'd (Damages to owners of land abutting on railroad) in Caro t. Metrop. Elev. Ry. Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 138, 160. Compare Washington Ceme- tery t>. Prospect Park, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. N. C. 15. t Stitt, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 346. Overruled as to costs in 50 N. Y. 591. Patterson, Matter of, 18 Hun, 221. Affd, it seems, in 78 N. Y. 608, on opinion of court below. See matter of Burr. Patterson v. Baker, 3 Hun, 398; s. c, reported in 6 Sup'm.Gt. (T. & G.) 76. v. Birdsall, 6 Bun, 632. Aff'd in 64 N. Y. 294; s. c, 21 Am. R. 609. Both deci- sions disting'd (Right of usurious lender to be subrogated to security of prior incum- brance) in Baldwin v. Moffett, 26 Hun, 209 ; which was affd in 94 If. Y. 82, which see. Decision in 64 Id. disting'd (Valid obligation as affected by being made sub- ject of contract void for usury) in Wyeth ». Braniff, 84 Id. 627, 633. v. Brewster, 4 Edw. 322. Disting'd and criticised (Ordinary rules of partner- ship as applicable to partnerships in buying and selling land) in Chester v. Dickerson, 54 If. Y. I, 11. v. Choate, 7 Wend. 441. See Johnson v. Beardslee; Van Keuren v. Parmelee. Overruled (Effect of acknowledgment by one partner after dissolution to remove bar of statute of limitations as to rest) in Van Keuren ». Parmelee, 2 JV. Y. 523. Fol- lowed in Wheelock v. Doolittle, 18 Verm. 440; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 163, with note. V. Ellis, 11 Wend. 259; with points of counsel Id. 672. See Loder v. Hatfield. Disting'd (Legacy, when vested) in Eventt *. Everitt, 29 Barb. 114, which was rev'd PATTERSON— PAUL. 5C3 in 29 K Y. 39, 76, which see; Five Points House of Industry v. Amerman, 11 Hun, 163. Applied in Booth v. Cornell, 2 Red/. 263. Disting'd (Limitation over, when repugnant to prior gift) in Smith v. Van Ostrand, 64 K T. 2.84. Explained (Effect of limitation over after death of prior taker without issue) in Norris v. Beyea, 13 Id. 279, which rev'd 15 Barb. 426, which see. Disting'd in Trustees of Theol. Sein. of Auburn v. Kellogg, 16 N. Y. 91. Quoted in 3 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 298, n. 2. ■ v. Patterson, 47 How. Pr. 242. Aff d in 1 Hun, 323 ; which was affd in part, in 59 N. Y. 574; s. c, 17 Am. R. 384. Decision in Id. examined and applied (Set-off of claim not due at decedent's death, in action by personal representative) in Jordan v. Shoe & Leather B'k, 474 Id. 467, 474. Ex- plained as an exception to the general rule in McLaughlins. Winner, 63 Wis. 120, 129. Explained (Necessity of mutual right of action at same time, to enable set-off) in Taylor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 82 Id. 10, 17. Thought (Liability for funeral ex- pense) in 9 Am. Dec. 652, n., to be not in- consistent with Gregory v. Hooker, 1 Hawks. (W. G) 394; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 646, and other cases. v. , 13 Johns. 379. Followed as decisive (Liability on agreement to compen- sate by will) in Campbell v. Campbell, 65 Barb. 639, 645. Cited as authority in Jil- son v. Gilbert, 26 Wis. 637; s. c, 7 Am. R. 100, 104. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 54,™./. v. People, 46 Barb. 625. Disapproved as contrary to all authority (Duty of pris- oner to prove justification beyond reason- able doubt) in People v. Schry ver, 42 N. Y. 1, 8. v. Perry, 5 Bosw. 518; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. 82, where opinion of Hoffman, J., is given at length. v. Stettauer, 39 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 413. Further proceeding in 40 Id. 54. De- [ cision in 39 Id. collated with other cases (What cases are referable) in 1 Abb. W. G. 110, n. t. Westervelt, 17 Wend. 543. Fol- lowed with Bank of Rome v. Curtiss, 1 Hill, 275 ; Pardee v. Robertson, 6 Id. 550 (Dam- ages in action against sheriff, &c.) in Evans Governor, 18 Ala. 659; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 172. Cited approvingly in 2 Sedgw. on Meas. of Dama. 7 ed. 451. PatMson v. Adams, 7 Hill, 126; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 59, with note, wherein are col- lected citations of the case. Prior decision in Hill & D. 426. Decision in 7 Hill disting'd with Scofleld v. Whitlegge, 49 'IF. Y. 259 (Allegations as to property, in com- plaint in replevin) in Morrison v. Lewis, 49 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 178. Cited as author- ity in Vanderminden v. Elsas, 36 Id. 06. Decision in Hill & D. questioned as an authority under present system of pleading (Answer of title in third person in replevin) in Stowell v. Otis, 71 R. Y. 36, 38. v. Blancliard, 6 Barb. 537. AfTd in 5 N. Y. 186. Decision in Id. cited (When joint enterprise does not constitute partner- ship) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 40, n. Discussed in 1 Gollyer on Partn. § 50, Wood's Am. ed. V. Hull, 9 Cow. 747; s. c, 9 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 800, with brief note. See Bank of Albion v. Smith ; Green v. Hart. Applied ( Application of payments) in Dows v. More- wood, 10 Barb. 189. Doubted in Gaston v. Barney, 11 Ohio St. 512. Collated with other cases in 38 Am. Dee. 440, n. See cases collected in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. 8 262. Commented on in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 352. Explained in 2 Chitty on Gontr. 1114, n. z, 11 Am. ed. Followed (Necessity of cross-bill in foreclosure pro- ceedings) in Schwarz v. Sears, Walk. Oh. (Mich.) 174, where also Hine v. Handy, 1 Johns. Oh. 6; Nichols v. Wilson, 4 Id. 115, were explained as not authorities for giving positive relief to mortgagee. Followed (Interest in mortgage passes as incident to mortgage debt) in Buck v. Swazey, 35 Me. 41 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 681. v. Powers, 8 Paige, 549. Overruled (Necessity of discontinuance of action on mortgage debt, in case of foreclosure suit) in Williamson v. Champlin, 8 Id. 70; Suydam v. Bartles, 9 Id. 294. Followed with Corn- stock v. Drohan, 71 N. Y. 9; Scofleld ». Doscher, 72 Id. 491 (Parties to foreclosure suit) in Vanderbilt v. Schrever, 91 Id. 392. v. Richards, 22 Barb. 143. See Leaven- worth v. Packer. Applied (Counter-claim against tort) in Cheever «. Gilbert Elev. R. Cp., 43 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 478, 496. v. Syracuse Nat. B'k, 1 Han, 606 ; s. c. fully reported in 4 Sup'm. Ot. (T. &, C.) 96. Further decision in 17 Hun, 419; which was aft'd in 80 N. Y. 82 ; s. c, 30 Am. II. 582, with note, and 2 Browne's Nat. B'k Cas. 319. Decision in Id. approved (Power of national banks to receive special deposits) in First Nat. B'k v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699. Cited approvingly in 2 Pars, on Contr. 90, n. 1 Keller's ed. See authorities collected in 6 South. L. Rev. N. S. § 4, p. 518. Patty v. Milne, 16 Wend. 557. AfTd in 22 Id. 588, but without opinion. v. Pease, 8 Paige, 277; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 683. Applied (Effect of release, &c. of part of mortgaged premises) in Kendall v. Woodruff, 87 N. Y. 1, 7. Approved with Guion v. Knapp, 6 Paige, 35, in Igle- hart v. Wesson, 42 III. 267. Paul v. Lahe, 3 Weelchj Dig. 512. Contra- diction in report explained in 7 Abb. iV. Y. Dig. {Supp.) 743, n. v. Mnnger, 47 N. Y. 469. Followed (Effect of order dissolving preliminary in- junction) in People v. Schoonmaker, 50 Id. 499. 504 PAULDING— PEAKE. Paulding v. Cooper, 10 Hun, 20. AfTd, it seems, in 74 N. Y. 611), but without opinion. Decision in 10 Hun applied (Limit of cost of municipal contract) in People ex rel. Mur- phy «. Kelly, 5 Abb. N. ft 383. 459. Pawling v. Bird, 13 Johns. 102. See Kin- nier ». Kinnier. Overruled (Effect of judg- ment obtained in another State) in Andrews ■». Montgomery, 19 Jo/ins. 162. Cited ap- provingly in 1 Kent Com. 261, n. b, with many other authorities. v Willson, 13 Johns. 192; s. c, 5 JT. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 584, with brief note. Payn, Matter of, 8 How. Br. 220. See (Committee of lunatic, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2322, n. Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 134. Disting'd (Who mav defend in foreclosure suit) in Smith v. Hathorn, 25 Id. 159, 162. Payne t. Baldwin, 14 Barb. 570. Questioned (Agreement to answer for another obliga- tion, when collateral) in Quintard v. De "Wolf, 34 Burb. 97, 102. • v. Burnhani, 2 Hun, 143 ; mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (1\ & C.) 678. Rev'd in 62 K T. 69. Decision, in Id. followed (Purchaser of usurious mortgage, to what extent pro- tected) in Coffin «j. Brooks, N. Y. Daily Reg. Aug. 26, 1882. Followed (Mortgagor's affidavit, &c, how far an estoppel against defense of usury) in Hirsch v. Trainer, 3 Abb. N. G. 279; Smyth v. Lotnburdo, 15 Hun, 417; Smyth v. Munroe, 84 K Y. 362. Limited in Grissler «. Powers, 53 How. Pr. 197, which was affd in 81 N. Y. 60, which see. Disting'd in Fleischmann v. Stern, 24 Hun, 265, 268, a case of a note. Examined with other cases (Requisites of estoppel, in pais) in Victor v. International Nav. Co., 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 129, 143. — — v. Cutler, 13 Wend. 605. See Bay v. Coddington ; Root v. French ; Wardell v. Howell. Reviewed with other cases (Effect of transfer for pre-existing debt, as consti- tuting holder for value of commercial paper) in Farrington v. Frankfort B'k, 24 Barb. 5'63. Disting'd in De Zeng c Fyfe, 1 Bosw. 337. Followed in Stalker v. Mc- Donald, 6 H\ll, 98 ; Clark v. Ely, 2 Sand/. Ch. 171. v. Eden. See Callagan v. Hallett ; Wig- gin v. Bush. v. Gardiner, 29 K Y. 146. Aff'g Payne v. Slate, 39 Barb. 634. See Herrick v. Woolverton ; Winchell v. Hicks. Decis- ion in 29 JV. Y. explained (Effect as prom- issory note, of instrument acknowledging receipt of money) in Frank v. Wessels, 64 Id, 158. Applied (Distinction between loan and deposit) in Upton v. N. Y. & Erie B'k, •13 Hun, 272. Explained in Pardee v. Fish, 60 2f. Y. 269. Disting'd with Thomson v. Bank of British K A., 82 Id. 1 ; Boughton v. Flint, 74 Id. 476 (Necessity of demand, in order to set statute of limitations run- ning) in Compton v. Elliott, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 211. Dicta disapproved (Limita- tion of action on demand note, &c.) in Hirst v. Brooks, 50 Barb. 337. Explained in Sullivan v. Fosdick, 10 Hun, 179. Applied in Munger v. Albany City Nat. B'k, 8o N. Y. 580, 587. Both decisions explained in Herrick v. Woolverton, 41 Id. 595. Sea Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. t. Hathaway, 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 21. Explained and followed (Security for costs in justices' courts) in Mellen v. Hutchins, 8 Abb. XT. C. 228. v. Hodge, 7 Hun, 612. AfTd in 71 2V. Y. 598, but without opinion. Decision in 7 Hun followed (Admissibility of evidence based on memoranda) in Mavor, &c. of N. Y. v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 31 Id. 241. — — v. Ladue, 1 Hill, 116. See Bank of Albion v. Smith; Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Approved (Want of consideration as defense to action on note) in Walker v. Crawford, 56 III. 444; s. c, 8 Am. B. 701. y. Matthews, 6 Paige, 19; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 738, with note, wherein are collected citations. Disapproved (Respective rights of partnership and separate creditors) in Kirby «. Carpenter, 7 Barb. 373, 378. v. Sheldon, 43 How. Pr. 1. Rev'd in 63 Barb. 169. T. Slate. See Payne v. Gardiner. v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 9 Hun, 526. Subsequent decision in 83 K Y. 572. Decision in 9 Hun- applied (Inadmissibility of evidence of subsequent acts, to show negligence) in Morrell.v. Peck, 24 Id. 37. Followed (Question of negligence, when one of fact) in Urquhart v. City of Ogdens- burgh, 13 Weekly Dig. 108. v. Wilson, 11 Hun, 302. Aff'd in 74 N. Y. 348. Peabody v. Beach, 6 Duer, 53; s. c, more fully, 3 Abb. Pr. 353. v. Roberts; 47 Barb. 91. Applied (Ef- fect of foreclosure on dower interest if wife is not made party)' in Ross v. Boardman, 22 Hun, 527, 529. See (Limitation of action to redeem prior mortgage) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 379, n. v. Speyers, 56 N. Y. 230. See Cook v. Barr. Followed (Validity of contract to sell gold or silver coin) in Bigelow v. Bene- dict, 9 Hun, 432 ; which was aft'd in 70 N. Y. 207, which see. Explained (Note or memorandum required by statute of frauds) in 1 Benj. on Sales, S 231, n. 28, 4 Am. ed. Peacock v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 1 Bosw. 338. Affd in 20 K Y. 293. See Mtna Fire Ins. Co. v. Tyler. Peak v. Lennon, 1 Bans. 295. Affd, it seems, in 49 iv". Y. 666, but without opin- ion. Peake v. Bell. 7 Hun, 454. Disapproved (Power - to set aside verdict, as against weight of evidence) and Shearman v. Hen- derson, 12 Id. 170, followed in McCarthy v. Christopher St., &c. R. R. Co., 10 Daly., 540. Disapproved in Shearman v. Hender- son, 12 Dun, 170. Disapproved with Sick- les v. Gillies, 45 How. Pr. 94 ; Rowe v. PEAPCE— PECK. "65 Stevens, 44 Id. 10, in Kelly v. Frazier, 27 Hun, 314. Pearce v. Ferris, 10 N~. Y. 280. Discussed (Complaint in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on . Tr. of Tit. to Land, $ 452. Pearl v. Rabitschek, 2 Daly, 138. Followed (Attorney's lien for costs, as affected by set- tlement) in "Wright v. Wright, 7 Id. 62. Pearsall v. Post, 20 Wend. 111. Aff'd in 22 Id. 425. Decision in 20 II. reviewed with other cases (Mode of alleging interestorprofit lu soil of another) in Littlefield v. Maxwell, 31 Me. 134 ; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 653, 655, with note. Collated with other case, and com- mented on (Right to use adjoiniug banks of stream, as place of public landing) in Cook's Highw. L. 4 ed. 24. Quoted and collated ■with other cases, in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 6. Compared and doctrine discussed in 4 Am. L. Reg. N~. S. 520. Col- lated with other cases (Changing purpose for which land has been dedicated) in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 17. Pearse v. Pettis, 47 Barb. 276. Explained and disting'd (Rescission of contract of sale) in Kinney ». Kicrnan, 2 Lans. 492 ; which was rev'd in 49 HT. Y. 164, which sec. Pearson v. Lovejoy, 53 Barb. 407. Sec (Notice of appeal in justices' court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3046, n. ■ v. Pearson, 7 Johns. 26; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 237, with brief note. Fol- lowed with Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns. 145 (Enforcing promise to pay money as gift) in Hall v. Howard's Adm'rs, Rice's law (So. Car.) 310; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 115, with note; "Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598, being disap- proved as contrary to principle and author- ity, in so far as it asserts a contrary doc- trine. v. Williams, 24 Wend. 244. Aff'd in 26 Id. 630. See Bagley «. Peddie. Decis- ion in 26 Id. discussed (Liquidated dama- ges) in 2 Chittyon Contr. 1317, n. e\ 1318, 11 Am. ed. Pease v. Barber, 3 Cai. 266. See Oillet v. Maynard. Examined with Reid v. Rensse- laer Glass Factory, 3 Cow. 423 ; People v. Gasherie, 9 Johns. 71 (Interest) in Beards- lee v. Horton, 3 Mich. 564. v. Copp, 67 Barb. 132. Explained (Duty of vendee to examine goods delivered) in Benj. on Sales, § 701, n. d< (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Howard, 14 Johns. 479. Followed (Action of debt on judgment not barred by statute of limitations) in Dudley v. Lindsey 9 B. Monr. (Ky.) 486; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 522, with note. Discussed iu Ang. on Limit. §§ 79, 82, 85. ed Cited as author- ity (Judgment is not contract) in Sprott v. Reid, 3 67. Greene (Iowa) 489 ; s. c, 56 Am Dee. 549, 553. ■ v. Morgan, 7 Johns. 468. Explained (When averment that note was made or indorsed by several, is supported by proof that one signed for all) in Nash «. Skinner, 12 Verm. 219; s. c, 36 Am. Dee. 338, 341.' t, Smith, 5 Lans. 519. AfTd in 61 K Y. 477. Decision in Id. approved (Effect of testimony of witness who has made false statements) in Deering v. Metcalf, 74 Id. 501, 505. Pechner y. Phoenix Ins. Co., 6 Lans. 411. Affd in 05 N. Y. 195; which was affd as Ins. Co. d. Pechner, 95 U. S. 183. Decision in 65 JV. Y. explained ("Waiver by insurance agent) in Marvin v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 85 Id. 278, 283. Followed in Goodwin v. Mass. Milt. Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 480, 491, 495. Reviewed at' length with East- erly v. Barber, 66 Id. 433; Batterman v. Pierce, 3 Hill, 171; Reab v. McAlister, 8 Wend. 109; Hutchins v. Hebbard, 34 N. Y. 24; Barry ». Ransom, 12 Id. 462; Hope v. Balen, 58 Id. 380; Messmore v. N. Y. Shot & Lead Co., 40 Id. 422; White's B'k of .Buffalo v. Myles, 17^5. L. J. 433; Book- staver v. Jayne, 60 ■ N. Y. 146; Johnson v. Hathorn, 3 Keyes, 126; Western N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Clinton, 66 JV. Y. 331 ; Bowen v. Bell, 20 Johns. 338 ; Renard v. Sampson, 12 If. Y. 561, 56G; Benton v. Martin, 52 Id. 570; Souverby v. Arden, 1 Johns. Oh. 253 ; Johnson v. Mcintosh, 31 Barb. 267 ; Burbank v. Beach, 15 Id. 326, 332 ; Frost «. Everett, 5 Cow. 497; Martin ». Rapelye, 3 Edw. 229 ; Hunt v. Bloomer, 5 Duer, 202 ; Farm. & Manuf. B'k i>. Winfield, 24 Wend. 419; Thompsons. Ketcham, 8 Johns. 190; Van Allen v. Allen, i Hilt. 524; Erwin v. Saunders, 1 Cow. 249 ; Payne v. Ladue, 1 Hill, 116; Ely v. Kilborn, 5 Den. 514; Gridley v. Dole, 4 N. Y. 486; Lewis v. Jones, 7 Bosw. 366 ; Norton «. "Woodruff, 2 iV. Y. 153 ; Giles «. Comstock, 4 Id. 270 ; Clark v. Baird, 9 Id. 183; Lawler ». Le Roy, 2 Sand/. 202 (Oral agreements contem- poraneous with written contracts) in Bulls' Head Bank v. Koehler, 1 City Ct. 264. Peck v. Acker, 20 Wend 605. Disting'd (Right of sheriff's indemnitors to select counsel iu action against sheriff) in Preston v. Yates, 17 Hun, 92, 94. See Code Ok. Pro. 1881, § 1421, n. v. Briggs, 3 Den. 107. Quoted (Main- tenance) in Benj. on Sales, § 529, n. p (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 2 Chitty on Contr. 996, n. d, 11 Am. ed. v. Burr. 10 N. Y. 294. Collated with other cases (Application of doctrines of rati- fication and estoppel to municipal contracts) in 5 Abb. N. 0. 49, n. v. Cary, 27 N. Y. 9. See Rutherford v. Rutherford. Disting'd (Sufficiency of proof of publication of will) in Abbey v. Christy, 49 Barb. 279 ; Matter of Smith, 40 How. Pr. 125; Heath «. Cole, 15 Hun, 104. Applied iu Willis v. Mott, 36 H. Y. 493 ; Gilbert v. Knox, 52 Id. 129 ; Norton v. Norton, 2 Red/. 15; Mairs v. Freeman, 3 Id. 195. Applied (Effect of habitual intoxication, to incapacitate testator) in McLaughlin's Will, 2 Id. 513. Included with notes in Red/. Lead. Cas. on Wills, 326. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Comt. \ 476, n. 1. 566 PECK— PELL. t. Collins, 70 Jff. Y. 376. Affd in 103 U. 8. G60. Decision in 70 N. Y. fol- lowed (Effect of decision in interference proceedings, on validity of patent) in Mars- ton v. Swett, 82 Id. 5a6, 531. v. Elder, 3 Sandf. 126. Followed (Joinder of owners of separate premises in proceedings to abate nuisance) in Gillespie v. Forrest, 18 Hun, 112. Quoted and dis- cussed (Smells as nuisance) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 585. v. Ellis, 2 Johns. Oh. 131. See Cun- ningham v. Pell; Miller v. Fenton. Followed with Miller v. Fenton, 11 Paige, 18 (Con- tribution between wrongdoers) in Boyd v. Gill, U. S. Cir. Ct. 8. D. IT. 7. 19 Fed. Rep. 146. Cited as authority with Miller v. Fenton, in Ervin v. Oregon R'y & Nav. Co., U. S. Cir. Ct. 8. D. K Y. 20 Fed. Hep. 582. Cited (Basis of jurisdiction in case of contribution between sureties) in dissenting opinion in Waters' Representa- tives v. Riley's Adm'r, 2 Harr. & G. (Md.) 305; s. c, 18 Am. Dee. 302-309, with note. v. Foot, 4 How. Pr. 425. Overruled (Validity of return by judges gone out of office) in Harris v. Whitney, 6 Id. 175. V. Hiler, 24 Barb. 178; s. c, 14 How. Pr. 155. Subsequent proceedings in 30 Barb. 655, and 31 Id. 116. v. Ingersoll, 7 N. Y. 528. Followed (Effect of payment of rent, by under-tenant to head landlord) in Raubitscheck v. Scm- ken, 4 Abb. JST. O. 205, n. v. Mallauis, 10 N. Y. 505. See Frost v. Beekman; Jackson e. McChesney. Dis- ting'd (Contract when void for uncertainty) in Durant v. Kennedy, 32 Hun, 634. Ex- plained and head-note, criticised (Mortgage, when private property of executor) in People v. Keyser, 28 N. Y. 226, 233; citing also Babcock v. Beman, 11 Id. 200 ; and Chouteau v. Suydam, 21 Id. 179. ■ v. Minot, 4 Bobt. 323. Affd in 4 Tranc. App. 27; s. c, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 465. y. Newton, 46 Barb. 173. Application of principle herein questioned (Effect, un- der the Code, of distinction between pro- ceedings at law and in equity) in Pomeroy on Hem. § 68, n. 1. - v. N. Y. Central, &c. E. R. Co., 4 Hun, 236; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 436. Confirmed on further decision in 8 Hun, 286; which was aff'd in 70 N. Y. 587. Decision in 4 -Hun explained (Setting aside verdict for excessive damages) in Gale v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 13 Id. 5. • v. Kiliidall, 1 Johns. 105. See Willcox v. Smith. Followed (Statute of limitations as affected by subsequent disability) in Faysoux v. Prather, 1 JTUt & McC. (Ho. Car.) 296; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. GUI ; Ruff's Adm'r v. Bull, 7 Han: & J. {Mel.) 14; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 290, with note. Reviewed (Proper defenses to actions -for salvage) in Waples on Proc. in Bern, § 512. v. Sherwood, 56 K Y. 615. Disting'd ' (Effect of provision in will upon exemption of personal property) in Matter of Frazer 92 Id. 239. Followed (Apportionment, as between life tenant and remainderman) in Gillespie v. Brooks, 2 Bed/. 349, 364. v. Von Keller, 15 Hun, 470. Aff'd in 75 N. Y. 604. v. Yorks, 24 How. Pr. 363. Aff'd in 41 Barb. 547. Further decisions in proceed- ings between same parties, as it seems, in 47 Id. 131; 75 JT. Y.. 421. Decision in 47 Barb, criticised and disapproved (Condi- tional admission of evidence) in Kerslake v. Schoonmaker, 1 Hun, 436. With decision in 75 JT. Y. see (Costs in case of transfer of action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3247, n. v. Young, 26 Wend. 613. Relied on (What constitutes citizenship) in State v. Adams, 45 Iowa, 99; s. c, 24 Am. B. 760. Peckhani v. Henderson, 27 Barb. 207. See Dygert v. Schenck. Re-asserted (Distinc- tion between encroachment and nuisance) in Griffith v. McCullum, 46 Barb. 561. Commented on in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §255. v. Smith, 9 How. Pr. 436. Said in Belmont «. Coleman, 21 IT. Y. 101; Miller «. White, 8 Abb: Pr. IT. 8. 52, to have been affd at General Term. v. Van Wagenen, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 328. Affd in 83 JT. Y. 40; s. c, 38 Am. B. 392. Decision in 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) explained (Title to stock dividends) in Herrmann v. Maxwell, 47 Id. 347, 351. Peel v. Metropolitan Police, 44 Barb. 91. Said in 41 How. Pr. 638, to have been rev'd by Ct. of App. in June, 1866. Peet v. McGraw, 21 Wend. 667j Subsequent decision in 25 Id. 653. See Grinnell v. Cook. Decision in 21 Id. cited (No writ of error until final judgment) in Bogert «. Peo- ple, 6 Hun, 262, 264. Decision in 25 Wend. explained (Necessity that owner of goods i)e guest, to create innkeeper's liability) in Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485, 488 ; Ingals- bee v. Wood, 36 Barb. 452, 457. Pegram v. Carson, 10 Bosw. 505. See Jen- nings v. Merrill. Disting'd (Possession en- abling factor to pledge) in Howlaud v. Woodruff, 16 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 422. Pell y. Grigg, 7 Cow. 426. Disting'd (Dis- charge of surety on undertaking given on granting provisional remedy) in Jewett v. Crane, 13 Abb. Pr. 97, 100. v. Lovett, 19 Wend. 546. Rev'd in 22 Id. 369. v. Ulmar, 21 Barb. 500. Rev'd in 18 If. Y. 139. See Phyfe v. Riley. Decision in 18 N. Y. examined and followed (Fore- closure by loan commissioners) in White v. Lester, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 588. Ex- plained in Thompsons. Commrs. for Loaning Certain Moneys of U. S., 79 IT. Y. 01. Dictum questioned as unsupported by au- thority (Mortgagee obtaining possession without force) in Withercll «. Wiberg, 4 Sawyer, 232. Decision in 21 Barb, exam- PELLETREAU— PENNIMAN. 567 ined with other cases (Execution of power conferred on several) in First Nat. B'k of North Bennington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 Vt. 87; s. c, 36 Am. R. 734, 741. Pelletreau v. Jackson, 11 Wend. 110. AfTd as Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Id. 178. Over- ruled (Release of contingent interest) in Miller v. Emans, 19 N. Y. 384. Approved in Bogy ». Shoab, 13 Mo. 366, 380. v. Moore. See Roosevelt v. Fulton. t. Smith, 30 Barb. 494. See (Sale of decedent's real property where undivided interest or precedent e9tate is created by will) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2764, n. Peltier v. Collins, 3 Wend. 459; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 711, with note, wherein it is thought to establish the general rule, and Adams v. Gray 8 Conn. 11; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 82, with note, an exception (Parol evidence to explain terms of contract of sale). Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 209, n. 6 (Oorbin's 4 Am. ed.). V. Sewall, 3 Wend. 269. Overruled (Necessity of declaring on special agree- ment) in further decision in 12 Id. 386. But see Clark v. Smith, 14 Johns. 326; Wood v. Edwards, 19 Id. 205; and Phil, on Ev. 109. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 23. Aff'd in 77 XT. Y. 605. Pender v. People, 18 Hun, 560. See cases cited (Juror when disqualified by opinion) in 20 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 117, n. Compare Points of Law in Guiteau's Case. p. 83 (Boston: Little, Brown. & Co., 1881). Pendleton v. Myett, 4 Cow. 581. Rev'd in Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Id. 727. v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 19 iV. Y. 13. Followed (Proof of inconsistent statements by witness) in Ryerson v. Abington, 102 Mass. 530. See also 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 549. v. Fay, 2 Paige, 202. Subsequent decision in 3 Id. 204. Decision in 3 Id. followed (Supplemental complaint, when not to be allowed) in Sage v. Mosher, 17 Abb. Pr. 373. Applied (Notice that puts purchaser on inquiry) in Bassett v. Lederer, 1 Bun, 277. Decision in 2 Paige; followed in Baynard v. Norris, 5 Gill (Md.) 468 ; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 647, which was confirmed on this point in Price v. McDonald, 1 Md. 403 ; s. c. 54 Am. Dec. 657, 661, citing Pendleton v. Fay, and other cases. v. Hughes, 65 Barb. 136. Aff'd, it seems, in 53. JY. Y. 626, on this opinion, no further opinion being given. v. Weed, 17 N. Y. 72. Decision on motion in Sup'm. Ct. in 1 Abb. Pr. 51. With decision in 17 W. Y. compare (Effect of use of part of account in evidence) Wal- den v. Sherburne, 15 Johns. 409. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 326. Pendril v. Second Ave. R. K. Co., 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 481 ; s. c, with points of coun- sel, 43 How. Pr. 399. Penflcld y. Carpenter, 13 Johns. 350. Explained (Cure of error created by admis- sion of improper evidence) in Meyer v. Clark, 2 Daly, 498, 519. Dissented from with Tuttle v. Hunt, 2 Cow. 436, in Span- v. Wellman, 11 Mo. 230, 230. v. James, 12 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 247. We are informed by counsel that this decision was subsequently rev'd at General Term, but without opinion. Further proceeding in 56 K Y. 659. Mem. of further pro- ceedings in 4 IIu. Cunningham, 20 How. Pr. 154, and other cases, as fully sustaining the established doctrine (Action based on transaction forbidden by statute, not maintainable) in 8 Am. Dec. 691, n. Peunock v. White, 10 Weekly Dig. 74. Aff'd in 85 K Y. 654. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Blake, 20 Alb. L. I J. 54. Aff'd in 85 N. Y. 226. Decision in Id. explained (Liability of one guaranteeing to pay mortgage debt on condition) in Van- derbilt v. Schreyer, 91 N. Y. 392. y. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 29 Burl. 589. Aff'd in 1 Keyes, 72. An- other decision in 31 N. Y. 91. See Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. See No. 62 of Charles O'Conor's " My Own Cases " now in the Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Head-note to decision in 11 Keyes criticised in Pomeroy on Bern. § 81, n. 3, as not sustained by the decision. Penny v. Corwitue, 18' Johns. 499. Re- viewed with other cases (Effect of alteration of written agreement by consent of parties) in Collins i>. Collins, 51 Miss. 311; s. c, 24 Am. B. 632, 637. v. Martin, 4 Johns. Oh. 566. See Rob- ertson u. Smith. Discussed with Marvin v. Bennett, 26 Wend. 169; Stettheimer v. Kil- lip, 75 JV. Y. 282; Whittemore v. Farring- ton, 76 Id. 452 (Relief against contract on ground of mistake) in Knapp v. Fowler, 30 Bun, 512. Pentz v. Brown, 5 K Y. Leg. Obs. 19. Overruled in effect (Liability on agreement to pay for party- wall) in Brown v. Pentz, 11 JT. Y. Leg. Obs. 24 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 227. v. Receiver of .Etna Fire Ins. Co., 3 Edw. 341. Rev'd in 9 Paige, 568. • v. Stanton, 10 Wend. 271 ; s. c, 25 . Am. Dec. 558, with note; and 11 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 854, with brief note. See Hills v. Bannister ; Rathbon v. Budlong. Disting'd (Liability of one contracting as agent) in Hicks i>. Hinde, 9 Barb. 529 ; Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Id. 55; Auburn City B'k v. Leonard, 40 Id. 136. Applied in Hearne v. Keene, 5 Bosw. 586; Maryland Coal Co. v. Edwards, 4 Hun, 434. Compared in Fenly v. Stewart, 5 Sandf. 111. Applied in Manufacturers' & Mer- chants' Bank v. Follett, 11 B. I. 92; s. c, 23 Am. B. 418. Included in 1 Rare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 744. People v. Abbot, 19 Wend. 192. See Same v. Jackson. Referred to in Crossman v. Bradley, 53 Barb. 136, as overruled by Peo- ple v. Jackson, 3 Park 398 (Evidence of character in prosecution, &c, for rape). Followed in Ford v. Jones, 62 Barb. 487, where Brady v. ivibbe, 31 Id. 276; Hogan v. Cregan, 6 Bobt. 150, are thought to over- rule People v. Jackson. Followed in Bren- nan ». People, 7 Bun, 1 74. Followed with Lohman v. People, 1 N. Y. 379 (disapprov- ing 1 Creenl. on Ev. § 458) in People- v. Blakely, 4 Park 176, 182, a case of forgery. Question referred to as still open, — in Woods v. People, 55 K. Y. 517. fix- plained in La Beau v. People, 33 Bow. Pr. 74. Followed in Benstine «. State, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 169; s. c, 31 Am. B. 593, 595. Collated with other cases in 1 Bennett & B. Cos. on Crim. L. 230. Applied (Limit of time on inquiry as to character) in Stevens v. Rodger, 25 Bun, 55. Applied (What constitutes rape) in People v. Quin, 50 Barb. 132; Reynolds v. People, 41 Bow. Pr. 188; Poople v. Morrison. 1 Park 644. Explained (Evidence to discredit witness) in Gt. Western Turnpike Co. v. Loomis, 32 N. Y.IZ1. Disting'd (Entering nolle prose- qui) in People «. Porter, 4 Park 524. v. Acton, 48 Barb. 524; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 52. Followed, and said to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. (Limit of authority of legislature to confer powers of local legisla- tion upon board of commissioners appointed by governor) in Schuster v. Board of Health, 49 Barb. 450, 454. -—V.Adams, 3 Den. 190; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 468, with note, wherein are collected citations. Affd as Adams v. People, 1 2f. Y. 173. Decision in 3 Den. applied (Com- mission of crime without being personally present) in Commonwealth v. White, 123 Mass. 430; s. c, 25 Am. B. 116; Ejsp. Rog- ers, 10 Tex. Ct. App. 655; s. c.,38 Am. R. 654. Commented on in 1 Barb, on Crim. L. 3 ed. 1 38. Disting'd (Extradition) in Jones v. Leonard, 50 Iowa, 106 ; s. C, 32 Am. B. 116, 118. — ■ v. , 17 Wend. 475. Said never to have been questioned (Sufficiency of indict- ment for selling spirituous liquors) in Os- good v. People, 39 Jf. Y. 449. Followed in Whiting v. State, 14 Conn. 487; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 499, 501, with note. — ex rel. Averill v. Adirondack R. R. Co., 57 Barb. 656. Referred to as super- seded by acts passed in 1870 and 1871 (Pe- titions for town bonding in aid of railroads) in People' «. Peck, 62 Id. 545, 548. Ap- plied with People ex rel. Rogers v. Spencer, 55 JV. Y. 1 ; People ex rel. Green v. Smith, Id. 135; Town of Wellsborough v. N. Y. & Canada R. R. Co., 76 Id. 182 (Petitions for town bonding in aid of railroads) in Craig v. Town of Andes, 93 Id. 405, 413. — v. Adler. See Keyser «. Harbeck. — v. Adsit. See Same v. Comm'rs of Hud- son. — v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co.. 8 Abb. Pr. JUT. S. 122. Affd in 57 Barb. 2C4; s. c. as People «. Church, 2 Lans. 459. Another decision in 1 Id. 308 ; s. c, 7 Abb. Pr. K S. 265; 55 Barb. 344, rev'd in part, in 5 Lans. 25 ; which was rev'd in part, and affd in part in 57 JT. Y. 161. PEOPLE. 569 See Kincaid v. Dwinelle. Decision in 5 Lam. applied with Ogdensburgh, &c. R. R. Co. v. Vermont* &c. R. R. Co., 63 JV Y. 176; Weavers. Ely, 83 Id. 89; Struthers v. Pearce, 51 Id. 385 ; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Libby, 45 Id. 499 ; Lattimer s. Livermore, 72 Id. 184 (Basis of allowance) in Con- aughty v. Saratoga County B'k, 92 Id. 401. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 3252. See (Affirmative relief) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1204, n. With decision in 57 .JV. Y. see to the contrary (Right of trial by jury in cases of quo warranto) State ex rel. Norton v. Lupton, 64 Mo. 415; s. c, 27 Am. R. 253. See, also t Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 1950, n. &e. v. Albany and Vermont R. E. Co., 11 ^165. Pr. 136; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 523. Aff'd in 37 Barb. 216. Subsequent decisions in 12 Abo. Pr. 171 ; s. c, 20 Sow. Pr. 358. Also in 24 JV. Y. 261, and in 16 Abb. Pr. 465. See People ex rel. Garbutt v. Roches- ter State Line R. K. Co.; People v. N. Y. & Staten Island Ferry Co. Decision in 24 JV. Y. explained (Obligation of railroad com- pany to complete work of constructing its road) in Whiting v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac R. R. Co., 25 Wis. 167; s. c, 3 Am. B. 30, 47. Decision in 16 Abb. Pr. applied (Basis of extra allowance) in Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 01 Sow. Pr. 305, 30S; Riley v. Hulbert, 13 Weekly Dig. 101. v. , 15 Sun, 126. Rev'd in 77 iV. Y. 232. ex rel. Bolton v. Albertson, 55 If. Y. 50. Disting'd (Extent of power that may be conferred by legislature) in People ex rel. Cox v. Special Sessions, 7 Sun, 214 ; People exrel. Kilmer e. McDonald, 4 Id. 190. Dis- ting'd (Law, when within spirit of constitu- tional provision) in People ex rel. Bush v. Thornton, 25 Id. 456, 465. v. ex rel. Alexander v. Alexander, 3 Sun, 211 ; s. c, fully reported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 297. Followed (Proceed- ings necessary before attachment) in Sutton v. Davis, 6 Sun, 237. v. Allen, 43 JV. Y. 28. Rev'g 57 Barb. 338. Decision in 43 If. Y. said not to be superseded by legislation (Competency of jurors) in Greenfield ». People, 6 Abb. If. C. 1, 4. v. , 6 Wend. 486. Examined with other cases (Statutory provision, when directory) in People v., Gardner, 8 If. Y. 586. Applied in Whiteside v. People, 26 Wend. 647. Reviewed and relied on in State v. Smith, 67 lie. 328. 4i. , 1 Park 445. Relied on with Woodford ». People, 02 If. Y. 117; Hen- nessey v. People, 21 Sow. Pr. 239 (Acts that constitute but one criminal offense) in State v. Colgate, 31 Kans. 511; s. c, 47 Am. E. 507. T. , 5 Den. 76. Followed (Indict- ment for statute offenses must follow the statute) in Dedieu v. People, 22 If. Y. 178, 180. ex rel. Adsit v. Allen, 1 Lam. 248. Rev'd on the question of constitutionality, in 42 JV. Y. 378. Decision in Id. explained (Act for improvement in limited locality, a local act) in People ex rel. Clauson *. New. burgh & Shawangunk PL R. Co., 86 ld- 1,7. — ex rel. Schenectady Observatory v. Allen, 42 If. Y. 404. Disting'd (Law, when within spirit of constutional provis- ion) in People ex rel. Bush v. Thornton, 25 Sun, 456, 465. ex rel. Yawger v. Allen, 52 JV. Y. 538. See Town of Springport v. Teutonia Sav'g B'k. Explained (Effect of affidavit of asses- sors in town bonding proceedings) ;in Town of Springport v. Teutonia Savg's B'k, 84 If. Y. 403, 407, 410. v. Ambrecht, 11 Abb. Pr. 97. Said in 24 Sow. Pr. 610, to have been aft'd by Ct. of App. in March, 1863. Criticised (Eject- ment against officer of U. S.) in Polack v. Mansfield, 44 Cal. 36; s. c, 13 Am. B. 151. Examined and followed in King v. La Grange, Sup'm. Ct. Cal. 1881, 12 Re- porter, 358 ; overruling Polack ». Mansfield, 44 Cal. 36. See U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 190. Discussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 249, n. 1. v. America:! Art Union, 13 Barb. 577. Rev'd in 7 JV Y. 240. Decision in 13 Barb, commented on (What constitutes lot- tery) in 2 Add. on Contr. 1158, »., Abb. ed. v. Ames, 35 JV Y. 484. Explained (Amendment of sheriff's return) in Tasker 1>. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364. ex rel. Hovey v. Ames, 19 Sow. Pr. 551. Disting'd and limited (Reconsidera- tion of action by board of supervisors) in People ex rel. Hotchkiss v. Supervisors of Broome, 65 JV. Y. 228. v. Anderson, 14 Johns. 294; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. .462, with note. See Loomis «. Edgerton; People v. Cogdell; People v. Mo- Garren. Followed (Lost goods not subject of larceny) in State v. Roper, 3 Dev. (JV C.) 473,; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 268, 271. Disap- proved in Ransoms. State, 22 Conn. 157; Griggs v. State, 58 Ala. 425; s. c, 29 Am. R. 764. Disapproved as contrary to all au- thority, — in Robinson v. State, 11 Tex. 403; s. c, 40 Am. R. 790. See. in connec- tion therewith, Hunt's Case, 13 Gratt. (Va ) 701; Reginas. Thurborn, 5 Br. C. C. 387; Regina v. Preston, 6 Id. 353 ; 1 Bishop on Crim. L. § 207. Collated with other cases and commented on in 2 Bennett & S. Cas. on Crim. 'L. 32. — ex rel. Sheridan v. Andrews, 52 JV. Y. 445. Compare (Certiorari to review sum- mary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2122, 2260. — ex rel. Hubbard v. Annis, 45 Barb. 304. Doubted (When occupancy is as ser- vant, and not as tenant) in Kerrains ». Peo- ple, 60 JV. Y. 221, 225. Examined and col- lated with Comstock «. Dodge, 43 Sow. 570 PEOPLE. Pr. 97 ; Doyle v, Gibbs, 6 Lans. 180, and other cases in 21 Am. L. Beg. H. S. 467, n. ex rel. Steinert v. Anthony, 6 Hun, 142. Disting'd (Who bound by judgment in quo warranto) in People ex rel. Gilchrist ». Murray, 73 JV. Y. 540; which rev'd 8 Daly, 347, which see. T. Appo, 18 How. Pr. 350. Affd as Appo «. People, 20 If. Y. 531. Decision in 18 How. Pr. disting'd (Jurisdiction of oyer and terminer) in Willis v. People, 32 If. Y. 715. T. Arnold, 4 JV. Y. 508. See (Limita- tion of action by people) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 362, n. ex rel. Western R, K. Co. v. Assessors of Albany, 40 If. Y. 154. See Stone v. Mayor, &c. of K Y. Collated with other cases (Office of common law certiorari) in People ex rel. Schuylerville & Upper Hud- son R. R. Co. •». Betts, 55 K Y. 600. Ap- plied in People v. Eddy, 57 Barb. 600. ex rel. Williams t. Assessors of Al- bany, 2 Hun, 583; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 155. Compare (Assessment of bank shares) Williams v. Weaver, 75 If. Y. 30; People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539 ; First Nat. B'k of St. Joseph v. Township of St. Joseph, 46 Mich. 526. ex rel. Sears v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 18 Hun, 386. Affi in 84 If. T. 610. ex rel. Williamsburgh Gas Light Co. v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 16 Hun, 196. Affd in 76 N. Y. 202. Decision in Id. fol- lowed (Liability of fund arising from extra profits to taxation) in People ex rel. Ameri- can Fire Ins. Co. v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 28 Hun, 261. Applied (Effect of certificate entitling stockholder to additional stock) in Goldsmith v. Swift, 13 Weekly Dig. 66, 68. t. Assessors of Mechanicsville, 6 Lans. 105; s. c, more fully, as People v. How- land, 61 Barb. 273. Overruled in effect (Conclusiveness of uncontradicted affidavit) by People ex rel. Buftalo, &c. R. R. Co. v. Barker, 48 N. Y. 70. ex rel. Carleton v. Assessors of N. T., 7 Hun, 228 ; s. c, reported in 52 How. Pr. 140. Compare (Denial in mandamus) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2077, 2079, 2080. ex rel. Marsh v. Assessors of South- ileld. Reported as Same v. Delaney, 49 If. Y. 655. ex rel. Bank of Watertown v. Asses- sors of Watertown, 1 Hill, 616. See Bank of Watertown v. Assessors of Water- town. ex rel. Develin v. Asten, 4 Hun, 461. Aff'd in 64 If. Y. 661, on opinion bolow. ex rel. Hieser v. Asten, 6 Hun, 228. Afi'd, it seems, in 64 If. Y. 634, on opinion below. ex rel. Meyer v. Asten. Reported as People ex rel. Hieser v. Asten. ex rel. Ward v. Asten, 49 How. Pr. 405; s. c, less fully, 6 Daly, 18. Aft'd on opinion below, in 62 If. Y. 623. v. Atlantic Mnt. Life Ins. Co., 15 Hun,' 84. Appeal dismissed as. Attorney -General v. Same, in 77 If. Y. 330. Previous pro- ceeding in 53 How. Pr. 227. Also in Id. 300; which was modified in 74 N. Y. 177. Also in 56 How. Pr. 391. Decision 15 Hun and 77 N. Y. followed (Effect of actuary's report) in People v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., 60 How. Pr. 57. ex rel. Peabody v. Attorney-Gen'l, 22 Barb. 114. Followed (Removal of intruder into office) in People ex rel. Demarest ». Fairchild, 8 Hun, 334; which was aff'd in 67 If. Y. 334, which see. Applied (Ac- tion when to be prosecuted by attorney- general) in People v. Central Cross Town E. R. Co., 21 Hun, 476, 480. ex rel. Thurston v. Auditors of El- inira, 20 Hun, 150. Affd in 82 If. Y. 80. ex rel. Van Ecnren v. Auditors of Esopus, 10 Hun, 551. Aft'd in 74 K 7. 310. Decision in Id. followed (Liability of towns for negligence of officers) in People ex rel. Loomis v. Board of Town Auditors, 75 Id. 316, 320; City of Rochester «. Town of Rush, 80 Id. 302, 311. ex rel. Lowell v. Auditors of West- ford, 53 Barb. 555. Aft'd in 38 How. Pr. 23. T. Babcock, 7 Johns. 201 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 256. Collated with other cases (False pretences when indictable) in 1 Bennett & H. Cos. on Grim. L. 14. v. Badgley. See Same v. Hennesey. v. Baker, 20 Wend. 602. See Jackson v. Collins. Applied (Effect of indictment containing different counts) in Taylor v. People, 12 Hun, 216; Hawker v. People, 75 H. Y. 490. Disting'd in People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 Id. 578. v. , 76 If. Y. 78. Rev'g Baker v. People, 15 Hun, 256. See Hunt v. Hunt. Decision in 76 If. Y. disting'd (Effect of foreign divorce) in O'Dea v. O'Dea, 17 Weekly Dig. 375. Compared in Collins v. Collins, 80 If. Y. 1, 7. Followed in People v. Chase, 27 Hun, 256. Approved in Cook v. Cook, 56 Wis. 195, 213. Collated -with Hunt®. Hunt, 72 If. Y. 217; Van Voorhis ■». Brintnall, 86 Id. 18, in 26 Alb. L. J. 446, 466. ex rel. Adams v. Baker, 35 Barb. 105. Questioned (Mandamus to settle case) in Tweed v. Davis, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 1, 9. y. Bancker, 5 If. Y. 106. Approved and applied (Jurisdiction to discharge debtor) in Bully more ». Cooper, 2 Lans. 71. v. Bank of Hudson, C Cow. 217. Ex- plained and cases cited to the contrary (Quo warranto against private corporations) in High on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 661, n. 1. Dis- cussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 734, 11 ed. v. Bank of Niagara, 6 Cw. 196. Dis- cussed (Quo warranto against private cor- poration) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 734, 11 ed. v. Bank of North America, 13 Hun, 434. Another proceeding in 75 N. Y. 547. PEOPLE. 571 Decision in Id. explained (Mitigation of damages for trespass) in Moat's UnderhilTs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 97. — ex rel. Commissioners of Washington Park v. Banks, 67 N. Y. 568. See Hum- bert v. Banks. Followed (Constitutionality of private or local bills) ami Kerrigan v. Force, 68 iV. Y. 384 disting'd in Shanley v. City of Brooklyn, 30 Hun, 396. Disting'd with Matter of Lexington Avenue, 29 Id. 303 (Constitutionality of local acts respect- ing streets, &c.) in Matter of Woolsey, Id. 626. " v. Barker, 2 Wheel Or. 19. See Dana v. Tucker. See speeches published at N. T. 1827. See, also, papers addressed to the public, dated Exchange Bank, Aug. 1819. Also Maxwell's report of 3d trial, N. Y. 1827. Also report by J. Barker, N. Y. 1827. ex rel. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. y. Barker, 48 IT. Y. 70. Afi'g Same v. Fredericks, 48 Barb. 173 ; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 150. v. Barnes, 12 Wend. 492. See Stilwell r>. Mills. Followed (Necessity of proof of jurisdictional facts, to sustain surrogate's decree) in People ex rel. Myer v. Hartman, 2 Sweeny, 576, 580. Applied (Action, when maintainable on administrator's bond) in Hood v. Hood, 85 1ST. Y. 561, 573. t. Barrett, 2 Oai. 304 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dee. 239; 2 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 437, with brief note. See Klock v. People ; People v. Denton ; People i>. Goodwin ; People ». Olcott. Reviewed with People «. Olcott, 2 Johns. Oas. 301; People v. Denton, Id. 275 ; People v. Goodwin, 18 Johns. 187 (Discharge of jury in criminal case) in Commonwealth v. Cook, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 577 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 465, 469, 474, 480, 484. Approvingly cited in Mount n. State, 14 Ohio, 295; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 542, with note; People e. Goodwin, 18 Johns. 187, being disting'd, though said to have been recognized as law in Harlcy v. State, 6 Ohio, 404. V. , 1 Johns. 66. Followed with People v. McGowan, 17 Wend. 386 (Suffi- ciency of plea of former acquittal or convic- tion) in Roberts v. State, 14 Geo. 8; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 528, with note. Disting'd in State v. Cooper, 1 Green L. (iV. J.) 361; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 490, with note. v. Bartlett, 3 Hill, 570. See Cathcart v. Cannon ; Harmony t>. Bingham. Explained (What will excuse default in appearance by accused in court) in People v. Anable, 7 Hill, 34. Applied in People ». Tubbs, 37 N~. Y. 588. Applied to suit on distiller's bond, in XT. S. v. Stewart, 2 Diss. 412, 414; Belding v. State, 25 Ark 315 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 26. Disapproved in State v. Merrihew, 47 Iowa, 112; s. c, 29 Am. R. 467. Disting'd (Excuse for non-performance of contract) in First Nat. B'k of Ballston Spa v. Ins. Co. of No. Am., 5 Lans. 205. ex rel. Dunkirk, &c. R. R. Co. v. Batchellor, 53 K Y. 128; s. c, 8 Alb. L. J. 120; 13 Am. R. 480. Disting'd (Effect of legislative provisions respecting town bond- ing) in Rogers v. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 44; Town of Duanesburgh v. Jen- kins, 57 iV. Y. 177, 192; Williams v. Town of Duanesburgh, 66 Id. 134; Town of Queensbury v. Culver, 19 Wall 83, 91. Applied in People ex rel. Town of Rochester v. Deyoe, 2 Sufm. Ot.(T. & C.) 151. Ex- amined and approved in Horton v. Town of Thompson, 71 N. Y. 513, 521. Compared with later cases in Thompson n. Perrine, 103 U. 8. 813. Cited in 59 Am. Dec. 786, n., as contrary to Allison v. Louisville, &c. R'y, 10 Bush. (Ky.) 1. Disting'd (Power of legislature as to taxation of municipal cor- porations) in Wallack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 310, 321; Peo- ple ex rel. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 47 How. Pr. 514. Commented on in Gooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 286, n. Explained and applied to private corporation (Power of legislature to compel action of municipal corporation for private purposes) in People ex rel. Manhattan Sav'gs Inst, of N. Y. v. Otis, 24 Hun, 519, 523. Criticised in Weismer v. Village of Douglas, 4 Id. 210, which was aft'd in 64 i\T. Y. 103, which see. See People ex rel. Park Comm'rs «. Common Council of Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; s. c, 15 Am. R. 202 ; People v. Mayor of Chicago, 51 HI 17; s. c, 2 Am. R. 278. ex rel. Loew v. Batchelor, 28 Barb. 210. Aff d in 22 N. Y. 128. See Darling- ton v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 22 N. Y. disting'd as applicable to ap- pointive offices (Constitutionality of act extending term of officer) in People ex rel. Fowler v. Bull, 46 K Y. 57, 66. Applied in People ex rel. Brown v. Woodruff, 32 Id. 365. Overruled in People ex rel. Williamson v. McKinney, 52 Id. 374, 379.Cited and dis- cussed with People ex rel. Fowler v. Bull, 46 Id. 59 ; People v. McKinney, 52 Id. 376 (Power of legislature to extend term of elective officer) in State ». Arrington, 18 jveo. 412, 422, where the doctrine of People v. Batchelor is said to be rejected by the others, and the latter are ' approved as sustaining the rule. Applied (Power of legislature to recall power conferred on municipal corporation) in People v. Pinck ney, 32 iV. Y. 394. Applied (When mem- bers of corporate body are charged with no- tice of its meetings) in Matter of Church St., 49 Barb. 458. Disting'd in Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Holmes' Adm'r, 68 Mo. 601 ; s. c, 30 Am. It. 807, 809. T. Batting. See Same v. Walworth. ex rel. Belknap v. Beach, 57 How. Pr. 337. Affd in 19 Hun, 259. ex rel. Erie R'y v. Beardsley, 52 Barb. 105. Said in 41 i^. Y. 619, to have been aff'd in Ct. of App. in Sept. 1869. Fol- lowed (What taxable as land) in People ex rel Dunkirk & Fredonia II. It. Co. v. Cas- stay, 2 Lans. 294, 299. Applied in People 572 PEOPLE. ex rel. Smith v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 10 Hun, 207, 210. T. Beebe, 1 Barb. 379. Denied, as contrary to authority with Gage o. Brew- ster, 31 If. Y. 218 (Merger of lien of mort- gage in judgment of foreclosure) in Evans- ville Gaslight Co. v. State ex rel. Reitz, 73 Ind. 219; s. c, 38 Am. P. 129, with note; 20 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 676, with note. ex rel. Fowler v. Bell, 40 If. T. 57. ,Cited (Repeal by implication) in Peck v. Peck, 8 Abb. If. C. 400. v. Bennett. 6 Abb. Pr. 343. Aff'g 5 Id. 284. Decision in 6 Id. approved (Requisites of summons in action on con- tract) in Mason v. Hand, 1 Lans. 66. Both decisions doubted (Action for statute pen- alty, as one arising on contract) in Abbot v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. If. S. 465. v. , 37 If. Y. 117 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 89. Followed (Effect of irregularity in caption of indictment) in McGarry v. People, 2 Lans. 227, 231. Disting'd in Gray v. People, 21 Hun, 140, 144. Followed (Names of jurors by which indictment was found need not be stated therein) in People ii. Haynes, 55 Barb. 452. Applied (Who has legal '' possession" of property) in Peo- ple v. Phelps, 6 Hun, 401, 427 ; which was aff d in 72 If. Y. 334, which see. v. , 49 N. Y. 137. Approved (Direction of verdict) in People v. Dohring, 59 id 374, 381. Disting'd (Writ of error in criminal case) in People v. Bork, 78 Id. S46, 350. ex rel. Hawley v. Bennett, 4 Paige, 282. See Rogers v. Paterson; Watson «. Nelson. Applied (Right to jail liberties, of one imprisoned for contempt) in People ex rel. Crouse v. Cowles, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 513 ; Matter of Watson, 3 Lans. 414; 69 N. Y. 539. Disting'd in Allen v. Allen, 8 Abb. If. C. 175 ^86. ex rei. Jay v. Bennett, 14 Hun, 58. See, also, decision in subsequent action in Id. 63. Decision in Id. 63 disting'd with People ex rel. Shaw r>. McCarty, 62 How. Pr. 152 (Summary proceedings, in case of illegal use) in Bultman v. Kindelon, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (McCarty) 47. Applied in People ex rel. Shaw v. McCarty, 62 How. Pr. 152, 155. v. Berberrich, 11 How. Pr. 289; s. c, as People e. Toynbce, 2 Park. 329 ; better reported in 20 Barb. 168, 224. See affirm- ance of People v. Toynbee, in 13 N. T. 378. ex rel. Day v. Bergen, 53 If. Y. 404; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 97. Further pro- ceedings in 6' Hun, 267; 9 Id. 202. Decis- ion in 53 If. Y. disting'd with Ranney v. Peyser, 20 Hun, 11 (Provisions in orders or judgment in foreclosure proceedings) in Mutual Life Ins. Go. v. Sage, 28 linn, 595. Compare Easton v. Pickersgill, 55 If. Y. 310. v. Berner, 13 Johns. 383. Followed (Discharge of surety by forbearance towards principal) in Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co v. Barnes, 39 Super. Ct. (./. & S.) 40, 45.' Denied with King v. Baldwin, 17 John. 391, in Lasscer v. Young, 6 QUI & j_ (Md.) 243. ex rel. Sehuylerville & Upper Hudson It. R. Co. v. Betts, 55 If. Y. 600. Ap. plied (Conclusiveness of report of commis- sioners in condemnation proceedings) in Matter of Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co. 85 Id. 489, 498. Reviewed wilh other cases (Office of certiorari) in People ex rel. Wheeler «. Cooper, 57 How. Pr. 433. Ap- plied in People ex rel. Bailey v. Sherman. 15 Hun, 579. v. Bill, 10 Johns. 95. Followed with People v. Williams, 19 Wend. 377 (Compe- tency of co-defendant as witness) in Mcln- tyre v. People, 9 If. Y. 38 ; which aff'd 1 Pari;. 373, which see. Cited as authority in State v. Roberts, 15 Mo. 28; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 103, n. v. Bishop, ;5 Wend. 111. Followed ("Il- legality of contract compounding misde- meanor) in Partridge v. Hood, 120 Mass. 403; s. c, 21 Am. It. 524, 528. 'ex rel. Lee v. Bixly, 4 Hun, 636; s. c, more fully. 67 Barb. 221. v. Blakeley, 4 Park. 176. Overruled (Right to put disparaging questions on cross-examination) in "Great Western Turn- pike Co. v. Loomis, 32 If. Y. 127, 135. See La Beau v. People, 33 How. Pr. 66. ex rel. Brown v. Board of Apportion- ment, 52 If. Y. 224. Further decisions as People ex rel. Brown «. Green, in 2 Hup'rn. Ct. (?'. & C.) IS, 23. Decision in 52 If. Y. followed, but point not indicated; in Peo- ple ex rel. Curry v. Green, 56 Id. 679. ex rel. Tenth Nat. Bank v. Board ol Apportionment of N. Y., 3 Hun, 11; s. c, 5 ijup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 382. Affd in 64 N. Y, 627. ex rel. Citizens' Gas Light Co. v. Board of Assessors, 39 If. Y. 81. Dis- senting opinion of Miller, J., in 6 Transe. App. 116, 124. See Stone v. Mayor, &c. oi N. Y. Disting'd (Effect on personal prop- erty of annexation to real estate) in People ex "rel. Dunkirk & Fredonia R. R. Co. .0. Cassity, 2 Lans. 294 ; People ex rel. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 19 Hun, 462. Disting'd (Assessment of cor- porate stock) in People ex rel. Panama R. R. Co. e. Comm'rs of Taxes of N. Y., 64 How. Pr. 405. Applied in People v. Bow- land, 61 Barb. 283.. Disapproved in Peo- ple ex rel. Twenty-third St. R. R. Co. «. Comm'rs of Taxes of N. Y, 95 If. Y. 554. Disting'd (Effect of delay in applying for certiorari) in People ex rel. Waldman ®. Police Comm'rs of N. Y, 82 Id. 500, 508. Disting'd (Extent of office of writ of certi- orari) in People ex rel. Kimball «. Super- visors of St. Lawrence, 25 Hun, 131, 135. Explained and applied in People ixrel Haskin v. Supervisors of Westchester, 6 Abb. Pr. If. S. 282. Explained in People PEOPLE. 573 ex rel. Schuylervillc & Upper Hudson R. R. Co. v. Betts, 55 If. Y 600, 603. Applied in People 9. Hillhouse, 1 Lam. 89; People 9. Board of Police, 39 If. T. 516. ex rel. Wells v. Board of Audit of Hempstead, 4 Hun, 94; s. c, more fully, 6 Sufm. Ot. (T. & 0.) 374. ex rel. Brooklyn Orphan Asylum v. Board of Education of Brooklyn, 13 Barb. 400. Followed (Orphan asylum, ■when not "common school") in St. Pat- rick's Orphan Asylum 9. Board of Educa- tion of Rochester, 34 How. Pr. 227. cx rel. Murphy v. Board of Education of N. Y., 3 Hun, 177. Followed and ap- proved (Effect of proceedings of school board in dismissing teacher) in School Dis- trict e. McCoy, .30 Kans. 268; s. c, 46 Am. E. 92. ex rel. Noble y. Board of Pilots, 37 Barb. 126. See (Certiorari, when allowed) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2122, n. ex rel. Cook v. Board of Police, 40 Barb. 626; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. 473; 26 How. Pr. 152. Previous proceedings in 16 Abb. Pr. 337; s. c, at Special Term 25 How. Pr. 89. Further decision in 17. Abb. Pr 324, n. ; s. c, 26 How. Pr. 450. Final decis- ion in 39 ST. T. 506, but erroneously report- ed. Judgment below, instead of being aff'd, as appears by report, was rev'd as to costs, and atf d only as to residue. See People ex rel. Harvey 9. Heath; People ex rel. Latorre 9. O'Brien ; Stone v. Mayor, &c. of 1ST. Y. Decision in 39 If. Y. approved with People ex rel. Miller 9. Board of Police, 6 Hun, 229 (Extension of remedy by certiorari) in Mat- ter of Lauterjung, 48 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 308. Explained in People ex rel. Seymour v. Canal Board, 7 Lang. "223. Disting'd in People ex rel. Kimball v. Supervisors of St. - Lawrence, 25 Hun, 131, 135. Applied in People v. Police Commissioners of Troy, 43 How. Pr. 385, 387; People ex rel. Cum- mings 9. Fire Comm'rs, 12 Hun, 503 ; Peo- ple 9. Hillhouse, 1 Lam. 89. See (Costs on certiorari) People ex rel. Spencer 9. Fuller, 40 How. Pr. 35, where contrary decisions were followed. Examined with other cases in People ex rel. Green 9. Smith, 13 #mh,230. ex rel. Dunn r. Board of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, 35 Barb. 544. Rev'd in 26 N. Y. 316, 323. ex rel. Gorman v. Board of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, 35 Barb. 527. Rev'd in 24 How. Pi: 611, on grounds which appear in 26 If. Y. 316. ex rel. Hanrahan v. Board of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, 35 Barb. 644; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. 151. Rev'd in 26 ST. Y. 316. Decision in Id. limited (Time for making objection in mandamus proceedings) in People ex rel. Dunkirk, &c. R. R. Co. 9. Batehellor, 53 Id. 128, 138. ex rel. McCune v. Board of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, 26 Barb. 487. Affd in 19 K Y. 188. See People 9. Draper. Decision in \% N. Y. discussed in connection with the contradic- tory one of People 9, Diaper, 15 If. Y. 532 (Effect of act establishing Metropolitan Police District) in People v. Board of Police, 9 Abb. Pr. 257, 272. ex rel. Peck v. Board of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, 35 Barb. 651 ; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. 158. Rev'd ' in 24 How. Pr. 611. See for a case wherein proceedings were identical, —People ex rel. Hanrahan 9. Board of Police, 26 F. Y. 316. ex rel. Titus v. Board of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, 35 Barb. 635. Rev'd in 24 How. Pr. 611, on grounds which appear in 26 N. Y. 316. — — ex rel. Folk v. Board of Police of Brooklyn, 69 If. Y. 408. Disting'd (Re- view of proceedings for removal of subordi- nate) in People ex rel. Campbell 9. Camp- bell. 82 Id. 247, 255. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2140, n. , ex rel. Clapp v. Board of Police of N. Y., 72 iK Y. 415. Rev'g 5 Hun, 457. Com- pare (Questions arising on certiorari) Code Cm Pro. § 2140. ex rel. Satterlee v. Board of Police of N. Y., 12 Hun, 653. Rev'd in 75 N. Y. 38. Decision in Id. limited with Kehn 9. State of N. Y., OS Id. 291; People ex rel. Ryan 9. French, 91 Id. 265 (Regulating compen- sation for services) in Riley ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 96 Id. 331. Applied (Form of remedy against department of city govern- ment) in Swift 9. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 Id. 528, 535. Applied (Effect of public contract made at less than statutory rates) in Quigley 9. Comm'rs of Sumner Co., 24 Kan. 297. ex rel. Clute t. Boardinan, 3 Abb. Ot. App. 483; s. c.,- 3 Keyes, 59. Disting'd (Appeal from decision in special statutory proceedings) in Matter of Comm'rs of Cen- tral Park, 50 N. Y. 498. — T. Bodine, 1 Den. 308. Rev'g 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 36. See People v. Vane. Decis- ion in 1 Ben. collated" with other cases (Challenge to jury) in Greenfield 9. Peo- ple, 6 Abb. If. O. 24. n. Applied in Loh- man 9. People, 1 If. Y. 358. Explained in People 9. Honeyman, 3 Ben. 121. Followed in Sanchez v. People, 22 If. Y. 147, 151. Examined with Freeman v. People, 4 Den. 32. in Schroeffler «. State, 3 Wise. 833. Ex- plained (Burden of proof) in 1 Best on Bo. § 275, n. a, Wood's ed. v. Booth, 32 N. Y. 398. Reviewed (Action by attorney-general) in People v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 25. 52, but see Id. 152, and n., and People v. Ingersoll, 58 KYI. ex rel. Duff t. Booth, 32 How. Pr. 17. Aff'd in 49 Barb. 31. v. Bostwick, 43 Barb. 9. Aff'd in 32 If. Y. 445. Soe Lovett v. Adams. Decis- ion, in 32 If. Y. followed with Bookstaver ®. Jayne, 60 Id. 150; Benton 9. Martin, 52 Id. 570 (Liability of surety signing bond • conditionally) and Russell 9. Freer, 56 Id. 67, 57-1- PEOPLE. ' disting'd in Grimwood n. "Wilson, 31 Hun, 215. Disting'd and doubted in Russell t>. Freer, 56 N. Y. 67, ,71. Disapproved, and Dair ®. U. S., 16 Wall. 1 ; Russell «. Freer, 56 N. Y. 71, approved in preference, in Richardson v. Rogers, 50 How. Pr. 403, 407. Cited in Nash ». Fugate, 24 Gratt. (Va.) 202; s. c, 18 Jra. .ffi. 640, 645, as contrary to what is there held. Disapproved as overriding the whole doctrine of estoppel in pais, in State ». Peck, 53 Me. 284, 295 (See 25 Am. R. 709, n.). Reviewed with other cases in Cutler v. Roberts, 7 Neb. 4 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 371, 375. See to the con- trary Pope v. Latham, 1 Pike (Ark.) 66. But see Abb. Tr. Ph. 507. Opinion of Campbell, J., criticised as dictum (Delivery of deed as escrow, to party taking interest therein) in Ordinary of N. J. c. Thatcher, 1 2 Vroom (N. J.) 403; s. c, 32 Am. R. 225. Opinion of Campbell, J., also criticised in 35 Am. Dee. 545, n. ex rel. Roberts v. Bowe, 20 Hun, 85. Rev'd in 81 N. Y. 43; s. c, 8 Abb. N. O. 234. See N. Y. Guaranty & Ind. Co. v. Gleason ; Gleason's Case ; Roberts' Case. Decision in 8 Abb. N. O. disting'd (Validity of execution against the person) in Bene- dict, &c. M'f'g Co. v. Thayer, 21 Hun, 614. ex rel. Thayer v. Bowe, 59 How. Pr. %1%; s. c, more fully, 21 Hun, 614. Said , in Id. vi, that motion to dismiss appeal was denied without costs Oct. 5, 1880. Previous proceeding in 20 Hun, 547. ' v. Bowen, 30 Barb. 24. Affd in 21 N. Y. 517. • v. Bradley, 4 Park. 245. Approved (Receipts, &c. as subjects of larceny) in People v. Griffin, 38 How. Pr. 475. • ex rel. Lawrence v. Brady, 56 N. Y. 183. Disting'd (Sufficiency of application for extradition) in People ex rel. Nubell v. Byrnes, 2 N. Y. Grim. B. 398. Reviewed with other cases in 57 Am. Dee. 397, n. Followed (Decision under one writ of habeas corpus not barring issuing of second writ) in People ex rel. Mclntyre v. Hurlburt, 67 How. Pr. 362. Questioned (Conclusiveness of governor's warrant in extradition pro- ceedings) in Leary's Case, 6 Abb. N.- G. 43, 63, 66, citing People ex rel. Connors v. Reilley, 11 Hun, 94. Followed (Judicial interference with executive) in Matter of Nichols, 6 Abb. N. G. 474, 493. Collated with other cases (Requisites of indictment for conspiracy') in 1 Barb, on Grim. L. 3 ed. 247, n. v. Brandon, 42 N. Y. 265. Disting'd (Extent of privilege of accused testifying in his own behalf) in People «. Crapo, 76 Id. 288, 291. v. Brandreth, 36 N. Y. 191 ; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 224. Explained (Set-off against State) in People v. Denison, 8 Abb. N. 0. 128, 138. - — ex rel. Cunningham v. Brcnnan, 18 Abb. Pr. 100. Collated with other cases (Changes of plan in. municipal contract) ig 5 Abi.K G. 45, n. ex rel: Jennys v. Brcnnan, 3 Hun, 666. Approved (Effect of. voluntary ap- pearance in bankruptcy court) in O'Brien p Weld, 92 U. 8. 84. ex rel. Taylor r. Brcnnan, 3S Barb. 522. See Brown v. Weber. See (Per- emptory mandamus, when to issue in first instance) Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2070, n. v. Brewster, 4 Wend. 498. Disting'd (Effect of violation of act prohibiting cer- tain corporations, &c. from carrying on banking business) in N. Y. State Loan and Trust Co. v. Helmer, 77 N. Y. 64, 70. v. Briggs, 60 How. Pr. 17. Followed (Wife as witness against husband) in People v. Houghton, 24 Hun, 501. See Byrd v. State, 57 Miss. 243 ; s. c. 34 Am. R 440, and note. — ex rel. City of Rochester v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553. See Matter of Volkening. Applied with Matter of Mayor, 50 N. Y. 504; Matter of One Hundred and Thirty- eighth Street, 86 Id. 437 (Constitutional law as to private and local bills) and Matter of Sackett Street, 74 Id. 95 dis- ting'd in Matter of Blodgett, 27 Hun, 12 ; which was rev'd in 89 N. Y. 392, which see. Approved and applied in More v. Deyoe, 22 Hun, 208, 220. Fol- lowed in Tifft v. City of Buftalo, 82 K T. 204, 2 1 1 . Applied i n Ncuendorff v. Duryea, 6 Daly, 276, 282; which was aff'd in 69 K Y. 557; which see; Hurlburt v. Banks, 1 Abb. N. G. 165; which was affl'd in 67 N. Y. 573, which see. Disting'd in city of Watertown s. Fairbanks, 65 Id. 588. — ex rel. Burroughs v. Brinkeriioff, 7 Hun, 668. Modified as to clerk's costs in 68 N. Y. 259. — v. Bristol, &c. Turnpike Co., 23 Wend. 222. See People v. Manhattan Co. Ap- plied (Forfeiture of charter of corporation organized to build turnpike, &c.) in People v. Fishkill, &c. Plank Road Co., 27 Barb. 453 ; People «. Williamsburgh T'pike, &c. Co., 47 JV. Y. 595 ; People e. Hillsdale, &c. T'pike Road Co., 23 Wend. 257. Quoted and commented on in Mora-wets on Corp. § 647. Quoted and commented' on (Origin of writ of quo warranto) in High, on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 593, n. 2. — ex rel. Brooks v. Brooks, 35 Barb. 85. See People v. Mercein. Discussed (Custody of children) in Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 249, n. 2. — ex rel. Galsten v. Brooks, 40 How. Pr. 165. Followed (Discharge of imprisoned debtor) in Matter of Fitzgerald, 5 Abb. N. C. 357. Collated with other cases in Bislwp on Assign. § 121. v. Brown, 16 Wend. 561. Followed (Indictment for act not expressly pro- hibited) in People v. Gilkinson, 4 Park. 26, 33 ' v. , 6 Park 666. Explained (Offen- ses under statute against sale of intoxica- PEOPLE. ,75 ting liquors) in Foote v. People, 66 If. Y. 321, 325. ■ v. , 1 Cai 424. Quoted and col- lated with other casei (State enforcing con- dition of forfeiture in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 145. v. , 72 If. Y. 571. Aff'g Brown v. People, 8 Hun, 562. See Brandon v. Peo- ple; People®. Crapo. Decision in 72 N. Y. disting'd (Evidence of commission of crime) in People «. Irving, 95 Id. 541. ex rel. Martin v. Brown, 55 If. Y. 180. Disting'd (Right of town to moneys raised by taxation) in Bridges «. Supervisors of Sullivan, 92 Id. 570; Shepherd's Fold v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Weekly Dig. 572. Applied (Effect of affidavits of assessors in case of town bonds) in Town of Springport v. Teutonia Sav'gs B'k, 75 N. Y. 406. Fol- lowed in Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 84 Id. 532, 539. See (Allowance of peremp- tory mandamus) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2070, n. ex rel. Joyce v. Brundage, 18 Hun, 291. AfTd in 78 If. Y. 403. V. Auckland, 13 Wend. 592. Disting'd (Conclusiveness of judgment in criminal case) in Sims v. Sims, 75 If. Y. 473. v. Buel, 18 Hun, 487. AfTd in 78 If. Y. 492. v. Ball, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 19. Followed, but disapproved (Summons in action for penalty) in Schoonmaker v. Brooks, 24 Hun, 554. ex rel. Fowler v. Bull, 46 If. Y. 57. See People ex rel. Loew v. Batchelor. Dis- ting'd (Legislative power over elections) in People v. Flanagan, 66 If. Y. 243. Fol- lowed in People ex rel. "Williamson «. Me- KiWy, 52 Id. 374, 378. V. Burden, 9 Barb. 467. Disapproved (Perjury as established by proof of contra- dictory oath) in Schwartz «. Commonwealth, 27 Oratt. (Va.) 1025; s. c, 21 Am.R. 365, 367. v. Burke, 11 Wend. 129. Followed (Legislative power ' to punish offense of [ bringing stolen goods into State) in Hem- maker e. State, 12 Mo. 453; s. c, 51 Am. Dee. 172, with note. ex rel. Woodworth v. Burrows, 27 Barb. 89 ; s. c, 16 How. Pr. 27. Ap- proved (Repeal of mandamus against State officer, in absence of appropriation) in Peo- ple v. Tremain, 29 Barb. 96. v. Bush, 3 Park. 552. Disting'd with Nelson v. People, 5 Id. 39 ; People v. Graves, Id. 134 (Reconsidering verdict) in People v. Hale, 1 If. Y. Crim. P. 532. Disapproved (Evidence of parents' care of child) in Smith i>. Grand St., &c. R. R. Co., 11 Abb. If. C. 62, as overruled by Mailler v. Express Propeller Line, 61 If. Y. 316; Warner v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 44 Id. 465. Appi-oved (What is dwelling in sense of law of burglary) in Mason v. People, 26 If. Y. 200. - — V. , 4: Hill, 133. Disting'd as rest- ing on a statute (Proof of remote act, as sus- taining conviction for attempt to commit felony) in Stabler v. Commonwealth, 95 Penn. St. 318 ; s. c, 40 Am. P. 653. v. Butler, 16 Johns. 203. See report of trial reported as Rose Butler's Case, 4 City H. Pee. 77. Disapproved (Killing while committing another crime) in Buel v. Peo- ple, 78 N. Y. 492. Disapproved and Buel v. People, 18 Hun, 489; 78 If. Y. 499, fol- lowed in People v. McKeon, 31 Hun, 449. v. Byron, 3 Johns. Cas. 53 ; s. c, 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 615, with brief note. Applied (Power of guardian over property of wards) in Thompson v. Boardman, 1 Verm. 367: s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 684, with note, wherein see criticisms. ex rel. Ketteltas v. Cady, 4 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 656; s. c, with opinion 2 Hun, 224. v. Call, 1 Den. 120 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 655, with note, wherein are collected cita- tions. Applied (Larceny by one having custody of property) in Phelps ». People, 6 Hun, 401, 427; which was aff'd in 72 If. Y. 334, which see. Disting'd with People v. McGarrin, 17 Wend. 460; Wolf stein v. People, 6 Hun, 121, in State v. DucUer, 8 Dreg. 394; s. c, 34 Am. It. 591, and colla- ted in note thereto. Cited in 57 Am. Dec. 275, n, as furnishing exceptions to the rule. -. ex rel. Gilinore v. Callahan, 60 How. Pr. 372; s. c, 23 Hun, 581. Collated with other cases (When objections to summary proceedings are to be made) in lie Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 264. v. Campbell, 4 Park. 386. Disting'd (Jurisdiction by consent in criminal cases) People v. Dohring, 59 2V. Y. 374, 380. ex rel. Hambrcclit v. Campbell, 22 Hun, 574. Followed (Jurisdiction of jus- tice of N. Y. District Court over summary proceedings) in People ex rel. Richmann v. Meyer, 23 Hun, 606, but without opinion. ex rel. Lunney v. Campbell, 72 If. Y. 496. Followed, but point not indicated, in People ex rel. McKone v. Green, 2d. 612. ex rel. Freer v. Canal Appraisers, 13 Hun, 64. AfTd in 73 If. Y. 443. ex rel. Loomis v. Canal Appraisers, 33 If. Y. 461. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Brown v. Scofleld ; Canal Comm'rs v. People; Child v. Starr, Commissioners of Canal Fund v. Kemp- shall; Ex parte Jennings; Gould v. Hud- son River R. R. Co. ; People •». Tib- betts. Disting'd (Application in this State of common law rule respecting navi- gable rivers) in Smith i>. City of Rochester, 92 If. Y. 463. Collated with Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Cai. 307; People «. Canal Appraisers, 13 Wend. 355, in 10 Am. Dec. 385, n. where the N. Y. Courts are thought until decision in 13 Wend, to have held very steadily to the common law rule. See for further examination of legal questions arising on the subject 11 Am. Dec. 108, n and Id. 253, n. Criticised in 13 Cent. L. 576 PEOPLE. J. 2. Collated with other cases in Mills' Thomps. on Hit/hw. 3 ed. 50. Commented on in Goals Highw.L. 4 ed. 27. See colla- tion of authorities (Property in water) in 7 Am. Dee. 531, n. ex rel. Tibbits. v. Canal Appraisers, 13 Wend. 355. Rev'd in 17 Id. 571. Decis- ion in 13 Id. approved with Canal Comm'rs v. People, 5 Id. 423; Gardner «. Village of Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. 1 62 (Invasion of real property is taking within constitutional rule) in Weaver «. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534, 540. See also Black River Impr. Co. v. LaCrosse, Booming, &c. Co., 54 Wis. 659; s. c, 41 Am. R. 66. v. Canal Board, 7 XT. Y. Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 309. AfTd in 55 X/. Y. 390. See Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co. «. Artcher. Decision in 55 XT. Y. disting'd (Injunction restraining public officers) in Davis v. American Soc. P. C. .A., 75 Id. 369. ex rel. Seymour v. Canal Board, 7 Lans. 220. Followed (Passage of act vali- dating proceedings after issue of certiorari to review) in People ex rel. Kilmer v. McDonald, 2 Hun, 70, 73. ex rel. Yates v. Canal Board, 13 Barb. 432. Overruled (Mandamus to compel execution of contract for work on canals) in People ex rel. Vickerman v. Contracting Board, 46 Id. 254. T. Caniff, 2 Park. 586. See in accord therewith (Right of people to two challen- ges) in People v. Masters, 3 Id. 517. v. Carey, 5 Daly, 033. Further decis- ion in 6 Id. 406. v. Carpenter, 9 Barb. 580. Explained (Wife as witness for people on trial of hus- band) in 1 Best on Bk. § 98, n. a, Wood's ed. Quoted and cases cited to the con- trary in 2 Bennett & H. Cas, on dim. L. 257. v. , 24 XT. Y. 86. Compared with other cases (Legislative character of power of incorporation) in People ex rel. Shum- way v. Bennett, 29 Mich. 451; s. c, 18 Am. R. 107. v. ex rel. Rosekrans v. Carr, 62 Bow. JPr. 5. Rev'd in 25 Hun, 325 ; s. c, 62 How. Pr. 19, and that afl'd in 86 XT. Y. 512; s. c, 62 How. Pr. 51. T. Carrique, 2 Hill, 93. Disting'd (Validity of appointment or election to office) in People ex rel. Furman v. Clute, 50 XT. Y. 451, 468. Explained (Effect of acceptance of second office incompatible with first) in People ex rel. Martin v. Board of Police, 35 Barb. 553. Limited (Neces- sity of notice to removed officer) in Holley v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 59 XT. 7. 166, 170. Reviewed with other cases (What is neces sary to create vacancy in office) in Turnip- seed v. Hudson, 50 Miss. 429; s. c, 19 Am. It. 15, 25. Applied with Van Orsdall v. Hazard, 3 Hill, 243, in Stubbs v. Lee, 64 Me. 195; s. c, 18 Am. R. 251. ex rel. Cliilds t. Cartwriglit, 9 Hun, 159. Further proceeding in 11 Id. 362. v. Casey. See Brandon v. People ; Peo- ple v. Crapo ; Ryan v. People. v. Cassels, 5 Hill, 164. Applied (Inqui. ry into jurisdiction in habeas corpus pro- ceedings) in People ex rel. Tweed v. Lis- comb, 60 XT. Y. 559, 572. Examined in Et Blair, 4 Wise. 532. Followed (Effect of want of jurisdiction) in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 166. t. Cassity, 2 Lans. 294. AfTd in 46 N. Y. 46. Both decisions followed (What tax- able as "land") in Troy & Lansingburgh R. R. Co. v. Kane, 9 Hun, 508; People ex rel. Smith v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 10 Id. 207, 210; Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 68 XT. Y. 556. Decision in 46 Id. followed in People ex rel. Van Nest v. Comm'rs of Taxes of N. Y., 80 Id. 573, 577; People ex rel. N. Y. Elev. R. R. Co. v. Comm'rs of Taxes of N. Y., 82 Id. 459, 462; which aff'd 19 Hun, 461, which see. v. Cavanagh, 1 Park. 588; s. c, as Matter of Cavanagh, 10 How. Pr. 27. Rev'd in 2 Abb. Pr. 84; s. c, 2 Park 650, where certiorari and return are given. v. Central City Bank, 53 Barb. 412. See Adams v. Dyer. Limited (Adjourn- ment of court to chambers) to Sup'm. Ct. judges, in Bennett v. Cooper, 57 Barb. 642. v. Central Crosstown R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 476. Compare brief mem. Id. 588. t. Central R. E. of N. J., 48 Barb. 478; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 407. Rev'd in 42 XI. Y. 283. Decision in Id. disting'd (Jurisdic- tion of foreign corporation)' in Gibb v. Queen Ins. Co., 63 Id. 130. Applied in Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & B.) 377, 385, 387, 425. y. Chalmers, 1 Hun, 683; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 185. Second trial resulted in judgment for defendants, which was aft'd by General Term, Jan. 4, 1875, which adopted the opinion it had pre- viously given and which is reported in 1 Hun, 683. This judgment aff'd in 60 XT. Y. 154. Decision in 1 Hun disting'd (Lia- bility of sureties on assignee's bond) in Wil- liams v. Kiernan, 25 Id. 355, 362, a case of administrator's bond. Also disting'd in Adams v. Hyams, V. S. Cir. Ct. D. Conn., 8 Fed. Rep. 418. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. § 28, n. 4, 4 ed. ex rel. Buggies y. Chapman, 64 XT. Y. 557. Aff'g Ruggles v. Chapman, 1 Hun, 324, and another decision to same effect in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 600. ex rel. Sichel v. Chapman, 30 How. Pr. 202. Disting'd (Power of Supreme Court justice to admit to bail outside of county of arrest) in People «. Clews, 77 XT. Y. 39, 45. v. Charles, 3 Den. 212. AfTd in 1 F. Y. ■ 18 °- v. Chegaray, 18 Wend. 637; s. c, 13 XT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 495, with brief PEOPLE. 51 note on right of parent to custody of chil- dren. , — r ex rel. Kilmer v. Cueritrec, 4 Sufm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 289. Further decision in 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G) 473; which was affd in 5 Weekly Dig. 65. t. Christie, 2 Abb. Pr. 256; s. c, 2 Park. 579. Disting'd (Prejudice of juror against religious sect to which defendant belongs, ground for challenge) in U. S. v. Noelke. 17 BlalcJif. G. Ct. 554, 563. Cited (Compelling person to answer questions as to his motives in testifying) in 1 Whart Com. on Ev. § 544. Cited (Extent of privi- lege of witness for prosecution to refuse to answer as to sources of his information) in Id. § 604, n. v. Christopher, 4 Hun, 805. Opposed (Sufficiency of denial) in Jones v. Ludlum, 74 K Y. 61. T. Church, 2 Lans. 459. Aff'g People v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 122. See Bergh's Case. ■ ex rel. Brooklyn Park Coinm'rs t. City of Brooklyn, 3 Hun, 596. Aff'd, it seems, in 66 A 7 ! Y. 642, but without opin- ion. ex rel. Oswego Canal Co. v. City of Oswego, 5 Hun, 117; s. c, with opinion, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 673. ex rel. Porter v. City of Rochester, 21 Barb. 656. See People ex rel. Cook ■». Board of Police. To same effect (Office of common law certiorari) Peop'.e v. Overseers of Barton, 6 How. Pr. 25. See Stone v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 25 Wend. 157, 182. Com- pare, however, reasoning in Moorewood v. Hallister, 6 Jv". Y. 309. ex rel. Francis v. City of Troy, 17 Hun, 20. Rev'd in 78 N. Y. 33. ex rel. Curtis v. City of Utica, 45 How. 289 ; s. c, with points of counsel, as Same v. Common Council of Utica, 65 Barb. 9. v. Clark, 4 Goto. 95. Followed (Appli- cation of general rules of pleading to pro- ceedings on information in nature of quo warranto) in State v. Steers, 44 Mo. 223. v. , 1 Park. 347. See (Stay of judg- ment in criminal cases) People v. O'Reilly, 9 Abb. N. G. 77, 91. T. , 7 xV. Y. 385 ; s. c, 11 K Y. Leg. Obs. 4. Applied (Degree of delibera- tion requisite to constitute - premeditated design) in Fitzgerrold v. People, 4 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 73, 81 ; see dissenting opinion in 37 N. Y. 689. Also applied in People v. Sul- livan, 7 Id. 399; Peoples. Rogers, 18 Id. 22 ; McCaun v. People, 6 Park 634. Com- mented ou in People v. Lamb, 2 Keyes, 382. Explained (Power of appellate court as to fixing time of execution) in People o. Ferris, 32 How. Pr. 422. - v. Clarke, 9 N. Y. 349. Aff'g 10 Barb. 120; 11 Id. 337. Decision in 10 Id, fol- lowed (Lapse of timo as bar to action by . government) in IT. S. «. Beebee, U. S. Cir. Gt. E. IK Ark 12 Am, L. Bee. 142. ex rel. Dehenetti v. Clerk of Marine Ct, 22 Barb. 502: s. c, more fully. D AfJ>. Pr. 57. Aff'd in Id. 309 ; s. c, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 491. v. Clews, 14 ,Him, 90. Aff'd in 77 A 7 ! Y. 39. Other proceedings in 4 Abb. J¥. C. 256 ; and in 57 How. Pr. 245. See contrary to decision in 4 Abb. If. G. (Validity of adjournment) 17 Alb. L. J. 175 v. Cline, 23 Barb. 197. Criticised and overruled (Right of referees, hearing appeal from order of commissioners of highways to inquire into commissioner's jurisdiction) in People ex rel. Hubbard v. Harris, 63 N. Y. 391. Quoted and collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 297. v. Clough, 17 Wend. 351. See McCord ». People. Superseded (Falsely soliciting charitable donations, not indictable) by L. 1851, c. 144. ■ ex rel. Furman v. Clute, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 399. Rev'd in part in 63 Barb. 350 ; but latter rev'd, and former aff'd, in 50 N~. Y. 451; s. c, 10 Am. B. 508. Further decision in 52 N. Y. 576 modifies that in 50 N. Y. 451, on the question of costs, and On this point affirms 63 Barb. 356. Decis- ion in 50 W. Y. applied (Effect of disquali- fication of candidate having highest, num- ber of votes) in Re Corliss, 11 R. I. 638 ; s. c, 23 Am. ~R. 538, 543. Followed in Bar- num v. Gilman, 27 Minn. 470. Collated with other cases in 12 Am. R. 341, n. ex rel. Wright v. Coffin. See Tucker v. Tucker; Wright's Acconnting; Wright v. Fleming. v. Cogdell, 1 Hill, 94. See People v. McGarren. Relied ou in dissenting opinion of Oket, J. (Lost property as subject of larceny) in Brooks v. State, 35 Ohio St. 49 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 769, n. Approved with People v. Anderson, 14 Johns. 294 ; Abrams v. People, 6 Hun, 491 ; Wilson v. People, 39 N. Y. 459, in State v. Dean, 49 Iowa, 73; s. c, 31 Am. R. 143, 145. Collated with other cases in 17 Id. 140, n. v. Colbern, 1 Wheel. Gr. 479. Criti- cised as lacking weight of authority (Wife or husband of one co-defendant as witness against another co-defendant) in Common- wealth v. Reid, 1 Leg. Gas. Pa. 182, 192; s. c, 8 Phila. {Pa.) 385. Discussed in 1 Best on Ev. § 98, n. a, Wood's ed. ex rel. Sanders v. Colborne, 20 How. Pr. 378. See (Definition of " action ") Code Ck. Pro. 1881, § 3333, n. v. Cole, 4 Park 35. Disapproved (Weight of evidence of good character in criminal cases) in State v. Northrup. 48 Iowa, 583 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 410. Collated with other cases (Prisoner retreating in self defense) in Horrigan & T. Gas. on Self Be/'. 141. ex rel. Banks v. Colgate, 9 Hun, 708. Affd in 67 N. Y. 512. ex rel. Bush v. Collins, 7 Johns. 549. See Parker v. Baker. Approved and applied with People v. Dean, 3 Wend. 438 (Effect of acts of officer de facto) in Morris v. Peo- 578 PEOPLE. I pie, 3 Ben. 381, 395. Followed inWilcox v. Smith, 5 Wend- 233. Applied in Board of Education v. Fonda, 77 N. Y. 357. Dis- ting'd in Peoples. Brennan, 30 How. Pr. 419. Applied in Petersilea ». Stone, 119 Mass. 465 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 335. Followed in Buckman v. Ruggles, 15 Mass. 180; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 98. Followed with Reed v. Gillet, 12 Johns. 296, in Burke v. Elliott, 4 Jred. L. (N. G.) 355 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 142, with note. Followed with People v. Hopson, 1 Ben. 574, in Plymouth v. Painter, 17 Conn. 585 ; s. c, 44 Am. Bee. 574, 577, with note. Disting'd with People v. Dean, 3 Wend. 438 ; Morris v. People, 3 Den. 381, in State ex rel. McCurdy v. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664; s. c, 9 Am. R. 622, 635. Approved and applied with Mclnstry v. Tanner, 9 Johns. 135, in McGregor v. Balch, 14 Verm. 428; e. c, 39 Am. Bee 231. Followed with People v. Ruukle, 9 Johns. 147, in St. Luke's Church «. Matthews, 4 Besaus. (So. Car.) 578; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 619, 626. Said in Stevenson v. Miller, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 306 ; s. -c, 13 Am. Dec. 271, 276, with note to establish the rule. With Mclnstry v. Tanner, 9 Johns. 135, said in 19 Am. Dec. 65, n., to have been qualified by subse- quent adjudications. Disting'd (Mandamus to compel filing, . &c.) in People ex rel. Hartford, &c. Ins. Co. v. Fairman, 12 Abb. N. C. 252. ex rel. Case v. Collins, 19 Wend. 56. Applied (Proof requisite to entitle one to remedy by mandamus) in People ex rel. Coppers v. Trustees, 21 Hun, 184. Ex- plained in People ex rel. Frost v. Fay, 3 Bans. 404. Disting'd (Mandamus, on appli- cation of individual, in case of public right) in People i>. Canal Board, 13 Barb. 448. Regarded as having settled the rule and be- ing a well considered case, in People ex rel. Stephens v. Halsey, 37 N. Y. 344. Disap- roved with People v. Tracy, 1 Den. 618, in Drake v. Regents, &c, 4 Mich. 102. Collated with other cases in 28. Am. R. 448, 7i. Approved (Proceedings in mandamus, as affected by expiration of term of office of defendant) in Thompson v. U. S., 103 U. ■ S. 483. -. T. Colt, 3 Sill, 432. Opinion of Chan- cellor Walworth referred to in Id. 436, n. a., is reported in 1 Park. 611. See Sun. ed. of proceedings at N. Y. oyer and terminer published at N. Y. 1842. See also Vol. 1, p. 226, of Remarkable Trials, published at N. Y. 1867. See Life of J. C. Colt, 3 ed. Bos- ton, 1842. v. Columbia Common Pleas, 1 Wend. 297 ; s. c, 9 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 922, with brief note of other cases. Disting'd (Correcting verdict on jurors' affidavits) in Dalryraple v. Williams, C3 N. Y. 361. Followed in Clark ■». Carter, 12 Geo. 500 ; s. c, -58 Am. Dec. 485. Commented on and cases cited to the contrary (Mandamus to inferior courts) in LTiyh.- on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 160, n. 5. - — T. Comaii, 5 Daly, 527; s. c, 49 Bow. Pr. 91. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 03 N. Y. 611, but without opinion. Decision in 5 Baly applied (Discharging judgment on forfeited recognizance) in People v. Cary, 6 Id. 406. Followed in People v Haggerty, 5 Id. 532. ex rel. County Superintendents of Poor of Monroe v. Commissioners of Emigration, 15 How. Pr. 177. Rev'd in 27 Barb. 562. ex rel. Argyle, &c. PI. Rd. Co. v. Commissioners of Fort Edward, 11 Bow. Pr. 89. See (Alternative writ of manda- mus, how returnable) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2072, n. ex rel. Huntting t. Commissioners of Highways of East Hampton, 30 N. Y. 72. Explained and disting'd (Necessity that proceedings be at the time pending before inferior tribunal, to justify use of certiorari) in People ex rel. Haines v. Smith, 45 Id. 772. Reviewed with other cases (Limits of inquiry on certiorari) in People v. Board of Police, 39 Id. 515. ex rel. Purdy v. Commissioners of Highways of Marlborough, 54 K Y. 276. See People v. Devlin; Thomas v. Dakin. Cited (Presumption that statute was duly passed) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 290, where qualifying cases are cited. To the contrary see authorities in Abb. Tr. Ev. 770, n. 5. ex rel. Failing v. Commissioners of Highways of Palatine, 53 Barb. 70. Fol- lowed (Title of local bill) in People ex rel. Schenectady Observatory s. Allen, 42 N. Y. 404, 418. Disting'd in People ex rd. Commissioners v. Banks, 67 Id. 568, 572. ex rel. Ottman v. Commissioners of Highways of Seward. See People v. Hynds. v. Commissioners of Hudson, 7 Wend. 474. Commented on with People v. Adsit, 2 Rill, 619 (Liability of commissioners of highways) in Adsit v. Brady, 4 Id. 630, 634. ex rel. Presmeyer v. Commissioners of Police, &c. See People ex rel. Beller v. Wright. ex rel. Clark t. Commissioners of Reading, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 193. Disting'd (Discontinuance of highway) in People ex rel. Miller ». Griswold, 67 N. Y. 59, 62. ex r el. Abrarns v. Commissioners of Taxes, 52 N. Y. 059. Explained (What taxable as real estate) in People ex rel. Van Nest«. Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., 80 Id. 573, 575. €x rel. Academy of Sacred Heart v. Commissioners of Taxes. 6 Hun, 109. Aff'd as People ex, rel. Female Academy, &c. v. Same, 64 N. Y. 656. Decision in 6 Hun followed (Exemption of " lot" from taxation) in People ex rel. St. Johns College v. Commr's of Taxes of N. Y., 10 Id. 246. ex rel. Bank of British N. A. v. Com- PEOPLE. missioners of Taxes. Reported as People ex rel. Bank of Montreal v. Same. ex rel. Bank of Commerce of N. T. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 40 Barb. 334. ReVd in 2 Wall. 200. Results of this de- cision examined (Tax upon stock issued by act of Congress) in People ex rel. Lockport City Bank v. Board of Education of Lock- port, 46 Barb. 588, 593. v. , 26 N. Y. 163. Said in 4 Am. L. Leg. N. S. 235, to have been rev'd (Tax upon stock issued by act of Congress) in 2 Black, 620. ex rel. Bank of Commonwealth v. Com- missioner of Taxes, 23 N. 7. 192. Affg 32 Barb. 509; s. c, 20 How. Pr. 182; 18 Id. 245. Rev'd in 2 Blach, 620 ; s. c, 25 How. Pr. 9. Decision in 23 N. Y. followed (Definition of capital stock) in Williams v. "Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. N. G. 419, 423. Followed (Taxation of IT. S. securities) in People v. Comm'rs of Taxes of N. Y., 37 Barb. 638; Same v. Same, 26 N. Y. 164. Examined in connection with subsequent de- cisions and legislation in People exrel. Otsego County Bank v. Supervisors of Otsego Co., 51 Id. 401, 404. Disapproved in 2 Am. L. Reg. If. 8. 43, n. Decisions in 2 Wall. ■ 23 If. Y. examined in People v. Board of Edu- cation of Lockport, 46 Barb. 594. Decision in 23 If. Y. cited in 1 Kent Com. 429, n. 1, Holmes' ed. Included in 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 535, with note by Prof. Dwight. Decis- ions in 32 Barb. ; 23 If. K; 25 How. Pr. reviewed (Taxation of capital stock) in Peo- ple v. Comm'rs of Taxes of N. Y., 40 Barb. 347; Samei). Same, 46 How. Pr. 231. De- cision in 23 If. Y. applied in Pacific Steam- ship Co. v.. Comm'rs of Taxes, 46 How. Pr'. 342. ex rel. Bank of Montreal v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 630. Rev'd in 59 If. Y. 40, and the assess- ments vacated. See Williams v. Supervis- ors of Wayne Co. ex rel. Broadway & Seventh Ave. R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 1 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & G.) 635; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 227. Aff'd, it seems, in 60 K Y. 638, but without opinion. - — ex rel. Gallatin Nat. Bank v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, 8 Hun, 536. Aff'd in 67 If. Y. 516. Compare (Taxation of bank shares) in People v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 94 U. S. 415. ex rel. Hanover Bank v. Commission- ers of Taxes, 37 Barb. 635 ; s. c, 2 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 31, with notes by Prof. Dwight. ex rel. Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 33 Barb. 116. Dissenting opinion in Id. 523. Rev'd in 23 N. Y. 224; s. c, 21 How. Pr. 385. See People v. Gardner; Williams v. Supervisors of Wayne Co. De- cision in 23 If. Y. explained (Limitation of office of certiorari) in People v. Supervisors of Livingston, 43 Barb. 236. Explained (Taxation of personal property, as affected by question of place) in People v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 37 Id. ,639 ; Same v. Same, 40 Id. 355; Peoples rel. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. , Comm'rs of Taxes, 58 IT. Y. 240. Applied in People v. Gardner, 51 Barb. 355; Pacific Steamship Co. v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 46 How. Pr. 343 ; People ex rel. Jefferson ». Smith, 88 N. Y. 576. Explained and disting'd in Boardman v. Supervisors of Tompkins, 85 Id. 359,361,303. Followed with People ex rel. Jefferson v. Gardner, 51 Barb. 352, in Trowbridge v. Commissioner of Taxes, 4 Hun, 595, 598. Relied on in Jenkins v. Charleston, 5 So. Car. 393 ; s. c, 22 Am. R. 14, 23. Reviewed with Duer v. Small, 17 Horn. Pr. 201 ; Trowbridge v. Commissioners of Taxes, 4 Hun, 595, and other cases in Dyers. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321 ; s. c, 23 Am. It. 460, 463. Disting'd (Situs ' of personal property) in Kelly v. Crapo, 45 N. Y. 92. Approved in Graham v. First Nat. B'k of Norfolk, 84 Id. 393, 400. ex rel. Kennedy v. Commissioner of Taxes, 35 If. Y. 423. Affd in 4 Wall. 244. Both decisions cited with other authorities (State tax on Federal operations) in 1 Kent Com. 429, n. 1 Holmes' ed. ex rel. National Freight, &c. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 3 Month. L. Bui. 5. This case, or one of similar name, ex- plained (Exemption of corporation from taxation under L. 1880, c. 542) in People ex rel. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 25 Hun, 630. ex rel. N. T. Elev. R. R. Co. v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, 19 Hun. 460. Affd in 82 If. Y. 459. ex rel. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 46 How. Pr. 315 ; s. c, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 611. Fur- ther proceeding in 1 Hun, 143; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 678; 47 How. Pr. 164. which was aff'd in 58 N. Y. 242. Also further proceeding in 5 Hun, 200, and that aff'd in 04 N. Y. 541. Decision in 5 Hun criticised (Taxation of stock of foreign cor- porations held by residents) in 56 Am. Dec. 528, n., as contrary to weight of authority. ex rel. Parker Mills v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 If. Y. 242 ; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 143. Explained and applied (Taxation of foreign corporation doing business in this State) in People ex rel. Bank of Montreal v. Comm'rs of Ta'xes, 59 K. Y. 4A, which rev'd 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 63.1, which see. ex rel. Trademen's Bank v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, 9 Hun, 650. Rev'd in 09 If. Y. 91. ex rel. Trowbridge r. Commissioners of Taxes, 4 Hun, 595. Aff'd, it seems, in 62 If. Y. 630, but without opinion. See Peo- ple v. Gardner. Decision in 4 Hun disting'd (Shares of stock in foreign corporation, where taxable) in Deyer v. Osborne, 11 It. I. 321 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 464. ex rel. Van Nest v. Commissioners of Taxes, 80 If. Y. 573. Followed (What 580 PEOPLE. taxable as real estate) in People ex rel. N. Y. Elev. R. R Co. ■». Comm'rs of Taxes, 82 Id. 459, 463. ex rel. Brisbane v. Common Conncil of Buffalo, 70 JV. Y. 558. Explained (De- stroying property to save other property) iu Moat? a UnderhilVa Torts, 1 Am. ed. 454. ex rel. Market Commissioners v. Com- mon Council of New York, 1 Abb. Pr. JV. 8. 318; s. c, 45 Barb. 473 ; 30 IJow. Pr. 327. Aff'd in 3 Eeyea, 81 ; s. c, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec 502. ex rel. White v. Common Council of Rochester. See Geraty i>. Reid. ex rel. Gas Light Co. v. Common Conn- cil of Syracuse, 52 How. Pr. 34G. Rev'd in 78 JV Y. 56. ex rel. Francis v. Common Conncil of Troy, 78 JV. Y. 33. Rev'g 17 Hun, 20. Decision in 78 JV Y. applied (Power of court to direct subordinate body as to con- struction of law) in People ex ret. Van Wyck i>. Police Comm'rs, 57 How. Pr. 459. Ap- plied (When decision of public body on question of fact is not to be controlled by mandamus) in People v. Auditors of Elmira, 20 Hun, 151. ■ ex rel. Curtis v. Common Conncil of Utica. See Same«. City of Utica. ex rel. Griffin t. Common Pleas of Jefferson. See Blunt v. Greenwood. ■ ex rel. Manning v. Common Pleas of N. Y., 13 Wend. 649; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 495, with note. Subsequent proceeding in 13 Wend. 655, n. With decision in Id. see (Nature of alternative writ of mandamus) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 2072, n. v. Compton, 1 Duer, 512. Aff'd as People v. Sturtevant, in 9 JV. Y. 263. Decis- in 1 Duer approved (What is not excuse for disobedience of injunction) in Atl. & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co., 46 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 377, 417. Followed (Allowance for counsel fees in proceedings for contempt) in Van Valkenburgh v. Doo- little, 4 Abb. JV. C. 72, 75. v. Comptroller, 20 Wend. 595. Ap- proved (Who are public officers) in First Nat. B'k of North Bennington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 Yt. 87 ; s. c, 36 Am. R. 734, 744. v. Comstock, 8 Wend. 549. See People v. Dutchess Oyer & Terminer. Commented on (New trials in criminal cases) in 2 Ben- net & H. Gas. on Grim. L. 490. ex rel. Hatfield v. Comstock, 1 8 Hun, 311. Rev'd in 78 JV. Y 356. T. Conklin, 2 Hill, 67. Reviewed and explained (Effect of naturalization on right to inherit) in Heeney v. Brooklyn Benevo- lent Society, 39 JV Y. 333, 337. Followed (Time when capacity to take by descent must exist) in Donovan v. Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411; s. c, 25 Am. E. 634. Commented on (Conveyance by alien; in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Beat Prop. 501. ex rel. Floyd v. Conklin, 5 Hun, 452. Further proceeding in 7 Id. 188. ex rel. Donovan t. Connor, Jim 250. Aff'd as Same v. Conner, 04 JV. Y 481. ' " ex rel. Devlin v. Conover, 26 Bart 516. Aff'd in 17 JV Y. 64. ex rel. Belden y. Contracting Board 27 JV. Y 378. See People ex rel. Vicker- man v. Same. Applied (When mandamus does not lie) in People ex rel. Grace t>. Police Comm'rs of Troy, 12 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 183; Weed v. Beach, 56 Htm. Pr. 476; Peo. pie ex rel. Frost ». Fay. 3 Lans. 402. Ex- plained in People «. Contracting Board, 46 Barb. 257; People v. Allen, 42 JV. Y. 410. Disapproved and dissenting opinion com- mended in dissenting opinion of Maxwell J., in State ex rel. Silver v. Kendall, 15 Neb. 262; s. c, 18 Northw. Rep. 85, 91. See (Issue of peremptory writ of mandamus in first instance) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2070, n. ex rel. Bullard y. Contracting Board, 20 How. Pr. 206. Rev'd in 33 Barb. 510'; which was aff'd in 33 JV Y. 382. Decision in Id. explained (Refusal of mandamus) in People ex rel. Schenectady Observatory v. Allen, 42 Id. 404. See (Issue of peremp- tory writ of mandamus in first instance) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, §§ 2070, «. See also (Service of notice of motion for mandamus; Id. 2071, n. ex rel. Yickerman y. Contracting Board, 40 Barb. 254. Explained as not in conflict with People ex rel. Belden v. Con- tracting Board, 27 JV. Y. 387 (Refusal of mandamus to award contract) in Weed'r. Beach, 66 How. Pr. 470. v. Cook, 14 Barb. 259. Aff'd in 8 IK Y. 67 ; s. c., 59 Am. Dec. 451, with notes on various points. See Franklin v. Tal- madge ; Hamlin v. Dingman. Decision in 8 JV Y. applied (Effect of irregularities com- mitted by inspectors of election) in People ex rel. Frost v. Wilson, 62 Id. 193; People v. McManus, 34 Barb. 625; Felt's Case, 11 Abb Pr. JV. S. 207. Disting'd in Peo- ple ex rel. Bush v. Thornton, 25 Hun. 4-jfi, 463. Included with notes in Brightly Gas. on Elect. 423. Disting'd (Liability for swearing before unauthorized officer) in Lambert v. People, 6 Abb. JV C. 181, 195. Applied (Effect of objection to legal con- clusion based on wrong assumption) in Pol- len ». Le Roy, 10 Bosw. 56. Applied (Lia- bility for costs in quo warranto proceedings) in People ex rel. Furman v. Clute, 52 JV. Y. 577. Commented on (Right of counsel to address jury) in Elwell v. Chamberlain, 31 JV Y. 621. Dictum herein disapproved in Matter of Church, 64 How. Pr. 393. See cases collected (Acts, of de facto officers valid as to third parties) in 10 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 445. Both decisions explained (In- quiry into qualifications of voters) in People v. Pease, 30 Barb. 599 ; which was aff d in 27 JV. Y. 61, which see. Applied (What is a valid oath) in People v. O'Reilly, 9 Abb. JV G. 77, 89 ; which was rev'd in 10 Id. 03, PEOPLE. 581 which see. Discussed (Construction of State Constitutions) in Gooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 89. Discussed (Right to vote) in Id. 767, n. 2. v. Cooper, 6 Hill, 5ff>. Approved (Duty to maintain bridges erected under L. 1823, p. 128, § 4) in Follett v. People, 12 If. Y. 268. v . See Warner c. Shed. ex rel. Nichols v. Cooper, 57 Bow. Pr. 403. Other proceedings in 19 Ilun, 441 ; 58 How. Pr. 358, and the latter aff' d in 21 Hun, 517. ex rel. Scudder v. Cooper, 20 Hun, 480. Discussed (Writ of possession in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on- Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 557. v. Corbin, 56 N. Y. 363 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 427. Applied (Other criminal acts as evidence) in State v. Lapage, 57 If. H. 245 ; s. c , 24 Am. R. 09, 71), 91 ; Coleman e. People, 55 If. Y. 90, being also relied on, and People v. Wood, 3 Parle. G81, being disting'd in concurring opinion of Smith, J. Explained in 2 Add. on Torts, 6:;0, «., Wood's ed. Quoted and explained in 2 Best on Er>. § 495, n. a, Wood's ed. t. Corlies, 1 Sandf. 228. See Stilwell v. Mills. Followed (Proof of surrogate's jurisdiction) in People ex rel. Meyer v. llart- man, 2 Sweeny, 576, 580. cx rel. Henry v. Cornell, 47 Barb. 329; s. c, 32 How. Pr. 149. Rev'd in 35 How. Pr. 31. — — v. Corning, 2 H. Y. 9 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 364, with note, wherein are collected citations. Explained with reference to subsequent legislation (Writ of error in behalf of people after judgment) in People v, Barry, 10 Abb. Pr. 227; People v. Tar- box, 30 How. Pr. 320; People*. Merrill, 14 If. Y. 77. See People v. Nestle, 19 Id. 583. Highly approved and followed in Common- wealth v. Cuinmings, 36 Gush. (Mass,.) 212; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 732, 737, with note. In- cluded in 1 Bennett & H. Gas. on Grim. L. 425, with note. v. Corporation of Albany, 11 Wend. 539 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 95, with note con- taining citations. See People v. Vanderbilt. Disting'd (Liability of municipal corpora- tion as to nuisance) in Cain v. City of Syra- cuse, 95 If. Y. 83. Approved with Buckbee v. Brown, 21 Wend. 110 (Liability for fail- ure to keep wharf, &c., in repair) in Pitts- burgh 'u. Orier, 22 Penn. St. 54: s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 65, with note. Followed (Muni- cipal liability for negligence) in City of Tallahassee v. Fortune, 3 Fla. 319; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 358, 362, with note. Cited as authority (Extent of power of municipal corporation) in Cooper «. Alden, Harr. Gh. (Mich.) 86. v. Corporation of Brooklyn, 1 Wend. 318; _s. c.; 19 Am. Dec. 502, with note. Applied (Rights when vested, in condemna- tion proceedings) in Matter of Washington Park, 56 If. Y. 144, 155. Quoted (When mandamus issues) in High on Eztr. Bern. 2 cd. § 10, n. 1. — - v. Cortclyou, 36 Barb. 104. Disting'd, and as to dictum overruled (Inquiry by referees into jurisdiction of commissioners of highways) in People ex rel. Hubbard v. Harris, 63 K Y. 396. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 297. v. Costello, 1 Den. 83. Followed (In- cluding distinct offenses in different counts of indictment) in People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 3 Hun, 788 ; which was rev'd in 60 N. 7. 578, which see. Followed (Con- viction on testimony of accomplice) in Peo- ple «. Haynes, 55 Barb. 453; People v. Lawton, 56 Id. 130. Approved in Haskins v. People, 16 K Y. 352. Approved in Commonwealth v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 424 ; s. c, 34 Am. B. 391, with note collating Lindsay v. People, 63 N. Y. 143 ; People v. Davis, 21 Wend. 309, and other cases. Followed (Competency as witness, of woman on whom abortion has been committed) in People v. Lohman, 2 Barb. 224; Dunn v. People, 29 N. Y. 532. v. Cotteral, 18 Johns. 115. See report of trial in 5 Cily H. lice. 71. Decision in 18 Johns, followed and approved (Prisoner putting fire to jail with intent to escape is not guilty of arson) in Jenkins v. State, 52 Ga. 33; s. c, 21 Am. R. 255. Dissented from in Luke v. State, 49 Ala. 30; s. c, 20 Am. R. 269 ; People v. Rose, 12 Johns. 339, being also cited (Indictable nature of offense committed with intent to escape). — ex rel. Parker v. County Court of Jefferson, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 603. Aft'd in 55 N. Y. 604. — ex rel. Bendon v. County Judge of Rensselaer, 13 How. Pr. 398. See (Defi- nition of " action ") Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3333, n. — - v. County of N. T., 5 Cow. 331. Ap- plied (Time from which interest runs on taxes, &c.) in Matter of Miller, 24 Hun, 637. — ex rel. Bnnn v. Coutant, 11 Wend. .132. Affd in Id. 511. Both decisions followed (Term of office of one elected or appointed to fill vacancy) in People ex rel. Rosekrans ». Carr, 62 How. Pr. 5, 16, which was rev'd in Id. 19. — ex rel. Crouse v. Cowles, 34 How. Pr. 481. Rev'd in 4 Keyes, 38; s. c, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 507. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Enforcement of order for payment of money) in Watson v. Nelson, 69 If. Y. 536, 545. Followed in Matter of Clark, 20 Hun, 551, 555. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. See (Habeas corpus, when not allowed) Id. § 2010, n. — ex rel. Hislop v. Cowles, 16 Hun, 577. Affd in People v. Ilislop, 77 If. Y. 331. — v. Cox, 21 Hun, 47. Affd without opinion, in 83 If. Y. 610. Decision in 21 Ilun applied (Contradicting witness^ by discrediting his testimony) in Stape v. Peo- ple, Id. 39'J, 401. 5S2 PEOPLE. ex rel. Dai'gin v. Cox, 9 Run, 146. AfFd in 76 N. Y. 47. v. Cram, 8 Row. Pr. 151. Said never to have been questioned (Separate judg- ments against one or more defendants joinfly liable) iu Pomeroy on Rem. § 258. v. Crapo, 70 K Y. 288. See Brandon v. People; Ryan v. People. Reviewed ■with. People v. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571 ; Ryan v. People, 79 Id. 594; People ex rel Phelps v. Oyer& T., 83 Id. 460; Peoples. Casey, 72 Id. 393 (Questions admissible as tending to discredit witness) in People v. Noelke, 29 Run, 461. Disting'd in Pon- tius v. People, 82 K Y. 339, 350. T. Crilley, 20 Barb. 246. Seems not to have been followed (What are strong and spirituous liquors) in Commissioners of Ex- cise v. Taylor, 21 JST. Y. 173. ex rel. Lord y. Crooks, 53 If. Y. 648. Compare (Misjoinder of parties plaintiff) Code Civ. Pro. § 488, subd. 5. v. Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. 337. See arguments of counsel in pamphlet, pub- lished at N. Y. in 1804, and entitled, " The speeches at full length of Mr. Van Ness, Mr. Caines, the Attorney-general, Mr. Har- ' rison, and General Hamilton, in the great cause of the People v. Croswell, &c." It will be found in 1 Am. Trials, No. 5, Boston Social Law Libr. See Steele v. Southwick. Commented on with reference to subse- quent legislation (Justification in libel cases) in Castle v. Houston, 19 Fans. 4l7; s. c. 27 Am. B. 127. Approved in Cincin- nati Gazette Co. v. Bishop, 7 Weekly Cin. L. Bui. 64. Explained (Function of jury;, in libel case) in Root v. King, 7 Cow. 624 (and see remarks of Mr. Hamilton ap- proved in Dolloway «. Turrill, 26 Wend. 396). Approved (Function of jury, gener- ally) in People «. Cook, 8 N. Y. 76. Mr. Hamilton's definition of a libel approved and applied in Cooper v. Greeley, 1 Ben. 359; Steele v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 215. Followed in Robertson v. Bennett, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 66. 70. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 16, n. d. See also Id. 20, 24. ex rel. Dinsinore v. Croton Aqueduct Board, 5 Abb. Pr. 316. Aff'd in 26 Barb. 240; s. c, 6 Abb. PrA2. v. Cummings, 3 Park. 343. Approved with People v. McCann, Id. 293 (Summon- ing jurors in criminal cases) in Ferris v. People, 48 Barb. 17, 23. v. Cunningham, 1 Den. 524: s. a, 43 Am. Dec. 709, with note, wherein are col- lected citations. See Mills v. Hall. Ap- plied (Right to continue nuisance not given by prescription) in Crill v. City of Rome, . 47 Row. Pr. 406; Campbell ■». Seaman, 2 Sufm. Ct. {T. & C.) 241. Approved (Lia- bility for obstruction of public way) iu Den- nis v. Sipperly, 17 Run, 70. Approved in Clark «. Fry, 8 Ohio (K S.) 358 ; Palmer '«. Silverthom, 32 Penn. 65. Included with note in Lawson Lead. Cas. (Crim. L.) Simplified, 143. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Righw. 3 ed. 317, Discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 263. Cited with other cases as applicable to . steam-whistles in 14 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 672. ex rel. Barlow v. Curtis, 50 JV. 7. 321 ; s. c, 10 Am. R. 483. Affg Matter of Vogt, 44 Row. Pr. 171. v. Cutting. See Jackson v. Adams. ex rel. Lewis v. Daly, 4 Run, 641 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 325. Compare (Certiorari, when allowed) Code Gi/o. Pro. 8 2121. v. Damon, 13 Wend. 351. Questioned (Discharging disqualified juror) in 1 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 528. Collated with other cases in 2 Bennett & R. Cas. on Crim. - Z- 362. — - ex rel. Underwood v. Daniell, 6 Lans. 4A. Affd in 50 K Y. 274, on the main constitutional question. Decision in Id. disting'd (Right to appear by counsel in court martial proceedings) in People ex rel. Garling v. Van Allen, 55 Id. 31, 35. See L. 1875, c. 223, § 50. v. Darling, 47 K Y. 666. Followed (Tenancy from month to month) in Geiger. e. Braun, 6 Daly, 506. v. Davis, 18 Row. Pr. 134 ; s. c, more fully, 4 Parle. 61. v. , 45 Barb. 494. Affd in 36 1L Y. 77 ; s. c, 33 Row. Pr. 442. v. , 21 Wend. 309. See People v. Costello ; People «. Mather. Followed (Proof of incorporation of bank, on indict- ment for forgery of bank notes) and People v. Peabody, 25 Wend. 472, disting'd, in Peo- ple v. D'Argeucour, 95 XT. Y. 624. Quoted (Evidence of accomplice) in 1 Best on 3o. § 171, n. a, Wood's ed. — - v. , 61 Barb. 456. Rev'd as Huber v. People, in 49 XT. Y. 132; s. c, less fully, 44 Row. Pr. 375. v. , 56 XT. Y. 95. See Luby «. Hudson River R. R. Co. Disapproved (Dy- ing declarations of victim of abortion, as evidence) in Montgomery v. State, 80 Ind. 338 ; s. c, 41 Am. R. 815. See 28 Moah Eng. 592, n. ; 31 Id. 741, n. Criticised and collated with Jackson v. Vredenburgh, 1 Johns. 159 ; Hackett v. People, 54 Barb. 370, and other cases (Dying declarations when only admissible) in Commonwealth v. Bruce, Philadelphia Quarter Sessions, 12 Wash. L. Rep. 590; s. c, 1 Am. L. J. 366; 16 Chic. Leg. XT. 342. Collated with Hack- ett v. People, 54 Barb. 370, and other cases in 19 Cent. L. J. 128. ex rel. Williams v. Dayton, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 14. Rev'd in 55 XT. Y. 867. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of construction of statute by legislature) as ' inapplicable to construction by public offi- cers, in Matter of Manhattan Savgs. Inst., 82 Id. 142, 144. See Matter of Merriam, 84 Id. 596, 603. Applied in People v. Steph- ens, 13 Run, 22. PEOPLE. 5S3 T. Bean, 3 Wend. 438. Sec People v. Collins. Approved and applied -with Par- ker v. Baker, 8 Paige, 428; Mclnstry ». Tanner, 9 /oAn». 135 ; Morris v. People, 3 Zten. 381 (What constitutes officer de facto) in Brown v. O'Connell, 36 Conn. 432 ; s. c, 4 Am. B. 89, 94. ex rel. Marsh v. Delaney, 49 N. Y. 655. Compared (Office of common law certiorari) in People ex rel. Sehuylerville & Upper Hudson R. R. Co. i>. Betts, 55 Id. 600, 602. v. Delaware Common Pleas, 1 Johns. Cas. 181. Followed (Mandamus proper remedy to restore attorney disbarred by inferior court) in People v. Turner, 1 Cat. 143; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 295, 302, with note. ex rel. Phelps t. Delaware Common Pleas, 2 Wend. 256. Disting'd (Delay when reason for refusing writ of man- damus) in People ex rel. Gas Light Co. b. Common Council of Syracuse, 78 N. Y. 56-62. v. Demin?, 1 Eilt. 271. Cited (Repeal by implication) in Peck v. Peck, 8 Abb. Ji. C. 400, 403. v. Denison, 17 Wend. 312. Disting'd (Presumption of title of people to land) in People ». Trinity Church, 30 Barb. 548; which was aft'd in 22 N. Y. 48, 62, which see. y. , 19 Hun, 137. AfF d in 80 H. Y. 656. Further decision in 59 How. Pr. 157; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. N~. O. 128; mem. s. c, 22 Hun, 317, and that aff'd as People ■o. Dennison, 84 .AT. Y. 274. Decisions in 8 Abb. KG. and 84.$: Y. disting'd (Eftect of judgment absolute on stipulation) in Rust v. Hauselt, 8 Abb. N. O. 148, 157. Compare (Action, &c, against State) Am. Dock, &c. Co. v. Trustees of Pub. Schools, 32 .A 7 ! /. Eq. (5 Stew.) 428. See the New- battle, Ct. oj App. 1885, 33 Weekly Rep. 318, and cases cited. See (State Board of Audit) L. 1881, c. 211, amending L. 1876, c. 444. Decisions in lfl Hun and 80 W. Y. disting'd (Recovery of overpayments on canal contract) in Belden v. State of N. Y., 31 Hun, 409. — v. Denslow. See First Baptist Church 9. Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co. — v. Denton, 2 Johns. Cas. 275. See Peo- ple v. Barrett. Followed with People v. Joodwin, 18 Johns. 188; People v. Olcott, i Johns. Cas. 301 (Effect of discharge of ury in criminal case! in Nugent v. State, : Stew. & P. (Ala.) 72; s. c, 24 Am. Pec. '46. Disapproved with People o. Olcott, ! Johns. Cas. 301, in McCauley v. State, 26 ila. 135; s. c, 1 Am. Pea. 176, n., their loctrine being said, though repudiated in 'eople v. Barrett, 2 Cai. 305, to have levertheless been followed in some later N. f. cases and elsewhere. Quoted and ed- ited with other cases in 2 Bennett & H. las. on Grim. L. 370. — ex rel. Clapp v. Department of Police of N. T., 5 Hun, 457. Rev'd in 72 K Y. 415. v. Devlin, 33 K Y. 269. See People v. Supervisors of N. Y.; Thomas e. Dakin. Dictum explained (Compensation of county treasurer) in Supervisors of Otsego ». Hen- dryx, 58 Barb. 284. Cited as authority •with People ex rel. Purdy v. Commissioners, &c. of Marlborough, 54 N. Y. 276 (Con- clusiveness of enrolled bill, as law) in Chicot County v. Davies, 40 Ark. 200, 210. Approved (Power of governor to return bill to legislature) in "Wolfe v. McCaull. Va. Sup'm. Ct. of App. 1882, 26 Alb. L. J. 369. ex rel. Foote v. Dewey, 1 Hun, 529. Fully reported in 3 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 638. v. Dibble, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Pec. 518; s. c, 5 Park. 28. Affg Dibble v. People, 4 Id. 199. ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble, 18 Barb. 412. Afi'd in 16 K Y. 203; and that in 21 How. (U. S.) 366. Decision in 16 HT. Y. con- sidered (When lands cease to be part of Indian reservation) in Fellows v. Denniston, 23 Id. 420, 434. v. Didieu. See Didieu v. People. ex rel. Coleman v. Dikeman, 7 How. Pr. 124. See (Application to mandamus proceedings, of statute as to defect of title in affidavit) Code Civ. Pro. § 3347, subd. 6. v. Dixon, 4 Park. 651. Cited as author- ity with People v. Van Home, 8 Barb. 158; Ex parte Tayloe. 5 Cow. 39 (When pris- oner charged with felony is entitled to bail) in Ex parte McAnally, 53 Ala. 495 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 646. v. Dohring, 59 N. Y. 374 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 349. See Cancemi v. People. Disting'd (Organization of court of sessions) in Hin- man v. People, 13 Hun, 266. Applied (Re- sistance necessary to constitute rape) in Oleson v. State, 11 Mb. 276; s. c, 38 Am. R. 366. Approved as laying down the correct rule in People v. Mayes, Sup'm. Ct. Cal. 1885, 6 Pae. Rep. 691, 694. Included with notes in Lawson Lead. Cas. Grim. L. Simplified, 228. ex rel. Cagger v. Dolan, 36 N. Y. 59. Overruled (Deduction, on account of debts, from valuation of bank shares for assess- ment) in People ex rel. Williams v. Weaver, 100 U. 8. 539; s. c, 2 Browne's Nat. B'k Cas. 57. Denied in Nat. Albany Exchange B'k«. Wells, 18 Blatchf. G. Ct. 478, 480; s. c, 2 Browne's Nat. Bk. Cas. 456, 458. Statement of Hunt, J., approved and fol- lowed (Rate of taxation has nothing to do with exemption) in Crawford v. County of Linn, Sup'm. Ct. Oreg. 5 Pac. Rep. 738. v. Donnelly, 2 Park. 182; s. c, more fully, 1 Abb. Pr. 459. Referred to as ex- pressly overruled by Wixson v. People, 5 Park. 119, and the latter case applied (De- fendant in indictment as incompetent wit- ness for co-defendant) in Taylor v. People, 12 Hun, 212. 584: PEOPLE. — ex rel. Lowenbein v. Donolme, 15 Hun, 418; s. c, as People ex rel. Louen- bein v. Donohue, 56 How. Pr. 152. T. Donglass, 4 Cow. 26; s. c, 15 Am. Bee. 332, with note. See Brant e. Fowler; Eastwood i). People; Horton «. Horton; Wilson v. Abrahams. Explained (Miscon- duct of jurors, as ground for setting aside verdict) in Wilson ». Abrahams, 1 Hill, 207, 211. Applied in U. S. v. Bennett, 16 BlatcJif. 0. Ot. 338, 373. Referred to with Bullard ». Spoor, 2 Cow. 430 ; Brant v. Fow- ler, 7 Id. 562, in 35 Am. Dec. 258, n., as overruled by Wilson i>. Abrahams, 1 Hill, 207. See also 15 Am. Lee. 339, n. Fol- lowed in Leighton «. Sargent, 31 If. H. 119. Disapproved in State 1 v. Druce, 48 Iowa, 530; s. c, 30 Am. R. 406. Cited as au- thority in Early v. State, 1 Tex. Ot. App. 248 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 409. Followed with Brant v. Fowler, 7 Cow. 562, and both said to be modified by Wilson v. Abrahams, 1 Hill. 207, in Davis v. State, 35 hid. 496 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 760, with note collating cases. Quoted and commented on in 2 Bennett & H. Cas. on Crim. L. 386. — ex rel. Wood v. Draper, 24 Barb. 265 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. 333 ; 14 How. Pr. 233. Subsequent decision in 25 Barb. 344, aff d in 15 N. Y. 532. See No. 39 of Charles O'Conor's "My Own Cases" now in the Law last. Lib. N. Y. City. See Clark v. People ; People ex rel. McCune ». Board of Police for Metropolitan Police District; People v. Fisher ; Sill v. Village of Corning. Decision in 15 If. Y. followed (Implica- tions from constitutional provisions) in People ex rel. Sherrill i>. Canal Board, 4 Lam. 272, 274. Followed (Validity of law providing for filling of offices) in Ilanlon v. Supervisors of Westchester, 8 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 275; People v. Conover, 26 Barb. 525; 531, 533, 537; People ex rel. Bradley v. Stevens, 51 How. Pr. 142; People v. Wood- ruff, 32 If. Y. 365 ; People v. Pinckney, Id. 381, 724. Relied in State v. Arrington, 18 Ifev. 412, 415. Explained and applied in People v. Acton, 48 Barb. 527; People v. Blake, 49 Id. 13 ; People «. Raymond, 37 If. Y. 431. Applied (Validity of law cre- ating new governmental district) in Coe v. Schultz, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 198; Litchfield «. McComber, 42 Barb. 299; Cooper «. Schultz, 32 How. Pr. 128 ; Rumsey v. Peo- ple, 19 If. Y. 55; People v. Shepard, 36 If. Y. 285. Followed as decisive in Metropoli- tan Bd. of Health «. Heister, 37 If. Y. 667. Criticised and disting'd in People ex rel. Bol- ton v. Anderson, 55 Id. 63. Applied (Ques- tions to be determined in proceeding affecting title to office) in People ®. Carpenter, 24 If. Y. 88. Explained (Effect of act establishing Metropolitan Police District) in People «. Metropolitan Police Board, 19 If. Y. 191. Quoted (Powers of legislative department) in Cooleyon Const. Limit. 5 ed. 106. Quoted (Inquiry into legislative motives) in Id. 223, n. 3. Approved (Police officers are State officers rather than municipal)' in Burch®. Hardwicke, 30 Gr/itl. ( Va.) 24; s.c, 32 Am. It. 640. Decision in 24 Barb, quo- ted (Injunction against police commission- ers) in 2 High on Inj. 2 eu.-§ 1312, n. 1. v. Duell, 1G How. Pr. 43. Applied (What only is brought up by writ of certi- orari in criminal cases) in Cases of Lynch and Burns, 9 Abb. If. C. 69, 74. T. Dunning, 1 Wend. 16. Disting'd (Process as void or erroneous) in Churchill v. Marsh, 2 Abb. Pr. 225. Applied in Walden v. Davison, 15 Wend. 578; James «. Gurley, 48 N. Y. 166. ex rel. Brnnett y. Dutcher, 3 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 151. See (Punishment for disobedi- ence to order in supplementary proceedings) Code Cfv. Pro. 1881, § 2457, n. — — ex rel. Comaford v. Dutcher, 20 Hun 241. Rev'd in 83 If. Y. 240. See People ex rel. Stetzer v. Rawson. Decision in 20 Bun disting'd (Jurisdiction of courts of ses- sions) in McDonald v. People, 13 Weekly Big. 548. ex rel. Creegan v. Dutcher, 2 Hun, 156; s. c, reported 4 Svp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 391. ex rel. Green v. Dutchess & Colum- bia R. R. Co. See Fletcher ». Auburn & Syracuse R. R. ; People ex rel. Garbutt v. Rochester & State Line R. R. Co. v. Dutchess Oyer & Terminer, 2 Barb. 282. Reviewed with People v. Morrison, 1 Park. 625; People «. Stone, 5 Wend. 39 ;j People v. Comstock, 8 Id. 549; People v. Townsend, 1 Johns. Cas. 104; Noah's Case, 3 City H. Rec. 24 ; People «. Justices of Chenango, 1 Johns. Cas. 179 (Power tc grant new trials) and the question settled, in Appo v. People, 20 If. Y. 531. ex rel. Yaliente v. Dycknian, 24 How Pr.- 222. Disting'd and said to have beei overruled (Compelling production of books &c.) in De Bary v. Stanley, 5 Daly, 412. v. Dyle, 21 N. Y. 578. Applied (Effec of failure to testify) in Brooks v. Stecn, Hun, 617. v. Eastwood, 14 If. Y. 562; s. c, Park. 25. See DeWitt v. Barley ; McK< v. Nelson. Explained (Opinion of wi nesses) in Hardenburgh «. Cockcroff, Baly, 82. Approved and applied in DeWi ■». Barly, 17 N. F.352. Applied in Blake People, 73 Id. 587. Cited with approval Yahn «. City of Ottumwa, 60 Iowa. 45 433 ; s. c, 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 647, wi note collating Blake v. People, 73 If. 586; Greenfield v. People, 85 Id. 75, a: other cases. Followed in State v. Pil 49 2f. H. 399; s. c, 6 Am. R. 533, 542. ex rel. Morris v. Edmonds. See P mer i>. Lawrence. ex rel. Stuart v. Edmonds, 9 How. 1 470. Aff' d in 19 Barb. 468. ex rel. Van Sickle v. Eldredge. I Sup'm. Ct. (r. & C.) 20; s.c, more ful 3 Hun, 541. T. Eldridge, 7 How. Pr. 108. Distin 1 PEOPLE. \ (Amendment to perfect appeal) iri Zinsser v. Seiler, 7 Daly, 404. Disapproved as to construction of Code, in Wood v. Kelly, 2 Eilt. 334. v. Ellis, 15 Wend. 371. Doubted (Effect of withdrawal of juror in preventing new trial) in Klock v. People, 2 Park. 676, 084. Commented on in 2 Bennett & H. Cos. on Crim. L. 365. v. Enoch, 13 Wend. 159; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 197, 203, with note, wherein it is shown to be recognized as settling the law in N. Y., as to the various poiuts therein decided. Applied (Power of appellate court to fix day of execution on affirmance of judgment in criminal case) in People v. Ferris, 32 How. Pr. 421. Applied (Duty of court to declare law, in criminal cases) in .Foster v. People, 50 N. Y. 001. Dis- ting'd (Sufficiency of intent, as element of crime of murder) in People v. Clark, 7 Id. 394. Followed in Fitzgerrold v. People, 37 Id. 413. Dicta explained in Darry v. Peo- ple, 10 Id. 158. Explained and applied by Bbonson, J., in People v. Rector, 19 Wend. 608. See People v. Johnson, 1 Park 295. Applied (Subjection of newly created crimes to incidents of class into which they are in- troduced) in People n. Toyubee, 20 Barb. 213. Disting'd (Necessity of embodying statutory description of offense in indict- ment) in People n. Lohman, -2 Id. 219. Explained in Gouglemann v. People, 3 Park. 20. Followed in Cox v. People, 80 JV. Y. 500, 514. See People v. White, 24 Wend. 571 ; People v. Butler, 3 Park. 382. v. Erie Ky. Co., 54 How. Pr. 59. Fol- lowed (Relief, when not to be granted on motion) in N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 03 Id. 14, 33. v Erwin, 4 Ben. 129. Explained (Bawdy house as nuisance) in Wood on JVuis. 2 ed. § 30. ex rel. Clark v. Essex Com. PI., 1 flow. Pr. 114. Sc- (Service of alternative writ of mandamus) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2071, n. v. Evans, 40 IV. Y. 1. See Dunn v. People. Compare (Credibility of witness) Warren «. Haight, 62 Barb. 490. Examined in Deering v. Metcalf, 74 JV. Y. 501, 505. Explained in People v. Moett, 23 Bun, 00, 63. ex rel. Demarest v. Fairchild, 8 flun, 334. Affd in 07 JV. Y. 334. Decision in Id. applied (Proceedings,' when under control of attorney-general) in People v. Central Cross Town R. R. Co., 21 Hun 476, 480, v. Falconer, 2 Sand/. 81. Applied (Liability of sureties on administration bond) in Field v. Van Cott, 5 Daly, 308; 311. T. Fallon, 6 Park. 256. Affd as Fallon v. People, 2 Eeyes, 145. y. Fancher, 50 IV. Y. 291. Quoted (Construction of State Constitution) in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 101, n. 1. 585 See Mitch- ex rel. Phelps v. Fancher. ell's Case. ■ v. Farrington, 22 Plow. Pr. 294. See cases collected (Right of church to expel member) in 12 Am. L. Ecg. N. S. 537. v. Fellinger, 24 flow. Pr. 341 ; s. c, more fully, as Fellinger v. People, 15 Abb. Pr. 128. v. Ferguson, 8 Cow. 102. Approved (Power of courts to examine validity of election proceedings) in People v. Vail, 20 Wend. 12 ; People v. Seaman, 5 Den. 409 ; People v. Cook, 28 JV. Y. 67, 82. Disap- proved, in Carpenter v. Ely, 4 Wise. 430. Considered with People v. Van Slyck, 4 Cow. 297 ; People ex rel. Benton v. Vail, 20 Wend. 14; in People v. Tisdalo, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 63. Followed in People v. Smith, 45 JV. Y. 772, 779. Followed with PeoDlp ». Vail, 20 Wend. 14, in People v. Van Cleve, 1 Mich. 362; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 69, with note. Cited in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 765, n. 3. ex rel. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Fergu- son, 38 IV. Y. 89. Explained (Deduction for unearned premiums, on assessment of insurance company) in People e~ rel. West- chester Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 25 Hun,* 630. Applied in People ex rel. M. F. Ins. Co. d. Comni'rs of Taxes of N. Y., 76 IV. Y. 73. Applied (Duty of assessor in making corrections in assessment of stock) in Peo- ple n. Howland, 61 Barb. 284. Disting'd in People ii. Comm'rs of Taxes in N. Y, 46 How. Pr. 232. Examined with other cases (What may be considered on certiorari) in People v. Board of Police, 39 N. Y. 516. v. Ferris, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 193; s. c, 48 Barb. 17. Affd in 35 N. Y. 125; s. c, 31 How. Pr. 140. ex rel. Faile v. Ferris, 16 Hun, 219. Affd in 76 JV. Y. 326. ex rel. Robinson v. Ferris, 41 Barb. 121; s. c, 18 Abb. Pr. 64; 27 How. Pr. 193. Rev'd in part, in 36 IV. Y. 218; s. c, 34 How. Pr. 189. ex rel. Cooper v. Field, 52 Barb. 198. Further decisions in 1 Lam. 222, and in 58 Barb. 270. See Hyatt v. Wood. With de- cision in 52 Barb, compare (Proof of ac- tual occupancy on issue upon forcible entry or detainer) Code Civ. Pro. § 2245. v. Fields, 58 IV. Y. 491. Subsequent decision in 50 flow. Pr. 481. Decision in 58 JV. Y. followed (Right to recover back public moneys illegally paid), in Wood v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 73 Id. 558; Supervis- ors of Richmond ii. Ellis, 59 Id. 620, 625. Applied in MoGinnis n. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 416, 418. See also (Limit of muni- cipal obligations) People ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly, 5 Abb. IV. C. 383, 468. v. Filkins, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 504. Rev'd as Filkins «. People, 69 IV. Y. 101. : v. Finger, 24 Barb. 341. Overruled as dictum (Effect of denying motion to strike out issues) in People v. Board of Police, &c, 35 Id. 644, 650. 586 PEOPLE. ex I'd. Emerick t. Fire Cotmni'rs of N. ¥., 86 A 7 ". Y. 149. AfFg 23 Run, 317. ex rel. Hart v. Fire Comm'rs of N. Y., 9 Weehly Dig. 390. Rev'd in 82 IT. Y. 358. ex rel. Hudson v. Fire Comm'rs of N. T., 77 K Y. 605. See (Limitation of time for review by certiorari) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2125, n. - ex rel. Mnnday v. Fire Comm'rs of N. - Y., 72 N. Y. 445. Reviewed and explained with People ex rel. Sims v. Fire Comm'rs, 73 Id. 440; People ex rel. Campbell v. Campbell, 82 Id. 247 ; People ex rd. Mayor v. Nichols, 79 Id. 588 (Removal of officers in N. Y. city) in People ex rel. Keech ». Thompson, 94 Id. 451. Explained and fol- lowed in Matter of Nichols, All. N. G. 474, 481, 486 ; People ex rel. Emerick v. Fire Comm'rs, 23 Run, 317, 320. Re- viewed and disting'd with People ex rel. Sims*. Fire Comm'rs, 73 A 7 ". Y. 440; Peo- ple ex rel. Keech v. Thompson, 26 Run, 28 ; People ex rel. Folk v. Board of Police, 69 A 7 ! Y. 409, in Matter of Emmet, 65 Row. Pr. 266. Applied in People ex rel. Jack- son ». Grant, R. Y. Daily Reg. Jan. 22, 1884. Followed in People ex rel. Nichols v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 19 Run, 441. ex rel. Sims v. Fire Comm'rs of N. Y., 73 A 7 ". Y. 437. See People ex rel. Munday v. Fire Comm'rs. Explained and followed (Power of removal of officer in N. Y. city) in People ex rel. Emerick v. Fire Comm'rs. 23 Run, 317, 320. Applied in People ex rel. Westray v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 82 R. Y. 491, 494. T. Fisher, 14 Wend. 9 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 501, with extended note. Disting'd and limited (Illegality of combinations among workmen to raise rate of wages) in Master Stevedores' Association v. Walsh, 2 Daly, 1. Explained as overruled by L. 1870, c. 19, in Johnston Harvester Co. ■». Meinhardt, 9 All. K C. 393, 399. Dis- ting'd as resting on a statutory provision, — in Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill ; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 346, 360, with note. Applied in Raymond v. Leavitt, 46 Mich. 447, 452, to combination to affect price of produce. ex rel. Booth v. Fisher, 2 Park. 402 ; s. c, 20 Barl. 652. Overruled (Trial at Special Sessions not unconstitutional) in Wynehamer v. People, 13 K Y. 378. ex rel. Kresser y. Fitzsimmons, 68 If. Y. 514. Disting'd (Appointment to office) in People ex rel. Babcock v. Murray, 70 Id. 521, 523. ex rel. Ellis v. Flagg, 15 Row. Pr. 553. Followed (Power of comptroller as to allowing and auditing claims against N. Y. county) in People ex rel. Outwater v. Green, 56 A 7 ". Y. 466, 474. Approved and applied in People ex rel. Martin v. Earle, 10 All. Pr. R. S. 67. Limited to facts dis- closed in case, — in Brown v. Green, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 18. ex rel. McLean t. Flagg, 46 A 7 . Y. 401; s. c, 11 Am. L. Reg. R. S. 80, with note on legislative control. Disting'd (Power of legislature to compel municipal corporation to issue bonds) in People ej rel. Dunkirk, &c. R. R. Co. v. Batchelor, 53 R. Y. 128, 138. Explained in People ex rel Town of Rochester v. Deyoe, 2 Surfm. Ct (T. & C.) 151. ex rel. Reynolds v. Flagg, 16 Barl: 503; s. c, 12 R. Y. Leg. Ols. 42. Criti- cised as extreme (Mandamus to compel pay- ment by municipal corporation) in People v. Wood, 35 Barl. 653, 660. Compare People ex rel. Smith v. Flagg, 17 R. Y. 584. v. Flake, 14 Row. Pr. 527; Disap- proved (Costs on review of referee's decision in highway proceedings) in People v. Heath 20 Id. 304. v. Flanagan, 5 Run, 187. Affd in 66 A 7 ". Y. 237. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of recognition of title of citizen to office) in People ex rel. Gilchrist v. Murray, 8 Daly, 347, 355, which was rev'd in 73 R. Y. 535. -. — v. Fleming, 4 Den. 137. Afi'd in 2 R. Y. 484. T. Florence, 5 Daly, 365. Affd as Peo- ple v. Quigg, in 59 A 7 ". Y. 83. ex rel. Hogan v. Flynn, 4 Run, G47; s. c, fully reported 49 Row. Pr. 280. Rev'd in 62 R. Y. 375. Decision in Id. explained (Term of office and power of removal of clerk of N. Y. district court) in People ex rel. Gilchrist v. Murray, 8 Daly, 347 ; which was re'd in 73 R. Y. 535, which see. Fol-' lowed in Dolan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 68 Id. 277. ex rel. Grissler t. Fowler. 55 R. Y. 675. Dismissing appeal from 8 All. L. J. 207; s. c, more fully, 1 Run, 104, n. Compare (Certiorari in summary proceed- ings) Code Civ. Pro. § 2122, subd. 2, § 1357. See, also (Redemption in summary proceed- ings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881", § 2257, n. v. Francisco, 10 All. Pr. 30; s. c, more fully, 4 Park. 139. ex rel. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. v. Fredericks, 48 Barl. 173; s. c, 33 Row. Pr. 150. Affd as Same v. Barker, 48 R. Y. 70. Decision in 48 Barl. followed (Effect on personal property of annexation to real estate) in People ex rel. Dunkirk & Fredonia R. R. Co. v. Cassity, 2 Lans. 294, 298. - — v. Freer, 1 Cat 518; s. c, 2 R. Y. Com. L. Law., ed. 253, with brief note. Previous decision in 1 Cat. 485. Decision on p. 485 overruled, i'. seems (Appearance by defendant in perejn, in proceedings to punish for contempt) in People v. Van Wyck, 2 Id. 333. Decision on p. 518 ap- proved (Punishment for constructive con- tempts) in People v. Wilson, 64 III. 1S5; , s. c, 16 Am. R. 528, 543; 2 Am. Dec. 391, ». — •— ex rel. McCarthy v. French. 1 2 Weekly Dig. 490. Fuller mom. in 25 Ru.i, 111. PEOPLE. 587 ex rel. Murphy y. French, 60 How. Pr. 377. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 24 Hun, 659 ; and that aff'd in 92 N. Y. 306. Decision in Id. disting'd (Power to review evidence on certiorari) in People ex rel. Drevet v. Fire Comm'rs of N. Y., 30 Hun, 376. v. Fry, 21 Hun, 282. AfFd in 84 K Y. 650, but without opinion. v. Fuller, 40 How. Pr. 35. Followed (Costs of proceedings on certiorari) in People «. Smith, 13 Han, 227, 230. t. Gaffuey, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. {Sheldon) 304; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 36. Aff'd in part as Gaffney v. People, 50 K Y. 416. v. Galloway, 17 Wend. 541. See People D. Shall. Relied on (Married woman's deed, void for want of acknowledgment, — effect of as basis of criminal proceedings) in Roode v. State, 5 Jfeb. 174 ; s. c, 25 Am. B. 475. ex rel. Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Gardiner, 48 Barb. 608. Overruled in effect (State tax of IT. S. certificates) by The Banks v. The Mayor, &c, 7 Wall. 10. v. Gardner, 2 Johns. 477. Reviewed with People v. Schenck, Id. 479, and other cases (Right of punishing in one jurisdic- tion for larceny in another) in States. Seay, 3 Stew. {Ala.) 123; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 66, 68, with note. Followed with People v. Schenck. 2 Johns. 479, in Stanley v. State, 24 Ohio Si. 166; s. o., 15 Am. B. 604, 609. ex rel. Davis v. Gardner, 59 Barb. 198. Another opinion by Mulun, J., in 5 Lans. 1. Aff'd in 45 N. Y. 812. See Real v. People. Decision in 45 N. Y. applied (Age limitation on term of county judge) in People ex rel. Joyce ». Brundage, 78 Id. 403. ex rel. Jefferson v. Gardner, 51 Barb. 352. See People ex rel. Hoyt v. Commis- sioners of Taxes ; People ex rel. Westbrook v. Trustees of Ogdensburgh. Followed with People ex rel. Trowbridge v. Comm'rs of Taxes, & Hun, 595; 62 If. Y. 630; Graham v. First Nat. B'k of Norfolk, 8i Id. 393 (Taxation of personal securities in an- other State) in People ex rel. Jefferson t>. Smith, 88 Id. 576. Disting'd in Boardman *. Supervisors of Tompkins, 85 Id. 359, 364. Disapproved in Kirtland «. Hotcbkiss, 42 Conn. 426 ; s. c, 19 Am. B. 546, 552 ; People ex rel. Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 If. Y. 224, being disting'd at applying not to ehoses in action but to chattels. Cited as authority with People ex rel. Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 If. Y. 238, in Redmond v. Commissioners of Rutherford, 87 If. O. 125. Disting'd in Hunter «. Board of Supervisors, 33 Iowa, 376 ; s. c, 11 Am. B. 132. v. Garey, 6 Cow. 642. AfFd in 9 Id. 640, but without opinion. Decision in 6 Id. explained- (Effect of statute altering counties, whereby terms of office are also altered) in People n. Morrill, 21 Wend. 563, v. Gasherie, 9 Johns. 71 ; s. c, 6 Am. Bee. 263 ; 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 673, with brief note. See Gillet v. Maynard ; Pease e. Barber. v. Gates, 13 Wend. 311. Limited (Ef- fect of including different offenses in one indictment) in People ex rel. Tweed v. Lis- comb, 60 N. Y. 559 579. v. , 15 Wend. 159. Followed (What is arson) in People v. Smith, 3 How. Pr. 226. ex rel. Barbour v. Gates, 39 How. Pr. 74 ; s. c, 57 Barb. 291. Rev'd in 43 N. Y. 40. See Matter of McDowle. Decision in 43 N. Y. followed (Effect of unstamped instrument) in Moore v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 49; s. a, 7 Am. B. 499 Collated with Moore v. Moore, 46 If. Y. 467; Baker's. Baker, 6 Lans. 509, and other cases in 1 Whart. Com. on Ho. § 697. See to the con- trary, Chartiers & R. Turnp. Co. «. McNa- mara, 72 Penn. St 278 ; s. c, 13 Am. B. 673. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 453. v. Gay, 1 Parle. 308. Aff'd in 7 JSf. Y. 378. Decision in Id. followed (Evidence of character of witness) in Wilder v. Peabody, 21 Wend. 379. Applied in People v. Crapo, 76 If. Y. 293 ; Berner v. Mittnacht, 2 Sweeny, 587. Considered in George ». Pil- cher, 28 Graft. {Va.) 299; s. c. 26 Am. B. 352. v. Genet, 59 If. Y. 80; s. c, 17 Am. B. 315. Further proceeding in 19 Hun, 91; which was aff'd as People ex rel. Phelps v. Court of -Oyer and Terminer, 83 If. Y. 436. Decision in 59 Id. referred to as well stating the doctrine (Prisoner's right to ap- peal while a fugitive from justice) in 41 Am. Dec. 272, n., wherein it is said to have been approved on this point, in People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290; s. c, 36 Am. B. 32. t. Genung, 11 Wend. 18 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 594. Applied (Evidence of attempt to compromise prosecution incompetent to impeach witness) in Pooler v. Curtiss, 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 2-28, 231. Doubted (Evidence to affect credibility of witness) in Morgan v. Frees, Sup'm. Ct. N. Y. 1852, 1 Am. L. Beg. 92. ex rel. Dilcher t. German United Evang. Ch., 3 Lans. 434. Rev'd in 6 Id. 172, but that rev'd and former aff'd in 53 N. Y. 103. Decision in Id. disting'd (Mandamus to restore to membership in corporation) in People ex rel. Doyle v. Be- nevolent Society, 3 Hun, 361, 363. Cited approvingly in Livingston «. Rector, &c. of Trinity Ch., 16 Vroom {JSf. J.) 230, 241, as applicable to certiorari proceedings to re- view exclusion from pew. ex rel. Munger v. Gerow. Reported under People ex rel. Stevens v. Hayt. , v. Gilbert, 18 Johns. 227; s. c, 6 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed., 568, with brief note. Followed with Wilcox v. Fitch, 20 Johns. 472 (State when not bound by statute in which it is not named) in Commonwealth v. 588 PEOPLE. Baldwin, 1 Watts. {Pa.) 54: s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 33, with note. Discussed in Aug. on Limit. § 37, 6 ed. v. Globe Mat. Life Ins. Co., 57 IIow. Pr. 481. Further proceedings in 60 Id. 57, and in Id. 82. Compare brief mem. in 22 Hun, 315. Still further proceed- ings in i)l If. Y. 175. See Globe Mut. Ins. Co. v. People. Decision in 91 If. Y. dis- ting'd (Effect of dissolution of insurance company upon claim made by agent) in Hepburn v. Montgomery, 5 Civ. Pro. B. {Browne) 244. Disting'd and applied (Ef- fect of dissolution of corporation on right of creditors) and Kincaid v. Dwinelle, 59 JV. Y. 548, disting'd in Eddy «. Co-operative Dress Assocn., 3 Civ. Pro. B. {Browne) 442. v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225. Applied (Acquiring by U. S. of jurisdiction over lands in State) in He O'Connor, 37 Wis. 379; s. c, 19 Am. B. 765. Cited approv- ingly iu 1 Kent Com. 431. v. Godwin, 5 City Rail Bee. 11. Said never to have been questioned (When bail is allowable in cases of felony) in People v. Perry, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 27. ex rel. Aldhonse v. Goelet, 14 Abb. Pr. IT. 8. 130; s. c, with points of coun- sel, 64 Barb. 476. Collated with other cases (Construction of contract for monthly tenancy) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. §22. ex rel. Oswald v. Goff, 52 If. Y. 434. Followed (Assessment of omitted property, when illegal) in Marsh v. Bowen, 12 Abb. If. C. 1. Compare People ex rel. Superv's of Monroe v. Hadley, 1 Abb. N. C. 441. v. Gonzalez, 85 JV. Y. 49. Approved (Effect of reception of illegal evidence) in Vandevoort v. Gould, 36 Id. 639, 644. Disting'd in People v. Williams, 29 Hun, 520. Followed (Opinions by non-experts as to blood stains) in People «. Greenfield, 23 Hun, 454, 463 ; which was aff'd in 85 JV. Y.-15, 84,. which see. Cited in 1 Wliart. Com. on Ev. § 439. Applied (What may be exhibited to jury) in King v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 72 JV. Y. 609. v. Goodhue. See Matter of Washburn. v. Goodwin, 18 Johns. 187 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dee. 203. Another decision in 1 Wheel. Cr. 443. See People v. Barrett ; People v. Den- ton ; People v. Olcott ; Whitney v. Hitchcock. Decision in Wheel. Cr. approved (Bail iu capital cases) in Ex parte Tayloe, 5 Cow. 39, ^30. Decision in 18 Johns, applied (Defend- ant in criminal case, when not in jeopardy) in People ■». Reagle, 60 Barb. 544; Shep- herd «. People, 25 JV. Y. 421. Explained ' in Klock v. People, 2 Park. 683. Com- pared in Hartung v. People, 26 If. Y. 183. Cited iu Ex parte McLaughlin, 41 Cal. 211; s. c, 10 Am. B. 272, as according with the weight of authority. Cited as authority with People v. Barrett, 2 Cai. 304, in Dobbins v. State, 14 Ohio, 493, 500. Com- mented on in 2 Bennett & H. Cos. on Grim. i L. 359. ex rel. Bodino v. Goodwin, 5 JV. F, 568. Disting'd (Estoppel as created by consent to making of public improvement,) in Matter of Sharp, 56 //. 257, 263. Ap- plied iu Marble v. Whitney, 28 Id. 307. Relied on in City of Burlington v. Gilbert, 31 Iowa, 356; s. c, 7 Am. B. 143. Fol- lowed (Extent of review on certiorari) in People v. Overseers of Ontario, 15 Barb. 293; People o. Cortclyou, 30 Id. 105. Re- viewed with other cases in People v. Board of Police, 39 If. Y. 512. Disting'd (In- quiry by referees into jurisdiction of high- way commissioners) in People ex rel. Hubbard v. Harris, 63 Id. 397. ex rel. Sharkey v. Goodwin, 50 Barb. 562. Applied (Election as to law under which arrest may be made) in Townsend v. NebenzahL 8 Abb. If. C. 427, 430. v. Goshen & Minisink Turnpike Co., 11 Wend. 597. Followed (Liability by indictment for failure to repair road) in Sy- racuse & 'fully Plank Road Co. v. People, 66 Barb. 25, 30. v. Graves, 5 Pari;. 134. See Same s. Bush. Explained (Presumptions) in 2 Best on Ex>. § 446, n. a. Wood's ed. v. Gray, 25 Wend. 465. Explained (Return to writ of error) in Manke v. Peo- ple, 74 If. Y. 415, 418. v. Green, 1 Park. 11. Subsequent de- cision in 1 Den. 614. Decision in 1 Parh. approved (Effect of statements made in ■ party's presence) in McKee v. People, 36 JV! Y. 116. v. , 13 Wend. 55. See People v. Olcott. v. - — , 64 Barb. 504. Followed (Who may be appointed by sheriff to attend court' of Oyer and Terminer) in Day v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Hun, 92 ; which was rev'd in 66 JV Y. 592. ex rel. Bagley v. Green, 1 Hun, 1. Compare (Framing issues in mandamus) Code Civ. Pro. § 2083. ex rel. Brown v. Green, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 18; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 302. Another case of same name in 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 23; which was aff'd in 56 If. Y. 476. See Same «. Board of Apportionment. Decisions in 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) dis- ting'd (Effect of allowance of claim by supervisors) in Cowan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hun, 635. ex rel. Curry v. Green, 64 Barb. 493. Aff'd in 56 JV. Y. 679, on the authority of People ex rel. Brown v. Board of Appor- tionment, 52 JV Y. 224. Decision in 64 Barb, disting'd (Effect of allowance or dis- allowance of claim by supervisors) in People ex rel. Benedict v. Superv's of Oneida, 24 Hun, 413, 421. ex rel. Doyle t. Green, 3 Hun, 755 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 129. Aff'd, it seems, in 62 If. Y. 624, but without opin- ion. ex rel. Gallup v. Green, 2 Wend. 262. Rule approved (Legislative construction of PEOPLE. 5S9 constitution) in People ex rel. Joyce v. Brundngc, 78 N. Y. 403, 406. Disting'd (Construction of provision respecting term of office) in People ex rel. Lansing v. Tre- main, 9 Hun, 580. Followed (Term of offi- cer elected to fill vacancy) in People ex rel. Rosekrans v. Carr, 62 How. Pr. 5, 1 6, which was rev'd in Id. 19 ; People v. Coutant, 1 1 Wend. 134, 522. Followed in Ex parte Meredith, 33 Oratt. {Va.) 119; s. c, 36 Am. B. 771, 774, 778. ex rel. McKone v. Green, 52 How. Pr. 304. AfE'd in 11 Hun, 56. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in 73 JV. 7. 612. Pre- vious decision as People ex rel. McKown v. Green, 50 How. Pr. 500; which was aff'd, it seems, in 642V. Y. 656, but without opinion. —— ex rel. N. T. Dispensary v. Green, 6 Hun, 11. Rev'd in 64 2V. 7. 499. ■ ex rel. Ontwater v. Green, 56 If. Y. 460. Disting'd (Comptroller's power as to auditing) in Matter of Murphy, 24 Hun, 592, 596. Applied (Effect of re-enactment of provision that has received judicial con- struction) in Butler v. Perrott, 1 Hem. 13. Reviewed with other cases (Conclusiveness of action of supervisors) in Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 429. Dis- ting'd in Cowan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & ft). 155. ex rel. Ryan v. Green, 46 How. Pr. 169. Aft'd in 5 Daly, 254; which was rev'd in 58 2V. Y. 295. See Dash v. Van Kleeck. Decision in 5S If. Y. applied (Jurisdiction of N. Y. Common Pleas) in Masters v. Eclectic Life Ins. Co., 6 Daly, 455. Applied (Effect of statute unconstitu- tional in part) in Hurlburt v. Banks, 1 Abb. If. 0. 166. ex rel. Schack v. Green. Reported as People ex rel. N. Y. Dispensary v. Green, 6 Hun, 11; which was rev'd in 64 JV. 7. 499. ex rel. Tenth Nat. Bank v. Green, 3 Hun, 208 ; s. c, fully reported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T.&C.) 375. v. Greenfield, 23 Hun, 454. Aff'd as Greenfields. People, in 85 JV. ?! 75; s. c, G9 Am. R. 636, with note. Decision in 23 Hun collated with other cases (Privilege of accused person testifying for himself; iu 22 Am. L. Reg. 32. ex rel. Miller v. Griswold, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 351. Aff'd in 67 N. T. 59. —^ v. Guild, 4 Den. 551. Explained (Ac- tion on executor's bond) in Hood v. Hood 85 JV. 7. 561, 573. v. Hackley, 24 JV. Y. 74. See Same v. McCoy. Applied (Commitment for refusal to answer before grand jury) in People ex rel Phelps v. Fancier,' 2 Hun, 226, 229. Collated with other cases (Appeal from sen- tence for contempt) in 24 Am. It 624, n. v. Hadden, 3 Den. 220. Approved (Foundation for admission of deposition) in Barron v. People, 1 JV. Y. 386. 388. - ex rel. Supervisors of Westchester t. Hadley, 16 Han, 113. Rev'd in 76 JV. Y. 337. Previous decision in 14 Hun, 183. Decision in 76 JV. Y. followed (Jurisdiction of Stace assessors) in People ex rel. Robisou is. Supervisors of Ontario, 85 Id. 323, 327. Applied in State of Wisconsin ex rel. Town of Manitowoc v. County Clerk of Mani- towoc County, 59 Wis. 15, 21. ex rel. Williams v. Haines, 49 JV. Y. 687. Applied (Legality of assessment had under L. 1867, c. 774) in Dewey v. Super- visors of Niagara, 2 Hun, 393. Applied (Authority created by statute, when ex- hausted) in Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 47 How. Pr. 279. Applied. (Interference with land, that entitles to compensation) in Matter of Chesebrough, 56 Id. 463 ; which was aff'd in 17 Hun, 562, and that in 78 JV. Y. 238, which see. v Hall, 6 Park 642. Cited as author- ity (What is necessary to constitute feloni- ous intent in taking of property) in State v. Holly way,41 Iowa, 200; s. a, 20 Am. B. 586. ex rel. Hatzel v. Hall, 58 How. Pr. 147. Rev'd in effect as to People, and affd as to relator, in 80 AT Y. 117. See Dudley v. Mayhew. Decision in 80 If. Y. followed (Jurisdiction of courts to judge as to validity of election of alderman) in Mc- Veany v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Id. 185, 189. v. Hallenueck, 52 How. Pr. 502 ; s. c, more fully, 2 Abb. If. ft 66. ex rel. Stephens t. Halsey, 53 Barb. 547; s. c, 36 How. Pr. 487. Aff'd in 37 If. 7. 344. ex rel. Livermore v. Hamilton, 15 Abb. Pr. 328. Aff'd in 39 If. 7. 107. Decision in Id. applied (Summary proceed- ings not a civil action) in Brown v. Mayor," &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 481, 484. v. Hammill, 2 Park. 223. See Same ». Robinson. With People v. Robinson, Id. 235 ; People v. Rogers, 18 JV. Y. 9, ap- proved as well considered (Intoxication no excuse for crime) in Kenny v. People, 31 Id. 330, 341. Disapproved (Weight of evidence of good character in criminal cases) in State v. Northrup, 48 Iowa, 583 ; s. c, 30 Am. B. 410.. v. Hanna, 3 How. Pr. 39. Approved (Jurisdiction of Supreme Court judge as to habeas corpus) in People ». Folmsbee, 60 Barb. 480. v. Hardenbergh, 8 Joins. 335; s. c, 4 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 559, with brief note. Collated with St. John v. Diefendorf, 12 Wend. 261 ; Pulver v. Harris, 52 If. Y. 73, and other cases (Attorney's lien on judg- ment and enforcement thereof) in Horton v. Champlin, 12 R. I. 550; s. c, 34 Am. B. 722. ex rel. Hubbard v. Harris, 63 JV. Y. 391. Followed (Appeal from decision of commissioners of highways) in Rector v. Clark, 12 Hun, 189; which was rev'd in 78 JV Y. 21, which see. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 299 ex rel. Kipp y, Harris, 6 Abb. Pr. SO. See (Demurrer to alternative writ of man- damus) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2073, n 590 PEOPLE. t. Harrison. See Same v. Shall. T. Hurtling-, 4 Park. 256. Decision on motion for new trial in Id. 314; s. c, 8 All. Pr. 132; 17 Sow. Pr. 85. Decision on application for writ of error in 17 Sow. Pr. 151. On writ of error judgment affd in 4 Parle. 319 ; but that rev'd in 22 N. Y. 95. Subsequent decision in 23 Sow. Pr. 314; which was rev'd in 26 N. Y. 167; s. c, 25 Sow. Pr. 221 ; motion to dismiss writ of error having been denied in 26 AT". Y. 154. Decision in Id. disting'd (Writ of error does not lie until final judgment) in Bogert v. People, 6 Sun, 262. Decision in 17 Sow. Pr. applied with Baker v. Simmons, 29 Barl. 198; People®. Carnal, 1 Park. 256 (New trial for misconduct of jurors) and Mitchell v. Carter, 14 Sun, 448 disting'd in People v. Draper, 28 Id. 1. ex rel. Lent v. Hnscall, 18 Sow. Pr. 118. Approved (Acknowledgment of deeds by notaries) in Utica, &c. R. K. Co. ». Stew- art, 33 Id. 314. ■ v. Haskins, 7 Wend. 463. Overruled (Sale of rent charge on execution as real estate) in Payn v. Beal, 4 Den. 405. ex rel. N. T. & Harlem E. B. Co. v. Havemeyer, 16 All. Pr. H. S. 219; s. c, more fully, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 365; 47 Sow. Pr. 494. See First Nat. B'k of Oxford v. "Wheeler ; Milhau v. Sharp. Followed (Waiver by municipal corporation) in People ex rel. Brooklyn Park Comm'rs v. City of Brooklyn, 3 Sun, 596. Disting'd in Weismer «. Village of Douglass, 64 N. Y. 91, 106. ex reL Baldwin v. Haws, 13 All. Pr. 375, n. ; s. c, 23 Sow. Pr. 107. AfTd in 37 Barl. 440; s. c, 15 All. Pr 115; 24 Sow. Pr. 148. See Britton ». Mayor, &c. of N. T. Decision in 37 Barl. overruled (Power of legislature to compel municipal corporation to submit to arbitration) in Dar- lington ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 N. Y. 164. Quoted in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 288, n. 1, ex rel. Kelly v. Haws, 12^156. Pr. 192. Followed (Effect of supervisors' audit of claim) in People ex rel. Brown v. Green, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 18, 22; Same «. Same, 5 Daly, 194, 198; People ex rel. Outwater •v. Green, 56 K Y. 466, 474. People ex rel. Martin v. Earle, 16 All. Pr. K 8. 69. ■ ex rel. McSpedon v. Haws, 12 All. Pr. 70. To same effect is further decision, in 34 Barl. 69; s. c, 12 All. Pr. 204;' 21 Sow. Pr. 178. ■ v. Hayden, 6 Sill, 359. See Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. Co. Ex- amined with other cases (Provisions for compensation in case of taking property by right of eminent domain) in Chapman «. Gates, 54 N. Y. 132, 146. v. Hayes, 7 Sow. Pr. 248. Applied (Who are public officers) in First Nat. B'k of North Bennington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 ft. 87; s. c, 36 Am. R. 734, 744. V. , 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 582. See cases cited (Challenges to jurors) in 6 All. JV. C. 24, n. Compare Points of Law in Guiteau's Case, p. 61 (Boston ; Little, Brown & Co., 1881). v. Haynes, 11 Wend. 557. Rev'd in 14 Id. 546 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 530, with note, wherein it is referred to as with other cases, settling the principle (Passing of title to goods shipped). Decision in -11 Wend, fol- lowed and reversal explained (Effect of false representations on sale) in Hersey v. Benedict, 15 Hun, 282, 288. Disting'd (Passing of title to goods shipped) in Jones v. Bradner, 10 Barb. 201; Baker v. Bouci- cault, 1 Daly, 28; Bradner ■». Jones, 5 id Y. Leg. Obs. 99. Applied in Glen v. Whit- aker, 51 Barl. 458; Smith v. Lynes, 3 Sandf. 209 ; which was rev'd in 5 JV. Y. 44, which see. v. Hays, 2 Sill, 351. Explained (Criminal conviction for assault, when to be sustained) in People v. Bransby, 32 JT. Y. 525, 534. ex rel. Stevens v. Hayt, 7 Sun, 39. Rev'd in 66 K Y 606. ex rel. Harvey v. Heath, 20 Sow. Pr. 304. Disapproved (What is special pro- ceeding) in People ex rel. Clute v. Board- man, 3 All. Ct. App. Dec. 485. Explained (Costs on certiorari) in People ex rel. Cook- v. Board of Police, 17 All. Pr. 324, •». Approved in Same v. Same, 39 N. Y. 621. Disapproved in People v. Comm'rs of High- ways of Schodack, 27 Sow Pr. 160; Peo- ple v. Fuller, 40 Id. 37; People v. Smith, 13 Bun, 227, 230. v. Hefferuan, 5 Park. 393. Approved (Indictment pending preliminary examina- tion) in People ex rel. Phelps ®. Westbrook, 12 Sun, 649. v. Hendrickson, See Hendrickson v. ' People. v. Hennessey, 15 Wend. 147. Followed with People v. Badgley, 16 Id. 53; People «>. Porter, 2 Park. 14 (Effect of extra-judi- cial confession to support conviction) in Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187; s. c, 28 Am. B. 698, 701. Followed with People v. Porter, 2 Park. 14, in Priest v. State, 10 Nel. 393; s. c, 46 Am. B. 259, n. v. Henries, 1 Park. 579. Disapproved (Right of People to peremptory challenge) in People v. Masters, 3 Id. 517. v. Herkimer, 4 Gow. 345; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 379, with extended note (Effect of general words in statute to bind sove- reign). ex rel. Etheridge v. Herkimer Com. PL, 7 Wend. 536. See (Service of alterna- tive mandamus) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2071,n. H A v. Herrick, 13 Johns. 82 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 364. Followed (Necessity of record proof of conviction of witness) in Newcomb v. Griswold, 24 N. Y. 301. Approved in Blaufus v. People, 69 Id. 110. Disting'd in Perry v. People, 86 Id. 353, 358. PEOPLE. 591 : v. , 13 Wend. 87. Followed (Evi- dence as to responsibility in case of indict- ment for obtaining money by false preten- ses) in People v. Higbie, 06 Barb. 135. V. Hewitt, 2 Park. 20. Disting'd (Evi- dence to show that signature was simulated) in Rowing v. Manly, 49 K Y. 192, 203. v. Hickey, 5 Daly, 365. Aff'd as Peo- ple ». Quigg, 59 K Y. 83. ex rel. Davis v. Hill, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 154; s. c, 65 Barb. 435. Aff'd in 53 If. Y. 547. Another decision in 7 Alb. L. J. 220. With latter decision see (To whom writ of certiorari is to be directed) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2129. n. ex rel. McConvill v. Hills, 46 Barb. 340. Rev'd in 35 If. Y. 449. See Conner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; People v. Law- rence. Decision in 35 N. Y. followed (Title of local bill) in People ex rel. Schen- ectady Observatory v. Allen, 42 Id. 404, 418 ; People ex rel. Bradley «. Stevens, 51 Sow. Pr. 145, 150; Henley v. Dudley, 5 Lam. 125. Applied in People o. O'Brien, 38 N. Y. 194; People v. Supervisors of Chautauqua, 43 Id. 19. Explained in People o. Briggs, 50 Id. 553, 501. Disting'd (What is local bill) in Peoples. Davis, 61 Barb. 465; which was rev'd in 49 If. Y. 134, which see. v. Hillsdale & Chatham Turnpike Co., 23 Wend. 254. See cases collected (Cor- porate franchises, how forfeited) in 5 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 586. Quoted and explained (Liabilities for nuisance in highways) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 329, n. 5. • ex rel. Macey v. Hillsdale & Chatham Turnpike Co., 2 Johns. 190. See Russell *. Mayor of N. Y. Followed (Quo warranto not remedy against corporation occupying land for road without authority) in State ex rel O'Brien v. Kill Buck Turnp. Co., 38 2nd. 71. ——ex rel. Bailey v. Hoffman, 7 Wend. 489. Limited with Grant e. Van Schqon- hoven, 9 Paige, 255 (Appointment of guar- dian ad litem) in Varian v. Stephens, 2 Duer, 635. ex rel. Hassell v. Hoffman, 60 How. Pr. 324. Aff'd. it seems, in 24 Hun, 142, but without opinion. ex rel. Nat. Broadway B'k v. Hoffman. 37 If. Y. 9. Rev'd in The Banks v. The Mayor, 7 Wall' 16. Decision in 37 If. Y. cited and compared with Federal decisions, .and principle commented on (Power of State to tax Federal operations) in 1 Kent Com. 429, n. 1 Holmes' ed. v. Holbrook, 13 John*. 90. Explained (Sufficiency of indictment for stealing in- strument for payment of money) in Phelps v. People, 72 If. Y. 355. Examined in Peo- ple v. Kent, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 44. Applied" (Effect of form of action to give notice to produce instrument) in Hardin v. Kret- - singer, 17 Johns. 295. Cited in Taylor on Ho. 406. — - y. Holley, 12 Wend. 481. Applied (Statutory provision that officer shall give bond within prescribed time, is directory only) in City of Chicago «. Gage, 95 III. 593; s. c, 35 Am. R. 182. v. Holmes, 3 Park 567. Approved and applied (Stay of judgment) in People v. O'Reilly, 9 Abb. If. O. 77, 92. v. Honeyman, 3 Den. 121. Disting'd (Competency of jurors) in Greenfield v. People, 6 Abb. If. O. 1, 8; which rev'd 13 Hun, 250, which see. Compared in People v. Hayes, 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 587. See cases cited in 6 Abb. K C. 24, n. Applied (Challenge to favor after challenge for principal cause) in Carnal v. People, 1 Park. 279. ex rel. Church y. Hopkins, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 195. Rev'd (Power of deputy superintendent of insurance depart- ment) in 55 ST. Y. 74. v. Hopson, 1 Den. 574. See Green v. Burke ; People v. Collins ; People ex rel. Morton v. Tieman ; Shepard v. Rowe. Ap- plied (Effect of acts of officer de facto) in Hamlin v. Dingman, 41 How. Pr. 135; Peo- ple ex rel. Steinert v. Anthony, 6 Hun, 145. Cited in Commonwealth v. Kane, 108 Mass. 423; s. c, 11 Am. R. 373. Applied (Ef- fect of levy as satisfaction of judgment) in Denvrey v. Fox, 22 Barb. 526 ; Waddell v. Elmendorf, 5 Den. 448. Explained in Mc- Chain v. Duffy, 2 Duer, 647. Cited with Green v. Burke, 23 Wend. 501, in Trapnall v. Richardson, 13 Arlc. 543; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 338, with note. Applied (Renewal of execution) in Chapman v. Fuller, 7 Barb. 72. Applied (Right to make entry on premises, to make execution sale of personal property) in Stief e. Hart, 1 If. Y. 37. y. Horton, 4 Park. 222. Approved (Indictment pending preliminary examina- tion) in People ex rel. Phelps v. Westbrook, 12 Hun, 649. Disapproved in People v. Heffernan, 5 Park. 393. v. , 5 Hun, 516. Aff'd in 64 N. Y. 610. Motion to dismiss appeal denied in Id. 58. T. Hovey, 6 Barb. 117. Overruled (Ef- fect of re-marriage of guilty party after di- vorce) in People «. Faber, 92 If. Y. 146. Quoted in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D.% 700, 6 ed. y. Howell, 4 Johns. 296. Approved (Competency of witness whose signature has been forged, to prove forgery) in People ■o. Dean, 6 Cow. 27. Cited with approval in Hess v. State, 5 Ohio, 5 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 767, 770. Explained (Right of per- emptory challenge as giving right of separ- ate trial) in Hawkins v. State, 9 Ala. 137; s. c, 44_^tm. Dec. 431, 434. ex rel. Am. Linen Thread Co. v. How- land. See Same v. Assessors of Muchan- icsvillo. ex rel. Ainslee v. Howlett, 13 Hun, 138. Aff'd in 70 If. Y. 574. Both decis- ions disting'd (Usury as defense in sum- 592 PEOPLE. mary proceedings) in Barnes . Tuska. 14 Blatchf. O, Gt. 5, 8. Decision in 6 Wend, followed (Effect of not exercising right of challenge) in Johns v. Hodges, 60 Md. 215 ; s. c, 45 Am. B. 722. Questioned in Briggs v. Georgia, 15 Ft. 72. I— 38 t. Johnson, 1 Park. 564. Applied (Liability for receiving stolen goods) in Miller v. People, 25 Hun, 473. v. , 12 Johns. 292. Young v. King, 3 Term. B. 98 said in McKenzie v. State, 6 Eng. (Ark.) 598, to be cited herein to establish the opposite of its true doctrine (Liability for obtaining property by false pretenses). Included with notes in Lawson Lead. Gas. Crim. L. Simplified, 293. ex rel. Reilly v. Johnson, 37 Barb. 502; 8. c, more fully, 14 Abb. Pr. 416. AfTd in 38 N Y. 63. Decision in Id. cited (Former adjudication, when not conclusive as to particular facts) in 2 Whart. Gom. on Ev. § 785. v. Jones, 54 Barb. 311. See Winter- mute v. Clark. Applied (Extent of discre- tion of excise commissioners) in People ex rel. Beller v. Wright, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 518,520. — — ex rel. Day v. Jones. See Day v. Lee. ex rel. Dorn v. Jones, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 360. Rev'd in 63 N. Y. 306. ex rel. Commissioners of Highways of Cortlandville v. Judges of Cortland, 24 Wend. 491. Applied (Duty of commission- ers in ascertaining, &c. existing highways) in Talmage ». Hunting, 39 Barb. 657; Mar- vin v. Pardee, 64 Id. 361 ; Cole v. Van Keu- ren, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 482. ex rel. Doughty v. Judges of Dutchess, 20 Wend. 658. Approved (Mandamus to correct judicial errors) in People v. Judge of Wayne, 1 Mich. 361 ; citing Elkins v. Athearn, 2 Den. 191. ex rel. Seward v. Judges of Dutchess, 23 JVend. 360. Qualified (What questions may be raised on certiorari) in Mullins v. People, 24 2V. Y. 399, 402. ex rel. Titus y. Judges of Dutchess, 5 Cow. 34. Explained (Sufficiency of exe- cution of bond by sureties on appeal from justice's decision) in Ex parte Brooks, 7 Id. 428. ex rel. Case v. Judges of Dutchess Oyer and Terminer, 3 Barb. 282. Doubted (Court of sessions as superior court of gen- eral jurisdiction) in People v. Sessions of Wayne, 1 Park. 369. Disapproved (Power to grant new trial in criminal cases) in Peo- ple v. Morrison, Id. 625 ; see People v. Townsend, 1 Johns. Gas. 105; People v. Stone, 5 Wend. 39; Appo v. People, 20 N. .Y. 531, 547. Cited with 2 Sumn. 19, in State v. McCord, 8 Kans. 232 ; s. c, 12 Am. B. 469, as standing alone. Commented on in 2 Bennett & H. Gas. on GHm. L. 493. Approved (Power of removal from Oyer and Terminer to Supreme Court) in Jones v. People, 79 N. Y. 50. ; r. Judges of Herkimer, 20 Wend. 186. Disting'd (Necessity of notice of hearing on appeal in highway proceeding) as inapplica- ble under the Long Island Counties Act, in People r. Smith, 21 K Y. 595, 599. ex rel. Mallard v. Judges of Madison. See Ex parte Benson. 594 PEOPLE. ex rel. Kanouss v. Judges of N. Y. Common Pleas, 2 Den. 197. Followed and approved (Jurisdiction, as between State and U. S. circuit courts to issue manda- mus for removal of cause) in People ex rel. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Judge of Jackson Circuit, 21 Mich. 577; s. c, 4 Am. It. 504. Doubted in Hough v. Western Transporta- tion Co., 1 Bias. 425. Commented on in High on.Exlr. Rem. 2 ed. § 226, n. 2. ex rel. Perkins v. Judges of N. T. Common Pleas, 8 Cow. 127. Approved (Withdrawal of juror in cases of surprise) in Messenger v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 6 Daly, 190, 194. t. Jndges of Suffolk, 24 Wend. 249. Collated with other cases (Appeal from commissioners of highways) in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 299. v. Judges of Washington Common Pleas, 1 Cai. 511; s. c, 2 JST. Y. Com. L. Law ed. 249, with brief note. Disting'd as resting on a statute (Mandamus to in-, ferior court to compel signing of bill of ex- ceptions) in Drexel «. Man,. 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 386 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 573. ex rel. Tomb v. Judges of Washing- ton Common Pleas, 1 Cow. 576. Applied (Security for costs on appeal from justices' courts, &c.) in Mellen v. Hutchins, 8 Abb. XT. C. 228. — — v. Judges of Westchester, 4 Cow. 73. Subsequent decision in Id. 403. See (Ser- vice of alternative mandamus) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2071, n. v. Justices of Chenango, 1 Johns. Cas. 1 80. See People v. Dutchess Oyer and Termi- ner. Compare (Eight to grant new trials on the merits) People v. Stone, 5 Wend. 39 ; Appo v. People, 20 K Y. 531. t. Kane, 4 Den. 530. See Same v. Koebcr. v. , 23 Wend. 414. Overruled (Ap- pointment of police justices in cities) in Clark ii. People, 26 Id. 599; but deemed rightly decided on another ground. Fol- lowed with People v. White, 24 Id. 520 (Validity of acts of officer acting un- der unconstitutional law) in State v. Car- roll, 38 Conn. 449; s. c, 9 Am. R. 409, 430. ex rel. Brooklyn Industrial School v. Kearney, 31 Barb. 430; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 493. Proceedings of surrogate in 1 Red/. 292. Subsequent proceedings (Attachment for contempt) in 21 How. Pr. 74. With decision in 31 Barb, see (Appointment of guardian) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2821, n. Explained iu Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. §300. v. Keeler, 25 Barb. 23. Aff'd in Id. 421, and that rev'd in 17 K Y. 370. Dis- senting opinion in Id. adopted (Office of justice of peace not town but county office) in People v. Carter, 29 Barb 208. ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly, 12 Abb. Pr. 150; s. <;., 21 How. Br. 54. Aff'd in 24 N. Y. 74; s. c, less fully, 24 How. Pr. 369; also s. c, 1 Am. L. Reg. N~. S. 534, with note by Prof. Dwight. See Matter of Hackley; Mitchell's Case ; People v. Sturte- vant. Decision in 24 2V. Y. approved i.nd followed (Witness when not exempted be- cause of criminating tendency of answer) in U. S. v. McCarthy, U. S. Cir. Ct. 8. D. N. Y. 18 Fed. Rep. 87. Followed with People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, in Emery's Case 107 Mass. 172; s. c, 9 Am. Ii. 22,26.' Examined (Review of commitment for con- tempt) in 20 Am. L. Reg. K S. 368, 371. Sec (Habeas corpus and certiorari, when not allowed) Code Civ. Pro. 1881 S 2016, n. ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly, 76 N. Y. 475; s. c, more fully, 5 Abb. JV. ft 383! Explained and applied (Extent of power of comptroller of N. Y. city) in People ex rel. Burnet v. Jackson, 23 Ban,- 568, 572 ; which was rev'd in 85 N. Y. 541, which see. ex rel. Sharkey v. Kelly, 7 Robt. 592. Rev'd in 50 Barb. 562. -■ v. Kennedy, 2 Park 312. See Wyne- hamer v. People. See (Right to trial by jury in case of misdemeanor) Wynehamer v. People, 13 If. Y. 378. V. Kerr, 20 How. Pr. 130. Further pro- ceeding as People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., in Id. 144. Decision on p. 130 rev'd, and that on p. 144 affd in 37 Barb. 337; which was aff'd iu 27 K Y. 188; s. c., loss fully, 25 How. Pr. 258. See Craig v. Rochester City & Brighton R. R. Co.; Radchft v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn ;' Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co ; Wynehamer v. People. Decision in 27 Jf. Y. applied (Extent of legislative authority over prop- erty of corporation of N. Y.) in dissenting opinion of Hunt, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Keyes, 417. Applied (Right to authorize, without additional compensa- tion, construction of railroad in street, fee of which is in public) in Washington Cem. v. Prospect Park, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. K C. 18. Cited as settled law, in N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Forty-Second St., &c. R. R. Co., 50 Barb. 311. Disting'd iu Craig v. Rochester City, &c. R. R. Co., 39 JV. Y. 412. Disting'd as to gas pipes in country highway,— in Bloomfield, &c. Gas Light Co. v. Calkins, 02 Id. 390. Collated with Craig v. Rochester City & Brighton R. R. Co., 39 Id. 404, and other cases, in 28 Am. R. 267, n., where the N. Y. doctrine is said to conflict with the weight, of author- ity, Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 16 2V. Y. 97, being also collated with other cases as to steam railways. Reviewed with other cases in Perry v. New Orleans, Mobile, &c. R. R. Co., 55 Ala. 413; s. c, 28 Am. R. 740, 744. Also in 15 Am. L. Ren. 397. Criticised in Mills Jlwmps. on Highw. 3 ed. 400. Discussed in Gooley on Cond. Limit. 5 ed. 684. Disting'd with Mahady- v. Bushwick R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 148; Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 90 A r . Y. 122; People v. Metropolitan Telephone, &c. Co., PEOPLE. 595 31 Hun, 500 (Legislative control over use of streets) in Metropolitan Telephone, &c. Co. ■». Colwell Lead Co , 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 488. Explained and applied (Rights of abut- ting owners) in Kellinger v. Forty-Second St., &c. R. R. Co., 50 IT. Y. 209. Followed in Mahady v. Bush wick R. R. Co., 91 Id. 148. Explained and limited with Kellinger v. Forty-Second Street R. R. Co., 50 Id. 206, in Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 90 Id. 122. Applied with Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. , in Taylor v. Metro- politan Elevated R'y Co., 50 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 311. Reviewed with Story v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., and other N. Y. cases, in connection with similar provisions in con- stitutions of other States, in 23 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 454. Disting'd (Extent of pub- lic interest in highway) in Kelsey v. King, 33 How. Pr. 46. Disting'd (Power to take for railroad purposes, property held for other public use) in Matter of Boston & Albaay. R. R. Co., 53 IT. Y. 579. Applied (Limitations ons ownership of streets in fee by corporation of N. Y;>iu Trenor v. Jack- son, 15 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 121. Disting'd in Milhau u. Sharp, 27 IT. Y. 623. r. Ker rains, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & . Tallmadge. Ap- proved and followed (Road which is not thoroughfare, may yet be public way) in Peckham v. Lebanon, 39 Conn. 235. . Cited as authority in Sheafe v. People ex rel. Colwell, 87 III. 189 ; s: c, 29 Am. P. 49 ; Bartlett v. Bangor, 67 Me. 465; s. c, 29 Am. R. 53, n. v. Kingston & Middletown Turnpike Co., 23 Wend. 193. Quoted (Quo warranto against private corporations) in High on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 651, n. 1. Quoted (Lia- bility of corporation for non-performance of duties) in Morawetz on Corp. § 642. v. Kleim, 1 Edm. Seld. Gas. 13. See Freeman v. People. Commented on by Mr. Seward (Relation of the law to the in- sane) in his defense of Freeman, Snyder's Great Sp. 149, 160. v. .Kling, 6 Barb. 366. Referred to with People v. Landt, 2 Johns. 375; Car- penter v. Whitman, 15 Id. 208, in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 188, as holding a doc- trine which is the same as that in Massachu- setts, and is probably recognized in all the States (Legal custody of illegitimate chil- dren while infants). v. Koeber, 7 Hill, 39. Overruled (Re- quisites of declaration in action on recog- nizance) in People v. Kane, 4 Pen. 530. Examined with People ». Kane, Id.; Peo- ple v. Young, 7 Hill, 44; Champlin v. Peo- ple, 2 IT. Y. 82 ; People v. Mills, 5 Barb. 511, in People v. Ratan, 3 Mich. 47. v. Krnmnier, 4 Park. 217. Followed (Essentials of forgery) in State v. Eadcs, 68 Mo. 150; s. c, 30 Am. R. 780 ; People v. Wright, 9 Wend. 193, being thought to have been overruled by People v. Stearns, 21 Id. 409. Explained in 3 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 103, n. e. v. Lacoste, 37 IT. Y. 192. Cited (An- swer brought out by question from court, as ground for reversal) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 426. v. Lake, 12 IT. Y. 358. Applied (Opin- ions as evidence) in Hagadcrn v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 249, 252. Dic- tum explained in Haggerty v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Abb. IT. C. 133, n. ; People it. McCann, 3 Park. 303. Applied (Inadmissibility of opinion founded on evi- dence not heard) in Shaw v. People, 3 Hun, 282, ex rel. Hatch v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co., 11 Hun, 1. Compare (Manda- mus to compel exhibition of books by trans- fer agent of foreign corporation) Sage v. Same, 70 IT. Y. 220. Followed iu People ex rel. Field v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., IT. Y. Super. Ct. 1883,-18 Fed. Rep. 476. v. Lamb, 54 Barb. 312. Aff'd in 2 Keyes, 360. Decision in Id. compared (Evidence of character of deceased, on trial for murder) in Nichols v. People, 23 Hun, 165, 167. Included with notes in Horrigan & T. Cas. on Self-Def. 646. v. Laiult. See Same v. Kling. ex rel. Dolan v. Lane, 8 Alb. L. J. 349. Rev'd on ground that mandamus was not proper remedy, in 55 IT. Y. 217. ex rel. Metropolitan Board t! Lane, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 105. Compare (What is a jury) Knight v. Campbell, 62 Barb. 16. v. Lawrence, 6 Hill, 244. See Starin v. Town of Genoa. Criticised as overruled by later decisions (Mandamus to compel payment by county offlcer) in Healy v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 115, 125. Applied in People ex rel. Mc Spedon ■». Stout, 4 Abb. Pr. 29; People i>. Supervisors of Fulton, 14 Barb. 52, 59. Explained (Effect of allow- ance by supervisors) in Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426, 429. Disting'd as to allowance by N. Y. common council, — in People ex rel. Smith v. Flagg, 5 Abb. Pr. 234. Disting'd (What is county charge) in Supervisors of Onondaga ». Briggs, 2 Den. 36. Applied in Halstead v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 N. Y. 437. ex rel. Cro well v. Lawrence, 41 K Y. 596 PEOPLE. 137. Aff'g 30 Barl. 177. See Matter of Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; People ex rel. Griffin v. Mayor of N. Y. ; People ex rel. Grifflng v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn; Town of Guilford v. Supervisors of Chenango. Decision in 36 Barb, explained and ap- plied (Practice on certiorari to review pro- ceedings of commissioners of assessment) in People ex rel. Reynolds v. City of Brooklyn, 49 Barb. 136. Cited as authority with People ex rel. McConvill v. Hills, 35 W. Y. 449 (Effect of constitutional provision re- specting enactment of statute) in State v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250; s. c, 21 Am. R. 738. Commented on in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 98. ex rel. Mitchell v. Lawrence, 54 Barb. 589. Followed (Service on board of com- missioners) in Metcalf v. Garlinghouse, 40 How. Pr. 50. ex rel. Demarest t. Laws, 3 Abb. Pr. 450. Aff'd in 4 Id. 292. ex rel. Healy v. Leask, 6 Daly, 517. Aff'd in 67 N. Y. 521. ex rel. Luinley v. Lewis, 28 How. Pr. 470. See (Function of writ on mandamus proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2076, n. See also (Definition of " action ") Id. § 3333, n. ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 3 Hun, 760 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm.Ct. (T. & C.) 258. Rev'd in 60 N. Y. 559; s. c, 19 Am. R. 211. See Ferguson v. Crawford ; People v. Sturte- vant. Decision in 60 J¥. Y. disting'd (Effect of including several counts in in- dictment) in Taylor ». People, 12 Hun, 216 ; Polinsky v. People, 11 Id. 392 ; which was affd in 73 JST. Y. 69, which see. Dis- approved (Cumulative sentences) in El- dredge v. State, 37 Ohio St. 191. Opposed in Matter of Fry, Sup'm. Ct. Diet. Col. 1884, 12 Wash. L. Rep. 388. Also opposed in Castro v. The Queen, 44 L. T. R. W. S. 350; Ho. of L., Mar. 1881, affg L. R. 5 Q. B. 490; s. c, 43 L. T. R. N. S. 78 ; 29 MoaWs Eng. 408, with note. Disting'd in Kennedy v. Howard, 74 Ind. 87, 90. Said in 58 Am. Dec. 250, n. not to be in accordance with the rule in other Slates. 50 also stated in 12 Weekly L. Bui. 15. Disting'd and explained (Review of com- mitment by habeas corpus) in People ex rel. Woolf v. Jacobs, 66 JST. Y. 8, 10; which affd 5 Hun, 433, which see. Applied in People ex rel. Cowley v. Bowe, 58 How. Pr. 395; People ex rel. Catlin v. Neilson, 16 Hun, 216. Disting'd in People ex rel. Phelps v. Oyer and Terminer, 14 Id. 23. Applied in People ex rel. Fries v. Riley, 25 Id. 587, 589. Referred to in 26 Am. Dec. 42, n. as a leading and valuable authority on the subject. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2066, n. Disting'd (Relief against judg- ment had without jurisdiction) in National B'k v. Spencer, 19 Hun, 576. Disting'd in Ex parte Bond, 9 So. Car. 80 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 20, 22. v. Livingston, 8 Barb. 253. See (Lim- itation of action of ejectment in favor of people) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 362, n. ex rel. Dailey y. Livingston, 18 Hun, 59. Rev'd in 79 N. Y. 279. ex rel. Fleming v. Livingston, 6 Wend. 526. Applied (Validity of retrospective law affecting remedy) in Oriental Bank v. Freeze, 18 Me. 109; s. c, 36 Am. Den. 701, 703, with note. — - v. Lohman, 2 Barb. 450. Aft'd as Loh- man v. People, 1 JT. Y. 379. Drcisioh in 2 Barb, reviewed with other cases (Juror, when disqualified by opinion) in dissenting opinion of Ingraham, P. J., in Allen v. People, 57 Barb. 352 ; which was rev'd in 43 JST. Y. 28, 34, which see. Applied in Greenfield v. People, 13 Bun, 251. Ex- plained and applied (Right to let to bail after sentence) in People v. Folmsbee, 00 Barb. 485. Approved and applied in Peo- ple ex rel. Cowley v. Bowe, 58 How. Pr. 397. Disting'd (Proof, when required that witness is not entitled to privilege) in Peo- ple ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly, 12 Abb. Pr. 155. Applied in Re Lewis, 39 How. Pr. 157. Approved (What is abortion) in Peo- ple v. Stockham, 1 Park. 424, 427. T. Lord, 12 Hun, 282. Said in Id. viii, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. Jan. 15, 1878. Opposed (Limitation as to time for indictment) in 17 Alb. L. J. 183. Compare Moore ». State, 14 Vroom (ft. /) 203. 220; which rev'd 13 Id. 208. v. Lott, 21 Barb. 130. Applied (Super- vision of judgment on forfeited recogni- zance, in People v. Hickey, 5 Daly, 365, 375. v. Lowber, 7 Alb. Pr. 158. Followed (Injunction against legislation by municipal corporation) in People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Id. 253. Opposed (Power of at- torney-general) in People v. Miner, 3 Lara. 396, 409. See People v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. ft~. S. 25, 53. Commented on and case cited to the contrary in 2 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 1304, n. 3. Applied (Implied powers in municipal corporation) in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Bom. 91. Explained (Limitation on power of N. Y. Common Council) in People ex rel. N. Y. Dispensary v. Green, 6 Hun, 16. v. Lynch, 11 Johns. 549. Discussed (Treason, as against State) in 1 Kent Com. 403, n. a. ex rel. Lee v. Lynch, 54 ft~. Y. 681. Disting'd (Who entitled to appeal) in Mat- ter of Guardian Savgs. Inst, 78 Id. 408, 411. ex rel. Higgins v. MeAdam, 58 How. Pr. 442. Aff'd in 22 Hun, 559; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 139: and that rev'd in Id. 444; s. c, 84 N. Y. 287. . v. McC'ann, 16 AC Y. 58; s. c, 15 How. Pr. 503. Affg McCann v. People, 3 Pwk. 272. SeeMoettu. People; People v. Cum- mings. Decision in 16 ft~. Y. questioned and opposed (Benefit of doubt as to insan- ity) in Patterson v. People, 46 Barb. 625, PEOPLE. 597 640 ; citing "Walter «. People, 32 N. Y. 147. See People v. Montgomery, 13 .466. Pr. N. S. 207. Followed in People v. Schryver, 42 If. Y. 1, 8 ; disapproving Patterson v. Peo- ple, though opinion of Brown, J., in Ct. of App. is considered to be against weight of authority. Explained in Flanagan v. Peo- ple, 52 IT. Y. 487, 471. See cases collected in 9 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 209. Criticised in 14 Cent. L. J. 2, 4, 7. Collated with other cases in 1 Barb. Crim. L. 3 ed. 265, n. Eelied on (Defendant on trial for murder entitled to benefit of doubt) in Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410; s. c, 24 Am. R. 703. Followed (Local statute may contain provis- ion of general application) in Bretz «. May- or, &c. of N. Y., 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 260; People ex rel. Bradley v. Stevens, 51 How. Pr. 146; "Williams «. People, 24 JST. Y. 407; Alexander r>. Bennett, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 498. Explained in Fellows v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Hun, 4S9. Dictum explained (Act relating to courts, when local) in Peo- ple v. Davis, 61 Barb. 463. Explained and applied (What is public act) in McLain v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Daly, 34. Exam- ined with other cases in dissenting opinion of Hunt, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Keyes, 409. Explained in People v. O'Brien, 38 N. Y. 195; People v. Allen, 42 Id. 418. Applied (Effect of statute invalid in part) in Hurlburt v. Banks, 1 .466. If. C. 166. Decision in 3 Park, approved and reversal explained (Proceedings on drawing of jurors) in Ferris v. People, 48 Barb. 23. ex rel. Shaw v. McCarty, 62 How. Pr. 152. Eev'g Shaw o. McCarty, 59 Id. 487. t. McCoy, 45 How. Pr. 216. Collated with other cases (Compelling prisoner to exhibit person for identification) in 33 Am. M. 530, n. wherein Bank v. Trapp, 24 How. Pr. 21 ; People e. Hackley, 24 If. Y. 75. are cited. Collated with other cases in 22 Am. L. Beg. If. 8. 33. ' v. McCniuber, 27 Barb. 632; s. c, 15 How. Pr. 186. Aff'd in 27" Barb. 638; and that affd in 18 N. F.-315. Decision in Id. followed (Striking out denials in answer) in Corbett v. Eno, 13 Alb. Pr. 67 ; Elizabethport Man'f'g Co. v. Campbell, Id. 92 ; Riphter v. Murray, 15 Id. 347, n.; Aga- wam B'k v. Egerton, 10 Bosw. 673 ; Butter- field v. Macomber, 22 How. Pr. 153. Doubted in Roby v. Hallock, 5 ^166. If. 0. 86, 88. Explained in Wayland v. Tysen, 45 JST. Y. 283 ; McCarty v. O'Donnell, 7 Mobt. 435. Applied (Right to judgment, in case of sham answer) in Kreitz v. Frost, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 279. Applied (Irrelevancy in answer) in Perkins o. Squier, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 621. v. McDonald, 43 N. Y. 61. See Hildc- brand v. People. Explained and applied (What constitutes larceny) in Zink v. Peo- ple, 6 Abb. N. C. 431 ; Phelps n. People, 6 Bun, 425; which was affd in 72 K Y. 360, which see. — ex rel. Kilmer v. McDonald, 2 Hun, 70. Subsequent proceedings in Id. 601 ; 4 Id. 187; and the latter aff'd in 69 N. Y. 362. — T. McGarren, 17 Wend. 460. See Mc- Laughlin v. Waite; People v. Call. Ex- plained (Lost goods as subject of larceny) in Griggs v. State, 58 Ala. 425; s. c, 29 Am. R. 762, with note. Collated with People v. Anderson, 14 Johns. 294; People v. Cog- dell, 1 Hill, 94; Amory fl. Flyn, 10 Johns. 102; and other cases in 21 Am. R. 187, n. Collated with other case in 2 Ben- nett & H. Cas. on Crim. L. 34. v. MeGowan, 17 Wend. 386. See Peo- ple v. Barrett. Followed (Former acquittal as bar to trial for another offense of which conviction might have been had under in- dictment under which acquittal was had) in State t>. Brannon, 55 Mo. 63 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 643, 645. ex rel. Stemmler v. McGnire, 2 Htm, 269; s. c, i'Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 658. Aff'd, it seems, in 60 If. Y. 640, but with- out opinion. — • v. Mclntyre, 1 Parle. 371. Affd asMc- Intyre v. People, in 9 If. Y. 38. v. McKay, 18 Johns. 212. See People v. Townsend. See account by M. T. C. Gould, published at Albany in 1821. Ex- plained (New trial after conviction) in Quimbo Appo v. People, 20 If. Y. 552; Shepherd v. People, 25 Id. 417. Applied (Mistrial when not bar to new trial) in Peo- ple v. Reagle, 60 Barb. 544. Explained as not authority (Separation of jury on trial of capital case) in Stephens v. People, 18 If. Y. 559. Compared in Eastwood v. People, 3 Park 43. Disting'd (Effect of irregularity in summoning jurors) in Peoples. Ransom, 7 Wend. 427. Applied in McGuire v. People, 2 Park. 157. See People v. Cummings, 3 Id. 348. Followed with Blakely n. Sheldon, 7 Johns. 32; Root v. Sherwood, 6 Id. 68 (Waiver of irregularity in criminal cases) in Nomaque v. People, Breese (III.) 145; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 157. Explained in Clintons. Engelbrecht, 13 Wall. 434, 440. ex rel. Marshall y. McKinnon, 41 Barb. 515. Disting'd (Length of term of officer chosen to fill vacancy) in People ex rel. Rosekrans v. Carr, 62. How. Pr. 5, 17; which was rev'd in Id. 19. ex rel. Bay State Shoe, &c. Co. v. Mc- Lean, 5 ^66. If. C. 137. Aff'd in 17 Hun, 204; and that aff'd in 80 N. Y. 254. t. McLeod, 1 Hill, 377; 8. c, 25 Wend. 483; and 37 Am. Dec. 328, with note on p. 363, where it is reviewed at length as to the various points decided. See Jackson v: Pot- ter. For an account of the history of this case see 2,1 Alb. L. J.27 ; and Neilson's Mem- ories of Ruf us Choate, c. 10, p. 173. See re- port in 27 Gould's Stenog. Reporter, publish- ed at Washington in 1841, containing evi- 598 PEOPLE. dence, addresses, &c and to be found in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. See also account pub- lished at N. Y. 1841. Also the Sun edition 1841. Also review of the case by J. Pick- ering, Boston, 1841. Also review of opin- ion of Cowen, J. by D. B. Tallmadge, N. Y. 1841, with argument on banking laws, in 1 vol. Also Hill's reply to Tallmadge in 3 Sill, app'x, and Tallmadge's reply to Hill in 1 Am. L. Mag. 348. • Also review of trial in 26 Am. J. 236, 341 ; 4 Law Rep. 1G9. See also 26 Wend. 663. Applied (Proof on re- turn to haheas corpus) in lie Edymoin, 8 How. Pr. 481; People®. Martin, 7 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 51. Followed (Malice as implied from fact of homicide) jn Commonwealth v. York, 9 Mete. {Mass.) 93; s. a, 43 Am. Dec. 373, 392, with note. Included in Horrigan «£■ T. Ga. onSelf-Def. 784. v. McMahon, 2 Park. 663. Rev'd in 15 If. Y. 384. See Hendrickson v. People; People v. Wentz. Decision in 15 iV. Y. disting'd (Admissibility of statements of accused person) in Murphy v. People, 63 Id. 590. Approved and applied in Phillips ■». People, 57 Barb. 353, 363. Said in People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr. N. & . 207, 251, to have been overruled by Teachout v. People, 41 K Y. 7 ; the doctrine of Hen- drickson u. People, 10 Id. 13, being re-es- tablished. See however in 5 Montis Eng. 168, criticism on reporter's statement in People ■». Montgomery. Disapproved in U. S. v. Graff, 14 Blatchf. G. Gt. 381, 386. Approved (New trial in case of substantial error) in People «. Stout, 4 Park. 71, 130. ex rel. Lasher v. McNeil, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 140. Disting'd (Effect of author- ity to " lay out " highway) in dissenting opinion in Matter of Deering, 85 If. Y. 1, 14. t. Mallory, 2 Sutfm. Gt. (T. & G.) 76; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 281. Subsequent decis- ion in 4 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 567; mem. s. c, 2 Hun, 381. Decision in 2 Sup^m. Gt. (T. & O.) followed (Incumbrance up- on pier) in People v. Macy, 62 How. Pr. 66. y. Maloney, 1 Park. 593. See Hinck- ley v. Emerson. Explained and applied (Dog as subject of larceny) in Ward v. State, 48 Ala. 161; s. c, 17 Am. E. 31. Reviewed with other authorities in dissent- ing opinion of Appleton, C. J., in State ». Harriman, 75 Me. 562; s. c, 46 Am. R. 423, n. v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351. See Jackson u. Potter; Slee v. Bloom. Fol- lowed (Forfeiture of corporate franchise) in Matter of N. Y. Bridge Co., 4 Hun, 636; State v. Bank of Charleston, 2 McMu.ll. (So. Car.) 439; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 135, 140, with note. Explained with People «. Bris- tol, &c. Turnpike Co.,' 23 Wend. 222, 243, in Grand Rapids Bridge Co. v. Prange, 35 Mick. 400; s. c, 24 Am. P. 585, 588. See cases collected in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 5S3. Quoted and explained (Pleadings in quo warranto proceedings) in High on Ettr. Bern. 2 ed. § 727, n. 1. Explained in Ana &A.on Corp. § 757, 11 ed. T. Manning, 8 Cow. 297; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 451, with note containing citations (What excuses non-performance of contract) See Cathcart v. Cannon. Followed in Blake v. Niles, 13 N. H. 459; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 506. Followed and approved in Scully v. Kilpatrick, 79 Penn. St. 324; s. c 21 Am. P. 62, 05. ex rel. Egan v. Marine Ct, 18 Hun, 333. Rev'd in 81 N. Y. 500; s. c, 8 Abb. M G. 377; 59 How. Pr. 413. v. Maring. See Same v. Moring- T. Marks, 10 How. Pr. 261. Applied (Remedy in case of surprise on trial) in Messenger «. Fourth Nat. B'k, 6 Daly, 190, 194. v. Martin, 1 Park. 187. Applied (Certiorari in connection with habeas corpus) in Re Martin, 5 Blatchf. G. Gt. 303, 306. v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 122, with note containing citations. See Lower v. Winters; People v. Kelly; People v. Rathbun; Ex parte Vermilyea. Criticised (Opinion that disqualifies juror) in Peop'.e o. Bodine, 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 91. Examined, with respect to subsequent leg- islation, in Balbo v. People, 80 If. Y. 493. Referred to as in part overruled, in People «. Hayes, 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 582, 587. Ap- plied (Challenge to principal cause after challenge to favor) in Carnal v. People, 1 Park. 279. Explained and applied (Evi- dence of character of witness) in Gilbert v. Sheldon, 13 Barb. 625 ; Hagadorn v. Kearney, 13 Hun, 237. Examined with other cases in People ». Abbot, 19 Wend. 198; People v. Rector, Id. 579. Fol- lowed with People v. Rector, People ». Davis, 21 Id. 309, in Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 173, 187. Applied (Court as trior of challenge) in O'Brien v. People, 3 Abb. Pr. If. S. 372. Explained in Peop'i v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 544. Applied (Privi- lege of witness to refuse to make answer tending to degrade him) in Re Lewis, 3,9 How. Pr. 158. Explained in Gt. W. Turn- pike Co. ■». Loomis, 32 If. Y. 137. Ex- plained and limited in Youngs v. Youngs, 5 Bed/. 505, 518. Explained with Southard «. Rexford, 6 Cow. 254; Bank of Salinas. Henry, 2 Den. 155, in 1 Whart Com. on En. % 536, as holding a position abundantly sustained by authority. Referred to with Curtis v. Knox, 2 Den. 341, as carefully considered, in 22 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 29, where authorities from other states are col- lated. Cited with Scott v. Miller, 1 Johns. 328, in 2 Taylor on Ev. 1264. Also in Id. 1274. Quoted in 1 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 451, n. 2. Applied (Distinction between direct examination and cross-examination) in People v. Genet, 19 Hun, 101. Followed PEOPLE. 599 and approved (Review of discretion of trial judge to regulate examination of witnesses) in Turney v. State, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 104; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 74, 80, with note. Applied to power to adjourn, &c. in Tay- lor v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. 692, 695. Approved (Conspiracy to commit misde- meanor, as merged in misdemeanor) in People v. Richards, 1 Midi. 216; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 75, 79, with note. ; Commonwealth i). Delany, 1 Grant's (Penn.) Cas. 224. Followed in State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 79, 82. Quoted in 2 Ben- nett & H. Cas. on, Grim. L. 88. ex rel. Roberts v. Matthews, 43 Barb. 168. Aff'd (Summary proceedings) in 38 AT. F. 451. v. Mauran, 5 Den. 389. Disting'd (Ef- fect of dissolution of corporation on title to real estate held by it) in Owen v. Smith, 31 Barb. 640, 647. v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 5 Lans. 524. Aff'd in 53 N. Y. 629, opinion of Sup'm. Ct. being adopted, and Coster i. Mayor, &c, 43 N. Y. 399, cited, but no further opinion given. ex rel. Griffing v. Mayor, &c. of Brook- lyn, 9 Barb. 535. Rev'd in 4 N. Y. 419; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 266, with extended note, containing citations, and wherein it is said to have been frequently approved. See Grant «. Courter; Matter of Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Town of Guilford v. Supervisors of Chenango Co. Decision in 4 A 7 ". Y. dis- ting'd (Power of legislature to impose tax) in People ex rel. Baldwin v. Haws, 15 Abb. Pr. 119; People ex rel. Dunkirk, &c. R. R. Co. . Smart. Decis- ion in 28 Barb, followed (Improper join- der of parties defendant as ground for de- murrer) in United Society of Shakers v. Underwood, 9 Bush (E~y.) 609; s. c, 15 Am. R. 731, 738. Commented on (Com- plaint in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, \ 439. Decision in 10 Abb. Pr. quoted (Appointment of receiver) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 614. v. , 9 Abb. Pr. 253. Subsequent proceedings in 10 Id. 144; s. c, 32 Barb. 35 ; 19 How. Pr,. 155. Decision in 9 Abb. Pr. opposed (Power of attorney-general) in People v. Miner, 2 Lans. 396, 409. ex rel. Agnew v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hill, 9. See People ex rel. Church v. Supervisors of Alleghany. Applied (What 600 PEOPLE. reviewable on certiorari) in People ex rel. Shipman v. Overseers, 6 How. Pr. 27. Ex- amined with other cases in People v. Board of Police, 39 N. Y. 509. Approved (De- lay, as ground for refusing certiorari) .in People ex rel. Davis v. Hill, 53 Id. 547, 549. ex rel. Lynch t. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 25 Wend. 680. See People ex rel. Hodg- kinson v. Stevens. Overruled (Application of constitutional provision respecting as- sent of legislature to bill creating, &c. cor- porations) in Purdy v. People, 4 Sill, 385, 396. Explained (Mandamus to compel payment of public money) in People v. Allen, 42 K Y. 404,' 409. Followed with People ex rel. Dikeman «. Brooklyn, 25 Wend. 320 (Effect of motion for peremptory mandamus, as admission of truth of answer) in B'd of Police of Attala Co. v. Grant, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 77; s. c„ 47 Am. Dee. 102, 104, with note. ex rel. Monlton v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 10 Wend. 393. See Doughty v. Hope; People ex rel. Hodgkinson c. Stevens. Quo- ted (When mandamus issues) in Sigh on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 20, n. 1. ex rel. Westray v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 Sun, 309. Affd in 88 N. T. 491. ex rel. Howlett t. Mayor, &c. of Syracuse, 2 Hun, 433; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gt. ('/'. & C.) 61. Rev'd (Condemnation of church property for public uses) in 63 2f. Y. 291. * — ex. rel. Fiedler v. Mead, 24 K Y. 114. Further decision in 36 Id. 224; s. c, 34 Sow. Pr. 249. See Starin v. Town of Genoa. Decision in 24 iv". Y. disting'd (Validity of town bonds) in Ross v. Cur- tiss, 31 Id. 606, 609 ; Avery «. Town of Springport, 14 Blatclif. 0. Ct. 273. Applied in Scipio v. Wright, 101 U. S. 665, 676. Explained in Town of Venice v. Murdock, 92 Id. 494, 500. Followed (Man- damus to compel payment of public mon- eys) in People ex rel. N. ¥., &c. R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 223; Peo- ple ex rel. Kedian v. Nelson, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 368. Explained in People ex >rel. Navarro «. Green, 2 Sup'm. Gt. ( T. & C.) 67. Disting'd in Federgreen v. Town • of Fallsburgh, 21 Hun, 152. 154. Both decisions reconciled in Hcaley ». Dudley, 5 Lans. 126. Decision in 36 N. Y. applied (Validity of town bonding proceedings, when not to be -questioned) in People ex rel. Martin v. Brown, 55 Id. 189, and see dissenting opinion Id. 189, 192, 199. Also applied in People v. N. Y. & Canada R. R. Co. v. Hutton, 18 Hun, 121. ex rel. Bartlett v. Medical Soc'y of Erie, 32 N. Y. 187. See People ex rel. Thatchers. N. Y. Com. Benev. Ass'n. Fol- lowed (Expulsion of members of associa- tion) in Wachtel v. Noah Widows', &c. Soc'y, 60 How. Pi: 424. v. Medical Soc'y of Erie County, 24 Barb. 570. Compared and doctrine dis- cussed (Power to make by-laws) in 8 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 539. T. Meighan, 1 Hill, 298. See to the contrary (Effect of bond taken by justice imposing obligations in addition to those allowed by law) Williams s. Hubbard, 2 Code R. 52. ex rel. Barry v. Mercein, 3 Hill, 399; s. c, 38 Am. Deo. 644; 15 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 630, with brief note. Previous decisions in 8 Paige, 47 ; also as Mercein v. People ex rel. Barry, in 25 Wend. 64. De- cision in 8 Paige examined (Right to cus- tody of child) in People v. Brooks, 35 Barb. 85, 93. Collated with People v. Humph- reys, 24 Id. 521 ; Brooks *. Brooks, 35 Id. 85; Holmes's Case, 19 How. Pr. 329; Price v. Price, 55 N. Y. 656, and other cases in 34 Am. R. 698, n. Decision in 3 Hill followed in State v. Baldwin, 1 Halst. Ch. (N. J!) 454; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 399. Reviewed with Canover v. Cooper, 3 Barb. 117, and other cases (Right of widow to earnings of minor child) in Hammond v. Corbett, 50 2f. H. 501; s. c, 9 Am. R. 288. Decision in 8 Paige cited (Testimony by wife as to acts of cruelty, on habeas corpus proceedings by husband to obtain her cus- tody) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 424. Quoted in 1 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 624, 6 ed. ; Id. % 798a, n. 3. v. Merchants' & Mechanics' B'k of Troy, 78 iv". Y. 269. See Matter of Le Blanc. Applied (Effect of mailing check, &c. to bank) in Indig v. National City B'k of Brooklyn, 80 N. Y. 100, 106. Applied (Effect of theory of complaint not being sus- tained by proof) in Briggs v. Central Nat. B'k, 61 How. Pr. 250, 256. v. Merrill, 2 Park. 590. Rev'd in 14 iV. Y. 74. See Gueuther v. People. Decis- ion in 14 K Y. applied (Writ of error in criminal cases, when some of the issues are undisposed of) in Tabor v. People, 25 Hun, 638. ex i-el. Murphy v. Metropolitan Po- lice Commissioners, 5 Abb. Pr. 241. Held otherwise (Amending defective man- damus) of certiorari, in People ex rel. Gambling v. Cholwell, 6 Abb. Pr. 151. v. Meyer, 2 Code R. 49. Examined and approved (Demurrer and answer to same cause of action) in Slocum v. Wheeler, 4 How. Pr. 373. v. Miller, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 274. Affd in 56 iv". Y. 448. v. , 2 Park. 197. Followed (Evi- dence of specific debts on trial for obtain- ing goods, &c. by false representations as to debts) in Barber v. People, 17 Hun, 366. ex rel. Millis v. Mills. See People e. Koeber. ,. v. Miner, 2 Lans. 396. See Davis v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Re-affd (Power of attorney-general to bring action) in People PEOPLE. 601 f>. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 5 Lang. 25. Reviewed in People v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. K S. 25, 50, 96. But compare Superv's of ET. Y. v. Tweed, Id. 152, and note ; People v. Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1. Com- pare also Code Civ. Pro. § 1948. ■ v. , 32 Barb. 612. Rev'd in 37 Id. 466 ; s. c, 23 How. Pr. 223. ex rel. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 45 Barb. 208. Aff'd in 35 AT. Y. 551. See Bank of Rome ». Village of Rome ; Doughty v. Hope ; Thomas v. Le- land. Decision in 35 If. T. followed (Au- thority of legislature as to town bonding proceedings) in Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 Id. 177, 184, 194. Explained in Hardenburgh o. Van Keuren, 16 Hun, 22. Cited and compared in Thompson v. Perrine, 103 D. S. 806, 812. Cited with Clarke v. City of Rochester, 28 If. Y. 604; Gould v. Town of Venice, 20 Barb. 442, and other oases in Stewart v. Supervisors of Polk Co., 30 Iowa, il; s. c, 1 Am. B. 238, 253, as showing an almost uniform current of American authority. Explained (Con- clusiveness of affidavit of compliance with statute, in such proceedings) in dissenting opinion in People ex rel. Martin v. Brown, 55 JV. Y. 180, 198. Disting'd in Cagwin «. Town of Hancock, 84 Id, 532, 539. v. Moett, 23 Hun, 60. Aff'd as Moett v. People, in 85 A". Y. 373. Previous decis- ion in 58 How. Pr. 467. T. Molineux, 53 Barb. 9. Aff'd in 40 IT. Y. 113. Both decisions applied (Appli- , cation of statutes regulating internal admin- istration of State) in Bishop v. Barton, 2 Hun, 437. — — v. Monnais, 17 Abb. Pr. 345. Dis- ting'd and questioned (Essentials of crime of rape) in People v. Dohring, 59 N. Y. 374, 383. ■ v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr. If. S. 207. See Same«. McCann. See report of case published at N. Y. 1873. Relied on (Fees to expert witnesses) in Buchanan v. State, 59 lnd. 1, 7; s. c, 25 Am. B. 620. Pol- lowed in 1 Whart. Com. on Ho. § 456, though Lyon v. Wilkes, 1 Cow. 591, seems to be referred to as maintaining a contrary position. See 6 South. L. Bev. If. S. 709. y. Moody, 5 Park. 568. Referred to in 32 Am. Dee. 664, n., as a well considered decision (Malicious mischief). v. Moore, 15 Wend. 419. Criticised as not authority (Allowing recall of witness to prove falsity of former testimony) in Stacy ■e. Graham, 14 A. Y. 492. v. Moores, 4 Den. 518. Reviewed with People v. Mullin, 25 Wend. 698 (What con- tracts of infant are binding on him) in Bar- ker v. Hibbard, 54 A 7 ! H. 539; s. c, 20 Am. B. 160, 162. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 cd. 304. - — v. Morgan, 5 Daly, 161. Aff'd in 58 If. Y. 679, in opinion in Wenzler v. People. Id. 516. ex rel. Akin y. Morgan, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 101; s. c, 65 Barb. 473. Rev'd in 55 A". Y. 587, without passing on ques- tion decided below. Decision in Id. fol- lowed (Authority to issue town bonds in aid of railroad) in People ex rel. Corwin «. Walter, 2 Hun, 385, 388 ; which was rev'd in 68 N. Y. 403, which see. Cited approv- ingly in Thomas v. Town of Lansing, U. S. .Cir. Ct. N. D. N. Y. 14 Fed. Rep. 625. Disting'd (Certiorari to review proceedings of assessors in town bonding proceedings) in People ex rel. Gray v. Phillips, 67 N. Y. 583. Decision in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) followed but point not indicated, in People ex rel. Tucker v. Phillips, 3 Id. 798. Fol- lowed with People v. Ryken, 6 Hun, 625 (Proofs to be considered on return to cer- tiorari) in State ex rel. Town of Manitowoc ii. County Clerk of Manitowoc County, 59 Wis. 15. 24. v. Moring, 47 Barb. 642. Rev'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 539; s. c, as People ii. Maring, 3 Keyes, 374. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Validity of State tax on import bus- iness) in People ex rel. Hamman v. Tax Comtn'rs, 10 Hun, 255, 258. Applied in People v. National F. Ins. Co. of N. Y., 61 How. Pr. 334, 342. v. Morrell, 21 Wend. 563. See Conner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Explained with Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 JST. Y. 568 (Inter- pretation of constitutional provisions) in Territory v. Scoll, Sup'm. Ct. Dakota 1884, 20 Northw. Rep. 401, 424. Disting'd (Ef- fect of division of county) in Davidson v. Root, 11 Ohio, 98; s. c , 37 Am. Dee. 41 1, 413. See Bowman «. Hovious, 17 Gal. 471, 476. t. Morris, 13 Wend. 325. Applied (Power of legislature over public corpora- tion) in People v. Kerr, 37 Barb. 424; Peo- ple v. Pinckney, 32 If. Y. 395. Approved in Smith v. Village of Adrian, 1 Mich. 498. Quoted- in Cooley on Const. Limit. 3 ed. 291, n. 5. Dictum explained (Application to public corporations, of constitutional pro- vision respecting assent of legislature to laws) in De Bow v. People, 1 Den. 13; but see Giffbrd v. Livingston, 2 Id. 385. See also Purdy v. People, 4 Hill, 396; which rev'd 2 Id. 39, which see ; Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend-. 126; People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 25 Id. 682. Cited as authority (County as municipal corporation) in Ex parte Selrna & Gulf R. R. Co., 45 Ala. C96; s. c, 6 Am. B. 722, 731. Applied (Obligation of con- tracts not to be impaired by legislation) in Gebhard n. Canada Southern R'y Co., 17 Blatchf. C. Ct. 416, 419. Cited as author- ity with Peoples. Draper, 15 N. Y. 543; Wyuehamera. People, 13 Id. 391 (Implied limitations on exercise of legislative author- ity) in People ex rel. Trombley v. Humph- rey, 23 Mich. 471; s. c. 9 Am. It. 94, 102. — - v. Morrisette, 20 How. Pr. 118. Criti- cised (Power to suspend sentence) in State v. Addy, 14 Vroom (A 7 . J.) 113; s. c, 39 Am. B. 547. Collated with Miller's Case, 9 602 PEOPLE. Cow. 730, and other cases in 12 Weekly L. Bui. 61. — v. Morrison, 1 Parle. 625. See People v. Dutchess Oyer & Terminer. Explained (Requisites of crime of rape) in People v. Monnais, 17 Abb. Pr 348. Applied in Reynolds, v. People, 41 Horn. Pr. 188. Overruled (Power of Oyer and Terminer to grant new trial after conviction) in Quimbo Appo v. People, 20 If. Y. 547 ; which afi 'd 18 How. Pr. 351, which sec. Cited in State n. Rover, 10 Ifev. 388; s. c, 21 Am. R. 745, 750, as ably discussing the question. Commented on in 2 Bennett & H. Gets, on Grim. L. 493. T. Mosher, 2 Park 195. Applied (Ex- tra territorial effect of statutory prohibition against marriage) in Van Voorhis v. Brint- nall, 86 N. Y. 18, 81, 36. — ex rel. Mann v. Mott, 2 Hun, 672 ; s. c, more fully, 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 207. Affd, it seems, in 60 If. Y. 649, but with- out opinion. — ex rel.. Larrabee t. Mulholland, 19 Hun, 548. Affd in 82 K Y. 324; s. c, 37 Am. R. 568. Decision in Id. collated with- other cases (Validity of municipal ordi- nances) in 35 Am. B. 703, n. - — T. Mullin. See Same v. Moores. — v. Murray, 5 Hill, 468. See Story v. Furman. Applied (Waiver of statutory or constitutional provision) in Vose ». Cock- croft, 44 N. Y. 423. Cited as authority in Morse *. Home Ins. Co., 30 Wis. 496 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 580. Applied (Waiver of trial by jury) in People ex rel. Yale v. Eckler, 19 Hun, 613. Disting'd (Sufficiency of official certificate) in Brackett ». Miller, 24 Id. 560. — T. , 5 Park 577. Approved (Re- moval of cause to U. S. court) in Patrie v. Murray, 29 How. Pr. 312, 317. — ex rel. Babcock v. Murray, 8 Hun, 579. Rev'd in 70 If. Y. 521. Previous decision in 5 Hun, 42. Decision in Id. questioned (Mode of appointment of offi- cers) in People ex rel. Kresser v. Fitzsim- mons, 68 If. Y. 514. Compare (Allegations in proceeding against one usurping office) Code Civ. Pro. § 1949. — ex rel. Gilchrist t. Murray, 8 Daly, 347. Rev'd in 73 If. Y. 535. Decision in Id. followed (Judgment no estoppel against stranger) in Flanagan v. Flanagan,. 8 Abb. K C. 413, 422. — t. Mutual Gas Light Co. of Brooklyn, 54 How. Pr. 286. Rev'd in 14 Hun, 157; and that affd in 74 W- T. 434. With decis- ion in Id. see (Depositions) Code Git. Pro. 1881, § 870, n. — v. Nash, 5 Park 473; s. c, less fully, as Matter of Nosh, 16 Abb. Pr. 281; 25 How. Pr. 307. Overruled (Power of city judge) and questioned (Distinction between judicial and ministerial acts) in People ex rel. Ryan v. Russel, 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 230. y. , 25 Run, 59. Abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 545. — ex rel. Welch v. Nash, 3 Hun, 535. Aff'd in 62 If. Y. 484. — v. National Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y., 61 How. Pr. 334. Corrected (Meaning' of "hereafter" in statute) in People v. N. Y. Floating Dock Co., 11 Abb. N. G. 40, 47! Followed (Taxation of insurance companies for time preceding passage of act) in People v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 61 How. Pr. 342. v. Nearing, 27 If. Y. 306. Questioned (Assessment of compensation for occupying lands to construct ditch) in People ex rel. Williams v. Haynes, 49 Id. 587, 593. — ex rel. Kediau v. Neilson, 3 Hun, 214; s. c, SSup'm. Ct. (7'. & C.) 367; 48 How. Pr. 454. Applied (Funds of separate or- ganization, when not subject to control of city government) in People ex rel. Burnet v. Jackson, 60 How. Pr. 330, 332. — ex rel. Blossom v. Nelson, 3 Lam. 394; s.c, 60 Barb. 159; 10 Abb. Pr. K S. 200. Rev'd in 11 Id. 106; which was rev'd and former aff'd in 46 N. Y. 477. Decis- ion in Id. applied with other cases (Who may question existence of corporation) in Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 la. Ann. 636. — v. Nevins, 1 Hill, 154. Followed (Spe- cification of amount of costs, in proceed- ings for non-payment) in Matter of Kelly, 6 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 117. Approved (Mode of punishing disobedience of order for payment) in Clark v. Binihger; 43 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 127. — ex rel. Clausen v. Newburgh & S. Plank Road Co., 23 Hun, 173. Rev'd in 86 If. Y. 1. — ex rel. Howard v. Newell, 13 Barb. 86. Rev'd as Newell i>. People, 7 If. Y. 9. Com- pare (Power to award damages and interest) People v. Benton, 7 Barb. 208. — t. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 If. Y. 303. Criticised as not authority (Enjoining collection of illegal assessment) in Mut. Benefit Life Ins. 'Co. v. Supervisors of N. Y., 2 Abb. Pr.' If. S. 233. — N. Y. Central R. B. Co., 25 Barb. 199. Aff'd in 13 If. Y. 78. Decision in Id. fol- lowed (Recovery of penalties for successive violations of statute) in Johnson v. Hudson R. R. Co., 2 Sweeny, 298, 313. — v. , 34 Barb, 123. Aff'd in 24 N. Y. 485. See opinion and argument in Sup'm. Ct. reported by E. F. Underhill, and published at Albany, 1861. See points, &c. in Ct. of App. Cas. in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. v. , 29 If. Y. 418. Subsequent decis- ion in 30 How. Br. 148. Decision in 29 If. Y. followed and approved (Order when appeal- able, as involving substantial right) in Mat- ter of Duff, 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 423. Ap- plied in Macdonald v. Macdonald, 14 Hun, 497 ; Tracy v. First Nat. B'k of Selma, 37 If. Y. 524. Explained in Howell v. Mills, 53 If. Y. 329. Explained and applied (Ap- pealability of order for extra allowance) in Gori v. Smith, 3 Abb. Pr. If. S. 52. Ap- PEOPLE. 603 plied to allowance in divorce suit, — in Les- lie v. Leslie, 6 Id. 195. Decision in 30 How. Pr. followed in Hayher v. American Pop. Life Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 211. 215. Decision in 29 Jf. Y. explained (Power of appellate court to grant extra allowance) in Dupuy v. Wurts, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 115. Applied (Proof that justifies extra allowance) in Burke v. Can- dee, 63 Barb. 555. ex rel. Armstrong v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. It. Co., 2 Hun, 482; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 84. Affd in 60 N. Y. 116. Other proceedings in Id. 112 ; and in 5 Hun, 86 ; which was aff'd in 60 2V. Y. 407. ex rel. Thatcher v. N. T. Commercial Assoc, 18 Abb. Pr. 271. Followed (Ex- pulsion of member of association) in Dickin- son v. Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee, 29 Wis. 45; s. c, 9 Am. B. 544. Collated with People v. Medical Society, 32 N. Y. 194; People e« rel. Schmidt v. St. Franciscus Benevolent Soc, 24 Sow. Pr. 216, and other cases in 15 Am. B. 27, •«. v. N. Y. & Manhattan Beach E'y Co., 22 Hun, 95. Aff'd in 84 jV. Y. 565. Decision in Id. discussed (Ejectment by people) iu Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 193. v. N. T. & Statcn Island Ferry Co., 49 How. Pr. 611. Aff'd in IHun, 1 05 ; which was aff'd in 68 N. Y. 71, except as to allowance. Decision in Id. followed (Basis of extra al- lowance) in Musgrave v. Sherwood, 29 Hun. 475. Reviewed with Ogdensburg & L. C. E. R. Co. v. Vermont & C. R. R. Co., 63 K Y. 179; Lattimer v. Livermore, 72 Id. 183: People v. Albany & Vt. &c. R. R. Co., 16 Abb. Pr. 465; in People v. Genesee V.alley Canal R. R. Co., 30 Hun, 565. Disting'd in Potter v. Farrington, 24 Id. 551. Cora- pare Code Civ. Pro. § 3252. ex rel. Consolidated Stage Co. v. N. T. Common Pleas, 43 Barb. 278. Collated with other cases (Criterion to determine when prohibition is proper remedy) in 12 Am. Dec. 607, n. ex rel. Gould v. N. T. Common Pleas, 1 Weud. 81. See Blanchard v. Myers. Re- porter's note corrected and case approved (Supersedeas of execution, after levy) in Payfer v. Bissell, 3 Hill, 239, 242. ex rel. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. N. T. Com- mon Pleas, 3 Abb. Pr. 181. Compare (In- junction where right depends on nature of action) Code Civ. Pro t § 603. ex rel. Manning v. N. T. Common Pleas, 13 Wend. 649; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 495, with note containing citations. Disting'd with Nicoll v. Nicoll, 16 Wend. 446, and the former held no authority because rev'd (Attorney's right to judgment for costs) in Ely v. Cook, 2 Hilt. 406, 419. Disapproved in Roberts i>. Carter, 9 Abb. Pr. 367, n. Ap- plied in Sanders v. Gillett, 8 Daly, 183. Ex- plained (Right of unsuccessful party to costs) in Koon i> Thurman, 2 Hill, 357." ex rel. Mnsgrove v. N. Y. Common Pleas, 9 Wend. 429. Reviewed and dis- approved (Practice on demurring' to or moving to correct return to mandamufi) in People v. Ovenshire, 41 How. Pr. 164. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2078, n. ex rel. Pinckney v. N. Y. Five Under- writers, 54 How. Pr. 240. Aff'd in 1 Hun, 248. v. N. Y. Gas Light Co.. 6 Lam. 467 ; s. c. , more fully, 64 Barb. bo. - — v. N. Y. General Sessions, 15 Abb. Pr. 59. Overruled (New trial not granted by Court of Sessions) in Lanergan v. People, 39 K Y. 39. ex rel. Hasbrouck v. N. Y. General Sessions, 3 Barb. 144.' See (Writ of pro- hibition) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2100, n. ex rel. Norton v. N. Y. Hospital, 3 Abb. N. G. 229. Followed (Taking testimony of lunatic) in Hand V. Burrows, 23 Hun, 330. ex rel. Splain v. N. T. Juvenile Asy- lum, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (7*. & C.) 475.' Aff'd, it seems, in "59 N. Y. 629, but without opinion. ex rel. Holdsworth v. N. Y. Superior Court, 18 Wend. 675. Explained and cases to the contrary cited (Mandamus to inferior courts) in High on Extr. Bern. 2 ed. § 157, n. 1. ex rel. Oebricks v. N. T. Superior Court, 5 Wend. 114. Subsequent decision in 10 Id. 285. See Hull «. Supervisors of Oneida. These decisions overruled (Manda- mus to inferior courts) in Judges of Oneida v. People, 18 Wend. 79, 96 ; People v. Judges of Dutchess, 20 Id. 658. Applied (Ignorance of defense, as ground for new trial) in Wixon v. Davis, Walk. Oh. {Mich.) 18. ex rel. Fleming v. Niagara Common Pleas, 12 Wend. 246. Overruled (Manda- mus to inferior courts) in People v. Judges of Oneida, 21 Id. 20. v. Nichols. 3 Parle. 579. Rev'd as Nichols v. People, in 17 K Y. 114. Com- pare (Requisites of larceny) Cocheron's Case, ICity Hall Bee. 177; Hadley's Case, 5 Id. 8. ex rel. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Nichols, 18 Hun, 530 ; s. c, 57 How. Pr. 467. Rev'd in 79 N. Y. 582; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 200. See People ex rel. Munday v. Fire Comm'rs. Decision in 79 N. Y. disting'd (Removal of officers in N. Y. city) in People ex rel. Keech «. Thompson, 26 Hun, 28. Com- pare (Certiorari returnable at chambers) Code Civ. Pro. § 2138. ex rel. Washington v. Nichols, 52 IT. Y. 478; s. c, 11 Am. B. 734. Applied (Execution of public trust delegated to several) in First Nat. B'k of North Ben- nington e. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 Vt. 87; s. c, 36 Am. B. 734, 742; Talcbtt v. Blanding, 54 Col. 289. y. North America Life Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 18. Rev'd in 77 N. Y. 297; s. c, 6 Abb. K C. 293, with note. Previous pro- ceedings in 56 How. Pr. 160; s. c, 6 Abb. N. C. 293. Further proceedings in 58 How. 604 PEOPLE. Pr. 197; afi'd in 18 Bun, 470, which was affd in 80 If. Y 152. See Attorney-Gen'l v. North America Life Ins. Co. v. Northern R. R. Co., 53 Barb. 98. Affu as to "the merits, in 42 N. Y. 217. Decision in Id. disting'd (Sufficiency of de- nial) in Smith v. Gratz, 59 How. Pr. 275. v. Northrop, 15 How. Pr. 152. See cases cited (Limitations on municipal ex- penses) in 5 Abb. If. 0. 468. T. Northrup, 50 Barb. 147. Rev'd in 37 If. Y. 203; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 227. See Northrup v. People. v. Norton, 9 If. Y. 178. Followed (Waiver of objection to proceeding by peti- tion) in People ex rel. Jeunys v. Brennan, 3 Hun, 672. Followed (Power to appoint new trustee on petition) in Milbank v. Crane, 25 How. Pr. 194. Applied (Want of jurisdiction, when not defense to action on bond) in Field v. Van Cott, 15 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 352. Explained (Action on bond, in name of people) in Connor v, Such, 9 Bono. 321 ; Cridler v. Curry, 44 How. Pr. 349 ; People v. Groat, 22 Hun, 166; Dayton v. Johnson, 69 If. Y. 428. Applied in People ex rel. Becar v. Struller, 16 Hun, 236. Dis- ting'd (Questioning regularity of trustee's proceedings) in Anonymous v. Gelpcke, 5 Hun, 256. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 429, n. 3, 4 ed. ■ v. , 7 Barb. 477. Approved (Dis- cretion as to granting or refusing tavern license) in People ». Jones, 54 Barb. 311. Applied in People ex rel. Beller v. Wright, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 518, 520. v. , 4 Sandf. 640. See (Examina- tion of third party in supplementary pro- ceedings) Code Civ. Pro 1881, § 2441, n. • ex rel. Clark v. Norton, 5 Lans. 7. For opinion of Johnson, J., see 59 Barb. 169. v. Nostrand, 46 If. Y. 375, Fol- lowed (Necessity of proof of right to office) in People ex rel. Steinert v. Anthony, 6 Hun, 142, 144. Disting'd in Foot ». Stiles, 57 If. Y. 399, 404. Disting'd (Effect of vacancy in office of one of board) in People ex rel. Kingsland v. Palmer, 52 Id. 187 ; • People ex rel. Howlett v. Mayor, &c. of Syra- cuse, 63 Id. 297. Applied (Definition of officer) in Sweeny v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 275. v. O'Brien, 38 If. Y. 193. See Connet v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Disting'd (What is local act) in People v. Davis, 61 Barb. 465. Compared with other cases in Healey v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 123. Applied in Kerrigan e. Force. 9 Hun, 188; People e. Allen, 42 ■ If. Y. 418; People*. Sup'rs of Chautauqua, 43 Id. 20. Criticised in People ex rel. Clauson v. Newburgh & Shawangunk PI. R. Co., 86 Id. 1, 7. Applied (Effect of statute in part constitutionally invalid) in People ex nl. City of Rochester v. Briggs, 60 Id. 566. ■ ex rel. La Torre v. O'Brien, 54 Barb. 38; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 223. Afl'd in 6 Id. 63; s. c, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 552. Decision in Id. contrasted with People ex rel. Cook v. Board of Police, 39 If. Y. 506, and other cases, and declared incorrect (Costs in certiorari proceedings) in People v. Fuller, 40 How. Pr. 35, 88. Applied (Election of remedy as to arrest of debtor) in Townsend v. Nebenzahl, 8 Abb. If. 0. 427, 429. v. Olcott, 6 Johns. Gas. 301 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dee. 168, with note ; 1 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 523, with brief note. SeeKlockn. Peo- ple; People!). Barrett; Peoples. Deuton. Re- viewed with other cases (Discharging jury in criminal case) in States. McKee,l Bailey (So. Car.) 651 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 499, 501. Re- viewed with People v. Bairett, 2 Cai. 304; People ». Goodwin, 18 Johns. 187, and other cases in Mahala v. State, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 532; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 591, with note. Disapproved with People n. Good- win, 18 Johns. 187 ; People v. Green, 13 Wend. 55, in Williams v. Commonwealth, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 567; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 403. Quoted and collated with other cases in 2 Bennett & H. Cas. on Grim. L. 370. ex rel. Mace v. Oliver, 66 Barb. 570. Compare (Recitals in order for examination in supplementary proceedings) Day v. Brosnan, 6 Abb. N. 0. 312. Compare (Amount of fine for contempt not shown to have produced injury) Code Giv. Pro. § 2284. ex rel. Parker y. Onondaga Common Pleas, 2 Wend. 263. Qualified (Effect of plea of title in justice's court) in Fleet v. Youngs, 7 Id. 291, 298. ex rel. Ransom v. Onondaga Common Pleas, 3 Wend. 331. Followed (Execution satisfied by payment of amount, in absence of directions as to collection of interest) in Todd «. Blatchford, 86 If. Y. 517, 519.. v. Orcutt, 7 Park. 252. Approved (Buildings in relation to crime) in Quinn v. People, 71 N. Y. 561, 571. Applied in Levy v. People, 80 Id. 327, 333. v. O'Reilly, 9 Abb. If. G. 77. Rev'd in 10 Id. 53. Compare (Perjury) U. S. e. Baer, U. S. Dist. Gt. 8. D. If. Y. 13 Chic. L. N. 196. ex rel. Wicks t. Oswego Ct. of Ses- sions, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 431. See to the contrary (Substituting successor of offi- cer as plaintiff. &c.) Code Civ. Pro. § 766. ex r el. Sunderlin v. Ovensliire, 41 How. Pr. 164. See (Compelling further return in mandamus proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2078, n. Pacific Mail S- S. Co., 58 If. Y. 242. Followed (Situs of vessel for purposes of taxation) in Irvin v. New Orleans, St. Louis, &c. R. R. Co., 94 III. 105; s. c, 34 Am. S. 208, 212. T. Pnge^3 Parh. 600. Approved (Indict- ment without preliminary examination) in People ex rel. Phelps®. Westbrook, 12 Hun, 6*9. . „ , v. Parish, 4 Den. 153. Disting'd and limited (Effect of admission of proof put of order) in McCarney v. People, 83 If. Y. 408, 417. PEOPLE. 005 T. Park, 41 N. Y. 21. Affg 1 Lans. 263. v. Parker, 4 uohns. 124. See Same e. Hennessey. Collated with other cases, the views in which are preferred (What build- ings are within the " curtilage ") in 22 Am. Dec. 147, n. ex rel. Jenkins v. Parker Vein Coal Co., 10 How. Pr. 186. Aff'd in 1 Abb. Pr. 128 ; s. c, more fully, 10 How. Pr. 543, with opinion of Mokkis, J. ex rel. Devlin v. Peabody, 5 Abb. Pr. 194. Disting'd (Termination of proceed- ings so as to review by certiorari) in People ex rel. Gilmore v. DoQohue, 22 Hun, 470. v. Peiirsall, 46 How. Pr. 121. The accuracy of this report is impugned in 9 Alb. L. J. 144. v. Pease, 3 Johns. Cas. 333. Criticised (Repugnant condition in pardon) in 2 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 457. Collated with other cases in 59 Am. Dec. 576, n. . ex rel. Smith v. Pease, 30 Barb. 588. Aff d in 27 N. Y. 45 ; s. c, less fully, 25 How. Pr. 495. See Kane v. Johnston. Decision in 27 N. Y. disting'd (Inquiry into election returns) in People ex rel. Jud- son v. Thacher, 05 Id. 525, 535. Applied in People ex rel. Stemmler v. McGuire, 2 Hun, 269, 274; People ex rel. Bush v. Thorn- ton, 25 Id. 456, 460. Included with notes in Brightly Cas. on led. 385. Commented on in Cooky on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 791, re. 3. Decision in 30 Barb, applied (Powers of inspector as to qualification of elector) in People ex rel. O'Donnell v. McNally, 9 Abb. N. C. 468, 470. Decision 27 N. Y. followed (Right to secrecy of ballot) in Williams v. Stein, 38 Ind.8d; s. c, 10 Am. P. 97. Quoted in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed, 762, n. 1 ; Id. 763, n. 1. Com- mented on in Id. 766, n. Quoted and collated with other cases (Recovery by legal- ly elected officer, of fees received by usurp- er) in Brightly Gas. on Elect. 610. Decision in 30 Barb, reviewed with other cases (What is court of common-law jurisdiction within meaning of act of Congress, relating to naturalization) in People ex rel. Bracket v. McGowan, 77 111. 644; s. c, 20 Am. £. 254. 257. ex rel. Hoaff v. Peck, 4 Lans, 528; s. c, 62 Barb. 525 ; 42 How. Pr. 425. Criticised (Proceedings for town bonding in aid of railroad) in Craig v. Town of Andes, 93 N. Y. 405, 418. Applied (Sufficiency of allegation in such proceedings, that corpora- tion in question is in this State) in Matter of Town of Gorham, 43 How. Pr. 263, 267. Overruled (Necessity of proof that road has been located) in People ex rel. Aikin v. Morgan, 55 K Y. 587. ex rel. Smith v. Peck, 11 Wend. 604; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 104, with note, wherein it is stated to have been frequently referred to (Provisions of statute, when to be deemed directory and not mandatory). See other citations in note. T. Pendleton. Reported under Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. N. Y. & Staten Island Ferry- Co. — v. Pennock, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 209. Rev'd in 60 N. Y. 421. Decision in Id: followed (Liability of sureties on official bond) in Sutherland v. Carr, 85 Id. 105, 113; City of Lafayette v. James, 92 lnd. 240 ; s. c, 47 Am. S. 140. — v. Perkins, 1 Wend. 91. See Fox v. Smith. Disting'd with Maurer v. People, 43 N. Y. 1 (Necessity of presence of pris- oner during trial) in People v. Bragle, 88 Id. 585. Followed in State v. Hughes, 2 Ala. 102; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 411; Sneed v r State, 5 Ark. 431 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 102. Disting'd in Nolan v. State, 55 Oa. 521 ; s. C, 21 Am. li. 282. v. Perry, 8 Abb. Pr. K S. 27. Approved (Taking bail of prisoner indicted for mur- der) in Petition of Alexander, 59 Mo. 598 ; s. c, 21 Am. P. 393. — ex rel. Van Allen v. Perry, 16 Hun, 463. Applied (Time within which certiorari is to be applied for) in People ex rel. Smith ®. Cooper, 22 Id. 515. Compare (Service of affidavits on certiorari proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. § 2128. v. Pettit, 3 Hun, 416; s. c, more fully, SSup'rn. Ct. (T. & C.) 9. v. Phelps, 5 Wend. 9. Followed (Re- quisites of indictment for perjury) in People Warner, Id. 271 ; Burns ». People, 59 Barb. 531. Disapproved, but followed, in People v. Trcdway, 3 Barb. 470. Compare Hoch v. People, 3 Mich. 554; State v. Lamont, 2 Wise. 441. Followed in State v. Newton, 1 0. Greene {Iowa) 160; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 367, 369. v. , 49 How. Pr. 462. Aff'd as Phelps v. People, 6 Hun, 428, and that aff'd in 72 i\T. Y. 365. See error books and briefs collected in 2 vols, in State Libr. in Albany. See also arguments and charge, same Libr. See also briefs, &c, and three error books, in vol. 451 of Ct. of App. Cas. in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Decision in 72 N. Y. applied (Title of State to drafts indorsed to State treasurer in payment for taxes) in People v. Bank of North Am., 75 Id. 554. v. Phillips, 1 Park. 95. Approved (Form of record in certiorari proceedings) in Cases of Lynch and Burns, 9 Abb. N. O. 69, 75. v. , 42 K Y. 200. Aff g Phillips v. People, 57 Barb. 353. v. , 1 Den. 388. Applied (Issues in quo warranto proceedings) in People v. Albany, &c. R. R. Co., 57 XT. Y. 161, 173. ex rel. Gray v. Phillips, 67 K Y. 582. See (Time within which to bring certiorari proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2125, n. - — ■ v. Phoenix Bank. See People v. Presi- dent, &c. Manhattan Co. v. Pinckney, 32 N. Y. 377. Dissenting opinion of Bkown, J., in Id. 724. Followed (Constitutional validity of act of March 30, 1865, creating Metropolitan Fire District) in G06 PEOPLE. People v. Booth, Id. 397. Applied (Mode of appointment of officers to perform local duties) in People v. Acton, 48 Barb. 529 ; Devoy v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3G N. Y. 450. Disting'd in Matter of Ryers, 72 Id. 6. T. Pine, 2 Barb. 566. Quoted and col- lated with other cases (Insane delusion as excuse for crime) in 1 Bennett & H. Cos. on Crim. L. 101. ■ ex rel. Draper v. Pinkerton, 17 Hun, 199. Affd in 77 N. T. 245. Decision in 17 Hun and other cases reviewed '.Executive discretion as to arrest of fugitives from jus- tice in another State) in 57 Am. Dec. 392, n. v. Piatt, 17 Johns. 195; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 382. See Hooker ». Cummings; Shaw v. Crawford. Followed (Effect of legislative grant as contract) in Derby Turnpike Co. v. Parks, 10 Conn. 522; s. a, 27 Am. Dee. 700, 704, with note. Applied in Common- wealth v. Penn. Canal Co., 66 Penn. 41 ; s. c, 5 Am. R. 329, 342. Explained and approved (Power of courts to declare statute; unconstitutional) in 1 Kent Com. 4Si. Collated with other cases (Extent of grant bounded on navigable streams) in Mills Thompss on Highw. 3 ed. 46. Collated with, other cases (Dams in navigable Streams) in 57 Am. Dec. 692, n. Relied on (Retrospective law, when not unconstitu- tional) and also reviewed with Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 349 (Legislative right to appropriate private property for public bene- fit) in Aldridge v. Tuscumbia, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Stew. & P. {Ala.) 199; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 307, 314, with note. v. Pleas, 2 Johns. Cos. 376. See cases collated (Trustees' compromises) in 5 Abb. N. C. 349, n. ex rel. Miller v. Police Comin'rs of N. ¥., 6 Hun, 229; s. c, more fully, 52 How. Pr. 289. Rev'd in 67 N. Y. 475 ; s. c, 52 How. Pr. 289. Further decision in 11 Hun, 613. See People ex rel. Cook v. Board of Police. ■ ex rel. Skalian v. Police Comm'rs of N. T., 10 Hun, 106. Affd, it seems, in 8 Weekly Dig. 350; mem. s. c, 76 N. Y. 613, on opinion of Davis, J., below. • ex rel. Grace v. 'Police Comm'rs of Troy, 12 Alb. Pr. 181. Aff' d in 43 How. Pr. 385. ex rel. Tappan v. Porter, 1 Duer, 709. Compare subsequent decision of Barculo, J., in Sup'm. Ct., in People ex rel. Trainer v. Cooper, 8 How. Pr. 288. See People v. Hennessey; People v. Rogers. See (Juris- diction of Superior city courts) Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 268, n. v. Potter, 1 Park 47; s. c, 4 K Y. Leg. Obs. 177. Followed (Granting condi- tional pardon) in Lee v. Murphy, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 789; s. c, 12 Am. P. 563, 566. Cited approvingly in \Kenl Com. 284, n. b. ex rel. Jackson v. Potter, 42 How. Pr. 260; s. c„ more fully, 47 K Y. 375. Dis- ting'd (Construction of constitution) in Settle v. Van Evrea, 49 Id. 280. v. Powell, 14 Abb. Pr. 91. Sustained (Power of Court of Sessions to grant new trial) in_Lannergan v. People, 39 N. Y. 39. v. Powers, 7 Barb. 462. Affd in 6 if. Y. 50. Decision in Id, applied (Curing de- fect in indictment) in Case®. People, 6 Alb N. C. 151, 157. ex rel. Brideubecker v. Prescott, 3 Hun, 419. Compare (Subscription by exe- cutors to notice erf sale under foreclosure by advertisement) Code Civ. Prq. §§ 2388, subd. 4, 2389. ex rel. Dikeman t. President, &c. of Brooklyn, 1 Wend. 318. Applied (Proof of relator's right in mandamus proceedings) in People v. Canal Board, 13 Barb. 443. Reviewed with other cases (Rights when vested, in proceedings to take land for public purposes) in Matter of ' Comm'rs of Wash- ington Park, 56 N~. Y. 155. See Matter of Rhinebeck, &c. R. R. Co., 67 Id. 246. v. s 13 Wend. 130. Followed (Pro- ceedings on alternative mandamus) in Peo- ple v. Ovenshire, 41 How. Pr. 164, 166. v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351. Fol- lowod (Waiver of forfeiture of corporate privilege by subsequent legislative recogni- tion) in Matter of N. Y. Bridge Co., 4 Hun, 635. Followed with People v. Phcenix Bank, 24 Wend. 431, in State v. Real Estate Bank, 5 Ark. 595; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 109, 116J with note. v. Purdy, 2 Hill, 81. Rev'd in 4 Id. 385. See Thomas v. Dakin. Decision in 2 Hill cited with approval (Constitutional in- terpretation) in Hale v. Everett, 53 iV. H. 9; s. c, 16 Am. R. 82, 186. Quoted and commented on in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 68, n. 2. Cited and authorities col- lected (Manner of passage of statute) in 3 Am. L.Reg. K S. 345. v. Putnam. See People ex rel. Murray v. Special Sessions. v. Quant, 2 Park. 410. Overruled (Power of legislature to regulate sale of in- toxicating liquors) in Wynehamer v. People, 13 A: Y. 378. v. Quigg, 59 N. Y. 83. Followed (Im- plied repeal of statutes) in Bartels v. Cun- ningham, 8 Abb. -V. C. 226. Followed (Remedy on forfeited recognizance) in Peo- ple v. Sands, 7 Hun, 535; citing Wetmore v. Tracey, 14 Wend. 255. v. Randall, 5 City Hall Ree. 141. Dis- cussed (Defendant's wife as witness oh trial for murder) in 1 Best on Ev. § 98, n. a, Wood's fed. v. ex rel. Morris v. Randall, 8 Daly, 81. Appeal from order of General Term which affd this, dismissed, it seems, in 77 N. Y. 621, but without opinion. See vol. 485, Ct. of App. Cas. Law Inst. .Libr. N. Y. city. Previous proceeding in 73 N. Y. 416. Decision in Id. followed (Injunction, when merged in subsequent proceedings) and Sixth Aye. R. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 71 Id. 430; Erie R'y Co. v. Ramsev, 45 Id. 637 ; Power v. Village of PEOPLE. C07 Athens, 19 S'in, IC'J disting'd in Gardner v. Gardner, 87 K Y. 14. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2451, n. Applied (When not con- tempt for attorney enjoined in one action to proceed for another client) in Slater v. Merritt, 75 S. Y. 272. v. Randolph, 2 Parh. 174. Approved (Burden of proof of capacity of boy to com- mit rape) in Hiltabiddle i>. State, 35 Ohio St. 52; s. c, 35 Am. R 592. v. Hands, 3 Parh. 335. Overruled (Evidence of declarations of those from whom one has received stolen prpperty) in People v. Dowling, 84 If. Y. 478, 485. v. Ransom, 7 Wend. 417; s. c, 11 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 182, with brief note of other cases. See Horton v. Hortan. Pol- lowed with Smith v. Thompson, 1 Cow. 221 (Misconduct of jurors as cause for setting aside verdict) in Pettibone v. Phelps, 13 Conn. 445 ; s. c, 35 Am Dec. 88, with note. Applied in U. S. v. Bennett, 16 Match/. C. Ct. 338, 373. ex rel. Post v. Ransom, 4 Den. 145. Affd in 2 N. Y. 490. See Commercial Bank of Albany v. Canal Commissioners. Decision in 2 N. Y. applied (Nature of proceeding by alternative mandamus) in People ex rel. Adams v. Baker, 14 Abb. Pr. 28 ; People v. Supervisors of Westchester, 15 Barb. 613; People ex rel. Argyle, &c. Co. v. Comm'rs of Fort Edward, 11 Sow. Pr. 89. Disting'd (Conveyance by sheriff to assignee of certifi- cate of sale) in Phillips v. Shiffer, 14 Abb. Pr. K. S. 101, 107. Applied in Wood v. Moorhouse, 1 Lans. 416. Both decisions explained in Aylesworth v. Brown, 10 Barb. 172, a case of assignment of judg- ment. Decision in 4 Den. followed (Waiver of production of papers in redemption pro- ceedings) as preferable to later decision in 2 N. Y, in Bagley v. Ward, 37 Cal. 121, 130. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1464, n. ■ ex rel. Rice v. Ransom, 2 Sill, 51. Disting'd (Redemption of property sold under execution) in Brackett v. Miller, 24 Sun, 560. Referred to in 32 Am. Dec. 597, «., as disapproving of the narrow con- struction placed by Waller v. Harris, 20 Wend. 555 upon the statute, it being thought that the question as to the neces- sity of strict compliance with the-prerequi- sites established by the statute has not been uniformly answered by the N. Y. courts. See Cade Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1464, to. v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509. Allied (What is uttering deed) in Paige v. People, 3 Abb. Ct. Jpp. Dec. 447. Applied with Beebe ». People, 5 Sill, 32 (Waiver by defendant on trial for felony) in Stephens v. People, 4 Park. 396, 509 ; which was aff'd in 19 A 7 ! Y. 565, which see; Pierson v. Peo- ple, 79 Id. 429. Examined with People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229 (Challenge for favor) in People v. Doe, 1 Mich. 454. ex rel. Chase v. Rath linn, 15 JK Y. 528. Reported below as Griffin v. Chase, in 23 Barb. 278. ex rel. Stetzer v. Rawson, 61 Barb. 619. Followed with People ex rel. Coma- ford v. Dutcher, 83 N. Y. 240 (Petit lar- ceny not a felonv) in People ex rel. Lough- lin v. Finn, ,87 Id. 533, which affd 26 Sun, 58, where People ex. rel. Murphy v. Special Sessions, 74 N. Y. 406, was also relied on. Explained and approved in People ex rel. Comaford v. Dutcher, 83 Id. 240, 243. Disting'd (Jurisdiction as to misdemeanors) in McDonald v. People, 13 Weekly Dig. 548. v. Raymond. 37 N. Y. 428. Disting'd (Effect of acts done under unconstitutional statute) in People ex rel. Kingsland v. Bradley, 64 Barb. 228, 237. See also Peo- ple ex rel. Kingsland v. Bradley, 42 Sow. Pr. 423. r. Rector, 19 Wend. 569. See Gilbert v. Sheldon ; People v. Mather. See account of proceedings at Albany Oyer and Ter- miner, by N. J. Hadley, published at Albany, 1838. Referred to as overruled (Evidence of character of witness) in Frost v. McCargar, 29 Barb. 621; Leonori v. Bishop, 4 Duer, 422. Overruled in People v. Gay, 7 -ZV- Y. 378. Explained in People v. Hulse, 3 Sill, 314 ; G't W. Turnpike Co. v. Loomis, 32 Id. 137. Explained (Liability for killing done in attempt to perpetrate minor offense) in Buel v. People, 18 Sun, 488; which was affd in 78 N. Y. 499, which see. Disting'd (Burden of proof as to privilege of witness) in People ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly, 12 Abb. Pr. 155. Ap- plied (Evidence of intent with which killing was done) in Temple v. People, 4 Lans. 127. Disting'd in People v. Clark, 7 N. Y. 394. Reviewed with other cases ; i Shorter v. People, 2 Id. 200. Included in 2 Sorrigan & T. Cos. on Self-Def. 795. Explained (Evidence of malice, requisite to constitute murder) in People v. White, 24 Wend. 583. Quoted and commented on In 1 Barb, on Grim. L. 3 ed. 27. v. Rector, &c. of Trinity Chnrch, 30 Barb. 537. Affd in 22 N. Y. 44. Decision in Id. discussed? (Ejectment by people) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 192. ex rel. Rapelee v. Reddy, 43 Barb. 539. Overruled in effect (Conclusiveness of un- contradicted affidavit of owner of assessed property) by People ex rel. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. v. Barker, 48 iv". Y. 70; which affd Same v. Fredericks, 48 Barb. 173. Explained (Remedy for erroneous tax) in Genesee Valley Nat. Bank v. Supervisors of Livingston Co., 53 Barb. 223, 234. Explained with People ex rel. Thuzman v. Ryan, 88 N. Y. 142 (Costs against assessors, &c.) in People ex rel. Mann v. Peterson, 31 Sun, 421. ex rel. Knapp v. Reeder, 25 K. Y. 302. Disting'd (Receiptor of goods, when es- topped) in Clark v. Weaver, 17 Sun, 481, 486. Collated with Cornell v. Dakin, 38 N. Y. 256, and other cases in 25 Am. Dec. 426, to. COS PEOPLE. — v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 15 Wend. 113; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 33, with ex- tended note; and 12 iV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 804, with brief note. Quoted (Judg- ment in quo warranto proceedings) in High, on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 753, n. 1. Re- lied on (Constitutional power of State over navigable rivers) in City of Chicago v. Mc- Ginn, 51 III. 200; s. c, 2 Am. B. 295, 300. — v. Restell, 3 Sill, 289. Followed (Deposition in criminal case, otherwise than by consent) in Ex parte Harkins, 6 Ala. 63; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 38, as an elabo- rate and learned decision. Explained (Ne- cessity that oath precede statement) in Case v. People, 6 Abb. XT. 0.151, 164. — v. Richardson, 3 Cow. 357. Subse- quent decision in 4 Id. 97. v. Rickert, 8 Cow. 226. Subsequent decision arising out of transactions here involved, as Rickert v. Snyder, 9 Wend. 415. Decision in 8 Cow. disting'd (Ef- fect of parol lease as tenancy from year to year ) in Greaton v. Smith, 1 Daly, 384. Followed in Taggard v. Roosevelt, 8 How. Pr. 144 ; in Morrill v. Mackman, 24 Mich. 279; s. c, 9 Am. B. 124, 129. Applied (Evidence of ill-will) in Jewett v. Banning, 21 N. Y. 30. — ex rel. Dana v. Robertson, 17 Sow. Pr. 74. Approved (Length x>f notice of appeal from order refusing to lay out highway) in Terpening v. Smith, 46 Barb. 208, 211. — — ex rel. Elstcn v. Robertson, 39 Barb. 9. Explained (Sub-leases and assignments) in Constantine v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, 239, 250. See authorities reviewed in 16 Am. L. Bev. 30. — • v. Robinson, 2 Pari. 235. Aft'g 1 Id. 649. See People v. Hammill ; People v. Rogers. See account of murder with life and confession, published at Boston, 1855. Decision in 2 Paris, followed with People v. Hammill, Id. 223 ; People v. Rogers, 18 If. Y. 9 (Intoxication as excuse for crime) in Kenny v. People, 31 If. Y. 330, 341. — ex rel. Burbank v. Robinson, 14 Sun, 226. Afi'd in 76 If. Y. 422. — ■ ex rel. Garbutt v. Rochester & State line R. R. Co., 14 Sun, 371. Modified and affd in 76 N. Y. 294. Another pro- ceeding in 15 Bun, 188. Decision in 76 If. Y. applied with People ex rel. Green v. D. & C. R. R., 58 N. Y. 152; People v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 74 Id. 302; People 0. Albany & Vermont R. R. Co., 24 Id. 261 (Power to compel railroad corporation by mandamus to discharge its duties; in People s. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 28 Sun, 543. — y. Rogers, 3 Parle. 632 ; s. c, less fully, 15 Sow. Pr. 557. Rev'd in 18 N. Y. 9. See People v. Hammill ; People v. Robinson. Decision in 18 If. Y. approved (Intoxica- tion as excuse for crime) in Kenny v. Peo- ple, 31 Id. 330, 341. Followed in Ylanigan v. People, 86 Id. 554, 559. Collated with Kennedy v. People, 27 Sow. Pr. 202; 18 Alb. L. J. 91 ; 31 N. Y. 330 ; O'Brien v. People, 48 Barb. 274 ; People v. Willey, 2 Park 19; People v. Pc/ter, Id. 14, 'in 23 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 219. Compared in Ilopt v. People, 104 U. S. 631, with cases arising under statute requiring deliber- ate premeditation to constitute murder in first degree. See cases cited in 28 MoaWs Eng. 659, n. Included in Lawson Lead. Cas. {Grim. L.) Simplified, 15. ex rel. Cunningham v. Roper, 35 K Y. 629. Explained (Repeal by legislature of limited privileges) in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 474, n. 1. v. Rose. See Same v. Cotteral. - v. Rulloff, 3 Park 401. Rev'd as Ru- loft's. People, in 18 N. Y. 179. v. Runkle, 9 Johns. 147. See Peoples. Collins ; Slee v. Bloom. Discussed (Hold- ing over by officers of corporation) in Ang. & A. on Corp.% 124, 11 ed. § 142. ex rel. Ryan v. Rnssel, 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 230 ; s. c, 46 Barb. 27. Overruled (Dis- cretionary character of habeas corpus. Power of city judge) in Nash v. People, 36 N. Y-. 607. v. Russell, 4 Wend. 570. See People v. Jansen. ex rel. Smith v. Russell, 19 Abb. Pr. 136. See (Quashing mandamus, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §2075, n. ex rel. Crane v. Ryder, 16 Barb. 370. Aff'd in 12,1V. Y. 433. Compare. (Neces- sity of allegations as to relator's right on proceedings, against usurper of office) Code Civ. Pro. § 1 949. v. Ryken. See People v. Morgan. ■ v. Rynders, 12 Wend. 425. Limited (Effect of indictment charging several offenses) in People ex rel. Tweed v. Lis- comb, 60 N. Y. 559, 578. Followed in Bulloch v. State, 10 Oa. 47; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 369, 376, with note; Hampton v. State, 8 Humph. (Tenn..) 69; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 599, with note. Applied (Sufficiency of indictment for forgery) in Holmes v. People, 15 Abb. Pr. 159. Applied (Effectof argu- mentative pleading in indictment) in People v. Charles, 3 Den. 213; which was aflM in 1 If. Y. 185, which see. Applied (Curing defect in indictment) in Case v. People, 6 Abb. iV. C. 157; Fleming v. People, 27 N. Y 333 - v. Safford, 5 Den. 112. Applied (Right to impeach one's own witness) in Coulter v. A'm. Merchants' Union Exp. Co., n56 K Y. 585, 589. ex rel. Van Valkenburgh v. Sage, 3 Sow. Pr. 66. See (Actions by or against officers) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1930, n. ex rel. Schmidt v. St. Franciscns Benev. Socy. See People ex rel. Thatcher v. N. Y. Commercial Benev. Assoc. ex rel. Dilcher v. St. Stephen's Church. See Same v. German United Evan. Oh. v. Sanchez, 18 Sow. Pr. 72; s. c, as Sanchez v. People, 4 Park 535. Approved, but rev'd on account of Act of 1800, in 22 N. Y. 147. PEOPLE. 609 T. Sands, 1 Johns. 78; s. c, 3 Am. Dee. 296 ; 3 if. 7. Com. L. Law ed. 64, with brief note of cases. Explained (Keeping gunpowder, when a nuisance) in Heeg v. iicht, 8 Abb. N. 0. 855, 361. Dissented from in Cheatham v. Shearon, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 213; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 734. v. Saratoga & Reus. I? R. Co., 15 Wend. 113. Followed (Liability as to obstructions in navigable waters) in Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Hun, 163, 178, 182. Approved and applied in Silliman v. Troy & West Troy Bridge Co., 11 BUUhf. 0. Ct. 274, 289. — - — T. Sargeant, 8 Cow. 139. Questioned (Billiard table not nuisance at common law) in Tanner v. Trustees of Albion, 5 Sill, 121. Commented on in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 41. v. Saunders, 4 Park. 196. Opposed (Merger) as maintaining a doctrine now abolished by statute or decision in nearly every State, — in 17 Am. L. Rev. 742, 746 ; compare, however, State v. Hattabough, 66 2nd. 223. ex rel. Irwin v. Sawyer, 52 if 7. 296. See subsequent decision affectiDg bonds here involved, — in Orleans v. Piatt, 99 U. S. P76, 681. Decision in 52 N. T. applied (Revocation of consent in town bonding proceedings) in People ex rel. Yawger v. Allen, Id. 538, 541 ; People v. Hatch, 1 Sup'm. Ct. ('/'. & G.) 115 ; People ex rel. \ oumans v. Wagner, Id. 223. v. Saxton, 22 N. 7. 309. See Seymour v. Wilson. Disting'd (Effect of irregulari- ties in election) in People ex rel. Bush ». Thornton, 25 Hun, 456, 463. Discussed in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 764, n. 1. v. Schenck. See Matter of Washburn; People o. Gardner* — — v. Scheriucrhoi'ii, 19 Barb. 540. Dis- ting'd (Necessity of statutory notice, in proceedings to acquire land) in Stevenson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Hun, 51, 55. v. Schoharie Common Pleas, 1 Wend. 315. Overruled in subsequent decision in 2 Id. 260. v. Schoonmaker, 63 Barb. 44. Appeal dismissed in 50 N. 7. 499. ex rel. Merriani v. Schoonmaker, 19 Barb. 657. Rev'd in 13 if 7. 238. ex rel. Ennis v. Scliroeder, 12 Hun, 413. Affdin 76 if 7. 160. ex rel. lockwood v. Scrugham, 20 Barb. 302. Rev'd in 25 Id. 216. v. Schryver, 42. if. 7. 4. See Walter v. People. Disapproved (Burden of proof on defendant on plea of justification for kil- ling) in 17 Am. L. Rev. 892. 916. Included in Horrigan & T. Cas. on Self Defe. 910. ex rel. Kellogg v. Sclinyler, 5 Barb. 166. Rev'd in 4 if 7. 173. .See Ex parte Reed. Decision in 4 if. 7. disting'd (Wrong- ful levy, as breach of official bond) in Com stock v. Lucas, 93 Id. 585. Reviewed with numerous authorities and shown to accord with the weight of authority, — in Lammon I.— 39 v. Feusier, 111 U. S. 17. Applied in Gerber ®. Ackley, 37 Wis. 43; 8. c, 19 Am. li. 751. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 385, n. ex rel. Sage v. Sclinyler, 17 Hun, 106. Rev'd in 79 N. 7. 189. ex rel. Wasson v. Schuyler, 51 How. Pr. 461. Modified in 69 N. 7. 242. v. Seaman, 5 Den. 409. Compare (Re- jection of ballot with two names) People ex rel. Hovey v. Ames, 19 How. Pr. 551; Peo- ple ». Saxton, 22 if. 7. 309. Applied (Inquiry into determination of election in- spectors) in Peoples. Pease, 30 Barb. 597. Discussed in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 765, n. v. Security Life Ins., Ac. Co., 78 K 7. 114; a. c, more fully, 7 Abb. if C. 198. Other proceedings in 23 Hun, 596, appeal from which was dismissed in 86 if. 7. 620 ; also in 23 Hun, 601. See also People ex rel. Attorney-Gen. ». Security Life Ins. Co., 1 1 Hun, 96, appeal from which was dismissed in 71 XT. 7. 222. Sec also 79 Id. 267. See Matter of Franklin B'k. Decision in 78 N. 7. disting'd with Attorney-General v. Con- tinental Life Ins. Co., 68 Id. 343; 53 How. Pr. 16 ; Attorney-General v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 17 Id. 272 (Advertisement of claims against corporation) in Attorney- General v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Abb. if C. 139, 143. Disting'd and approved (Time of presentation of claims) in Attorney- Genl. v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 88 JV.7. 77, 80. Disting'd (Violation by company of contract with policy-holder) in Matter of Empire Mut. Life Ins. Co., 64 How. Pr. 51, 54. Explained (Effect of death of policy- holder upon valuation of policy) in Attor- ney-General «. Continental Life Ins. Co., 64 How. Pr. 73, citing also Attorney-General v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 82 if 7. 336. Explained in Atty.-Genl. v. Guardian Mut, Life Ins. Co., Id. Questioned and not followed in Atty.-Genl. ■». N. Amer. Life Ins. Co., Id. 172, 187. Approved in Clemmitt «. N. T. Life Ins. Co., 76 Va. 355, 362; Guy v. Globe Ins. Co., Cir. Ct. {Va.) 1880, 9 Ins. L. J. 467. Followed in Relfe v. Columbia Fire Ins. Co., 76 Mo. 594, 604. Applied (Policy-holders not partners) in Bewley v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 61 How. Pr. 344, 348. Disting'd (Contract by insurance company as affected by pro- ceedings for its dissolution) in People v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 if. 7. 174, 180, 184. Decision in 23 Him followed with Attorney-General v. North Am. Life Ins. Co., 01 if. 7. 57 (Allowance for coun- sel fees out of assets of insolvent insurance company) in People v. Empire Mut. Life Ins. Co., JV. 7. Daily Reg. Nov. 5 18S3. y. Seneca Common Pleas, 2 Wend. 264. Disting'd (Delay as reason for refusing writ of mandamus) in People ex rel. Gas Light Co. v. Common Council of Syracuse, 78 IV. 7. 56, 62. y. Shall, 9 Com. 778. Reconciled (What instruments may be subjects of forgery) 610 PEOPLE. in Arnold v. Cost, 3 Gill & J. Old.) 219 ; s. o.; 22 Am. Dec. 302, with note collating cases. Followed with People v. Harrison, 8 Barb. 560; People v. Galloway, 17 Wend. 540, in Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467; s. c, 25 Am. R. 639 ; People v. Stearns, 21 Wend. 413, and other cases being also relied on. . ■ T. Shaw. 1 Park 327. Limited (Liabil- ity for assault with intent to kill) in Slatterly i). People, 58 K Y. 354, 357. v. , G3 N. Y. 36. Superseded (Necessity of presence of associates in Oyer and Terminer) by Code Civ. Pro. § 23. v. Shay, 10 Abb. Pr. 413; s. c. 18 How. Pr. 583; also as Shay v. People, 4 Park 353. Affd in 22 K Y. 317. An- other decision in 4 Park. 344. ex rel. McHullen v. Shepard, 36 N. Y. 285. See Sill v. Village of Corning. Ques- tioned (Constitutionality of laws creating " police districts ") in People v. Albertson, 55 H. Y. 50, 64. v. , Shepherd, 25 JV. Y. 406. Followed (Mistrial not bar to new trial) in People v. Reagle, 60 Barb. 527, 544. v. Sheriff of N. T., 7 Abb. Pr.' 96. Ap- proved (Sufficiency of commitment for contempt) in Davison's Case, 13 Id. 129, 139. ex rel. Wheeler v. Shorb, 14 Bun, 112. See authorities reviewed (Sublease and assignment) in 16 Am. L. Rev. 30, 36. v. Shorter, 4 Barb. 460. Affd in 2 XT. Y. 193. With decision in Id. compare (Liability of one that without sufficient cause does injury to prevent other injury) Struve v. Droge, 10 Abb. N. C. 142, 146. ex rel. Mitchell v. Simpson, 37 Barb. 432; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. 457; 23 How. Pr. 481. Aff'd on insufficiency of affidavit, in 28 K Y. 55. v. Sheehan, 49 Barb. 217. Discussed (Impeaching credibility of witness) in 1 Best on Ev. § 263, v. a, Wood's ed. v. Smith, 3 Cai. 221; s. c, 2 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 616, with brief note. T. , 5 Cow. 258. See Loomis v. Edgerton. Limited with Loomis v. Edger- ton, 19 Wend. 419 (Liability for malicious mischief) in State v. Manuel, 72 H. C. 201; s. c, 21 Am. E. 455. See cases collected in 6 Am. L. Peg. N. 8. 332. Quoted and commented on in 1 Bennett & H. Cas. on Crim. L. 17. T. , 3 How. Pr. 226. See Bradish «. Schenck. v. , 51 Barb. 3.60. See (Dismissal of complaint) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1209, n. ■ v. , 69 N. Y. 175. Compare (Grant- ing liquor license to one not hotel-keeper) Mundy v. Excise Comm'rs of N. Y., 9 Abb. n. a ii7, 121. ■ ex rel. Carroll v. Smith, 17 Hun, 286. Reported under People ex rel. Dilks v. Smith. Aff'd, it seems, in 77 W. Y. 620, but without opinion. See People ex rel. Walsh «. Smith, Id. 347. ex rel. Dilks v. Smith, i7 Hun, 286. Aff'd, it seems, in 77 AT. Y. 620, but with- out opinion. See Same ex rel. Walsh v Smith, Id. 347. ex rel. Green v. Smith, 55 JV. Y. 185. Subsequent proceedings in 13 Hun, 227. See People ex rel. Averill v. Adirondack Co.; People ex rel. Rogers v. Spencer. Decision in 55 N. Y. applied (What peti- tion to bond town must show to give county judge jurisdiction) in Whiting v. Town of Potter, 18 Blatchf. C. Ct. 165, 176.. Fol- lowed in Cowdry v. Town of Caneadea, IT. S. Cir. Ct. N. D. K Y. 16 .Reporter, 162. ex rel. Haines v. Smith, 3 Lans. 291. Affd in 45 H. Y. 772. See Town of Spring- port v. Teutonia Sav'g B'k. Decision in 45 N. Y. followed (Power of court on certi- orari) in People ex rel. Saunders «. Court of Special Sessions, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 260. Applied in People ex rel. Miller a. Board of Police Comm'rs, 52 How. Pr. 290, 297. Applied (Insufficiency of signature by proxy to petition, in town bonding proceed- ings) in People ex rel. Allen v. Knowles, 47 N. Y. 418. Compared (When act authorized by statute iflay be performed by agent) in Lowenstein v. Flauraud, 82 Id. 494, 498. Approved and applied in Rapp ■ v. City, &c. R. R. Co., Hamilton Co. Ohio, Ct. Com. PI. 12 Weekly L. Bui. 120. Cora- pare N. Y. Surface R. R. Act, L. 1884, c. 252, § 3. ex rel. Herrick v. Smith, 21 K Y. 595. Disting'd (Power of legislature as to exercise of right of eminent domain) in Matter of Deansville Cemetery Assoc, 66 N. Y. 572. Relied on with numerous other cases in Eastern R. R. Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R.,111 JHass.125; s. c, 15 Am. Ji. 13, 19. Quoted in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed, 669, n. 1. ex rel. Walsh v. Smith, 17 Hun, 286. Affd in 77 H.Y. 347. __ v. Snyder, 2 Park. 23. Explained (Dwelling house within meaning of law of burglary) in 3 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed, § 80, n. b. v. , 51 Barb. 589. Affd in 41 N. Y. 397. Decision in Id. followed (Validity of title to the Pulteney estate) in Howard t>. Mott, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& C.) 89. Limited (Sufficiency of denial) in Smith v. Gratz, 59 How. Pr. 274. Discussed (Outstanding Indian tiflc) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Til. to Land, § 194. v. , 2 Paige, 326. Disting'd (Fine as indemnity, on proceedings to punish for contempt) in Marshall v. Hitchcock, 3 Redf. 464.- ex rel. Backus v. Spalding, 9 Paige, 607. Subsequent decision in 10 Id. 284; which was affd in 7 Hill, 301, and that affd in 4 How. (C. S.) 21. See Watson v. Nelson. Decisions in 10 Paige; 7 Hill; 4 How. {U~. S.) examined (Punishment for contempt) in People v. Compton, 1 Buer, 523. Decision in 10 Paige compared in PEOPLE. 611 Matter of Watson, 3 Lans. 413. Applied (Inquiry into jurisdiction, in habeas corpus proceedings) in People ex rel. Tweed !>. Liseomb, 3 Hun, 779. Applied (Eftect of bankrupt discharge on fine for contempt) in Macy v. Jordan, 2 Den. 573. ■ — ex rel. Cox v. Special Sessions, 7 Hun, 214. Followed (Power of board of health to pass ordinances) in Polinsky v. People, 11 Id. 390; which was affd in 73 N. Y. 65,' which see. — ex rel. Lynch v. Special Sessions, 12 Hun, 65. Compare (Reference to ordinance in proceeding for its violation) Code Gin. Pro. % 1897. • — ex rel. Murray v. Special Sessions, 13 Hun. 533. Rev'd in 74 N. Y. 40G. See People ex rel. Stetzer v. Rawson. Decision in 74 N. Y. followed with People ». Put- nam, 3 Park. 386, 388; People v. McCarthy, 45 How. Pr. 97 (Right to trial by jury, in case of minor offenses) in People v. Burleigh, 1 N. Y. Grim. R. 522. Applied in People ex rel. Comaford v. Dutcher, 83 N. Y. 240, 244. Followed (Petit larceny, as mis- demeanor) in People e. Finn, 13 Weekly Dig. 463. ex rel. Keiley v. Speir, 12 Hun, 70 ; s. c, 54 How. Pr. 73 ; and less fully. 2 Abb. N. G. 466. See Keiley v. Dusenbury. ex rel. Rogers v. Spencer, 55 AT. Y. 1. See Ferguson v. Crawford ; People ex rel. Averill ». Adirondack Co. Explained (Sufficiency of petition to issue bonds in aid of railroad) in Calhoun v. Delhi & Middle- town R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 379, 390. Applied in Whiting t>. Town of Potter, 18 Blatchf G. Ct. 165, 176. Repudiated with People ex rel. Greene v. Smith, 55 If. Y. 135 ; Town of Wellsboro v. N. Y. & Canada R. R. Co., 76 Id. 182; Metzgeri). Attica & A. E. R. Co., 79 Id. 171, in Rich «. Town of Mentz, U. 8. Oir. Gt. N. D. XT. Y. 18 Fed. Hep. 53. t. Spooner, 1 Den. 343; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 672, with note, wherein are collected citations. So far as in conflict, overruled (Comparison of signatures) in Miles i>. Loomis, 75 Ff. Y. 288, 293. See to the contrary cases cited in Abb. Tr. Fv. 397, n. 1. v. Starkweather, 40 Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) 453. Further proceeding in 42 Id. 325. ■ v. Stearns, 21 Wend. 409. Further decision in 23 Id. 634. See People v. Krummer ; People v. Shall. Decision in 23 Wend, applied (Effect of indictment charg- ing intent to defraud corporation and others) in People ». Noakes, 5 Park. 298. Decision in 21 Wend, approved (Sufficiency of allegations as to instruments in indict- ment for forgery) in Carberry v. State, 11 Ohio St. 415. ex rel. Buffalo Mut. Gas Light Co. v. Steele, 1 Buff. Super. Gt. {Sheldon) 345. Affd in part in 56 XT. Y. 664. ex rel. Griffin v. Steele, 6 K Y. Leg. Obs. 54; s. c, more fully, 2 Barb. 397, and still more fully, 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 505, with opinion of Edmonds, J. Subsequent pro- ceedings in 2 Barb. 554; s. c, 1 Edm. Sel. Gas. 568. See Field v. Field; McCullough v. Mayor of Brooklyn. Decision in 2 Barb. 397 compared (Conclusive effect of church authority) iu 10 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 313. Decision in 2 Barb. 554 followed (Writ of error not supersedeas of peremptory man- damus) in Tyler v. Hammersley, 44 Gonn. 393; s. c„ 26 Am. R. 471. 478. v. Stephens, 52 N. Y, 306. Further proceedings in 51 How. Pr. 227, and in Id. 235 ; which latter was approved in still fur- ther decision in 71 N. Y. 527. Corrected report of latter decision in 72 Id. 621. De- cision in 71 Id. followed (Contracts with Stai e must be judged by same rules as those of individuals) in People ». Denison, 19 Hun, 137, 150. See also People v. Denison, 8 Abb. N. C. 128, 142. ex rel. Bradley y. Stephens, 2 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 348. Statement in 41 N. Y. 619, that this judgment was rev'd in Ct. of App. is erroneous, as decision in Ct. of App. was in action to determine conflicting claims to office. v. Stetson, 4 Barb. 151. See McCordfl. People. Followed (Necessity of averment as to value, in indictment for obtaining property by false pretences) in People v. Higbie, 66 Barb. 138. Reviewed and dis- ting'd (Liability of one that obtains prop- erty by means of false representations as to power to arrest) in Perkins v. State, 67 lnd. 270; s. c, 33 Am. li. 89, with note collating cases. v. Stenben Common PI., 5 Wend. 103. Applied with Jackson ■». Brown, 4 Cow. 550 (When detective writs, &c. may be amended) in Cartwright v. Chabert, 3 Tex. 261; s. c, 49 Am.Dec. 742, 744. v. Stevens, 13 Wend. 341. Followed (Penalty prescribed by prohibitory statute exclusive) in Brown v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co, 22 N. Y. 191, 198. Followed (Not punishment twice for same offense, to inflict a penaltj r and subject to criminal prosecution) in In re Seszynsky, 16 Blatchf. 0. Ct. '.), 1 0. Followed with Blatchley v. Moser, 15 Wend. 215, in Commonwealth v. Avery, 14 Bush {Ky.) 625; s. c, 29 Am. R. 429, 431. ex rel. Hodgkinson v. Stevens, 5 Hill, C16; s. c, 16 FT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 249, with brief note of other cases. See Fish v. , Weatherwax. Limited (Rights of officer de facto) in People ex rel. Stcinert ». Anthony, 6 Hun, 142, 147. Approved (Proceedings to obtain books and papers) in Matter of Whiting, 2 Barb. 513, 520; People v. Allen, 42 Id. 205 ; Welch v. Cook, 7 How. Pr. 288. Applied in Devlin's Case, 5 Abb. Pr. 306; Matter of Baker, 11 How. Pr. 430; Matter of Davis, 19 Id. 327. Applied (Official return, when not to be varied by subsequent statement of officer) in Matter of N. Y., Lackawauna, &c. R'y Co , 29 Hun, 1. Followed (Remedy to try title to office) G12 PEOPLE. in Matter of Gardner, 68 IT. Y. 472. Fol- lowed with People ex rel. Lynch v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 25 Wend. 685: and People ex rel. Moulton v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Id. 396, disting'd in People ex rel. Smith v. Olds, 3 Gal. 167; s. c, 58 Am. Bee. 398. Cited with approval in State v. Sherwood, 15 Minn. 221; s. c, 2 Am. R. 116. - — ex rel. Vanderbilt v. Stilwell, 19 N. Y. 531. Applied and disting'd in part (Delay as ground for refusing certiorari) in People ex rel. Waldman v. Police Comm'rs of N. Y., 82 Id. 506, 508. Disting'd (Ap- peal from order quashing certiorari) in Peo- ple ex rel. Haskin v. Supervisors of West- chester, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 281. Applied in People ex rel. Davis v. Hill, 53 N. Y. 547, 549. v. Stocking, 50 Barb. 573. Reviewed with other cases (Eftcct of audit by supervi- sors) in Brennan a. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426, 430. Disting'd in People v. Supervisors of Montgomery Co., 67 iV. Y. 10'J, 114. — v. Stokes, 53 N. Y. 164 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 492. Followed (Declarations when original evidence) in Shaw v. People, 3 Hun, 272. Collated with other cases (Evidence of character of deceased, in homicide cases) in 11 Am. R. 776, n. Followed (Burden of proof in criminal cases) in State v. Wirigo, 66 Mo. 181; s. c, 27 Am. R. 329. — - v. Stone, 5 Wend. 40. See Same v. Dutchess Oyer and Terminer. Overruled (Right to grant new trial in capital cases) in People v. Comstock, 8 Wend. 549 ; Appo v. People, 20 N. Y. 531, 548. See People n. Dutchess Co., 2 Barb. 282: U. S. v. Gibert, 2 Sum. 57. Commented on in 2 Bennett & H. Gas. on Grim. L. 493. Questioned (Exclusiveness of jurisdiction of Oyer and Terminer) in Jones v. People, 79 N'. Y. 45, 50. v. Stout, 3 Park 670. Subsequent decision in 4 Id. 71. See Johnson v. John- son. Decision in 4 Parh. cited as authority (Admissibility of evidence showing prison- er's guilt of other offense) in Templeton -o. People, 27 Mich. 501. — ex rel. Downing v. Stout, 23 Barb. 349. Disting'd (Judicial nature of action of supervisors) in People v. Supervisors of Montgomery, 67 JST. Y. 109, 114. Disting'd (Validity of claim against municipal corpor- ation) in Jones v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Rubt. 209, 217. — ex rel. Piatt v. Stout, 19 How. Pr. 171; s. c, more fully, 11 ^455. Pr. 17. — ex rel. Mosher v. Stowell, 9 Abb. N. G. 456. Compare (Caucusing by members of official board)- McCortle v. Bates, 29 Ohio St. 419. — ex rel. Becar v. Stroller, 16 Hun, 234. Compare (Action in name of people on bond of executor, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. § 2607. — ex rel. Stryker t. Slryker, 24 Barb. 649. Opposed (Requisites of schedule to support valid discharge in insolvency) in Merry v. Sweet, 43 Id. 476. Applied in Schaefter t>. Soule, 23 Hun, 583, 585. t. Stnrdevant, 23 Wend. 418. Follow- ed (Construction of lottery law) in Charles v. People, 1 N. Y. 180, 185. v. Sturtevant, 3 Duer, 616. Examined and criticised at length (Costs of appeal in special proceedjngs) in People v. Smith, 13 • Hun, 227. v. , 9 N. Y. 263; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 536, with note. See Mitchell's Case. Fol- lowed (Effect of decision of court having jurisdiction) in Pinckney «. Hagennan, I Lans. 374, 376. Applied in People ex rel. Brooklyn School v. Kearney, 21 How. Pr. 75 ; Fisher v. Hepburn, 48 JV. Y. 53. Ex- plained in Butler v. Miles, 35 How. Pr. 329, 332. Cited in Tyler v. Hammersley, 44 Conn. 393; s. c, 26 Am. R. 471, 477, as clearly stating the principle. Disting'd (Proceedings of common council) in Wet- more v. Story, 3 Abb. Pr. 283. Approved in Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 620. Dis- ting'd with Davis v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 14 N. Y. 506, in Des Moines Gas Co. v. City of Des Moines, 44 Iowa, 505 ; s. c.,24 Am. It. 756, 760. Applied (Jurisdiction of superior city court) in International B'k ?i. Bradley, 19 N. Y. 251. Examined (Ques- tions as to jurisdiction, on habeas corpus proceeding) and compared with People ex rel. Hack ley v. Kelly, 24 K Y. 74; People ere rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 Id. 559, in 19 Cent. L. J. 102. ex rel. Grissler v. Stuyvesant, 1 Hun, 102; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 179. Affd as Same v. Dudley, 58 N. Y. 323. ex rel. Gillies v. Suffern, 6 Hen\ 304. Affd in 68 N. Y. 321. SeeMerritta Vil- lage of Portchester. v. Sullivan, 1 Parh. 347. Explained (Stay of judgment) in People v. O'Reilly, 9 Abb. K G. 11, 91. v. , 7 N. Y. 396. Included with note (Killing in self-defense) in Borrigan & T. Gas. on Self Defe. 65. — — ex rel. Hadley v. Supervisors of Albany, 28 How. Pr. 22. Approved (Claim against county, of attorney assigned to de- fend prisoner) in People ex rel. Ransom v. Supervisors of Niagara, 78 JT. Y. 622. Cited at length in note to Wayne Co. v. Waller, 90 Penn. St. 99; s. c, 35 Am. R. 636. ex rel. Hilton v. Supervisors of Albany, 12 Wend. 257. Disting'd (Com- pensation for public services) in Crofut v. Brandt, 5 Daly, 124, 126; which was affd in 58 N. Y. 106, 113, which see. Disting'd in People ex rel. Hadley ». Supervisors of Al±>any, 28 How. Pr. 25 ; Supervisors of Richmond v. Ellis, 59 K Y. 620, 622 ; Peo- ple ex rel. Brown «. Green, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 24. ex rel. Wilson v. Supervisors of Albany, 12 Johns. 414. See Hull v. Super- visors of Oneida. Approved with Gilbert v. Judges of Niagara C. P., 3 Cow. 59* in PEOPLE. 613 People ex rel. Bristol v. Pearson, 2 Scam. {III.) 189; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 445. ex rel. Church v. Supervisors of Alle- gany, 15 Wend. 198. Followed (Place of application for common law certiorari) in People ex rel. Kilmer*. McDouald, 2 Hun, TO, 73. Reviewed with other cases (Con- clusiveness of action of supervisors) in Brennan e. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426, 429. Applied (Certiorari to review taxation) in "Wilson «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. 18 ; Case of Fifty-first Street, 3 Id. 232 ; People ». Supervisors of Queens, 1 Hill, 200; People v. Supervisors of Liv- ingston, 34 If. Y. 518. Explained (Certi- orari, when allowed) in Conover's Case, 5 Abb. Pr. 189. Applied in People v. City of Rochester, 21 Barb. 665; Peoples. Stil- well, 19 N. Y. 533. Followed with People i>. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., THill, 9, in Keys v. Marin County, 42 Gal. 255 ; Spring Valley Water Works «. Bryant, 52 Id. 140. ex rel. Hotchkiss v. Supervisors of Broome, 65 If Y. 222. Examined with other cases (Conclusiveness of audit by supervisors) in Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426, 430. Compare Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 5 Abb. if. a 51. ■ ex rel. Lee v. Supervisors of Chautau- qua, 43 If. Y. 10. Applied (What is local bill) in Lewenthal v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 61 Barb. 521 ; Kerrigan v. Force, 9 Hun, 188; which was afO'd in 68 If. Y. 383, which see. Cited at length in note to Pierce v. Kimball, 9 Qreenl. (Me.) 54; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 537. ex rel. Mygntt t. Supervisors of Chenango, 11 N. Y. 563. Further decis- ion as Mygatt v. Washburn, 15 Id. 316. Decision in 11 Id. applied (Jurisdiction of assessors) in Wade v. Matheson, 4 Lans. 162 ; Palmer v. Lawrence, 6 Id. 292. Disting'd (Personal liability of assessor) in Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 If. Y. 244. Ap- plied (Execution of authority delegated to ■ board) in Comm'rs of Pilots v. Vanderbilt, 2 Robt. 380. Disting'd (Liability to refund money obtained by illegal tax) in Newman v. Supervisors of Livingston, 45 If. Y. 683. Explained (Mandamus to ' enforce claim to public moneys) in People v. Mead, 24 Id. 114, 120. Both decisions distihg'd with Clark v. Norton, 49 7a!. 243 ; Westfall «. Preston, Id. 349 (Assessment, when com- plete) in McMahon «. Beekman, 65 How. Pr. 427. ex rel. Scott v. Supervisors of Chen- ango, 8 If. Y. 317. See Thomas v. Dakin. Followed (Effect of act passed or framed otherwise than the constitution directs) in People v. Supervisors of Orange, 27 Barb. 575, 584. Commented on in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed 35. Followed, and approved with People v. Devlin, 33 Jf.'Y. 269 (Right of courts to go behind authentication of statute) in State v. Swift, 10 Nev. 176; s. c, 21 Am. B. 721, 726, any dicta to the contrary in De Bow v. People, 1 Den. 14; Purdy «. People, 4 Hill, 384, being re- ferred to as overruled. v. Supervisors of Columbia, 10 Wend. 363; s. c, 11 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 887, with brief note. Approved (Mandamus against supervisors, to compel payment of money) in Boyce «. Supervisors of Cayuga, 20 Barb. 296. Explained in Clark v. Clark, 25 Id. 75. Applied to common council, in People ex rel. Green v. Common Council of Spracuse, 20 How. Pr. 502. To mayor, in Wallack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 Alb. If. S. 223. To town railroad commission- ers, in People v. Mead, 24 If. Y. 122. Ex- plained (Application of statute of limitation to causes of action arising before R. S.) in Fairbanks ». Wood, 17 Wend. 329. ex rel. Holley v. Supervisors of Colum- bia, 4 Cow. 146. Disting'd (Fees of court attendants) in Day v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 66 If. Y. 595. ex rel. Van Tassel v. Supervisors of Columbia, 8 Hun, 275. Rev'd in 67 If. Y. 330, on the ground that the services in question, after commitment, are still a county charge. ex rel. Kinney v. Supervisors of Cort- land, 58 Barb. 139. Disting'd (Compensa- tion for advertising) in MacArthur v. City of Troy, 24 Han, 55, 57. v. Supervisors of Delaware, 9 Abb. Pr. If. S. 408. ModiBed in 45 N. Y. 196. De- cision in Id. applied (Effect of allowance, &c, of claim by supervisors) in People t ex rel. Martin v. Earle, 16 Abb. Pr. If. 8 . 70. Applied (Relief as justified by notice of motion) in Thompson v. Erie R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 476. Applied (Relief in mandamus proceedings, as justified by order to show cause) in People ex rel. Henry v. Nostrand, 46 Id. 377. ex rel. Youmans v. Supervisors of Delaware, 47 How. Pr. 24. Rev'd in 2 Han, 102; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 336 ; which was rev'd in 60 If. Y. 381. v. Supervisors of Dutchess, 1 Hill, 50. Disting'd (Variance between peremptory and alternative mandamus) in People ex rel. Green v. Dutchess & Columbia R. R. Co., 58 If. Y. 152, 161. Disting'd (Certainty in mandatory part of writ of mandamus) in People ex rel. Henry v. Nostrand, 46 Id. 375, 379. ex rel. Witherbee v. Supervisors of Essex, 70 If. Y. 228. Further decision in 83 Id. 612; fuller mem. s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 343. v. Supervisors of Fulton, 14 Barb. 52. Disapproved (Action against super- visors for county charge) in Boyce v. Super- visors of Cayuga, 20 Id. 294; Chase v. County of Saratoga, 33 Id. 603, 608. v. Supervisors of Genesee, 7 Hill, 171. Disting'd (County liability for support of insane) in Supervisors of Onondaga v. Mor- gan, 2 Keyes, 277. ex rel. Bailey v. Supervisors of Greene, 12 Barb. 217. Disting'd (Right to man- 614 PEOPLE: damus) in People v. Contracting Board, 46 Id. 261. Disapproved (Mandamus to com- pel canvass of election returns) in State v. Gibbs, 13 Fla. 55; s. c, 7 Am. It. 235. Collated with other cases in Lewis v. Comm'rs of Marshall County, 16 Kans. 102; s. c, 22 Am. P. 275. See (Writ of man- damus, how returnable) Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 2072, n. ex rel. Mott v. Supervisors of Greene, 5 Hun, 650. Modified in 64 N. Y. 600. See (Peremptory mandamus, when to be granted in first instance) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2070, n. ex rel. Thompson t. Supervisors of Hamilton, 9 Hun, 60. Rev'd in 73 N. Y. 604. v. Supervisors of Herkimer, 56 Barb. 452. Applied (Statutory provisions, when mandatory on supervisors) in Lee v. Super- visors of Jefferson, 62 Bow. Pr. 201, 209, ex rel. Del Yechio v. Supervisors of Kings, 23 How. Pr. 89. Aff'd in 3 Etyes, 630; s. c, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 560. ex rel. Hopkins v. Supervisors of Kings, 52 If. Y. 556. Explained (Delega- tion of power to levy tax) in Townsend v. Mayor, &c. of K Y., 16 Hun, 362. ex rel. Hoyt v. Supervisors of Kings, 16 Wend. 520; Disting'd (Auditing board or officer, as bound by previous decision of | authorized tribunal) in Matter of Murphy, 24 Hun, 592, 595 ; which aff'd 60 How. Pr. 258, which see. , ex rel. Patclien v. Supervisors of Kings, 7 Wend. 530. Overruled (Power of supervisors to examine assessment and re- duce damages) in People ex rel. Hoyt v. Supervisors of Kings, 16 Id. 520. ex rel. Baldwin v. Supervisors of Livingston, 26 Barb. 118. Disting'd (Con- clusiveness of action of supervisors) in Peo- ple v. Supervisors of Montgomery, 67 N. Y. 109, 114; People v. Supervisors of N. Y., 21 How. Pr. 328; People v. Supervisors of Cayuga, 9 Hun, 442. ex rel. Conway v. Supervisors of Livingston, 6 Hun, 572. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 114. ex rel. Dickinson v. Supervisors of Livingston, 43 Barb. 232. Aff'd in 34 N. Y. 516. Decision in 43 Barb, followed (Proceedings of supervisors, when review- able by certiorari) in People ex rel. Kimball v. Supervisors of St. Lawrence, 25 Hun, 131, 135. Decision in 34 K Y. followed, as to proceedings here involved respecting paying bounties, &c. — in Halls. Lauderdale, 40 Id. 70. ex rel. Oneida Yalley Nat. B'k v. Supervisors of Madison, 51 N. Y. 542. Disting'd (Supervisor's action, when re- viewable by certiorari) in People ex rel. Kimball i). Supervisors of St. Lawrence, 2 > Hun, 131, 135. Compared in People em rel. Schuylerville & Upper Hudson R. R. Co. v. Betts, 55 N. Y. 600, 602. v. Supervisors of N. Y., 10 N. Y. 424. Collated with other cases (Declaratory legislation) in 8 Am. R. 156, n. ex rel. Bank of N. Y. v. Supervisors of N. Y , 37 N. Y. 21; s. c, with opinion of Gbovek, J., in 4 Transc. App. 136. Rev'd in Bank v. Supervisors, 7 Wall. 26. Decision in 37 N~. Y. cited, and compared with Fed- eral decisions (State tax on Federal opera- tions) in 1 Kent Com. 429, n 1 Holmes' ed. ex rel. Comm'rs of Records v. Supervis- ors of N. Y., 11 Abb. Pr. 114. AfFd (Failure to raise money by tax) in People ex rel. Wetmore e. Supervisors of N. Y., 3 Abb' Ct. App. Dee. 566. Decision in 11 Abb. Pr. disting'd (Power of legislature to com- pel payment of claim) in People ex rel. Baldwin v. Haws, 15 Id. 119. Applied (Mandamus to compel payment) in People ex rel. Raymond «. Connolly, 4 Abb. Pr. K S. 377. ex rel. Hall v. Supervisors of N. Y., 18 Abb. Pr. 8. Rev'd in 32 iV~. Y. 473. See Brady v. Supervisors of N. Y. Decision in 32 JV". Y. disting'd (Mandamus, when allowed) in People ex rel. Frost v. Fay, 3 Lans. 402, a case of an agreement. ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Supervisors of N. Y., 21 How. Pr. 322. Aff'd in 22 Id. 71. ex rel. MeSpedou v. Supervisors of N. Y., 10 Alb. Pr. 233; s. c, less fully, 18 How. Pr. 152. Aft'd, but without opinion, in 21 Id. 288. ' Further decision in 11 Abb. Pr. 114. • ex rel. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Supervis- ors of N. Y.,-20 Barb. 81. Aff'd in 16 JV! Y. 424. ex rel. Phoenix v. Supervisors of N. Y., 1 Hill, 362. Applied (Extra compensation to salaried officer) in Cowan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., S Hun, 634. ex rel. City of Lockport v. Supervis- ors of Niagara, 50 How. Pr. 353. Com- pare (Costs in mandamus proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. § 2086. ex reL McMaster v. Supervisors of Niagara, 4 Hill, 20. Aff'd in 7 Id. 504. See (Taxation of corporations) as to effect of amendment of 1853, — Am. Trans. Co. ■». City of Buffalo, 20 If. Y. 388, 393, n.; 23 Barb. 272. ex rel. Kobison v. Supervisors of Ontario; 17 Hun, 501. Rev'd in 85 JV. Y. 323.. ex rel. Burrows v. Supervisors of Orange, 27 Barb. 575. Aff'd in 17 iY. Y. 235. Decision in Id. questioned (Constitu- tional provisions, when directory) in People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 185. Disting'd (Con- stitutionality of law imposing tax) in People v. Moring, 47 Id. 644. Applied to case of local bill in dissenting opinion of Hunt, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.. 2 Keyes, 408. Quoted in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 221. ex rel. Scott v. Supervisors of Or- ange, 20 Hun, 196. Aff'd in 85 N. Y. 641, but without opinion. ex rel. Central Bank v. Supervisors PEOPLE. 615. of Otsego, 53 Barl>. 564. Affi'd as People ex rel. Otsego Co. Bank v. Supervisors, 51 K Y. 401. Decision in Id. explained (Dis- cretion of supervisors as to allowance of claim) in People ex rel. Benedict v. Superv's of Oneida, 24 Hun, 413, 420. Applied in Lee 1>. Supervisors of Jefferson, 62 How. Pr. 201, 209; People ex rel. Saunders v. Super- visors of Erie, 1 Sheld. 520 ; People ex rel. Witherbee v. Supervisors of Essex, 70 JV. Y. 233. ex rel. Onderdonk v. Supervisors of Queens, 1 Hill, 195. Reviewed with other cases (Conclusiveness of action of supervis- ors) in Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426. 429; Adriance v Supervisors of N. Y., 12 How. Pr. 228. Explained (Man- damus as remedy) iu People ex rel. Deben- etti v. Clerk N. Y. Marine Ct., 3 Abb. Pr. 321. Followed (Certiorari as remedy) in People ex rel. Corwin v. Walter, 68 A 7 ". Y. 410. Applied (Writ of prohibition, to whom directed) in Norton v. Dowling. 46 How. Pr. 9. Explained in People ex rel. Wheeler v. Cooper, 57 Id. 430 ; in dissenting opinion in Quimbo Appo v. People, 20 2f. Y. 557. Quoted in High on Exlr. Hem. 2 ed. § 782, n. 1. ex rel. Weeks v. Supervisors of Queens, 18 Hun, 4. Modified in 82 N. Y. 275. ex rel. Aspinwall v. Supervisors of Richmond, 20 N. Y. 252. • Further decis- ion in 28 Id. 112. Decision ia Id. disting'd (Damages recoverable against supervisors) in Clark*. Miller, 5i Id. 528, 535. — - ex rel Commissioners of Emigration v. Supervisors of Richmond, 21 How. Pr. 335. Affd in 22 Id. 275. -. ex rel. Sherman v. Supervisors of St. Lawrence, 30 How. Pr. 173. Said to be superseded by L. 1868, c. 565 (County liability for expense of autopsies, &c.) in Doremus v. Mayor,'&c. of N. Y., & Daly, 121, 128. ex rel. Thompson v. Supervisors of Schenectady, 35 Barb. 408. Disting'd and questioned (Reconsideration and reversal of action of supervisors) in People ex rel. Hotchkiss v. Supervisors of Broome, 65 A". Y. 227. Doubted in People v. Stocking, 50 Barb. 581. See also Brennan v. Mayor, Ac. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426, 430; Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. N. C. 51, and Id. n. ex rel. Cagger t. Supervisors, of Schuyler, 2 Abb. Pr. K S. 78. Followed (Place- of application for mandamus) in Mason v. Willers, 7 Hun, 23. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2068, n. ex rel. Dunkirk, W. & P. R. R. Co. v. Supervisors of Stockton. Cited as Same o. Batcheller, 53 N. Y. 128; s. c, 13 Am. £. 480. ex rel. Waller v. Supervisors of Sul- livan, 56 Jf. Y. 249. See (Proceedings after issue, in mandamus) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2082, n. ex rel. Hermance r. Supervisors of Ulster, 10 Hun, 545. Aff'd as Hermance v. Same, in 71 K Y. 481. ex rel. Lefever v. Supervisors of Ulster, 32 Barb. 473. Rev'd on the merits, in 34 AT Y. 268. - — ex rel. Pells v. Supervisors of Ulster, 65 ff. Y. 300. See People ex rel. Pitts v. Supervisors. ex rel. Pitts v. Supervisors of Ulster, 63 Barb. 83. < Rev'd as People ex rel. Pells v. Supervisors of Ulster, 65 A 7 ! Y. 300. Decision in Id. disting'd and limited (Re- view of assessment) in Matter of Hermance, 71 Id. 481, 483. Both decisions disting'd with Dash v. Van Kleeck, 1 Johns. 502 (Re- troactive laws) in People v. Nat. Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 27 Hun, 188. v. Supervisors of Westchester, 12 Barb. 446. See (Limitation of time for bringing special proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 414, n. ex rel. Fountain v. Supervisors of Westchester, 4 Barb. 64. Disting'd and applied (Effect of repealing statute on vested rights) in Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 N. Y. 38, 49. Approved in Stephens v. Marshall, 3 Chand. ( Wise.) 228. ex rel. Unskin v. Supervisors of West- chester, 57 Barb. 377. Disting'd (Review of supervisors' action by certiorari) in Peo- ple ex rel. Kimball v. Supervisors of St. Lawrence, 25 Hun, 131, 135. ex rel. Lawrence v. Supervisors of Westchester, 11 Hun, 306. Modified in 73 2f. Y. 173. Decision in Id. explained and cases cited to the contrary (Mandamus to municipal corporations) in High on Extr. Bern. 2 ed. § 346, n. 5. See (Allowance of peremptory mandamus) Code. Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2070, n. ex rel. Kcnyou t. Sutherland, 16 Hun, 192. Rev'd iu 81 AT Y. 1. Decis- ion in Id. cited (Solemnity of oath) in O'Reilly v. People, 86 Id. 154, 158. Com- pare (Certiorari superseded by appeal) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1356, 1357, 212i. Compare also (Proof of service of order to show cause, in proceedings for insolvent's discharge) Id. § 2165. ex rel. Teel v. Sweeting, 2 Johns. 184. Followed (Discretion as to allowance of quo warranto proceedings) in People v. Tisdale, 1 Doug. {Mich.) 61. Noted in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 744, 11 ed. v. Sweetman, 3 Park. 358. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of county courts in naturaliza- tion proceedings) in People v. Pease, 30 Barb. 588, 599. Disapproved (Jurisdiction of State courts to punish false swearing in naturalization proceedings) in State v. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245; s. c, 9 Am. li. 197. ex rel. Bunge v. Tax Comm'rs of N. Y. See People ex rel. Haneman v. Tax Comm'rs of N. Y. ex rel. Haneman v. Tax Comm'rs of 610 PEOPLE. N. Y., 10 Hun, 235. Aff'd, it seems, in 73 JV. 7. 607, on opinion of Daniels, J., be- low. Said in 23 Alb. L. J. 296, to have been aft'd by U. S. Sup'm. Ct. Mem. of further proceeding reported under People ex rel. Bunge v. Tax Comm'rs,in 17 Hun, 596. Decision in 73 JV. Y. disting'd (Ap- • peal to Court of Appeals in certiorari pro- ceeding) in People ex rel. Haneman v. Tax • Comm'rs of N. Y., 85 Id. 655. ■ v. Taylor, 3 Den. 91. Disting'd with People «. Payne, Id. 88 (Sufficiency of in- dictment for violation of lottery law) in Dunn «. People, 27 Hun, 272; People v. Payne being also disting'd in People v. Noelke, 29 Hun, 461. Disting'd and applied in People v. Borges, 6 Abb. Pr. 136. Applied to case of arson, in Dedieu v. People, 22 .JV Y. 180. Cited approvingly in State v. Gray, 29 Minn. 144 Quoted and collated with other cases in 1 Bennett & H. Cas. on Grim. L. 322. Applied (Power of court as to judg- ment, on reversal) in Fellinger v. People, 15 Abb. Pr. 128, 135; Shepherds. People, 25 JV. Y. 418. Dictum explained (New trial in criminal cases) in Kuckler ». People, 5 Park. 214. ex rel. Teed v. Teed, 48 Barb. 424. Collated with other cases (When objections to summary proceedings to be made) in Mo- Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 264. ex rel. Judson y. Thaclier, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& 0.) 158; s. c, 7 Lane. 274. Order for new trial approved but appeal dismissed in 55 JV. F. 525; s. c, 14 Am. B. 312. Decision in Id. disting'd (Right to appeal without joining others) in "Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 93 JV. Y. 162, 194. Applied (Inquiry into title to office) in Peo- ple ex rel. Hatzel «. Hall, 80 Id. 117, 127. Disting'd ((Inquiry into election irregulari- ties) in People ex rel. Bush v. Thornton, 25 Hun, 456, 463. Followed in People ex rel. Stemmler v. McGuire, 2 Id. 269, 274. Applied in Prince «. Skillin, 71 Me. 361; s. c, 36 Am. B. 325, 331. • ex rel. Jermain v. Thayer, 4 Hun, 798. Aff d in 63 JV Y. 348. v. Third Ave. Sav'gs B'k, 50 How. Pr. 22. Disting'd (Who may be appointed re- ceiver) in Chamberlain v. Greenleaf, 4 Abb. JV. C. 92, 95. ■ v. Thomas, 2 Parh. 256. Approved (Form of writ of error) in Phillips v. People, 57 Barb. 353; which was modified in 42 JV. Y. 200, which see. , v. Thompson, 41 JV. Y. 1. Disting'd (Juror as disqualified by opinion) in Green- field v. People, 6 Abb. JV. 0. 8. Explained with reference to subsequent legislation, in Balbo v. People, 80 JV. Y. 493. Followed (Effect of failure to take exception in crim- inal case) in Gaffney «. People, 50 Id. 420 ; Wilke v. People, 53 Id. 527. ex rel. Taylor v. Thompson, 21 Wend. 2:!5. Rev'd in 23 Id. 537. Decision in Id. applied (Foundation for judgment of ouster for forfeiture of corporate franchise) in People v. Williamsburgh T'pike, &c Co., 47 JV. Y. 593. ex rel. Bush y. Thornton, 60 How. Pr 457. Rev'd in 25 Hun, 456. — - y. Tibbetts, 19 JV. Y. 523. See Bel- linger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.; Commis- sioners of Canal Fund v. Kempshall; Gould v. Hudson R. R. Co.; Lansing v. Smith. Followed as authority and collated with Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 JV. Y. 377; People n. Canal Appraisers, 33 Id. 461 (Riparian rights and ownership) in Wood «. Fowler, 26 Hans. 682 ; s. c, 40 Am. P. 330. Col- lated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 50. ex rel. Israel v. Tibbits, 4 Cow. 358 ; s. c, 8 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 413, with brief nofe. Explained (By-laws of private corporation) in Ang. & A. on Corp. % 345, 11 ed. ex rel. Morton v. Tieman, 8 Abb. Pr. 359; s. c, 30 Barb. 193. See Smith o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Right of officer de facto) in People ex rel. Steinert v. Anthony, 6 Hun, 142, 145. Followed with People v. Hopson, 1 Den. 574, iu Matthewss. Supervisors of Copiah County, 53 Miss. 715; s. c, 24 Am. P. 715. Followed iaMayfield v. Moore, 53 111. 428; s. c, 5 Am. R. 52. Quoted and collated with other cases in Brightly Cas. on Elect. 611. See cases collected in 10 Am. L. Beg. JV S. 445. ex rel. Stanton v. Tioga Common Pleas, 19 Wend. 73. Subsequent action respecting instrument here involved, — as Stanton v. Thomas, 24 Id. 71. See Mc- Dowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. ; Pulver v. Harris. Decision in 19 Wend, applied (Assignment of right of action for injury) in Thurman ». Wells, 18 Barb. 510; Mac- key e. Mackey, 43 Id. 62 ; Pulver v. Harris, 62 Id. 506 ; which was aff'd in 52 JV. F. 75, which see; Hyslop v. Randall, 4 Duer, 662; Zabriskie i>. Smith, 13 TV. Y. 334; Coughlin v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 71 Id. 450. Disting'd in Robinson v. Weeks, 6 How. Pr. 162. Criticised and disting'd in Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 JV. Y 508. Ap- proved in McKee v. Judd, 12 Id. 622, 625. Quoted in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1358, n. f, 11 Am. ed. ex rel. Atkinson v. Tompkins, 6 Hun, 299. Rev'd in 64 JV. Y. 53. y. Tompkins General Sessions, 19 Wend. 154. See (Effect of adjudication in bankruptcy proceedings) Thayer v. Over- seers of Hamilton, 5 Hill, 443. — — y. Tort nsend, 1 Johns. Cas. 104. See People «. Dutchess Oyer and Terminer. Opposed (Power to grant new trials in criminal cases) in People v. Dutchess Oyer and Terminer, 2 Barb. 282. Followed with People v. McKay, 18 Johns. 212, in State ». Hornsby, 8 Bob. (La.) 583; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 314, 318, with note. y. , 5 How. Pr. 315. See (Enlarge- ment of time in arbitration proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2368, n. PEOPLE. 617 ex rcl. Spnhn v. Townsend, 10 Abb. iV. 0. 169. Aft'd in 25 Sun, 313,. on opioion below. v. Toynbee, 2 Parh. 329; s. c.,, as People v. Berberrich, 11 Bow. Pr. 289; more fully, in 20 Barb. 168. Afi'd as Wynehamer v. People, in 13 N. Y. 378; s. c, 2 Parh. 490, where argument of counsel is fully reported ; and 12 How. Pr. 238. Decision in 13 JV. Y. explained and disting'd (Deprival of right to trial, by jury in criminal cases) in Knights. Campbell, 62 Barb. 16, 29. v. Tracy. See People ex rel. Case v. Collins. v. Tredway, 3 Barb. 470. Followed (Sufficiency of indictment for perjury) in Burns v. People, 59 Id. 531, 542. ex rel. Lansing v. Treuiain. 9 Him, 573. _ Aft'd, it seems, in 68 If. Y. 628, on opinion in People ex rel. McCann v. Kil- bourn, Id. 479. ex rel. Staats t. Tremain, 17 How. Pr. 10. Rev'd in Id. 142; s. c, 29 Barb. 96. Decision in Id. disting'd (Mandamus against officer to pay claim) in People ex rel. Sat- terlee v. Board of Police, 75 K Y. 38, 44. v. Trinity Church, 30 Barb. 537. Atfd in 22 N. Y. 44. ex rel. Hetfield v. Trustees of Ft. Edward, 70 JsT. Y. 28. Applied (Consti- tutional amendments on existing rights) in Negus v. City of Brooklyn," 10 Abb. M. O. 180, 186. v. Trustees of Geneva College, 5 Wend. 211. Explained (Constitution of powers, &c. of corporation) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 106, 11 ed. ex rel. Gale v. Trustees of No. 13, 8 How. Pr. J25. Affd in 10 Id. 468. An- other proceeding in 6 Id. 332. Decision in 8 Id. approved (Effect of L. 1847, c. 172, respecting indemnification of school district officers) in People ex rel. Atkins v. Van Leuven, 8 Id. 358. Compare to the con- trary People ex rel. Powell v. Snyder, 10 Id. 143. J ' ex rel. Westbrook v. Trustees of Ogdensburgh, 48 Jv". Y. 390. Disting'd (Where choses in action are taxable) in Herron v. Keeran, 59 Ind. 472; s. c, 26 Am. E. 87; Wilcox v. Ellis, 14 Kan. 588; s. c, 19 Am. R. 107, 109, where People ex rel. Jefferson v. Gardner," 51 Barb. 352, is also cited as showing the weight of judi- cial authority. ex rel. Cuyler v. Trustees of Palmyra, 3 Hun, 549. Followed (Certiorari, when prematurely granted) in People ex rel. Kimball v. Supervisors of St. Lawrence, 25 Id. 131, 136. ex rel. Coppers y. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral. See Coppers v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral. v. Tubbs, 37 N. Y. 586. Disting'd (Surety on bail bond when not responsible for failure of principal to appear) in State v. Merrihew, 47 Iowa, 112; s. c, 29 Am.R. 464; Adler v. State. 35 Ark 517; s. c. 37 Am. £. 48. ex rel. Erie & Genesee Tal. R. K. Co. v. Tubbs, 59 Barbs 401. AfE'd in 49 X. Y. 356. v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. K S. 148. An- other proceeding in Id. 25; which was overruled in People o. Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1. Also another proceeding in 13 Abb. Pr. iv". 8. 419. Decision in Id. 25 disting'd (Power of attorney-general to sue in be- half of people to recover back money illegally expended) in Supervisors of N. Y. v. Tweed, Id. 152. V. , 5 Hun, 353. Confirmed in 63 iV". Y. 194; s. C, 50 How. Pr. 38. Other proceedings as follows: 5 Hun, 382 (Mo- tion to vacate arrest or reduce bail) ; con- firmed in 63 N. Y. 202; s. c, less fully, 50 How. Pr. 26 ; Id. 262 (Challenge to array) ; Id. 273 (Struck jury); Id. 434 (Motion to dismiss complaint); 11 Hun, 195 (Affg judgment and granting of extra allowance). See also proceedings in 50 How. Pr. 280, and Id. 286 ; aff'd in 11 Hun, 195. See Wood v. Wood. With decision in 5 Hun, 353 compare (Bill of particulars) Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Marrener, 49 How. Pr. 36. Decision in 63 K Y. applied (When second arrest for same cause is ille- gal) in Ewart v. Schwartz, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 390. Statute here referred (Action for public funds illegally obtained, &c.) is now Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1969, 1970. ex rel. McGuire v. Ulrich, 2 Abb. Pr. 28. Questioned (Sufficiency of affidavit in summary proceedings) in People v. Simpson, 37 Barb. 432, 435. Collated with other cases (When objections are to be made in such proceedings) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 264. ex rel. Tremper v. Judges of Ulster, 1 " Johns. 64. See (Peremptory mandamus, when to issuel Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2070, n. See also (Service of alternative writ) Id. § 2071, n. ex rel. Attorney-General v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. 353; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 243, with note, wherein it is said to be an undis- puted authority as to the various points decided. See Pratt v. Short. Followed . (Statute when regarded as including cor- porations) in Internat. Life Assur. Co. o. Comm'rs of Taxes, 28 Barb. 321; La Farge v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 22 N~. Y. 354; Ontario B'k e. Bunnell, 10 Wend. 193.' Applied in Knox v. Protection Ins. Co., 9 Conn. 430 ; s. c, 25 Am. Bee. 33. Applied (Limitation of rights of company incorpor- ated for specific purpose) in N. Y. Firemen Ins. Co. v. Ely, 2 Cow. 699; Scott v. De Peyster, 1 Edw. 530; Fulton B'k v. Bene- dict, 1 Hall, 555 ; Utica Ins. Co. v. Hunt, 1 Wend. 57. Examined in People «. Pres- ident, &c. of Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 383. Explained in Utica Ins. Co. v. Scott, 8 Coio. 717. Approved with N. Y. Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 2 Cow. 675 ; Same v. Ely, 2 Id. 699, in McMasters 11. Reed's Executors, 1 Grant's {Penn.) Cos. 36. Approved in 618 PEOPLE; N Y. Firemen Ins. Co. 0. Ely, 5 Conn. 560 ; B. c, 13 Am. Dec. 100, with note. Ex- plained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 265, 11 ed. Reviewed with N. Y. Firemen Ins. Co. v. Ely, 2 Cow. 678, 699 ; Talmage v. Pell, 7 N. 7. 328, 343, and other cases (Nature of discount made by bank) in Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k 0. Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198 ; s. c, 23 Am. B. 683. Followed (What are franchises) in Chicago, &c. R. R. Co. 0. Dunbar, 95 111. 571, 576. Doubted and disting'd (Money lent recoverable though notes are void) in Be Jay cox, 12 Blatchf. C. Ct. 209, 214. See also (Statutes in pari materia) 1 Kent Com. 463. Fol- lowed {Quo warranto as remedy against corporation) in People v. Trustees of Geneva College, 5 Wend. 219. Quoted in High on Extr. Bern. 2 ed. § 650, n. 5. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 734, 11 ed. Quoted and ■collated with other cases in Field, on Ultra Vires, 337. ex rel. Benton v. Vail, 20 Wend. 12. See People v. Ferguson. Approved (Fault of canvassing boards not to vitiate election) in Carpenter v. Ely, 4 Wise. 428. ex rel. Palmer v. Vail, 1 Cow. 589. Further decision in 2 Id 623. ex rel. Garlingr v. Van Allen, 55 N. 7. 31. Followed (Right to be heard by coun- sel) in Matter of Nichols, 6 All. N. C. 474, , 487. Followed (Certiorari to review pro- ceedings of court martial) in People ex rel. Spahn b. Townsend, 10 Id. 169, 171. ex rel. Van Rensselaer v. Van Alstyne, 82 Barb. 131. Further decision after fur- ther report of referees, in 3 Keyes, 35 ; s. c, 3 All. Ct. App. Dec. 575. See Commission- ers of Warwick 0. Judges of Orange. De- cision in 32 Barb, disting'd (Inquiry by referees into jurisdiction of highway com- missioners) in People ex rel. Hubbard 0. Harris, 63 JK 7. 391, 396. Explained in People v. Kniskern, 50 Barb. 92. Decision in 3 Abb. Ct App. Dee. followed (Evidence on hearing before such referees) in People ex rel. Lasher v. McNeil, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 140. Disapproved and said to be in conflict with later decisions (Costs of special proceedings) in People 0. Smith, 13 Sun, 227. V. Van. Blarenm, 2 Johns. 105. Ex- plained (Dwelling house as subject of arson) in Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 106; s. c, 12 Am. B. 302. Followed in State v. Whittier, 21 Me. 341 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 272. — v. Vanderbilt, 28 JST. 7. 396; s. c, 25 Bow. Pr. 138. The opinion here attributed to Emott, J., was delivered by Balcom, J. See also full report in 26 N~. 7. 287. AfFg 38 Barb. 282; s. c, 24 Sow. Pr. 301. Decision in 26 J¥. 7. followed (Action by people for removal, &c, of nuisance) in People v. Metropolitan Telephone, &c. Co., 11 Abb. N'. C. 304, — in preference to Peo- ple v. Corporation ot Albany, 11 Wend. 539. Followed (Pier, &c. when nuisance to be abated) in People 0. N. V. & Staten Island Ferry Co., 49 Sow. Pr. 515; which was affd in 7 Sun, 109, and that in 68 JV. 7. 79, which see. Disting'd in Delaware & H. Canal Co. 0. Lawrence, 2 Bun, 181; Matter of N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 77 N. 7. 260. Discussed in Wood on Nuit. §§ 86, 250, 492. Applied (Form of judg- ment for removal of nuisance) in De Lancy 0. Blizzard, 7 Bun, 68. T. Vane, 12 Wend. 78. Disregarded (Proof of former corroborative statements made by witness) in Robb 0, Hacklev, 23 Wend. 50; Dudley 0. Bolles, 24 Id." 465. Overruled in Donoghoe 0. People, 6 Parh 120. Collated with Robb 0. Hackley, 23 Wend. 50 ; Dudley e. Bolles, 24 Id. 465 ; Smith «. Stickney, 17 Barb. 489 ; Hotchkiss v. Ins. Co., 5 Sun, 90, in 11 Am. Dec. 75.8, n. Overruled (Effect of omission to proye good character) in People v. White, 24 Wend. 520. See Ware 0. Ware, 8 Oreenl. (Me.) 55; Craig 0. Craig, 5 Bawle (Pa.) 91. Dis- approved and People 0. Bodine, 1 Den, 281 followed in State 0. Kabrich, 39 Ind. 277. v. Van Home. See Same 0. Dixon. v. Van Keuren, 5 Park. 66. Applied (When several acts constitute but one criminal offense) in Stats 0. Egglesht, 41 Iowa, 574; s. c; 20 Am. B. 612, 616. ex rel. Navano v. Van Nort, 64 Barb. 205. Disting'd (Validity of municipal contract made without bids) in Green t. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Hun, 24, 26; which was rev'd in 60 N. 7. 308, which see. Collated with other cases in 5 All. N. G. 42, n. v. Van Rensselaer, 8 Barb. 189. Fur- ther decision in 9 If. 7. 291. Decision in Id. approved (Reservation as precluding adverse possession) in People 0. Trinity Church, 22 N, 7. 44, 56. See with decis- ion in 8 Barb. (Limitation of action, by peo- ple) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 362, n. ex rel. Van Voast v. Van Slyck, 4 Cow. 297; s. c, 8 K 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 391, with brief note. See People 0. Ferguson. Approved and followed (Reviewing action of election officers) in People 0. Pease, 27 K 7. 45, 55, 57, 60; which affd 30 Barb. 598, which see. Applied in People 0. Cook, 8 N. 7. 83 ; People 0. Vail, 20 Wend. 14. Quoted and Collated with other cases in Brightly Cos. on Elect. 305. Disting'd (Ef- fect of verbal appointment to office) in Peo- ple ex rel. Babcock0. Murray, 70 iV. 7. 521, 527. Quoted (Quo warranto against public officers) in Sigh on Extr. Bern. 2 ed. § 638, n. 2. v. Van Wyck, 4 Cow. 260. Approved (Action against district attorney for sher- iffs services) Ai People v. Supervisors of N. Y., 32 K 7. 473 ; which rev'd 18 Abb. Pr. 8, which see. v. Vnrmilyea, 7 Cow. 108. See Durrell 0. Mosher ; Ex parte Vermilyea. Followed (Challenge to juror) in People 0. Mather, 4 Wend. 239. Applied (Questions for re- PEOPLE. G19 view on common law certiorari) in People ex rel. Shipman v. Overseers of Poor of Barton, 6 How. Pr. 26 ; Birdsall ■«. Phil- lips, 17 Wend. 469. Applied (Certiorari to remove indictment to Supreme Court) in People v. Baker, 3 All. Pr. 47. v. -, 7 Cow. 3C9. Approved (Newly- discovered evidence) in State v. Bean, 36 M. H. 122. v. Yideto, 1 Parh. 603. Collated with Ruloffu. People, 18 N. Y. 179, and other cases (Necessity of proof of corpus delicti, . in case of murder) in 14 Am. B. 486, n. v. Vilas, 36 N. Y. 459; s. c, 3 Alb. Pr. N". S. 252. Followed as decisive au- thority (Discharge of sureties on official hond) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Ryan, 35 How. Pr. 408. Applied in Supervisors of Monroe v. CJarke, 25 Hun, 282, 284. Dis- ting'd in People v. Chalmers, 60 N. Y. 154, 160. Cited as leading case in 29 All. L. J. 404, collating cases. See (Judgment dis- missing complaint) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1209, n. ex rel. Smith t. Village of Nelliston, 18 Hun, 175. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 78 N. Y. 610, but without opinion. Fur- ther proceeding in 79 Id. 638. ex rel. Westbrook v. Village of Ogdens- bnrgh, 48 XT. Y. 390. Disting'd (Taxation of personal property in hands of agent of non-resident) in Boardman v. Supervisors of Tompkins, 85 Id. 359, 364. v. Walbridge, 6 Gow. 512. Further de- cision in 3 Wend. 120. v. Walker, 21 Barb. 630. Eev'd in 17 K Y. 502. ex rel. Hawes t. Walker, 23 Barb. 304. Rule said (Execution of power delegated tn several) in Moore v. Rector, &c. of .St. Thomas, 4 Abb. If. G 51, 56, to be em- bodied in 2 B. S. 555, § 27. Explained in First Nat. B'k of North Bennington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 Vt. 87; s. c, 36 Am. B. 734, 741. — t- ex rel. Ludlum v. Wallace, 2 Hun, 152; s. c, reported in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 438. ex rel. Corwin v. Walter; People ex rel. Sess v. Walter; People ex rel. Mentz v. Walter; People ex rel. Stockwelt v. Walter. All reported under first named case in 2 Hun, 385; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 638. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 403. Decision in Id. followed (Title of bonafide purchaser of town bonds not aftected by subsequent certiorari proceedings respecting them) in Phelps v. Town of Lewiston, 15 Blatclif. G. Ct. 131. v. Walters, 18 Abb. Pr. 147; s. c, as Walters v. People, 6 Parh 15. AfTd in 32 K Y. 147. v. Walworth, 8 Alb. L. J. 19. See vol. 2 of "Remarkable Trials;" also illustrated pamphlet report of trial published in 1873, and to be found in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Memorandum in 8 Alb. L J. 19 re- viewed with People v. Batting, 49 How. Pr. 392; People t>. Clark, 7 N.J. 393, and other cases (What constitutes murder in first degree) in 18 Am. Dec. 778, n. ex rel. Stokes v. Warden. &c. of Sing Sing, 66 K Y. 345. Applied (Time from which sentence to imprisonment takes ef- fect) in People ex rel. King ■». McEwen, 62 How. Pr. 226. Disting'd in People v. Lincoln, 25 Hun, 306. v. Warner, 5 Wend. 271. Followed (Sufficiency of indictment for perjury) in Harris r. People, 4 Hun, 1, 5. v. Warren. See Warner v. Shed. v. Washington & Warren Bank, 6 Cow. 211. See Slee v. Bloom. Discussed {Quo warranto in case of private corpora- tions) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 734, 11 ed. v. Waters, 1 John/. Cas. 137. Overruled (Sheriff's liability as to process coming to deputy) in People v. Brown, 6 Cow. 41. v. Wentz, 37 N. Y. 303. Followed with Cox v. People, 80 Id. 500 (Effect of confes- sions of accused person) in People v. Mc- Gloin, 91 Id. 241. Followed in Phillips v. People, 57 Barb. 353, 303 ; Cox v. People, 19 Hun, 430. Followed with People v. McMahon, 15 K Y. 391, in State v. Phelps, 74 Mo. 128; s. C, 46 Am. B. 258. ex rel. Sears v. Wester velt, 17 Wend. 674. Aff d in 28 Id. 416. t. Wheeler, 21 N. Y. 82. Reviewed with other cases (Questions to be consid- ered on certiorari) in People v. Board of Police, 39 K Y. 513. Applied (Costs in certiorari proceedings) in People v. Fuller, 40 How. Pr. 38. Applied (Interest as dis- qualification to hold office) in Matter of Southern Boulevard, 3 Abb. Pr. iv". S. 449. Explained in Riventurgh ■». Henness, 4 Lam. 211 ; Foot ». Stiles, 57 N. Y. 407. v. Wheelock, 3 Parh. 9. See Nevin v. Ladue. Explained (What are " strong and spirituous liquors") in Commissioners of Tompkins v. Taylor, 21 N. Y. 173, 175. v. Whipple, 9 Gow. 707. Approved but disting'd (Accomplice, when entitled to pardon) in Commonwealth v. Dabney, 1 Bob. (Va.) 696; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 717, 724. Criticised in 31 Am. K. 522, n. Approved (Accomplice, when permitted to testify) in Ray v. State, 1 67. Greene (Iowa) 316; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 379, 383, with note. T. White, 14 Wend. Ill ; s. c, 12 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 555, with brief note of other cases on comments of court on evi- dence. T. , 24 Wend. 520. Rev'g 22 Id. 167. See Parker v. Baker; Peoples. Kane. Both decisions explained (Sufficiency of allegations as to malice, in indictment for murder) in Fitzgerrold v. People, 4 Abb. Pr. K S. 73, 79. Dicta in decision in 24 Wend, disapproved in Darry v. People, 2 Parh 630. Decision in 22 Wend, disting'd (Conviction of offense of degree less than charged in indictment) in Dedieu v. People, 22 K Y. 178, 184. Decision in 24 Wend. applied (Acts of officer de facto, when not to be questioned collaterally) in Morris . Wemple. Overruled in effect (Reversion of land appropriated to use of canal) in Rexford v. Wright, 11 2V~. Y 308. Col- lated with other cases in Mills 1'homps. on Highw. 3 ed. 37. v. , 14 How. Pr. 498. Applied (Proceedings of insolvent debtor, when "just and fair'*) in Matter of Fowler, 8 Daly, 548, 556. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 121. ex rel. Uphnni v. Whiteside, 23 Wend. 9. Rev'd in 26 Id. 634. ex. rel. Wilcox v. Wilcox, 22 Pari. 178. Aff d as Wilcox v. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 575. Decision in 22 Barb, explained (Chancery control over infants) in Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 332. v. Wiley, 3 Hill, 194. See Marquand v. Webb. Referred to as modified by later decisions (Effect of reception of illegal evi- dence) in People v. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 60. Followed (Unissued bonds, receipts, &c., as subjects of larceny) in Bork s. People, 91 Id. 5. v. Williams. See People v. Bill. v. . 4 Hill, 9. Applied (Liability for false representations) in People ». Stet- son, 4 Barb. 156; Long v. Warren, 68 N. Y. 432. Doubted in Watson «. People, 87 Id. 561. Examined (Liability for obtaining signature by false pretenses) in Dord v. Peo- ple, 9 Barb. 673 ; People ■». Crissie, 4 Ben. 528. Approved but disting'd in People v. Sully, 1 Buff. Super. Ot. (Sheld.) 4A. Com- pare People ex rel. Phelps ■». Oyer and Term, of K Y., 83 N. Y. 436, 449. v. , 3 Abb. Ot. App. Bee. 596. Ex- amined with other cases (Pes gestm in crim- inal cases) in 22 Alb. L. J. 4. Compare Mack v. State, 48 Wis. 'ill. ex rel. Frost v. Wilson, 3 Hun, 437; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ot. . (T. & 0.) 636. Rev'd in 62 AT. Y. 186. v. Winters, 2 Park. 10. Followed with Perry e. Perry, 2 Paige, 501, 503 (Illegality -^of wife beating) in Commonwealth ■». Mc- Afee, 108 Mass. 458; s. c, 11 Am. P. 383, 385. v. Wood, 3 Parle. 681. See People v. Corbin. v. , 35 Barb. 653. Disting'd (Man- damus as remedy to compel payment of public money) in People «. Haws, 36 Id. 69. v. Woodin, 2 Weekly Big. 291; s. c, less fully as Woodin v. People, 6 Hun, 654. ex rel. Brown v. Woodruff, 29 How. Pr. 203 ; s. c, more fully, 32 If. Y. S55. See cases cited (Functus officio) in 5 Abb. N. C. 62, n. y. Worts, 9 Wend. 480. Overruled (Prohibition to ministerial officer to stay execution of process) in People v. Supervis- ors of Queens, 1 Hill, 195. v. Wright, 9 Wend. 193. See People «. Krummer. Explained (Necessity "of specification, in indictment, of extrinsic circumstances respecting written instru- ment) in Fcnton v. People, 4 Hill, 128 ; People v. Stearns, 21 Wend. 420. Explained (Duplicity as ground for asserting judg- ment) in Poliusky v. People, 73 N. Y. 72. Collated with Woodford «. People, 62 Id. 117, and other cases in 58 Am. Bee. 246, n. ex rel. Beller v. Wright, 3 Hun, 306. Followed with People ex rel. Presmeyer v. Comm'rs of Police, &c, 59 N. Y. 92 ; Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 Id. 067 (Right of legislature to revoke license to sell liquors) in La Croix v. County Comm'rs, 50 Conn. 321; s. c, 47 Am. P. 648. v. Young, 7 Hill, 44. See People v. Koeber. Overitalcd (Averments necessary in action on recognizance) in People v. Kane, 4 Ben. 530, 544. People of Michigan v. Phoenix Bank, 4 Bosw. 363. Subsequent decision in 7 Id. 20 ; which was modified as State of Mich- igan v. Phoenix Bank, in 33 If. 7. 9. People's Bank v. Mitchell, 73 N. 7. 406. See Ketchum v. Evertson. Applied (Waiver of performance of contract) in Hill v. Hel- ler, 27 Hun, 410, 419. Collated with other cases (Covenant of renewal in lease) in Mc- Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 123. . People's Bank of N. ¥. v. Bogart, 16 Hun, 270. Affd in 81 N. Y. 101 ; s. c, 37 Am. P. 481. See Dambman v. Schulting. People's Bank of N. Y. v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank of Newark. See Rhoner v. First Nat. Bank of Allentown. Pepin v. Lachenmeyer, 45 If. Y. 27. Dis- ting'd (Judgments of Confederate Courts as foreign judgments) in Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 600; s. c, 22 Am. E. 340, 361. Criticised and disapproved in 2 Whart. Com. on Eb. § 807. Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 Johns. Gas. 119. Fol- lowed (Sufficient authentication of record of court of U. S.) in Adams v. Lisher, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 241; s. c, 25 Am. Bee. 102. Cited as authority with Dobson v. Pearce, 12 N. Y. 156 (Effect of judgments of U. S. courts) in Embiy t. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3, 10. Percival v. Hickley, 18 Johns. 257; s. c, 9 Am. Bee. 210. Approvingly cited, (Tres- pass and case for actions immediately in- jurious) in Jordan v. Wyatt, 4 Oratt. (Fa.) 151 ; s. a, 47 Am. Bee. 720, 725. v. Jones. See Wallsworth v. McCuI- lough. Percy, Matter of, 36 If. Y. 651. Disting'd (Evidence on proceedings to disbar attorney for misconduct) in Matter of Eldridge, 82 Id. 161, 166. Sustained and approved (Disbarring attorney for indictable offense of which he has not been convicted) in Ex PERINE-PEERY. 621 parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265, 285. See Id. 316. Perine t. Dunn, 4 Johns. Ch. 140. Approved (Effect of dismissing bill on merits) in Pel- ton v. Mott, 11 Vt. 148; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 678, with note ; Rosse v. Rust, 4 Johns. Oh. 300, being disting'd. Perkins v. Church, 31 Barb. 84. Disting'd (Enforcing liability of stockholder of for- eign corporation) in Patterson v. Baker, 84 How. Pr. 180, 183. . v. Coddington, 4 Eobt. 647. Collated ■with other cases (Covenants in lease re- stricting erections) in McAdpm on Landl. & T. 2 ed. & 98, v. Giles, 53 Barb. 342. Aff'd in 50 K Y. 228. Another action in 6 Lans. 437 ; which was aff'd in 05 A 7 ". Y. 593. Decision in 50 II. applied (Grounds for setting aside award) in llalstead t>. Seaman, 52 How. Pr. 423. v. Hatch, 4 Hun, 137. Affd, it seems, in 64 N. T. 634, but without opinion. v. Mitchell, 31 Barb. 401. Reviewed with Hastings v. Lusk, 22 Wend. 410; Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 A 7 ". Y. 311, and other cases (What statements in judicial proceedings are privileged) in Lanning v. Christy, 30 Ohio St. 115; s. c, 27 Am. R. 431, 433. N. Y. Central K. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196; s. C, 2 Am. L. Reg. A 7 ". 8. 318. See Cole v. Goodwin; Gould v. Hill; Norton ■». "Western R. R. Co.; Sandford v. Handy; Welles v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Disting'd (Right of carrier to limit his liability by contract) in Kirkland «. Dinsmore, 2 Hun, 46, 51. Explained in Railroad Co. v. Lock- wood, 17 Wall. 357, 364. -Questioned in Illinois Central R. R. Co. i>. Read, 37 III. 507; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Henderson, 51 Penn. St. 328; Ohio & Mississippi R'y Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 485 ; Jacobus v. St. Paul & Chicago R'y Co., 20 Minn. 128. See Thomps. on Oarr. of Pass. XLIX. De- nied in dissenting opinion of Sandekson, J., in Hooper v. Wells, 27 Gal. 11, 44. Criticised in Lawson's Contr. of Oarr. §§ 28, 128, 220. Approved in Hutch, on Can: § 507, n. v. Perkins, 7 Lans. 19; s. c, 62 Barb. 531. See Longendyke v. Longendyke. Followed (Liability of husband for neces- saries for wife) in Webber v. Spannhake, 2 Redf. 258. Relied on with Kelso v. Tabor, 52 Barb. 125 ; Corn Exchange Ins. Co. «. Babcock, 57 Id. 222 ; Chambovet v. Cag- ney, 35 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 474 (Limita- tions on power of married woman to con- tract) in Haas v. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 007. Criticised as contrary to express language of statute and decisions (Actions between husband and wife on contract) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 240, n. 6. v. Savage, 15 Wend. 412. Applied (Denial of relief to parties to illegal con- tract) in Knowlton v. C. & E. Spring Co., 57 iV. Y. 518, 530; Williamson v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co., 53 Iowa, 126 ; s. c, 36 Am. R. 206, 211, with note. v. Squier, 1 Sup'm. Ot. {T. & C.) 620. Disapproved and partly overruled (Liability of purchaser assuming payment of mort- gage) in Calvo v. Davies, 8 Hun, 222. Com- mented on and said to conflict with Calvo v. Davies, — in Thomas on Mart. 72, 73. v. Taylor, 19 Abb. Pr. 146. Approved Enforcing payment of referee's fees) in Geib ■v. Topping, 83 N. Y. 46, 48. v. Warren, 6 How. Pr. 341. Compare (Writ of injunction) Code Gin. Pro. § 602; v. Washington Ins. Co., 6 Johns. Oh. 485. Rev'd in 4 Cow. 645. Decision in Id. disting'd (Payment of premium as prerequisite to validity of contract of insur- ance) in Redfield v. Patcrson Fire Ins. Co., 6, Abb. JST. C. 456, 403. Followed iu Blanchard e. Waite, 28 Me. 51 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 474, 476, with note. Approved in Hal- lock v. Ins. Co., 2 Butcher (A 7 ! J.) 268, 275. Cited as authority with Carpenter u. Ins. Co., 4 Sandf. Ch. 408 (Jurisdiction of equity to enforce contract of insurance) in Hebert «. Mutual Life Ins. Co., D. S. Cir. Ct. D. Oreg. 14 Reporter, 198; s. c, 12 Fed. Rep. 807^ v. Wing, *0 Johns. 143. See to the contrary (Denial of award) Dresser v. Stans- field, 14 Mees. & W. 822. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 469. Perrin v. N. Y. Central B. R. Co., 40 Barb. 65. Rev'd in 36 A 7 ". Y. 120. Said in 41 Id. 619, that judgment on new trial was aff'd by Ct. of App. in 1869. Decision in 36 N. Y. disting'd (Form of judgment in eject- ment) in White's Bank of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 Id. 75. Perrine v. Hotchkiss, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 370. Affd, it seems, in 59 N. Y. 649, on opinion of Talcott, J., below. v. Striker, 7 Paige, 598. Applied (Ex- tent of constitutional privilege of witness) in People ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly,. 12 Abb. Pr. 153 ; which was affd in 24 AT. Y. 84, which see. Explained (Relief againt usuri- ous obligation) in Williams o. Ayrault, 31 Barb. 369 ; Allerton v. Belden, 49 A 7 ! Y. 376; which rev'd 3 Lans. 494. which see; Vilas v. Jones, 1 N. Y. 279, 283; Williams t>. Fitzhugh, 37 Id. 447. Applied in Skinners. Christmas, Clarke, 269; Min- turn ». Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 3 J¥. Y. 499; Morse v. Hovey, 9 Paige, 198; see Same v. Same, 1 Sandf. Ch. 192. Explained (Parties to bill to obtain relief against usury) in Beggs v. Butler, Clarice, 523. Perry v. Chester, 36 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 228. Rev'd in 53 AT. Y. 240. Other pro- ceedings in 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 131. Decis- ion in 53 N. Y. disting'd (Counterclaim in action founded on joint liability) in Clegg v. American Newsp. Union, 60 How. Pr. 498, 505. Decision in 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. criti- cised in Pomeroy on Rem. § 752, n. 4. v. Dickerson, 7 Abb. N. C. 466. Aff'd in 85 N. Y. 345; s. c, 39 Am. R. 663. 623 PERRY— PETERSOK T. Livingston, G • How. Pr. 404. Dis- ting'd (Several bills of costs) in Williams v. Cassady, 22 Hun, 180, 183. v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 6 Lang. 201. Aff'diu 61 N. Y. 214; s. c, 19 Am. R. 272. Decision in Id. disting'd (Change of title that avoids policv) in Hammel b. Queen's Ins. Co., 54 Wis'. '72 ; s. c, 41 Am. B. 1. v. Mitchell, 5 Den. 537. See (Surro- gate's jurisdiction) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2481, n. v. People, 8 WceHy Dig. 445. Rev'd in 86 N. T. 353 ; s. c., 62 How. Pr. 148. v. Perry, 2 Paige, 501 ; See Fry v. Fry ; People v. Winters. See (English law of marriage, how far applicable in this country) Campbell ». Crampfon, 8 Abb. N. C. 363, 374. Discussed in Bish. on Mar. 6 D. § 73, 6 ed. Said never to have been questioned (Decree of separation from bed and board) in McNamara v. McNamara, 2 Hilt. 547, 549. Ti Rollins, 56 How. Pr. 242. Subsequent affirmance but without opinion in 8G N. Y. 629. Decision in 56 How. Pr. disapproved (Reference of account for lawyer's services) in Merritt v. Vigelius, 28 Hun, 420. v. Tynen, 22 Barb. ^137. Disting'd (Sufficiency of reference to statute, in action for penalty) in Schoonmakor v. Brooks, 24 Hun, 553, 555. Person v. Civer, 28 How. Pr. 139. Rev'd in 29 How. Pr. 432. v. Grier, 66 N~. Y. 124; s. c, 23 Am. R. 35. Aff'g Person v. Pardee, 6 Hun, 477. See Hopkins v. Coburn. Decision in 66 If. T. applied (Privilege of non-resident witness from service of process) in Grafton ■b. Weeks, 7 Daly, 523, 525. Explained in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 390. Cited with Sanford v. Chase, 3 Cow. 381, and other cases as according with weight of authority, —in Re Healey, 53 Vt. 695. Collated with Sanford v. Chase, 3 Cow. 381 ; Norris v. Beach, 2 Johns. 294; Bours «. Tuckerman, 7 Id. 538, and other cases (Exemption of parties and witnesses from service of pro- cess) in Larried v. Griffin, U. 8. Cir. Ct. D. Mass. 14 Reporter, 258 ; b. c, 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 675. Cited as authority in Nichols «. Horton, V. S. Cir. Ct. JSTJ D. Iowa, 14 Fed. Rep. 329. v. Pardee. See Person v. Grier. ■ v. Warren, 14 Barb. 488. Followed (Action in name of committee of lunatic) in Fields v. Fowler, 2 Hun, 400. Persons, Ex parte, 1 Hill, 655. Followed (Extent of discretion of excise board) in People ex rel. Beller v. Wright, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 518, 520. Persons v. Snook, 40 Barb. 144. Discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 511, n. Compared with other cases (Gifts to heir as purchaser) in 2 Id. 617, n. 17. Persse & Brooks Paper Works v. Willet, 14 Abb. Pr. 119. Further decision on, the merits, in 19 Id. 416. Decision in 14 Id. disting'd with Low ». Graydon, Id. 448- Lawrence v. Jones, 15 Id. 110 (Motions for irregularity in practice, when to be marie) in Greenwood ». Marvin, 29 Hun, 99. Pern Iron Co., Ex parte, 7 Cow. 540. See (R«al property, how long bound by jud<*. ment docketed) Code Civ. Pro. § 1251. Peters' Case. See Goodell v. Jackson. Peters v. Delaplainc, 49 K Y. 365. Dis- ting'd (Limitation of actions, in case of con- tracts under seal) in Devinelle v. Edy, 68 How. Pr. 328. Explained (Compelling specific performance, in case of inability to obtain release of dower) in Sternberger v McGovern, 5G If. Y. 12, 18. v. Diossy. See Hess *. Beekman. v. McKeon, 4 Den. 546. See Bush v. Cole. Explained with Trull v. Granger, 8 N. Y. 115; Brinckcrhoff i>. Phelps, 24 Barb. 100, and the former case followed (Damages for breach of contract to convey land) in Con- ger v. Weaver, 20 If. Y. 140, 146. T. Newkirk, 6 Cow. 103. Criticised and disapproved with McMahon v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 463, and the for- mer said to have been impaired by Elmen- dorf v. Harris. 5 We7id. 521 (Necessity of notice of hearing, in case of arbitration) in Norton v. Gale, 95 111. 533; s. c, 35 Am. R. 173, with note including dissenting opin- ion which collates to the contrary Peters ». Newkirk, supra ; Undcrhill v. Van Cort- landt, 2 Johns. Ch. 239 ; Brown v. Lyddy, 11 Hun, 451 ; McMahon v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., supra; Collins «. Vanderbilt, 8 Bosw. 313. — — v. Porter, 60 How. Pr. 422. Reviewed with other cases (Extrinsic evidence to identify lands mentioned in will) in 46 Am. R. 72, n. v. Sandford, 1 Den. 224. Approved (Effect of judgment on individual partner's note given for firm debt) in Benson v. Paine, 2 Hilt. 552, 559. Peterson v. Chemical Bank, 27 How. Pr. .491 ; s. c, 2 Robt. 605. Aff'd in 32 N~. Y. 21 ; s. c, less fully, 29 How. Pr. 240. See Myers v. Davis. Decision in 32 N. Y. qualified (Power of foreign administrator to assign or collect) in Reynolds v. McMul- len, 55 Mich. 568, 575. Collated with other cases in Dial c. Gary, 14 So. Car. 573 ; s. c, 37 Am. R. 737; Wilkins v. Ellctt, 108 U. S. 259. '- v. Clark, 15 Jo7ms. 205. Disting'd (Mortgage as distinguished from conditional sale) in Morrison v. Brand, 5 Daly, 40, 45. Applied with Doy «. Dunham, 2 Johns.. Ch. 189 ; Brown v. Bomont, 8 Johns. 75, in Edrington «. -Harper, Z J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 353; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 145, with note. Denied (Mortgagee's right of action for cut- ting of timber) in Searle «. Sawyer, 127 Mass. 491; s. c, 34 Am. R. 425. See Thomas on Mart. 55, n. 2. v. Humphrey, 4 Abb. Pr. 394. Criti- cised and disapproved (Right to use_ of for- mer name of firm) in Reeves v. Denicke, 12 PETERSON— PHELPS. 623 Abb. Pr. K S. 03. Collated with other cases in 35 Am. R. 550, n. Explained in 2 Para, on Gontr. 257 bj, n. I. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 17 K Y. 449. Rev'g 4 E. D. Smith, 413. See Hoyt v. Thompson. Decision in 17 N. Y. followed (Power of common council to contract) in Peoples rel. Smith v. Flagg, 5 Aib. Pr. 237; Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 How. Pr. 5. Disting'd in Haughwort v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 348. Col- lated with other cases (Ratification of muni- cipal contracts) in 5 AVb.N. 0. 4i), n. v. Walsh, 1 Daly, 182. Said to be impaired by Cisco v. Kobers, 30 N. Y. 292 (Jurisdiction of State courts over violations of State pilotage laws, beyond boundary of State) in Wilson v. Mills, 10 Abb. Pr. 143. Petition of -. See name of party in alphabetical place in this table. Pctric v. Barckloy, 47 N. Y. 653. Compare (Seal as evidence of consideration) Code Civ. Pro. § 840. t. Fitzgerald, 1 Daly, 401. Disting'd (Effect of giving bail, as waiver of right to discharge from arrest, on ground of privil- ege) in Bacharach v. Lagrave, 4 SupUn. Ct. (T. & C.) 215, 217; which was rev'd as Adriance v. Lagrave, 59 N. Y. 110. v. Feeter. See Manufacturers' & Trad. B'k v. Hazard. Pettee v. Orser, 6 Bosw. 123. See Doming v. Colt; Eobinson v. Mcintosh. Explained (Power of partner to make assignment for benefit of creditors) in Durrill on Assign. § 84, 4 ed. Pcttengill v. Mather, 16 Abb. Pr. 399. See (Satisfaction of judgmeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §1261, n. Pettigrew v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 17 Row. Pr. 492. Disting'd (Correction of judg- ment) in Jtockwell v. Carpenter, 25 Hun, 529, 531, and see dissenting opinion p. 535. Pettis v. Pier, 1 Hun, 622 ; fuller mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 690. Pettit V. Shepard, 32 N. Y. 97. Disting'd (Parol evidence to explain language in deed) in Green v. Collins, 86 Id. 254. v. Shepherd, 5 Paige, 493; s. c, 28 Aril. Dec. 437, 441, with note, wherein it is shown to be regarded as a leading authority both in N. Y. and elsewhere (Jurisdiction of equity to remove and prevent clouds on title). See Hamilton v. Cummings; Living- ston v. Livingston. Disting'd in Ilotchkiss v. Elting, 36 Barb. 38, 47. See (Real prop- erty, how lung bound by judgment dock- eted) Code Civ. Pro. § 1251. Petty v. Tooker, 21 IT. Y. 267. Aff'g Parish of Bellport o. Tooker, 29 Barb. 256. See Fields. Field; Robertson v. Bullions. See cases cited (Diversion of church property , to maintenance of faith other than that of founders) in 8 Am. R. 283, n.; 12 Am. L. Pep. K 8. 361, n. Penguet, Matter of, 5 Hun, 434. AfI'd in 67 N. Y. 441. Both decisions followed (Assessment as validated by certificate of commissioners) in Matter of Marsh, 21 Hun, 582. Decision in 5 Id. approved in Casey v. Mayor, . Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 45 Super. Ct. {J. S S.) 511 ; Petition of Santiago Lima, 77 N. Y. 170. Criticised in 28 Alb. L. J. 322 as contrary to cases there cited. Reviewed and explained with Marsha. City of Brook- lyn, 59 Jf. Y. 280 ; Stewart v. Palmer, 74 Id, 183; Merritt®. Village of Portchester, 71 Id. 309; Horns. Town of New Lots, 83 Id. 100 j Matter of Lima, 77 Id. 170 ; Wilkes «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 79 Id. 621 ; Newman v. Supervisors of Livingston, 45 Id. 677 ; Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. v. Erie Co., 48 Id. 97; Bank of Common- wealth v. Mayor, 43 Id. 1 84 ; Flower v. Lance, 59 Id. 603, in Bruecher v. Village of Portchester, 31 Hun, 553. See City of Grand Rapids v. Blakely, 40 Mich. 367; s. c, 29 Am. R. 539. Doctrine discussed in 17 Alb. L. J. 120. v. McCormaek, 7 Hun, 300. Compare (Verification, how and by whom made) Code Civ. Pro. § 525. Compare also (At- tachment of bonds, notes, &c.) Id. § 048. Peyton v. Hallett, 1 Cai. 363. See Cowper- thwaite v. Sheffield. Approved and applied with Townsend v. Fenners, 3 Johns. 83 (Effect of order drawn on agent, as assign- ment) in Debesse v. Napier, 1 MeC. {So. ■Car.) 106 ; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 658. Pfohl v. Simpson, 50 How. Pr, 341. Affd by General Term, and appeal from that dismissed in 59 JK Y. 174. Another pro- ceeding in 74 Id. 137. See Weeks v. Love. Decision in 74 N. Y. disting'd (Separate actions to enforce stockholder's liability) iu Van Wagencn *. Clark, 22 Hun, 497, 499. Phelps v. Garrow, 8 Paige, 322 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 688. Referred to as authority (Evidence of intent, to vary effect of written instrument) in Trustees v. Otis, 85 111. 181. v. Gebhard Fire Ins. Co. See Herki- mer v. Rice. v. Green. See Wilkin v. Wilkin. - v. Hawley, 3 Lans. 100. Aff'd in 52 AC Y. 23. See also (Liability of county as to maintaining bridge) Ensign v. Supervisors of Livingston, 25 Hun, 20. v. John son, 8 Johns. 54. Followed (What sort of covenant may operate as bar to action on promissory note) in Haskins v. 621 PIIELPS-PIIILLIP. Lombard, 10 Me. 140; s.' c, 33 Am. Dec. 645, 649. v. McDonald. 20 K Y. 82. Disting'd (Practice on requests to find) in Meyer v. Amidon, 45 Id. 169, 173. Criticised in Lefflere. Field, 33 How. Pr. 388. Explained in Manley v. Ins. Co. of No. Am., 1 Lans. 22. t. Nowlen, 72 K Y. 39 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 93, with note. See Ellis v. Duncan; Pickard v. Collins. Followed (Liability for damage resulting from act lawfully done) in Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, S3 JSf. Y. 178, 190. Applied with Pickard r. Collins, 23 Barb. 444; Iliff «. Youmans, 80 K Y. 324, in Heywood v. Tillson, 75 Me. 225, 235. See 21 Alb. L. J. 284. Com- mented on in Wood on Nuts. 2 ed. jf 880, n. 2. Compare (Sale of water) Bram v. Marfcll, Engl. Ct. App. 20 Am. L. Keg. N. 8. 93, with note. v. People, Hun, 42S. AfTd in 72 N. Y. 3G5. For proceedings at Oyer and Terminer see People v. Phelps, 49 IIow. Pr. 462. Decision in linn overruled in effect (Sufficient ground of challenge) in Greenfield v. People, 5 Abb. JV. O. 1. See cases cited in 20 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 124, n. Compare also Points of Law in Guitcau's Case. 82. (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1881.) v. Phelps, 28 Barb. 121. AfTd with modification, as Phelps v. Pond, in 23 AT. Y. 69. See Kilpatrick v. Johnson. Decis- ion in 23 N. Y. applied (Disposition of in- come of fund) in Ellingwood v. Beare, 59 How. Pr. 503, 500. Approved (Discretion given to executors, as affecting conversion of realty into personalty) in Graham v. Liv- ingston, 7 Hun, 14. Applied (Charitable trust,. as affected by rule against perpetui- ties) in Levy v. Levy, 33 iV. Y. 128. Fol- lowed in Bascom v. Albertson, 34 Id. 584. See Bun-ill v. Boardman, 43 Id. 260. De- cision in 28 Barb, collated with other cases in Gerard Titles to Heal Est. 301. v. Piatt, 50 Barb. 430. Compare (Right of administrator to set aside fraudu- lent conveyance by iutestate) Barton v. Hosner, 24 Hun, 467, 469. v. Pond. See Phelps v. Phelps. T. Racey, 5 Daly, 235. Afl'd in 60 K Y. 10; s. c, 19 Am. R. 140. Compare (State law, when void as infringing on power of Congress to regulate inter-State commerce) State v. Saunders, 19 Fans. 127; s. c, 27 Am. R. 98. Decision in 60 N. Y. disting'd on ground of peculiarities in N. Y. statute, — (Application of game laws to game killed in another State) in Common- wealth v. Hall, 128 Mass. 410 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 387, 390. v. Vischer, 50 N. Y. 69; s. c, 10 Am. R. 433. Sec Dean«. Hall; Hall v. New- comb ; Herrick v. Carman ; Moore v. Cross. Disapproved (Liability of irregular indor- sed) in Burton*. Hamford, 10 W. Va. 470; s. c, 27 Am. R. 576. Applied in Thacheru. Stevens, 46 Conn.. 601; s. c, 33 Am. R. 39. Plienix Ins. Co. v. Church, 50 How. Pr 493. Bev'd in 81 2V. Y. 218; s. c, 37 Am R. 494 ; 59 How. Pr. 293. Previous decis- ion in 5G Id. 29. Decision in 81 N. Y. dis- ting'd with Lawrence v. Clark, 36 Id.' 128 (Title of holder of negotiable paper, when good by estoppel) in Fleischman v. Stern, 90 Id. 110. Philbrick v. Dallett, 12 Abb. Pr. S. 8. 419; s. c, 43 How. Pr. 419, and with points of counsel, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 370. Fol- lowed (What constitutes bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in Justh v. Nat. Bank of Commonwealth, 36 Id. 273, 277. Philips, Matter of, 43 Barb. 108; s. o., 19 Abb. Pr. 281. Collated with other cases (Petitioning creditors under two-thirds act) in JJisho2> on Assign. §21. Philips v. Belden, 2 Edw. 1. See Murray v. Toland ; Young v. Hill. Cited with ap- proval (What is an account stated) in Lock- wood v. Thornc, 11 K Y. 170. Followed in Towsley v. Dcnison, 45 Barb. 490. Dis- approved in Anding v. Lew, 57 Miss. 51 ; s. c, 34 Am. R. 439. v. Brainard, 2 Cow. 440. Further de- cision- as Brainard v. Phillips, 4 Id. 20. v. Hawley, 6 Johns. 129. Followed with Morgan v. Dyer, 9 Id. 255 (Power to set aside judgment entered at previous term) in Reynolds v. Stansbury, 20 Ohio, 344; s. c, 55 Am. Dee. 459. v. Peters, 21 Barb. 352. Overruled (Promise that removes bar of statute of lim- itations) in Wakeman v. Sherman, 9 N. Y. 85. T. Rose, 8 Johns. 392. Followed (Ac- tion of covenant not maintainable on con- tract compounded of specialty and parol) in Vicary «. Moore, 2 Watts (Pa.) 451 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 323, with note. T. Wickham, 1 Paige, 590. Explained as not authority (Right of corporation, without special authority to delegate right of voting by proxy) in Taylor v. Griswold, 2 Green (K J.) 222 ; s. c, 27 Am: Dee. 33, 40, with extended note. Also said (p. 57) to be in ■ harmony with English cases of Pemberton v. Alien, Davis, 42; Attorney- general v. Scott, 1 Ves. 413, in denying such right to be a general right. Quoted in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 128, 11 ed. Followed with Slee e. Bloom, 5 Johns. Ch. 366 (Dis- solution of corporation as caused by loss of integral part) in Lehigh Bridge Co. «. Le- high Coal & N. Co., 4 Rawle {Pa.) 9 ; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. Ill, with note. Quoted and discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 770, 11 ed. Phillip t. Gallant, 1 Hun, 528; s. c, more fully, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 618. Modi- fied and aff d in 62 N. Y. 256. See Champ- lin v. Rowley. Decision in 02 K Y. colla- ted with Johnson «. Do Peyster, 50 Id. 660; Glacius v. Black, 50 Id. 145; Smith v. Bradv, 17 Id. 173 ; Nolans c. Whitney. 88 Id. 584; Thomas v. Fleury. 26 Id. 26; PHILLIPS. 625 Bowery National B'k v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 Id. 336; King v. Knapp, 59 Id. 462, and many other cases (Substantial per- formance of contracts) in 19 Cent. L. J. 442. Phillips, Matter of, 60 JV. Y. 16. Rev'g Phillips v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hun, 212 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 484. De- cision in 60 JV. Y. disting'd (Vacating as- sessment when prior one has been ]jaid) in Matter of Welsh, 30 Hun, 372. Followed (Effect of failure to publish resolution, in assessment proceedings) in Matter of Little, 60 JV. Y. 343; which rev'd 3 Hun, 215, which see. Disting'd in Matter of Ander- son, 60 JV. Y. 457, 461. Disting'd and qualified (What is repavement) in Matter of Burmeister, 9 Hun, 613, 615; but see Same, 56 How. Pr. 418, 425. Disting'd in Matter of Grube, 81 JV Y. 139; which rev'd 20 Hun, 303, which see. Applied in Matter of Bel- mont, 12 Id. 562 ; Matter of Burke, 62 JV Y. 224, 229. Applied (" Party aggrieved" by improper assessment) in Matter of Wal- ter, 75 JV Y. 357. Disting'd in Matter of Gantz, 85 Id. 536, 539. Decision in 2 Hun followed in Williamson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Id. 66, 69. Applied in Pier v. Fond du Lac County, 53 Wis. 421, 428. Phillips v. Benedict, 33 Barb. 655. See other cases collected (Testimony of parties) in 1 Abb. If. O. 364, n. t. Berger, 2 Barb. 608. Aff'd in 8 Id. 527. v. Berick, 16 Johns. 136; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 299. Disting'd (Divisibility of actions) in O'Dougherty v. Remington Paper Co., 81 If. Y. 496, 499 ; Jex v. Jacob, 1 Abb. N. O. 459 ; Derby v. Hartman, 3 Daly, 461 ; Dunc- kel v. Wiles, 11 JV" Y. 426. Applied in Secor*. Sturgis, 2 Abb. Pr. 72; which was aff'd in 16 N. Y. 553, which see; Staples v. Goodrich, 21 Barb. 318 ; Mcintosh v. Zown, 49 Id. 556 ; Hale v. Andrus, 6 Cow. 231 ; Hugbes v. Alexander, 5 Duer, 492 ; Butler t>. Wright, 2 Wend. 375; Stevens v. Lock- wood, 13 Id. 646 ; Law v. McDonald, 62 How. Pr. 340, 343. v. Conklin, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 619. Aff'd in 58 JV. Y. 682. ■ t. Cook, 24 Wend. 389. See Scrugham v. Carter. Approved (Right to take part- nership property for debts of individual part- ner) in Smith v. Orser, 42 JV Y. 132. Cited approvingly in 1 Pars, on Oontr. 209, n. i; 3 Kent Com. 65, n. Followed with Stief v. Hart, 1 If. Y. 20 ; Bank of Lansing- burgh v. Crary, 1 Barb. 542 ; as applicable to interest of mortgagor of chattels in Cot- ton v. Marsh, 3 Wise. 242. Compare Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 693, n. v. Covert, 7 Johns. 1. Criticised (Crea- tion of tenancy at will) in Stedman v. Mc- intosh, 1 lred. (If. C.) 291 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 122, with extended note. Quoted in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, % 384. v. Gorhaiu, 17 JV Y. 240. See Reubens v. Joel. Explained and applied ( Joinder of I. -40 legal and equitable grounds of relief in same action) in N. Y. Ice Co. v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. 418. Reviewed with other cases in Genet v. Rowland, 45 Barb. 569. Followed in Sheehan v. Hamilton, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 214; Lattin v. McCarty, 41 JV. Y. 110. Disting'd in Schnitzer «. Cohen, 7 Hun, P67. Explained in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 639. Ex- plained (Distinction between legal and equitable actions) in Marsh v. Benson, 11 Abb. Pr. 247. Explained and limited (Equitable defenses) in Cramer v. Benton, 60 Barb. 216, 227. Followed (Anticipating defense in complaint) in Wade v. Rusher, 4 Bosw. 545. v. Hall. See Bristol v. Burt. v. Hebband, 5 Alb. L. J. 185. Rev'd, it seems, as Phillips v. Hebberd, in 61 JV. Y. 614. v. Higgins, 7 Lans. 314. Aff'd, it seems, in this opinion, in 55 If. Y. 663. v. McCombs, 53 If. Y. 494. Applied (Extrinsic evidence of testator's intention) in Reynolds v. Robinson, 82 Id. 103, 108. See also Boughton v. Flint, 5 Abb. JV. C, 215 and Id. 216, n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hun. 212 ; s. c, 4 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 484. Rev'd as Matter of Phillips, in 60 If. Y. 16. v. People, 57 Barb. 353. Affd with modifications, as People v. Phillips, 42 JV Y. 200. Decision in 57 Barb, confirmed (Proper contents of return to writ of er- ror) in Manke v. People, 74 JV. Y. 415, 421. v. Peters. See Soulden v. Van Rensse- laer. v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 57 Barb. 644. Rev'd in 49 JV. Y. 177. Decis- ion in Id. applied (Contributory negligence in railroad passenger) in Gonzales %. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 50 How. Pr. 130. Disting'd in Dale v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (27. & G.) 687. Dis- ting'd with Clark v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 36 JV. Y. 307; Ward ». Central Park R. R. Co., 11 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 411; Solomon v. Central Park R. R. Co., 1 Sweeney, 298, in Nolan v. Brooklyn City & Newtown R. R. Co., 87 JV. Y. 63. v. Sell i fie r, 7 Lans. 347; s. c, more fully, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 101 ; 64 Barb. 54§. See (Waiver of recording of assignment of certificate of sale by sheriff) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1474, n. v. Simmons, 20 How. Pr. 342; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. 287. See cases collected (Liability of husband to wife's attorney in divorce) in 11 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 285. Also cases col- lated in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 293. v. Suydain, 54 Barb. 153; s. c, with points of counsel, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 289. Criticised and disting'd (Right to amend pleading, when waived by noticing cause for argument or trial) in Clifton v. Brown, 27 Hun, 231. v. Thompson, 1 Johns. Ch. 181. Fol- 626 PHILLIPS— PIEE. lowed (Retaining suit, to give damages) in Burling v. King, 66 Barb. G32, 643. Re- viewed with other cases in Beck 1>. Allison, 4 Daly, 421, 452 ; Wiswall v. McGowan, Hoffm. 131. Disting'd in Hatch ». Cobb, 4 Johns. Ch. 560. Cited approvingly with German v. Machin, 6 Paige, 289, 293 (Doc- trine of past performance of parol contracts not to be extended) in Gangwer v. Fry, 17 Pa. St. 491; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 578. Cited with Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt, 1 Johns. Ch. 273, in Green v. Drummond, 31 Md. 71 ; s. c, 1 Am. P. 14, 20, as establishing the doctrine. — ■ — T. , 2 Johns. Ch. 418 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 535. See Moses v. Murgatroyd. , T. Trull, 11 Johns. 486. Quoted and commented on (Arrest by private person) in Bennett & H. Gas. on Grim. L. 149. t. Wheeler, 2 Bun, 603; s. c, 16 Alb. Pr. If. S. 242 ; 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 306. Aff d in 67 If. Y. 104. Decision in Id. fol- lowed (Motions, where to be made) in Cur- tis v. Greene, 28 Hun, 294. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 769, n. v. Wooster, 36 If. Y. 412. Quoted (Effect of illegal conveyance as between parties) in Wait on Fraud. Gone. § 401. Fhinney v. Broschell, 19 Run, 116. Aff'd in 58 How. Pr. 492; s. c, 80 N. Y. 544. Decision in Id. applied (Form of order for publication) in Mojarrieta v. Saenz, Id. 554. Phipps t. Carman, 23 Hun, 150. Affd in 84 if. Y. 650, but without opinion. See Quackenbush «. Johnson; Waters v. Shep- herd. Phoenix v. Baldwin, 14 Wend. 62. Followed (Testimony Jaken by commission) in Brad- ley v. Geiselman, 17 III. 572 ; Frink v. Pot- ter, Id. 408. Dissented from, in Hammock v. McBride, 6 -Cobb. (Geo.) 183. v. Dey, 5 Johns. 412. See Verplank . Ryan, 25 Id. 320 ; Winslow «. Clark, 47 Id. 261 ; Madison Ave. Bapt. Ch. o. Oliver St. Bapt. Ch., 73 Id. 82; Gross «. Welwood, 90 Id. 638 (Rights of mortgagee in possession) in Howell v. Leavitt, 95 Id. 617. Questioned in Fort v. Burch, 6 Barb. 60, 76. v. Wardell, 2 Edw. 47. Aff'd in 6 Paige, 268; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 430, with note containing citations of the case on the points decided. Decision in 5 Paige, approved (Renewal of lease obtained by one having special interest in former lease) in Mitchell v. Reed, 61 If. Y. 123, 130. Pickard v. Collins, 23 Barb. 444. See Fish v. Dodge; Phelps v. Nowlen. Applied (Liability for injury arising from use of one's land) in Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 If. Y. 45. Relied on with Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. 261 ; Delhi v. Youmans, 50 Barb. 316 ; Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 If. Y. 45 (Lia- bility for malicious act lawfully done) in Heywood v. Tillson, 75 Me. 225; s. c, 46 Am. R. 373, 380. Quoted in Wood on Ifuis. 2 ed. § 7. Quoted and discussed (Smell as nuisance) in Id. § 567. t. Yencer, 21 Hun, 403. Followed ^Effect of settlement of action on attorney's lien for costs) in Wilber v. Baker, 24 Id. 24, 26. Pickersgill v. Read, 5 Hun, 170. Further proceeding in 7 Id. 636. Pickett v. Leonard, 34 If. Y. 175. Fol- lowed (Payment that removes bar of statute of limitations) in Smith v. Ryan, 39 Super. CI (J. & S.) 489, 498 ; which was aff d in 66 If. Y. 352, which see. v. People, 8 Hun, 83. Aff d, it seems, in 67 If. Y. 609, but without opinion, Pier v. George, 14 Hun, 568. Further pro- ceedings in 17 Id. 207, and in 20 Id. 210 ; which latter was rev'd in 86 If. Y. PIER— PIGGOT. 627 613 on authority of Pier v. Hanmore, Id. 95, a decision based on same transactions. De- cision in Id. followed (Liability of trustees for making false report) and Bonnell v. Griswold, 80 Id. 128; re-affd in Bonnell v. Griswold, 89 Id. 122. — v. Hanmore. See Pier «. George. Pierce v. Brown, 4:0' Super Ct. (J. & 8.) 398. Mem. of another proceeding in Id. 549. Aft'd, it seems, but without opinion in 68 N. Y. 622. Decision in Id. explained (Purchasing goods by deceit) in Moalc's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 529. v. Crafts, 12 Johns. 90. See Arnold «. Crane ; Crandall v. Bradley. Applied (Right of action for money had and received) in Causidiere v. Beers, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 337. Followed in Ela v. Ameri- can, &c. Express Co., 29 Wis. 611; s. c, 9 Am. R. 619; Chase®. Buruham, 13 Verm. 447; s. c, 37 Am. Deo. 602. Denied in Kennedy v. Carpenter, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 34-9, et seq. Applied to action of debt against indorser, in Onondaga Co. B'k v. Bates, 3 Hill, 55 ; against maker, in Willmarth v. Crawford, 10 Wend. 343. Explained in "Wilson v. Scott, 3 Lans. 312 ; Butterworth v. Gould, 41 A 7 ". Y. 462. Applied (Note, &c. as evidence under general money count) in Carter v. Hope, 10 Barb. 182 ; Murray v. Judah, 6 Cow. 493; Hays v. Phelps, 1 Sandf. 67. ■ v. Dart, 7 Cow. 609. See Dygert v. Schenck; Hart v. Mayor, &c. of Albany. Quoted and discussed (Private action for public nuisance) in Wood on Nkiis. 2 ed. § 660. Discussed in 1 Add. on Torts 298, n. 2, Wood's ed. T. Delamater, 1 Sf. Y. 17. See Delama- ■ ter v. Pierce. Explained (Disqualification of judge, by means of former connection with case) in Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 JT. Y. 553. Collated with Pi3tor v. Brundutt, 42 How. Pr. 5 ; McLaren v. Charrier, 5 Paige, 530; Ten Eick v. Simpson, 11 Id. 177; Peo- ple v. Clark, 21 Barb. 214, and other au- thorities in 12 Weehly L. Bui. 5. v. Drake. See Wilson t>. Force. r. Hubbard. See Gold «. Bissell. t. Kearney. See Robertson «. Smith. • v. Keator, 9 Hun, 532. Aff d in 70 A 7 ". Y. 419 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 612. See "Wood- ward v. Paine. -: — v. Kingsmill, 25 Barb. 631. See (Claim to property attached in action in justices' court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2922, n. — - v. Kinney, 59 Barb. 56. Quoted and discussed (Duties of dam-owners) in Wood on NuU. 2 ed. § 349. v. Pierce, 9 Hun, 50. Aff'd in 71 N. Y. 154; s. c, 27 Am. R. 22, with note. v. , 25 Barb. 243. See (Action for use and occupation under deed) 6 Am. L. Rev. 17. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 352. T. Schenck, 3 Hill, 28. See Baker v. Wheeler. Followed (Test of bailment) in Hasbrouck v. Boutori, 60 Barb. 413, 416. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 133, n. v. Sheldon, 13- Johns. 191. Overruled, it seems (Remedy against constable for fail- ure to serve execution) in Piatt v. Sherry, 7 Wend. 236. v. Thomas. See Miller v. Eagle Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Tuttle, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 139. Statement in 4 Id. iii that this decision was rev'd in Ct. of App. seems to be an error. Decision in 58 A 7 ". Y. 650 was in another ac- tion of same name. See cases, &c , in Ct. of App. in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. See also "Errata" in 59 N. Y. 760. Another decision in 51 How. Pr. 193,-and still another in 53 Barb. 155 ; which was aff d, it seems, in 57 -AT Y. 636, but without opinion. Decision in 51 How. Pr. followed (Setting off judgment appealed from) in Hardt i>. Schulting, 24 Hun, 346. y. Van Dyke, 6 Hill, 613. See Hoff- man v. Carow. Explained and applied (Re- plevin without previous demand) in Tal- cott v. Belding, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 84, 93. Followed in Twinam v. Swart, 4 Zans.263, 268. Reviewed with other cases (Necessity of demand in case of wrongful taking) in dissenting opinion of Johnson, J., in Ward v. Ritt, Hamilton Co. O. Hist. Ct. 7 Weekly Cin. L. Bui. 130. Pierrepout v. Barnard, 5 Barb. 364. Rev'd in 6 N. Y. 279. See Bank of Lansingburgh i>. Crary ; Bennett v. Scutt. Decision iu N. Y. disting'd (Effect of parol license to do acts on land) in Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 Id. 31, 41. Compare Babcock v. Utter, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 48. Cited as author- ity with Mumford ». Whitney, 15 Wend. 380 ; Smith v. Benson, 1 Hill, 176 ; Ben- nett ii. Scutt, 18 Barb. 347, in Owens v. Lewis, 46 lnd. 488; s. c, 15 Am. R. .295, 320. Commented on in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 593. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 117, n. 5 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Edwards, 24 How. Pr. 419 ; s. c, more fully, 25 N. Y. 128. Followed (An- nuity payable from income) in Delaney v. Van Aulen, 21 Hun, 274 ; which was rev'd in 84 N. Y. 16, which see. Disting'd (Demonstrative legacies) in Bushnell e. Drinker, 5 Red/. 581. ' Piersou v. Hooker, 3 Johns. 68; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 467. Applied (Effect of release by one of persons having joint interest) in People ex rel. Eagle 1>. Keyser, 28 N. Y. 228. Examined with other cases in McBride v. Hagan, 1 Wend. 336. v. People, 18 Hun, 239. Afi'd in 79 A 7 ! Y. 424 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 524. See Whiting v. Barney. Both decisions examined with other cases (Privileged communications) in Pcarsall v. Ellmer, 5 Red/. 181, 185, 189. Decision in 79 W. Y. disting'd in Grattau v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 Id. 281, 301. Piggot t. Mason, 1 Paige, 412. Explained (Distinction between sub-lease and assign- G28 PIKE— PITCHEE. ment) in Constantino v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, 247. Reviewed in 1G Am. L. Rev. 29. Pike v. Butler, 4 Barb. 650. Rcv'd in 4 N. Y. 360. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of incomplete performance of contract) in Pullman v. Corning 9 Id. 98; Oakley ■». Morton, 11 Id. 32. v. Irwin, 1 Sandf. 14. Approved (In- validity of verbal acceptance) in Walton v. Mandeville, 56 Iowa, 597, 600. v. Johnson, 47 JT. Y 1. See (Notice of appeal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. v. Nash, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 610. See to the contrary (Tow boats as carriers) Bus- sey v. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co., 24 La. Ann. 165; s. c, 13 Am. R. 120. And see Abb. Tr. ^"o. 561. v. Van Wormer, 5 How. Pi: 171. Fur- ther decision in 6 Id. 99. See Getty v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Decision in 5 How. Pr. applied with Caldwell v. Raymond, 2 Abb. JT. G. 196 (Necessity for innuendo in action or indictment for libel) in People v. Isaacs, 1 JV". Y. Grim. R. 148. Pilling' v. Pilling, 45 Barb. 80. Disapproved (Practice on appeal from decree of surrogate to Supreme Court) in Johnson v. Hicks, 1 Lans. 150. Pillow v. Bushnell, 4 Bow. Pr. 9 ; s. c, 5 Barb. 156. Disting'-d (Husband and wife as witnesses) in Marsh v. Potter, 30 Id. 500, 517, 521. Piuckney v. Hagadorn, 1 Buer, 90. Said in 14 AT. Y. 590 to have been aff' d by Ct. of App. in 1854. v. Hagerman, 4 Lans. 374. Aff d in 53 ir. y. 3i. v. Pinckney, 1 Bradf. 269. Applied (Effect of limitation over after absolute power of disposition given to primary leg- atee) in Cohen v. Cohen, 4 Red/. 48, 50. Pindar v. Black, 4 How. Pr. 95. Commen- ted on (Affidavit to obtain arrest) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 59. v. Continental Ins. Co., 38 K Y. 364. Followed (Construction of word ' ' hazard- ous " in fire policy) in Pindar v. Resolute Fire Ins. Co., 47 Id. 114; Reynolds v. Com- merce Fire Ins. Co., Id. 597. v. Resolute Ins. Co., 47 XT. Y. 114. See Brown v. Cattaraugus County Mut. Ins. Co. Explained (Effect of acceptance of pol- icy with knowledge of its terms) in Mailers. Hibernia Ins. Co., 67 K Y. 289. Disting'd in Van Schoick v. Niag. Fire Ins. Co., 68 Id. 441. Questioned in % Am. Bee. 364, n. Disting'd (Evidence to explain lan- guage of policy) iu Bowman v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 2 Su'p'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 264. Pinder v. Morris, 3 Gai. 165. Followed (Attorney's lien as subject to set-off) in Sanders v. Gillett, 8 Daly, 184. Applied with Martin v. Hawks, 15 Johns. 403; Nicoll «. Nicoll, 16 Wend. 446 (Extent of attorney's lien) in Andrews v. Morse, 12 GonnAU; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 752, 754, with note. t. Stoothoff, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 433. Followed (Right to costs, as determined by question of justice's jurisdiction) in Whit- ney v. Daggett, 6 Abb. iV. G. 434, 436. Pine v. Rickert, 21 Barb. 469. Collated with other cases (Fraud in making assign- ment for creditors) in Bishop on Assign. $ 226. Discussed in Bun-ill on Assign. 8 369, 4 ed. B Pinkerton t. Bailey, 8 Wend. 600. Disting'd (Effect of implied promise to pay) inChil- cott v. Trimble, 13 Barb. 509. Disting'd (New promise to pay debt, to whom avail- able) in Clark v. Atkinson,2 R D. Smith,\\5. Pinneo v. Higgius, 12 Abb. Pr. 334. Ap- proved and followed (Validity of comprom- ise between debtor and creditor) in Gilmour v. Thompson, 6 Daly, 95, 97, 100. Fol- lowed in Bean v. Amsinck, 10 Blatchf. G. Ct. 361, 371. Pinney v. Gleason, 5 Wend. 393 ; s. c, 21 •Am. Bee. 223, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently cited with approval in N. Y. See Clark v. Pinney ; Gleason v. Pinney. Disting'd (Effect of contract to pay in specific articles) in B'k of Prince Edward's Island v. Trum- bull, 4 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 86 '; Sternberger ». McGovern, 4 Daly, 464 ; Dowdney v. Mc- Cullom, 59 JT. Y. 371. Criticised and dis- ting'd in Thomas v. Murray, 32 Id. 616. Applied in Kimpton s. Bronson, 45 Barb. 629 ; Fletcher -o. Derrickson, 3 Bosw. 188 ; Rockwells. Rockwell, 4 Hill, 165 ; Rodes v. Bronson, 34 N 1 . Y. 652. Followed in Blackmer v. Holmes, 13 Weehly Big. 424; Sims v. Cox, 40 Ga. 76 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 560. Reviewed with other cases iu 21 Am. Dec. 424, n. Included in Sedgw. Lead. Cos. on Dama. 481 ; Brackett v. McNair, 14 Johns. 170 ; being also included at p. 99. Pintard v. Tackington, 10 Johns. 104. Fol- lowed with McNair v. Gilbert, 3 Wend. 344 (Recovery on lost note) in Lazell v. Lazell, 12 Vt. 443; s. c, 36 Am. Bee. 352, with note. Followed as maintaining a rational doctrine and one prevailing in the U. S., — in Chaudrpn v. Hunt, 3 Stew. (Ala ) 31 ; s. c, 20 Am. Bee. 60, 64, with note. Included with notes in 1 Red/. & B. Lead. Cos. on B. o/Exch. 671. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §1917, n. Piper v. N. V. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 290. Aff'd in 56 N, Y. 630. Decision in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) followed (Safety of railroad switches) in Salters v. Delaware, &c. Canal Co., 5 Id. 559. Pirnie, Matter of, Tuck. 119. See Valen- tine ». Valentine. Opposed (Commissions of one who is executor and trustee) in Meeker v. Crawford, 5 Red/. 450, 462. Ex- plained in Matter of Carman, 3 Id. 46, 51. Pitcher v. Hennessey, 48 AT. Y. 415. Refer- red to (Extent of rule denying relief in equity against mistakes, of law) in 10 Am. Bee. 327, »., as in harmony with Sparks v. Pittman, 51 Miss. 511, and other oases. PITCHES— PLACE. 629 v. Livingston, 4 Johns. 1 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dei-.. 229 ; 3 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 723, with brief note. See Staats v. Ten Eyck. Reviewed at length and followed with Staats ». Ten Eyck. 3 Gai. Ill ; Tanner . Higgins, 13 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 297, 299. y. Chesebroufrh, 4 Sun, 577. Affd in 03 If. Y. 315. y. Greenman, 4 Hun, 660 ; s. c, re- ported in 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 681. v. Mc\lvaiufl Daly, 266. Affd in 38 If. Y. 96. Both decisions applied (Dis- charge of indorser, &c. by agreement for extension of time) in Eisner v. Keller, 3 Daly, 493 ; Maier i>. Canavan, 8 Id. 275. Decision iu 38 If. Y. applied in Pomeroy v. Tanner, 70 Id. 550. Disting'd in Auburn City Nat. B'k v. Hunsiker, 72 Id. 256. Applied (Agreement for extension of time, when implied) in Grocers' B'k v. Penfield, 7 Hun, 282. .v. Minster, 65 If. Y. 89. See Hosley v. Black. Applied (Effect of testimony of 030 PLACE— PLOEDTTERLL. witness who is shown to have testified falsely) in Deering v. Metcalf, 74 N. Y. 501, 506. v. Union Express Co., 2 Hilt, 1 9. Col- lated with Mynard v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co, 71 N. Y. 180; Tiemey v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 76 Id. 305 ; McAndiew v. Whitlock, 52 Id. 40; Marshall v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 48 Id. 660 ; Cooper v. Kane, 19 Wend. 386; Hollister .v. Nowlen, 19 Id. 238, and other cases (Liability of carrier of perishable property) in 31 Am. JR. 567, n. Commented on (Distinction between carrier and forwarder) in 2 Redf. Am. Railw. Cas. 83. Planck v. Schermerhorn, 3 Barb. Ch. 644. Quoted (Who may make assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. §61, n. 6, 4ed. Plank v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 1 Sufm. Ct. (T. & O.) 319. Aff'd in 60 N. Y. 607. See Driscoll v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Gibson v. Erie R'y Co. Decision in 60 N. Y. explained and disting'd (Risks assumed by employee) in De Forest v. Jew- ett, 23 Hun, 490 ; which was aff'd in 88 N. Y. 269, which see; Jones v. Roach, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 248, 255. Plant t. Long Island E. R. Co., 10 Bart. 29. See Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. Explained (Distinction between use of city streets and of country highways) in Kelsey v. King, 33 How. Br. 39, 49. Plate v. N.*T. Central R. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 472. Applied (Liability for continuing injury to land, caused by use for railroad purposes) in Henderson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 Id. 423,435. Platner v. Best. See Brockway v. Kinney. - — t. Platner, 78 H. Y. 90. Followed (Remedy against evidence admitted without exception) in Pontius v. People, 82 Id. 339 347 Plato v. Reynolds, 27 JV. Y. 586. Disting'd (Refusal to accept draft, as excusing pre- sentment for payment) in Pendleton v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co., U. S. Cir. Ct, W. D. Term. 12 Reporter, 456. Included in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 309. Piatt v. Crawford, 8 Abb. Pr. H. S. 297. Explained (Allegation of receivership in action by receiver) in High, on lieeeiv. § 237, n. 3. v. Hibbard, 7 Cow. 497. See Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. iff Co;, Roberts v. Turner. Commented on and disapproved (Burden of proof as to negligence, in case of warehouseman) in Foote v. Storrs, 2 Barb. 329. Explained and applied in Bush v. Miller, 13 Id. 489. Examined at length with other authorities in Arent v. Squire, 1 Daly, 350. See Clafliu v. Meyer, 75 N. Y. 263 ; Coleman 1). Livingston, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 39. Collated with Bushu. Miller, 13 Barb. 481 ; Arent v. Squire, 1 Daly, 347, and other cases in 24 Am. Dec. 150, n., the doctrine being said to bo well estab- lished in N. Y. Compare Gres. Eq. Ev. 25. Commented on in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 902, n. 6. Explained in Ang. on Carr § 61, n. 5, 5 ed. v. Hunter, 11 Weekly Dig. 300 ; mem. s. c, 23 Hun, 291. Modified in 86 N. Y. 641. v. Johnson, 15 Johns. 213; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 233. See Palmer v. Mulligan. Fol- lowed (Water rights as affected by priority of occupation) in Martin v. Bigelow, 2 Aik- kens (Vt.) 284; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 696. with . note ; Dumont v. Kellogg, 29 Mich, 420; s. c, 18 Am. R. 102. Followed with Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Cat. 307, in Omel- vany v. Jaggers, 2 Hill (So. Car.) 634 ; s_ • c, 27 Am. Dec. 417, 420 ; Hoy e. Storrett, 2 Watts (Pa.) 327; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 313, with note. v. Lott, 17 IT. Y. 478. See Wilkes «.; Ferris. Followed (Effect of defect in or omission of schedule in case of assignment for creditors) in Birchell v. Straus, 8 Abb. Pr. 58; Turner v. Jaycox, 40 Barb. 172; which was affd in 40 N. Y. 473, which see. Disting'd, as to an indemnity bond, in.' Holmes v. Hubbard, 60 Id. 185. Disap- proved in Nims v. Armstrong, 31 Md. 87 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 27. v. Parker, 4 Hun, 135 ; s. c, reported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & C.) 377. v. Piatt. 2 Snp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 25. Aff'd in 58 N. Y. 646. Further proceeding in 66 Id. 360. Prior proceeding in 11 Abb. Pr. H. S. 110 ; s. c, less fully, 61 Barb. 52. Also further decision as Smith «., Piatt, 96 JSf. Y. 635. Decision in 11 Abb. Pr. H. S. overruled (Inspection of part- nership books) in Livingston v. Curtis, 12 Hun, 121. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) applied (Now trial in equity cases) in Church ». Kidd, 5 Id. 454, 462. Seo (Good faith in partnership dealings) 9 Alb. L. J. 251. v. Robins, 1 Johns. Gas. 276 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 110, with note (Omission to plead plene adminhtramt. Enforcing judgment against executor). v. Smith, 14 Johns. 368. Followed (Ef- fect of words written at foot or in margin of award) in Whitcher v. Whitcher, 49 N. H. 176 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 486, 493. t. White. See White e. Piatt. v. Willson, 9 How. Pr. 375. Overruled (Double costs not allowed under the Code) in Bartle v. Gilman, 18 N. Y. 260. Platz v. City of Cohoes, 8 Abb. N. C. 392. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 79 N, Y.. 620, but without opinion. Plestoro r. Abraham, 1 Paige, 236. Rev'd in 3 Wend. 538. See Abraham v. Plestoro. Decision in 1 Paige followed, and Holmes v. Remsen, 20 Johns. 229, disting'd (Effect of foreign assignment in bankruptcy) in Smith v. Eaton, 36 Me. 298 ; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 746. Plets v. Johnson, 3 Hill, 112; s. c ,15 N: Y. Com. I. Late. ed. 533, with brief note. Plocdtterll v. Mayor of N. ¥., 55 N. Y. 666. PLUMB— POLLOCK. 631 Discussed (Excavation in highway as nui- sance) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 207. Plumb v. Cattarangus Mut. Ins. Co., 18 If. Y. 39a.. See Brown ». Same; Jennings v. Chenango Mut. Ins. Co. ; Masters v. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. Co. Dis- ting'd (Effect of statement made by insured) in Baker v. Home Life Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 405. Followed in Flynn 1>. Equitable Life Assur. Co., lid. 390; which was rev'd in 67 If. Y. 500. 506, which see; Taylor v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 55 ; Rowley ». Empire Ins. Co., 30 N. Y. 550; Boos i). World Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 368. Explained in Chase v. Ham- ilton Ins. Co., 20 If. Y. 52. See Carroll v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 216. Explained at length in Owens v. Hol- land Purchase Ins. Co., 56 N. Y. 571. Ex- plained in Rohrbach ». Germania Fire Ins. Co., 62 Id. 62. Disapproved in Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Martin, 11 Vroom (K J.) 568 ;■ s. c, 29 Am. R. 277. Followed with Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 36 If. Y. 550, in Insur- ance Co. v. Wilkinson, 13 Wall. 222; Combs v. Hannibal Savings & Ins. Co., 43 Mo. 148. v. Milk. See Dusenberry v. Ellis. v. Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 442. Followed (Validity of condition in deed limiting use of premises) in Posts. Bernhcimer, 31 Hun, 247; Smith v. Barrio, Sup^m. Ct. Mich. 1885, 22 Northw. Rep. 810, 819. Discuss- ed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §213. ■ Hummer v. Murray, 51 Barb. 201. Over- ruled (Effect of birth of child to -married ■woman, after making of her will) in Cotheal v. Cotheal, 40 N. Y. 405. v. Flnnuner, 7 How. Pr. 62. Dissented from (Effect of abatement in judgment by confession) in Whitney v. Kenyon, Id. 458. Flnmtree v. Drutt, 41 Barb. 333. Applied (Proof of official character of party to suit) in Albro v. Rood, 24 Hun, 72, 74. Plunkett v. Appleton, 51 How. Pr. 469 • s. c, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 159, with affirm- ance. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 66 N. Y. 645, but without opinion. See Thayer v. Van Vleet. Poersclike v. Kedenbnrg, 60 Alb. Pr. If. S. 172. Disapproved (Continuation of me- chanic's lien, under L. 1863, c. 500) in Mat- hews v. Daley, 7 Id. 379. Pohalski v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 45 How. Pr. 604; s. c, more fully, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 234. Affd in 56 If. Y. 640, on opinion of Fkeedman, J. Poillon v. Lawrence, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & 8) 385. Rev'd in 77 If. Y. 207. Decision in Id. followed (Discharge in bankruptcy, ■when invalid) in Matter of Le Baron, 6 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 62. Applied in Honeg- ger v. Wettstein, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 125, 135. See authorities cited in Abb Tr Ev. 820, n. v. Martin, 1 Sandf. Ch. 569. Disting'd (Rights of assignee of non-negotiable chose in action) in Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. B'k, 55 K Y. 41, 49. Cited as authority with Sweet v. Van Wyck, 3 Barb. Ch. 647, in Bush v. Lathrop, 22 XT. Y. 535, 547. Approved (Clerk of attorney, &c, when prohibited from purchasing) in Gardner v. Ogden, Id. 327, 349. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T. See Brincker- hoff v. Board of Education. v. Secor, 61 If. Y. 456. Disapproved (Liability of one held out as partner) in Thompson «. First Nat. Bk. U. S., Ill U. 8. 529, 541, as inconsistent with Central City Sav'gs B'k ii. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424. Dis- ting'd with Conklin n. Barton, 43 Barb. 435, in Pringle v. Leverich, 48 Super. Ct. (J. &. S.) 90. v. Yolkening, 11 Hun, 385. Rev'd as Jordan v. Volkening, 72 If. Y. 300. Poliusky v. People, 11 Hun, 390. Affd in 73 If. Y. 65. See Metropolitan Board of Health v. Heister. Polk v. Daly, 4 Daly, 411 ; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. (N, S.) 156. Disting'd (Duty of servant to- hold himself in readiness to perform, in or- der to entitle him to sue for wages) in How- ard v. Daly, 61 If. Y. 362, 372. Included in Sedgw. Cas. on Dama. 415. Pollak v. Gregory, 9 Bosw. 116. Disting'd- (Validity of agreement to testify for re- ward) in Nickelson v. Wilson, 60 If. Y. 362, 370. Approved in Waterman on Sp. Perp. § 217, n. Pollen v. Leroy, 10 Bosw. 38. »Affd in 30 If. Y. 549. See McEachron v. Randies. Decision in 30 If. Y. applied (Damages for breach of contract to purchase) in Hay v. Leigh, 48 Barb. 401. Explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1125, n. 6 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted in Id. § 1180, n. 5. Pollett v. long, 56 If. Y. 200. Rev'g 58 Barb. 20. See Ryan & N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Compare (Right of riparian owners to construct embankments, &c.) Wallace v. Drew, 59 Barb. 413; which was rev'd in 54 If. Y. 678. Pollitt v. long, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 232. Discussed (Nuisance as created by diversion- and detention of water) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 368. Pollock, Matter of, 3 Red/. 100. See (Exe- cutor's accounting) Code Civ. Pro. 1881. 8 2734, n. ' 8 Pollock t. National Bank, 7 If. Y. 274; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 520, with notes. Applied (Right to compel transfer of stock by cor- poration) in Cushman v. Thayer Man'f'cr Jewelry Co., 76 If. Y. 369; which aff'd 7 Daly, 332, which see. Explained in Pur- chase v. N. Y. Exchange B'k, 3 Robt. 170. Followed in Pratt v. Taunton Copper Co 123 Mass. 110; s. c, 25 Am. R. 37. Ex- plained in Ang. & A. on Corp. % 582. n. 1 11 ed. t. Pollock, 71 If. Y. 137. See Bullard v. Pearsall. Reviewed with Merrill v Mer- rill, 11 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 74; Sullivan s. Sul- livan, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 519 ; Harper 632 POLTZ-PORT. v. Harper, 5 Weekly Big. 450 ; "Waterman 0. Waterman, 37 How. Pr. 36; Whale v. Whale, 1 Code i?. 115 (References in divorce suits) in McCleary ■». McCleary, 30 Bun, 154. Followed (Evidence of adultery) in Conger v. Conger, 82 If. Y. 603. Poltz v. Curtis, 9 Wend. 497; s. c, more fully, 18 Id. 159, n. Polly v. Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Poineroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. 118. Ex- plained (Usury as determined by law of place) in Wayne Co. Savgs. B'k ». Low, 6 Abb. N. 0. 76, 87; Smith v. Alvord, 63 Barb. 427. Followed in Jewell v. Wright, 18 Abb. Pr. 86. Applied (Usury, as deter- mined by payment of principal being condi- tional) in Bniynard v. Hoppock, 7 Bosw. 166 ; Sumner v. People, 29 If. T. 340. Fol- lowed (Law of place of contract when to govern) in Stoddart v. Key, 62 Sow. Pr. 137, 145. Relied on in Barter v. Wheeler, 49 If. B. 9 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 434, 449. v. Drury. See Gazley v. Price. T. Hulin, 7 Sow. Pr. 101. Disting'd (Trial fee on discontinuance) in Sutphen v. Lash, 10 Hun, 120, 122. Approved in Hawley ». Davis, 5 Id,. 642. v. Wells, 8 Paige, 406. Overruled (Ne- cessity that superintendents of poor sue in corporate name) in Alger ». Miller, 56 Barb. 227, 230. Dictum said in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 225, to have been overruled (Action by superintendents of poor against husband for support of insane wife) by Norton v. Rhodes, 18 Barb. 100. Pomroy v. Sperry, 16 How. Pr. 211. Com- pare (In whose name action by excise com- missioners is to be brought) Hart «. Benson, 18 Id. 302. Explained and approved (Mode of taking objection, in such case) in Commissioners of Excise v. Purdy, 13 Abb. Pr. 434, 439. Pond v. Bergh, 10 Paige, 140. Approved (Intention of the testator to be followed in construing will) in Cipperly v. Cipperly, 40 How. Pr. 269. v. Comstock, 20 Hun, 492. Aff'd in 87 If. Y. 627, but without opinion. Decision in 20 Hun followed (Rights of one obtain- ing title from fraudulent transferror) in Murphy v. Moore, 23 Id. 95, 99. Pontius v. People, 21 Bun, 328. Aff d in 82 JV". Y. 339. Both decisions disting'd (Evidence of pecuniary means) in Gorham ». Price, 25 Hun, 11. Ponto v. Phelps, 36 How. Pr. 19. Collated ■with other cases (Notice of appeal from jus- tices' judgment) in Throop's Justice's Man. 2 ed. 91. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. Ponvert v. Belmont, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 531. Subsequent decision in 81 If. Y. 649, but without opinion. See Cas. in Ct. App., Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. Pool v. Coleman, 8 Baly, 113. Included (Injunction to restrain nuisance caused by noise) in Lawson Lead. Cas. in, Ea. Simpli- fied, 149. Explained in MoaTc's UnderMlV Torts, 1 Am. ed. 237. Poole t. Kennit, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 114. See also (Constitutionality of State law giving lien on vessel) The Edith, 11 Blatchf. 451. Pooler v. Maplis, 1 Wend. 65. See (When commission may issue to take deposition) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 888, n. Poor v. Bowen, 1 Bun, 122; mem. s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 759. Aff'd, it seems, in 60 If. Y. 626, but without opinion. Pope v. Bank of Albion, 59 Barb. 226. Rev'd in 57 N. Y. 126. Decision in Id. cited (Usage as qualifying contracts made by banks through officers) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 676. Also cited (Sub cashier can- not accept post-dated check) in Id. § 687. V. Cole, 64 Barb. 406; s. c, 66 Id. 282. AfFd in 55 N. Y. 124 ; s. c, 14 Am. E. 198. See Jenkins «. De Groot. See cases cited (Necessity of showing inability to collect from surviving partner) in 20 Am. L. Beg. 469, n. Decision in 55 If. Y. cited iu Story on Partn. § 362, where the doctrine is said- still to prevail in N. Y. v. Dinsmore, 8 Abb. Pr. 429. See (Appeal from judgment by default) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §1294, n. V. Hamner, 8 Bun, 265. Aff'd in 74 If. Y. 240. See (Adverse possession under claim of title) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 369, n., § 372. Decision in 74 If. Y. quoted in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 768. v. Hart, 35 Barb. 630. See (Plaintiff's adjournment in justices' courts) Code . Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2960, n. v. Luff. See Chapman v. White. Pophain v. Cole. See Popham v. Wilcox. v. Wilcox, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 206. Sub- sequent decision in 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 247 ; which was aff'd as Popham v. Cole, in €6 N. Y. 69 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 22, with note. Decision in Id. disting'd (What constitutes infringement of trade-mark) in Ilier v. Abra- hams, 82 If. Y. 519, 523. Followed in Thorn- ton v. Crowley, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 527, . 530. Collated with Amoskeag Man'f g Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf. 599, and other cases in note to Liggett, &c. Tobacco Co. v. Hynes, U. S. Cir. Ct. W. D. Ark. 19 Cent. L. J. 109, 111. Poppenhuseu v. Seeley, 41 Barb. 450. Aff'd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 615 ; s.c, 3 Reyes, 150. Decision in 41 Barb, disting'd (Liability on undertaking given on appeal), in Lowry v. Tew, 25 Bun. 257, 259. Popper v. Scheider, 38 Bow. Pr. 34; s. c, 7 Abb. Pr. K S. 56. Discussed (Appoint- ment of receiver of partnership) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 375, Wood's Am. ed. Quoted in Eigh on Beceiv. § 478, n. 3. Port v. Jackson, 17 Johns. 239. Aff'd in Id. 479. See Matter of Negus; Rec:tor,_&c. of Trinity Church v. Higgins. Decision on p. 239 reviewed with other cases (Liability on agreement to indemnify) in Wright v. Whiting, 40 Barb. 238. Applied in Haw- PORTER— POST. 633 kins v. Mosher, 13 Hun, 565 ; Rector, &c. of Trinity Church ». Higgins,48 K Y 537; see Same'®. Same, 4 Robt. 374; also applied in Matter of Negus, 7 Wend. 503. Disting'd (Liability of assignee of lease) in Astor i). L'Amoreux, 4 Sand/. 529. Porter v. Clark, 12 How. Pr. 107. Thought In 38 Am. Dec. 583, n.. to be in contradic- tion to Seymour v. Wilson, 10 IJurb. 298 (Right of receiver to attack validity of transfers of property made by debtor in fraud of creditors). , — y. Goodman, 1 Cow. 413. Applied (Amendment of execution) in Taster v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 366. v. Havens, 37 Burl. 343. Reviewed and followed (Validity of contract to affect ad- administration of criminal justice) in Con- derman v. Trenchard, 40 How. Pr. 71, 81. v. Kemball,, 53 Barb. 467. Cited and approved (Waiver of protest includes waiver of demand) in Harvey v. Nelson, 31 La. Ann. 434; s. c, 33 Am. R. 22.3. — v. Kingsbury, 5 Hun, 597. Aff'd in 71 N.Y. 588. Second action in 13 Hun, 33; which was aff'd in 77 N. Y. 104. Decisions in 5 Hun; 71 If. Y. disting'd with Rae «. Beach, 76 Id. 164 (Action on undertak- ing given on appeal) in "Yates v. Burch, 87 Id. 409. Decision in 5 Hun followed in Rae v. Harteau, 7 Daly, 95, 100. — T. Knapp, 6 Lans. 125. Rev'd, it seems, in 65 N. Y. 564, but without opinion. Compare (Stolen property and proceeds} Newton v. Porter, 5 Lans. 416; 69 If. Y. 133 ; Warren v. Haight, 65 Id. 171. v. Lane, 8 Johns.- 357. Disapproved (Attorney's lien for costs, as subject to set- off of judgments) in Currier t. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 37 IT. H. 223. ' — T. McClure, 15 Wend. 187. Explained (Formation of partnership) in 1 Collyer on JPartn. § 20, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. y. Mount, 45 Barb. 422. SeeWheaton v. Hibbard. Disting'd (Liability of husband for wife's torts) in Tait v. Culbertson, 57 Barb. 9. • — • T. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 34 Barb. 353. Compared (Exaction of illegal fares) in Bordeaux v. Erie R'y Co., 8 Hun, 579, 581. v. Parks, 5 Sup\m. Gi. (T. & G.) 61 s. c, reported, 2 Hun, 654. Previous decis ion in 49 If. Y. 564. v. Parmley, 34 Super. Ct. (J.&S) 398 s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 104; 43 How. Pr, 445. Rev'd in 52 If. Y. 185 ; .8. c, UAbb. Pr. If. 8. 16. Further proceedings in 38 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 490; and in 39 Id. 219 See Meech v. Patchin. Decision in 52 N. Y. explained (Validity of chattel mortgage as to creditors) in Fraser v. Gilbert, 1 1 Hun, 634, 637. v. Rose, 12 Johns. 209. See Cook v. Ferral. Applied (Pleading in action for non-delivery) in Crandall «. Clark, 7 Barb. 171 ; Topping v. Root, 5 Cow. 405. Dis- ting'd in Coonley v. Anderson, 1 Hill, 523. Followed in McGehee v. Hill, 4 Pdrt. (Ala.) 170; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 277, with note. v. Ruckiuan, 38 If. Y. 210. Opinion of Clekke, J., in 6 Transc. App. 65. y. Spencer, 2 Johns. Oh. 169. Cited with approval (Matters of account when within jurisdiction of court of equity) in McMartin v. Bingham, 27 Iowa, 234 ; s. c. , 1 Am. R. 265. — - v. Talcott, 1 Cow. 359. See Linning- dale 0. Livingston ; Monroe v. Hoff ; On- tario Bank i>. Lightbody ; Whitbeck ■». Van Ness. Dictum overruled (Payment by note of third person) in Noel v. Murray, 1 Duer, 385. v. Waring, 51 How. Pr. 295. Aft'd in 69 N. Y. 250 ; s. c, 2 Abb. If. G. 230. v. Williams, 5 How. Pr. 441 ; s. c, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs.-307. Aff'd in 9 JV. Y. 142 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 519, with note; also s. c, as Porter v. Clark, with opinion of Denio, J., in 12 How. Pr. 107. Decision in 9 If. Y. applied (Receiver, as representative of -creditors) in Irving Nat. B'k v. Reman, 3 Red/. 6. Applied (Right of receiver, as such representative to maintain proceeding to set aside fraudulent transfer) in Osgood e. Ogden, 3 Abb. Ct. App.- Dec. 429. Dis- ting'd in Donnelly v. Shaw, 7 Abb. If. C. 270; Gerea. Dibble, 17 Hoio. Pr. 33; Un- derwood «. Sutcliffe, 77 If. Y. 62. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 116, n. 1. Com- mented on in High on Seceio. § 447, n. 4. Quoted in Id. § 454, n. 3. Discussed (Mistakes in assignment for benefit of cred- itors) in Burrill on Assign. § 263, 4 ed. Dictum approved (Eflect between parties, of assignment void as to creditors) in Gates v. Andrews, 37 If. Y. 659. Decisions in 5 How. Pr.; 9 If. Y. explained (Title of re- ceiver in supplementary proceedings) in Voorhees v. Seymour, 26 Barb. 580. De- cision in 5 Hoip. Pr. explained and that in 9 AT. Y. applied in Clan Renald v. Wyckoff, 52 How. Pr. 509, 511. Collated with other cases in Thomp. on Prov. Rem. 481. Decision in 9 If. Y. explained in Moak v. Coats, 33 Barb. 500 ; Scott v. El- more, 10 Hun, 71. Decision in 5 How. Pr.; 9 It. Y. explained (Lien created by order instituting supplementary proceedings) in Becker v. Torrance, 31 Id. 638. Post v. JEtna Ins. Co., 43 Barb. 351. Ex- plained (Extent of authority conferred on agent by insurance company) in Ellis «. Al- bany City Fire Ins. Co., 4 Lans. 433, 437 ; which was affd in 50 If. Y. 402, 407, which see. T. Arnot, 2 Den. 344. Rev'g Arnot v. Post, 6 Hill, 65. See Jackson v. Crafts. Decision in 2 Den. criticised (Effect of ten- der of mortgage debt after default) in Kort- right v. Cady, 21 If. Y. 362 ; which rev'd 5 Alb. Pr. 361, 370, which see. To same effect, see Walsh v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 33, 37. Examined with other cases in dissenting opinion in Trimm ». Marsh, 54 If. Y. 623. Explained (Effect 634 POST— POTTER. of foreclosure on rights of subsequent incum- brancer) in Peabody v. Roberts, 47 Barb. 100. Explained (Necessity of service of notice, on foreclosure by advertisement) in Root v. Wheeler, 12 Abb. Pr. 294, 300. y. Bank of Utica, 7 Hill, 391. See Cole v. Savage. Applied (Who may obtain relief against usurious contract) in Rexford v. Widger, 3 Barb. Gh. 64; which was aff d in 2 If. Y 131, which see; Murray i>. Jud- son, 9 Id. 73, 85. Explained in Morris v. Floyd, 5 Barb. 134; Schermerhorn v. Am. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 14 Id. 165; Sands v. Church, 6 If. T. 353 ; AUerton v. Belden, 49 Id. 376. Examined and reconciled with Post v. Dart, 8 Paige, 639, in Chamberlain v. Dempsey, 14 Abb. Pr. 241, 245, 247, 250. See Same v. Same, 36 If. Y. 149. Approved and followed in Billingtcn v. Wagoner, 33 Id. 35. T. Black, 5 Den. 66. See (Costs in jus- tices' court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. v. Boardman, Clarke, 333. AfPd in 10 Paige, 580. v. Campbell, 18 Hun, 51. Aff'd in 83 K Y. 279. T. Dart, 8 Paige, 639. See Brooks v. Avery ; Post «/Bank of Utica. Examined and applied (Who may set up defense of usury) in Morris v. Floyd. 5 Barb. 135. Applied in Lynde v. Staats, 1 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 91 ; Williams v. Tilt, 36 &. Y. 325 ; Berdan v. Sedgwick, 44 Id. 631. Explain- ed (Competency, as witness to prove usury, of defendant that has taken bill in foreclos- ure as confessed) in Mann v. Cooper, 1 Barb. Gh. 187. v. Doremns, 1 Hun, 521 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 626. Modified in 60 If. Y. 371. Decision in. Id. followed (Liability of sureties on undertaking given on appeal) in Burdett v. Lowe, 85 Id. 241. Disting'd with Grimwood v. Wilson, 66 How. Pr. 283, in Hooker «: Townsend, Id. 349. Y. Dorr, 4 Edw. 412. Applied (Lien of receiver in foreclosure on unpaid rents) in Rider v. Vrooman, 12 Hun, 299. Fol- lowed in Washington Life Ins. Co. v. Fleis- chauer, 10 Id. 117, 120. v. Hatliorn, 54 If. Y. 147. See (Mo- tion for new trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1000, n. v. Hover, 30 Barb. 312. Afi'd, but overruled, as to point that direction amount- ed to devise in trust, in 33 K Y. 593. De- cision in Id. applied (Proof of devise by implication) in Newell v. Toles, 17 Hun, 77 ; Robert v. Corning, 23 Id. 304. Dis- cussed (Ejectment as distinguished from suit to obtain construction of will) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 163. Ex- plained (Recitals in wills) ia 2 Jam. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 104, n. ■ t. Kearney, 2 If. Y. 394; s. c, 51 Am. Bee. 303, with note collecting citations of the case. Questioned (Distinction between assignment and sub-lease) in Woodhull v. Rosenthal, 61 If. Y. 382, 392. Explained in Constantine v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, 239, 247. Reviewed in 16 Am. L. Rev. 29. v. Kimberley, 9 Johns. 470 ; s. .a, 4 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 846, with brief note. See King v. Baldwin ; Munford*«. Nicoll. Relied on (Doctrine of constructive partner- ship not to be extended) in Loomis v. Mar- shall, 12 Conn. 69, 77. See also Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 45, n. Cited as a leading case and discussed (Partnership liability in purchase of goods) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 176, n. p. Discussed in 1 Qollyer on Partn. § 30, Wood's Am. ed. Explained in Id. § 510. v. Leet, 8 Paige, 337. Disting'd (Exist- ence of assessment, as ground of relief to purchaser of real estate) in 5e Peyster v. Murphy, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 255, 270; which was rev'd in 66 If. Y. 622. v. Neafle, 3 Gai. 22. Followed (Action at law on decree of court of chancery) in Thrall v. Waller, 13 Verm. 231; s. c, 37 Am. Bee. 592; Evans v. Tatem, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 252; s. c, 11 Am. Bee. 717, 722. v. Pearsall, 20 Wend. 111. Aff'd in 22 Id. 425. Decision in Id. applied (Grant of right of profits a prendre as an appurten- ance) in Huntington v. Asher, 96 If. Y. 604, 610. Approved (Definition of "dedica- tion ") in Gardiner v. Tisdale, 2 Wis. 153 ; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 407, with note. Both decisions approved (User as evidence of dedication of landing to public use) in O'Neill v. Annett, 3 Butcher (If. J.) 290, 295. Compare Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 1 3. v. Post. See Nichols v. Williams. Potter v. Bank of Ithaca, 5 Hill, 490. Affd in 7 Id. 530. v. Carpenter, 56 How Pr. 89. Rev'd in 71 If. Y. 74. Further decision in 76 Id. 157. v. Chapin, 6 Paige, 649. Applied (Validity of gift or bequest to public or charitable uses) in Ould v. Washington Hospital, 1 McArth. 541; s. c, 29 Am. R. 605, 610. Approved in Bartlett v. Nye, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 379. Quoted in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 182, 11 ed. t. Cromwell, 40 If. Y. 287. See Mur- dock d. Giffofd. Applied (Intention, &c, as element in test of fixture) in Funk e. Brigaldi, 4 Daly, 301 ; Grosz v. Jackson, 5 Id. 464; McRea v. Central Nat. B'k, 50 How. Pr. 53 ; which was aff'd in 66 If. Y. 495, which see ; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 Id. 282. Disting'd in Wells v. Maples, 15 Hun, 92 ; Tifft v. Horton, 53 If. Y. 383. Reconciled in Sisson v. Hibbard, 10 Hun, 424. v. Etz, 5 Wend. 74. Explained (Costs against personal representatives that un- reasonably resist claim) in Gansevoort v. Nelson, 6 Hill, 389, 395. v. Hopkins, 25 Wend. 417; s. c, 14 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 893, with brief note. Disting'd (Variance when material) in Corn- wall v. Haight, 8 Barb. 330. Applied POTTER— POWELL. 635 (Parol evidence to supplement written agree- ment) in Beach v. Raritan, &c. R. R. Co., STK I1464. v. Lansing, 1 Johns. 215 ; s. a, 3 JV Fl Corn. L? Law. ed. 118, with brief note ; also S. C, 3 Am. Dec. 318, with note, wherein it is said to be a well recognized authority (Damages in action against sheriff for escape). Examined in 2 Sedgw. on. Dama. 1 ed. 512. Criticised and disting'd in dis- senting opinion of Gibson, J. (When deliv- ery of goods to carrier is delivery to con- signee) in Griffith v. Ingledew, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 429 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dee. 444, 453. See cases collated in 8 Am. Dee. 214, n. Thought, though not expressly overruled, to be no longer authority in N. Y. (Con- signor's action against carrier) in 7 South. L. Rev. N. 8. 283, citing other cases. Dis- cussed in Ang. on Oarr. § 505, 5 ed. T. Low, 16 How. Pr. 549. See (Receiver in supplementary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2469, n. y. Merchants' Bank, 28 JV Y. 641. See Tyler v. Ames. Disting'd (Damages for conversion of note) in Thayer v, Manley, 8 Hun, 551. Applied (Prima facie value of obligation for payment of money) to judg- ment, in Furniss v. Ferguson, 34 N. Y. 492. Applied (Interest as damages) in Greer v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Root. 410. See (Effect of recital of jurisdictional facts) Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Id. 166, 202. v. Ontario & Livingston Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Hill, 147. • Disting'd (Effect of clause in policy respecting other insurance) in West- lake «. St. Lawrence Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Barb. 213. Quoted and explained (Con- struction and interpretation of contracts) in 2 Pars, on Con.tr. 498, n. p. v. Van Vranken, 36 JV Y. 619. See Van Bergen v. Bradley. See (Bond or un- dertaking as affected by change of parties) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 815, n. See also (Abatement and revival) Id. § 1736, n. v. White, 6 Bosw. 644. Collated with other cases (Interference with party-wall) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 233. v. Wbittaker, 27 How. Pr. 10. Fol- lowed (Process from justice's court when presumed to be regular) in Avery v. Wood- beck, 5 Lans. 498. Potts v. Mayer, 53 How. Pr. 368 ; mem. s. c. 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 544. Rev'd in 74 2V. Y. 594. Further decision in 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 182; rev'd in 86 JV. Y. 302; s. c, 10 Abb. JV. 0. 63; 62 How. Pr. 126. Pottcher v. Blanchard, 21 Hun, 102. Aff d, it seems, in 86 W. Y. 256. v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 49 2171 Y. 263; s. c, 10 Am. R. 364, with note. See Cole v. Goodwin ; Welles v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Disting'd (Exemption of carrier from liability by express agreementl in Blair v. Erie R. Co., 66 JV Y. 317. ' Ex- plained in Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 7 Wall. 357, 367. Questioned in Ohio. &c. R'y Co. v. Selby, 47 lad. 485. Criticised in Lawson's Contr. of Carr. § 128. Collated with Cragin v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61 ; Mynard v. Syracuse, B,, &c. R. R. Co., 71 Id. 180; Stinson «. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co. , 32 Id. 333 ; Holsapple v. Rome, W. & O. R. Co., 86 Id. 275 ; Clarke Rochester & S. R. R. Co., 14 Id. 571 ; Har- ris v. No. Indiana R. R. Co., 20 Id. 232 ; Penu. v. Buffalo & Erie R. R. Co., 49 Id. 204 ; Bills «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 84 Id. 5; Keeney v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 47 Id. 525, and many other cases (Transpor- tation of live stock) in 19 Cent. L. J. 161. Poiighkeepsie & Salt Point Plank road Co. v. Griffin, 21 Barb. 454. Rev'd on ground of effect of preliminary subscription, in 24 2K Y. 150. Ponlin v. Broadway & Seventh Ave. R. R. Co., 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 296. Aff'd in 61 JV T. 621. Powell v. Clark, 5 Abb. Pr. 70. Applied (Corroborative affidavits on motion) in Jacobs v. Miller, 10 Hun, 230. v. Jones, 42 Barb, 24. Followed (New trial for newly discovered evidence) in May v. Strauss, 8 Abb. JV C. 274, 278. Applied in Darbee v. El wood, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 148, 151. v. Kane, 2 Mw. 450. Aff'd in 5 Paige, 265. y. Murray, 2 Edw. 636. Aff'd in 10 Paige, 256. Decision in Id. explained (Trusts, when barred in equity) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 229. v.i Meyers, 26 Wend. 591. See Roth ». Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. Followed (Continuance of carrier's liability) in Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 48; Curtis v. Avon, &c. R. R. Co., 49 Id. 148, 155. Approved but disting'd in Roth v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 34 JV. Y. 551. See Burnell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 Id. 184. Opinion of Verplank, Senator, approved in Clendaniel v. Tucker- man, 17 Barb. 188. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 109, 5 ed. ; Id. § 318 ; Id. § 321. Included with notes in 2 Redf. Am. Railw. Cos. 133. v. People, 5 Hun, 169. Aff'd in 63 JV Y. 88, solely for error in charge. V. Powell, 3 Hun. 413 ; s. c, more fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 51. Rev'd in 71 JV 71 71. Decision in Id. disting'd (Influences from facts proven) in Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 84 Id. 57, 63. v. Preston, 1 Hun, 513. See Steelyards v. Singer. See authorities collected (Con- ditional sale when void as to third per- sons) in Lewis v. McCabe, 49 Conn. 141, 149; s. c, 21 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 217, with note collating authorities. v. Trustees of Newburgh, 19 Johns. 284. Disting'd (Town's liability to indem- nify against suit) in People ex rel. Van Keuren v. Auditors of Esopus, 10 Hun, 551, 553. v. Tuttle, 3 JV K 396. Applied (Neces- sity of presence of both of loan commis- 636 POWELL— PEATT. sioners acting under L. 1837, c. 150) in N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Staats, 21 Barb. 547 ; Olmsted v. Elder, 5 K Y 147. Ap- plied (Duty of public officer on sale of prop- erty) in Kellogg v. Howell, 62 Barb. 292. Explained in Allen v. Comm'rs of Land- office, 38 K 7. 318. v. Waters, 8 Goto. 669; s. c, 9 N. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 515. with brief note. See Aeby v. Rapelye ; Munn v. Commission Co.; Pain «. Packard. Uisting'd with Sweet v. Chapman, 7 Hun, 577; Hall v. Wilson, 16 Barb. 548 (Sale of note, when usurious) in Corning v. Pond, 29 Hun, 129. Explained with Rice «. Mather, 3 Wend. 62 ; Cram «. Hendricks, 7 Id. 569 ; Munn v. Commission Co., 15 Johns. 44; Rapelye v. Anderson, 4 Mill, 472 ; Holmes ». Williams, 10 Paige, 326; Holford v. Blatchford, 2 Sandf. Ch. 149, in Dickerman v. Day, 31 Iowa, 444; s. c, 7 Am. R. 156. Power v. Cassidy, 54 Bow. Pr. 4; s. c, with affirmance in 16 Man, 294; which was aff'd in 79 N. Y. 602 ; s. c, 5 Am. R. 550, with note ; and 1 Am. Prob. R. 368, with note. See Williams v. Williams. De- ■ cision in 79 Jff. Y. disting'd with Lent v. Howard, 89 Id. 169 (Equitable conversion) and Gourley v. Campbell, 66 Id. 169 fol- lowed in Hobson v. Hale, 95 Id. 588. Ap- plied (Validity of trust created by will for benefit of charity institutions) in Matter of Hagenmeyer's Will, 12 Abb. K G. 432. Explained and followed in Gumble v. Pfluger, 62 How. Pr. 118, 120. Disting'd in O'Hara -o. Dudley, 14 Abb. K G. 71. ■ v. Hathaway, 43 Barb. 214. See (Effect of foreign statute of limitations) Code. Civ. Pro. 1881, § 390, n. v. Kent, 1 Cow. 211. Cited with Birkbeck i>. Stafford, 14 Abb. Pr. 211 (Power of attorney to act by substitute in issuing process) in Whart. Com. on Aa. § 579. —r- v. Lester, 17 Mow. Pr. 413. Aff'd in 23 N. Y. 527. Decision in Id. applied (Right of husband and wife to sue each other) in Dygert «. Remerschnider, 31 Id. 629, 646. Examined with other cases (Identity of property interests of husband and wife) in Meeker v. Wright, 7 Abb. ST. G. 303. Quoted and collated with other cases (Lease by mortgagor and mortgaged) in McAdam on Landl. & Ten. 2 ed. § 56. v. Price, 12 Wend. 500. Aff'd in 16 Id. 450. v. Village of Athens, 19 Hun, 165. See People ex rel. Morris v. Randall. Dis- ting'd (Injunction as affected by appeal) in Gardner *>. Gardner, 62 Mom. Pr: 265, 267. Powers v. Bergen, 6 N. Y. 358. See Leg- gett v. Hunter. Considered and disting'd (Power of legislature to authorize sale of private property for other than public uses) in Leggett v. Hunter, 19 N. Y. 445, 461. Followed in Brevoort v. Grace, 53 Id. 245, 256, wherein it is said Hunter was not designed to overrule Powers •». Bergen. Quoted and explained in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 215. Discussed in Cooky on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 126. y. French, 1 Hun, 582. Explained and disting'd (Recovery against accommodation indorser) in First Nat. Bank v. Wood, 71 N. Y. 405, 411. T. Graydon, 10 Bosw. 630. Quoted and commented on (Assignment for benefit of creditors, as affected by exacting releases) in Bishop on Assign. § 199. v. Gross, 6 Hun, 234. Aff'd in 66 2K Y. 646. • v. I ugrahani. See Wright v. Moore. , v. Mitchell, 3 Hill, 545. Explained (Common carrier's liability for negligence) in Aug. on Can: § 58, 5 ed. v. Borne, Watertown, &c. 11. R. Co., 3 Hun, 285. Compare (Form of denial) Jones v. Ludlum, 74 K Y. 61. v. Shepard, 45 Barb. 524; s. c, 1 Abb. Pr. IT. 8. 129. Overruled (Constitution- ality of bounty act) in further decision in 49 Barb. 418 ; s. c, 35 How. Pr. 53; which was aff d in 48 N. T. 540. Decision in Id. cited (Repeal by implication) in Peck «. Peck, 8 Abb. K G. 400, 402. v. Trenor, 48 How. Pr. 500. Aff'd in 3 Hun, 3 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 231. -. v. Witty, 42 How. Pr. 352. Applied (Conclusiveness of judgment in summary proceedings) in Brown v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 481, 483. Prall v. Mutual Protection Life Assur. Socy.. 5 Daly, 298. Aff'd, it seems, in 63 AT. Y. 608, but without opinion. Pramagiori v. Pramagiori, 7 Robt. 302. Disting'd (Pleading in actions for divorce) in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 61 K Y. 398, 411. Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 615. See Murray v. Judson. Followed (Usury as determined by law of place) in Jewell v. Wright, 12 Abb. Pr. 58; Wayne Co. Savg's B'k v. Low, 6 Abb. JT. C. 85 ; Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. 129; Bank of State of Georgia «. Lewin, 45 Id. 343; Sheldon v. Haxton, 24 Hun, 197. Disting'd in Dickinson v. Edwards, 7 Abb. If. C. 82. Applied in dissenting opinion of Da vies, J., in Jewell v. Wright, 9 Abb. Pr. K S. 402. Criticised at length in dissenting opinion in Smith v. Alvord, 63 Barb. 434. Applied (Effect of imcluding usurious debt in assignment for creditors) in Green v. Morse, 4 Id. 337, 343 ; Murray v. Judson, 9 K Y. 83. Com- mented on in Burrill on Assign. § 118, 4 ed. Explained (Designation of debts to be paid) in Id. § 813. Discussed (Distribution to creditors) in Id. §§ 427, n., 428. Com- mented on (Applying to court for instruc- tions) in Id. § 460, 4 ed. . Disting'd (Valid- ity of security for payment of illegal obliga- tion) in Tylee v. Yates, 3 Barb. 226. Explained (Validity of transaction involving circulation of foreign bank-bills) in Mer- PRATT— PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 637 chants' Bank of N. T. v. Spalding, 9 K T. 53, 63. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 267, 11 ed. v. Allen. See Butchers' & Drovers' Bank v. Jacobson. v. Andrews, 4 K 7. 493. Cited (Evi- dence of previous good character of seduced person) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 51. v. Chnse, 19 All. Pi: 150; s. c, 29 Bow. Pi: 296. Rev'd in 44 N. 7. 597. See Murray v. De Rottenham. v. Coiuan, 37 N. 7. 440. Opinions of . Miller, J., and Woodkuff, J., in 5 Trans. App. 334. Followed Surrender of security, as constituting lona fide holder of negoti- able paper) in Phenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 66 Sow. Pi: 496 ; which was rev'd in 81 W. 7. 224, which see; Clothier ». Adriance, 51 Id. 326. Explained in Starin v. Kelly, 36 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 371, as mot over- ruled. Applied to mortgage given to secure existing indebtedness in Cai'y fo. White, 7 Lans. 4 ; which was rev'd in 52 N. 7. 142, which see. Followed (Effect of giving note, as suspension of right to sue) in Maier v. Canavan, 8 Daly, 275, • v. Eaton, 18 Han, 293. Rev'd in 79 N. 7. 449. V. Foote, 12 Sari. 209. Rev'd in 9 If. 7. 463. Opinion of Johnson, J., in 10 Id. 599. "With decision in 9 Id. com- pare (Effect of acceptance of check) Oddie «. National City Bank of N. Y., 45 Id. 735, 741. Explained arid applied (What amounts to payment of check, &c.) in Kelty v. Second Nat. B'k of Erie, 52 Barl. 328, 335; Van Etten v. Troudden, 67 Id. 349. Disting'd in Auburn City Nat. B'k v. Hun- siker, 72 N. 7. 252, 257. Followed (Agreement as established by entries on bank books) in Coates v. First Nat. B'k of Emporia, 91 Id. 20. v. Gnlick, 13 Barl. 297. Disting'd (Vendor's right of recovery for part deliv- ery) in Avery v. Willson, 81 N. 7. 341, 345. v. Hudson River R. R. Co.. 21 N~. 7. 305. Applied (Defect in complaint, when cured by averment in answer) in Haddow v. Lundy, 59 Id. 328. Disting'd in Volken- ing v. De Graat, 81 Id. 272. v. Hugging, 29 Barb. 277. Approved as of great weight and followed with Borst ». Carey, 15 N. 7. 505 (Remedy on mort- gage as affected by action being barred on accompanying obligation) in Browne ». Browne, 17 Fla. 607; s. c, 35 Am. R. 96; reconciling Demarest v. Wynkoop. 3 Johns. Gh. 135. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 100, n. q. V. Hull, 13 Johns. 334. Approved (Power to non-suit) in Labar v. Koplin, 4 K 7. 547. y. Munson, 17 Bun, 475. Followed in case of same name in 21 Id. 105, but with- out opinion. y. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 64 Barl. 589. Aff d in 55 K Y. 505 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 304. Decision in Id. cited as authority (Effect of proceedings to foreclose mortgage on insured property) in Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., SAB. N. C. 3 J 5, 327. v. Norton, 2 Hun, 517 ; s. c, reported 5 Sup-m. Gt. (T. SO.) 8. v. Petrie. See Sackrider v. McDonald. v. Potter, 21 Barl. 589. Approved (When deed takes effect) in Judd v. Seek- ins, 62 'K 7. 266. v. Short, 53 How. Pr. 506. Rev'd by General Term, and that decision rev'd in 79 K 7. 437 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 531. See Vpl. 532, Cas. in Ct. of App. Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Decision in 79 N. 7. disting'd with Bank of Salina «. Alvord, 31 Id. 473 (Effect of unauthorized loan or discount by bank) in Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Best, 30 Hun, 638, 643. Applied with People ex rel. Attorney General v. Utica Ins. Co., .15 Johns. 383 (Banking powers) in Nassau Bank v. Jones, 95 K 7. 115, 121. v. Wells, 1 Barl. 425. See (Arrest as substitute for ne exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 551, n. Prendcgast v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 58 M 7. 652. See other cases collected (Contributory negligence of parent, &c.) in 6 All. If. O. 113, n. Prentice v. Geiger, 9 Hun, 350. Affd in 74 N. 7. 341. v. Jaiissen, 14 Hun, 548. Aff'd in 79 If. 7. 478. Another proceeding in 7 Hun, 86. Decision in 79 N. 7. followed (Valid execution of executor's power to convey) in Bloomfield v. Ketcham, 13 Weekly Big. 22. v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 43 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 352. Aff'd in 77 N. 7. 483 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 651. Decision in Id. cited as settled law (Necessity that waiver by insurer be based on new agreement or estoppel) in Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 8 Abb. K G. 315, 328. Applied in Brink v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 80 N. 7. 112. Dis- ting'd in How v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., Id. 32, 43. v. Wilkinson, 5 All. Pr. ST. S. 49. Overruled or limited (Effect of oral prom- ise to pay debt of another, in consideration of discontinuance of proceedings) in Duffy v. Wunsch, 8 Id. 113. Prentiss v. Graves, 33 Barl. 621. Disting'd (Evidence of condition of accommodation indorsement) in "Willse v. "Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242, 244. Presbyterian Church v. Mayor, Ac. of N. Y, 5 Cow. 538. See Britton v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Disability of municipal corporation to restrict itself by contract) in Whitney v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. 6 ^165. iV. G. 337, n. ; Corning v. Greene, 23 Barb. 58 ; Matter of Albany Street, 6 Abb. Pr. 276. Disting'd in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 34 Barb. 44; State of N. Y. ®. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Duer, 147; Holt v. Comm'rs of Excise, 31 H'W. Pr. 342, n. ; Rousseau v. City of Troy, 49 Id. 493; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Second 63S PRESBYTEEIAN CONG. OF SALEM— PEICE. Ave. R. R. Co., 32 2f. Y. 269. Disting'd ■with Brooklyn Park Comra'rs v. Armstrong, 45 Id. 234 ; Whitney v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 6 Abb. If. C. 329, in Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Forty-second St. R. R. Co., 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 489, 498. Approved with Stuyvesant v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Cow. 688, in West Sav. Fund «. City of Philadel- phia, 31 Perm. 175. Disting'd (Power of municipal corporation to remove property as nuisance) in Clark v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Barb. 39. Applied in Hart v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 9 Wend. 598. Applied (Effect of by-law authorized by legislature) in McDermott ». Board v. Police, &c, 25 Barb. 643 ; Stuyvesant v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Cow. 604. Applied (Validity of police regulations that incidentally impair the obligation of contracts) in Mississippi Society of Arts & Sciences v. Musgrave, 44 Miss. 820 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 723. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on C»ntr. 674, n. I. Disting'd (Municipal corporation, when acting in private capacity in the manage- ment of its property) in Roosevelt v. Dra- per, 23 JT. Y. 325. Applied in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ■». Rice, 4 K I). Smith, 608. Examined with other cases (Requisites of estoppel) in dissenting opinion of Bronson, J., in Dezell e. Odell, 3 Hill, 222. Applied in Andrews v. JEtna Life Ins. Co., 18 Hun, 1 166. Disting'd in White v. Ashton, 51 K T. 286 ; McMasters v. Ins. Co. of No. Am., 55 Id. 229. Presbyterian Congregation of Salem v. Williams, 9 Wend. 147. See Lansing v. Montgomery. Applied (Estoppel, as ap- plicable in actions relating to real property) in Finnegan «. Carahar, 61 Barb. 258; which was affd in 47 JT. Y. 499, which see. Disting'd in Van Rensselaer v. Hayes, 5 Den. 481; Miller «. Piatt, 5 Duer, 279. Disting'd (Defendant, when estopped by statements made prior to action) in Warder ®. Baker, 54 Wise. 49, 59. Presbyterian Society of Knoxbors v. Beach, 8 Hun, 644. Rev'd in 74 N~. Y. 72. Presbyterian Society of Waterloo v. An- burn & Boch. B. E. Co. See Trustees of Presb. Soc, &c. v. Auburn, &o. R. R. Co. Presbytery of N. Y., Matter of, 9 Daly, 116. Aff'd in 80 K T. 642, but without ; opinion. Decision in 9 Daly followed (When work must be done under contract in city of N. Y.) in Matter of Newtown, 19 Hun, 470. Prescott, Matter of, 4 Red/. 178. See McPherson v. Clark. Followed (No partial revocation of will by obliteration) in Lovell v. Quitman, 25 Hun, 538. Prescott v. De Forest, 16 Johns. 159. " Re- viewed (Sub-leases and assignments) in 16 Am. L. Rev. 28. V. Hull, 17 Johns. 284. See Green «. Hart. Approved (Rights of assignee of debt, in case of it being attached) in Oldham v. Ledbettcr, 1 How. {Miss.) 43; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 690, with note. Cited (Assign- ment of chose in action by delivery) in Vose v. Handy, 2 Greenl. (Me.) 322; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 101, 109. Compare Runyan v. Mersereau, 11 Johns. 534; Fryer v. Rocke- feller, 63 IT. Y. 276. " President, &c. of Westfleld Bank v. Cor- nen. See Bank of U. S. v. Davis ; Welsh v. German American Bank. Preston v. Lea v? It, 6 Wend. 663. Dis- approved (Renewal of justice's execution not new process) in Smith v. Randall, 3 Hill, 495. v. Morrow, 66 K Y. 452. Disting'd (Order of reference, how far binding) in Elliott v. Lewis. 16 Hun, 581. Disting'd as inapplicable under L. 1879, c. 542 (Ap- pointment of new referee) in May v. Moore, 24 Hun, 351. Preusser v. Florence, 51 How. Pr. 385 ; s. c, more fully i Abb. N. C. 136. Price, Matter of, 67 N. Y. 231. Followed (Power of court of equity to correct mis- takes in judicial sales) in Parkinson v. Sherman, 74 Id. 88, 94. Price v; Duriii, 56 Barb. 647. Explained (Memorandum required by statute of frauds) in Browne on Slat, of Frauds, § 353, n. 2, 4 ed. v. Hartshorn, 44 Barb. 655. Affd in 44 N. Y. 94. v. Keyes, 1 Hun, 177; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 720. Rev'd in 62 N. Y. 378. v. Lyons Bank, 30 Barb. 85. * Rev'd (Usury on renewal of loan) in 33 N. Y. 55. v. McClave, 5 Duer, 670; s. c, as Price v. McClare, 3 Abb. Pr. 253. Aff'd in 6 Duer, 544. Decision in Id. disapproved (Allegations of notice of non-payment of negotiable instrument) and Pahquioque B'k •o. Martin, 11 Abb. Pr. 291; Cooks. War- ren, 88 N~ . T. 37 disting'd in Baldwin v. Doying, 5 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 300. V. Oswego & Syracuse B. B. Co., 58 Barb. 599. Rev'd in 50 JV. Y. 213 ; s. c, 10 Am. R. 475. Decision in Id. disting'd (Liability of carrier for delivery to impos- tor) in Samuel v. Cheney, 135 Mass. 278 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 467. See cases collated in 10 Moah's Eng. 37, n. v. Palmer, 22 Hun, 464; s. c, as it seems, reported in full in 23 Id. 504. v. Powell, 3 K Y. 322. See Tinney v. N. J. Steamboat Co. See (Consignor's ac- tion against carrier) 7 South. L. Rev.N. S. 264. Citing R. R. Co. v. Kelly, 4 Head (Tenn.) 158; R. R. Co. v. Nelson, 1 Culdvs. (Tenn.) 272. v. Price, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.)Adden. 659. Fully reported as Anonymous, 15 Abb. Pr. J7". S. 811. v. , 2 Hun. 611 ; mem. s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 696. Fuither pro- ceedings in 11 Hun, 299, aff'd in 75 N. T. 244; s. c, 31 Am. R. 463. v. — ^ 55 JV. Y. 656. See People ex PRIEST— PEOUTY. 639 rel Barry v. Mercein. See (Custody of children) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1771, n. Priest v. Cnmmiiigs, 16 Wend. 617. Rev'd in 20 Id. 338. See Mick «. Mick. Decis- ion in 20 Wend, approved (Effect of natur- alization) in Heeney v. Brooklyn Benevolent Society, 39 N. Y. 333. Collated with other cases in Sharaw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 302. T. Price, 3 Keyes, 222. Explained (Right to compel finding of fact) in Quincey •b. Young, 5 Daly, 44. T. Watkins, 2 Hill, 225. Explained (To what date letters of administration re- late back) in Willard on Executors, 188. Prime, Matter of, 1 Barb. 296; s. c, more fully, 5 N. 7. Leg. Obs. 409. Prime v. Koehler, 7 Daly, 345. Aff'd in, 77 if. 7. 91. See Leonard v. Vredenburgh. Prince v. Down, 2 E. D. Smith, 525. See to the contrary at common law (Grounds of action on contract for services) Rose. N. P. 555. See also Abb. Tr. Eo. 357. r. Hazelton, 20 Johns. 511 ; s. c, 11 Am. Bee. 307. Criticised and doubted (Nuncupa- tive will, when deemed invalid) in Johnson v. Glasscock, 2 Ala. 242. Followed as sus- tained by authority in Matter of Yarnall, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 46; s. c, 26 Am. Bee. 115, 120, with note. Questioned in Harrington v. Stees, 82 III. 50; s. c, 25 Am. R. 290, 293. Referred to in 1 Red/, on Wills, 184, as presenting a most exhaustive discussion. Commented on in 4 Kent Com. 517, n. . Schuyler, 6 Daly, 412, 415. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 86. v. Soutlmick, 41 JV. Y. 117. Applied (Functions of trustee as separate from his functions as executor) in Matter of Roose- velt, 5 Red/. 601, 622. Disting'd (Power to remove testamentary trustee) in Blake v. Sands, 3 Id. 172. Qnackenbush v. Banks, 1 Den, 128. See Danks v. Quackenbush. Approved (State law when such as to impair obligation of contracts) in 1 Kent Com. 419, n. b. v. EUle, 5 Barb. 469. Criticised and disting'd (Effect of agreement to com- pensate by will) in Bonesteel v. Van Etten, 20 Hun. 468. Followed in Eagan v. Ker- gill, 1 ' Dem. 464, 468. Criticised in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 275, n, as opposed to the prevailing authority. v. Johnson, 55 How. Pr. 94. See Waters v. Shepherd. Followed with Cor- nelius v. Barton, 12 Weekly Dig. 216; Geib v. Topping, 83 N. Y. 46 (Delivery of refe- ree's report) and Phipps v. Carman, 23 Hun, 150; 84 JV. Y. 650 disting'd in Thornton v. Thornton 66 How. Pr. 119. See Code Cu. Pro. 1881, § 1019, n. 7. Quain T. Russell, 8 Hun, 319. Mem. of further decision in 12 Id. 376. See ». Phelan. Quarry Co. v. Bliss, 10 Abb. Pr. 211. Affd in 12 Id. 470; s. c, as Shaler & Hall Quar- ry Co. v. Bliss, 34 Barb. 309; and under latter name, affd in 27 K Y. 297. Quick v. Stuyvesaiit, 2 Paige, 84. Applied (Relief against contract, on ground of mis- take) in Miles v. Stevens, 3 Penn. St. 21 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 621, 625, with note. Qui in bo Appo v. People, 20 2T. Y. 531. See Appo v. People. Quoted (Nature of writ of prohibition) in High on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 781, n. 1. Qnimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306. See Bostwick v. Champion ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. Disting'd (Lia- bility of carrier selling tieket for point beyond its own line) in Milnor v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 53 K Y. 363, 369. Followed ih Ward v. Vanderbilt, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 523 ; Cary v. Cleveland, &c. R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 56 ; Buffett v. Troy & QUIN— EADCLIFF. 643 Followed (Ef- in Walton 0. Boston E. R. Co., 40 K Y. 172. Ap- proved in Williams 0. Vanderbilt, 29 Barb. 491, 503. Relied on with Kessler v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 7 Lans. 62, in Central R. R. 0. Combs, 70 Oa. 533 ; s. c. , 48 Am. R. 582. Included with notes in Thomps. Can: of Pass. 423. Disting'd (Ticket as . evidence of contract) in Barker v. Coffin, 31 Bart. i. ;6, 560. Followed in Van Bus- kirk v. Roberts, 31 JSf. Y. 666. ■ Approv- ingly cited in Gorden 0. Manchester & Lawrence R. R., 52 JY. H. 596 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 97, 101. Quin r. Haui'ord, 1 Hill, 84. feet of verbal acceptance) Maudeville, 50 Iowa, 597; s. c, 41 Am. R. 123; 13 Reporter, 70. v. Lloyd, 1 Sweeny, 253. _ Rev'd in 41 N. Y. 349. Decision in Id. reviewed with other cases (Proof of payment or other sat- isfaction, without having pleaded same) in Wehle e. Haviiand, 42 How. Pi: 407. Ap- plied (Necessity of exception to admission of. evidence) in People 0. Sanders, 3 Hun, 19; Lormoreo. Campbell, 60 Barb. 62, 69. t. Mayor, &e. of N. ¥., 63 Barb. 595; s. . Rogers,, 42 Id. 531. Quincey v. Francis, 5 Abb. IY. C. 286. Ex- plained (Attorney's lien as affected by set- tlement of action) in McCabe 0. Fogg, 60 How. Pr. 489. See Code Civ. Pro. § 66, as amended in 1879. v. White. See Quincey v. Young. < v. Young, 5 Daly, 44. Appeal dis- missed in 53 JY. Y. 504. Another decision in 5 Daly, 327 rev'd in 63 JY. Y. 370. Decision in 53 Id. applied (Review of order . denying motion to send back referee's report) in Hunt v. Chapman, 02 Id. 335. Decision in 5 Daly, 44, applied (Request to find, when to be refused) in Buswell v. Lincks, 8 Id. 518, 529 ; James v. Burchell, 7 Id. 531, 533. Quinlau v. City of Utica, 11 Hun, 217. Afi'd, it seems, in 74 JY. Y. 603, but with- out opinion. Both decisions followed (Evi- dence of other casualties, in action for injuries received by falling on sidewalk) in Avery v. City of Syracuse, 29 Him, 537; District of Columbia v. Armes, 107 XT. S. 519, 525. See (Costs in action against mu- nicipal corporation) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3245, n. Quiun v. Carr, 4 Hun, 259 ; s, c, reported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 402. v. Harden brook, 54 JY. Y. 83. See Lynes 0. Townsend ; Van Kleeck 0. Re- formed Dutch Church. Disting'd (Effect of will to pass after-acquired realty) in Lent v. Lent, 24 Hun, 436, 439. v. Lloyd. See Gaillard 0. Smart. v. O'Gara. See Brooker 0. Coffin. v. People, 11 Hun, 336. AfTd in 71 JY. Y. 561 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 87. Decision in Id. explained (What is a dwelling-house) in Levy 0. People, 80 Id. 327, 334. Dis- ' ting'd as a case of burglary, in Stearns 0. Vincent, 50 Mich. 209; s. c, 45 Am. R. 37, 45, a case involving the duties of officers in executing civil process. v. Qninii, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 437. ' See McPherson 0. Clark. Followed (Revo- cation of will by obliteration) in Lovell 0. Quitman, 25 Hun, 538. Collated with Clark 0. Smith, 34 Barb. 140, and other cases in 25 Am. R. 35, n. v. Van Pelt, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 279. Rev'd in 56 -JY. Y. 417, on the ques- tion of burden of proof. Further proceed- ing in 12 Hun, 633. Decision in 56 JY. Y. disting'd (Liability of trustee, &c. to account for neglect) in Helms 0. Goodwill, 64 Id. 642, 644. v Weed, 5 Hun, 350. See also (Appeal to Supreme Court from county court) Fish 0. Thrasher, 21 Id. 16. Quintard v. Newton, 5 Robt. 72. See Moore 0. Noble. Disapproved (Recovery on war- ranty, without proof of scienter) in Pome- voy on Rem. § 559, n. 1. E. Radcliff t. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 4 JY. Y. 195; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 357, with note, wherein it is said to have been much cited. See Bellinger „. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.; Byrnes 0. City of Cohoes; Chapman 0. Al- bany & Schenectady R. R. Co.; Farrand 0. Marshall ; Gardner 0. Trustees of Newburgh ; Hay 0. Cohoes Co. Applied (Right to dam- ages resulting from act authorized by law) in Story r. N. Y. Elevated R. R Co., 3 Abb. JY. C. 505 ; Corey 0. Buffalo, Corning, &c. 644 EADCLIFF— RAMSDELL. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 489 ; Briesen «. Long Island R. R. Co., 31 Hun, 112. Referred to with Gould v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 N. 7. 522 ; Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 23 Id. 42 ; People v. Kerr, 27 Id. 193; Corey v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 482; Getty v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 21 Id. 617; Ely*. City of Rochester, 26 Id. 133; Plant v. Long Island R. R. Co., 10 Id. 2fi, — as establishing the principle, — in Arnold v. Hudson River R. R, Co., 49 Id. 121. Disting'd in Coster v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 52 Barb. 281, case of improve- ments in river basin; which was rev'd in ef- fect in 43 If. Y. 415, which see. D-istiug'd and applied in Losee v. Buchanan, 61 Barb. 105, 111, case of boiler explosion; which was rev'd in 51 N. T. 479, which see. Disting'd in Clemence v. City of Auburn, 66 Id. 339, case of personal iDJury from defec- tive sidewalk. Disting'd in St. Peter v. Demson, 58 Id. 423, case of blasting. Lim- ited to acts done for public benefit, in Tins- man v. Belvidere R. R. Co., 2 Dutch. (If. J.) 148, 164. Approved with this limitation, in Quinn v. City of Paterson, 3 Id. 35. Ex- amined. in Goodall v. Milwaukee, 5 Wise. 42. Fully approved in Munson ■». Mallory, 36 Conn. 165; s. c, 4 Am. R. 52. Cited as authority with Hay v. Cohoes Co., % N. Y. 159, in Hendershott v. City of Ottumwa, 46 Iowa, 658 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 182. Cited with approval in Garland v. Towne, 55 If. H. 55; s. c, 20 Am. R. 164, 167. Fol- lowed, in American Print Works v. Law- rence, 3 Zfibr. {If. J.) 590; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 420, with note. Applied with Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. 92 - Lasala v. Hol- brook, 4 Paige, 169, in Simmons v. City of Camden, 26 Ark 276 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 620. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomp. on High. 3 ed. 206; also in 26 Am. R. 457, n. See cases cited in 53 Am. Dec. 321, n. Ap- plied to Interference with water-rights in Ellis v. Duncan, 21 Barb. 235 ; Ely v. City of Rochester, 26 Id. 137; Pixley v. Clark, 32 Id. 274; which was rev'd in 35 N. Y. 522, which see. Djsting'd (Water-rights') in Carhart v. Auburn Gas" Light Co., 22 Barb. 308, 310; Donohue v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y:, 3 Daly, 69. Applied (Water-rights) in Gould n. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12 Barb. 6 1 6, 631 ; which was aff'd in 6 If. Y. 522, 542, which see. Followed (Water- rights) as conclusive in Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R., 23 If. Y. 48; see also Selden v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 29 Id. 642. Dis- ting'd (Water-rights) in Pettigrew ». Vil- lage of Evansville, 25 Wise. 223; s. c, 3 Am. R. 50, 55. Disting'd (Right to lateral support for land) in Farrand v. Marshall, 19 Barb. 383; 21 Id. 415. Quoted and collated with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 222. Quoted and cases cited to the contrary in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 549. v. United.Ius. Co., 7 Johns. 38. Appears to be cited in, Waples Proc. in Hem, § 301. as not in harmony with numerous other cases cited (Presumption of knowledge by neutral of existence of blockade). Cited in 1 Kent Com. 146, n. a, as sustaining the English doctrine of actual blockade. Cited (Diplomatic correspondence as evidence of facts therein recited) in 2 Taylor on En. 1423, to show that though in England its effect is not clear, yet such evidence is ad- missible in some American courts. Radde v. Whitney, 4 E. D. Smith, 378. Col- lated with other cases in 58 Am. Dec. 358, n. (Effect of levy on personal property as satisfaction of judgment that will discharge surety). Radway t. Biiggs, 37 N. Y. 258. Followed (Liability for loss resulting from unguarded condition of dock) in Kennedy v. Mayor, &c. of N.'Y., 73 Id. 365, 368. Limited (Liability of lessor for injury resulting from condition of leased premises) in Swords v. Edgar, 59 Id. 28, 37. Rae, Matter of, 5 Hun, 455. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in 63 N. Y. 645, but with' out opinion. Rae v. Beach. See Rae v. Harteau. v. Havteau, 53 Mow. Pr. 25 ; s. p., 7 Daly, 95. Further decision in Id. 100; which was aff'd as Rae v. Beach, in 76 If. Y. 164. See Porter v. Kingsbury. t. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 39 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 192. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 62 If. Y. 631, but without opinion. Ragan v. Allen, 7 Hun, 537. See Lupton v. Lupton. Followed (Legacy, when charge on real estate) in Manson v. Manson, 8 Abb. If. C. 123, 127. Railway Pass. Assur. Co. v. Warner, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & C.)Add.n. Rev'd, it seems, in 62 If. Y. 651, without concur- ring in the grounds. Rainey y. Laing, 58 Barb. 453. Disting'd (Right of joint stock association to hold real estate) in Howell v. Earp, 21 Hun, 393. Explained in Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. If. G. 317, 396. Rainsford Y. Rainsford, 57 Barb. 58. Aft'd in 47 If. Y. 656, but without opinion. Rnmaley v. Leland, 6 Robt. 358. Modified in 43 If. Y. 539. Decision in Id. explained (Inn-keeper's liability for watch worn and used in ordinary manner) in 2 Pars, on Gmtr. 149, n. 1, Keller's ed. Ramscliander y. Hammond, 2 Johns 200. Explained (Application of statute of limita- tions to matters of account) in Green v. Ames, 14 If. Y. 232. Examined with other cases in Ogden v. Astor, 4 Sandf. 328. Ramsay v. Gardner, 11 Johns. 439. Applied (Agent's right to charge principal with loss occasioned in course of his employment) in Powell v. Trustees of Newburgh, 19 Johns. 287. Ramsdell v. Morgan, 16 Wend. 574.- Over- ruled with Keutgen v. Parks, 2 Sandf. 60 (Purchaser on usurv, not a bona fide pur- chaser) in Williams" v. Tilt, 36 A 7 . Y. 319; so stated in Huger v. Wilson, 63 Bm-b. 237. RAMSEY— RANSOM. 643 Ramsey v. Gould, 4 Lans. 476. Dismissing appeal from Ramsey v. Erie R'y Co., 9 Abb. Pr. K 8. 342. Ramson t. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 1 5 How. Pr. 145; s. c, more fully, as Rawson i). Mayor, &c, 4 Alb Pr. 342. Randall t. Albnrtis, 1 Hilt. 285. Collated with other cases (Eviction of lessee) in McAdam on Land'. & T. 2 ed. § 212. v. Cook, 17 Wend. 53. See Collins v. Brush. See (Effect of sale of chattels unaccompanied by delivery) Smith v. Acker, 31 Wend. 653. v. Crandall, 6 Hill, 342. Collated with other cases (Question of title in action for trespass on highway) in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 329. v. Duseubnry, 39 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 174. Aff' d, it seems, in 63 N. Y. 645, but without opinion. Further proceeding in 51 How. Pr. 367; which was aff'd in 41 Super. Ol. (J. & 8.) 456. See Lansing v. Lansing. Decision in 39 Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) cited with other cases (Right of executors, &c. to create liens orally) in 15 Am. L. Ben. 450, citing cases. v. Elwell, 52 N. Y 521 ; s. c, 11 Am. B. 747. Followed with Hovle ». Plattsburg R. R. Co., 54 N. T. 314 (Rolling stock as personalty) in Neilson v. Iowa Eastern R. R. Co., 51 Iowa, 184; s. c.,.33 Am. B. 127. ■ v. Hall, Hill & D. 239. See (Costs in justices' court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ■ § 3075, n. ■ v. Parker. 3 Sandf. 69; s. a, 1 N. T. Leg. Ols. 332 with points of counsel. Dis- approved (Nature of presumption of fraud in sale, &c. not accompanied with change of possession) in Groat v. Rees, 20 Barb. 28. Followed (Validity of sale of goods) in Jones v. O'Brien, 36 Super. Gt. {J. & 8.) 58, 63. y. Sackett, 56 How. Pr. 225. Aff d in effect in 77 K Y. 480. v. Smith, 1 Den. 214. Overruled (Lia-- bility of school trusteeos in making assess- ment) in Jewell v. Von Steenburgh, 58 N. Y. 85, 90. ■ t. Van Vechten, 19 Johns. 73 ; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 193; and Thomps. Liab. of Off. & A. 73, with notes. See Ludlow v. Sim- ond. Said in 2 Am. Deo. 516, n., to be a leading case in N. Y. and to have been . extensively noticed elsewhere. Disting'd (Liability on contract made by agent) in Schaefer v. Henkel, 7 Abb. JST. O. 12; Plumb v. Milk, 19 Barb. 77; Auburn City B'k v. Leonard, 40 Id. 136 ; Gage «. Jaqueth, 1 Lans. 212; Guyon v. Lewis, 7 Wend. 80. Applied in Bellinger v. Bentley, 1 Hun, 565: Worrall o. Munn, 5 N~. Y. 241; Bank of Genesee v. Patchin B'k, 19 Id. 315; Brpckway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 41. Ex- plained and applied in Haisht ». Sahler, 30 Barl. 221 ; Gram v. Seton, 1 Hall, 278. Followed in St. Andrew's Bay Land Co. v. Mitchell. 4 Fla. 192; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 340, with note. Disting'd with Dubois v. \ Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 4 Wen/7. 285, in City of Providence v. Miller, 1 1 B. I. 272; s. c, 23 Am. B. 453. Reviewed with Dubois v. Delaware, &c. Canal Co., 4 Wend. 288; Haight v. Sahler, 30 Barb. 218; Ford». Williams, 13 K Y. 577; Worrall v. Munn, 5 Id. 299 ; Lawrence v. Taylor, 5 Hill, 107; Evans v. Wells, 22 Wend. 324, and other cases in 16 Western Jut. 623. Doubted in Waterman on Sp. Per/. § 245, n. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. §296, lied. v. Wilkins, 4 Den. 577. Commented on (Effect of non-residence in causing sus- pension of statute of limitations) in Camp- . bell v. White, 22 Mich. 178, 192. Randell v. Von Ellert, 4 Abb. N. C. 88; s. c, fully reported, in 12 Hun, 577; and as Randell v. Van Ellert. 54 How. Pr. 363. See (Referee's deed) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1244, n. Randolph v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 5 Weehly Dig. 150. Aft'd, it seems, in 74 N. Y. 608. v. Leary, 3 E. D. Smith, 637. Cited (Nature of foreclosure of mechanic's lien as quasi proceeding in rem) in Waples Proc. in Bern, § 619. — - v. Loughlin, 48 ST. Y. 456. See Peo- ple v. Spooner. Explained (Comparison of handwritings) in Miles v. Loomis, 10 Hun, 372, 377; which was aff'd in 75 H. Y. 288, which see. Cited with Ellis ». People, 21 How. Pr. 356, in 1 Whart. Com. on En. §713. Rankiue \. Elliott, 14 How. Pr. 339. AfTd in 16 N. Y. 377. Decision in Id. said to be overruled with Calkins v. Atkinson, 2 Lans. 15; Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Bad- ger, 67 N. Y. 299 ; Tracy v. First Nat. B'k of Selina, 37 Id. 523 (Receiver's right - to collect subscription), — by Farnsworth v. Wood, 91 K Y. 313, but the latter case dis- approved in 29 Alb. L. J. 365. Ranney v. McMullen, 5 Abb. iV G. 246. See (Liability of grantee of mortgaged prem- • ises) cases cited in Id. 230, n. v. Peyser, 20 Hun, 11. Rev'd in 83 HT. Y. 1. See Referee's report in 5 Abb. N. C. 259, n. See People ex rel. Day n. Bergen. v. Stringer, - 4 Bosw. 663. Disting'd (Security for costs from non-resident pend- ing appeal) in Flint v. Van Deusen, 24 Hun, 440, 442. v. Warren, 13 Hun, 11. Further de- cision in 17 Id. 111. Ransom,' Ex parte, 3 Code B. 148. Ap- proved (What is special proceeding in con- demnation proceedings) in N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. Marvin, 11 N. Y. 276. Ransom T. Mack, 2 Hill, 587 ; s. c, 15 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 463, with brief note ; and 38 Am. Dec. 602, with extended note. See Ireland v. Kip ; Smedes v. Bank of Utica. Followed (Sufficiency of notice of protest) in De La Hunt v. Higgins, 9 Abb. Pr. 422-425; Beale v. Pnrrish, 20 K Y. 407,410; Piatt B.Drake, 1 Doug {Mich.) 6±6 EANSOM— RATfLBUN. 300. Followed with Sheldon v. Benhnm, 4 Hill, 129, 133, in Shelbunie Falls Nat. B'k v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177; s. c, 3 Am. R. 445, 449. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 501. v. N. T. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 K 7. 415. See Curtis v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co. Followed (Damages for mental suffering) in Mattescn v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 62 Barb. 364, 379. Disting'd with Morse v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co., 10 Id. 625 ; Curtis v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co., Id. 283, in Johnson ». Wells, 6 Nev. 224; s. c, 3 Am. It. 245, 250. T.Nichols, 22 N. 7. 110. Applied (Husband's right to personalty of wife, after her death) in Burke v. Valentine, 5 .455. Pr. J!T. S. 170; Ryder v. Halse, 24 N. 7. 377. Explained in Barnes v. Underwood, 47 Id. 359; which rev'd 3 Lans. 531, which see. Applied to realty in Beamish v. Hoyt, 2 Rdbt. 317. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 289. ■ v. Wetmore, 39 Barb. 104. Disting'd (Power of court over amendment of plead- ings) in Bigelow v. Dunn, 53 Barb. 571. Rapalee v. Stewart, 27 Jf. 7. 310. See Brigham v. Tillinghast ; Nicholson v. Lea- vitt. Discussed (Terms of sale in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Bur- rill on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. Applied (Right of one creditor who assented, to repudiate assignment) in Chafee v. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 71 Me. 514; s. c, 36 Am. R. 345, 350. Eapaljev. Hall, 1 Sandf. Ch. 399. Ex- plained and limited (Charging trustee, &c. with interest) in Cowing v. Howard, 46 Barb. 579. Bapalye v. Rapalye, 27 Barb. 610. Follow- ed and extended (Remainder over upon specific bequest of chattels, void) in Smith v. Van Nostrand, 3 Sun, 450; which was rev'd in 64 K 7. 278. — — v. Anderson, 4 Hill, 472. See Powell v. Waters. Followed (Purchase of obliga- tion at a discount, with guaranty of pay-* ment, when not usurious) in Sutherland ■ v. Woodruff, 26 Bun, 411. v. Mackie, 6 Cow. 250. Followed and Russell v. Carrington, 42 N~. 7. 118, cited (Effect of sale of undivided part of mass) in Prescott i>. Locke, 51 JI. H. 94 ; s. c, 12 Am. B. 55, 63. v. Prince, 4 Hill, 119; s. a, 40 Am. Dee. 267, with note wherein are • collected citations. Raphaelsky v. Lynch, 12 Abb. Pr. W. S. ■ 224 ; s. c.„ 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 31 ; and as Raphelsky v. Lynch, 43 How. Pr. 157. Raplee v. Arnot, 4 Hun, 423. Affd in 09 N. 7. 616. Rapp v. Williams, 1 Hun, 716; s. c, more fully, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 174. Applied (Restraining summary proceedings by in- junction) in Knox v. McDonald, 25 Hun, 269. Compare Code Civ Pro. § 2265. Eappelyea v. Russell, 1 Daly, 214. Dis- ting'd (Liability of estate for services ren-" dered without express agreement) in Hewett v. Bronson, 5 Id. 1, 4. Rappleye v. Adee, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 126. Explained (Acceptance of goods as required by statute of frauds) in 1 Benj. on Sales. § 166, n. 14, Coibin's 4 Am. ed. Rasquin v. Knickerbocker Stage Co.. 12 Alb. Pr. 324; s. c, 21 How. Pr. 292. See McDowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Opposed (Attorney's right to go on notwith- standing settlement) in Pulver v. Harris, 62 Barb. 500, 507. Questioned and explained in Lamont v. Washington & Georgetown R R. Co., 2 Mack (Dist. of C.) 502; s. c, 47 Am. R. 268. Ratcliff v. Wales, 1 Hill, 63. See Barnes «. Camack. Approved (When widow may- testify concerning matter in which deceased husband was interested) in Jackson v. Bar- ron, 37 K H. 494. Ratcliffe y. Cary, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 4 ; s. c, as Ratcliffe v. Gray, 3 Eeyes, 510. Rathbou y. Budlong, 15 Johns. 1. Cited as leading authority (Liability on instrument executed by agent) in Randall v. Snyder, 1 Lans. 163. Approved with Pentz v. Stan- - ton. 10 Wend. 276, in Robertson v. Pope, 1 Rich. (So. Car.) 001 ; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 267, 270, with note. Included in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 742. Eathbone v. Hooney, 58 N. 7. 463. Fol- lowed and declared not inconsistent with Scott v. Onderdonk, 14 Id. 9 (Effect of con- veyance upon sale for municipal assess-- ments) in Marsh v. City of Brooklyn, 59 Id. 280, 284. v. McConnell, 20 Barb. 311. Affd in 21 iV. r. 466. Decision in Id. disting'd (Costs in case presenting question of title)'; Powers v. Conroy, 47 How. I'r. 85, being followed in Boardway v. Scott, 31 Hun, 378. v. Stanton. See Cady «. Fairchild. v. Tucker, 15 Wend. 498. Affd in 18- Id. 175. Both decisions explained (When credit is given by vendor to agent exclu- sively) in Maryland Coal Co. «. Edwards, 4 Hun, 432, 434. v. Warren. See King v. Baldwin. Ratlilmn v. lug-all, 7 Wend. 320. See Fer- ris v. Paris ; Taylor v. Bates. Disting'd (Necessity of demand before suing) in Shackleford v. Ward, 3 Ala. 37; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 435. Followed in Anderson v. Hulme, 5 Montana, 295 ; s. c, 19 Reporter. 439. y. Martin, 20 Johns. 343. Overruled (Liability to trial by court-martial, of militia man that refuses compliance with "requisition of president of U. S.) in 12 Wheat. 19. v. Northern Cent. R. R. Co., 50 N. 7. 656. Applied (Limitation of action against foreign corporation) in Tioga R. R. v. Blossburg, &c. R. R. Co., 20JPall. 137, 147, 148, 151. Compare Code 4&». Pro. § 390. . v. Platner, 18 Barb. 272. Said in Peck EATHBUN— RAWSOK 64? «. Crouse, 46 Id. 157, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. Disting'd (Validity of deed of trust made to secure debts) in Mor- ris v. Pearson, 79 2f. 0. 253; s. c, 28 Am. R. 315. Quoted (Preferences) in Burrill on Assign. § 169, 4 ed. Explained (Hin- drance, fraud and delay) in Id. § 337, n. 2. Quoted and collated with other cases (Assigning only part of debtor's property) in Bishop on Assign. § 1 67. v. Ratubun, 6 Barb. 98. Disting'd (Effect of delivery of deed for record, as. delivery to grantee) in Van Valen v. Schem- erhorn, 22 Sow. Pr. 416, 419. v. , 40 How. Pr. 328. See, in con- nection therewith (Insanity of parties to divorce suit) Garnett v. Garnett, 114 Mass. 379; s. c, 19 Am. R. 369; Mordaunt v. Moncrieffe, L. R. 2 5. 0. & D. 379. ' y. Ross, 46 Barb. 127. Approved and applied (Evidence of former character) in •Tompkins v. Wadley, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 424, 429.' Applied in Stevens v. Rodger, 25 Han, 55. Ratzky y. People, 29 K Y. 124 ; s. c, 28 How. Pr. 112. Followed and explained (Effect of statute changing punishment for crime committed before passage of statute) in McKee v. People, 32 N. Y. 239. Applied (Power of appellate court on writ of error in criminal cases) in People v. Ferris, 32 How. Pr. 421. Kan v. People. See Nevin v. Ladue. Rauhitscliek y. Blank, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 564. AfTd in 80 W. Y. 478. Rawdon v. Corbin, 3 How. Pr. 416. Ex- plained and qualified (Sufficiency of affi- davit for service by publication) in Peck v. Cook, 41 Barb. 549, 553. y. Redfield, 2 Sandf. 178. Included with notes (Notice of protest) in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 407. Rawiszer v. Hamilton, 51 How. Pr. 297. Compared (Merger of mortgage in decree of foreclosure) iu 20 Am. L. Reg.N. S. 685. Rawley v. Brown, 71 iV. Y. 85. Further decision in 18 Hun, 456. Subsequent de- cision in 11 Weekly Dig. 454, where, as appears from 24 Hun, 140, opinion was by Boabdman, J. Decision in 18 Id. disting'd (Necessity of demand, before action to recover goods wrongfully seized under exe- cution) in Master v. Webb, 24 Id. 90, 92 ; which rev'd 60 How. Pr. 302, which see. Compare 15 Am L. Rev. 378. Decision in 71 H. Y. quoted (Possession as evidence of title) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 717. Rawls y. American Mnt. Life Ins. Co., 36 Barb. 357. Aff'd in 27 iV. Y. 282; s. c, with note by Prof. Dwight, in 3 Am. L. Reg. 167. See St. John. v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co.; Valton v. National Loan Fund Ass'n Co. Decision in 27 H. Y. disting'd (Evidence of declarations of insured) in Estes v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 Hun, 352; Swifts. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 63 ■2T. Y. 189 ; but see Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 67 Id. 193. Applied in Mulliner v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C.) 451. Cited, as with the de- cided weight of authorities, in Granger's Life Ins. Co. o. Brown, 57 Mies. 308 ; s. p., 34 Am. Rep. 446, with note which see, for comments upon cases cited. Applied (Evi- dence as to health of insured person) in Highbee v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 66 Barb. 468. Applied (Hypothetical ques- tions to physician respecting physical condi- tion of insured) in Edington v. iEtna Life Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 552. To the contrary see cases cited in Abb. Tr. 3o. 494, n. 1. Citpd with Keller ». N. Y. Central R. ■ R. Co., 2 Abb. Ct'. App. Dec. 480 (Facts as to which conclusions of expert are inadmissible) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ho. § 436. Applied (Necessity of insurable interest in life) in Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 JV. Y. 593, 600. — v. Carr, 17 Abb. Pr. 96. See (Place of trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 982, n. v. Deshler, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 48 ; s. c, 28 How. Pr. 66. Affd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 12 ; s. c, 3 Keyes, 572. Decis- ion in Id. applied (Effect of conditional sale accompanied with possession, on rights of subsequent bona fide purchaser) in Bates v. Cunningham, 12 Hun, 29 ; Comer v. Cun- ningham, 77 N. Y. 397. Disting'd in Farmers' & Mech. Nat. B'k v. Logan, 74 Id. 585. Criticised as not authority for hold- ing that a special property will not author- ize an action, in City Bank v. Rome W. & O. R. R. Co., 44 Id. 136. Disting'd (Ef-" feet of order for delivery of grain) in Mech. & Trad. B'k v. Farmers', Ac. B'k, 60 Id. 49 ; which rev'd 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 402,. which see. Rawson v. Adams, 17 Johns. 130. Applied (Effect of return by justice, on appeal to' county court) in Barber v. Stettheimer, 13 Hun, 200. Collated with Edwards v. Campbell, 23 Barb. 423 ; Bedell v. Carll, 33 H. Y. 581 ; Decker v. Livingston, 15 Johns. 479 ; Sayles v. Olmstead, 66 Barb. 590 ; A1-' vord v. Baker, 9 Wend. 323 ; Grey v. Grey 47 N. Y. 552 ; Kenney v. Pub. Adm., 2' Brad/. 319 (Presumption of payment) in 30 Alb. L. J. 124. v. Copland, 3 Barb. Ch. 166. Doubted and said to have been overruled by Ket- chum v. Miln, Seld. Notes,_ 152 (Set-off 'of unmatured claim against intestate) in Jor- dan v. Shoe & Leather Nat. B'k, 12 Hun, 512, 514. Compared and doubted in Pat- terson v. Patterson, 59 N. Y. 574, 581. — - v. Grow, 4 E. D. Smith, 18. See (No- tice of appeal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. y. Holland, 5 Daly, 155; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 292. Affd in 59 N. Y. 611 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 394. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 220. Aff'd in 48 N. Y. 212. Decis- ion in Id. disting'd (Effect of railroad tick- et as evidence of contract) in Elmore v. Sands, 54 Id. 515, Disting'd (Husband's 648 RAWSON— READ. right to sue for injury to wife's parapher- nalia) in McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 Id. 303, 317: Followed in The State of New York, 7 Ben. 450. Explained, as not authority for enabling executory contract between husband and wife, — in Van Order v. Van Order, 8 Hun, 316. Ap- plied (Effect of transfer of personalty from husband to wife) in Brace v. Gould, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 227. Reviewed with Savage v. O'Neill, 44 H. T. 298 ; Thompson v. . Loan Comm'rs of Otsego, 79 Id. 54 ; Meeker e. Wright, 76 Id. 262 ; Seymour v. Fellows, 77 Id: 178 (Unity of husband and wife, as to property rights) in Armitage v. Mace, 48 Super. Ct (J. & S.) 107. Decision in 2 Abb. Pr. N. 8. cited in Barnum v. Farthing, 40 How. Pr. 25, 31, as conflicting with Little t>. Willetts, 37 Id. 481. — — v. Turner, 4 Johns. 469. See Jackson «. Bartlett ; McElroy v. Mancius. Disting'd (Action against one as barring action against another) in Mattlage v. Poole, 15 Sun, 556. 559. Explained in dissenting opinion of Wilde, J. in Campbell v. Phelps, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 62; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 139, 144, with note; citing also Livingston v. Bishop, 1 Johns. 290. v, Van Riper, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 370. Compare (Costs against municipal corporation) Code Civ. Pro. § 3245. Ray v. Birdseye, 5 Ben. 619. Affi'g Birdseye v. Ray, 4 Hill, 158. v. Rowley, 1 Hun, 614 ; s. c, fully re- ported, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& C.) 43. Cited (Presumption created by averment of juris- diction) in 2 Whart. Com. on Bo. § 1303. Raymond, Matter of, 21 Hun, 229. Very brief mem. in Id. 586, ordering reargument. Raymond v. Bearnard, 12 Johns. 274. See Ketchum v. Evertson. Followed (Necessity that contract rescinded in part be wholly rescinded) in Fay v. Oliver, 20 Vt. 118 ; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 764. v. Hanford, 3 Hun, 612 ; s. c, reported fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 312. v. Howland, 17 Wend. 389. Trial at nisi prius reported, in Anth. N. P. 308. ■ v. Loyl, 10 Barb. 483. See Van Valken- burgh v. Watson. Collated with Cromwell v. Benjamin, 41 Barb. 558, and. other cases (Obligation on parent to maintain child) in 20 Am. R. 403, m. Reviewed with Crom- well v. Benjamin, 41 Barb. 558, 561 ; Smith v. Church, 5 Hun, 109, in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 68, where it is thought to be still an open question in N. Y. v. Richmond, 78 N. T. 351. Further proceedings in 88 Id. 671 ; which affd mem. in 23 Hun, 523. Decisions in 78 iV. Y. and 88 Id. discussed (Judgment in cred- itor's action) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 168, — . — v. Squire, 11 Johns. 47. See Andrews v. Beecker. Reviewed with Jackson v. Burtis, 14 Johns. 391 ; Jackson v. Davenport, 18 Id. 295; and Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. 1 ; Franklin v. Osgood, 14 Johns. 527, disting'd (What constitutes power coupled with interest) in Mansfield v. Mans- field, 6 Conn. 559; s. c, 16 Am. Bee. 76. Rayner v. Pearsall, 3 Johns. Ch. 578. Ex- plained and disting'd (Liability of executors, &c. for default of agent) in McCloskey v. Gleason, 56 Vt. 264; s. c, 48 Am. R. 770. Raynor v. Hoagland, 39 Super. Ct. (.7! & S.) 11. Affd, it seems, in 64 IT. Y. 630, but without opinion. T. Page, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 684; s. c, reported 2 Run, 652. v. Selmes, 7 Bans. 440. Rev'd in 52 2C. Y. 579. Decision in Id. applied (Relief against mistake in proceedings for judicial sale of land) in Matter of Jackson, 6 Hun, 513, 515. v. Wilson, 6 Hill, 469. Followed (Ef- fect of conveyance entitled to be recorded, as constructive notice) in Edwards v. Mc- Kernan, 55 Mich. 520, 526. Followed with Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. 278 ; Jackson it. Pratt, 10 Id. 387 (Defendant not permitted to set up as outstanding title mortgage with which he is not connected) in Woods v. Hilderbrand, 46 Mo. 284; s. c, 2 Am. R. 513. Explained (Surrender of deed) in Wheeler v. Walden, 17 Neb. 122; s. c, 19 Reporter, 17. Rea v. McEachron, 13 Wend. 465; s. c, 28 Am. Bee. 471, with note containing citations. Applied (Invalidity of judicial sale had without confirmation) in Stilwell v. Swar- thout, 81 N. Y. 109, 114. Followed in Young o. Keogh, 11 III. 644. Reab v. McAllister. See McAllisters. Reab. v. Moore. See McMillan v. Vanderlip. Read v. City of Buffalo, 67 Barb. 526. Affd in effect in 74 A 7 ". Y. 463. v. , 3 Keyes, 447. Applied (Effect of acts of officer de facto) in Snyder ®. Schrain, 59 How. Pr. 404, 406. v. Becker, 5 Hun, 646. Affd on sec- ond point in 67 H. Y. 182. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 3 Lans. 213. Rev'd in 49 N. Y. 652. — — v. French, 28 K Y. 285. See Gaillard «. Smart. Disting'd and explained (Suffi- ciency of admission of service of summons) in Maples v. Mackey, 15 Hun, 533, 538. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 434, n. Dis- ting'd (Sufficiency of statement on confes- sion of judgment) in Smith ■». Davis, 29 Hun, 306, as inapplicable to affidavit on application for attachment Quoted (Inter- ference by client with attorney in progress of suit) in 2 Greenl. on Be. 14 ed. § 141, n. a. v. Hurd, 7 Wend. 408. Applied (Time when payment is to be regarded as made, so far as concerns statute of limitations) in Butts v. Perkins, 41 Barb. 514; Smith*. Ryan, 66 K Y. 357; which aff'd ?9 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 498, which see. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. § 241, 6 ed. v. People, 86 N. Y. 381. Affg as it seems, mem. in 24 Hun, 383. y. Pratt. See Starbuck v. Murray. KEAD-KECTQE, &o. 649. t. Smith, 1 Hun, 263; mem. s. a, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & 0.) 760. v. Spanieling, 5 Bosw. 395. Aff'd in 30 K Y. 630. Both decisions explained (Act of God) in Ang. on Garr. § 163, n. a, 6 ed. ; Id. § 170. Decision in 30 XT. Y. ex- plained in 2 Qreenl. on Ed. 14 ed. § 219, n. b. V. Worthington, 9 Bosw, 617. Quoted (General assignment, how to be construed) in Wait on Fraud. Oonv. § 343. Beadev. Commercial Ins. Co., 3 Johns. 352; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 495. Cited (Right of master of vessel to hypothecate it at port of destination) in Waples Proc. in Rem, § 477. y. Livingston, 3 Johns. Gh. 481 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 520, with note. Referred to in Dygert v. Remerschnider, 32 XT. Y. 629, 648, as overruled (Effect of voluntary con- . veyance as against creditors) in Babcock v. Eckler, 24 Id. 623. Explained and applied in Tappan v. Butler, 7 Bosw. 489. Reiter- ated in Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 Johns. Gh. 450, 452. Explained in Seward v. Jackson, 8 Gow. 421. See "Wickes v. Clarke, 3 Edw. . 61. Compare Wood v. Savage, Walls. Gh. (Mich.) 475. Questioned in Dunlap,«. Haw- kins, 59 Xf. Y. 342, 346. Referred to as modified, — in Cole v. Tyler, 65 Id. 78. See ' Savage v. Murphy, 34 XT. 7. 508 ; which aff'd 8 Bosw. 75, which see; Phillips v. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 412; Case v. Phelps, 39 Id. 164. Disting'd in Howard®. Williams, 1 Bailey L. {So. Gar.) 575 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 483, with note. Disapproved in Hutchison v. Kelly, 1 Rob. (Fa.) 123; s. a, 39 Am. Dec. 250, 254; but see opinion of Stanard, J., on p. 262. Followed, in Satterthwaite v. Emley, 3 Green (XT. J.) 489; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 618, 620, with note. Relied on in Win- chester i). Charter,12 Allen (Mass.) 610. Said in 14.4m. Dec. 705, n., to have been departed from in Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 406 ; but followed in other States, and to have produced much of the diversity of opinion and uncertainty existing. So also referred to in Waterman on Sp. Per/. § 341, n., as modified in Seward v. Jackson. Compared with other authorities in Story on Eg. Jur. §§ 359, 360. Discussed in 4 Kent Com. 309, n. o. Commented on in 2 Id. 44V; Id. 442, n. a. Cited approvingly and discussed in Id. 173. Commented on in Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 187, n. 2. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Oonv. §§ 93, 96. Com- pared (Power of court as to transfer of real . estate) in Dawley v. Brown, 65 Barb. 121. v. Sweetzer, 6 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 9. Lan- guage of Clebke, J., approved (Limits of literary and artistic criticism) in 8 South. L. Rev. XT. S. 173. v. Waterlionse, 12 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 255. Aff'd in 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 78; which ■ was rev'd in 52 XT. Y. 587. Decision in Id. disting'd (Executors', &c, when personally liable for costs) in Bedell v. Barnes, 29 Hun, 589. Explained in Genet v. Daven- port, 58 K Y. 608. Applied in More v. Darr, 45 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 155. See' Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3247, n. Beading y. Gray, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 79. See (Duty of vendor of real estate as to dis- charge of incumbrance) Rinaldo v. Hous- mann, 1 Abb. XT. O. 312. 1 Beady Booting Co. v. Chamberlin, 1 Abb. XT. 0. 192 ; s. c, 6 Daly,, 521, and more fully 52 How. Pr. 123. Eeal, Matter of. See Real v. People. Beal v. People, 55 Barb. 051 ; s. c, 8 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 314. Aff'd in 42 XT. Y. 270. Previous decision as Matter of Real, 7 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 26; s. c, 55 Barb. 186. See points, &c, in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. See Ryan v. People. Decision in 42 W. Y. followed (Opinions as to mental condition) in Sisson v. Conger, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 569. Followed (Questioning witness as to his having been in prison) in Russell v. St. Nicholas Fire Ins. Co., 51 XT. Y. 643. Dis- ting'd in People v. Brown, 72 Id. 574. Applied in People v. Courtney; 31 Hun, 199. Reviewed in 16 Am. L. Rev. 9. Com- mented on in 1 Best on En. § 130, n. a, Wood's ed. Followed (Time of adoption' of art. 6 of N. Y. Const.) in People ex rel Davis v. Gardner, 45 XT. Y. 812. Col-, lated with People v. Gardner, 59 Barb. 198; 45 N. Y. 812; in 23 Am. L. Reg. XI. S. 259, n. Beal Estate Trust Co. v. Keech, 7 Hun, 253. Modified and aff'd in 69 XT. Y. 248 ; s. a, 25 Am. R. 181. Decision in 7 Hun fol- lowed (Effect of payment to procure exten- sion of time to pay mortgage debt) in Abra- hams v. Claussen, 52 How. Pr. 243 ; Lang- don v. Gray, Id. 387, 392 ; Earle v. Ham- mond, 2 Abb. XT. C. 370. Explained in Stout v. Rider, 12 Hun, 575. Reciprocity Bant, Matter of, 29 Barb. 369; s. c, 17 How. Pr. 323. Rev'd in 22 XT. Y. 9. See Matter of Empire City Bank ; Matter of Lee & Co.'s Bank; Matter of Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank. Decision in 22 N. Y. dis- ting'd (Stockholder's liability for debts) in Wintringham v. Rosenthal, 25 Hun, 560, 582. Explained, and the language quali- fied (Effect of L. 1849, c. 226, respecting liability of stockholders in bank) in Matter of Hollister Bank, 23 N. Y. 508, 511, 513. Beckhowv. Schanck, 43 N. Y. '448. Quoted (Ejectment against tenant at sufferance) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 218. Rector v. Clark, 12 Hun, 189 Rev'd in 78 XT. Y. 21. Decision in Id. applied (Damages for false return) in Brooks v. St. John, 25 Hun, 540, 542. Quoted and col- lated with other cases (Appeal from com- missioners of highways) in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 299. v. Pierce. See Maloy v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Rector of Church of Ascension t. Buck- hart. See McAlpin v. Powell. Sector of Church of Eedeemer v. Craw- ford, 5 Rolt. 100. Rev'd, in 43 XT. Y. 476. 650 1 EEOTOR, &c— EEED. Rector, &c. Church of Redemption v. Rec- tor, &c. of Grace Ch., 6 Hun, 166." Rev'd as to personalty, and in all other respects affd, in 68 N. Y. 570. Subsequent decis- ion in 89 Id. 615. Rector of St. Mark's Church, Matter of, 1 Hun, 381. Affd, it seems, in 74 N. Y. 610, but without opinion. Rector of Trinity Church v. Higgins, 4 Bobt. 1. Rev'd in 48 N. Y. 532. Motion ■ forYeargument denied in 4 Robt. 372. See Thomas v. Allen. Decision in 48 If. Y. applied (Liability on covenant of tenant to pay taxes, &c.) in Giles v. Austin, 38 Super. Ct. (J.SS.) 215, 236. . Disting'd in Reading v. Gray, 37 Id. 79, 92. Limited in Whitman v. Nicol, 38 Id. 528, 531. Included in Sedgw. Gas. on Dama. 502. Reviewed with Port v. Jackson, 1 7 Johns. 239; Matter of Negus, 7 Wend. 499, and other cases (Liability on agreement to indemnify) in Sparkman v. Cove, 44 If. J. L. 252 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 473, n. Redfleld v. Middleton, 7 Bom. 649. Dis- ting'd (Action for injunction) in further de- cision, in 1 Abb. Br. If. 8. 15 ; s. c, as Redfleld v. Widdleton, 1 Robt. 79. • v. Supervisors of Genesee, Clarice, 42. Affd in 3 Ch. Sent. 92, but Without opin- ion. See Thomson v: Ebbets. Redlich v. Doll, 54 If. Y. 234. See Gould v. Segee; Mitchell v. Culver. Reviewed with Woodworth v. Bank of America, 19 Johns. 391 ;' Nazro v. Fuller, 24 Wend. 374; McGrath v. Clark, 56 If. Y. 34, and other cases (Effect of alterations in promissory note) in Greenfield Savings Bank v. Stowell, 223 Mass. 196; s. c, 25 Am. R. 67, 74. Also reviewed with other cases in 10 Am. Dec. 271, n. Redmond T. Hoge, 3 Hun, 171. Quoted . (Receiver of corporation) in High on Receiv. § 306, n. 1. s v. Liverpool, &c. Steamship Co., 56 Barb. 320. Rev'd in 46 JV. Y. 578; s. c, 7 Am. R. 390. Decision in Id. applied (When carrier's liability ceases) in Gleadell v. Thomson, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 240. Collated with Witbeck v. Holland, 45 If. Y. 13; McAndrew v. Whitlock, 52 Id. 40; Sherman v. Hudson R. R Co., 64 Id. 254, and other cases in 8 Am. Dee. 215, n., as well considered cases. Said in Warner v. The Illinois, U. S. Cir. Ct. E. D. Ba. 18 Reporter, 12, to concisely and accurately state the rule. Explained in 2 Bars, on Contr. 195, Keller's ed. v. Russell, 12 Johns. 153. Applied in dissenting opinion (Removal of cause to U. S. court) in Chatham Nat. B'k of N. Y. ■». Merchants' Nat. B'k of W. Va., 4 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 196, 202. Redpath v. Vaughan, 52 Barb. 489. Affd, it seems, in 48 If. Y. 655, but without opinio'n. Reed, Ex parte, 4 Hill, 572. Overruled ■ (Wrongful levy as breach of sheriff's bond) in People ex rel. Kellogg v. Schuyler, 4 iV. F. 173. Criticised in 46 Am. Dec. 514, ».' as against sound-reason and public policy, — citing also People ex rel. Kellogg v. Schuy-- ler. See Code Civ. Bro. 1881, § 385, n. Reed v. Drake, 7 Wend. 345. Followed (Validity of bond signed by obligor above conditions) in State v. Wilcox, 59 Mo. 176. v. Farr, 35 W. Y. 113. Explained (Es- toppel in pais in case of boundary line) in- 3 Washb. on Real Brop. 4 ed. 89. v. Gannon, 3 Daly, 414. Rev'd in 50 If. Y. 345. See Baker v. Bliss; William- son v. Brown. v. Gillett. See People v. Collins. v. Girty. See Suydam v. Barber. T. Gordon, 11 Cow. 507. Explained- with Reynolds •». Manning, 1 Id. 228 (Ef- fect of insolvent's discharge) in American Flask Co. v. Son, 3 Abb. Br. If. S. 333,335. v. Keese, 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 269. Affd in60iv". Y. 616. Reed v. Moore, 31 How. Br. 264. Dissent- ing opinion of Mason, J., in Id. 369. See Smith v. Hinds. Decision on p. 264, com- pared (Notice of appeal from justice's de- cision) in Putnam v. Heath, 41 How. Br. 262. See Code Civ. Bro. 1881. § 3070, n.~ v. N. Y. Central , R. R. Co., 56 Barb. 493. Rev'd in 45 If. Y. 574. See contrary to decision in Id. (Evidence of defects other than those producing injury) Murphy v. N. Y. Central R R. Co., 66 Barb. 125. See Cox v. Westchester Turnp. Co., 33 Id. 414. See alse Abb. Tr. Ev. 585. -i- — v. Pruyn, 7 Johns. 426; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 287. See Woodcock v. Bonnet. Ques- tioned with Sherman v. Boyce, 15 Johns. 443; Bigelow v. Provost, 5 Hill, 566 (Sheriff's right to make use of excution that has been paid) in Heilig v. Lemly, 74 If: C. 250 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 490. Cited as authority with Sherman v. Boyce, 15 Johns. 444, in Harwell v. Worsham, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 524; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 572; Mor- ris v. Lake, 9 Smedes & M. {Miss.) 521 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 724, with note. Cited as authority in Holt v. Robinson, 21 Ala. 106 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 240. Cited approvingly with Sherman v. Boyce, 15 Johns. 443, in Stevens v. Morse, 7 Qreenl. {Me.) 36 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 337, 339. Disting'd with Sherman v. Boyce, 15 Johns. 443, as cases of sheriffs, and Livingston ». Newkirk, .3 Johns. Ch. 318; Murray v. De Rottenham, 6 Id. 62, cited as authority (Right of trus- tees, &c. to reimbursement) in Liddel ®. McVickar, 6 Hoist. {If. J.) 44 ; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 369, 378. v. Randall, 29 N. Y. 358. See Hargous v. Stone. Doubted and disting'd (Remedy of vendor, &c. for defects in thing sold. &e.) in Harris v. Rathbun, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec- 330. Disting'd in Wells v. Selwood, 61 Barb. 244; Day v. Pool, 52 N. Y. 420; which affd 63 Barb. 514, which see ; Nich- ols v. Townsend, 7 Hun, 378; Zulleru. Rogr ers, Id. 542 ; Visscher v. Greenback Alkali , Co., 11 Id. 160 ;. Messenger . v. Pratt, .3 REED— EEINACH. 651 Law:. 236 ; Messmore v. N. Y. Shot & Lead - Co., 40 N. Y. 428; Foot v. Bontley, 44 Id. 171 ; Parks v. Morris Ax & Tool Co., 54 Id. 590; Dounce v. Dow, 57 Id. 21. Criti- cised in Woodruff ■». Peterson, 51 Barb. 255. Applied in Stafford n. Pooler, 67 .Bar*. 147 ; Pomeroy v. Shaw, 2 Z»«fy, 270; Neaffie v; Hart, 4 Zras. 5. Explained and applied in Rust v. Eckler. 41 iV. Y. 494. Limited with Beck ». Sheldon, 48 i& 365; Dounce v. Dow, 64 7. 1560, to show that the English doctrine does not prevail in America to its full ex- tent. Reeves v. Denicke, 12 Abb. Pr. K 8. 92. Collated with other cases (Right to use of firm name on dissolution) in 35 Am. R. 550, n. Collated with Adams ». Adams, 7 Abb. JV. G. 292; Dethlefs v. Tamsen, 7 - Daly, 354, and many other N. Y. cases, in 19 Gent. L. J. 362. v. Kimball, G3 Barb. 120. Affd in 40 N. Y. 299. Reformed Chitreh of Gallnpville v. School- craft, 5 Lans. 206; Rev d in 63 N. Y. 134. Reformed Patch Church v. Braudoiv, 52 Barb. 228. Applied (Effect of devise to trustees, &c.) in Curran v. Sears, 2 Red/. 526, 532. Compare Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. iV. O. 317, 320. t. Veeder, 4 Wend. 494. See cases col- lected (Devise to unincorporated church) in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 355, n. Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Brown, 29 Barb. 335 ; s. c, 17 How. Pr, 288. Affd in 4 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 31. Subsequent decision in 54 Barb. 191. See Guernsey v. Carver. Decision in 54 Barb. followed (Recovery on one of several claims as barring recovery on remainder) in Jex v. Jacob, 19 Hun, 105; Burritt v. Beify, 47 Conn. 328 ; Union R. R., &c. Co. v. Traube, 59 Mo. 355. Reid v. Gifford, 6 Johns. Oh. 19. Subse- quent decision in Hoph. 416. See Gardner v. Trusteees of Newburgh. Decision in 6 Johns. Oh. explained as not overruling Gardner v. Trustees of Newburgh, 2 Id. 162 (Power of equity to restrain diversion of waters) in Olmstead v. Loomis, 9 N. Y. 423. Decision in Hoph. explained and fol- lowed (Exception to rule as to multifarious- ness) in Emery «. Erskine, 66 Barb. 14, 20. v. McNaiig-htoii, 15 Barb. 168. Said in Winchell ». Hicks, 18 N. Y. 558, 561, to have been rev'd by Ct. of App. — — v. Martin, 4 Hun, 590. Approved and applied (Effect of discharge in bankruptcy on debt created by fraud, &c.) in Wade v. Clark, 52 Iowa, 158 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 262. v. Payne, 16 Johns. 218; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 311. -See Bank of Geneva v. Howlett;. Ireland ». Kip. Referred to as maintaining a rule well established and embracing the case at bar (Sufficiency of notice to indor- ser) in Chouteau t>. Webster, 6 Mete. {Mass.) 1 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 705, with note. — — v. Rensselaer Glass Factory, 3 Cow. 393. Aff'd as Rensselaer Glass Factory ». Reid, 5 Id. 587. See Pease v. Barber. Decis- ion in 3 Cow. applied (Interest, when recov- erable) in Van Rensselaer v. Jones, 2 Barb. 666; Holmes v. Rankin, 17 Id. 456; Gallup v. Perue, 10 Hun, 526. Collated with other cases in 6 Am. Dec. 191, ». Compared with other cases in 2 Sedgw. on Dama. 7 ed. 170. Decision in 5 Cow. explained in Currie *. White, 6 Abb. Pr. iV. S. 381. Dissented from in Purdy v. Philips. 11 JV". Y. 407. Quoted.in Sedgw. & W. on, Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 670. v. Sprague, 9 Hun, 30. Aff'd in 72 JV. Y. 457. . Reilly's Case, 2 Abb. Pr. K 8. 334. Fol- lowed (State court without jurisdiction to release U. S. soldier on habeas corpus) in Re Neill, 8 Blatchf. C. Ct. 156, 163. Reilly v. Demestre, 7 Weekly Dig. 437. Affd, it seems, in 80 K Y. 659, but with- out opinion. Rentiers v. Ridner. See Claflin «. Farmers' & Citizens' Bank. Reiuach v. Meyer. See Taylor v. Atlantie, &c. R. R. Co. 652 EEINMILLER— RENSSELAER & WASH. P. R. CO. Beinmillerv. Skidmore, 7 Lani. 161. Ap- peal dismissed in 59 Jf. Y. 661. Reitz v. Reitz, 14 Sun, 536. Rev'd in 80 iV. Y. 538. Decision in Id. collated and com- pared with Other cases (Parol evidence to establish trust) in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 336, 338. Religious Society in Whitestone t. Stone, 7 Johns. 112; s. c, 4 AJ Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 266, with brief note. Followed in prin- ciple (Validity of subscription and note for religious or educational purposes) in Am- herst Academy v. Cowls, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 427; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 387i Explained in , Ang. & A. on Corp. § 525, 11 ed. Relyea y. Beaver, 34 Barb. 547. Afl'd as Dubois v. Beaver, in 25 JT. Y. 123. v. Norris, 5 Weekly Dig. 343. Afl'd, it seems, in 77 JT. Y. 629, but without opin- ion. Remer v. Dovren. See Downer v. Remer. Remington v. Palmer, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 696; mem. s. c, 1 Sun, 619. Rev'd in 62 JT. Y. 81. Compare (Oral evidence to vary written contract) Van Brunt «. Day, 8 Abb. JT. C. 336. Decision in 62 JT. Y. commented on in Browne on Stat, ofB\awLs, § 117A,4ed. Remington Paper Co. t. 0' Dougherty, 16 Sun, 594. Modified in 81 JT. Y. 474. See also very brief mem. in Id. 650. Eemsen v. Beekman, 25 JT. Y. 557. See Hoard v. Garner; Pain 1>. Packard. Dis- ting'd (Discharge of surety by neglect of creditor to proceed against principal on re- . quest) in Field v. Cutler, 4 Lam. 197 ; Hunt v. Purdy, 82 JT. Y. 486, 490 ; Converse v. Cook, 25 Hun, 44, 47; Marsh v. Dunckel, Id. 167, 169. < v. Brinekerhoff, 26 Wend. 325; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 251. 260, with note, wherein it is said td be the leading case in N. Y. See Brinckerhoof v. Remsen. Disting'd (Proof of execution of will) in Robinson v. Smith, 13 Abb. Pr. 363. Disting'd with Mitchell v. Mitchell, 16 Run, 97; 77 JT. Y. 596, in Lane ®. Lane, 95 Id. 494. Exam- ined with other cases in Van Hooser v. Van Hooser, 1 Eedf. 368; Von Hoffman v. Ward, 4 Id. 260. Applied in Heady 's Will, 15 Alb. Pr. JT. S. 218; Whitbeck «. Patterson, 10 Barb. 611; Lewis v. Lewis, 13 Id. 26; Brown v. De Selding, 4 Sandf. 16; Chaffee i). Baptist Missionary Conv., 10 Paige, 92 ; Grant v. Grant, 1 Sandf. CK 240. Cited as authority in Will , of John Meurer, 44 Wis. 393; s. c, 28 Am. E. 591. v. Conklin. 18 Johns. 447. Overruled in part (Rent in kind, where payable) in Lush v. Druse, 4 Wend. 313. Commented on with Lush v. Druse, in Livingston v. Miller. 11 JT. Y. 80, 91. - v. Graves. See Kimball v. Newell. - — v. People, 57 Bark 324. Rev'd (Evi- dence of character in criminal cases) in 43 jr. y. 6. — t. Remsen, 2 Johns. Ch. 495. Quoted (Examination before master) in 3 Greer.l. on Eb. 14 ed. § 335, n. 4. Renard v. Hargous, 2 Doer, 540. Aff'u in 13 JT. Y. 259. Decision in Id. considered conclusive (Powers of recorder, &c. in N. Y. as Supreme Court commissioner) in Peo- ple v. Goodwin, 50 Barb. 562, 565. V. Sampson, 2 Duer, 285. Aff'd in 12 JT. Y. 561. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Tuller, 4 Bosw. 107. Followed (Op- eration of composition deeds) in Hall v. Merrill, 5 Bosw. 266, 2T3. Disting'd in Chemical Nat. B'k v. Kohner, 8 Daly, 530, 535. - Renaud v. O'Brien, 25 How. Pr. 67. Rev'd in 35 JT. Y. 99. Renfrew v. McDonald, 11 Sun, 254. Quoted and discussed (Effect of illegal conveyances as between parties) in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 401. Reno v. Pinder, 24 Barb. 423. Rev'd in 20 JT. Y. 298. With decision in Id. see (Contents of summons in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2877. n. Renonil v. Harris, 1 Code E. 125. Subse- quent decision in 2 Id. 71. Both decisions more fully, 2 Sandf. 641. Decision in 2 Code E. approved (Annexing case to judg- ment record) in Lynde v. Cowenhoven, 4 Sow. Pr. 327. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 JT. Y. 137. Subsequent decision in 55 Id. 145. Decision in 43 Id. applied (Ex- tent of power of railroad company to deter- mine as to exercise of right of eminent domain) in Wallkill Valley R. R. Co. v. Norton, 12 Abb. Pr. K S. 318: N. Y. & Canada R. R. Co. v. Gunnison, 1 Hun, 498; Matter of N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 66 JT. Y. 409. Applied to power of harbor mas- ters, in Hoeft v. Seaman, 38 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 62, 72. Disting'd in Matter of N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. e. Kip, 46 JT. 7. 553 ; Matter of N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 77 Id. 259 ; Matter of Fowler, 53 Id. 62; N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. v. Metropolitan Gas-light Co., 63 Id. 333. Applied (Appeal in proceedings under exercise of right of eminent domain) in Matter of Commission- ers of Central Park, 61 Barb. 46 ; Matter of Long Island R. R. Co., 45 JT. Y. 364, 368. Explained in Matter of Widening Broadway, 61 Barb. 485 ; Matter of Commissioners of Central Park, 50 JT. Y. 498. Disting'd in Matter of N. Y. Central, &e. R. R. Co., 64 Id. 63. Decision in 55 Id. followed (Costs in proceedings under general railroad act) in Matter of Syracuse, Binghamton, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Sun, 311, 315; Matter of N. Y., West Shore, &c. R. R. Co., 18 Weekly Dig. 536. See Matter of Hudson Avenue, 61m, 333. Rensselaer & Washington Plank Road Co. v. Barton, 16 JT. Y. 457. See Jenkins v. Union Turnpike Co.; Spear v. Crawford. Disting'd (Liability on subscription for RENSSELAER & WASH. P. R. CO.— REYNOLDS. 653 stock) in Wintringham v. Rosenthal, 25 Hun,, 580, 582. ■ v. Wetzel, 21 Barb. 56. Disapproved (Completion of subscription as condition to calls on shares subscribed) in Peoria & Hock Island R. R. Co. v. Preston, 35 Iowa, 115, 120. Rensselaer Glass Factory v. Reid. See Reid v. Rensselaer Glass Faciorv. Renton v. Kelly, 49 Barb. 5"36. Aff'd in 51 A 7 ! Y. 633. Rcnwick v. Morris, 3 Sill. 621. Aff'd in 7 Id. 575. See Dudley v. Mayhew ; Mills v. Hall. Decision in 3 Sill followed (How fur public authority will permit maintenance of nuisance) in Hudson River R. R. Co. «. Loeb, 7 Robt. 418, 426. Decision in 7 Sill applied (Statutory remedy, when exclusive) in Lowry v. Inman, 6 Abb. Pi: N. 8. 400. With Wetmore «. Tracy, 14 Wend. 250, said in 19 Cent. L. J. (Whb may abate pub- , lie nuisance) not to support assertion in 1 Bishop on Grim. L. 829, — citing as author- ity Wood on J¥uis. 755. Quoted and ex- plained (Statutory remedy against nuisance) in Wood on N~uis. 2 ed. § 12. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 1 Trans. App. 47; s. c, 36 K Y. 132; 34 Sow. Pr. 91. Disting'd (Opinion of witness as to hearing) in Hardenburgh v. Cockcroft, 5 Daly,' 79, 83. Explained and applied (Negligence in crossing railroad track) in Wilcox ». Rome, Watertown, &c. II. R. Co., 39 A 7 . Y. 365. Followed with Wilson ». Susquehanna Turnpike Co., 21 Barb. 68 (Liability for proximate injuries caused by violation of statute) in Grey's Ex'r «. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387; s. c, 28 . Am. R 729, 737. v. Ren wick, 1 Bradf. 234. See (Judg- ment against executor for decedent's debt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. Republic of Mexico v. Arrangois, 1 Abb. Pr. 43T. Affd as Same v. De Arangoiz, in 5 Duer, 643. Another decision in 11 Sow. Pr. 1, aff'd as Same ». De Aran- goiz, 5 Duer, 634. See Corwin v. Free- land ; Hernandez 1 '!). Carnobeli. Decision in 11 Sow. Pr. disapproved (Vacating order of arrest) in Barret v. Gracie, 34 Barb. 20, 25. Requa v. City of Rochester, 45 AC Y. 129; s. c, 6 Am. R. 52. See Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze. Applied (Sufficiency of notice to city of defect in street) in Walker ». City of Lockport, 43 Sow. Pr. 367. Applied (Evidence of dedication to public use) in Strong®. City of Brooklyn, 68 A 7 ! Y. , 16. Disting'd (Municipal liability for defective private bridge) in Green v. Town of Bridge Creek, 38 Wis. 449; s. c, 20 Am. R. 22. Disting'd (Exception, when too general) in Betz v. Conner, 7 Daly, 554. v. Holmes, 16 A 7 ! Y. 193. Further decision in 19 Sow. Pr. 430; which was rev'd in 26 N. Y. 338. See Washington Ins. Co. v. Slee. Decision in 26 N. Y. doubted (Effect of conveyance of land held adversely) in Bernstein ■». Humes, 60 Ala. 582 ; s. c, 31 Am. R. 67. v. Rea. See Williamson v. Dale. Retail v. Drew, 19 Wend. 3C4. Explained with Hanmer v. Wilsey, 17 Id. 91 ; Edmon- stone s. Thompson, 15 Id. 554 (When suit may be said to be "commenced") in John- son v. Comstock, 6 Sill, 10. Overruled in Hull t>. Peters, 7 Barb. 331. Disapproved in Studwell v. Cooke, 38 Conn. 549. Reubens v. Joel, 13 W. Y. 488. Aff'g Neustadt v. Joel, 2 Duer, 530. See An- drews v. Durant. Decision in 13 A 7 ". 7. applied (Legal and equitable relief in same proceeding) in N. Y. Ice Co. v. Northw. Ins. Co., 10 Abb.' Pr. 88. Explained and deemed not to conflict with Crary ». Good- man, 12 N. Y. 266 ; Marquat v. Marquat, Id. 336 ; Philips v. Gorham, 17 Id. 270,'— in N. Y. Ice Co. v. Northwest Ins. Co., 23 Id. 357, 360. Explained with Gould v. Cavuga County Nat. B'k, 86 Id. 76; Stevens ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. 84 Id. 296, in Marie 1>. Garrison, 13 Abb. N. C. 210, 321. Criti- cised in J Pomeroy on Eg. Jur. § 354, n. 1 ; Pomeroy on Rem., § 60, n. 1. Qualified with Andrews v. Durant, 18 N. Y. 496 (Right of creditor to attack fraudulent transfer) in Rinchey «. Stlyker, 28 Id. 50. Rew v. Barber. See Rew v. Barker. v. Barker, 2 Cow. 408; s. c, 14 Am. Dee. 515, with note. Further decision as Rew v. Barber, 3 Cow. 272 ; s. c. , 8 A 7 ". Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 121, with brief note. See Whitbeck b. Van Ness. Decision in 3 Cow. followed (Liability for breach, of war- ranty of title to personal property) in Bord- well ii. Collie, 45 A 7 ". Y. 494, 496. Rexford v. Knight, 15 Barb. 627. Aff'd in 11 A 7 ! Y. 308. See Bloodgood .■». Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co.; Brinckerhoff v. Wem- pie. Decision in 11 N. Y. followed (Nature of title acquired under eminent domain proceedings) in Brooklyn Park Commis- sioners v. Armstrong, 45 Id. 234, 242. Applied (When title passes in such pro- ceedings) in- Kennedy v. Indianapolis, 103 U. S. 599, 603. v. Rexford, 7 Bans. 6. Compare (Con- clusiveness of acknowledgment of convey- ance) Code Civ. Pro. § 930. T. Widger, 3 Barb. Ch. 640. Affd in 2 A 7 ! Y. 131. See Cole v. Savage. Decision in 2 if. 7. disting'd (Relief to mortgageo against prior lien) in Anderson v. Hunn, 5 Sun, 82. Disting'd (Who is borrower so as to be entitled to relief against usury) in Schermerhorn v. Am. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 14 Barb. 166. Applied in Schermerhorn v. Talman, 14 K Y. 127; Allerton v. Belden, 49 Id. 377. Reynolds, Ex parte, 1 Cai. 500. Followed (Whom judgment in ejectment is not bind- ing upon) in Howard v. Kennedy's Ex'rs, 4 Ala. 592 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 307. Reynolds, Matter of, 11 Sun, 41. Compare 654 BETNOLDS. (Appointment of guardian T)y will) Code Civ. Pro. § 2851. Reynolds v. Champlain Transportation Co. See Nesmith v. Clinton Fire Ins. Co. ■ v. Church. See Same v. Corp. — — T. Commerce Fire Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 597. Cited with Hinneman v.- Rosenback. 39 Id, 98 ; Collender v. Dinsmore, 55 Id. 206). Explanation of ambiguous expres- sions in documents by parol evidence) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. §§ 937, 940. See (Ig- norance as equivalent to mistake) National Life Ins. Co. v. Minch, 53 iV. Y. 144. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 269. « T. Corp, 3 Cai. 267. Relied on with Jackson v. Bartlett, 8 Johns. 361 ; Wood- cock v. Bennett. 1 Cow. 711 (Effect of irreg- ular execution) in Morgan v. Evans, 72 III. 586; s. c, 22 Am. R. 154, 156. Fol- lowed with Reynold v. Church, 3 Cai. 274; in Mace v. Duttvn, 2 Ind. 309; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 510, 613, with note. ■ v. Darling'. See Thomas v. Crofut. T. Fisher, 48 Bai'l. 146. See (Examin- ation of one refusing certificate of defend- : ant's interest in attached property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §651. n. T. Garner. See Marcellus v. Country- man. ■ T. Gilchrist, 4 Hun, 144. Further de- cision in 9 Id. 203. -i — t. Lounsbury, 6 Hill, 534. Disap- proved (Sufficiency of declaration in re- plevin) in Childs v. Hart, 7 Barb. 370. Dis- ting'd in Corning v. Corning, 6 N. Y. 1 02, as not authority for admission of imperti- nent evidence, and see White v. Spencer, 14 Id. 250. Applied (Objection to plead- ings when to be taken) in Smith v. Coun- tryman, 30 Id. 677. T. Manning. See Reed v. Gordon. r. Mason, 54 How. Pr. 213. Affd in 6 Weekly Dig. 531. See Garrison v. Howe. - — t. N. T. Central, &c. E. R. Co., 2 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 644. Rev'd in 58 N. Y. 248. See Button v. Hudson River R. R Co.; Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Decision in 58 2f. Y. applied (Necessity of proof of freedom from contributory negli- gence) in Wood d. Village of Andes, 11 Hun, 544; Cordell v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 75JV. F. 332. Explained in Urquhart v. City of Ogdensburgh, 23 Hun, 76, Fol- lowed with Cordell v. N. Y. Ceutral, &c. R. R. Do., 75 N. Y. 330, in Becht v. Corbin, 92 Id. 658. Collated with other cases in 34 Am. R. 691, n. Applied (Contributory negligence in children) in Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R Co., 6 Abb. K C. 128. Followed in Thurbcr ■». Harlem, &c. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326, 336, See other cases collected in 6 1455. 2T.' C. Ill, n. Applied (Contributory negligence, as question of law) in O'Mara v. Delaware, &c. Canal Co , 18 Hun, 194; Sutherland v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 41 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 29 ; Halpin«. Third Ave. R. Co., 40 Id. 175, 182. Disting'd in Mahar e>. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 19 Hun, 34; Massoth v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.. 64 K Y. 529; which affd 6 Hun, 314. 316, which see. T. Park, 5 Lans. 149. Rev'd in 53 N. Y. 36. T. People, 17 Abb. Pr. 413. Quoted and collated with other cases (Evidence of jCharacter of deceased on trial for murder) in Horrigan & T. Cas. on Self Def. 685. v. Reynolds, 3 Wend. 244. See Austin v. Munro. Cited as settled law (Liability of executors and administrators) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 449, citing cases. v. , 24 Wend. 193. Applied (Effect of adultery on right to dower) in Schiffer v. Pruden, 39 Super. Ct. tj. & S.) 167, 172; which was affd in 64 N. Y. 47, which see. v. , 5 Paige, 161, See Bear-. Sny- der; Dunham v. Osborn. See to tl con- trary (Dower ?n land wh'.rein do er has been assigned) Bear v. Snyder, 11 Wend. 592. v. , 16 N. Y. 256. See Tracy v. Tracy. Applied with Lupton v. Lupton, 2 Johns. Ch. 623; Myers r. Eddy, 47 Barb. 263; Babcock v. Stoddard, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. 6 G.) 207; Kinnier v. Rogers, 42 N. Y. 531 ; Spillane v. Duryea, 51 How. Pr. 260; Dodge v. Manning, 11 Paige, 334 (Legacy, when chargeable on leal estate) Goddard v. Pomeroy, 36 Barb. 546 ; Harrison v. Fly, 7 Paige, 421, being disting'd in Wiltsie v. Shaw, 29 Hun, 195. Followed in Myers v. Eddy, 47 Barb. 263, 267. Disting'd in Shulters v. Johnson, 38 Id. 85. Com- mented on in 3 Jarm. on Wills, Rand & T. ed. 427, n. 14. v. Robinson, 64 K Y. 589. Subse- quent decision in S'J, Id. 103. See Filer v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Decision in 64 If. Y. disting'd (Opinion of witness based on testimony of another witness) in Sey- mour v. Fellows, 77 Id. 178, 181. Followed in Freeman v. Lawrence, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 288, 291 ; Hagadorn v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 249, 251.' Decision in 82 A r . Y. approved ■ (Parol evidence to vary terms of will) in Judy v. Gilbert, 77 Ind. 96 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 289. Col- lated with other <-ases in 32 MoaVs Jing. 602, n. v. Root, 62 Barb. 250. Applied (Duty of testator as to disposition of property) in McLaughlin's Will, 2 Bed/. 504, 515. v. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323. See Anderson v. Nichols; Livermore v. Northrup. Ap- proved (Effect of restoration on right of action for conversion) in Livermore v. Northrup, 44 W. Y. 107, 112. See also' McCormick v. Pcnn. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 Id. 303, 314. v. Tooker, 18 Wend. 591 ; s. c, 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 479, with brief note of other cases. v. Ward, 5 Wend. 501. Followed (Surety when discharged by extension of time to principal) in Osgood ». Whittelsey, RIIEEL— RICHAEDS. (ii ' 10 All. Pr. 134, 137. Followed with Rob- inson v. Lyle, 10 Barb. 512 (Liability of one described as surety on note) in Rogers v. Fapp, Sup'm. Gt. Tex. 1881, 13 Reporter, 157. Eheel v. Hicks, 25 K 7. 289. Disting'd , (Recovery back of money paid under mis- take) in Granger v. Olcott, 1 Bans. 169. Disting'd with Gardner v. Mayor of Troy, 26 Barb. 423, in Adams v. Reeves, 68 N. G. 134; s. c, 12 Am. R. 627. Rhinebeck & Connecticut R. R. Co., Matter of, 8 Hun, 34. Affd in 67 N. Y. 242. Decision in 8 Hun followed (Remedy where order is not entered) in Stafford v. Ambs, 8 Abb. N. G. 237, 241.. Rkiiielander v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 24 How. Pr. 304. . Explained (Authority of common council to assess for repaving • street) in Matter of Lewis, 51 Barb. 82, 84. Rhode Island Horse Shoe Co. v. Goode- nougli Horse Shoe Co., 1 Abb. N. 0. 11 ; s. c, more fully, 52 How. Pr. 111. Rhodes v. Rhodes, 3 Sandf. Gh. 279. Ap- plied (Effect of payment of consideration, as part performance of parol contract) in People ex rel. Coppers x>. Trustees, 21 Bun, 184, 194. Approved (Performance of ser- vices, as entitling to specific performance) in Pomeroy on Sp. Per/. § 114, n. Rhoner v. First Nat. B'k of Allentown, 14 Run, 126. See to the contrary (Attach- ment against foreign national bank) Peo- ple's B'k of N. Y. v. Mechanics' Nat. B'k of Newark, 62 How. Pr. 422, citing Robinson v. Nat. Bk. of Newberne, 81 N. , ^ Y. 385. Criticised and disting'd in Robin- sou v. Nat. B'k of Newberne, 19 Hun, 477, 480. Ricard t. Sanderson, 41 K Y. 179. Ex- plained (Effect of agreement to pay off mortgage) in Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 Id. 242. Explained in Thomas.on Mort. 190. Dis- ting'd (Liability as created by assumption of debt) in Roe v. Barker, 82 N. Y. 431. Ricart v. Townscnd, 6 How. Pr. 460. Dis- ting'd (Joinder of. surviving partner and deceased partner's executors as defendants) in Voorhies v. Baxter, 1 Abb. Pr. 43. Rice T. Ehele, 65 Barb. 185. Rev'd in 55 M. Y. 518. Decision in Id., disting'd (Striking out pleading of party in con- tempt) in Waiker v. "Walker, 8 Abb. N. G. 436, 442. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 808, n. • v. Harbeson, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 4. Affd in 63 N. Y. 493. Decision in 2 Sup]m. Gt. (T. & G.} followed (Remedy against estate of decedent on obligation secured by mortgage) in Thompson v. Sul- • livan, 60 How. Pr. 71. Decision in 63 JV. ' Y. quoted (Marshaling assets in favor of legatees orcreditors) in 3 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 527, n. 17. v. Hollenbeck, 19 Barb, 664. See Baker v. Wheeler. Disapproved (Remedy for defect of parties plaintiff in justice's court) in Frazier v. Gibson, 15 Hun, 37, 40. v. Ki lit;', 7 Johns. 20. See Brockway v. Kinney ; Manny ». Harris. Followed with Gardner n. Buckbee, 3 Gow. 120 (Identity of form in two actions not necessary in or- der to render former a bar) in Coffin v. Knott, 2 G. Greene (L/wa) 582 ; S. c, 52 Am. Bee. 537, 539, with note. Applied in Marsh v. Pier, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 273 ; s. c, 26 Am. Bee. 131, 139, with note. T. Manley, 2 Hun, 492 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 14. Rev'd in 66 K Y. 82; s. c, 23 Am. S. 30. See Dung v. Parker. Decision in 2 Hun discussed (Verbal con- tract, how far valid) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 135a, 4 ed. Decision in 66 N. Y. quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 647, n. 13 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Mather. See Powell t. Waters. T. Milks, 7 Barb. 337. See (Disqualifica- tion of tavern keeper to act as justice) Code Gh. Pro. 1881, § 2866, n. ■ v. Peet, 15 Johns. 503. See Dowdle v. Camp. Followed and approved (Right to avoid contract by showing one's own disabil- ity) in Barrett v. Buxton, 2 Aihens (Vt.) 167; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 691, with note. Fol- lowed in Bensell v. Chancellor, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 371 ; s. a, 34 Am. Dee. 561, 564, with note ; Owing's Case, 1 Bland (Md.) 370; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 311, with note. See 1 Fonbl. Eq. 48 G. 2, § 1. Riceman v. Haveraeyer, 84 N. Y. 647. Col- lated with other cases (Necessity of proof of freedom from contributory negligence) in 34 Am. R. 693, n. Rich v. Baker. See Thomas v. Crofut. v. Milk, 20 Barb. 616. See Shuart v. Taylor. Overruled with Chadwick ». Lamb, 29 Barb. 518 (Implication of agreement for possession by mortgagor of chattels) in Hall v. Sampson, 35 N. Y, 274 ; and see Hath- away v. Brayman, 42 Id. 322, 324. Richard v. Wellington, 5 Hun, 181. Rev'd in 66 K Y. 308. Richards v. Edick, 17 Barb. 260. Criticised as unsupported by authority (Recovery for breach of contract for sale of land) in Con- gregation Beth Elohim v. Central Presb* Church, 10 Abb. Pr. K S. 405. .Disap- proved in Griswold v. Sabin, 51 AT. H. 167'; s. c, 12 Am- R. 76. Disting'd (Covenant when implied) in Bruce v. Fulton Nat. B'k, W Hun, 621; Newell ». Wheeler, 4 Robt. 255. Applied in Baldwin v. Humphrey, 44 H. Y. 615. - — v. Judd, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 184. See also (Striking out pleading of party in contempt) Walker «. Walker, 8 Abb. N. G. 436, 440. v. Millard, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (J. & O.) 247. Rev'd in 56 N. Y. 574. v. Northwestern Protestant Dutch Church, 32 Barb. 42. See Brick Pres. Church, Matter of ; Windt v. German Re- formed Church. Reviewed with other cases (Rights of lot owners in ceme- 656 EICHAEDS— EICKETS. , teries) in Burke v. "Wall, 29 La. Ann. 38 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 316, 326. Explained as placing the subject on its true basis, in 17 Am. L. Rev. If. S. 198. v. Richards, 2 ^155. If. C 93. Aft'd in 14 Sun, 25, and that aff'd in 76 N. T. 186. "With decision in Id. see (Referee's fees) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3297, n. — : — v. Walton. See Holbrook «. Murrav. T. Warring, 39 Barb. 42. Aft'd in 4 Alb. Ct. App. Dec. 47 ; s. c, 1 Keyes, 576. See Dean v. Hall ; Hall «. Newcomb ; Leon- ard v. Yredenburgh ; Moore v. Cross. De- cision in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. applied (Lia- bility of indorser of non-negotiable note) in Thomas v. Murray, 32 If. Y. 609 ; Little v. Rawson, 8 Abb. N. C. 253, 258. Fol- lowed in Cromwell v. Hewitt j 40 If. Y. 492. Disapproved in Burton ■». Hansford, 10 W. Va. 470; s. c, 27 Am. R. 576. .Col- lated with Cromwell v. Hewitt, 40 N. Y. 491 ; Seymour v. Van Slyck, 8 Wend. 404, and other cases in 13 Am. Dec. 55, n. v. Wescott, 2 Bom. 589. Further de- cision in 7 Id. 6. Decision in 2 Id. explained (Liability of carrier of concealed valuables) in Magnin v. Dinsmore, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 248, 254; which was rev'd in 62 If. Y. 35, which see. Richardson v. Abendroth, 43 Barb. 162. Approved (Secretary of corporation is a " servant ") in Williamson v. Wadsworth, 49 Id. 294. Overruled in Coffin v. Reynolds, 37 W. Y. 640. T. Ainsworth, 20 Sow. Pr. 521. See (Effect of payment of amount of execution by person indebted to judgment debtor) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2450, n. v. Carpenter, 2 Sweeny, 360. Rev'd in 46 If. Y. 660. Both decisions disting'd (Presumption of consideration) in Paine v. Noelke, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 176, 185. t. City of Brooklyn, 31 Barb. 152. Further decision in 34 Id. 569. ■. T. Craig, 1 Duer, 666. Questioned (Necessity that undertaking be signed by plaintiff) in Lefflngwell v. Chave, 10 Abb. Pr. 472 ; Bellinger v. Gardner, 2 Id. 441 ; Askins v. Hearns, 3 Id. 184. t. Crandall, 30 Sow. Pr. 134. Rev'd in 47 Barb. 335 ; which was aff'd in 48 If. Y. 348. t. Gere, 21 Wend. 156, Disting^d (Re- turn of commission by mail) in Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 41 Sow. Pr. 421, 426. t. Hughitt, 76 If. Y. 55; s. c, 32 Am. R. 267, with note. See Burnett v. Snyder; Gibson v. Stone. Followed (Partnership, when, not created by sharing profits) in Curry v. Fowler, 87 If. Y. 33. Collated with Curry v. Fowler ; Gibson v. Stone, 43 Barb. 285 ; Beudel ■». Hettrick, 35 Super. . Ct. (J. & S.) 405, in 30 Alb. L. J. 27, and thought to conflict with Leggett v. Hyde, 58 If. Y. 272. . t. Kropf, 5 Daly, 385 ; s. c, 47 Sow. Pr. 286. Aff'd, it seems, in 60 K Y. 634, but without opinion. Sec (Liability of sureties on undertaking on appeal) Code Civ. Pro §§ 1332, 1333. v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 45 If. F. 846. See Johnson v. Hudson River iL R. Co. Disting'd (Contributory negligence in one crossing track) in Cordell v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 70 If. Y. 119, 123. v. Northnip, 56 Barb. 105. Disting'd (Mitigation of damages for libel, &c.) in Palmer v. Lang, 7 Daly, 33. Followed in Stetlar v. Nellis, 60 Barb. 524. Cited as authority in Jauch v. Jauch, 50 Ind. 135 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 699. v. , 66 Barb. 85. Compare (Alleg- ing several trespasses in one count) Code Civ. Pro. § 483. v. Root, 19 Sun, 4:7B. See Gardner v. Gardner. See (Right to attack as fraudu- lent, transfer made by intestate) Barton v. Hosner, 24 Sun, 467. Richmond v. Bronson, 5 Den. 55. See Smith v. Richardson ; Walrath v. Redfield. Followed (Interest, in ex delicto actions) in Floyd v. Paul, 10 Weekly Cin. L. Bui. 14. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 15 Sun, 248. Rev'd in 79 If. Y. 230. Richmond Gaslight Co. t. Town of Middle- town, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 433. Aff'd in 59 If. Y. 228. Richmond Turnpike Co. v. Tanderbilt, 1 Sill, 480. Dissented from with Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. 343 (Master's liability for willful acts of servant) in Wallace v. Merrimac River, &c. Co,, 134 Mam. 95; s. c, 45 Am. R. 301. Approved in Wood v. Detroit City R'y Co., 52 Mich. 404; s. c, 23 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 243, with note. Richmondville Seminary v. McDonald, 34 If. Y. 379. See to the contrary (Object and application of payment) Nichols v. Kingdom Iron Ore Co., 56 Id. 618; Mer- ritt v. Briggs. 57 Id. 651. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 265. Richter t. Poppenhnsen, 39 Sow. Pr. 82. Aff'd in 9 Abb. Pr. If. S. 263; s. c., less' fully, 42 If. Y. 373. See Jenkins v. De Groot. Decision in 42 If. Y. applied (Lia- bility of representatives of deceased obligor) in Benta . N. Y., &c. Teleg. Co. De- cision in 44 If. Y. reviewed with Elwood v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 45 If. Y. 549, and other cases (Liability of telegraph company for failure in transmitting mes- sage) in Tyler v. Western Union Teleg. Co.. 60 III. 421; s. c, 14 Am. B. 38, 42. Followed with Baldwin v. U. S. Teleg. Co., 45 If. Y. 744, in Teleg. Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 301, 313. Decision in 1 Daly ex- plained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257w, n. e. Explained (Measure of damages in action against telegraph company for failure to de- liver message) in True v. International Teleg. Co., 60 Me. 9; s. c, 11 Am. B. 156, 167, with note collating cases. Decis- ion in 44 If. Y. disting'd in Candee v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 34 Wis. 471; s. c, 17 Am. B. 452, 459. Bitter v. Phillips, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 289. Reargument denied in 35 Id. 388. Affd on the merits in 53 If. Y. 586. See Miller v. Burroughs. Compared with nu- merous other authorities (Interest after do- fault) in Union Inst, for Sav'gs ». City of Boston, 129 Mass. 82, 91. v. Worth, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 406. Rev'd in 58 If. Y. 627. Decision in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) explained (Effect of EITTEEB AND— EOEE RT. 639 excessive assessment) in Colman v. Shat- tuck, 2 Hun, 497, 507. Cited (Parol proof to supply defect in acknowledgment) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1053. Decision in 58 N. Y. explained (Effect of two actions in ejectment pending for same cause) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 636. Bitterband v. Raggett, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 556 ; s. c, 4 Abb. N. 0. 67. Followed (Membership in exchange as subject to claims of creditors) in Londheim 1>. "White, 67 How. Pr. 426. Compare Grocer's Bank v. Murphy, 60 Id. 426. Consult Ebbing- hausen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. 0. 300. Approved in Eliot v. Merchants' Exchange, &c, 14 Mo. App. 234, 240. Collated with Grocer's Bank v. Murphy, 60 How. Pr. 426; Sewell v. Ives, 61 Id. 54; Powell ■». Waldron, 89 If. Y. 328 ; Piatt v. Jones, 96 Id. 24; and conflicting eases in other jurisdictions, in 20 Gent. L. J. 444. Ap- proved with Grocers' Bank v. Murphy, 60 How. Pr. 426 ; and cases from other States collected in Smith v. Barclay. Super. Ct. Chicago, 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 411, with note. Kir aril T. Gliio. See Livingston v. Keir- sted. Bivenburgh v. Henness, 4 Lans. 208. Dis- ting'd (Disqualification of judge on ground of affinity, &c.) in Matter of Dodge and Stevenson Manuf. Co., 77 N~. Y. 101, 111. Koach v. Cosine, 9 Wend. 227; s. c, UN. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 593, with brief note. Applied (Summary proceedings, when maintainable) in Sims v. Humphrey, 4 Den. 187. Applied and explained as overruled in part by Webb «. Rice, 6 Hill, 219, — in People ex rel. Ainslee v. Howlett, 13 Hun, 141, which wasaffd in 76 If. Y. 578. which see. Examined and applied (Evidence to show that absolute deed was intended as se- curity) in Brown «. Dewey, 1 Sandf. Gh. 66. Examined with other cases (Office of cer- tiorari) in Morewood v. Hollister, 6 N. Y. 313. v. La Farge, 43 Barb. 616; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 67. Limited (Eight to revive action on supplemental complaint) in Beach v. Reynolds, 53 N. Y. 1, 6. v. Quick, 9 Wend. 238. Included with notes (Infant's liability for debts of wife) in Ewell Lead. Canes on Inf. &e, 81. Bob v. Moffat, 3 Johns. 257. Disting'd (Requiring stipulation not to sue) in Faulkner v. Morey, 22 Hun, 379, 385 ; which was aff'd in 13 Weehly Big. 558; which see. Robalina v. Armstrong, 15 Barb. 247. Quoted (Custody of bastard child) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 550, n. 1, 6 ed. Robb y. Hackley, 23 Wend. 50. See Peo- ple ». Vane. Approved (Evidence of prior declarations of witness) in Herrick ». Smith, 13 Hun, 448. Applied in People «. Finne- gan, 1 Park 150. Followed in Stolp v. Blair, 68 III. 543. Cited with other cases in 12 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 3. See cases cited in 1 Whart. Com. on, Ev. § 570, n. v. MacDonald, 12 Abb. Pr. 213. Fol- lowed (Requiring security for costs from non-resident suing in county court) in Elliott v. Wood, 5 Hun, 594. t. Montgomery, 20 Johns. 15. Ap- plied (Covenants, when independent in con- tract for sale of land, . Smith, 93 K Y. 349, 352. Approved in Brown v. Johnson, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 644, C50. Approved in Wann ». McNulty, 2 Gilm. (Ill) 355; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 58, 60, with note, as denying the doctrine of the U. S. Supreme Court, in Shechy v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch, 253. Followed in Moale i: Hol- lins, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 11 ; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 684, with note. Followed and fully approved in Smith v. Black, 9 Serg. & It. (Pa.) 142 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 086 ; Penny «. Martin, 4 Johns. Ch. 566, being cited to show that a similar doctrine exists in equity. Approved with Penny v. Mart n, 4 Johns. Ok. 567, in Ferrall v. Bradford, 2 Fla. 508 ; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 293, 296, with note. Compare Collins v. Lemastevs, 1 Bail. (So. Gar.) '348; Treasurers e. Bates, 2 Id. 362; Sheehy v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch, 253. Ex- plained with decisions to the contrary in 1 Pars, on Contr. 12. v. United Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Gas. 250; s. c, 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 505, with brief note; 'and 1 Am. Dec. 166. Cited (Bottomry bond as affected by insertion of clause of sale) in Waples Proc. in Bern, §475. v. Vaughn, 5 Sandf. 1. See Bennett v. Hall. Referred to as overruled (Sale as disting'd from contract for work and labor) in Passaic Manuf. Co. v. Hoffman, 3 Daly, 495, 506. Quoted and explained in 3 Pars. on Contr. 55 n. v. Commented on in Browne on Slat, of Frauds. § 306, 4 ed. Robie v. Sedgwick, 35 Barb. 319. Affd (Recovery of possession of school-house lot) in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 73; s. c, 5 Transc. App. 151. Robinson v. Ames, 20 Johns. 146; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 259. Explained (Law of place as affecting commercial paper) in Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Lacombe, 84 K Y. 367, 382. Quoted (Notice of dishonor) in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 111. Quoted and collated with ether cases in Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. o/Exch. 441. v. Bank of Atticn, 21 K Y. 406. Dis- ting'd (Effect of transfer by insolvent cor- poration) in Dutcher v. Importers' & Trad. Nat. Bank, 59 A 7 ". Y. 5, 10. Approved but disting'd in Paulding v. Chrome Steel Co., 94 Id. 334, 339. Disting'd in Excelsior Petroleum Co. «. Embury, 67 Barb. 261, 265. T. Brennan, 11 Run, 368. Subsequent proceeding in 90 N. Y. 208. Also mere mem. in 23 Hun, 664. v. Brisbane, 7 Hun, 180. Afl'd in effect in 67 A 7 ! Y. 606, on same opinion. v. Chamberlain, \\\ K Y. 389. See Garlinghouse «. Jacobs; Losee v. Clutc ; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. «. Furze ; Weaver ». Dcvcndorf. Applied (Liability of one con- tracting to perform work for public) in Hartford & N. Y. Steamboat Co. v. Mayor &c. of N. Y., 12 Hun, 554; French *. Don- aldson, 1 Lans. 294; which was aff'd in 57 N. Y. 498, which see ; Slack v. Bangs, 6 Lans. 263 ; Conroy v. Gale, 5 Id. 340 ; Con- nors v. Adams, 13 Hun, 429 ; Hover v. Barkhoof, '44 A 7 ". Y. 117; Johnson v. Bel- den, 47 Id. 131 ; Fulton Fire Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 Id. 649. Collated with other cases in Cooh Highw. L. 4 ed. 50. Applied (Right of injured party to enforce contract made with public authorities) in McMabon ■». Second Avenue R. R. Co., 11 Hun, 350; Little v. Banks,20 Id. 146 ; City of Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City R'y Co., 47 H. Y. 485. v. Chemical Nat. B'k of N. Y., 10 Weekly Dig. 315 ; mem. s. c, 21 Hun, 589. Afi'd in 86 A 7 ! Y. 404. v. Chittenden, 7. Hun, 133. Rev'd in 69 A 7 ". Y. 525. T. Crandall, 9 Wend. 426. Approved (Suits by foreign executors, &c.) in Peter- sen o. Chemical Bank, 32 N. Y. 21. In- cluded in 1 Ames Cas. on B. & A 7 . 325. v. Cropsey, 2 Edw. 138. Aff'd in 6 Paige, 480. See Ketchum v. Evertson. Decision in 2 Edw. approved (Distinction between mortgage and conditional sale) in Thomas on Mort. 21. Doctrine discussed in 8 Am. L. Beg. K S. 602. • t. Cushinan, 2 Den. 149. Approved (Implied promise to pay for services, &c. as between relatives) in Wilcox v. Wilcox, 48 Barb. 327. Restated and followed in Ayers v. Hull, 5 Kans. 419. v. Danchy, 3 Barb. 20. Followed (Pre- sumption as to laws of another State) in McCulloch v. Norwood, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 180, 188. Collated with Stokes «. Macken, 62 Barb. 149 ; Abell «. Douglass, 4 Den. .305 ; Starr v. Peck, 1 Hill, 270; Henry v. Root, 33 A 7 ". Y. 554; Paine v. Noelke, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 176 ; Hynes «. McDer- mott, 82 A 7 ". Y. 44; Savage «. O'Neil, 44 Id. 298; Thompson ». Ketcham, 8 Johns. 190, and other cases in 19 Cent. L. J. 226. v. Flint, 16 How. Pi: 240; s. c, 7 Abb. Pv. 393, n. Further decision on the merits in 58 Barb. 100. - — • v. Gregory, 29 Barb. 560. Said to have been rev'd by Ct. of App. on ground of in- validity of assignment for want of power to make (Power of partner to make assign- ment for benefit of creditors), — in Welles v. March, 30 K Y. 344. See Robinson v. Mcintosh. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 549. , v. International Life Assur. Society, 42 N. Y. 54; s. c, 1 Am. B. 490. Limited (Effect of war of rebellion on contract with foreign insurance company) in Martine v. International Life Ins. Society, 53 A 7 . Y. 339, 34.4. Reviewed with other cases (Agent's authority to take paper circulating as money) in 15 Am. Dec. 131, n. T. Kalhfleiscli. 2 Hun, 683; s. c, re- ported in 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 212, EOBINSON. 663 t. Kettletas. See Whitlock «. Duf- ficld. v. Kinne. 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) BO. Further decision as Robinson v. Kime, 70 N. Y. 147. v. Mcintosh, 3 E. D. Smith, 221. Col- lated with Fisher v. Murray, 1 Id. 341 ; Kemp v. Carnlcy, 3 Dner, 1 ; National B'k of Baltimore v. Sackett, 2 Abb. Pr. K S. 286; Roberts v. Shepard, 2 Daly, 110; Baldwin v. Tynes, 16 Abb. Pr. 32 ; Kelly v. Baker, 2 llilt. 531 ; Robinson ». Gregory, 29 Barb. 560 ; Palmer v. Myers, 43 i. Rich- land Nat. Bank ; Rhoner v. First Nat. B'k of Allentown. Decision in 81 H. Y. dis- ting'd (Jurisdiction to grant attachment against national bank in another State) in Peoples' B'k of N. Y. v. Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 02 How. Pr. 423. T. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 27 Barb. 512. Discussed (Liability of railroad com- pany for injuries to private property) in 2 Add. on Torts, 249, m., Wood's ed.; Id. 263, n. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 441. v. N. Y. Central, &e. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 146. AfFd in 66 N~. Y. 11 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 1, with note. Decision in Id. fol- lowed and applied (Imputing negligence to one riding in conveyance) in Masterton v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 84 If. Y. 247, 254 ; Gallaghan v. Rome, W. & O. R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Big. 395 ; Town of Albion ». Ilerrick, 90 Ind. 545 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 230. Disapproved in Prideaux v. City of Mineral Point, 45 Wis. 513; s. c, 28 Am. R. 561, 563, with note. Commented on in 13 Cent. L. J 385-387. Compared with other cases in 17 Alb. B J. 400. V. N. Y. Ins. Co., 2 Cai. 357. Affd in 1 Johns. 616. Decision in 2 Cai. cited (Limitation of agent's claim for remunera- tion to particular source) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 324. v. Norris. 51 How. Pr. 442. Affd, it seems, in G Hun, 233. v. Phillips, 65 Barb. 418 ; s. c, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T.&C.) 151. Affd in 56 K Y. 634. Decision in 65 Barb, questioned (Requisites of adverse possession) in Pope v. Hanmer, 74 XT. Y. 240, 245. Compare Longendyck «. Anderson, 59 How. Pr. 1. v. Plimpton, 25 H. Y. 484. Disting'd (Liabilities of sureties on appeal) in Church v. Simmons, 19 Hun, 220. Followed in Richardson «. Kropf, 5 Daly, 385; Hamer- ton v. Hay, 65 N. Y. 384 ; Hinckley «. Kreitz, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 413, 425 ; which was rev'd in 58 H. Y. 583, 586, which see. Applied to property seized on attachment, in Wright v. Rowland, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 653. Applied (Form of un- dertaking on appeal) in Doolittles. Dininny, 31 If. Y. 354. Explained and applied (Ef- fect of proceeding on appeal, as continuance of the action) in dissenting opinion in Wol- cott v. Holcomb, Id. 135. t. Raynor, 36 Barb. 128. Rev'd in 28 H. Y. 494. Decision in Id. applied (Re- covery for services rendered in expectation of compensation by will) in Shakespeare v. Markham, 10 Hun, 326 ; which was affd in 72 Sf. Y. 406, which see; Bonesteel ». Van Etten, 20 Hun, 471 ; Eagan v. Kergill, 1 Bern. 464, 468. T. Ryan, 25 2f. Y. 320. See Phyfe v. Riley. Explained (Rights under assign- ment of mortgage) in Purdv v. Huntington, 42 K Y. 347. Applied (Rights of purchaser at foreclosure sale) in Ross v. Boardman, 22 Hun, 530 ; Catlin v. Grissler, 57 K Y. 374. Explained in dissenting opinion in Gage v. Brewster, 31 Id. 227. Applied in McCormick v. Knox, 105 U. S. 122, 126, citing Dale v. McEvers, 2 Cow. 118. v. Sinclair, 1 How. Pr. 106. Disting'd (Use of old affidavit) in Mojarrieta . Wilson, 103 Mass. 219 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 532, 538; where also Sohieffelin v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 9 Johns. 26, was disting'd. T. Ward, 8 Johns. 86; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 329, with note wherein it is said to be in ac- cordance with the doctrine now generally held (Effect of judgment obtained in another State against one not personally served). See Rogers v. Coleman, Harris (Ky.) 418; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 733; and Bart- lettrc. Knight, 1 Mass. 401 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 36, with note collating cases. v. Weeks, 6 How. Pr. 101. Approved (Assignee of judgment, &c. as affected by payment of execution) in Richardson v. Ainsworth, 20 Id. 521. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §2450, n. T. West, 1 Sandf. 19. Rev'd in 11 Barb. 309. Decision in Id. overruled in effect (Appearance as waiver of defect in process) in Clapp i>. Graves, 26 A 7 ". Y. 421. v. Wheeler, 25 N. Y. 252. Followed (Amendment of complaint at trial) in Knapp v. Roche, 37 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 395, 407. v. Wilcox, 2 K T. Leg. Obs. 160. Fol- lowed (Mortgagee of chattels when entitled to possession on default) in Willis v. O'Brien, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 541. v. Wiley, 19 Barb. 107. Rev'd in 15 N. Y. 489 ; but approved in part. v. Williams, 22 N. Z. 380 See Brink- crhoff v. Marvin. Disting'd (Effect of mort- gage given to secure future advances) in Ackerman v. Hunsickcr, 21 Sun, 57; which was rev'd in 85 A 7 . Y. 43, 50, which see ; Bank of Albion ». Burns, 2 Lans. 57. Fol- lowed in Miller v. Lockwood, 32 If. Y. 299. Cited in 20 Am. Dec. 660, n, as show- ing the weight of authority. Explained in 2 Wushb. on Real Pro]). 4 ed. 152. Cited ■with other cases in 11 Am. L. Pea. AT. S. 276. Applied (Extraneous proof to explain mortgage) in Shuler v. Boutwell, 18 Hun, 173. Ro I) iso n v. Lyle, 10 Barb. 512. See Rey- nolds v. Ward. Compared and doubted (Parol evidence of relations of sureties) in 13 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 535. v. Eobison, 5 Lans. 165. See Kilpat- rick v. Johnson. Disting'd (Limitation of proceeding against executor by beneficiary in will) in Cole v. Terpenning, 25 i7Mn,.482, 485. Applied (Effect of void provision for arcumulation on provisions in will) in Mc- Grath v. Van Stavoren, 8 Daly, 454, 458. Roby v. Hallock, 5 Abb. N. C. 86; s. c, 55 How. Pr. 412. See (Sham defense) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 538, n. Roche v. Farran, 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 121. Said to have been overruled (Examination before trial) in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 84, n. v. Ward, 7 How. Pr. 416. Explained and qualified (Sufficiency of affidavit of service by publication) in Peck v. Cook, 41 Barb. 549. Rochester & Genesee Valley It. R. Co. v. Clarke Nat. B'k, 60 Barb. 234. Disting'd (What constitutes officer de facto) in People ex rel. Gilchrist v. Murray. 73 A 7 ! Y. 535, 540, which rev'd 8 Daly, 347, which see. Rochester City Bank v. Elwood, 21 N. Y. 88. Disting'd, and Ludlow v. Simond, 2 Cai. Cas. 1 ; McClusky v. Cromwell, 11 A 7 ". Y. 593 approved (Liability of sureties as affected by change of principal's duties) in Manufacturers' Nat. Bank of Newark v. Dickerson, 12 Vroom (N. J.) 448 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 237. v. Rapelje, 12 How. Pr. 26. Followed and approved (Taxation of trial fee on decis- ion on demurrer) in Butchers & Drovers' Bank of Providence v. Jacobson, 22 Id. 471, 473. Rochester, Nnnda, &c. R. R. Co. v. Commis- sioners of Mt. Morris. Reported under Same v. Ouyler, 7 Lans. 431. Rochester Water Commissioners, Matter of, 66 A 7 ! T. 413. See Matter of N. Y. Cen- tral & Hudson River R. R. Co. See other cases cited (City officers as public agents) in 8 Abb. N. C. 283, n. Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Roch- ester, 3 A 7 ". Y. 463 ; s. c. 53 Am. Dec. 316, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently recognized as a lead- ing authority in N. Y. and elsewhere. Compare 53 Am. Dec. 357, with note. See Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Bartlett v. Crozier; Gardner v. Trustees of New burgh; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Bailey; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Furze ; Mills «. City of Brooklyn ; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Disting'd (Municipal liability for injury caused by de- fect in public work) in Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburgh, 15 Barb. 442 ; Cole v. Trust- ees of Medina, 27 Ids 218, 221 ; Kavanagh v. City of Brooklyn, 38 Id. 237 ; Garrison «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Bosw. 503; Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 N. Y. 499. Ap- plied in Lacour v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Duer, 414 ; Bastable v. City of Syracuse, 8 -ffwra,587,593; Hutsone. Mayor,&c. of N.Y., 9 A 7 ". Y. 169; Conrad v. Trustees of Ithaca, 16 Id. 173; Nims v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 59 Id. 508 ; Clemence v. City of Auburn, 66 Id. 341. Disting'd with Hickok ®. Trus- tees of Plattsburgh, 16 A 7 ". Y. 161 ; Lee v. Viliage of Sandy Hill, 40 Id. 442 ; Mayor, ■fee. of N. Y. v. Furze, 3. Hill, 612 : Barton v. City of Syracuse, 36 N. Y. 54; Bailey v. ROCKFELLER-RODERIGAS. GGo- Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 HVl, 538 ; 2 Den. 433 ; Conrad «. Trustees of Ithaca, 10 If. Y. 159 ; as cases involving purely private griev- ances, and Lloyd i>. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 5 If. Y. 309; Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 Id. 104; Weet ». Trustees of Brockport, 1G N. Y. 101 (said to disapprove Adsit v. Brady, 4 Hill, 030); Delmonico v. Mayor, &c. of • N. Y., 1 Sandf. 220, as cases of misfeas- ance, in Detroit v. Blakeby, 21 Mich. 84; s. C, 4 Am. Ji. 450, 454; Hutaon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 9 N. Y. 103; Davenport %. Ruck- man, 37 Id. 508, being also commented up- on and disting'd in this connection. Col- lated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Higw. 3 ed. 209. Included in 2 Thomps. on Neg. 073. Applied (Immunity in perform- ance of judicial duties) in Lange v. Bene- dict, 8 Hun, 300. Explained (Liability for negligence- causing defect in structure) in Congreve v. Morgan, 4 Duei; 445. Ex- plained (Liability for work done under au- thority of law) in Bellinger v. N. Y Cen- tral R. It., 23 N. Y. 49. Disting'd (Muni- cipal liability for acts or omissions of agents) in Bryant v. City of St. Paul, 33 Minn. 289, 294. Eockfeller v. Donnelly, 8 Cow. 623. See Chase «. Hinman ; Gilbert «. Wiman. Doubted (Liability on contract of indemnity) in Crippen v. 'Thompson, 6 Barb. 534 ; Aberdeen v. Blackmar, 6 Hill, 324, 326. Explained and followed in Bancroft i>. Win- spear, 44 Barb. 213 ; Chace v. Hinman, 8 Wend. 457; Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 H. Y. 555. Explained in Churchill v. Hunt, 3 Den. 326. Applied in Johnson ». Gilbert, 9 Sun, 469. Reviewed and relied on with Chace v. Hinman, 8 Wend. 452, in Pope v. Hays, 19 Tex. 375. Disapproved in 2 Sedg. on Meas. of Dama. 7 ed. 15. Eock River Bank v. Hoffman, 22 How. Pr. 250. Rev'd in 14 Abb. Pi: 72; s. c, as Naylor v. Hoffman, 22 How. Pr. 510. Rockwell v. Adams, 6 Wend. 407. Rev'd in 16 Id. 285. Previous decision in 7 Cow. 761. See Baldwin v. Brown. Decision in 6 Wend, followed (Evidence of correspond- ing boundary lines, to settle lino in dispute) in Gibson v. Poor, 21 JST. B. 440; s. c, 53 Am. Due. 216, 219, with note. — — V. Brown, 33 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 380 ; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 400; 42 How. Pr. 226. Rev'd in 54 If. Y. 210. Subsequent decision as Rockwell v. McGovern, 69 Id. 294; which aff'd 40 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 118. v. Geery, 4 Hun, 606. Applied (Right of post testamentary child) in Smith v. Robertson, 24 Hun, 210, 215. v. Hobby, 2 > Sandf. Ch. 9. Applied (Creation of lien by implication of law) in Madison Ave. Church v. Oliver St. Church 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 309, 388. Ex- plained in Bowers v. Johnson, 49 If. Y. 432." Disapproved with Berry v. Mut. Ins. ,. Co., 2 Johns. Gh..60S (Equitable mortgage ^ as created by deposit of title deeds) in Pro- basco v. Johnson, 2 Disney (Ohio) 9G Approved in Thomas on Mart. 25. Ex- plained iu 3 Pars, on Cont. 281, n. r. v. McGovern. See Rockwell v. Brown. T. Merwin, 1 Sweeny, 484 ; s. c, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 330. Aff'd in 45 N. Y. 106. Decision in Id. explained with Dubois v. Cassidy, 75 Id. 298; Sackett v. Newton,. 10 How. Pr. 501 (Regularity of receiver's ap- pointment) in Wright v. Nosferand, 94 N. Y. 81, Explained and applied in Scroggs v. Palmer, -06 Barb. 505. v. Hearing, 44 Barb. 472. Rev'd in 35 N. Y. 302. Decision iu Id. disting'd (Va- lidity of act providing for seizure of tres- passing animals) in Campbell v. Evans, 54 Barb. 583; which was aff'd in 45 N. Y. 358, which see ; Fox v. Dunckel, 38 How. Pr. 138. Explained in McConnell ®. Van Aerman, 56 Barb. 536; Squares v. Camp- bell, 60 Id. 393. See 2 L. 1807, c. 814. Cited with approval in Pettit v. May, 34 Wis. GGO. Collated with Campbell v. Evans, 45 N. Y. 356 ; Cook v. Gregg, 46 Id. 439, in 33 Am. R. 416, n. Relied on with Campbell v. Evans ; Cook ». Gregg, in Wil- cox v. Hemming, 58 Wis. 144; s. c, 46 Am. R. 025, 629 ; Hart v. Mayor of Albany, 9 Wend. 571, being also referred to as a leading case sustaining legislation of this character. Quoted and explained in Oooley on Const. Limit. 5 cd. 447, n. 2. v. Saunders, 19 Barb. 473. See Sils- bury ». McCoon. Doubted (Validity of answer of title in third person in replevin action) in Stowell i>. Otis, 71 If. Y. 36, 38. v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 04 Barb. 438. Aff'd and opinion of Ingkaham, J., adopted in 53 If. Y. 626, without further opinion. v. Tunnieliff. See Peoples. Humphrey. Eoderigas v. East River Savings lust., 48 How. Pr. 100. Rev'd in 63 If. Y. 400; s. c, 20 Am. R. 555. Further decision in 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 217 ; and that aff'd in 76 £f. Y. 316 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 309. De- cision in 63 A*. Y. followed (Decision of court having jurisdiction, how far conclus- ive) in Chapman v. Phoenix Nat. B'k, 5 Abb. If. C. 127; Sullivan v. Fosdick, 10 Hun, 182 ; Lange ». Benedict, 73 A 7 ". Y. 30 ; Mat- ter of Cordova, 4 Redf. 07. Disting'd in Boiler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523, 533. Cited in 33 Am. Dec. 239, n., as contrary to other cases there cited. Disapproved in Johnson v. Beazley, 05 Mo. 250; s. c, 27 Am. R. 285. Collated with Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 190, and other cases in 30 Am. R. 748, n. Explained and disting'd in D'Arusmont v. Jones, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 251, 253. , Criticised and dis- approved in Devlin v. Commonwealth, 101 Pcnn. St. 273 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 710 ; Thomas «. People, 107 '111. 517; s. c, 47 Am. R. 458. Also disapproved in Steven- son ». Superior Court, 62 Cal. 60, s. c, 47 Am. R. 465, n. Included with note in 15 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 205. Criticised in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 810. G6G EODEEMUND— SOGERS. Eodermund v. Clark, 46 K Y. 354. See Bank of Beloit v. Beale"; Lloyd v. Brewster. Disting'd (Election of remedies) in White v. Whiting, 8 Daly, 23, 25. Bodes v. Bronson, 34 iV. Y. 649. Dissent- ing opinion of Leonard, J., iri 41 Id. 607, ?!. Rev'd as Bronson v. Rodes, in 7 Wall. 229 ; s. c, 36 Sow. Pr. 365, 444. Decis- ion in 34 N. Y. followed (Constitutionality of legal tender act) in Jones v. Smith, 48 Barb. 552, 564. Rodgers y. Bonner, 55 Barb. 9. Afi'd in 45 2f. Y. 379. Decision in Id. explained (Judgment lien as incumbrance) in Fuller v. Scribner, 16 Sun, 132 ; which was affd in 76 N. Y. 192, which see. See Code Civ. Fro. 1881, § 1671, n. Applied (Requisites of seizure by sheriff) in Union Dime Sav'gs Inst. v. Andariese, 19 Sun, 310, 312. Com- pare Code Civ. Pro. § 649. v. Fletcher, 13 Abb. Pr. 299. See to the contrary (Objection to evidence, when too general) Dietrick v. Allen, 25 Sun, 66. T. People, 15 Sow. Pi: 557: s. c, more fully, 3 Parh. 632. Rev'd in 18 IT. Y. 9. v. , 24 Sun, 383. Rev'd, it seems, in 86 IT. Y. 360. Decision in Id. explained (Dwelling house within meaning of law of burglary) in 3 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 81, n. c. v. Phillips, 40 JT. Y. 519. See Kein v. Tupper. Disting'd (Delivery, &c. as re- quired by statute of frauds) in U. S. Reflec- tor Co. v. Rushton, 7 Daly, 416. Followed in Cooke v. Millard, 5 Lans. 248 ; Allard v. Greasert, 61 N. Y. 5. Approved but dis- ting'd in Cross v. O'Donnell, 44 Id. 664. Applied in Hausman v. Nye, 62 Ind. 485; s. c, 30 'Am. B. 199, citing also Allard v. Greasert, 61 N. Y. X ; Shindler v. Houston, 1 Id. 261. Approved in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 876. Quoted in 1 Benj. on ■ Sales, § 161, n. r (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Rodman v. Redden. See Gilbert v. Wiman. T. Muiison, 13 Barb. 63. Affd in Id. 188. Decision in Id. collated with Cham- plin v. Champlin, 3 Edw. 571, and other cases (Execution of power of sale before happening of event) in 18 Cent. L. J. 437. Roe v. Barker, 17 Sun, 84. Affd in 82 2T. Y. 431. See Leonard v. Vredenburgh. v. Roe, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 706, apparently as conflicting with doctrine there main- tained (Propriety of calling upon person whose handwriting is in dispute to write, for purpose of comparison of hands by jury). v. Swart. Soe Little v. Harvey. v. Swezey, 10 Barb. 247. Disting'd (Proof in action by judgment creditor against heirs at law) in Blossom v. Hat- field, 24 Sun, 276. Disting'd (Limitation of such action) in Malloy v. Vanderbilt, 4 Abb. K C. 127, 131. Roebling v. Duncan, 8 Sun, 502. Affd as Anonymous in 67 JT. Y. 598. Roehner v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 512. Aff'd in 63 N. Y. 160. Dccis- ion in Id. disting'd (Effect of provision respecting non-payment of premium) in Washoe Tool M'f'g Co. v. Hibernia Fire Ins. Co., 7 Sun, 77. Applied in Wheeler v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 16 Id: 322; •which was rev'd in 82 K Y. 538, which see. Disting'd with Baker v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 43 Id. 283 ; Howell v. Knick- ■ erbocker Life Ins. Co., 44 Id. 276, in Pen- dleton v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 12 Reporter, 456, 458. Decision in 4 Daly, applied in Heim v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 Daly, 536, 538. Rogers, Matter of, 7 Cow. 526. See Crocker v. Crane. Disting'd (Mandamus, as rem- edy) in People ex rel. Green v. Common Council of Syracuse, 20 Sow. Pr. 497. See Code Civ. Pro 1881, § 2070, n. Fol- lowed' (Execution of power delegated to sev- eral) in Whiteside v. People, 26 Wend. 644. Rogers v. Adriance, 22 Sow. Pr. 97. Disap- proved (Continuance of action by assignee of personal representative) in Dock 0. South Brooklyn Saw Mill Co., 6 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 144. Disapproved in Robing son «. Brisbane, 7 Sun, 180. v. Arnold, 12 Wend. 30. See (Answer of title in third person in replevin action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1723, n. v. Beard, 20 Sow. Pr. 98. See cor- rected report of part of this case, in Id. 282. v. Benson, 5 Johns. Ch. 431. See Beach v. Hollister; Jackson v. Stevens. Approved with Farmers' & Merchants' B'k of Roches- ter v. Gregory, 49 Barb. 155 (Tenancy by the entirety) in Marburg v. Cole, 49 Md. 402; s. c, 33 Am. B. 266, with note colla- ting cases. T. Bradshaw, 20 Johns. 735. Dictum disapproved (Necessity of provision for compensation on exercise of right of emi- nent domain) in Conn. Riv. R. Co. v. County Comra'rs, 127 Mass. 50; s. c, 34 Am. B. 341. Approved (Statutory remedy, when exclusive of common law remedy) in City of Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch. (IT. J.) 398, 404. v . i> e Forest, 7 Paige, 272. See Dar- ling v. Rogers. Rev'd as Darling v. Rogers, 22 Wend. 483. Compare (Effect of provis- ion in assignment for sale on credit) Barney v. Griffin, 2 N. Y. 365. Decision in 7 Paige collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 211. v. Degen. See Dodd v. Curry. v. Dill, 6 Sill, 415. Cited as an un- questioned authority (Sale of infant's real estate) in Muller v. Struppman, 6 Abb. N. G. 348. Disting'd in Wood v. Mather, 38 Barb. 480. Explained in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 610, n. 1, pp. 201, 203. v. Dnrant, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 676. Appeal dismissed in 56 K Y. 669. Decis- ion in Id. disting'd (Order appointing ref- eree not reviewable) in Berdell v. Berdell, 86 Id. 519, 521. ROGERS. 667 ■ v. Eagle Tire Ins. Co., .9 Wend. Oil. See Jackson ». Dunsbagh. Followed (Con- veying freehold estate infuturo by deed of bargain and sale) in Bell v. Scammon, 15 If. R 881; s. o., 41 Am. Dec. 706, 712, with note; Savage v. Lee, 90 If. 0. 320 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 523. Quoted and discussed in 3 Waalib. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 373. v. Hosack, 18 Wend. 319. Rev'g Hos- ack v. Rogers, 8 Paige, 415. Subsequent decision as Same v. Same, 8 Id. 229, aff'd in 25 Wend. 313. Decision in 18 Id. followed (Requisites of equitable assign-' ment) in Dickenson v. Phillips, 1 Pari. 459; Hoyt v. Story, 3 Id. 264; Att'y Gen'l v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 71 If. Y. 328; Hawley «. Ross, 7 Paige, 106. Criticised but followed in Richardson v. Rust, 9 Id. 244. Followed as settled law in "Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 If. Y. 508, 518. Regarded as settled law in Ex parte Tremont Nail Co., U. 8. Dist. Ct. D. Mass. 16 Panhr. Peg. 448. Applied (Specific lien, i when created) to mortgage, — in Otis v. Sill, 8 Pari. 119. Explained in Seymour v. Canandaigua, &c. R. R. Co., 25 Id. 304. v. Howard Ins. Co. Reported under Same v. Traders' Ins. Co., 6 Paige, 583. v. Jones, 1 Wend. 237; s. c, 19 Am. Pec. 493. See Gould v. James ; Hooker v. Cummings. Followed (Right of fishery) in Whittaker v. Burhans, 62 Pari. 237, 240 ; Trustees of Brookhaven v. Strong, 60 N. Y. 56, 65. Applied in Robins v. Ackerly, 24 Run, 500. Quoted (Municipal by-laws) in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 242, n. 1. v. King, 66 Pari. 495. Affd, it seems, in 55 If. Y. 634, but without opinion. Y. , 8 Paige, 210. Disting'd (Con- solidation of actions) in Schuehle v. Rei- man, 86 N. Y. 270, 273. v. Kneeland, 10 Wend. 218. Affd in 13 Id. 114. See Leonard v. Vredenburgh. Decision in 13 Wend, applied (Promise to answer for obligation of another, when original) in Durham v. Manrow, 2 2f. Y. 541. Both decisions reviewed with other cases (Necessity of expressing consideration in guaranty) in Speyers v. Lambert, 6 Aii. Pr. If. 8. 314. Applied in Church v. Brown, 21 If. Y. 317. Decision in 10 Wend, followed in Marquand v. Hipper, 12 Id. 522. Explained in Douglass v. How- land, 24 Id. 42. Cited in Penj. on Sales, § 232, n. u (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) as sustain- ing the English doctrine. Approved (What toay be implied from language of instru- ment) and applied to assignment for credi- tors, in Hutchinson v. Lord, 1 Wis. 286 ; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 381, 388, with note. Compare Keep v. Sanderson, 2 Wis. 42; S. c. 60 Am. Dec. 404, 406, with note. v. Laytiu, 80 K Y. 637. Motion for re-argument denied in 81 Id. 642. v. Long: Island R. R. Co., 2 Lans. 269; s. c, 38 Row. Pr. 289. Further proceed- ing in 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 396 ; whioh is said in 2 Id. IV, to have been aff'd in Ct. of App. See mem. in 56 If. Y. 020. v. McElhonc, 12 Aii. Pr. 292; s. c, 20 Row. Pr. 441. See ("Vacating order of arrest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 568, n. v. McLean, 31 Pari. 304; s. c, 10 ^455. Pr. 306. Rev'd in 11 Id. 440; and that aff'd in 34 K Y. 536 ; s. c, 31 Row. Pr. 279. Decision in Id, explained as not authority as to effect of want of appoint- ment of guardian ad litem, in McMurray v. McMurray, 9 Aii. Pi: If. 8. 324. See (Proceedings by and against lunatics) Code Civ. Pro. § 2340. v. Michigan, So., & N. I. E. E. Co., 28 Pari. 539. See (Ne exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, n. v. Morton, 12 Wend. 484. Aff'd in 14 Id. 575. See Bank of Orleans v. Barry. V. Miilliner. See Earl v. Camp. v. Murray, 3 Paige, 390. See Jackson v. Morse. Cited as authority -with White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige, 238 (No resulting trust can be created by after advances) in Buck «. Swazey, 35 Me.il; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 681. - v. Ostrom, 35 Pari. 523. See Dyett v. Pendleton. Collated with other cases (Eviction of lessee) in McAdam on Landl. &T.% 212. v. Paterson, 4 Paige, 450. See Field v. Chapman. Followed with People ex rel. Hawley v. Bennett, 4 Paige, 282 (Right to summarily punish for contempt) in Arnold*. Commonwealth, Ct. of App. Ky. May, 1882, 14 Reporter, 329. Compare (Constitution- ality of statute for compulsory reference) St.. Paul, &c. R. R. Co. v. Gardner, 19 Minn. 132. Y. People, 3 Parle. 632. Rev'd as Peo- ple v. Rogers^ in 18 If. Y. 9. y. Rochester & H. E. R., 21 Run, 44. Aff'd as Rogers v. Stephens in 86 If. Y. 623. y. Rogers, Roph. 515. Further decis- ion in 1 Paige, 188 ; which was aff'd in 3 Wend. 503; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 716. De- cision in Id. followed (Executor cannot re- vive barred claim against estate) in Burnett v. Noble, 5 Red/. 69, 74. Followed and approved in Scig v. Acord's Executor, 21 Q-ratt. (Va.) 365 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 605. Ap- plied (Effect of devise with remainder to him) in Post v. Post, 47 Pari. 89 ; Schoon- maker v. Sheely, 3' Den, 497; Chrystie v. Phyfe, 19 If. ,F. 354 ; Matter of Sanders, 4 Paige, 297. Approved in Bond v. McNiff. 38 Super. Ct. (J. & ,§.) 83, 89. Applied (Per- sonal property specifically bequeathed, when liable for debts) in Nagle v. McGin- nis, 49 Row. Pr. 194. Compared with Corwin v. Menitt, 3 Pari. 341, 347,— in 7 South. L. Rev. If. S. 650. Explained (Run- ning of statute of limitations, as affected by devise in trust to pay debts) iu Martin v. Gage, 9 If. Y. 400. Y. Ross, 4 Johns. Ch. 38B ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 575. See cases collected (Costs in ad- ministrative suits) in 6 Am. L. Reg. A 7 ! £.20. -■ — v. Salmon, 8 Paige, 559. Explained GG8 KOGEES— EOMAIN. (Effect of agreement by vendor in contract for sale of land, to make improvements) as turning on purely equitable considerations, arising out of hardship, — in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 11. Hunt, 16 Barb. 519, 522, 529. ■ v. Siiisheimer, 50 N. Y. 646. Re- ported in 51 Id. 680. y. Smith, 5 Hun, 475. Further decision as Rogers v. Rochester H. & P.'C. R. R. Co., 21 Id. 44; which was aff'd as Rogers v. Stephens, in 13 Weekly Dig. 177; mem. s. c, 86 JS. Y. 623. Decision in 5 Hun fol- lowed (Power of legislature by subsequent act to render valid town bonds illegally issued) in Horton v. Town of Thompson, 7 Id. 452 ; which was rev'd in 71 N. Y. 513. v. Stephens. See Rogers v. Rochester II. & P. C. R. R. Co. v. Traders' Ins. Co., 6 Paige, 583. Applied (Interest that entitles one to insur- ance money) in Dakin v. Liverpool, &c. Ins. Co., 77 Jf. Y. 602. Reviewed and dis- ting'd in McDonald v. Black's Adm'r, 20 Ohio, 185 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 448. v. Warner, 8 Johns. 119 ; s. c, 4 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 487, with brief note. See Walsh i>. Bailie ; Whitney v. Groot. Disting'd (What is to be regarded as con- tinuing guarantv) in Lowe v. Beckwith. 14 B. Monr {Ky.) 184; s. c., 58 Am. Dec. 659. t. Weir, 34 K Y. 463. See Judd e. Fox. See (Bailee's estoppel to dispute bail- or's title) Germ. Exch. B'k v. Comm'rs of Excise, 6 Abb. JSf. C. 304, 398, a case of interpleader. v. Wheeler, 2 Lans. 486. Aff'd in 43 JsF. Y. 598. Further decision in 6 Lans. 420; which was aff'd in 52 N. Y. 262. De- cision in 43 Id. disting'd (Liability of trus- tee, &c. operating railroad, for negligence causing injury) in Cardot v. Barney, 63 Id. 288. Applied in Kain e. Smith, 80 Id. 472. Explained (Appeal from order sus- taining demurrer) in Coit v. Stewart, 50 Id. 17. Roget v. Merritt, 2 Cai. 117. See Ontario Bank v. Lightbody. Explained and follow- ed (Effect of payment in worthless money) in Benedict v. Field, 4 Duer, 154. Relied on with Markle v. Hatfield, 2 Johns. 455 ; • Smith «. Smith, Id. 235 ; Arnold v. Craue, 8 Id. 79, in Eagle Bank v. Smith, 5 Conn. 71; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 37, with note. Col- lated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 303. Explained and ap- plied (Necessity that memorandum required by statute of frauds be signed by both par- ties) in Justice v. Lang, 42 1¥. Y. 493, 502. ■ ■ t. Thurston, 2 Johns. Cas. 248; s. c, 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 504, with brief note. See to the contrary (Deviation, &c. that avoids marine policy) Robinson v. Mar- ine Ins. Co., 2 Jims. 89. Disapproved in Riggin v. Patapsco Ins. Co., 7 Burr. & J. (Md.) 279 ; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 302. 307. Roggen v. Avery, 63 Barb. 65. Afi'd in 65 N. Y. 592. Decision in Id. cited (Validity of unacknowledged deed against subsequent grantee) in Chamberlain v. Rpargur, SO Id. 003, 606 ; which aff'd 22 Hun, 437, which see. Rohrhach v. JEtna Ins. Co. See Same v. Gel-mania Fire Ins. Co. v. Germania Fire Ins. Co. Reported under Rohrbach ». ^Htna Ids. Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 339^ Former decision rev'd in 62 N. Y. 47; s. c, 20 Am. R. 451; and latter aff'd, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 613. See Brown 11. Cattaraugus County Mut. Ins. Co. ; Jennings ». Chenango Co. Ins. Co.; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co. ; Springfield Fire & Ma- rine Ins. Co. e. Allen. Decision in 62 N. Y. 47, applied (What is insurable interest) in Creigbton v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 17 Hun, M. Applied to right to require re- sale under foreclosure,— in Goodell 1). Har- rington, 70 N. Y. 547. Cited with approval with Herkimer i>. Rice, 27 K Y. 163, in Spare 0. Home Mut. Ins. Co., U. 8. Cir. Ct. D. Or eg. 15 Reporter, 615 ; s. c, 15 Fed. Rep. 707. Applied (Right of judgment creditor having lien oh single piece of prop- erty) in Vandemark v. Schoonmaker, 9 Hun, 21. Disting'd (Authority, &c. of insurance agent) in Whited v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 13 Id. 194; which was aff'd in 76 JT. Y. 419, which see. Explained in Bell v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 19 Hun, 245, as not overruled by Van Schoick v. Niagara Ins. Co., 68 JT. Y. 434. Applied in Alexander v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 66 Id. 464, 468. Said in 15 Am. L. Ren. 783 (citing cases) to be practically overruled in Sprague v. Holland Purchase Ins. Co., 69 H. Y. 128. Decision in 02 Id. 613, ex- plained in Van Schaick v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 68 Id. 441. Rolkcr v. Great Western Ins. Co., 8Bosw. 222. Rev'd in 3 Keyes, 17 ; s. c, 4 Alb. Ct. App. Dec. 76. Roll v. Northern Central R'y Co., 15 Hun, 496. Afi'd, it seems, in 80 N. Y. 647, but without opinion. Rollin v. Cross, 45 N. Y. 706. Disting'd (Foreclosure of mechanics' lien by assignee of claim) in Brown v. Gregory, 18 Weekly Dig. 45. Disting'd (Rights of assignee of laborer) in Krauser v. Ruckel, 17 Hun, 466. Followed (Mechanics' lien as ' against one having contract of purchase) in McGraw v. Godfrey, 56 JV. Y. 611. Applied as against lessor in Burkitt v. Harper, 79 Id. 276. Rollwagen. Matter of, 48 How. Pr. 289. AfTd as Rollwagen 0. Rollwagen, in 3 Hun, 121; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 402; and that aff'd in 63 N. Y, 504. Decision in Id. cited (Undue influence on testator) in Merrill ». Rolston, 5 Red/. 220, 234. Ap- plied in McCoy r. McCoy, 49 Id. 54, 59. Decision in 3 Hun disting'd in Mairs v. Freeman, 3 Redf. 190. Rollwagen v. Rollwagen. See Matter of Rollwagen. Romain v. Garth, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 301; s. c, less .fully, 49 How. Pr. 61; mem. s. c, 3 Hun, 214. EOMAINE— BOOSEVELT. 669 Romanic t. Van Allen, 26 K Y. 309. See Buy dam v. Jcnkin. Examined and over- ruled (Rule of damages for conversion) in Baker «. Drake, 53 N. Y. 211, 218, 222. Relied on by Dbnio, Ch. J., in Scott v. Rogers, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 157, 162, n. Followed in Lobdell v. Stowcll, 51 If. Y. 70, 75; which afl'd 37 Horn. Pr. 91, which see. Disting'd in Whelan v. Lynch, 65 Barb. 329. Roman Catholic German Church of Albany v. Wacliter, 42 Bar b. 43. See Luptou v. Lupton. Followed (Legacy, when charged on real estate) in Ragan v. Allen, 7 Hun, 539. Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum v. Em- mons, 3 Braclf. 144. Reviewed with Mann v. Mann, 1 Johns. Ch. 231 ; Pritchurd «. Hicks, Id. 270 ; Connolly v. Pardon, Id. 291; Jackson ®. Sill, 11 Id. 201, and other cases (Parol evidence to vary will) in Fitz- patrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Iowa, 674; s. c, 14 Am. R. 538, 542, 544, 540. Rome Exchange Bank v. Eanies, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 83. Discussed (Reservation in grantor's favor in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 350, n. 4, 4ed. Romertze v. East River Nat. Bank, 49 If. Y. 577. Rev'g 2 Sweeny, 82. Rood v. N. ¥. & ErieR. R. Co., 18 Barb 80. Explained (Presumption as to negligence causing spread of fire from locomotive) in Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 If. Y. 209, 212. Cited with Sheldon v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 226 ; 14 If. Y. 218 ; Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 Id. 209; Field v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 32 Id. 339, as according with the weight of authoritv, — in Gandy n. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co.* 30 Iowa, 420 ; s. c, 6 Am. B. 682, 684. Explained in 2 Best on Eo. § 427, n. a, Wood's cd. Ap- plied (Rule of compensation for damage re- sulting from construction of railroad) in Matter of N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 15 Sun, 68. Disting'd (Damages contemplated on conveyance to railroad company) in Lud- low v. Tludson River R. R. Co., 6 Bans. _132. Doubted (Rights of one in possession of land, under contract to purchase) in Van Deusen v. Young, 29 Barb. 17. Followed in Hay's Adm'r v. Miller, 6 Ran, 320, 326. Roof v. Stafford, 7 Cow. 179. Rev'd in 9 Id. 623. Both decisions commented ou (Contracts with infants) in 1 Chitty on Contr. 194, n. h, 11 Am. ed. Decision in 7 Com. discussed in 2 Kent Com. 237, n. b. Roomc v. Phillips, 24 iV. Y. 463. Further decision in 27 Id. 357. Sec Conklin v. Egcrton. Decision ir 27 If. Y. explained (Authority of administrator with will an- nexed, to execute power of sale) in Hum- bert v. Wurster, 22 Ilun, 405, -407. Com- mented on in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 500,- n. 3. Applied (Limit of executor's authority as to sale of real estate) in Rus- sell i>. Russell, 36 N. Y. 585. Rooney t. Second Ave. R. R. Co., IS Is. Y. 368. Followed (Attorney's lien on judg- ment) in Ely v. Cook, 2 Abb: Ct: App. Dee. 14, 17. Applied iu Zogbaum v. Parker, 66 Barb. 343; Fox «. Fox, 24 Horn. Pr. 414. Followed (Attorney's lien for other than costs) in Hall v. Ayer, 9 Abb. Pr. 221; Adams v. Fox, 27 How. Pr. 412;- Brown v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Hun, 595. Approved in Crotty v. MacKenzie, 52 How. Pr. 55; which was affd in 42 Super. Ct. 194, 199, which see. See Richardson v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 24 How. Pr. 823. Discussed with Ely v. Cook, 28 If. Y. 373 ; Duukin v. Vandenbcrgh, 1 Paige, 626; Marshall v. Meech, 51 JST. Y. 140; and many other cases in Be Wilson, U. S. Hist. Ct. 8. D. If. Y, 26 Alb. L. J. 271. Disapproved in Forsythe v. Beveridge, 52 III. 208; s. c, 4 Am. B. 612. Collated with Bowling Green B'k v. Todd, 52 If. Y. 489, and other cases in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 626. See also Id. § 629 ; citing Pulver s. Harris, 52 If. Y. 73, and other cases as showing limitations on doctrine of such lien. Applied (Attorney as party to pro- ceedings to enforce his claims) in Murray v. Jibson. 22 Hun, 388. Roosevelt V: Bull's Head Bank, 45 Barb. 579. Collated with other cases (Tender, how to be made) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 154. v. Cebra, 17 Johns. 108. Explained with Mather v. Bush, 16 Id. 233 ; Matter of "Wendell, 19 Id. 153; Van Raugh «. Van Arsdaln, 3 Cai. 154 (Effect of discharge under insolvent act) in. Sherrill v. Hopkins, 1 Cow. J 03, 106. t. Draper, 23 If. Y. 318. AfFg 7 Abb. Pr. ; 108; s. c, 16 How. Pr. 137; which rev'd Roosevelt v. Varnum, 12 Id. 469. See Christopher v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome. De- cision in 23 If. Y. disting'd (Power of in- dividual tax payer to maintain proceedings to restrain action of "public authorities) in . People ex rel. Haskin v. Supervisors of Westchester, 8 Abb. Pr. K S. 278. Limit' ed in Mann v. Board of Education, 53 How. Pr. 297. Applied iu Burch v. Cavanaugb,, 12 Abb. Pr. If. S. 416 ; Comins v. Sup'rs of Jefferson, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 297; Roosevelt v. Draper, 61 Barb. 124 ; Ayres d. Lawrence, 63 Id. 459 ; which was rev'd in 59 If. Y. 195, which see; Tifit v. City of Buffalo, 65 Barb. 461 ; Demarest v. Wickham, 63 JV. Y. 324. Disting'd in Lutes v. Briggs, 5 Hun, 71. See B. 1872, c. 161, as explained in Latham a. Richards, 15 nun, 133. Applied to action by people in People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 27 How. Pr. 35 ; but see dicta in decision in 7 Abb. Pr. and in People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 32 Barb. 102, criticised in People v. Miner, 2 Lans. 409, where decision in 23 If. Y. is applied. Explained at length in Pomeroy on Eg. Jar. § 266, n. 2. Explained (Eftect of conveyance taken from city by officer 670 ROOSEVELT— HOOT. thereof) in People ». Brennan, 39 Barb. 540. ~ — T. Fulton, 7 Cow. 107. Explained with Pelletreau v. Moore, 9 Wend. 493, with reference to provisions of Code (Stay of proceedings by bill of exceptions) in Jel- linghaus ». N. Y. Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 678, 680. Explained (Recitals in wills) in 2 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 104, n. T. Gardinier, 2 Cow. 463. See Frank- lin v. Talmadge. Followed and approved (Initials as part of name) in Hart v. Lind- sey, 17 H. H. 235; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 597, with note. v. Linker!;. See Roosevelt n. Luikert. t. Luikert, 3 Weekly Dig. 132. Appeal dismissed in Roosevelt v. Linkert, 67 N. Y. 447. v. Mark, 6 Johns. Ch. 266. See dim- ming ». Hackley; Hackleyp. Patrick; Kane v. Bloodgood ; Lansing v. Starr. Explained (Effect of payment of dividend by trustees for. creditors, as ne^v promise by debtor) in Barger ». Durvin, 22 Barb. 69. Followed in Pickett v. Leonard, 34 H. Y. 176. Dis- cussed with other cases in 1 Oreenl. on Ev. § 112, n. c. Quoted in 1 Ang. on Limit. § 253, 6 ed. Applied (Validity of security wherein amount secured is not specified) in Robinson v. Williams, 22 N. T. 3S4. Ex- plained (Effect of devise in trust, to revive debt barred by statute of limitations) in Martin v. Gage, 9 Id. 400. Reviewed and followed in Peck v. Botsford, 7 Conn. 172 ; s. C, 18 Am. Dee. 92, with note. Applied (Surety, when entitled to enforce security taken by him) in Bank v. Douglass, 4 Watts (Pa.) 95; s. c, 28 Am. Dee. 089, with note. 6 Hun, 31. Affd, it Y. 651, but without — t. Roosevelt, seems, in 64 H. opinion. — t. Thurman, Johns. Ch. 220. State- ment of marginal note corrected (Effect of words " dying without issue ") in Dallam's Lessee, 7 Har. & J.'(Md.) 250. T. Yarnnm. See Roosevelt v. Draper. Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 18 Sun, 582. Aff'd in 84 N. Y. 108. See Buffalo City Cemetery v. City of Buffalo. Soot v. French, 13 Wend. 570; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 482, with note, wherein it is , shown to have been frequently cited both in N. Y. and elsewhere. See Bay v. Codding- ton ; Padgett v. Lawrence. Explained (Title under fraudulent purchase) in Hunter v. Hudson River Iron, &c. Co., 20 Barb. 501; Tallman v. Turck, 26 Id. 170. Ap- plied in King v. Phillips, 8 Bosw. 607; Ash v. Putnam, 1 Hill, 305. Disapproved in Stevens v. Hyde, 32 Barb. 179. Approved, — but also disapproved as to remedy, in Cary v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 313. Applied (Rights of purchaser from fraudulent ven- dor) in White v. Bullock, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 575, 578; Barnard v. Campbell, 65 Barb. 289 ; which was aff'd in 58 K Y. 79, which see. Reviewed with other cases in Weaver v. Barden, 49 Id. 292. DistingM in Henry v. Wilkes, 37 Id. 565. Opposed with Payne ■». Cutler, 13 Wend. 605 ; War- deil «. Howell, 9 Id. 170 ; Rosa v. Brother- son, 10 Id. 85; Fulton- Bank v. Phcenix Bank, 1 Hall, 562; Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. 637; Dickerson v. Tillinghast, 4 Paige, 215, 222 (Antecedent debt, as valua- ble consideration) in Brush ». Scribner, 11 Conn. 388. Examined in Waggoner «. Cooley, 17 III. 245. Approved (Rights of innocent purchaser as against wrongdoer) in Moyce v. Nervington, L. R. 4 Q. B. Die. 32, 35; and see Ilamet v. Letcher, 37 Ohio St. 356, 358. v. Great Western R'y Co., 65 Barb. 619; s. c, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 10. Aff'd in 55 N. Y. 636. Previous decision in 45 Id. 524; which rev'd 2 Bans. 199. See Van Santvoord v. St. John. Decision in 45 H. Y. followed with Maghee v. Camden, &e. R. R. Co., Id. 514 (Liability of connecting railroad companies) in King v. Macon, &c. R. R. Co., 62 Barb. 160, 174. v. King, 7 Cow. 613. Affd as King v. Root, in 4 Wend. 113. See Fo'ot v. Tracy; Mapes i>. Weeks ; Matson ». Buck. Decision in 7 Cow. disapproved (Evidence of charac- ter to mitigate damages, in action for def- amation) 1 Am. L. Beg. iv". S. 173. Colla- ted with Douglass n. Tousey, 2 Wend. 352 ; Inmon v. Foster, 8 Id. 602 ; Foot e. Tracy, 1 Johns. 45, and other cases, in 1 Taylor on Ho. 365. Decision in 4 Wend, followed (Truth as defense to civil action for libel) in Castle t. Houston, 19 Kan. 417 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 127. Both decisions cited as au- thority (Newspaper statements respecting candidates for, or incumbents of office, when actionable per se) in Sweeney v. Ba- ker, 13 W. Va. 158; s. c, 31 Am. B. 757, 760. v. Lowndes, 6 Hill, 518. Applied (Proof of repetition in action for slander) in Bassil v. Elmore, 65 Barb. 631. Compare Flanders v. Groff, 25 Hun, 554. Applied (Evidence of malice) in Bush «. Prosser, 11 H: Y. 359. Followed (Proof of other slanderous words than those alfeged) in Keenholts v. Becker, 3 Den. 349. Doubted in Frazier v. McCloskey, 2 Svp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 267; which was rev'd in 60 N. Y. 338, which see. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 168, n. w. v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. 68. See Fox v. Smith; People ■». McKay. Applied with Blackley «. Sheldon, 7 Johns. 32 (When verdict is final) in Walters v. Juukins, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 414; s. c. 16 Am. Dec. 585, with note; see Co. Litt. 227, c.f. v. Stuyvesant, 18 Wend. 257. Cited in illustration (Overruling decisions of court of last resort) in Butler v. Van Wyck, 1 Hill, 438, 463. Disapproved (Effect of void pro- vision in will on provision otherwise valid) in Lang v. Ropke, 5 Sandf. 372. Disting'd in Williams «. Williams, 8 K Y. 525, 539. Discussed in 4 Kent'Com. 281, n. a. KOOT-EOSEVELT. C71 T. Taylor, 20 Johns. 137. Applied (Set-off against administration) in Patterson v. Patterson, 59 K Y. 577. v. Wright, 21 Hun, 344. Rev'd in 84 JT. Y. 72; s. c, 38 Am. R. 49D. See Ed- ington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. Decision in 84 J7". Y. disting'd (Privilege of communica- tions between attorney and client) in Sher- man v. Scott, 27 Hun, 331. Roraback v. Stebbins, 33 How. Pr. 378; s. c, 3 Eeyes, 62. See Brittin v. Wilder. Reviewed with Watkins v. Abrahams, 24 If. Y. 72, and other cases (Confession of judgment by married woman) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. §465. Rorke T. Rnssell, 2 Lans. 244. Cited (Ac- tion against president of voluntary associa- tion) in Fritz o. Muck, 62 How. Pr. 69, 73. Rosa v. Brotherson, 10 Wend. 86. See Bay v. Coddington; Bristol.!;. Sprague; Cdddington v. Bay ; Root v. French. Re- ferred to as overruled (Discharge of pre-ex- isting debt, as consideration) in Scott i>. Betts, Sill & D. 363, 370 ; Depeau v. Wad- dington, 6 Whart. (Pa) 220; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 216, 220, with note. Cited as author- ity with Wardell ». Howard, 9 Wend. 170 ; Hart i). Palmer, 12 Id. 523 ; Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. 637, in Ingerson v. Stark- weather, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 346, 353. Reviewed as overruled in 1 Ky. L. Rep. 411. v. Butterfleld, 33 N. Y. 665. Followed (Usury in contracts with corporations) in Stevens . Coit, 26 J7! Y. 404, 407. v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 57 H. Y. 217. Explained (Liability of railroad com- pany to employe as to care in running train) in Slater v. Jewett, 85 Id. 61, 71. Explained in MoaWs UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 62. t. Clark, 8 Paige, 574. See Fenton v. Reed ; Foster v. llawley ; Starr v. Peck. Applied (Cohabitation, as furnishing pre- sumption of marriage) in Jackson v. Claw, 18 Johns. 346; which was followed iu Durand v. Durand, 2 Sweeny, 315, 322. Disting'd in Machini v. Zanoni, 5 Redf. 492, 495. Quoted in 1 Bisk on Mar. & D. \ 280, 6 ed. T . Rose, 4 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 108. See Hone v. Van Schaick. See papers, arguments, &c. in No. 56 of Charles O'Oon- or's " My Own Cases," L'w Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. See to same effect (Limitation over on void term not saved by acceleration) Rudall v. Warren, 1 Deane (Eng. Ecc.) 306. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 511, n. v. , 11 Paige, 166. Approved (Provision for mandamus, as affecting wife's claim to alimony pendente lite) in Collins b. Collins, 80 N. Y. 11. v. Smith, 4 Cow. 17; s. c , 15 Am. Dee. 331. See Brant v. Fowler; Wilson v. Abra- hams. v. U. S. Teleg. Co. See Young v. Wes- tern Union Teleg. Co. Roseboom v. Mosher, 2 Den. 61. See Conk- lin v. Egerton. Examined and applied (Valid execution of discretionary power of sale given by will) in Taylor v. Morris, 1 K Y. 341, 349. Quoted in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 785. v. Roseboom, 15 Hun, 309. Aff'd in 81 N. Y. 356. See Taggart v. Murray. De- cision in 81 J7". Y. followed (Meaning of "all" in will) in Harrison ■». Jewell, 2 Dem. 37. Rosebrooks v. Diusmore, 4 Robt. 672. Rev'd in 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 59 ; s. c, 36 How. Pr. 138; 4 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 118. Rosecrans v. Van Antwerp, 4 Johns. 228. Relied on (Necessity that all of several joint obligees join in assignment of obligation) in Sanders v. Blain's Adm'rs, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 446 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 86. Rosekrans t. Rosekrans, 7 Lans. 486. Com- pare (Wife as party to partition action) Code Civ. Pro. § 1538. Rosenback Manufacturers' & Builders' Bank, 10 Hun, 148. Aff d in 69 N. Y. 358. v. Salt Springs Nat. B'k, 53 Barb. 495. Criticised as contrary to,doctrine of U. S. Sup'm. Ct. (Effect of provision prohibiting tranfer of bank stock by one indebted to bank) in 6 South. L. Rev. N. S. 531, n. Roscnzweig v. People, 6 Lans. 462 ; s. c, more fully as Rosenweig v. People, 63 Barb. 634. See account published at Philadelphia, of proceedings at N. Y. Gen- eral Sessions, 1872. Rosevelt v. Bank Qf Niagara, Hoph. 579. AflTd in 9 Cow. 409. v. Brown, 11 K Y. 148. See Adderly v. Storm. Applied (Liability of transferee of stock, as stockholder) in Matter of Empire City Bank, 18 N. Y. 199, 223. Disting'd in Cutting v. Damercl, 88 Id. 416. Lim- ited in Wintringham v. Rosenthal, 25 Hun, 581. Followed with Adderly v. Storm, 6 Ilill, 624 ; Worrall v. Judsou, 5 Barb. 210; U. S. Trust Co. i>. U. S. Fire Ins. Co., 18 K Y. 224, in Magruder v. Colston, 44 Md. 349; s. c, 22 Am. R. 47. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 610, n. 2, 11 ed. 672 EOSS— EOSSITEE. Ross t. Ackerman, 46 N. Y. 210. Disting'd (Usury in discounting one note, not provable by evidence of usury in discounting other notes) in Pooler v. Curtiss, 3 Sup'm. Ot. (T. &, 0.) 228, 230. Applied (Contradiction of witness) in Stupe v. People, 21 Hun, 399, 401 ; which was rev'd in 85 N. T. 390. v. Bedell, 5 Daer, 462. Followed (Re- quisites of seal) in Gillespie v.- Brooks, 2 Redf. 349, 366. Cited as authority in Richard v. Boiler, 6 Daly, 460, 462. ^— v. Combes, 37 Super. Ot. (J. & 8.) 289. Disting'd (Reference in case of several issues) in Maryott v. Thayer, 39 Id. 417. v. Ferris, 18 Hun, 210. Followed (Dis- charge of surety on appeal bond) in Kendall v. Grice, 1 Mack (Dist. of C.) 279; s. c, 47 Am. R. 243. . V. Cnrtiss, 31 AT. Y. 606. Affg Ross v. Curtis, 30 Barb. 238. See Starin v Town of Genoa. Decision in 30 Barb, disting'd (Liabilit) 7 of' one receiving public money as agent) in Hall v. Lauderdale, 46 Af. Y. 70, 77. Decision in 31 Id. disting'd in Biddle- com v. Newton, 13 Hun, 587 ; Shepherd's Fold v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Weekly Dig. 572. Compared in Healey v. Dudley, 5 ■Lam. 126. Followed as conclusive in People ex rel. Martin v. Brown, 55 N. Y. J87 ; First Nat. B'k of Oxford v. Wheeler, 72 Id. 204. - — v. Harden, 42 Super. Ot. (J. & 8.) 427. Further decisions in 44 Id. 26 ; Id. 579 ; and the latter aff'd in 79 N. Y. 84. With decision in Id. see (Right to contract for care of property after one's death) Nat. B'k of Newburgh, 83 Id. 51, 57. Decision in 42 Super. Ot. (J. & 8.) followed (Ordering exceptions to be heard at General Terra, after denying motion for new trial) in Gar- ner v. Mangam, 46 Id. 365, 368. t. Luther, 4 Gow. 158 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dee. 341, with extended note (What is commencement of action). Commented on in Ang. on Limit. § 312, 6 ed. v. Mather, 47 Barb. 582. Rev'd in 51 K Y. 108; b. c, 10 Am. R. 562. See Parker v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co. Decision in 51 IT. Y. applied (Recovery as on contract, in case of allegations of tort) in Berrian v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 15 Abb. Pr. 2f. S. 209 ; Peck v. Root, 5 Hun, 549 ; Peo- ple v. Denison, 19 Id. 147; Dudley v. Scran- ton, 57 A 7 ! Y. 428. Disting'd in Graves i). Waite, 59 Id. 162; Greentree v. Rosen- stock, 61 Id. 590. Commented on in Abb. Tr. Ev. 285, »., citing Code Civ. Pro. § 529. Decision in 47 Barb, disting'd (Ne- cessity of proof of scienter, to establish warranty) in Littauer v. Goldman, 72 AT. T. 506, 513. T. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 32 How. Pr. 164; s. c, 2 Abb. Pr. iV, S. 266. Limited (Reference in case of long account) in Batchelor v. Albany City Ins. Co., 6 II. 240, 247. Collated with other cases in Hoffm. on Referees, 14. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488. Aft'd in effect, it seems, in 74 K Y. 617, but without opinion. See vol. 493 Cas. in Ct. of App. Law Inst. Libr. N Y.' city. Both decisions applied with Russell v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 17 A 7 . Y. 134 (Liability of railroad company for injuries received by one transported free of charge) in Vick v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 95 Id. 267. v. People, 5 Hill, 294. Applied (Lar- ceny of property intrusted to another for purposes of sale) in Zink v. People, 77 If. Y. 127. v. Roberts, 2 Hun, 90 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 318. Aff'd, it seems, in 63 N. Y. 652, but without opinion. Compare (When equitable conversion takes effect) Freeman v. Smith, 60 How. Pr. 311. v. Ross, 6 Hun, 182. See Soulden v. Van Rensselaer. Disapproved (Practice on appeal from surrogate's decree) in Cox ». Schermerhorn, 18 Hun, 16, 18. Approved (Evidence of personal, transaction with deceased) in Marsh v. Gilbert, 2 Redf. 465, 475. — — v. Sadgbeer, 21 Wend. 166. Applied (Presumption as to validity of contract in restraint of trade) in Weller v. Hersee, 10 Hun, 431, 433. Cited in Kellogg v. Larkin, 3 Pinn. (Wis) 123; 3 Chand. 133; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 164. Approved in 2 Kent. Com. 467, n. e, as containing well reasoned con- clusions of law. v. Terry, 63 JST. Y. 613. Applied (Cause of action when on contract, and not in tort) in Sparman v. Keim, 9 Abb. A 7 ". G. 1, 6. Disting'd (Implied warranty on transfer of written instrument) in Littauer v. Goldman, 72 A 7 ! Y. 506, 511. See to the contrary (Express warranty as preclud- ing implied) Whitmore v. South Boston Iron Co., 2 Allen (Mass.) 52 ; s. c, 1 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 403. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 345. See to the contrary (Proof in action for false warranty) Code Oiv. Pro. 549. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 339. v. Whitefleld, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 50. Aff'd in 56 K Y. 640. v. Wood, 51 How. Pr. 196. Aff'd in 8 Hun, 185, which also contains same opin- ion, and was aff'd in 70 N. Y. 8. Decision in Id. followed (Relief against former judg- ment on ground of fraud) and Dobson v. Pearce, 12 Id. 157, disting'd in N. Y. Cen- . tral R. R. Co. v. Harrold, 65 How. Pr. 89. Disting'd in Verplank v. Van Burcn, 76 K Y. 247, 256. Rosse v. Rust. See Perine v. Dunn. Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 62, with note containing citations. See Dusenbury ». Ellis. Disting'd (Liabil- ity of one contracting as agent) in Plumb v. Milk, 19 Barb. 78; Hegeman v. Johnson, 35 Id. 205. Applied in Sturdivant v. Hull, 59 Me. 172 ; s. c , 8 Am. R. 409. Crtticiscd and questioned with Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Den. 471 ; Dusenbury v. Ellis, 3 Johns. Gas. 70, in Sheffield v. Ladue, 16 Minn. 388; KOSWOG— ROWE. 673 8 c, 10 Am. R. 145, and said to be weak- ened by the later cases of White v. Madi- son, 26 JT. T. 117; Walker v. Bank of State of N. Y., 9 Id. 582. Cited in Whart. Com. onAg. § 75.. Applied (Limit of au- thority of special agent) in Holtsinger ». Nat. Corn Exch. B'k, 6 All. Pr. JT. S. 298. Disting'd in Wicks «. Hatch, 62 JT. Y. 541 ; North River B'k v. Rogers, 22 Wend. 651. Applied in Wood v. McCain, 7 Ala. 800 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 612; 614. Included in 1 Sare & W. Am. L. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 659. Roswog v. Seymour, 7 Bolt. 427. Collated with other cases (Proceedings for discharge of imprisoned debtor) in Bishop on Assign. § 43. Collated with other cases (Necessity that proceedings be " just and fair ") in Id. § 121. Rotan v. Fletcher- See Schermcrhorn v. Van Volkenburgh. Roth v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 34 JT. Y. 548. Disting'd (Continuation of car- rier's liability as to baggage) in Curtis v. Avon, &c. R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 154; Mattison «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 57 JT. Y. 559. Followed in Holdridge v. Utica, &c. R. R. Co., 56 Barb. 192. Relied on, and ex- plained in Chicago, Rock Island, &c. R. R. Co. ». Boyce, 73 III. 510 ; s. c, 24.4m. B. 268. Cited as authority with Powell v. Meyers, 26 Wend. 591, in Mote v. Chicago <& Northwestern R. R. Co., 27 Iowa, 22 ; s. c, 1 Am. B 212. Explained in Ang. on Oarr. § 114, n. «. 5 ed. Criticised (Reason- able time for continuation of carrier's liabil- ity, how determined) in Lamb v. Camden, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Daly, 473. Doubted in Burnell u.'N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 JT. r. 187. v. Palmer, 27 Barb. 652. Followed with Masson v. Bovet, 1 Den. 69 ; Osborne «i. Bell, 5 Id. 370 ; Kingman v. Hotailing, 25 Wend. 423 (Remedy of vendor of goods ob- tained tortiously) in Wigand v. Sichel, 3 Eeyes, 120. Disapproved with Wigand v. Sichel in Kellogg v. Turpie, 93 III. 265 ; s. c, 34 Am. B. 166. Criticised in 33 Am. Dec 706, n., as anomalous and illogical. Followed (Admissibility of allegations of fraud when not the gravamen of the suit) in Campbell v. Wright, 21 Sow. Pr. 9, 14. V. Wells, 41 Barb. 194. Affd in 29 JT. Y. 471. Decision in Id. followed (Suffi- ciency of levy) in Bond v. Willet, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 169, 173; Elias v. Farley, 2 Id. 14. Applied (Effect of execution with- out levy) in Stewart v. Beale, 7 Sun, 412. Examined at length, in Hathaway v. How- ell, 54 JT. Y. 103. Applied (Effect of levy on property subsequently purchased by debtor) in Hodge v. Adee, 2 Lans. 319. Rounds v. Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co., 3 Sun, 329; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 475. Afi'd in 64 N. Y. 120 ; s. c. 2L Am. B. 597. See Higgins v. Watervliet Turnpike Co.; Hoffman v. N. Y. Central, &e. R. R. Co.; Nicholson v. Erie R'y Co. De- cision in 64 JT. Y. applied (Liability forser- • I.— 43 vants' tortious acts) in Peck ». N. Y. Central, &c. R". R. Co., 8 Sun, 287; Cohens Dry Dock, &c. R. R. Co., 69 JT. Y. 173 ; Hoffman e. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 4. Disting'd in Molloy «. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Daly, 453. Ci- ted as authority with Cohen v. Dry Dock, &c. R. R. Co.", 69 JT. Y. 170, as preferable to doctrine in Vanderbilt v. Turnpike Co , 2 Id. 479, and other earlier cases, — in Gil- liam v. S. & N. Ala. R. R. Co., 70 Ala. 270. See also N. Y. doctrine approved in 15 Fed. Rep. 60, n. Quoted in Moak's UhderhiU's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 32. Decision in 5 Siip'm. Gt. (2'. & G.) explained and commented on in Add. on Torts, 590, n, Wood's ed. Ronse t. Wliited, 25 Barb. 279. Rev'd in 25 JT. Y. 170. Decision in Id. applied (Necessity that admission be taken as en- tirety) to pleading, — in Goodyear v. Dela- vergne, 10 Sun, 537, 539. Disting'd in Misselbeck v. Greime, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 660. Applied (Limit of proof of state- ments explaining what opposite party has called out) to declarations of third persons, — in Starin «. People, -45 JT. Y. 340 ; Platner v. Platner, 78 Id. 103. Applied to pamph- let or book, — in Sturm v. Williams, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 325, 347. Applied in criminal case, in People v. Beach, 87 JT. Y. 608, 512. Applied (Proof of contradictory statements by witness) to written declara- tions such as affidavits, — in Honstine v. O'Donnell. 5 Sun, 472, 474. Row v. Pnlver, 1 Cow. 246. Applied (Dis- charge of surety by neglect of creditor to proceed against principal) in Toles v. Adee, 84 JT. Y. 222, 239. ■ v. Row, 4 Sow. Pr. 133. Explained (Necessity of notice to parties, of proceed- ings of commissioners in partition) in Doubleday v. Newton, 9 Id. 71. Rowan v. Kelscy, 18 Barb. 484. Further decision in 2 Eeyes, 594. Decision in 18 Barl. quoted (For what interest ejectment lies) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. . § 47, citing cases. Discussed in 1 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 54, n. 3. Ruckman v. Astor, 3 Edw. 373. Rev'd in 9 Paige, 517. : v. Bryan, 3 Den. 340. Followed (Ille- gal payment not made valid by promise) in Ruckman v. Pitcher, 1 N. Y. 392, 409. T. Cowell. See Sackett v. Andrcss. v. Green, 9 Han, 225. Quoted (Action for nuisance, where to be brought) in Wood on Nuu. 2 ed. § 830. v. Merchants' Louisville Ins. Co., 5 Duer, 342. Followed with American Ins. Co. i>. Ogden, 20 Wend. 302 (What will justify abandonment) in Copelin v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 46 Mo. 211; s. c, 2 Am. R. 504, 506. v. Pitcher, I N. T. 392; s. c, with other opinions, 8 If. Y. Leg. Ols. 177. Subsequent decision in 13 Barb. 556; which was afi'd in 20 N. Y. 9. See contrary to decision in 1 Id. (Liability of stockholder) Tarletons). Baker, 18 Verm. 9. ftudd v. Davis, 3 Hill, 287. Afi'd in 7 Id. 529. Ruddon v. McDonald, 1 Bradf. 352. See Butler «. Benson. Said in 1 Am. Dec. 386, n., to be, as to its facts, very similar to Russell v. Falls, 3 Harr &. McH. (Md.) 457; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 380. (What is suffi- cient attestation of will in presence of tes- tator). Referred to in 40 Am. Dec. 602, «., as being similar in its facts to Reynolds «. Reynolds, 1 Spear's L. (So. Car.) 253 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 599. Rue t. Alter, 5 Den. 119. Disapproved (Statutes of exemption not liberally con- strued) in 1 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 647. Roger v. Heckel, 21 Hun, 489. Affd in 85 if. Y. 483. Bugg v. Rngg, 21 Hun, 383. Affd in 83 N. Y. 592. See Pruyn v. Brinkerhoff. De- cision in 83 If. Y. explained (Executor who is witness to will not disqualified from testi- fying to it by Code Cic. Pro. § 829) in Mat- ter of Burke, 5 Red/. 369. Boggles v. Brock, 6 Hun, 164. Followed (Misrepresentation to stockholder as de- fense against creditor) in Ryan v. Miami Valley R'y Co., 10 Am. L. Rec. 203, 273. - — v. Chapman, 1 Hun, e24. Another decision to same effect in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 600. Both affd in 59 N. Y. 163. See also People ex rel. Ruggles v. Chapman. 64 Id. 557. v. Keeler, 3 Johns. 263; s. c, 3 Am: Dec. 482. See Nash v. Tupper. Examined and followed (Statute of limitations, in case of non-residence) in Olcott v. Tioga R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 210, 223. Followed in Field v. Dickinson, 3 Ark. 409; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 458; King v. Lane, 7 Mo. 241 ; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 187, with note. Quoted in 3 Pars, on Contr. 96, n. c ; 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1422, n. 4. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 390, n. v. Lawson, 13 Johns. 285; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 375. Commented oh (Effect of deliv- ery of daed on condition of grantor dying intestate) in Stilwell ». Hubbard, 20 Wend. 44. Disting'd in Nottbeck v. Wilks, 4 All. Pr. 315. Disting'd (What is delivery of deed) in Chadwick v. Nebcr, 3 Greenl. (Ale.) 141 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 222, 225. Rulil v. Phillips, 2 Daly, 45. Rev'd in 48 N. Y. 125. Decision in 2 Daly disting'd (Authority of partner to make assignment) in Roberts v. Shepard, Id. 110. Decision in 48 If. Y. explained (Fraud in sales upon credit) in Wait on Fiaud. Conv. § 240. Rnloff v. People, 18 N. Y. 179. Rev'g 3 Park. 401. See People v. Videto. Decis- ion in 18 N. Y. explained and disting'd (Proof of death by circumstantial evidence) in People v. Bennett, 49 Id. 143. Collated with other cases in 29 All. L. J. 348. Ex- plained in 3 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 30, n. b.; 2 Best on Eo. § 446, n. a, Wood's ed. t. — , 45 N. Y. 213 ; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 245 ; which contains also decision be- low, which latter decision is also in 5 Lans. 261. See McGarry v. People. See biog- raphy, &c. by £. H. Fkeeman, published at Binghamptou, 1871. Also Medico-legal notes by G. Burnt ; in N. Y. Med. Leg. Soc. Papers, vol 1. Also account of life, trial, and execution published at Phila. 1871. Also review of case; by G. A. Sawyers, published in 1872. Also review of trial in 2 All. L. J. 101. Applied (Photographs as evidence) in Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464, 479. Collated with Cozzens v. Big- gins, 33 How. Pr. 439; Wilkins v. Earle, 44 N. Y. 166, and other cases in 26 Am. li. 319. See, also, Delany v. Errickson. 10 Neb. 492 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 487. Applied (Cure of error made on trial) in U. S. a. Snyder, 14 Fed. Rep. 557. Ruiusey v. People, 19 N. Y. 41. See Thom- as v. Dakin. Limited (Charge on trial for assault with intent to kill) in Slatterly ?>. People, 58 If. Y. 354, 357. Disting'd and limited (Constitutionality of act fixing lim- its of political district) in Kinney v. City of Syracuse, 30 Barb. 349, 367. Compare (Constitutionality of act creating Schuyler county) Lanning v. Carpenter, 20 If. Y. 447. Approved and applied to a similar statute in Sherry v. Gilmore, 58 Wis. 324, 331. Applied (Sustaining validity of stat- ute by reference to other statutes) in Smith v. People, 47 If. Y. 341. C76 RUNDELL— RUSSELL. Enndell y. Lakey, 40 N. 7. 513. Followed (Taxation of real estate, how affected by conveyance after assessment and before levy) Barlow v. St. Nicholas Nat. B'k. 63 Id. 399, being disting'd in Evcrson v. City of Syracuse, 29 Hun, 485. Disting'd (Tax, &c. as lien on real estate) in De Pey- ster v, Munphy, 39 Super Ct (J. & S.) 255, 265, which was rev'd in 06 HT. Y. 622. Referred to in 8 Am. R. 297, n., as to the same effect with, and Kern v. Towsley, 45 Barb. 150, as contrary to Cochran v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 296. Doc- trine discussed in 1 Alb. L. J. 514. Bundle v. Moore, 3 Johns. Gas. 36. Cited (Duty of insurance broker to see that in- surer is in good market credit at time of insurance) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 205. Bunk v. St. John, 29 Barb. 585. Collated with Willitts v. Waite, 25 N. Y. 577; Kil- mer v. Hobart, 58 How. Pr. 452 (Extra territorial powers of receivers) in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 289. Quoted in High on, Receie. § 241, n. 1. Runyaiiv. Merserean, 11 Johns. 534; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 393. See Green «. Hart. Re- affd and applied (Mortgage as personal interest) in Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. T. 364. Followed (What is good assignment of mortgage) in Fryer v. Rockefeller, 63 Id. 268, 276. ■ v. Stewart,. 12 Barb. 537. See Jack- son o. De Witt. Compare (Dower in mort- gaged premises) Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 95. Explained (Dower as against pur- chase monev mortgage) in De Lisle v. Herbs, 25 Hun, 485, 487. Ruppert v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. See Hogle s. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Ruse v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 26 Barb. 556. Rev'd in 23 JSf. Y. 516. Mo- tion for re-argument, in 24 Id. 053.' See Babcock v. Bonnell ; St. John v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co. Decision in 23 Jf. Y. applied (Necessity that holder of polic}' have inter- est in subject of insurance) in Freeman v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. 405. Disting'd in Frank v. Hampden Ins. Co., 1 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 346. Approved and fol- lowed in Gilbert v. Moose, 104 Pa. St. 74, 79. Reviewed with St. John v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 13 N~. Y. 31 ; Valton v. National Fund Life Ins. Co., 20 Id. 32, 38; and other cases in Missouri Valley Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 18 Kant. 93; s. c, 62 Am. R. 761, 763. Cited with approval in Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 III. 35; s. c, 22 Am. It. 180. Followed with Freeman v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 38 Barb. 247, in Singleton v. St. Louis Ins. Co., 66 Mo. 63 ; s. <;., 27 Am. R. 321, 324. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Contr. 479,. n. p. Questioned in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 181. Doubted in 57 Am. Dee. 94, n. Applied (Effect of faijure to pay premium when due) in Howell©. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 19 Abb. Pr. 219, which was rev'd in 44 K Y. 279, which see. Explained (Pre- sumption as to laws of another State) in Bradley v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 3 Bans. 343. Followed (Admissibility of evidence to explain written contract of insurance) in King v. Enterprise Ins. Co., 45 Lid. 43, 58. Decision in 26 Barb, fol- lowed (Entirety of contract for life policy) in Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Warwick, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 614; s. c, 3 Am. R. 218. Rusher v. Morris, 9 How. Pr. 266. Aff'd at General Term, 1854. Opposed (Joinder of husband with wife as plaintiff in action affecting her separate property) in Smith v. Kearney, Id. 467 ; Ackley v. Tarbox, 29 Barb. 515. v. Sherman, 28 Barb. 416. Collated with other cases (Number of creditors necessary for granting of discharge to insol- vent) in Bishop on Assign. § 12. Russell v. Carringtoii, 42' JST. Y. 118. See Rapelye «. Mackie. Applied (Divided own- erships in. undivided portion of personal property) in. Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 75. Disting'd .in Higgins v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., 60 Id. 555, 558. Approved in Hurff v. Hires,. 11 JSf. J. 581, 593. Ex- plained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 396 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) Compared in Id § 478. v. Cook, 3 Bill. 504. Disting'd (Suffi- ciency of consideration for promise) in Geer v. Archer, 2 Barb. 426. Disting'd (Compromise of doubtful claim, as such consideBitioi*) in Morey v. Town of New- fane, 8 Id. 654; Dolcher v. Fry, 37 Id. 157. Applied in Palmer v. North, 35 Id. 293 ; Organ v. Stewart, 1 Hun, 415 ; which was rev'd in 60 N. Y. 419, which see. Followed in Adams «. Wilson, 12 Mete. {Mass.) 138; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 240, with note. Disting'd (Necessity that accord be execu- ted) in Panzerbeiter v. Waydell, 21 Hun,162. v. Doty, 4 Cow. 576. Overruled (Re- moving distrainable goods without paying rent) in Brown v. Fay, 6 Wend. 392 ; Coles d. Freeman, 2 Hill, 447. v. Freer, 5G K Y. 67. See People v. Bostwick. Approvingly cited (Effect of surety signing bond conditionally) in 28 Am. Dec. '681, n. Distirfg'd in U. S. v. O'Neill, U. S. Civ. Ct. E. D. Wise. 19 Fed. Rep. 560, 567. t. Gibbs, 5 Cow. 390. See Nichols v. Ketcham. Approved (Effect of delay to enforce execution) in Benjamin v. Smith, 4 Wend. 332. To same effect, in Ferguson v. Lee, 9 Id. 258. Approved as according with settled law in Campbell v. Spence, 4 Ala. 543; s. c, 39 Am. Dec' 301, 305. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 39. Rev'd in 17 XT. Y. 134. See Ilalsey v. Sinsebaugh; Ross ». N. Y. Central, &c R. R. Co. Decision in 17 N. Y. followed (Memoranda, as evidence) in Brown v. Jones, 46 Barb. 411; Meacham «. Pell, 51 Id. 66; Stuart v. Binsse, 7 Bosw. 197; Driggs v. Smith, 45 How. Pr. 450; Thur- mau v. Mosher, 1 Hun, 349. Applied in Krom v. Levy, 47 How. Pr. 103. Disting'd EUSSELL-EUSSEL M'FG CO. 07? in Flood '«. Mitchell, 4 2T«n, 813. Ex- plained in Guy *. Mead, 22 N. Y. 466. Applied with Guy ».' Mead ; Marcly e. Shults, 29 Id. 346, in Collins v. Rock- wood, 64 fibui. Pr. 57. Applied (Who are co-employes) in Dana v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R, Co., 23 Hun, ill. Applied with Robertson v. N. Y. & Erie R'y Co., 22 Barb. 91 (When persons riding on rail- road train are not passengers) in Union Pacific R'way Co. v. Nichols, 8 Kans. 505 ; s. c, 12 Am. R. 475. y. Kinney, 1 Sandf. Oh. 34; s. c.,2 K 7. Leg. 01>8. 232. Said in 2 Sandf. Ch. 81, n., to have been affd in Ct. of Errors, 1845. - — v. Livingston, 19 Barb. 346. Rev'd in 16 JV". Y. 515. See Bostwick v. Champion ; Hersfield v. Adams. Decision in 16 2f. Y. disting'd (Effect of delivery to agent of carrier) in Fitzsimmons v. Southern Express Co., 40 Ga. 330; s. c, 2 Am. R. 577, 580. Explained in Aug. on Can: § 323, it. a, 6 ed. v. Lytle, 6 Wend. 390; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 537. Dissented from (Requisites of plea of accord and satisfaction) in Heirn v. v. Carron, 11 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 3G1 ; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 65. Disapproved with Hawley v, Foote, 19 Wend. 516; Kromer v. Heim, 75 JV". Y. 574; Tilton v. Alcott, 16 Bwrb. 598 (Effect of new agreement for payment of claim by installments) in Whit- sett v. Clayton, 5 Colo. 476, 478, citing also B'klyn B'k ». De Grauw, 23 Wend. °42 — V. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Ben. 461. Followed and applied (Liability of munici- pal corporation for acts or omissions of officer) in N. Y. Saw-mill Co.- v. City of Brooklyn, 71 2V. Y. 580, 587; which affd 8 Hun, 37, which see. Followed (Liability of municipal corporation for loss of prop- erty destroyed to prevent spreading of fire) in People ex rel. Brisbane v. Common Coun- cil of Buffalo, 76 N. Y. 567, Applied with Stone v. Mayor of N. Y., 25 Wend. 157, in Field v. City of Des Moines, 39 Iowa, 575 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 46, 52; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Lord, 18 Wend. 126, said to have been decided on statutory grounds, being questioned as standing alone. Applied in Keller. «. City of Corpus Christi, 50 Tex. 614; s. c, 32 Am. R. 613, 616, with note. Disting'd with People ex rel. Macey v. .Hills- dale Turnpike Co., 2 Johns. 190 (Statute remedy, when exclusive) in Heiser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 29 Hun, 446. v. Meaclmiu, 16 How. Pr. -193) But see (Severance of action) Code Civ. Pro. § 511. v. Miner, 5 Lavs. 537; s. c, more fully, 61 Barb. 534. Disapproved in subse- quent decision (What included in auction- eer's compensation) in 25 Hun, 114. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 665 ; Leeds «. Bowen, 1 Robt. 10, being, however, referred to as holding the contrary. ■ v. Minor, 22 Wend. 659. .Followed (When sale of personalty is conditional) in Thorpe v. Fowler, 57 Iowa, 541, 54D. Ex- plained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 338 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). , v. Nicoll, 3 Wend. 112; s. c, 20 Am. Bee. 670. Explained (Necessity that signa- ture required by statute of frauds be signed by both parties) in Justice v. Lang, 42 N. Y. 493, 511. Relied on (Effect of contract for sale of goods, to be delivered on arrival of ship) in Middleton v. Ballingall, 1 Cal. 446. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 561, n. c. v. Packard, 9 Wend. 431. Overruled (When validity of discharge under two- thirds act can be inquired into) in American Flask Co. v. Son, 8 Abb.Pr. K S. 333. v. Pistor, 7 K Y. 171; s. c, 57 Am. Bee. 509, with notes (Conveyance of mort- gaged premises). T. Rogers, 10 Wend. 473 ; s. a, 25 Am. Bee. 574. Subsequent decision in 15 Wend. 351 ; s. a, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 890, with brief note. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of signature to composition agree- ment, when obtained by fraud 1 ) in Smith v. Salomon, 7 Daly, 216, 222 Overruled (Attacking declaration on argument of de- murrer to subsequent pleading) in Auburn & Owasco Canal Co. v. Leitch, 4 Ben. 65. v. Ruckman, 3 E. D. Smith, 419. See (Execution of attachment on promissory note) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 648, n. V. Scott, 9 Cow. 279. Explained (Evi- dence of possession, to sustain action for injury to real property) in 2 Creenl. on Ed. 14 ed. § 616, n. a. v. Weinberg, 2 Abb. W. C. 422; s. c, 53 How. Pr. 468. Aff'd in 4 Abb. N. C. 134. See (Liability of grantee of mortgaged premises) cases cited in 5 Id. 230, n. v. Whipple. 2 Cow. 536. Reviewed with Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. 675 ; Luqueer v. Prosser, 1 Hill, 259 ; Sackett v. Spencer, 29 Barb. 180, and other cases in dissenting opinion of Foster, J. (What may be regarded as promissory note) in Currier v. Lock wood, 40 Conn. 849; s. c, 16 Am. R. 40. Included in 1 Ames Cas. on B.&N. 17. y. Winne, 37 N. Y. 591. Approved (Effect of extrinsic evidence of agreement for mortgagor of chattels to continue in possession) in Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Abb. If. C. 184, 197. Applied in Doddsr. John- son, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215, 218. Ex- amined with other cases in dissenting opin- ion in Frost v. Warren, 42 iV. Y. 209. Collated with Wood v. Lowry, 17 Wend. 492 ; Marston ». Vultee, 8 Bosw. 129, and cases from other States (Effect of actual in- tent and motive in executing chattel mort- gage) in 17 Am. L. Rev. 365. Quoted and explained (Effect of debtor's acts void in part) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 194. Russel M'f'g Co. v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 50 JSf. Y. 121. Further decision reiterating and explaining' this in 52 Id. 657. See Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. 078 EUSSELL & EEWIN MANUF. CO.— E YAK. Russell & Envin Mannf. Co. v. Armstrong, 10 Abb. Pr. 258,' n. Affd in 12 Id. 472. Rust v. Eckler, 41 JT. Y. 488. Applied (Evidence of warranty on sale of personal property) in Lawton v. Keil, 61 Barb. 505. Explained and applied (Right to damages for breach of warranty) in Nichols v. Townsend, 7 Hun, 377. v. Gott, 9 Cow. 169; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 497. See Bunn v. Eiker. Followed with Bunn v. Riker, 4 Johns. 438 (Illegality of wagers upon event of election) in Hickcrson v. Benson, 8 Mo. 8; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 115, with note. v. Hanselt, 56 Flow. Pr. 389 ; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. M. ft 148. Other proceed- ings in 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 467; 42 Id. 573 ; 09 J¥. Y. 485 ; 76 Id. 014; 81 Id. 640. See vols. 414, 493, Cas. in Ct. of App. Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Rutherford v. Aiken, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C) 281. Another decision in 3 Id. 60, in action for subsequent acts. v. Graham, , 4 Han, 796. Followed (What is valid assignment of dower) in Gibbs v. Esty, 22 Id. 266, 269. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1604. v. Holmes, 5 Hun, 317. Affd in 66 K Y. 368. Both decisions quoted and ex- plained (Justice when liable for false impris- onment) in Moah's UnderhilUs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 193. See (Power of justice to punish for contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2870, n. - — v. Rutherford, 1 Den. 33 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 644, with note collecting citations (Execution, attestation and publication of wills). See Brinckerhoof ». Remsen. Ap- proved with Peck v. Cary, 27 iV. Y. 9 ; Trustees, etc. of Auburn Seminary v. Cal- houn, 25 Id. 422 ; Smith v. Smith, 2 Lans. 266 ; Moore v. Moore, 2 Bradf. 261 ; in Cheatham v. Hatcher, 30 Gratt. (Fas.) 5.6; s. a. 32 Am. JR. 650, 658. Commented on in Willard on Executors, 107. Rutter v. Puckhofor, 9 Bosw. 038. Dis- ting'd (Effect of infant's appearance without guardian ad litem) in Fairweather v. Sat- terly, 7 Eobt. 546 ; McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117, 121. Rynll v. Kennedy, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 347. Aff'd as Kennedy v. Ryall, in 67 K Y. 379. Further proceeding in 41 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 531 ; s. c. 52 Mow. Pr. 517. Decision in Id. disting'd (Execution against person, in action for personal injury) in Haines v. Jeroloman, 2 Civ. Pro. It. (McCarty) 196. Ryan v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 50 Mow. Pr. 321, Affd, it seems, on this opinion in 60 N. J. 628. See vol. 377, Cas. in Ct. of App. Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. v. Dos, 25 Barb. 440. Rev'd in 34 K Y. 307. See Brown v. Lynch; Hess v. Fox; Vincent v. Germond. Decision in 34 JY. Y. applied (Verbal agreement, when valid, notwithstanding statute of frauds) in Sundford v. Nprris, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 140; Morrill v. Cooper, 05 Barb'. 519; Church v. Kidd, 3 Hun, 265; Moyer v. Mover, 21 Id: 73; Tomlinson «. Miller, 3 Keyes, 518; Cornell v. King, 13 Weekly Dig. 327, 329. Followed as conclusive in Wood v. Fleet, 30 M. Y. 511. Disting'd in Levy v. Brush, 45 Id. 590; Wheeler. v. Reynolds, 00 Id. 232. Collated and com- pared with other cases in Randall v. Cap- stans, 33 Minn. 329, 336. Approved in Pomeroy on Sp. Per/. § 144, n. Applied (Legal rights, when resulting from void transaction) in Madison Ave. Church «. Oliver St. Church, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 386. Applied (Usury in connection with mortgage) in Fiedler v. Darrin, 59 Barb. 663. v. Fowler, 24 K Y. 410. See Wright v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Explained (Liability for injuries to servant from dan- gerous premises or employments) in 1 Add. on Torts. 276, n., 2 Wood's ed. v. Lewis, 3 Hun, 429. Sec (Amend- ment of pleadings in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2944, n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 50 Mow. Pr. 91. Further decision in 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 202. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 35 M. Y. 210. See Field v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Sheldon v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Com- pared (Extent of liability for spread of fire from locomotive, &c.) with Field v. N. Y. tral R. R. Co., 32 JT. Y. 339, in Webb v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 3 Lans. 455, which was aff'd in 49 N. Y. 427, which see. Followed and Webb v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., Id. ex- plained in Reiper v. Nichols, 31 Hun, 491, 493. Disapproved in Fent v. Toledo, &c. R'y Co., 59 III. 349; s. c, 14 Am. B. 19. Disting'd and questioned in Kellogg v. Chi- cago & Northwestern R'y Co., 26 Wis. 223; s. c, 7 Am. R. 09, 78. Followed and approved in Pennsylvania R. R. v. Kerr, 62 Pa. 353 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 431, 436. Disting'd in Gagg v. Vetter, 41 Ind. 228 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 322, 329. Criticised in Clemens v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 53 Mo. 366 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 460, 464, as an extreme case. Said not to have been accepted as authority in N. Y. (citing Webb v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co. , 49 JT. Y. 420) and to be in conflict with numerous other decided cases — in Milwau- kee, &c. R'y Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 409, 474. Said m 7 Am. R. 80, »., to have been dissented from in an Illinois case of June, 1872. Criticised and questioned in Dela- ware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Salmon, 10 Vroom. (AT. J.) 299 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 214, 220, 223. Referred to in 6 Am. R. 599, m.,-as being the leading and only case in N. Y. which recognizes the doctrine. Said in 38 Am. Dec. 77, n., to have been overruled and to be contrary to the whole current of authority. Said to be directly in conflict with every other Ameri- KYAN— SACKETT. 6T0 can and English decision, — in 1 Thompa. on Negl. 142. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 507, a, n. a, 5 ed. Disting'd (Liability for consequences of negligent act) in Muu- ger v. Baker, 65 Barb. 555; Pollett v. Long, 56 If. Y. 206. Disapproved as contrary to weight of authority, — Guille ». Swan, 19 Johns. 381; Vandenburgh v. Truax, 4 Den. 464; Webb v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 49 If. F. 420; Pollett®. Long, 56 Id. 200; Wasmer v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., 80 Id. 212; Thomas v. Winchester, 6 Id. 397, being approved — in Billman v. Indianap- olis, Cincinnati, &c. R. R. Co., 76 Ind. 166; s. c, 40 Am. R. 230. Said in Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co., 96 Ind. 346, 355, not to be followed in N. Y. Disap- proved in Kuhn v. Jewett, 33 If. J. Eq. 647; s. c, 35 Am. R. 649, n. where see cases collated. Discussed and compared in 13 Am. L. Reg. If. 8. 16. v. People, 19 Hun, 188. Affd in 79 If. Y. 593. See People v. Crapo. Decision in 79 If. Y. applied with Real v. People, 42 Id. 281 ; People v. Crapo, 76 Id. 288 ; Peo- ple v. Noclke, 94 Id. 143 (Evidence of com- mission of crime) and People «. Casey, 72 Id. 393, followed in People v. Irving, 95 Id. 541. y. Rochester & Syracuse It. It. Co., 9 How. Pr. 453. Disting'd (Liability for in- jury caused by neglect of duty, to person on one's premises) in Ilazman v. Hoboken Land, &c. Co., 50 If. Y. 60. v. Ward, 48 JV. Y. 204. Disting'd (Ef- fect of payment of smaller sum than due) in Gray v. Barton, 55 Id. 68, 71 ; Ludding- ton v. Bell, 77 Id. 138, 143. Cited with Eaton v. Alger, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 5; Smith v. Holland, 61 JV. Y. 635 ; Hotchkiss «. Mosher, 48 Id. 478 (Correcting receipts by parol) in 2 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 1064, as illustrating the rule. v. Wavle, 4 Hun, 804. Appeal dis- missed as Ryan v. Waule, in 63 N.- Y. 57. Eyckinan v. Delavan, 25 Wend. 186. Relied on (Action for libelous publication affecting others than plaintiff) in Byers v. Martin, 2 Colo. 605; s. c, 25 Am. li. 755. Quoted in Copley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 525, n. T. Gillis, 6 Lans. 79. Rev'd in 57 If. Y. 68 ; s. c, 15 Am. R 464, with note. Ryder, Matter of, 4 Edw. 338. Affd in 11 Paige, 185. See Matter of Burke. Decis- ion in 11 Paige approved (Mother's- right to services of child) in Furman v. Van Sise, 56 JV. Y. 435, 438. Followed (Appropria- tion of capital of fund for maintenance of children) in Deen ■». Cozzens, 7 Robt. 178, 187. Quoted in 1 Pars, on Conlr. 304, n. le ; Id. 306, n. m. Ryder v. Carpenter, 8 Weekly Dig. 25. Re- ported as Ryder®. Gilbert, in 16 Hun, 163. v. Gilbert. See Ryder v. Carpenter. — v. Hulse, 24 If. Y. 372. Applied (Eights of husband of wife dying intestate) in Fry v. Smith, 10 Abb. If. C. 224, 231. Limited in Barnes v. Underwood, 47 If. Y 359. Ryers, Matter of, 10 Hun, 93. Affd in 72 If. Y. 1 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 88. See Hart- well v. Armstrong. Ryers v. Hedges, 1 Hill, 646. See (Costs against landlord, &c. in ejectment suit) Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kursch, 5 If. Y. 558. Ryerson v. Willis, 8 Daly, 462. Affd in 81 If. Y. 277. Ryerss v. Rippey, 25 Wend. 432. Affd in 4 Hill, 468, n. v. Wheeler, 25 Wend. 437. Affd in 4 Hill, 466. Prior decision in 22 Wend. 148. Another decision between same parties, as it seems, in 25 Wend. 434. See Jackson v. Harder. Decision in 25 Wend, discussed (Partition without deed, as affected by stat- ute of frauds) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 68, 4 ed. Contrary to decision in 22 Wend, see (Effect of variance in alleging proportion of interest of plaintiff in eject- ment) Gillet v. Stanley, 1 Hill, 121; Cole v. Irvine, 6 Id. 634. And see Abb. Tr. Ev. 692. Explained (Effect or declarations of testator, made at time of executing will) in Morgan v. Burrows, 45 Wis. 211; s. c, 30 Am. R. 717, 720. Criticised in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 994. Included with note (Evidence of custom, to interpret will) in Lawson on Usages and Customs, 351. Fol- lowed (Parol evidence to explain descrip- tion in deed in Morton v. Jackson, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 494; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 107, with note. Ryghtinyre v. Durham, 12 Wend. 245. Disting'd (Entry of judgment retrospect- ively) in Tuomy v. Dunn, 77 If. Y. 515, 517. Ryle t. Falk, 60 How. Pr. 516; s. c, 24 Hun, 255. Affd on opinion of Davis, J., below, in 36 If. Y. 041, without further opinion. Decision in 24 Hun disting'd (Right of sheriff to poundage on arrest of judgment debtor) in Flack v. State, 29 Hun, 286 ; Bowe v. Campbell, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 232. v. Harrington, 14 How. Pr. 59 ; s c, more fully, 4 Abb. Pr. 423. s. Aff'd Sable v. Hitchcock, 2 Johns. Gas. 79. in Id. 488. Sacia v. De Graaf, 1 Cow. 356. Discussed (Persons under disabilities as affected by statute of limitations) in Ang. on Limit. § 194, 6 ed. v. O'Connor, 79 If.. Y. 260; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 440. Further decision, as it seems, . in 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 53. Decision in 79 If. Y. discussed (New trial in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, | 600. Sackett v. Andross, 5 Hill, 327. See Kunz- ler e. Kohaus. Applied (Prospective con- struction of statute) in Vedder v. Alken- brack, 6 Barb. 328 ; Quackenbush v. Danks, 680 SAOKETT— ST. JOHN. 1 Ben. 131. Disting'd in Guillotel v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 55 How. Pr. 115. Dis- ting'd (Pleading discharge in bankruptcy) in Cromwell v. Burr, 59 Id. 94. Crit- icised and disapproved with Ruckman v. Cowell, 1 JSf. Y. 505 ; Stephens v. Ely, 6 Hill, 607 (Effect of discharge in bankrupt- ■ cy) in Reed v. Vaughan, 15 Mo. 137 ; s. c, 55 Am. Bee. 133. Discussed (Right of Congress to pass law for benefit of volun- tary debtors) in 3 Pars, on Cont. 422, n. p. v. Spencer, 29 Barb. 180. See Russell v. Whipple. Compare (Testimony of ex- perts to simulated hand) in 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 425, 428. Sackett's Harbor Bank v. Codd, 18 2v". Y. 240. See Tracy v. Talmage. Explained and disting'd (Money lent recoverable though security void) in Matter of Jaycox, 13 Blatchf. O. Gt. 70, 79. > v. Lewis Comity Bank, 11 Barb. 213. Explained (Contracts of private corpora- tion, when ultra vires) in Ang. & A. on, Corp. §264, 11 ed. Collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 187. Saekett Street, Matter of, 4 Hun, 92 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Gt. ( T. & G.) 347. Aff'd in 74 N. Y. 95. See Matter of Volkening ; People ex rel. City of Rochester v. Briggs. Sackrider v. McDonald, 10 Johns. 253. Ap- plied with Pratt v. Petrie, 2 Id. 191 (When officer becomes trespasser db initio) in Barr- ett v. White, 3 M. H. 210; s. c, 14 Am. Bee. 352, 359, with note. Saddlesvcne v. Arms, 32 How. Pr. 280. Compare (Attachment for tort) Code Giv. Pro. §635. Safford v.' Drew, 3 Buer, 627. Followed with Lucas v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 21 Barb. 245 (Allegations necessary in action to recover damages for deathl in Schwartz v. Judd, Sup'm. Gt. Minn. Oct. 1881, 13 Reporter, 82. v. People, 1 Parh. 474. Followed (Ef- fect of failure of judge to ask prisoner why sentence should not be pronounced) in Messner v. People, 45 If. Y. 1. Approved, but limited, in Jones v. State, 51 Miss. 718; s. c, 24 Am. R. 658. Reviewed with other oases (Practice on return to writ of error) in Mauke v. People, 74 iV". Y. 415, 419. ■ v. Safford. See Bear v. Snyder; Dun- ham v. Osborn. v. Stevens, 2 Wend. 158. Followed (Compulsory nonsuit, when not to be allow- ed) in Martin v. Webb, 5 Ark. 72 ; s. c, 39 Am. Bee. 363, 367, with note. . v. Wyckoff, 1 Hill, 11. Rev'd in 4 Id. 442. Decision in Id. applied (Rights of bona fide holder of commercial paper, as against banking association) in Farmers', &c. B'k of Kent Co. v. Butchers' & Drovers* B'k, 14 JSF. Y. C31 ; 16 Id. 129. See Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 Id. 108, 222, 260. Decision in 1 Hill explained in Smith v. Strong, 2 Id. 243, 245. Decision in 4 Id. rc-aff d (Banking association, when bound by signature of cashier only) in Barnes v. Ontario B'k, 19 JV* Y. 100. Applied to president of railroad, — in Olcott v. Tioga R. R. Co., 27 Id. 659. Applied (Presumption as to validity of corporate dealines) in Chau- tauque Co. B'k v. Risley, 19 Id. 382. Ex- plained in Morawete on Corp. § 98. De- cision in 1 Hill re-aff'd and reversal ex- plained (Invalidity of ultra vires contracts) in Bissell ». Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 301. Sage t. Harpending, 49 Barb. 166 (Stay of warrant in summary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2262, n. v. Sherman, Hill & B. 147. Aff'd in 2 K Y. 417. See Wilkins «. Pearce. De- cision in 2 AT! Y. disting'd (Effect of ratifi- cation of unauthorized act of agent) in Squier «. Norris, 1 Ions. 287. v. Woodin, 66 K Y. 578. Cited (Ef- fect of settlement between surviving part- ners and representatives of deceased partner) in Story on Paitn. 7 ed. § 347, n. Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. 466. Ap- proved and applied (Implied promise to pay, created by subscription to stock) in Palmer ». Lawrence, 3 Sandf. 161, 164. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 520, 11 ed. Sahler v. Signer, 37 Barb: 329. Further de- cision in 44 Id. 606. Saidler v. Church, 1 Cai. 297 ; s. c, 2 Am. Bee. 191. Followed with Abbott v. Broome, 1 Cai. 292 ; Robinson v. U. S. Ins. Co., 2 Id. 280 (Effect of purchase by insur- er's agent in preventing recovery for total loss) in Oliver v. Newburyport Ins. Co., 3 Mass. 37; s. c, 3 Am. Bee. 77, 82, 91. Sailly v. Elmore, 2 Paige, 497. See Clark v. Sickles. St. Amant v. De Beixcedon, 3 Sandf. 703. Approved (Requisites of affidavit for at- tachment) in Hill v. Bond, 22 N. Y. 273. St. James' Church v. Church of Redeemer, 45 Barb. 356. Explained (Conveyance be- tween corporations, as affected by fact that same trustees act for both) in 1 Perry on Trust*, 3 ed. § 207. St. John v. American Mat Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1 Buer, 371. Aff'd in 11 N. Y. 616. Both decisions examined and followed (Liability of insurer for loss caused by ex- plosion) in Hayward v. Liverpool & London Fire & Life Ins. Co., 7 Bosw. 385, 389. Decision in 11 N. I 7 ", criticised and disap- proved, and Hayward v. Liverpool & Lon- don Ins. Co., 7 Bosw. 385, disting'd in Commercial Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 64 III. 265; s. c, 16 Am. R. 557. Followed (Effect of use of article prohibited by terms of policy) in Harper «. City Ins. Co., 1 Bosw. 520, 524. Decision in 1 Buer cited as authority with Hynds v. Schenectady County Mutual Ins. Co., 16 Barb. 119; Gates®. Madison County Ins. Co., 5 N. Y. 469 (Insurance as covering loss occasioned by insurer's negligence) in Mickey v. Bur- lington Ins. Co., 35 Iowa, 174; s. c, 14 Am. R. 494. ST. J03.N— ST. NICHOLAS INS. CO. 681 v. American Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 Duer, 419; s. a, less fully, 12 W. Y. Leg. Obs. 265. Aff'd in 13 fl~. Y. 81. See Marcus v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co.; Ruse •o. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Go. Both de- cisions explained and followed (Assignabil- ity of life policy to one having no insura- ble interest) in Olmsted v. Keyes, 83 JV. Y. 598, 599. Decision in 13 Id. with Living v. Domett, 25 Hun, 150, said in Cannon v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 29 Hun, 470, to hold a rule that must be presumed to be the same with that of other States. Approved and followed with Valton v. Nat. Fund Life Assur. Co., 20 XT. Y. 32 ; Rawls v. American Life Ins. Co., 36 Barb. 357 ; 27 N. Y. 282, in Clark v. Allen, 11 B. I. 439 ; s. c, 13 Am. B. 496, 500. Collated with Valton v. Nat. Fund Life Assur. Co., 20 N. Y. 32; Olmsted v. Reyes, 85 Id. 593, and other cases in 57 Am. Dec. 103, n. Ap- plied to descent to heirs, in Hutsou v. Mer- rifleld, 51 Ind. 24; s. c, 19 Am. B. 722. Disapproved with Valton v. Nat. Fund Life Assur. Co., 20 N~. Y. 32, in Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. 116; s. c, 13 Am.B. 313, 316. Disapproved with Valton v. Nat. Fund Life Assur. Co., 20 XT. Y. 32 ; in Warnock B.Davis, 104 U.S. 775. Collated with Valton v. Nat. Fund Life Assur. Co., 20 K Y. 32 ; Ruse v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 23 Id. 16, Olmsted v. Keyes,85 Id. 593, and authorities from Vt. and R. I. to same effect, and authorities from Mass., Ind., Kans., Ky., Penn. and U. S. Sup'm. Ct. in 18 Cent. L. J. 346. Applied (Rights of policy-holders) in Bewley v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy, 61 How. Pr. 344, 347. Fol- lowed (Mode- of assigning life policy) in Chapman v. Mcll wrath, 77 Mo. 38; s. c, 46 Am. B. 1. v. Beers, 24 How. Pr. 577. See (Alle- gations in verified pleading) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 524, n. v. Diefendorf, 12 Wend. 261. See Peo- ple v. Ilardenbergh. y. Holmes. See Holbrook v. Murray. v. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 6 Duer, 315; s. c, 13 How. Pr. 527. Further decision in 3 Bosw. 483. See Hay v. Cohoes Co. De- cision in 6 Duer, explained (Loss of profits as element of damages in action against tort feasor) in Walter v. Post, 4 Abb. Pr. 382, 391. Disting'd in Morey v. Metropol- itan Gas Lt. Co., 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 185, 188. Decision in 3 Bosw. followed (Right of municipal corporation to main- tain markets in streets) in Ely v. Campbell, 59 How. Pr. 333, 335. Approved and ap- plied to hack-stands in Cincinnati Hotel Co. «. Branshaw. Hamilton Co. 0. Disti: Ct., 7 Cin. L. Bui 60. v. Palmer, 5 Hill, 599. See Dyett v. Pendleton ; Greenvault ». Davis. Applied (Right to sue on covenant of warranty, &c.) in Fowler v. Poling, 6 Barb. 171 ; Moffat ». Strong, 9 Bosw. 78. Dicta explained in Shattuck *». Lamb. 05 N. Y. 505. Cited as authority with Greenvault v. Davis, 4 Hill, 643, in Green ». Irving, 54 Miss. 450; s. c, 28 Am. B. 360, 368. y. Pierce, 22 Barb. 362. Affd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 140. Decision in 22 Barb, followed (Uniting several plaintiffs in ejectment) in Ilubbell v. Lerch, 62 ,Id. 295, 297. See Code Civ. Pro. , 1881, § 1503, n. v. Roberts, 6 Bosw. 593. Rev'd in 31 N. Y. 441. v. St. John's Church, 15 Barb. 346. See Howe v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co. Over- ruled in part at least (Implied obligation to indemnify agent) by Howe v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 38 Barb. 124 ; 37 N. Y. 297. See also Turner v. Jones, I Lans. 147. v. Van Santvoord, 23 Wend. 660. Rev'd as Van Santvoord v. St. John, in 6 Hill, 157. See Bostwick v. Champion; Fairchild v. Slocum ; Gibson v. Culver ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. Decision in 25 Wend, disapproved, and that in 6 Hill approved, and Weed «: Schenec- tady & Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co., 19 Wend. 534, reconciled (Liability of carrier for goods marked to point beyond his line) in Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Champlain Transportation Co., 23 Vt. 186; s. a, 56 Am. Dec. 63, 79; Ackley «. Kellogg. 8 Cow. 223, being also relied on. See other cases cited in 5 Am. L. Beg. ' N. S.. 420. Explained and commented on in Ang. on Carr. § 95, 5 ed. ; Id. n. 3 ; Id. § 281, «., 6. v. West, 4 How. Pr. 329. Approved (Order, when appealable on merits) in Me- grath v. Van Wyck, 3 Sandf. 750. St. Joseph's Asylum, Matter of, 10 Htm, 113, n. Modified and aff'd in 69 K Y. 353. Decision in Id. applied (Interest on assess- ments) in Matter of Miller, 24 Hun, 638 ; Matter of Pelton, 85 Jf. Y. 651. Approved (Mode of assessment for improvements) in Matter of St. Mark's Church, 11 Hun, 383; Matter of Hebrew Benev. Soc, 70 i\T. Y. 478. Applied (Reduction of assessment for improvement) in Matter of Auchmuty, 18 Hun, 326. St. Lawrence Mut. Ins. Co. v. Paige, 1 Hilt. 430. Overruled in effect (Necessity of proof to sustain assessment on premium note) in Thomas v. Whallon, 31 Barb. 172; Jackson v. Roberts, 31 JV. Y. 304. See to the contrary (Authentication of corporate books) Union Gold M. Co. v. Rocky M. Nat. B'k, 2 Col. Ter. 565. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 49. St. Luke's Home v. Association for Relief of Aged Indigent Females, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 241. Rev'd (Misnomer of cor- poration in will) in 52 N. Y. 191 ; s. c, 11 Am. B. 697. St. Mark's Church, Matter of, 11 Hun, 381. Aff'd, it seems, in 74 W. Y. 610, but without opinion. S4. Nicholas Ins. Co. v. Merchants' Mut. F. & M. Ins. Co., 11 Hun, 108. Further de- cision on'anofher point in 83 JV. Y. 604. 682 ST. PETER— SALTUS. St. Peter v. Denison, 58 A". 7. 416 ; s. c. 17 Am. R. 258, with note. See Bailey ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Hay v. Cohoes Co. ; Wilson ». Mayor,' &c. of N. Y. See cases cited (Distinction between trespassers and others, as to injuries caused by negligence) in 6 Abb. N. 0. 119, n. St. Vincent Orphan Asylum v. City of Troy, 12 Hun, 317. Rev'd in 76 JST. Y. 108; s. c. 32 Am. R. 286. Both decisions explained and decision in 76 N. Y. followed (Possess- ion under license, not adverse) in Wiseman n. Lucksinger, 84 Id. 31, 42, 44. Salinger v. Simmons, 2 Lang. 325; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 409. Salisbury v. Morss, 7 Lans. 359. AfTd, on this opinion, in*55 N. Y. 675. ' v. Stainer, 19 Wend. 159. See Holden v. Dakin. Followed (Implied warranty on sale by sample) in Barnard «. Kellogg. 10 Wall. 383, 389. Collated with Leonard v. Fowler, 44 N. Y. 289, and other cases in 21 Am. R. 181, n. Reviewed and collated with other cases to same effect, in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 242. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 585, n. t. v. Van Hoesen, 3 Rill, 77. See Stil- well v: Mills. Disting'd with Brown v. Snell, 57 N. Y. 286 (Action on guardian's bond, when to be brought) in liehrens v. Rodenburg, 1 City Ct. 93. Limited and explained in Brown v. Snell, 57 JV Y. 286, 297. Disting'd in Girvin v. Hickman, 21 Hun, 316. Applied to action on executor's bond,— in Hood v. Hood, 85 If. Y. 561, 576. Salmon v. Allen, 11 Hun, 29. Further pro- ceeding in 75 If. Y. 479. v. Stuyvesaut, 16 Wend. 321. Opinion of chancellor in 18 Id. 262. Decision in Id. discussed (Will void in part when void in toto) in 4 Kent Com. 28] , n. a. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 720, n. Commented on in Id. 413, n. 1, Bigel. 5 ed. Salomon t. Van Prang, 48 How. Pr. 338. Affd in 6 Hun, 529. Salter v. Burt, 20 Wend. 205; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 530, with note containing citations. Included (Negotiable paper falling due on Sunday, when to be presented for payment) in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 294. v. Sutherland. See Savage v. O'Neil. v. Utica & Black River R. R. Co., 13 Hun, 187. Rev'd in 75 If. Y. 273. Pre- vious decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& C.) 800, rev'd in 59 JV. Y. 631. Subsequent decision in 23 Hun, 533 (opinion not reported), affd in 86 If. Y. 4C1. Decision in 75 Id. disting'd (Negligence in crossing railroad ' track) in Kellogg v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 79, Id. 72, 77. Decision in 86 Id. followed (Rate of interest) in First Nat. B'k of Meadville e. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 89 Id. 412. Disting'd in Prouty v. Lake Shore & M. S. R'y Co., 26 Hun, 546. v. Weiiier, 6 Abb. Pr. 191. Disting'd (Right to monsy deposited in lieu of bail) in Hermann v. Aaronson, 8 Abb. Pr. If. 8, 155, wherein Salter v. Weiner is said to have been rev'd at General Term. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 586, n. Salters v. Delaware & Hud. Canal Co., 3 Hun, 338; s. c, more fully, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 559. See Dougan v. Champlain Trans. Co. Disting'd (Master's duty to servant as to iiiachinery) in Cone v. Dela- ware, &c. R. H. Co., 15 Hun, 172, 175. v. Sheppard. See Saltus v. Shepard. v. Tobias, 3 Paige, 338. Applied (Effect of declaratory law on existing rights) iu Roshkonung v. Burton, 104 IT. 8. 668, 678. Salt Springs Nat. Bank v. Burton, 58 If. Y. 430. See Cornell e. Moulton. Included (Presentment of note for payment) in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 324. Saltus, Matter of, 3 Keyes, 500. See history of proceedings, in Saltus' . Estate, Tuck. 230. Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 267; s. a, 32 Am. Dec. 541, with note; 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 850, with brief note. See Mowry v. Walsh ; Van Buskirk v. Purinton ; Williams v. Merle. Applied (Title of owner of personal property, when not divested) in Brower o. Peabody, 2 Abb. Pr. 218 ; Covell®. Hill, 6 A 7 ". Y. 379; Pringle «. Phillips, 5 Sandf. 173. Reviewed with other cases in Rawles v. Deshler, 28 How. Pr. 69. Referred to in 25 Am. Dec. 611, n., as clearly stating the exceptions to the rule, and is shown to lay down doctrines in . that connection that are well settled. Cited in Sargent v. Usher, 55 N~. II. 287 ; s. c, 20 Am. jffi. 208, as containing a forcible discussion of the principle. ' Applied in Charles v. Neigelsen, 15 Bradw. {III.) 20. Discussed with other cases iu 15 Am. L. Rev. 383. Explained (Possession of goods as evidence of authority to sell) in Cook v. Adams, 1 Bosw. 503. Applied in Hoffman v. Carow, 22 Wend. 318. Criticised, but followed, in Roberts ». Dillon, 3 Daly, 52. Disting'd in Bates v. Cunningham, 12 Hun, 26. See Waggoner v. Cooley, 1 III. 245. Disting'd in Roach v. Turk, 9 Heish.(Tenn.) 708; s. c.,24^1m. R. 360,363. Applied (Negotiability of bill of lading) to stock certificate, — in Mechanics' B'k v>. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 628. Ex- plained (Liability for conversion) in Cobb v. Dows, 9 Barb. 243 : which was rev'd in 10 JV. Y. 335, 339, 343, which see. Dis- ting'd (Rights of bona fide holder of bill of lading) in Blossom v. Champion, 28 Barb. 225. Applied in Bassett v. Spoflord, 2 Daly, 436. y. Genin, 3 Bosw. 639 ; s. c, 8 Abb. Pr. 253. Affd in 10 Id. 478 ; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 233. V. Kipp, 12 How. Pr. 342. Examined with other cases (Evidence in mitigation, on assessment of damages) in Thompson v. Lumley, 7 Daly, 74, 79. v. Ocean Ins. Co., 12 Johns. 107; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 290. Approved (Duty of mas- SALTUS— SANDFOED. 683 tor of disabled vessel) in Treadwell 9. Union Ins Oo., 6 Cow. 27D, 274. _ .- v. , 14 Johns. 138. See Le Roy v. Gouverneur. Followed with Ncilson v. Columbian Ins. Co , 3 Cai. 108 (Recovery for total loss) in Aranzameudi v. Louisiana Ins. Co., 2 La. 432; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 136, 140, with note. Collated wjth other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cat. 5 ed. 732. v. Saltus, 2 Lam. 9. See (Surrogate's power to punish for contempt) Code Gin. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. v. Shepard, 22 Hun, 618; s. c, more fully, as Salters «. Sheppard, 11 Weekly Dig. 189. Subsequent decision, as it seems, in 89 K T. 602. Samble y. Mechanics' Five Ins. Co., 1 Sail, 560. Overruled (Compulsory reference of account) in Camp v. Ingersoll, 86 N. Y. 433, 437. Sammis v. Smith. See Fields v. Moul ; Morse v. Keyes. Sammon v. N. T. & Harlem B. E. Co., 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 414. Aff'd in 62 2f. 7. 251 ; 9. c. 49 How. Pr. 348. Decision in Id. disting'd (Master's duty to servant as to machinery) in Cone v. Delaware, . Bullard, 79 Id. 408. Sanchez v. People, 4 Park. 535; s. c, as . People v. Sanchez, 18 How. Pr. 72. Ap-' proved, but rev'd on account of act of 1860, in 22 JV. Y. 147. Decision in Id. modified (Competency of jurors, how determined) in Greenfield «. People, 6 Abb. K C. 1, 11. Applied (Expert testimony) in Haggerty v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., Id. 104, 133, n. Sander v. Hoffman, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 307. Rev'd in 64 N. Y. 248; s. c, 50 How. Pr. 449. Decision in Id. approved and disting'd (What constitutes evasion of contract in restraint of trade) in Smith v. Martin, 80 Ind. 260; s. c, 41 Am. R. 808. See also 27 Alb. L. J. 24. Sanders, Matter of, 4 Paige, 293. Quoted (Rule in Shelley's Case) in 3 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 181, n. 3. Sanders v. Bacon, 8 Johns. 485. See Cowee v. Cornell. Disting'd (Effect of memoran- dum on note as part thereof) in Benedict v. Cowden, 49 K Y. 396, 404. Followed in Pool 9. McCrary, 1 Ga. 319 ; s. c, 44 Am. Dee. 655, with note. v. Gillespie, 64 Barb. 628. AfTd in 59 Jf. Y 250. v. Gillett, 8 Daly, 183. Disting'd with Garner 9. Gladwin, 12 Weekly Big. 10 (Attorney's lien as subject to right of set- off) in Naylor v. Lane, 5 Civ. Pro. .R. (Browne) 149. See Code Civ. Pro. § 66, as amended in 1879. Sanderson v. Bowen, 2 Hun, 153"; fuller mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 675. v. Morgan, 25 How. Pr. 144. Aft'd in 39 N~. Y. 231. Decision in Id. explained (Effect of war on right of action by resident in enemy's country) in Kershaw 9. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 142, 144, citing Bell «. Chapman, 10 Johns. 185. Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260. Subse- quent decision in 25 Id. 475. Also subse- quent decision respecting contract here in- volved, — in Sandford 9. Halsey, 2 Den. 235, 245. See Jeffrey v. Bigelow ; Tice 9. Gallup. Decision in 23 Wend, explained (Liability for false representations on salo of land) in Clarke 9. Baird, 7 Barb. 67. Applied in Van Epps v. Harrison, 5 Hill, 68. Disapproved in Holbrook 9. Connor, 60 Me. 578; s. c, 11 Am. £. 216. Ex- plained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 778, n. n. Disting'd (Liability for representations of special agent) in Scott 9. McGrath, 7 Barb. 55. Applied in Devendorf v. Beardsley, 23 Id. 660; Sharp v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Id. 271 ; Ellis v. Albany City Fire Ips. Co., 4 Lans. 437. Collated with Lee v. Vil- lage of Sandy Hill, 40 H. Y. 442; Perkins 9. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 Id. 213, and other cases in Lewis 9. Meier, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Kan. 14 Fed. Rep. 313. Cited with other cases in 11 Am. L. Rev. N. S. 497. Commented on in Bigel. Cns. on Torts, 25. Discussed in Id. 33. Applied (Evidence of cost nrice, to determine value) in Smith v. Griffith, 3 Hill, 338. v. Eoosa. See Ball i>. Ryers ; Marsh 9. Lawrence. v. Sinclair. See Stoors v. Kelsey. v. Supervisors of N. Y., 15 How. Pr. .172. See (Voluntary associations as corpor- 684 S ANDFOED— S AtfFOKD. ations) 4 Alb. If. C. 311,'w. ; Betts v. Betts, Id. 317. v. White, 56 K Y. 359. See (Proceed- ings where party is unknown) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §451. n.; 1541,?). Sa:ds v. Church, 6 Jf. Y. 347. Cited as au- thority (What is necessary, to authenticate judgment) in Heinemann v. Waterbury, 5 Bosw> 686, 688. Explained (Right to set up usury in mortgage) in Chamberlain v. Dempsey, 14 Abb. Pr. 246. -Applied in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 7 Alb. If. C. 182. Followed in Shankland v. Nelson, 1 Term. Ch. 459, 466. Applied (Waiver of illegality in contract) in Merritt v. Millard, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 2U3. v. Codwise, 4 Johns. 536 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 305, with note, wherein it is cliown to' have been approved by Stort, J., in 2 Mason, 296, and in other Federal decisions (Fraudulent conveyance," how far valid). Disting'd in Somes v. Brewer, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 184; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 406, 411, with note. Applied in Gilbert v. Hoffman, 2 Watts (Pa.) 66; s. c, 26 Am. Dee. 103, with note. Approved (Rights of assignee in bankruptcy, as to fraudulent conveyance made by bankrupt) in Carr v. Hilton, 1 Curl. C. Ct. 230. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 16. Approved and applied (Right of creditors to maintain proceedings to set aside conveyance) in Bates v. Brad- ley, 24 Hun, 84, 87. Followed (Possession by vendor after sale, as evidence of fraud) ^in.Peck v. Land, 2 6a. 1 ; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 368, 375, with note. Approved (Indemuity to particeps criminis- in case of fraud) in Brig Ann C. Pratt, 1 Curt. C. Ct. 340. T. Craft, 10 Abb. Pr. 216. Disting'd (Costs against personal representative) in Keyser v. Kelly, 43 Super. Ct. (J. «£ S.) 22, 24. •■ v. Crooke, 46 Jf. Y. 564. See L'Amor- eux v. Gould ; Wright v. Hunter. Followed (Appeal from order granting new trial, in ■ action tried by jurv) in Dickson v. B'dway, &c. R. R. Co.', 47" N. Y. 509 ; Arnold v. Robertson, 50 Id. 684. Approved in Down- ing v. Kelly, 48 Id. "437. - — t. Gelston, 15 Johns. 511; s. c, 5 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1177, with note. Dis- ting'd (Acknowledgment that bars statute of limitations) in Murray v. Coster, 20 Johns. 586. Approved in Van Kcuren v. Parrnelee, 2 N. Y. 530 ; Henry v. Root, 33 Id. 529. Applied in Bradley v. Field, 3 Wend. 273 ; Allen e. Webster, 15 Id. 288. Reviewed with other cases in Reigne v. Executors of Dosportes, Dudley L. (So. Car,) 119 ; which was cited with approval in Coles v. Kelsey, 2 Tex. 541 ; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 661, 666. Followed and approved in Fries v. Boisselet, 9 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 128; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 683. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. §214, cd. §217. v. Graves, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) Add. 13. Rev'din,58 If. . Y. 94. T. Uildreth, 14 Johns. 493. See Gelston v. Hoyt. Explained (Burden of proof on one claiming under fraudulent conveyance) in Birely's Ex'rs v. Staley, 5 Gill. & J. (Md.) 432 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 303, 811, with note. v. Hill, 42 Barb. 651. AffM in 65 K Y. 18. v. Hughes, 53 N. Y. 287. Disting'd (What constitutes adverse possession) in Bedell v. Shaw, 59 Id. 46, 49: Com- mented on in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 776. v. Kimbark, 39 Barb. 108. Aff'd in 27 If. Y. 147. T. N. ¥. Life Ins. Co., 59 Barb. 556. Aff d in 50 If. Y. 626 ;' s. c, 10 Am. It 535. Sen Cohen v. N. Y. Mutual Life Ins. Co. ; Griswold v. Waddington. Decision in 50 If. Y. applied (Delay in payment of pre- miums, when excused) in Leslie v. Knicker- bocker Life Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 618. Disting'd in Wheeler v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 16 Id. 325, which was rev'd in 82 N. Y. 551, which see. Decision in 59 Barb, opposed in Tait v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 1 Plipp. (V. S.) 291, 315. Followed (Effect of payment in Confederate money) in Lester v. Union M'f'g Co., 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 659. v. Roberts, 8 Abb. Pr. 343. See (Effect of supplementary proceedings on after-acquired property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §2469, n. v. St. John, 23 How. Pr. 144 ; s. c, 36 Barb. 628. See cases cited (Pleading de- fense of statute of limitations) in 8 -466. If. C. 197, n.,198, n., 199, n. t. Sanders, 28 JST. Y. 416 ; s. c, 25 How. Pr. 82 ; also with opinions of Emot t, J., and Balcom, J., in 26 If. Y. 239. Opinions of Emott, J., relied on (What is sufficient publication of notice of assessment on premium note) in Sands i). Shoemaker, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 149 ; Sands v. Graves, 58 If. Y. 94 99. v. Son, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) Add. 13. Rev'd, it seems, in 56 If. Y. 662. v. Taylor, 5 Johns. 395; s. c, 4 Am:' Dec. 374 ; 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1057, with brief note. See Dike of Reitlingcr; Heermance v. Yeomans ; Holden v. Dakin ; Howard v. Hoey. Disting'd (Contract of sale of personalty, when rescinded) in Hcaly v. Utly, 1 Cow. 345, 353 ; and_ see dissenting opinion Id. 354. Examined (Doctrine of implied warranty) in Gouty v. McCann, 2 Chand. (Wist.) 37. Disting'd (When title to personal property passes) in Lacy v. Weaver, 49 hid. 373 ; s. c, 19 Am. R 683. Quoted and explained (Measure of damages in action by vendor against vendee) in 3 Pars, on Conir. 21*0, n. t. Sanford v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 7 Bosw. 122. Rev'd in 23 If. Y. 343. Decision in Id. approved, but criticised in part (Review of questions of fact, in case of trial before jury) in Parker v. Jervis, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 452. Explained in Macy v. Wheeler, 30 N. Y. 238. Disting"d (Liability for wil- ful injury committed by servant) in Mali *. SANFORD— SARTOS. 685 Lord, 39 TV. Y. 383; Hughes v. N. Y. & New Haven R. E. Co., §0 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 227. Followed in Higgins v. Water- vliet Turnpike Co., 46 If. Y. 28. Ques- tioned (Exemplary damages for wrongful and malicious act of agent), in Craker v. Chicago & Northwestern E'y Co., 36 Wis. 657, 676; s. c, 17 Am. R. 504, 512. Applied (When injury- done to wrong-doer is ac- tionable) in Marks v. Borum,l Baxt. (Tenn.) 87; s. a, 25 Am. R. 764, 768. v. Granger, 12 Barb. 392. Disting'd (Sale of decedent's real estate to pay judg- ment), in East River Nat. B'k v. Mcpafijey, 3 Red/. 97, 99. " See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. v. Jackson, 10 Paige, 266. See Adsit v. Adsit. Approved with Smith i>. Knis- kern, 4 Johns. Ch. 9; Adsit v. Adsit, 2 Id. 448 (Dower, when barred) in Lewis ». Smith, 9 If. Y. 517 ; Vail Arsdalc v. Van Arsdule, 2 Dutch. (IT. J.) 404. Quoted in 2 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 25, n. v. McLean, 3 Paige, 117; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 773, with note. Explained and ap- plied (Right to subrogation) in Twombly v. Cassidy, 82 If. Y. 155, 159. Disapproved with Banta v. Garmo, 1 Sandf. Oh. 383, 386 (Effect of unauthorized payment of debt by stranger) in Neely v. Jones, 16 W. Vu, 625; s. c, 37 Am. 11. ,794. — - v. Mickles, 4 Johns. 224; s. c, 3 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 803, with brief note. Ex- plained with Geortncr v. Trustees, 2 Barb. 625 (Power of partners after dissolution) in Bennetts. Buchan, 5 Abb. Pr. B. S. 412. See Gillilan «. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 376. Applied in Hart v. Woodruff, 24 Sun, 510, 512. Followed with Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300 ; Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Id. 638, in White v. Union Ins. Co., 1 Nott. & McO. (So. Oar.) 556 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 726. See cases collated in 6 Am. Dec. 574, n. Followed with Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Johns. 536, in Humphries i>. Chastain, 5 6a. 166 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 247, with note. Followed (Power of one partner to transfer interest in bills or notes given to firm) in Mclntire v. McLawrin, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 71; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 300. v. Sanford, 45 N. Y. 723. Subse- quent proceedings in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 641 ; which was aff d in 58 if. I". 69 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 206, with note. Other proceed- ings in 61 Barb. 293 ; s. c, 5 Bans. 486 ; also in 4 Sun. 753. See Williamson v. Wil- liamson. Decision in 45 N. Y. questioned and not followed (What constitutes gift from husband to wife) in Matter of Ward, 2i?e^:251. Followed in Fowler v. But- terl-y, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 148, 101. Approved in Pile v. Pile, 6 Lea. (Tenn.) 508; s. c, 40 Am. R. 50. Explained with City B'k of New Haven v. Perkins, 29 N. Y. 554 (Assailing transfer of chose in action) in Seeley ». Morgan, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) .346, 355. Disting'd in Hays v. Southgate, 10 Hun, 511, 514; which was rev'd as Hays v. Hathorn, in 74 If. Y. 486. Decision in 5 Bans, followed (Presumption as to advancement) in Pipei v. Barse, 2 Red/. 19, 23. Decision in 4 Hun cited as authority (Rights of post- testamentary child) in McCormack v. Mc- Cormack, CO Sow. Pr. 196, 199. Decision in 61 Barb, applied-in Smith v. Robertson, 24 Sun, 210, 214. y . 2 Sun, 94; mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C.) 686. Aff'd in 62 If. Y. 553. Compare (Limitation of action against personal representative of decedent) Code Civ.' Pro. § 391. T.' Wliite, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& C-) 647; s. c, 46 Sow. Pr. 205. Aff'd in 56 if. Y. 359 ; s. c, less fully, 47 Sow. Pr. 96. Sanger v. Tail, 13 Sow. Pr. 500 ; s. c, more fully, 4 Abb. Pr. 217. Sanquirico v. Benedetti, 1 Barb. 315. See Hamblin v. Dinneford. Disting'd (Enjoin- ing violation of contract for personal ser- vices) in Daly v. Smith, 38 'Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 158. 168. Saratoga Co. Bank t. King, 44 N. Y. 87. See Curtis v. Gokey; Maier v. Horn an ; Murray v. Vanderbilt. Disting'd (Action to enforce illegal agreement) in Arnot v. Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., 2 Sun, 591, 594. Commented on (Contracts in restraint of trade) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 815, n. 22 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. v. Row, 24 Wend. 74; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 598, Dis- ting'd (Right to rescind contract f or f rau^ in Peck v. Brewer, 48 III. 59. Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co. v. McCoy, ' 9 How. Pr. 339. Disting'd (Granting costs not asked for in notice of motion) in Jones v. Cook, 11 Hun, 231. Sargent v. , 5 Com. 106; s. c, 8 if. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 590,. with brief note. Followed (Damages in action for seduction, as compensation for support of illegitimate child) in Hitchman v. Whitney, 9. Sun, 512. Collated with other cases in Bigel. Cos. on Torts, 295. Dictum disapproved (Right of action for seduction) in Bartley v. Richt- myer, 4 N~. Y. 38. Disapproved in Vossel v. Cole, 10 Mo. 634; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 136. Explained in Aloak's Vnderhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 342. Sarjeant v. Blunt, 16 Johns. 74. Disting'd (Liability of agent in trover for parting with property contrary to instructions) in Laverty r,. Snethen, 68 If. Y. 526. Sarles v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 47 Barb. 447. Applied (Liability for property carried away by mob) in Solomon v. City of Kingston, 24 Hun, 562, 564. Sarsfleld v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 61 Barb. 479. Followed (Effect of description of property as dwelling-house, as warranty) in Browning v. Home Ins. Co. of Columbus, 6 Daly, 522, 524. v. Tan Vanghner, 14 Abb. Pr. 297. Rev'd in 38 Barb. 444; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. 65. Sartos y. Merceques, 9 How. Pr. 188. Sea 686 SARTWELL— SAVAGE. (Eights, &c. of sheriff when liable as bail) - Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 595, n. Sartwell t. Field, 68 If. Y. 341. See (Arrest as substitute for ne exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §551, n. Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Wend. 272. See King v. Lenox. Disting'd (What constitutes liability as common carrier) in Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 115; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 639, 643, with extended note. Cited as a very important case and explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 164, n. d. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 46, 5 cd. Discussed in Id. § 72. Explained (Master's liability for servant's negligence) in 1 Add. on Torts, 587, n., Wood's ed. Satterthwaite t. Vreeland, 3 Sun, 152. Approved .(Brokers' commissions, when I earned) in Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378. 385. Saul v. Krugar, 9 How. Pr. 569. See (Exe- cution against . bailee) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1412, n. Saunders, Matter of, 21 Hun, 579. Over- ruled (Who is "party aggrieved" by as- sessment) in Matter of Gantz, 85 N. Y. 536, 538. Saunders t. Hares, 44 If. Y. 353. Collated with other cases (Enlarging lesser estates into fees) in Sharsuo. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 54. Sauter y. N. Y. Central, &e. R. E. Co., 6 Hun, 446. Aff'd in 66 If. Y. 50; s. c, 23 Am. R. 18, with note. See Ginna». Second •Ave. E. E. Co. Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 170; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 181, with note, wherein it is shown to be a leading authority, and to have been frequently approved in N. Y. and elsewhere. See Dominick v. Eacker; Duf- field v. Horton ; Earl v. Oamp ; Suydam ■». Keyes. Followed (Immunity of officer exe- cuting process) in Patchin ». Eitter, 27 Barb. 36 ; Abbott «. Yost, 2 Den. 86; Field v. Parker, 4 Bun, 344 ; Bradley v. Ward, 58 If. Y. 407; Parker v. Walrod, 16 Wend. 518. Disting'd in Jermaine v. Waggener, 1 Mill, 285; JBullymore v. Cooper, 2 Lans. 76; Coats v. Darby, 2 If. Y. 521 ; Kerr v. Mount, 28 Id. 665; Earl v. Camp, 16 Wend. 566. Followed as conclusive in Chegaray v. Jenkins, 5 N. Y. 381. Applied to action of village trustees, — in Porter v. Purdy, 29 Id. 113. Approved in Conner v. Long, 104 U. S. 228, 238. Disting'd, and Earl v. Camp, 16 Wend. 502, followed, in Beach v. Botsford, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 199; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 45, 47, with note; Hotchkiss v. McVickar,, 12 Johns. 403, 408; Brooks e. French, 5 Wend. 568, being also cited to sustain the decision. Approved as a lead- ing case and one that has been extensively followed, — inNowellu Tripp, 61 Me. 426; s. c, 14 Am. P. 572; Suydam v. Keyes, 13 Johns. 44A, being referred to as over- ruled by Savacool v. Boughton. See Mil- burn v. Gilman, 11 Mo. 64, 69. Included in Bigel. Cos. on Torts; 241 Applied (Val- idity of proceedings of court having juris- diction) in Lange v. Benedict, 73 If. Y. 35. Disting'd in Roderigas v. East Eiver Sav'gs Inst., 76 Id. 323. Applied (Distinction between liability of court and of its minis- terial officer) in Shadbolt v. Bronson, 1 Mich. 89. Savage v. Allen, 59 Barb. 291. Affd in 54 If. Y. 458. Further proceeding in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 474. Effect of decision in 54 If. Y. explained in subsequent decision in- volving same transactions, \a21-Hun, 145. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) disting'd (Allowance' of costs in judgment on appeal) Burdett v. Lowe, 22 Bun, 588 ; 85 If. Y. 241 ; Parrott v. Sawyer, 26 Sun, 466, being applied in Jcrmain i). Lake Shore E. R. Co., 31 Id. 558. v. Bnrnhain, 17 If. Y. 561.. Further decision on other questions as Savage v. Sherman, in 87 Id. 277. See Bunn v. Vaughan. Decision in 17 If. Y. followed (Application of statute of uses and trusts to trusts in personalty) in Bunn «. Vaughan, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 256. Explained in Curtis v. Smith, 60 Barb. 13. Denied in Wells «. Wallace, 2 Red/. 62. Disting'd (Suspension of power of alienation) in Burke v. Valentine, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 172; Matter of Ruppert, Tuck. 487. Applied in Post v. Hover, 33 If. Y. 597. Approved and applied in preference to Amory v. Lord, 9 Id. 403, — in Harrison v. Harrison, 4? Barb. 167, which was affd in 36 If. Y. 544, which see. Applied with Van Schry- ver v. Mulford, 59 Id. 520; Harrison v. Harrison, 36 Id. 543; Monarquc v. Mon- arque, 80 Id. 320 ; in Leavitt v. Wolcott, 66 Sow. Pr. 51. Commented on in Gerard Tit. to Real Est. 2 ed. 234. Applied (When equitable conversion takes effect) jn Boss v. Eoberts, 2 . Sun, 93. Followed (Provision in will, when inconsistent with dower) in Tobias «. Ketchum, 32 If. Y. 327. Followed with Tobias v. Ketchum, in Young v. Boyd, 64 Sow. Pr. 213, in pref- erence to Adsit v. Adsit, 2 Johns. Ch. 448. v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., 4 Bosio. 1. Aff'd in 36 If. Y. 655. Decision in 4 Bosw. disting'd (Eight of defendant to show title in third person) in Chapman v. Douglas, 5 Daly, 244, 248. v. Crill, 19 Sun, 4. Affd in 80 If. Y. 630, on opinion below. v. Gould, 60 Sow. Pi: 217. Other proceedings in Id. 234, 255, 258. v. Howard Ins. Co. See Savage v. Long Island Ins. Co. v. Long Island Ins. Co., 43 Saw. Pr. 462. Affd as Savage v. Howard Ins. Co., 44 Id. 40, which was rev'd in 52 If. Y. 502 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 741. See Kitts v. Massasoit Ins. Co. Decision in 52 N. Y. applied (What avoids condition in policy against transfer of property) in Browning «. Home Ins. Co., 6 Daly, 525; Buchanan d. Westchester Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 61 If. Y. 611. Followed in Miner v. Judson, 2 Sun, SAVAGE— SCHEIE. 687 441, 44T; Germond v. Home Ins. Co., Id. 540, 042. Followed in Oakes?). Manufactu- rers', &c. Ins. Co., 131 Mass. 160; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Archer, Sup'm. Cl. a 1881, 10 Ins. L. J. 370, 374. Disting'd in Hummel v. Queen's Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 72, 79. Ap- plied (Validity of condition against transfer) in Plath v. Minn. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n, 23 Minn. 479 ; s. c, 23 Am. It. 697, 700. v. Medbury, 19 If. T. 32. See Thomas v. Whallon. Disting'd (Recovery on note given to insurance company) in Rowland v. Edmonds, 24 N. Y. 307, 310. v. Murphy, 8£osw. 75. AS' d in 34 K Y. 608. Decision in Id. followed (Conveyance when fraudulent as to creditors) in Pendle- ton «. Hughes, 05 Barb. 141 ; Carr v. Breese, 18 Hun, 136 ; which was rev'd in 81 N. T. 589, which see. Disting'd in Seaman v. Wall. 54 How. Pr. 49. Followed in Bar- hydt'fl. Perry, 57 Iowa, 416, 420. See to the contrary Holmes v. Clark, 48 Barb. 237. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 739. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 96. Quoted and commented on in Id. § 200, n. 2. v. 6' Neil, 42 Barb. 374. Eev'd in 44 N. Y. 298. See Eawson v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. ; Robinson v. Dauchy. Decision in 44 If. Y. followed with Salter v. Suther- land, 4 Alb. L. J. 252 (Validity of transfer from husband to wife) in Sheldon' v. Clancy, 42 How. Pr. 190; Treadwcll v. Hoffman, 5 Daly, 212; Brace v. Gould, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 228. Applied to preference in assignment,' — in Jaycox v. Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 398. Relied on in Gill v. Woods, 81 111. 64; s. c, 25 Am. R. 264, 266. See (Presumption as to law of another jurisdiction) Davis v. Davis, 1 Abb. If. G 147. v. Putnam, 32 Barb. 420. Aff'd in 32 K Y. 501. v. Sherman, 24 Eun, 307. Rev'd in part in 87 If. Y. 277. See Savage v. Burn- ham. Saw Mill Co. v. City of Brooklyn. See N. Y. & Brooklyn Saw Mill, &c. Co. v. City of Brooklyn. Sawyer v. Chambers, 43 Barb. 622; s. c, more fully, 44 Id. 42. Prior decision in 11 Abb. Pr. 110. With decision in Id., and Webster v. Bond, 9 Hun, 437, compare (When defendant cannot bring in another person as defendant) The Hudson, U. S. JDist. Ct. 8. D. N. Y. 15 Fed. Pep. 102, 174; s. c, 28 Alb. L. J. 148, 152. V. Partridge. Reported under Mason v. Partridge, 4 Hun, 621. AfPd in 66 N. Y. 633. Saxton V. Dodge, 57 Barb. 84. See Cross v. Huntley ; Marsh v. Dodge. Disting'd (In- validity of patent as defense) in Marston ii. Swett, 66 If. Y. 212 ; which was rev'd 4 Hun, 153, which see. Followed in Hawks v. Swett, 4 Hun, 146, 151. Referred to in Jones v. Burnham, 67 Me. 93, 99, as over- ruled by Marston v. Swett, 66 N. Y. 200. v. Johnson, 10 Joins. 418; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1092, with brief note. Sayles v. Smith, 12 Wend. 57; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 117, with note containing citations (Validity of acts done on Sunday.) Criti- cised and explained (Estoppel to assert title to real estate) in Miller v. Piatt, 5 Duer, 272, 281; citing Swick v. Scars, 1 Hill, 17 ; Miller v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co., 6 Id. 61. Sayre v. Cnshing, 7 Abb. Pr. 371. Pisting'd (Sufficiency of denial on information and belief) in Meehan v. Harlem SaviDgs Bank, 5 Hun, 440. v. Wisnor, 8 Wend. 661. See Spoor v. Wells. Followed (Statute, when not con-, strued retrospectively) in N. Y. , , Oswego, &c. R. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 If. Y. .473, 478. Scarborough v. Bady, 19 Alb. L. J. 164. See (Amendment of notice q£ appeal from justice's decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3049, n. Scattergood v. Wood, 14 Hun, 269. State- ment in 20 Id. JAY, that it was aff d Dec. 19, 1879. seems to be erroneous, as Scatter- good v. Wood, 79 W. Y. 263; s. c, 35 Am. 12. 515, is another case. Schafee v. Henkel, 57 How. Pr. 97; s. c, as Schaefer' v. Henkel, 75 If. Y. 378; and 7 Abb. If. C.l. See also (Right of action on instrument executed by agent) Nicoll i>. Burke, 8 Id. 213. Disting'd in Carley v. Potts, 24 Hun, 571, 574. Schaettler v. Gardiner, 4 Daly, 56 ; s. c, 41 How. Pr. 243. Appeal dismissed in 47 If. Y. 404. Decision in Id. disting'd (Remedy against erroneous judgment) in Ramp v. Kamp, 59 Id. 213, 213. Schafer, Matter of, 3 Abb. Pr. If. S. 234. See (Adjournment by arbitrators) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §2368, n. Schafer v. Reilly, 50 N. Y. 61. Applied (Mechanic's lien, when not defeated by prior mortgage, &c.) in Gross v. Daly, 5 Daly, 549. Disting'd (Rights of assignee of mortgage) in Grissler v. Powers, 53 How. Pr. 195; Gould «. Marsh, 1 Hun, 568. Followed in Trustees of Union' College v. Wheeler, 61 If. Y. 114; Greenes. Warnick, 64 Id. 225. Applied in Bank for Savings v. Frank, 56 How. Pr. 407. Schaffner v. Router, 37 Barb. 44. Disting'd (Validity of transfer of property 03* hus- band to wife in payment of debt due her separate estate) in Briggs v. Mitchell, 60 Id. 288, 316. Sella nek v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Hun, 124. Affd in 69 K Y. 444. Schauber v. Jackson, 2 Wend. 11. See to the contrary (Presumption of grant) Doe v. Butler, 3 Id. 149. See also Alb. Tr. Ev. 7 10. Relied on (What must be shown to disinherit heir-at law) in Wright v. Hicks, 12 6a. 155; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 451. Scheib v. Baldwin, 13 Abb. Pr. 469; s. c, 22 How. Pr. 278. Opposed (Effect on attach- SOHEIDT— SCIIEXECTADr & SARATOGA P. R. ment, of recovery of judgment) in Thomp- son v. Culver, 15 Abb. Pr. 97. Scheldt v. Sturgis, 10 Bosw. 606. See other cases collected (Application to intervene) in SAW. JV. C. 806, n. Scheinzer v. Raymond, 3 Weekly Big. 2. Aff'd in effect as Schwinger v. Raymond, 83 JV. Y. 192 ; s. c, 38 Am. R. 415. Schell, Matter of, 53 JV. Y. 263. Further decision in 4 Han, 65. , 16 Hun, 283. 'Rev'd in 76 JV. Y. 432. Schell v. Erie R. R. Co., 4 Abb. Pr JV. S. 287; s. c, 35 How. Pr. 438; 51 Harp. 368. Explained and limited (Restraining prose- cution of action pending in same court) in , Erie R'y Co. ®. Ramsey, 57 Barb. 44!), which was affd in 45 JV Y. 637, 654, which see. Said to be overruled by Erie Ry. Co. v. Ramsey, in Piatt v. Woodruff, 61 Id. . 378, 381. ]|j£plaincd (Power to increase stock of railroad corporation) in Belmont v. Erie R'y Co., 52 Barb. 669. t. Blirmb, 16 AM. Pr. JV. S. 19 ; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 11. Affd in 55 JV. Y. 592 See Wager v. Schuyler. Decision in 46 How. Pr. followed (Proof of inconsistent statements of witness) in Clark v. St. James' Church, 21 Hun, 95, 100. Decision in 55 JV. Y. relied on (Danlages on total breach of entire continuing contract) in Trustees of Howard College v. Turner, 71 Ala. 429; s. c, 46 Am. B. 326. Included in Sedgw. Cas. on Bama. 507. Schelly v. Zink, 13 Hun, 538. For the present statute, see (Supersedeas) Code Civ. Pro. § 572. Schemerhorn v. Loines, 7 Johns. 311 ; s. c, 4 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 334, with brief note. t. Vanderheyden, 1 Johns. 139; s. c, 3 JV Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 87, with brief notes; also s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 304, with' note, wherein it is said to be the first re- ported, case in this country on the point herein. See Fink v. Cox. Referred to as overruled (Parol proof to vary considera- tion stated in written contract) in Frink v. Green, 5 Barb. 457. Followed in Howes v. Barker, 3 Johns. 509. Disting'd in Shep- hard e. Little, 14 Id. 211. Overruled in McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 468. Shown in 3 Am. Dec. 306, n., to have been under- mined as an authority, the later N. Y. cases on this point being collated. Reviewed with Howes v. Barker, 3 Johns. 506; Maig- ley v. Hauer, 7 Id. 341; Shephard v. Little, 14 Id. 210; Bowen i>. Bell, 20 Id. 338, and other cases in Belden v. Seymour, 8 Conn. 304; s. c, 21 Am. Bee. 661, 664, with note. See also cases reviewed in dissenting opin- ion of Hosmeb, C. J., and those collated in note. Compare Jack e. Dougherty, 3 Watts (Pa.) 151 ; Duval d. Bibb, 4 H. & M. (Va.) 113; Eppsi). Randolph, 2 Call. (Va.) 103; Harvey v. Alexander, 1 Band. (Va.) 219; Ballard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 533. Followed (Right of action on promise to third person) in Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Ben 53 ; Coster v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 43 If. Y. 412. Collated with Howes v. Barker, 3 Johns. 506; Maigleyfl. Hauer, 7 Id. S41 ; Hildreth «. Sands, 2 Johns. Ch. 35, the doctrine iu Schemerhorn v. Vanderheyden being said to have been often re-asserted and never departed from, in Lawrence v. Fox, 20 JV Y. 268, 271, 276, 279. Dis- ting'd in Simson v. Brown, 68 Id. 358; King v. Whitely, 10 Paige, 469. Explained in Sailly v. Cleveland, 10 Wend. 161. Ap- plied with Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. 56; Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Ben. 45; Judson u. Gray, 17 How'. Pr. 289; Burrs. .Beers, 24 JV Y. 178, in Todd v. Weber, 95 Id. 181. Followed with Gold v. Phillips, 10 Johns. 412, in Dearborn *. Parks, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 81; s. c, 17 Am. Bee. 206. Followed in Brown v. O'Brien. 1 Rich. (So. Car.) 268; s. c, 44 Am. Bee. 254. Also fol- lowed in Motley v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co., 29 Me. 337; s. c, 50 Am. Bee. 591, as lay- ing down a sound doctrine, especially ap- plicable to contracts of insurance. Schenck v. Andrews, 46 JV. Y. 589. Limit- ed and explained, on further decision, in 57. Id. 133. See Johnson v. Underhill. Decis- ion in 46 N. Y. disting'd (Exemption of stockholders from liability) in Brown v. Smith, 13 Hun, 408, 412. v. Campbell. See Thompson v. People. v. Dart, 22 JV. Y. 420. Examined with Clapp v. Fullerton, 34 Id. 190 (Jurisdiction of Supreme Court oh appeals from surro- gate) in Marvin v. Marvin, 4 Kkyes, 9. Dis- ting'd (Commissions of trustees, &c. on fund including securities) in Matter of Moffat, 24 Hun, 325, 327. v. Ingraham, 4 Hun, 67. Reported in 5 Id. 397. v. Lathrop, 3 Hill, 449. Disting'd as inapplicable under L. 1844, c. 273 (Taxing counsel-fee for attending prepared for trial) in Boynton v. Dormott, 3 How. Pr. 232. v. Lincoln, 17 Wend. 506. Examined (Effect of giving security for stay of execu- tion, on right of appeal) in People v. Judges, &c, 1 Mich. 136. v. McKie. See Barnard v. Wheeler; Beardsly v. Dickerson. ■ v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 165. Affd in 67 JV Y. 44. Also different proceeding, Id. 581, presenting same question and decided on authority of above. Schenectady & Saratoga Plank Road v. Thatcher, 11 JV. Y. 102. Followed (Irregu- larity in proceedings of incorporation, when not to be set up by stockholder) in Eaton?). Aspinwall, 3 Abb. Pr. 422. Explained (Necessity of notice to subscriber, before action for subscription to stock) in Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan, 20 Barb. 162. Followed (Effect of alteration in charter on liability on stock subscription) in Buffalo & N. Y. City R. R. Co. v. Dudley, 14 JV Y. 348. Applied in Matter of Lee & Co's B'k, SCHEPELER— SCHIEFFELIN. 689 21 Id. 17, to stockholder's liability. Dis- approved (Completion of subscription as condition to calls upon shares subscribed) in Peoria, &c. R. R. Co. v. Presto, 85 Iowa, 115, 121. Schepeler v. Eisner, 3 Daly, 11. In effect overruled (Validity of sale made by pledgee without knowledge of pledgor) by Mark- ham v. Jaudon, 41 Jf. Y. 235. Schepmoes v. Bousson, 1 Abb. N. O. 481; s. c, less fully as Shepmoes v. Bowsson, 52 How. Pr. 401. Applied (Requisites of ap- plication for examination before trial) in Elmore v. Hyde, 2 Abb. K O. 130. Schepp v. Carpenter, 49 Barb. 542. Aft'd in 51 K 7. 602. Decision in Id. followed (Right of one receiving accommodation note for antecedent debt) in Wheeler v. Allen, 59 How. Pr. y8. Decision in 49 Barb, cited with Small v. Smith, 1 Ben. 583 ; Mohawk Bank v. Corey, 1 Hill, 513; Purchase v. Matteson, 6 Buer, 87 ; De Zeng i>. Fyfe, 1 Bosw. 335; Wardell v. Howell, 9 Wend. 170 (Diversion of accommodation paper) in 18 Cent. L. J. 290. Schermerhorn t. American Life Ins. & Trust Co., 14 Barb. 131. Modified on ap- peal as Schermerhorn v. Talman, in 14 If. Y. 93. Decision in 14 Barb, applied (Pound Sterling, how paid in our currency) in Ladd v. Arkell, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 150, 157. ( v. Hull, 13 Johns. 270. See (Authority to bind out as apprentice) 1 R. L. (1813) 136, § 4, as modified by 2 R. 8. 154, §§ 5, 6. T. Jenkins. * See Smith®. Sutts. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 How. Pr. 254 ; s. c, 6 'N. Y. Leg. Obs. 232. Opposed (Practice on motion for rehearing) in Crane v. Crane, Id. 443 ; Wilson v. Ouderdonk, 3 How! Pr. 319. Sustained, and Crane v. Crane ; Wilson v. Onderdonk overruled, in Sheldon v. Barnard, 3 How. Pr. 423. v. Merrill, 1 Barb. 511. See (When title to real property passes on execution sale) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1440, n. v. Miller, 2 Cow. 439. See Stmmway v. Cooper. Cited with Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige, 366 ; Sleight v. Read, 18 Barb. 159 (Effect of sale of husband's inter- est in wife's real estate, on his right as ten- ant by curtesy) in Tyler on Inf. & Cot. 2 ed. § 288, as settling the doctrine. — — V. Negus, 1 Den. 448. Approved (Val- idity of partial restraints against alienation) in 57 Am. Dec. 495, n. See cases collected in 9 A m. L. Reg. K S. 396. T. Pronty, 80 N. Y. 317. See (Referee's fees) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3297, n. v. Schermerhorn, 1 Wend. 119; s. c, 9 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 857, with brief note (Power to bind partners). v. , 6 Johns. Ch. 70. Followed (Effect of gift of income, &c. by will) in Monarque v. Monarque, 8 Abb. K C. 102 115. • - - v. Talman, 14 N. Y. 93. Modifying Schermerhorn «. American Life Ins. & Trust I.— 44 Co., 14 Barb. 131; See Cole v. Savage; Curtiss v. Leavitt. Decision in 14 K Y. disting'd (Relief against usurious incum- brance, &c.) in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 7 Abb. JST. C. 187, which affd 13 Hun, 325, which see. Applied in Bissell ». Kellogg, 60 Barb. 630, which was aff'd in 65 K Y. 432, 438, which see ; Allcrton v. Belden, 49 Id. 377; Wheelock v. Lee, Q4 Id. 247. Remarks of Selden, J., approved in Williams v. Fowler, 22 How. Pr. 6. Disting'd (Usury on transfer of securities) in Kitchel «. Schenck, 29 17. Y. 520. Opinion of Selden, J., said to repudiate views of Gakdneb, J., in Dry Dock B'k v. American Life Ins. & Trust Co., 3 N. Y. 344,— in Elwell v. Chamberlin, 31 Id. 622- 626. Explained (Relief to party to illegal transaction) in Knowlton v. Congress, &c. Spring Co., 57 Id. 532 ; Bateman v. Rob- inson, 12 Neh. 506, 513. Collated with Jackson v. Shafer, 11 Johns. 317; Hartwell v. Root, 19 Id. 346 (Presumption that pub- lic officers do their duty) in 29 Alb. L. J. 87. v. Tripp, 2 Cai. 108. Compare (Effect of joint plea of not guilty, in trespass) Drake v. Barrymore, 14 Johns. 160. v. Van Alen, 13 How. Pr. 82. Disting'd (Reference on reversal of judgment) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 386, 389. v. Van Volkenbnrgli, 11 Johns. 529. Reviewed and explained with Kennedy v. Strong, 14 Id. 128 ; Rotan v. Fletcher, 15 Id. 207; Duncan v. Spear, 11 Wend. 54 (Proof of property requisite to enable trover to be maintained) iu Turley v. Tucker, 6 Mo. 583 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 449, 453, with, note. v. Wood, 4 Daly, 158. Collated with other cases (What cases are referable) in 1 Abb. iv". O. 110, n. Schettler v. Smith, 41 V. Y. 328. Applied (Construction of will) in Bonard's Will, 16 Abb. Pr. K S. 202. Reviewed with other cases (Who entitled to accumulations of income) in Grant v. Grant, 3 Bed/. 294. Schieb v. Baldwin, 22 How. Pr. 278. Dis- approved (When attachment is superseded by judgment) iu Smoot v. Hein, 1 Civ. Pro. It: 20S, 210. Schieffeliu v. Carpenter, 15 Wend. 400. Limited and disting'd (Action during ten- ancy) in Agate v. Lowenbein, 57 AT. Y. 604, 615. v. Harvey, 6 Johns. 170; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 206. Trial at nisi prius reported in Anth. N. P. 76. Discussed (Carrier's lia- bility for embezzlement by third party) in Ang. on Carr. § 190, n. 1, 5 ed. v. Hawkins, 14 Abb. Pr. 112. Aff'd in 1 Daly, 289. See Keep v. Lord. Decision in 14 Abb. Pr. collated with other cases (Set-off in action by assignee for creditors) iu Bishop on Assign. § 318. v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 9 Johns. 21. See Gardere v. Columbian Ins. Co.; Robinson v. 090 SCHIEFFEL1N— SGHROEDER. United Ins. Co. Explained (Duty of mas- ter of disabled vessel to procure another) in Saltus v. Ocean Ins. Co.. 12 Johns. 112. Explained in Ang. on Can: § 187, 5 ed. Applied (Extent of liability for peril speci- fied in marine policy) in McCargo v. New Orleans Ins. Co., 10 Rob. (La.) 202; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 180, 195, with note. v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 620 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 507, with note containing cita- tions. See Dunscomb v. Dunscomb. Fol- lowed (Charging administrator, &c. com- pound interest) in Johnson's Adm'rs v. Eed- lick, 33 Ind. 129 ; s. c, 5 Am. R. 191 ; Paige's Ex'rs v. Holman, Ky. Ct. of App. 1885, 19 Reporter, 591. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 123, n. g. Schieffer v. Dietz, 83 K Y. 300. Rev'g Shiffer v. Dietz, 53 How. Pr. 372, on ground that plaintiff had waived right to rescind ; but reversal does not disturb rulings of Special Term on validity of plaintiff's title and deed of reconveyance, as appears from further decision by Labremobe. J., 1882. v. Pruden, 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1G7. Aff'd in 64 N. Y. 47. See also Scliffer v. Dietz, 83 Id. 300, 310. Schmeider v. McLane, 36 Barb. 495. Aff'd as Schneider ». McLane, in 3 Keyes, 568; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 154. Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. 268; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 143, with extended note, also s. c, 11 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 608, with brief note. Applied (Burden of proof as to warehouseman's negligence) in Claflin v. Meyer, 75 N~. Y. 260, 262. Explained and applied in Bush v. Miller, 13 Barb. 489. Disting'd in Coleman v. Livingston, 36 Super. Ct. (J, & S.) 39. Applied to wharf- inger, — in Eoote v. Storrs, 2 Barb. 329. Explained with cases to the contrarv, in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 902, n. G. Ex- plained in Ang. on Can: § 61, n. 5, 5 ed. Referred to in 42 Am. Dec. 257, n., as a leading case (Warehouseman's liens). Ques- tioned (Lien as affected by parting with possession.) in McFarland v. Wheeler, 26 Wend. 478. r. Herfiirth, 5 Robt. 124. Cited (Ad- missibility of prices current, as evidence of market value) in 1 Wharf. Com. on Ev. § 449. v. United Ins. Co., 1 Johns. 249; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 319. See Alexandre v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co. Schniittler v. Simon, 12 Weekly Dig. 474. Reported in 25 Hun, 76. Schneider v. Armstrong, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheld.) 379. Compare (Costs in Justices' Courts) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 3013, 3014. v. McFarlaud, 4 Barb. 139. Aff'd in 2 jV". I'. 459. Schnitzel- v. Cohen, 7 Bun, 665. See (Ne- cessity that judgment be obtained before action to set aside transfer) Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Abb. K C. 184. Schoenwald v. Metropolitan Sav'gs B'k, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 440. Rev'd in 57 N. Y. 418. .Decision in Id. disting'd and limited (Payment to person producing pass- book) in Allen v. Wm'sburgh Sav'gs B'k, 69 Id: 318. Sclioiield v. Bayard, 3 Wend. 488. Disting'd (Negligence in demanding payment of bill or note) in Pier v. Heinrichshoffen, 07 M'u. 163; 8. c, 29 Am. R. 501. Quoted and collated with other cases in Red/. & B. Lead. Cos. on B. ofExch. 422. v. Churchill, 6 Weekly Dig. 195. Re- ported as Scofleldi). Churchill, 72 AT. Y. 565. v. Hustis. See Scofleld v. Churchill. v. Whitelegge. See Scofield v. White- legge. Schdlcy v. Mumford, 60 K Y. 498. Further decision in 64 Id. 521. See Harmony e. Bingham. Decision in 60 AT. Y. applied (Effect of duress on contracts) in McPhcr- son v. Cox, 86 Id. 472, 479. Followed and disting'd in Hackley v. Headlcy, 45 Mich. 569, 575. v. Worcester. See Jackson v. Garnsey. Schoolcraft v. Thompson, 7 Bow. Pr. 446. Rev'd in Id. 61. Schoonmaker v. Clearwater, 41 Barb. 200. Aff d as Chambers v. Clearwater, in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 341 ; s. c., 1 Keyes, 310. v. Elmendorf, 10 Johns. 49. Reviewed with other cases (Post nuptial choses iu action that survive to wife) in Boozer v. Ad- dison, 2. Rich. Eg. (So. Car.)'ZTS; s. C, 46 Am. Dec. 43, with note. — : — v. Mc NaTly, 3 Huh, 415 ; s c., reported fully, 6 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 47. v. Rouse, 1 Hun, 611. Fuller mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 694. - v. Slieely, 3 mil, 165. Aff'd, in 3 Den. 485. Both decisions applied ^ule in Shel-~ ley's case) in Bond v. McNiff, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 83, 88. v. Spencer, 54 K. Y. 3G(i. Followed (Jurisdiction to grant attachment) in Eastern v. Malavazi. 7 Daly, 148. Commented on in Throop Justices Man. 2 ed. 26. v. Vervalen. See Smith v. Acker. v. Wolford, 20 Bun, 166. Disting'd (Effect of admission of improper evidence in probate proceedings) in Snyder v. Sherman, 23 Id. 139. Schouton v. Kilmer, 8 How. Pr. 527. Fol- lowed with Lathrop v. Singer, 39 Barb. 396 . (Homestead exemption not applicable to cases of tort) in Frazier v. Baker, Sup'm. Ct. App. Va. 1881, 12 Reporter, 670. Schreyer, Matter of, 24 Hun, 656. Abridgt. s. c, as Schreyer v. Ilolborrow, 12 Weekly Dig. 223. Schreyer v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 255. Aff'd, it seems, in 66 JV. Y. 656, but no prevailing opinion. Previous decisionsin 39 Super.Ct. (J. & S.)\ ; Id. 277. Schriver v. Schriver, 12 Weekly Dig. 328. Aff'd in 86 N. Y. 575. Schroeder v. Gurucy, 10 Hun, 413. Affd in 73 N. Y. 430. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., S Duer, 55. See Bostwick v. Champion; Weed ». Sara- toga & Schenectady R. R. Co. Dictum cor- SCHEOEDER— SCHUYLER. 691 rected (Liability oi carrier on contract by a^ent for transportation beyond line) in Wait ■». Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 5 Lans. 475, 478. T. Kohlenback, 6 Abb. Pr. 66. Said, • in 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 47, n., to be restored as authority (Dismissal of complaint for . failure to bring cause to trial) in Winchell v. Martin, 14 Id. 47. Scliroeppel v. Corning, 5 Pen. 236. Aff'd in 2 If. Y. 132. Compare another decision involving same transactions, in 10 Barb. 576 ; affd in 6 N. Y. 107. Decisions in 5 Den. ; 6 K Y. followed (Trover, &c. for property received under usurious contract) in Cousland v. Davis, 4 Bono. 621. Decis- ion in 6 If. Y. applied, in Matthews v. Coe. 70 Id. 241. Decision in 5 Pen. applied, in Wheelock v. Lee, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 30 ; - which was rev'd in 64 If. Y. 246, which see. .Decision in 6 Id. applied (What is con- . -version) in Covell v. Hill, Id. 383. Decis- . ion in 5 Pen. criticised (Ratification of usurious agreement) in Smith v. Marvin, 27 If. Y. 143. Compared and limited in 4 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 324. Disting'd (Effect of usurious transaction on securities) in Pat- terson v. Birdsall, 64 If. Y. 298 ; Kellogg «. Adams, 39 Id. 30. v. Shaw, 5 Barb. 580. Aff' d in 3 AT Y. 446. See Pain v. Packard. Decision in 3 If. Y. criticised (Omissions of -creditor that discharge surety) in N. Y. National Exch. B'k v. Jones, 9 Paly, 248. Approved but ' disting'd in Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 A. Y. 110. Applied in Con- verse v. Cook, 25 Pun, 45. Collated witli Hayes v. Ward, 4 J.ihns. Ch. 132 ; King v. Baldwin, 2 Id. 562, and other cases, in Dye v. Dye, 21 Ohio St. 86; s. c, 8 Am. P. 40. Followed and fully approved in Clopton v. . Spratt, 52 Miss. 251. Quoted and collated with other cases in 2 Pare & W. Am. L. Gas. . 5 ed. 408. Quoted in Story on Eq. Jur. § 501. Sclmbart v. Harteau, 34 Barb. 447. Criti- .' cised in Mynderse v. Snook, 1 Lans. 488, as containing what is obiter, and not law (Right of defendant to set up counterclaim against plaintiff and persons not parties to action). Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Barb. 477, ■ which is cited as authority in Schubert v. Harteau, being explained as not sustaining this dictum. Schuchardt r. Mayor, &e. of N. T., 59 Barb. .295. See note of further decision in 62 Id. 671, confirming opinion of Ingkaitam, J. Sell udder v. Sliiells, 17 How. Pr. 420. Quo- ted and collated with other cases (Arrest of agent) in Tliomps. on Prov. Pern. 30. Sehnfeldt v. Abernethy, 2 Puer, 533. Col- lated with other cases (Sale on credit by assignee for creditors) in Bishop on Assign. § 211. Explained in Burrili on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. Selmtt v. Baker. See Passinger «. Thorn - ' burn. j - — T. Large, 6 Barb. 373. . Followed (Un- J • recorded instrument as notice) in Goelct i>. McManus, 1 Hun, 306. Schuliz v. Bradley, 4 Paly, 29. Rev'd in 57 A". Y. 646. v. Crane, 6 Hun, 236. Aff'd, it seems, in 64 A". Y. 659, but without opinion. v. Hoaglaud, 9 Weekly Pig. 319. Rev'd in 12 Id. 463 ; s. c, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 204. v. Pnlver, 3 Paige, 1S2. Aff'd in 11 Wend. 361. Decision in Id. disting'd (In- cluding in inventory, assets without the State) in Sherman v. Page, 85 N. Y. 123, 128; which affd 21 Hun, 59, 66, which see. y, Whitney, 17 How. Pr. 471. Errone- ously reported as decided at General Term. Correctly reported in 9 Abb. Pr. 71. Cited (Affidavit by referee as to number of sit- tings, &c.) in Brown v. Windmuller, 26 Su^er. Ct {J. &S.) 75, 77. Sclmltze v. Rodewald, 1 Abb. N. C. 363. Followed (Striking out answer as sham) in Roby v. Hallock, 5 Id. 86, 88. Sclmiiiaker v. Croseman, 24 Hun. 385. Abridgt. s. c, as Same v. Crossman, 12 Weekly Pig. 99. Schnndt v. Calm, 3 Alb. L. J. 389. See (What is "ordinary proceeding in action '') Code Civ. Pro. § 799. Sclinsehard v. Reimer, 1 Daly, 459. Fol- lowed (Right to continuance of action, on death of party) in Livermore v. Bainbridge, 61 Barb. 358 ; which aff'd 43 How. Pr. 273, which see. Schuster v. Metropolitan Board of Health. See Mayor, &c. of Hudson v. Thorne. Schuyler v. Hoyle, 5 Johns. Ch. 109. Fol- lowed (Power of husband over wife's choses inaction) in Leakey v. Maupin, 10 Mo. 368; s. c, 46 Am. Pec. 120, 124. Cited and ap- proved in 2 Kent Com. 136. Collated with other cases in Tyler on Inf. & Con. 2 ed. § 255. Included in Ewell Lead. C'as. on Inf. &c. 357. v. Leggett, 2. Cow. 600. . Applied . (Ef- fect of parol lease, as tenancy from year to year) in Taggard v. Roosevelt, 8 How. Pr. 144. Followed with People v. Rickcrt, 8 Cow. 226, in Barlow v. Wainwright, 22 Yt. 79 ; s. c, 52 Am. Pec. 79, with note. v. Marsh, 37 Barb. 350. See (Parties defendant in action to recover real property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1503, n. v. Rnss, 2 Cai. 202. Applied (Known defects not covered by warranty on sale) in Allen v. Lee, 1 Ind. 58; s. c, Smith, 12;. s. c, 48 Am. Pec. 352, 354, with note. v. Smith, 51 A 7 ". Y 309. See Mack v. Burt. Disting'd (Liability of tenant hold- ing over) in Smith v. Allt, 4 Abb. N. C. 210. Applied in Mack v. Burt, 5 Hun, 30; Dorr v. Barney, 12 Id. 203. Opposed, re- viewing conflicting cases, in Worthington v. Globe Rolling Mill. Super. Ct. Gin. Ohio, Am. L. Pec. 603, 697 ; s. c, 6 Cin. L. Bui. 235. Discussed in Sedgw & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land. § 3S0. Disting'd (Implication of contract against intention of parties) in Ilazeltine v. Weld, 73 N. Y. 156, 161. 692 SCHUYLEE— SCOTT. Collated with other cases (Decision by ref- eree on issue of law) in Hoffm. on Referees, 4. ■ t. Van Der Teer, 2 Cai. 235. Cited (Requisites of award) jn 2 Pars, on Gontr. 592, n. t. as an excellent case on this sub- ject. Schwarz v. Oppold, 7 Daly, 121. Aff'd in 74 K Y. 307; s. c, 56 How. Pr. 156. ' De- cision in Id. followed (Power to review de- cision of Marine Court) in Farley v. Lyddy, 8 Daly, 514, 517. Schwerin v. McKie, 5 Robt. 404. AfTd 51 N. Y. 181; s. c, 10 Am. R. 581. See Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. De- cision in 51 N. Y. followed (Duty of keeper of bonded warehouse) in Ciaflin v. Meyer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1, 8; which was rev'd in 75 A 7 Y. 260. Decision in 5 Robt. followed (Burden of proof as to negligence in ware- houseman) in Coleman v. Livingston, 36 Super. Ct. (J.&S) 32, 35. Schwinger v. Hickox, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheld.) 377 ; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 114. Previous proceeding in 53 A 7 ! Y. 280. Decision in Id. followed (Jurisdiction of ac- tion against non-resident) in Bartlott v. Holmes, 12 Hun, 402, which was afTd in 75 K Y. 534, which see ; Bartlett v. Mc- Neil, SO Id. 55. Disting'd in Gibbs v. Queen Ins. Co., 63 Id. 131. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1627, n. See also (Right to recover back on failure of execu- tion sale) Id. § 1470. Cited with Lawrence v. Cornell, 4 Johns. Oh. 542; Gardiner v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 26 Barb. 423 ; Martin v. McCormick; 8 K Y. 331 (Duty to re- fund money wrongfully received) in Waples on Proc. in, Rem, § 127, as applicable to the Government. v. Raymond, 83 K Y. 102. Afl'g in effect Scheinzer v. Raymond, 3 Weehly Dig. 2. Decision in 83 A 7 ". Y. applied with Ins- lee v. Hampton, 8 Hun, 230; 11 Id. 156 (Recovery for or payment of freight, com- missions, &c. when not bar to action for breach of contract, &c.) and Dunham v. Bower, 77 A 7 ". Y. 70; Collins v. Bennett, 40 Id. 490 ; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 Id. 150, dis- ting'd in Campbell v. Thompson, 27 Hun, 541. Scofleld v. Adams, 12 Hun, 366. Leave to perfect appeal said in 13 Id. VIII. to be granted on terms on April 23, 1878. v. Churchill, 72 N. Y. 565. Aff'g Schofield v. Hustis, 9 Hun, 157. Decision in 72 A 7 ! Y. followed (Order of court as evi- dence in action on bond) in Titus v. Fair- child, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 211. Dis- ting'd (Surety as bound by judgment against principal) in Thomson v. MacGregor, 9 Abb. iV. C. 138. Disting'd (Inquiry into surro- gate's jurisdiction) in Browning v. Vander- hoven, 4 Id. 160, 172. v. Day, 20 Johns. 102. Limited with Martin v. Franklin, 4 Id. 124 (Allowance for exchange) in Guiteman v. Davis, 3 Daly, 120. See Guuther v. Colin, Id. 125. 'Fol- lowed in Ladd v. Arkell, 40 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 150, 155. — - v. Doscher, 10 Hun, 582. AfTd in 72 A 7 ". Y. 491. See Pattison v. Powers. De- cision in 72 A 7 ". Y. followed (Effect of fail- ure to obtain leave to sue) in Farish v. Aus- tin, 25 Hun, 430, 432. Followed (Parties in foreclosure) in Thorne v. Newby, 59 How, Pr. 120. v. Hernandez, 47 K Y. 313. Disting'd (Non suit by referee at close of evidence) in Van Derlip v. Keyser, C8 Id. 445. Dis- ting'd (Review of decision on point that should have been submitted to jury) in Brookman v. Milbank, 47 Id. 378, 381. v. McGregor, 2 Hun, 679 ; briefer mem. s. c, in 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C) 088. AfTd in 63 A 7 ! Y. 638. Previous decision in 1 Svp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 404. v. Van Sycklc, 23 How. Pr. 97. Re- ferred to in Eaton v. Balcom, 33 Id. 80, as overruled by Zabriskie, «. Smith, 13 A 7 ! Y. 322 (Demurrer for defect of parties, in action on joint obligation). v. Whitelegge, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 179; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. .A'. S. 104. AfTd in 49 A 7 ! Y. 259; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 320. See Pattison v. Adams. Decision in 33 Super. Ct. disting'd (Sufficiency of averment of ownership, in replevin action) in Simmons v- Lyon, 35 Id. 557. Decision in 49 A 7 . Pi disting'd in Van Der Minden v. Elsas, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 67; Chapin v. Merchants' Nat. B'k of Whitehall, 31 Hun, 529. Followed (Effect of denial in answer, to cure defect in complaint) in Tookeru. Arnoux, 76 A 7 ! Y. 401. Disting'd (Necessity of averment of demand and re- fusal, in replevin action) in Treat v. Hat- horn, 3 Hun, 647, where it is said not to overrule Levin v. Russell, 42 A 7 . Y. 251. Applied in Talcott v. Belding, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 84, 94. Criticised as techni- cal in Pomeroy on Rem. § 550, n. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881. § 1721, n. Scott v. Conway, 53 A 7 ". Y. 619. See Zim- merman v. Erhard. Compare (Husband and wife as partners) Zimmerman v. Erhard, 8 Daly, 311, 315. t. Delaliiuit, 5 Lans. 372. Aff'd in OS N. Y. 128. See Bissell v. Pearse. Decis ion in 65 N. Y. disting'd (Lien of bailee) iu Jackson v. Kasseall, 30 Hun, 231. Decis- ion in 5 Lans. approved and contrasted with Bissell v. Pearce, 28 A 7 . Y. 252, U White v. Smith, 15 Vroom (A 7 : J.) 105; «. c, 43 Am. R. 347. v. Depeyster, 1 Edw. 513. See Carpen- ter v. Danforth. Applied with Kent «. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 A 7 ". Y. 159 (Stockholder when estopped to complain of acts of directors) in Parsons v. Hayes, 14 Abb. N.C. 419. Relied on with Robinson i>. Smith, 3 Paige, 222 ; Verplanck v. Mer- cantile Ins. Co.., 1 Edw. 84 ; Butts ». Wood, 38 Barb. 181 ; 37 A 7 . Y. 317; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. c. Jenkins, 3 Wend. 130 (Liability of directors for mistakes of judgment) in SCOTT-SCRANTOM. C93 Spering's Appenl, 71 Perm. St. 11; s. c, 10 Am. R. 684, 692. Explained in Ang. & A. on, Corp. § 814, 11 ed. v. Elmore, 10 Hun-, 68. Disapproved (Title to real estate, of receiver in supple- mentary proceedings) in Wing «. Disse, 15 Id. 190, 195. • v. Gibbs, 2 John*. Cas. 116; s. c, 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 457, with brief note. v. Guernsey, 60 Barb. 163. Affd in 48 Jf. Y. 106. See Van Kleeck v. Reformed Dutch Church ; Woolever v. Knapp. De- cision in 48 N~. Y. explained (Compensa- tion, as between tenants in common) in MoaVs VnderMlVs Torts, 1 Am. ed 382. See also (Adjustment of rents in partition suit) Code. Oh. Pro. 1881, § 1589, n. v. Guthrie, 25 How. Pr. 512 ; s. c, more fully, 10 Bosw. 408. Quoted and col- lated with other cases (Firm and individual property as affected by assignment for ben- efit of creditors) in Bishop on Assign. § 187. Explained (Preferences) in Burrill ~ on Assign. § 211, n. 6, 4 ed. v. Howard, 3 Barb. 319. See (Time for which judgment is lien on real estate) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1251, n. ■ V. Libby, 2 Johns. 336. Examined with Robinson v. Marine Ins. Co., Id. 323; Marine Ins. Co. v. United Ins. Co., 9 Id. 186; Williams®. Smith, 2 Gal 13; Welch v. Hicks, 6 Cow. 504; Center v. American Ins. Co., 7 Id. 564 (Pro rata freight, &c. for voyage partially performed) in Rossiter v. Chase, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 174. v. Middletown, Uiiionville, &c. K. R. Co., 21 Sun, 231. Aff'd, it seems, in 86 ST. Y. 200. — - v. Monell, 1 Sedf. 431. Discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 513, n. ■ v. Nevins, 6 Duer, 672. Disting'd (Reaching surplus income of trust fund in creditor's action) in Williams v. Thorn, 70 K Y. 270, 2T5. v. Ocean Bank, 5 Bosw. 192. Aff'd in 23 N. Y. 289. See Warner v. Lee. Both decisions followed with Warner ». Lee, 6 N. Y. 144 (Property in notes, &c. sent to banker) in Hoffman v. Miller, 9 Bosw. 334, 341. Decision in 23 N. Y. applied in Com- mercial B'k of Clyde v Marine B'k, 6 Abb. Pr. K S. 33, 41. Disting'd in Metropolitan Nat. B'k v. Loyd, 25 Sun, 101, 103. ■ v. Onderdonk, 14 N. Y. 9. , See Rath- bone v. Hooney; Townsend «. Mayor, . Limited and disting'd in Marsh v. City of Brooklyn, 59 Id. 284. Followed in Allen v. City of Buffalo, 39 Id. 390, as not overruled by unreported decision in Howell v. City of Buffalo. Applied to claim of dower, in Wood v. Seely, 32 Id. 113; to deed, in Fonda v. Sage, 48 Id. 179, 186. v. Rogers, 31 N. Y. 678. See Suydam v. Jenkins. Criticised and disting'd (Dam- ages for conversion) in Devlin «. Pike, 5 Italy, 93. Disting'd in Whelan v. Lynch, 65 Barb. 328. Applied in Price v. Keyes, 1 Sun, 192. Explained in Baker ». Drake, 53 Jf. Y. 219; 2 Sedgw. on Dama. 7 ed. 380, n. Included in Sedgw. Cas. on Dama. 588. Cited (Factor bound to rigid execu- tion of orders) in Wliart. Com. on Ag. §259. v. Shaw. See Cramer v. Van Alstyne; Hildreth v. Ellice. v. Shufeldt, 5 Paige, 43. Collated with other cases (When marriage may be set aside, as procured bv fraud) in 24 Am. B. 453, n. ; 8 Abb. K C. 204, n. Approved in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 631. v. Williams, 23 Sow. Pr. 393. See (Vacating order of arrest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 568, n. v. Young, 4 Paige, 542. Cited (Proof of admissions of liability, made as part of negotiations for compromise) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1090. Seonton v. Eislord, 7 Johns. 36; s. c, 4 JV Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 241, with brief note. With this case and Shippey v. Henderson, 14 Johns. 178, compare (Debt due by insol vent sufficieut consideration for new prom- ise) Couch v. Ash, 5 Cow. 265 ; Hubert v. Williams, Id. 537. Reviewed with Ship- pey v. Henderson, 14 Johns. 178 ; Couch v. Ash, 5 Cow. 265 ; Hubert v. Williams, 5 Id. 537, and other cases, in Earnest v. Parke, 4 Iiawle. (Pa.) 452 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 280, 284, with note. Scovil v. Scovil, 45 Barb. 517. See Herrick v. Woolverton. See also (Commencement of action against executor, &c. of one dy- ing within State) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 403, n. Scovill v. Griffith, 12 K Y. 509. Compare (Extrinsic evidence to explain carrier's re- ceipt) Blossom v. Griffin, 13 Id. 569. Scoville v. Canfleld, 14 Johns. 340; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 467. Disting'd with Van Schaick «. Edwards, 2 Johns. Gas. 363 (Extra-terri- torial operation of penal statutes) in Hough- ton v. Page, 2 jV. H. 42; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 30. Applied in Suffolk Bank v. Kidder, 12 Verm. 464; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 354, with note. Relied on as authority in Story on Confl. of Laws, § 621. ■ Sera n ton v. Booth. See Sheldon v. Sher- man. v. Clark, 39 Barb. 373. Affd in 39 N. Y. 220. Decision in Id. explained (War- ranty of title on sale of chattels) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 575, n. e. Scrantom v. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank, 33 Barb. 527. Aff'd on the merits, in 24 N. Y. 424. Decision in Id. disting'd (Right of one holding claim as individual, to assign it to himself as executor) in Schreyer v. Holborrow, 26 nun, 468. 694 SCRIBNER— SEAMEN'S FRIEND TOCIETY. Scribner v. Crane. 2 Paige, 147; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 81. Included with notes (Duty of witness altering will) in Red/. Lead. Gas on Wills, 137. Quoted (Personal disa- bilities of testators) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 97, n. v. Kelley, 38 Barb. 14. Collated with other cases (Liability of owner or keeper of vicious animal) in 10 Am. R,. 270, «. Ap- proved and followed with Fried ». N. "V. Central R. R. Co., 25 How. Pr. 285; Mc- Kee v. Judd, 12 If. Y. 622; Butler v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 110, after an extended examination of the authorities (Assignability of right of action for tort affecting property) in G. H. & S. A. R. R. Co. v. Freeman, 57 Tex. 156, a case of injury of cattle on a railroad. Scroggs y. Palmer, 66 Barb. 505. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 55 If. Y. 643. Scrugham v. Carter, 12 Wend. 131. See Smith's Case. Approved with Phillips v. Cook, 24 Wend. 389 (Execution against one of two partners) and extended to case of attachment, in Smith t. Orser, 42 N. Y. 132, 137. Explained in Morrison i). Blodgett, 8 JSf. E. 238; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 653, with note. Also explained in 1 Pars, on Conlr. 209, n. i. V. Wood, 15 Went 545; s. c. 12 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. Sol), with brief note. Ex- plained (Effect of deed without delivery, in case of death of grantor) in Stow v. Miller, 16 Iowa, 460, 463. See cases collated in 16 Am. Dec. 44, n. Scudder v. Gori, 18 Abb. Pr. 207; s. c, less fully, 3 Robt. 629 ; s. c, 28 Sow. Pr. 155. Further proceeding, in 18 Abb. Pr. 223 ; s. c, 3 Robt. 661. The decision in 18 Abb. Pr. 207 followed and approved (Costs on motion for new trial) in Selover v. Wisner, 37 Sow. Pr. 176; Stilt *. Rowley, Id. 179. See also Rousso v. Voutriu, 41 Id. 8. Lim- ited in Muller v. Higgins, 13 A bb. Pr. 297. v. Vau Ainburgli, 4 Edw. 29. See Murray v. Lylburu. Limited (Extent to which doctrine of lis pendens is applicable) in Holbrook v. N. J. Zinc Co., 57 If. Y. 616, 630. Scully v. Sanders, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 89. Appeal dismissed in 77 If. Y. 598. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co. v. Ward, 18 Barb. 595; s. c, more fully, 1 Abb. Pr. 46. Disapproved (Right to discontinue) in Young v. Bush, 36 How. Pr. 240, 242. Applied in Geenia®. Keah, 66 Barb. 246. Questioned in Matter of D.ivis, 7 Daly, 1,7. Seabury v. Hungerford, 2 Bill, 80. See Bank of Albion «. Smith; Dean v. Hall. Reviewed with other cases (Liability of irregular indorser) in Hahn v. Hull, 2 Abb. Pr. 355; Waterbury®. Sinclair, 7 Id. 402 ; Ellis v. Brown, 6 Barb. 287, 299. Ap- proved in Hall ®. Newcomb, 3 Bill, 234 ; 7 Id. 419. Applied in Richards v. Waning, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 53 ; Griswold «. Slo- cum, 10 Barb. 405. Seacord v. Burling 1 , 5 Den. 444! Explained (Necessity of certainty as to time of pay- ment in negotiable note) in 1 Pars, vn Contr. 249, n. h. v. Morgan, 17 How. Pr. 394. AfTd in 2 Ktyes, 636; s. a, 4 Abb. Pr. If. S. 249; 35 How. Pr. 487. Seagar y. Sligerlnnd, 2 Cai. 219. Included (Necessity that custom be moral) in Lawson on Usages & Customs, 9, with note. Sea Ins. Co. v. Stebbins. See Rergh's Case. Seaman, Matter of, 7 If. Y. Leg. OM. 70. Overruled as Seaman v. Duryea, in 10 Barb. ■ 523 ; and that aff'd in 11 N. Y. 325. Seaman v. Drake, 1 Cai. 9. See Chichester v. Cande. Disting'd (Liability of bail) in Baker v. Curtis, 10 Abb. Pr. 279, 281. ■ v. Daryea, 10 Barb. 523. AfTd in 11- If. Y. 324. Both decisions disting'd (Power of surrogate to compel accounting by guardian) in Diaper v. Anderson, 37. Barb. 177. Decision in 11 If. Y. explained (Exclusiveness of surrogate's jurisdiction as to accounting by executor,&c.) in Christy v. Libby, 2 Daly, 421. See Wood v. Brown - 34 If. Y. 343; Savage v. Olmstead, 2 Red/. 481. Followed (Attachment against guardian) in Frear's Case, 15 Abb. Pr. 351 r Matter of Callahan, Tuck-. 62, 64. Applied to executor, in Timpson's Estate, 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 238; but disting'd as to executor, in Seaman v. Whitehead, 18 Hun, 64; Mat- ter of Watson, 5 Lans. 473, appeal from which was dismissed in 69 If. Y. 545, which see. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2555 n. Applied (Necessity of recital of facts, to confer jurisdiction) in Matter of Baker, 11 How. Pr. 426. V. Gleckner, 3 Hun, 119. Followed- (Right to costs, how determined) in Powers «. Gross, 6 Id. 234. v. Luce, 23 Barb. 250. See Hoyt v. Van Alstyne. Followed (Burden of proof as to what property is exempted) in Twi- nam v. Swart, i Lans. 263, 265. v. Patten, 2 Cai. 312; s. c, 2 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 440, with brief note. V. Stouglitoii. See Bostwick v. Bur- nett. v. Whitehead, 18 Hun, 64. Rev'd on another point in 78 If. 7. 306. Decision in Id. followed (Void order, as subject of motion to vacate) in Attrill v. Rockaway Beach Imp. Co., 25 Hun, 376, 382. With decision in 18 Id. see (Surrogate's power to punish for contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. v. Whitney, 24 Wend. 260. Disting'd (Right of action by creditor against person with whom funds have been deposited by debtor) in Murdock v. Aikin, 29 Barb. 59, 66. Disapproved in part in Putnam ». Farnham. 27 Wis. 187; s. c, 9 Am. R. 459. Seamen's Friend Society v. Hopper, 33 If. Y. 619. Applied (Insane delusion of tes- tator) in Merrill v. Rolston, 5 Red/. 253 ; Shaw's Will, 2 Id. 107, 127. Included with note in Red/. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 228. SEARING— SECOR. 695 Searing v. Searing, 9 Paige x 283. Followed (Wife's right of survivorship in notes taken by husband) in Johnson v. Lusk, 1 Tenn. Gh. 3. Searle v. Scovell, 4 Johns. Oh. 218. Ap- proved and applied (Liability for extra freight paid, on transhipment of cargo) in Hugg d. Bait. & Cuba Smelt. & Mining Co., 35 Md. 414; s. o., 6 Am. It. 429. Searles v. Cronk, 38 How. Pr. 320. See Stephens t>. Wider. Compare (Reversal of judgment for defendant, where p'»intiff would have been entitled only to nominal damages) in McConihe v N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 If. Y. 495; Stephens v. Wider, 32 Id. 351 ; Chase v. Bassett, 15 Abb. Pr. if. s. 293. v. Curtis, 9 Weekly Dig. 195. Aff'd, it seems, in 85 If. T. 627, but without opin- ion. Sears v. Brink, 3 Johns. 210 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec 475, with note, wherein it is shown to have been indorsed by authority of the highest courts of N. Y. (Neces- sity of consideration being expressed in promise to pay debt of another) Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 390, being referred to as giving a very accurate statement of the de- cisions on this question. Questioned, in Leonard v. Vrodenburg, 8 Johns. 2S, 37. Elaborately reviewed in Packard v. Richard- son, 17 Mass. 122 ; s. c , 9 Am. Dee. 123, and disapproved, in so far as it adopts the doctrine of Wain v. Warlters, 5 Bast, 10, and thought to conflict with the later case of Leonard v. Vredenburgh, which is approved and criticised at length. But see as to effect of act of 1863 — striking out requirement of expression of consideration, — Evansville Nat. B'k v. Kaufman, 93 V. Y. 273, 278. Cited in Benj. on Sales, §• 232, n. n. (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.) as sustaining the. English doctrine. Cited as recognizing distinction between "bargain" and "agreement," in Id. § 248. n. 45 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) v. Conover, 34 Barb. 330. Aff'd in 3 Eeyes, 113; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 324; 4 Abb. Ot. App. Dee. 179. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd with Cook v. Philipps, 56 If. Y. 310; Moffatt v. Sackett, 18 Id. 22 (Power of appellate court to determine amount of recovery) in Burling v. Gunther, 63 How. Pr. 68. See to the contrary (Effect of an- ticipatory refusal to perform contract) Dan- iels v. Newton, 114 Mass. 530; s. c, 19 Am. R. 384. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 338. Decision in 34 Barb, applied (Assignability of contract not personal in' its nature) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 N. Y. 8, 18. T. Gearn, 7 How. Pr. 383. See Smith «. Orser; Stoutenburgh «. Vanderburgh. Explained and reconciled with Goll v. Hin- ton, 3 Abb. Pr. 120; Smith v. Orser, 43 Barb. 178 (Liability of partnership prop- erty to attachment for individual debt of co-partner) in Barry v. Fisher, 8 Abb. Pr If. S.S6Q, 379, — — t. Mack, 2 Bradf. 394. Aff'd in decis- ion that was aft'd as Sears v. Burnham, 17 K Y. 445. v. Shafcr, 1 Barb. 408. AfFd in 6 N. Y. 268. Decision in Id. applied (Proof of undue influence) in Bergen ». Udall, 31 Barb. 24 ; Van Klceck v. Phipps, 4 Bed/.. 99, 130. Reviewed with other cases in Nesbit v. Lockman, 34 If. Y. 171. Cited from in Harvey v. Sullens,46 Mo. 147; s. c, 2 Am. P. 491. Seaton v. Davis, 1 Sufm. Ot. (T. & C.) 91. Followed (Pleading in action by infant plaintiff) iu Bartholomew v. Lyon, 67 Barb. 86. Discussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 196 ; Id. § 201. Superseded . by Code Civ. Pro. § 1686. Seaver v. (Jenuer, 10 Abb. Pr. 256. See (Rights. &c. of sheriff when liable as bail)- Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 595, n. y. Robinson, 3 Duer, 622. See Hop- kins v. Coburn. Opposed (Privilege of non- resident witness) in Merrill v. George, 23- Hom. Pr. 331, 336. Searing v. Brinkerhoff, 5 Johns. Gh. 329. See De Caters v. Le Ray Do Chaumont ; Grover ». Wakeman; Hyslop v. Clarke.- Discussed (Effect of provision for exaction of releases in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 192, 4 ed. Sebring v. Mersereau, Hopk 501. Aff'd in 9 Cow. 344. See Wotteu v. Copeland. Second Avenue M. E. Church, Matter of, 5 Hun, 442. Rev'd in 66 If. Y. 395. Decis- ion in Id. followed (Invalidity of assess- ment had without proper valuation) in Mat- ter of Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 61 How. Pr. 315, 326. Disting'd in Matter of St. Joseph's Asylum, 69 If. Y. 353, 357; Matter of Hebrew Ben. Orphan Asylum 70 Id. 476, 478. ; Second Nat. Bank of Watkins v. Miller, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (21 & C.) 104. . Aff'd on some- what different grounds in 63 If. Y. 639. See Jaques v. Methodist Episcopal Church ; Yale e. Dederer. Decision in 63 If. Y. fol- lowed (Effect of note made by wife to husJ band) in Little v. Rawson, 8 Abb. If. -C. 253, 258. Secor v. Keller, 4 Duer, 416. Cited (When dormant partner must be joined with others as party plaintiff) in Story on Partn. 7 ed.- §241. ' . ; T. Law, 9 Bosw. 163. Aff'd as Secor . Coryell, 3 Harr. {K J.) 377 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 521, 524; Johnson v. Wygant, 11 Wend. 49, being explained on this point. Denied in Leopold v. Salker, 89 111. 412; s. c, 31 Am. R. 96 Segelken v. Meyer, 14 Bun. 593. Relied on and Thomas v. Bennett, 5G Barb. 197, fol- lowed (Action by general guardian to re- cover debt due ward) in Hauenstein v. Kull, 59 How. Pr. 24. Segiiine v. Seguine, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 491 ; s. C, 3 Eeyes, 663. Decision as to extra allowance in 3 Abb. Pr. If. S. 442. Decis- ion in 3 Eeyes applied (Proof of undue in- fluence on testator) in Tucker v. Field, 5 Red/. 139, 177; Mairs a. Freeman, 3 Id, 184;" McCoy v. McCoy, 4 Id. 57; Bicknell v. Bick- nell, 4 Sup'm.Ct. (T. & C.) 103. Disting'd in Van Kleeck v. Phipps, 4 Red/. 99, 131. Followed (Will, when not invalidated by unjust prejudice, &c.) in McLaughlin's Will, 2 Id. 504, 515. Decision in 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. followed (Additional allowance by appel- late court) in Dupuy «. Wurtz, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 113, 115. v. — — , 2 Barb. 385. , Commented on (Signing of will by witness) in Willurd on Executors, 107. Seibert v. Erie R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 583. See other cases collected (Testimony of parties) in 1 Abb. N. C. 364, n. Seifert v. Schillner, 62 Mow. Pr. 97. Rev'd in Id. 496. Seiser y. Mali. See Seizer v. Mali. Seixas v. Woods, 2 Cai. 48; s.. c, 2 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 311, with brief note; 2 Am. Dec. 215, with note referring to 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. 310, 7 Am. ed., and also citing Dounce i>. Dow, 64 If. Y. 411; Haw- kins v. Pcmberton, 51 Id. 198. See Chap- man v. Murch ; Frost v. Raymond ; Haw- kins v. Pemberton ; Holden v. Dakin. Dis- ting'd (Warranty on sale of personal prop- erty) in Carley v. Wilkins, 6 Barb. 561. Followed in llotchkiss v. Gage. 26 Id. 142; Swctt v. Colgate, 20 Johns. 203 ; Welsh v. Carter, 1 Wend. 189; Hart v. Wright, 17 Id. 269 j 18 Id. 449. Explained in Oneida Manufac. Co. v. Lawrence, 4 Cow. 440, 442.. Referred to in Hawkins v. Pember- ton, 51 If. Y. 203, as having been much questioned, and to be no longer regarded as authority. Overruled in White ». Miller, 71 K Y. 118, 129. Disting'd as-to title in De Freeze v. Trumper, 1 Johns. 275. Fol- lowed in Kingsbury e. Taylor, 29 Me. 508; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 607, with note. Disap- proved in Wolcott v. Mount, 9 Vroom(N. J.) 496 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 426. Followed with De- freeze v. Trumper, 1 Johns. 274 ; Holden v. SEIZEE— SEWAKD. 697 Dakin, 4 Id. 421, in Westmoreland 8. Pixon, 4 Eayw. (Tenn.) 223; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 7*53. Referred to in Bayard v. Sbunk, 1 Watts & S. {Pa.) 92; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 441, with note, as a sound decision, the foundations of which, however, have been sapped by later N. Y. decisions. Discussed in Henshaw v. Robins, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 83, 89. Criticised at length and disting'd with Swett 8. Colgate, 20 Joints. 196, in Osgood 8. Lewes. 2 llarr. & Q. {Mil.) 495; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 317, with note. Fol- lowed, notwithstanding any departure from rule in N. Y., in Ryan 1>. Ulmer, 108 Penn. 532, 339. See also 11 Am. Dec,. 209, n., examining "White 8. Miller.- 71 Jv. Y. 118, and other cases; also 6 Am. Dec. 113, n., collating cases. Discussed iu 2 Kent Com. 479. Cited as a very strong case in 1 Pars, on C«ntr. 580, n. Seizer y. Mali, 32 Barb. 70; s. c, as Seizcr v. Mali, 11 Abb. Pi: 129. Rev'g Id. 270, n. Decision of General Term said in 41 HT. Y. 619, to have been rev'd, and that of Special Term aff'd iu Ct. of A pp., Sept. 1869. See Cazeaux 8. Mali. Principle of decision in 32 Barb, approved, but said to have been there misapplied (Liability of stockholder for issue of spurious stock) — in Bruff v. Mali, 36 21. Y. 20G. Explained in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 314, n. a, 11 ed. Selchaw v. Radde, and Same v. Rudde. See Butterfield 8. Radde. *• Seidell v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 24 Barb. 362. Further decision in 29 II. Y. 634.. Decision in 24 Barb, compared and doubted (Liability of owner of danger- ous premises) in Losee 8. Buchanan, 57 N. Y. 476, 481, as inconsistent with Bellinger 8. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 23 Id. 47. Collated with other cases in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 499. T. Vermilya, 2 Sand/. 598; s. c, 9 iV! Y. Leg. Obs. 83, with points of counsel. Rev'd in 3 If. Y. 525. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Effect of R. S. on trusts) in Gerard Tit. to Seal Est. 2 ed. 272. Explained (Closing the trust in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 458, 4 ed. Seldon v. Hickock, 2 Cai. 166. Approved and followed (Conversion by tenant in com- mon) in Lobdeli v. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70, 74. Seligman v. Dudley, 14 Hun, 186. See (Counterclaim) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 501, n. Sellick v. Adams, 15 Johns. 197. See Terry 8. Chandler; Vosburgh v. Teator. Applied (Effect of award on title to land) in Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow. 050. Followed with Bouck •». Wilber, 4 Johns. Ch. 405, in Davis 8. Havard, 15 Serg. & R. {Pa.) 165; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 537, with note. Explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 700, n. b. Applied (Wai- ver of formalities respecting award) in French 8. New, 20 Barb. 485; Gidley v Gidley, 65 JV. Y. 169, 171. Sells v. Adm'rs of Hubbell, 2 Johns. Ch. 394. Doubted (Presumption of interest of co-partners in partnership) in Sterling i Brightbill, 5 Watts {Pa ) 232; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 304, «., where the subsequent case of Dorr 8. Shaw, 4 Johns. Ch. 17, is also ex- plained. Selover v. Coe, 63 JV. Y. 438. Explained and applied (Action by judgment creditor against heirs at law) in Blossom 8. Hatfield, 24 Hun, 276. Compare Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 1844, n. t. Wisner, 37 How. Pr. 170. Followed (Costs on motion for ftew trial) in Roasso 8. Vantrin, 41 Id. 8, 11. Senear v. Woods, 74 N. Y. 615. See (Coun- terclaim) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §502, n. Seneca County Bank v. Neass, 5 Den. 329. Aff'd in 3 K Y. 442. Decision in 5 Den. disting'd (Officer of bank when to be deemed its agent) in Holden 8. N. Y. & Erie B'k, 72 if. Y. 2S6, 295. Seneca Nation of Indians v. Knight, 19 IT. Y. ,587. Approved in further decision, in 23 Id. 498. v. Hammond, 4 Dun, 417 ; s. c, more fully, 6 Sup' m. Ct. {T. &G.) 595. Seton V. Low, 1 Johns. Cas. 1 ; s. c, 1 N. Y. Com. I. Law. ed. 219, with brief note. Criticised (Disclosure to underwriter, in case of insurance of contraband of war) in 3 Kent Com. 209, n. a. Settle \. Van Evrea, 49 K Y. 280, Applied (Effect of restriction in N. Y. Const, against certain judicial officers acting as referees) in Countryman 8. Norton, 21 Hun, 17, 19. Seventeenth St., Matter of. See Matter of Mercer St. ; Wyman 8. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Seventy-sixth St., Matter of. See, Bowery Extension Case. Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. 335. Rev'g Allen ». Sewall, 2 Id. 327. See Belgcr v. Dins- more. Decision in 6 Wend, criticised, and that in 2 Id. preferred (Liability of corpor- ation as carrier of bank-bills) in Farmers' & Mechanics' B"k 8. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 08. Decision in Wend, approved in Ang. on Can: § 101, n. 4; Citizens' Bank 8. Nantucket S. B. Co., 2 Story, 16, 48. Both decisions ex- plained in 2 Kent Com. 609, n. v. Catlin, 3 Wend. 291 ; s. c, 10 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 370, with brief note on privileged communications. v. Fitch, 8 Cow. 215. See Bennett v. Hall; Crookshank 8. Burrell. Disting'd (Sale of goods as disting'd from contract for work and labor) in Cooke 8. Millard, 65 iV. 7. 360. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 109, 11. y (Bennett's 4 Am. «d.). Quoted and discussed iu Brov.ne on Stat, of Frauds, § 306, 4 ed. Quoted and explained in 2 Story on Gontr. 5 ed. § 1005, n. 2. Seward t. Jackson, 8 Cow. 406. Rev'g 5 Id. 67. Subsequent decision affecting deed here involved, in Van Wyck 8. Seward, 1 Edw. 327. See Bissell 8. Hopkins ; Reade 8. Livingston. Decision in 8 Cow. applied (Conveyance, when not fraudulent, as to 698 SEWAKD— SEYMOUfe. subsequent creditors) in Tappan v. Butler, 7 Bosw. 489. Followed in Dygert v. Rem- erschnider, 32 N. Y. 629, 648 ; French v. Holmes, 67 Me. 186, 192;. U. 8. D. N. S. 9, LIU. Incorporated (Presumption as to fraudulent intent in conveyance) in 2 R. S. 137, § 4. Quoted in Durrill on Assign. § 339, 4 ed. Applied (Requisites of special verdict) in Eisemann v. Swan, 6 Bosw. 672. Followed (Fraud as question for jury) in Sturm v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 38 /Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 281, 324. t. Judges of Dutchess, 23 Wend. 360. Overruled (Power of review on common law certiorari) in Mullins v. People, 24 Jf. Y. 399. v. Kessler, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 539. Aff'd in 69 N. Y. 623, but without opinion. t. Torrence, 3 Hun, 220 ; s. c, reported in 5 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 323. Sewell v. City of Colioes, 11 Hun, 626. Affd in 75 N. Y. 45 ; s. c, 31 Am. R. 418. Sexton t. Montgomery Co. Mut. Ins. Co. . See Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co. T. Zett, 56 Barb. 119. Aff'd in 44 N. Y. 430. See cases in several States col- lected (Negligence as matter of law) in 13 .Am. L.Reg. KS.2Q7. Seybel v. Nat. Currency B'k, 4 Abb. Pr. N". S, 352 ; s. c, 2 Daly, 3S3. Aff'd in 54 N. . Y. 288 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 583, with note. Seymour v. Brown, 19 Johns. 44. See Kurd \ t>. West. Overruled (Distinction between ' sale and bailment) in Hurd v. West, 7 Gow. 752, 756, n. a; Smith v. Clark, 21 Wend. 83. See Norton v. Woodruff, 2 2T. Y. 153; which affd Baker v. Woodruff, 2 Barb. 520, , -which see ; Buffum v. Merry, 3 Mason, 478 ; . Ewing v. French, 1 Black/. {Ind.) 353 ; 2 Kent Com. 589. Disapproved in Chase v. Washburn, 1 Ohio St. 244; s. c, 59 Am. Bee. 623, with note. Said in 10 Am. Dec. 491, n., to have been repeatedly overruled and disapproved. Doubted in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 323. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 133, n. v. Disting'd and questioned (Inev- itable accident, as excuse for non-perform- , ance of contract) in Adams ». Nichols, 19 , Pick. {Mass.) 275; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 137, with note. y. Canandaigua, etc. E. R. Co. See . Andrews v. Newcomb ; Gardner v. McEwen; Otis v. Sill. v. Cowing, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 200; b. c, 1 Keyes, 535. See Benton o. Martin. Disting'd (Oral evidence to explain objects of instrument) in Willse v. Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242, 244. Applied in Grierson v. Mason, 1 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 188. T. Davis, 2 Sandf. 239. Overruled (Effect of subsequent acceptance and re- . ceipt, to take sale out of statute of frauds) in McKnight v. Dunlop, 5 K Y. 537. So explained in Sale v. Darragh, 2 Hilt. 184, 200. Considered in Boutwell v. O'Keefe, 32 Barb. 434, 437, and harmonized with Deming v. Kemp, 4 Sandf. 147; Sprague v. Blake, 20 Wend. 61; Baker. «. Cuyler, 12 Barb., 667; McKnight v. Dunlop, above. Dis- approved and said to be overruled by Mc- Knight v. Dunlop, and to conflict with Bout- well d. O'Keefe, in Gault v. Brown, 48 iV. H. 183; s. c, 2 Am. R. 210, 213, 216, where McKnight v. Dunlop; Sprague v. Blake, 20 Wend. 61 ; Vincent ». Gormond, 11 Johns. 283, are cited as showing the law to be established in N. Y. Explained (Sale as disting'd from contract for work and labor) in Benj. on Sales,~§ 109, n. y (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Delancey, 6 Johns. Ch. 222. Rev'd in 3 Cow. 445 ; s. c, 8 N~. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 183, with brief note ; also s: c, 15 Am. Dec. 270, with note. Subsequent decision in Hoph. 430, aff'd in 5 Cow. 714; s. c. 14 Am. Dec. 552. See case, &c. published at N. Y. in 1827. Reversal explained (Specific performance of contract for sale of land) in Slocum v. Closson, How. App. Cas., 752. Decision in 3 Cow. followed in Viele v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 21 Barb. 389-393. Decision in Johns. Ch. ap- proved, notwithstanding reversal, — in Halo v. Wilkinson, 21 Graft. ( Va.) 751. Also approved in Hunt v. Formby, 43 6a. 79. Discussed in Pomeroy on Sp. Per/. §§ 36, "n. (p. 54) 194. n. Decision in Hoph. criticised (Effect of objection to title, based on sus- picion) in Shriver v. Shriver, 86 N. Y. 575, 584. v. Elmer, 4 E. D. Smith, 199 ; s." c, ■ more fully, 1 A%b. Pr. 412. v. Fellows, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 124.' Aff'd in 77 JST. Y. 178. See Rawson ■». Penn. R. R. Co. V. Judd, 2 N. Y. 464. Followed (Ap- peal from justice's court) in Kuntz v. Licht, 8 Hun, 14. v. Lewis, 19 Wend. 512. Disting'd (Effect of receipt for money to be endorsed on mortgage) in Evans e. Wilcox, 39 Barb. 136, 139. • v. Min turn, 17 Johns. 109 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 380; also 6 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 326, with brief notes. Followed with Har- rison v. Wilcox, 2 Johns. 449 ; Boyd v. Hitchcock, 20 Id. 72 (Satisfying debt by payment of less sum than due) in Geiser v. Kershner, 4 Gill. & J. (J/cZ.) 305; s. c, 23, Am. Dec. 566, with note. v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134. See Mills v. Stewart. Followed (Implication of con- tract to make payment on stock) in Win- tringham v. Rosenthal, 25 Hun, 580, 582. v. Van Slyck, 8 Wend. 403. Aff'd as Stone v. Seymour, 15 Id. 19. See People v. Jansen ; Richards v. Warring ; Stone v. Seymour. Decision in 8 Wend, followed (Liability of indorser of non-negotiable note) in Richards v. Warring, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 47, 51. Applied in Murphy v. Adams, 71 Me. 113; s. c, 36 Am. R. 299, 301. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 cd. 400. Both decisions approved and followed (Applica- tion of payments) in Campbell v. Vedder, 1 , [ Abb.- Ct. ~Ap. Tuttle, 81 Id. 454, 460. Shaw v. Beveridge, 3 Hill, 26. Applied (Rights in pew) to right in market-stall, in Rose v. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 51 Md. 256; s. c, 34 Am. E. 307. v. Chester, 2 Eho. 405. Aff'd, as Shaw •o. Coster, in 8 Paige, 339; s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 690, with extended note (Interpleader). — — v. Cock, 12 Run, 173. Aff'd in 78' JST. Y. 194. See Bassett ». Fish. Decision in 78 N. Y. followed (Right of parties brought in by supplemental pleadings to rely on statute of limitations) in Jeffers v. Cook, 58 Gal. 147, 150. v. Coster. See Shaw v. Chester. v. Crawford, 10 Johns. 236. See Mor- gan v. King. ' Criticised and disting'd (Stream, when liable to public servitude) in People v. Piatt, 17 Id. 195. Applied to highway on' land in State v. Wilkinson, 2 Verm. 480; s. c , 21 Am. Dec. 560, 564. Relied on with People v. Piatt, 7 Johns. 195, in Moore *. Sanborne, 2 Mich. 519; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 209. Explained and ap- plied with Morgan v. King, 35 A 7 ! Y. 459 ; 18 Barb. 284; 30 Id. 9; Thunder Bay Booming Co. v. Speechly,31 Mich. 336; s.c, 18 Am. R. 184, 190. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 46. v. Davis, 55 Barb. 389. See to the con- trary (Justification of officer executing pro- cess) Underhill v. Reinor, 2 Ililt. 319. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 632. v. Dwight, 16 Barb. 536. Further de- cision in 27 N. Y. 244. See Chautauqua Co. Bank v. White; McElwain v. Willis. Decision in 27 N. Y. followed (Execution as basis of creditor's bill) in Payne «. Sheldon, 43 How. Pr. 1, 4. Reviewed with other cases in 15 Alb. L. J. 264. v. Jayne. See Eddy v. Beach. v. Lenke, 1 Daly, 487. Collated with Lawrence.?). Kemp, 1 Duer, 363 ; Funk v. Brigaldi, 4 Daly, 359, (Gas fixtures as per- sonal property) in 21 Am. R. 80, n. Also collated with Lawrence i>. Kemp, 1 Duer, 363, and other cases in 29 Am. R. 403, n. v. McCarty, 59 Hoio. Pr. 487. Rev'd as People ex rel. Shaw v. McCarty, 62 Id. 152 ; mem. s. c, 25 Hun, 449. See People ex rel. Jay ». Bennett. v. People, 3 Hun, 272; s. c, 5 Sup'm,, Ct. {T. ,. Vauderheyden. Approved and followed (Validity of conveyance from husband to wife) in Hunt b. Johnson, 44 If. Y. 27, 32, wherein it is said that such conveyance would be invalid at common law ; White b. Wager, 25 Id. 328 ; Winans b. Peebles, 32 Id. ' 423, being disting'd. Followed in Savers v. Wall, 26 Graft. ( Va.) . 354; s. c, 21 Am. R. 303, 311. Approved and said to be a leading American case, in Johnson «. Vandcrvoort, 10 A T eb. 144. Re- viewed with Garlick b. Strong, 3 Paige, 440; Neufville v. Thomson, ? Edw. 92, 704 SHEPARD— SHERIDAN. and other cases in Tyler on Inf. '& Gov. 2 ed. § 858. Included in Ewell Lead. Cas. on Inf. &c. 280. Reviewed with other cases in 13 AW. L. J. 110. v. Walker, 7 How. Pr. 46. Overruled in effect (Action in Supreme Court involving less than $100) by Marsh v. Benson, 34 N. Y. 358. Shephard v. little, 14 Johns. 210. See Kip e. Denniston ; Schemerhorn v. Vanderhey- den. Disting'd (Parol evidence as to con- sideration of deed) in Peck v. Mallams, 10 If. Y. 528 ; Cagger «. Lansing, 43 Id. 552. Explained in Bolton v. Jacks, 6. Boot. 235. Followed and explained in McCrea v. Pur- mont, 16 Wend. 468, 470. Questioned, as sustained by neither reason nor authority, in Gist 11. Davis, 2 Hill Oh. (So. Oar.) 335 ; e, c, 29 Am. Bee. 8'.), 93. Followed in Beach ». Packard, 10 Vt. 96; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 185, with note. Followed with Bowen v. Bell, 20 Johns. 339; McCrea o. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460 ; Bingham v. Weidervvax, 1 If. Y. 509, in Swnfford v. Whipple, 3 O. Greene (Iowa) 261 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 498, with note. Cited as showing the difference between the rule in England and that in America, — with Bowen v. Bell. 20 Johns. 888; Whitbeck v. Whitbeck, 9 'Cow. 206.; McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460, and other cases in 1 Taylor on Ev. 112. v. Watrous, 3 CM. 166. Collated with Foshay v. Ferguson, 5 Rill, 154, and other cases (Duress of imprisonment or fear thereof) in Bush v. Brown, 49 Ind. 573; s. c, 19 Am. R. 695. S'-ieplierd v. Dean. See Wicker v. Dresser. v. Hees, 12 Johns. 433. Followed (Duty of keeping one's cattle within bouuds) it, D'Arcy v. Miller, 86 III. 102; s. c, 29 Am. B. 11, 'I T Hill, 6 Lans. 387. Collated -with otter cases (Fraud in assignment for bene- fit of creditors at time of making) in Bishop on Assign. § 226. v. Lincoln. See Adsit v. Brady. T. People, 19 If. Y. 537. Subsequent proceeding in 23 How. Pr. 337 ; which was rev'd in 25 N. Y. 406; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 388. See Hartung v. People. Decision in 25 If. Y. jipplied (Mis-trial, when not bar to ■ new trial) in People v. Reagle, 60 Barb. 545 ; King n. People, 5 Hun, 299. Colla- ted -with other cases in 21 Am. Dec. 507, n. See (Power of court on writ of error in criminal cases) L. 1863, c. 226, as applied in Katzky v. People, 29 If. Y. 132; McKee v. People, 32 Id. 243. Followed and dicta therein criticised (Effect of statute changing penalty, enacted subsequent to commission of crime) in Hartung v. People, 28 Id. 400, 402, 410, 413. Decision in 19 Id. followed (What constitutes dwelling within statute against arson) in Levy v. People, 19 Hun, 383, 386 ; which was afl'd in 80 If. Y. 327, 333, which see. v. Shepherd, 1 Hun, 240; s. c, with au- thorities cited by counsel, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 715. Affd, it seems, in 58 If. Y. 844, but without opinion. Decision in 1 Hun, disapproved and Forrest v. Forrest, 3 Bosw. 661, disting'd (Remarriage as affect- ing alimony) in Stillman v. Stillman, 99 7^.196; s. c, 39^m. B. 21. Shepmoes v. Bowsson, 52 How. Pr. 401; s. c, more fully, as Schepmoes v. Bousson, 1 Abb. If. O. 481, which see above. Sheppard v. Hamilton, 29 Barb. 156. Dis- ting'd (Grounds of estoppel) in McMaster v. Ins. Co. of North. Am., 56 N. Y. 222, 229. v. Steele, 3 Lans. 417. Affd in 43 N. Y. 52. Decision in id. explained (Enforce- ment of claim against vessel under State law) in Brookman v. Hamill, Id. 558. Reaff'd in Happy v. Mosher, 48 Id. 317. Followed in King v. Greenway, 71 Id. 413, 416. Explained in Wilson v. Lawrence, 82 Id. 409, 411. Compared with other cases in Poole v. Kermit, 37 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 114, 120. Followed in the Scow M. Tuttla v. Buck, 23 Ohio St. 565; s. c, 13 Am. B. 270, 273. See to same effect Foster v. Richard Busteed, 100 Mass. 409 ; s. c, 1 Am. B. 125. Sheridan v. Andrews, 3 Lans. 129. Affd in 49 If. Y. 478. Decision in Id. discussed (Necessity of lis pendens in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 045. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1670, n. See also (Judgment by default) Id. § 1526, n. t. , 80 If. Y. 648. Subsequent de- cision in 81 Id. 650; and prior decision in Sheridan v. Jackson, 72 Id. 170; aff'g 10 Hun, 89. v. Brooklyn City & Newtown K. It. Co., 36 If. Y. 39. See Dickson v. McCoy. Followed (Liability for negligence not lessened by negligence of another) in Smith u. British & North Am. Royal M. S. P. Co., 86 If. Y. 408, 413. ■ Disting'd in Chip- man v. Palmer, 77 If. Y. 51, 55 ; which affd 9 Hun, 519, which see. Explained and applied in Macer v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 Super. Cl. 461, 465. Disting'd (Negligence in infant) in Thurber o. Har- lem. &c. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326, 335. Applied in Solomon ». Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 1 Sweeny, 302 ; Costello v. Syra- cuse, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 100. See other cases collated in 6 Abb. If. O. 110, n,. Explained (Duty of passenger on street car to keep himself in safe position) in Ward v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 11 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 414. v. Charlick, 4 Daly, 338. Collated with Cavanagh v. Dinsmore, 12 Hun, 465; Stevens v. Armstrong, 6 if. T. 435, and other cases (Master's liability for servant's negligence) in 29 Am. B. 040. v. Genet, 1 Civ. Pro. B. 309, n. Dis- approved (Costs to abide event) in Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co., 8 Daly, 244; and Car- vey v. Rider, 2 Cow. followed in preference. Followed in Lydd v. Kenny, 1 Cio. Pro. B. 310, 311, n. " i T. Houghton, 6 Abb. If. 0. 234, mem. SHERIDAN— SHERMAN. 705 s. c, 16 Sun, 628. Aff'd, except as to costs, in 84 S. Y. 643, with mem. of opin- ion. See Dan v. Brown. See (Privileged communication as between attorney and client) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 835, n. v. House, 4 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 218 ; s. c, 4 Keyes. 569. Subsequent decisions affecting same premises in House v. Jack- son, 50 J*. T. 161; House «. McCormick, 57 Id. 310. Explained and qualified (Ef- fect of abrogation of rule in Shelley's case) in Moore v. Littel, 41 N. 7. 66. Collated with numerous other cases (Transfer of interest in expectancy) in 20 Am. L. Reg. if. 8. 103. v. Jackson. See Sheridan «. Andrews. T. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Sun, 424. Rev'd in 68 if. Y. 30. Decision in Id. disting'd (Right of plaintiff suing on trans- ferred claim) in Hays v. Hathorn, 74 Id. 486, 490; Mitander v. Sonneborn, 29 Dun, 407, 409. Followed in Freeman v. Falconer 1 , 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 132, 135. See fol- lowed in Conway v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 306, 310, decision in Sheridan v. Mayor, there said to have been rendered in March, 1877 (Effect of ratification of claim, to create county charge). Slierideu v. Smith, 2 Sill, 538. Disting'd (Waiver of payment of money into court) in Becker «. Boon, 61 if Y 317, 322, 330. Sherman v. Am. Bible Society, 1 Keyes, 561. Compare (Devises and bequests to charit- able, &c. corporations) White v. Howard, 52 Barb. 294; Harris v. Slaght, 46 Id. 470; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 if. 7. 424. v. Ballou, 8 Cow. 304. See Downer v. Eggleston. Approved with Decker v. Liv- ingston, 15 Johns. 482; Hill v. Gibbs, 5 Sill, 56 (Collection of rent by tenants in common) in Marshall v. Moseley, 21 if Y. 280, 288. Disting'd (Necessity for account between guardian and ward) in Smith's Ex'rs v. Wiley, 22 Ala. 396; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 262. v. Boyce, 15 Johns. 443. See Reed v. Pruynj Woodcock v. Bennet. Applied (Disqualification of sheriff to execute process for or against himself) in Holbrook u Brennan, 9 Daly, 46, 48. v. Buruhaiii. See Grant v. Sehoon- hoven. v. Conner, 50 Sow. Pr. 29; s. c, more fully, 16 Abb. Pi: if S. 396. v. Crosby, 11 Johns. 70. Commented on (Declarations against interest) in 1 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 147, n. 1. v. Dodge. See Goldsmith v. Osborne. v. Elder, 1 Silt. 178. Subsequent pro- ceedings in 1 Id. 476 ; which was rev'd in 24_ if. Y.. 381. Decision in Id. followed (Liability of wife's property for husband's debts) in Kluender v. Lynch, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 549; Merchant v. Bunnell, 3 Id. 284; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Barb. 383. Dic- tum questioned in Buckley v. Wells, 33 if Y. 521. See Feller v. Alden, 23 Wis. 301, ■ I.— 45 306. Applied (Recovery by assignee for conversion) in Genet ». Ilowland, 45 Barb. 567. v. Felt, 2 K Y. 186. Approved with Suydam v. Holden, Seld. K No. 4, 16 (Jur- isdiction of Supreme Court as to actions previously pending in chancery) in Weg- man «. Childs, 41 if. Y. 159, 162. Dis- ting'd (Appeal from decision involving ques- tion of practice) in Lahens v. Fielden, 15 Abb. Pr. 180 ; Belknap v. Waters, 11 if. Y. 479. Followed in Seeley v. Chittenden, 10 Barb. 307. Followed (Appeal from order made on summary application after judg- ment) in Jones v. Derby, 16 if. Y. 245 ; Bank of Genesee 8. Spencer, 18 Id. 152. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Daly, 521. Afl'd in 64 N. Y. 254. See Redmond ». Liverpool, &c. Steamship Co. Decision in 63 if. Y. applied (Liability of connect- ing carriers) in Isaacson ». N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 25 Sun, 350, 353. . v. Kane, 46 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 310. Aff'd in 86 if Y. 57. Decision in Id. quo- ted and explained (Title acquired by ad- ' verse possession) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 751. v. Kortright, 52 Barb. 267. Disting'd (Evidence of other injuries in actions foi , negligence) in Quinlan v. City of Utica, 11 Sun, 217, 219. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 K Y. 316. Collated with other cases (Change in plan, &c. of municipal contract) in 5 Abb. if. C. 48, n. v. Mc Keon, 8 Bosw. 103. AfTd in 38 if. Y. 266, v. McNitt, 2 Cow. 452. Explained, in subsequent decision, in 4 Id. 85. v. Page, 21 Sun, 59. Aff'd in 85 if Y. 123. v. Parish, 53 N. Y. 483. See ground of decision below stated in 7 Alb. L. J 124. Decision in 53 if. Y. disting'd (Par- ties to action, in case of breach of trust) in Smith v. Rathbun, 22 Sun, 150, 154. Ap- proved in Pomeroy on Rem. § 357, n. 2. Explained and dicta criticised (Liability among co-trustees) in 2 Pomeroy on JEq. Jur. 659, n. See cases collected in 15 Am. L. Rev. 175, 184. v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co., 15 Barb. 574. AfTd in 17 JST. Y. 153. De- cision in Id. disapproved (Liability of mas- ter to servant for negligence of superior fellow-servant) in Dobbin v. Richmond and Danville R. R. Co., 81 S. C. 446 : s. c, 31 Am. R. 519. v. Wakemau, 11 Barb. 254. Rev'd in 9 R. Y. 85. v. Wells, 14 Sow. Pr. 522. See Seeley v. Prichard. Disting'd (Amendment to per- fect appeal) iu Zinsser v. Seiler, 7 Daly, 464. v. Wright, 49 if Y. 227. Applied (Injunction against summary proceedings) in Landon v. Superv's of Schenectady, 706 SHE REED— SIIINDLEE. 24 Run, i76. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 2265. Sherred v. Cisco, 4 Sandf. 480. • See Camp- bell v. Mesier; Partridge v. Gilbert. Fol- lowed and approved . (Obligation of party- wall owners to re-bnild) in Antomarchi's Executor?). Russell, 63 Ala. 35G ; s. c, 85 Am. R. 40, 43; Campbell v. Mesier, 4 Johns. Ch. 334, being disting'd. Applied with Partridge v. Gilbert, 15 K Y. 001, to defective building, in Pierce v. Dver, 109 Mass. 374; s. c, 12 Am. R. 716, 710. See cases collected in 7 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 11. Commented on in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 221 ; Id. § 229. Slierrill v Crosby. See Dykers v. Townsend. Sherry v. Frecklng, 4 Duer, 452. Disap- proved (Action against owner of overhang- ing or projecting premises) in Aiken v. Ben- edict, 39 Barb. 400, 402. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 163. Quoted and explained in Wood on Nuis.-'i, ed. § 101. t. Lozier, 1 Bradf. 437. Relied on (Subsequent birth of child as implying revocation of will) in Negus v. Negus, 46 Iowa, 487; s. c, 26 Am. R. 157, with note' collating Brush v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 516, and other cases. v. Schuyler, 2 Hill, 204. See Hanrner v. Wilsey ; Higgins v. Whitney. Explained (Damages for trespass) in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 635a, n. 3. Sherwood v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 10 Run, 593. Aff'd in 73 N. Y. 447; s. c, 29 Am. R. 180. t. American Bible Soc, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 227; s. c, 1 Reyes, 561. Applied (Recognition of foreign corporation) Mn Alward v. Holmes, 10 Abb. JST. C. 96, 99. Disting'd (Bequest to corporation, when within rule against perpetuities) in Cham- berlain v. Chamberlain, 3 Lams. 368. Fol- lowed (Incapacity of voluntary association to take by bequest) in Betts v. Betts, 57 Row. Pr. 355, n. See cases cited in 4 Alb. N. U. 311, n. Collated with other cases in Gerard Tit. to Real Est. 2 ed. 301. v. Archer, 10 Hun, 73. Rev'd as Tread- well v. Archer, in 76 K Y. 196. v. Barton, 23 Row. Pr. 533. Disting'd (When paper signed by partner in firm name obtains validity) in Gale v. Miller, 54 K Y. 536, 538. v. Buffalo & N. Y. K. K. Co., 12 How. Pr. 136. Approved (Necessity of notice to debtor,, of supplementary proceedings taken under Code Pro. § 294) in Gibson v. Haggerty, 37 N. Y. 555, 558. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2441, n. V. Johnson, 1 Wend. 443. Disapproved (What is too general a charge of fraud and covin, in plea; in Hopkins v. Woodward, 75 111. 62. Followed in Huston v. Wil- liams, 3 Black/, (hid.) 170; s. c, 25 Am. Pec. 84, 89, with note. See dissenting opinion of McKinney, J., citing also Dorr ». Munsell, 13 Johns. 430; Dale v. Roose- velt, 9 Cow. 307. Criticised and questioned in 25 Am. Pec. 95, n. v. Mercantile Hut. Ins. Co., 5 Hun, US. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 630. v. Phillips, 13 Wend. 479. Followed (Continuation of tenancy after expiration of term) in People ex rel. Chrome Steel Co. v. Paulding, 22 Hun, 91, 94. v. Pratt, 11 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 115. Pol- lowed (Amendment of notice of appeal, nunc pro tunc) in Mott v. Lansing,' 5 Lans. 516. t. Reade, 8 Paige, 633. Rev'd in 7 Bill, 431. t. Stone See Wolff v. Koppel. v. Yandenburgh, 2 Hill, 303. See Sparrow v. Kingman. Followed with Browner. Potter, 17 Wend. 164; Davis v. Darrow, 1 2 Id. 65 (Estoppel of one claim- ing under husband, as against widow claim- ing dower) in Pledger v. Ellerbe, G Rich. L. (So. Car.) 266; s. c., 60 Am. Pec. 123. Followed in May v. Tillman, 1 Mich. 264. Shetzler v. Shetzler, 2 Edw. 584. Quoted (Service of summons or preliminary notice in divorce proceeding) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & P. § 311, n. 1, 6 ed. Shields v. Niagara Sav'gs B'k, 3 Hun, 477; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 585. Com- pare (Summoning talesmen) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1171, 1174. v. Pettee, 2 Sandf. 262. Affd in 4 K Y. 122. Decision in 2 Sandf. dis- ting'd (Effect of part delivery under con- tract of sale) in Catlin r. Tobias, 26 N. Y. 217, 223.' Quoted and explained in 8 Pars, on Contr. 208, n. p. Decision in 4 JST. Y. disting'd (Contracts for sales to arrive, when fraudulent) in Heller v. Herbst, K. Y. Daily Reg. Nov. 12, 1883; Dike v. Reitlinger, 23 Bun, 241; 243. Quoted and explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 558, n. w ; Ben], on Sales, § 880, n. 20. v. Shields, 60 Barb. 56. See Wood v. Wood. Disting'd (Requiring security from insolvent executors) in Freeman v. Kellogg, 4 Redf. 218, 225. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2685, n. Shift v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 16 Run, 278. Aff'd, it seems, in 81 N. Y. 638, on opinion below. Shifter v. Dietz. See Schiffcr v. Same. Shindler v. Houston, 1 Den. 48. Rev'd in 1 N. Y. 261 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 316. Fur- ther decision as Houston v. Shindler, in 11 Barb. 36. See Kodgers v. Phillips. Decis- ion in 1 A r . Y. explained (Delivery required by statute of frauds) in Woodford v. Pat- terson, 32 Barb. 030. Held to be a decis- ive authority, in Brand t. Focht, 1 Al-b. Ct. App. Dec. 185, 187. Followed in Stone v. Browning, 13 Abb. Pr. K S. 190; Elys. Ormsby, 12 Barb. 571; Bakers. Cuyler, Id. 609 ; Bissell v. Balcom, 40 Id. 101 ; Brand v. Brand, 49 Id. 348 ; Ham i: Van Orden, 4 Run, 710 ; Hallenbeek v. Cochran, 20 Id. 417. Disting'd in Gray v. Payne, 16 fiarb. 279. Disting'd and applied in Gray v. SHIPLEY— SHOLL. ro7 Davis, 10 if Y. 292; Rappleyo v. Adee, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 126, 128. Doctrine re-aff d in Pitney ». Glen's Palls Ins. Co., Ci N. Y. 6, 26. . Approved in Cooke «. Millard, 5 Lans. 243, 249 ; which was aff'd in 65 if. F. 352, 374, which s§e. Applied to gift,— in Allen v. Cowan, 28 Barb. 102. Shown in 49 Am. Dec. 334, n., to be recog- nized as a leading case, both in N. Y. and elsewhere ; Woodford ». Patterson, 32 Bart. 630; Wylie v. Kelly, 41 Id. 594, being explained. Referred to in Owens v. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488; s. c, 15 Am. R. 295, 322, as a leading case. Quoted in Ben), on Sales, § 187, n. a (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Explained in 1 Ben), on Sales, § 139, n. 1 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed!) ; Id. § 187, n. 29 ; 2 Story on Oontr. 5 ed. § 1011, ra. 3. Decis- ion in 1 .Den. explained in 3 Pars, ora Gontr. 41, /i. n. Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, §§ 319, 320, 4 ed. Included in Lawson's Lead. Com. L. Cas. Simplified, 70. Shipley t. Mechanics' B'k, 10 Johns. 484. Explained (Remedy for refusal to transfer stock) in Cushman v. Thayer M'f'g Jewelry Co., 7 Daly, 330, 332. Followed with Koit- right v. Commercial B'k, 20 Wend. 91 ; 22 Id. 348 ; Ex parte Firemen's Ins. Co.', 6 Hill, 243, in' State v. People's Building & Loan Assoc, 14 Vroom (if J.) 390; s. c, . 13 Reporter, 277. Cited as authority with Ex parte Firemen's Ins. Co., 6 Hill, 243, in Kimball v. Union Water Co., 44 Gal. 173 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 157. Explained in Aug. 6 A. on Corp. § 381, 11 ed. Quoted in High on Extr. Rem. 2 ed. § 313, n. 3. Dis- ting'd (Power of equity to protect rights of stockholders) in Busey i>. Hooper, 35 Md. 15; s. c, 6 Am. R. 350. 355. Shopman's Petition, 1 All. if. C. 406. Re- viewed with other cases, and compared with § 25 of Assignment Act (Trustees' com- promises) 5 All. if O. 347, n. Shipman v. Burrows, 1 Hall, 399. Disting'd with Hallock v. Miller, 2 Barl. 030 ; Tobias v. Harland, 4 Wend. 537 ; Linden v. Gra- ham, 1 Duer, 670 (Proof of special damages in slander or libel) in Bergmann v. Jones, 94 if Y. 51. Approved and applied to case of injury to property, in Jutte ». Hughes, 40 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 126 ; which was rev'd in 67 if Y. 267. v. Clark, 4 Den. 446. Compared with other cases (Writ of replevin as protection to sheriff) in Bullis v. Montgomery, 50 if Y. 352, 355. ■ v. Shafer-, 14 All. Pr. 449. Disting'd (Arrest of factor) in Trunninger v. BuSch 7 Daly, 124, 126. Shippey v. Henderson. 14 Johns. 178; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 458. See Scouton v. Eislord. Explained and applied (Effect of new prom- ise as waiving discharge in bankruptcy) in Graham v. O'Hern, 24 Hun, 222. Shipply v. People, 12 Weekly Dig. 239; mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 655. Aff'd in 86 if Y. 375. See Smith v. People. Shipsey t. Bowery Nat. B'k, 36 Super. Ct, (J. & S.) 501. Rev'd in 59 if. Y. 485. Decision jn Id. applied (Duty of bank as to mode of presentation of paper for collection) in Indig v. National City B'k of Brooklyn, 80 Id 100,104. Disting'd (Title to check deposited with bank) in Metropolitan Nat. B'k v. Loyd, 25 Hun, 101, 103. Shims v. Morris, 8 Gow. 60. Disting'd (Lia- ■ bility on note, &c. signed for another) in Rices;. Gove, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 158; s. c, 33 Am. Dec-. 724, with note. Shirley v. Congress Sugar Refinery, 2 Edw. 505. Cited with approval (Creditor taking deed of trust, when protected against ven- dor's lien) in Dunlap v. Burnett, 5 Smedes cC M. (Miss.) 702; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 201), with note. Explained in 4 Kent Com. 154, n. a. \ v. Lambert, 3 Edw. 336. Aff'd as Shirley v. Shirley, in 9 Paige, 363. Decis- ion in Id. said to be obsolete (Ownership by wife of household furniture) in Fitch v. Rathbun, 61 if Y. 579, 581. Shoe & Leather B'k t. Thompson, 23 How. Pr. 253. AfFd in 18 AM. Pr. 413. Decis- ion iu Id. followed with Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Ecclesine, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 81 (Right of corporation to sue for libel) in Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assoc. v. Spectator Co., 50 Id. 460. Shoemaker v. Benedict, 11 if Y. 176. See Baker v. Stackpoole ; Johnson v. Beardslee ; Van Keuren v. Parmelee. Explained (Foundation of action, in case of acknowl- edgment removing bar of statute of limita- tions) in Philips v. Peters, 21 Barl. 358. Explained (Authority to make such ac- knowledgment) in Barger v. Durvin, 22 Id. 71. Applied in Pickett v. King, 34 Id. 195. 197; Pickett v. Leonard, 34 if Y. 176; Smith ®. Ryan, 66 Id. 350. Applied (Sufficiency of acknowledgment) in Comm. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brett, 44 Barl. A92. Lim- ited (Right of one joint debtor to make new promise, &c, that will bar statute of limit- ations) in Winchell v. Bowman, 21 Id. 448, 452 ; White's B'k of Buffalo v. Ward, 35 Id. 640. Followed in Payne v. Slate, 39 Id. 636; Winchell «. Hicks, 18 if Y. 559. Applied in dissenting opinion in Payne v. Gardiner, 29 Id. 178. Compare McClurg v. Howard, 45 Mo. 367. With Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 JST. Y. 523, said in 10 Am. Dec. 697, n., to be very instructive, and to examine the authorities with critical re- search. Discussed and quoted in 3 Pars, on Contr 80, n. v. Quoted in 2 Ghitty on Gontr. 1252, n. c\ 11 Am. ed. ; 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1431, n. 3; Id. § 1432, n. 1. v. McKee, 19 How. Pr. 86. Compare (Husband and wife as witnesses) Chamber- lain «. Dempsey, 36 if Y. 144 ; 2 I. 1867, c. 887. Sholl v. Sholl, 5 Barl. 312. Disting'd (Right of legatee whose legacy consists of his debt due to testator, to share in residu- ary fund) in Cole v. Covington, 86 if C. 295 ; s. c, 41 Am. It 458. 708 SHOOK— SHUMA3. Shook t. Daly, 49 How. Pr. 366. Followed with French v. Maguire, 55 Id. 471 ; Palmer v. De Witt, 2 Sweeny, 530 ; 47 N. Y. 532, in Tompkins v. Halleck, 133 Mass. 32; s. c, 13 Reporter, 783; 43 Am. R. 480, with note (Restraining by injunction representa- tion of piny, copy of which has been un- lawfully obtained). v. Shook, 19 Barb. 653. Followed (C6sts against petitioners in proceedings before surrogate) in Fosdick v. Delaficld, 2 Redf. 392, 405. Short v. Barry, 39 How. Pr. 315. AfFd in 40 Id. 211, but without opinion. Shorter v. People, 2 N. Y. 193; s c, 51 Am. Dec. 286, with note collecting citations of the case as an authority (Disregarding on error or appeal, immaterial errors committed on trial). Aff'g People v. Shorter, 4 Barb. 460. Decision in 2 N. Y. applied (Killing in self-defense) in People v. Lamb, 2 Abb. Pr. N~. S. 160; Patterson «. People, 46 Barl. 635; People v. Shay, 4 Park. 344, 351. Commented on in 1 Barb, on Crim. L. 3 ed. 41. Included with note in Horri- gan & T. Cos. on Self-Defe. 256. Shottenkirk v. Wheeler, 3 Johns. Ch. 275. See Stoors ». Kelsey. Followed (Interfer- ence by court of equity with judgment at law) in Emery ». Goodwin, 13 Me. 14; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 475. Shotwell v. Few. See Bristol v. Burt. v. Mali. See Cazeaux v. Mali. v. Mott, 2 Sandf. Ch. 46. See Yates v. Yates; Kniskern v. Lutheran Churches. Questioned (Application of statutes of uses and trusts to charitable uses) in Holmes v. Mead, 52 iV. Y. 332, 337. Collated with Bascom v. Albertson, 34 Id. 609; Mc- Loughlin «. McLoughlin, 30 Barb. 458; Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 525 ; Beck- man -o. Bonsor, 23 Id. 298; Owens v. Mis- sionary Society, 14 Id. 380, and many other cases (Trusts for charitable uses) in 8 Stew. (2f. J.) 28, n. v. Murray, 1 Johns. Ch. 512. Dis- ting'd with L3 7 on ■». Richmond, 2 Id. 51 ; Storrs v. Barker, 6 Id. 169 (Relief against mistake of law) in Culbreath v. Onlbrcath, 7 Ga. 64; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 375, 383. Disting'd with Lyon t. Richmond, in Law- rence v. Beaubien, 2 Bailey (So. Car.) 623 ; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 155, 161, with note. Re- viewed with Lyon v. Richmond; Storrs v. Barker, and other cases in Underwood v. Brockman, 4 Dana (Ky.) 309; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 407, 412. Collated with Lyon v. Richmond ; Lyon v. Tallmadge, 14 Johns, 501 ; Champlin v. . Laytin, 18 Wend. 407 ; -6 Paige, 189; Storrs v. Barker; Clarke v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674 ; Mowatt v. Wright, 1 Wend. 355 ; McCartee v. Teller, 8 Id. 207 ; Crosier ». Acers, 7 Paige, 137 ; Arthur v. Arthur, 10 Barb. 9 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 9 Id. 532 ; Tilton ®. Nelson, 27 Id. 595, and other cases in 15 Am. R. 171, n. See doctrine discussed in 3 Alb. L. J. 449. Collated with Clarke v. Dutcher; Stoirs v. Barker; Lyon v. Richmond, and other cases in 28 Alb. L. J. 7. See also N. Y. cases amsid- ered in Id. 26. Shouton v. Kilmer, 8 How. Pr. 527. Relied on with Lathrop v. Singer, 39 Bcr>-b. 396 • (Debts against which homestead exemption may be claimed) in Whiteacrc v. Rector, 29 Oratt. (Va.) 714; s. c, 26 Am. R. 420, 423. Shriver v. Shriver, 24 Hun, 658. Abridgt. s. c, as Schriver v. Schriver, 12 Weekly Dig. 328. AfE'd in 86 N. Y. 575. Shnart T. Taylor, 7 How. Pr. 251. Disting'd (Reference on reversal of judgment) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 486, 489. Disting'd with Rich v. Milk, 20 Barb. 616; Conkey «. Hart, 14 N. Y. 22 (Effect of provision in chattel mortgage for possession by mortgagee) in Hall i>. Samson, 19 Howl Pr. 481, 487. Shnfelt v. Shufelt, 9 Paige. 137; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. C81, with note wherein it is said to state a principle which, though a mere dictum in that case, has nevertheless be- come settled largely on its authority (Gran- tee of land subject to mortgage cannot set up usury in the mortgage). Applied to debt included in assignment, — in Green v. Morse, 4 Barb. 344. Applied to note in Bullard v. Raynor, 30 N. Y. 200. Followed ' with Morris «. Floyd, 5 Barb. 1 30, in . Cramer v. Lepper, 26 Ohio St. 59 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 756, with note collating cases. Shufllin v. People, 4 Hhh, 16; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215. Aft'd in 62 N. Y. 229: s. c, 20 Am. R. 483. Shuler v. Douglas. See Zinmerman v. Erhard. Shulman t. People, 14 Hun, 516. Affd, it seems, in People v. Shulman, 76 N. Y. 624, but without opinion. Shulters v. Johnson, 38 Barb. 80. See Lup- ton v. Lupton. Approved (Charging lega- cies on real estate) in Roman Cath. Germ. Church of Albany v. Wachter, 42 Barb. 43, 45. Followed in Ragan v. Allen, 7 Hun, 537, 539 ; Stoddard v. Johnson, 13 Id. 610 ; Weld v. Strong, 54 How. Pr. 137. Followed with Tracy i>. Tracy, 15 Barb. 503, 505, in Knotts v. Bailey, 54 Miss. 235 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 349, 351. Shults t. Andrews, 54 How. Pr. 376. Other proceedings in Id. 378, 380. Shultz v. Crane, 6 Hun, 236. AfTd, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 659, but without opin- ion. T. Hoagland, 9 Weekly Dig. 319. Rev'd in 12 Id. 463 ; s. c, 83 JV. Y. 404. Decis- ion in Id. quoted (Burden of proof as to fraud) in Wait on Fraud. Gono. § 5, n. 1. Quoted (Fraud in assignment far creditors) in Id. § 320. Quoted and explained in Burrill on Assign. § 341, 4 ed. Shuman v. Strauss, 34 Super. Ct. (J .& S.) 6. Affd, in effect, in 52 K Y. 404. De- cision in Id. disting'd (Discretion as to granting leave to issue execution) in Kincaid «. Richardson, 9 Abb. K C. 315, 320. Dis- SHUMWAT— SILL. 709 ting'd (Effect of discharge in bankruptcy on debt created by fraud) in Freiberg v. Pop- per, 12 Hun, 658, 060. Shumway, Ex parte, 4 Den. 258. Ques- tioned (Description of deponent in affidavit) in People 1>. Ransom, 2 2V~. T. 497. Shumway v. Cooper, 16 Barb. 556. Approved (Husband's right to receive wife's property on her death) in Ransom v. Nichols, 22 N. Y. 110, 113 ; Lansing v. Gulick, 26 How. Pr. 250. Reviewed with Schemerhorn v. Miller, 2 Cow. 439, and other cases in Ty- ler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 285. Disting'd (Who may call administrator, &c. to account) in Matter of Ritch, 2 Bed/. 330. Followed (Extent of authority of surrogate over, ad- ministrators, &c.) in Savage v. Olmstead, Id. 478, 483. v. Fowler. See Duryee «. Dennison. v. Harmon, 4 Hun, 411 ; s. c, reported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 626. T. Shumway, 1 Lans. 474. Aff'd in 42 N. Y. 143. Decision in Id. quoted (New trials in ejectment) in Sedgw. S W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §§ 582. 589. v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 29% ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 374, with note, wherein it is said to have been approved in many subsequent cases. Subsequent decision m 6 Wend. 447. See Borden v. Fitch ; Harrod v. Barretto ; Hitchcock v. Aiken ; Starbuck v. Murray. Decision in 6 Wend, followed (Conclusive- ness of foreign judgment) in Howard v. Smith, 42 How. Pr. 312. Referred to in Kinnier v. Kinnier, 45 N~. Y. 451, as hav- ing been steadily adhered to. Referred to in 44 Am. Dec. 343, n., as "laying down the now generally accepted doctrine." Re- viewed with Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272 ;' Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 Id. 30, and other cases in 2 Am. Dec. 42, n. Decision in 4 Cow. applied in Harrod v. Barretto, 1 Hall, 162. Cited as authority with Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. 145, in Eaton e. Hasty, 6 Neb. 419; s. c, 29 Am. B. 365. Shute v. Dorr, 5 Wend. 204. See Burling- ame ». Burlingame. Disting'd (Verbal agreement, when void, as not to be per- formed within a year) in McKinney v. Mc- Kinney, 8 Daly, 368, 370. Disting'd (Recovery where contract is void under statute of frauds) in Van Valkenburg v. Croffut, 15 Hun, 147, 150. Reviewed with other cases in Towsley v. Moore, 30 Ohio St. 185; s. c, 27 Am. B. 434,- 437. Ap- plied with King i>. Brown, 2 Hill, 485, in "William Buteher Steel Works v. Atkinson, 68 III. 421; s. c, 18 Am. B. 560. Ex- plained in 2 Chitty on Contr. 852, n. h, 11 Am. ed. Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 K Y. 378; s. c, 38 Am. B. 441. See Wylie «. Marine Nat. B'k. Reviewed and relied on with McClave v. Paine, 49 N. Y. 561 (Broker's commission; when earned) in Stewart «. Murray, 92 Lid. 543; s. c. 47 Am. B. 167. Sibell t. Reinsen, 30 Barb. 441. Judgment of dismissal aff'd on merits in 33 N. Y. 95. Sibley v. Howard, 3 Den. 72 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 448, with note, wherein are collected citations (Justice's judgments). v. Waffle, 16 N. Y. 180. Explained (Jurisdiction; as determined by recitals) in Potter v. Merchants' Bank, 28 Id. 642, 654. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2473, n. Colla- ted with other cases (Proceedings for sale of real estate of decedents, whether proceed- ings ire rem) in Mickel v. Hicks, 19 Hans. 578; s. c, 27 Am. B. 161, 165. Sicard v. Whale. See Smith v. Spinolla. Sice v. Cunningham, 1 Cow. 397. See Trim- ble i). Thorne. Explained and followed (Time within which to present for payment note payable on demand) in Salmon v. Gros- venor, 66 Barb. 161, 164. 166. Followed with Losee v. Dunkin, 7 Johns. 70, in Perry v. Green, 4 Harr. (JST. J.) 61 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 536, 538 ; Vreeland v. Hyde, 2 Hall, 42J), being doubted and also disting'd as within the rule in Mechanics' Bank of N. Y. «. Griswold, 7 Wend. 165. Sickels v. Pattison, 14 Wend. 257; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 527. See McMillan v. Vander- lip. Sickles v. Gillies, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 14. Further decision in 45 How. Pr. 95. v. Mather, 20 Wend. 72 ; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 521, with note containing citations (Books of account as evidence). See Mer- rill v. Ithaca & Oswego R. R. Co. v. Richardson, 14 Hun, 110. Explained and applied (Basis of extra allowance) in Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 61 How. Pr. 305, 308. v. Sullivan, 5 Hun, 569. Compare (Affidavit for attachment to be granted by justice) Code Civ. Pro. § 2906. Sieger v. Cnlyer, 2 Abb. K C. 347. Aff'd, it seems, in 67 K Y. 601, on opinion be- low. Sieman v. Austin. See Siemon v. Schurck. Sienion v. Schurck, 29 H. Y. 598. Aff'g Sieman v. Austin, 33 Barb. 9. See Gilbert v. Gilbert. Decision iu 29 J¥. Y. applied (Resulting trusts, as affected by 1 R. S. 728, § 51) in Fairchild s. Fairchild, 5 Hun, 412; which was affd in 64 K Y. 476, which see; Rietz v. Rietz, 80 Id. 538, 542. Approved in Foote v. Bryant, 47 Id. 551. Dictum as to resulting trust disapproved in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 337. Decision in 33 Barb, fol- lowed (Effect of conveyance from trustee to cestui que trust, as against creditors) in Norton i>. Mallory, 1 Hun, 502. Sigel v. Johns. See Kolls v. De Leyer. Sigourney v. Waddle. 9 Paige, 381. Recog- nized as authority (Attorney's liability for costs of non-resident) in Wilmot v. Meser- ole, 16 Abb. Pr. tf. S. 308. Sikes v. Ransom, 6 Johns. 279. Quoted and explained (Mandamus to inferior courts) in High on Extr. Bern. 2 ed. § 199. n. 1. Sill v. Rood, 15 Johns. 230. Disting'd with 710 SILL— SIMERS. "Winter v. Livingston, 13 Id. 54, and Fris- bie v. Hoffnagle, 11 Id. 50, disapproved as an insulated case (Defense to action on note given for purchase price) in Lloyd v. Jewell, 1 Oreenl. {Me.) 352; s. c, 10 Am. Dee. 73. v. Village of Coming, 15 N. Y. 297. Approved and followed (Power of legisla- ture to establish local tribunals) in Brandon v. Avery, 22 Id. 469, 471 ; Heidenheimor v. Wilson, 31 Barb. 636, 640. Followed in Ooe tf Schultz, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 198; Cooper v. Schultz, 32 How. Pr. 129. Dis- ting'd in dissenting opinion in Metropolitan B'd of Health *. Heister, 37 N. Y. 680. Disting'd with People ex rel. Wood v. Draper, 15 Id. 532 ; People ex rel. McMullen v. Shepard, 36 Id. 285, in People ex rel. Townsend v. Porter, 90 Id. 68. Applied (Jurisdiction of police justice) in People v. Morgan, 5 Daly, 161, 180. Silleck v. Mason, 2 Barb. Oh. 79. Reported below as Rider v. Mason, 4 Sandf. G/i. 351. Sillinian v. Lewis. See Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin ; Owen v. Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Tuttle, 45 Barb. 171. Discussed (Derivative evidence) in 2 Best on Ev. § 495, n. a, Wood's ed. Silmser v. Kedfleld, 19 Wend. 21. Ex- plained (Reference in case involving ac- count) in Batchelor v. Albanv Ciry Ins. Co., 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 240, 242". Followed in Camp v. Ingersoll, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 340, 348. Silsbury v. McCoon, 4 Den. 332. Rev'd in 3 N. Y. 379. Former proceeding in 6 Hill, 425. See Betts v. Lee ; Curtis v. Groat ; Hyde v. Cookson. Decision in 3 M Y. disting'd ( Waiver of right of ownership, as against wrongdoer) iu Benedict «. Nat. B'k of Commonwealth, 4 Daly, 177. Followed (Distinction between willful and involun- tary .wrongdoer, as to title acquired by ac- cession) in Hyde v. Cookson, 21 Barb. 104. All the decisions examined with Hyde v. Cookson, 21 Barb. 92 (Damages in action for recovery of personal property that has. increased in value) in Railway Co. v. Hutchins, 32 Ohio St. 571; s. c, 30 Am. It. 629. Decision in 3 A 7 ". Y. reviewed with other cases in Poote v. Merrill, 54 A 1 ". H. 490; s. c, 20 Am. R. 151, 153. Ap- provingly commented on at length in 24 Am. Dec. 85, n. Collated with Joslin v. Cowee, 60 Barb. 48 ; Rockwell v. Saunders, 19 Id. 483; Hyde v. Cookson, 21 Id. 92, and other cases in 26 Am-. R. 525, n. Quoted and discussed in 3 Pars, on Contr. 200, n. p. Reviewed with other cases in 4 Am. Dec. 370, n. Silva v. Low, 1 Johns. Gas. 184; s. c, 1 N~. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 291, with brief note (Implied warranty of seaworthiness). Silver v. Bowne, 55 N. Y. 659. Disting'd (Acceptance under statute of frauds) in U. S. Reflector Co. v. Rushton, 7 Daly, 410. Silver Creek Bank v. Talcott, 22 Barb. 550. Subsequent decision as Oliver Lee & Oo.'s Bank v. Talcott, 19 K Y. 146. Silver Lake B'k v. Nortli, 4 Johns. Ch. 370. Explained (Enforcing contracts ultra vires) in Town of Verona v. Peckham, 66 Barb. 113. Relied on in Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 71. Collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 187. Disting'd (Right of corporation to take mortgage) in Crocker v. Whitney, 71 A 7 . Y. 170. Fol- lowed in Lathrop v. Commercial B'k, 8 Dana (Ky.) 114; s. c, 33 Am. Dee. 481, 491, with note. Applied in Gordon v. Pres- ton, 1 Watts (Pa.) 385 ; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 75, with note. Approved in Wroten's Assignee v. Armal, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 228, 252; s. c, 2 Broome's Nat. Bh Gas. 426. Cited with approval (Right of corporation to hold real estate) in Bank of Michigan v. Niles, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 401 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 575, 578. Relied on in Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214; s. c, 12 Am. R. 243, 255. Quoted and discussed in Aug. & A. on Corp. §§ 157, 265, 11 ed. Fol- lowed (Corporate purchase granted in an- other State is not to be revoked or annulled here) in Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 222. Applied (Questioning authority of foreign corporation to make loan) in Steam Nav. Co. v. Weed, 17 Barb. 381; Pratt v. Short, 53 How. Pr. 509. Applied (Right of mortgagee to subrogation to rights of judgment creditor) in Hogg v. Longstreth, W-Penn. St. 255, 259. Silverman v. Henant, 40 How. Pr. 88. To same effect (Supplementary proceedings on marshal's return) Muldowney v. Coruey, 3 Daly, 170. See L. 1864, c. 569, § 2. Silvernail v. Cole. See Bank of Lansing- burgh v. Crary. Simar r. Caiiaday, 53 If. Y. 298. See Case ■i). .Boughton; Ellis v. Andrews; Westcott v. Keeler. Followed (Inchoate right of dower, as present interest) in Youngs v. Carter, 50 How. Pr. 412; which was aft'd in 10 Hun, 198, which see; Babcock v. Bab- cock, 53 How. Pr. 102. Explained and ap- plied in Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun, 224. Fol- lowed with Witthaus v. Schack, 24 Id. 328 ; Garlick v. Strong, 3 Pai/e, 440; Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun, 222, in Steele v. Ward, 30 Id. 555. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real-Prop. 333. Ap- plied ( Dower right, as affected by foreclos- ure) in Ross ■». Boardman, 22 Hun, 527, 529. Followed (False statements of value when attainable) in Bacon v. Frisbie, 15 Id. 26, 28 ; which was rev'd in 80 'H. Y. 394. Disting'd and head-note corrected in Ellis v. Andrews, 56 Id. 83, n. Discussed with Ellis «. Andrews, in 11 Am. R. 218, n. Approved (Remedy for misjoinder of plaint- iffs) in Foster v. Foster, 5 Hun, 557; Fuller v. Fuller, Id. 596. Applied in Rumsey v. Lake, 55 How. Pr. 340. Criti- cised in Pomeroy on Rem- § 214, n. 3, and disapproved (Joint actions by husband and wife) in Id. § 241, n. 1. Simers v.' Saltus, 3 Den. 214. Applied (Right of one deriving title under mortgage SIMMONS— SIMPSON. 711 to set up contract made by mortgagor) in Thompson v. Somerville, 16 Barb. 473. Explained (Title, when acquired under foreclosure sale so as to create eviction) in Peck v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 18 Hun, - 186. Simmons v. Cloonan, 2 Lans. 346. Eev'd in 47 N. Y. 3. Further decision on the merits in 7 Hun, 470. aff'd in 81 K Y. 557. See Lampman v. Milks; Parsons v. Johnson; Decision in 47 N. Y. explained ^Appurtenances that pass with real prop- erty) in Moak's Dhderhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 432. v. Fairchild, 42 Barb, 404. See also (Necessity that each of several causes of ac- tion contain complete statement in itself) Anderson i>. Speers, 8 Abb. N. 0. 382, 385. v. Law, 8 Bom. 213. Aff'd in 3 Keyes,, • 217 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 241. See Frith v. Barker. Decision in 3 Keyes dis- ting'd (Effect of provision in bill of lading, &c. as to loss by theftl in Spinetti v. Atlas Steamship Co., 80 N. Y. 71, 80. See other cases collected (Usage to vary contract) in 1 Abb. K O. 472, n. v. Lee, 66 Barb. 557. Aff'd, it seems, in 56 N. Y. 676, but without opinion. v. Lyons, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 554. Aff'd in 55 N. Y. 671, on opinion of Mon- ell, J. Decision in 35 Super. Ct. (J. & 'S.) approved (Review of order to amend plead- ing) in Schreyer v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 39 Id. 277, 281. See (Alleging title in replevin action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1720, n. v. McElwain. See White v. Wager. v. Sherman, 30 How. Pr. 4. Approved with Carter v. Werner, 27 Id. 385, but con- trary rule reluctantly followed (Practice on appeal from county court) in Bliss v. Schaub, 48 Barb. 339, 342, in deference to authority of Monroe' v. Monroe, 27 Mow. Pr. 208 ; Whitney v. Wells, 28 Id. 150 ; Boughton v. Mitchell, 29 Id. 68 ; and Dixon v. Bush, 42 Barb. 72. • v. Simmons, 26 Barb. 68. See Nelson ■v. McGiffert. Collated with cases from other jurisdictions and applied (Effect of second will as revocation of first) in Pick- ens 1>. Davis, Sup'm. Ct. Mass. 1883, 16 Re- porter, 653. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Band. & T. ed. 366. n. 3. r v. Sisson, 26 K Y. 264. Criticised as dictum (Evidence of conversation of de- ceased with third person) in Lobdell v. Lob- dell, 32 How. Pr. 1, 14; which was, how- ever, rev'd in 36 N. Y. 327. Followed in Marsh v. Gilbert, 2 Redf. 465, 476. Dis- ting'd in Brague v. Lord, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 193, l'J6; which was rev'd in 67 W. Y. 495 ; Ross v. Harden, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 427, 435. Approved, but criticised in part (Defective answers) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 601. v. Y.uidcrbilt, 22 Hun, 479 ; s. c, fully reported, 59 How. Pr. 411. Simon v. Kaliske, Abb. Pr. N. S. 224. Collated with other cases (Waiver of tender) in McAdan on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 154. Siinonds v. Catlin, 2 Cai. 61. See Brasher v. Cortlandt ; Jackson v. Robins. Followed (Mode of executing power of attorney) in Stinchfield v. Little, 1 Greenl. {Me.) 231; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 65. Examined (Suffi- ciency of return by under sheriff) in Calen- dar v. Olcott, 1 Mich. 346. Commented on (Conveyances by operation of law) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 77, 4 ed. Simons v. De Barre, 6 Abb. Pr. 188. Aff'd in 8 Id. 269. v. Monier, 29 Barb. 419. Followed (Liability of employer for negligence of per- son called in by servant to assist temporar- ily) in Pennsylvania Co. «. Gallagher, 40 Ohio St. 637 ; s. c, 48 Am. R. 689. Si iiKii so n v. Spencer, 15 Wend. 548. Dicta overruled (Recovery against stockholder, by another stockholder, creditor of the company) in Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Hill, 188. Simpkins v. Low, 49 Barb. 382. Aff'd in 54 JSf. Y. 179. Simpson v. Brewster, 9 Paige, 245. Fol- lowed (Stay of proceedings for non-payment of costs of former action) in Bolton v. Corse, 47 Super. Ct. 493. v. Buck, 5 lans. 337. See Gray v. Dur- land. Reviewed with Williams v. Hutchin- son, 5 Barb. 122 ; Furman v. Van Sise, 56 H. Y. 435, and other cases (Right of mother to custody and services of infant child after father's death) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 181, as showing prevailing American doctrine. t. Burch, 4 Hun, 315. Applied (Sub- stituted service when ordered) in McCarthv v. McCarthy, 16 Id. 546, 548. Disting'd (Effect of omission to serve summons within specified time after granting attach- ment) in Blossom v. Estes, 84 iV". Y. 614, 618. v. Gerard. See Bush ». Cole. v. Griffin, 9 Johns. 131. Included (In- dorsees remedy against maker) in 2 Ames Cos. on B. &N. 84. t. Hornbeck, 3 Lans. 53. Followed (Liability to person imprisoned under erro- neous proceedings) in Fischer v. Langbein, 10 Abb. K O. 128, 141. Applied to taking of goods, in Day v. Beach, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 460, 465. Quoted and commented on in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 444. v. McKay, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 65. Further decision in 3 Hun, 316; mem. s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 706. v. Moore, 30 Barb. 637. See Clarkson v. Clarkson._ Disting'd (Right to increased value of capital fund, as between life-ten- ant and remainderman) in Matter of Pol- lock, 3 Redf. 100, 113. Explained in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 545, n. 1, p. 84 ; Id. 88, n. e ' v. Patten, 4 Johns. 422. Explained with Jackson v. Rayner, 12 Id. 291 (Effect of parol agreement to pay debt of another) in Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Den. 45, 56. v. Kliiuelanders, 20 Wend. 103. Sec 712 SIMS— SIXTH AVENUE R'Y CO. to .the contrary (Reviewing evidence on certiorari) Niblo v. Post, 25 Id. 280. See Anderson v. Prindle, 23 Id. 616 ; Benjamin v. Benjamin, 5 N. Y. 383 ; Morewood v. Hollister, 6 Id. 309. Sims v. Brown, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 5. Afi'd, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 660, but with- out opinion. Decision in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) applied with Hearsey v. Prime, 7 John. 181 (Effect of claim made by third party to money in hands of agent) and Hoover v. Greenbaum, 61 N. 'Y. 305 dis- ting'd, in Peysem. Wilcox, QiHow. Fr. 525. v. Sims, 12 Hun, 231. Rev'd in 75 JV. Y. 466. Decision in Id. applied (Statutory disqualification of witness without effect out of State) to statutory prohibition against marriage, -in Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 Id. 18, 36. Criticised in Am. L. Rev. N. S. 166, 179. Si m so u v. Brown, 6 Hun, 251. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 355. See Garnsey v. Rogers. De- cision in 68 JV. Y. disting'd (Right of one not party to contract, to benefits thereof) in Bean v. Edge, 84 Id. 510, 514. Approved and statement of Folger, J., adopted, in Austin v. Seligman, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. Y. 18 Fed. Rep. 522. Followed (Release of contract created by assumption of mortgage) in Gilbert v. Sanderson, 56 Iowa, 349, 352. v. Hart, 1 Johns. Ch. 91. Rev'd as Simson v. Hart, in 14 Johns. 61. See Dale •». Cooke ; Le Guen v. Gouverneur. De- cision in 1 Johns. Ch. followed, notwith- standing reversal (Equitable release against judgment at law) in Anderson i>. Roberts, 18 Johns. 534 ; Holmes v. Remsen, 7 Johns. Ch. 289. Quoted in 1 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 237, n. 3. Decision in 14 Johns. applied (Set-off in case of insolvency) in Perry v. Chester, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 137; Lindsay ». Jackson, 2 Paige, 584. Doubted in Howe v. Sheppard, 2 Sum. 415, et seq. See Green v. Darling, 5 Mason. 201. Followed (Effect of decision on motion, as res adjud- ' icata) in Arden v. Patterson, 5 Johns. Ch, 52 ; Belmont v. Erie R'y Co., 52 Barb. 645. Explained in Dwight v. St. John, 25 J¥. Y. 206. Cited with approval (Power of courts of law to set off judgments against each other) in Scott ». Rivers, 1 Stew. <&P. (Ala.) 24 ; s. C, 21 Am. Dee. 646, with note. v. Hart. See Simpson v. Hart. v. Satterlee, 6 Eun, 305. Affd in 64 K. Y. 657. Sinclair v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 543. Applied (Recitals in written instrument, as evidence) in Demeyer v. Legg, 18 Barb. 20 ; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 if. Y. 40. Disting'd in Selden «. Vermilya, 3 Id. 536. Applied (Execution of power delegated to several) in Hertell v. Van Buren, 3 Edw. 26. Ex- plained as decided before R. S., — in Leggett v. Hunter, 19 N. Y. 456. v.'Tallmadge, 35 Barb. 602. See Brown ■ v. Weber; Champlin v. Rowley. Applied (Effect of clause in building contract, pro- viding for arbitration) in Hurst v. Litchfield, 39 N~. Y. 380. Cited with approval (Effect of substantial performance of contract) in Glacius v. Black, 50 Id. 145, 148. Siney t. N. Y. Consolidated Stage Co., 28 How. Pr. 481 ; s. c, more fully, 18 Abb. Pr. 435. Singer v. People, 13 Hun, 418. Affd, it seems, in 75 JT. Y. 608, but without opin- ion. v. Singer, 17 Abb. Fr. 66, n.; s. c, more fully, 41 Barb. 139. Cited as author- ity (Setting aside decree of divorce for fraud) in Rush v. Rush, 46 Iowa, 648; s. c, . 26 Am. R. 179. Sipperly v. Baucus, 24 N. Y. 46. Followed (Surrogate's power to open decree) in Camp- bell ». Thatcher, 54 Barb. 384, 387 ; Bailey v. Stewart, 2 Red/. 224. Disting'd in Strong v. Strong, 3 Id. 479, 485. Sisson v. Barrett, 6 Barb. 199. Affd in 2 N. Y. 406. With these decisions and Hub- bard d. Gurney, 64 N. Y. 457 ; Barry v. Ransom, 12 Id. 462 see (Oral evidence 'to show relation of parties) Fraley e.Starr, 17 West. Jur. 193; s. c, 16 Weekly Dig. 338; Cummings v. Kent, Hamilton Co. O. Distr. Ct. 12 Am. L. Ree. 163. v. Conger, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 564. See Jackson v. Kniffen ; Livingston «. Keir r sted. See cases cited to the contrary (Tes- tator's declarations) in Abb. Tr. Fk. 124,n. 9. v. Hibbard, 10 Hun, 420. Aff'd in 75 H. Y. 542. v. Willard, 25 Wend. 373. Relied on (What may be proved under general issue in assumpsit) in Falconer t. Smith, 18 Pa. St. 130 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 611 ; Gaw v. Wolcott, 10 Pa. St. 43. Sistare v. Cusliing. See Smith e. Mulock. Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 7 Hun, 290. Rev'd in 67 N. Y. 409. Motion to correct remittitur denied in 08 Id. 628. See First Nat. B'k of Meadville v. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y. Decision in 67 H. Y. followed (Ne- cessity that testator's signature be at end of will) in Matter of O'Neil, 91 Id. 516. Ap- proved and applied in Hewitt v. Hewitt, 5 Red/. 271, 275. Disting'd with McGuire v. Kerr, 2 Bradf. 257; Heady's Will Case, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 211; Conboy v. Jennings, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 622, in Brady «. Mc- Crosson, 5 Red/. 432. Decision in 68 XT. Y. applied (Costs on appeal to Court of Appeals) in People ex rel. Morris v. Randall, 8 Daly, 81. Sixth Avenue R'y Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. R., 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 480. Rev'd in 43 Id. 292; s. c, 3 Abb. K C. 372. Other proceedings in Id. 53; 71 H. Y. 430. See Milhau v. Sharp; People ex rel. Morris v. Randall. Decision in 71 N. Y. followed but criticised (Effect of appeal to stay proceedings to enforce judgment ap- pealed from) in Troy & Boston R. R. Co. v. Boston, Hoosic Tunnel, &c. R'y Co., 57 How. Pr. 185. Disting'd in Gardner v. Gardner, 62 Id. 265, 267 ; which rev'd 24 Hun, 627, 629, which see. With decis- SIXTH AVENUE E'Y CO.— SLATTEEY. 713 ion in 8 Abb. If. 0. 372, compare (Compen- sation to owners adjacent to railroad) Wash- ington Cemetery v. Prospect Park, &c. E. R. Co., 4 Id. 16. v. Kerr, 45 Barb. 138. Aff d in 28 How. Pr. 382. Decision in Id. followed (Injunc- tion against injury to real property) in Swett v. City of Troy, 17 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 100, 105. Sixty-fifth Street, Matter of. See Bowery Extension Case. Sizer v. Miller, 1 Hill, 227. Said in Pope v. Hart, 35 Barb. 635, to be overruled (Evi- dence, as to intent to cheat or defraud) by Seymour v. Wilson, 14 N. Y. 567. Skellinger v. Yendes, 12 Wend. 306. Ap- plied (Effectof defects in statutory bond) in People ex rel. Comm'rs of Charities, &c. of N. Y. v. Lyons, 7 Daly, 182, 187. Skelton v. Brewster, 8 Johns. 376. Dis- cussed (Guaranties) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 169, 4 ed. v. Scott, 18 Hun, 375. Explained (Alle- gations as to appointment, in action to fore- close mortgage given by executor) in Kings- land v. Stokes, 25 Id. 107, 109. Skidmore v. Collier, 8 Hun, 50. Cited (Liti- bility of surviving partner who carries on partnership business) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 343. v. Davies, 10 Paige, 316. Followed (Power of surrogate to vacate decree) in Bailey ». Stewart, 2 Redf. 212, 225. Colla- ted with other cases in Willard on Execu- tors, 50. v. Lamrhland, 1 Month. L. Bui. 71. Compare (Sheriff's fees for keeper) Code Civ. Pro. § 3307, subd. 7. v. Komaine, 2 Bradf. 122. Collated with other cases (Liability of insane persons on contracts) in 55 Am. Dee. 431, n. See (Judgment against executor for decedent's debt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. Skilding v. Warreu, 15 Johns. 270. See Herrick «. Carman. Disting'd (Liability of accommodation party to note) in De Zeng v. Fyfe, 1 Bosw. 337; Bank of Rutland®. Buck, 5 Wend. 69. Applied (Maker of note, as witness in action by indorsee against indorser) to prior endorser in Powell v. Waters, 17 Johns. 181; also to indorser, in action against maker, in McFad- den v. Maxwell, Id. 191; Tuthill v. Davis, 20 Id. 287. Opposed with Hubbly v. Brown, 16 Johns. 70, in Pierce v. Butler, 14 Mass. 303. Skinner v. Dayton, 2 Johns. Ch. 526. Rev'd in Skinner v. White, 17 Johns. 357. Subsequent decision in 19 Id. 513; s. c, 10 Am. Lee. 286, rev'g 5 Johns. Ch. 351. See Buckley v. Buckley ; Ketcham v. Clark ; Ludlow v. Simond ; Smith v. Mulock; Yates v. Lansing. Explained and applied (Parol authority to partner to execute deed) in Gram v. Seton, 1 Hall, 262, 284. Decision in 19 Johns, disapproved in Hart v.' With- ers, 1 Penr, & W. (Pa.) 285; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 382, with note. Reporter's head- note criticised in 1 Pars, on Contr. 110, n. b. Explained (Dissolution of partnership before expiration of contract) in Id. 195, n. I. — T. Powers, 1 Wend. 451 ; s. c, 9 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 977, with brief note. Approved (Evidence sufficient to justify slander) in Burford v. Wible, 32 Penn. 95. See Code Ch. Pro. § 535. v. Quill, 43 If. Y. 99. Rev'g Quin v. Skinner, 49 Barb. 128; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 229. Decision in 43 If. Y. followed (Effect of devise of realty subject to power of sale) in Hetzell v. Barber, 6 Hun, 534, 540. y. Stuart 39 Barb. 206; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 489; more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 391; partly rev'g 13 Id. 442. Decision in 39 Barb, explained (Equitable relief in aid of attachment) in Greenleaf v. Mumford, 30 How. Pr. 31. Approved in Mechanics', . Studwell, 6 Daly, 13, 17; Bank of Niagara v. Johnson, 8 Wend. 654 ; Kincaid v. Dwindle, 59 K Y. 548, 553; Barclay v. Talman, 4 Edw. 128; Brinckerhoff v. Brown, 7 Johns. Ch. 225; Bradt v. Benedict, 17 A 7 ! Y. 96. Followed in Briggs v. Penniman, 8 Cow. 391 ; Losce v. Billiard, 79 N. Y. 408; Bruce v. Piatt, 80 Id. 387. Explained with Briggs v. Penni- man, 8 Cow. 387, in Regents v. Williams, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 865; s.' c, 31 Am. Dec. 72, 107. Reviewed and explained with Penniman v. Briggs, Hoph. 343 ; 8 Cow. 3S7; Brinckerhoft v. Brown, 7 Johns. Ch. 217; Bradt v. Benedict, 17 N. Y. 93, in Dewey v. St. Albans Trust Co., 56 Vt. 476; s. c, 48 Am. R. 803. Disting'd in Societv for E. U. M. ». M. C. & B. Co., 1 Saxt. Ch. (2v". J.) 157; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 41, 45, with note. Discussed in Morawetz on Corp. § 638. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 811, as not to be applied beyond precise facts on which it rested. See cases cited in 9 Am. Dec. 92, n. Applied (Liability of stockholder in action for contribution) in Aspinwall «. Torrance, 1 Dans. 383. Applied (Jurisdic- tion of equity in winding up insolvent cor- porations) in Sands v. Kimbark, 39 Barb. 120. Applied (Liability of stockholders, when several) in Matter of Hollister Bank, 27 JSf. Y. 897. Decisions in 5 Johns. Ch. ; 19 Johns.; 20 Id. reviewed at length with other cases (Nature of stockholder's liabil- ity) in Lowry «. Inman, 2 Sweeny, 181. Decision in 20 Johns, applied in Wilherhead v. Allen, 28 Barb. 667. Discussed in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 615, 11 ed. Explained (Validity of corporate by-laws) in Id. § 342, 11 ed. t. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige, 48. Ex- plained (Effect of assignment of mortgage) in Campbell v. Parker, 9 Bosw. 328 ; Gray- don •». Church, 7 Mich. 36, 60. Criticised in Hoyt v. Martense, 8 How. Pr. 197; which was rev'd in 16 N~. Y. 233, which see. Disting'd and limited in Bloomer v. Sturges, 58 Id. 168, 176. Explained in Thomas on Mort. 433. Applied (Effect of foreclosure of prior mortgage without making junior incumbrancer'party) in Walsh v. Rutger's Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 37. Explained in Winslow v. MeCall, 32 Barb. 246. Ex- plained and applied with Hoyt v. Martense, 16 N. Y. 231 ; Dalton «. Smith, 86 Id. 176, in First Nat. B'k of Jeffersonville, Ind. v. Ohio Falls Car & Locomotive Works, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Ind. 20 Fed. Rep. 65, 69. Disting'd (Distinction between mortgage and conditional sale) in Morrison v. Brand, 5 Daly, 40, 42. Explained (Items- that mortgagee may charge against estate) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 230. Sleeper v. Van Slid dies worth, 4 Den. 431. Applied (Evidence of bad character) in Ste- vens v. Rodger, 25 Hun, 55. Sleght t. Kane, 1 Johns. Cas. 76. Relied on (When war operates to suspend operation of statute of limitations) in Coleman v. Holmes, 41 Ala. 124; s. c, 4 Am. R. 121. v. IMiiiiclander, 1 Johns. 192. Rev'd in Sleight v. Hartshorne, 2 Id. 531. Sleight v. City of Kingston, 11 Hun, 594. SLEIGHT— SMAET. 715 Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 73 If. Y. 592, but without opinion. v. Bead, 9 How. Pr. 278. Affd in 18 Barb. 159. See Schermerhorn t\ Miller. Slingerland v. Bennett, 4 Hun, 277. Re- ported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 446. Kev'd in C6 N. Y. 611. See Thompson v. Hall. v. Morse, 8 Johns. 474; s.o.,4 1 Y. Com. L. Law ed. 609, with brief note. Prior decision in 7 Johns. 403. See Coit v. Houston ; Leonard ». Vredeubergh ; New- ton i>. Galbraith. Decision in 7 Johns, ex- plained and approved, though said to be obscurely reported (Collateral undertaking under statute of frauds) in Mallory v. Gillet, 21 If. Y. 412, 424, 444. Discussed -in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 209, 4 ed. Decision in 8 Johns, explained (Duty as to tender of specific articles) in Sheldon ■». Skinner, 4 Wend. 528. Disting'd in La Farge v. Rickert, 5 Id. 191. Followed in Case v. Green, 5 Watts (Pa.) 262 ; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 311, with note. Approved .in Barney v. Bliss, 1 I). Chip. (Vt.) 399; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 696, with note. Decision in 8 Johns, with Coit «. Houston, 3 Johns. Gas. 243, denied (Passing of property on mere tender and refusal) in "Welds. Hadley, 1 If. H. 329. See, also, Heirn u. Carron, 11 Smedes & M. {Miss.) 361, 366. Discussed in 2 Ghitty on Gontr. 1202, n. n, 11 Am. ed. Explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. n. v; Id. n. w. v. Stewart, 13 Johns. 255. Followed (Necessity that levy be made during life of execution) in Hathaway v. Howell, 54 N. Y. 112. Sloan v. Case, 10 Wend. 370; s. c, 25 Am. Dee. 569, with extended note (How return of execution may be compelled). v. N. T. Central R. B. Co., 45 If. Y. 125. See Johnsons. Johnson; Whiting ». Barney. Applied (Privilege as to profes- sional communications) in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 liedf. 181, 188 ; Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 80 K Y. 281, 298. Dis- ting'd (Opinions as evidence) in Haegerty «. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Aib. If. G. 129, 181, n. Commented on in Whart. Oom. on En. § 15. v. Van Wyck, 36 Barb. 335. Rev'd in unreported decision. Subsequent decision in 47 Id. 634, affd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 250; s. c, 5 Transc. App. 98. Sloane v. Elmer, 1 Han, 310. Rev'd in 64 If. Y. 201. y. Livermore, 14 Hun, 29. See (Necessity of allegations of fraud in affi- davit for order of arrest) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 550, n. Slociun v. Barry, 34 How. Pr. 320. Afl'd in 38 N. Y. 46: s. c, more fully, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 399. v. Despard, 8 Wend. 615. Disapproved (Effect of plea that answers only part of count) in Root®. Woodruff, 6 Hill, 418, 421. v. English, 2 Hun, 78; s. c, iSup'rn. I Ct. (T. & C.) 266. Aff'd in 62 If. Y. 494. See (Limit of time within which to apply for sale of decedent's real estate) Code Giv. Pro. 1881, § 2750, n. v. Hooker, 12 Barb. 563; s. c, 10 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 49 ; 6 How. Pr. 167. Rev'd on ground , that election of infant alone could avoid contract, in 13 Barb. 536. See Van Bramer v. Cooper. Decision in 13 . Barb, compared with other cases (Non- joinder of infant defendant) in Ewell Lead. Cas. on Inf. &e. 244. v. United Ins. Co., 1 Johns. Cas. 151. See (Right of insured to abandon, as de- termined by information possessed at time) cases cited under Muniford «. Church. Sloman v. Great Western B'y Co., 6 Hun, 546. Rev'd in 67 If. Y. 208. Decision in Id. disting'd (Carrier's liability for merchan- dise checked like baggage) in Blumantle v. Fitehburg R. R. Co., 127 Mass. 322 ; s. c, 34 Am. B. 376 ; but compare reporter's note at p. 379. Slosson v. Beadle. , See Bagley ■». Peddie. v. Lynch, 28 How. Pr. 417. See Wright v. Trustees of Meth. Epis. Church. Ap- proved (Who included as next of kin) in Betsinger v. Chapman, 24 Hun, 15, 18. Sluby v. Chainplin, 4 Johns. 461. See Mott v. Doughty. Followed as conclusive (Na- ture of action on demand barred by statute of limitations but reviewed by new promise) in Lord v. Shaler, 3 Conn. 132; s. c, 8 Am. Dee. 160, with note. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. § 214, 6 ed. Slnyter v. Williams, 1 Sweeny, 215. Fol- lowed (Necessity of proof of demand and refusal in action for goods wrongfully de- . tained) in Talcott v. Belding, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 84, 93. Small v. Bixley, 18 Wend. 514. Overruled (Costs in replevin where both parties suc- ceed) in Johnson v. Fellows, 6 Hill, 353. v. Edrick. See Fairbanks v. Wood. v. Herkimer Manuf. Co., 2 If. Y. 330. See Spear v. Crawford. Examiued (Liabil- ity of subscribers to corporation stock) in Dexter & Mason Plank-road Co. v. Millerd, 3 Mich. 102. v. Ludlow, 1 Eilt. 189. Rev'd in 20 If. Y. 155. v. Smith, -1 Den. 583. See Sehepp v. Carpenter. Cited as authority (Recovery on accommodation paper negotiated contrary to intent of accommodation party) in Bow- man v. Van Kuren, 29 Wis. 209 ; s. c, 9 Am. B. 555. Applied to conditional acceptance in Merritt v. Duncan, 7 Heish. (Tenn.) 156; s. c, 19 Am. R. 612. In- cluded in Bigel. on B.&N.2 ed. 449 ; Bedf. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 264. Col- lated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 423. v. Wheaton, 4 E. D. Smith, 306; s. c, more fully, 2 Alb. Pr. 175. Smart v. Bemcnt, 4 Abb. Gt. App. Dee. 253. See also (Co-defendants in foreclosure) Newman v. Dickson, 1 Abb. If. C. 307. 716 SMART— SMITH. t. Haring, 14 Hun, 276. Modifying and aff g Smart v. Harring, 52 How. Pr. 505. Smedberg v. More, 26 Wend. 238; s. c, 14 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1070, with brief note. Smedes v. Bank of Utica, 20 Johns. 372 ; s. c, 6 If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1048, with brief note. Aff' d in 3 Cow. 662. Decision in 20 Johns, explained with Ransom v. Mack, 2 Hill, 587 (Sufficiency of notice to ipdorser) in West River Bank e. Tay- Ipr, 7 Bosw. 466, 478. Followed in Bank of Yergennes ». Cameron, 7 Barb. 14!) ; Down v. Planters' Bank, 1 Smedes & M. {Miss.) 201 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 92, with note. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 488. Examined ■with other cases (Duty of collecting bank) in State B'k of Troy v. B'k of Capitol, 17 Abb. Pr. 369. Followed in McKinster v. B'k of Utica, 9 Wend. 48. Disting'd in Allen v. Merchants' B'k of N. Y., 15 Id. 487. Followed in Thompson v. B'k of So. Car., 3 Hill (So. Car.) 77; s. c, 1 Riley, 81; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 354, 356. Followed with Bank of Utica «. McKinster, 11 Wend. 473 ; Allen v. Suydam, 20 Id. 327, in Tyson e. State Bank, 6 Blaclcf. (Ind.) 225 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 139, with note. Quoted and collated with other cases in Holcombe Lead. Cas. on Com. Law, 23. Stated to have been generally followed, — in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 273. T. Hooghtaling, 3 Cai. 48 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 250. Approved (Interest beyond pen- alty of bond) in Mower v. Kip, 6 Paige, 88, 93 ; Lyon v. Clark, 8 N. Y. 153. Cited with Clark v. Bush, 3 Cow. 151; Brain- ard v. Jones, 18 i\7! Y. 35, in Wvman v. Robinson, 73 Me. 384; s. c, 40 'Am. R. 360 ; 14 Reporter, 270, as in harmony with the great majority of the leading American authorities. Smethurst, Matter of, 4 How. Pr. 369; s. c, 3 Code R.5b; 2 Sandf. 724. See (Power of judge to punish disobedience of order in supplementary proceedings) Shepherd v. Dean, 3 Abb. Pr. 424. Explained in Dress- er v. Van Pelt, 15 How. Pi: 25. Cited as authority in Tremain ■». Richardson, 68 N. Y. 618. Applied (Order in supplementary proceedings is not court order) in Hulsaver v. Wiles, 11 How. Pr. 451. Smiles t. Hastings, 24 Barb. 44. Aff'd as Smyles v. Hastings, 22 IT. Y. 217. Decis- ion in 24 Barb, applied (Kight of way by necessity) in Simmons v. Sines, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 247. Disting'd (Effect of refer- ence to map in conveyance of land bound- ed on highway) in Glover ». Shields. 32 Barb. 379. Smillie v. Quinn, 2 Month. L. Bui. 32. Aff'd in 25 Hun, 332, and that aff'd in 90 N. Y. 492. See Eadie v. Slimmon. Smith's Estate, 1 Brad/. 224. See Fitzpat- rick ». Brady. Smith, Matter of, 16 Johns. 102. See Mat- ter of Chipman. Overruled (Seizure of partnership property for debt of individual partner) by Smith v. Orser, 42 N. Y. 13:1. See Goll v. Hinton, 8 Abb. Pr. 120, and cases cited. Reviewed with other cases in Winston v. Ewing, 1 Ala. 129; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 768, with note. Followed with Crane «. French, 1 Wend. 313, in Morrison v. Blodgett, 8 JST. H. 238 ; s. c. 29 Am. Dec. 653, 660, with note. Citing also Scrugham «. Carter, 12 Wend. 131, in this connection. Included in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead Cas. 5 ed. 563. Reporter's note cited approvingly in 3 Kent. Com. 65, n. b. , 65 Barb. 283. Rev'd in 52 N. Y. 526. Decision in Id. followed (.Validity of assess- ment of improvements made without publi- cation required by statute) v in Matter of Burmeister, 76 Id. 177; Matter of Phillips, 60 Id. 16, 24. Disting'd in Matter of Burke, 62 Id. 227. Disting'd and limited in Matter of Folsom, 56 Id. 63 ; which aff d 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 56, which see. See other authorities cited in 20 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.)4. Smith t. Acker, 23 Wend. 653. Applied (Conveyance, &c. when fraudulent as unac- companied by change of possession) in Rus- sell v. Lasher, 4 Barb. 242; Otis v. Sill, 8 Id. 109; Hull v. Carnley, 2 Duer, 109; Robeson v. Ford, 3 Edw. 441 ; Cole ». White, 26 Wend. 522, 538. Explained in Edgell ». Hart, 13 Barb. 388 ; which was aff'd in 9 N. Y. 218, which see ; Hanford v. Artcher, 4 Hill, 274 (and see Vance v. Phillips, 6 II. 436) ; Judson v. Gardner, 4 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 427 ; Randall «. Parker, 3 Sandf. 72; Spies v. Eoyd, 1 R D. Smith, 448. Commented on by Mullett, J., in Griswold v. Sheldon, A N. Y. 594. Re- viewed with other cases and applied in But- ler v. Van Wyck, 1 Hill, 440. Approved in Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108, 114. See Hughes v, Cory, 20 Iowa, 399, 410. Said in Jones on Chat. M. § 401 (citing also Levy «. Welsh, 2 Edw. 438), to be still recognized as authority in N. Y., but to have its force evaded by untenable distinc- tion. Reviewed with Cole v. White, 26 Wend. 511; Hanford v. Artcher, 4 Hill, 271; Vance v. Phillips, 6 Hill, 433; Mit- chell v. West, 55 N. Y. 107; Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 Id. 273 ; Hollachcr v. O'Brien. 5 Hun, 277 ; Schoonmaker v. Ver- valen, 9 Id. 138, and their result stated in 6 Am. Dec. 287, n. Applied (Liability for wrongful levy on mortgaged property) to partnership propertv, in Atkins v. Saxton, 77 N. Y. 201. App'lied (Review of finding as to fraudulent intent) in Ruhl v. Phillips, 2 Daly, 46. v. Adams, 6 Paige, 435. Explained and disapproved (Rights in sub-surface springs) in Trustees of Delhi v. Youmans, 50 Bark 316, 319. v. .Etna Life Ins. Co., 4 Lane. 545. Aff'd in 49 iV. Y. 211. Y. Allen, 18 Johns. 245. See DeMott SMITH. 717 e. McMullen; Wilson v. Burr. Followed (Whet), after severance of joint interest, one of those jointly interested is competent witness for the other) in Morse v. Green, 18 If. S. 32; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 471. v. American Coal Co., 7 Lam. 317. Followed (Payment of dividends to one in whose name stock stands) in Brisbane v. Delaware, L. & W. E. R. Co., 25 Sun, 438, 440. t. American lust, of N. T., 7 Daly, 526. See (Appeal from N. Y. City court to Common Pleas) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3192, n. y. Amer. Life Ins. & Trust Co., Clarice, 307. Criticised and not followed (Injunction to stay proceedings under bill or decree in chancery) in Montgomery v. Whitworth, 1 Term. Ch. 174, 177, 181. v. Argall, 6 Hill, 479. Ail'd in 3 Den. 435. v. Aylesworth, 40 Barb. 104. Quoted and collated with other cases (Action on negotiable paper against maker) in Redf. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 494. v. Barse. See Camp v. Root. v. Beattic, 81 If. Y. 542. Explained (Effect of bill of sale, absolute on face, but intended as security) in Thomas on Mort. 433. v. Belden, 2 Sun, 681 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 695. Appeal- dismissed in 60 -ZV. Y. 642, but without opinion. Further proceeding in 3 Hun, 622. v. Bell, 2 Cai. Cas. 153 ; s. c, 3 Johns. Cas. 611. Though in conflict with Dupuy v. U. S. Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 182, yet fol- lowed (Rate of deduction in estimating tech- nical total loss) in Deblois v. Ocean Ins. Co., 16 Pick. {Mass.) 303 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 245, 251, with note. Included in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 690. v. Benson, 1 Sill, 176. See Pierrepont e. Barnard. Disting'd (When building may be regarded as chattel) in Richtmyer v. Morss, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 55, 58; Fisher v. Saffer, 1 E. D. Smith, 612. Ap- plied to machinery, in Godard v. Gould, 14 Barb. 666 ; Sheldon v. Edwards, 35 If. Y. 282 ; to salt kettles, in Ford v. Cobb, 20 If. Y. 349. Explained as to fence, in Mott v. Palmer, 1 Id. 571. Examined and followed in Myrick «. Bill, Sup'm. Ct. Dak. Oct. 1883, 17 Northw. Rep. 268. Quoted and collated with other cases in 2 Sare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 563. v. Birdsall, 9 Johns. 328. Explained and doubted (Fees chargeable by sheriff) in Crofut v. Brandt, 58 If. Y. 106, 114, which aff'd 5 Daly, 124, 127, which see. v. Bodine, 1 Sun, 309. Further pro- ceeding in 74 If. Y. 30. v. Bowen, 35 N. Y.- 83. Applied (Effect of conveyance in violation of trust) in Clark v. Jacobs, 50 Sow. Pr. 530. t. Brackett, 36 Barb. 571. See ex- emption of real property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1404, n. T. Brady, 17 N. Y. 173. See Champlin v. Rowley; McMillan v. Vanderlip ; Philip v. Gallant. Applied (Effect of substantial fail- ure to perform contract, on right to recov- ery) in Harris v. Rathbun, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 332; Preusser v. Florence, 4 Abb. N. C. 137; Cunningham v. Jones, 20 If. Y. 487; Catlin v. Tobias, 26 Id. 222; McNeal v. Clement, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 365; Guidct v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 557, 561 ; Bonesteel v. May- or, &c. of N. Y., 22 If. Y. 162, 166 ; Cas- sidy v. Le Fevre, 57 Barb. 313, 323. Dis- ting'd in Otis v. Cusack, 43 Id. 548; Smith v. Coe, 2 Silt. 369 ; Payne v. Hodge, 7 Sun, 614; Morrell v. Irving Fire Ins. Co., 33 If. Y. 447, 457 ; Stewart v. Keteltas, 36 Id. 393 ; Avery v. Willson, 81 Id. 341, 345. Approved in Glacius v. Black, 50 Id. 145, 148. Reviewed with other cases in Jenkins v. Wheeler, 37 Sow. Pr. 409. Ex- plained and applied in Crane v. Knubel, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 455. _ Explained by Dwight, Referee, in Marie v. Garrison (MS.) as turning on the fact that the action was at law. Compare Nolan v. Whitney, 88 JV. Y. 648; Woodward v. Fuller, 80 Id. 312. Cited as authority with Wyckoff v. Meyers, 44 N. Y. 145 ; Stewart v. Keteltas, 36 Id. 392 (Effect of provision in building contract for opinion of third person) in Moore v. Kerr, 65 Cal. 519, 521. Compare to the contrary, Hayward v. Leonard, 7 PicJc. (Mass.) 181 ; Smith ». Congregational Meeting House, 8 Id. 1 78 ; Britton v. Turner, 6 If. H. 481. Collated with other cases in 19 Am. Dee. 280, n. Applied (Effect of agreement to arbitrate) in Del. & Hud. Canal Co. v. Pa. Coal Co., 50 If. Y. 264. Limited in Whiteman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Sun, 117; Mark s. c, 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1022, with brief note; also s. a, 34 Am. Dec. 213, with note, where- in are collected citations. Said to be still authority, notwithstanding reversal in Ct. of Errors (Distinction between bailment and sale) in Baker v. Woodruff, 2 Barb. 520,. 623. Approved in Norton v. Woodruff, 2 ,N. Y. 153, 157. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 133, n. v. Doctrine discussed and authorities cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 325 v. Coe, 2 Hilt. 365. Aff'd-in 29 JOT. Y. 666. Decision in Id. disting'd (Presump- tion on appeal, in aid of findings) in Meyer v. Amidon, 45 Id. 169, 173. Applied in dissenting opinion in Valentine «. Conner, 40 Id. 248, 257. v. , 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 570. Aff d in 55 N. Y. 678. Previous decision in 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 480. v. Colvin, 17 Barb. 157. See (Passing of title on execution sale) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1440, n. ' v. Corapton, 20 Barb. 262. Approved (Effect of pendency of proceedings in arbi- tration, on subsequently instituted action) in Knaus v. Jenkins, 11 Vroom (HT. J.) 288 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 237, 241. - — v. Cooley, 5 Daly, 401. Collated with other cases (Grounds on which award may be set aside) in 25 Am. R. 46, n. v. Cooper, 5 Abb. N. O. 274. Collated with other cases (Use of partnership name on dissolution) in 35 Am. R. 550, n. v. Corbiere, 3 Bvsw. 634. Disting'd (Requiring stipulation not to sue) in Faulk- ner v. Morey, 22 Hun, 879, 385. y. Countryman, 30 N. Y. 655. Dis- ting'd (Striking out pleadings on trial) in Schuyler «. Smith, 51 Id. 309, 317, a case of judgment rendered op the pleadings. Applied (Effect of fraudulent representa- tions to purchaser) in Hammond v. Pen- nock, 61 Id. 151. t. Crocheron, 2 Edw. 501. See to the contrary (Impeachment of judgment) Mat- tingly v. ISIye, 8 Wall. 370. See also Abb. Tr. Ev 741. v. Crouse, 24 Barb. 433. Approved and applied (Liability on undertaking on ap- peal) in Robinson v. Plimpton, 25 K Y. 484, 486. Followed as decisive in Doolittle v. Dinniny, 31 Id. 350, 853. Disting'd in Hinckley v. Kreitz, 58 Id. 583, 588; which rev'd 36 Super.. Ct. (J. & S.) 413, 424, which see. Explained in dissenting opinion in Wolcott v. Holcomb, 31 K Y. 136. T. Cutler, 10 Wend. 590; s. c, 25 Am. Dee. 580. Followed (Effect of misconduct, &c. of arbitrator) in Fudickar v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 358, 378. T. Dann, 6 Hill, 543. See Douglass v. Howland. Criticised and limited (Liability of guarantor, as affected by usage of trade) in Stewart v. Ranney, 26 How. Br. 279, 284. Disapproved, in Appleton v. Parker, 81 Mass. 173, 177. Approved (Necessity of notice of acceptance to make contract of guaranty binding) in Wilcox v. Draper, 12 Mb. 138, 150. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1133, n. 3. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 109. v. Dunning, 61 N. Y. 249. Followed (Allegations in action on contract against married woman) in Willsev v. Hutchins, 10 Hun, 505; Broome v. Taylor. 13 Id. 343, which Was rev'd in 76 2{. Y. 566, which see. v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 492. We understand that on further trial plaintiff recovered. v. Falconer, 11 Huh, 481. Aff'd, it seems, in 79 N. Y. 633, but without opin- ion. SMITH. 719 t. Felt, 50 Barb. 012. Affd. it seems, in 51 N. Y. 642, but without opinion. v. Felton, 43 N. Y. 419. Applied (Equitable set-off) in Perry v. Chester, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S 138; Davidson «. Alfaro, 16 Hun, 359; Smith v. Fox, 48 If. Y. 674; Shipman v. Lansing, 25 Hun, 290, 292. Disting'd in Westlake v. Bostwick, 35 Super. Gt. (J. &S.) 256, 261; Munger v. Albany City Nat. B'k, 85 XT. Y. 580, 587, 589. Explained in dissenting opinion in Seymour ■o. Dunham, 24 Hun, 98. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 318. T. Fowle, 12 Wend. 9. Dictum disap- proved (Necessity that record must show jurisdiction) in Hart v. Seixas, 21 Id. 39, 46. v. Frankfleld, 13 nun, 489. Affd in 77 XT. Y. 414. Compare prior decision in- ' volving same facts in Bostwick ». Frank- field, 11 Hun, 476. t. Frost, 42 Super. Gt. (J. v. Marvin, 25 How. Pr. 317; 8. c, more fully, 27 If. Y. 137. See Condit «. Bald- win. Approved (Usury in contract made by agent) in Palmer v. Call, U. S. Gir. Gt. D. Iowa, 12 Reporter, 195, citing cases. Compared in 4 Am. L. Reg. If. 8. 324. v. Masteti, 15 Wend. 270. Approved and applied (Evidence of plaintiff's connec- tion with other woman in action for crimi- nal conversation) in Shattuck v. Hammond, 46 Vt. 460; s. c, 14 Am. R. 631. t. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 1 Daly, 219. Affd in 37 N. Y. 518. See Conner v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y. Explained (Basis of right of official to compensation) in McVeany v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 80 N. Y. 1S5, 190, 192. Disting'd in Dolan o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 68 Id. 274, 283. Followed in People ex rel. Ryan v. French, 24 Bun, 263. Fully approved wi'h Conner v. Mayor, <&c. of N. Y., 5 If. Y. 285, in Auditors of Wayne Co. v. Benoit, 20 Mich. 176 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 382. Followed with Conner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. in Comm'rs of Saline Co. v. Anderson, 20 Fans. 298 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 171. Collated with Peo- ple v. Tieman, 30 Barb. 193; Dolan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 68 If. Y. 279, and other cases, in note to Memphis e. Wood- ward, 12 Beisk. (Tenn.) 499 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 750, which also cited People v. Tieman. — — v. , 1 Bun, 56. Followed (Invalid- ity of municipal ordinance increasing sal- aries of police justices in N. Y. city) in Mc- Ginnis v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 416, 418. v. , 4 Bun, 637; s. c, more fully, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 685. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 295 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 53. See Mill's o. City of Brooklyn ; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of New York. Decision in 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) explained (Liability for overflow of sew- ers) in AloaJc's Underbill's Torts, 1 Am. ed 476. - — v. -, 4 Bun, 644; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 223. J T. ■ , Daly, 401 . Aff'd in 68 If. 7. 552. Decision in Id. explained and applied (What is taxable as real estate) in People ex rel. N. Y. Elev. R. R. Co. v. Comm'rs of Taxes of N. Y., 82 Id. 459, 462, which aff'd 19 Bun, 460, 464, which see. Explained (Removal of cloud on title of other property I.— 46 than real estate) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. t. Union Ferry Co., 55 Bow. Pr. 144. v. , 4 Sand/. 221. Aff d in 10 N. Y. 504. t. Mechanics & Traders' Fire Ins. Co., 29 How. Pr. 384. Reported in 32 If. F. 399. Followed with O'Neil v. Buffalo Fire Ins. Co., 3 Id. 122 (Effect of present representations as continuing warranties) in U. S. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Kimberly, 34: Md. 224; s. c, 6 Am. R. 325. Cited as a strong case in 33 Am. . R. 834, n., where are collected many cases pro and con. v. Miller, 14 Wend. 188. Rev'd in 16 Id. 425. T. , 6 Robt. 157, 413 ; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 234. Rev'd in 43 A 7 ". Y. 171 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 690. Further decision in 52 If. Y. 545. See Willets v. Phoenix Bank. Decision in 43 If. Y. disting'd (Effect of delay in presenting negotiable security for payment) in Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co. v. Col- lins, 1 Abb. If. G. 47, 51. Applied in First Nat. Bk. of Meadville v. Fourth Nat. Bk. . Applied in Flint v. Corbitt, 6 Id. 430 ; Bates v. Coster, 1 Hun, 402. Reviewed with other cases in dissenting opinion in Parsons v. Loucks, 48 If. Y. 25. Doctrine explained in Cooke «. Millard, 65 Id. 361. Cited in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. u (Ben- nett's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. § 109, n. y. t. , 29 Barb. 182. AfPd by divided court, in 24 If. Y. 222. See Welles r. Same. Decision in 24 JK Y. disting'd (Carrier's exemption from liability by express contraqj) in Blair®. Erie R. Co., C6 Id. 316; Kirkland o. Dinsmore, 2 Hun, 46, 51. Explained in Railroad Co. v. Lock- wood, 17 Wall, 357, 365. Dissented from with Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 If. Y. 168; Mynard v. Syracuse, Binghamton, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 399, in Chicago, St. Louis, &c. R. R. Co. ■». Moss, 60 Miss. 100; s. c, 45 Am. R. 428. Criticised in Lawsoris Contr.. of Carr. §§28, 128, 220. Collated with other cases in Thomps. on Oarr. of Pass. 401. See 8 Alb. L. J. 305. v. N. ¥. Consolidated Stage Co., 28 How. Pr.208. Disting'd (Who may be ap- pointed receiver) in Chamberlain v. Green- leaf, 4 Abb. If. 6. 92, 95. v. Niver, 2 Barb. 180. See Lounsbery v. Snyder. Explained (Substitution of parol for written leases) in 1 Washb. on Ileal Prop. 4 ed. 549. T. Oliphant, 2 Sandf. 306. Previous proceeding in 7 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 17. T. Olssen, 4 Sandf. 711. Qualified (Effect of admission of part of plaintiffs claim) in Dusenberry v. Woodward, 1 Abb. Pr. 443. Rule herein said in Wireman «. Remington Sewing Machine Co.) 36 Super. Ct. (J. SS.) 316, to be changed by amendment in 1857.- t. Orser, 43 Barb. 187. AfE'd in 42 If. Y. 132. See Scars v. Gearn. Decision in 43 Barb, disting'd and explained (Attach- ment of partnership credit and balances) in Barry v. Fisher, 8 Abb. Pi: If. S. 369, 3SJ. Decision in 42 If. Y. disting'd in Weston «'. Conant, 1. City Ct. 224. As to case of spec- ial partner, see Harris ». Murray, 28 iV. Y. 574. Decision in 43 Barb, collated with other cases in Thomps. on Pro. Mem. 372. •See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 693, n. y. Paton, 6 Bosw. 145. Aff' d in- 31 If. Y. 66. v. People, 47 If. Y. 330. Applied (Statute, when not regarded as repealed, by implication) in People ex rel. Stiner v. Mor- rison, 78 Id. 89. v. , 53 If. Y. 111. See Hildebrand v. Same. Disting'd (What is larceny) in Zinkjj. People, 6 Abb. If. C. 413, 431, which rev'd 16 Hun, 399, which see. Re- lied on with Shipply v. People, 86 If. Y. 375; Hildebrand «. People, 56 Id. 394; Justices ». Henderson, 90 Id. 12 ; in Grun- son v. State, 89 Ind 533 ; s. c, 46 Am. B. 178 ; with note collating Weyman v. Peo- ple, 4 Hun, 511; 62 N. Y. 623, and other cases. Applied in Collins v. Ralli, 20 Hun, 251, 254. Compare People v. Rae, 66 Cal. 423, 427. — - v. , 9 Hun, U6. Rev'd in 69 If. Y. 175. v. Pettee, 7 Hun, 334. Rev'd in 70 If. Y. 13. Decision in Id. explained (Delivery of more than is required in case of sale) in 2 Benj. on Sales,.% 1030, n. 17 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Explained (Remedies against the goods) in Id. § 1180. n. 5. — - v. Randall, 3 Hill, 495. Approved but disting'd (Direction as to return to commission to take testimony) in Goodyear e. Vosburgh, 41 How. Pr. 421, 426. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2980, n. v. , 67 Barb. 377. See (Costs in action against executor, &c.) .Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3246, re. — - v. Bntlibmi, 13 Hun, 47. Rev'd in 75 If. Y. 122. Previous decision in 66 Barb. 402. v. Richardson, 3 Cai. 219. Explained (Damages in action against carrier) in Wat- kinson v. La.ughton, 8 Johns. 213, 216. These two cases, with Richmond v. Bran- son, 5 Den. 55, examined in Lakman t. Grinnell, 5 Bosw. 625, 631-639. v. Rogers, 17 Johns. 340. Followed (Effect of acceptance of partner's note for partnership debt) in Vernam ®. Harris, 1 Hun, 451. v. Rowley, 66 Barb. 502. Approved in effect (Fear of legal proceedings, as duress that will avoid contract) in Herbstfl. Manss, Gin. Super. Ct. 5 Gin. L. Bui. 1038, 1041. v. Ryan, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 489. Affd in 66 K Y. 352; s. c, 23 Am. B. 60. See Winchell v. Hicks. Decision in 66 If. Y. followed (Who may make payment, to take deb out of statute of limitations) in Kelly v. Weber, 27 Hun, 8. SMITH. T. Sanborn, 11 Johns. 59; s. c, 5 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 60, with brief note. v. Sanger, 3 Barb. 360. Rev'd on ground that error in boundary did not, as matter of law, constitute actual occupancy) in 4 N. Y. 577. t. Saratoga County Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1 Bill, 497. Subsequent decision in 3 Id. 608. Both decisions applied (Effect of condition in policy against assignability thereof) in Ferree v. Oxford Fire & Life Ins. Co., 67 Pa. St. 373; s. c, 5 Am. R. 436. Decision in 1 Bill cited as authority for waiver of the condition, in Stolle v. Mtna. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 10 W. Ya. 546; s. c, 27 Am. R. 593, with note. Dis- ting'd as wholly inapplicable, in Clark *. N: E. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 6 Cush. (Mass.) 342 ; s. c, 63 Am. Bee. 44, 46, with note, case of alienation of a portion of insured property. v. Schanck. See Stafford v. Rice. v. Scholtz, 68 IT. Y. 41. Disting'd (Fee when vested in executors by will) in Robert v. Corning, 23 Bun, 299, 303. T. Schulting, 14 Bun, 52. Quoted (Complainants in creditor's actions) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 108, n. 1. — — t. Sergent, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 684; s. c, 2 Bun, 107; and more fully, 67 Barb. 243. T. Shaw, 12 Johns. 257. Doubted (Pro- cess as protection) in Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 176. Disting'd in Day v. Bach, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 460, 466. T. Slade, 57 Barb. 637. See Hoyt v. Van Alstyne. Approved (Proof of exemp- tion from execution) in Reinecke v. Flecke, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 491, 496. Disting'd in Snyder v. Davis, 1 Bun, 350, 352. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1391, n. T. Smith, 4 Paige, ,271. Followed (Ef- fect of misdescription of legatee in will) in Klein v. Hayek, 5 Redf. 210, 212. Ex- plained (Costs in action for adjudication on will) in Downing v. Marshall, 37 N. Y. 393. Disapproved (Presumption as to suf- ficiency of assets in suit against executor) in Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill. (Md.) 138 ; s. . c, 43 Am. Bee. 306, 319, with note. V. , 4 Paige, 432; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 75, with note wherein it is shown not to have been fully recognized in subsequent N. Y. decisions (Condonation and recrimination in defense to divorce proceeding). See Jackson v. Potter. v. , 2 Johns. 235; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. •410, with note wherein it is shown to be well recognized in the Federal courts as an authority. See Crandall i. Bradley ; Roget i). Merritt; Van Raugh ». Van Arsdaln. Applied (Contract, when to be governed by law of place of performance) in Hibernia Nat. Bk. v. Lacombe, 84 N. Y. 367, 376. Followed with Van Raugh v. Van Arsdaln, 3 Cai. 154 (Extra-territorial effect of dis- ■ charge under insolvent laws) in Mitchel v. McMillan, 3 Mart. (La.) 676; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 690, 09^5. Disting'd (Form of action on contract *for the payment of stipulated sum in property) in Sncll v. Kirby, 3 Mo. 21 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 456. . v , 4 Johns. Oh. 281. Followed (Liability of guardian who invests without due security) in Torry v. Frazcr, 2 Red/. 486, 489. Commented on in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 379, n. 2. v. , 1 Edw. 255. Approved (Al- lowance of alimony pendente lite in divorce cases when marriage is disputed) in Brinck- leyo. Brinckley, 50 N. Y. 184, 192. v. •-. 15 Bow. Pr. 165. See Macon- dray v. Wardle. Disapproved (Testimony of parties in divorce ease) in Marsh v. Pot- ter, 30 Barb. 506, 519. t. , 14 Abb. Pr. 130 ; s. c. 23 Bow. Pr. 134. Affd in 14 A bb. Pr. 468. v. , Eoffm. 506. Rev'd in 10 Paige, 470. v. , 4 Wend. 468. See, Bagley «. Peddie. Disting'd (Contracts in restraint of trade) in Sander v. Hoffman, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 307, 311, which was rev'd in 64 M. Y. 248. v. ■ , 25 Wend. 405. Explained (Ef- fect of failure to specify in contract place for payment of money) in subsequent note in 2 Bill, 351. Decision in Id. followed in Hoys v. Tuttle, 8 Ark. 124; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 309, 311. Y. , 56 Bow. Pr. 316 ; s. C, 20 Bun, 559, n. Affd in Id. 555. — — v. , 2 Lam. 266. See Rutherford v. Rutherford. y. Spalding, 30 Bow. Pr. 339. Ex- plained (Granting relief not asked for in no- tice of motion) in Jones v. Cook.ll Bun,2Zl. v. Spinolla, 2 Johns. 198. See Van Raugh ». Van Arsdaln. Followed with Sicard v, Whale, 11 Johns. 194 (Remedy on contract, as governed by lex/ori) in Atwater v. Townsend, 4 Coi.n. 47; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 97. . v. S1arr,4 Bun, 123; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 387. Appeal dismissed in 70 N. Y. 155. . v. Stewart, 6 Johns. 46 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 186. Disting'd (Right of one in possession of hnd under parol • agreement to purchase) in Harris v. Frink, 2 Bans. 35 ; Thompson v. Bower, 60 Barb. 463, 477. Approved with Jackson v. Rowan, 9 Johns. 330; Jackson v. Kingsley, 17 Id. 158, in Haile o. McCoy, 7 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 31B ; s. c, 23 Am. Dee. 407. Followed with Bancroft ». Wardwell, 13 Johns. 48!) (Lia- bility in action for use and occupation) in Butler v. Cowles, 4 Ohio, 205; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 612, with note. v. Stickney. See People v. Vane. v. Sntts, 2 Johns. 9. Disting"d with Van De Veer v. Stanton, 1 Cow. 82; Schem- erhorn v. Jenkins, 7 Johns. 373 (Review of nonsuit) as cases of compulsory nonsuits, in Ewing «. Glidwell, 3 Bow. (Miss.) 332 • s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 96. with note. 124: SMITH— SNEBLY. — t. Sweeny, 35 N. Y. 291. Disting'd (Effect of husband's acts in* binding wife) in Squier v. Norris, 1 Lans. 282, 287. Crit- icised as extreme (Subsequent ratification of submission to arbitration made without authority) in 30 Am. Dec. 627, n. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2365, n. — y. Tallcott, 21 Wend. 202 ; s. c, 18 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1064, with brief note. Explained (Joint actions) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 20, n. v. — v. Thompson. See People v. Ransom. — t. Townsend, 25 JY. Y. 479. Approved and applied (Authority of husband to bind wife by mortgage as security for future ad- vances) in Bank of Albion ». Burns, 2 Lans. 52, 57. Disting'd (Construction of collateral obligation to pay indebtedness) in Mer- chant's Nat. B'k v. Hall, 18 Hun, 176. — V. Tracy, 36 N. Y. .79. See Nelson v. Cowing. Cited (Authority of agent mak- ing sale, to warrant) in Whart. Com. on Ag. §§ 124. 188; 2 Benj. on Sales, § 945, n. 16. (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). — v. Underdunck, 1 Sandf. Ch. 579. Dis- ting'd (Effect of oral agreement for sale of land) in Glass e. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24; s. c, 3 Am. E. 418, 424. Compare Beardsley v. Duntley, 69 Jf. Y. 588. Commented on in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 475, 4 ed. v. Van Dursen, 15 Johns. 343. Dictum overruled (Effect of devise of lands held adversely) in Jackson v. Varick, 7 Cow. 238, 248 ; 2 Wend. 166. v. Van Loan, 16 Wend. 659; s. c, 12 JV. T. Com. L. Law. ed. 1232, with brief note, citing conflicting authorities. v. Van Nostrand, 3 Hun, 450; s. c, as Smiths Van Ostrand, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 664. Rev'd in 64 K Y. 278. See Ty- son v. Blake. Decision in 64 N. Y. disting'd (Life-tenant as trustee for remaindermen) in Bliven v. Seymour, 88 Id. 469, 478 ; Wager r>. -Wager, 21 Hun, 93, 95 ; Montfort v. Montfort, 24 Id. 120. Followed in Flan- agan v. Flanagan, 8 Alb. K 'C. 413, 416, 422. Applied (Remainder, when limited on bequest) in Fry v. Smith, 10 Id. 224, 227. — v. Van Ostrand. See Smith v. ■ Van Nostrand. — v. Velie, 60 K Y. 106. Explained and compared (Interest as damages) in White ». Miller, 78 Id. 393, 397. Disting'd (Limita- tion of action for services) in Gustine v. Stoddard, 23 Hun, 99, 102. Disting'd (Effect of continuance in employment after fixed term) in Creasey v. Amazon Ins. Co., Hamilton Co. 0. Distr. Ct. 12 Weekly L. Bui. 155. v. Wait, 4 Barb. 28. Approved with Idlev v. Bowen, 11 Wend. 227; Shultz ». Shuftz, 35 JST. Y. 653 ; Nelson v. McGiffert, 3 Barb. Ch. 158 (Inability to revoke with- out testamentary capacity) in Rich «. Gil- key, 73 Me. 595, 600. See (Proof of lost will) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1865, n. v. Ware, 13 Johns. 257. See Ehle v. Judson ; Geer v. Archer ; Nash v. Russell ; Wilson v. Burr. Disting'd vnth Ehle v. Judson, 24 Wend. 97 (Sufficiency of moral consideration, to support express promise) in Goulding v. Davidson, 26 A 7 . Y. 605, 610. Limited with Gray v. Hook, 4 Id. 449, in Melchoir v. McCarty, 31 Wis. 252; s. c, 11 Am. R. 605. Applied in Kenan e. Holloway, 16 Ala. 53; s. c, 50 Am. Dee. 162, 164, with note. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. C'as. 5 ed. 188. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 432, n. t. v. Webb. See Paige v. Cagwin. v. Weeks, 26 Barb. 463. Questioned (Recovery back of part of debt for which judgment has been had) in Farrington v. Bollard, 40 Id. 512, 515. Overruled in Binck v. Wood, 43 Id. 315. v. Wilcox, 19 Barb. 581. AfTd in 25 Id. 341 ; and that affd in 24 N. Y. 353. Decision in 25 Barb, disting'd (Validity of contract for service to be performed on Sunday) in Merritt v. Earle, 31 Id. 38, 42. Compare Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Id. 548, 569, 577. Decision in 19 Id. explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 759, n. a. Decision in 24 N. Y. applied (Effect of publication of advertisement in Sunday paper) in Shaw v. Williams, 87 Ind. 159. v. Wright, 1 Cai. 43; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 162, with note, wherein it is shown to be a leading authority. Followed with Lenox ». Union Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 178 (Goods shipped on deck as subjects of general average) in Cram v. Aiken, 13 Me. 229; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 503. Criticised, but fol- lowed, in Doane v. Keating, 12 Leigh. ( Ya.) 39'1; s. c, 37 Am. Dee. 671, 673. v. - — , 5 Sandf. 113. Aff'd on further grounds in 1 A bb. Pv. 243; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 274. See Champion v. Bost- wick. Decision in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. cited (Liability of one who shares in profits to third persons as partner) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 50, n. v. , 4 Hun, 652 ; s. c. , more fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 694. Limited (Effect of provision in contract for services, for submission to judgment of third person) in Whiteman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Hun, 117, 121. v. , 24 Barb. 170 ; s. c, 12 How. Pr. 555. Rev'd in 27 Barb. 621. Seo Adsit v. Brady ; Bartlett v. Crozier. Decis- ion in 24 Barb, collated with other cases (Action against commissionersof highway for failure to repair) in Cook Highw. L. 4 ed. 50. v. Wyckoff, 4 Edw. 543. Aff'd in 4 Ch. Sent. 18, without prejudice to appellant's right to object, that O. was not made a party, unless complainants should amend. Smyth v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 21 Hun, 241. AfTd in 84 N. Y. 589. y. Munroe, 19 Bun, 550. Aff'd in 84 N. Y. 354. Snebly v. Conner, 7 Weekly Dig. 93. Aff'd asSnobleyii. Conner, 78 K Y. 218. Seo Wright v. Hunter. SNEDEKER— SOULDEN". •'725 Snedeker v. Snedeker, 18 Hun, 355. Rev'd as Bergen v. Snedeker, 8 Abb. H. C. 50; s. c, as Bergen v. Carman, 79 iV. Y. 146. v. Warring, 12 2T. Y. 170. See Voor- hies v. McGinnis. Followed (Rights be- tween mortgagor and mortgagee as to fix- tures) in Adams v. Beadle, 47 Iowa, 439 ; s. c, 29 Am. B. 487. Reviewed with other cases (Erections on land, when to be regar- ded as fixtures') in State Savings B'k v. Kircheval, 65 Mo. 682; s. c, 27 Am. B. 310. Snell v. Loucks. See Bowen v. Bell. — r — v. Rich, 1 Johns. 305. See to the con- trary (Authority of pilot of vessel) Martin v. Farnsworth, 41 How. Pr. 59. Explained (Liability for collision of vessels) in Aug. on Garr. § 664, 5 ed. . Snelling v. Howard, 7 Bolt. 400. Aft'd in 51 H. Y. 373. Decision in Id. cited (Sev- eral persons acting as agents, when jointly liable) in Whart. Corn, on Ag. § 144. Sniffen v. Koechling, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 61. Aff'd in 84 JV. Y. 677, but without , opinion. Snook, Matter of, 2 Htti. 566. See Frank- lin «. Talmadge. Applied (Right to change one's name) in England v. N. Y. Publishing Co., 8 Daly, 375, 381 ; David «. Williams- burgh City F. Ins. Co., 83 H. Y. 265, 209. Snow v. Columbian Ins. Co., 48 Barb. 469. Rev'd in 48 N. Y. 625. Decision in Id. explained and followed (What is not breach of condition against use of port) in Wheeler ■o. N. Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 249. — — v. Jndson, 38 Barb. 210. Disting d (Liability for libel relating to business) in Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 57 JK Y. 116, 126. v. Williams, 16 Hun, 468. Explained (Polluting streams) in MoaMs Uuderhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 486. Snowden v. Noah, Hoph 347; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 547. See (Enjoining publication of rival newspaper) American Grocer v. Gro- cer Pul>. Co., 25 Hun, 398, 401. Snyder v. Andrews, 6 Barb. 43. Approved with Green «. Telfair, 20 Id. 11 ; Hunt v. Bennett, 19 N. Y. 173 (Province of jury in libel case) in Pittock v. O'Neill,, 63 Perm. St. 253 ; s. c, 3 Am. B. 544, 548. Quoted in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 109. v. Collins, 12 Sun, 383. Disting'd (Costs to abide event) in Sheridan v. Genet, 1 Civ. Pro. B. 310, n. Applied in Lotti v. .Krakaner, Id. 312, 316, n. v. Davis, 1 Hun, 350; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 596;- 47 How. Pr. 147. See (Exemption from execution in case of judg- ment for another article of exempt property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1391, n. v. Fanner's Ins. & Loan Co., 13 Wend. 92. Aft'd in 16 Id. 481. See Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Cotheal. v. Neefus, 53 Barb. 63. I am informed by counsel that on re-argument this decision was so modified that it can hardly be con- sidered as a precedent. The final decision has not been reported. v. Plass, 28 A'. Y. 476.' Applied (Juris- diction as determined by intention of offi- cer) in Matter of Fuller, 21 Hun, 497, 499. v. Sponable, 1 Hill, 567. Aff'd in 7 Id. 427. See Sterry v. Arden. v. Warren, 2 Cow. 518; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 519. Discussed (Computation of time with which to take proceedings) in Ang. on Limit, p 51, 6 ed. Soffe v. Gallagher, 3 E. D. Smith, 507. Collated with other cases (Note or bill taken for debt) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 303. Sober v. Fargo, 1 Hun, 312. Reported in 47 How. Pr. 288. Solinger v. Earle, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 80. Re-argument denied in Id. 604. Aff'd in 82 N. Y. 393; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 116. De- cision in Id. explained (Recovery of money paid on illegal contract) by Dwight, Ref- eree, in Marie v. Garrison. Decision ap- proved, but doubts therein suggested con- cerning certain cases, criticised as un- founded, — in 2 Pomeroy on Ea. Jur. 460, n. v. Patrick, 7 Daly, 408. Compare (Af- fidavit to obtain attachment in N. Y. dis- trict court) Code Civ. Pro. § 2906, subd. 1. Solms v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 578. Rev'd in 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 201; s. c, 3 Keyes, 416. See Con over v. Mut. Ins. Co. of Albany. Decision in 3 Keyes ap- plied (Reformation of policy after loss) in Van Tuyl v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 67 Barb. 76. Applied (Evidence of intent to insure property anew) in Shearman v. Niag- ara Fire Ins. Co., 40 How. Pr. 399; which was aff d in 46 N. Y. 531, which see. Somerset, &c. Savings B'k v. Huyck, 33 Huw. Pr. 323. Followed (Who deemed householder, for purpose of bail) by Law- rence, J., as never having been rev'd or questioned,— in unreported case at Sup'm. Ct. Chambers, Sept. 1880. Son v. People, 12 Wend. 344. Quoted (Sentence in prisoner's absence) in 1 Ben- net & H. Cas. on Crim. L. 395. Soper v. Buffalo & Rocli. R. R. Co., 19 Barb. 310. Followed (Corporation when bound by acts and declaration of directors, &c.) in Alleghany Work House «. Moore, 95 Pa. St. 408, 412. Sorghan v. City of Brooklyn, 3 Hun, 562 ; s. o., less fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 316. Aft'd in 62 JV. Y. 339. Sorley v. Brewer, 18 How. Pr. 276. Aff'd in 1 Daly, 79. Souillard v. Dias, 9 Paige, 393. Disting'd as not applicable under Code Pro. § 121 (Effect of death of party to action) in Liv- ermore i>. Bainbridge, 43 How. Pr. 273. Sonlden v. Tan Rensselaer, 9 Wend. 293. Prior decision in 3 Id. 472. Decision in 9 Id. applied (Restoring competency of wit- ness by release of liability) in Mott 1>. Small, 20 Id. 218. Collated with McCea v. 726. soule— souverbye; Pumiort, 16 Wend,. 477 ; Phillips v. Peters, 21 Barb. 351 ; Watkins ®. Stevens, 4 Id. 168; Carshore «. Huyck, 6 7. Kingon, 31 XT. J. Eq. 619. Disting'd (Such transfer when fraud- ulent per se) in Webber v. Truax, 1 City Cl. 247, 249. v. Boyd, 51 XT. Y. 177. Disting'd (Validity of contract for personal influence with official body) in McKee v. Cheney, 62 - How. Pr. 144. v. Pinckney. See Southard v. Benner. y. Rexf'ord, 6 Cow. 254. See People ». Mather. See (Limit of cross-examination with view to affect credibility) La Beau v. People, 33 How. Pr. 75. Explained in Gt. Western Turnpike Co. v. Loomis, 32 H. Y. 137. Followed in Fries v. Brugler, 7 Halst. (XT. J.) 79; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 52, with long note. Explained and limited (Evidence to affect damages in action for breach of promise to marry) in Kniffen v. McConnell, 30 XT. Y. 285, 291. Said never to have been questioned, in Thorn v. Knapp, 42 Id. 475. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars on Contr. 69, n. j. Followed (Offer to marry, as a defense) in Kelly v. Rcnfro, 9 Ala. 325; s. c, 44 Am. Pec. 441, 443, with note. Southern Central R. R. Co. v. Town of Jttoravia, 61 Barb. 180. Followed (Right to interest, aa barred by receipt of princi- pal) in Middaugh v. City of Elmira, 23 Hun, 80. Southern Life & Trust Co. y. Packer, 17 XT. Y. 61. Reviewed with other cases (Effect of .prohibition against setting up usury by corporations) in Strongs. N. Y. Laundry M'f'g Co., 37 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 279, 282. Southwick, Matter of. See McDowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Southwick v. First Nat. B'k of Memphis, 20 Hun, 349. Rev'd in 84 N. Y. 420; s.' c, 61 How. Pr. 164. Prior decision, as it seems, in 7 Hun, 96. See Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Erben. Decision in 7 Hun ex- plained with respect to subsequent legisla- tion (Attachment against national banks) in Rhoner v. First Nat. Bank of Allentown," 14 Id. 126 ; Central Nat. B'k v. Richland Nat. B'k, 52 How. Pr. 136; Robinson e. Nat. B'k or New Berne, 19 Hun, 477. Decision in 84 XT. Y. disting'd (Demand as condition precedent to liability) in Robin- son r. Nat. B'k of New Berne. 95 Id. 637, 643. v. Hayden. See Ensign v. Webster. v. Sax, 9 Wend. 122. Collated with other cases (Surety's liability as affected by extending or discharging security) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 404. v. Southwick, 1 Sweeny, 47. ' Further decision in 9 Alb. Pr. XT. 8. 109 ; s. c, 2 Sweeny, 234, aff'd in 49 XT. Y. 510. De- cision in Id. cited at length with Tilton v. Beccher(2 Abb. Off. Rep. 48, 116) (Husband ' and wife as witnesses, in suits affecting each other) in 1 Whart. Com. on Eo.- § 431, n. Southworth t. Bennett, 58 XT. Y- 659. Commented on (Questions tending to dis- grace witness) in 1 Best on Ev. § 130, n. a. Wood's ed. Compare (Appeal after denial of new trial or interlocutory judgment) Gode Civ. Pro. § 1336. v. Curtis, 6 How. Pr. 271. See (Notice to defendant in default) Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1219, n. - — v. Sheldon, 7 How. Pr.414. Explained (Terms of sale under assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. Souverbye v. Arden, 1 Johns. Oh. 240. Sub- sequent decision as Sterry v. Arden, Id. 261, involving same transactions. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Decision in 1 Johns. Gh. 240, followed (Delivery of deed) in Rose v. Rose, 7 Barb. 176 ; Blight v. Schenek, 10 Penn. St. 265; s. c, 51 Am. Pec. 478, with note ; Peavey v. Tilton, 1 8 XT. H. 151 ; s. c, 45 Am. Pec. 365, with note ; Buffum v. Green, 5 H. H. 71 ; s. c, 20 Am. Pec. 562, with note. Applied in McLean v. Button, 17 Barb. 453 ; Scrug- ham v. Wood, 15 Wend. 547. Disting'd in Jacobs v. Alexander, 19 Pari). 245; Fisher . v. Hall, 41 XT. Y. 422 ; Bell v. Farmers' B'k of Ky., 11 Bush (Ky.) 34; s. c, 21 Am. R. SOUZEE— SPEAK, 727 205. Disting'd with Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. 337, in Wood v. Ingraham, 3 Strobh. Eg. (So. Car.) 105 ; s. c, 51 Am. Dee.- 671, with note. Disting'd in Hibbard v. Smith, Sufm. Ct. Gal. 1884, 4 Vac. Rep. 480. Explained in 10 Am. Dec. 41, n. See 4 Kent Com. 456. Applied (Effect of volun- tary conveyance or settlement) in Schrader v. Baker, 65 Barb. 015. Followed as con- clusive with Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Gh. 329, in Jones v, Jones, 6 Conn. Ill; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 35, 38, with valuable note. Followed in Cecil v. Beaver, 28 Iowa, 241 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 174. Quoted in 1 Ohitty on Contr. 4, n. r, .11 Am. ed. Both decis- ions disting'd and discussed in Hulick ■». Scovil, 4 Gilm. (Ill) 159, 179. Sonzer v. De Meyer, 2 Paige, 574. Quoted (Application of statute of limitations to trusts) in Ang. on Limit. § 1691, 6 ed. Soverhill v. Snydam, 2 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & G.) 460. Aff'd on the merits, in 59 N. Y. 14^. Spader v. Davis, 5 Johns. Gh. 280. Aff'd in Hadden v. Spader, 20 Johns. 554. See Storm v. Waddell. Decision in 5 Johns. Ch. explained (Creditor's remedy against non-leviable property) in Donovan v. Finn, HopJc. 77; Egberts v. Pemberton, 7 Johns. Gh. 210 ; Pettit v. Candler, 3 Wend. 621. See Storm v. Waddell, 2 Sandf.Ch. 511. v. N. T. Elev. R. K. Co., 3 AW. K C. 467. Compare (Compensation to owners adjacent to railroad) Washington Ceme- tery v. Prospect Park, &c. R. E. Co., 4 Id. " 15. Collated with other cases (Contracts ultra vires) in Id. 59, n. Spalding v. Hallenbeck, 30 Barb. 292. Subsequent decision as Spaulding v. Hal- lenbeck, 39 Id. 79 ; which was aff'd in 35 N. Y. 204. Decision in Id. examined with other cases (Effect of acceptance of deed to bind grantee by covenants therein) in At- lantic Dock Co.* v. Leavitt, 54 Id. 39. v. Rosa, 71 H. V. 40. Explained (Ef- fect of impossibility of performance of con- tract) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 672, re. 1 (Keller's ed.). ■ v. Spalding. See Berrien v. Westervelt. v. Vandercook, 2 Wend. 431. Ex- plained (Evidence to support plea of tender) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 638, n. s. Span v. Ely, 8 Hun, 255. Disting'd (Liabil- ity for injuries sustained by servant) in Thaler v. Long Beach, &c. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 288. Referred to (Liability for dam- ages caused by wrongful act or negligence) in 57 Am. Dec. 462, n., as a case where it is not easy to see the applicability of Thomas v. Winchester, 6 K Y. 391. Sparinann v. Keim, 44 Super. Ot. (J. & S) 163. Rev'd in 9 Abb. N. O. 1 ; s. c, 83 N. Y. 245. Another proceeding in 6 Abb. K G- 353. Decision in 83 H. Y. disting'd (Character of action, as determined by alle- gations of fraud in complaint) in Bowman v Purtell, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 403, 408. Sparrow v. Kingman, 1 K Y. 242. Subse- quent decision as Kingman v. Sparrow, in 12 Barb. 201. See Osterhout v. Shoemaker. Decision in 1 N. Y. explained and applied (Estoppel of grantee to dispute grantor's title as against claim of dower, &c.) in Averill n. Wilson. 4 Barb. 184, 189; Finn v. Sleight, 8 Id. 406. Cited in Tyler on Inf. & Cot. 2 ed. § 436, as maintaining a better doctrine than that of Bancroft v. White, 1 Cai. 185 ; Sherwood v. Vandenburgh, 2 Mill, 203, and other cases. Discussed in 1 Washb. on Peal Prop. 4 ed. 239. Quoted (Stare decisis) in Oooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 65, n. 1. Spaulding v. Hallenbeck. See Spalding «. Hallenbeck. v. People, 7 Hill, 301. Affg People ex' rel. Backus ». Spalding, 10 Paige, 284 ; s. c.,2 1 Y. Leg. Obs. 232. Aff'd in 4 How. (U. S.) 21. v. Strang, 36 Barb. 310. Affg 32 Id. 235. Rev'd in 37 N. Y. 135 (where opinion of Fcllekton, J., is given); s. c, 38 Id. 9 (where opinion of Parker, J., is given). Decision in 36 Barb, explained and disting'd (Assignment for creditors, as affected by ■ prior compromise agreement) in Low '«. Graydon, 50 Id. 414, 428 ; Renard v. May-~ dore, 25 How. Pr. 178. Decision in 37 If. Y.; 38 Id. explained (Effect of provision for" preferences) in Haydock v. Coope, 53 Id. 68, 74. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 178, n. 4, 4 ed. With decision in 38 jV. Y. and Wakeman ». Grover, 4 Paige, 23 ; 11 Wend. '■ 187, compare Bennett . Kelly, 36 Super. Ot. {J. & 8.) 370; Farrington v. Frankfort B'k, 31 Barb. 190; Stewart o. Small, 2 Id. 566, in 35 Am. Dec. 568, w., as showing the incli- nation of the N. Y. courts to be against an extension of the doctrine of Bank of St. Albans «. Gilliland, 23 Wend. 311, which is said not to have received the approbation given to Coddington ». Bay, 20 Johns. 637. — T. Pratt, 2 Bill, 582. Included (Accep- tance of bill of exchange) in Bigel. on B. & JST. 2 ed. 32; 1 Ames. Cas. on B. .& N. 165 ; Redf. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 41 , with note. v. Smith. See Dennis v. Cummins. v. Tinkham, 2 Barb. Oh. 214. Disting'd (Bequest of residue for life) in Hill v. Hill, 2 Lans. 43, 48. v. Wardell, 1 N. Y. 144. Commented on and followed (Rights gained by pursu- ing creditor under non-imprisonment act) in Hall i>. Kellogg, 12 Id. 325, 330; and People ex rel. Latorre v. O'Brien, 6 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 63, 67. Spears v. Lake Shore & M. S. P*. K. Co. See Mallory v. Tioga R. R. Co. t. Mathews, 6 Bun, 489. Rev'd in 66 2T. Y. 127. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 10 Bun, 160. Appeal from subsequent proceeding dis- missed in 72 IT. Y. 442. See Astor v. Hoyt. Speiglemyer v. Crawford, 6 Paige, 254. Applied (Subrogation of surety to position of judgment creditor) in Townsend v. Whit- ney, 75 K. Y. 431. Spelman v. Fisher Iron Co., 56 Barb. 151. Disting'd (Liability of master to servant for injury done in course of employment) in Thaler v. Long Beach, &c. Co., 13 Weekly Big. 288. Explained in 1 Add. on Torts, 277, n., Wood's ed. Sec (Liability resulting from use of explosives) Smith ®. Oxforn Iron Co., 13 Vroom (If. J.) 535; s. c, 36 Am. R. 535, 542. v. Terry, 8 Bun, 205. Afi'd in 74 N. Y. 448. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of I prior decisipn as bar) in Jex v. Jacob, 7 Abb. If. O. 452, 459. Speuce t. Baldwin, 59 Bow. Pr. 375. Aff'd, as it seems, as Spencer v. Baldwin, in 22 Hun, 618. v. Lindo, 19 Alb. L. J. 179. Collated wito other cases (Evidence as to handwrit- ing) in 35 Am. R. 635, n. v. White, 1 Johns. Gas. 102. Followed (Attorney's lien as subject to set-off) in Sanders "v. Gillett, 8 Daly, 184. Spencer v. Ballon, 18 N. Y. 327. Followed (Liability for failure to charge indorser) in Lakeu. Artisan's B'k, 17 Abb. Pr. 236; West River B'k «. Taylor, 34 JST. Y. 140. Applied (Effect of taking note for precedent debt) in Bank of State of N. Y. v. Vanderhorst, 1 Robt. 216. v. Barnett, 35 Jf. Y. 94, Applied (Time within which to file mechanics' lien) in Gates ». Buddensick, 6 Abb. If. O: 367, 370; Tiley v. Thousand Island Hotel Co., 9 Bun, 424, 428; Goodale v. Walsh, 2 Sufm. Ot. (T. & O.) 312. Disting'd in Haden v. Buddensiek, 6 Daly, 3, 6 ; Chase James, 10 Bun, 506, 508. v. Blackmail, 9 Wend. 167. Approved (What constitutes conversion) in Lavcrty v. Snethen, 68 K Y. 524. Collated with Murray ■». Burling, 10 Johns. 172 ; and many other cases in 15 Am. Dec. 151, n. v. Carr, 45 N. Y. 406. Included (Es- toppel of infant) in Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf. &c. 222. t. Cuyler, 9 Abb. Pr. 382. Approved (Early return of execution at request of plaintiff, not a foundation for supplementary proceedings) in Farquaharson v. Kimball, 9 Id. 385, 387, n. See Forbes v. Wal- ler, 25 If. Y. 430. Quoted and cases cited to the contrary (Receiver in judgment cred- itor's action) in Bigh on Receiv. § 404, n. 1. . v. Field, 10 Wend. 87; s. o., 11 JV. Y. Com. I. Law. ed. 787, with brief note. Disting'd (Liability on contract made by agent) in Worrall v. Munn, 5 If. Y. 246 ; Nicoll ii. Burke, 45 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 78. Explained in Union India Rubber Co. v. Tomlinson, 1 R. D. Smith, 379. v. Halstead, 1 Den. 606. Further decis- ion as Halstedd «. Spencer, How. App. Cas. 319, where the plaintiff obtained judgment. See Clark v. Marsiglia. t. Harvey, 17 Wend. 489. Approved (Effect of indorser's taking security, as dis- pensing with demand and notice) in Seacord « e. Miller, 13 JV. Y. 55, 58. v. Rogers' Locomotive Works, 13 Abb. Pr. 180. Explained (Vacating attachment after judgment) in Zeregal v. Bonoist, 33 Bow. Pr. 129. v. , 8 Bosw. 612; s. c, 17 Abb. Pr. 110. Compare (Jurisdiction over foreign corporation) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 263, 264, 1780. v. Sampson, 1 Oai. 498 ; s. c, % N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 242, with brief note. v. Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co. See Bort v. Smith. v. Sonthwick, 9 Johns. 314. Subse- quent decision in 10 Id. 259, rev'd in 11 Id. 573. v. Tilden, 5 Cow. 144. See Bagley v. Peddie. Explained (Distinction between liquidated damages and penalty) in Nobles ». Bates, 7 Cow. 307. v. Tobey, 22 Barb. 2G0. Disting'd (Effect of agreement for sale of land as giv- ing right of possession) in Miller v. Ball, 64 N. Y. 286, 294. . v. Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co., 5 Barb. 337. Denied (Necessity of affirma- tive proof of absence of negligence in one run over by locomotive) in Johnson v. Hud- son River R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 633, 639. Sperling v. Conner, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 562. Aft'd in 84 JH. Y. 651, but without opinion. SPERLING— SPEAKER. 729 — — T. Levy, 10 , Abb. Pr. 426. Another proceeding in 1 Daly, 95. Spcrry y. Miller, 16 JV. Y. 413. Followed (Combining separate charges of judge) in Knickerbocker v. People, 57 Barb. 365, 374. v. Reynolds, 5 Lans. 407. Rev'd in £5 Jf. Y. 179. Decision in 5 Lans. followed (Effect of unauthorized appearance for defendant in justice's court) in Roberts v. Buwell, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 30, 32. Decision in 65 AT. Y. followed in Andrews v. Long. 19 Hun, 303. Speyer r. Colgate, 4 Hun, 622 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Bar b. 192. v. Stern, 2 Sweeny, 516. Cited with , Newcomb v. Griswold, 24 N. Y. 298 ; C-aff- ney «. People, 50 Id. 223 ; Stephens v. Peo- ple, 19 Id. 549 (Cross-examination respect- ing contents of written instrument) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 68. Spevers v. Lambert, 1 Sweeny, 335 ; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 309; 37 How. Pr. 315. Disapproved (Requisites of promise to an- swer for debt of another) in Castle v. Bcardsley, 10 Hun, 343, 346. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 471. Spieer v. Ayers, 53 How. Pr. 405. Prior decision in 2 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & O.) 626. See Estes v. "Wilcox. See (Necessity that judgment be obtained before action to set aside transfer) in Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Abb. K O. 184. v. Norton, 13 Barb. 542. Said in Wood i>. "Wheelock, 25 Id. 625, to have been aif d in Ct. of App. • Spies v. Boyd, 1 E. D. Smith, 445. Com- mented on (Reservations in assignment for ;benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 350, n, 4, 4 ed. v. Gilmore, 1 N. Y. 321. See Hall •». Newcomb; Herrick v. Carman ; Taylor v. Snyder. Examined with other cases (Lia- bility of irregular indorser) in Hahn t>. Hall, ,2 Abb. Pr. 356. Explained in Waterbury v. Sinclair, 6 Id. 28 (and see Same v. Same, 7 Id. 403); Moore e. Cross, 23 Barb. 538, which wasaffd in 19 N~. Y. 230, which see; Richards ». Warring, 4 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 47, 52. Followed in Ellis v. Brown, 6 Barb. 288; Cottrell v. Conldin, 4 Drier, 50. ; v. Joel, 1 Duer, 669. Approved (Con T structive fraud not ground of arrest) in Birchell v. Strauss, 8 Abb. Pr. 53, 56; Peo- ple v. Kelly, 35 Barb. 444, 455, 462. Ex- plained (Failure to make disposition of sur- plus in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 208, n. 2, 4 ed. Spinnette v. Atlas Steamship Co., 14 Hun, 100. Rev'd in 80 N. Y. 71. Spinner v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. 6 1 Hun, 600. Aff'd in 67 N. Y. 153. Pre- vious decision in -2 Hun, 421 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm Ct. {T. & O.) 595. Spooner v. Brooklyn City It. R. Co., 31 Barb. 419. Confirmed on further decision in 36 Id. 217, which- was rev'd in 54 AT. Y. 230 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 570. v. Xeeler, 51 N. Y. 536. Applied (Abatement of action by death, as affected by verdict that is set aside) in Cox v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 178. Spoor v. Holland, 8 Wend. 445 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 87, with note. Approved (Dam- ages in trover by one having special prop- erty) in Chadwick v. Lamb, 29 Barb. 518, '522. v. Wells, 3 Barb. Ch. 199. Applied with Sayre e. Wisner, 8 Wend. 661 (Effect of passage of statute of limitations, on ex- isting rights) in Parker ®. Kane, 4 Wise. 18. Spragne v. Birdsall, 2 Oow. 419; s. c, 7 K Y. Oom. L. Law. ed. 834, with brief note (Money paid under mistake). Ex- plained as to statute here involved, in Cay- uga Bridge Co. v. Stout, 7 Oow. 33. v. Blake, 20 Wend. 61 ; s. c, 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 777, with brief note. See Seymour n. Davis. Applied (Implied agree- ment as to quality on executory contract of sale) in Hamilton v. Ganyard, 34 Barb. 206 ; Lawton v. Keil, 61 Id. 566. Disting'd in Keeler v. Vandervere, 5 Lans. 315. Ex- plained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 977, n. 29 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Re-affd (Effect of subsequent acceptance of goods sold, under statute oi frauds) in McKnight v. Dunlop, 5 N. Y. 543. Reviewed with other cases in Hunter «. Wetsell,57 Id. 375, 378. v. Batter worth, 22 Hun, 502. Appeal dismissed in 84 N. Y. 649, but without opinion. -^— v. Cad well, 12 Barb. 516. Disting'd (Cross-examining witness as to declarations made out of court) in Briggs ®. Wheeler, 16 Hun, 584. v. Duel. Olarke, 90. Aff'd in 11 Paige, 480. Decision in Clarke collated with Jackson ». Van Duseu, 5 Johns. 154 ; Allen ». Public Adm'r, 1 Bradf. 378, and many other authorities (Presumption of continu- ance of sanity or insanity) in 28 Alb. L. J. 326. v. Eneeland. See Hurd v. West. y. Shed. See McCarty ^MePherson. y. Western Union Tel. Co., 6 Daly, 200. Aff d in 67 AT. Y. 590, on opinion of Daly, Ch. J. Intervening decision as to dismis- sing appeal in 64 Id. 658. See Griffin v. Colver; Young v. Western Union Tel. Co. Spraignts y. Hawley, 39 JST. Y. 441. Aff'g Dudley ». Hawley, 40 Barb. 397. See Dudley v. Hawley. Decision in 39 H. Y. disting'd (Evidence of conversion) in Turner v. Brown, 6 Hun, 331, 337. Spraker v. Cook, 16 JV. Y. 567. Applied (Removal, by summary proceedings, of one in possession of premises, after execution sale thereof) in People ex rel. Higgins v. McAdam, 84 Id. 287, 293. v. Van Alstyne, 18 Wend. 200 ; s. c, 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 345, with brief note. Rev'g Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 13 Id. 578. Decision in 18 Wend, followed (Fee by implication) in Heard v. Horton, 1 Den. 730 SPPJNG-STACKUS. 1C5. Commented on and considered ex- treme in Burlingham, v. Bilding, 21 Wend. 463. Spring t. Sandford, 7 Paige, 550. Followed (Sufficiency of title, on sale of decedent's real estate) in Bogert v. Bogert, 45 Barb. 123. Springer v. Dwyer, 53 Barb. 189. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 19. Decision in Id. followed (Answer, when to be liberally construed) in Van Brunt v. Day, 8 Abb. fl. C. 336, S41 ; Hammond v. Earle, 58 How. Pr. 438. Dis- ting'd in Dubois v. Hermance, 56 J7". Y. 674. Springfield M. & F. Co. v. Allen, 43 K T. 389. Disting'd (Effect of transfer of in- sured property) in Savage v. Long Island Ins. Co., 43 How. Pr. 464; which was aff' d in 44 Id. 52 ; which was rev'd in 52 JV. Y. 508, which see. Cited with approval in Loy v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Minn. 315 ; s. c, 31 Am. R. 346. Disting'd in Hammel «. Queen's Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 72, 79. Dis- ting'.d (Insurer's right to subrogation to rights of mortgagee), in Ulster Co. Sav'gs Inst. ». Decker, 11 Hun, 515, 519. Re- viewed with other cases (What constitutes insurable interest) in Rohrbach v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 62 N. Y. 45, 57. Discussed and cited as authority with Rohrbach v. Germania Fire Ins. Co. ; Herkimer v. Rice, 27 K Y. 163, in Spare v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Oreg. 22 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 409. Springsteen v. Powers, 3 Robt. 483. Fol- lowed (Power to enjoin summary proceed- ings) in Landon v. Superv's of Schenectady, 24 Hun, 75, 77. Springstein v. Schermerhorn, 12 Johns. 357. Denied (Estoppel of grantee to deny grantor's title) in Sparrow ■». Kingman 1 JSf. Y. 242, 251. Disting'd (Estoppel to set up claim under lease) in Millard v. Mc Mullin, 68 Id. 353. Sprong v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 54. Afi'd in 58 N. Y. 56. Squire v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 436. Pronounced un- sound (Negligence of child, as precluding recovery) in Moak's Underbill on Torts, 291. — — T. Flynn, 8 Barb. 169. Dissented from (Criterion for issuing execution) in Masten ii. Scovill, 6 How. Pr. 313, 316. — - v. Young, 1 Bosw. 690. See (Discontin- uance of supplementary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2454, n. Squires' Case, 13 Abb. Pr. 38. Applied (Right to discharge on habeas corpus) in Lagrave's Case, 14 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 341. Explained in Matter of Lampert, 21 Hun, 158. Squires v. Abbott, 61 N. Y. 630. Followed (Continuance of lien on vessel) in King v. Greenway, 71 Id. 413, 418. v. Brown, 22 How. Pr. 35. See Corn- ing v. McCullough. Followed (Evidence in action to charge trustee of corporation) in Miller v. White, 59 Barb. 434, 443. Staats v. Bristow, 73 -JK Y. 264. Followed (Validity of attachment in action against firm) in Donnell v. Williams, 21 Hun, 216, 219. Disting'd in Buckingham v. Swezey, 25 Id. 85. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 39 Barb. 298 ; s. c, 23 How. Pr. 463. Statement in 32 Id. 614, that judgment was rev'd in Ct. of App. is erroneous. Decision in 3 Reyes, 196; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 139, was on appeal in another case. » v. Ten Eyck, 3 Cai. Ill; s. c, 2 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 550, with brief note ; also s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 254. See Pitcher v. Liv- ingston. Followed (Damages for breach of covenant of warranty) in Cox v. Strode, 2 Bibb. (Ey.) 269; s. c.,,5 Am. Dec. 603. Cited approvingly in Guthrie v. Russell, 46 > Iowa, 269; s. c.', 26 Am. R. 135, 137. Followed with Pitcher, v. Livingston, 4 Johns. 1, in Logan ■». Moulder, 1 Ark. 313 ; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 338, 344, with note; Hen- ning v. Withers, 3 Brev. (So. Car.) 458: s. c.,'6 Am. R. 589. Followed with Pitcher e. Livingston ; Bennett. Jenkins, 13 Johns. 50, in Davis v. Smith, 5 Ga. 274; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 279, 289, with note. Followed with Pitcher v. Livingston, 4 Johns. 1 ; Bennett v. Jenkins, 13 Id. 50 ; Baldwin v. Munn, 2 Wend. 399j— in Swafiord v. Whipple, 3 C. Greene.. (Iowa) 261 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 498. To the contrary, see Horsford v. Wright, Kirby (Conn.) 3: Gore v. Brazier, 3 Mass. • 523. See also Marston v. Hobbs, 2 Id, 433; Caswell «. Wendell, 4 Id. 108. Said in 1 ' Am. Dec. 9, n. to have been followed gen- erally, except in Mass., Maine, Conn., Tt. and La. Included with note in Sedgio. Cas. on Dama. 4. See (Counsel fees in such action) Turner v. Miller, 42 Tex. 418; s. c, 19 Am. R. 47. Relied on with Freeman *>. Clute, 3 Barb. 426 ; Blanchard ». Ely, 21 Wend. 342; Driggs ». Dwight, 17 Id. 71; Griffin ». Colver, 16 iV. Y. 490 ; Leonard v. N. Y. Tel. Co., 41 Id. 565; Masterton v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 7 Hill, 61 ; Davis v. Talcott, 14 Barb. 611, (Damages for loss of profits) in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Graham, 1 Col. 230; s. c, 9 Am. R. 136, 144. Stackpole v. Robbins, 47 Barb. 212. Afifd, it seems, in 48 Jf. Y. 644, but without opin- ion. Stackus v. N. Y. Central, *c. R. R. Co., 79 iV. Y. 464. Applied with Barker v. Sav- age, 45 Id. 191 (Contributory negligence in one run over by railroad car) in Harnett v. Bleecker St., &c. R. R. Co., 49 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 185. Followed in Tolman «. Sy- racuse, &c. R. R. Co., 31 Hun, 397, 402. Followed (Negligence of defendant, and con- curring negligence of plaintiff, as questions of law) in Urquhart v. City of Ogdensburgh, 13 Weekly Dig. 108. STAGY, MATTES OF— STAINSBT. m Stacy, Matter of, 10 Johns. 328. See Matter of Ferguson. Followed (Evasive return to writ of habeas corpus) in Rivers 11. Mitchell, 57 Iowa, 193, 197. Approved (Power to enforce obedience by military authorities to writ of habeas corpus) in Matter of Keeler, Hempst. 306, 310. Stacy v. Farnhain. See Berrien n. Wester- velt; Cutler''!). Rathbone. v. Graham, 3 Duer, 4AA. Affd in 14 If. K492. Stafford v. Bacon, 25 Wend. 384. A further and directly contrary decision in 1 Hill, 532; S. c, 37 Am. Dec. 366. See explana- tion in 2 Hill, 353. Decision in 1 Id. fol- lowed (Effect of promise to pay debt that has been discharged) in Dusenbury v. Hoyt, 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 94, 97. Compare Crans v. Hunter, 28 If. Y. 389. Followed in Warren v. Whitney, 24 Me. 561; s. c, "41 Am. Dec. 406. Applied as according with the preponderance of authority, in Ingersoll v. Martin, 58 Md. G7, 76. Com- pare Valentine v. Foster, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 520. Examined in 20 Cent. L. J. 387, citing cases pro and con. v. Bryaii, 1 Paige, 239. Afl'd in 3 Wend. 532. Further proceedings in 2 Paige, 45. Decision in 3 Wend, followed (Acknowledgment to remove bar of statute of limitations) in Martin v. Broach, 6 6a. 21; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 306, with note. Dis- cussed in Ang. on Limit. § 238, 6 ed. De- cision in 2 Paige questioned (Decree of affirmance, as bar to review for newly dis- covered evidence) iu Longworth v. Sturges, 4 Ohio, 690. Collated with other cases in 20 Am. Dee. 162, n. Decision in 1 Paige explained (Sufficient commencement of suit, so as to prevent stutute of limitations from running) in Ang. on Limit. § 332, 6 ed. ■ v. Ingersol, 3 Hill, 38. Applied (Con- struction of remedial statute) in Lowry v. Inmau, 6 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 400. v. Low, 1 Johns. 67. See Moakelcy n. Biggs. Belied on with Beekman v. Hale, 17 Johns. 134 (Distinction between propo- sition to guarantee, and actual undertaking) in McMillan 0. Bull's Head Bank, 32 2nd. 11; s. c, 2 Am. B. 323. Collated with other -cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 108. v. Mayor, . Huston, 30 Gratt. (Fas.) 266; s. c, 32 Am. R. 673, 678. Followed and approved notwithstanding contrary decisions, in Mc- Cauley ». Hargroves, 48 Ca. 50; s. c, 15 Am. R. 660. Approved in Marx v. Fore, 51 Mo. 69; s. c, 11 Am. R. 432, 434, with note. Collated with other cases in 2 Bare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 644. Explained and dicta criticised in Freeman on Judgm. § 133. Applied (Inquiry into jurisdiction) in Adams v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co., 10 JV. Y. 333; Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 198. Explained in Ferguson v. Craw- ford, 70 N. Y. 262 ; Mervin v. Kumbel, 23 Wend. 302. Approved in Sears v. Terry, 26 Conn. 273. Disting'd in Kewcomb's Executors v. Newcomb, 13 Bush (Ky.) 544; s. c, 26 Am. R. 222, 235. Compared and cases cited in 6 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 11. Starin v. Kelly, 47 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 288. Affd in 88 K Y. 418. Prior decision in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 366. See Spear v. Myers. v. Town of Genoa, 23 K Y. 439. Pre- vious decision as Gould v. Town of Venice, 29 Barb. 442. See Allen v. Brown ; Bank of Rome ». Village of Rome ; Gould v. Town of Sterling. Followed (Validity of town bonds) in Town of Venice v. Breed, 65 Barb. 601 ; Town of Venice n. Woodruff, 62 N. Y. 465 ; Horton v. Town of Thomp- son, 71 Id. 523. Explained in People ex rel. N. Y. & Canada R. R. Co. v. Hutton, 18 Bun, 121. Disting'd in Pierce v. Wright, 45 Bow. Pr. 7 ; People ex rel. Mar- tin v. Brown. 55 K Y. 186. Reiterated, and reporter's note explained, in People v Mead, 24 N. Y. 114, 124. Commented on and disting'd with Murdock «. Aiken, 29 Barb. 59 ; Ross v. Curtiss, 31 N. Y. 606 • People v. Mead, 24 Id. 114, in People v Mead, 36 Id. 224, 228. Applied in Scipio d. Wright, 101 U. S. 665, 675. Disap- proved with Gould v. Town of Sterling, 23 K Y. 456, in Steines v. Franklin County 48 Mo. 167; s. c, 8 Am. R. 87, 91 ; Town of Venice v. Murdock, 92 U. S. 494 ; s. c, ] 8 Am. R. 264. Compare 7 South. L. Rev. N. S. 229. Applied (Statute when not invalid, as delegating legislative authority) in Bank of Chenango v. Brown, 26 N. Y. 471. Exam- ined and approved with Barto v. Himrod, 8 Id. 483 ; Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome 18 Id. 37; 19 Id. 20; Gould v. Town of 734 STAKING— STEAENS. Sterling, 23 Id: 456, in CJlark v. City of Rochester, 1 28 Id. 605, 633. Compared, and People v. Lawrence, 6 Hill, 244, deemed overruled (Recovery from town, of sum ap- propriated for -special purpose) in Healcy v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 126. Staring v. Bowen, 6 Barb. 109. See to the contrary (When probate is not evidence) Telford v. Barney, 1 Greene {Iowa) 575 ; Stevenson v. Huddeson, 13 5. Hon. (Ky.) 299; but see All. Tr. Ev. 110. Stark t. Bosvrell, 6 Hill, 405 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 752, with note wherein are collected citations (Evidence of declarations of for- mer owner). Storks v. Bates, 12 How. Pr. 465. Applied (Change of venue) in Gifford v. Town of Gravesend, 8 All. N. O. 248. V. People, 5 Den. 106. Followed (Evi- dence to show hostility of witness to party against whom he is called) in Newton v. Harris, 6 2T. Y. 346. Starr v. Child, 20 Wend. 149. Rev'd in 4 Hill, 369. Decision in 20 Wend, colla- ted with other cases (Grants of highways bounded on navigable streams) in Mills Thbmp. on Highw. 3 ed. 49. V. Ellis. See Gardner v. Astor. Y. Peck, 1 Hill, 270. See Cheney v. Arnold; Fenton v. Eeed; Robinson v. Dauchy. Disapproved (Proof of marriage) in Caujolle v. Ferrie, 26 Barb. 185; which aff'd 4 Bradf. 28, 87, and was aff d in 23 IT. T. 107, which see. Dicta explained in Cheney v. Arnold, 15 Id. 347. Disting'd in Davis v. Brown, 1 Red/. 262. Relied on ■with Fenton v. Reed, 4 Johns. 51 ; Rose v. ; Clark, 8 Paige, 573; Jackson v. Claw, 18 Johns. 347, in Blanchard v. Lambert, 43 Iowa, 228;. s. c, 22 Am. R. 245', 248. Ap- proved with Clayton v. Wardell, 4 IT. Y. 230; Caujolle v. Ferrie, 23 Id. 90; O'Gara v. Eisenlohr, 38 Id. 296 ; Foster v. Hawley, 8 Hun, 68 ; Jackson ®. Claw, 18 Johns. 346, ; in Williams v. Williams, 46 Wis. 464 ; s. c, ' 32 Am. R. 722. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 77 n. r. Discussed in 2 Add. on Contr. 848, n., Abb. ed. y. Trustees of Rochester, 6 Wend. 564. Disting'd (Power of review in condemna- tion proceedings) in Matter of Kings Co. Elev. R'y Co., 82 K Y. 95, 102. Exam- ined with other cases (Validity of street opening proceedings) in Buell v. Trustees of Lockport, 11 Barl. 606. Applied (Certio- rari, to whom to issue) in People v. Hill, 65 Id. 170, 174; People exrel. Corwin v. Wal- ter, 68 K Y. 409. Followed (Who may allow common law writ of certiorari) in Gardner v. Comm'rs of Highways of War- ren, 10 How. Pr. 182. Examined with other cases (Power of court on certiorari) in Birdsall v. Phillips, 17 Wend. 469. T. Vanderhevden, 9 Johns. 253; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 275. See Evans t. Ellis. T. Winegar, 3 Hun, 491. Explained (Measure of damages in case of accession or confusion of >>oods) 'n 3 Pars, on Caitr, 199, n. 1, Keller o ed. State B'k of Troy t. Bank of the Capitol. See Mead v. Bugs. State of Illinois v. Delafield, 8 Paige, 527. See Delafield v. State of Illinois. Disting'd (Validity of bonds issued by public author- ity) in Gould v. Town of Sterling, 23 N. Y. 465. State of Indiana v. Woram, 6 Hill, 33. Applied (Estoppel to assert invalidity of corporate contract) in Steam Nav. Co. v. Weed, 17 Barb. 381. Explained in Town of Verona v. Peckham, 66 Id. 103, 113. Disting'd in N. Y. State Loan and Trust Co. v. Helmer, 77 N. Y. 64, 71. Collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 187. Quoted in Morawete on Corp. § 103, n. 1. State of Michigan v. Phcenix Bank, 4 Bosw. 363. Further decision in 7 Id. 20, modi- fied on appeal, in 33 N. Y. 9. Decision in Id. applied (Collaterally impeaching au- dit and allowance obtained by fraud) in Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 426,433; People v. Tweed, 50 How. Ft. 443. Applied to judicial decision in People v. Eddy, 57 Barl. 602. Disting'd in Ver- planck v. Van Buren, 11 Hun, 328, 332; which was rev'd in effect in 76 N. Y. 247. State of N. Y. v. City of Buffalo, 2 Hill, 434. Explained (Effect of bond taken by official without authority) in Webb v. Al- bertson, 4 Barb. 52. Applied in Richard- son v.. Crandall, 30 How. Pr. 140 ; which was rev'd in 48 N. Y. 348, 365, which see; Superv'rs of Rensselaer ». Bates, 17 Id. 245. Applied to contract for payment of money in Alger ». Miller, 56 Burl. 232. Applied (Implied powers of municipal cor- poration) in Reynolds ». Mavor, &c. of Al- bany, 8 Id. 601 ; Ketchum v. City of Buf- falo, 21 Id. 303; which was aff'd in 14 N. Y. 375, which see. Disting'd (Ratification of unauthorized act of public agent) in Rich- ardson 0. Crandall, 47 Barb. 367. Staunton v. Parker, 19 Hun, 55. See Whit- ing v. Barney. Disapproved (Power of representatives of deceased to waive pro- tection of physician's professional knowl- edge) in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Bed/. 181, 185. Followed (Effect of agreement to renounce exemptorship) in Ellicott v. Chamberlin, 38 2T. J. Eq. (11 Stew.) 604; s. c. 48 Am. R. 327. Steam Navigation Co. v. Weed, 17 Barl. 378. Disting'd (Liability on contract ultra vires) in N. Y. State Loan & Trust Co. v. Helmer, 77 K Y. 64, 71. Followed in State Board of Agriculture «. Citizens' Street R'y Co., 47 Ind. 407 ; s. c, 17 Am. P. 702, 707. Collated with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires. 186. Quoted in Morawetz on Corp. § 105. Stearns v. Gage, 79 -N. Y. 102. See Bakei v. Bliss. Questioned (Constructive notice) STE A. liiN S— KTJilJN I3AUJJ.. in 23 Alb. L. J. 126. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. §§ 375, 378. . v. Marsh, 4 Den. 227. Applied (Neces- sity of notice before sale by pledgee) in Lewis v. Graham, 4 All. Pr. 110 ; "Wheeler v. Newbould, 16 If. Y. 400. Dis- ting'd in Milliken a.Dehon, 27 Id. 375. y. Tappin, 5 Duer, 294. Followed (Basis of action on debt, in case of new promise after discharge) in Dusenbury v. . Hoyt, 36 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 94, 97. v. Welsh, 50 Sow. Pr. 186. Affd in 7 Sun, 676. Stebbins v. Brown, 65 Barb. 272. Further proceeding in Id. 274. See Fudickar v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co. ; Gray v. Fisk. . t. East Society of M. E. Chnreh of Rochester, 12 Sow. Pr. 410. Overruled with Hoppock v. Donaldson, 12 Id. 141 ; Grandal v. Finn, 13 Id. 418 (Sufficiency of statement on confession of; judgment) in Acker v. Acker, 1 All. Ct.*App. Dec. 1, and cases there cited. See Moody r>. Town- send. v. Globe Ins. Co., 2 Sail, 632. Dis- ting'd (Effect of alterations in insured premises) in Merriam v. Middlesex Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Pick (Mass.) 162; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 252. y. Hall, 29 Barb. 524. Explained (Lia- bility of grantee of mortgaged premises) in 3 Washb. on Peal Prop. 4 ed; 489. ■ v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 3 Paige, 350. See (Rights of transferee of corporate stock) in McNeil ». Tenth Nat. B'k, 46 JST. Y. 325, 332. Explained in McCready «. Rumsey, 6 Duer, 574, 581. Reviewed with Mechanic's B'k e. New Haven R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 622, 624, 626, and other cases, in Lockwobd ■u. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 9 B. 1. 308 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 253, 264. Followed with Gilbert e. Manchester Iron Co , 11 Wend. 627, in Reed v. Gopeland. 50 Conn. 472 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 663. v. Sherman, 1 Sandf. 510. Reviewed with other cases (Promise to pay pre-exist- ing debt, as affected by discharge in bank- ruptcy) in Nelson v. Stewart, 54 Ala. 115 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 660. Followed in Graves v. McGuire, 79 Ky. 532, 536. Stedman.v. Feidler, 25 Barl. 605. Affd in 20 If. Y. 437. Decision in Id. approved as clearly in accordance with the authorities (Power of executors, &c. to authorize mas- ter or ship's husband to act) in Gum v. Frost, U. 8. Disfr. Gt. 8. D. N. Y. 1880, £ Fed. Rep. 745, 748. Steele v. Benham, 21 Sun, 411. Rev'd in 84 K Y. 634. v. South wick, 9 Johns. 214. Ap- proved (Requisites of libel) in Cooper v. Greeley, 1 Den. 341, 347. See Parker v. Mitchell, 31 Pari. 461. Disting'din Colby r. Reynolds, 6 Vt. 489; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 574. Applied and Stone v. Cooper, 2 Den. 293, approved in Tillson v. Robbins, 68 Me. 295 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 50, 55. Cited wiih People v. Crosswell, 3 Johns. Cas. 354, in 2 Kent Com. 16, n. d. Collated with other cases in Bigel. Cas. on Toi-ts, 108.- Included with notes in 1 Bare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 125. v. Western Inland Lock Nav. Co., 2 Johns. 283. Explained (Liability for dam- age caused by work done under authority of statute) in Hickox v. City of Cleveland, 8 Ohio, 543; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 730, with note. Followed (.Presumption that damages assessed for excavations in land include damages for all the injuries) in Aldrich v. Cheshire R. R. Co., 21 If. S. 359; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 212, with note. v. Whipple, 21 Wend. 103; s. c, 13 S. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1029, with brief note. Commented on and explained (What is usurious loan of credit) in Ketchum v. Barber, 4 Hill, 224, 234. Examined and doubted, and head-note corrected, in Van , Dusen v. Howe, 21 If. Y. 531, 533. Steelyards v. Singer, 2 Silt. 96. Disap- proved (Effect of conditional sale as to sub- sequent purchaser) in Ballard v. Burgett, 47 Barl). 646, 652 ; Rawls v., Deshler, 28 Sow. Pr. 66, 73. Cited with Smith v. Lynes, 5 If. Y. 41 ; Haggerty v. Palmer, 6 Johns. Ch. 437; Keelcr v. Field, 1 Paige, 312; Herring v. Hoppock, 15 IT. Y. 409; Beavers v. Lane, 6 Duer, 232; Wait v. Green, 35 Barl. 585 ; Ludden v. Hazen, 31 Id. 650; Bonesteel v. Flack, 41 Id. 435; Powell v. Preston, 1 Hun, 513, —as indicat- ing the N. Y. doctrine, — in Lewis v. Mc- Cabe, 49 Conn. 141 ; s. c, 15 Reporter, 141 ; 21 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 217, with note collating cases. Thought in 32 Am. Dec. 554, n., not to he in accord with Neidig v. Eifler, 18 All. Pr. 353. Steere v. Miller, 28 Sow. Pr. 266. Aff'd in 30 Id. 7. See (Fees to party attending as witness) Code Giv; Pro. 1881, § 3288, n. v. Steere, 5 Johns. Ch. 1 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 256. See Botsford v. Burr. Exam- ined with Jackson v. Moore, 6 Cow. 706 (What creates trust) in Pratt i>. Ayer, 3 Chand. {Wise.) 286. Followed with Bots- ford ■». Burr, 2 Johns. Oh. 405 ; Boyd v. Mc- Lean, 1 Id. 582, inPritchard v. Brown, 4 If. S. 397; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 431, with note. See 2 Fonl. Eq. ch. V, § 1, p. 118, n. c. Discussed in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, §§ 99, 108, 4 ed. Quoted in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 82, n. 7. Steers v. Liverpool, N. T., &c. Steamship - Co., 57 If. Y. 1 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 453, with note. See Cole v. Goodwin ; Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. R., &c. Co. Steiubach v. La Fayette Fire Ins. Co., 54 If. Y. 90. Applied (Effect of presence on insured premises, of hazardous articles placed there in the ordinary course of busi- ness) in St. Nicholas Ins. Co. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 11 Sun, 114. Explained in Stein- bach v. Relief Ins. Co., 12 Sim, 643 ; 77 A. Y. 500. See to the contrary Same v. Same, 13 Wall. 183. Collated with Hall «. Ins. Co. of No. America, 58 If. Y. 292, in 33 736 STEINBACH— STEPHENS. Am. R. 781, n., as with the weight of authority. Compare 15 Am. L. Rev. 768, citing other cases. v. Relief Fire Ins. Co., 12 Hun, 640. Aff'd in 77 If. Y. 498 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 655. See also (Decision in prior action) in 13 Wall. 183. Steinberg v. Manhattan R'y Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 216. Explained (Requiring security for costs from guardian ad litem) in Meredeth v. Forty-second St., &c. R. R. Co., 1 Civ. Pro. R. 15, n. Steinfeld v. Levy, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 26. Approved (Effect, contract of marriage based on immoral consideration) in Hanks v. Naglee, 54 Cal. 51 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 67, with note. Steinweg v. Erie R'y Co., 43 IT. Y. 123. See Wells 1>. Steam Nav. Co. Applied (Contract, when insufficient to release car- rier from liability for negligence) in Mynard v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 71 If. Y. 184; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 Id. 168, 174. Fol- lowed in Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Tad. 448 ; s. c, id Am. R. 89, 95. Approved in New Orleans, &c. R. R. Co. v. Faler, Sttp'm. Ct. Miss. 1876, 10 Reporter, 811. Applied (Duty of car- rier to use approved appliances) in Bevier v. Delaware, &c. Canal Co., 13 Hun, 258. Explained and applied in Caldwell v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 287. Stelle v. Palmer, 7 Abb. Pr. 181. See (Vaca- ting order of arrest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 568, n. Stent v. Continental Nat. B'k, 5 Abb. If. C. 88. Followed with Metraz v. Pearsall, Id. 90; Brotherton v. Downey, 21 Hun, 436 (Denials on information and belief) and Hautemann®. Gray, 5 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 224, n., disting'd in Henderson v. Manning, Id. 221. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 524, n. Stentou v. Jerome, 54 If. Y. 480. See Markham v. Jandon ; Murray v. Toland. Applied (Conclusiveness of account stated) in Harrison v. Ayers, 18 Hun, 337. Stephens, Matter of, 11 Weekly Dig. 344. Reported as Stephens v. Marshall, 23 Hun, 641. Stephens v. Baird, 9 Cow. 274. Reviewed with other cases (Estoppel jamais) in Brown i). Wheeler, 17 Conn. 345; s. a, 44 Am. Dec. 551. V. Beard, 4 Wend. 604. Disapproved (Damages for breach of contract of sale) in Taylor v. Read, 4 Paige, 561, 569. Fol- lowed in Lawrence v. Miller, 86 If. Y. 131, 140. v. Board of Education of Brooklyn, 3 Hun, 712; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 148. Subsequent decision in 79 If. Y. 183 ; s. C, 35 Am. R. 511. Decision in Id. fol- lowed (Recovery of money paid by mistake) in Southwick v. First Nat. B'k of Memphis, 84 If. Y. 420, 435. T. Browning, 1 Code R. 123. Doubted (Execution against personal property) in Stoutenburgh v. Vandenburgh, 7 How. Pr. 229. v. Buffalo & N. T. City R. R. Co. See Jackson v. Dunlap. v. Casbacker, 8 Hun, 116. See Garn- sey v. Rogers. Applied (Release of grantee from liability for mortgage) in Devlin v. Murphy, 5 Abb. If. C. 242, 245. Disap- proved in Whiting v. Gearty, 14 Hun, 498, 501. Questioned in Ranney v. McMullen, 5 Abb. N. C. 246, 257. Overruled in Dou- glass v. Wells, 18 Hun, 88, 91. Doubted in Thomas on Mart. 195. v. De Conto, 7 Robt. 343. Applied (Protection in use of name of newspaper) in American Grocer v. Grocer Pub. Co., 25 Hun, 398, 404. ( v. Ely. See Sackett v. Andross. v. Fox. 17 Hun, 435. Aff'd in 83 K Y. 313. Decision in Id. followed (Judg- ment against corporation, as evidence of stockholder's liability) in Doctor v. Guggen- heim, If. Y. Daily Reg. Feb. 20, 1884. v. People, 4 Parle. 396. Aft'd in 19 If. Y. 549. See Speyer v. Stern. Decision in 19 If. Y. applied (Contradiction of witness) in Hobby v. Hobby, 64 Barb. 285. Ex- plained in Romertze •», East River Nat. Bank, 49 If. Y. 577, 581 ; which rev'd 2 Sweeny, 82, 91, which see. Applied (Effect of material omission in record) in Graham v. People, 63 Barb. 479. Explained (What may be reviewed on writ of error) in Willis v. People, 32 If. Y. 720. Approved (Pre- sumption that accused person was present throughout his trial) in 28 Am. Dee. 631, n., as consistent with reason and authority. Decision in 4 Paris, applied with Lowcnberg v. People, 5 Id. 414 ; Cancemi v. People, 16 If. Y. 501 (Evidence of character in crimi- nal cases) in State v. Northrup, 48 Iowa, 583; s. c, 30 Am. R. 408, 410. v. , 71 N. Y. 527. Corrected in 72 Id. 621. v. Santce, 51 Barb. 532. Rev'd in 49 If. Y. 35. See Courtwright v. Stewart. De- cision in 51 Barb, disting'd (Necessity of entering justices' judgment on docket) in Christopher v. Van Liew, 57 Id. 17, 29. Disapproved in Goodrich v. Sullivan, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 191, citing Fish v. Emerson, 44 If. Y. 380. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 3015. Decision in 49 If. Y. ex- plained (What is judicial act) in Youmans v. Simmons, 7 Hun, 468. Disting'd (When title passes on sale) in Hurd v. Cook, 75 Ni Y. 454, 459. v. Vroinan, 18 Barb. 250. Rev'd in 16 If. Y. 381. Decision in Id. cited (Effect of hearsay evidence reported by party to the suit) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 176. v. Waite, 10 Weekly Dig. 42 1 ; mem. s. c, 21 Hun, 406. Afl'd in 12 Weekly Dig. 9 ; briefer mem. in 84 If. Y. 653. v. Wider, 32 If. Y. 351. See to same effect (Affirmance of judgment for defend- ant that should have been for plaintiff STEPIIENSON-STEYEKS. 737 ■ with nominal damages) McConihe v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 Id. 495. See to the contrary, Searles v. Cronk, 38 How. Pr. 320. Stephenson v. Hall, 14 Bar}}. 222. Reviewed with other cases (Prerogative of those hay- ing direction of schools, over scholars) in Ferriteri). Tyler, 48 Vt. 444; s. c, 21 Am. R. 133, 148. Applied in Dritt v. Snod- grass, 66 Mo. 286 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 343, 347. v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co., 2 Duer, 341. Disapproved as contrary to authority and to general practice of railroad companies (Extent of implied authority of railroad superintendent) in Marquette, &c. R. R. Co. 0. Taft, 28 Mich. 289, 300. Explained and. compared in 1 Add. on Contr. 7, n. 1., Ahb. ed. ; Id. 93, n. 1. Sterling v. Jaudon, 48 Barb. 459. See Hanks v. Drake. Overruled (Broker's right to buy or sell for deficiency in margin) in Markham v. Jaudon, 41 IT. ¥. 235, 243. Stern v. O'Connell, 35 N. Y. 104. Dis- ting'd and limited (Effect of filing lis pen- dens) in Lamont v. Cheshire, 05 Id. 39. Sternberger v. McGovern, 4 Daly, 456. Rev'd in 56 IT. Y. 12; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. IT. 8. 257. Decision in Id. applied (Right to relief, as established by allegations of complaint) in Seeley v. N. Y. Nat. Exch. B'k, 8 Daly, 400, 405 ; Rnapp v. Roche, 37 Super. Cl. (J. & 8.) 395, 404. Compare "Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. IT. 0. 72, 75. Sterne v. Goep, 20 Han, 396. Affd in 84 IT. Y. 641, but without opinion. Sternfels v. Clark, 2 Hun, 122 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 396. Aff d, it seems, in 70 N. Y. 608, but without opinion. Sternhans v. Schmidt, 5 Abb. Pr. 66. Fol- lowed (Defective undertaking offered on appeal) and Parfitt v. "Warner, 13 Id. 471, disregarded in Dinkel v. Wehle, 61 How. Pr. 160. Sterry v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 261. ( Affd in 12 Johns. 536; 8 c, 7 Am. Dec. 348, with note. See Roberts v. Anderson. Decision in 12 Johns, applied (Proof of delivery of deed) in Lawrence v. Farley, 24 Bun, 293, 295. Explained in Church v. Oilman, 15 Wend. 660. Disting'd in Rogers v. Carey, 47 Mo. 232 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 322. Disting'd with Phoenix v. Dey, 5 Johns. 412; Doe v. Roe, 1 John. Oas. 402 (Effect of declara- tions of person on rights of those claiming under him) in Chadwicku. Weber, 3 Oreenl. (Me.) 141 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 222. Decis- ions in 1 Johns. Oh. 12 Johns, followed (Mar- riage, as valuable consideration to support ante-nuptial settlement) in Herrings. Wick- ham, 29 Oratt. (Va.) 628; s. c, 26 Am. R. 405, 410, 418. Decision in 1 Johns. Oh. quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 212. Followed (Effect of voluntary conveyance as against subsequent purchaser) in Ander- son v. Green, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 448; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 417, with note. Ex- plained in 4 Kent Com. 463. Decisions in'l Johns. Of ; 12 Johns.; reviewed in 1—47 Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 231: s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 625, with note. Decision in 1 Johns. Oh. examined with Tuttle v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 213 ; Wiswall v. McGown, 2 Barb. 270; Snyder v. Sponable, 1 Bill, 567 (What will put purchaser on inquiry) in Parker v. Kane, 4 Wise. 16. Decis- ion in 12 Johns, applied (Impeaching voluntary conveyance) in Jackson v. Town. 4 Cow. 603 ; Seward v. Jackson. 8 Id. 436, 449. Explained and applied in Babcock . Brownell, 1 Johns. 267 (both said to be overruled by later and better considered cases); Caswell v. Districh, 15 Wend 379; Putnam ». Wise, 1 Hill, 234; Dine- hart v. Wilson, 15 Barb. 595, and other cases, in Herskell v. Bushnell, 37 Conn. 30 ■ s. c, 9 Am. R. 299, 303. Dissented from with Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. 39 (Rights of purchaser of growing crop) in Brit- tain v. McKay, Tred. (xV. O. 263 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 738, with note. Approved in Johnson v. Smith, 8 Penr. & W. (Pa.) 496 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 339, with note. Followed with Whipple v. Foot, 2 Johns. 418 (Growing crops as subject to levy and sale under execution) in Smith v. Fritt, 1 Dev. & B. (XT. O.) 241; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 505, with note. Cited with Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180, and other cases (Rights as to emblements) in 40 Am. R. 96, n. T.'Eden, 2 Oai. 121; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 222, with note wherein it is shown to have been extensively noticed by writers on ne- gotiable instruments, and well supported as an authority. Explained (Sufficiency of proof of presentment of note for payment) in Taylor v. Snyder, 3 Den. 145, 149. Followed in Taylor v. Branch, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala). 249; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 293. Dis- ting'd with Ogden v. Cowley, 2 Johns. 275, in Galpin v. Hard, 3 McOord (So. Oar.) 394; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 640, with note. y. Howard, 15 Barb. 26. See Columbia Ins. Co. t). Force. Disting'd (Effect of giv- ing bail, as waiver of right to question authority to arrest) in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. «. Ecclesine, 6 Abb. Pr. XT. 8. 9, 25. v. Hutcliins, 13 Wend. 485. AfFd in 6 Hill, 143. v. James, 38 Super. Ot. (J. & 3.) 56. Rev'd in Id. 360. v. Keteltas, 9 Bosw. 2R1. AfFd in 36 JV. Y. 388. See Smith v. Brady. v. Lispenard, 26 Wend. 255; s. c, 14 XT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1075, with brief note of conflicting cases. See statement by L. Stewart published at N. Y. 1844. Dis- approved (Appeal from surrogate's decision as to probate of will) in Alston v. Jones, 1 PaP/e, 98. Commented on (Capacity neces- sary in testator) in Delafield v. Parish, 25 XT. Y. 9-29, by which it is regarded as qual- ified,— in Ean v. Snyder, 46 Barb. 230. See also criticism in 1 Red/. 204, n. Re- viewed with Van Alst v. Hunter, 5 Johns. Oh. 148, in Cornwell v. Riker, 2 Dem. 354. Disapproved in Irish v. Newell, 62 III. 196; s. c, 14 Am. R. 79, 84. Commented on in Swell Lead. Gas. on Inf., &c, 655, n.; Red/. Lead. Cos. on Wills, 158, 309 ; Wil- lard on Executors, 86 ; 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 93, n. Cited with Culver v. Haslam, 7 Barb. 314; De Witt v. Barley, 13 Id. 550; 9 XT. Y. 371 ; 17 Id. 340; Dela- field v. Parish, 25 Id, 37 ; Clapp v. Fuller- ton, 34 Id. 190; Clarke v. Sawyer, 3 Sandf. Ch. 357, and many other cases (Competency of non-expert testimony on question of san- ity) in dissenting opinion of Doe, J., in State v. Pike, 49 iV. H. 399; s. a, 6 Am. R. 533, 545, as showing the unanimous weight of authority in this country as well as in England. ■ v. McGuin, 1 Cow. 99. Followed with Elting v. Vanderlyn, 4 Johns. 239 (Forbear- 740 STEWART— STILWELL. ance as good consideration for promise) in Giles v. Ackles, 9 Pa. St. 147; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 551. v. McMartin, 5 Barb. 438. See Tomp- kins v. Fonda. Explained (Application of income of trust fund to claims of creditors) in Hann v. Van Voorhis, 5 Hun, 426. Ex- . amined with other cases in dissenting opin- ion in Graff v. Bonnett, 31 H. 7. 28. Pol- lowed in Campbell v. Foster, 35 Id. 367. Bee cases cited in 16 Abb. 2T. C. 29, n. Explained (Application of dower right to payment of judgment) in Moak v. Coats, 33 Barb. 499. See cases cited in 14 Am. Dec. 542, n. v. Munroe, 56 How. Pr. 193. Compare (Pleading in partition) 1 E. S. 318 ; Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1533, 1542. v. Morton; 8 Abb. Pr. 429. See (Ap- peal from judgment, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1294, n. v. Patrick, 68 N. Y. 450. Discussed (Ejectment against husband and wife) in Sedgw. & W."on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 255. v. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. See Unger v. Peoples' Fire Ins. Co. v. Petrie, 55 N. Y. 621. Disting'd (Effect of agreement for interest on interest) in Young v. Hill, 67 Id. 170. See cases re- viewed in 16> Alb. L. J. 252. v. Powers, 38 Super. Ct. (6 /. & S.) 56. Rev'd as Stewart v. James, Id. 366. T. Rauney, 23 How. Pr. 205. Rev'd in 26 Id. 279. v. Saratoga & Whitehall K. R. Co., 12 How. Pr. 435. Explained (Effect of ap- peal from order, as stay of proceedings) in Valton v. National Loan Fund Life Assur- ance Soc, 19 Id. 515, 517. Disapproved, in Hicks v. Smith, 4 Abb. Pr. 285, 288; which was approved, in Christy v. Libby, 3 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 423. V. Schultz, 33 How. Pr. 3. Affd in 50 Barb. 192; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. K S. 383 ; 34 How. Pr. 31. v. Small, 2 Barb. 559. See Spear v. Myers. Examined and followed (What is parting with value for note) in Farrington v. Frankfort Bank. 31 Barb. 183, 192. v. Smith, 17 Wend. 517. Disting'd (Sufficient proof of service of summons to support justice's jurisdiction) in Reno v. Pinder, 20 H. Y. 298, 306. v. , 39 Barb. 167. Modified and overruled, in part, in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 306 ; s. c, 1 Keyes, 59. v. Smithson, 1 Hilt. 119. Collated with other cases (Injunction against viola- tions of trade-mark) in T/iomps. on Prov. Rem. 263. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, bn, n. o, 257, bo, n. p. v. Stewart, 7 Johns. Ch. 229. Dis- ting'd (Who entitled to personal property of married woman, on her death) in Baldwin i>. Carter, 17 Conn. 201 ; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 735, 737, with note. v. Trustees of Hamilton College, 2 Den. 403. . Examined (Liability on subscrip- tion made with others to raise fund) in N. Y. Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 5 Bosw. 593, > 607, 613, 617. v. Wallis, 30 Barb. 344. See (Effect of action by less than full number of public body) Colman v. Shattuck, 2 Hun, 497, 503. — v. Wells, 6 Barb. 79. See Allen v. Crary. Explained (Liability for unlawful levy by sheriff) in Chapman v. Douglas, 5 Daly, 244, 250. Disapproved, in Richard- son B. Reed, 1 Gray (Mass.) 441. Stidham v. Sanford, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 341. Aff'd. it seems, in 58 HT. Y. 674, on opinion below. Stief v. Hart, 1 K Y. 20. See Phillips v. Cook. Criticised and disting'd (Right of sheriff to take property pledged by debtor) by Suthehi.and, J., in Wood ■». Orser, 25 Id.. 348, 356 ; by Inobaham, J., in Harris v. Murray, 28 Id. 574, 576. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1412, n. Stiles v. Stewart, 12 Wend. 473; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 142. with extended note. Ex- plained (Pleading judgments of justices, &c.) in Turner v. Roby, 3 K Y. 193. Still v. Hall. See Batterman v. Pierce. v. Holbrook, 23 Hun, 517. Collated with other cases (Statute of limitations as bar to partnership accounting) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 233, n. Stillman v. Mitchell, 2 Eobt. 523. Affd as Lyon v. Mitchell, 36 N. Y. 235, and see dissenting opinion, Id. 682. * See Knapp v. Wallace. Stillwell v. N. Y. Central, &e. R. R. Co. See Brown v. Same. Discussed (Derivative evidence) in 2 Best on Ev. § 495, n. a, Wood's ed. Stilwell v. Carpenter, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 615. Rev'd in 59 N. Y. 414; which was modified in 2 Abb. N. C. 238 ; mem. s. c, 62 N. Y. 638. Decision in Id. fol- lowed (New evidence on appeal) in Porter «. Waring, 2 Abb. N. C. 237. Applied (Disregarding imperfection in pleading, on appeal) in Hudson v. Swan, 7 Id. . 332. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 838. Ap- plied (Jurisdiction of surrogate to try claim) in Westervelt v. Westervelt, 46 Super. Ct. {J.& S.) 298, 304. See Boughton v. Flint, 5 Abb. JV. C. 215, and Id. n. Cited (Necessity of evidence of two witnesses to countervail denial by defendant) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 487, n. as showing the rule prevailing in N. Y. Decision in 59 N. Y. disting'd (Jurisdiction of surrogate to inter- fere with judgments of other courts) in Archer v. Furniss, 4 Bed/. 88, 94. v. Coope, 4 Den. 225. Followed and authorities collected pro and con (Effect of new promise as barring operation of dis- charge in bankruptcy) in Knapp v. Hoyt, 57 lowd, 591, 595. v. Doughty, 2 Bradf. 311. Followed (Life tenant, how far liable for expense of improvements) in Gillispie v. Brooks, . 2 Bed/. 349, 364. v. Hasbrouck, 1 Hill, 561. Disap- STILWELL— STOKES. 741 proved (Sufficiency of denial of new prom- ise to pay debt) in Tracy v. Rathbun, 3 Barb. 543. v. Hubbard, 20 Wend. 44. Applied (Sufficiency of delivery of deed) in Jacobs v. Alexander, 19 Barb. 247. v. Mills, 19 Johns. 304. Limited (Rem- edy on bond of guardian, &c.) in Brown v. Snell, 57 K Y. 286, 297. Explained in Girvin v. Eickman, 21 Hun, 316. Applied in Hood «. Hood, 85 N. Y. 561, 576. Ap- plied with People v. Barnes, 12 Wend. 492; Salisbury v. Van Hoesen, 3 Hill, 77 ; Peo- ple v. (Jorlies, 1 Sandf. 228; Annett «. Kerr, 28 How. Pr. 324; Hood v. Hood, 85 N. Y. 561, in Scofield ». Adriance, 1 Dem. 196. ■ v. Staples, 6 Duer, 63. Rev'd in 19 K Y. 401. See De Forest ®. Fulton Fire Ins. Co. Decision in 19 N. Y. followed (Right to benefit of policy taken out by agent) in "Waring v. Indemnity Fire Ins. Co., 45 JV. Y. 606, 612. Stimpsou v. Reynolds, 14 Barb. 506. See Foster v. Pettibone. Deemed overruled (Officer's liability in replevin) in Manning «. Keenan, 9 Hun, 680, 689. Stimson v. Wriglev, 10 Weekly Dig. 10. Aff'd in 86 N. Y. 332. Decision in Id. quoted (Fraud in retention of possession by vendor) in Wait on Fraud. Com). § 265. Stinde t. Ridgway, 55 How. Pr. 301. Sub- quent decision affecting same will, as Matter of Ridgway, 4 Redf. 226. Stinemets v. Ainslie, 4 Den. 573. Explained (Bankruptcy as defense to lease) in 3 Pars, on Contr. 507, n. I. Stiuer v. Stiller, 58 Barb. 643. Affd, it seems, in 49 N. Y. 679, but without opin- ion. Compare (Liability for interference by third person with negotiation of con- tract) in Ashley v. Dixon, 48 Id. 430. Stinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 32 IT. Y. 333. See Poucher v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co. Disting'd (Liability for injurv to shipper of freight) in Poucher v. N. Y" Central, &c. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263. Stitt v. Little, 63 N. Y. 427. Disting'd (Liability for false representations) in Brad- ner v. Strang, 23 Hun, 445, 447. Applied in Morehouse v Yeager, 71 N. Y. 595. v. Rowley, 37 How. Pr. 179. Followed (Costs on application for- new trial) in Rousso v. Vontrin, 41 Id. 8, 11. Stockbridge's Assignment, 7 Abb. JST. C. 395; s. c, as Matter of Stockbridge & Martin, 58 How. Pr. 128. Stockbridge & Martin, Matter of. See Stockbridge's Assignment. Stocker v. Partridge, 2 Robt. 193. Said in 41 JST. Y- 620 to have been aff'd in Ct. of App. Dec. 1869. Stockham v. Jones, 10 Johns. 21. Approved (Defendant in tort, not served with process, as competent witness) in Entriken v. Brown, 32 Penn. 364. Commented on and cases cited to the "contrary in 1 Greenl. on Ev 14 ed. § 358 n. 5. Stockwcll v. Phelps, 34 N. Y. 303. Dis- ting'd (Recovery of emblements after judg- ment in ejectment) in Samson *. Rose, 65 Id. 419. ' Cited with approval in Page v. Fowler, 39 Gal. 412; s. c, 2 Am. R. 462, 46 1. Discussed in Sedgw. & W. op Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 683. v. Teitch, 38 Barb. 650; s. c, more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 412. Cited with ap- proval (Right of action for property taken by virtue of tax warrant) in Power v. Kindschi, 58 Wis. 539 ; s. a, 46 Am. R. 652. Followed in Travers v. Inslee, 19 Mich. 98. Stoddard v. Clarke, 9 Abb. Pr. J\T. S. 310. Approved (Costs in case of two or more causes of action in one complaint) in Watson e. Gardiner, 50 N. Y. 671. Thought in 29 Moah Eng. 780, n. to overrule Dresser v. Wickes, 2 Abb. Pr. 460 ; Pennell «. Wil- son, Robt. 668. • v. Hart, 23 N. Y. 556. Quoted (Crea- tion of mortgage by deposit or pledge of title deeds) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 85, 108. y. Holmes, 1 Cow. 245. See (Cost in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. — — v. Long Island R. R. Co. See Welles «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. Whiting, 1 Alb. L. J. 122. Rev'd in 46 N. Y. 627. Decision in Id. followed (Conveyance, when to be regarded as mort- gage) in Carr v. Carr, 52 Id. 259. Disting'd in Fullerton v. McCurdy, 55 Id. 637, 639. Followed (Conveyance of equitable interest as affected by recording acts) as the pre- vailing doctrine, in Edwards v. McKerman, 55 Mich. 520, 524. Dicta explained (Na- ture of estate of mortgagor) in Odell v. Montross, 68 Id. 499, 506. Applied (Effect of failure of case to contain any of the evi- dence) in Beard v. Sinnott, 35 Super. Ct. {J. A S.) 65. Explained in Porter v. Mc Grath, 41 Id. 98. Stokes v. Brown, 2 Sweeny, 457. Explained (Vendor's obligation to give notice of deliv- ery) in Woolner v. Hill, 47 Super. Ct.(J. & S.) 470, 475. y. Corporation of N. T. See Bush v. Seabury. v. Lamlgraff, 17 Barb. 608. See Amos- keag Manuf. Co. v. Spear. Approved (Words only denoting nature of articles not to be appropriated as trade-marks) in Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr. 68. Considered and followed, in Congress <& Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co., 57 Barb. 534, 552 ; which was however rev'd in 10 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 348. Followed in Taylor v Gillies, 59 JV. Y. 331, 335. Approved with Amoskeag Man'f'g Co. ■». Spear,' 2 Sandf. 599, in Cnndec v. Deere, 54 III. 439 ; s. c, 5 Am. R. 125, 143, as according wite the weight of authority. Collated with other cases in 2'homps. onProv. Ren 261. v. People, 53 N. Y. 164. See account 742 STONE— STORM. of proceedings at N. Y. Oyer and Terminer published at N. Y. in 1873. Also at Phila. in 1873. See address to jury on final trial by L. Tremain, published at N. Y. 1875. Also appeal papers in Sup'm. Ct. and in Ct. of App. are in two volumes iD Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Applied (Ad- missibility on trial for murder, of threats made by deceased) in Shaw v. People, 3 Sun, 279. Applied in action on life policy, in Yale t>. Travelers' Ins. Co., 2 Sup 1 in. Ct. (T. & C.) 223. Included with note in Ilorrigan & T. Cos. on Self Def. 927. Followed and ap- proved (Presumption of malice from kill- ing) in Hadley v. State, 55 Ala. 81, 38. Compare speech of Jas. T. Brady in case of Savannah Privateers, Snyder's Great Sp. 351. Approved and contrasted with other cases in 17 Am. L. Rev. 892, 914. Fol- lowed (Power of legislature to change mode of challenging jurors) in Weston «. People, 6 Han, 141. Stone v. Browning. 49 Barb. 244. Rev'd in 51 N. Y. 211; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 188 ; 44 Sow. Pr. 131. Further decision in 68 N. Y. 598. Decision in 51 Id. disting'd (Acceptance under statute of frauds) in U. S. Reflector Co. v. Rushton, 7 Daly, 410. Followed in Heermance v. Taylor, 14 Hun, 150 ; Brewster «. Taylor, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 159, 166. Decision in 68 N. Y. col- lated with Caulkins v. Hellman, 47 Id. 452; Allard v. Greaseart, 61 Id. 5, and cases from other States, in Taylor v. Mueller, 30 Minn. 343, 346. Quoted in 1 Ben], un ■Sales, § 139, n. 1 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Cited (Sufficiency of note or memorandum) in Id. § 232, n. u (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) as sustaining the English doctrine. v. Cooper, 2 Den. 293. See Steele v. Southwick. Collated with other cases (Li- bellous words) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 132. v. Flower, 47 N. Y. 566. Applied (Effect of failure to request submission of question to jury) in Wombough v. Cooper, 2 Sun, 428, 432 ; Miner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 171, 202; Hagaman v. Burr, 41 Id. 423, 426. v. Frost, 6 Lans. 440. Affd in 61 N. Y. 614. Decision in Id. disting'd (Return of purchase which proves utterly valueless) as inapplicable to negotiable paper, — iu Littauer v. Goldman, 72 Id. 50G, 514. • v. Hooker, 9 Cow. 154. Followed (Validity of promise to indemnify against trespass) in Marcy ■». Crawford, 16 Conn. \ 549; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 158. — — ¥. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 25 Wend. 157. (See Russell e. Mayor of N. Y. Applied (Construction of statute resting on legisla- tive discretion) in Hyatt ®. Taylor, 51 Barb. 635. Explained and applied (Liability for loss of property destroyed by public officers to prevent spread of fire) in Russell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Den. 469. Followed as conclusive in People ex rel. Brisbane v. Common Council of N. Y., 76 N. Y. 562. Relied on with Baldwin «. City of Buffalo, 35 K Y. 375; Swift v. City of Poughkeep- sie, 37 Id. 511 ; People v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 39 Id. 81 ; People v. Assessors of Albany, 40 Id. 154; People v. Board of Police, 39 Id. 506 ; Bank of Commonwealth v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 43 Id. 184 (Ques- tions for review on certiorari) in Milwaukee Iron Co. «. Schubel, 29 Wis. 444; s. c, 9 Am. R. 591. v. Seymour, 15 Wend. 19. Affg Sey- mour v. Van Slyck, 8 Id. 403. With these decisions and Davis v. Fargo, Clarice, 470 ; Righter v. Stall, 3 Sandf. Oh. 608 ; Allen v. Culver, 3 Den. 284, see (Application of payments) cases cited in 1 Abb. AT. Y. Dig. 223 n v. Wood, 7 Cow. 453 ; s. c, 9 N~. FL Com. L. Law. ed. 185, with brief note; 17 Am. Dee. 529, with note. See Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria R. R. Co. Disting'd (Liability on contract executed by agent) in Plumb v. Milk, 19 Barb. 78. Applied in Barker 1>. Mechanic Ins. Co., 3 Wend. 94,. 99 ; Guyon v. Lewis,"7 Id. 30 ; Spencer v. Field, 10 Id. 90. Included in Lausoris Lead. Com. L. Can. Simplified, 145. Stoneman v. Erie R'y Co., 1 Buff. Super.' Ct. (Sheldon) 286. Affd in 62 JSf. Y. 429. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Carrier's liability for extra baggage) in 34 Am. R. 379, n. Stoney v. American Life Ins. & Trust Co., 4 JSdw. 332. Rev'd in 11 Paige, 635. Head-note of Id. eriticised but approved in part (Eflect of negotiable security of cor- poration issued without authority) in Farm- ers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers' & Drov- ers' Bank, 14 K Y. 623, 631. Decision followed with Bissell v. Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co., 22 Id. 289, in Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co., 28 Minn. 291 ; s. c, 41 Am. R. 285 ; 13 Reporter, 50. Ex- plained in Morawetz On Corp. § 98. Stoors v. Kelsey, 2 Paige, 418. Examined with Sanford v. Sinclair, 8 Id. S73: Mc- Elwain v. Willis, 9 Wend. 560; Shotten- kirk v. Wheeler, 3 Johns. Ch. 275 (Remedy; for execution improperly returned unsatis- fied) in Albany City Bank v. Dorr, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 324. Storey v. Salomon, 6 Daly, 531. AfTd as Story v. Same, 71 JV. Y. 520. See Bigelow v. Benedict. Storm v. Davenport, 1 Sandf. Ch. 135. See Bayard e. Hoffman. Discussed (Delaying collection of securities in case of assignment for benefit of creditors) in. Burrill on Assign. § 230, 4 ed. v. Livingston, 6 Johns. 44. Followed (Demand, as condition precedent to liability of purchaser of goods wrongfully sold on execution) in Twinam v. Swart, 4 Lans. 263, 268. Explained as turning solely on want of demand, in Antwerp v. Newman, 2 Cow. 543, 546. v. Mann, 4 Johns. Ch. 61. Discussed (Injunction in action . of ejectment) in STOEM— STORY. 743 Scdgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 627. t. Waddell, 2 Sandf. Oh. 494; s. c, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs 367. See Clarkson ». De Peyster. Cited at length and followed (Jurisdiction of equity as to creditor's suits) in Shainwald v. Lewis, U. S. Z>ist. Gt. D. Cat 6 Fed. Hep. 769. Commented on with Spader «. Davis, 5 Johns. Oh. 280, in 2 Kent Com. 443, n. e. Commented on at length and approved (Lien created by creditor's suit) in 1 Id 247, n. a. v. Woods, 11 Johns. 110. See Bliss v. Ball ; Whipple v. Foot. Limited (Effect of leaving property levied on, in possession of debtor) in Rew v. Barber, 3 Cow. 272, 279, to cases where the creditor interferes and directs delay. To similar effect, see Russell «. Gibbs, 5 Id. 390. Storms v. Rnggles, Clarice, 148. Overruled (Necessity of renewal of execution, for fil- ing of creditor's bill after five years) in Corn- r ing «.' Stebbins, 1 Baro. Ch. 589, 591. De- nied in Walker v. Donovan, 6 Daly, 553. v. Snyder, 10 Johns. 109. Discussed (What are contracts affecting land within meaning of statute of frauds) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 231, n. 6, 4ed. Storrs v. Barker, 6 Johns. Ch. 166; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 316, with extended note. See Brown v. Bowen ; Shotwell ». Murray. Ex- plained (Estoppel to enforcement of legal title) and held not to be overruled by Brewster v. Striker, 2 N. Y. 19; Chautau- qne County Bank «. White, 6 Id. 236, — in Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595, 602, 606. Explained in dissenting opinion in Mattoon v. Young, 2 Hun, 559, 567. Disting'd in Trenton Banking Co. v. Duncan, 86 iV". Y. 221, 229. Relied on in Dunley v. Rector, 10 Ark. 211; s. c. 50 Am. Dec. 242, with note. Approved and applied "with Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. Ch. 354, in Maryland Sav'ars Inst'n v. Schrocdcr, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 93; s. c, 29 ^Im. Dec. 528, 532. Reviewed with Brinkerhoff «. Lan- sing, 4 Johns. Oh. 70, and other cases, in Campbell v. Smith, 3 llahl. (N. J.) 140 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 400, 411. Discussed in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 84. Applied. (Effect of mistake of law) in McCartee v. Teller, 8 Wend. 295. Relied on in Zollman 71. Moore, 21 Gratt. ( Va.) 313, 329. Doc- trine discussed in 3 Alb. Tj. J. 450. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. % 1144, n. v. City of Utica, 17 N. Y. 104., See Blake v. Ferris; City of Buffalo ». Holloway; Congrevc v. Smith; lliitson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Pack v. .Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester. Disting'd (.\Iunieip:il liability for injury resulting from conditio:) of street) in Kavanagh v. City of Brooklyn, 38 Barb. 237. Followed in Dressell " v. City of Kingston, 32 Jinn, 533. Applied to liabil- ity of individual. — in Sexton v. Zett, 44 i\T. Y. 432. Explained in Gardner v. Bennett, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 197, 200. Followed in Mayor, &c. v. O'Donnell, 53 Md. 110; s. c, 36 Am. R. 395 ; Russell v. Inhabitants of Columbia, 74 Mo. 480, 491. Collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Eighw. 3 ed. 90. Explained and applied (Liability for contractor's negligence) in O'Rourke «. Hart, 7 Bosw. 514. Examined at length in Sulzbacher v. Dickie, 6 Daly, 469, 471. Examined and compared with Blake v. Ferris, 5 K Y. 48 ; Pack v. May- or, &c. of N. Y., 8 Id. 222 ; City of Buffalo o. Holloway, 7 Id. 493 ; Congreve v. Smith, 18 Id. 79; Kelley v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y:, 11 Id. 432, in Creed v. Hartmann, 29 N. Y. 591, 593 ; which aff'd 8 Bosw. 428, which see. Disting'd in McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 JV. Y. 182; Cuff v. Newark & N. Y. R. R. Co , 35 N. J. 17 ; s. c, 10 Am. R. 205, 211, citing Pack ». Mayor, &c. of N. 7., 8 J. Z 222. Ap- proved with Irvin v. Wood, 4 Robt. 138; Congreve v. Morgan, 18 N. Y. 84 ; Hart v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 9 Wend. 607; Dygert «. Schonck, 23 Id. 446, in City of Lincoln ii. Walker, Sup'm. Ct. Nebr. 1884, 20 Northw. Rep. 113. Relied on in Pal- mer v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 136 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 470, 474. Approved and ap- plied in Whitney ®. Clifford, 46 Wis. 138 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 703. Collated with other cases in 2 Thomp. on Negl. 906. Discussed and cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 316. See 20 Alb. L. J. 164. Explained in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 309. Story v. Dayton, 22 Hun, 450. Re-argument granted, it seems, in 23 Id. 528, but with- out opinion. v. Elliot, 8 Cow. 27; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 423, with note. See Butler v. Kelsey. Followed (Effect of judicial act done on Sunday) in Shearman «. State, 1 Tex. Ct. App. 215 ; s. c, 28 Am.. R. 402, 404, citing also Houghtaling v. Osborn, 15 Johns. 119 ; Vanderwerker v. People, 5 Wend. 530. Followed (Validity of acts regulating obser- vance of Sabbath) in Ex parte Andrews, 18 Col. 681. t. Furman, 25 N. Y. 214. See Walker v. Crain. Applied (Nature of stockholder's liability) in Pfohl v. Simpson, 50 How. Pr. 343. Explained and limited (Enforcing liability of stockholders, in case of insol- vency of corporation) in Hurd o. Tallman, 60 Barb. 272, 286; Lowry v. Inman, 2 Sweeny, 117, 135. Followed with doubts (Power of receiver of corporation to enforce such liability) in Calkins v. Atkinson, 3 Lans. 12, 16. Disting'd with Calkins v. At- kinson, 2 Lans. 12, in Mason v. N. Y. Silk M'f'g Co., 27 Eun, 307. Disting'd and Cuykendall v. Corning, 88 K Y. 129, followed in Farnsworth v. Wood, 91 Id. 308. Disting'd in Dutcher ». Marine Nat. Bank, 12 Blatchf. C. Ct. 435. Applied with Lee e. Tillotson, 24 Wend. 337 ; Peo- ple v. Murray, 5 Mill, 468 (Estoppel to 744 STOET— STEAITON. assert invalidity of statute, &c.) in Bidwell v. City of Pittsburgh, 85 Penn. St. 412 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 662. v. Hamilton, 20 Hun, 133. Aff d in 86 JSf. Y. 428. t. Lovett, 1 R D. Smith, 153. Cited (Production of attesting witnesses) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 725, as showing ex- treme applications of rule. t. N. ¥. Elevated R. R. Co., 3 All. N. G. 478. Rev'd in 11 Id. 236; s. c, 90 N. Y. 122. See Kellinger v. Forty-second St., &c. R. R. Co. ; People v. Kerr. Decision in 11 All. N. C. followed (Right to compen- sation for impairment of easement) in Tif- fany v. U. S. Illuminating Co., 67 How. Pr. 73 ; Peyser v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 12 Id. 276. Approved and followed in ap- plication to riparian rights, — in Van Dolsen v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. Y. 17 Fed. Rep. 817. Cited with Griffin ». Martin, 7 Barb. 297; Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Id. 201 ; Craig v. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Id. 494 ; Davis v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 14 N. Y. 509; "Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 16 Id. 97; Bloomfleld Gas Lt. Co. v. Calkins, 62 Id. 386, and, to the contrary, People v. Kerr, 27 Id. 18S, in 19 Cent. L. J. 382. With decision in 3 All. N. G. compare (Compensation to owners of property adjacent to railroad) Washing- ton Cemetery v. Prospect Park, &c. R. lt. Co., 4 Id. 15. Collated with other cases (Contracts ultra vires) in Id. 59, n. v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co. Sec Far- rell v. Calkins ; Masterton ■».• Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. v. Salomon. See Storey v. Salomon. Stonghton v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. 467. Subsequent decision in 2 Id. 209. Sec Beacham v. Eckford. Decision in 1 Johns. Ch. cited at length (Liability of partner for excess in exercise of his authority) in Story, on Partn. 7 ed. § 173, n. Decis- ion in 2 Johns. Ch. followed (Time from which to charge interest on balance duo from partner) in Holden v. Peace, 4 Ired. Eq. (K G.) 223; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 514, 516, with note. Stoat v. People, 4 Park 71. Further decis- ion in Id. 132. v. Rider, 12 Bun, 574. Followed (Ef- fect of usurious acts of one only of several trustees) in Van Wyck v. Walters, 1 6 Id. 2C9. Explained in MoaJe's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 556. v. Woodward, 5 Hun, 340. Affd, it seems, in 71 N. Y. 690, but without opinion. Stontenbnrgh v. Yaiidenburgh, 7 How. Pr. 229. Overruled with Sears v. Gcarn, Id. 383 (Attachment of partnership property for debt of one partner) in Goll v. -Hinton, 8 Abb. Pr. 120. Collated with other cases in Thomps. on Prov. Hem. 371. Stouvenel v. Stephens, 26 How. Pr. 244. Further decision in 2 Daly, 319. Decision in Id. cited with McCartee v. Camel, 1 Barb. Ch. 456 (Proof of time of death of person absent for seven years) in 2 Wl.art. Com. on Ev. § 1276, as agreeing with the preponderance of authority. Stover v. Eycleshimer, 46 Barl. 84. Affd in 3 Keyes, 620; s. c, 4 Alb. Ct. App. Dec. 309. Decision in Id. explained (Sale of expectancy in equity) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 82, n. 6 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Compare cases cited to the contrary in 20 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 101. v. People. See McGarrey v. Same. Stow v. Hamlin, 11 How. Pr. 452. Cited (Burden of proof on attorney suing for com- pensation) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 616. v. Tifft, 15 Johns. 458; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 266; 5 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1157, with brief note. Applied (Effect of pur- chase money mortgage) in Andrews v. Wol- cott, 16 Barb. 24 ; Dusenbury v. Hulbert, 59 if. Y. 544. Explained and applied in Hitchcock B.^Northw. Ins. Co., 26 N. Y. 71, citing Tallmffn v. Farley, 1 Barl. 280 ; Cun- ningham v. Knight, Id. 399. Disting'd (Es- toppel to claim dower) in Sherwood v. Van- denburgh, 2 Hill, 308. Applied (Two in- struments, when to be regarded as part of one agreement) in Hanford v. Rogers, 11 Barl. 20. Relied on with Jackson v. Dunsbagh, 1 Johns. Gas. 92, 95, in dissenting opinion of Ellsworth:, J., in Osborne. Phelps, 19 Conn. 63; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 132, 142, with note. Explained with Jackson v. De Witt, 5 Cow. 316 (Dower in mortgaged premises) in Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw. 524, 531. Disting'd and questioned in Mills v. Van Voorhies, 10 Abb. Pr. 152, 156; which rev'd 23 Barb. 125, 140, which see. Applied in Kittle v. Van Dyck, 1 Sandf. Ch. 80. Explained in • Goates v. Chcevcr, 1 Cow. 478 ; Bell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Paige, HI. Followed in Eslava v. Lepretrc, 21 Ala. 504; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 2G6, 278. Applied in McCaulcy v. Grimes, 2 Gill A J. (Md.) 318; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 434, with note. Sec 3 Bac. Abr. Dower (C) §2, p. 208 (rt); Co. LIU. 31a-316 (3); 4 Kent Com. 39 ; 1 Cruise Dig. {Dower) p. 157, . Fullager, 14 Abb. N. O. 363. Strickland v. Harger, 16 Sun., 465. Aff'd, it seems, in 81 N. 7. 623, on opinion be- low. Strickland v. Wool worth, 3 Sutfm. Ot. (T. & O.) 286. See Dygert v. Schenck. Dis- cussed (Liability of owner of fee for inter- fering with highway) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. 281. Striker, Matter of, 10 Hun, 308. Affd, it seems, in 71 iV. 7. 603, but without opin- ion. , 23 Hun, 647. Aff'd in 85 K 7. 629, but without opinion. Striker v. Kelly, 7 Hill, 9. Rev'd in 2 Den. 323. See Matter of Canal St.; Patching Trustees of Brooklyn. Decision in 7 Hill applied (Statute directing proceedings of public officers, when directory) in People v. Cook, 14 Barb. 292 ; People v. Carpenter, 24 K 7. 86, 93 ;.but see People v. Gardner, Id. 587. Followed, notwithstanding re- versal, in Doughty v. Hope, 3 Den. 252, 599. See Treadwell v. Commissioners of Hancock, 11 Ohio St. 190. Questioned (What is unlawful taking of private prpp- erty for public use) in Jordan v., Hyatt, 3 Barb. 281. Applied in Litchfield v. Mc- Comber, 42 Id. 292. Degied in People v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 6 Id. 223 ; Same v. Same, 9 Id. 548. Re-aff'd in Same v. Same, 4 JY. 7. 437, as unaffected on this point by reversal. Both decisions applied (Jurisdiction of court in proceedings to acquire land for railroad purposes) in Mat- ter of N. Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co., 40 How. Pr. 339; Matter of Canal and Walker Sts., 12 K 7. 410. Decision in 2 Den. applied with Patchin «. Trustees of Brooklyn, 2 Wend. 377; Matter of Canal St., 11 Id. 154, in Matter of Cooper, 22 N. r.67, 83. Followed (Proof of regularity of tax sale) in Leggett v. Rogers, 9 Barb. 412; Vurick v. Tallman, 2 Id. 117; Sanders v. Leavey, 38 Id. 73 ; Beekman v. Bigham, 5 N. 7. 368. - v. Mott, 28 J?. 7. 82. Prior decisions arising under same will, in 2 Paige, 387 ; Brewster v. Striker, 2 K 7. 19. Subse- quent decisions in Union Nat. B'k v. Kup- per, 63 Id. 617; Smith v. Scholtz, 68 Id. 41, 54. See collection of papers in this case, with marginal annotations, &c. in No. 53 of Charles O'Conor's " My Own Cases," in Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Decision in 2 Paige explained (Nature of power given by executors by will to sell real estate) in Catton v. Taylor, 42 Barb. 581. Applied (Who may not bring partition suit) in Wood ». Clute, 1 Sandf. Gh. 202. Decision in 28 K 7. disting'd (Validity of titie to real estate, derived from one claiming under will) in Favill v. Roberts, 60 Id. 222, 227. Explained (Alienability of heir's interest) in Brevoort v. Grace, 53 Id. 259. v. , 6 Wend. 465. Explained (Waiver of bond in proceedings before jus- tice) in Randall v. Crandall, 6 Hill, 342. Approved and followed (Error to reverse void judgment) in Abrams ». Jones, 4 Wise. 808. Strong v. City of Brooklyn. See Heard v. Same. — - v. Elliott. See Van Vechten v. Pad- dock. v. Lee, 44 How. Pr. 60. Affd in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 441, v. N. T. Firemen Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 323. Cited approvingly (Doctrine of ad-, justment of general average loss) in 3 Kent Com. 244. — i- v. N. Y Laundry M'fg Co., 37 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 279. Explained (Effect of statute forbidding defense of usury to cor- porations) in Graves i>. Lovell, 35 Id. 154, 156. v. Place, S3 How. Pr. 114; s. c, with the dissenting opinion of 'Monell, J., 4 Robt. 385. Rev'd in 51 1ST. 7. 627. v. Skinner, 4 Barb. 546. See Metho- dist Epis. Church v. Jaques. Disting'd (Effect of ante-nuptial agreement between husband and wife) in Wright v. Wright, 59 Barb. 505. Quoted in Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf. &c. 275. \. Smith, 3 Oai. 160. Overruled with Tucker v. Ladd, 7 Cow. 450 (Traverse to as many facts as are necessary to make one point) in Tubbs v. Caswell, 8 Wend. 130; Satterlee v. Sterling, 8 Cow. 233. See O'Brien v. Saxon, 2 B. & C. 908 ; Selby v. Bardons, 3 B. & Ad. 9 ; Robinson v. Raley, 1 Burr. 316 (and note thereto in Smiths' Lead. Gas. 247, 248) ; Vivian v. Jenkin, 3 Ad. & El. 741. v. Sproiil, 4 Daly, 326. Rev'd in 53 N. 7. 497. Decision in Id. followed (Judgment on frivolous answer) in Grocers' Bank v. O'Rourke, 6 Hun, 18. 21. v. Stebbins, 5 Cow. 210. Followed (Strict construction of penal statutes) in 746 STEONG— STUDWELL. Verona, &c. Cheese Factory v. Murtaugh, 4 Lans. 17, 23. t. Stewart, 4 Johns. Gh. 167. Cited with other cases (Parol evidence to explain purpose of deed) in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 891. T. Strickland, 32 Barb. 284. See Murray v. Judson. Followed (Effect of including usurious mortgage, in assignment for creditors) in Chapin v. Thompson, 23 Hun, 12, 18. -- — v. Strong, 1 Abb. Pr. K S. 233 ; s. c, in part 1 Robt. 719. Subsequent decision in 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 358. Decision in 3 Robt. disting'd (Pleading in actions of divoroe) in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 61 if. Y. 398, 410. Decision in 1 Abb. Pr. K S. 35B, followed (Counsel fees, &c. to wife in action against her for divorce for adul- tery) in Clark v. Clark. 7 Robt. 284. . — v. Taylor, 2 Hill. 326. See Smith v. Lynes. Disting'd (Effect of conditional sales, &c.) in Comer v. Cunningham, 77 AT. Y. 391, 399. Applied with Haggerty v. Palmer, 6 Johns. Gh. 437, in Michigan State Bank v. Hastings, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 225 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 549, 566, with note. Applied with Van Hoozer v. Cory, 34 Barb. 9, in Goodell v. Fairbrother, 12 'R. 1. 233 ; s. c, 34 Am. R. 631. v, Tompkins, 8 Johns. 98. Included (Action on note by sheriff, who was prohib- ited by law from taking title thereto) in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 350. v. Wlieaton, 38 Barb. 616. Followed (Enforcing individual liability of stock- holders) in Quigley v. Walter, 2- Sweeny, . 175, 180. as applicable to trustees. Com- pared (Judgment against corporation, as evidence against stockholder) in McMahon v. Macy, 51 N. Y. 155, 163. Cited with approval (Meaning of word " obligation) " in Exchange B'k v. Ford, 7 Colo. 314, 318. v. Wilkin, 1 Barb. Gh. 9. Disregarded as obiter dictum (Power of married woman to make will) in Wadhams v. American Home Missionary Society, 12 if. Y. 415, 423. Examined (Validity of ante-nuptial settlement and power to disaffirm) in Wet- more i>. Kissam, 3 Bosw. 321, 325. Stroud v. Frith. See Coit v. Commercial Ins. Co. — - v. Tilton, 3 Keyes, 139. Explained and cases collected (Books of account as evi- dence) in Burke v. Wolfe, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 263, 270. Struppmaii v. Mnller, 52 Row. Pr. 211. Another proceeding in 55 Id. 427; s. c, in part, 43 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 38. Also an- other proceeding as Struftmann v. Muller, 74 N. Y. 594. Struthers v. Pearce, 51 if. Y. 357. Further proceeding in Id. 365. See People v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co. Applied (Basis of extra allowance) in Browning v. Vanderhoven, 4 Abb. if, 0. 166, 171 ; Pot- ter v. FarriDgton, 24 Hun, 552 ; Weaver v. Ely, 83 K Y. 89, 91. Applied (Power of partner to take renewal of lease) in Mitchell v. Reed, 61 Id. 123, 130, 133. Stryker v. Bergen, 15 Wend. 490. See Noyes v. Hewitt. Followed (Certiorari to justices' courts) in Noyes v. Hewitt, 18 Wend. 141, 145. v. Cassidy, 10 Bun, 18. Rev'd in 76 A 7 ". Y. 50; s. c, 32 Am. R. 262, with note. See Balch v. N. Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co. Decision in 76 N. Y. applied (Who entitled to mechanic's lien) in Mining Co. v. Cullins, 104 U. S. 170. Stuart v. Bilisse, 3 Bosw. 657; s. c, some- what differently reported in 4 Id. 616. v. Close, 1 Wend. 438. Rev'd in 4 Id. 95. v. Columbian Fire Ins. Co., 1 Daly 471. Rev'd in 3 Alb. L. J. 96. • " v. Hawley, 22 Barb. 619. Doubted (Negligence in setting fire to rubbish) in Hay's Adm'r v. Miller, 6 Hun, 320, 323. v. Kissam, 2 Barb. 493. Rev'd in 11 Id. 271. With decision in Id. see (Lia- bility in more than one capacity for de- cedent's debts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1860, n Decision in 2 Barb, cited as still authority (What words necessary, to create trust for separate use of married woman) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 347. v. Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank, 19 Johns. 496. Dissented from (Disqualifica- tion of judge for interest) in Washington Ins. Co. v. Price, Hoph. 5; Place*. Butter- nuts, &c. Man'f'g Co., 28 Barb. 505. Ap- plied in People v. Edmonds, 15 Id. 531 ; Matter of Ryers, 72 If. Y. 12. Compared in Matter of Dodge & Stevenson Man'f'g Co., 77 Id. 108. Disting'd in Converse v. McArthur, 17 Barb. 412 ; Jewott v. Albany City B'k, Glarle, 186. Applied (Intent as element of usury) in Slosson a. Duff, 1 Barb. 435 ; Thomas v. Murray, 32 N. Y. 609. Explained in Robbins v. Dillaye, 2 Keyes, 512; Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 646. v. Palmer, 10 Hun, 23. Aff d in 74 if. Y. 183; s. c, 30 Am. R. 289. Decision in Id. disting'd (Necessity of notice of as- sessment) in Matter of De Peyster, SO N. Y. 565, 572. Approved and supported in Gatch v. City of Des Moines, 63 Iowa, 718, 722. " . Studwell v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 17 Hun, 602. Further proceeding in 19 Id. 127. Decision in Id. '' not concurred in " (Pref- erence on calendar of action on policy) ,in Wells v. Watertown Fire Ins. Co., 21 Id. 409. Disting'd in McKee v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 25 Id. 584. Overruled (Ac- tion on life policy as affected by provisions of Code Civ. Pro. § 1778) in N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 88 E~. Y. 424, 428. v. Sliapter, 54 if. Y. 249. Applied (Infant's liability for fraudulent representa- tion) in Hewitt v. Warren, 10 Hun, 560, 563 ; Kobbe v. Price, 14 Id. 56. Followed in Wielanda. Kobick, 110 III. 18. ' STUD WELL— SULLIVAN. 717 v. Terrett, 4 Bosw. 520. Followed (Lia- bility on acceptance) in Gallagher «. Nich- ols, 60 Jf. Y. 438, 445. , Sturges v. Allis, 10 Wend. 354. Explained (Recovery of amount paid on subsequently reversed judgment) in Lott v. Swezey, 29 Barb, 87, 89, 93. v. Vanderbilt. See Sturgis v. Drew. Sturgis T. Drew, 11 Hun, 136. Modified as Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384. See McCullochrc. Norwood. v. Law. See Baker v. Hoag. v. N. Y. Steam Nav. Co., 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 251. Aff'd in 62 K Y. 625. v. Spoffiord, 52 Barb. 436. Rev'd in part in 45 W. Y. 446. Subsequent decis- ion in 58 Id. 103. See Commissioners of Pilots v. Spofford. Decision in 45 N. Y. disting'd (Limit of recovery for statutory penalties) in Suydam v. Smith, 52 Id. 383, 388; Hintermister v. First Nat. B'k of Chittenango, 64 Id. 212, 217. Collated ■with Fisher «. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 46 Id. 644; Suydam v. Smith, 52 Id. 383, in 27 Am. R. 722, n. Decision in 58 If. Y. followed (Award of costs, in case of question of title) in Boardway «. Scott, 31 Hun, 378. Sturiu v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 281. Aff'd in 63 N. Y. 11. Compare Sturms v. Williams, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 325, a decision affecting policy on same vessel. Sturtevantv. Ballard, 9 Johns. 337; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 281, with note ; 4 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 789, with brief note. See Bar- row i). Paxton ; Beals v. Guernsey. Ex- plained (Fraud in retention of possession of chattels sold or mortgaged) in Bissell v. Hopkins, 3 Cow. 166, 188. But see Divver v. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. 596 ; Collins v. Brush, 9 Id. 198. See also 2 R. S. 136, §§.5. 6, 8; Cunningham «. Freeborn, 11 Wend. 240 ; 2 Kent Com. 528. Fullowed in Rocheblave v. Potter, 1 Mo. 061 ; s. c, 14 Am. Bee. 305, with note. Approvingly cited in Hundley v. Webb, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 644; s. c, 20 Am. Dee. 189, 195, with note. Denied in Haven v. Low, 2 If. H. 13; s. c, 9 Am. Dee. 25. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 339, 4 ed. Explained in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 666, n. 2. Quoted in Wait on Fraudx Come. § 246, n. 1. v. Brewer, 9 Alb. Pr. 414; s. c, 17 How. Pr. 571. Aff'd in 4 Bosw. 628. v. Orser, 24 If. Y. 538. Cited approv- ingly (Stoppage in transitu) in Benj. on Sales, § 858, n. h (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). v. Sturtevant, 20 AT. Y. 39. Explained (Extrinsic evidence of purpose of absolute conveyance) in Horn v. Keteltas, 46 Id. 610. Applied in Barrett v. Carter, 3 Lans. 70. Stuyvesant v. Grissler, 12 Abb. Pr. If. S. 6. See (Redemption by creditor of lessee in summary proceedings for land) Code Civ. Pro.imi, §2257,n. T Hall. See Same v. Hone. T . Hone, 1 Sandf. Ch. 419. Aff'd ra Stuyvesant v. Hall, 2 Barb. Ch. 151. Both decisions approved (Effect of registration as to prior parties) in 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur. 99, n. Decision in 2 Barb. Ch. applied (Effect of conveyance entitled to be re- corded, as constructive notice) in Edwards v. McKenna„55 Mich. 520, 526. v. Mayor of N. Y., 7 Cow. 588. See Presbyterian Church *>. City of N. Y. ; Vanderbilt v. Adams. Approved and ap- plied (Power of municipality to order use of private property so as to prevent its be- coming a nuisance) in Goddard v. Town of Jacksonville, 15 111. 588; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. IIS, with note. v. , 11 Paige, 414. Cited with Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35 N. Y. 204 (Distinction between condition and cove- nant) in Blanchard v. Detroit, Lansing, &c. R. R. Co., 31 Mich. 43; s. c, 18 Am. R. 142, 148. v. Pearsall, 15 Barb. 244. See Adri- ance e. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Christopher v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Disting'd (Enjoining action of municipal authorities) in People -J). Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 32 Barb. 102, 110. v. Tompkins, 9 Johns. 61. Affd in 11 Id. 569. Stuyvesant B'k v. National Meeh. B'k'g Assoc., 7 Bans. 197. Applied (Title to check deposited with bank) in Metropolitan Nat. B'k «. Loyd, 25 Hun, 101, 106. Stymets v. Brooks, 10 Wend. 206. Reviewed with other cases (Effect of execution issued after death of one of parties to action) in Stewart v. Nuckols, 15 Ala. 225; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 127, 129, with note. Compare Wendell v. Tainter, 4 Walls (Pa.) 283. Sudlow v. Knox, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 411; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 326. See N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. K!etcham. Fol- lowed (Appeal from order in proceeding to punish for contempt) in Erie R'y Co. v. Ramsey, 45 JST. Y. 637, 643; Brinkley ©. Brinkley, 47 Id. 40, 45- Same rule said in 20 Am. I. Reg. N. S. 431, to prevail in Wisconsin. Approved with Matter of Seeley, 6 Abb. Pr. 217 (Punishment for contempt committed before referee) in IT. S. v. Anonymous, U. S. Cir. Ct. W. V. Tenn. .21 Fed. Rep. 770. Commented on in Hoffm.. on Referees, 48. Suffern v. Townsend, 9 Johns. 35. Disting'd . (Effect of agreement for sale of land as giv- ing right of possession) in Miller ». Ball, 64 N. Y. 286, 2"94. Snllivau v. Alexander, 19 Johns. 233. Fol- lowed (Difference between variances verbal, and those substantial, in form of sheriff's bonds) in Smith v. Allen, 1 Saxt. (N~. J.) 43; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 33, with note. Ap- proved (Right of sheriff to confine person that has been admitted to jail liberties) in U. S. ®. Noah, 1 Paine, 375. v. Decker, 1 E. D. Smith, 699. Ap- plied (.Parties in proceeding to foreclose 7-18 SULLIVAN— SUPERVISORS OF ONONDAGA. mechanic's lein) in Gross v. Daly, 5 Daly, i>40, 551. v. Fosdick, 10 Hun, 173. See cases col- lated (Bate of interest after breach of con- tract to pay money) in 47 Am. R. 74, n. v. Jadah, 4 Paige, AAA. Cited as au- thority (Power to allow damages sus- tained by reason of injunction) in Leavitt v. Dabney, 9 Abb. Pr. If. # 380. Com- pared (Effect of punishment fo^- disobedi- ence to injunction) in People v. Compton, 1 Duer, 522. v. Mayor, &e. of N. T., 45 Bow. Pr. 152. Opinion as to unconstitutionality of act in question disapproved, but judgment aff'd on other grounds in 53 N. T. 652 ; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 491. Subsequent proceeding in 48 Id. 238. Decision in 53 K Y. explained and applied (Effect of act prohibiting crea- tion of new officers) in Sweeny v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 274, 276. Disting'd in Costello v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 N. Y. 49. Applied (Title of local bill) in Wenz- ler v. People, 58 Id. 526. Applied (Distinc- tion between public officer and employee) in People ex rel. Donahue v. French, 12 Hun, 256. v. People, 1 Parh. 347. Rev'd (What is premeditated design to kill) in People v.' Sullivan, 7 If. Y. 396. v. Sullivan, 4 Hun, 198; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 433. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 37. See Pollock v. Pollock. Decision in 66 If. Y. disting'd (Right of remaindermen, &c. to maintain partition) in Wager v. Wager, 23 Hun, 439, 441. Followed while Morse v. Morse, 85 If. Y. 57, is applied, and Blakely e. Calder, 15 Id. 617; Howells v. Mills, 56 Id. 226, disting'd in Hughes v. Hughes, 11 All. N. C. 37. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1533. See 13 All. L. J. 378. Sum lie r v. Buel, 12 Johns. 475. Questioned (Right of action for libel affecting class of persons) in Ryckman v. Delavan, 25 Wend. 186, 202. Sunderland v. Loder, 5 Wend. 58. Ex- plained (Effect of taking body in execution) in Penn •». Remsen, 24 How. Pr. 504. Fol- lowed in Koeing v. Steckel, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 167; which wasaff'd in 58 N. Y. 475, 477, whieh see ; Wakeman v. Lyons, 9 Wend. 243. Sunderlin v. Wyman, 1 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) Add. 17. Further decision in 10 Hun, 493. Suu Mut. Ins. Co. t. Davis, 1 Bolt. 602 ; s. c, more fully, 3 Id. 254. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 10. Affd in 8 If. Y. 241. Compare similar proceedings, between same parties in 8 Barl. 450. Decision in 5 Sandf. approved (Constitutionality of statute imposing tax) in People v. Supervisors of Orange, 27 Barb. 575, 587. Decision in 8 & Y. followed as conclusive (Taxation of Mutual Insurance Companies) in People « Supervisors of N.Y., 16 Id. 426. Applied (Title of local bill) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 Id. 22 ; Freeman ». Panama R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 124. Disting'd in People v. Hills, 35 JST. Y. 453; People v. Allen, 42 Id. 417. Applied (Dis- tinction between public and private statute) in Bretz v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 481 ; Smith v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 34 How. Pr. 510; People v. Supervisors of Chautauqua, 43 N. Y. 18. Superintendent of Poor of Cortland y. Same of Herkimer. See Seymour v. Wil- son. Supervisors of Albany v. Dorr, 25 Wend. 440. Aff 'd in 7 Hill, 583. See Looney ®. Hughes ; . Swartwout v. Mechanics' B'k of N. Y. Overruled (Liability of officers entrusted with public funds) in Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233, 235. See U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. (U. S.) 578; Inhabitants of New Providence ■». McEachron, 33 N. J. 341. Referred to as in effect overruled by Muzzy v Shattuck, 1 Pen. 233, — in Commissioners of Hennepin Co. v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199. v. Duraut, 9 Paige, 182. Rev'd in 26 Wend. 66. Supervisors of Allegany v. Van Campen, 3 Wend. 48. Applied (Effect of official bond containing provisions not required by stat- ute) in U. S. v. Mynderse, 11 Blatchf. C. Ct. 1, 6. Referred to as authority in U. S. v. Bradley, 10 Pet. 343; which was fol- lowed and approved in Polk v. Plummer, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 500; s. c, 37 Am. Dee. 566. Supervisors of Chenango v. Birdsall, 4 Wend. 453. Applied (Competency of party to record, as witness) in Saff ord v. Lawrence, 6 Barb. 570. Disting'd (Effect of action of supervisors in passing on accounts) in Sup- ervisors of Bichmond v. Wandel, 6 Lam. 40, n. Disting'd in People ex rel. Hotch- kiss v. Sup'rs of Broome, 65 If. Y. 228; People j>. Sup'rs of Montgomery, 67 Id. 109, 114; People ex rel. Lawrence v. Sup'rs of Westchester, 73 Id. 173, 178. Supervisors of Delaware v. Foote, 65 IT. Y. 586. Further decision in 9 Hun, 527. Supervisors of Monroe v. Budlong, 51 Barb. 493. Applied (Support of insane wife) in Goodale v. Brockner, 25 Hun, 621, 623. v. Otis. See Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. 1>. Barnes; People v. Jansen. Supervisors of Onondaga t. Briggs, 2 Hill, 135. Affd in 2 Den. 26. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of allowance by supervisors) in People v. Stout, 23 Barl. 344 ; People v. Sup'rs of Schenectady, 35 Id. 417 V . Dis- ting'd in People ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Sup'rs of N. Y., 21 How. Pr. 328; Sup'rs of Rich- mond v. Van Clief, 1 Hun, 456 ; Sup'rs of Richmond v. Ellis, 59 If. Y. 620, 626; Peo- ple v. Sup'rs of Montgomery, 67 Id. 109, 1 14. Applied to action.of State auditors, — in People of Michigan «. Phoenix B'k, 4 Bosw. 381; to summary proceedings, in White v. Coatsworth, 6 N. Y. 143. Decis- ' ions in 2 Den.; 2 Hill, disting'd in People ex rel. Hotchkiss «. Supr's of Broome, 65 If. SUPERVISORS OF ONONDAGA— SUYDAM. 749. Y. 229; Disting'd (Effect of voluntary payment of claim) in Mever v. Clark, 2 Daly, 5.03; Allen b. Mayor,*&c. of N. Y., 4 E. D. Smith, 409. Disting'd (Conclusive- ness of taxation of bill) in Cools v. Stilson, 3 Barb. 340. Applied in Pittman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hun, 373. T. , 3 Den. 173. Applied (Costs, by what law governed) to interest, in Salter ■v. Utica & Black River R. R. Co., 86 N. Y. 401, 404. Applied to trustees' commissions iu Savage i>. Sherman, 24 Hun, 307, 311. Supervisors of Rensselaer v. Rates, 17 If. Y. 242. Applied (Liability of sureties on official bond) to administration bond, in Field t>. Van Cott, 5 Daly, 308, 311. Supervisors of Richmond v. Ellis, 59 If. Y. 620. Approved (Recovery of money paid by public officer) in McGinnis v. May- or, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 416, 418. Dis- ting'd in People v. Denison, 19 Hun, 148. Applied in People v. Starkweather, 42 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 334. Followed (What . is voluntary payment by such officer) in Donohue «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Hun, 38. t. Van Clief, 1 Hun, 454; s. c, tfSup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 458. Aff'd, it seems, in 60 N. Y. 645. Another proceeding in 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 97. v. Wandel, 6 Lans. 33. Aff'd on this opinion in 59 If. Y. 645. Supervisors of Saratoga v. Deyoe, 15 Hun, 526. Rev'd in 77 IT. Y. 219; s. c, 57 How. Pr. 134. Effect of decision in Id. qualified in subsequent decision as Super- visors of Saratoga v. Seabury, 11 Abb. If. C. 461. Supervisors of Schuyler v. Bank of Hav- ana, 5 Hun, 649. Aff'd, it seems, in 76 If. Y. 593, but without opinioD. Supervisors of Sullivan v. Dimmick, 18 Wend. 538. Overruled (Allowance to dis- trict attorney for subpoena tickets) in 2 Den. 26, 36. Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors of Broome, 25 If. Y. 312. See Hartwell ». Armstrong; Heywood v. City of Buffalo. Disting'd (Injunction to restrain collection of illegal tax) in Lutes v. Briggs, 5 Hun, 71. Followed in Western R. R. Co. v. No- lan, 48 If. Y. 519. Applied to restraint of application of proceeds of tax collected,— in Kilboarno «. St. John, 59 Id. 21, 26. Susquehanna & Bath Turnpike R. Co. v. People, 15 Wend. 267. Followed (Remedy against company for failure to repair road) in Syracuse & Tully Plank Road Co. v. Peo- ple, 66 Barb. 25, 29. Sussdorff v. Schmidt, 55 N. Y. 319. See (Costs in case of transfer, &c. of cause of action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3247, n. Sutherland v. Brush, 7 Johns. Ch. 17; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 383, with note wherein it is said to have been limited (Power of execu- tor to use funds of estate for his own bene- fit) by Field v. Schieffelin, 7 Johns. 150 159. Sec Bates v. Underbill. Denied in Colt v. Lasnier, 9 Cow. 320, 328. Applied (Responsibility for acts of co-executor) iu Lacey a. Davis, 5 Bed/. 301, 305. Disting'd iu Bates v. Underbill, 3 Id. 372. See cases collected in 15 Am. L. Bev. 175. v. N. Y.^Ceutral, &c. R. R. Co., 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 17. Compared (Neg- ligence in approaching railroad crossing) in Leonard v. N. Y., &c. R. R. Co., 42 Id. 223, 232. v. Rose, 47 Barb. 144. See (Exceptions) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 992, n. v. Sheffield, 2 Wend. 293. Explained (Duty as to payment of costs by party that has obtained relief on condition of such payment) in Hoadley a. Cuyler, 10 Id. 593. Sutliff v. Forger, 1 Cow. 89. AfTd in 5 Id. 713. See Jackson v. Stevens; Mick v. Mick. Both decisions commented on (Dower as affected by alienage) in Priest a. Cummings, 16 Wend. 617, 620 ; 20 Id. 338, 359. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 302. Sutpheii v. Fowler, 9 Paige, 280. Ex- plained (Specific performance of contract relating to land in foreign country) in 3 Pars, on Contr. 378, n. a. Sutton v. Davis, 6 Hun, 237. Appeal dis- missed in 64 If. Y. 633. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 760. Rev'd in 66 If. Y. 243. See Nichol- son a. Erie R'y Co. Decision in 66 N. Y. disting'd (Effect of negligence in crossing track) in Cordell a. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 70 Id. 119, 124. Commented on in MoaKs Dhderhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 264. Approved in Thomps.on Neglig. 455. v.Ray, 72 If. Y. 482. Compare (De- termination on appeal from surrogate) Code Civ. Pro. § 2587. Suydain y. Barber, 6 Duer, 34. Rev'd in 18 if. Y. 468. Further decision as Reed a. Girty, 6 Bosw. 567. See Robertson a. Smith. Compare (Effect of foreign judg- ment on right of arrest) Code Civ. Pro. § 552. y. Bartle, 9 Paige, 294. Applied (Al- lowing proceedings for recovery of mort- gage debt pending foreclosure) in Collins' Petition, 6 Abb. If. C. 227, 232 ; Equitable Life Ins. Soc. a. Stevens, 63 JV. Y. 345; Scofield a. Doscher, 72 Id. 494; Schaaf a. O'Brien, 8 Daly, 182. v. Clark, 2 Sandf. 133. See Trevor a. Wood. Explained (Variance between bought and sold notes) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 544, n. g ; 1 Benj. on Sales', 301, n. 18 (Cor- bin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Holden. See Sherman a. Felt. v. Jenkins, 3 Sandf. 614. See Carpen- ter v. Stevens ; Matthews a. Coe. Ques- tioned (Measure of damages for conver- sion, &c.) in Spicer a. Waters, 65 Barb. 227, 235. Approved and followed with Brizsee a. Maybee, 21 Wend. 144, in Twinam a. Swart, 4 Lans. 263, 270. Dis- ting'd in Allen a. Fox, 51 If. Y. 567. Com- 750 SUYDAM— SWEATMAN, MATTER OF. pared in Devlin v. Pike, 5 Daly, 85, 91. Approved and followed in Wells v. Kelsey, 37 K Y. 146 ; Baker v. Drake. 53 Id. 211, 224. Approved in Scott v. Rogers, 31 Id. G76, 679. Followed and approved in Sturges v. Keith, 57 111. 451 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 28, 31. Said to disapprove West v. Wentworth, 8 Cow. 82 ; Clark v. Pinney, 7 Id. 681, and with Smith v. Griffith, 3 Hill, 333 ; Romaine v. Van Allen, 26 K Y. 309 ; Wilson v. Mathews, 24 Barb. 295 ; Scott v. Rogers, 31 K Y. 676, followed in Page v. Fowler, 39 Gal. 412; s. c, 2 Am. R. 462, 468. Included in Sedgw. Cos. on Dama. 561. Quoted in 3 Pars, on Cord. 196, n. i ; 201, n. q. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, g 1735, n. v. Keys, 13 Johns. 4A±. See Savacool v. Boughton. Overruled (Protection of min- isterial officer) in Savacool v. Bought6n, 5 Wend. 170, 176; Chegaray v. Jenkins, 5 N. Y. 376, 382. Denied and said to have been overruled in Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 176, — in Sprague*. Birchard, 1 Wis. 457; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 393, with note. v. Marine Ins. Co., 1 Johns. 181 ; s. c, 3 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 105, with brief notes ; 3 Am. Dec. 307, with note. Relied on and Fontaine v. Phoenix. Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 293, disting'd (What is sufficient ground for abandonment) in Bosley v. Ches- apeake Ins. Co., 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 450 ; s. c,, 22 Am. Dec. 337, 342, 345. t. Morris Canal & Banking Co., 5 Sill, 491, n. Affd in 6 Id. 219. Decision in Id. collated with other cases (Effect of loan by corporation for illegal transactions) in Field on Ultra Vires, 187. v. Smith. See Brown v. Treat ; Sturgis v. Spofford. v. Suydam, 11 Sow. Pr. 518. Followed (Examination of party) in Watson v. Gage, 12 Alb. Pr. 215. v. Westfall, 4 Sill, 211. Rev'd in 2 / Den. 205. Decision in Id. explained (Lia- bility of surety in bill or note) and disting'd from Griffith v. Reed, 21 Wend. 902, in . Wright v. Garlinghouse, 26 If. Y. 539, 543. Svenson v. Atlantic Mail S. S. Co., 33 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 277. Affd in 57 N. Y. 108. Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 482 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 318. Followed (Conveyance by husband, when fraudulent as against wife's light of dower) in Thayer v. Thayer, 14 Verm. 107; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 211, 214, with extended note; Holmes v. Holmes, 3 Paige, 363, though a reversed case, being cited with approval. Followed in Kelly v. McGrath, 70 Ala. 75 ; s. c, 45 Am. R. 75, 79. Doubted in Butler v. Butler, 21 Kans. 521; s. c, 30 Am. R. 444. Explained in 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 217. Applied (Dower in mortgaged premises) in Eaton r. Simonds, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 98; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 234, n. Followed with Smith v. Jack- son. 2 Edw. 28; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452 ; Tabele v. Tabele, 1 Id. 45 ; Haw- ley v. Bradford, 9 Paige, 201 ; Vartie v. Underwood, 18 Barb. 5fil, in Bank of Commerce v. Owens, 31 Aid. 320 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. CO, 63. Cited with other cases in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 394, as holding a rule more reasonable than that of other cases cited. Applied with Haviland v. Bloom, 6 Johns. 178 (Nature of wife's inter- est in property received by husband as her trustee) in States. Reigart, 1 Gill (Md.) 1 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 028, 635, with note. Disapproved with Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 258 (Right of widow claiming dower, to profits) in Tod v. Baylor, 4 Leigh ( Va.) 517. Swan v. Saddlemire, 8 Wend. 676. See Jackson v. Anderson; Jackson v. Page: Woodcock v. Bennett. Disapproved (Effect of execution on satisfied judgment) in Hoffman v. Strohecker, 7 Watts (Pa.) 86 ; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 740, with note. Swan son v. Cooke, 45 Barb. 574. Applied (Rate of exchange, when not allowed as damages) in Ladd v. Arkill, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 150, 156. Swart y. Service, 21 Wend. 36 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 211, with note wherein it is shown to have been frequently cited and followed both in N. Y. and elsewhere (Parol evi- dence to show absolute deed to be mort- gage). Overruled in Webb v. Rice, 6 Sill, 219. Swarthout v. Curtis. See Same v. Swarth- out. v. Swarthout, 1 Barb. 354. Affd in Swarthout r>. Curtis, 5 N. Y. 301. An- other decision in 4 Id. 415. Decision in Id. recognized and applied (What is final judgment, for purposes of appeal) in Tomp- kins v. Hyatt, 19 Id. 534; Heineman v. Waterbury, 5 Bosw. 686, 689. Compared with other cases in 60 Am. Dec. 430, n. y. N. J. Steamboat Co., 46 Barb. 222. Aft'd in 48 JV. Y. 209. Swartwont v. .Mechanics'. B'k of N. Y., 5 Den. 55. See Lewis v. Park Bank. Colla- ted with Supervisors of Albany v. Dorr, 25 Wend. 446; 7 Sill, 583; Muzzy v. Shat- tuck, 1 Den. 233 ; and other cases (Nature of liability of public officer whose duty it is to receive money) in Perley 0. County of Muskegon, 32 Mich. 132; s. c, 20 Am. R. 637, 639, 642. Swasey v. Yanderheyden, 10 Johns. 33; s. c, i K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 923, with brief note. Overruled (Effect of negotiable note given by infant) in Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. 478 ; and see Dubose v. Wheddon, 4 McCord (So. Car.) 221; Referred to in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 13, as contrary to later authorities, citing Goodsell v. Myers,, 3 Wend. 499, and other cases from N. Y. and elsewhere. See also cases cited in § 16. Sweatman, Matter of, 1 Cow. 144. Ap- proved (Effect of judgment erroneous in part, and valid in part) in Taff v. State, 39 Conn. 84. Cited as authority (Vacating SWEENEY-^SWIFT. 751 order of commitment for non-payment of monev) in Hendryx v. Fitzpatrick, V. S. Cir. Ct. D. Mass. 17 Chic. L. N. 6. Sweeney v. Prior, 44 Super. Ct. ,(<£ & S.) 837. Aff d, it seems, in 80 N. Y. 626, but without opinion. See vol 588, Oas. in Gt. of App., Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Sweeny v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 5 Daly, 274. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 625, but without opinion. These decisions disting'd and doubted (Who is court officer) in Wines v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 9 Hun, 660. Followed in Moserc. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Id. 164 ; Kowland v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 K Y. 372, 377; which aff'd 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 560, which see. v. Sturges, 12 Weekly Dig. 74. Re- ported as Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Hun r 262. Sweet t. Barney, 24 Barb. 533. Aff'd in 23 . N. Y. 335. Decision in Id. applied (Duty of carrier as to delivery) in Price v. Oswego & Syracuse' R. R. Co., 58 Barb. 606. Fol- lowed (What is delivery to bank) in Hotch- kiss v. Artisans' B'k, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 405. Explained and disting'd in Howard p. S. S. Co., 83 AT. C. 158; s. c, 35 Am. B. 571. v. Bartlett, 4 Sandf. 6C1. Explained and applied (Mode of enforcing attorney's, lien) in Crotty v. McKenzie, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 192, 195, 201.. v. Bean, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 772; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 91. t. Buffalo N. Y., &c. R'y Co., 13 Hun, 643. Aft" d in 79 H. Y. 293. Decision in Id. applied (Nature of estate in land taken for public purposes) in Tiftt v. City of Buf- falo, 82 Id. 204, 213. With decision in 13 Hun see (What is a municipal* purpose) cases cited in 5 Abb. N. C. 468, n. v. Chapman. 53 How. Br. 253. Pre- vious proceeding in 7 Hun, 576. See Powell i). Waters. Decision in 7 Hun disting'd (Necessity that usury be pleaded) in Play- wood 4i. Jones, 10 Id. 501. Included in 1 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 604. t. Chase, 2 K Y. 73. Followed (Vesting of legacy in widow) in Edsall v. Waterbury, 2 Bed/. 48, 61. v. Geisenliainer. See Arcularius v. Geisenhainer. v. Hulbert, 51 Barb. 312. Applied (Validity of statute authorizing municipal corporation to issue bonds for railroad pur- poses) in People ex rel. Dunkirk, &c R. R. Co. v. Batchellor, 53 JST. Y. 128, 148. Denied in Comm'rs of Leavenworth County v. Miller, 7 Earn. 479; s. c, 12 Am. E. 425, 443. Approved (Nature of statutory power exercised by judge, of appointment to office or position of trust) in Walker v. City of Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 14; s. c, 8 Am. R. 24, 34. v. Iugerson, 12 How. Pr. 831. Disap- proved (Joinder of causes of action) in Bomeroy on Rem.- § 467. ■ T. Jacocks, 6 Paige, 355 ; s. c, 31 Am. Dee. 252, with note containing citations. Disting'd (Parol evidence to establish resulting trust) in Pinnock v. Clougb, 10 Vt. 500; s. c, 42 Am. Dee. 521, 526, with note. Collated and compared with other cases in Randall «. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 336. v. Sweet. See Macondray v.; Wardle. See (Answer in matrimonial action) Code Civ: Pro. 1881, § 1757, n. — — v. Titus, 4 Hun, 639 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 327. v. Tuttle, 10 How. Pr. 40. Aff'd in 14 F. Y. 465. See Walsh v. Kelly. Decision in Id. re-affd (Defenses that are to be in- cluded in single answer) in Gardner v. Clark, 21 If. Y. 399, 401. Followed (Question calling for witness' opinion) in Murray n. Deyo, 10 Hun, 3, 6; Lewis v. Rogers, 34 Stiver. Gt. (J. & S.) 75 ; Rocke v. Meiner, Id. 158, 161. Disting'd in Nicolay v. lin- ger, 80 A 7 ". Y. 54, 57. Applied (Effect of former judgment rendered on merits) in Sheldon v. Edwards, 35 Id. 289. See to the contrary (Evidence as to on whose be- half services are rendered, &c.) Nichols v. Kingdom Iron Ore Co., 56 Id. 618; Merritt i>. Briggs, 57 Id. 651. See also Abb. Tr. Bv. 265. v. Van Wyck, 3 Barb. Oh. 647. See Poillon v. Martin. Disting'd (Rights of bona, fide purchaser of non-negotiable chose in action) in Moore i>. Metropolitan Nat. B'k, 55 W. Y. 41, 49. Sweeting v. Turner. See Whitney v. Fer- ris. Sweetman v. Prince, 62 Barb. 258. Rev'd in 26 AT. Y. 224. Decision in Id. explained and approved with Burt v. Dewey, 40 Id. 283 (Recovery on breach of warranty for title) in Bordwell v. Collie, 45 Id. 494; which aff'd 1 Lans. 144, which see. Ap- plied in Matheny v. Mason, 73 Mo. 077, 683. Decision in 62 Barb, quoted in Benj. on Sales, § 627, n. i (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) Swenarton v. Hancock, 22 Hun, 38. Aff'd in 9 Abb. K C. 826; mem. s. c, 84 K Y. 653. Another proceeding in 22 Hun, 43. Swett v. Colgate, 20 Johns. 196; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 266. See Chapman v. Murch; Hawkins v. Pemberton; Holden a. Dakin; Seixas ». Woods. Disting'd (Warranty on sale of chattels) in Carlcy v. Wilkins, 6 Barb. 561. Applied in, Duffee v. Mason, 8 Cow. 26 ; Welsh ». Carter, 1 Wend. 189. Questioned in Hawkins v. Pemberton, 51 N. Y. 198, 204. Overruled in White v. Miller, 71 Id. 118, 129. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1062, n. 3. Discussed iu 2 Kent Com. 479. Swick v. Sears, 1 Hill, 17. See Brown . Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 367. Syracuse Sav'gs B'k v. Town of Seneca Falls, 21 Hun, 304. AfE'd in 86 W. Y. 317. Decision in 21 Hun approved and followed (Validity of town bonds) in Rich v. Town of Seneca Falls, U. S. Cir. Gt. K D. N. Y. 12 Reporter, 677. T. Taacks v. Schmidt, 18 Abb. Pr. 307. Ques- tioned (Damages by reason of injunction) in Allen v. Brown, 5 Lans. 511, 514. Tabele v. Tabele. See Swaine v.' Perine. Rule herein said to be changed by R. S. (Allowance for costs in estimating widow's dower in surplus or foreclosure) in Taylor v. Bentley, 3 Red/. 41. Taber v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 4 Han, 765. Aff'd in 71 N. Y. 489.- * Tabor v. Bradley,' 18 N. Y. 109. Disting'd (What passes as appurtenant to deed) in Babcock «. Utter, 1 Abb. Ct. App, Dec. 38 ; Green v. Collins, 20 Hun, 476 ; Voorhees v. Burchard, 55 K Y. 98, 106. V. Robinson, 36 Barb. 483. Applied (Rights of purchaser intermediate contract for sale of land and performance) in Wicks v. Bowman, 5 Dab/, 225, 231. Taddiken v. Cantrell, 69 N. Y. 597. Afl'g decision, mem. of which see, in 2 Weekly Dig. 572, as Todicker ». Cantrell. See pro- ceedings between same parties in 1 Hun, 710. Decision in Id. disting'd (Failure of attachment, for omission to serve summons) in Simpson v. Burch, 4 Id. 315, 317. Ap- proved in Blossom v. Estes, 84 iV". Y. 614. 618. ' Taft v. Brewster, 9 Johns. 334; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 280; 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 787, with brief note. See Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria R. R. Co. ; Mott j>. Hicks. Ap- plied (Individual liability of agent, &c. signing contract) in Whitford v. Laidler, 25 Hun, 136, 140. Followed in McClnre o. Bennett, 1 Blaekf. (Lid.) 189; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 223, with note. See cases cited in 2 Am. Dec. 513, n. Discussed in Ana. & A. on Corp. § 296, 11 ed. ■ v. Chapman, 50 N. Y. 445. Disting'd (Estoppel as against bona fide purchaser)°in Voorhees «. Olmstead, 3 Hun, 744, 755. v. Sergeant, 18 Barb. 320. See Jack- son v. Carpenter. Followed (Effect of affirmance after majority, of contract made as infant) in Anderson v. Soward, 40 Ohio St. 325; s. c, 48 Am. R. 687. Explained and cases cited to the contrary, in Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf. da. 177. See to the contrary, authorities cited in Abb. Tr. En 796, n. t. Wright, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 614; I.— 48 s. c, 47 How. Pr. 1. Aft'd, it seems, in 59 H. Y. 656, but without opinion. Taggard v. Gardner, 2 Sand/. 667. See (Fees to partv attending as witness) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3288, n. v. Roosevelt, 2 E. D. Smith, 100. Said not to be supported by other N. Y. cases (Application of provision of statute of frauds respecting agreements not to be per- formed within a year) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, 272. n. Taggart v. Murray, 53 N. Y. 233. Subse- quent decision involving same will, as Jen- kins v. Fahey, 11 Hun, 351; which was rev'd in 73 N. Y. 355. Decision in 53 Id. reviewed with other cases (Meaning of word "heirs" in will) in Thurber v. Cham- bers, 4 Hun, 726. Disting'd (Limitation of absolute gift to life estate) in Colt v. Heard, 10 Id. 189, 193. Applied (Reconciling re- pugnant clauses in will) in Clark v. Jacobs, 56 How. Pr. 529 ; Brown ». Cleveland, 5S Id. 299. Disting'd, and Roseboom v. Rose- boom, 81 H. Y 356, applied in Temple v. Sammis, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 324. Tain tor v. Hemingway, 18 Hun, 458. AfTd in 83 JV. Y. 610, on opinion below. v. Preudergast, 3 Hill, 72 ; s. c, 15 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 518, with brief note. Applied (Effect of contract made by agent) in Wiener*. Whipple, 53 Wis. 298; s. c, 40 Am. R. 775; 13 Reporter, 63. Included with notes in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 755. Explained (Effect of agent's contract, as to foreign principal) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 237, n. 37 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed. ). Discussed in 1 Pars, on Contr. 96, n. b. Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 793. Talbot v. Bank of Rochester, 1 Hill, 295. See Graves v. American Exch. B'k. Ap- plied (Recovery of amount paid on forged indorsement) in Johnson v. First Nat. B'k of Hoboken, 6 Hun, 125. Followed in Buck- ley v. Second Nat. B'k of Jersey City 35 N. J. 400; s. c, 10 Am. R. 249. Talcot v. Commercial Ins. Co. of N. T., 2 Johns. 124 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dee. 406 ; 3 N. V. Com. L. Law. ed. 325, with brief note. • See Patrick v. Hallett. Followed (Presumption of unseaworthiness) in Rugely v. Sun Mut- ual Ins. Co., 7 La. Ann. 279; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 603. Talcott v. Belding, 46 How. Pr. 419 • s c more fully, 3C Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 84 — - V. Harris, 18 Hun, 567. Applied (Fraudulent debt, as affected by discharge in bankruptcy) in Argall v. Jacobs, 21 Id. v. Rosenberg, 8 Abb. Pr. ]ST. S. 287 Thought (Power of appellate court to per- mit amendment of return made below) in 13 Am. Dec. 176, n., to express what is the better and prevailing opinion, and to accord with De Armond v. Adams, 25 Ind. 455 v. Rosenthal, 22 Hun, 573. See Wil- son v. Britton. Explained (Fraud in as- signments for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 351, n. 2, 4 ed. 7oi TALLCOT— TANNER. Tallcot T, Moore, 6 Run, 'iOG. Compare (Infringement of name) Robertson v. Berry, 50 Md. 591. Tallmadge t. East River Bank, 26 N. Y. 105. Another decision in 2 Duer, 614, on motion for injunction. See Hunter v. Trustees of Sandy Hill. Decision in 26 N. T. applied (Implied agreement against erections on adjoining premises) in Mus- grave v. Sherwood, 23 Hun, 669, 683. Col- lated with other cases in HcAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 98. v. Fishkill Iron Co., 4 Barb. 382. See Briggs «. Penniman. Disting'd (Limit of liability of stockholders, &c.) in Van Cott v. Van Brunt, 82 N. Y. 535, 542. v. Penoyer, 35 Barb. 120. Disting'd and explained (Liability of firm on obliga- tion incurred by individual partner) in On- tario Bank v. Hennessey, 48 2T. Y. 551. v. Richmond, 9 Johns. 85. Rev'd in 16 Id. 307. v. Stockholm, 14 Johns. 343. Applied (Relief against default) in Security B'k v. B'k of Commonwealth, 2 Run, 287, 292. v. Wallis, 25 Wend. 107. See Burton v. Stewart. Applied (Eviction under para- mount title, as producing failure of consid- eration for promise to pay) in Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 JV. Y. 30, 34. Disting'd with Whitney®. Lewis, 21 Wend. 131; Kennedy v. Newman, 1 Sandf. 187 (Proof of breach of covenant of seisin, &c.) in Potter v. Kit- chen, 5 Bosw. 566, 575. Tallman v. Atlantic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 29 Row. Pr. 71. Rev'd in 33 Id. 400; s. c, 3 Keyes, 87 ; 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 345. t. Bresler, 65 Barb. 369. Aff'd in 56 N. Y. 635, on opinion below. Re-argu- ment denied in 58 Id. 123. — — t. Farley, 1 Barb. 280. See Stow v. Tifft. ■ Disting'd (Preference as between equitable lien on land and judgment) in Cook v. Kraft, 60 Barb. 409. v. Franklin. See Talman v. Same. t.. Green, 3 Sandf. 437. Criticised as extreme with White v. Seaver, 25 Barb. 235 (Liability for attempt to deceive pur- chasers) in Sherman «. Johnson, 56 Id. 59, and as having been much shaken by Haight «. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 472. v. Hininan, 10 How. Pr. 89. Applied (Appeal from order affecting substantial right) in Young ■». Bloomer, 22 Id. 384. v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. R. Co., 4 Keyes, 128. Applied with City of Brook- lyn v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 475 (Neglect of public authorities, as ex- cuse for failure of company to perform duty) in Hayes v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., Ill U. S. 228, 241. y. Turck. See Barrett v. Warren. v. White. See Varick v. Tallman. 'I'almadge \. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 13 Barb. 493. Discussed (Effect of provision- in statute of frauds respecting agreements not to bo performed in a year) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 276a, 4 ed. Talmnge v. Hnntting, 39 Barb. 654. AfPd in 29 N. Y. 447. Decision in Id. explained and applied (Liability for encroachment on highways) in Doughty v. Brill, 3 Keyes, 612. Decision in 39 iiarb. applied in Marvin v. Pardee, 64, Id. 353. v. Pell, 7 N. Y. 328. Prior decision in 9 Paige, 410. See Cram v. Hendricks; Gillet ». Moody ; People ex rel. Attorney General v. Utica Ins. Co. Decision in 7 jV". Y. applied (Limitations on power of busi- ness corporations to make investments) iu Berry v. Yates, 24 Barb. 211 ; Bank Com- m'rs of N. Y. v. St. Lawrence B'k, IN. Y. 516; Talmage ». Pell, 14 Id. 169. Ap- proved in Farmers 1 and Mechanics' Bank v. Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198; s. c, 23 Am. It 688. Disting'd in Pape v. Capitol Bank of Topeka, 20 Kans. 440; s. c, 27 Am. P. 183, 185. Relied on with First Nat. B'k of Lyons «. Ocean Nat. B'k, 60 If. Y. 278, in Weckler v. First Nat. B'k of Hagerstown, 42 Md. 581; s. c, 20 Am. P. 95, citing Van Leaven v. First Nat. B'k of Kingston, 54 K Y. 671. Applied (Effect of con- tract vltra vires) in Bissell v. Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 303. Explained (Receiver as representative of creditors) in McHarg v. Donelly, 27 Barb. 103. Applied (Validity of assignment of mortgage, made to secure performance of illegal contract) in Dewitt v. Brisbane, 16 If. Y. 513. Disting'd in Kellogg v. Adams, 39 Id. 31 ; Nichols v. Weed Sewing Machine Co., 27 Hun, 200, 2D6. Questioned, but followed (Banking associations as moneyed corporations) in Curtis «• Leavitt, 15 If. Y. 9. 47, 133, 183, 188, 247. Overruled in Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 Id. 521, 530, 542. Decision in 9 Paige disting'd (Sub- stitution of receiver or assignee as party) in Piatt v. McMurray, 63 How. Pr. 149. Talman v. Frauklin, 3 Duer, 395. Rev'd as Tallman v. Same, 14 If. Y. 584. Decision in Id. disting'd (Parol evidence to show locality of land contracted to be sold) in Holmes v. Evans, 48 Miss. 247 ; s. c, 12 Am. P. 372. Disting'd (Incorporation of one document with another to make mem- orandum as required by statute of frauds) in Brown i>. Whipple, 58 N. R. 229 ; s. c, 47 Am. P. 533, n. v. Smith. See Dane v. Mallory. Tamisier v. Cassard, 17 Abb. Pr. 187. Dis- ting'd (Denial of plaintiffs' title to note) in Hays v. Southgate, 10 Hun, 511, 514; which was rev'd in Hays ». Hathorn, 74 If. Y. 486. Taiinenbaum v. Cristalar, 5 Daly, 141. Applied (Liability on joint undertaking) in Davis v. Van Buren, 6 Id. 391, 397. Tanner v. Bank of Fox Lake, 23 Row. Pr. 399. Aft'd as Turner v. Bank of Fox Lake, in 3 Keyes, 425. v. Hills, 44 Barb. 428. Rev'd in 48 If. Y. 662, but without opinion. V. Livingston, 12 Wend. 83. See Caulkins i>. Harris ; Pitcher v. Livingston. Approved (Effect of devise to person for life, TANNER— TAYLOR 755 and then to his heirs') in Schoonmaker ». Sheely, 3 Den. 485, 489. Explained in Bond v. McNiff, 38 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 83, 90 ; Butler v. Huestis, 68 111. 594 ; s. c, 18 Am. R, 589, 594. . v. Trustees of Albion, 5 Bill. 121; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 337, with note wherein are collected citations. Doubted but fol- lowed (Bowling-alley as a nuisance) in Updike d. Campbell, 4 K. D. Smith, 570, 575. Discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 43. Tappau, Matter of, 54 Barb. 225 ; s. c, with points of counsel, 36 How. Pr. 390. » Tappau T. Brown, 9 Wend. 175. Discussed (Agreements in respect to public offices) in 3 Kent Com. 455, n. b. — y. Ely, 15 Wend. 362. See Co wee v. Cornell. Disting'd (Effect of memorandum on note) in Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396, 404. y. Gray, 9 Paige, 507. AffM in 7 Hill, 259. Decision in 9 Paige applied (Restrain- ing exercise of duties of office) in People ex rel. Wood v. Draper, 4 Abb. Pr. 339 ; Mayor, &c. ofN. Y. e. Conover, 5 Id. 179. Dis- ting'd in Palmer v. Foley, 36 Super. Cl. (./. & S.) 14, 17. Explained in High, on Receiv. § 21, n. 1. Approved (Tenure of officer holding over) and said to be in harmony with cases in other States,. — in Smoot v. - Somerville, 59 Md. 84, 88. Tappen v. Kain, 12 Johns. 120. Overruled (Inventory as test of or falsity of plene administramt) in "Willoughby v. McCluer, 2 Wend. 609. Tarbel v. Bradley, 7 Abb. K O. 273. AfFd in effect in Tarbell v. West, 86 jY. Y. 280. Decision in Id. applied (Rights of partner- ship creditor as against mortgage executed by one partner individually) in Norwalk Nat. B'k v. Sawyer, 38 Ohio St. 339, 343. Tarbell v. Griggs, 3 Paige, 207 ; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 790, with note. Explained (Suf- ficiency of judgment of another State or of U. S. court, to sustain creditor's bill) in McCartney v. Bostwick, 32 H. Y. 53,63. Followed in Davis v. Bruns, 23 Hun, 648. Approved with Davis v. Bruns, in Claflin v. McDermott, U. S. Oir. Ot. S. D. N. Y. 14 Reporter, 8; s. c, 12 Fed. Rep. 375. Fol- lowed in Walser v. Seligman, U. S. Cir. Ot. S. D. K Y. 14 Reporter, 425. • v. West. See Tarbel v. Bradley. Tarrant v. Ware, 35 If. Y. 425. Approved with Nelson v. McGiffert, 3 Barb. Oh. 158 ; Jauncey v. Thome, 2 Id. 40 (Sufficiency of proof of execution and attestation of will) in Cheatham v. Hatcher, 30 Oralt. ( Va.) 56 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 650. Taussig v. Hart, 49 JV. Y. 301. Further de- cision in 58 Id. 425. Also another proceed- ing in 33 Super. Ot. («£ & S.) 157. See Bank of Beloit v. Beale. Decision in 49 If. Y. cited (Effect of sale made by agent in violation of authority) in Whart. Oom. on Ag. § 235. Decision in 58 If. Y. cited (Duties of stockbrokers) in Id. §§ 702, n.,'717. Taxpayers of Greene, Matter of, 38 How. Pr. 515. Overruled (Petitioner's right to withdraw in town bonding proceedings) in People 'ex rel. Irwin v. Sawyer, 52 If. Y. 296, 302. Tayloe, Ex parte. See People v. Dixon. Taylor, Matter of, 9 Paige, 611. Referred to as stating what is the well-settled rule (Proof of marriage by declarations and ad - missions) in 22 Am Dec. 162, n., where also are collated (p. 161, ».) Jackson v. Claw, 18 Johns. 346, and other cases (Proof by co- habitation and reputation). Taylor Will Case, 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 301. Cited (Opinions founded on photographic copies of handwriting) in 1 Whart. Oom. on Ev. § 720. Explained in 2 Best on Ev. § 513, n. a, Wood's ed. Taylor v. Allen. 36 Barb. 294. Opposed and qualified (Effect of receipt of new bill, &c. to discharge indorser) in Eisner v. Kel- ler, 3 Daly, 485, 490. v. Atlantic Mut, Ins. Co., 2 Bosw. 106. Further decision on the merits, in 9 Id. 369, aff'd in 37 If. Y. 275. Decision in Id. ap- plied (Liability for wharfage) in Walsh v. N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 8 Daly, 388. Approved (Duty as between lessees of pier and the city as to repairs, &c.) in Hartford & ■N. Y. Steamboat Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 12 Hun, 550, 554. v. Atlantic. &e. R. R Co., 55 How. Pr. 275. Other proceedings in 57 Id. 9 ; Id. 26. See also decisions involving same sub- ject matter, — as Reinach v. Meyer, 55 How. Pr. 283 ; Matter of U. S. Rolling Stock Co., Id. 286. v. Baldwin. 10 Barb. 582. Aif d in Id. 626. Both decisions disting'd (Charging expense of improvements made on property held in common) in Prentice «. Janssen, 79 iV. Y. 489. v. Bates, 5 Oow. 376. See Ferris v. Paris. Explained (Demand, as affecting liability of attorney for moneys collected) in Lyle v. Murray, 4 Sandf. 590, 594. Fol- lowed with Ex parte Ferguson, 6 Cow. 596; Rathbun v. Ingals, 7 Wend. 320, in Krause ■v. Dorrance, 10 Penn. £«. 462; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 496, with note. Followed in Anderson v. Hulme, 5 Montana, 295; s. c, 19 Re- porter, 439. Discussed in Ang. on Limit. . § 181, 6 ed. T. Barnes, 69 IT. Y. 430. Explained (Statute of limitations in case of torts) in Moah's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 67. v. Betsford, 13 Johns. 487. See Thayer v. Van Vleet. Disting'd and criti- cised as extreme (Effect of private delibera- tion by justice with jury) in Whitney i>. Crim, 1 Hill, 61. Followed in Moody v. Pomeroy, 4 Den. 115. t. Bradley, 39 If. Y. 129. See Putnam v. Wise. Followed (Evidence to show loss of profits) in Day v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 22 Hun, 412, 417. Applied in Wash- burn d. Hubbard, 6 Bans. 14. Followed (Opinions of witnesses as to prospective 756 TAYLOR. profits) in Reed v. McConnell,17 Weehly Dig. 575. See on this point Gkover, J.'s, opinion in 1 Alb. L. J. 339, and explanation in Id. 265. Disting'd (Damages for breach of contract of hiring) in Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 372. Criticised in Cummings v. Hausen, 63 How. Pr. 351. Discussed and approved with Jackson v. Brownell, 1 Johns. 267; Stewart «. Doughty, 9 Id. 107; Overseers of Fort Ann v. Overseers of Kingsbury, 14 Id. 365 (Effect of contract for letting land on shares) in Strain v. Gard- ner, 61 Wis. 174, 180. — v. Bryden, 8 Johns. 173. See Hitch- cock v. Aiken. Overruled (Effect of judg- ment of another State) in Andrews v. Mont- gomery, 19 Johns. 162. — v. Bullen, 6 Goto. 624. See Moakeley v. Riggs. Disting'd (Liability of guarantor, as affected by failure to proceed against estate of principal) in Schmitz v. Langhaar, 88 N. Y. 503. — v. Carpenter, 11 Paige, 292. Aff'd in 2 Sandf. Ch. 603. Decision in Id. followed (Who entitled to protection of trademark) in Godillot v. Hazard, 44 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 427, 431. Collated with other cases in Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 70: Thumps, on Prov. Rem. 260. Decision in 11 Paige quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 257bf, n. gg. — v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 8 Abb. N. G. 331 ; s. c, 59 Mow. Pr. 468. AfTd in 9 Daly, 489. — v. Church, 1 E. D. Smith, 279; s. c, 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 87. Rev'd in S iV. Y. 452. Decision in Id followed (Privileged character of communications made by mercantile agency) in Sunderlin v. Brad- street, 46 Id. 188, 190. Collated with other cases in 18 Fed. Sep. 220, ».-; Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 173. Explained (Damages in libel) in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 254, n. a. — v. Delancy, 2 Oai. Gas. 143. Applied (Effect of change in phraseology of statute on revision) in Croswell v. Crane, 7 Barb. 195; James v. Patten, 8 Id. 348. Applied (Right of next of kin to administration) in Lathrop v. Smith, 35 Id. 66. Reviewed with other cases (Appealable orders) in Rowley v. Van Benthuysen, 16 Wend. 374. — v. Dodd, 2 Sufm. Ot. {T. & G.) 88. AfFd in 58 N. Y. 335. See Lupton v. Lupton. Decision- in 58 H. Y. applied (Real estate, when not chargeable with payment of legacies) in Spillane v. Duryea, 51 How. Pr. 261; Kalbfleisch v. Kalb- fleisch, 67 N. Y. 363. Applied to pay- ment of debts in Rice v. Harbeson, 63 Id. 500. v. Faas, 14 Hun, 106. See (Necessity as to allegations iu complaint, in order to obtain order of arrest for fraud). Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 549, n. v. Fleet, 1 Barb. 471. Rev'd in 4 Id. 95. Decision in 1 Id. quoted (Contracts as avoided by fraud) iu 2 Paraxon Gontr. 769, n. o ; 2 Ghitty on Gontr. 1039, n. 2, 11 Am. ed. ; Waterman on Sp. Per/. § 314, n. v. Gardner. See Belding v. Conklin. - — t. Gillies, 5 Daly, 285. Aff'd in 59 K Y. 331; s. c, 17 Am. R. 333. See Cas- well v. Davis. Decision in 59 N~. Y. dis- ting'd (Phrase that may be appropriated as trademark) in Potter v. McPherson, 21 Hun, 559, 567. v. Grant, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 353. Re-argument denied in 36 Id. 259. r. Guest, 45 How. Pr. 276. Rev'd in 58 K Y. 262. v. Heath, 4 Den. 592. Collated with other cases (Attachment in case of non-resi- dence) in Throop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 26. v. Hoey, 36 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 402. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 K Y. 677, but with- out opinion. v. Hopper, 2 Hun, 646 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ot. {T. & G.) 173. Aff'd in 62 N. Y. 649. v. Hutton, 18 Abb. Pr. 16; s. c, more fully, 43 Barb. 195. See Leavitt v. Yates. v. Kelly, 5 Hun, 115. Relied on with other eases (Delivery necessary to consum- mation of gift) in Walker v. Crews, 73 Ala. 412; s. c, 48 Am. R. 788, n. See Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. Y. 17, and other cases colla- ted in same note. v. Ketehnm, 35 How. Pr. 289. Dis- ting'd (Withdrawal of special question from jury) in Ebersole v. Northern Cent. R'y Co., 23 Hun, 114, 117. — r— v. Marshall. See Phoenix v. Dey. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Daly, 485. Overruled in 67 N. Y. 87, a decision based on same facts. See Fisher v. Same. Decis- ion in 67 If. Y. followed (Interest on over- due claims against city of N. Y.) in Paul v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Daly, 144, 146. v. , 4 E. D. Smith, 559. Limited (Liability of lessor of pier) in Swords v. Edgar, 59 K Y. 28, 37. v. , 20 Hun, 292. AfTd in 82 IT. Y. 10. v. Morris, 1 JV. Y. 341. Explained (Authority of executors before qualifying) in Humbert v. Wurster, 22 Hun, 405, 407. v. People, 6 Parle. 347. Commented on (Prescription as jurisdiction for nuisance) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 711. v. Perkins, 26 Wend. 124. Disting'd (Effect of making advances to carry on bus- iness) in McClune v. Cain, 2 Keyes, 203, 209. — r v. Persse, 15 How. Pr. 417. This case must be regarded as overruled (Right to bring creditor's action where supplemen- tary proceedings can be taken) v. Porter. 4 Hill, 140; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 274, with note wherein it is shown to have been very extensively cited both in N. Y. and elsewhere; also s. c, 15 JV! Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 773, with brief note of other cases, and (at p. 777) analytic list of cases citing this case. See Beckman «. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co.; Wynhamer v. People. Applied (Limits of legislative power to take away vested rights of prop- TAYLOE— TEED. 757 erty) in People v. Sup'rs of Westchester, 4 Barb. 73; White i>. White, 5 Id. 481 ; Peo- ple v. Mayor, &c. .of Brooklyn, 9 Id. 552 ; People s.Toynbee, 20 Id. 199 ; Powers v. Bergen, 6 JV. T. 868 ; Matter of Deansville Cemetery Assoc, 66 Id. 571. Approved in Embury v. Conner, 3 Id. 517. Disting'd in Norsworthy. v. Bergh, 16 How. Pi: 319. Relied on in Atkins v. Town of Randolph, 31 Vt. 226. Cited with approval in Han- son v. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28; s. c, 1 Am. R. 215, 231 (where it is said to be cited with approval in Sedgw. on Const. L. 155, and to be followed with approval in Bankhead v. Brown, 25 Iowa, 540). Quoted in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 214. Applied (What is due process of law) in Matter of Janes, 30 How. Pr. 454; Rockwell v. Near- ing, 35 IT. Y. 305; People ex rel. Town of Rochester v. Deyoe, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 148. Approved and applied in Lavin v. Emigrant Industrial Sav'gs B'k, 18 Blatehf. C. Ct. 1, 22. Examined in Hubbard v. People, 4 Mich. 129. Followed (Meaning of expression "law of the land") in East Kingston «. Towle, 48 JV H. 57 ; s. . Wil- liams, 40 Barb. 322, 324. Followed in Spear v. Carter, 1 Mich. 19; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 688, 690, with note; and in same case Low v. Rice, 8 Johns. 409; Clayton v. Per Dun, 13 Id. 218 ; Blin v. Campbell, 14 Id. 432; Henry v. Cuyler, 17 Id. 471, were fol- lowed (Consent not sufficient to confer jurisdiction). Tenth Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. Darragh, 1 Hun, 111. Fully reported in 3 Sup'm. Ct. \T. & C.) 138. v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 4 Hun, 429. Affd, it seems, in 80 N. Y. 660, on opin- ion below. See vol. .538, Cas. in Ct. of A pp. Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Terboss v. Williams, 5 Cow. 407. Aff'd in 2 Wend. 148. Terliune t. Terlinne, 40 How. Pr. 258. Questioned (Right of adulterous wife, who has been ill-treated by husband, to limited divorce) in Doe v. Doe, 23 Hun, 19, 22. Superseded by L. 1881, c. 702, am'd'g Code Civ. Pro. § 1770. Terpening v. Skinner, 30 Barb. 373. Affd in effect on further decision in 29 A 7 ". Y. 505. Terrett v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., 18 Hun, 6. Subsequent decision in 23 Id. 294, rev'd in 87 N. Y. 92, which in effect rev'd that in 18 Hun. v. Cowenhoven, 11 Hun, 320. Aff'd on re-argument, and also on appeal as Ter- ritt v. Cowenhoven, in 79 N. Y. 400. De- cision in 11 Hun applied (Prior decision, how far a bar) in Masten «. Olcott, 24 Id. 587, 589. v. Croiubie, 6 Lans. 82. Aff'd with » modification in 55 N. Y. 683. See Cooper v. Whitney. Terry v. Chandler, 16 W. Y. 354. Followed with Jackson v. Van Corlaer, 11 Johns. 123 , Jackson «. Ogden, 7 Id. 238 (Effect of agreement between adjoining land owners as to boundary) in Smith v. Hamilton, 20 Mich. 433; s. c, 4 Am. R. 398. Cited with approval with Sellick v. Addams, 15 Johns. 197; Jackson v. Gager, 5 Cow. 383; Robertson v. McNeil, 12 Wend. 578, 583, in Lennox v. Hendricks, 11 Oreg. 33, 37. v. Dayton, 31 Barb. 519. Rev'd on_ appeal to Ct. of App. as to claim of ad-' ministrator, but aff'd on question of ad- vancement. v. Hunter, 3 How. Pr. 183. See (Origin of distinction between General and Special term) 1 Abb. A 7 ". Y. Dig. 122, n. v. Jewett, 17 Hun, 395. Aff'd in 78 N. Y. 338. Decision in Id. explained and applied (Negligence in one crossing track) in Brassell e. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 84 Id. 241, 245. Disting'd (Duty as to ringing bell, &c. at crossing) in Mitchell v. N. Y.' Central, &c. R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 319. Both decisions disting'd (Negli- gence of person killed on railroad, when question for jury) in Parsons v. N. Y. Cen- tral, &c. R. R. Co., 17 Id. 479. v. Rubel, 12 JST. Y. Leg. Obs. 138. Ex- amined (Discovery and inspection) in Pegram v. Carson, 10 Abb. Pr. 340, 342. v. Wait, 47 How. Pr. 52 ; memr s. c, 48 A 7 ". Y. 657. Re-afTd in 56 Id. 91. t. Wheeler, 25 A 7 ". Y. 520. Appiied (When title passes on sale of chattels) in McNamara v. Edmister, 11 Hun, 601 ; Hurft v. Hires, 11 Vroom (JST. J.) 581 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 282, 286. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 315, n. f (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 2 Id. § 309, ». 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. cd.). TERRY— THOMAS, MATTER OF. 759 See also Id. § 323, 330. Further explained iu Id. § 468, ft. 3. Explained (Parol evi- dence to explain receipt) in Howard v. Nor- ton, 65 Barb. 161, 167. Disting'd (What passes as incident to purchase by executory contract) in Ourrie v. White, 6 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 382. v. Wiggins, 2 Lans. 272. Aff'd in 47 JV. Y. 512. See Tyson o. Blake. Decision in 47 JV. Y. explained (Effect of limitation on life estate given by will) in Flanagan v. Flanagan, 8 Abb. 2V. 0. 413, 418, 421. Applied in Fry v. Smith, 10 Id. 224, 227 ; Wager v. Wager, 96 JV. Y. 164, 173; Colt o. Heard, 10 Hun, 189, 192. Disting'd in Cohen v. Cohen, 4 Red/. 48, 52. Collated ■with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 64. Terwilliger v. Beals. See Cooley v. Betts. T. Brown, 59 Barb. 9. Aff'd in 44 JV. Y. 237. See (Purchase by executor of • real estate sold for debts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2774, n. v. Wands, 25 Barb. 313. Aff'd in 17 JV Y. 54. See Beach v. Ranncy. Applied with Wilson v. Goit, 17 JV. Y. 442 (Dam- age to support action for words not defam- atory per se) in Shafer v. Ahalt, 48 Md. 171 ; s. c, 30 Am. B. 456, 458. Approved and followed in Knight . Jones, 4 Wend. 310. Doubted in Bernstein v. Humes, 60 Ala. 582; s. c, 31 Am. R. 52, 57. Decision in 6 Cow. cited with other cases (When letter will be presumed to have been mailed) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1330. Thatcher v. Bank of State of N. T., 5 Sand/. 121. Disting'd and doubted (Liability of bank for acts of paying-teller) in East River Nat. Bank v. Gove, 57 JV Y. 597, 602. v. Morris, 11 JV. Y. 437. See Common- wealth of Kentucky v. Bassford. Com- pared (Burden of proving law of foreign State, where validity of contract there made is in question) in Flagg v. Baldwin, 38 JV J. Ea. (11 Stew.) 219; s. c, 48 Am. R. 308. Thanle v. Krekeler, 17 Hun, 338. Rev'd on the merits in SI JV Y. 428. Thayer v. Clark, 48 Barb. 243. Aff'd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 391. v. Lewis, 4 Den. 269. Applied (Re- quisites of complaint in action brought in name of public officer to enforce penalty) in Hoss v. Appell, 62 How. Pr. 314. v. Manly, 8 Hun, 550. Modified in 73 JV Y. 305. Decision in Id. applied with Mechanics' & Traders' B'k v. Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k, 60 Id. 40; Whelan i: Lynch, Id. 469 ; Ormsby v. Vermont Cop- per Mining Co., 56 Id. 623 ; Tyng v. Com- mercial Warehouse Co., 58 Id. 308 (Dam- ages for breach of agreement to return or replace property) in Barker v. Smith, 1 Dem. 290, 293. v. Marsh, 11 Hun, 501. Aff'd in 75 JV Y. 340. See cases cited (Estoppel of grantee of mortgaged premises to deny mortgagor's liability) in 5 Abb. JV. 0. 230, n. v. Overseers of Hamilton, 5 Hill, 443. Approved (Acquittal on one complaint, as bar to new proceeding for same matter) but disting'd with regard to conviction, in Sto- well v. Overseers of Volney, 5 Den. 98, 101. Collated with other cases in 56 Am. Dec. 221, n. v. Koek, 13 Wend. 53. See Dowdle v. Camp. Explained (Effect of parol contract partly within statute of frauds) in Browne on Stat, o/ Frauds, § 141, 4ed. ; 3 Pars, on Contr. 18, n. g. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Ed. 866. v. Van Vleet, 5 Johns. 111. Reviewed with Bunn ». Croul, 10 Id. 239 ; Taylor •». Betsford, 13 Id. 487 ; Benson «. Clark, 1 Cow. 258; Neil v. Abel, 24 Wend. 185; Plunkett v. Appleton, 51 How. Pr. 469; Mahoney v. Decker, 18 Hun, 365 ; Water- town Bank v. Mix, 51 If. Y. 559 (Communi- cations between judge and jury) in Wiggins v. Downer, 67 How. Pr. 65. Referred to in Read ®. Cambridge, 124 Mass. 567; s. a, 26 Am. R. 690, 692, as overruled by Tay- lor v. Betsford, 13 Johns. 487. v. Willet, 5 Bosw. 344; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 325. Followed (Right of attaching creditor to impeach transfer for fraud) in Fallon «. McCunn, 7 Bosw. 141, 145. See Rinchey «. Striker, 28 JV. Y. 45. Theological Seminary of Aubnrn v. Cal- houn, 38 Barb. 148 ; s. c, with points of counsel, 62 Id. 381. Rev'd in 25 JV. Y. 42,2. Decision in Id. followed (Proof of publication of will on testimony of one witness) in Norton v. Norton, 2 Red/. 6, 15. v. Cole, 18 Barb. 360. Further decis- ion in 20 Id. 321. Therasson v. People, 20 Hun, 55. Rev'd in 82 JV. Y. 238. Thieme v. Gans, 24 Hun, 236. Abridgt. s. c, as Thieme v. Gaus, 12 Weekly Dig. 76. Third Nat. Bk. v. Blake, 73 JV. Y. 260. Compare (Effect of note charging separate estate, as a mortgage) Mears v. Kearney, 1 Abb. JV. C. 303." Third Street, Matter of. See Matter of Beekman St. Thirty-Second Street, Matter of. See Mat- ter of Mercer St. Thomas, Matter of, 10 Abb. Pr. JV. 8. 114. 760 THOMAS. See (Effect of decision denying application for discharge of imprisoned debtor, as res adjudicuta) People ex rel. Eldridge ». Fan- ch'er, 1 Hun, 27. Thomas v. Achilles, 16 Barb. 491. Disap- proved (Right of mutual insurance company to divide its risks into classes) in Sheldon . Kneeland, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 75. Ex- plained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 168, n. w. v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9. See (Banking associations as corporations) Gifford v. Livingston, 2 Den. 382, 390. Explained in People v. Assessors of Watertown, 1 Hill, 616. Compare Warner ». Beers, 23 Wend. 103; Green v. Graves, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 358. Quoted in Morawetz on Corp. § 3, n. 3, § 9. Reviewed with Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. 103 ; People s. Purdy, 2 Hill, 31 ; Purdy v. People, 4 Id. 384; De Bow v. People, 1 Den. 9; Commercial B'k v. Sparrow, 2 Id. 97; People ». Supervisors of Chenango, 8 X. Y. 317, 327 ; People v. Devlin, 33 Id. 269 ; Peo- ple v. Comm'rs of Highways, 54 Id. 276 ; De Camp v. Eveland, 19 Barb. 81 ; Rumsey «. People, 19 N. Y. 41, and other cases (Power of court to go behind authentication of statute) in 51 Am. Dec. 616, n., where the course of decision in N. Y. is thought to be somewhat unsatisfactory. Discussed in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 345. v. Dickinson, 14 Barb. 90. Rev'd in 12 AT". Y. 364. Subsequent decision in 23 Barb. 431. Decision in 12 N. Y. followed (Effect of parol agreement to pay for lands sold and conveyed) in Ely v. McNight, 30 How. Pr. 101. Decision in 23 Barb, ap- proved and disting'd (Damages for breach of contract to transfer property in exchange for other) in Kirschmann v. Lediard, 61 Id. 573, 579. v. Douglass. See Howell t>. Denniston. v. Fleury, 26 N. Y. 26. See Phillip v. Gallant. Limited (Effect of provision in building contract for certificate of perform- ance) in Whiteman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Hun, 117, 121. See to the contrary, Milner v. Field, 5 Exch. 829. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 372. v. Hubbell, 18 Barb. 9. Rev'd in 15 If. Y. 405. Further decision in 35 Id. 120. See Bartlett v. Campbell. Decision in 15 N. Y. disting'd (Judgment against sheriff as conclusive against surety) in Fay v. Ames, 44 Barb. 334. Followed in People ex rel. Tuthill ». Russell, 25 Hun, 524, 526. Applied to agreement to indemnify against suits, — in Bridgeport Fire, &c. Co. v. Wil- son, 7 Bosw. 434; which was rev'd in 34 N. T. 281, which see. v. Kelsey, 30 Barb. 268. See Brinker- hoff v. Marvin. Disting'd (Mortgage to secure advances) in Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 21 Hun, 53, which was rev'd in 85 H. Y. 43. v. Kenyon, 1 Daly, 132. Explained (Nuisance as created by flowing water on lands) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 105. v. Kircher, 15 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 342. See (Discontinuance of supplementaz - y pro- ceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2454, n. V. Leland, 24 Wend. 65. See People ex rel. Griffing «. Mayor of Brooklyn ; Town of Guilford v. Supervisors of Che- nango. Applied (Power of legislature to authorize local tax) in Clarke v. City of Rochester, 5 Abb. Pr. 126 ; Benson ». Mayor, &c. of Albany, 24 Barb. 254; Davidson i>. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 27 How. Pr. 351 ; People v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 4 AT. Y. 437; Howell v. City of Buffalo, 37 Id. 271; People ex rel. Crowell «. Lawrence, 41 Id. 141 ; Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 Id. 189. Followed in Sharpless v. Mayor, &c. of Phila., 21 Penn. St. 147; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 759, 781, with note. Disting'd with People ex rel. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co. v. Mitchell. 45 Barb. 208, in States. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664; s. c, 9 Am. R. 622. Disting'd in People v. Town of Salem, 20 Mich. 452 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 400, 419. Approved in Crawford v. County of . Linn, 11 Or eg. 482, 491. Discussed in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 285, n. 1. Commented on (" Law of the land ") in Id. 470, n. v. Leonard, 11 Wend. 53. Applied (Amendment of clerical error in complaint, &c.) in Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 366. v. McDaniel, 14 Johns. 185; s. c, 5 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 826, with brief note. Disting'd '(What is sufficient accord and satisfaction) in Stockton v. Frey, 4 THOMAS— THOMPSON, MATTER OF. / 761 QUI (Md.) 406; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 138, 144, with cote. v. Murray, 34 Barb. 157. Rev'd in 32 N. Y. 605. * Decision in Id. followed (Loan when not made usurious by exaction of security) in 40 Id. 248, 252. v. Nelson, 69 If. Y. 118. Followed (Validity of verbal lease for more than a year) and Eeeder v. Sayre, 70 Id. 181; LaughraD «. Smith, 75 Id. 205, disting'd in Prial v. Entwhistle, 10 Daly, 398. Colla- ted with other cases (When relation of landlord and tenant commences) in Mo- Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 29. T. Payne, 2 Sweeny, 605. Affd in 47 N. Y. 675, but without opinion. v. People, 34 If. T. 351. Applied (Sufficiency of allegations as to false pre- tenses, in indictment) in People ex rel. Phelps v. Over and Terminer of N. Y., 83 Id. 436, 449. v. , 67 If. Y 218. Disting'd (Juror as disqualified by opinion) in Greenfield v. People, 6 Abb. If. C. 1, 11. Applied in Ealbo «. People, 80 K Y. 484, 494, 496 ; Abbott «. People, 86 Id. 460, 468. Fol- lowed in State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 520. See cases cited in 20 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 117, n. Compare Points of Law in Ouiteau's Case, p. 82 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1881). - — v. Quintard, 5 Duer, 80. Disting'd (Worthlessness of patent as defense to action for value of patent interest) in Hawks v. Swett, 4 Hun, 146, 151. v. Real, 6 Wend. 503. Applied (What constitutes "account" that may be re- ferred) in Camp v. Ingersoll, 86 If. Y. 433. ■ 436. v, Robinson, 3 Wend.. 267. Discussed (Action on foreign judgment) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1177, n. b, 11 Am. ed. Commented on in Ang. on Limit. § 85, 6 ed. v. Roosa, 7 Johns. 461. Reviewed with Barns v. Graham, 4 Cow. 452, and other cases (Nature and effect of contracts to make payment in specific articles) in Roberts v. Beatty, 2 Penr. & W. (Pa.) 63 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 410, 417, with note." v. Rnmsey. See Livingston v. Bishop. -v. Tanner, 14 How. Pr. 426 Followed (Effect of opinion as authorizing entry of judgment) in Weyman v. Nat. Broadway B'k, 59 Id. 332. v. Thomas, 18 Bun, 481. See (Amend* ments in case of appeal from justice's decis- ion) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3049, n. v. Thompson, 2 Johns. 471. See (Effect of provision in will in favor of debtor, as satisfaction of debt) Clarke v. Bogardus, 12 Wend. 68. Reviewed with other cases (Ef- fect of making debtor or his representative the creditor's executor) in Griffith *, Chew 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 17; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 656, 560. v. Todd, 6 Hill, 340. See Ontario Bank v. Lightbody. Applied (Effect of receiving counterfeit bills in payment) to altered check, in Redington v. Woods, 45 Cat 406; s. c, 13 Am. R. 190, 201. Included in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & JSF. 633. T. Whallon, 31 Barl. 172. Followed with Bangs v. Gray, 12 If. Y. 477; Herki- mer Co. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fuller, 14 Barb. 373; Matter of Bangs, 15 Id. 264; Savage o. Medbury, 19 K Y. 32; Bangs v. Duckin- field, 18 Id. 592 (Assessment on premium note) in Pacific Mut. Ins. Co. v. Guse, 49 Mo. 329 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 132, with note. Approved in Embree v. Shideler, 36 Ind. 423. v. Wilson, 6 Hill, 257. See (Right of non-resident to sue as poor person) Anony- mous, 10 Abb. JSf. C. 81. v. Winchester, Q If. Y. 397; s. c, 57" Am. Dee. 455, with note. See Losee v. Clute; Ryan v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Disting'd (Liability for remote results of , negligence) in Seizer v. Mali, 11 Abb. Pr. 181; Blackwell v. Wiswall, 24 Barb. 361 ; Norton o. Wiswall, 26 Id. 627; Burke v. De Castro, 11 Hun, 357; Loop v. Litch- field, 42 If. Y. 351, 357; Losee v. Clute, 57 Id. 494, 497. Applied in Barney «. Burnsterbinder, 64 Barb. 213 ; Cross v. Sackett, 2 Bosw. 648; Cook v. N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 1 Hilt. 445 ; Bruff v. Mali, 36 If. Y. 206; Smith „. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 19 Id. 130. Applied with Coughry v. Globe Woolen Co., 56 Id. 124, and Loop v. Litchfield, 42 Id. 351; Losee v. Clute, 51 Id. 494, disting'd in Devlin s.- Smith, 89 Id. 470. Followed and applied in Norton ». Sewall, 106 Mass. 143; s. c, 8 Am. R. 298. Applied in French v. Vining, 102 Mass. 132; s. c, 3 Am. R. 440. Reviewed with other cases in Dela- ware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. Co. v. Sal- mon, 10 Vroom (If. J.) 299; s. c, 23 Am. R. 220, 223; Railway Co. i>. Staley, 41 Ohio St. 118 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 385, n. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 646, n. 12 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.'). Discussed in 2 Add. on Torts, 401, n., Wood's ed. Included in Lawsorts Lead. Com. L. Cas. Simplified, 219. Included with note in 1 Thomps. on JSfegl. 224 ; Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 602. v. Woods. See Moakeley ». Riggs. Thompson, Ex parte, 4 Bradf. 154. Ex- plained with Hubbard v. Hubbard, 12 Barb. 148 (Validity of nuncupative will) in Botsford v. Krake, 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 112, 119. Included with notes in Red/. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 688. Commented on in 1 Jam. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed., 240, n. Thompson, Matter of, 1 Wend. 43. Exam- ined with other cases (Domicil) in Von Hoffman ®. Ward, 4 Red/. 244, 258. Doc- trine explained and cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. K S. 258. , 41 Barb, 237; s. c, less fully, 1 Red/. 490, but with surrogate's opinion. Cited (Remedy against trustee) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 457. ' — -, 11 Paige, 453. Collated with Lowell v. Quitman, 88 If. Y. 377 ; Lathrop v. . 762 THOMPSON. Dunlap, 4 Hun, 213, and other cases (What amounts to revocation of will) in 45 Am. R. 338, n. Thompson T. Allen, 7 Lans. 459. Collated ■with other cases (Actions by adjoining owners against commissioners of highways) in Cook Highw. L. 4 ed. 99. v. Ashton, 14 Johns. 316. See Holden ». Dakin. Followed (Implied warranty) in Barnard «. Kellogg, 10 Wall. 383. Re- viewed with other cases in Lawson on Usages & Customs, 30V. v. Berry, 3 Johns. Ch. 395. Affd in 17 Johns. 436. Decision in 3 Johns. Ch. applied (Relief against usurious security) in Bartholomew v. Yaw, 9 Paige, 106. v. Blanchard, 2 If. Y. 561. Subse- quent decision in proceeding between same parties, in 3 Id. 335, and, as it seems, in 4 Id. 303. Decision in 2 Id. disting'd (Effect of appeal as stay of proceedings) in Burrall v. Vanderbilt, 6 Abo. Pr. 70, 74. Decision in 3 If. Y. followed (Necessity of consider- ation for statutory undertaking) in Doo- little v. Dininny, 31 Id. 350 ; Bildersee v. Aden, 12 Abb. Pr. N~. S. 324, 327. Disting'd in Post v. Doremus, 60 If. Y. 371, 375. Applied to guaranty in Speyers v, Lambert, 6 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 318. Explained in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 393, n. 1, 4 ed. Disting'd (Undertaking, when invalid, as not authorized by statute) in Mittnacht e. Gschwend, 1 City Ct. 360. Decision in 4 If. Y. disting'd (Estoppel to assert claim to property) in Sparks v. Leavy, 19 Abb. Pr. 369; Wooster v. Sherwood, 25 If. Y. 287. Approved but disting'd in Penfleld v. Dun- bar, 64 Barb. 253. Applied in Hibbard v. Stewart, 1 Hilt. 208 ; Barnett v. Zacharias, 24 Hun, 304, 306. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 795, n. r. Applied (Removal of presumption of fraudulent intent in case of sale, &c. unaccompanied with change of possession) in Hollacher v. O'Brien, 5 Hun, -280. Applied (Right to contradict one's own witness) in Coulter v. Am. Merchants' Union Exp. Co., 56 K. Y. 585, 589. v. Bower, 60 Barb. 463. Quoted (Ac- tion for mesne profit and damages) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 652. v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 619. See Os- good v. Franklin. Disting'd (Liability of executors, &c. for loss) in Ackerman v. Emott, 4 Barb. 637 ; Litchfield v. White, 3 Sandf. 551. Applied in Hogan v. De Pey- ster, 20 Barb. 117 ; Weston v. Ward, 4 Redf. 435 ; Sheerin v. Public Adm'r, 2 Id. 421, 426. Approved and followed in Fudge v. Durn, 51 Mo. 264. Cited as authority (Right of creditor of deceased to equitable aid in discovery of assets) in Kennedy v. Creswell, 101 V. S. 641, 646. Applied with other cases (Determining in one pro- ceeding rights of those claiming interest in decedent's estate) in Kettle v. Crary, 1 Paige, 419, n. Explained (Preference as among judgment creditors of decedent) in Ainslie v. Radcliff, 7 Id. 446. Cited as authority (Continuance of partnership after partner's death, for benefit of infants) in Powell v. North, 3 Ind. 392; s. c. 56 Am. Dec. 513, with note collating cases. v. Burhans, 61 Barb. 260. Rev'd in 61 If. Y. 52. Further decision in 15 Hun, 580, rev'd in 79 If. Y. 93. Decision in 61 Id. quoted and explained (Adverse possession under color of title) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §§ 732, 774. Decision in 79 If. Y. applied (Insufficiency of occasional entry. &c. as possession that will support ejectment) in Ozark Land Co. i>. Leonard, U. S. Cir. Ct. E. D. Ark. 20 Fed. Rep. 881. Quoted in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §§ 719, 769, 774. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 370, n. y. Button, 14 Johns. 84. See Felter v. Mulliner; Pangburn v. Patridge. Limited and applied (Replevin as remedy to obtain goods that are in custody of law) in Clark" v. Skinner, 20 Johns. 465, 469 ; Dun- ham «. Wyckoff, 3 Wend. 280. Criticised as standing alone, — citing Pangburn v. Patridge, 7 Johns. 140; Co. Lit. 145, b; and other authorities to the contrary, — in Smith v. Huntington, 3 If. H. 76 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 331. Disting'd with Gardner v. Campbell, 15 Johns. 401, in Kellogg v. Churchill, 2 If. H. 412; s. c, 9 Am. Bee. 104. Followed with Cresson v. Stout, 17 Johns. 116 ; Pangburn v. Patridge, 7 Id. 142, — in Philips v. Harriss, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 122; s. c, 19 Am. Bee. 166, with note. Followed in Dodd v. McCraw, 8 Ark. 83 ; s. c, 46 Am. Bee. 301. v. Carmicliael. See Thompson «. Clen- dening. v. Clark, 4 Hun, 164. See (Effect of notice of lis pendens) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1671, n. Discussed in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 645. Discussed (Judgment in ejectment when not conclu- sive) in Id. 673. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1524. v. Clendening, 1 Sandf. Ch. 387. Further proceedings as Thompson v. Car- michael, in 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 134, De- cision in 1 Sandf. Ch. discussed (Perpetu- ities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 513, n. v. Commissioners for Loaning, &c., 16 Hun, 86. Rev'd in 79 If. Y. 54. Before word "judgment" in last line of Id. 63, insert "order reversed and." r v. Culver, 24 How. Pr: 286. Followed (Attachment not superseded by judgment) in Smoot v. Heim, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 208, 210. Applied (Vacating attachment after judg- ment) in Zeregal v. Benoist. 33 How. Pr. 134; Bowen v. First Nat. B'k of Medina, 34 Id. HO. v. Davies. See Doolin v. Ward ; Jones v. Caswell. v. Egbert, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 474; s. c, 1 Hun, 484. Explained (Partnership lands) in 1 Colly er on Partn. § 114, n. 2, THOMPSON. 763 Wood's Am. ed. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 cd. § 94. t. Erie B'y Co., 45 K 7. 468. _ See Wavland v. Tyson. Disting'd (Striking out "pleading) in Walker «. Walker, 82 N. 7. 260, 264. Followed (Striking out an- swer as sham) in Claflin «. Jaroslauski, 64 Barb. 463; Webb. a. Foster, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 312. Disting'd in Kay *. Churchill, 10 Abo. If. ft 83, 85. Followed ( Judement on part of answer, as frivolous) in Strong v. Sproul, 53 K 7. 497, 499 ; Grocers' Bank v. O'Rtmrke, 6 Hun, 18, 21. Disting'd (Necessity, &c of having com- mon stockholders represented, in action by preferred stockholders to compel paycusnt of dividend) in Chase v. Vanderbilt, 62 Jf. 7. 315. v. Fargo, 58 Barb. 575. Rev'd in 49 If. 7. 188; s. c, 44 How. Pr. 176; 10 Am. R. 342. Further decision in 48 Sow. Pr. 93; mem. s. c, 2 Hun, 379; 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 665, affd in 63 K 7. 479. See Krulder v. Ellison. Decision in 49 N. 7. criticised as extreme, and as decided on peculiar facts (Duty of carrier as to deliv- ery) in 8 Am. Dee. 218, n. Explained (Consignor's right of action against carrier) in 7 South. L. Rett. N. S. 275. v. Gregory, 4 Johns. 81 ; s. ft, 4 Am. Dec. 255. Followed with Miller v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co., 6 Sill, 61; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. 381 (Invalidity of parol license coupled with interest in land) in Woodward «. Seely, 11 III. 157; s. c, 50 Am. Bee. 445, with note. Approved with same cases in Hazelton v. Putnam, 3 Ghand. {Wise.) 122. v. Hall, 45 Barb. 214. Followed (Parol evidence to vary writing) in Pohalski v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 234, 250. Applied (Discharge of surety by neglect to proceed against principal) iu Field v. Cutler, 4 Lam. 197. Disting'd with Slingerland v. Bennett, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 446 (Opinions as to insolvency) in York v. People, 31 Sun, 446. v: Hewitt, 6 Hill, 254. See Kellogg v. Schuyler. Explained with Kellogg v. Schuyler, 2 Ben. 73 (Effect of discharge in bankruptcy) in Clark v. Rowling, 3 S. 7. 216, 223. Limited in Johnson «. Fitzhugh, 3 Barb. Ch. 360, 363. t. Hickey, 59 How. Pr. 434 ; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. Jf. ft 159. v. Jenks, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 229. Over- ruled (Clerk's exclusive power to issue exe- cution on justice's judgment) by Brush v. Lee, 36 If. 7. 49, but restored by 2 L. 1870, p. 1832, c. 741, § 3. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3017, n. See to the contrary (Effect of written acknowledgment to re- vive judgment) Code Civ. Pro. § 376. T. Kessel, 30 Jf. 7. 383. See also (Amendment as to name) >N. Y., &c. Milk Pan Co. v. Remington Agric. Works, 25 Sun, 475 (and see dissenting opinion Id. 481). Applied (Review of referee's find- ings) in Marsh v. Holbrook, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Bee 179. Disting'd (Amendment of judg- ment) in Grant «. Griswold, 21 Sun, 511. v. Kctcham, 8 Johns. 190; s. c, 5 Am. Bee. 332. See Bank of Albion v. Smith ; Fitzburgh i). Runyon ; Freeman «. Adams ; Pcchner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. ; Robinson v. Dauchy. Criticised (Presumption as to foreign law) in Throop «. Hatch, 3 Abb. Pr. 26. Applied in Wright v. Delafleld, 23 Barb. 515; Sherrill v. Hopkins, 1 Cow. 108. See Cutler v. Wright, 22 K 7. 486. See many authorities collected, in 6 Cow. 499, n. Followed with Holmes v. Broughton, 10 Wend. 75, in Brush v. Scribner, 11 Conn. 388; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 303, 320, with note. Applied (Parol evidence to control effect of negotiable paper) in Dunning v. Pratt, 4 Buer, 336 ; Norton v. Coons, 6 If. 7. 41. Cited in Brown*. Wiley, 20 Sow. (U. S.) 442. Applied (Time of payment of note) in Sice v. Cunningham, 1 Cow. 407. Explained and applied (Law of place as controlling validity of contract) in Graham v. First Nat. B'k of Norfolk, 20 Hun, 329. Reviewed with other cases in Milliken c, Pratt, 125 Mass. 374; s. c, 28 Am. It. 241, 245, as showing the general current of authorities, English and American. Applied in Stiekney v. Jordan, 58 Me. 106; s. c, 4 Am. E. 251; Bank of Louisiana «. Wil- liams, 46 Miss. 618; s. c, 12 Am. R. 319, 321. See doctrine explained in Tyler on Inf. & Cm. 2 ed. § 4. v. Leastedt, 3 Hun, 395 ; s. c, as Thompson v. Seastedt, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 78. See Jauncey v. Thorne. v. Lockwood, 15 Johns. 256. Followed (Validity of bond exacted by officer with-, out authority) in Benedict v. Bray, 2 Cal % 251 ; s. c, 56 Am. Bee. 333. Applied with Germond v. People, 1 Hill, 343, in Caffrey vl Dudgeon, 38 Ind. 512 ; s. c, 10 Am. R. 126, 130. Included with notes (Who may urge duress) in Swell Bead. Cas. on Inf. &c. 789. v. Lumley, 1 Abb. If. C. 254; s. c, less fully, 50 How. Pr. 105. Affd in 64 If. 7. 631, on opinion of Loew, J., below. Fur- ther decision in 7 Baly, 74. With decision in 1 Abb. If. C. 254, compare (Affidavit on information and belief) Lambert u. People, 6 Id. 181. Decision in 7 Baly applied (Ef- fect of judgment absolute on appeal) in Rust «. Hauselt, 8 Abb. IT. C. 148, 155. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Sandf. 4S7. Aff'd in 11 K 7. 115. Compare (Proof oi notice of claim, to establish adverse title] Humbert v. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. 587. v. Menck, 22 How. Pr. 431. Rev'd ir 2 Eeyea, 82 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Bee 400. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 3 Sandf Oh. 625. Approved (Implied authority o corporation) in Jones v. Guaranty & Indem nity Co., 101 U. S. 622. Explained (Pri vate corporations, how created) in Ang. 6 A. on Corp. § 82, 11 ed. 764 THOMPSON— THORN. — t. Nixon, 3 Edw. 457. See cases cited (Ohoses in action as subject to creditor's bill) in 14 Am. Dec. 531, n. ; 16 Abb. JT. 0. 21, a. — v. People, 6 Sun, 135. Followed (Transfer of indictment. Challenge to array) in Weston v. People, Id. 140. Fol- lowed (Removal of indictment) in Leighton v. People, 10 Abb. N. C. 261. 265. — T. , 3 Parh. 208. Reviewed with other cases (Practice on return to writ of error) in Manke b. People, 74 N. Y. 415, 420. Collated with Schenck v. Campbell, 11 Abb. Pr. 292, and other cases (Meaning of word "house") in 22 Am. Dec. 144, n. T. , 23 Wend. 537. Followed (Quo warranto, as remedy to determine question of forfeiture of corporate charter) in State v. Real Estate Bank, 5 Ark. 595 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 100, 111, with note. — v. Quiuiby, 2 Bradf. 449. Affd in Thompson v. Thompson, 21 Barb. 107. Decision in 2 Bradf. commented on (Execu- tion and attestation of will) in 1 Jam. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 228, n. 24. v. Rose, 8 Cow. 266. Explained and applied (Covenant to pay for erections, when running with the land) in Weyman's Ex'rs v. Ringold, 1 Bradf. 59. v. Scliermerhorn, 9 Barb. 152. Aff'd in 6 K Y. 92; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 385, with note containing citations. See Birdsall v. Clark. Decision in 6 S. Y. disting'd (Del- egation of powers of municipal corpora- tion) in City of Brooklyn v. Breslin, 57 Id. 591, 594 ; Edwards v. City of Watertown, 24 Sun, 426, 428. Followed in Birdsall v. Clark, 73 N. Y. 73, 77. v. Seastedt. See Thompson v. Leastedt. v. Sherrard, 35 Barb. 593 ; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. 427 ; less fully, 22 Sow. Pr. 155. See Guernsey v. Powers. Disapproved (Appointment of receiver in action to re- cover real estate) in Ireland ■». Nichols, 37 Sow. Pr. 222, 231. Disting'd in Mitchell v. Barnes, 22 Sun, 194, 198. Explained in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 614. v. Skinner. See Jackson v. Robins. v. Sloan, 23 Wend. 77. Disting'd (Ef- fect of negotiable paper payable in specific kind of money) in Pardee v. Fish, 60 iV. Y. 265, 270. Disapproved as contrary to cur- rent of authority, — in Black v. Ward, 27 Mich. 191 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 162, 164 ; citing also, Ehle v. Chittenango B'k, 24 JV. Y. 548. Included with note in Redf. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 1 ; Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 1. Disting'd (Sense in which words in written instrument are to be un- derstood) in Willmering v. McGaughey, 30 Iowa, 205 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 673, 676. Com- pared (Evidence of custom, to determine negotiability of note) in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 345. v. Stevens, 62 JST. Y. 634. Disting'd (Proof of publication of will,) in Heath v. Cole, 15 Sun, 100, 104. Applied in Mairs d. Freeman, 3 Redf. 195 ; "Von HofBman v. Ward, 4 Id. 260. — — v. Taylor. See Thomson v. Same. v. Van Vecliten, 5 Abb. Pr. 448. Rev'd in 6 Bosw. 373. Subsequent decision in 27 JK F. 508. Decision in Id. approved but disting'd (Effect of chattel mortgage not filed, as against creditors) in Parshall v. Est- gert, 54 Id. 18, 22; which rev'd 52 Barb. 373, which see. Applied in Stewart v. Beale, 7 Sun, 413, 416 ; Fraser v. Gilbert, 11 Id. 634, G37; B|st v. Staple, 61 N. Y. 71, 79. Disting'd in Matter of Collins, 12 Blatchf. C. Ct. 548, 550. Applied to fraudulent mortgage, in Brackett ■;;. Harvey, 25 Sun, 502, 504. Explained and applied (Right of chattel mortgagee, relief against other liens) in Anderson v. Hunn, 5 Id. 82. v. Wood, 1 Silt. 91. See Howard v. Daly. Dictum disapproved (Rights of ser- vants wrongfully discharged) in Howard v. Daly, 61 If. 7. 362, 372; Moodv v. Lever- ich, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 145, 149. ' See cases collected (Severance of cause of action) in 7 Am. L. Reg. N'. S. 148. Thomson, Matter of. Reported under Thompson v. Taylor, 71 JST. Y. 217. Thomson v. Bank of British N. A., 45 Super. Ct. (J. &S.)1. Aff'd in 82 N. Y. 1. See Payne v. Gardner. v. Ebbets, Soph. 272. Disting'd (Inter- pleader in case of double taxation! in Dorn v. Fox, 61 N~. Y. 271. Criticised as un- sound in 35 Am. Dec. 700, n., doubting Redfield ii. Supervisors, Clarke, 42 ; Mo- hawk, &c. R. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, 384. t. MacGregor, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 197. Rev'd in 9 Abb. iV. C. 138; s. c, more fully, 81 N. Y. 592. Compare (Proper plaintiff in action on official bond) Code Civ. Pro. § 1888. v. Thomson, 1 Bradf. 24. Followed (Amendment of executor's inventory of as- sets, when not ordered) in Greenough v. Greenough, 5 Redf. 192. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 27l5,"n. v. , 55 Soto. Pr. 494. Followed as decisive (Appointment of testamentary guardian by father without mother's consent, in Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 24 Hun, 371. v. Taylor, 1 Sun, 274. Affd as Thomp- son v. Taylor, in 72 H. Y. 32. Previous proceeding in 71 Id. 217 ; also further one in 13 Sun, 201. v. Tracy, 60 JST. Y. 31. Criticised (Def- inition of writ of prohibition) in 12 Am. Dec. 604, n. v. Wilcox, 7 Bans. 376. Disting'd (Ef- fect of misdescription of property contained in notices of lis pendens, and the like) in Watson v. Wilcox, 39 Wis. 643 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 63. Thorn v. Blanchard, 5 Johns. 508. Fol- lowed (Privilege as to words spoken or written in legal, &c. proceeding) in Forbes v. Johnson, 11 B. Monr. (fry.) 48, 51. THORN— TIIEOOP. 7C5 Disting'd in Bo J well v. Osgood, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 379; s. a, 15 Am. Dec. 228. Com- pared with Pennsylvania doctrine in 2 Kent Com. 22. Collated with other cases and explained in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 172. y. Helmer, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 408 ; s.,0., 2 Keyes, 27. Disting'd (Waiver of fraud) in People v. Stephens, 71 N. Y. 527, 556. Disting'd (Evidence as to intent) in Learned v. Ryder, 5 Lans. 539, 541. v. Hicks, 7 Cow. 697. See Wendover v. Hogeboom. Cited*(Liability of mort- gagee out of possession, for services ren- dered, or necessaries furnished vessel) in 3 Kent Com. 136. v. Kuapp, 42 K Y. 474. See Johnson ». Jenkins. Included (Exemplary damages in action for breach of promise to marry) in Sedgw. Gas. on Dama. 766. v. Nott, ISup'm. Ot. (T.&G.) Add. 22. Applied (Disregarding small error in amount of assessment) in Colmau v. Shat- tuck, 2 Run, 497, 507. v. Smith, 21 Wend. 365. Explained (Admissions by partner, as binding on part- nership) in 2 Oollyer on Partn. § 702, n. 4, Wood's Am. ed. Thorual v. Pitt, 36 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 379. Rev'd on ground that question whether plaintiff acted as broker of defend- ant should have been submitted to jury, in 58 N. Y. 683. Thorue v. Cramer, 15 Barb. 112. Disap- proved with Bradley v. Baxter, Id. 122; Barto v. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483 (Validity of law passed, subject to popular vote) in Bull «. Read, 13 Graft. (Va.) 78, 83, 97. See Corning v. Green, 23 Barb. 33. Approved in Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 482. v. Deas, 4 Johns. 84; s. c, 3 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 752, with brief note, say- ing it is the leading American case. Relied on (Liability for non-feasance, &c. in gra- tuitous undertaking) in Morrison v. Orr, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 49 ; s. c, 23 Am. Pec. 319, with note; Gill «. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477; s. c, 7 Am. E. 548. Ques- tioned and qualified in 2 Pars, on Mar. L. 471, n. Discussed in 2 Pars, on Contr. 99, 103, n.f; Ang. on Carr. § 19, n. 1, 5 ed. Explained in 1 Chitty on Gontr. 60, n. t, 11 Am. ed. Thornton v. Payne^ 5 Johns. 74. Quoted (Agreements for future leases as distin- guished from present contracts) in 1 Washb. on Seal Prop. 4 ed. 450, n. 3. v. St. Paul & Chicago R. R. Co., 45 Eow. Pr. 416. Further proceedings in 6 Daly, 511. Thorp y. Burling, 11 Jims. 285. Applied (Liability in trover, of one innocently re- ceiving possession) in Dudley v. Hawley, 40 Barb. 404. Cited as authority (Agent obeying illegal orders cannot defend on account of agency) in Wliart. Com. on Aa. § 542. y v. Keokuk Coal Co., 47 Barb. 439. Aff'd in 48 N. Y. 253, See Hauiill v. Gil- lespie. Decision la 48 N. Y. explained (Obligation created by assumption of mort- gage) in Douglass v. Wells, 18 Hun, 93. Applied in Whiting «. Gearty, 14 Id. 501. Disting'd in Vrooman ». Turner, 69 N. Y. 280, 285 ; Dunning 'o. Leavitt, 85 Id. 30, 36 (and see dissenting opinion, Id. 38). Discussed in Real Estate Trust Co. «. Balch, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 534. Fol- lowed in Dean®. Walker, 107 III. 540. ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 467. Questioned in Thomas on Mort. 191. Applied (Right to enforce agreement made with third person) in Claf- lin v. Ostrom, 54 K Y. 584. : v. Ross, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 416. See (Oral evidence to vary written contract for services) as to verbal limit of cost on written order, Hooper v. Taylor, 4 E. D. Smith. 486 ; Carl v. Spofford, 45 AT. Y. 61. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 364. v. Woodhull, 1 Sandf. Oh. 411. Not followed (Effect of payment of stock sub- scription by check) in Excelsior Grain Binding Co. v. Stayner, 61 How. Pr. 456, 458. Explained (Transfer of stock) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 568, 11 ed. Thorpe v. Baulch, 3 Alb. Pr. 13. Disap- proved (Extension of time to answer, with- out affidavit of merits) in Romaine v. Corn- well, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 430. v. N. ¥. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 13 Hun, 70. Aff'd in 76 JV: Y. 402 ; s. c, 32 Am. E. 325. Compare (Liability of rail- road company in regard to sleeping cars) Kinsley v. Lake Shore & Michigan South- ern R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 54; s. c, 28 Am. E. 200. v. White, 13 Johns. 53. See McMillan v. Vanderlip. Questioned (Recovery on contract of service before expiration of period agreed on) in Heim v. Wolf, 1 E. D. Smith, 70, 73. Thrasher v. Rentier, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 309. Affd in 1 Abb. N. O. 39 ; mem. s. c, 59 ^ Y. 649. Decision in Id. followed (Giving of bond as prerequisite to validity of assignment for creditors) in Brennan v. Willson, 7 Daly, 59, 61 ; which was aff'd in 71 N. Y. 502, 506, which see ; Von Hein v. Elkus, 8 Hun, 519; Worthy v. Benhaur, ID Id. 177. Disting'd in Rennie v. Bean, 24 Id. 123, 127, a case of failure of assignee to accept. . Followed (Assignment under State law, how affected by Federal bankruptcy law) in Lowenstein v. Flauraud, 53 How. Pr. 467. Explained in Boese v. Locke, 17 Hun, 275 ; which was rev'd in 78 W. Y. 479, which see. Disting'd in Bostwick v. Bur- nett, 11 Hun, 301. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (71 SO.) disting'd (Vendee's right to recover back payments on rescission of con- tract of sale) in Tice v. Zinsser, 76 N. Y 549, 553. ' Throop v. Clieeseman, 16 Johns. 264. Fol- lowed (Calls of patent as affected by sur- vey) in Newman v. Foster, 3 How. (Miss ) 383; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 98, 101, with note. ' 7CG THURBEE— TIFFAN Y. Tliurber t. Blanck, 50 N. Y. 80. See Me- chanics' & Traders' Bank v. Dakin ; Itin- chey b. Stryker. Compared (Right of at- tachment creditor to assail fraudulent transfer) in Gross v. Daly, 5 Daly, 541, 54fi, a case of mechanics' lien. Compare to the contrary Mechanics', &c. B'k «. Dakin, 51 N. Y. 519; but see Same v. Same, 8 Eun, 431 ; 54 N Y. 681. Followed in Conner u. Weber, 12 Eun, 580, 583 ; Smith v. Long- mire, 24 Id. 257, 259. Followed with Smith v. Longmire, in Milliken ■». Dart, 26 Id. 24. Followed with Castle v. Lewis, 78 If. Y. 131 ; Mechanics', &c. B'k v. Da- kin, 8 Eun, 431 ; and Mechanics', &c. B'k v. Dakin, 51 N. Y. 519, disregarded in Venable «. N. T. Bowery Fire Ins. Co., 49 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 481. Followed in Talbott ■». Randall, Sup'm. Ct. New Mexico, 1885, 19 Reporter, 348. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. VII, tit. Ill, art. 2, n. Discussed in Wait, on Fraud. Gonv. § 86. T. Chambers, 4 Eun, 721. Aff'd in 66 N. Y. 42. Another proceeding in 60 Id. 29. See Gill v. Brouwer. T. Harlem Bridge, &c. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326. Applied (Non-suits in action for negligence) in Cornwall v. Mills, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 45, 50. See cases col- lected (Contributory negligence of child) in 6 Abb. N. O. 110, n. T. Townsend, 22 N. Y. 517. Approved (Power of Supreme Court on appeal from inferior court) in Baker v. Remington, 45 Id. 323, 327. Disting'd as to review of re- port of commissioners in condemnation pro- ceedings, in Matter of Kings Co. Elev. Ry. Co., 82 Id. 95, 102. Collated with other cases (Curtesy as affected by statute) in Shasta. S B. Gas. on Real Prop. 289. Tliurinaii v., Wells, 18 Barb. 500. Over- ruled (Assignability of claim for damages arising from conversion of personal property) in McKee v. Judd, 12 N. Y. 622, 626. See Butler v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 110. Thurst v. West, 31 N. Y. 210. Shown with Bank of Beloit v. Beale, 34 Id. 472 ; Mars- den v. Cornell, 62 Id. 215, in 11 Am. Bee. 524, n., to be in harmony with the weight of authority, including that of U. S. Sup'm. Ct. (Effect of judgment for plaintiff in tres- pass or trover to vest title to goods in de- fendant). Thurston v. Cornell, 38 N. Y. 281. See Seymour v. Wilson. Disting'd (Evidence of intent) in Learned v. Ryder, 61 Barb. 557; Dillon ». Anderson, 43 N. Y. 236. Fol- lowed in More v. Deyoe, 22 Eun, 208, 223. Explained and applied in , Bayliss v. Cock- croft, 81 N. Y. 363, 371. Disting'd (Usury as determined by agreement for additional compensation for trouble and expense) in Van Tassells. Wood, 12 Eun, 390. ■ v. King, 1 Abb. Pr. 126. See (Execu- tion after creditor's death) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §1376, n. Tibbetts v. Blood, 21 Barb. 650. Followed (Parties in actions in behalf of or against as- sociation) notwithstanding doubts raised in Austin v. Searing, 16 N. Y. 116— in Dewitt v. Chandler, 11 Abb. Pr. 459, 470; Poultney v. Bachman, 10 Abb. N. C. 252, 254. See cases cited in 4 Abb. N. G. 811, n. Tibbits, Ex parte, 6 Cow. 551, n. Rev'd in 17 Wend. 571. See Child v. Starr. Decis- ion in 17 Wend, examined (Right of fish- eries) and result of decision stated, in Peo- ple v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 461, 478. Tibbies v. O'Connor, 28 Barb. 538. Dis- ting'd (Liability for costs of appeal, when covered bystatutory undertaking) in Hinck- ley v. Kreitz, 58 N. Y. 583, 588. Tibbs v. Morris, 44 Barb. 138. Approved (Duty of party to set up equitable defense in action) in Giles v. Austin, 38 Super. Ci. {J. & S.) 215, 243. Tice v. Annin, 2 Johns. Ch. 125. Applied (Liability of purchaser of moi .gaged prem- ises) in Cox v. Wheeler, 7 raige, 258. v. Gallup, 2 Eun, 446. Disapproved with Nelson v. Cowing, 6 EM, 336 (Au- thority to sell as giving authority to war- rant) in Cooley v. Perrine, 12 Vroom {N.J.) 332 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 210; citing also Jeffrey v. Bigelow, 13 Wend. 518; Sandford v. Handy. 23 Id. 250. Collated with Nelson v. Cowing, and other cases, in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 553, 555. V. Tice, 3 Eun, 553. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 614, on the facts, but without opinion. v. Zinsser, 13 Eun, 3C6. Rev'd in 76 N. Y. 549. Ticknor v. Kennedy, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 387. Rev'd in 4 Id. 417. With latter decision see (Judgment against joint debtors in jus- tice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3021, n. Collated with other case and commented on in Throop Justices' Man. 2 ed. 71. Tiedemanii v. Ackerman, 16 Eun, 307. AfPd in 84 N. Y. 677, but without opin- ion. Tiernan v. Wilson, 6 Johns. Ch. 411. See Groff v. Jones ; Howell «. Baker ; Woods v. Monell. Applied (Effect of fraud in con- ducting judicial sale) in King v. Piatt, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 532 ; Hackley v. Dra- per, 60 N. Y. 93; 4 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & G.) 620. See O'Donnell v. Lindsay, 39 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 531. Followed and approved | with Groff e. Jones, 6 Wend. 522, in Reed ' ®. Carter, 3 Blachf. (Ind.) 376 ; s. c. 2G Am. Dec. 422, with note. Tierney v. N. T. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Eun. 569; s. c, more fully, C7 Barb. 538. Aff'd in 76 N. Y. 305. See Place v. Union Express Co. Tiffany v. Bowerman, 2 Eun, 643. Exam- ined and approved (Supplementary plead- ings, when allowed) in Proutv v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co., 85 N. Y. 272, 276. Applied with McMahon v. Allen, 12 Eow. Pr. 39, and Corbin v. Knapp, 5 Euti, 197; Fincke v. Rourke, 20 Id. 264, dis- ting'd in Holly v. Graf, 29 Id. 443. v. Clark, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) Add. TIFFANY-TILSON. rG7 P. Aff'd with modification in 58 2V. Y. V. Driggs, 11 Johns. 253. Disting'd (Remedies, in case of penalty given by statute) in Blatchley v. Moser, 15 Wend. 217. y. Farr, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) Add. 10. Aff'd, it seems, in 63 JV. Y. 644, but with- out opinion. . . v. Lord, 65 JV Y. 310. Disting'd (Time of objection to bond given on grant- ing attachment by justice) in Northrup v. Garrett, 17 Hun, 497. Disting'd (Who may object to defect in statutory bond) in Peo- ple v. Groat, 22 Id. 164. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2908, n., 3169, n. . T. St. John, 5 Lans. 153. Aff'd in 65 If. Y. 814; s. c, 22 Am. R. 612. . t. Warren, 37 Barb. 571. Disting'd (Effect of unfiled chattel mortgage as against creditors) in Fraser v. Gilbert, 11 Sun, 634, 637. Tifft v. Horton, 53 If. Y. 377. Followed (What is personal property though annexed to realty) in Sisson v. Hibbard, 10 Hun, 420, 424; which was aff'd in 75 If. Y. 542, 546, which see ; Kinsey v. Bailey, 9 Bun. 452. Approved in Jones on Chat. M. § 132. Examined and disting'd, in Hender- son v. Ownby, 56 Tex. 647; s. c, 42 Am. B. 691 ; 14 Reporter, 446. v. Porter, 8 If. Y. 516. Explained and followed (Legacy, when general and not "specific) in Osborne v. McAlpine, 4 Bed/. 1, 3. v. Tifft, 4 Ben. 175. Followed (Liabil- ity of parent for acts of minor) in Schloss- berg v. Lahr, 60 Sow. Br. 450 ; Edwars v. Crune, 13 Kan. 348 ; Hagerty v. Powers, 66 Cal. 368 ; s. c, 19 Reporter, 395. Tighe v. Pope, 16 Sun, 180. Applied (Amendment as to name of party) in N. Y., &c. Milk' Pan Co. v. Remington Agric. Works, 25 Id. 475, 477 (and see dissenting opinion, Id. 480). Tilley v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 24 If. Y. 471 ; s. c, 23 Sow. Br. 363. Further de- cision in 29 If. Y. 252. See Weed ». Panama R. R. Co. Both decisions fol- lowed with Mclntyre «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 37 JV. Y. 287 (Damages for negligence causing death) in Board of Comm'rs of Howard v. Legg, 93 lnd. 523 ; s. p., 47 Am. R. 390. Decision in 29 If. Y. included in Sedgw. Cos. on Dama. 796. Tillinghast v. King. See Franklin v. Under- bill. Tillman v. Lansing, 4 Johns. 45. Overruled (Sheriffs liability for escape) in Barry v. Mande.ll, 10 Id. 563. v. Wheeler, 17 Johns. 326 ; s. c, 6 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 382, with brief note. See Hall v. Newcomb ; Herrick v. Carman ; Moakeley v. Riggs. Explained (Liability of irregular indorser) in Ilahn v. Hull, 2 Abb. Pr. 354. Referred to as undisturbed by later cases, — in Lester e. Paine, 39 Barb. 619. Followed in Phelps «. Vischcr, 50 If. Y. 69, 73. Dissented from with Herrick v. Carman, 12 Johns. 159, in Martin v. Boyd, 11 If. S. 385 ; s. c, 35 Am. Bee. 6ul. Tillotson v. Boyd. See Jumel v. Juinel. . v. Cheetham, 2 Johns. 63. Rev'd in 5 Id. 430. Another decision in 3 Id. 56 ; s. c, 3 Am. Bee. 459; also in 4 Id. 50. See Bissell v. Cornell. Dictum in 2 Johns. explained (Challenge to sheriff's jury) in Joannes v. Fisk, 3 Robt. 710; citing 2 R. S. 286, § 58. Explained (Power of sheriff on inquest of damages) in Obart v. Lctson, 2 Earr. (If. J.) 78; s. c, 34 Am. Bee. 182, with note. Decision in 3 Johns, explained (Evidence in mitigation on assessment of damages) in Thompson v. Lumley, 7 Baly, 1i, 79. Relied on (Exemplary damages) in Goddard v. Grand Trunk R'way Co., 57 Me, 202; s. c„ 2 Am. R. 39, 48. Explained in Fay v. Parker, 53 N. U. 342; s. c, 16 Am. R. 270, 273. Examined with Wort v. Jen- kins, 14 Johns. 352 ; Cook v. Ellis, 6 Hill, 466, in McWilliams v. Bragg, 3 Wise. 429. Discussed in 2 Oreenl. on En. 14 ed. § 253, n. 2. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 15 Barb. 406. Aff d in 9 JV. Y. 575. t. Wolcott, 48 If. Y. 188. Applied (Exempt property, how far protected from claims of creditors) in Cooney v. Cooney, 65 Barb. 525. Explained in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 46, n. 5. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1394, n. v. Preston. See Fake v. Eddy. Tillou v. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Barb. 570. Modified in 5 JV. Y. 405. See Trad- ers' Ins. Co. v. Robert. Decision in 5 JV. Y. applied (Effect of assignment of policy, with assent of insured) in Grosvenor v. At- lantic Fire Ins. Co., 5 Buer, 523, 532, 537; which was rev'd in 17 JV. Y. 398, which see. (As to effect of latter decision see Spring- field F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 43 Id. 398.) Explained at length in Buffalo Steam En- gine Works v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 17 Id. 409. Explained in Manley v. Ins. Co. of No. Am., 1 Lans. 130. Disting'd (Rights of mortgagee in policy) in Merwin v. Star Fire Ins. Co., 7 Sun, 601. Declared over- ruled in Humphry v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 15 Blatchf.- C. Ct. 504, 522. Error in head- note corrected and explained (Effect of transfer of interest in policy as between partners) in Hoffman v. JEtna Ins. Co., 32 JV Y. 405, where decision in 7 Barb, and Wilson v. Genesee Mutual Ins. Co., 16 Id. 571 were followed. v. Sparks, 9 How. Pr. 465. See Cal- kins v. Brand. See (Increased costs) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3258, n. Tilmaii v. Keane, 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 23. Compare" (What is "more favorable judg- ment ") Pike v. Johnson, 47 JV. Y. 1. Tilson v. Tenvilliger, 56 JV. Y. 273. See Luby v. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Smith v. Acker. Explained and followed (Requisites of change of possession on sale of chattels) in Einstein v. Chapman, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 144, 148. Collated with other cases 768 TILTON— TITUS. in 6 Am. Dee. 288, n. Followed with Vrooman v. King, 36 JV. Y. 479 (Admissi- bility of declarations of one in possession) and Adams v. Davidson, 10 Id. 309, limited in Roeber v. Bowe, 30 Hun, 379. Tiltou v. Alcott, 16 Barb. 598. See Russell v. Lytle. Explained (Necessity that accord be executed) in Panzerbeiter v. Waydell, 21 Hun, 162. v. Beecher, 59 N. Y. 176 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 337. See Southwick v. Southwick; Wood ii. Wood. There are many publica- tions bearing on this case, some of which are as follows : N. Y. Tribune edition, N. Y. 1875. — Also account with notes, in 2 vols, by A. Abbott, N. Y. 1875.— Downfall of H. W. Beecher, Tilton's statement, &c, N. Y. 1874.— Beecher-Tilton invest'g, Phila. 1874. — The Beecher-Tilton scandal, with Mrs. Woodhull's statement in 1 vol., Brook- lyn, 1874.— The veil removed, N.Y. 1874.— Beecher trial ; a review of the evidence. N. Y. 1875. — Case of Rev. B. D. Fantiel'd, a review of his review, by R. R. Raymond, N. Y. 1874. — Uncontradicted testimony in Beecher Case, N. Y. 1876. — Wickedness in high places, by Rev. E. B. Fanfield, 2 ed. in 1 vol., Mansfield, 1874. — The Beecher trial ; a review, N. Y. 1875. — Opening ad- dress by B. F. Tracy, N. Y. 1875. — Review in 10 Alb. L. J. 161 ; also in 2 Cent. L. J. 126, 159, 189, 221, 272, 319, 400, 445, 463; also in 2 South L. Rev. K S. 288. Explained (Bill of particulars) in Orvis v. Dana, I Abb. N. O. 268, 279. Applied in Stiebeling v. Lockhaus, 21 Hun, 458, in Dwight v. Ger- mania Ins. Co., 22 Id. 167, 172. Dis- ting'd in Higenbotam ■». Green, 25 Id. 214, 217. Approved in Mitchell v. Mitch- ell, 61 JT. Y. 414, an action for divorce for adultery. Followed with Jones v. Piatt, 60 How. Pr. 278; Stiebeling v. Lockhaus, 21 Hun, 457; Winchell v. Martin, 14 Weekly Dig. 458 ; Wood v. Wood, 2 Paige, 108, in Shaffer v. Holm, 28 Hun, 204. A decision made herein at the B'kl'n City Ct. Circ. is discussed (Plaintiff's wife as wit- ness for defendant in action for crim. eon.) in 1 Best on Ev. § 98, 'n. a, Wood's ed. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 14 How. Pr. 363 ; s. C, more fully, 1 Bosw. 367. v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595. See Brown v. Bowen; Shotwell v. Murray. Discussed (Estoppel in pais) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 83. t. Ormsby, 10 Hun, 7. Aff'd, it seems, •in 70 N. Y. 609, but without opinion. Decision in 10 Bun applied (Finding of surrogate as adjudication of title) in West- ervelt v. Westervelt, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 298, 304. t. U. S. Life Ins. Co.. 52 Bow. Pr. 179; s. c.,, 1 Abb. N. O. 348. Said in Ehnoro v. Hyde, 2 Id. 129, 135, to have been aff'd at General Term. Another proceeding in 8 Daly, 84. Tim v. Tim, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 89 ; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 253. Disting'd (Complaint in divorce) in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 01 N. Y. 398, 412. Timau v. Leland, 6 Hill, 237. Followed (Effect of release by nominal plaintiff to bar action by true owner) in Hart v. Wes- tern R. R. Co., 13' Mete. (Mass.) 99; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 719, 724, with note. Timmet-man v. Morrison, 14 Johns. 369. See (Costs in justice's court) Code Oh. Pro. 1881, § 3074, n. Timmons v. Nelson, 66 Barb. 594. Explained (Delivery of less than is required in case of sale) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1032, n. 19 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Timon v. Claffy, 45 Barb. 438. Said in 41 N. Y. 619, to have been aff'd in Ct. of App. March, 1869. Compare (Proof of lost will) Schultz v. Schultz, 35 K Y. 653 ; Harris v. Harris, 26 Id, 433. Tindal v. Jones. See Lemen v. Wood. Tiukham v. Borst, 15 How. Pr. 204. Aff'd in part, and rev'd in part, in 31 Barb. 407.> Further decision on demurrer to answer in 24 How. Pr. 246. See Hastings «. Drew. v. ■ Erie R'y Co., 53 Barb. 393. Fol- lowed (Right of corporation to take real estate) in Curran v. Sears, 2 Red/. 526, 536. Tinkoui v. Pnrdy, 5 Johns: 345. Criticised as extreme, but approved as correct (Power of officer to adjourn public sale) in Richards v. Holmes, 18 How. (U. S.) 143. See cases cited in 26 Am. Dee. 537, n. Timiey v. Boston & Alb. R. R. Co., 62 Barb. 218. Aff'd in 52 H. Y. 632, but without opinion. See Warner v. Erie R'y Co.. v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 5 Lans. 507. Collated with Downs v. Sprague, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 480; Price v. Powell, 3 H. Y. 322; Lane v. Wilcox, 55 Barb. 615; Smith v. Gugerty, 4 Id. 619; Bearss v. Copley, 10 If. Y. 93, and numerous other cases (Speci- alty, when such as to justify examination of one of its practitioners as expert) in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 444. / Tinson v. Welch, 7 Robt. 392. AfTd in 51 N. Y. 244. Decision in Id. explained (Questions for review, on appeal from order granting new trial) in Clark v. Mechanics' Nat. B'k of N. Y, 8 Daly, 481, 502. Tipton v. Feitner, 20 K Y. 423. See McMil- lan ■». Vanderlip. Applied (Contract of sale, when to be executed distributively) in Swift v. Opdyke, 43 Barb. 277 ; Aldrich v. Pyatt, 64 Id. 391, 395. Explained in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 855, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Tisdale v. Jones, 38 Barb. 523. Disting'd (Validity of contract between husband and wife, before marriage) in Wright v. Wright, 59 Id. 505, Titford v. Knott, 2 Johns. Can. 211 ; s. c, 1 H. Y. Com. Z. Law. ed. 490, with brief note (Testimony to disputed handwriting). Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 81 K Y. 410. Followed (Owner holding insurance policy how affected by breach of condition by mortgagee) in Doran v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 86 Id. 635. Disting'd (Defense by in- TITUS— TOMLINSOK 769 suranco company, when waived by recog- nition of validity of policy) in Graham v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 9 Daly, 341, 348; which was affd in 87 S. Y. 69, 78, which see. Followed in Hollis v. State Ins. Co., 65 Iowa, 454, 459. v. Great Western Tump. Co., 5 Lam. 250. Aff'd in 61 N. Y. 227. See Claflin v. Farmers' & Citizens' Bank ; N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler. Decision in 61 N. Y. collated with other cases (Liability as to over-issue of stock) in Citizens' Nat. B'k v. Cincinnati, New Orleans, &c. R'y Co., Super. Vt. Cin. 0. 11 Weekly L. Bui. 86. v. lewis, 3 Barb. 70. See (Effect of redemption on prior execution sale) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1448, n. v. Neilson, 5 Johns.- Ch. 452. See Jack- son v. Willard ; Swaine v. Perine. See (Dower right* as affected by foreclosure during lifetime of husband) Bell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Paige, 55; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 618. Relied on with Bell v. Mayor of N. Y.', 10 Paige. 49 ; Frost v. Peacock, 4 Edw. 678, in Newhall v. Lynn Five Cents Sav. B'k, 101 Mass. 428 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 387, 390. Explained in 1 Wash, on Real Prop. 4 ed. 300. v. Relyea, 8 Abb. Pr. Ill ; s. c, partly reported, 16 How. Pr. 371. See dissenting ' opinion of Rosekbans, J., in 17 Id. 265. v. Sumner, 44 K Y. 266. Disting'd (Evidence of repitition of slander) in Frazier v. McCloskey, 60 Id. 338. v. Weeks, 37 Barb. 136. Discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm, on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 512, to. Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns. 68; s. c, 4im. Dec. 326. See Berry v. Robinson; Cod- dington v. Bay ; Johnson v. Weed. Ap- plied (Effect of receiving note in payment) in Buswell v. Poineer, 37 If. Y. 313. Dis- ting'd in Soffe v. Gallagher, 3 E. D. Smith, 517; N. Y. State B'k v. Fletcher, 5 Wend. 87. Approved and applied in Parrott v. Colby, 6 Bun, 55, 58. Followed with Johnson ». Weed, 9 Johns. 310 ; Putnam v. Lewis, 8 Id. 389, in Glenn v. Smith, 2 QUI A J. (Md.) 493; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 452, 459, with note. Followed with Put- nam v. Lewis, 8 Johns. 389, in Barclli v. Brown, 1 McCord (So. Car.) 449; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 683. Explained (Parol evidence to explain receipt) in Egleston v. Knicker- backer, 6 Barb. 464. Applied in South- wick v. Hayden, 7 Cow. 335. Included in 2 Bare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 245. v. Webster, 3 Johns. 46S. See Camp- bell v. Arnold. See to the contrary (Right of lessee to maintain trespass for wronn- done while tenant is in actual possession) Starr v. Jackson, 11 Mass. 519. Tobias v. Harland, 4 Wend. 537. See Ship- man v. Burrows. Applied (Liability for slanderous words affecting business) in Havemeyer v. Fuller, 10 Abb. N. C. 9. 13. V. Ketchum, 36 Barb. 304. Rev'd in 32 I.— 49 N. Y. 319. See Savage v. Burnham. De- cision in 32 iV. Y. applied (Trust, as created by authority given in will to rent, &c.) in Killam v. Allen, 52 Barb. 608. Disting'd (Fee, when vested in executors by will) in Robert v. Corning, 23 Hun, 299, 303. v. Rogers, 13 K Y. 59. Disting'd (Liability of co-surety) in Johnson v. Har- vey, 84 Id. 363, 366. Todd v. Birdsall, 1 Cow. 260; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 522, with extended note wherein it is said to have been repeatedly aff'd in N. Y., citing cases (Capacity of public officers or corporations of being sued). v. City of Troy, 61 iV. Y. 506. Affg . 61 Barb.'580. See Walsh v. Mead. Decis- ion in 61 N. Y. applied (Necessity of ' notice to create municipal liability for con- dition of street) in Sweet v. Village of Gloversville, 12 Hun, 304. Applied (Lia- bility for injury resulting from icy condi- tion of walk) in Evers v. Hudson River Bridge Co , 18 Id. 145. Disting'd in Moore v. Gadsden, 87 $. Y. 84, 88. Fol- lowed in Taft v. City of Troy, 18 Weekly Dig. 478. V. Crookshanks, 3 Johns. 432. Com- pare to the contrary (Trover for note that has been paid) Buck v. Kent, 3 Vt. 99, and Cases cited. See Pierce v. Gilson, 9 Id. 221 ; 3 Starkie on En. 1503. v. Kerr. See Kiunier v. Kinnier. v. Lamdcn, 41 How. Pr. 230. See (Compelling witness to attend) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 886, n. Todicker y. Cautrell. See Taddiken v. Cant- rell. Toffey v. Williams, 3 Hun, 217; s. c, re- ported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & C.) 294. Tolan v. Conover, 1 Hun, 495 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. . Martin, 7 Barb. 303 ; Hardenburgh v. Lockwood, 25 Id. 12. Ap- plied in Terry e. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 22 Id. 583; Bowman v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 37 Id. 518 ; Searles v. Cronk, 3S Row. Pr. 325 ; Clark v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 11 Barb. 114. Followed and approved in Williams v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 2 Mich. 259 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 59. De- cision in 4 If. Y. applied in Mentges v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 1 Rilt. 426 ; Hance v. Cayuga, &c. R. R. Co., 26 If. Y. 432. For effect of subsequent statutory provis- ions, see Corwin v. N. Y. & Erie R. 11. Co., 13 Id. 46. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 567, c, n. 1, 5 ed. Both decisions disap- proved in Needham v. San Francisco R. R. , 37 Cal. 417. Followed in Maynard v. Bos- ton & Maine R. R., 115 Mass. 458; s. c, 15 Am. R. 119. Collated with other cases in 1 Tliomps. on Ifegl. 529. Decision in 4 If. Y. applied (Contributory negligence in case of injury to children) in Honegsbergcr v. Second Avenue R. R. Co., 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 381. Dissented from, in Rauch v. Lloyd, 3.1 Penn. 358, 370. Explained and approved (Liabil'.fy of railroad company lor injury to one lawfully on its premises) in dissenting opinion of Eari,, C, in Eaton v. Delaware. L. & W. R. R Co.. 57 If. Y. 396. Applied to one injured in unfinished building, in Roulston v. Clark, 3 E. D. Smith, 373. Commented on in Gonzales v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 39 Row. Pr. 415. Explained (Effect of contributory negligence) in Carroll v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 1 Duer, 581. TONE— TOWER. 771 Tone t. Brace, Clarke, 503. Approved in subsequent decision in 11 Paige, 566. See Kinney ». Watts. - — y. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Daly, 343. Subsequent decision in 70 N. Y. 157. See McKay v. City of Buffalo. See (Liability of municipal corporation for neglect, &c. of board) cases cited in 8 Abb. K 0. 281, n. Toner v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 1 Abb. N. C. 302. Compare (Stenographer's notes) Code Civ. Pro. § 1007. Tonnele, Matter of. See Tonnele v. Hall. Tonnele v. Hall, 4 tf. 7. 140. AfTg 5 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 254. Decision in 4 N. Y. applied (Effect of instrument referred to in will) in Brpwn v. Clark, 77 Id. 377. Disting'd in Matter of O'Niel, 91 Id. 510. Followed in Gerrish «. Gerrish, 8 Oreg. 351 ; a. c, 34 Am. It. 585. Compare Peters v. Siders, 126 Mass. 135; s. c, 30 Am. R. 671. Applied to written guarant}', under statute of • frauds, in Church v. Brown, 21 N. T. 330. Applied (Sufficiency of signature to will, 'required by statute) to constable's return, in Reno v. Pinder, 20 Id. 301. Discussed in Willard on Execu- tors, 99. Commented on in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 228, n. 24. Toof v. Bently, 5 Wend. 276. See Gold v. Bissel. -Followed and approved with Farr v. Smith, 9 Wend. 338 (Requisites of pro- cess emanating from courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction) in Stevens v. Chouteau, 11 Mo. 382 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 92. Tooker v. Aruonx, 76 N. Y. 397. Applied (Requisites of complaint in action to estab- lish liability on negotiable paper) in Clift B. Rodger, 25 Hun, 39, 43. v. Rinaldo, 11 Hun, 154; s. c, more fullv, 2 Abb. N. 0. 334, n. Tooley v. Bacon, 8 Hun, 176. AfPd in 70 N. Y. 34. Toopey v. Williams. See Hawkins v. Hoff- man. Toppan v. Heath, 1 Paige, 293. Explained as superseded by subsequent legislation (Equitable relief against award) in Bissell v. Morgan, 56 Barb. 369, 372. Topping t. Lynch, 2 Robt. 484. Followed (Requisites of change of possession on sale, &c. of chattels) in Steele v. Benham, 84 N. Y. 634, 638. v. Root, 5 Cow. 404. Explained (Duty as to readiness to perform contract) in 2 JJhitty on Contr. 1071, ». g,l\ Am. ed. Torrance v. Conger, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) Add. 18. Aff'd in 55 K Y. 680. Torrey v. Bank of Orleans, 9 Paige, 649. Aft'din 7 Hill, 260. See Davoue v. Fan- ning ; Marsh v. Pike. Decision in 9 Paige applied (When interest disqualifies to pur- chase at mortgage sale) in Van Home v. Everson, 13 Barb. 529 ; Fulton v. Whitney, 5 Hun, 20 ; Hilton v. Bissell, 1 Sandf. Ch. 407, 411; Bennett ». Austin, 81 N. Y. 308, 337. Collated with Gardner v. Ogden, 22 Id. 327; Jewett v. Miller, 10 Id. 402, 405 ; Duncomb v. N. Y., Housatonic & N. R. R. Co., 84 Id. 190, 199, with other cases from N. Y. and other jurisdictions (Disabil- ity of trustee to make contracts in two capacities) in Peason v. Concord R. R. Co , Sup'm. Ct. K H. 1883, 28 Alb. L. J. 367. Explained in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 312, 11 ed. Applied (Recitals in deed, as evidence) in Demeyer v. Legg, 18 Barb. 20 ; Atlantic Dock Co. ». Leavitt, 54 Jf. Y. 40. v. Black. See Torrv v. Black. v. Shaw, 3 Edw. 356. Explained (De- scent to collaterals) in 4 Kent Com. 409, n. a. v. Torrey, 14 N. Y. 430. Disting'd (Effect of conveyance to husband and wife) in Meeker v. Wright, 76 Id. 262, 269. Reviewed with Jackson v. McConnell, 19 Wend. 175, and other cases in Hall v. Stephens, 65 Mo. 670; s. c, 27 Am. R. 302, 308. Followed (Necessity of notice to ouit to tenant for another life hdlding over) in Seaton v. Davis, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 94. Torry v. Black, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 42; s. c, as Torrey v. Black, 65 Barb. 414. Rev'd in 58 N. Y. 185. Compare (Seal as evidence of consideration) Code Civ. Pro. § 840. Compare (Guardian's action for trespass) Id. §§ 468, 2840. Totten v. Ptaipps, 52 N. Y. 354. Disting'd . (Negligent leaving open of trap-door) in Donnelly v. Jenkins, 9 Daly, 41. Ex- plained in MoaTc's UhderhiU's Torts, 1 Am. cd. 208. Disting'd (Contributory negli- gence) in Heidinger v. Hine, 18 Weekly Dio. 404; Brenstein v. Mattson, 10 Daly, 336. Toulandon v. Lnchenmeyer, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 215. See (Running of statute of limita- tions in case of non-residence) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 390, n. Tonrnade v. Hagedorn, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. S C.) 288 ; s. c, as Tournade s>. Methfessel, 3 Hun, 144. See Manhattan Brass Manuf. Co; v. Sears. Cited (Rights of third per- sons in case of partnership being declared void for fraud) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. 232, n. Tonsley v. Barry, 16 N. Y. 497. Limited (Effect of admission of former owner of chattels, &c.) in Schenck v. Warner, 37 Barb. 261, 363. Applied in Savage v. Murphy, 8 Posts. 87. Followed as conclu- sive in Honstine v. O'Donnell, 5 Hun, 473. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1163. Tower v. Utica, &c R. R. Co., 7 Hill, 47; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 36, with note wherein are collected citations; also s. c, 16 W. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 506, with brief note. See Weeks v. N. Y., New Haven, &c. R. R. Co. Followed as authoritative and as having been universally recognized (Carrier's lia- bility as to articles retained in passengers' possession) in Welch v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 16 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 354. Disting'd in Weeks «. N. Y., New Haven, &c. R."R. Co., 72 iv~. Y 62 ; Gore v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co , 2 Daly, 255; McKee v. Owen, 772 TOWLE— TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN. 15 Mich. 135. Applied in Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85 ; s. c.,' 14 Am. B. 716, 721 ; Clark v. -Burns, 118 Mass. 275; s. c, 19 Am. B. 456, with note collating cases. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 140, 5 ed. ; 2 Pars, on Oontr. 176, n. o. Towle v. Covert, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 193. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of city courts) in Gemp®. Pratt, 7 Daly, 197, 200. v. Forney, 4 Duer, 164. AfTd in 14 JT. Y. 423. For decisions affecting same es- tate, see Clarke v. Davenport, 1 Bosw. 95 ; Towle v. Remsen, 70 N. Y. 303, 307 ; Towle ■o. Palmer, 1 Bobt. 437; s. c, in part, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 81; Towle e. Tolan, 1 Bobt. 473; Towle v. Smith, 2 Id. 489. Decision in 14 N. Y. followed with Clarke v. Davenport, as to validity of title here involved, in Suydam v. Williamson, 24 How. (U. S.) 427. Fol- lowed (Validity of law authorizing sale of real estate of infants) in Leggett «. Hunter, 19 IT. Y. 463. v. Palmer. See Towle v. Forney. v. Kemsen. See Towle v. Forney. V. Smith. See Towle v. Forney. v. Tolan. ' See Towle v. Torney. Town v. Needham. See Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt. v. Safeguard Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. 683. Disapproved (Latitude of examination on supplementary proceedings) in Clapp ». Lathrop, 23 How. Pr. 423, 425, 443. v. Stetson, 5 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 218. See Messerole v. Tynberg. See cases collected (Signs which cannot be used as trademarks) in 10 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 707. Explained in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 257, bb, n. e. Town of Chautauqua v. Gifford, 8 Sun, 152. Disting'd (Right of action in favor of town) in Gleason v. Youmans, 9 Abb. N. O. 107, 111. Town of Duaneshurgh v. Jenkins, 46 Barb. 294. Rev'd in effect in 57 N. Y. 177. Pre- vious decision in 40 Barb. 574. Decision in 57 N. Y. deemed overruled (Power of legislature to validate town bonds that have been irregularly issued) in Harden bergh v. Van Keuren, 16 Hun, 22. See Rogers v. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co., 21 Id. 44, 46; Williams ■». Town of Duanesburgh, 66 N. Y. 129, 131. Compared in Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. 8. 806, 813. Discussed in Cooky on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 287, n. Ap- plied (Creation of new remedy to enforce existing claim) in People v. Fields, 50 IIoio. Pr. 495. Decision in 40 Barb, explained' (Actions by and against terms) in Griggs v. Griggs,, 66 Id. 287, 298. Town of Fishkill v. Fishkill & Beekman Plank Road Co., 22 Barb. 634. Followed (Title of local bill) in People ex rel. Sche- nectady Observatory v. Allen, 42 N. Y. 404, 418. Cited with approval (Effect of statute invalid in part) in People v. Briggs, 50 Id. 553,566. Town of Guilford t. Cooley, 58 K Y. 116. Prior proceeding as Cooley v. Town of Guilford, in 47 Id. 673. Decision iu 58 Id. disting'd (Right of action in favor of town) in Gleason v. Youmans, 9 Abb. AT. C. 107, 111. Applied in Town of Chautauqua v. Gifford, 8 Hun, 154; Hagadorn«. Raux, 72 tf. Y. 584, 586. v. Cornell, 4 Abb. Pr. 220. See Grant v. Courter ; People v. Mayor, &c. of Brook- lyn ; Town of Guilford v. Supervisors of Chenango. Explained (Power to grant in- junction after judgment) in Fellows ■». Heer- mans, 13 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 1, 12, v. Supervisors of Chenango, 18 Barb. 615. Aff d in 13 N. Y. 143. See Doughty v. Hope ; People ex rel. Griffing n. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn. Decision in 13 N. Y. disting'd (Validity of Jaw compelling payment of claim by municipal corpora- tion) in People ex rel. Baldwin v. Haws, 15 Abb. Pr. 113 ; Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 42 Barb. 553. Applied in Davidson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Bobt. 246 ; People ex rel. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 47 How. Pr. 511; Townsend v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y^, 16 Hun, 363; Brewster v. City of Syracuse, 19 H. Y. 118; Litchfield v. Vernon, 41 Id. 134. Explained with Brewster v. City of Syra- .cuse, 19 Id. 116, by Peckham, J., in Bald- win v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Keyes, 387, 399. Limited with People v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklvn, i N. Y. 419, in People v. Batch- elor, 53 Id. 128, 143. Disting'd and lim- ited in Weismer v. Village of Douglas, 64 Id. 98. Applied to law authorizing bonding in aid of railroad, in Benson v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 24 Barb. 255 ; Town of Duanes- burgh v. Jenkins, 57 A 7 ". Y. 189. Disting'd with Brewster v. City of Syracuse, 19 Id. 116; People ex rel. Crowell v. Lawrence, 41 Id. 141, in State v. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664; s. c, 9 Am. B. 622, 626. Approved with Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend. 6o ; Brewster v. City of Syracuse, 19 A 7 ". Y. 116, in Mount v. -State, 90 Ind. 29; s. c, 46 Am. B. 192. Quoted in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 280, 284, n. 1 ; 608, n. 1. Commented on in Id. 469, n. 1. Town of Lewis v. Marshall, 9 Abb. N. C. 103, w./ mem. s. c, 56 N. Y. 663. Dis- ting'd (Right of actions in favor of town) in Gleason v. Youmans, 9 Abb. A 7 ". C. 107, 110; Town of Guilford 11. Cooley, 58 IT. Y. 116, 121. Applied in Town of Chautauqua v. Gifford, 8 Hun, 154; Hagadorn v. Raux, 72 A 7 ! Y. 684. • Compare Griggs v. Griggs, 66 Barb. 287; 56 N. Y. 504; I. 1867, c. 747, § 3. Town of Middletown v. Rondout R. R. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 276; s. c, 43 How. Pr. 144. Aff d in Id. 481. Decision in Id. 481, explained and limited, and that in Id. 144, disapproved (Power of county judge to make injunction order) in Hathaway v. Warren, 44 Id. 161. Decision in 43 Id. 144, disting'd with Wilkie ■». Rochester & State Line R. R. Co., 12 Hun, 242 (Injunc- tion to restrain business of corporation) in Howlett v. N. Y., West Shore, &c. Rw. TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD— TOWNSEND. •773 Co., 14 Abb. JV G. 328. See (Limit of costs on motion) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3251, n. Town of North Hempstead v. Town of Hempstead, Hopk. 288. AfFd in 2 Wend. 109. Dicta in latter and in Jackson v. Leg- gett, Id. 377, disapproved (Resulting trust as defense in ejectment) and the con- trary held, in Moore v. Spellman, 5 Den. 221," 225. Followed with Jackson v. Pierce, 2 Johns. 226 (When cestui que trust may maintain ejectment) in Doggett v. Hart, 5 Fla. 215; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 464, with note. Decision in Hopk. explained (Towns as corporations) in Purdy ». People, 4 Sill, 396. Applied (Power of towns, &c. as to lands not within their limits) in Riley v. City of Rochester, 9 JV Y. 71. Applied (Effect of division of town) to county, in -Peoples. Morrell, 21 Wend. 580. Town of Pierrepout v. Lovelass, 4 Sun, 696. Rev'd as Same v. Loveless, 72 JV Y. 211. Another proceeding in 4 Sun, 681. With latter decision see cases cited (Ripa- rian rights) in 5 Abb. JV ft 173, n. Town of Spring-port v. Teuton ia Sav'gs B'k, 75 JV. Y. 397. Subsequent decision in 84 Id. 403. Decision in 75 Id. disting'd (Validity of execution of municipal bonds) in Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 84 Id. 532, 539, which rev'd 22 Sun, 201, 206, which see. Decis- ion in 84 JV. Y. reviewed with People ex rel. Yawger v. Allen, 52 Id. 538, 542 ; Peo- ple ex rel. Haines v. Smith, 45 Id. 772, 777 ; Cagwin «. Town of Hancock, 84 Id. 532, 542, in Calhoun v Delhi & Middletown R. R. Co., 28 Sun, 379. Town of Venice v. Woodruff, 62 JV Y. 462. Disting'd (Remedy against instrument as cloud on title) in Town of Springport v. Teutonia Sav'gs B'k, 75 Id. 397, 400. Applied in Remington Paper Co. v. O' Dougherty, 16 Sun, 596, which was modified in 81 JV. Y. 474, 483, which see. Applied (Remedies respecting town bonds, how. affected by difference between State and Federal decisions) in Newton v. Keech, 9 San, 360. Compared (Regularity oi execution, of town bonds) in Town of Ven- ice v. Murdock, 92 U. S. 494, 501. Town of Wayne v. Sherwood, 14 Sun, 423. Aff'd, it seems, in 76 JV Y. 599, but with- out opinion. Town of Wellsborough v. N. T. & Canada R. R. Co., 76 JV Y. 185. See People ex rel. Averill v. Adirondack Co. ; see People ex rel. Rogers v. Spencer. Applied (Valid- ity of execution of town bonds) in Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 84 JV. Y. 532 539 • Whiting®. Town of Pattey, 18 Blatchf. G Ct. 165, 177. Towner v. Church, 2 Abb. Pr. 299. Criti- cised and regarded as overruled (What is non-residence for purposes of attachment) in Wallace v. Castle, 63 JV. Y. 370. Col- lated with other cases in Thomps. on Prov Bern. 359. T. Tooley, 38 Barb. 598. See Harris v. Fley. Explained and applied (Remedy on administration bonds, &c.) in Williams ». Kiernan, 25 Sun, 355, 362; Haines v. Meyer, Id. 414, 417. ' Towns v. Wilcox, 12 Wend. fO? See Miller v. Van Anken. Overruled (Effect of sub- mission of subject matter of suit to arbitra- tion) in Smith v. Barse, 2 Sill, 387. Townsend, Matter of, 4 Sun, 31; s. c, as Matter of Townshend, 6 tiup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 227. Appeal dismissed in 63 N. Y. 631. , 39 JV Y. 171. Disting'd (Appeal in condemnation proceedings) in Matter of Commissioners of Central Park, 50 Id. 493, 498. Cited as authority (Exercise of power of eminent domain in favor of foreign cor- porations) in 2 Add. on Torts, 265, n. Wood's ed. Townsend v. Bissell, 3 Sun, 556. Reported at length in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 565. Another decision in proceedings between same parties, in 4 Sun, 297; S. c, 6 Surim. Ct. {T. & C.) 583. v. Bog-art, 11 Abb. Pr. 355. Approved (Arrest of one partner for fraud of another) in Coman v. Allen, 21 Sow. Pr. 114, 116. Compare Stewart v. Levy, 36 Cal. 166;- Sherman v. Smith, 42 Sow. Pr. 198. Ex- plained in Nat. B'k of Commonwealth v. Temple, 2 Sweeny, 344, 354. Explained in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 445, n. 10, Wood's Am. ed. v. Brnndagc, 4 Sun, 264; s. c, reported in 6 Sup'-m. Ct. (T. & ft) 527. v. Carman, 6 Cow. 695. AfFd in 6 Wend. 206. v. Corning. See Townsend v. Hub- bard. v. , 3 JV Y. Leg. Obs. 95. Aff'd in 1 Barb. 627. t. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 6 Duer, 217. Cited with Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Ch. 78 ; Bank of TJtica v. Finch, 3 Barb. Ch. 293 ; Murray v. Barney, 34 Barb. 336 ; Hall-o. Crouse, IS Sun, 557, and other cases in 20 Am. Dec. 659, n., as indicating what is the weight of authority (Statement of amount to be secured in mortgage for future advances). — - v. Gilsey, 1 Sweeny, 155 ; s. c, 7 Mb. Pr. JV. S. 59. Rev'd in Ct. of App. Dec. 20, 1870, on ground that questions of fact should have been submitted to the iurv. See 6 Alb. L. J. 111. — - v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., 10 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 277. See (Effect of reference to more than one referee) Code Civ. Pro. 1881 S 1026, n. ' s v. Goelet, 11 Abb. Pr. 187. Disting'd (Right of action to remove lien on land) in Levy v. Merrill, 52 Sow. Pr. 360, 365 ; 14 Suit, 146. Applied in Phillips v. Mayor &c. of N. Y., 2 Sun, 212, 215 ; which was rev'd in 60 JV. Y. 21, which see. v. Goewey, 19 Wend. 424. Applied (Partner's action against co-partner) in Halliday v. Carman, 6 Daly, 423. Applied 774 TOWNSEND —TOWNSEND MANUF. CO. (Right of action in behalf of association) in Davis 11. Garr, 6 If. Y. 134. Explained in Shibley v. Angle, 37 Id. 630. See cases cited in 4 Abb. If. G. 306, n. v. Graves, 3 Paige, 453. See Ruan v. Perry. Explained (Evidence of character) in 1 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 54, n. 3. Quoted in 2 Bish. on Mar. &D.§ 644, 6 ed. v. Hayt, 51 Barb. 334. Aff'd in 51 If. T. 656. v. Hendricks, 2 Sweeny, 503; s. c, 39 Mow. Pr. 475. Rev'd in 40 Id. 143. De- cision in Id. applied (Right to reference) in Wood v. Hope, 2 Abb. If.' G. 188; Evans v. Kalbfleisch, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 10; Ross v. Combes, 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 294. Dis- ting'd in Godfrey v. Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 250; Place v. Chesebrough, 63 If. Y. 317; which aff'd 4 Hun, 578, which see. Collated with other cases in Hoffm. on Referees, 13. Applied (Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals on appeals from orders) by Gkovek, J., in Fellow v. Heermans, 13 Abb. Pr. K S. 15. Applied (Complaint, as pleading from ' which to de- termine nature of action) in Lanz v. Trout, 46 How. Pr. 95. v. Hubbard, 4 Hill, 351; s. c, 15 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 845, with brief note. Affg, in effect, Townsend v. Corning, 23 Wend. 435. Decision in 4 Hill followed (Liability on deed executed by agent) in Briggs v. Partridge, 39 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 339, 342, which was aff'd in 64 If. Y. 357, 362, which see ; Bryson v. Lucas, 84 If. C. 680; s. c, 37 Am. R. 634. Applied in McClure v. Herring, 70 Mo. 18 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 404. Both decisions disting'd in Bradstreet v. Baker, 14 R. I 546; s. c, 47 Am. R. 818, n. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 730, 741, v. Eeenan, 2 Hilt. 544. Disapproved (Effect of placing cause on calendar, on ap- peal from justice's decision) in Matthews v. Arnold, 14 Hun, 376. '- a. Lawrence, 9 Wend. 458. Followed (Right to discovery and inspection) in Babbitt v. Crampton, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 169, 175. y. McDonald, 14 Barb. 460. Rev'd in 12 If. Y. 381. y. Masterson Stone Dressing 1 Co., 15 If. Y. 587. See (Appeal from judgment, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1294, n. y. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 Hun. 362. AfFd in 77 If. Y. 542. Decision in Id. ex- plained with Scott v. Onderdonk, 14 Id. 9 (Action to remove assessment as cloud on title) in Rogers v. Village of Sandy Hill, 14 Weekly Dig. 45. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. §418. — — y. Merchants' Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. S S.) 172; s. c, less fully, 45 H-w. Pr. 501. AfTd, it seems, in 56 N. Y. 655, but without opinion. — — v. Narrngansett Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 170 ; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 40. Affd, it seems, in 56 If. Y. 655, but without opinion. v. Nebenzalrl, 8 Abb. If. O. 427; s. c, 20 Hun, 81. Appeal dismissed in 81 If Y. 644 ; s. c, more fully, 8 Abb. If. C. 427, 432. Decision in Id. disting'd (Second ar- rest for same cause, when permissible) in Ewart v. Schwartz, 48 Super. Gt. (J. ct- S.) 390, 399. v. N. Y. Central, &c. E. B. Co., 56 If. Y. 295; s. c, 15 Am. R. 419. Further decision in 14 Hun, 217 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & G.) 495. See Hamilton v. .Third Ave. R. R. Co. Decision in 56 If. Y. disting'd (Right to eject passenger for non- payment of fare) in English v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 66 Id. 458. Disting'd in Lynch v. Metrop. Elev. Ry. Co., 24 Hun, 507, a case of detention. Cited as authority in Hufford ». Grand Rapids, &c. R. Co., 53 Mich. 118; s. c, 46 Am. R. 483, n. Ap- proved in Yorton v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & "Western Ry. Co., 54 Wis. 234; s. c, 41 Am. R. 23. Cited as authority with Hib- bard v. JST. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 JV". Y: 470 ; Bennett v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 600, in Frederick v. Marquette, Houghton, &c. R. R. Co., 37 Mich. 342; s. c, 26 Am. R. 531. v. Northwestern Ins. Co., IS If. Y. 168. See Boynton v. Clinton & Essex Mut. Ins. Co. Disting'd (Effect of clause in policy against increase of risk) in Wil- liams v. People's Fire Ins. Co., 57 If. Y. 274, 278. v. Ross, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 447. Compare (Expense of watchman for prop- erty levied on) Code Civ. Pro. § 3307, subd. 7. v. Stearns, 32 If. Y. 209. See Brig- ham v. Tillinghast. Discussed (Terms of sale under assignment for benefit of credi- tors) in Burrill on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 209. Collated with other cases (Preferences) in Id. § 182. v. Susquehanna Turnpike Road, 6 Johns. 90. See Bartlett v. Crozier. Fol- lowed and applied (Nature of .liability of bridge company) in Frankfort Bridge Co. v. Williams, 9 Dana (Ky.) 403; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 156. Applied to railroad company, in Cumberland V. R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 11 Pa. St. 141; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 513, with note. Followed as conclusive (Trespass on the case against corporation for tort) in Chest- nut Hill T. Co. v. Rutter, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 6; s. c, $ Am. Dec. 075. -t— v. U. S. Trust Co., 3 Red/. 220. Ap- plied (Right to increased value of securities as between remainderman and life tenant) in Scovel v. Roosevelt, 5 Id. 121, 125; Farwell v. Tweddle, 10 Abb. If. C. 94; Re Clark, 44 Law Times R. N. S. 736. v. Whitney, 15 Hun, 93. Aff'd in 75 If. Y. 425. Townsend Manuf. Co. v. Foster, 51 Barb. 346. Said in 41 If. Y. 620, to have been TOWNSHEND, MATTER OF— TRACY. 775 aff'd in Ct. of App. Dec. 1869. Explained (Memoranda as evidence) in Driggs v. Smith, 45 How. Pr. 451. Townsliend, Matter of. See Matter of Townsend. Townsliend t. Townsliend, 1 Abb. N. 0. 81. Sec also (Deed between husband and wife) Sims ». Rickets, 35 hid. 181 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 079. Towsley v. Denison, 45 Barb. 490. Re-con- sideration refused in 2 Hun, 524. See Mur- ray v. Toland. Decision in 45 Barb, disap- proved (Account stated between others than merchants) in Anding ». Levy, 57 Miss. 51 ; s. c, 34 Am, R. 439. v. Harrison. See Lyle v. Smith. v. McDonald, 32 Barb. 604. Disting'd (Sufficiency of affidavits for service by pub- lication) in Carter v. Youngs, 42 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 171. Trocey v. Altmyer, 46 H. Y 598. Disting'd (Presumption as to grounds of affirmance by General Term) in Tilton v. Beecher, 59 Id. 176, 191. See also Fisher ».. Gould, 81 Id. 230. Explained (Appeal from order on motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence) in Scoville v. Landon, 50 Id. 686. Applied in Roberts v. Berdell, 52 Id. 644. Explained and applied (Grounds of motion for new trial) in Lud- dington v. Miller, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1,5. v Corse. See Tracy v. Corse. Tracy v. Albany Exch. Co., 7 N. Y. 472. Followed and explained (Covenant to renew lease, when void for uncertainty) in Western Trans. Co. of Buffalo v. Lansing, 49 Id. 499, 505. v. Corse, 45 How. Pr. 316. Aff'd in 49 Jd. 323; s. c, as Tracey v. Corse, 58 N. Y. 143. Decision in Id. limited (1'itle of government to forfeited property, when complete) in Ward v. Webster, 9 Daly, 182. v. First Nat. B'k of Selma, 37 K Y. 523. See Rankine v. Elliott. Further decision in same proceedings, in Cable v Tracy, 11 Blatchf. C. Ct. 101, 117. Decis- ion in 3 N~. Y. disting'd (Right to move to set aside attachment) in Jacobs n. Hogan, 85 Id- 243, 245. Disting'd as decided prior to Code Civ. Pro. § 682, in People's B'k of N. Y. «. Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 62 How. Pr. 422, 425. Disting'd with Allen ». Scandinavian Nat. B'k, 46 Id. 71 ; Matter of Griswold, 13 Barb. 412 ; Isham 0. Ketchum, 46 Id. 43 ; Ketchum i>. Ketchum 1 Abb. Pr. ST. S. 157 ; Thacher v. Bancroft 15 Abb. Pr. 243, in Nat. Shoe & L. B'k 0. Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 89 N. Y 440. Cited in Harvey v. Allen, 16 Blatchf. O. Ct. 29, 33. J v. Griffin, 50 Barb. 70. Another report of same decision, but giving a different opinion, in Tracy v. Veeder, 35 How. Pr, 209. These decisions disapproved ' and Elston v. Potter, 9 Borne. 639, preferred (Requisites of order of arrest in action of claim and delivery) in Josuez v. Murphy, 9 Daly, 324, 329. v. Lelnnd, 2 Sandf. 729. See Anony- mous, 1 Duer, 613. Disapproved (When female subject to arrest iu civil action) in Duncan v. Katen, 6 Him, 2. T. McManus, 58 N. Y. 257. See Sey- mour v. Wilson. Examined with other cases (Direct testimony to witness' intent) in 14 Alb. L. J. 385. y. Kathbun, 3 Barb. 543. Overruled (Effect of acknowledgment by one of joint debtors, to remove bar of statute of limita- tions) in Van Keuren ».Parmelee,2 N. Y. 523. v. Reynolds, 7 How. Pr. 327. Ap- proved under the Code (Effect of voluntary appearance) in Wellington v. Claason, 9 Abb. Pr. 175, 177. See Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 821, n. y. Talmage, 18 Barb. 456; s. c, 9 How. Pr. 530; 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 303. Affd inl4iV". Y. 162. Another decision as Tracy v. Talmadge, in 1 Abb. Pr. 460. See Bissell v. Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co. ; Cur- tis 0. Leavitt. Decision in 14 If. Y. explained and approved (Effect of un- lawful transfer of paper by banking association) in Sacketts Harbor B'k 0. Codd, 18 Jd. 244, as having been con- firmed by Curtis 0. Leavitt, 15 Id. 9. These three cases approved in Oneida B'k 0. Ontario B'k, 21 Id. 496. Decision in 14 Jd. disting'd (Rights of one transferring property that is to be used for allegal pur- pose) in Haynes 0. Rudd, 17 Hun, 479 ; Hull 0. Ruggles, 56 N. Y. 428. Applied, and Rudderow 0. Huntington, 3 Sandf. 252, disting'd, in Materne v. Horwitz, 50 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 41. Followed in Brunswick 0. Vallean, 50 Jowa, 120; s. c, 32 Am. B. 119, with note collating cases. Followed, as according with the weight of authority and reason, in Michael 0. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474 ; s. c. 8 Am. R. 138, with note collating authorities. Reviewed at length with other cases and approved in Hill v. Spear, 50 U. H. 253; s. c, 9 Am. R. 205, 219. Applied (Parties, when not in pari delicto) in Comm'rs of Excise of Onondaga v. Backus, 29 How. Pr. 40 ; De Grofi v. Am. Linen Thread Co., 21 IV. Y. 128. Disting'd in Richardson v. Crandall, 30 How. Pr. 144; Saratoga Co. B'k v. King, 44 H. Y. 91 ; Knawlton v. Congress & Empire Spring Co., 57 Id. 532. Explained in Birkett i>. Chatterton, 13 R. 1. 299, 302. Explained in Benj. on Sales, § 504, n. c. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 2 Add. on Contr. 1147, n., Abb. ed. Approved in 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 403, n. 2; Pomeroy on Sp. Per/. § 287, n. Applied (Rights of transferee of property as to relief against illegal transaction in connection therewith) in McMahon 0. Allen, 35 JY. Y. 407. Disting'd in Sanderson v. Goodrich, 46 Barb. 618. Decision in 18 Id. applied (Right of bank to discount under L. 1838, c. 260, § 18) in Atlantic State B'k of Brooklyn v. Savery, 82 H. Y. 776 TEACY— TEEADWELL, 291, 302. Decision in 1 Abb. Pr. applied (Jurisdiction of Special Term) in Erisman v. ' Pidcock, 62 How. Pr. 328. v. Tracy, 15 Barb. 503. See Lupton v. Lupton ; Shulters v. Johnson. Approved (Charging legacy on real estate) as sound and weighty decision, in Nichols ». Ro- maine, 9 Sow. Pr. 512, 516. Disapproved in Myers v. Eddy, 47 Barb. 263, 270 ; cit- ing Reynolds «. Reynolds' Ex'rs, 16 N. Y. 257. Followed in Ragan v. Allen, 7 Sun, 537, 539. Commented on in Willard on Executors, 393, n. v. , 3 Bradf. 57. Disting'd '(Parol evidence to establish trust) in Robbins v. Robbins, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 193, 204. Explained in Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329, 335. t. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 55 Barb. 529. Aff'd in 38 H. Y. 433. Decision in Id. approved in distinction to Parker v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 16 Barb. 318 (Liability of lessee of railroad) in Burchfield v. Northern Central Railw. Co., 57 Id. 589, 591. v. Veeder, 35 Sow. Pr. 209; s^ c, as Tracy v. Griffin, 50 Barb. 70. Disapproved (Recitals of facts in order of arrest) in Jos- uez v. Murphy, 6 Daly, 324. See (Replevin, where order of arrest has been granted) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1714, n. v. Whipple, 8 Johns. 379. Approved (Effect of delivery of ca. sa. to sheriff, against person on limits) in Gray v. Thorn- ber, 5 Cow. 278. Traders' B'k of Rochester v. .Bradner, 43 Barb. 379. Disting'd (What constitutes bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in Fishery Sharpe, 5 Daly, 214, 216; Schepp ■v. Carpenter, 51 N. Y. 602, 604. Applied to mortgagee, in Cary v. White, 7 Lans. 4; which was rev'd in 52 N~. Y. 143, which see. Traders' Ins. Co. v. Robert, 9 Wend. 404. Further decision in 17 Id. 631. Decision in 9 Id. overruled with Tillou v. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co., 5 N. Y. 405 (Assignee, &c. of policy, as affected by acts of assignor) in Grosvenor r>. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 17 Id. 391, 396. Disapproved with Tillou v. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co., and Grosvenor v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co. ; Buffalo Locomo- tive Works v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 401, approved, in Illinois Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fix, 53 III. 151; s. c, 5 Atn. R. 38. Declared overruled in Humphry v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 15 Blatchf. G. Ct. 504, 523. Disapproved (Effect of assignment of policy as equivalent, to new policy to assignee) in State Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roberts, 31 Penn. 438. Approved and applied (Insur- able interest of mortgagee, &c.) in Bell v. Western Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 5 Bob. (La.) 423; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 542, 547, with note. Tradesmen's Bk. t. Astor, 11 Wend. 87; s. c, UK Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1030, with brief note. Collated with other cases (Agency as implied from course of dealing) in 1 Hare & W. Am. cjead. Cas. 5 cd. 690. t. Merritt, 1 Paige, 302. Limited (Fo3- owing property) in Justh v. Nat. P'k of Commonwealth, 50 K Y. 478, 484. Tradesmen's Nat. B'k t. McFeely, 61 Barb. 522. Pronounced incorrect in light of other decisions (Joinder of causes of action) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 502, n. 3. Train v. Holland Purchase Ins. Co., 1 Hun, 527; mem., s. c. 3 Suv'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 777. Rev'd in 62 N. Y. 598. Further de- cision in 68 Id. 208. Decision in 62 Id. disting'd (Waiver of right to trial by jury) ' in Ormes t>. Dauchy, 82 Id. 443, 449. Ex- plained and applied (Effect of loss of prop- erty before issue of policy thereon) in Van Loan v. Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Assoc, 24 Hun, 133. Traphagen t. Traphagen, 40 Barb. 5?7 Followed (Part performance that takes case out of statute of frauds) in Green v. Green, 2 Bed/. 408, 410. Travel- v. Halsted, 23 Wend. 66. See Gaz- ley v. Price. Applied (Effect of anticipa- tory refusal to perform) in Clarke «. Cran- dall, 27 Barb. 78. v. Nichols, 7 Wend. 434. Disting'd (Extent of liability on security for costs, given in justice's court) in Fenno v. Dickin- son, 4 Den. 84. Applied to bond given on attachment, in Ball v. Gardner, 21 Wend. 271. To undertaking on appeal, to General Term, in Gardner v. Barney, 24 How. Pr. 471 ; Robinson v. Plimpton, 25 N. Y. 486. Disting'd in Hinckley v. Kreitz, 58 Id. 583, 588, which rev'd 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 413, 423, which see, a case of appeal to Ct. of App. Explained (Appeal as continuance of action) in dissenting opinion in Wolcott ■o. Holcomb, 31 JST. Y. 136. v. Traver, 3 How. Pr. 351. AfFd in 3 Id. 368, n. Commented on and explained (Nature of proceedings for partition) in Row v. Row, 4 Id. 133. Travers v. Waters, 1 Johns. Ch. 85. Aff'd in 12 Johns. 500. Prior decision in 1 Johns. Ch. 48. Travis v. Myers, 67 K Y. 542. Disting'd (Consolidation of actions) iu Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 Id. 270. 273. v. Thompson, 37 Barb. 236. Reviewed at length and disting'd with Malloryn. Bur- rett, 1 E. D. Smith, 234 (First of "series of carriers, when as to succeeding carriers, to be regarded as agent of shipper) in Schnei- der v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 56, 68. v. Tobias, 7 How. Pr. 90. See (Dismis- sal of complaint) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 821, n. Treadwell v. Archer, 76 N. Y. 196. Rev'g Sherwood v. Archer.10 Hun, 73. In 76 N". Y. 196, in fourth line from top, for "de- fendant " read " plaintiff." v. Fassett. See Stannard v. Mattice. v. Steele, 3 Cai. 169. Explained (Mode of assigning breach of covenant) in McGee- han v. McLaughlin, 1 Hall, 33, 3G. T. Union Ins. Co., 6 Cow. 270. Criti- TREMAIN— TROTTER. 777 cised (What is voyage in relation to marine policy) in 3 Kent Com. 307, n. e. Treniain v. Cohoes Co., 2 A r . 7. 163. See Day v. Same. Explained and applied (What constitutes nuisance) in fleeg v. Licht, 8 Abb. N. C. 355, 360. Applied (Liability for injury done while acting under authority of law) in Losee «. Buchanan, 61 Barb. 106 ; Pixlev e. Clark, 35 2V. 7. 523 ; McAndrews e. CoUerd, 13 Vroom (iV. J.) 189; s. c„ 62 Am. B. 508, 510. Explained in Wood on Nuis. 3 ed. § 28. Included with notes in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 76. Tremper v. Conklin, 44 Barb. 456. Affd in 44 N. 7. 58. Trench v. Chenango County Mnt. Ins. Co., 7 Bill, 122. Commented on and doubted (Distinction between real and personal property, as to condition in policy respect- ing distance of other buildings) in Wilson v. Herkimer Mutual Ins. Co., 6 N. 7. 53, 59. Reviewed with other cases and referred to as overruled (Severability of contract of in- surance) in Merrill v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 73 K 7. 452, 461, which aff'd 10 Hun, 428, 430, which see. Disapproved in Mc- Gowan ». People's Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 54 Vt. 211 ; s. c, 41 Am. B. 843, as overruled by. Wilson ®, Herkimer, &c. Ins. Co., 6 N~. K53. Trenor v. Fachin, 12 Abb. Pr. 136 ; s. c, 20 How. Pr. 405 ; 28 Id. 88, n. See Calhoun v. Lee. Trenton Banking Co. v. Sherman, 86 2V". 7. 221. Compared (Elements of estoppel) in 2 Pomeroy on Eg. Jur. 267, n. Trevor v. Wood, 41- Barb. 255; s. c, 26 How. Pr. 451. Eev'd in 36 N. 7. 307; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 355. See Dunning o. Roberts. Decision in 36 N. 7. applied (Contracts by mail, &c.) in Howard v. Daly, 61 Id. 366. Followed in preference to Lewis v. Browning, 130 Mass. 175, — in Haas v. Myers, 111 III. 421 ; 20 Cent. L. J. 428. Collated and classified with Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wend. 103; Bruce «. Pearson, 3 Johns. 534; Tuttle v. Love, 7 Id. 407; White v. Corlies, 46 N. 7. 468; Cales v. Bowne, 10 Paige, 526 ; Chicago & Great E. R. Co. v. Dane, 43 iV. I' 240; Suydam «. Clark, 2 Sand/. 183 ; Barns . Lewis, 4 Abb., Pr. N. S. 150. Disting'd in Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Arthur, 13 Weekly Big. 333. Trimble v. Thome, 16 Johns. 152; s. c, 8 Am. Bee. 302, with note wherein it is ex- plained in connection with Tebbetts v. Dowd, 23 Wend. 379. Dictum overruled (Effect of subsequent promise by indorser, as waiver of notice, &c.) in Tebbetts v. Dowd, 23 Wend. 379, 385. Referred to with Jones ». Savage, 6 Id. 658; Sice d. Cunningham, 1 Cow. 397, in Raught v. Black, 2 Dun. {Ohio) 477, as ovei-ruled by Tebbetts v. Dowd, 23 Wend. 379. Colla- ted with other cases in Holcombe Lead. Cos. on Com. L. 368. Applied with Beardsley «. Warner, 6 Wend. 610 (Right of indorser to call on holder of note to proceed against maker) in Gibson v. Parlin, 13 Neb. 292, 294. Explained and applied in Converse v. Coot, 25 Hun, 44. Disting'd (Proof of ac- quiescence) in Rogers v. Kneeland, 13 Wend. 128. Trimin v. Marsh, S Bans. 509. Affd in 54 JUT. 7. 599 ; s. c, 13 Am. B. 623. Further decision in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 577; mem. s. c, 2 Hun, 383. Decision in 54 iV. 7. confirmed (Right of mortgagee in pos- session to purcHase) in Ten Eyck v. Craig, 2 Hun, 452, 465. Quoted (Mortgagee's interest) in 2 Washb. on Beal Prop. 4 ed. 109, 110. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Land. & T. 2 ed. § 56. Trinity Church v. Higgins. See Rector, &c. of Trinity Church v. Higgins. Tripp v. Cook, 26 Wend. 143; s. c, 14 N. 7. Com. L Law. ed. 1039, with brief note. Applied (Setting aside judicial sale) in Mer- chants' Ins. Co. ». Hinman, 3 Abb. Pr. 457 ; Gould v. Gager, 18 Id. 38 ; Matt v. Walkley, 3 Edw. 592; Hoppock v. Conklin, 4 Sandf. Gh. 586. Followed in Kellogg v. Howell, 62 Barb. 280, 288. Applied (Dis- cretion as to setting aside such sale) in King v. Piatt, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 532. Re- viewed with other cases in dissenting opin- ion in Dows ». Congdon, 28 N. 7. 126. Examined and approved in Howell i>. Mills, 53 Id. 322, 332. Approved in Bailey v. Stewart, 2 Bed/. 212, 231, a case of appli- cation to set aside Surrogate's decree. ■ v. Pulver, 2 Hun, 511; s. c, reported 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 30. v. Riley, 15 Barb. 333. Limited and approved (Severance of property held in common) in Channon v. Lusk, 2 Bans. 211, 213. Approved in Newton v. Howe, 29 Wis. 531 ; s. c, 9 Am. B. 616. v- Vincent. See Baxter v. Lansing. Trolan t. Pagan, 48 How. Pr. 240. Disap- proved with Brown v. Marigold, 50 Id. 251 (Effect of antedating admission of service of summons) in Peck v. Richardson, 9 Hun, 567. Followed in Brown v. Marigold, 60 How. Pr. 248. Not followed in Peck v. Richardson, 9 Hun, 568. Disting'd (Proof of service of summons) in Maples v. Mackev Id. 15 533, 538. Trotter t. Curtis, 19 Johns. 160; s. c, 10 778 TEOTTEE— TROY & BOSTON E. E.. CO. Am. Dec. 211. Followed (Usury in taking commissions) in Seymour v. Marvin, 11 Barb. 83 ; More ». Howland, 4 Den. 267 ; Smith v. Marvin, 27 iV". Y. 140 ; Elwell v. Chamberlain, 31 Id. 617 ; Matthews v. Coe, 70 Id. 242. Commented on and explained in Suydara v. Westfall, 4= Hill, 211. v. Hughes, 12 N. Y. 74. See Burr v. Beers ; Hamill ». Gillespie ; King v. White- ly. Applied (Liability of grantee of mort- gaged premises) in Wales v. Sherwood, 52 How. Pr. 414; Binsse v. Paige, 1 Keyes, 89; Stebbins 11. Hall, 29 Barb. 533, 537. Dis- ting'd in Douglass v. Cross, 56 How. Pr. 381 ; Douglass v. Wells, 18 Hun, 91. Re- viewed with other cases in Real Estate Trust Co. v. Balch, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 531 ; in dissenting opinion in Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 N. Y. 30, 40. Explained in Thayer v. Marsh, 11 Hun, 501, 503 ; which was affd in 75 K Y. 340, 342, which see ; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 Id. 257. Criticised in Vrooman v. Turner, 8 Hun, 80, which was rev'd in 69 JV. Y. 283, which see. Applied with Belmont v. Coman, 22 Id. 438, in Fiske v. Tolman, 124 Mass. 254; s. c, 26 Am. R. 6^59. Disapproved with King ». Whitely, 10 Paige, 465 ; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 If. Y. 180, in Dean v. Walker, 107 III. 540 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 467, with note. Cited as authority in Woodbury e. Swan, 58 N. H. 380, 383. Applied in Pardee v. Treat, 82 K Y. 385, 388, a case of a judgment. Applied (Effect of acceptance of conveyance to bind one by covenants therein) in Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 JST. Y. 39. v. Latson, 7 How. Pr. 261. Disapproved (Compelling attendance of party by sub- pama duces tecum) in Central Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. Arthur, 2 Sweeny, 194, 201. Overruled, in Mitchell's Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 249, 262. Troup y. H.iight, Hopk. 239. Dictum criti- cised as not founded on any adjudged case (Propriety of cross-bill in foreclosure) in Jennings v. Webster, 8 Paige, 505. Ex- plained in Chapman e. Robertson, 6 Id. 629. Explained (Sufficiency of certificate of acknowledgment of deed) in Jackson v. Osborn, 2 Wend. 558. Applied in Dennis v. Tarpenhy, 20 Barb. 375; Meriam v. Har- sen, 2 Barb. Ch. 270; Dias . Sherwood, 6 Johns. Ch. 118, 128. Trovinger v. M'Burney, 5 Cow. 253 ; s. c, 8 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 644, with brief note. Trow v. Glen Cove Starch Co., 1 Daly, 280. Applied (Effect of fraudulent alteration of written evidence of claim) in Meyer v. Hupeke, 55 K Y. 412, 418. v. Shannon, 8 Daly, 239. Affd in 78 iV. Y. 446. Decision in Id. explained (Evidence to establish gift) in Young v. Young, 80 Id. 422, 435. Trowbridge v. Baker, 1 Cow. 251. Cited (Effect of assuming to act in official charac- ter as evidence against person thus assum- ing) in 1 Taylor on Ev. 701. v. Christmas, Clarice, 271. Affd in 3 Ch. Sent. 7, but without opinion. Trow's Printing, &c. Co. v. Hart, 60 How. Pr. 190. Aff'd in 85 N. Y. 500. Troxell v. Haynes, 5 Daly, 389; s. c, 49 How. Pr. 517; more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 1. Followed (Extra allowance as bar to recovery of damages for injunction) in How- ell v. Miller, 5 Civ. Fro. li. (Browne) 164. Followed (Judgment against sureties on assessment of damages, on dissolution of injunction) in Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 47 How. Pr. 289. Troy & Boston R. R. Co. t. Boston, Hoosac T. & Western R'y Co., 86 if. F. 107. This is a different proceeding from those in 13 Hun, 60 ; 57 How: Pr. 181. v. Lee, 13 Barb. 169. Followed (Rule of damages in case of land taken for rail- TROY, &o. E. E. CO.— TEUSTEES, &c. OF NOETH GREIG. 779 road purposes) in Henderson v. N. Y. Central 11. R. Co.. 78 N. Y. 423, 435. Referred to as overruled in, — Bloo~mfield, &c. Gas-light Co. v. Calkins, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 551. v. Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297. Subsequent decision in 11 How. Pr. 1G8. See Brown ■v. Leigh; Butternuts & Oxford Turnpike Co. v. North. Decision in 18 Barb, ex^ plained (Liability on subscription to stock) in Poughkeepsie, &c. Plank Road Co. v. Griffin, 21 Id. 467, which was rev'd in 24 N. Y. 155, which see. Approved and applied in Erie & N. Y. City R. R. Co, ». Owen. 32 Barb. 617. Applied in Dutchess v. Columbia R. R. Co. v. Mabbett, 58 N, Y. 400; Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan, 20 Barb. 161. Disting'd in Buffalo, &c, Co. v. Clark. 22 Hun, 362. Followed as conclu- sive in Dorris v. Sweeney, 64 Barb. 640. Decision in 11 How. Pr. limited with Union Bank v. Mott, 11 Abb. Pr. 42 (Power to allow amendment to pleading) in Wood- ruffs. Dickie, 5 Robt. 619, 622. Troy and Lausiiigbnrgli R. B! Co. v. Kane, 9 Hun, 506. Affd in 72 K. Y. 614. Com- pare (Replevin against tax collector) Gode Civ. Pro. § 1695. Troy City B'k v. Grant, Hill & D. 119. Disting'd (Payment by bank, when made by mistake) in Whiting v. City B'k, 77 N. Y. 363, 367. v. Lanmnn, 19 2T. Y. 477. Followed (Immaterial alteration in negotiable paper) in Shuler v. Gillette, 12 Hun, 278. Fol- lowed (Acceptance payable at particular place) in Myers v. Standart, 11 Ohio St. 37. v. McSpedon, 33 Barb. 81. Aff'd as McSpedon v. Trov City Bank, 3 Abb. Ct. Ajyp. Bee. 133. Trnax v. Thorn. See Harrison v. Stevens. Iruesdell v. Booth, 4 Hun, 100; s. c, more fully, 6 Sup'm. Ot. {T. & O.) 379. — v. Granger, 8 N. Y. 115. See Brincker- hoffn. Phelps; Driggsa. D wight; Peters v. McKeon. Applied (Damages for breach of contracts to convey lease, &c.) in Brincker- hoft v. Phelps, 24 Barb. 100, 105 ; Mack v. Patchin, 42 W. Y. 172, 176. Explained and applied in Becar v. Flues, 64 Id. 520 With Driggs v. Dwight, 17 Wend. 71: Bnnckerhoff v. Phelps, 24 Barb. 100, said not to have been overruled by Conger v Weaver, 20 K Y. 140,— in Bush v. Cole 28 Id. 261, 270. Explained in Carter v. Burr, 39 Barb. 64 ; Conger m. Weaver, 20 N. Y. 146. Disting'd in Portman v Weeks, 1 Gity Ct. 185. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 78. Applied (Distinction between rent and value of lease) in Woodhull v Rosenthal, 61 K Y. 394. Truscott v. Dole, 7 How. Pr. 221. See (Al- legations in verified pleading) Ihde Civ Pro. 1881, § 524, n. v. King, 6 Barb. 346. Revld in 6 K Y. 147. See Kellogg v. Ames; Mead v. York. Decision in 6 N. Y. explained (iittect of mortgage, &c. givon to secure future advances) in Monnot v. Ibert, 33 Barb. 28. Disting'd in Hubbellu. Blakeslee, 8 Hun, 605 ; Bank of Albion v. Burns, 2 Bans. 57. Disting'd in dissenting opinion in Thompson v. Van Vechten, 6 Bosw. 406. Applied in Mead v. York, 6 K Y. 453; Cooks. Whipple, 55 Id. 167; Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 85 Id. 43, 50, 52, which rev'd 21 Hun, 53, 56, which see. Applied to case of insurance in Hartshorn v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 557. Disting'd (Time of objection to jurisdiction of equity) in De Bussierre v. Holloday, 4 Abb. N. C. 117. Followed, and Gillett v. Staples, 16 Hun, 588, disting'd, in Steffln v. Steffin, 4 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 179, 187. Ap- plied (Extrinsic evidence as to considera- tion for mortgage) in McKinster ■». Bab- cock, 26 N. Y. 381. Applied to evidence of agreement under which bond was de- livered, — in Chester v. B'k of Kingston, 16 J. Y. 343. Cited as authority in Thomas on Mort. 58. Disting'd with Ack- erman v. Hunsicker, 85 N. Y. 43 (Effect of recording, as notice to subsequent incum- brancers, &c.) in Dunlop v. Avery, 89 Id. 592, 598. Trusjow v. Putnam, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 425; s. c, 1 Key es, 568. See (Execution against bailor's interest) Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1412, n. Trust y. Person, 3 Abb. Pr. 84. AfTd as Trust v. Pirsson, in 1 Silt. 292. . Decision in Id. followed (Liens for storage, in whose favor not existing) in Re Kelly, tj. S. Hist. Ct. S. B. iP. Y. 1883, 18 Fed. Rep. 528. Cited (When agent having lien is estopped from asserting it) in Whart. Com. on Aq. § 820. V 8 v. Pirsson. See Same v. Person. Trustees for Support of Episcopate t. Colgrove. See Gallup v. Wright. Trustees, &c. of Auburn Seminary v. Cal- houn, 25 2V. F. 422. Rev'g 38 Barb. 148; 62 Id. 381. See Rutherford v. Rutherford. Decision in 25 iV. Y. explained (Proof of publication of will) in Abbey v. Christy, 49 Barb. 279. Applied in Peck v. Cary, 27 N. Y. 31 ; Norton v. Norton, 2 Red/. 15 ; Walsh *. Walsh, 4 Id. 168. Disting'd iu Bagley v. Blackman, 2 Lans. 41, 43. v. Cole, 20 Barb. 321. Compare Trus- tees of Auburn Theological Seminary o. Kellogg, 16 N. Y. 83, another decision arising under same will. Trustees of Brookhaven v. Strong, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 415. Aft'd in 60 N. Y. 56. See Hooker v. Cummings. Decision in 60 K Y. applied (Rights in certain land under water) in Robins v. Ackerly, 24 Hun, 560. Followed with Robbins v. Ackerly, 91 K Y. 98, in Hand v. Newton, 92 Id. 88. Trustees of Brooklyn v. Patchen, 8 Wend. 47. Approved (When lands or streets will be deemed dedicated to public -use) in Rec- tor ?). Hartt, 8 Mo. 448 ; s. c, 41 Am. Bee. 650, with^iote. Trustees of Church, &c. of North Greig t. 780 TEUST. OF COLLEGE POINT— TEUST., &c, OF WATEELOO. Johnson, 66 Barb. 119. Compare (Eject-' merit by co-tenants) Code Civ. Pro. § 1500. Explained in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Lnnel, § 284. Trustees of College Point v. Dennett, 2 Hun, 669 ; s. c, reported 5 Sup'm. Ct. (7'. & C.) 217. Trustees of Columbia Coll. v. Lynch. 47 Sow. Pr. 273. Affd in 39 K Y. Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 372, and the latter rev'd in 70 N. Y. 440 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 615. Subse- quent decision as Same v. Thacher, 10 -455. N. C. 235 ; s. c, 87 N. Y. 311, which rev'd 46 Super. Ct. («/. & S.) 305. Decision in 87 -ZV. Y. applied (Injunction to restrain use of property) in Crooke v. Flatbush Water Works Co., 27 Hun, 72. Collated with Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N. Y. 400, and other cases (Covenants on restraint of use of land) in 32 Moah Eng. 853. t. Thacher. See Same v. Lynch. Trustees of Delhi v. Youmans, 50 Barb. 316. Affd in 45 K Y. 362. See Pickard *. Col- lins. Decision in 50 Barb, disapproved (Effect of doing lawful act with malicious intent) in Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 N. Y. 39, 46. Relied on with Waffle v. N. Y.. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 58 Barb. 413 (Easement respecting surface water in favor of owner of higher ground as against lower) in Hoyt v. City of Hudson, 27 Wis. 656 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 473. Trnstees of East Hampton v. Kirk, 6 Bun, 257. Rev'd in 68 N. Y. 459. Subsequent decision in 84 Id. 215. Decision in 68 Id. applied (Waiver of right to trial by jury) in Ormes v. Dauchy, 82 Id. 443, 448. Decis- ion in 84 Id. disting'd (Overflow of lands, as affecting title) in Mulry ». Norton. 29 Hun, 660. Approved in Wilson v. Shivley, 11 Oreg. 215, 218. Trustees of First Presb. Congregation in Hebron v. Qiiackenbnsh, 10 Johns. 217. Followed (Liability of pew-owner) in St. Paul's Church v. Ford. 34 Barb. 16, 18. Trustees of First Baptist Church v. Brook- lyn Fire Ins. Co., 19 If. Y. 305. See Bap- tist Church v. Brooklyn Fire Ins Co. ; First Baptist Church v. Brooklyn Ins Co. Cited as authority with Goit v. National Protec- tion Ins. Co., 25 Barb. 180 (Power of insur- ance agent to waive condition of pre-pay- ment of premium) in Murphy v. Southern Life Ins. Co., 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 440; s. c, 27 Am. R. 761, 768. Disting'd in Critchett v. American Ins. Co., 53 Iowa, 404; s. c, 36 Am. R. 230, 233, with note. Disting'd (Validity of parol contracts of insurance) in Hennings. U. S. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 425; s. c, 4 Am. R. 332, 336. Trustees of First Baptist Church of Sche- nectady v. Utica & Schenectady K. R. Co., 6 Barb. 313. Discussed (Noise as nuisance) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 643. Trustees of Forestville Baptist Soc'y t. Faruham, 15 Hun, 381. Ret'd, it seems, in 82 If. Y. 618, but without opinion. Trnstees of Hamilton College v. Stewart, 1 N. Y. 581. Previous decision in 2 Deu. 403. Both decisions explained (Liability on subscription) in Barnes v. Perine, J) Barb. 206 ; 12 If. Y 28. Decision in 1 Id. applied in Stoddard e. Cleveland, 4 How. Pr. 150; Hammond v. Shepard, 29 Id. 190; Hurd v. Green, 17 Hun, 333. Explained in Erie & N. Y. City R. R. Co. v. Owen, 32 Barb. 625 ; Van Rensselaer v. Aikin, 44 Id. 650. Disting'd in Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan, 20 Id. 158; Richmondville Union Seminary, &c. v. Brownell, 37 Id, 537. Criticised in Wayne, &c. Coll. Inst. v. Smith, 36 Id. 582. Criticised as con- trary to reasoQ and authority, and also dis- ting'd in Lathrop v. Knapp, 27 Wis. 214, 220. Reviewed with Barnes v. Perine, 12 If. Y. 18; McAuley v. Billenger, 20 Johns. 89, and other cases, in Philomath College v. Hartless, 6 Oreg. 158 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 510. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 184. Explained and compared in- 1 Pars, on Contr. 453, n. h. Discussed in Id. 454, n. h. Decision in 2 Den examined, in N. Y. Exchange Co. v.. De Wolf, 5 Bosw. 593, 607, 613, 617. Trustees of Huntington v. Nicoll, 3 Johns. 566. Disting'd (When bill of peace will be entertained) in Nevitt «. Gillespie, 1 How. {Miss.) 108; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 696.. Trustees of Jordan r. Otis, 37 Barb. 50. See Underwood v. Stuyvesant. Explained (Liability for encroachment on highway) in Marvin t>. Pardee, 64 Barb. 353, 359. Col- lated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 64. Trnstees of Lansingburg v. Willard, 9 Johns. 428. Opposed (Competency of wit- ness as affected by fact that he believes himself interested) in Moore®. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. 292, 297. Overruled in Commer- cial Bank of Albany v. Hughes, 17 Id. 94, 102, where see cases cited. See Smith v. Downs, 6 Conn. 365 ; Carman v. Foster, 2 Ashm. {Penn.) 133. Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan House v. Lawrence 11 Paige, 80. Aft'd in 2 Den. 577. See Jenkins v. De Groot. De- cision in 11 Paige followed (Liability of representatives of deceased partner) in Slat- ter v. Carroll, 2 Sandf. Ch. 580. Both de- cisions followed in Troy Iron & Nail Fac- tory e. Winslow, 11 Blatchf. C. Ct. 513, 517. Decision in li Paige disapproved, with Voorhis v. Childs, 17 If. Y. 354, in Doggett v. Dill, 108 ill. 560, 567, where Geo. and Wis. cases are alone considered as supporting N. Y. rule. Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jaqucs. See M. E. Church v. Same. Trustees of N. Y. Prot. Episc. Public School, Matter of. See Matter of N. Y. Prot. Episc. Public School. Trustees of Presbyterian Cong, in Salem y. Williams. See Presbyterian Co.ig. in Salem v. Williams, 9 Wend. 147. Trnstees of Presb. Soc. in Waterloo t. TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERY OF K r.— TUCKER. 781 Auburn & Rochester R. R. Co., 3 Hill, 567. Disting'd (Liability for usiDg high- way for railroad purposes) iu Corey v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 489; Plant v. Long Island R. R. Co., 10 Id. 30; Peo- ple v. Kerr, 27 If. Y. 202 ; which aff'd 37 Barb. 405, which see. Followed and ap- plied in Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.. 16 If. Y. 104. Applied in Craig v. Rochester City, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Id. 407. Discussed with Fletcher v. Auburn & Syra- cuse R. R. Co., 25 Wend. 462, in Davis v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y,, 14 If. Y. 521. Ap- proved in Imlay v. Union Br. R. R., 26 Conn. 249, 259. Applied to laying of gas pipes, — in Calkins «. BloomfleM, &c. Gas Light Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 548. Followed with approval with Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 97; Mahon v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 Id. 658, in Indianapolis, Bloomington, &c. R. R. Co. v. Hartley, 67 III. 439 ; s. c, 16 Am. B. 624, 628. Collated with other cases in Cook Hig/iw. L. 4 ed. 17. Quoted and col- lated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 398. Explained (Rights of public on highway) in Milhau ». Sharp, 15 Barb. 209; Heath v. Barmore, 50 If. Y. 306. Trustees of Presbytery of N. Y., Matter of, 54 How. Br. 226. Further proceeding in 57 Id. 500. Trustees of St. Jacobs' Luth. Ch. of Eden v. Bly, 73 If. Y. 323. See cases cited (Effect of defective organization of corpora- tion) in 4 Abb. If. C. 445, n. Trustees of Theological Seminary v. Kel- logg, 16 If. Y. 83. Commented on (Trusts for charitable uses) in 2 Berry on Trusts, 3 ed. § '748, n. Trustees of Uni«n College t. Wheeler, 5 Bans. 160; s. c, 59 Barb. 585. Aff'd in part and disapproved in part in 61 If. Y. 88. Decision in Id. disting'd and explained (Rights of assignee of mortgage) in First Nat. B'k of Corry «. Stiles, 22 Hun, 339, 346. Applied in Reid v. Sprague, 9 Id. 33; Greene v. Warnick, 64 If. Y. 225; Bank for Savings v. Frank, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 408. Reviewed with other cases in dissenting opinion in Westbrook v. Gleason, 79 If. Y. 40. Explained and other cases collected in 2 Bomeroy on Eq. Jur. 160, n. Opinion of Dwight, C, cited with approval in 1 Bars, on Gvutr. 228, n. 1, Keller's ed. Applied .(Nature of mort- gagor's interest) in Bartlett v. Musliner, 28 Hun, 235, 238. Trustees of Vernon Soc. v. Hills, 6 Cow. 23 ; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 429. See Slee v. Bloom. Followed (Right of corporation de facto to sue) in Regents v. Williams, 9 GUI & J. (Aid.) 365; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 72, 111, with note. Trustees of Watertown t. Cowen, 4 Baige, 510 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 80, with note con- taining citations. See Adams v. Hopkins • Corning v. Lowerre ; Hills v. Miller ; Wy- man «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Cot- enant as to erections, &c. when running with the land) in Blain *. Taylor, 19 Abb. Br. 230; Weyman's Ex'rs «. Ringold, 1 Bradf. 55; Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. 151. Applied to covenant to pay rent— in Van Rensselaer v. Read, 26 If. Y. 575. Disting'd (Right of adjoining owner to have restrained erection of nuisance in public place) in Schermerhorn v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Edw. 123. Followed (Restraining violation of covenant against nuisances) in Brouwer «. Jones, 23 Barb. 161; Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 If. Y. 452. Relied on in Ravenswood v. Flemings, 22 W. Ya. 52; s. c, 46 Am. R. 485, 501. Explained and applied (Joinder of parties in proceedings to restrain nuisance) in Mur- ray v. Hay, 1 Barb. Ch. 64. Applied in, as authority, Bushnell v. Robeson, 62 Iowa, 540, 545. Limited (Attorney's liability for fees of referee, &c.) in Judson v. Gray, 11 N. Y. 408, 414. Applied in Campbell v. Cothian, 1 Sup'm. Ct. ('/'. & C.) 80. Trustees of Wilson Collegiate lust. v. Van Home. See Wilson Collegiate Inst. o. Same. Tucker v. Bishop, 16 If. Y. 402. Applied (Bequest to several, when to be regarded as distributive) iu Everitt v. Everitt, 29 If. Y. 73; Titus v. Weeks, 37 Barb. 150. Dis- cussed in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T.'ed. 513, n. v. Field. See Dupuy v. Wurtz. v. Ives, 6 Cow. 193. Explained (Limita- tion of action, in case of account) in Kim- ball v. Brown, 7 Wend. 325. v. Ladd, 4 Cow. 47. See Strong v. Smith. Overruled, it seems (Setting aside pleas as false) in Brewster v. Hall, 6 Cow. 34. v. Meeks, 2 Sweeny, 736. Aff'd in 52 If. Y. 638. See (Construction of repug- nant clauses in will) Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. If. C. 317. v. Rankin, 15 Barb. 471. See Fitch o. Comm'rs of Kirkland ; Herrick «. Stover. Overruled (Validity of order laying out highway) in People o. Williams, 36 If. Y. 441, 443. Disapproved in Pratt v. People, 13 Hun, 664, 667. v. St. Clement's Church, 3 Sandf. 242 ; s. c, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 257. Aff'd in 8 If. Y. 558, n., but without opinion. De- cision in 3 Sandf. explained (Charitable uses) in Beekman v. People, 27 Barb. 260, 275 ; McCaughal v. Ryan, 27 Id. 37C, 398. See Voorhies v. Presbyterian Church of Amsterdam, 5 How. Br. 58. Approved in Hoffm. Ecc. L. 178, as not affected by Levy v. Levy, 33 If. Y. 97; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 Id. 584. v. Tucker, 5 Barb. 99. Aff'd in 5 If. Y. 408. See Hone v. Van Schaick; Lane e. Ropke. ° -— v - — — . 4 Key™, 136; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec* 428. Applied (Surrogates^ power to try claim) in Stilwell v. Carpenter, 2 Abb. If. C. 268; Cooper v. Felter, 6 flans 782 TUCKER— TURNER. 487; McNulty v. Hurd, 72 If. Y. 520; Levi- ness v. Cassebeer, 3 Bed/. 497; Keteltas v. Green, 9 Hun, 602 ; Estate of Shaw, Tuck. 365. Disting'd in Shakespeare v. Markham, 72 If. Y. 400, 407, which aff'd 10 Hun, 311, 317, which see. Reviewed with Magee e. Vedder, 6 Barb. 352, in Du Bois ». Brown, 1 Hem. 317. Reviewed with Glacius v. Fogel, 88 K Y. 434; Strong t>. Strong, 3 Bed/. 480; Harris?). Ely, 25 If. Y. 142; Bevan v. Cooper, 72 Id. 317; People ex rel. Wright «. Coffin, 7 .ffun, 60; Wright v. Fleming, 12 Id. 469; 76 N. Y. 517; Riggs v. Cragg, JV. K Daily Reg, Oct. 21, 1882 ; Bonfanti ». Deguerre, 3 Bradf. 429 ; Hitch- cock «. Marshall, 2 iiterf/". 174; Haskin v. Feller, 3 Id. 321 ; Leviness v. Cassebeer, Id. 491; Kyle «. Kyle, 67 N. Y. 400; Shakespeare v. Markham, 72 Id. 400 ; Boughton v. Flint, 74 Id. 476 ; Matter of Brown, 3 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 39. Crit- icised in People ex rel. Adams v. Westbrook, 61 How. Pr. 138, 141. Compare Bough- ton v. Flint, 5 Abo. If. G. 215. Explained (Power of executors, &c. to enter into ar- bitration) in Wood v. Tunnicliff, 74 If. Y. 38, 45. Disting'd (What are disputed claims against estates) in Underhill v. New- burger. 4 Red/. 499, 503. t. White, 27 How. Pr. 97. See note to this case, in 28 Id. 78. T. Woolsey, 64 Barb. 142 ; s. c, 6 Lans. 482. Cited (Liability of principal for rent of place of business occupied by agent) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 126. Tnckerman t. Brown, 11 Abb. Pr. 389. To same effect another decision between same parties, in 23 How. Pr. 109, which wasafi'd in 33 N. Y. 297. Tufts t. Tufts, 18 Wend. 621. See Little v. Harvey. See (Judgment as lien for ten years) Code Civ. Pro, § 1251. Tugman v. Nat. Steamship Co., 13 Hun, 332. Aff'd in 76 If. Y. 207, which was rev'd as Nat. S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118. Tugwell v. Bussing, 48 How. Pr. 89. Dis- ting'd (Duty of sheriff to sell in parcels) in Bennett v. Bagley, 22 Hun, 408, 411. Tullis v. Miller, 13 Hun, 363. See also (Jur- isdiction of State court over action by as- signee in bankruptcy) Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. If. C. 72, n. Tunno v. Lagne, 2 Johns. Cas. 1 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 141 ; 1 3. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 417 ; with brief note. Relied on (What will excuse notice of non-payment of note) in Duggan v. King, Rice's L. (So. Car.) 239. s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 107, 111, with note. Followed as settling the law (To whom only notary, &c. need give notice of protest) in State Bk. of Elizabeth v. Ayers, 2 HaUt. (If. J.) 130; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 535. See cases collected in Chitty on Bills, 236, a. Tuomey v. Dunn, 42 Super. Ot. (J.' & S.) 291. Another proceeding as Tuomy v. Dunn in 77 JST. Y. 515. Turk v. Ridge 41 If. Y. 201. Applied (Rights of one not party to contract, to ben- efit thereof) in Simson v. Brown, 63 Id. 360 ; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 Id. 284. Fol- lowed in Pardee v. Treat, S2 Id. 385, 393. Disting'd in Coster v. Mayor of Albany, 43 Id. 410. Explained and limited (What creates liability as on covenant) in Booth v. Cleveland Mill Co., 74 Id. 15, 22. Turley v. North Am. Fire Ins. Co. See Inman v. Western Fire Ins. Co. ; Jennings v. Chenango Mut. Ins. Co. Turnbnll v. Bowyer, 40 N. Y. 456. Dis- ting'd (Effect of payment on forged draft) in Susquehanna Val. Nat. B'k v.- Loomis, 85 Id. 207, 212. v. Martin. 2 Daly, 428. Followed "(Effect of misconduct, &c. of arbitrators) in Fudickar n. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 358, 378. v. Trout. See Nelson v. Dubois. Turner, Matter of. See Matter of Burke. Turner v. B'k of Fox Lake, 3 Keyes, 425 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. A pp. Dec. 434: 2 Transc. App. 344. Affg Tanner v. B'k of Fox Lake, 23 How. Pr. 399. Decision in 3 Keyes explained and typographical errors corrected (Effect of taking check for draft) in Smith e. Miller, 6 Abb. Pr. If. S, 239, which was rev'd in 43 N. Y. 175, which see; and see Same ». Same, 52 Id. 548. Re-affd in Burkhalter v. Second Nat. B'k of Erie, 42 Id. 538. Disting'd in First Nat. B'k v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 77 Id. S20, 326, which rev'd 16 Hun, 332, 335, which V. Burrows, 5 Wend. 541. Aff'd in 8 Id. 145. Subsequent decision as Burrows v. Turner, in. 24 Id. 276. These three decisions explained and applied (Extrinsic evidence as to interests covered by contract of insurance) in Lee v. Adsit, 37 If. Y. 97. Decision in 5 Wend, explained and applied in Pitney v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., 65 A'. Y. 14. Decisions in 5 Wend. ; 8 Id. applied (Insurance by part owner) in Harvey t>. Cherry, 76 N. Y. 444. v. Jaycox, 40 Barb. 164. Aff'd in 40 If. Y. 470. Decision in 40 Barb, disting'd (Effect of reference in instrument to another) in Bonnell v. Griswold, 68 If. Y. 299. Decision in 40 Id, disting'd (Effect of refer- ence to schedule in assignment for creditors) in Holmes v. Hubbard, 60 Id. 185, a case of bond of indemnity. Both decisions dis- cussed in Burrill on Assign. § 138. 4 ed. Decision in 40 N. Y. explained (Prefer- ences) in Id. § 211, n. 4. Disting'd (Effect of note, &c. signed by all of members of firm) in Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Juillard, 75 If. Y. 535, 540, which afl'd 13 Hun, 506, 512, which see. v. Taylor, 2 Daly, 278. Explained (Appeal from order of reference) in Ma- gown 0. Sinclair, 5 Id. 63, 71. v. Treadway, 53 If. Y. 650; s. c, more fully, 56 How. Pr. 28. Followed (Taking note for antecedent debt, as con- stituting holder for value) in Ayres v. Ley- poldt, 6 Daly, 91, 94. Explained and ap- TURNER— TYLER. 7S3 plied in Pkenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 N. Y. 494. . v. Van Riper, 43 Sow. Pr. 33. Ap- proved as a well considered case, and fol- lowed in preference to Utter v. Giftord, 25 Id. 289 (Cost's in action for trespass on lands) in'Keiny «. Ingraham, 66 Barb. 250, 256. Turrill v. Dolloway, 17 Wend. 426. Eev'd in 26 Id. 483. Tnlhill T. Bogart, 14 Sun, 487. AfTd in 79 K Y. 215. v. Broakman, 3 Weekly Dig. 546. Superseded (Action against personal repre- sentative in individual capacity) by Code Civ. Pro. § 1814. t. Davis, 20 Johns. 285. See Stafford v. Rice. Applied (Validity of new security, in case of usurious contract) in Bullock v. Boyd, Soffm. 307. T. Tracy, 31 S. Y. 157. Dictum disap- proved (Necessity of affidavits on sale on foreclosure by advertisement) in Frink v. Thompson, 4 Lam. 487, 491. Applied in Mowry v. Sanborn, 68 N. Y. 164; which rev'd 7 Sun, 385, which see. Followed in Osborn v. Merwin, 12 Id. 332. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. Tnton v. Thayer, 47 Sow. Pr. 180. Dis- ting'd and explained (Guaranty of pay- ment and collection) in Hernandez v. Stil- well, 7 Daly, 360, 365. Tuttle v. Hannegan, 4 Daly, 92. AfTd in 54 S. Y. 686. v. Hunt. See Penfield v. Carpender. V. Jackson, 6 Wend. 213; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 306, with note containing citations. See Sterry v. Arden ; Williamson v. Brown. Followed (Statute forbidding purchase of pretended titles, not applicable to judicial sales) in Truax o. Thorn, 2 Barb. 159; Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 If. Y. 345. Criticised and disting'd in Mann v. Fairchild, 14 Barb. 556, a case of purchase by attorney. Ap- plied (Effect of notice of instrument entitled to be recorded) in Williams v. Birbeck, Soffm. 372. Explained in Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 358. Collated with con- flicting cases (Possession as evidence of notice) in 17 Am. L. Rev. 849, 881. v. Kip, 19 Johns. 194. Applied (Right of bail to surrender principal) in Toles v. Adee, 84 N. Y. 222, 240. v. Lore. See Trevor v. Wood. — - v. Mayo, 7 Johns. 132. Applied (Neces- sity of proof of actual receipt, to sustain action for money had and received) in Gil- christ v. Cunningham, 8 Wend. 644. Tuxbury t. Miller. See Callagan v. Hal- lett. v. Smith, 14 Sow. Pr. 395 ; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. 329. Approved (Form of sum- mons) in Norton v. Cary, 14 Id. 365. Tweed, Matter of, 47 Dow. Pr. 162 ; s. c, fully reported as Tweed v. Davis, in 1 Sun 252 ; 4 8up>m Ct. {T. & C.) 1. Twenty -ninth St., Matter of. See Mercer St., Matter of. Twinam t. Swart, 4 Law., 263. Limited (Value of use, as element of damage for de- tention of personal property) in Allen v. Fox, 51 N. Y. 562, 566. Followed (Liabil- ity of sheriff levying on exempt property) and Frost v. Mott, 34 N. Y. 253 ; Cantrell v. Conner, 6 Daly, 224, explained, in Sulli- van v. Farley, 63 Sow. Pr. 371. Twomhly v. Cassidy, 21 Sun, 277. Aff'd in 82 N. Y. 155. Twomley v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 158 : s. c, 25 Am. P. 162, with note (Contributory negligence). Tyack v. Bromley, 4 Edw. 258. Modified on appeal in 1 Barb. Ch. 519. Decision in 4 Edw. followed (Injunction to restrain one from interfering with officer) in Palmer v. Foley, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 14. 24. Tyler v. JEtna Fire Ins. Co., 12 Wend. 507. AfTd in 16 Id. 385. Both decisions fol- lowed (Insurable interest of one having contract for purchase) in Acerc. Merchants' Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 68, 82. Decision in 12 Wend, applied (Duty of insurer to state ex- tent of his interest^ in White v. Hudson River Ins. Co., 7 Sow. Pr. 343. Followed and approved in Morrison's Adm'r v. Ten- nessee Mar. & Fire Ins. Co., 18 Mo. 262 ; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 299, with extended note. Disting'd (Insurer's right to subrogation, in case of such contract) in Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 45 N. Y. 466. Both decisions col- lated with other cases in 2 Sare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 837. — — • v. Ames, 6 Lans. 280. See Hart v. Hart. Followed (Termination of contract to render services to satisfaction of another) in Spring v. Ansonia Clock Co., 24 Sun, 176. Cited with Potter v. Merchants' Bank, 28 If. Y. 641 (Power of principal to revoke agent's authority) in Whart. Com. on A a. §95. v. Gardiner, 35 S. Y. 559. See Dela- field v. Parish. Applied (Proof of undue influence on testator) in Matter of Roll- wagen, 48 Sow. Pr. 322, which was aff'd in 3 Sun, 121, 139, which see. Followed in Baker's Will, 2 Bed/. 179, 193; Van Kleeck v. Phipps, 4 Id. 132. Applied but disting'd in Kinne v. Johnson, 60* Barb.. 69, 72, 78. Explained and applied in Voorhees i). Voorhees, 39 S. Y. 463, 467. Reviewed with other cases in 3 Eedf. 63. . Applied to transfer of property, in Piatt v. Piatt, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 48. Included with notes iu Eedf. Lead. Cas. on Wills, 451. Disting'd (Practice on review of decision of supreme court on appeal from surrogate's decree on application for probate) in Sutton o. Ray, 72 N. Y. 482, 485. ; v. Heidorn, 46 Barb. 439. Disting'd (Presumption as to payment of rent) in Lyon v. Chase, 51 Id. 15, but see Same v. Adde, 63 Id. 100. Disting'd in Bedell v. Shaw, 59 K Y. 46, 50. See authorities*col- lected (Reserving rent on conveyance in fee) in 16 Am. L. Pev. 39. —£ v. Strang, 21 Barb. 198. See (When 784 TYLER— UNDERWOOD. title to personal property passes) in O'Brien v. Jones, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 67, 74. Approved in Jones on Chat. M. § 188. v. Taylor, 8 Barb. 585. See cases col- lected (Sale bv one tenant in common) in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 425. T. Willis, 33 Barb. 327; s. c, as Tyler v. Whitney, 12 Abb. Pr. 465. Applied with Underwood v. Sutcliffe, 10 Bun, 453 ; Mor- gan v. Potter, . 17 Id. 403 (Regularity of receiver's appointment) in Wright n. Nos- trand, 94 if. Y. 81, 45. Compared with other authorities in High, on Receiv. § 404, m.1. Ty mason v. Bates. See Bates v. Tymason. Tyng v. Commercial Warehouse Co., 68 N. 7. 308. See Thayer v. Manley. See to same effect (Usury in charging commissions) in Caldwell v. Commercial Warehouse Co., 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & ft) 179. Applied (Amendment of pleadings on appeal) in Hudson v. Swan, 7 Abb. N. C. 333. v. Fields, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 672; s. c, fully reported in 3 Hun, 75. V. Marsh, 51 Bote. Pr. 465. Further proceeding in 42 Supe?: Ct. (J. & S.) 235. t. Theological Seminary Prof. Episc. Cll., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 250. Aff' d, it seems, in 86 N. Y. 636, but without opinion. — — v. U. S. Submarine and Torpedo Boat Co., 1 Bun. 161. Re-argument denied in Id. 309. Aiff'd in 49 Bow. Pr. 360 ; mem. s. c, 60 B. Y. 644, without reviewing the merits. Tyson v. Blake, 22 B. Y. 558r Disting'd (Limitation over, when repugnant to prior bequest) in Floyd v. Fitcher, 38 Barb. 409, 413. Applied with Norris v. Beyea, 13 B. Y. 273; Smith v. Van Ostrand, 64 Id. 278; but Terry n. Wiggins, 47 Id. 512, disting'd in Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 Id. 464. Applied (Requiring security from legatee for life) in Livingston v. Murray, 68 Id. 493; Montfort v. Montfort, 24 Bun, 120, 122. Disting'd in Smith v. Van Ostrand, 64 Id. 278, 286. u. Udall T. Kenney, 3 Cow. 590. Approved (Wife's equities in her own personal effects) in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 258. Till t. Neuberger, 11 Weekly Dig. 296. Explained (Running of statute of limita- tions, as affected by pendency of bank- ruptcy proceedings) in Rosenthal v. Plumb, 25 Bun, 336, 339. Ulster County Bank v. McFarlan, 5 Bill, 432. Afi'd in 3 Ben. 553. Decision in C Bill commented on (Promise to accept negotiable paper) in Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 57. Ulster County Sav'gs Inst. v. Decker, 11 Bun, 515. Rev'd as Same ». Leake, 73 B. Y. 161; s. C, 29 Am. E. 115. Brief mem. of decision granting motion to correct re- mittitur as to costs, in 74 Id. 604. v. Leake. See Same ». Decker. Umfreville v. Keeler, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 486. Modified in 3 Id. 795. Underbill v. North Am. Kerosene Gas Light Co., 36 Barb. 354. Further decision in 31 Bow. Pr. 34. t. Pomeroy, 2 Bill, 603. AfTd in 7 Id. 388. t. Beinor. See Shaw v. Davis ; Sheldon v. Van Buskirk. t. Saratoga & Washington B. R., 20 Barb. 455. Explained (Effect of grantor of estate on condition conveying away estate, before breach) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 17. t. Taylor, 2 Barb. 348. Disting'd (Mitigation of damages for libel) in Palmer v. Lang, 7 Daly, 33, 37. v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Ch. 339. Rev'd in 17 Johns. -405. See Peters v. New- kirk. Decision in 2 Johns. Ch. cited for elaborate review of the authorities (Ef- fect of mistake of fact in award) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 703, n. h. Quoted (Excluding depositions in equity) in 3 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 351, n. 3. Underwood v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 57 B. Y. 400 ; s. c, 48 Bow. Pr. 367. Subsequent decision in 3 Weekly Dig. 243 affd in 71 B. Y. 605, but without opinion. See cases in Ct. of App. Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. City. Decision in 57 N. Y. disting'd (Waiver as to proof of loss) in Goodwin v. . Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 480, 494. Followed in Bell v. Lycoming F. Ins. Co., 19 Bun, 238, 240. Explained in Rokes v. Amazon Ins. Co., 51 Md. 512; s. c, 34 Am. R. 323, citing also Owen v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 518. V.Green, 3-Robt. 86. Rev'd in 42 K Y. 140. See Clark v. Mayor, &c. of Syra- cuse. Decision in 42 N~. Y. applied (Dis- cretion of officer of limited jurisdiction) in Hoeft ».' Seaman, 38 Super.- Ct. (J. & S.) 62, 72. Followed (Dead hog not per se a nuisance) in River Rendering Co. n. Behr, 77 Mo. 01; s. c, 46 Am. R. 6. v. , 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 481. Aff'd in effect, but appeal dismissed, in 56 N. Y. 247. See (What not included in time allowed for issuing execution) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1382, n. v. Jackson. See Harrison «. Stevens. Y. Stnyvesant, 19 Juhns. 181; s. c.,' 10 Am-. Dec. 215, with note. See Matter of Lewis St. ; Wyman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Approved (Acceptance of street by public) in People v. Jones, 6 Mich. 184. Relied oc with City of Oswego v. Osw. Snedecor, 8 Abb. N. C. 51. Col- lated with other cases in Colby on Forec. 40. Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 15 Hun, 371. Rev'd in 79 N. Y. 454 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 536. Union India Rubber Co. t. Tomlinson, 1 K D. Smith, 364. For contrary rule at common law (Grounds of action on contract for services) see Rose. N, P. 555 See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 357. Union Mannf. Co. v. Lounsbury, 42 Barb. 125. Aff'd in 41 K Y. 363. Union Nat. B'k v. Warner, 12 Hun, 306. See Fullerton v. Viall. Disting'd with Davis v. Leopold, 87 N. Y. 620 (Right of debtor to make preference among creditors ■without fraud) in Jewett v. Noteware, 30 Hun, 192. Re-affd with Briggs v. Merrill, 58 How. Pr. 389; Fullerton-a. Viall, 42 Id. 294; Goodhue v. Berrien, 2 Sandf. Ch. 630, 636 (Fraudulent grantee not to. be protected even for amount actually paid) in Ferguson v. Hillman, 55 Wis. 181, 191. Union Nat. B'k- of Pittsburg v. Wheeler, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 536. Aff'd in 60 N. Y. 612, which was aff'd as Wheeler v. Nat. B'k, 96 U. S. 268. Union Nat. B'k of Troy v. Bassett, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 359. Followed (Amendment of answer) in Barnctt v. Meyer, 10 Hun, 110. v. Sixth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 1 Lans. 13. Aff'd in 43 N. Y. 452. Decision in Id. applied (Negligence, as affecting right to recover back, money paid by mistake) in Nat. B'k of Commerce v. Nat. Mechanics' B'k'g Assoc, 46 How. Pr. 380. Extended and applied in U. S. v. Nat. Park B'k,' U. S. Dist. Ct. S. D. W. Y. 6 Fed. Rep. 854. rs6 UNION TRUST CO.— UTICA COTTON MAN'PG CO. Union Trust Co. t. Whiton, 17 Sun, 593. Appeals dismissed in 78 N. Y. 491. Pre- vious decision in 9 Sun, 057. See llowell v. Van Siclen. Decision in 78 If. Y. dis- ting'd (Costs on appeal) in First Nat. B'k of Meadville s. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y., 84 Id. 470. Reviewed with First Nat. B'k of Meadville v. Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y. ; Howell v. Van Siclen, 8 Sun, 524; Isaacs v. N. Y. Plaster Mills, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 397; Donovan v. Board of Education, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 311; Provost v. Farrell, 18 Sun, 303, in Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 104. Decision in 17 Sun explained with Donovan v. Vander- mark, 22 Id. 307; Mott «. Consumer's Ice Co., 8 Daly, 244 ; Howell v. Van Sic- len, 4 Abb. K C. 1 ; 8 Sun, 524, in 11 Abb. .V. C. 217, n. Decision in 9 Sun explained (Evidence in action for money lent) in 2 Qreenl. on Eo. 14 ed. § 112, n. b. Union Turnpike Co. v. Jenkins. See Jen- kins ■». Union Turnpike Co. United Ins. Co. v. Lenox, 1 Johns. Cas. 377. Aff'd in 2 Id. 443. v. Robinson, 2 Cai. 280. Aff'd in 1 Johns. 592. U. S. v. Crookshank, 1 Edw. 233. See cor- rection of line 2 of p. 241, in Id. 693. v. Dodge, 14 Johns. 95. It is now con- ceded (Jurisdiction in actions on bonds given for duties) that such an act of Con- gress imposes no obligation upon the State Court to entertain jurisdiction, and that they do so voluntarily, if at all. v. Graff, 4 Sun, 634 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 304. Compare (Attachment of contents of safe containing securities depos- ited with trust company) in Gregg v. Hilson, 8 Phil. {Pa.) 91. v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4. Denied (Jur- isdiction of State court over proceeding to enforce penalty under Federal law) in Bletz v. Columbia Nat. B'k, 87 Penn. St. 87 ; s. c, 30 Am. S. 343, 347. Relied on in Brighamu. Clafflin, 31 Wis. 607; s. c, 11 Am. B. 623, 628. - Modified in Stearns ». U. S., 2 Paine, 310. Discussed in 1 Eer.t Com. 402. v. White, 2 Sill, 59. Discussed (State statutes of limitation whether binding on government of U. S.) in Ang. on Limit. § 40, 6 ed. U. S. Bank t. Chapin. See Macomber v. Dunham ; Miller v. Burroughs. v. Haskins, 1 Johns. Cas. 132. Fol- lowed with Bank of Utica v. Smal'ey, 2 Cow. 778 (Necessity that corporation suing set forth manner of its organization) in Selma & Tennessee R. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 344, with note. v. Stearns, 15 Wend. 314; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 877, with brief note. See Bank of Utica v. Smalley ; Noble v. Paddock. Explained (Jndicial notice of laws of Congress by State courts) in Piatt v. Crawford, 8 Abb. Pr. K S. 297, 304. Followed (Agents as witnesses in behalf of employers) in Union Bank v. Meeker, 4 La. Ann. 189; s. c, 00 Am. Dec. 559, with note. U. S. Reflector Co. v. Rusliton, 7 Daly, 410. Quoted (Necessity of acceptance in case of sale of goods over fifty dollars) in Benj. on Sales, § 155, n. o (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Explained in 1 Id. § 158, n. 10 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). U. S. Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 50 Barb. 46. Explained (Action against tele- graph company for refusal to send a mes- sage) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, n. t. U. S. Trust Co. v. Brady, 20 Barb. 119. Said in People v. Bowen, 30 Id. 39, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. v. U. S. Fire Ins. Co. See Rosevelt v. Brown. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., Matter of, 55 Soto. Pr. 286. Further proceeding in 55 Id. 286. See Taylor v. Atlantic & Great Western R. R. Co. Updike v. Campbell, 4 E. D. Smith, 570. Collated with other cases (Lease for unlaw- ful purposes) in McAdam on Landl. & I'. 2 ed. § 77. ' r Upton v. Vail, 6 Johns. 181 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 210, with note; 4 N: Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 92, with brief note. Disting'd (Liability for false representations) in Galla- ger v. Brunei, 6 Cow. 353. Reviewed with Young v. Covel, 8 Johns. 23 ; Veeder v. Fonda, 3 Paige. 94; Dale v. Roosevelt, 5 Johns. Ch. 174, in Bean v. Herrick, 12 Me. 262; s. C, 28 Am. Dec. 176, with note. Said in 5 Am. Dec. 212, »., to have an im- portance in the adjudications of N. Y., like that of Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. B. 51. Utica & Black River R. R. Co. t. Stewart. 33 Sow. Pr. 312. Compare (Notaries' power out of county) L. 1875, c. 458. Utica, Chenango, &c. R. R. Co., Matter of, 56 Barb. 456. Approved and explained (Val- uation of land taken for railroad purposes) in Matter of Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 24 Sun, 200. Followed with Matter of N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 15 Sun, 63, but Troy & Boston R. R. Co. t>. President, &c. Northern Turnpike Co., 16 Barb. 100 ; Albany Northern R. R. Co. v. Lansing, Id. 68 ; Canandaigua & Niagara Falls R. R. Co. v. Payne, Id. 273 ; Union Village & Johnsonville R. R. Co. ■». Akin, 53 Id. 457, disapproved in Matter of N. Y., Lacka- wanna, &c. R. R. Co., 29 Sun, 1. Utica B'k v. Gauson. See Bank of Rutland «. Buck. v. Van Gieson. See Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Erben. Utica City B'k v. Bnel, 17 Sow, Pr. 498; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 385. Sec (Service of in- junction order) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2452, n. Utica Cotton Man'f g Co. v. Supervisors of Oneida, 1 Barb. Ch. 432. Disapproved (Taxation of toll bridges) in Hudson River UTICA INS. CO.— VAIL. 787 Bridge Co. fl. Putterson, 11 Hun, 525, 027. Utica Ins. Co. T. Bloodgood, 4 Wend. 652. See Same v. Scott. Disting'd (Estoppel to assert right given by statute) in Harper v. Leal, 10 How. Pr. 281. Disting'd (Agree- ment that suspends operation of statute of limitations) in Rowe v. Thompson, 15 Abb. Pr. 383; Shapley v. Abbott, 42 N. Y. 453; Allen v. Webster, 15 Wend. 289. Explained in Gaylord v. Van Loan, 15 Wend. 313. Followed, and Allen v. Web- ster, 15 Wend. 289, disting'd "in Burton «. Stephens, 24 Vt. 131 ; s. c, 58 Am. Dee. 153. Questioned with Utica Ins. Co. *. Caldwell, 3 Wend. 296 ; Same v. Kip, 8 Cow. 20 (Effect of note discounted, &c. by corporation contrary to law) in Pratt v. Eaton, 18 Hun, 295. Doubted with Utica Ins. Co. 'v. Oadwell, 3 Wend. 296 ; Same v. Kip, 8 Cow. 20, in New Hope, . Benjamin, 33 JSf. Y 65. Applied (Loan in consideration of collateral contract, when not usurious) in Clarke v. Sheehan, 47 Id. 196. v. Kip, 8 Oow. 20. Subsequent decision in 3 Wend. 307. See Same v. Bloodgood. Decision in 8 Cow. explained (Effect of note discounted by corporation, contrary to law) in Beach v. Pulton B'k, 8 Wend. 583 ; Tracy v. Talmage, 14 K Y. 189. Disting'd (Recovery of money paid on illegal contract) in Peck v. Burr, 10 JV. Y. 298 ; Perkins ». Savage, 15 Wend. 415. Applied in Spring Co.!). Knowlton,103£/:S 49,60; which over- ruled, in effect, 57 N. Y. 518, 545, which see. - T. Scott, 19 Johns. 1, Rev'd in 8 Cow. 709. See Utica Ins. Co. v. Bloodgood. Decision in 19 Johns, questioned with Same v. Kip, 8 Cow. 20 ; Same v. Cadwell, 3 Wend. 296 ; Same «. Kip, Id. 369 ; Same e. Bloodgood, 4 Id. 652 (Recovery of money ' paid on void contract) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 97. Cited as authority with Utica Ins. Co. 11. Cadwell, 3 Wend. 296 ; Utica Ins. Co. v. Bloodgood, 4 Id. 652 ; Marville v. American Tract Society, 123 Mass. 129; s. c, 25 Am. It 40 44. Decis- ion in 19 Johns, followed (Effect of note discounted by corporation, contrary to law) in Utica Ins. Co. v. Hunt, 1 Wend. 56. Applied in Pratt v. Short, 79 K Y. 447. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 111, 11 ed. Explained in Id. §§ 265, 269. Decis- ion in 8 Cow. disting'd, in N. Y. State Loan and Trust Co. s. Helmcr, 77 N. Y. 64. v. Toledo Ins. Co., 17 Barb. 132. Ap- proved (Re-insurance, when invalid as effected by one acting as agent for both parties) in N. Y. Central Ins. Co. v. National Protection Ins. Co., 14 K Y. 85, 92 Utley v. Healey, 1 Cow. 345. Disting'd (Surrender of lease) in Roe v. Conway, 74 N. Y. 201, 206. Utter v. Gifford, 25 Sow. Pr. 289. See Tur- ner v. Van Riper. Overruled (Costs in ac- tion for trespass) in Turner v. Van Riper, 43 Eow. Pr. 33, 37. Opposed in Keiny v. Ingraham, 66 Barb. 250, 256. v. Stuart, 30 Barb. 20. Disting'd (Vendee's right to recover back payments on rescission of contract of sale) in Tice v. Zinsser, 76 N. Y. 549, 552. Compared and doubted in 7 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 79. V. Vail v. Foster, 4 N. Y. 312. Applied (Right of creditor to benefit of collateral securities) in Kelly «; dishing, 48 Barb. 271. Dis- ting'd (Effect of note of third person re- ceived for debt) in Soffe v. Gallagher, 3 E. D. Smith, 517. Quoted in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1081, n. 17, 941 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Hamilton, 20 Hun, 355. Aff'd in 85 N. Y. 453. Decision in 20 Hun disting'd (Corporate mortgage, when invalidated by failure of proof of assent of stockholders) in Rochester Savings Bank v. Averell, 2(1 Id. 643. v. Knapp, 49 Barb. 299. Applied (In- junction against proceedings in other State) in Claflin & Co. e. Hamlin, 62 How. Pr. 285. Relied on in Snook v. Snetzer, 25 Ohio St. 516. Commented on in 1 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 105, n. 1. v. Lane, iHun, 653; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 281. v. Lewis, 4 Johns. 450 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 300. Applied (Effect of salicet, &c. in pleading) in Gleason v. McVickar, 7 Cow. 45. v. Owen, 19 Barb. 22. Approved and followed with Brown v. Smith, 24 Id. 419 (Liability of assessor) in Bell v. Pierce, 48 Barb. 51. Approved, and Prosser v. Secor, 5 Id. 607, disapproved in Barhyte v. Shep- herd, 35 N. Y. 238, 242. Explained and limited in Wade v. Matheson, 4 Lans. 158. v. Rcmsen, 7 Paige, 206. Explained (Waiver o f right of appeal) in Benkard v. Babcock, 17 Abb. Pr. 423. v. Rice, 5 K Y. 155. Disting'd (Evi- dence of commercial usage) in Fox v. Par- ker, 44 Barb. 546. t. Smith, 4 Cow. 71. See (Date of judgment) Moore v. Tracy, 7 Wend. 229; Matter of Worthington, 16 Alb. L. J. 63; and see Abb. Tr. Ev. 538. v. Vail, 4 Paige, 317. Further action relative to same will, in 7 Barb. 226 ; which was aff'd in 10 Id. 69. See Kilpatrick v. YALARINO— V ALTON. Johnson. Decision in 7 Barb, followed (Estoppel of persons not parties to former action} in Knauth v. Bassett, 34 Id. 31, 40. Decision in 4 Paige explained with Hull v. Hull, 24 JT. Y. 047 (Right to accumula- tions of personal property) in Cook v. Lowry, 95 Id. 103. Disting'd in Grant®. Grant, 3 Red/. 296. Tiilarino v. Thompson, 7 JT. Y. 576. Cited (Ambassador's privilege) in 1 Kent Com. 39, Holmes' ed. n. 1. Compared in 1 Id. 45, n. 1. Vale v. Bliss, 50 2?ar5. 358. See Malov v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Explained (Nui- sance as caused by excavations in highways) ' in Wood on JTuis. 2 ed. § 277. Talentiue, Matter of, 10 Sun, 83. Rev'd in 72 JT.' Y. 184; s. a, 3 Abb. JT. O. 285. See (Reference on application for sale of real estate of lunatic) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2354, n. Valentine v. Belden, 20 Eun. 537. For a different rule (Right of administrator to purchase on foreclosure) in case of guardians, see Low v Purdy, 2 l.ans. 422. v. Conner, 40 N. Y. 248. Followed (Right of General Term to look beyond findings of fact) in Porter v. McGrath, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S ) 84, 98. v. Northrtip, 12 Wend. 494. Followed (What is ouster of co-tenant) in Trustees of Church, &c. of North Greig v. Johnson, 06 Barb. 119, 123. v. Valentine, 2 Barb. Ch. 430. See Westerfield v. Westerfield. Followed (Exec- utor's, &c. commissions) in Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. JT. C. 317, 437, 442; Lansing v. Lan- sing, 1 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 284. Disting'd with Drake v. Price, 5 JT. Y. 430 ; Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. JT. C. 317, and Morgan v. Hannas, 13 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 361, criticised in Han- cox v. Meeker, 95 JT. Y. 528. Followed (Double commissions to executors) in Drake v. Price, 7 Barb. 390 ; which was aff'd in. 5 JT. Y. 431, which see; see also Hall v. Hall, 78 Id. 539. Explained in Matter of Car- man, 3 Red/. 48. Disting'd in Ward v. Ford, 4 Id. 34, 40, 43. Examined with Drakes. Price, 5 JT. Y. 430; Hall «. Hall, 78 Id. 539'; Lansing o. Lansing, 45 Barb. 182; Mann i>. Lawrence, 3 Brarff. 424, and Ward v. Ford, 4 Red/. 45 ; Matter of Car- man, 3 Id. 47, explained in Johnson t>. Lawrence, 95 JT. Y. 154. Followed with Hall c. Hall, 18 Hun, 358, but Matter of Pirnie, 1 Tuck 119 ; Cram v. Cram, 2 Iiedf. 244 ; Matter of Carman, 3 Id. 46 ; Ward v. Ford, 4 Id. 34, disapproved in Meeker «. Crawford, 5 Id. 450. Applied (Right to compel accounting hy executors) in Matter of Ritch, 2 Redf. 332. Valk v. Crandall, 1 Sand/. Ch. 179. Ex- plained (Corporations, how created) in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 88, 11 ed. Discussed (Liability on subscription to stock) in Id. § 521, 11 ed. Vallaiioev. Bausch, 28 Barb. 633; s. c, 17 How. Pr. 243 ; 8 Abb. Pr. 368. Approved (Husband's right of administration on wife's property) in Ransom v. Nichols, 22 JT. Y. 110, 113. See Matter of Winne, 1 Lam. 608, 521. Rev'd in 2 Id. 21. Vallett v. Parker, 6 Wend. 615. Applied (Burden of proof on holder of negotiable paper, as to consideration) in Catlin v. Han- sen, 1 Duer, 323. Applied (Defense to such paper in hands of bona fide holder) in Redlich v. Doll, 54 JT. Y. 238. Disting'd (Validity of note based on sale of land made contrary to statute against champerty) in Witter «. Blodgett, 4 JT. Y. Leg. Obi. 264. Applied (Effect of note declared void by statute) in Boughner v. Meyer, 5 Col. 71 ; 40 Am. R. 139 ; Traders' B'k of Chicago v. Alsop, 64 Iowa, 97, 100. Collated with other cases in Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. o/ Exc'h. 235. Disting'd with Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. 230 (Extrinsic proof as to condition on which note was given) in Walker v. Crawford, 54 111. 444; s. c, 8- Am. R. 701, 704. Valton v. Nat. Loan Fund Ass. Co., 22 Barb.V. Rev'd, though approved in part, in 20 JT. Y. 32. Further decision in 17 Abb. Pr. 268. Rev'd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 437; s. c, 1 Reyes, 21. See Ruse v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. ; St. John v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co. Decision in 20 JT. Y. applied (Effect of fraudulent representations on contract of insurance) to contract of sale, in Smith 1 v. Countryman, Z0 Id. 672; Carr v. Schermer- horn, 3 Lans. 194; Masterton v. Beers. 6 Robt. 368, 389. Examined in Hutchins v. Cleveland Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Ohio St. 479. See cases cited in 4 Sup'm. Ct. (7 1 . & C.) 586, n. Followed (Defense that policy is void by statute is affirmative and must be pleaded) in Goodwin v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 JT. Y. 480,. 496. Applied (Assignability of life policy) in Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 Id. 593, 600. Disapproved in Waruock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775, 782. Decision in 22 Barb, relied on (Insurable interest in life of another) in Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Paterson, 41 6a. 338; s. c, 5 Am. R. 535, 539. Decision in 20 JT. Y. disapproved in Missouri Valley Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 18 Ram. 93 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 764. Collated with Swift v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 63 Id. 186; Dilleber v. Home Life Ins. Co., 69 Id. 256, and other cases in 27 Am. R. 327, n. Collated with Rawls v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. 283, and other cases, in 22 Am. L. Reg. JT. S. 389, n. Disting'd (Sufficiency of exception to evidence, without grounds being stated) in Martin v. Wagener, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 506, 509. Decision in 19 How. Pr. ap- plied (Stay of proceedings on appeal) in McMahon v. Allen, 13 Abb. Pr. 128. See cases cited pro and con in Hoyt v. Terwil- liger, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 130. Disting'd (Sufficiency of notice of judgment to limit time to appeal) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 62 Mow. Pr. 166. Decision in 17 Abb. Pr. collated with other cases (Chal- VAN alen -Van benthuysen. 789 - l'enge for principal cause) in 6 AM. 2f. C. 18, n. Van Alen v. Am. Nat. B'k. See Van Allen v. Same. -v. Feltz, 32 Barb. 139 ; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. 277. Rev'd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 439; b. c, 1 Keyes, 332. See Winchellfl. Hicks. Decision in 1 Keyes approved and followed (Sufficiency of, new promise under statute of limitations) in Lansing v. Blair, 43 N. T. 48, 51. v. Illinois Central B. K. Co. See Van Allqn v. Same. v. Rogers, 1 Johns. Cas. 281 ; s. c, Am. Dec. 1 1 3, with note (Right to mesne profits). v. Scherinerhorn, 14 How. Pr. 287. See (Limitation of action,* as affected by discon- tinuance) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 412, n. T. Vanderpool, 6 Johns. 69 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 192 ; 4 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 55, with brief note. Applied with Robert- son v. Livingston, 5 Cow. 473 ; Leland v. Douglass, 1 Wend. 490 (Right of factor to sell on credit) in Daylight Burner Co. v. Odlin, 51 N. R 56 ; s. c, 12 Am. R. 45. Van Allen v. Am. Nat. B'k, 3 Law. 517. Aff'd as Van Alen e. Same, in 52 N. Y. 1. Decision in Id. disting'd (Following prop- erty obtained by fraud) in Justh »>. Nat. B'k of Commonwealth, 56 Id. 478, 482. Approved in Dows v. Kidder, 84 Id. 121, 131. Followed (Effect of deposit of trust funds commingled with others) in Graham v. Van Duzer, 2 Eedf. 322 ; Rabel e. Griffin, N. Y. Daily Reg. Dec. 19, 1883. Approved and applied in Nat. B'k «. Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 54, 70. V. , 10 .465. Pr. If.- S. 331. See to the contrary (Double costs on appeals) Mat- thews v. Wood, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 335 ; Ahern v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 40 Row. Pr. 190. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3239, n. v. Nolan. Reported under City of Utica «. Churchill, 33 N. Y. 161. Rev'd in Van Allen ». Assessors, 3 Wall. 57S. Cited with other authorities (State tax on Federal operations) in 1 Kent Com. 429, n. 1, Holmes' ed. v. Farmers' Joint-Stock Ins. Co., 4 Run, 413; s. c, more fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 591. Rev'd in 64 K Y. 469. Further decision in 10 Run, 397. AfTd, it seems, in 72 N. Y. 604, but without opinion. See Walsh v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. Decision in 64 If. Y. disting'd, and that in 72 Id. followed (Waiver of proof of loss) in Goodwin it. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 Id. 480, 491, 495. Decision in 64 Id. applied in Bell v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 1 9 Hun, 240. Decision in 4 Run relied on with Rowleys. Empire Ins. Co., 36 If. Y. 550 (Insurance company, when estopped by conduct of agent) in Pedmont & Arlington Life Ins. Co. v. Young, 58 Ala, 476 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 770, 774, with note. v. Illinois Central It. R. Co., 7 Bosw. 515. AfTd as Van Alen v. Same, in 4 Abb. L Ct. App. Dec. 443 ; s. c, 2 Keyes, 673. Van Alst v. Hunter, 5 Johns. Ch. 148. See Stewart v. Lispenard. Quoted (Personal disabilities of testators) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 95, n. Explained in Willard on Executors, 85. Van Alstine v. Wemple. See Dykers v. Townsend. Van Alstyne v. Cook, 25 If. Y. 489. Pre- vious decision to same effect, as Artisan's Bank v. Treadwell, 34 Barb. 553. Decis- ion in 25 N. Y. followed (Appointment of receiver of limited partnership) in Whit- comb v. Fowle, 7 Abb. N.. O. 295, 298. Discussed in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 384, Wood's Am. ed. v. Erwine, 11 If. Y. 331. See Doughty v. Hope. Applied (Sufficiency of affidavit for attachment) in Easton v. Malavazi, 7 Daly, 148. v. Nat. Commercial B'k of Albany, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 449; s. c, 7 Transc. App. 241. Followed (Necessity of produc- tion of negotiable paper sued on, at trial) in Crandall v. Schrdeppel, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 78, 80. Disting'd in Johnson v. First Nat. Bank of Hoboken, 6 Hun, 124, 127. Approved anil applied to action on bond in Shillito v. Robbins, Hamilton Co. 0. Dist. Ct. 7 Cin. L. Bui. 74. v. Spraker, 13 Wend. 578. Rev'd in 18 Id. 200. See Harrison v. Stevens. Van Ambnrgh r. Baker. Reported under Wade v. Baker, 14 Run, 615. Aff'd in 81 N. Y. 46. Van Amringe v. Barnett, 8 Bosw. 357. Dis- ting'd (Effect of plea in bar as waiver of plea in statement) in Fairweather v. Satter- ly, 7 Robt. 546. Van Ankeu v. Stewart. See Bleecker •». Smith. Van Ankin v. Westfall, 14 Johns., 233. Fol- lowed (Action for slander imputing crime committed in another State) in Shipp v. McCraw, 3 Murph. (AT. 0.) 463 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 611. Van Antwerp, Matter of, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 423. AfTd in 56 K Y. 261. See Matter of Volkening. Decision in 56 N. Y. followed (Assessment as tax) in Roosevelt Hospital v. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 84 Id. 108, 118. " . Van Arsdale v. Drake, 2 Barb. 599. Ap- plied (Right of assignee for creditors to maintain partition) in Rutherford v. Hewey, 59 How. Pr. 231, 237. Van Beil v. Prescott, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 542. AfTd in 82 K Y. 630. Van Benschooteii v. Lawson, 6 Johns. Ch. 31 3 ; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 333. Disapproved (Effect of agreement for interest on arrears of interest) in Stewart ». Petree, 55 If. Y. 621, 623. Explained in Mowry v. Bishop, 5 Paige, 102. Disting'd in N. Y. Life Ins. &c. Go. 11. Manning, 3 Sand/. Ch. 59. Van Bensclioten v. Yaple, 13 How. Pr. 97. Compare (Partial defense)' Code Civ. Pro § 508. Van Bentlmysen v. Stevens, 14 Row. Pr. 790 VAN BEEGEN— VAN BUSKIEK. 70. See ("What complaint must contain) Code Girs. Pro. 1881, §481, n. Van Bergen v. Bradley, 36 K Y. 316. Overruled with Potter v. Van Vranken, Id. 619 (Appeal to the Court of Appeals, from judgment entered after order of General Term denying new trial) in Caughey ». Smith, 47 Id. 244. Disting'd in Juleand v. Kathbone, 39 Id. 371. Followed in Cole- man v. Pleystead, 40 Id. 341. t. Van Bergen, 3 Johns. Ch. 282 ; s. a, 8 Am. Dec. 51.1. Applied and approved (Relief in equity against nuisance) in Ros- ser, j>. Randolph, 7 Port. (Ala.) 238: s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 712, with note. Approved in Robeson v. Pittenger, 1 Green Ch. (N. J.) 57; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 4:12, 415, with note as laying down the true rule. Van Beuren v. Tan Gaasbeck. See Miller v. Burroughs. Van Blarcom y. Broadway B'k, 9 Bosm. 532. Rev'd in 37 N. Y. 540. Opinion of Mason, J., is in 5 Transc. App. 132. Van Bokkelen v. Taylor, 2 Sun, 138 ; s. c, 4 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 422. Rev'd in 62 K Y. 105. Van Bokkelin v. Ingersoll, 5 Wend. 315. Rev'g lngersoll v Van Bokkelin, 7 Cow. 670. Decision in 5 Wend, disapproved (Lien of master of vessel) in The Larch, 2 Curt. C. Ct. 427. Compare Drinkwater e. The .Spartan, Ware, 145. Decision in 7 Cow. followed (Damages in trover by one having special property, against stranger) in Little v. Fossett; Si- Me. 545 ;■ s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 671. Van Boskerck v. Herrick, 63 Barb. 250. Compare (Removal of testmentary trustee) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2817, 2818. Van Bracklih v. Fonda, 12 Johns. 468 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 339. See Moses v. Mead. Ex- , plained (Sale of provisions for domestic use) in Hoe v. Sanborn, 21 N. Y. 552, 561. Cited with approval in Fleet v. Hollenkemp, 13 B. Monr. (Ky.) 219 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 563, 570. Collated with Moses v. Mead, 1 Den. 378 ; Dwine v. McCormick, 50 Barb. 116 ; Burch v. Spencer, 15 Dun, 504, and other cases, in 17 Am. L. Rev. 429. Re- viewed and ^collated with other cases 'and disapproved in 22 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 232. Discussed in Benj. on Sales, § 670 n. r (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted in 2 Id. % 1012, n. 44 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.)- Van Bramer v. Cooper, 2 Johns. 279. Fol- lowed with Hartness v. Thompson, 5 Id. 160; Jackson v. Todd, 6 Id. 257 (Contracts of infant not to be avoided by third persons) in Robert v. Wiggin, 1 JV. H. 73 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 38, as conclusive. Criticised ■with Jackson®. Todd; Slocum v. Hooker, 13 Barb. 536, and other cases, in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 19. Van Brunt v. Aliearn. See Dygert v. Schenck. v. Applegate, 44 K Y. 544. See Buck- ley v. Buckley. Applied (Effect of convey- ance, &c. of partnership realty) in Tarbel v. Bradley, 7 Abb. HT. C. 283. Disting'd in Staats v. Bristow, 73 N, Y. 264, 268, a case of attachment. — v. Day, 17 Hun, 166. Rev'd in 81 N. Y. 251; s. c, 8 Abb. W. C. 330. See (Oral stipulation as ground for counter- claim in action on written agreement) Ever- son v. Fry, 72 Penn. St. 328. v. Sehencli, 11 Johns. 377. Trial at nisi prius, reported in Anth. K. P. 217. See Wickham v. Freeman. Decision in 11 Johns, applied (When, by concurring in act of trespass, one becomes trespass'er ab initio) in Lamb v. Day, 8 Verm. 407; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 479. Explained and collated with other cases (Possession, &c. as neces- sary to maintain action for trespass) in Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 362. Van Buren, Matter of, 55 How. Pr. 513 ; s. c, with affirmance, 17 Hun, 527; which was aff'd in 79 JV. Y. 384. Decision in Id. followed (Validity of assessment for drains) in Matter of Kendall, 83 Id. 613. Van Buren v. Cockbnrn, 2 Code R. 63. Subsequent decision in 14 Barb. 118. De : cision in 2 Code R. disapproved (Joinder of husband, in action affecting wife's prop- erty) in Brownson v. Gifford, 8 Sow. Pr. 389, 395 ; Ackley v. Tarbox, 29 Barb. 512. Decision in 14 Id. applied (Presumption from alterations apparent in will) in Wet- more e. Carryl, 4 Red/. 544, 552. Collated with Ridgeley v. Johnson, 11 Barb. 540; "Waring i>. Smyth, 2 Barb. Ch. 11 (Pre- sumptions from alterations of instruments) in 30 Alb. L. J. 246. v. Stokes, 1 Hun, 434. Fully reported in 3 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 511. y. Wells, 19 Wend. 203. Cited as authority (Admission or rejection of testi- mony that is prima facie, irrelevant) in Lawson «. State, 20 Ala. 65 ; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 182. Van Buskirk v. Pnrinton, 2 Hall, 561. Fol- lowed (Carrier obtaining possession of goods without authority from the owner cannot, as against such owner, set up tten for freight) in Fitch ». Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1; s. C, 40 Am. Dec. 33, 39, with note ; Sal- tus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 275 ; Hoffman v. Carow, 22 Id. 318, and other cases being cited in illustration of the general principle that the owner of property cannot be de- prived of it without his consent. See also 40 Am. Dec. 44. n., where Van Buskirk v. Purinton, and Collman v. Collins, 2 Hall, 569, are referred to as holding the doctrine of Fitch «. Newberry, and Robinson v. Baker, 5 Gush. (Mass.) 137, which relies on Saltus v. Everett, is cited at length. These cases are ; said, however, to be op- posed to the case of the Exeter carrier, cited in Yorke v. Greenaugh, 2 Ld. Ray- mond, 866, and to a dictum in King». Rich- ards, 6 Wliart. (Pa.) 418 ; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 422. Followed in Robinson v. Baker, VAN BDSKIRK— VANDERBILT. 791 5 Gush. (Mass.) 137; s. c, 51 Am. Bee. 54, 57 ; also relying on Saltus ». Everett. Ex- plained in Aug. on Can: § 360, 5 cd. v. Roberts, 14 Bow. Pr. 61. See decis- ion on the merits, in 31 Jf. Y. 661. See Bridge v. Payson. v. Warren, 34 Barb. 457 ; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. 145. Aff'd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 457 ; s. c, 2 Key eg, 119; which was rev'd in Green «. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139 ; s. c, 38 How. Pr. 53. Prior decisions in 3 Wall. 448 ; 5 M. 307. Decision in 34 Barb. ; 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. explained (Assignment of personal property when invalid in another jurisdiction though valid where made) and decision in 7 Wall, followed, in "Warner®. Jaffray, 96 K Y. 248. These various decisions collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 261. Decision in 34 Barb, relied on (Bight given by assignment of property is superior to that of subsequent- ly attaching creditor) in Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Penn. St. 354 ; s. c. 21 Am. E. 66, 72. Van Campen t. Kuight, 63 Barb. 205. Aff d in 65 N~. Y. 580. Vance v. Bloomer, 20 Wend. 196. Applied with Lobdell v. Hopkins, 5 Cow. 516 (Ne- cessity of demand and refusal, in case of contract to make payment in specific arti- cles) in Fosdick v. Greene, 27 Ohio St. 484; s. c, 22 4m. R. 328, 335. v. Phillips, 6 Bill, 43. See Smith e. Acker. Explained (Intent to defraud cred- , itors on sale qf chattels) in Bun-ill on As- sign. § 274, n. 3, 396, 4 ed.; Wait on Fraud. Com. § 204. Van Cleef v. Fleet, 15 Johns. 147. Disting'd (Sheriffs liability as affected by tender of indemnity bond) in Lummis «. Kasson, 43 Barb. 376, by which it is referred to as overruled, in Dolson v. Saxton, 11 Bun, 565, 570. Van Cleve v. Abbatt, 3 Abb. Pr. K S. 144. Disapproved (Discharge of mechanic's lien) in Dowdney v. McCollom, 5 Daly, 240, 242. Van Cortlandt v. Kip, 1 Bill. 590. Eev'd in 7 Id. 346. See Mooers v. White. Decis- ion in 1 Bill explained and applied (Effect of codicil, as re-publication of will) in Brown «. Clark, 77 Jf. Y. 375, 377. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 366, n. 3. v. Tozer, 17 Wend. 338. Affd in 29 Id. 423. v. Underbill, 17 Johns. 405. Applied (Setting aside award of arbitrators) in Viele v. Troy & Boston R. R, Co., 21 Barb. 395 ; Cole v. Blunt, 2 Bosw. 123; Story v. Elliot, 8 Cow. 27, 34; Ilalstead v. Seaman, 82 A 7 ". Y. 27, 31 ; which rev'd in effect 52 How. Pr. 415, 421, which see. Disting'd in Bushwick, &c. Turnpike Co. v. Ebbets, 3 Edw. 353, 355. Applied to award by State auditors, in State of Michigan «. Phoenix B'k, 33 N. Y. 27. Van Cott v. Van Brnnt, 2 Abb. K C. 283. Rev'd in 82 R. Y. 535. In Id. 540, fifth line from bottom, "not" should be trans- posed to seventh line from bottom, after word "should." Decision in 82 _K Y. criticised as obscure, and also disting'd (Liability of stockholder) in Jackson v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469, 483. Discussed in Morawetz on Corp. § 589, n. 2. Decision in 2 Abb. K C. disting'd (Enforcing lien of creditors of corporation on assets in hands of others) in McLean v. -Eastman, 21 Hun, 312, 314. Vandeinark v. Vandemark, 26 Barb. 416. Superseded (Appeal from surrogate's decis- ion) by Code Civ. Pro. § 2568. Yandenburgli v. Truax, 4 Ben. 464. See Dunckle v. Kocker ; Ryan v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Approved and applied (Liabil- ity for consequences of illegal act) in Mun- geri). Baker, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 123. Approved in Ryan v. N. Y. Central R. R., 35 N. Y. 210, 214. Compare Webb v. Rome, &c. R. R. Co., 49 Id. 428. Disting'd in Van Rensselaer v. Kidd, 6 Id. 335 ; Put- nam v. B'way & Seventh Ave. R. R. Co.. 55 Id. 119. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 550; Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 609. v. Van Berg/fin, 13 Johns. 212. Fol- lowed (Assignability of license to perform acts on land) in Mendenhall v. Klinck, 51 S. Y. 251. v. Van Rensselaer, 6 Paige, 147. Dis- cussed (Computation of time of running of statute of limitations) in Ang. on Limit. § 50, 6 ed. v. Village of Greenbush, 4 Hun, 795. Affd in 66 N. Y. 1. Vandenlieurel v. United Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Cas. 127. Rev'd in 2 Id. 451 ; s. c, 1 Am. Bee. 180 ; 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 575, with brief note. See Maggrath v. Church. Decision in 2 Johns. Cas. 127, followed notwithstanding reversal (Conclusiveness of foreign admiralty sentence) in Baxter v. Ins. Co., 6 Mass. 277; s. c, 4 Am. Bee. 125, 140. Decision in 2 Johns. Cas. 451, remarked, in 1 Am. Bee. 187, n., to have been decided not so much on the ground of authority as of policy. Thought in 1 6 Id. 212, n., to be opposed to weight of au- thority. See N. Y. Firemen Ins. Co. v. De Wolf, 2 Cow. 66 ; Radclift v. United Ins. Co., 9 Johns. 277, 282. Yanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 349; s. c, 9 IT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 149, with brief note. See People v. Piatt. Disting'd (Power of public authorities to abate nuis- ance) in Clark v. Mayor, &c. of Syracuse, 13 Barb. 39. Recognized as settled law, with Stuyvesant v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Cow. 588; Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 184; s. c, 22 Am. Dee. 421. Followed with Stuyvesant v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., in Wad- leigh v. Gilman, 12 Me. 403 ; s. c, 28 Am. Bee. 188, with note. Explained in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 723 ; Id. n. 2. Ap- plied (Validity of harbor regulations) in Roosevelt v. Godard, 52 Barb. 551. Ex- 792 VANDERBILT— VANDERWERKEN. plained and applied in Hoeft v. Seaman, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 62, 71. y, Armstrong, 3 Hun, 623. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 660, but ■without opinion. y. Eagle Iron "Works. See Koon v. Greenman. v. Mathis, 5 Duer, 304. Included (Re- quisites in action for malicious prosecution) in Big el. Cos. on Torts, 178. v. Richmond Turnpike , Co., 2 R. Y. 479; s. c, 51 Am. Dec' 315, with note, containing citations. Previous decision as Richmond Turnpike Co. s. Vander- bilt, 1 Hill, 480. See Wright v. Wil- cox. Decision in 2 If. Y. disting'd (Liability of principal for tortious acts of agent) by Boswokth, J., in Mechanics' B'k «. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 4 Duer, 551; Weed v. Panama R. R. Co., 5 Id. 196 ; which was aff'd in 17 N. Y. 366, which see. Applied in Isaacs v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 127. Compared in Mott v. Con- sumers' Ice Co., 73 Id. 548 ; Rounds v. Del., Lack., &c. R. R. Co., 64 Id. 135. Ex- plained in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 388, 11 ed. Vanderburgh v. Hull, 20 Wend. 70 ; s. c, 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 780, with brief note. Followed with Chase v. Barrett, 4 Paige, 160 (Essential elements of partner- ship inter se) in Price v. Alexander, 2 O. Greene (Iowa) 427; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 526, with note. Explained in 1 Pars, on Oontr. 160, n. m. Cited in Story on Partn. 7 ed. §47. Vanderheyden v. Crandall, 2 Den. 9. AfE'd in Wendell v. Crandall, 1 J<7. Y. 491. De- cision in 2 Den. re-affd (Effect of statute abolishing entails) in Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 5 Den. 35. Applied (Effect of covenant of warranty, &c. as estoppel) in Tefft v. Munson, 63 Barb. 81, 38. Exam- ined in May v. Tillman, 1 Mich. 264, citing Sherwood «. Vandenburgh, 2 Hill, 303. Commented on (Trusts to preserve contin- gent remainders) in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 523, n.l. v. Reid, HopTc. 408. Rev'd in 5 Cow. 719. ' Decision in HopTc. commented on (Jurisdiction of surrogates' courts) in Wil- lard on Execut/irs, 46. v. Vanderheyden, 2 Paige, 287 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 86, with note containing cita- tions (Compensation of trustees). y. Young, 11 Johns. 150. See Cunning- ham v. Bucklin. Applied (When person clothed with discretionary powers is to be considered as quoad hoc a judge) in Hart- ranft's Appeal, 85 Perm. St. 433 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 667. Vanderkar v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 13 Barb. 390. See Parker v. Same. Approved (Railroad cattle guards in a vil- lage, a nuisance) in Brace v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 27 N. Y. 269. Applied (Distinc- tion between effect of repealing statutes on vested rights and on penalties) in Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 Id. 38, 49. Vanderkarr v. Vanderkarr, 11 Johns. 122 • s. c, 5 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 85, with brief note. Sec Frost v. Raymond ; Greenby v. Wilcocks. Followed (Express covenants in deed as affecting implied ones) in Weems *. McCaughan, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 422; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 314. Vanderkemp y. Shelton, 11 Paige, 28. Rev'g Clarke, 321. Decision in 11 Paige followed (Effect of foreclosure of mortgage, without making junior incumbrancer a party) in Walsh v. Rutger's Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 37; Peabody v. Roberts, 47 Barb. 99. Explained at length in dissenting opinion in Gage v. Brewster. 31 N. Y. 223. Re-affd, as not shaken by Hoyt v. Hoyt, 8 Bosw. 511 (Effect of record of assignment of mortgage) in Belden v. Meeker, 2 Lans. 475. 'Cited as authority in Purdy v. Huntington, 42 JV. . Y. 349 ; Decker 1>. Boice, 83 Id. 220. See Gillig v. Maass, 28 Id. 212. Explained (Rights of purchaser of mortgaged premises) in Packer v. Rochester, &c. It. R. Co., 17 N. Y. 288. Van Der Minden v. Elsas, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 66. Compare (Alleging title in action for chattel) Code Civ. Pro. § 1720. Vanderpoel v. Van Allen, 10 Barb. 157. See Cresson v. Stout. Disting'd (Intent as governing question of fixtures) in McRea v. Central Nat. B'k of Troy, 66 K Y. 498. Cited as authority in Thomas oifMort. 48. v. Van Valkenburgh, 6 N. Y. 190. Followed (Judgment debtor as party to action in nature of creditor's bill) in Miller v. Hall, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 262, 268. Confirmed (Who may appear at probate of will, although not cited) by Code Civ. Pro. §2617. Vanderpool v. Smith, 1 Daly, 311. Affd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 461. Vanderslice v. Newton, 4 A 7 ". Y. 130. Quoted and explained (Damages as neces- sary and proximate) in 3 Pars, on ' Conlr. 176, n. p. Vander Yolgen v. Yates, 3 Barb. Ch. 242. Aff'd in 9 JV Y. 219. Decision in Id. quoted (Resulting use, — how created) in 2 Washb. on Seal Prop. 4 ed. 428. Vandervoort v. Columbian Ins. Co. See Brown v. Cattaraugus County Mut. Ins. Co.; Jennings v. Chenango Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 2 Cat. 155. See Lazier v. Westcott. Disting'd with Mumford «. Mc- Pherson, 1 Johns. 414 (Parol evidence of warranty in case of written contract) in Adams v. Gray, 8 Conn. 11; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 82, with note. See to the contrary Ionides t>. Pacific Ins. "Co., L. R. 7 Q. B. 517; 6 Id. 674; s. c, 6 Am. % L. Rev. 297. See Abb Tr. Ev. 478. Vanderwerken v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 6 Abb. Pr. 239 ; s. c, as Vandeventer r>. Same, 27 Barb. 244. Followed with Green ■o. Hudson River R. R. Co., 28 Id. 9 • Crow- ley v. Panama R. R. Co., 30 Id: 99 (Right of action for injuries causing death) in Whit- ford v. Panama R. R. Co., 23 K Y. 465, 479. YANDERWERKER-YAN DUYNE. 793 Compare Brown v. Buffalo, &c. R. R, 22 Id 11)1. Followed with Beach v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 30 Barb. 433 ; Whitford v. Panama R. R. Co., 23 K Y. 465 (Territorial scope of statute conferring right of action for damages- for death) in McCarthy v. Chi- cago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co., 18 Earn. 46; s. c, 26 Am. R. 742. Followed with "Whitford «. Panama R. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 465, in Carnahan v. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 Lid. 526 ; s. o., 46 Am. R. 175. Vanderwerker y. People. See Story «. Elliot. Vanderwiele v. Taylor, 65 N. Y. 341. Ex- plained (Nuisance on land) in Jloak's UnderHWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 459. Yanderzee v. McGregor, 12 Wend. 545 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dee. 156, with note containing , citations. See Streety v. Wood. Collated with other cases (Privileged communicatisn as determined by duty to the public) in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 172. v. Vanderzee, 30 Barb. 331. Aff' d in 36 K Y. 231. Decision in Id. followed (When devise in perpetuity may be held to convey life estate only) in Harris «. Ameri- can Bible Society, 4 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 421, 430. Decision in 30 Barb, disting'd (Effect of possession begun under lease, as adverse) in Bedell *. Shaw, 59 ST. Y 46, 50. Van Deusen v. Charter Oak Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1 Robt. 55. Followed with Con- over v. Mutual Ins. Co., 1 N. Y. 290 (Effect of mortgage, as alienation of insured prop- erty) and Riley v. Delafield, 7- Johns. 522,, disting'd" in Hennessey v. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co., 28 Hun, 98, 102. Followed in Judge v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 132 Mass. 521. Collated with other cases in 59 Am. Dec. 309, n. v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 378. See Lewis *. Jones. Disting'd (Remedy in case of deed executed by person of unsound mind) in Mitchell v. Barnes, 32 Hun, 194, 198. Com- pare cases in 3 .466. If. Y. Dig. 710 ; 1 Pars, on Contr. 385 ; Canfleld v. Fairbanks, 63 Barb. 461, and cases cited. Followed (Ef- fect of such deed) in Farley v. Parker, 6 Ore-g. 105; s. c, 25 Am. R. 504, 506. Followed (Effect of inquisition, as evidence of mental capacity) in Banker ». Banker, 63 IT. Y. 413. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 2334. Commented on ("Void" and "voidable" distinguished) in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 423, 557. v. Young, 29 Barb. 9. Rev'd in 29 2f. Y. 9, because incompetent evidence had been received, and plaintiffs were not entit- led to treble damages. See Jackson v. Brownson. Fan De Veer v. Stanton. See Smith v. Sutts. Yandeventer t. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. See Vanderwerken v. Same. Vandevoort v. Gould, 36 JV. Y. 639. Ex- plained (Measure of damages in action for mesne profits) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 666. v Palmer, 5 Duer, 077. See Norton v. Hayes. Followed (Signature to petition to remove cause) in Bell v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O: I 54. 56 Yandewalker v. Osmer, 1 'Sup'm. Ct. (V. . Greene, 45 Id. 585, 591, as overruled (Witness as incompetent because of action being prosecuted for his immediate benefit) in Freeman v. Spalding, 12 N. Y. 373 ; Butler v. Potterson, 13 Id. 292. Van Dnzer v. Howe, 21 K Y. 531. Ap- plied (Effect of negotiable paper signed in blank) in Ketchen v. Place, 41 Barb. 465, 467; Redlich v. Doll, 54 XT. Y. 238. Dis- ting'd in Chauncey v. Arnold, 24 Id. 332, 335, as inapplicable to instruments under seal. Disting'd in Ledwich v. McKim, 53 Id. 315 ; McGrath v. Clark, 56 Id. 34, 37. Approved in Garrard v. Haddan, 67 Pa. St. 82 ; s. c, 5 Am. R. 412. See cases re- viewed in 4 A lb. L. J. 70. Applied (Usury as determined by making charge for in- dorsement) in Kitchel v. Schenck, 29 N. Y. 520 ; Chatham B'k v. Betts, 37 Id. 358. Ap- plied (Liability of surety, &c. to third per- son, as affected by misrepresentation made by principal debtor) in McWilliams ». Mason, 2 Abb. Pr. K S. 218; which was affd in 31 K Y. 299, 303, which see. v. Tan Dnzer: See Schemerhorn t. Miller. Tanduzor t. Linderman. See Pangburn v. Bull. Tan Dyck v. McQuade, 57 Sow. Pr. 62; s. c, with affirmance, 45 Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) 620, and that affd in 86 K Y. 38. Other proceedings between same parties in 20 Sun, 262 ; which was affd in 85 K Y. .616. V. Tan Benren, 1 Johns. 345; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 168, with brief note. Approved with Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. 564; Crawford v. Morell, 8 Johns. 253 (Effect of contract void and illegal by stat- ute as to part) in Goodman t>. Newell, 13 Conn. 75 ; s. c, 33 Am. Dee. 378. v. , 1 Gai. 84. Commented on (Ejectment against co-tenants) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 289. Tan Dyke v. Jackson, 1 E. D. Smith, 419. Disting'd (Limit of right of individual part- ner to benefits growing out of partnership relation) in Mitchell v. Reed, 61 N. Y. 123, 140. Tan Ellen v. Carrier, 29 Barb. 644. Aff'd as Van Etten v. Currier, in 4 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 475 ; s. c, 3 Keyes, 329. Tan Epps v. Harrison, 5 Hill, 63 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 314, with extended note. Subse- quent decision in 1 Den. 246. Explained (Liability for false representations on sale, &c. of land) in Clarke v. Baird, 7 Barb. 67. Approved and applied in WTiitiley v. Allaire, 1 JST. Y. 312. Applied in Ham- mond v. Pennock, 61 Id. 151. Applied to sale of chattels, in Smith v. Countryman, 30 Id. 669 ; Ellis v. Andrews, 56 Id. 86. Disapproved in Holbrook e. Connors, 60 Me. 578; s. c, 11 Am. P. 216. Shown in 2 Am. Dec. 80, n., to be in conflict with cases cited from Me.. Mass. and 111. Ap- plied (Rescission of contract for fraud to breach of warranty) in Gillespie v. Torrance, 25 N. Y. 310. Applied (Want of conside- ration as defense to sealed consideration) in Anthony v. Harrison, 19 Run, 208. Dis- ting'd (Recoupment for fraud, in proceed- ing for recovery of mortgage debt) in Reed v. Latson, 15 Barb. 16. v. Tan Deasen, 4 Paige, 64 ; s. a, 25 Am. Dec. 516. Applied (Dismissal of bill for want of parties) in Hutchinson v. Reed, Hoffm. 320. Followed and approved (Com- pelling one who takes and uses property of infant to account as guardian) in Davis v.- Harkness, 1 Gilm. {III.) 173 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 184, 189, with note. v. Tan Epps, 9 Paige, 237. See Davoue v. Fanning. Applied (One standing in situation of trust, when precluded from purchasing trust property) in Conger v. Ring, 11 Barb. 366; Fulton ». Whitney, 66 N. Y. 556 ; Bennett v. Austin, 81 Id. 308, 322. Applied (Extent to which one so purchasing is protected) in Currie v. Cowles, 6 Bosw. 462. Van Eps v. Dillaye. See Arnold v. Camp. v. Mayor, &c. of Schenectady' 12 Johns. 436 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 330. See Nixon v. Hyserott. Followed (What will satisfy covenant to give deed) in Kctchum v. Evert- son, 13 Johns. 363 ; Gazley v. Price, 1 6 Id. 269. Disting'd in Parker v. Parmele, 20 Id. 135 ; Fletcher v. Button, 4 K Y. 401 ; Del- avan v. Duncan, 49 Id. 486. See Burwell v. Jackson, 9 Id. 544. Examined at length with Ketchum ®. Evertson, 13 Johns. 363 ; Bates ». Delavan, 5 Paige, 307 ; Matter of Hunter, 1 Edw. 6, in Bowen ». Vickers, 1 Green Gh. (JST. J.) 520 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 516, 519, with note. Explained and Mills v. Hunt, 17 Wend. 333 ; 20 Id. 431, relied on in Jcnness v. Wendell, 51 JV. II. 63 ; s. c, 11 Am. B. 48, 49, 51. Tan Etten v. Currier. See Van Ellen v. Carrier. v. Hnrst, 6 Sill, 311 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 748, with note wherein are collected citations. Disting'd (Attachment against nonresident) in Taylor «. Heath, 4 Den. 596. v. Trondden, 1 Sun, 432. Fully re- ported in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 603 ; 67 Barb. 342. Van Geisen v. Fuller, 4 Sill, 171. Affd in Sow. App. Cos. 240, but without opinion. Van Gelder v. Van Gelder, 13 Hun, 118. Further proceeding in 77 AT". Y. 446. Sub- sequent proceedings between same parties in 26 Hun, 356 ; which was aff'd as Vau Gelder VAN GIESEN— YAN KEUKEN ■795 v. Hallenbeck, 89 K T. 633. With decis- ion in 13 Eun compare (Costs on appeal) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 3239, 3251, subd. 4. Vail Giesen v. Bridgford, 18 Eun, 73. Aff'd as Van Giessen «. Same, in 83 N. Y. 348. Van Gieson v. Van Gieson, 12 Bosw. 520. AffdinlO N~. Y. 316. Van Gordon v. Jackson. See Jackson v. Lucett. Van Gnysling v. Van Kuren, 35 N. Y. 70. See Delafleld v. Parish. Followed (Testa- mentary capacity) in Kinne v. Johnson, 60 Barb. 69, 72 ; McLaughlin's Will, 2 Bedf. 504, 512. Van Hagen v. Van Rensselaer. See Free- man v. Adams. Van Heusen v. Radcliff, 17 N~. Y. 580. Fol- lowed (Rights as against unrecorded mort- gage, &c.) in Hoyt v. Hoyt, 8 Bosw. 527. Disting'd in Fraser v. Gilbert, 11 Hun, 637. Applied in Field v. Baker, 12 Blatchf. C. Ct. 438, 443. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 391, 4 ed. Followed (Filing of chattel mortgage) in Piatt v. Stewart, 13 Blatchf. C. Ct. 481, 496. Van Hoesen v. Coventry, 10 Barb. 518. Fol- lowed (Right of riparian proprietor to rea- sonable use of water) in Elliot v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 10 Cash. 191 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 86, with note. v. Van Alstyne, 3 Wend. 75. See Yreeland v. Hyde. Approved, notwith- standing reversal (Reasonable time within which to demand payment of note payable on demand) in Salmon v. Grosvenor, 66 Barb. 161, 164, 167. Van Hook v. Whitlock, 3 Paige, 409. Sub- sequent decision in 2 Edw. 304; which was aff'd in 7 Paige, 373, and that aff d on other grounds, in 26 Wend. 43 ; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 246, with note. See Corning v. Mc- Cullough ; Humbert v. Trinity Church. Decision in 7 Paige explained (Demurrer on ground of action being barred by lapse of time) in -Fellers «. Lee, 2 Barb. 490. Commented on in Ang. on, Limit. § 294, 6 ed. Explained and criticised (Nature of stockholder's liability) in Lowry v. Inman, 2 Sweeny, 117, 138. Decision in 26 Wend. explained (Limitation of action against stockholders) in Freeland v. McCullough, 1 Den, 424. The various decisions herein examined, in Corning v. McCullough, 1 If. Y. 47, 72. Decision in 3 Paige followed in Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 155. Commented on in Ang. on Limit. § 115, 6 ed. Cited and collated with other cases (Limitation of action based on statute) in Cowenhoyen v. Freeholders of Middlesex, 15 Vroom (iV. J.) 232; s. c, 15 Reporter, 116. Decision in 26 Wend, explained and Van Raugh v. Van Arsdaln, 3 Cai. 155, relied on (Right of foreign creditor in re- gard to discharge under insolvent law) in Jones v. Horsey, 4 Hd. 306; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 81. Approved in Davidson v. Smith, . 1 BUs. 353. Applied (Estoppel to assert unconstitutionality of provision) in Vose 0. Cockcroft, 44 N. Y. 423. Van Hoozer v. Cory, 34 Barb. 9. See Milk- man v. Neher ; Strong v. Taylor. Disting 4 (Acquisition of property having a potential existence) in Stephens v. Santee, 49 AT. Y. 35, 40; Low v. Pew, 108 Mans. 347; s. c, 11 Am. E. 357. Followed and approved with Conderman v. Smith, 41 Barb. 404, in Arques v. Wasson, 51 Cal. 620 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 718. Van Horn v. Kcrinit, 4 E. D. Sm%th, 453. See Weeks v. N. Y., New Haven, &c. R. R. Co. Explained (Carrier's liability for bag- gage) in Ang. on Carr. § 113, n. a, 5 ed. Van Home v. Crain. See Norman v. Wells. v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch. 388. See Bur- hans i>. Van Zandt. Applied (Purchase by co-tenant, when for common benefit) in Levy v. Brush, 8 Abb. Pr, N. S. 430; Swinburne v. Swinburne, 28 N. Y, 572. Disting'd in Burhans v. Van Zandt, 7 Barb. 102 ; which was rev'd in 7 AT- Y. 627, which see; Harvey v. Cherry, 12 Hun, 557; Wells v. Chapman, 4 Sandf. Ch. 341. Disting'd with Holridge v. Gillespie, 2 Johns. Ch. 33, in Sneed's Heirs v. Atherton, 6 Dana (Ky.) 276'; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 70. Ex- plained in Rothwell v. Dewey, 2 Black 613, 618. Fully approved by Story, J., in Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 522, and see cases cited in 28 Am. Dee. 84, n. Commented on in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 292. Applied (Fiduciary relation, as creating disability to purchase) in Baker 65 ; Meacham «. Burke, 54 Id. 219. Applied (Review by Court of Appeals of order respecting ref- eree's findings) in Quincey v. Young, 53 Id. 506. Applied (Sufficiency of findings, in referee's report) in Dolan v. Merritt, 18 Hun, 28. T. Lettice. See Larkin «. Robbins ; Mil- ler ■». Van Auken. v. Shclden, 9 Barb. 278. Disting'd (What mortgage may be foreclosed by ad- vertisement) in Mowry v. Sanborn, 62 Id. 223, 230. Van Steenberg t. Bigelow, 3 Wend. 42. Examined and applied (Validity of special statutory proceedings) in Pouter v. Purdy, 29 N. Y. 108. ■ T. Kortz, 10 Johns. 167. Approved (Requisites of crime of perjury) in Pratt v. Price, 11 Wend. 128; Chamberlain v. Peo- ple, 23 JV. Y. 85, 88. Applied in State®. Whittemore, 50 jy". LT. 245; s. c, 9 Am. R. 196, 199. t. Tobias, 17 Wend. 562. Sec (Action for injury done by animals belonging to different persons) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3109, n. Van Tassel v. Capron, 1 Den. 250; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 667, with note wherein are col- lected citations. Explained (Slander against one in his professional capacity) in MoaVs UnderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 121. t. Wood, 12 Hun, 388. Eev'd in 76 A". • Y, 614. Van Tine v. Crane, 1 Wend. 524. Explained (Liability on note joint and several in terms, made in partnership name) in Snow 1). Howard, 35 Barb. 55, 57. Van Tuyl v. Van Tnyl, 67 Barb. 235; s. c, 8 Abb. Pr. K 8. 5. Disting'd with Matter of Taylor, 9 Paige, 614 (Admissibility of declarations of person as to fact of his mar- riage) in Badger v. Badger, 88 iV. Y. 640. See to the contrary (Exclusion of assignor as witness) Lyon v. Snyder,' 61 Barb. 172. Sec also Abb. Tr. Ev. 64. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 67 Barb. 72. Affd in 55 N. Y. 657. Van Valeu v. Lapham, 13-i&W; Pr. 240. Disting'd (Effect of counterclaim arising after commencement of action) in Howard v. Johnston, 82 N. Y. 271, 275. Van Valkeiiburgh v. Am. Popular Life Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 583. Affd in 70 N. Y. 605. See Murray v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Astor Mnt. Ins. Co., 1 Bosw. 61. Explained and disting'd (Implied warranty of seaworthiness) in Hathaway v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co.. 8 Id. 33, 63. v. Bates, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 314. Pol- lowed (Action in aid of attachment) in Lupton v. Smith, 3 Hun, 1. v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 28 How. Pr. 239; s. c, more fully, 43 Barb. 109. See cases cited (Municipal corporation as public agent) in 8 Abb. If. C. 280, n. v. Watson, 13 Johns. 480 ; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 395. Disting'd and Raymond r>. Loyl, 10 Barb. 483, followed (Liability of parent for necessities furnished his minor child) in Kelly v. Davis, 49 N. H. 176; s. c, 6 Am. R. 499, 503, 506. Questioned with Edward 1>. Davies, 16 Johns. 285 ; Matter of Rider, 11 Paige, 188, in Tyler on Inf. & Con. 2 ed. § 65. Van Vechten v. Griffiths, 4 Abb. Gt. App-. Dee. 487. 'Cited (Effect of recitals iu admiralty decree to bind strangers) iu 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 814. t. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 211; s. c, 4 Am. Dee. 339, with extended note, wherein it is said to be a leading American case, and be- cause of its clear exposition of terms to have been highly regarded as authority, its defi- nitions being generally accepted by the courts ; see especially McLaughlin v. Rus- sell, 17 Ohio, 475, where it is disting'd and approved, and Gibson v. Williams, iWend. 320, disapproved (Testimony of witnesses as to construction of libel). See Fry v. Ben- nett. Cited with approval (Necessity of sufficient colloquium to support innuendo) in Peterson v. Sentman, 37 Md. 140 ; s. c, 11 Am. B. 534. Applied with Fry v. Ben- nett, 5 Sand/. 65 (Office of innuendo) in Bundy a Hart, 46 Mo. 460 ; s. c, 2 Am. 11. 525. Included with notes in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 138. v. Paddock, 12 Johns. 178; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 303. Reviewed with Houghtaling v. Osborn, 15 Johns. 119; Strong v. Elliot, 8 Cow. 30, and other cases (Validity of official acts done on SundayVin Reid v. State, 53 Ala. 402 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 627, 633. Re- viewed with other cases in Re Worthington, 16 Banhr. Reg. 52. VAN YECHTEN— VAN WYCK. 801- t. Pruyn, 9 Sow. Pr. 222. Affd in 18 N. Y. 649. Decision in- Id. included (No- tice of protest, where to be served) in 2 Ames Oas. on B. & N. 43.8. v. Van Veghten, 8 Paige, 104. Dis- cussed (Suspension of power of alienation) in 4 Kent Com. 271, %. g. Quoted- (Wills, when taking effect) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 601, n. Van Vleck v. Burroughs, 6 Barb. 341. Fol- lowed (Interposition of statute of limitations in proceedings before surrogate) in Clock v. Chadeagne, 10 Sun, 97, 101, 104. Tan Yleet v. Slauson, 48 Barb. 317. Ap- proved and disting'd (Provisions in assign- ment act, when, director}') in Hardman v. Bowen, 39 J7. Y. 200. Disting'd in Eenuie v. Bean, 24 Hun. 128, 127. , Van Voorhis v. Bi-intnall, 23 Sun, 264. Rev'd in 86 N. Y. 18; s. c, 21 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 9, with note. See Ormes v. Dauchy; People v. Baker. Decision in 86 if. Y. Hollowed (Re-marriage in another State, after divorce for adultery) in Thorp o. Thorp, 90 Jf. Y. 602, 605 ; Moore e. Hegeman, 92 Id. 521, 524; People v. Chase, 28 Sm, 310, 313. Criticised in 17 Am. L. Rev., If. 8. 166. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 598, n. 1, Keller's ed. See Abb. Ann. Big. 1882-3, 146, n. -■ — V. Budd, 39 Barb. 479. See Franklin v. Talmadge. Disting'd (Middle letter ,of name) in Kortz v. Canvassers of Greene County, 12 Abb. if. 0. 84. Vail Wagenen v. Clark, 22 Sun, 497. Mo- tion for re-argument denied, it seems, in 23 Id. 354, but without opinion. Van Wagner v. Terrett, 27 Barb. 181. Followed (Acceptance of draft, when not to be regarded as guaranty) in Gallagher v. Nichols, 60 JT. K 438, 445. Van Wart t. Smith, 1 Wend. 219 ; s. c, 9 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 894, with brief note. Van 'Wert v. Benedict, 1 Bradf. 114. Dis- regarded as obiter dictum (Married woman's power to make will) in Wadhams v. Amer- ican Hdme Missionary Society, 12 N. Y. 415, 424. Van Wezel v. Van Wezel, 1 Edw. 1 13. Aff M in 3 Paige, 38. See Watson v. Nelson. Decision in 3 Paige followed (Discharge of one committed for non-payment of money) in People ex rel. Crouse v. Cowles, 3 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 513. v. Wyckoff, 3 Sandf. Oh. 528. Dis- ting'd (Limitation of action to reach assets, of decedent's estate) on Malloy v. Vander- bilt, 4 Abb. If. C. 127, 130. Van Winkle v. Udall, 1 Sill, 559. Compare (Effect of levy of one of several executions by sheriff) Fenton v. Folger, 21 Wend. 676 ; Ball v. Liney, 48 K Y. 6 ; Davy v. Field, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 490. -Disapproved in Banks v. Evans, iQ^medes & M. (Miss.) 35; s. c, 48 Am. Sec. 734, 741, with note v. U. S. Mail S. S. Co., 37 Barb. 122. See Bliven v. Hudson River R. R. Qo. I.— 51 Disting'd (Carrier's liability as to goods taken by process of law) in Mierson®. Hope, 2 Sweeny, 561, 574. Van Woert v. Albany & Susq. K. R. R. Co., 67 AT. Y. 538". Aff'g 1 Supm. Gt.(T. & C.) 256. Decision in 67 JT. Y. explained (Ac- ceptance in case of sale of goods over fifty dollars in value) in 1 Ben), on Sales, § 139, n. 1, subd. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Van Wornier v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 15 Wend. 262. Aff'd in 18 Id. 168.' Decision in 15 Id disting'd (Power of public author- ities to cause destruction of private prop- erty, as nuisance) in Clark v. Mayor, &c. of Syracuse, 13 Barb. 40 ; Rogers a. Barker, 31 Id. 455. Applied in Cooper v. Schultz, 32 Sow. Pr. 122; Weil ■». Schultz, 33 Id. 8. Both decisions explained in Reynolds v. Schultz, 34 Id. 147, 156. Decision in 15 Wend, followed (Corporator, as party within rule excluding party as witness) in Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 N. Y. 492. Van Wvck v. Allen, 6 Bah, 376. Aff'd in 69 N. Y. 61 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 136. See Passenger v. Thorburn. v. Alliger, 6 Barb. 507. Referred to as repudiated by Van Deusen v. Young, 29 Id. 9 (Rights of one in possession of laud un- der contract of sale, as to cutting of timber) in Cook v. Doolittle, 5 Hun, 342. — - v. Aspinwall, 17 'N, Y. 190. Aff'g Same v. Guthrie, 4 Duer, 268. See Sfreety v. Wood. Decision in 17 JT F. examined (Privileged statement by physician) in Per- kins v. Mitchell, 31 Barb. 461, 466, 468. Collated with other cases and explained in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 171. v. Baker, 10 Sun, 39. Further decis- ions in 11 Id,,. 309 ; 16 Id. 168. See Boyd v. Dunlap. Decision in 11 Sim followed ( Costs to abide event) in Mott ». Consumers' Ice Co., 8 Daly, 244, 246. Disting'd in Sheridan v. Genet, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 310, n. Disting'd and questioned (Costs, on ground of claim of title to real property being in- volved) in Black v. O'Brien, 23 Sun, 82, 84. Disting'd (Discontinuance, when allowed without costs) in Cole ». Rose, 65 Sow. Pr. 520. v. Bauer, 9 Alb. Pr. JT. S; 142. See (Attachment of property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. VII, tit. Ill, art. 1, n. v. Bradly, 3 Code R. 157. Said not to have been generally accepted as authority. (Examination of debtor in supplementary proceedings on questions of fraud) in Clapp v. Lathrop, 23 Sow. Pr. 423, 443. v. Guthrie. See Van Wyck v. Aspin- wall. v. Hardy, 11 Abb. Pr. 473; s. c, 20 Sow. Pr. 222. Aff'd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 496 ; s. c, 39 Sow. Pr. 392. Decision in 11 Abb. Pr. explained and limited (Suffi- ciency of affidavit to obtain order for ser- vice by publication) in Peck v. Cook, 41 Barb. 549, 554. Said not to have been over- ruled,— in Steinle v. Bell, 12 Abb. Pr. If. S. 171, 173. 802 VAN WYCK— VASSEUR T. Mclntosli, 14 If. Y. 439. Followed (Comparison of handwriting) in Hardy v. Norton, 66 Barb. 527, 537, 538; B'k of ■ Commonwealth v. Mudgett, 44 iV. Y. 524. Applied in Hoyt v. Stuart, 3 Bosw. 447, 450. Reviewed with other cases in Miles v. Loomis, 10 Hun, 372, 376; which was aff'd ■ in 75 If. Y. 288, 294, which see. Disting'd in Pontius v. People, 82 Id. 339, 349. See cases cited in 6 Am. Dec. 172, n. v. Seward 6 Paige, 62. Aff'd in 18 Wend. 375. Both decisions examined (Voluntary conveyance, when fraudulent as to creditors) in Babcock v. Eckler, 24 If. Y. 628. Decision in 6 Paige applied in Dun- lap v. Hawkins, 59 N. Y: 342, 347. v. Walters, 16 Hun, 209. Aff'd in. 81 If. Y. 352, as Van Wyck «. Watters. Both decisions followed with Guardian Mnt,. Life Ins. Co. v. Kashaw, 66 If. Y. 544 (Agent's bonus not principal's usury) in accordance . with the prevailing doctrine, — in Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, 499. v. Watters. See Same v. Walters. Van Zandt v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 8 Bosw. 375. See Whitney v. Same. Explained (Right to wharfage) in Langdon v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. If. C. 314, 326. v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 55 If. Y. 169; s. c, 14 Am. R. 215. Mem. of de- cision below in 6 Alb. L. J. 96. See Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Decision in 55 If. Y. approved (Effect of condition in policy as to self-destruction of assured) in De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 65 Id. 236. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 476, n. 1, Keller's ed. Applied (Evidence of non-professional wit- ness, as to sanity) in Higbee v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 66 Barb. 466. Disting'd in Koenig v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., 10 Hun 559 Varet v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 7 Paige, 560. Aff'd in N. Y. Ins. Co. v. Roulet, 24 Wend. 505. Varian v. Stevens, 2 Duer, 635. Compare (Power to appoint guardian) Towsey v. Harrison, 25 How. Pr. 266. Varick v. Briggs, 6 Paige, 323. Aff d in 22 Wend.. 543. Decision in 6 Paige disting'd (Purchaser as affected by notice of prior equities) in Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 If. Y. 117. Compared in Westbrook v. Gleason, 79 Id. 81. v. Edwards, Hoffm. 382. Aff'd in 11 Paige, 290; which wasrev'd in 5 Den. 664. See Kane v. Bloodgood. Decision in 5 Den. overruled (Release of devisee's contingent interest) in Miller v. Emans, 19 If. Y. 384. Decision in Hoffm. approved (Judgment of court of common law, when not bar to relief in equity) as supported both by authority and principle, — 'in 'Hunt v. Danforfh, 2 Curt. O. Ct. 592. Decision in 11 Paige followed as decisive (Running of statute of limita- tions in case of eviction of one to whom land belongs in equity) in Bartlett «. Judd, 21 N. Y. 200, 205. y. Jackson, 2 Wend. 166 ; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 571. See other decisions involving same facts as Pelletreau v. Jackson, .11 Wend. 110 ; Varick v. Edwards, Hoffm. 382. Decision in 2 Wend, disting'd (Estoppel to allege incompetency of witness) in Mont- gomery ■». Miller, 3 Red/. 159. v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥. See Dygert v. Schenck. V. Smith, 5 Paige, 137; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 417, with note wherein it is shown to have been frequently cited and approved. Subsequent decision in 9 Paige, 547. De- cision in 5 Id. applied (Limit of right of eminent domain) in People «. Ccmni'rs of Highways of Palatine, 53 Barb. 75. De- cision in 9 Paige approved in State v. Brown, 3 Butcher (N. J.) 13. Decision in 5 Paige disting'd (Evidence that use for which property is taken is public; in Matter of Deansville Cemetery Assoc, 66 If. Y. 572. Thought in 22 Am. Dec. 691, n., to have been somewhat misapprehended by authorities there cited. Disting'd (Joinder of causes of action) in Latting v. Latting, 4 Sandf. Oh. 36. Followed with Brinkerhoff ■b. Brown, 6 Johns.. Oh. 150, in De Louis v. Meek, 2 O. Greene (Iowa) 55; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 491, 500, with note. Reviewed with other cases (Navigable streams) in Peo- ple v. Canal Appraisers, 33 If. Y. 479. Decision in 9 Paige collated with other cases in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 48. V. Tallman, 2 Barb. 113. See Jackson v. Roberts. With this case and Leggett v. Rogers, 9 Barb. 406, see to same effect (Comptroller's deed as evidence of regular- ity of his proceedings) Jackson v. Morse, 18 Johns. 441; Tallman v. White, 2 If. Y. 66; Bank of Dtica v. Mersereau, 3 Barb. Ch. 528, 578. See also Hoyt s. Dillon, 19 Barb. 644, a case of a deed from common council of Brooklyn. • Vartie v. Underwood,' 18 Barb. 561. See Denton v. Nanny ; Swaine v. Perine. , Ap- plied (Right of surety to have fund belong- ing to principal exhausted before resort to surety) in Wright v. Austin, 56 Barb. 19.- Disapproved (Dower in surplus on mortgage foreclosure) in Newhall v. Lynn Savings Bank, 101 Mass. 432; s. c, 3 Am. R. 389. Collated with other cases in Colby on Pored. 54. Vary v. Godfrey, 6 Cow. 587. Explained and applied (Affidavit, &c. in action, when not to be taken before attorney therein) in Bliss v. Molter, 8 Abb. If. C. 242. Vassar v. Camp, 14 Barb. 341. Aff'd in 11 If. Y. 441, 453. Derision in Id. applied (Contract, as created by acceptance by let- ter) to acceptance by telegraph, in Trevor *. Wood, 36 Id. 309. • Vassear v. Livingston. See Vasseur «. Same. Vasseur v. Livingston, 4 Duer, 285. Aff'd in Vassear v. Livingston, 13 If. Y. 248. See Leavenworth v. Packer. Decision in 4 Duer applied (Counterclaim in action by assignee) in Wiltsie v. Northam, 3 Bosw. VATEL-VEROXA CENTRAL CHEESE FACTORY. 803 168. Decision in 13 K Y. applied (Neces- sity of reply to counterclaim) in Nichols v. Boerum, 6 Abb. Pr. 291. Disting'd in Van Valen v. Lapham, 13 Eow. Pr. 247. Vatel v. Herner, 1 Eilt. 149. Collated with other cases (Eviction of lessee) in McAdam on Landl. &T.% ed. § 212. Vauglian v. Burford, 3 Bradf. 78. Over- ruled, in effect (Necessity of attestation before signing of will), in Jackson v. Jack- son, 39 JV. T. 153. Followed (Proof of . publication of will) in Burk's Will, 2 liedf. 239, 242. Vaughn v. Ely, 4 Barb. 159. See (Divesting of title to real property on execution sale) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1440, n. Vaupell v. Woodward, 2 Sandf. Ch. 143. Collated with other cases (Waiver of ten- der) in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 154. Vedder v. Fellows, 20 JV. Y. 126. See to the contrary (Eight of judge to express opinion on evidence) Massoth v. Delaware, &c. Canal Cp., 64. Id. 524, and 'cases there cited. Explained (Reasonableness of cor- porate bv-lajvs) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 349, n. 1." v. Van Bnren, 14 Eun, 250. See (Notice of appeal from justices' decision) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. v. Vedder, 1 Den. 257. Compare (Effect of receipt in full) Ryan v. Ward, 48 JV. Y: 204. Explained and limited in Crumley v. Webb, 44 Mo. 444, 456. Ex- plained (Discharge of claim for personal injury) in MoaVs Underbill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 84. Explained (Effect of agreement to cancel and release mutual claims) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 685, n. p. Veeder v. Baker, 10 Weekly Dig. 498 ; mem. s. c, 22 Eun, 318. Rev'd in 83 iV. Y. 156. v. Cooley, 2 Eun, 74; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 245. Applied (Allegations of fraud as determining character of action) in Sparman v. Keim, 83 JV. Y. 245, 250. v. Fonda, 3 Paige, 94. See Upton- e. Vail. Disting'd and limited (Relief against mistake as to quantity, on sale of- real estate) in Paine «. Upton, 21 Eun, 306, 311. Veltman v. Thompson, 3 JV. Y. 438. Dis- ting'd (Lien on vessel) in Mott v. Lansing, 57 Id. 112, 116. Vence y. Vence, 15 Eow. Pr. 497. Affd in . Id. 576. Verastegui t. Lnzunariz, 25 Eun, 119, opin- ion not reported; abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 489. Verdlu v. Slocum, 9. Eun, 150. Rev'd in 71 JV. Y. 345. Decision in Id. disting'd (Trust attempted to be created by will, when invalid, as passive) in Donovan v. Van Do Mark, 78 i^. 244, 248. Vermillya v. Odell, 1 Edw. 617. AfTd in 4 Pavje, 121. Vermilya v. Austin, 2 E. D. Smith, 203. Affd in Christopher v. Austin, 11 JV". Y. 216. T. Beatty, 6 Barb. 429. Explained (Place of trial of actions affecting realty) in Sedgw. & W..on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 469. Vermilyea, Ex parte, 6 Cow. 555. See (Opinion that disqualifies juror) People *. Bodine, 1 Edm. 36, 91. Followed with People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. 108; People t>. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, in Nelms v. State, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 500; s. c, 53 Am. Dee. 94. Compare Jones v. People, 2 Colo. 351 ; Eirsch on Juries, § 349. Vermilyea v. Fulton B'k, 1 Paige, 37. Noted (Officers of corporation, as parties to proceedings against corporation) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 675, 11 ed. v. Palmer, 52 JV: Y. 471. Followed (Effect of findings by jury in equitable ac- tion) in Carroll v. Deimel, 13 Weekly Dig. 401. Applied (Adoption of special verdict) in Madison University v. White, 25 Eun, 490, 4;l4. V. Vermilyea, 14 Eow. Pr. 470. See (Injunction pending action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §604, n. Vermont Central R. R. Co. r. Northern R. R. Co., 6 Eow. Pr. 106. See (Change of venue) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 986, n. Vernam v. Harris, 1 Eun, 451 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 483. See to the contrary (Effect of note of one of joint debtors, as payment) Palmer v. Priest, 1 Sprague, 512. See also Abb. Tr. En. 806. Veruol v. Vernol, 2 Ilun, 676 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 087. Rev'd in 63 JV Y. 45. Vernon v. Manhattan Co., 17 Wend. 524. Affd in 22 Id. 183. Both decisions applied (Right to notice. of dissolution of partner- ship) in Wardwell «. Haight, 2 Barb. 553. , Decision in 22 Wend, applied in Mechan- ics' B'k v. Livingston, 33 Barb. 462 ; Clapp v. Rogers, 12 JV. Y. 286 ; City B'k of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 Id. 242; Aus- tin i:. Holland, 69 Id. 573. Applied with National B'k v. Norton, 1 Eill, b72 ; Ward- well i'. Haight, 2 Barb 549 ; Clapp v. Rog- ers, 2 Kern. 283, in Rose v. Coffield, 53 Md. 18; s. c, 36 Am. J?. 389, the contrary statements in City B'k of Brooklyn v. Mc- Chesney, 20 JV, F. 240, being c disapproved as a dictum. Decision in 17 Wend, followed in Watkinson v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 482;. s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 522. T. Vernon, 7 Lans. 492. Modified in 53 JV. Y. 351. Decision in Id. applied (Sufficiency of form of words to create trust) in Chipman i>. Montgomery, 4 Eun, 748; Donovan v. Vandemark, 18 Id. 201. Disting'd (Effect of power to give fee) iu Robert v. Corning, 23 Id. 299, 306. Ap- plied (Power to receive rents and profits, when implied) in Marx v. McGlynn, 4 Eedf . 487. See (Interest, when vested in benefic- iary under will) Embury v. Sheldon, 2 Abb. JV. C. 404. Verona Central Cheese Factory t. Jttur- taugh, 50 JV. Y. 314. See (Liability of 801 YEEPLANCK— VILLAGE OF COIIOES. persons supplying milk to cheese factories) L. 1876, c. 101. ' See (Evidence of motive or intent) Cowley v. People, 8 Abb. N. 0. 1 ; Id. 3, n. Ycrplaiick v. Caines, 1 Johns. Oh. 57. Ex- plained (Appointment of receiver of part- nership) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 385, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 1 Edw. 46. Subsequent decisions in Id. 84:; 2 Paige, 438. See Attorney- General v. Utica Ins. Co.; Bank Comm'rs ». Bank of Buffalo; Carpenter v. Danforth ; Sc >tt v. Depeyster. Decision in 1 Edw. 46, approved (Limit of right of amendment of bill) in, Shields v. Barrow, 17 Mow. (IT. S.) 130. Compare, for rule under Code, Brown v. Leigh, 12 Abb. Pr. N: 8. 193. Applied (Enjoining operations of corporation) in Fisher v. World Mut. Ins. Co., 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 363, 366. Decision in 1 Edw. 84, applied (Duty of trustees of corporation toward it and its shareholders) in Parsons ». Hayes, 14 Abb. N. C. 419. Followed (Stockhold- ers of corporation are not its creditors) in Coulter v. Robertson, 24 Miss 278 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 168. Decision in 2 Paige, applied (Proceeding by stockholder to enforce dissolution of corporation) in Mas- ters v. Eclectic Life Ins. Co.,- 6 Daly, 455, 457. Quoted (Stage of action at which re- ceiver is to be appointed) in High on Receiv. §113. n. 4. v. Van Buren, 11 Him, 328. Rev'd in effect in 76 tf.Y. 247. Contrary to latter decision see (Impeachment of judgment for fraud) Krekeler o. Ritter, 62 Id. 372. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 831: Verplank v. Sterry. See Sterry v. Arden. Vindero v. Viadero, 7 Dun, 313. See (Ne exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, n. Viall v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co., 19 Barb. 440. Relied on with Buckbee v. CI. S. Ins. & Trust Co., 18 Barb. 541 (Waiver of for- feiture of insurance policy) in Walsh v. jEtna Life Ins. Co., 30 Iowa, 133; s. c, 6 Am. R. 664, 669. Cited as authority in Osterloh v. New Denmark, &c. Ins. Co., 60 Wis. 126, 128. See Bennecke v. Conn. Mutual Ins. Co., 105 U. 8. 355, 360. Viaiiy t. Ferran, 54 Barb. 529 ; s. c, with points of counsel, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 110. Vibbard v. Johnson, 19 Johns. 77. See Frisbie v. Hoffnagle. Doubted (Want of title in vendor as defence to action for price) in Walker v. Squires, Hill & D. 23, 26. Disting'd with Case «. Hall, 24 Wend. 102, in Estelle v. Peacock, 48 Mich. 469, 471. Disting'd in Matheny «. Mason, 73 Mo. 677; s. c, 39 Am. R. 541. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 cd. § 1062, n. 3. Viburt t. Frost, 3 Abb. Pr. 119; s. c, as Hobart v. Frost, 5 Dner, 672. Approved (Effect of voluntary appearance) in Bing- ham v. Disbrow, 14 Abb. Pr. 25 1 , 257. Dissented from with Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of.N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. 4; G Id. 6 (Mode of taking objection to jurisdiction) in Hotch- kiss v. Elting, 36 Barb. 38, 51. Tickery v. Dickson, 35 Barb. 06. Further decision in 62 Id. 272. Victory v. Baker, 67 If.- Y. 366. Explained (Liability for injury resulting from danger- ous condition of premises) in Moafc's Under- hilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 261. ' Victory Webb, &c. M'f g C«- ▼• Beechcr, 53 How. Pr. 193. Applied (Necessity of com- plete statement of causes of action) in Anderson v. Speers, 8 Abb. K C. 382, 384; Reiners «. Brandc^burst, 59 How. Pr. 91. Vidvard v. Cnsliman, 23 Hun, 434. Compare (Implied easement of light and air) in Kiats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204, 216. Viele v. Goss, 49 Barb. 96. Aff d, it seems, in 51 2VL Y. 624, but without opinion. Decision in 49 Barb, explained (Liability for false representations as to credit of another) in Moah's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 531. v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 21 Barb. 381. Afi'd in 20 If. Y. 184. Decision in Id. commented on (Surrender of posses- sion by vendee where title is defective) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §325. Vifclie v. Osgood, 8 Barb. 130. See (Sub- scription required by statute of frauds) James v. Patten, Id. 344. Vilas v. Jones 10 Paige, 76. Affd in 1 N. Y. 274. See Billington v. Wagoner ; Cole «. Savage; Wood v. Jefferson Co. B'k. De- cision in 1 J\7! Y. explained (Effect of usuri- ous agreement, to discharge surety) in La Farge v. Herter, 11 Barb. 169; Draper v. Trescott, 29 Id. 406. Limited in Billing- ton-!). Wagoner, 33 If. Y. 31, 36. Applied in Fernan ». Doubleday, 3 Lans. 219. Followed and approved in Meiswinkle o. Jung, 30 Wis. 361; s. c, 11 Am. R. 572; Howell v. Sevier, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 360; s. c, 27 Am. R. 771, 772. Opposed in Vary v. Norton, U. S. Civ. Ct. W. D. Mich. 6 Fed. Rep. 812. Explained (Equitable relief against judgment at law) in Crippen v. Cul- ver, 13 Barb. 430. Explained ("Bor- rower " .within meaning of L. 1837, c. 430, § 4) in Schermerhorn v. Am. Life Ins., &c. Co., 14 Barb. 106; Allerton v. Belden, 3 Lans., 494; which was rev'd in 49 N. Y. 377, which see. Approved as applicable to question of who is purchaser within mean- ing of exemption law, — in Smith v. Slade, 57 Barb. 639. — v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 9 Dun, 121. Affd in 72 If. Y. 590; s. c, 28 Am. R. 186. Village of Buffalo v. Webster, 10 Wend. 99; s. c, 11 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed.792, with brief note citing cases. See Bush v. Sea- bury. Applied (Ordinance when not in restraint of trade) in Cronin ». People, 82 If. Y. 318, 323. Village of Cohoes v. Moran, 25 How. Pr, 385i Followed (Effect of general excise VILLAGE OP DEHLT— VXXN BEDCK. 805 law on local provisions) in Village of Glov- ersville v. Howell, 7 Hun, 345, 347. Village of Delhi y. Youmans, 50 Barb. 316. Affd in 45 If. Y. 362. Both decisions in- cluded (Diverting subterranean stream) in Blanchard . Hitchins, 9 Barb. 384. Ap- plied in Stanton v. Ellis, 16 -Barb. 322; Pratt v. Bogardus, 49 Id. 94; Adkins v. Brewer, 3 Cow. 209. Applied (Recital in warrant, as evidence of jurisdictional fact) in Bradstreet v. Furgesou, 23 Wend. 640. Followed with Gold v. Bissell, 1 Id. 210, in Barkeloo v. Randall, 4 Black/. (Ind.) 476 ; s. c, 32 Am. Dee. 46, with note. . Vose v. Cockcroft, 45 Barb. 58. Affd in 44 2f. Y. 415. See Brookman v. Hamill. Applied (Validity of State law giving lien on vessel) in Poole ». Kermit. 37 Super. Ct. (-7. & S.) 123. Disting'd (Estoppel to as- sert unconstitutionality of law on appeal) in Brookman v. Hamill, 46 K Y. 636. Fol- lowed in Delaney v. Brett, 51 Id. 81. t. Florida R. R. Co., 50 2K Y. 369. Further proceeding in 46 How. Pr. 424. Also proceeding as Vose v. Yulee. 4 Ilun, 628, which was affd in 64 2v". Y. 449, Which was rev'd in Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539. See Newcomb v. Rayner. t. Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co. See Hand ■». Williamsburgh Citv Fire Ins. Co. v. Yulee. See Vose v. Florida R. R. Co. Vredenbnrgh t. Morris, 1 Johns. Cas. 223. Approved (Judgment as lien on term of years) in Merry v. Hallet. 2 Cow. 497. Vreedenburgh v. Calf, 9 Paige, 128. Colla ted \vith other cases (Setting aside surro- gate's proceedings for irregularity) in Wil- lard on Executors, 50. Vreeland v. Blunt, 6 Barb. 182. Disting'd (Draft, when on particular fund) in Attorney Genl. v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 325, 328. v. Hyde, 2 Hall, 429. Sec Sice v. Cun- ningham. Criticised as not carefully con- sidered (Time of presentation of note paya- ble on demand) in Merritt v. Todd, 23 JY. Y. 28, 34 (And see dissenting opinion Id. 38). Disting'd with Van Hoesen v. Van Alstyne, 3 Wend. 75, in Mudd v. Harper, 1 Md. 110; s. c, 54 Am. Dee. 644, with note. v. McClelland, 1 Bradf. 393. Followed (Effect of deed as revocation of will) in Wade v. Holbrook, 2 Redf. 378, 389. Disting'd (Proof of undue influence on tes- tator) in Booth v. Kitchen, 3 Id. 52, 61. Vroman v. American Mer. Union Express Co., 2 Hun, 512; s. c, reported 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 22. Vroom v. Ditinas, 4 Paige, 526. See Bene- dict v. Gilman. Applied (Sufficiency of allegation of usury) in Gould v. Horner, 12 . Barb. 603 ; Cole v. Savage, Clarke. 362 ; Gould v. Homer, 1 Code JR. K S. 357. Applied with New Orleans Gas Co. «. Dud- ley, '8 Paige,. 452; Curtis v. Masten, 11 Id. 15, in Manning v. Tyler, 21 If. Y. 568. Disting'd (Rights of purchaser on fore- closure sale) in Packer v. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co.," 17 IT. Y. 288. Reviewed with other cases in dissenting opinion in Gage v. Brewster, 31 N. Y. 224. Applied to ex- penses of re-sale (Liability for costs of fore- closure) in Raynor v. Selmes, 52 JY. Y. 582. v. Van Home, 10 Paige, 549; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 94, with note wherein are col- lected citations on the points decided re- specting executors and administrators. Vrooman v. King, 36 JY. Y. 477. See to the contrary (Declarations of owner of real es- tate, as affecting those claiming under him) Adams v, Davidson, 10 Id. 309. And see Abb. Tr. Ev. 711. v. Jackson, 6 Hun, 326. Explained (Equitable relief in ejectment) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit to Land, § 182. v. Lawyer, 13 Johns. 339. Reviewed with other cases (Liability for damage done by domestic animal) in Decker ■». Gammon 44 Me. 322, 329. T. Phelps. See Mann v. Eckford. v. Turner, 8 Hun, 78. Rev'd in part in 808 VROOMAN— WAFFLE. 69 JV "K 280; s. c, 25 Am. R. 195. See Garnsey v. Rogers; Hamill v. Gillespie; Lawrence v. Fox; Trotter «. Hughes. De- cision in 69 JV T. followed (Liability of grantee of mortgaged premises) in Cashman v. Henry, 5 Abb. JV. 0. 230, 232. Applied in Smith v. Cross, 16 Hun, 490; Deyermand v. Chamberlin, 22. Id. 110, 114; Dunning c. Leavitt, 85 N'. 7. 30, 35 (And see dis- senting opinion Id. 39). Disting'd in Doug- lass v. Wells, 18 Hun, 91. Applied in Par- dee v. Treat, 82 JV. Y. 385, 388, a case of a judgment lien. Followed in Stuart v. "Worden, 42 Mich. 154, 101. Discussed with numerous other cases from N. Y. and other States, in Brewer v. Maurer, 38 Ohio St. 543, 550. Applied (Enforcing promise made for benefit of third person) in McCaf- ferty v. Decker, 12 Hun, 459. Applied in Davis v. Clinton Water Works Co., 54 Iowa, 59, 62. See cases cited in 33 Am. R. ,6, n. Examined (Liability of married woman for deficiency under foreclosure) in 17 Alb. L. J. 240. — — v. Weed. See Harrison v. Stevens. w. Waddell T. Cook, 2 Sill, 47; s. c, 37 Am. Dee. 372. See White v. Osborn ; Wilson v. Reed. Disting'd (Seizure of property of joint owners, on process against one) in Hall v. Carnley, 1 Abb. Pr. 162, a case of mortgaged property. Explained in Fiero v. Betts, 2 Barb. 636. Applied in Dinehart v. Wilson, 15 Id. 598. Said with Walsh v. Adams, 3 Den. 125, not to have been over- ruled or impaired by Hull v. Carnley, 11 JV. 7. 501, or Goelet v. Asseller, 22 Id. 225,— in Berry v. Kelly, 4 Robt. 106, 123. Followed in Smyth v. Tankersley^ 20 Ala. 212; s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 193. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 693, n. v. Darling, 51 JV. Y. 327. See (Re- quisites of counterclaim) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 501, n. v. Elmendorf, 12 Barb. 585. Aff'd in 10 JV. Y. 170. See Shepard v. Rowe. See (Presumption of payment of judgment) Malloy v. Vanderbilt, 4 Abb. JV. 0. 127, 132. T. Mayor, &c. of N. T. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Wade v. Baker, 14 Hun, 615. Aff'd as Van Amburgh v. Baker, 81 JV. Y. 46. Sec Id. 622. t. Be Lcyer, 40' Super. Ct. (J. & S). 541. Motion to vacate order dismissing ap- peal denied in 63 JV Y. 318. v. Kalbfleisch, 15 Alb. Pr.K S. 16. Aff'd in 16 Abb. Pr. JV S. 104; s. c, 58 IT. Y. 282 ; 17 Am. R. 250. Decision in Id. fol- lowed (Survival of cause of action for breach of contract to marry) in Price v. Price, 75. JV. Y, 244, 248; which aff'd 11 Hun, 299, 301, which see. Followed and ap- proved in Grubb's Adm'r v. Suit, 02 Graft. (Fa.) 203; s. c, 4- Am. R. 765,771. Dis ting'd (Survival of cause of action for per- sonal injury) in Crcgin v. Brooklyn Cross- town R. R. Co., 75 JV. Y. 196; which aff'd 56 How. Pr. 34, which see; Soott v. Brown, 24 Id. 620, 622. Followed in Best v. Vcdder, 58 How. Pr. .188; Holliday •». Parker, 23 Hun, 71. Collated and revieweu with Best v. Vedder, 58 How. Pr. 187, and Fried v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 25 Id. 287, and other cases in 22 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 361. T. Matheson, 4 Lans. 15S. Aff'd in 47 JV Y. 658, but without opinion. v. Wheeler, 3 Lans. 201. Affd in 47 JV Y.. 658, but without opinion. Wademan v. Albany & Susq. R. R. Co., 51 JV. Y. 568. Applied (Duty of maintaining farm crossings) in Jones v. Seligman, 81 Id. 190, 196. .See (Demurrer for improper de- mand of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 488, n. Wadley v. Dayis, 43 How. Pr. 82. Said not to be overruled by Bigsby v. Warden, 62 If. Y. 27 (Notice of appeal ttom justice's court) in Jones v. Cook, 11 Hun, 231. Wadsworth v. Alcott, 6 JV. Y. 64. Disting'd (Right to rent, as affected by death of les- sor) in Fay v. Ilolloran, 35 Barb. . 295, 297. Applied (Proof of usage, to vary contract) in Lawrence v. Gallagher, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 321. v. Heermans. See Hill v. Same. v. Murray, 16 Barb. 601. Aff'd as Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 12 2V. Y. 37G. v. Pacific Ins. Co., 4 Wend. 33. Ap- plied (Liability for loss of memorandum articles specified in policy) in Depuyster v. Sun Alut. Ins. Co.. 17 Barb. 307; 19 JV. Y. 277. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 732. v. Skarpsteen. See Wadsworth v. Sher- man. y. Sherman, 14 Barb. 169. Aff'd as Wadsworth v. Sharpsteen, 8 JV Y. 388. Decision in Id. explained and applied (Effect of acts of drunkard while subject to commission) in Lewis v. Jones, 50 Barb. 648. v. Thomas, 7 Barb. 445. Approved (Effect of new acknowledgment, &c. pro- vided for by Code Pro., on debts already barred at its enactment) in Esseltyne v. Weeks, 12 JV. Y. 635, 639. - y. Wendell, 5 Johns. Ch..22±. Rev'd in 20 Johns. 659. Decision in 6 Johns. Ch. followed (When instrument without seal may be treated as sealed instrument) in McCarley v. Board of Supervisors, 58 Miss.- 483 ; S. c, Z8 Am. R. 338. Applied (When instrument which cannot operate as convey- ance may have effect as agreement) in Welsh v. Usher, 7 Hill. Ch. (So. Car ) 167 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 63, with note. Included with note in Lawsotfs Lead. Eq.Cas. Simplified, 8. Waffle v. Dillenbeck, 39 Barb. 123. Aff'd in 38 JV Y. 53 ; s. c, moi'&fully, 4^66.iV, N. WAFFLE— WAIT. 809 8. 457. See Lincoln v. Saratoga & Schenec- tady R. R. Co. v. Goble, 53 Barb. 51V. Followed (At- tachment as affected by failure to serve summons) in Taddiken «. Cantroll, 1 Hun, 711; Blossom v. Estes, 84 N. Y. 614, 618. Disting'd in Simpson v. Burch, 4 Id. 315, 317. v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 58 Barb. 413. AfFd in 53 N. Y. 11 ; s. c, 13 Am. R. 467. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Trustees of Delhi v. Youmans. Decision in 58 Barb, disting'd (Liability for drainage of surface water) in Gould «. Booth, 66 iV. Y. 65. Cited with approval in McCormick v. Kansas City, &c. R. R. Co., 70 Mo. 359 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 431, with note. Cited with other cases in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 23. Discussed in Wood on Nuts. 2 ed. § 382. Decision in 53 N. Y. limited in Noonan v. City of Albany, 79 Id. 476. v. Porter, 61 Barb. 130. Discussed (Nuisance as caused by surface water) in . Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 383. See cases cited in 5 Abb. JV. C. 173, n. Wagoner v. Finch. See Waggoner v. Finch. Wager v. Schuyler,. 1 Wend. 553. Applied (Evidence as to probable duration of a life) in Schell v. Plumb, 55 N. Y. 592, 598. Collated with Schell v. Plumb, Harris v. Panama R. R. Co., 2 Bosw. 7, and cases from other States (Books of science as evi- dence) in 22 Am. L. Reg. H. S. 106, n. - v. Troy Union R. R. Co., 25 A 7 ". Y. 526. Followed (Effect of appropriation of highway for railroad purposes, as additional burden) in Craig v. Rochester City, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Barb. 499, which was aff'd in in 39 N. Y. 408, which see. Disting'd in People v. Kerr, 27 Id. 206 ; People v. Long Island R. R. Co., 9 Abb. H. O. 181, 201. Collated with other cases in Cook Highw. L. 4 ed. 17; Mills Thomps. on Eighw. 3 ed. 399. Explained in 15 Am. L. Rev. 394. Followed (Ejectment, as remedy to recover land covered by highway) in Lozier v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 42 Barb. 469. Dis- ting'd in Troy & Bost. R. R. Co. t. Boston, Hoosac Tunnel & "W. R'y Co., 86 K Y. 127. Disting'd (Form of judgment in such action) in White's B'k of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 Id. 75. Waggoner v. Finch, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 145 ; s. c, as Wagener v. Finch, 65 Barb. 493. . Collated with other cases (Rejection of competent evidence by referee) in Hqffm. on Referees, 72. v. Jermaine, 3 Den. 306 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. kli, with note wherein are collected citations. See Blunt v. Aiken. Applied (Liability as to nuisance established by former owner) in Conhoctou Stone Road v Buffalo, N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 51 H. Y. 573, 582. v. Milliiigton, 8 Hun, 142. Applied (Married woman as surety) in Woolsev v Brown, 11 Id. 52, 54. Wagner v. Jones, 7 Daly, 375. Aff'd in 77 K Y. 590. v. Long Island R. R. Co., 2 Hun, 633; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 163. Appeal dismissed in 70 N. Y. 614. Decision in 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 163. Followed (What is a water-course) in Barkley v. Wil- cox, 19 Hun, 320. See cases cited in 5 Abb. N. C. 173, n. t. People, 54 Barb. 367. Affd in 2 Reyes, 684; 8. c, more fully, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 609. Wagstaff v. Lowerre, 23 Barb. 209. Fol- lowed (Commissions of trustees, &c.) in Wardn. Ford, 4 Red/. 34, 42, 47; Matter of Leggatt, Id. 148, 151. Waid v. Gaylord, 1 Hun, 607. Fully reported in 4 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C) 41. Wait v. Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 5. Bans. 475. Cited, and Sutherland, J's, dissenting opinion in Burtis v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 269-274, approved (Authority of carrier's agent to contract for transportation of goods beyond its own line) in Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co., 70 Mo. 672; s. c, 35 Am. R. 444. v. Day, 4 Den. 439. Overruled (Trust in case of grant made to one person, con- sideration being paid by another) in Gar- field v. Ilatmaker, 15 N. Y. 475, 477. Cited (Effect of conveyance to mistress as against creditors) in Potter v. Gracie, 58 Ala. 303 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 748. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 213. v. Green, 35 Barb. 585. Another opinion in 62 Id. 241. Aff'd in 36 N. Y. 556 ; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 449. See Ballard v. Burgett; Steelyards v. Singer. Decision in 36 N. Y. followed .(Owner of personal property, when not allowed to assert title as against bona fide purchaser) in Rawls v. Deshler, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 20. Reviewed and dis- ting'd with Fleeman v. McKean, 25 Barb. 474, in Ballard v. Burgett, 40 iV". Y. 316, 321, 327. Disting'd in McNeil v. Tenth Nat. B'k, 55 Barb. 59, 68; City B'k v. ■Rome, W. & O. R. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 138. Questioned in Austin v. Dye, 46 Id. 500, 502, as in conflict with Ballard v. Burgett. Explained in Comer v. Cunningham, 77 Id. 397. See 46 How. Pi: 530, n. Com- mented on in 1 Benj. on Sales, §§457, 460 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). See authorities col- lected in Lewis v. McCabe, 49 Conn. 141, 148; s. c, 21 Am. L. Reg. N~. S. 217, with note also collecting authorities. v. Morris, 6 Wend. 394. Applied (Dis- charge in bankruptcy, as affected by new promise) in Graham v. O'Hern, 24 Hun, 222. . v. Ray, 5 Hun, 649. Aff'd in 67 N. Y. 36. v. Tan Alleu, 22 N. Y. 319. Disting'd (Power of court to extend time) in People exrel. Atty.-Gen. o. Security, &c. Ins. Co., 79 /. Davis. Disting'd (Breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment) in Trustees of Newburgh ». Galatian, 4 Cow. 343, a case of bond of indemnity. Disting'd in St. John v. Palmer, 5 Hill, 602 ; Rea v. Mink- ler, 5 Lam. 199 ; Shattuck v. Lamb, 65 JK Y. 504. Followed in Kortz i>. Carpenter, 5 Johns. 121; Olmstead v. Stewart, 13 Id. 238 ; Chesterman v. Gardner, 5 Johns. Oh. 32; Kinney v. McCullough, 1 Sandf. Ch. 378; Webb v. Alexander, 7 Wend. 284. Explained and criticised as contrary to more recent decisions in N. Y., —in McGary D. Hastings, 39 Gal. 360 ; s. c, 2 Am. It 456. v. McComb, 1 Hill, 111. ReVd in 7 Id. oo5. v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 8 Barb. 390. Collated with other cases (Lia- bility for injuries to cattle while straying on railroad track) in Thoptps. on JSfegl. 530 T V - 5 itcIlil, gs, 3 Daly, 288; s. c.,' 9 Abb. Pr. AT. 8. 359. Followed (Presumption as to laws of other States) in Graves v. Came- ron, 9 Daly, 152, which is collated with other cases in 32 Monk Eng. 468, n. Ex- plained (Where contracts between persons living in different States are to be regarded as made) in 1 Addi. on Gontr. 18 » Abb. ed. — ~ T. Waldron, 4 Bradf. 114. Disting'd (Liability of decedent's estate for deficiency on foreclosure) in Williams ». Eaton 3 Red/. 505. ' — v. Willard, 17 JK T. 466. Applied (Kignt of action possessed by transferee of property) in McMahon v. Allen, 3 Abb Pr N. 8. 80; Whittaker v. Merrill, 30 Barb 390 ; Sherman v. Elder, 24 K J. 384 Dis- ting'd in Hicks v. Cleveland, 39 Barb 576 ■ Genet v. Howland, 45 Id. 567. Applied (Assignability of. right of action for loss of property) in Fulton Fire Ins. Co. v. Bald- win, 37 K 7. 650. Wales v. Sherwood, 1 Abb. N. O. \0l, n.; s. c, more fully, 52 How. Pr. 413. Walker v. American Nat. Bit, 49 A" Y. 659. Compare (Right to act as attorney) Dyer v. Sutherland, 75 III. 583, and other cases cited in 20 Am. L. Reg. N. 8: 264. ■-^- v. Ames, 2 Gow. 428. Followed (Con- clusiveness of judgment on defendant who has failed to make his defense in the action) in Greenabaum v. Elliott, 60 Mo. 25, 30, 31. v. B'k of State of N. Y., 13 Barb. 636. Aff'd in 9 N. Y. 582. See Dusenberry v. Ellis ; Palmer v. Stephens ; Rossiter v, Ros- siter. Both decisions limited (Personal lia- bility of agent on contract) iu Hegeman v. Johnson, 35 Barb. 206. Decision in 9 JV. Y. applied in Aspinwall t. Torrance, 1 Bans. 387. Cited approvingly (Liability of agent receiving drafts for collection) in Ex- change Nat. B'k v. Third Nat. B'k, 112 U. 8. 276, 291. v. Crain, 17 Barb. 119. Followed (Authority of trustees, &c. of corporation to assess stockholders for deficiency) in IIurd». Tallman, 60 Id. 272, 286. " Dis- ting'd with Story v. Furman, 25 K Y. 215, and Hurd v. Tallman, 60 Barb. 272, limited in Coykendall v. Corning, 88 K Y. 129, 140. Cited as authority with Story v. Fur- ttian, 25 K. Y. 214 ; Hurd v. Tallman, 60 Barb. 272 ; Cuykendall v. Douglass, 1& Hun, 577 ; Matter of Dodge & Stevenson Manuf. Co. 77 N. Y. 101, in Cuykendall v. Miles, U. S. Oir. Gt. D. Mass. 14 Reporter 69; s. c, 10 Fed. Rep. 342. v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229. Followed with Clarke v. Brooklyn B'k, 1 Edw. 371 (When exercise of discretionary power can- not be reviewed) in Conn. & Passumpsic Rivers R. R. Co. ». Bailv, 24 Vt. 465 • s c, 58 Am. Dec. 181. Explained (Equit- able regulation of corporate elections) in 3 South. L. Rev. N. 8. 213. Quoted in 2 High, on Jnj. 2 ed. § 1230, n. 1. v. Erie R'y Co., 63 Barb. 260. Ques- tioned (Proof of income from business, to show damage resulting from personal injury) in Masterton v. Village of Mt Ver- non 58 K Y. 391. 396. Compare Clifford 0. Dam, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) 391, 393 v. Granite B'k, 44 Barb. Ill; g ' c more fully, 19 Abb. Pr. Ill "' v. Millard, 29 K Y. 375. Commented Z a ?F ff , tm £ d with Coon *■ Kna P- 8 «■ 402 (Effect of payment of sum less than that due as accord and satisfaction) in Hammond v. Christie, 5 Roht. 160*167 — - v. Russell, 16 How. Pr. 91 ;' s . 'c 7 Abb. Pr 452 n . See (R ight of ty ' to iSTi 3288 W1 T S fe6S) ** ««• P ™' •■White. Followed as the, settled rule (Valuation of land for dower), in Van Gel der v. Post, 2 Edw. 577, 579 Parks t>. 812 WALKER— WALL ACE. Hardy, 4 Brad/. 15, i8. Collated with other cases in Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 399. v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 636. See Cres- son v. Stout; Goodrich ». Jones; Murdock «. Giffiord. Followed (Machinery, &c. as fixtures) in Vanderpoel v. Van Allen, 10 Bart. 164. Approved and followed as set- tled law, in Stevens v. Buffalo & N. Y. Cjty K. R. Go., 31 Id. 605, G34; Voorhies v. McGinnis, 46 Id. 248, but applied in Laflin v. Griffiths, 35 Id. 62 ; Shaw «. Lenke, 1 Daly, 488 ; Noyes v. Terry, 1 Lans. 220. Disting'd in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. «. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. 492 ; Bishop v. Bishop, 11 K T. 125; McRea v. Central ■ Nat. B'k of Troy, 66 Id. 498. Explained and applied in Potter v. Cromwell, 40 Id. 295. Examined in Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. 58. Approved, but criticised, in Voor- his v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116; s. c, 37 Am. Bee. 490, with note. Reviewed with other cases in Providence Gas Co. o. Thurber, 2 R. I. 15; s. c, 55 Am.. Deo. 621. Commented on in 2 Kent Com. 348. v. Suediker, Hojfm. 145. Compared with later and what are thought to be pre- vailing authorities (Limit of mortgage for future advances), — in. Jones on Ghat. M. §96. v. Spencer, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 86 If. Y. 162. Former decision in 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 71. ■ v. Swayzee. See Brittin c. Wilder. v. Wainwright, 16 Barb. 486. Applied (Review of decision of ecclesiastical tribu- nal) in Chase v. Chenev, 58 III. 509 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 95, 98. Quoted in 1 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 309, n. 2. ■; v. Walker, 20 Hun, 400. Aff d in 82 If. 7. 260; s. c, 8 Abb. If. C. 436; 59 ' Bow. Pr. 476. Decision in Id. followed (Power to strike out answer of defendant in contempt in action for divorce) in Brisbane v. Brisbane, 5 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 352. Compare McClung ». McClung, 40 Mich. 493, involving taking of proofs. Compare Allen v. Allen, 8 Abb. AT". C. 175, involving right to jail liberties. ■ v. , 3 Abb. N. C. 12. Should be Walter v. Walter, as appears from facts stated and opinion. Wall v. Buffalo Water Works Co. See Shearman -». N. Y. Central Mills. ■ v. East River Mnt. Ins. Co., 7 If. 7. 370. Disting'd (Warranty as to use of in- sured premises) in Benedict v. Ocean Ins. Co., 31 Id. 39.1 ; Smith v. Mech. & Trad. Ins. Co. 32 Id. 401. Followed (Warranty as to occupation) in Alexander v. Gcrmania Fire Ins. Co., 66 Id. 466. Followed (Effect of descriptive words as warranty) in Bryce ». Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S) 401. v. Home Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 597. Aff'd in 36 If. Y. 157. See Baker «. Union Life Ins. Co. Decision in 36 N. Y. followed (Effect of provision that it shall be void in case of non-payment of premium notes) in Williams v. Albany City Ins. Co., 19 Mich. 451 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 95, 100, v. Howard Ins. Co., 14 Barb. 383. Overruled (Warranty as to use of insured premises) in Wall ». East River Mut. Ins. Co., 7 N. Y. 370. v. Kellogg, 16 If. Y. 385. Relied' on (Recovery from executor, &c. for property received by him in his representative capac- ity) in Conger v. Atwood, 28 Ohio St. 134; s. c, 22 Am. R. 362, 309. V.Lee, 34 AT". Y. 141. Cited with other cases (Disturbance of religious meeting) in 12 Am. L. Reg. W. S. 538. Wallace r. Am. Linen Thread Co., 16 Hun, 404. Followed (Effect of findings of jury in equitable action) in Carroll v. Deimel, 13 Weekly Dig. 401. v. Castle, 68 N. Y. 370. Further pro- ceeding in 14 Hun, 106. Decision in 68 N. Y. followed (Appealability of order va- cating attachment) in Claflin v. Baero, 80 Id. 642; Allen v. Meyer, 73 Id. 1, 4. Ap- plied to order for exoneration of bail, in Douglass v. Haberstro, 82 Id. 572, 574. v. Drew, 59 Barb. 413. Rev'd in 54 If. Y. 678, on technical grounds, not appear- ing to affect the questions discussed in the opinion. Compare Pollett v. Long, 56 Id. 200. Decision in 59 Barb, discussed (Nuis- ance as produced by riparian owner erecting bulwarks) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 349. v. Eaton, 5 How. Pr. 99. Applied (Parties in judgment creditor's action) in Miller v. Hall, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 262, 267. v. Karlenowefski, 19 Barb. 118. Ex- plained and applied (Sufficiency of provision for compensation for land taken by right of eminent domain) in Chapman v. Gates, 54 If. Y. 132, 145. v. Lent, 1 Daly. 481. Followed (Fraud- ulent representations or concealment by landlord, when a defense to an action for rent) in Jackson ■». Odell, 14 Abb. If. G. 42. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 73. v. Markham, 1 Ben. 671. Disting'd (Foundation for costs in actions against ex- ecutors. &c.) in Genet v. Binsse, 3 Daly, 239, 242. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hilt. 440. Applied (Vindictive damages for negligence) in Woodman v. Nottingham, 49 If. H. 387 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 526, 532.- v. Morss, 5 Hill, 391. Commented on (Matter arising on contract, when basis of action for tort) in Campbell v. Perkins, 8 N. Y. 430, 440. Disting'd (Infant's liabil- ity for torts) in Hewitt v. Warren, 10 Hun, 560, 563. Collated with other cases in Ewell Lead. Cas. on Inf. &e. 207. v. Patterson, 29 How. Pr. 170. Fol- lowed (Requisites of notice of appeal .from justice's decision) in Putnam v. Heath, 41 Id. 262, 264. Approved, but report criti- cised as incorrect,.— in Younghause v. Fin- WALLACE— WALSIL 813, gar, 63 Barl. 299, 307. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. v. Swinton, 64 N. 7. 188. Sec (Leave to issue execution) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1381, n. Wallack v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 3 Hun, 84; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 310. Fur- ther decision as Wallack v. Society for Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, 67 2f F.23. See Milhau v. Sharp. — - v. Society for Reformation of Juven- ile Delinquents. See Same v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Waller v. Harris, 7 Paige, 167. Aff d in 20 Wend. 553. See People ex rel. Rice v. Ransom. Not followed (Compliance with requirements of statute respecting re- demption from execution sale) in Ex parte Newell, 4 Hill, 611. See, however, Wood v. Moorhouse, 1 Lans. 416. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1464, %. Applied (Construc- tion of statutes) in Bell v. Yates, 33 Barb. 638; Post v. B'k of Utica, 7 Sill, 408. Followed in People v. Plumsted, 2 Mich. 468. Applied in U. 8. v. Temple, 105 U. S. 97. Cited approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 462. Wallerstein t. Columbian Ins. Co., 3 Root. 528. Rev'd in 44 N. T. 204. Decision in Id. disting'd ("Total loss" in,marine insur- ance) in Burt v. Brewers' & Maltsters' Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 383; Chadsey v. Guion, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 118, 120; Same v. Same, 48 Id. 267, 272. Cited in 3 Kent Com. 331, n. 1, Holmes' ed. as stating the American rule. Walling r. Schwartzkopf. 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 576. Explained (Buyer's remedy for defects in goods sold) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1356, n. 11 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Wallis v. Lott. See Van Rensselaer v. Chad- wick. v. Randall, 16 Hun, 33. Afl'd in 81 K Y. 164. Walls v. Bailey, 49 N~. Y. 464; s. c, 10 Am. R. 407. Approved and collated with other cases (Evidence of usage on construction of contract) in Adams v. M. & B. Fire Ins Co., U. S. Cir. Ct. D. R. I., 17 Fed. Rep. 630, 633. Referred to in 2 Am. Dec. 374, n. r as a well considered case. Collated with Commercial B'k of Ky. v. Varnum, 3 Bans. 90, n., and numerous other cases in 18 Am. R. 204, n.; Lawson on Usages and distorts, 392. Approved in 2 Whart. Com. on Ed. § 96 la; 12 Ins. B. J. 787. See other cases collected in 1 Abb iV. C 472, n. •' Wallsworth v. M'Cullough, 10 Johns. 93; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 949, with brief note. Followed with Jones v. Perci- yal, 2 Johns. Cas. 49 (Personal liability of -justice of the peace for false imprisonment) in Flack v. Harrington, Breese (III.) 213; s. c , 12 Am. Dec. 170. See cases cited in 6 Am. Dec. 303, n. Walrath y. Barton, 11 Barl. 382. Further _ decision as Walrath v. Redfield, 18 J7". Y. 457. See Parrott v. Knickerbocker Ice Co. Decision in 18 N. Y. applied (Interest in actions for tort) in Black v. Camden & Am- boy R. R. &c. Co., 45 Barb. 43. See Lake- man *. Grinnell, 5 Bosw. 638. Followed with Richmond v. Bronson, 5 Den. 55, and particularly Wehle v. Haviland, 42 How.- Pr. 399, in Floyd v. Paul, Hamilton Co. (0.) Disi Ct. 10 Gin. L. Bui. 14. v. Redfield. See Walrath v. Barton. v. Thompson, 6 Hill, 540. Aff'd in 2 N. Y. 185. Previous decision in 4 Hill,- 200. Decision in 6 Id. applied (Discharge of guarantor from liability) in Henderson v. Marvin, 11 Abb. Pr. 146; Bigelow v. Ben- ton, 14 Barb. 130. Disting'd in Rings- bury v. Williams, 53 Id. 151. Decision in 4 Hill limited (Construction of guaranty) in Crist v. Burlingame, 62 Barb. 357. Questioned in Weed v. Clark, 4 Sandf. 35. Applied in Durham v. Manrow, 2 N. Y. 537. Explained in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 402, 4 ed. Collated with French v. Carhart, 1 K Y. 96 ; Norton v. Wood- ruff, 2 Id. 153 ; Almgren v. Dutilh, 5 Id. 28; Goodrich v. Stevens, 5 Lans. 230, and other cases (Parol evidence to explain mer- cantile contracts) in 28 Am. R. 210, n. Walsh's Estate, Tuck. 132. Disapproved- (Effect of subscription to will by mark) in Simpson's Will, 2 Red/. 29. Walsh v. Adams. See Waddell v. Cook. v. Bailie, 10 Johns. 180; s. c, 4 K Y. Com. B. Law. ed. 988, with brief note. Disting'd (Construction of contract of surety) in Prior v. Williams, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 627. Applied in Barns v. Bar- row, 61 N. Y. 43. Disting'd with Rogers «. Warner, 8 Johns. 119 (What constitutes continuing guaranty) in Rapelye v. Bailey, 5 Conn. 149~; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 49. v. Cornett, 17 Hun, 27. See (Amend- ment of pleadings in justices' court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2944, n. v. Durkin, 12 Johns. 99; s. c, 5 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 317, with brief note. See Bowne v. Joy. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 9 Bun, 421. Rev'd in 73 K Y. 5. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Waiver of condition in policy by agent of insurer) in Woodruff v. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 83 Id. 133, 140. Disting'd with Van Allen v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 64 Id. 469 ; Marvin v. Universal Life Ins. ' Co., 85 Id. 278, in Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 Id. 315, 327. v. Kelly, 42 Barl. 98. Aff'd in 40 K Y. 556. Decision in 42 Barl. followed (Propriety of question on cross-examination as calling for fact and not conclusion of law) in Caspar v. O'Brien, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 402, '404, citing also Knapp v. Smith, 27 N. Y. 277; Sweet®. Tuttle, 14 Id. 467; Davis v. Peck, 54 Barb. 425. Decision in 40 JT. Y. 556 disting'd (Exceptions to charge, when too general) in Betz v. Conner 7 Daly, 550, 553. v. Mead, 8 Hun, 387. See Brown v. 814 WALSH— WALTON. Cayuga and Susquehanna It. It. ; Swords v. Edgar. Disting'd (Liability for injury caused by condition of lot fronting on street) and Todd v. City of Troy,. 61 K Y 506, applied in Moore v. Gladsden, 87 Id. 84, 87. ■ t. N. Y. Floating Dry Bock Co., 8 Daly, 387, Aff d in 77 N. Y. 448. v. Powers, 43 A 7 ". Y. 23. Rev'g Flinn c. Powers, 36 How. Pr. 289 ; -which aff'd 35 Id. 279. v. Sayre, 5%. How. Pr. 334. See account with comments of medical press published in 1 vol. at N. Y. 1870-71, and to be found at State Libr. in Albany. Approved (Power to compel physical examination) in Shaw v. Van Rensselaer, 60 How. Pr. 144. Criticised with Osborn v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 5 Monthly L. Bui. 8, and Harold «. N. Y. . Elevated R'y Co., 21 Hun, 268 ; Devanbagh v. Devenbagh, 5 Paige, 554, disting'd in Roberts v. Ogdeusburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 29 Hun, 154. Disapproved, Harrold.e. N. Y. Elevated R'y Co., 21 Hun, 268, being ex- plained, and Roberts v. Ogdensburgh R. R. Co., 29 Hun, 155, followed, in Newman . People, in 32 If. Y. 147. See People v. McCann. Decision in 32 iV. Y. followed (Power of legislature to change mode of challenging jurors) in Weston v. People, 6 Hun, 140. Dis- cussed with Ferris v. People,- 35 AT. Y. 125 ; People v. McCann, 16 Id. 58 ; Eroth- erton v. People, 75 Id. 154; O'Connell v. People, 87 Id. 377; Walker v. People, 88 2d. 81 ; People v. Schryver, 42 Id. 1 (Bur- den of proof of sanity or insanity in crimi- nal cases) in 18 Cent. L. J. 402. Compare (Disqualification of juror) Points of Law. in Guiteau's Case, 70 (Boston,. Little, Browne & Co., 1881). Wiilther v. Westuiore. See Baker v. Wheeler ; Jennings ». Merrill. Walton v. Cronly, 14 Wend. 63. Overruled (Parol evidence, in court of law,' to show that deed absolute in terms, was intended as mortgage) in Webb v. Rice, 6 Hill, 219. Followed in Hall «. Savill, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 37; s. c, 54 Am. Bee. 485, with note. . Compared (Liability of mortgage as assignee on covenants) in 4 Kent Cum. 167, n. d. v. Walton, 7 Johns. Ch. 258; s. c, 11 Am. Bee. 406, with note. Disting'd with Giddings v. Seward, \ 6 N. T. 365 ; Doughtv v. Stillwell, 1 Bradf. 300 (Ademption of bequests of instruments for payment of money) in Abernethy v. Catlin, 2 Bern. 341. Cited as. authority (Question of ademption, when not one of intention) in Ross v. Car- penter, 9 B. Monr. (R'y.) 367; s. c, 60 Am. Bee. 513, with note. Followed (Effect of contract to convey land, as revocation of devise) in Danohoo •». Lea, 1 Swan. (Tenn.) 11,9; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 725. Compare 2 R.S. 04, § 41, and comments in 11 Am- Dec. 470, n. Followed (Will once revoked cannot be revived) in Bohanon v. Walcot, 1 Horn. (Miss.) 336 ; s. c. 29 Am. Bee. 631, 635. v. , 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 512; s. c, 1 Reyes, 15. Disting'd (Liability of exec- utor, &c.) in McCabe ». Fowler, 84 N. Y. 314, 320. With Clapp v. Mescrole, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 362, see to the contrary U. S. ». Walker, 109 U. S. 258. WALWORTH— WARD. 815 Walworth v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 4 Sandf. Ch. 51. Approved, but rev'd, in 1 if. Y. 433. Wamnaugh v. Gates, 11 Paige, 505. Aff'd in How. App. Cas. 247. Further proceed- ings in 8 K Y. 138. Decision in 11 Paige explained and applied (Proof in proceeding to enforce liability of heirs for decedent's debts) in Blossom v. Hatfield, 24 Hun, 276. "With decision in 8 N. Y. see (Recovery by purchaser on execution sale, in case of his eviction) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1479, n. Wanzer t. Cary, 12 Hun, 403. Aff d in 76 N. Y. 526. ■ v. De Banm, 1 E. P. Smith, 261 ; s. c, 1 Code R. K 8. 280. Applied (Debt, when fraudulently contracted) in Freeman v. Le- . land, 2 Abb. Pr. 480. Applied (Right of arrest for fraud, as affected by form of ac- tion) in Union B'k v. Mott, 6 Id. ,325. Ex- amined and re-affd . (Right of arrest as af- fected by existence of foreign judgment) in Greenbaum v. Stein, 2 Paly, 223. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 552, n. Ward v. Arredondo, Hoph. 213; s. c, 14 Am. Pec. 543. Approved (Jurisdiction' as to lands without State) in • Gardner v. Og- den, 22 HT. Y. 327, 338. v. Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co., 71 N. Y. 81. Followed (Liability for injury result- ing from fall of telegraph pole) in Allen v. Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co., 21 Hun, 22. Disting'd with Allen v. Atlantic, &c. Tel. Co.; Cleveland.'!). N. J. Steamboat Co., 08 N. Y. 306; Loftus v. Union, &c. Ferry Co., 84 Id. 455 (Liability for injury arising from unusual cause) in Gubasco v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., N. Y. Paily Reg. July 11, 1883. T. Becbe, 15 Abb. Pr. 372. Further de- cision in 17 Id. 1. v. Begg, 18 Barb. 139. Disting'd (Ac- tion in. which attachment may be granted) in Gordons. Gaffey, 1} Abb. Pr. 1,3. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, ch. VII, tit.' Ill, art. 1, n. v. Center, 3 Johns. 271. Applied (Ef- fect of jury's verdict on conflicting evidence as to fraud) in Blanchard's Gun-Stock Fuming Factory v. Jacobs,' 2 Blatchf. C. Ct. 69, 71. v. Clark, 2 Johns. 10; s. c, 3 Am. Pec. 383. Disting'd (Words imputing crime of perjury when actionable) in Commons v. Walters, 1 Port. {Ala.) 377 ; s. c, 27 Am. Pec. 635. Included in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 81. t. Dewey, 16 N. Y. 519. Rev'g decision, report of which is to be found in Van Santvoord's Precedents of Pleadings, 121, n. Another decision in 7 How. Pr. 17. Dewey v. Ward, 12 Id. 419, appears to be a cross-suit. Decision in 16 J¥. Y. disting'd (Ground of proceeding for rert""'al of cloud on title) in Williams v. Fitzhugh, 37 Id. 449; Fondas. Sage, 48 Id. 179. Applied in Crooke v. Andrews, 40 Id. 549. Fol- lowed in Bunce v. Gallagher, 5 Blatchf. C Ct. 481, 488. v. Green, Cow. 173 ; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 437. Disting'd (When master of vessel is empowered to sell it) in Joy v. Allen, 2 Wood &M. 316, 318. v. Howard, 25 Hun, 119. Abridg't s. c, 12 WeeUy Pig. 491. Earlier proceed- ing as Lintz v. Howard, 18 Hun, 424. v. Kilpatrick, 9 Weekly Pig. 342. Aff'd in 85 N. Y. 413 ; s. c, 39 Am. R. 674. v. Newell, 42 Barb. 482. Disting'd (Liability of special partner) in Van lngen v. Whitman, 62 N. Y. 513, 520 v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 29 Applied (Measure of damages against carrier for delay) in Dunham v. Bost. & Me. R. R. Co., 70 Me.AU; s. c, 35 Am. R. 314, 318. Included with notes in Sedgw. Cas. on Pama. 177. v. People, 3 Hill, 395. Aff'd in 6 Id. ■ 144. See Keyser v. Harbeck. Decision in. 3 Hill commented on (Petit larceny, whether a felony) in Carpenter v. Nixon, 5 Id. 260. See also Keyser v. Harbeck, & Puer, 373, 388 ; People v. Adler, 3 Pari. 249, 255. Disregarded; in Shay v. People, 22 N. Y. 317. Decision in 6 Hill collated with Marshall v. Peters, 12 How. Pr. 218; Brown v. Brown, 30 A 7 ! Y. 519; Myer v. Whitaker, 5 Abb. K C. 172, and other cases (Property in ice and actions in respect thereto) in 32 Am. R. 104, n. See also 21 Am. L. Reg. iV. 8. 320, n.; 3 Alb. L. J 386. v. Perrin, 54 Pari. 89. Explained and followed (Sufficiency of notice of protest) in Requa v. Collins, 51 K Y. 144, 149. • v. Roy, 69 N. Y. 96. See (Costs in action brought in name of another) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3247, n. v. Rnckinnn, 34 Barb. 419. Aff d in 36 N. Y. 26. , v. Sea Ins. Co., 7 Paige, 294. Applied (Proceedings by stockholder for dissolution of corporation) in Masters v. Eclectic Life Ins. Co., 6 Paly, 455, 457; Kittredge v. Kellogg Bridge Co., 8 Abb. N: C. 168, 169. Discussed in Aug. & A. on Corp. § 774, 11 ed. v. Shaw, 7 Wend. 404. Disting'd (When title passes on sale) in Brewer v. Salisbury, 9 Barb. 514, v. Spencer, 1 Hun, 022 ; fuller mem. s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (7'. & C.) 697. Appeal said in 2 Ilun, vi. to have been dismissed. v. Syme, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 95. Aff'd in 4 N. Y. 171. Subsequent decision in 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 313; s. c, 1 Code U. N. S. 208; rev'd in 9 How. Pr. 16; s. c, as Ward v. Wordsworth, 1 E. P. Smith, 598. Decision in 9 How. Pr. approved and ap- plied (Attorney's lien under the Code) in Haight®. Holcomb, 7 Abb. Pr. 212; Rob- erts v. Carter, 9 Id. 368; Rooney v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 18 K Y. 370. See to the contrary Davenport v. Ludlow, 4 How. Pr. 337 v. Tingley, 4 Sandf. Ch. 476. Collated 816. WAED— WAENEE. with other cases (Provision for conditional preferences in assignments for creditors) in Bishop on Assign. § 200. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 179, 4 ed. v. Ward, 23 Hun, 431. Followed (Power of Supreme Court to determine validity of alleged devise) in Wager v. Wager, Id. 440. v. Warren, 15 Hun, 600. AfTd in 82 N. Y. 265. Decision in Id. disting'd as a case of claim of right (Title, when obtained by prescription) in Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 Id. 31, 46. Discussed (Ejectment against tenants in common) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 276. v. Whitney, 3 Sand/. 399. Affd in 8 XT. Y. 442. v. Wiman, 17 Wend. 193. Approved (Liability for fraudulent representations as to title to real estate) in Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. 305, 308. v. Wordsworth. See Same v. Syme. Wardell v. Eden. Sae Andrews ». Beecker. V. Fosdick, 13 Johns. 325; s. c, 7 Am. Bee. 383. Approved (Liability for fraudu- lent representations as to title to real estate) in Whitney v. Allaire, 1 K Y. 305, 308. v. Howell, 9 Wend. 170; s. c, 11 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 572, with brief note. See Bay v. Coddington ; Boot v. French ; Bosa v. Brotherson; Schepp v. Carpenter. Applied (Parting with value that makes one bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in Farriiigton®. Frankfort B'k, 24 Barb. 503; Francia v. Joseph, 3 Edw. 184; Stalker ». McDonald, 6 Hill, 97. Disting'd with Francia v. Joseph, in Traders' Bank of Eochestcr «. Bradner, 43 Barb. 379, 393. Quoted in Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. o/ Exch. 268. Wardrop v. Dunlop, 1 Hun, 325; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 531. Aff'd. it seems, in 59 Af. Y. 634, but without opin- ion. Wardwell v. Haight. See Vernon v. Man- hattan Co. Warlius v. Bowery Savings B'k, 5 Duer, 67. Aff'd in 21 N. Y. 543. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of signing instrument without full knowledge of its contents) in Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 2 Hun, 46, 49 ; which was rev'd in 62 JV. Y. 171, 179, which see. Waring v. Indemnity Fire Ins. Co.. 45 Jf. Y. 606; s. c, 6 Am. B. 146. See De For- est v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co. Relied on (Basis of recovery, in case of loss under policy covering an interest in property) in Trade Ins. Co. v. Barraclifl, 16 Vroom (iV. J.) 543; s. c, 46 Am. It. 792, 798. v. Loder, 53 JV. Y. fi&l. Disting'd (Rights of mortgagee, in case of insured property) in Ulster County Sav'gs Inst. v. Leake, 73 Id. 166. Disting'd (Insurer's right to, subrogation) in Dick v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 10 Mo. App. 376, 391. V. Mason, 18 Wend. 425 ; s. c, 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 422, with brief note. Ex- plained and quoted (Sale by sample) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 548, n. v. Reviewed and collated with other cases to same effect, in 22 Am. L. Reg, N. S. 242. v. Robinson, Hoffm. 524. Disting'd (Effect of appointment of receiver of insol- vent partnership) in Holmes v. McDowell, 15 Hun, 585, 590. v. Smyth, 2 Barb. Ch. 119 ; s. c, 47 Am. Bee. 299, with note, wherein are col- lected citations. See Phyfe v. Riley ; Til- lou v. Clinton Ins. Co.; Van Buren v. Cockburn. Applied (Nature of mortgagee's interest) in Calkins v. Calkins, 3 Barb. 312.' Reviewed with other cases in dissenting opinion in Trimm v. Marsh, 54 AT. Y. 623,- Disting'd (Merger of original contract in written agreement) in Matteson v. Ells- worth, 33 Wis. 488; s. c, 14 Am. It. 760, 770. v. Soinborn, 12 Hun, 81. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in .71 AT. Y. 605, but without opinion. v. Warren, 1 Johns. 340. Explained with Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. 39 (Admis- sibility of declarations of former owner) in Paige ». Cagwin, 7 Hill, 361, 369. Fol- lowed with Jackson «. Bard, 4 Johns. 230; Jnckson v. McCall, 10 Id. 377, in Norton®. Pettibone, 7 Conn. 319; s. c, 18 Am, Dec.- 116, with note. v. Waring, 3 Abb. Br. 246. Previous decision in 17 Barb. 552. Decision in 3 Abb. Pr. followed (Purchaser, &c. of de- cedent's real estate, when protected from liability for his debts) in Fonda v. Chap- man, 23 Hun, 119, 123. Decision in 17 Barb, disting'd (Effect of devise to wife for life, with power) in Dunning v. Vandusen, 47 Ind. 423; s. c, 17 Am. R. 709, 712. Quoted (Lapse of real estate specifically devised) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & IV ed. 637, n. Warne v. Constant, 4 Johns. 32. Applied (Liability for false imprisonment) in Dusen- bury v. Keiley, 85 K Y. 383, 389. Warner v. Beardsley, 8 Wend. 194. See Pain v. Packard. Explained (Equitable remedy of surety to compel debtor to pay) in Slauson v. Watkins, 86 N. Y. 597, 601. Limited (Discharge of surety by failure of creditor to proceed against principal debtor) in Converse v. Cook, 25 Hun, 44, 46. v. Beers, 23 Wend. 103. See Thomas v. Dakin. Explained (Banking associations, as corporations) in Leavitt v. Blatchford, 5 Barb. 11 ; People v. Assessors of Water- town, 1 Hill, 617. Disapproved in De Bow v. People, 1 Ben. 12, but see Gifford v. Liv- ingston, 2 Id. 380. Approved with Gifford v. Livingstone, in Palmer v. Smith, 10 A 7 ". Y. 303, 305. Applied :.i Talmage «. Pell, 9 Paige, 415. Explained in Supervisors of Niagara v. People, 7 Hill, 509 ; East River B'k v. Judah, 10 How. Pr. 136; Leavitt®. Blatchford, 17 -ZV. Y. 527. Denied (Effect of constitutional provision as to mode of passage of laws affecting corporations) in Purdy v. People, 4 Hill, 398, 401. Ex- WARNER. 817 plained in Hunt v. Van Alstyne, 25 Wend. 608. Criticised (Power of courts to go be- hind record, to impeach statute) in People e. Devlin, 83 K Y. 280, 285. Discussed and cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 345. v. Blakeman, 36 Barb. 501. Aff'd in 4 Eeyes, 487; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 630. See Wood v. Colvin. Decision in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. explained and applied (Rights of purchaser at sale under irregular foreclosure) in Mickles v. Dillaye, 15 Sun, 301. Applied in Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, 498. Otherwise (Money judg- ment against fraudulent grantee) where fraudulent grantee is debtor's wife, as in Phipps v. Sedgwick, 95 U. S. 3. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Oonv. § 60, n. 2. v. Durant, 15 Hun, 45. Aff'd in 76 K 7. 1 33. See Loder v. Hatfield ; Manice s. Manice. v. Erie R'y Co., 49 Barb. 558. Rev'd in 49 N. Y. 468. See De Graffs. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 39 ,N. Y. explained (Duty of railroad company to furnish safe road-bed) in Tinney v. Bos- ton & Albany R. R. Co., 62 Barb. 219. Applied with Tinney ». Boston & Albany R. R. Co., in Smith v. St Louis, Kansas City & Northern lt'y Co., 69 Mo. 32 ; s. c, 33 "Am. Ii. 487, 490. Applied (Master's liability to employe for injury resulting from imperfect machinery, &c.) in King v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Sun, 770. Fol- lowed with De Graff s. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 125, in Ballou v. Mil- waukee & St. Paul R'y Co., 54 Wis. 259; s. c, 41 Am. B. 31, 35. Cited with other cases in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 107. Ap- plied (Master's liability to employe for neg- ligence of co-employe) in Moran ». N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 99. Explained in Brickner v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Lans. 515, 517; Laning «. Same, 49 K Y. 528, 531 ; Flike v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 53 Id. 553. Criti- cised and limited in Chapman v. Erie R'y Co,, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 528. v. Gouverneur, 1 Barb: 36. Approved with Bank of Ogdensburg v. ,Arnold, 5 Paige, 40 (Receiver of mortgaged property) in 16 Cent. L. J. 86, where the N. Y. rule is said to be followed in most of the sister- States, California constituting the notable exception. Quoted in Sigh, on Beceiv , § 667, n. 1. v. Hitching, -5 Barb. 666. Explained and compared (Lessees obligation to rebuild in case of destruction of demised premises) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 505, n. m. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Sow. Pr. 454. Approved (Statutory liability of rail- road corporations in favor of laborers) in Kent o. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., L2 N Y 628, 633. . - v. Lee, 6 N. Y. 144. See Scott v. Ocean B'k. Followed with Scott v. Ocean B'k, 5 Bosir,. 192; 23 N. Y. 289 (Property in notes or bills sent to banker for collec- I.-52 tion) in Hoffman v. Miller, 9 Botoo. 334. 341. See Commercial Bank of Clyde v. Marine Bank, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 405. — - v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 Barb. 299. Rev'd in 44 N. Y. 465. Further decision in 52 II. 437. Decision in 44 Id. disapproved (Negligence in one crossing, railroad track) in Costello v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. .102. Applied (Proof that injury was solely caused by defendant on action for negligence) in McLain s. Van Zandt, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 352. Dic- tum opposed in Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 140, 149. Dis- ting'd (Evidence of intemperate habits oi railroad employe, as bearing on question of negligence) in Cleghorn v. . N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 56 K Y. 46. Limited (NegHgence in running train at high rate of speed) in Tozer s. N. Y. Central, &c. 1!. R. Co.j 17 Weekly Dig. 370. Decision in 52 N. Y. followed (Continuance of power of jury over verdict) in Manning s. Port Henry Iron Co., 27 Sun, 219, 221. Dictum - overruled in effect (Modification of verdict by court) in Dalrymple v. Williams, 63 JT. Y. 361. v. Penn. R. R. Co., 6 Bun, 197. Ex- plained and followed (Time of application for removal to Federal Court) in Bright v. Milwaukee, &c. R. R. Co., 1 Abb. K C. 15. — - v. People, 2 Den. 272; s. c, 43 A m. Dec. 740, with note, wherein it is said to be a leading case in N. Y. Followed (Power of legislature to reduce compensation of officer) in. Phillips ®. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Silt. 490 ; Conner e. Same, 5 W. Y. 300. Followed (Duties of office made elective by constitution cannot be transferred by stat- ute to appointee) in King v. Hunter, 65 N~. C. 603; &.c.,6-Am.R. 754; State ex rel. Kennedy s. Brunst, 26 Wis. 412; s. c. 7 Am. B. 84. v. Price, 3 Wend. 397. Relied on (When persons signing as sureties must be regarded as co-sureties) in Bagotts. Mullen, 32 Ind. 332; s. c. 2 Am. It. 351. v. Shed, 10 Johns. 138; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 970, with brief note. Followed (Process as protection to officer) in Miller v. Brown, 3 Mo. 127; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 693, with note ; Ranahan v. O'Neale, 6 Gill. & J. (Md.) 298 ; s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 576, with note. Fol- lowed with Pasker s. Walrod, 16 Wend. 514; Noble v. Holmes, 5 Sill, 194; Cornell v. Barnes, 7 Id. 35 ; Webber v. Gay, 2'4 Wend. 485 ; People v. Cooper, 13 Id. 379; People v. Warren, 5 Mil, 440, in State v. Weed, 21 N. S. 262; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 188, 192. And com- pare citations on this point, in 21 Am. Dec. 192, n. v. Warren, 46 N. Y. 228. Followed (Wife's liability for acts of husband as agent) in Wicks v. Hatch, 38 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 95, 110. Discussed in Wait on Fraud. Conv. §198. 818 WARNER— WATERBURY, MATTER OF. t. Western Transp. Co., 5 fiobt. 490. Reviewed with other cases (Fraud on car- rier) in Magnin v. Din3more, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 248, 254, which was rev'd in G2 A 7 ! Y. 35, 43, which see. — - v. Buckley, 2 Abb. N. C. 323. Dis- ting'd (Basis of extra allowance) in Potter v. Farrington, 24 Hun, 552. r. Wigers, 2 Sand/. 635. See (Order of disposition of issues) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 967, n. Warren v. Ilaight, 65 N. Y. 171. Prior pro- ceedings between same parties, as it seems, in 62 Barb. 490. With decision in C5 N. F. compare (Following' proceeds of stolen property) Newton v. Porter, 5 Lara. 416 ; 69 N. Y. 133 ; Porter v. Knapp, 6 T.ans. 125. v. Leland, 2 Barb. 613. Applied (Sales of growing trees) in Boisaubin v. Reed, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 162, 165; Kellam v. McKenstry, 6 Hun, 383 ; which was aff'd in 69 N. Y. 270, which see. Disting'd in Vorebeck v. Roe, 50 Barb. 306. Doubted in Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 57 Id. 243, 246. v. Lynch, 5 Johns. 239; s. a, 3 N. Y. Com. L. ,Law. ed. 1005, with brief note. Applied with Andrews v. Harriot, 4 Cow. 508 (Law of place, as applicable to sealed instrument) in Williams v. Haynes, 27 Iowa, 251; s. c, 1 Am. £. 268. T. Mains, 7 Johns. 476. Disting'd (What is sufficient tender) in Spann v. Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 346, 357, with note. v. Sprague. See Joslin v. Oowee. v. United Ins. Co. , 2 Johns. Cos. 231 : s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 164, with note, wherein it is shown to have been frequently confirmed (Implied warranty of seaworthiness). Also s. c, I .37". Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 498, with brief note citing N". Y. cases. Warth v. Radclc, 18 Abb. Dr. 396. Disting'd (Misjoinder of causes of action) in Day v. Stone, 5 Daly, 354. Washburn, Matter of, 4 Johns. Ch. 106; s. c, 3 Wheel. 473; s. c, 8 ,4m. Dee. 548. Relied on with People v. Schenck, 2 Johns. 479 ; Matter of Goodhue, 1 Wheel. 427 ; 1 City Hall Sec. 153 ; People v. Goodhue, 2 Johns. Ch. 198, and People v. Wright, 2 Cai. 213,. disapproved (Surrender of offender against laws of another jurisdiction) in Matter of Fetter, 3 Zabr. (A 7 ". J.) 311 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 382, with extended note. Cited in connection with leading English and American authorities in 1 Kent Com. 36, n. d. Approved in 17 Am. L. Rev. 340. See letter of Mr. Lawrence in Trans. of Nat. Asso for Prom, of Social Scicvce,186G,p. 153. Washburn v. Burnhain, 63 'N. Y. 132. Dis- ting'd (Basis of proceeding for removal of cloud on title) in Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dougherty, 16 Hun, 596. T. Cooke. See Lewis v. Chapman. — — t. Franklin, 11 Abb. Pr. 93. Rev'a in 14 Id. 140 ; s. c, 35 Barb. 599 ; 24 How. Pr. 51 5. See Central B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co. v. Jones, 14 Barb. 193. Disting'd (Lia- bility of bailee of horse) in Mowers v. Fetticrs, 61 If. Y. 34, 89. v. Mclnroy, 7 Johns. 135. Disting'd (Recovery of several penalties for sale of liquor without license) in Deyo v. Rood, 3 Hill, 528 ; Suydam v. Smith, 52 N. Y. 383, 389 (latter, a case of neglect of duty of keeper of toll-gate). Followed in Tiffany ■». Davis, 1 3 Johns, 253. Applied to exac- tion of excessive fare, — in Fisher v. N. Y. Central, &c. R, R. Co., 46 N. Y. 659: See Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 2 Sweeny, 312. Washington B'k v. Palmer, 2 Sandf. 686; S. c, 8 A 7 ". Y. Leg. Obs. 92. Cited as authority (Stockholder of bank as witness in action affecting bank) in Montgomery B'k v. Marsh, 7 N. Y. 485. Washington Cemetery v. Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 655. AfFd in 68 A 7 ! Y. 591 ; s. c.,' 4 Alb. K C 15. See Milhau v. Sharp. Decision in 68 A'. Y. followed (Fee, when not acquired in land taken for public purposes) in Murdock v. Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 73 Id. 579, 582. Disting'd in Story v. N. Y. Ele- vated R. R. Co., 3 Abb: N. C. 478, 497. Washington Ins. Co. v. Price, Hopk 1. Fol- lowed (Disqualification of judge by interest) in Place v. Butternuts, &c. Manuf. Co., 28 Barb. 506 ; Jewett v. Albanv City B*k, ' Clarke, 182; Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N. Y. 550. Explained in Matter of Ryers,- 72 Id. 12. Questioned in Matter of Dodge -and Stevenson Manuf. Co., 77 Id. 101, 108. v. Slee, 2 Paige, 365. Explained 'and applied (Effect of death of party to proceed- ing) in Oort v. Campbell, 82 N.~Y. 509, 514. Disting'd with Requa v. Holmes, 16 Id. 193, in Nicoll v. Boyd, 90 Id. 516. Washington Life Ins Co. v. ' Lawrence, 53 Barb. 307. Said in 41 N. Y. 620, to have been aff'd in Ct. of App. Dec. 1869. Washington Park, Matter of, 15 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 148. Rev'd in Washington Park v. Barnes, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 637, appeal from which was dismissed in Matter of Washington Park, 56 A 7 ! Y. 144. Decision in Id. followed (Discontinuance of proceed- ings to acquire land for public purposes) in Matter of Military Parade Ground, 60 Id. 325. Disting'd in Matter of Rhinebeck, &e. R. R. Co., 67 Id. 245. Disting'd (Title when divested in such proceedings) in Rider!). Stryker, 63 Id. 139. Washington Park v. Barnes. See Matter of Washington Park. Washoe Tool M'fg Co. v. Hibcrnia Fire Ins. Co., 7 Hun, 74. Aff'd in G6 N. Y. 613. Wasmer v. Delaware, Lack. &c. R. R. Co. See Brown r. Cayuga & Susquehanna R R. Co. ; Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse R. B. Co. ; Ryan v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. Waterbury, Matter of, 8 Paige, 380. Fol- lowed (Injunction , against proceedings by creditors on application for vol- untary dissolution of corporations) m WATERBURY— WATKINS. 819 Matter of French Manufg Co., 12 Hun, 488. Watcrbnry v. Dry Dock, &e. E. R. Co., 54 Barb. 888; s. c. as Dry Dock, &c. R. 11. Co. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 32 How. Pr. 193. Rev'g 30 How. Pr. 39. ^— - v. Mather, 16 Wend. 611. Dictum ap- proved and followed (Effect of misnomer of dofendant in pleading, &c.) in Miller v. Stettiner, 7 Bosw. 692, 695. See 2 Phil. Ev. 132 ; Barry v. Foylea, 1 Pet. 311. v. Merchants' Union Exp. Co., 50 Barb. 157; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. K S. 163. Discussed with'Baoon v. Dinsmore, 42 How. Pr. 377 ; Fargo v. McVicker, 55 Barb. 437 (Personality or corporate character of joint stock companies) in Baltimore & 0. R. Co. «. Adams Exprfcss Co., U. S. Circ. Ct. D. Md. 12 Fed. Bep. 404, 407. See cases cited in 4 Abb. N. G. 311, n.. Quoted with cases to the contrary (Receiver of corporation) in High on Receiv. § 288, n. 1. v. Sinclair, 26 Barb. 455; s. c, more fully, 6 Abb. Pr. 20. Rev'd in 7 Id. 399 ; s. c. 16 Bow. Pr. 329. See Hall v. New- comb; Herrick v. Carman. Decision in 16 How. Pr. explained (Liability of irregular indorser) in Moore v. Cross, 19 N~. Y. 230. v. Sturtevnnt, 18 Wend. 353. Ex- plained (Declarations to prove conspiracy • to defraud creditors) in Cnyler v. McCart- ney, 40 K Y. 221, 228; which rev'd 33 Barb. 165, 172, which see. ^ v. Westervelt, 9 N. Y. 598. Followed (Joint liability of sheriff and deputy for tort committed by latter) in Witowski v. '. Brennan, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 284, 288. Thought in 11 Am. Bee. 145, rc.,to haveover- ruled Moulton v. Norton, 4 Barb. 296. Water Commissioners, Matter of. See Bellinger ». N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Water Commissioners of Detroit v. Burr, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 522. Affd iu 56 N. Y. 66.1 Waterford & Whitehall Turnpike Co. v. People, 9 Barb. 161. Followed (Statutory remedy, when exclusive) in Syracuse & Tully Plank Road Co. v. People, 66 Barb. 25, 29; People o. Hitkey, 5 Daly, 365, ■ 877. Waterman v. Buskin, 11 Johns. 228. Cited as authority (Power of court to control money raised on its own process) in Steb- bins v. Walker, 2 Qreen L. (K J.) 80; s. C, 25 Am. Dec. 449, 503, with note. v. Whitney, 11 K Y. 157 See Jack- son v. Holloway ; Jackson v. Kniffen. Com- mented on with Johnson v. Hicks, 1 Bans. 150 (Admissibility of declarations of testa- tor as bearing on question of validity of will) in Taylor Will Case, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 300, 307. Disting'd in La Bau v. Vandcr- bilt, 3 Bed/. 412. Followed in Bates v. Bates, 21 Iowa, 110; s. c, 1 Am. £. 261. Followed with Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 Johns. 31, in Gay v. Gay, 60 Iowa, 415 ; s. c, 46 Am. R. 78. Compared with Jat kson r. Kniffen, 2 Johns. 31, iu Reynolds v. Adams, 90 III 134 ; s. c, 82 Am. R. 15. Applied to grantor in Sanford v. Ellithorp, 95 N. i. 48 54. Cases cited to the contrary in Abb. Tr. En. 124, n. 9. Collated with other cases in 3 Am. Dec. 395, n. Waters v. Crawford, 2 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 602. Compared with a previous decision in Crawford v. Waters, 46 How. Pr.4,10, and explained (Right of lessee to accounting by lessor) in Pursell v. N. Y. Life Ins , &c. Co., 42 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 383, 390, 898. v. Cullcn, 2 Brad/. 354. Reviewed other cases (Insane delusion of testator) in Merrill v. Rolston, 5 Red/. 220, 255. Ex- plained in Willard on Executors, 82. v. Langdon, 40 Barb. 408. Explained and disting'd (Validity of statute providing for election of justice) in Dawson v. Horan, 51 Barb. 459, 465. Explained in Geraty v. Reid, 78 K Y. 64, 67. v. Shepherd, 14 Hun, 223. Disregarded under Code Civ. Pro. § 1019 (Delivery of report by referee) in Phipps v. Car- man, 23 Hun, 151. Disapproved with Quaokcnbush v. Johnson, 55 How. Pr. 94; but Geibu. Topping, 83 H. Y. 4fi, disting'd, and Phipps v. Carman, 23 Hun, 150 ; 84 JV". Y. 650, followed in Little v. Lynch, 5 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 216. - — v. Travis,* 9 Johns. 450; s. c, 4 N. Y. Cum. L. Law. ed. 837, with brief note. See Kane v. Bloodgood. Cited with approval (Distinction between vendor and purchaser of land seeking specific performance) in Couse v. Boyles, 3 Green. Gh. (N. J.) 212 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 514, with note. Watertown Bank & Loan Co. v. Mix, 51 N". Y. 558. See Thayer v. Van Vleet. Ap- plied (Communications between judge and jury after retirement) in Gillotte v. Jack- son, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 308, 310. Fol- lowed in Plunkett v! Appleton, 51 How. Pr. 474. Disting'd in Mahoney v. Decker, 18 ZT«re, 367. Watervleit Bank v. White. See Babcock v. Beipan. Watkins v. Abrahams, 24 K Y. 72. Affg Wotkyns v. Abrahams, 14 How. Pr. 191. See Roraback v. Stebbins. Decision in 24 iV. Y. explained (Confession of judgment by married woman) in Roraback v. Stebbins, iAbb. Ct. App. Dec. 100, 104. v. Halstead, 2 San'l/. 311. See Nash v. Russell; Wilson v. Burr. Disapproved (Effect of promise made by married woman after coverture to meet obligation incurred during coverture) in Goulding v. Davidson, 26 F. Y. 608, 616, 619, which rev'd 28 Barb. 438, 440, which see. Said, however, in Smith v. Allen, 1 Bans. 101, 108, not to have been overruled or questioned in Gould- ing v. Davidson. See to the contrar}' Wil- son v. Burr, 25 Wend. 386. Approved in 1 Pars, on Contr. 465. Included in Swell Bead. Cas. on Inf. &c. 317. Collated with other cases iu 36 Am. R. 765, n. v. Pickney, 3 Edw. 533. Quoted and .820 W ATKINS— WATSON. explained (Compelling delivery of property to receiver) in High on Receiv. § 51, n. 1. v. Stevens. See Souldou v. Van Rensse- laer. v. Wearer, 10 Johns. 107. Explained (Constable who serves jury process, when disqualified to act as attornev) in Miles v. Pulver, 3 Den. 84. v. Wikox, 4 Hun, 220 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 539. Affd in 66 N. Y. 654, on last point. Watkinson r. Laiigliton, 8 Johns. 213. Discussed (Carrier's liability for theft of third' persons) in Ang. on Can: § 189, 5 ed. Quoted and explained (Measure of damages in actions against carrier) in Id. § 484, 5 cd. Watrons v. Kearney, 11 Hun, 584. x\ppeal dismissed in 79 N. Y. 496. Watson, Matter of, 2 E. D. Smith, 429. Explained and applitd (Discharge of debtor from imprisonment) in Matter of Roberts, 8 Daly, 95, 97, 101. But see Matter of Fow- ler, Id. 548, 557. , 3 Lans. 408. Affd in 5 Id. '406, and that affd as Watson v. Nelson, 69 N. Y. 536. See Lansing -o. Lansing. With decis ion in 5 Lans. compare (Proceedings to punish for contempt) People ex rel. Phelps v. Fancher, 2 Hun, 226, 232. Decision in 3 Lans. explained and qualified (Surrogate's power to issue attachment to punish execu- tors, &o. for breach of duty) in Thompson's Estate, 15 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 230, 236, 239/ 242. Decision in 69 IT. Y. explained in People v. Marshall, 7 Abb. IT. 0. 38", 383. See Stockbridge's Assignment, Id. 395, 398, a case of assignee for creditors. See ; Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2481, »., 2555, n. With decision in 3 Lans. sec (Writ of habeas corpus, when to be denied) Code Ch. Pro. 1881, § 2016, n. Decision in 69 JT. Y. disting'd with Strowbridge n. Strow- bridge, 21 Hun, 288; Van Wezcl v. Van Wezel, 3 Paige, 38; People ex rel. Haw ley ■o. Bennet, 4 Id. 282 ; People ex rel. Backus «. Spalding, 10 Id. 287 (Punishment for disobedience of order) in Mevers v. Becker, 29 Hun, 567, 572. Watson v. Bennett, 12 Barb. 196. Criti- cised as extreme (Liability of corporations for acts of their agents) in Fink v. Canyon Road Co., 5 Oreg. 305. Sec Luse v. Isthmus Transit R' way Co., 6 Id. 125; s. c, 25 Am. R. 506; 23 Am. Dec. 744, n. v. Bi-cnnan, 39 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 81. Rev'din 66^ Y. 621. v. Campbell, 38 IT. Y. 153 ; s. c, more fully, C Transc. App. 335. v. Bavis, 19 Wend. 371. Explained and approved with Hess v. Beekmaii, 11 Johns. 457 (Effect of proceedings before justice, as bar) in Young v. Rumruell, 5 Hill, 60. See Hall v. Tuttle, 6 Id. 38. v. Delafield, 2 Cai. 224. Subsequent decision in 1 Johns. 150, which was affd in 2 Id. 526. v. Buykinck, 3 Johns. 335. Followed and approved (Freight paid in advance, when to be refunded) in Griggs v. Austin, 3 Rich. (Mass.) 20; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 175. Discussed in 3 Kent Com. 226. Collated with other cases in 2 Red/. Am. Iiailw. Cas. 203. v. Gardiner, 50- IT. Y. 671. See (Amendment of judgment on re-adjustment of costs) McLean v. Hoyt, 56 How. Pr. 351. See (Costs where there are several issues of fact) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3234, n. v. Hunter, 5 Johns. Ch. 169; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 295. Followed (Injunction against cutting and removing timber) in Johnson v. White, 11 Barb. 194, 198. See Weatherby v. Wood, 29 How. Pr. 406. Quoted in 1 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 674, n. 5. Disting'd with Wilson v. -Maltby, 59 K Y. 126 ; Bank of Auburn v. Roberts, 45 Barb. 421; Johnson v. White, 11 Id. 194 (Remedy for severance of property from real estate) in Sullivan v. Toole, 26 Hun, 203. Applied (Power to give damages, when incidental to jurisdiction of equity) in Henderson v: N. y. Central R. R. Co., 78 IT. Y. 437. v. Husson, 1 Duer, 242. Afi'd in Drummond v. Husson, 14 N. Y. 60. Decis- ion in 1 Duer explained (Remedy for irrel- evancy in pleading) in Lee Bank v. Etch- ing, 11 Abb. Pr. 435, 439. v. McLaren, 19 Wend. 557. Affd as McLaren v Watson, 26 Wend. ■ 425 ; s. c, 14 IT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1129, with brief note ; 37 Am. \Dec. 260, with note. See Birckhead v. Brown ; Lamourioux v. Hew- itt. Reporter's abstract to decision in 19 Id. corrected (Liability of guarantor of note ■ as indorser) in Miller*. Gaston, 2 Hill, 192. Followed (Estoppel as created by represen- tations as to validity, &c. of obligation) in Hills v. Varct, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 107; L'Amoreux «. Vischer, 2 JT. Y. 281. Fol- lowed with Douglass v. Rowland, 24 Wend. 35 ; Cooper v. Dederick, 22 Barb. 516 ; Brewster v. Silence, 8 IT. Y. 207 (Words "value received" as sufficient ex- pression of consideration for guaranty) in Miller «. Cook, 23 Id. 496. See also Day v. Elmore, 4 Wise. 196. Decision in 26 Wend. cited as authority (Negotiability of guar- anty) in Tinker v. McCauley, 3 Mich. 194, Followed with Cooper s. Dederick, 22 Barb. 516, in Killian v. Ashley, 24 Ark. 516 (cited in 44 Am. Dec. 308, n.). Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1119, n 3. v. Morton, 26 How. Pr. 383. Rev'd in 18 Abb. Pr. 138; s. c, 27 How. Pr. 294. v. Nelson. See Matter of Watson. v. N. T. Central K. R. Co., 1 Bvff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) 159 ; s. c, 6 Alb. Pr. IT. S. 91. Affd, in effect, in 47 JT. Y. 157. Decision in Id. criticised and doubted as extreme (Statute, when invalid, as impair- ing obligation of contracts) in Sydr.or v. Palmer, 32 Wis. 406. v. .People,. 04 Barb. 130. Affd; it WATSON— WEAVER. 821 seems, in 52 If. Y. 641, but without opin- ion. v. Randall, 20 Wend 201. See Leon- ard *. Vredeubergh. Collated with Mallory v. Gillett, 21 K Y. 412, and many other cases (Verbal promise to answer for debt of another when within statute of frauds) in Stewarts. Campbell, 58 Me. 430; s. c, 4 Am. R. 296. v. Spence, 20 Wend. 260. Disapproved (Remedy of grantee of mortgagor, when not made party to foreclosure suit) iu Frische ». Kramer's Lessee, 16 Ohio, 125; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 368, with note. % Watt v. Crawford, 11 Paige, 470. Affd as Ferris v. Crawford, 2 Den. 595. Watts v. Kinney, 23 Wend. 484. Aff'd in 6 Hill, 82. Decision in Id. followed (Opera- tion of lease, &c. when restricted by pro- vision therein) in Rexford «. Marquis, 7 Lans. 258. Applied (Distinction between local and transitory action) in Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co., 4G Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 377, 385. _ v. yan Ness. 1 Mil, 76. Explained (Contracts as affected by Sunday law) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 759, n. q. Wangh v. Fielding. See Seymour r>. Wil- son. Waverly Paper Mills v. Bristol, 2 Suftm. Ct. (T. & C.) 662. Aft'd, it seems, in 60 If. Y. 626, but without opinion. Waverly Waterworks Co., Matter of, 16 Hun, 57. Rev'd in 85 N. Y. 478. Decis- ion in Id. followed (Effect of obtaining dis- cretionary order) in Brownell v. Ruckman, Id. 648. Way v. Cooper, 12 Weekly Dig. 119; s. c. as May o. Cooper, 24 Hun, 7. Waydell v. Luer, 5 Bill, 448. Rev'd in 3 Den. 410. Decision in 5 Hill disting'd (Effect of note, &c. as payment) in Living- ston v. Radcliff, 6 Barb. 206 ; McMaster v. Vernon, 3 Duer, 254. Decision in 3 Den. applied in Ireland v. Johnson, 18 Barb. 394. Followed as directly in point, in Lud- dington v. Bell, 77 If. Y. 140. Explained and applied to bond and mortgage, in La Farge v. Herter, 11 Barb. 171. Reversal explained in Parrott v. Colby, 6 Hun, 55, 58. Wayland v. Lysen, 9 Abb. Pr. K S. 79. Rev'd as Wayland e. Tysen, in 45 If. Y. 281. Decision in Id. disting'd (Striking out pleading) in Walker v. Walker, 82 Id. 260, 264. Followed (Striking out answer as sham) in Claflin v. Jaroslauski, 64 Barb. 463; Roby v. Hallock, 5 Abb. iV. O. 86, 88; Thompson v. Erie R R. Co., 45 If. J'. 472; Webb ». Foster, 41 Super. Ct (J. & S.) 312; Grocers' B'k of N. Y. v. O'Rorkc, 6 Hun, 18, 21. Followed with Thompson t>. Erie R. , R. Co., in Farmers' Nat. B'k v. Leland, 50 If. Y. 673. Disting'd in Kay v. Churchill. 10 Abb. If. C. 83, 85. See to the contrary Nelson Lumber Co. v. Richardson, 31 Minn. 267. V. Tysen. Same v. Tysen. Wayne & Ontario Collegiate Inst. y. Bevin- ney 43 Barb. 220. Said in 41 N. Y. 620, to have been rev'd in Ct. of App. Dec. I 869 - „ ,-LT -KT St Wayne Co. Savgs. Bk.,v. Low, 6 Abb. If. C. 76. Affd in 81 If. Y. 566 ; s. c, 37 Am. E. 533; mem., s. c, 8 Abb. If. C. 300. Sec Chapman v. Robertson. Decision in 81 If: Y. followed (Usury as determined by law of place) in Sheldon v. Haxton, 24 Hun, 197; Western Transp., &c. Co. v. Kilder- house 87 N. Y. 430. Compare Dickinson v. Edwards, 77 Id. 573, 584. Applied iu Scott v. Perlee, 39 Ohio St. 63, 69. Weaver v. Barden, 3 Lans. 338. Rev'd wit'h modifications in 49 N. Y. 286. See Stalker v. McDonald. Followed (Who is bona fide holder for value) in Ayres v. Ley- poldt, 6 Daly, 91, 94 ; Turner v. Treadway, 56 How. Pr. 28; Cary n. White, 52 N. Y. 138, 141 ; Barnard v. Campbell, 58 Id. 77. Dis- ting'd in Union Dime Savgs. Inst. v. Dur- yea, 67 Id. 84, 87. Explained iu.Dows ». Kidder, 84 Id. 121, 135 ; Barto v. Tomp- kins Co. Nat. Bk., 15 Hun, 11, 13. Quo- ted in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 450 (Corbins's 4 Am. ed.). Examined with other cases (Rights of bona fide purchaser of stock) in 20 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 170, n. v. Beutley, 1 Cat. 47. Applied (Recov- ery back of consideration money paid) in Stow f. Stevens, 7 Verm. 27 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 139. 144; Pipkin ». James, 1 Humph. {Term.) 325; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 652, with note. - v. Devendorf, 3 Den. 117. See Stephen- son v.- Hall; Yates d. Lansing. Examined with other cases (Personal liability of as- sessors) in Wilson v. Mayor of N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. 17, 24. Explained and applied in Barhyte «. Shepherd, 35 If. Y. 241, 245, 252. Followed in Brown v. Smith, 24 Barb. 422 ; Williams v. Weaver, 75 If. Y. 34. Disting'd in Wade v. Matheson, 4 Lans. 163; Palmer v. Lawrence, 6 Id. 201. Ap- plied to justice pf the peace, in Voorhees v. Martin, 12 Barb. 511. To school directors, in Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 343, 349. To grand juror, in Tur- pen v. Booth, 56 Cal. 65; s. c.,-38 Am. R. 49. To public officer in Steele t. Dunham, 26 Wis. 393. Followed and People ex rel. Francis v. Common Council of Troy, 78 If. Y. 33 ; Adsit v. Brady, 4 Hill, 630 ; Robin- son v. Chamberlain, 34 If. Y. 389, disting'd, in East River Gas Light Co. v. Donnelly, 93 If. Y. 557, a case of a common council. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of assessors) in Nat. B'k of Chemung v. City of Elmira, 53 N. Y. 54. Applied (Inquiry into motive of public officer) in People v. Supervisors of Schenectady, 35 Barb. 412. Disapproved . with Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 AT Y. 238; Easton v- Calendar, 11 Wend. 92, in Auditor of State v. Atchison, Topeka, &c. R. R. Co., 6 Kan. 500; s. c, 7 Am. R. 575, 579, as extending too widely, definition of judicial acts. 822 WEAVER— WE13EE. v. Rome, &c. R. R. Co., 3 Sup'm. . Ot. (T. & 0.) 270. DistiDg'd (Liability for ejection of passenger from train) in Towns- end v. N. Y. Central, )b. Pr. 314, n. Cited with cases to the contrary (Receiver in proceeding to foreclose mechanic's lien) in Bigh on Receiv. § 586, n. 1. Webber, Ex parte, 18 Wend. 510. Subse- quent 'decision as Webber's Executors to. Underbill, 19 Id. 447. Webber t. Gay. See Duffield v. Horton; Parker i>. Walrod ; Warner v. Shed. v. Shearman, 3 Bill, 547. Subsequent decision in 6 Id. 20. Rev'd in 2 Ben. 362. Decision in 6 Bill limited (Distraint for rent of preceding tenancy, under 2 R. S. 500, § 1) in Bell v. Potter, 6 Id. 497, 500. Decision in 3 Id. approved and followed (Effect of holding over, as continuation of- tenancy) in People v. Paulding, 22 Bun 91, 94. Webber's Executors v. Blunt, 19 Wend: 188. Applied (Security, when void, as taken colore officii) in Richardson v. Cran- dall, 48 K Y. 360. Applied (Security, &c. taken by sheriff, when void as contravening statute) in Morton i>. Campbell, 14 Abb* Pr. 414. See Toles v. Adee, 84 N~. Y. 222, 235. v. Underbill, 19 Wend. 447. Applied (Abatement of action of replevin) in Hop- kins v. Adams, 5 Abb. Pr. 353. Disting'd in Roberts v. Massen, 23 Bun, 486, 488. Applied to ejectment under the Code, in Mosely v. Mosely, 11 Abb. Pr. 107. Dis- ting'd as inapplicable to case of death of plaintiff, in Lahey *>. Brady, 1 Daly, 445; and see Potter v. Van Vrankeu, 36 N. Y. 624, 626. Weber v. Eingsland, 8 Bosw. 415. Applied (Reading deposition in evidence) in Mar- shall v. Watertown Steam Engine Co., 10 Bun, 463, 465. v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451. Further decision in 67 Id. 587. See Beisiegel «. Same. Decision in 53 AT." Y. followed (Contributory negligence in one crossing railroad track) in Massoth v. Dela- ware & H. Canal Co., 6 Bun, 314, 317; which was aft'd in 64 K Y. 524; 529, which see; Powell v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 22 Bun, 58 ; Leonard v. Same, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 231. Explained (Evidence of absence of flagman at crossing, as bearing on ques- tion of negligence) in McGrath v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 63 K Y. 522, 526. Compare Callaghan v. Rome, W. & O. R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Big. 395. Followed in Welsch v. Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 72 Mo. 455. Followed (Giving statutory sig- nals at crossing, when insufficient to absolve company from charge of negligence) in WEBSTEK-WEED. 823 Dyer®. Erie R'y Co., 71 K Y. 230. Ap- plied (Question of ordinary care, when one of fact) in Hays' Administrator v. Miller, 6 Hun, 320, 324. Webster v. Bninbridge, 13 Hun, 180. See (Frivolous pleading) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 537, n. V. Bond, 9 Hun, 437. See Sawyer v. Chambers. See to the contrary (Power of court in ejectment to bring in parties when only equity* would relieve) Holman v. Hol- man, 68 Barb. 215; Gecniah v. Keah, W.245. v. Hopkins, 11 How. Pr. 140. Ap- proved and followed (Power of justices' courts, &c as to amendment of plead- ings) in Gilmore v. Jacobs, 48 Barb. 830, 338. But sec to the contrary Lowe «. Bummell, 5 Duly, J 8. v. Hudson River R K. Co. See Chap- man v. New Haven R. R. Co. Applied (Imputation to plaintiff, of negligence of another) in Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 155; Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 3 Hun., 198, which was rev'd in 09 JV. Y. 483, which see. Dis- ting'd in Bronk v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 5 Daly, 454, 457. Disting'd (Joint liability for tortious act causing injury) in Jackson ». Brookins, 5 Hun, 535 ; Chipman v. Palmer, 77 If. Y. 51, 54. v. Stevens, 5 Duer, 553. Relied on (Agreement by lessee for years respecting easement when not binding on reversioner) in Glenn v. Davis, 35 Md. 208; s. c, 6 Am. R. 389, 893. v. Van Steenbergh, 46 Barb. 211. Applied (Necessity of new consideration, to coBStitute'one a bona fide holder) in Law- rence c. Clark, 36 If.' Y. 130. T. Zielly, 52 Barb. 482. See Court- wright i). Stewart; Vincent ». Germond. Limited (Effect of subsequent payment on sale of personalty to satisfy requirements of statute of frauds) in Hunter v. Wetsell, 57 N. Y. 375, 380 See cases cited (What is part of reaky) in 5 Abb. N. C. 174, n. Weed v. Barney, 43 If. Y. 344. Followed (Warehouseman's liability) in Grassinan n. Fargo, 6 Hun, 310. v. Burt, 78 N. Y. 192, For "defend- ant left plaintiff's " in eighth line from top read " plaintiff left defendant's." V. Ellis, 3 -Cm. 203. Applied (Who may submit to arbitration, when acting for another) in Hutchins v. Johnson, 12 Conn. 376 ; b. c, 80 Am. Dec. 622. T. Foster, 11 Barb. 203. Followed (Newspaper publication when libelous) in Robertson v. Bennett, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 66, 70. v. Mut Benefit Life Ins. Co., 41 Super. Ct. {J. AS) 476. AfTd in 70 N. Y. 561. Former decision in 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 386. See Breasted i: Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. T. Panama B. R. Co., 5 Duer, 193. Aff'd in 17 If. Y. 362. See Brand v. Sche- nectady & Troy R. R. Co. Decision in 17 ■K Y. applied (Liability of railroad com- pany for wilful injury done by employe) in Meyer s. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 8 Bom. 311 ; Blaekstock v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 If. Y. 50. Followed in Redding v. So. Carolina R. R. Co., 3 So. Carr. 1; s. c, 16 Am. R. 681, 688. Approved in Railroad Co. v. Finney, 10 WU. 388, which is fol- lowed in Croaker «. Chicago & North West- ern R'y Co., 36 Id. 657; s. c, 17 Am. R. 504, 507. Disting'd in Gordon v. Manches- ter & Lawrence R. R., 52 If. H. 596; s. c, 13 Am. R. 97, 106. Reviewed with other cases in Palmer v. Railroad, 3 So. Car. 580; s. c, 16 Am. R. 750, 760. Decision in 5 Duer disting'd with Tilley. v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 29 N. Y. 283 ; Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co , 32 Id. 597, in New Orleans, Jackson & Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 48 Miss. 112 ; s. c, 12 Am. R. 356, 360. v. People, 31 If. Y. 465. Explained and limited (Sufficiency of record of court below, on return to writ of error) in Manke v. People, 74 If. Y. 415, 423. See Graham v. People, 63 Barb. 474; 6 Bans. 152. v. , 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 50. Aff'd in 56 If. Y. 628, without apparently passing on any thing but the terms of the charge. — v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. , 19 Wend. 534; s. c, 13 If. Y. Com. L. Law. id. 698, with brief note. See Bost- wick v. Champion; Fairchild v. Slocum; Hawkins v. Hoffman ; Orange County B'k v. Brown ; Pardee v. Drew ; St. John u. Van Santvoord ; Van Santvoord i). St. John. Applied (Carriers liability on con- tract to transport to point beyond its line) in Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo R. It. Co., 29 Barb. 50; Buffit v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 36 Id. 425. Disting'd in Van Sant- voord v. St John, 6 Hill, 161 ; Wait v. Al- bany & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 5 Bans. 478; Reed v. U. S. Express Co., 48 If. Y. 467; Milnor v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 53 Id, 363, 370. Critically examined with Wilcox v. Parmelee, 3 Sandf. 610 ; Burtis v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 24 If. Y. 269, 278 ; Schroeder v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 55; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 If. Y. 312, 315; Foy «. Troy & Boston R. R., 24 Barb. 382 ; St. John v. Van Santvoord, 25 Wend. 660 ; 6 Hill, 157; Champion v. Bostwick, 11 Wend. 571; 18 Id. 174; Hart v. Rensselaer & Sar- atoga R. R. Co., 8 If. Y. 37 ; McDonald «. Western R. R. Co., 34 If. Y. 501, 502; Wibert v. Erie R. R. Co.. 12 ST. Y. 256; Smith «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 43 Barb. 225; Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 36, in Nashua Lock Co. v. Wor- cester & Nashua R. R. Co., 48 If. H. 339 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 242. Questioned in Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Green, 25 Md. 90. Examined in Hood v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., .22 Conn. 15. Colla- ted with other cases in Field on Ultra 824 WEED— WEHLE. Tires, 116. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 531, 5 ed.; 2 Pars, on Oontr. 213, n. u. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 95, 5 ed. Explained and applied (Carriers liability for money carried as baggage) in Taylor v. Monnot, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 328; Merrill «. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 611. Followed (Com- mon law power of courts to amend) in Matter of Christern, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 523, 528. Disting'd (In whom right of ac- tion against carrier is vested) in Needles v. ■ Howard, 1 P. D. Smith, 58, a case of an innkeeper. Disting'd and Questioned in Elkins v. Boston & Maine R. R, 19 iK //. 337; s. c, 51 Am. Pec. 184, with note. Discussed (Allegations in action against carrier) in Ang. on Carr. § 441, 5 ed. v. Tucker, 19 K Y. 422. Applied (Power granted by statute, when to be con- strued as continuing) in People v. Allen, 42 Parb. 214. Disting'd in People v. Wood- ruff, 32 -K Y. 355, 369. v. Village of Ballston Spa. See Lloyd ■ «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Mark v. Hudson River Bridge Co. Weedsport B'k y. Park B'k, 2 Robt. 418. Aff'd in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Pec. 545; s. c, 2 Keyes, 561. Weeks v. Ellis, 2 Parb. 320. Applied (Valid- ity of acts of officer de facto) in Foot v. Stiles, 57 P. Y. 399, 402. See Auditors of Wayne Co. v. Benoit v 20 Mich. 176; s. c, 4.4m. P. 382. v. Love, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 397. Aff'd in 50 K Y. 568. See Harger v. Mc- Cullough. Followed with Pfohl v. Simp- son, 74 K Y. 142 (Right of creditor of cor- poration to bring action against stockholder) in McMaster v. Davidson, 29 Sun, 542. ' - v. N. V., New Haven & Hartford E. R. Co., 9 Hun, 669. Aff'd in 72 PT. Y. 50 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 104, with note. Decision in 9 Hun collated with Gore v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., 2 Daly, 254; Mudgett v. Bay State Steamship Co., 1 Id. 151 ; Van Horn v. Kirmit, 4 P. D. Smith, 453; Mackin v. N. J. Steamboat Co.,. 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 241, and Tower v. Utica, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Sill, 47 (Liability of carrier for loss of bag- gage from state-room, &c. when notice is posted) in 20 Fed. Rep. 433, n. — — v. Southwick, 12 Sow. Pr. 170. Dis- ting'd (Termination of injunction proceed- ings) in Waterbury «. Bouker, 10 Bun, 262. Said in Coates v. Goddard, 34 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 126, to have been superseded (Basis of extra allowance) by amendment of 1865 to Code Pro. § 509. v. Tomes, 16 Hun, 349. Affd, it seems, in 76 N. Y. 601, but without opinion. Com- pare (Time of filing lis pendens) Code Civ. Pro. § 1670. Wcet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 N. Y. 161. n. See Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Barflett v. Crozier; Hutson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Disting'd (Liability of one contract- • ing for performance of public work) in Minard ». Mead, 38 Parb. 176. Followed and Approved (Trustees of villages as repre- sentatives of the corporation) in Lee v. Village of Sandy Hill, 4Q K Y. 451. Dis- ting'd with Maxmilian v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 62 Id. 160; Ham v. Same, 70 Id 459, and Wilson v. Same, 1 Pen. 595 ; Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 iV. Y. 489, applied in Cain «. City of Syracuse, 29 Sun, 105. Ex- plained and applied (Liability of public for omission of duty due to particular individ- ual) in Clark v. Miller, 47 Parb. 42. Fol- lowed as decisive in Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, 29 iV Y. 310. Examined and reconciled with Adsit v. Brady, 4 Sill, 630 in Robin- son v. Chamberlain, 34 Jf. Y. 389, 391. Criticised as obiter in Hover v. Barkhoof, 44 Id. 121, citing also Bartlett is. Crozier, 17 John*. 440. Disting'd in Day v. Cross- man, 4 Sup'm s Ct. (T. & O.) 125. Applied to action against officer, — in Connors ». Adams, 13 Hun, 429. Applied (Municipal liability for injury resulting from defect in highway) in Hyatt v. Trustees of Rondout, 44 Parb. 392 ; Davenport «. Ruckman, 37 1ST. Y. 572; which aff'd 16 Id. 341, which see; Ellis v. Village of Lowville,- 7 Lam. 438; Noble v. City of Richmond, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 271; s. c, 31 Am. R. 726, 729; Hines is. City of Lockport, 60 Parb. 384. Followed but disapproved in Clark v. City of Lockport, 49 Id. 582. Disting'd in Mills v. City of Brooklyn, a case of sewer- age, and see Sleight v. City of Kingston, 11 Hun, 594, 597. Explained in Peck n. Village of Batavia, 32 Parb. 634, 639, in connection with Adsit v. Brady, 4 Sill, 630. Disapproved in City of Nava- sota v. Pearce, 46 Tea;. 525; s. c, 26 Am. R. 283. Cdncluded in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 678. Collated with other cases in Cook Highw. L. 4 ed. 49; Mills Thomps. on Sighw. 3 ed. 209. Weetjen v. Vibbard, 5 Sun, 265. See Bates v. Underhill. See doctrine discussed (Liability for acts of co-trustees) in 15 Am. P Rev. 178. Wegman v. Cllilds, 44 Parb. 403. Rev'd in 41 P. Y. 159. Decision in Id. disting'd (Action, when to be regarded as pending) in Porter v. Kingsbury, 77 Id. 164, 168. Applied in Chapin v. James, 11 R. I. 86; s. c, 23 Am. P. 412. Wehle v. Bowery Savgs. B'k, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 97. See (Interpleader by bank) German Exch. B'k v. Comm'rs of Excise, 6 Abb. N. G. 394, and cases cited in note. v. Butler, 34 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 215; s. c, more fully, 35 Id. 1 ; and less fully, 12 Abb. Pr. K S. 139 ; 43 Sow. Pr. 5. Aff d in 61 N. Y. 245. Decision in 14. limited (Evidence of retail value, to show market value) in Wehle v. Haviland, 69 Id. 448, 450. Disting'd (Liability for takiDg goods under attachment) in Day v. Bach, 46 Super. Ct. (J. <£ S.) 460, 466. y. Conner, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 24. WEHLE— WELLAND CANAL CO. 823 Aff'd iu 63 N. Y. 258 Further proceeding in 69 N. Y. 546, rev'g 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 24. Also another in 43 Id. 598, , which was aff'd in 83 N. Y. 231. Decision in 69 Id. applied (Sheriff's liability for fail- ure to return execution) in,Parker«. Bradley, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 244, 249. Decision in 88 N. Y. collated with Dunlop v. Patterson F. Ins. Co., 74 Id. 145 ; Cressou v. Stout, 17 Johns. 116, and contrary cases (Levy on moneys in custody of law) in 22 Am.,L. Beg. N. S. 665, 671. v. Havilaml, 4 Daly, 550; s. c, fully reported, 42 Sm. Pr. 399. See Miller v. Fenton ; Walrath i>. Redfield. V. Spelman, 1 Sun, 634. Subsequent decision, as it seems, in 25 Id. y9. Decis- ion in 1 Id. disting'd (Evidence of declara- tions of third person to whom witness has been referred for information) in Lambert «. People, 6 All. N. G. 181, 193. Wehrkamp v. Willet, 1 Daly, 4. Further decision in 4 Alh. Ct- App. Dec. 548; s. c, 1 Keyes, 250. Decision in 1 Daly disting'd (New trial for newly discovered evidence) in Messenger v. Fourth Nat. B'k, 6 Id. 190, 195. Followed in May «. Strauss, 8 All. JV. C. 274, 279. Wehrniu v. Kului, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 336. Aff'd in 61 K Y. 623. Weigand v. Sichcl, 34 Barl. 84. See Wigand v. Same. Weil v. Lange, 6 Daly, 549. Explained (Negotiable paper, by what law governed) in 2 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 15.'!a, n. a. — - v. Martin, 1 Civ. Pro, R. 133; mem. s. c, 24 Sun, 645; 12 Weekly Dig. 366. Weir v. Fitzgerald, 2 Bradf. 42. Included (Execution of will by deaf, dumb and blind) in Red/. Lead. Cas. on Wills, 33. Com- mented on (Effect of old age of testator) in Willard on Executors, 86. — - v. Groat, 4 Hun, 193. Disting'd (Lia- bility of married woman's separate estate) in Covert v. Hughes, 8 Id. 30.5, 307 ; Wool- sey »>. Brown, 11 Id. 53. Applied in Sal- mon v. McEnany, 23 Id. 87, 89. Weisincr v. Tillage of Douglas, 4 Sun, 201 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C)514. Aff'd in 64 iV. Y. 91; s. c, 21 Am. R. 586. Decision in Id. applied (Legislative power to declare what is municipal purpose) in People ex rel Murphy v. Kelly, 5 All. JV. C. 383, 449. Approved but disting'd (Statute, when in- valid as taking private property for private purpose) in Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 if. Y. 515. Followed (Estoppel to assert invalid- ity of municipal contract) in Austin v. Co<-- gcshall, 12 R. I. 329; s. c, 34 Am. R. 648. bee Hodges v. City of Buffalo, 2 Den. 110 Collated with other cases iu 5 All. A 7 ! C 49, n. Weisser v. Denison, 10 A 7 ". Y. G8. See Man- hattan Co. v. Lydig. Followed (Effect of account between bank and depositor, as binding latter as to payment of forged e „£*) in Welsh v. AJerman-Am. B'k, 73 ' Jf. Y. 428; Frank v. Chemical Nat. B'k of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) .56, 35; 45 Id. 457 (h"er decision aff'd in 84 A 7 ". Y. 213, which see). Approved and applied in First Nat. B'k ». Tappan, 6 Kan. 456 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 568, 571 ; Manufacturers' Nat. B'k ». Barnes, 65 III. 69 ; s. c, 16 Am. R. 576. Applied (Notice to agent, as notice to principal) in Spadone v. Manvel, 2 Daly, 266. Welch, Matter of, 14 Barl. 396. Approved (Election canvassers as ministerial officers) in Attorney-general v. Barstow, 4 Wise. 782. Welch v. Allen, 21 Wend. 147. Subsequent decision as Welch v. Silliman, 2 Sill, 491. See decision in 21 Wend, and other cases collected (Successors of trustees) iu 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 348, n. v. Hazelton, 14 Sow. Pr. 97. Explained (Remedy for irrelevancy in pleading) in Lee B'k?;. Etching, 11 All. Pr. 435, 439. v. Hicks, 6 Cow. 504; s. c, 16 Am. Dec. 443, with note citing cases, and wherein it. is said to have been followed in N. Y. and elsewhere (Right of carrier to pro rata freight). See Scott v. Libby. v. Lynch, 7 Barl. 380. Rev'd in Seld. Notes, No. 1, 13. v. Pullman Palace Car Co:, 16 All. Pr. JST. S. 352 ; s. c, more fully, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. {Sheldon) 457. Criticised and Palmeter v. Wagner, 11 Alb. L. J. 149, cited (Liability of sleeping-car company) in Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord, Ky. Super. Ct. 6 Ky. L. Rep. 283. Confirmed in 19 Am. L. Rev. 204, 221. v. Sage, 47 K Y. 143. Disting'd (Cir- cumstances that put purchaser on inquiry) in Claflin v. Lenheim, 5 Sun, 273. Ap- plied in Seybcl v. Nat. Currency B'k, 54 A r . Y. 288. 302 (and see dissenting opinion Id. 312). Disting'd (Requisites of negotiable in- strument) in Ledwich v. McKim, 53 A 7 ". Y. 313. Applied in Hotchkiss v. Nat. B'ks 21 Wall. 354, 358. ' v. Smith, 13 Sun, 408. Aff'd, it seems, in 80 A 7 ^ Y. 650, but without opinion. V. Wiuterbuin, USun, 518. Explained (Arrest in action for injury to real property) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § Weld y. O'Brien, 53 JST. Y. 642. Rev'd in O'Brien v. Weld, 92 U. S. 81. Weldon v. Buck, 4 Johns. 144. For report of trial see Anth. A 7 ". P. 15. Decision in 4 Johns.^ applied with Afason v. Franklin. 3 Id. 205 (Effect of protest for non-acceptance, as giving right of action on bill) in Mor- gan v. Towles, 8 Mart. (La.) 730; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 300. Welland Canal Co. t. Hathaway, 8 Wend 480; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 51, with note con- taining citations and wherein it is said to be regarded as a leading case in N. Y. See Dezell v. Odell; Lansing v. Montgomery. Applied (Proof of corporate existence 'of corporation suing) in Waterville Manf. Co v. Bryan, 14 Barl. 1.84. Explained in 826 WELLES— WELLS. Black River, "&c. R. R. Co. v. Clarke, 25 Jf. Y. 209. Followed with Williams v. B'k of Michigan, 7 Wend. 541 (Estoppel to deny corporate existence) in Phenix li'k of N. Y. v. Curtis, 14 Conn. 437; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 492, with note. See to the contrary cases cited in Abb. Tr. Eo. 28, n. 5. Applied (Estoppel in pais) in Miller v. Piatt, 5 Duer, 279; Sparrow u. Kingman, 1 N. Y. 242, 253; Carpenter ». Stilwell, 11 Id. 74'; Plumb v. Cattaraugus Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 Id. 392, 395 ; Payne v. Burnham, 62 Id. 73. Explained in Andrews v. iEtna Life Ins. Co., 85 Id. 334, 344. Approved in Brewer v. Boston, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Mete. {Mass.) 478; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 694, with note. Cited as containing the first distinctive enunciation in this country, and also on the point applied, in City of Chicago v. Gage, '95 III.. 593; s. c, 35 Am. R. 182. Cited in 2 Pars, on Contr. 801, n. b; 3 WasKb: on Heal Prop. 4'ed. 73. Applied (Admissions as evidence to supply deficiency in record evidence) in Sherman v. People, 13 Hun. 577. Weller v. Tutliill, 4 San, 811. Rev'd in 6G N. Y. 347. ■ v. Weller, 28 Barb. 588. Overruled (Right- of curtesy or dower, when defeated by determination of estate to which right .attaches) in Hatfield v. Sneden. 54 .V. Y. 280, 285. Reviewed with Hatfield v. Sneden, 42 Barb. 615; 54 K Y. 280, and other cases in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 279. Criticised in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real. Prop. 350. Explained in 1 WasKb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 171 . Welles v. March, 30 N. Y. 344. See Deming v. Colt; Fishers. Murray; Havens v. Hus- sey; Robinson v. Mcintosh. Cited with approval (Authority of partner to assign firm property) in Wilcox v. Jackson, 7 Colo. 521, 535. Quoted and explained in Burrill on Assign. § 85, 4 ed. Explained in Rumery v. McOulloch, 54 Wis. 565; s. c, 48 Am. R. 359, n., as not authority for position to which it is cited in Burrill on Assign.; Fisher v. Murray, 1 E. D. Smith, 341, being also cited in this connection. — - v. N. ■¥.. Central R. It. Co., 26 Barb. 641. Affd as Wells «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., in 24 K Y. 181. See Cole v. Goodwin; Gould v. Hill; Nolton v. Western R. R. Co. Both decisions disting'd (Exemption of car- rier by contract from liability for negli- gence) in Bissell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 610, 615. Dissented from with Perkins v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 24 K Y. 196; Smiths. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 132; 24 K Y. 222; Bissell ». N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 602 ; 25 N. Y. 442 ; Poucher v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 263 ; 10 Am. It. 864, in Ohio & Mississippi R'y Co. v. Selbv, 47 Intl. 471; s. c, 17 Am. It. 719, 725; following Cole «. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 251; Gould v. Hill, 2 'Sill, 623 ; Dorr v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 4 Sand/. 136; Stoddard v. Long Island R. R. Co., 5 Id. 180 ; Parsons v. Mouteath, 13 Barb. 353 ; Moore v. Evans, 14 Id. 524, as maintaining a contrary view, Questioned in Illinois Central R. R. Co., 37 III. 507; Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 502: Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hen- derson, 51 Penn. St. 328 ; Jacobus v. St. Paul & Chicago R'y Co., 20 Minn. 129. Explained in Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 364. Decision in 24 N. Y. denied in dissenting opinion of Sanderson, J., in Hooper v. Wells, 27 Cal. 11, 43; Rose v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 39 Iowa, 246. Criticised in Lawson's Contr. of Carr. jj§ 28, 128, 220. See doctrine dis- cussed in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 460. See N. Y. cases collected and compared in 4 Alb. L. J. 69. v. Yates, 44 N. Y. 525. Disting'd (Reformation of written contract for mis- take, &c.) in Bryceu. Loiillard F. Ins. Co., 55 Id. 240, 243. Applied with Rotsford „. McLean. 45 Barb. 478; Kilmer v. Smith, 77 N. Y. 226 ; Andrews v. Gillespie, 47 Id. 487, and Long o. Warren, 68 Jd. 426, dis- ting'd in Albany City Sav'gs Inst. v. Bur- dick, 87 Id. 40. Wellington v. Morey, 25 Sun, 118. Abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 476. Wells v. Baldwin. See Fitzhugh i>. Runyon: v. Chapman, 4 Sand/. C/i. 312. AfTd in 13 Barb. 561. v. City of Buffalo, 14 Sun, 435. Afi'd in 80 JV. Y. 253. t. Evans, 20 Wend. 251 ; s. c, 13 W. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 844, with brief note. Rev'd in Evans v. Wells, 22 Wend. 324. v. Gates, 18 Barb. 554. See Ebbing- hausen v. Worth Club. Explained (Joint liability of members of association for con- tracts of agents) in Hawley v. Keelcr, 62 Barb. 231. v. Holbrook, D Sun, 598 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm..Ct. {T. & C.) 400. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, in Gallup v. Babsen, 68 If. Y. 615, but without opinion. v. Howell, 19 . Johns. 385. Applied (Right to protection in use of uninclosed land) in Worrall «. Rhoads, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 427; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 274, with note. v. Jones, 2 Abb. Pr. 20. Applied (Ju- risdiction of Special Term) in Erisman v. Pidcock, 62 Sow. Pr. 328. Explained (Supersedeas after discharge on bail) in Bostwick v. Wildey, 42 Uow. Pr. 251. See (Motion, where heard) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 769, n. v. Kelsey, 15 Abb. Pr. 53; s. c, 38 Barb. 242. Rev'd in 37 iV. Y. 143; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 234. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Evidence of value of converted prop- erty as shown by sale) in Flannagan t. Maddin, 81 N. Y. 623. v. Lain, 15 Wend. 99. See Camp v. Root. Explained (Validity of submission to arbitration) in Bulson «. Lohnes, 29 N. Y. 291, 295. Compare (Effect of parol submission to arbitration) Inhabitants of WELLS— WENDELL. 827 Deorfield v. Arms, 20 Pick. (Mass.') 480 ; Log'sden v. Robert, 3 Monr. (Ky.) 256; Evans v. McKinney, Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 264; Richardson v. Cassily, 3 Watts. (Pa.) 320; Dickerson v. Terier, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 253 ; Titus v. Scantling, 8 Id. 89 ; Lamor v. Nicholson, 7 Port. (Ala ) 158. v. Maun, 52 Barb. 263. Rev'd in 45 If. Y. 327. T. Marshall. See Marsh v. Lawrence. . t. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. See Welles v. Same. v. Padgett, 8 Barb. 323. See for a con- verse application of the rule (Evidence of seduction in action for breach of promise to marry) in Whitney v. Elmer, CO Id. 250. Followed and approved with Kniffen v. Mc- Connell, 30 K Y. 285, in Sauer v. Schulen- berg, 33 Md. 288; s. c, 3 Am. R. 174. Referred to in 5 Am. Dec. 618, »., as an instructive case. v. Smith, 2 Edw. 78. Affd in 7 Paige, 22; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 274, with note con- taining citations and comments. See Ketchum v. Evertson. v. Steam Nav. Co., 2 If. Y. 204. Sub- sequent decision in 8 Id. 375. See Abbey ». Steamboat R. L. Stevens; Alexander v. Greene; Caton v. Rumncy. Decision in 8 JV1 Y. disapproved (Exemption of carrier from liability for fraud, &c. of ,employes) in ' Smith v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 132,137. Cited as , authority with Stein- wav v. Erie Ry. Co., 43 If. Y. 123, and Mynard v. Syracuse R. Co., 71 Id. 180, (Ex- emption of carrier from liability for negli- 1 pence) in The Hadji, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. If. Y. 20 Fed. Rep. 875, 878, abstr. s. c, 18 Rep. 198. Decision in 2 N. Y. quoted (Liability of owners of tow boats as com- mon earners) in Ang. on Oarr. § 86, n. 4, 5ed;iS. §289, /». 1. v. Stewart, 3 Barb. 40. Approved (Set-off in action by assignee) in Martin v. Kunzmuller, 37 If. Y. 396, 400. Applied in dissenting opinion in Seymour v. Dun- ham, 24 Sun, 93, 98. v. Whitehead, 15 Wend. 527. Com- pare (What must accompany notice of dis- honor of foreign bill) Chitty on Bills, 498. Included with notes in Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 498. Welsh T. Carter, 1 Wend. 183;* c, 9 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 881, with brief note; also 19 Am. Bee. 473, with note, wherein it is said to be often referred to as an authority (Liability of vendor of chattel for defect of quality). See Culver v'. Avery. v. Cochran, 2 Sun, 675 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 699. Rev'd in 63 If. Y. 181 ; s a, 20 Am. P. 519, without passing on point as to wife's property (and see Tyler on Inf. <& Cov. 2 ed. §468). See Averill v. Williams. Decision in 03 If. Y. disting'd (Liability for trespass in execution . of process) in Croft v. King, 1 City Ct. 157. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1318. y. Darragh, 52 K Y. 590. Explained and applied (Character of action, as deter- mined by complaint for purposes of refer- ence) in Kingsley v. City of Brooklyn, 1 " Abb. If. C. 120. Followed in Williams v. Allen, 48 Sow. Pr. 357; Patterson v. Stettauer, 39 Super. Ol. (J. & S.) 413, 416. Disting'd in Streat «, Rothschild, 12 Abb. K C. 383, 387. Collated with other cases in Hoffm. on Referees. 14. v. German Am. B'k, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 462. Aff'd in 73 If. Y. 424; s. c, 29 Am. R. 175. Decision in Id. collated with Ingalls v. Morgan, 10 N.' Y. 184; President, &c. of Westfield Bank v. Cornen, 37 Id. 320 ; Nat. B'k v. Norton, 1 Hill, 572 ; Fulton Bank v. N. Y. & C. Canal Co., 4 Paige. 127, and other cases (Notice to agent when not notice to principal) and the rule in The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. 366, approved in preference, — in 13 Weekly L. Bull. 182. Welts v. Conn. Mnt. Life Ins. Co., 46 Barb. 412. Aft'd in 48 If. Y. 34. Decis- ion in Id. disting'd (Construction of condi- tion in policy) in Shader v. Railway Pass. Assur. Co., 66 Id. 445. Wemple r. Stewart, 22 Barb. 154. Dis- ting'd (Discharge from obligation to fulfill contract) in Jones «. Kent, 80 If. Y. 585,' 590. Wendell, Matter of, 19 Johns. 153. See Roosevelt s. Cebra. Followed with Wyman v. Mitchell, 1 Cow. 316 (Debt contracted before passage of insolvent law, how affected by proceedings under that law) in Conway v. Seamons, 55 Vt. 8 ; s. c, 45 Am. R. 579. Wendell v. Jackson, 8 Wend. 183; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 635, with note containing cita- tions. Aff'g Jackson d. People v. Wen- dell, 5 Wend. 142. Decision in 8 Id. ap- plied (Yielding of courses and distances to monuments in construction of grants) in White v. Williams, 48 If. Y. 347. Dis- ting'd in Tymason v. Bates, 14 Wend. 680. Approved with Jackson v. Bowen, 1 Cai. 358, in Buckner v. Lawrence, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 28. Followed (Mode of commenc- ing survey) in Elliott v. Lewis, 10 Sun, 486, 488. Disting'd (Presumption of title in favor of State) in People v. Trinity Church, 30 Barb. 548. Applied (Presump- tion that grant was made with reference to actual view of premises) in Schoonmaker v. Davis, 44 Id. 466. v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 39 Barb. 329. AfTd in 4 Keyes, 261 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 563. Decision in Id. applied (Municipal liability for injury resulting from defect in highway) in McDermett v. City of Kingston, 6 Abb. If. C. 246, 252; which was rev'd in 19 Sun, 198, 200, which see ; Hume ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 74 N. Y. 275. Disting'd (Munici- pal liability for injury resulting in making connection from sewer) in Masterton v. 828 WENDELL— WESTCOTT. Village of Mt. Vernon, 58 Id. 391, 394. Disapproved (Right of individual to acquire personal interest in public street) in John- ston b. Charleston, 3 So. Car. 232; s. c, 10 Am. H.- 721, 726. v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. Ok. 344, See Brown r>. Bowen ; Parkhurst v. Van Oortlandt ; Storrs v. Barker. Disting'd (Attorney, when disqualified to purchase) in Hawley 1>. Cramer, 4 Cow. 742. Applied • (Estoppel to assert title to real estate) in " Pell d. Tredwcll, 5 Wend. 698. Disting'd in Trenton Banking Co.' v. Duncan, 86 TV. Y. 221, 228. Applied (Estoppel as against one malting improvements on land) in Town v. Needham, 3 Paige, 555. Approved and followed in Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U. S. 68, 76. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 795, ii. r. Approved (Parties in equity) ia Doe v. Doe, 37 TV Ii. 268. - — - v. Wadsworth, 20 Johns. 659. See case for appeal, by J. V. Henry, Followed with Frost ». Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. 288 ; James ■». Morey, 2 Cow. 246 (Constructive notice of deed, &c.) in Carter v. Champion, 8 Conn.. 549; s. a, 21 Am. Dec. 695, 700. with note. Reviewed with James «. Morey, and other oases in Lodge v. Simonton, 2 Pen. & W. (Pa;) 439; s. a, 23 Am. Dec. 36, with note. Wendovcr t. Hogeboom, 7 Johns. 308. See Sharp v. United Ins. Co. Followed with Leonard ». Huntington,' 15 Johns. 298; Thorn v. Hicks, 7 Cow. 697 (Who liable as owner of vessel) in Jones v. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 135 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 716, 734. Weiidt v. Peyser, 14 Hun, 114. See (Verifi- • cation of pleading) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 523, n. Wennian v. Moliawk Ins. Co., 13 Wend. 267; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 464, with note contain- ing citations. Applied (What prevents running of statute of limitations), in Car- shore v. Huyck, 6 Barb. 588. Applied (Ef- fect of granting of letters of administration, on running, of statute) in Bucklin v. Ford, 5 Id. 396. Discussed in Aug. on Limit. § 1 70, n. 2, 6 ed. Applied (Necessity of de- mand, to set statute running) in Sweet v. Irish, 36 Barb. 470. See Payne «. Slate, 39 Id. 639. Disapproved with Bruce «. Til- son, 25 TV. Y. 194 ; Howland v. Edmonds, 24 Id. 307, in Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487; s. c, 24 Am. 72.605. Wente v. Young, 12 Hun, 220. See Olcott v. Maclean. Said in Tnllis v. Miller, 13 Hun, 363 (Power of assignee in bankruptcy to sue in State court) to conflict with Olcott ». Maclean, 11 Id. 394. See Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. TV. C. 72, and cases cited in note. Wentz v. Erie R'y Co. See Elmore v. Sands. Wenzler v. People, 58 TV. Y. 516. See Geraty v. Reid. Followed (Who are jus- tices of the peace) in People ex rel. White v. Rochester, 11 Hun, 239, 244; People®. . Morgan, 58 TV. Y. 679. Applied (Title of local bill) in Neuendorff «. Duryea, 6 Daly, 283. Werely v. Persons, 28 TV Y. 344. See Mat- teson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Followed (Declarations of pain in case of declarations made even after suit brought) in Murphy o. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 66 Barb. 130. Westcott v. Tilton, 1 Duer, 53; s. c, 10 IT. Y. Leg. Obs. 278. Subsequent decisions as Westcott v. Thompson, 10 TV. Y. 613; 18 Id. 363. Decision in 18 Id. explained (Sale or return of goods) in 1 Ben), on Sales, § 2, n. 6 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Weseinan v. Wingrove, 9 Weekly Dig. 434. Compare (Provision of payment of taxes, on foreclosure sale) Code Civ. Pro. § 1676. West v. Cartledge, 5 Hill, 488. Rev'din 2 Den. 377. v. Emmons, 5 Johns. 179. Explained (Covenants in contract for sale of real es- tate, when dependent) in Parker v. Par- melee, 20 Id. 136. Applied with Green v. Reynolds, 2 Johns. 207, to sale of personalty in McGehee v. Hill, 4 Port. (Ala.) 170; s. c, 2d Am. Dec. 277, with note. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr:- 537, n. n. V. Mayor, &c.' of N. Y. , 10 Paige, 539. Disting'd (Injunction against multiplicity of suite for breach of municipal ordinances) _ . in Third Ave. R. R. Co. ■». Mayor, &c, 54 TV Y. 159, 162. Applied to proceeding to avoid assessment, — iu Bouton v. City of Brooklyn, 15 Barb. 394. Quoted in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 1244, n. 1. Applied (Injunction against proceeding to recover penalty given by statute) in Wallack v. So- ciety for Reformation of Delinquents, 67 TV Y. 28. v. Stanley. See Camp v. Root. v. Wentworth, 3 Cow. 82. See Suydam v. Jenkins Disapproved (Measure of dam- ages for conversion) in Suydam v. Jenkins, 3 Sand/. 614, 629, 630. Explained in Devlin D.Pike, 5 Daly, 90; Clark v. Pinney, 7 Cow. 681, 687. Applied in Wilson v. Mathews, 24 Barb. 296. Disting'd in Ba- ker v. Drake, 53 TV. Y. 223. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 197, n.j. T. West, 8 Paige, 433. Followed (Citi- zenship of minor children of naturalized par- ents) in Matter of Morrison, 22 How. Pr. 100. Westbrook v. Gleason, 14 Hun, 245. Rev'd in 79 TV Y. 23. Subsequent decision in 12 Weekly Dig. 261; mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 602, which was aff'd in 89 TV. Y. 641. Decision iu 79 Id. disting'd (Preference be- tween mortgages) in Decker v. Boice, 83 Id. 215, 220. Approved Jn 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 190, n. ' Westcott v. Cady, 6 Johns. Ch. 334; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 306. See Bloom v. Burdick; Covenhoven v. Shuler. Disting'd (Con- struction of codicils), in Pierpont v. Patrick, 53 TV. Y 595 . v. Fai-R'0, 6 Lam. 319; s. c, 63 Barb. 349. Aff'd in 61 TV. Y. 542; s. c, 19 Am. R 300. See Belger v. Dinsmore; Lamb .v. Camden & Amboy R. R.Co. Decision in 6 Lain, applied WESTCOTT— WESTFALL. 829 (Effect of carrier's receipt as .contract) in Falkenan v. Fargo, 44 How. Pr. 329. Ap- proved (Limitation of carrier's liability for negligence) in Magnin v Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168,174. Decision in j1 N. Y, approved and followed (Actions by and against joint-stock companies) in Fargo v. Louis- ville, &c. R. R. Co. U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Ind. 6 Fed. Bep. 787, 793. See to the contrary Gott v. Dinsmore, 111 Mass. 51; Taft v. Ward, 106 Id. 518. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 16. See cases cited in 4 Abb. N. C. 311, „. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1919, n. v. Keeler, i,Bosw. 564. See .to the con- trary (Right of assignee to prove tort) Code Civ. Pro. 434; Simar v. Canaday, 53 N. Y. 298. See also Abb. Tr. En. 3, 4. v. Thompson. See Westcott v. Tilton. Westerfl eld v. Westerfleld, 1 Bradf. 198. Disting'd (Commissions as executor and as trustee to same person on same fund) in Ward v. Ford, 4 Red/. 34, 40, 43. Dis- ting'd with Valentine v. Valentine, 2 Barb. Ch. 430 ; Drake v. Price, 7 Barb. 388 ; 5 N. Y. 4ii0; Mann v. Lawrence, 3 Id. 424; Lansings. Lansing, 45 Barb. 182; Betts v. Betts, I Abb. If. C. 43.7; Hall v. Hall, 18 Hun, 358; 78 N. Y. 535, in Uall v. Camp- bell, 1 Bern. 415. Westerlo v. De Witt, 35 Burl. 215. Rev'd in 36 N. Y. 340. See Coutant v. Schuyler. Decision in ,Id. applied (Evidence of gifts causa mortis) in Walsh v. Sexton, 55 Barb. 251, 256. Disting'd in Johnson v. Spies, 5 - Hun, 470, as inapplicable to case of gifts inter vivos, but applied in such case, in Gray *. Barton, 55 JST. Y. 72 ; and see Mont- gomery v. Miller, 3 Eedf. 164. Decision fci 35 Barb, relied on in Tillinghast v. Wheaton, 8 B. I. 536; s. c, 5 Am. B. 621. Decision in 36 N. Y. disting'd (Conclusive- ness of settlement of dispute) in Taplin v. Wilson, 4 Hun, 244, 249, 251. v. Evertson. See Casey v.. Brush. Western v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. See Hyde v. Goodnow. v. Romaine, 1 Bradf. 37. See (Costs on proceedings before surrogate) Code Cii>. Pro: 1881, §§ 2558, n„ 2561, n. Western B'lt v. City of Columbus, 1'How. Pr. 238. Explained (Law of place regulat- ing actions affecting drafts) in Ilibernia B'k v. Mechanics', &c. B'k. 21 Han, 166, 174. v. Sherwood, 29 Barb. 383. Dictum • . disapproved (Necessity that judgment on bond bo for penalty) in Howard v. Farley, 18 Abb. Pr. 260, 202. Western N. Y. Life. Ins. Co. v. Clinton, 5 Hun, 118. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 326. See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Western R. R. Co. v. Bayne, 11 Hun, 166. Aft'd in 75 K Y. 1. Western R. R. Corp. v. Kortright, 10 How. Pr, 457. Followed (Appealability of order striking out answer) in Lindon v. Beach, 6 Hun, 200. v. Nolan, 48 JST. Y. 513. See Mohawk i & Hudson R., R.. Co. v. Artcher.. Disting'd (Ri^ht of action to restrain assessment) in Lutes v. Briggs, 5 Hun, 71. Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, 56 N. J. 544. See Same v. Hoyt, 09 Id. 230, a de- cision involving same subject matter. De- cision in 56 Id. followed (Estoppel of bailee as against bailor) in The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575 580. See Germ. Exch. B'k v, Comnj'rs of Excise, 6 Abb. N. C. 394, 398. v. Marshall, 37 Barb. 509. Affd in 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 280; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 575. Compare (Effect of obtaining bill of lading fraudulently) The Idaho, 5 Ben. 280. " , . , v. Schen, 19 JST. Y. 408. Explained (Place for taxing corporations) in Oswego Starch Factory v. Doloway, 21 Id. 449, 455 ; People v. Cassity, 46 Id. 51. Applied in Chadwick v. Crapscy, 35 Id. 201. Fol- lowed in Union Stbt. Co. v. City of Buffalo, 82 Id. 351, 355. Westervelt v. Ackley, 2 Hun, 258; s. c.,,4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. &C.) 444. Aff'd in 62 N. Y. 505. v. Gregg, 1 Barb. Ch. 469. Explained with reference to subsequent statute (Ap- pointment of auditor, &c. to examine execu- tor's account) in Buchan v. Rintoul, 10 Hun, 183, 186, which was affd in 70 K Y. 1, 4, which see; Matter of Rich, 3 Eedf. 177. Criticised in Matter of Douglass, Id. 538 v. , 12 J¥. Y. 202. See Campbell v. Bruen. Applied (Husband's rights in- wife's property) in Vallance v. Bausch, 8 Abb. Pr. 371 ; Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. 351 ; Rider v. Hulse, 33 Id. 266, 270, which was affd in 24 N. Y. 374, which see; Briggs v. Mitchell, 60 Barb. 312 ; Norris v. Beyea. 13 N. Y. 288. Disting'd in Rieben v. White, 43- Barb. 97. Applied (Immedi- ate right of action, as property entitled to constitutional protection) in Berley v. Ram- pacher, 5 Duer, 189. Approved in McCahill ®. Hamilton, 20 Hun, 393. Applied (What is due process of law) in Rockwell v. Nearing, 35 JV. Y. 306. Approved in State v. Beswick, 13 P.I. 211; s.c., 36 Am. B. 102, n.; Towle v. Mann, Sup'm Ct. Iowa, 1879 ; 3 Worthw. Jlep. 341 . Cited with other cases in Hurtade v. People of California, 110 U. S. 516, 527. Approved in Cooley on Const. Limit. 355. v. Smith, 2 Duer, 449; s. c, 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs: 78. See Bartlett v. Campbell. Examined and disting'd (Indemnitors as affected by result of suit against party agreed to be indemnified) in Bridgeport Fire & Marine Ins. Co. ». Wilson, 7 Bo*w. 427, 435, which was rev'd in 84 N. Y. 275, 281, which see. Explained in Thomas v. Hubbell, 15 Id. 403, 408. Applied (Judg- ment against sheriff, as concluding indem- nitor) in Fay v. Ames, 44 Barb. 334. Weslfall v. Gere, 3 Lam. 151. Rev'd in-49 iV. Y. 349. t. Hudson River Fire Ins. Co., 2 Duer, ' 490. Rev'd in 12 W. Y. 289. , See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. 830 WESTFALL— WETMORE. T. Parsons, 10 Barb. 645. Applied with Barker v. Buoklin, 2 Den. 45 (Parol agreement to pay another'tflJebt when not within statute of frauds) in Brown v. Brown, 47 Mo. 130 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 320. t. Preston, 49 N. Y. 349. Statement at end of opinion that judgment was aff'd is an error. 11 was rev'd. See 50 Id. xxii. See Merritt v. Village of Portchester; People ex rel. Mygatt v. Supervisors of Chenango ; Van Rennselaer ®. Witbeck. Compared (Effect of defect in assessment proceedings) in Brevoort v. City of Brooklyn, 18 Sun, 385. Applied in Jewell «. Van Steenburgh, 58 K Y. 90. Explained in Bradley «. 1 Ward, Id. 406. Followed in Albany City B'ku. Maher, V. S.-Cir. Ct. K D. S. Y. 6 Fed. Sep. 423. Disting'd in First Nat. B'k of Utica v. "Waters, U. S. Cir. Ct. N. D. N, Y. 1 Id. 158. Westlake v. Bostwick, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 256. Explained (Effect of assertion by one party to contract that he will not poiv form) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 8G0, n. 8 (Cor- • bin's 4 Am. ed.). - — t. Degraw, 25 Wend. 669. Disting'd (Liability for rent, as affected by condition | of leased premises) in Wallace v. Lent, 1 1 Daly, 482. Collated with other cases in VcAdarn on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 73. Weston t. Barker, 12 Johns. 270; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 319. See Fink t>. Cox. Ex- plained (Action at law for share of trust j • fund) in Rathbone v. Stocking, 2 Barb. 145. Explained and applied (Enforcement of trust created for one's benefit) in Smith v. Woodruff, 1 Silt. 464. Disting'd in Dias i v. Brunell, 24 Wend. 11 ; Seaman v. Whit- ■ ney, Id. 262. Applied in Wyman ». • Smith, 2 Sand/. 334. Disting'd in Tiernan v. Jackson, 5 Pet. 597. Followed in Mc- Laughlin v. Swann, 18 Sow. (U. S.) 220. , Explained (What operates as assignment of • fund) in Harris v. Clark, 3 JV. Y. 117. Ap- i plied with McMehomy v. Ferrers, 3 Johns. ■ 71 (Effect of general acceptance) in Corbett v. Claik,*45 Wis. 403; s. c, 30 Am. R. 763, 769. Disting'd (What is novation of debt sufficient to discharge original debtor from liability) in Butterfield i>. Hartshorn, 7 A T . S. 345 ; s. a, 26 Am. Dec. 741, 744, with note. v. City of Syracuse, 17 If. Y. 110. Disting'd (Authority of common council to contract) in Smith v. City of Newburgh, 77 Id. 130, 134. v. Ketcliam, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 54. Re-argument refused in Id. 552. Subse- , quent decision in 51 Sow. Br. 455. v. N. Y. Elevated It. R. Co., 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 156. Affd in 73 N. Y. 595. West Point Foundry Assoc, v. Brown, 3 Edw. 284. Explained (Who are liable as partners for firm debts) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 416, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. West Point Iron Co. v. Reyinert, 45 N. Y. 703. Disting'd (Waiver of jury trial) in Town of Duanesburgh i. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 176. Followed (Injunction respecting min- ing property) in Nichols v. Jones, U. S. Cir. Ct. K D. Ala., 19 Fed. Rep. 855. West River B'k v. Taylor, 34 N. Y. 128. Followed (Sufficiency of notice of protest to immediate prior indorser) in Griffith v. Assmann, 48 Mo. 66, 69. West Side B'k v. Pugsley, 47 K Y. 368. See (Application of property of judgment debtor to payment of -judgment in supple- mentary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2450, n. West Side Say'gs B'k v. Newton, 8 Daly, 332. Rev'd in 57 Sow. Pr. 152 ; s. c, 8 Daly, 346, n. ; mem. of s. o , 76 W. Y. 016. Decision in Id. explained (Torts caused by negligence) in Moa&'s UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 278. Wetliey v. Andrews, 3 Sill, 582. See Mer- ritt v. Todd. Explained and followed (In- terest as indication of term of credit) in Salmon v. Grosvenor, 66 Barb. 161, 163, 167. Wetmore v. Atlantic White Lead Co., 37 Barb. 70, 96. Followed (Erection of wharf as nuisance) in Thornton e. Grant, 10 R. I. 477; s. c, 14 Am. It 701. v. Baker, 9 Johns. 307; s. c, 4 S. Y. Com: L. Law. ed. 775, with brief note. Discussed (Liability of carriers of passen- gers, as copartners) in Aug. on Carr. § 584, 5 ed. v. Campbell, 2 Sandf. 341. Disting'd (Authority to open and regulate streets) in Swift v. City of Williamsburgh, 24 Barb. 430. Approved, in Manice v. Mayor, <&c. of N. Y., 8 K Y. 120, 130. Applied (Burden of proof as to validity of assess- ment) in Weinberger v. Fauerbach, 14 Abb. Pr. N'. S. 93. Applied (Necessity of esti- timate and assessment of expenses of street alteration) in Waddell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Barb. 98 ; Laimbeer v. City of N. Y., 4 Sandf. 111. Followed (Authority to ap- point collector to levy assessments) in Gil- bert v. Havemcyer, 2 Id. 510. v. Kissani, 3 Bosw. 321. Explained (Avoidance of settlement by wife during coverture) in Mcllvaine v. Kadel, 3 Robt. 429, 431. -T. Law, 34 Barb. 515; s. c, 22 Sow. Pr. 130. Collated with Fearing v. Irwin, 4 Daly, 385; Anderson, v. James, 4 Robt. 35, and other cases (Highways as' bound- aries) in 23 Am. R. 233, n. v. Parker, 7 Lans. 121. Aff'd in 52 N. Y. 450. Decision in Id. followed (Validity of bequest to corporation) in Robert «. Corning, 23 Sun. 299, 305. Collated with many decisions from various States (Who are bound, by probate of will) in 00 Am. Dec. 358, n. v. Scovell, 3 Edw. 6J5. Disapproved with Hoyt v. McKenzie, 3 Barb. Ch. 820 (Injunction to restrain publication of private letters, when only to be granted) in Woul- scy v. Judd, 4 Duer, 379, 389. Collated WETMORE— WHEELER. 831 with other cases (Injunctions against crim- inal acts) in 18 Am. L. Hen. 599, 610. v. Story, 22 Barb. 414; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. 262. Followed (Power to complete at sub- sequent session passage of municipal ordin- ance partially passed at previous session) in Beckman's Case, 11 Id. 164. t. Tracy, 14 Wend. 250; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 525. See People v. Quigg; Renwick v. Morris. Disting'd (Effect of encroach- ment on highway as nuisance) ' in Peckham v. Henderson. 27 Barb. 211; Harrower v. Ritson, 37 Id. 308. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 254. Applied (Construction of remedial statute) in People v. Hickey, 5 Daly, 365, 377. ^ v. White, 2 Oai. Cas. 87 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 323. Applied (Effect of part perform- ance, to take case out of statute of frauds) in Ryan v. Dox, 34 N. Y. 312. Disting'd in Wiseman •». Lucksinger, 84 Id. 31, 40. Examined with other cases (Effect of parol contract for damming of water) in Bubcock i). Utter, 1 Alb. Gt. App. Dec. 48. Followed (Effect of part payment, as part perform- ance) in Houston v. Townsend, 1 Del. Oh. 416 ; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 109, with note. Cited with approval in Townsend v. Hous- ton, 1 Han: (Del.) 532 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 732, 736, with extended note. Shown in Ham v. Goodrich, 33 N.H. 38; s. o., 2 Am. Dec. 329, not to be an authority for this position. Reviewed with other cases (When water rights pass as appurtenances) in Strickler v. Todd, 10 Serg. & R. 63 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 649, with note. Wetter v. Schlieper, 6 All. Pr. 123; s. c., more fully, 4 E. D. Smith, 707. See Dem- ing v. Colt. Wetzel v. Scliultz. See Boyce r>. Bates. Wetzell v. Dinsmore, 4 Daly, 193. Rev'd ' in 54 XT. Y. 496, Weyburu v. White, 22 Barl. 82. Overruled, it seems (Assignment of right of action for money lost on bet) in Meech «. Stoner, 19 iV. ■ Y. 26. See Code Oh. Pro. 1881, § 1910, n. Weyer v. Beach, 14 Hun, 231. AfTd in 79 N. Y. 409. Weyman v. People, 4 Hun, 511; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T: & G.) 696. Aft'd, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 623, on opinion of Daniels, J., below. See Smith v. People. Decision in 4 Han disting'd (Evidence of other offenses, to show intent) in People v. Spe- cial Sessions, 10 Han, 159. Reviewed with other cases, in People v. Shulman, 80 N~. Y. [ 373, n. Disting'd (What constitutes lar- ceny) in Zink v. People, 77 Id. 114, 129; Thorn v. Turck, 13' Weekly Di-j. 500. Wlialen v. Supervisors, &c. of Albany, 6 How. Pr. 278. Applied (Waiver -jf referee's • oath) in Nason ». Ludington, 8 Daly, 149. Wlieadon v. Olds, 20 Wend. 174. Disting'd (Recovery of money paid under mistake as to quantity of goods sold) in Hargous o. ■ Albion, 3 Den. 408. Applied in Calkins v. Griswold, 11 Hun, 210; Scott v. Warner, 2 Lam. 51. Applied to mistake- as to bound- ary line, in Coon v. Smith, 29 .tV. Y. 395. To money paid on assessment in Allen «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 E. D. Smith, 408. Wheaton v. Andreas, 23 Wend. 452. Col- lated with other cases (Enlarging devise into fee) in Sharaw. & B. Gas. on Heal Prop. 64. v. Baker, 14 Barb. 594. See Masson v. Bovet ; Ne'lis v. Bradley. Applied (Duty of one seeking to rescind contract for fraud, to restore what he has received) in Gould ». Cayuga, &c. Nat. B'k, 21 Hun, 293. Disting'd in Kinney % Kiernan, 49 IS. Y. 164, 171. v. Gates, 18 If. Y. 395. See cases col- lected from several States (Rights of pew- holders) in 19 Moah Eng. 565. v. Hibbard, 20 Johns. 290; s. c, 11 A.m. Dec. 284. Applied (Construction of remedial statute) in People v. Hickey, 5 Daly, 365, 377. Dicta criticised (Effect of statutory provisions on right of action for recovery of usurious excess of interest) in Porter v. Mount, 41 Barb. 501, 564. Both these decisions explained in Palen v. John- ston, 46.M.21, 23, as not to be upheld under Meech v. Stoner, 19 If. Y. 26. Wheeler, Matter of, 2 Alb. Pr. N. S. 361. Substantially followed (Validity of corpor- ate election) in: People 1>. Twaddell, 18 Hun, 427, 432. Wheeler v. Allen, 49 Barb. 460. Aff'd in 51 N. Y. 37. Decision in Id, disting'd (Proof to sustain action to recover possession of personal property) in Western R. R. Co. v. Bayne, 75 Id. 1, 4. v. Anthony, 10 Wend. 340. Disting'd (Effect of irregularity in assessment and taxation proceeding) in Cruger v. Dough- erty, 1 Lam. 464, 467. Reviewed with Jack- son v. Morse, 18 Johns. 441, and other cases in Lyon v. Hunt, Jl Ala. 295"; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 216, 225. v. Clark, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) Add. . 8. Aff'd in 58 N. Y. 267. v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 16 Hun, 317. Rev'd in 82 iV. Y. 543* s. c, 37 Am. It. 594, with note; alsos. c, Wins. J.. J., with note. Decision in Id. dis- ting'd (Forefeiture whefl not created by failure to perform in time) in N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Rector, &c. of St. George's Church, 12 Abb. K G. 50, 54. Followed (Forfeiture of life policy for non-payment of premium) in Klein v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 88, 91 ; Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Cecil Co. n. Miller Lodge, 58 Mi. 463, 476. Examined (Allegations of complaint as fix- ing nature of cause of action) in 9 Abb. N~. O. 6, it., citing numerous other cases. v. Cropsey, 5 How. Pr. 288. Approved and followed (Exemption of team from exe- cution) in Wilcox v. Hawley, 31 JV. T. 648, 656, and Smith v. Slade, 57 Barb. 637, 641. Applied in Van Buren v. Loper. 29 Id. 390, also a case of a physician. v. Curtis, 11 Wend. 654. . -Qualified (Effect of rule forbidding plea and demur- 832 WHEELER— WHEELOCK. rer to same count) in Miller v. Maxwell, 16 Id. !), 23. Overruled in Auburn & Owasco Canal Co. v. Leitch, 4 Den. 65. T. Dakin, 12 How. Pr. 537. See (Ex- ecution after creditor's death) Code Civ. Pro. 1881. § 1376, n. v. Falconer, 7 Boot. 45. Followed (Ref- erence in action involving account) iu Ross v. Combes, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 289, 296. — v. Garcia, 5 Robt. 280. Aff'd in 40 If. Y. 584. See (Refusal to perform, as dis- pensing with proof oi tender) cases cited in Abb. Tr. Mo. 316, re. 11. .y. Lozee, 12 How. Pr. 446. Approved (Foreign witness-fees) in Hicks s. Breunan, 10 Abb. Pr. 305. — v. McFarland, 10 Wend. 318. Rev'd in 26 Wend. 467; s. r.. 1.4 17. Y Com. L. Law. ed. 1142, with brief note. Decision in 10 Wend, disting'd and thought to be cor- rect notwithstanding reversal in 26 Id. (Ex- ecution against property pledged, &c.) in Hull v. Carnley, 11 If. Y. 507. Applied also to seizure of partnership property un- der execution against one person in Atkins v. Saxton, 77 Id. 200. Decision in 10 Wend, followed (Effect of declarations of deputy sheriff) in Stewart v. Wells, 6 Barb. 81. Criticised (Lien of bailee) and Morgan •». Congdon. 4 If. Y. 553/ applied in De Vinne v. Rianhard, 9 Daly, 406. Applied (Possession that will uphold lien) in Wal- ther i>. Wetmore, 1 R D. Smith, 24. Opin- ion of VerplanCk, Senator, approved i" Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, 56 If. Y. 549. — v. Newbonld, 5 Duer, 29. Aff'd in 16 If. Y. 392. Decision in Id. approved but disting'd (Evidence of usage) in Fox v. Parker, 44 Barb. 546. Disting'd in Walls v. Bailey, 49 If. Y. 475. Followed as con- clusive in Commercial B'k of Ky. v. Var- num, 3 Lans. 96, n. Applied in Higgins v. Moore, 34 If. Y. 422; Lawrence v. Galla- gher, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S). 321. Dis- ting'd (Right of pledgee to sell) in Chap- man v. Brooks, 31 If. Y. 84, as inapplicable to assignment of pledge as collateral secu- rity. Approved in Alexandria, &c. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 22 Oratt. (Va.) 254, 262. Applied (Right of pledgee to sell without notice) in Brass v. Worth, 40 Barb. 653; Disting'd in Milliken v. Dehon, 27 If. Y. 375. Disting'd (Rights of pledgee of com- mercial paper) in Bank of N. Y. v. Vander- horsf, 32 Id. 559. Applied in Moody v. Andrews, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 306. Followed in Joliet Iron Co. «. Scioto Fire Brick Co., 82 III. 584; s. c, 25 Am. E. 341. — v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co.. 24 Barb. 414. See (Service of summons on railroad corporation in proceedings in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2879, n.; 2880, n. — v. Raymond, 5 Cow. 231. Affd in 9 Id. 295. T. , 8 Cow. 311. See Foot v. Steveus ; Mills v. Martin. Followed with Foot v. Stevens, 17 Wend. 483; Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 139; Mills v. Martin, 19 Johns. 33 (Presumption as to court of gen- eral jurisdiction) in Kenney t. Greer, 13 III. 432; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 439, 447, with note. v. Reynolds, 66 If. Y. 227. See Dung ■v. Parker. Applied (Enforcing trust in real estate notwithstanding statute oi frauds) in Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Hun, 67, 71. Followed in Randall i>. Con^tans, 33 Minn. 329, 336. Approved in Pomeroy on Sp. Per/. § 144, n. v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co., 12 Barb. 227. Disapproved (Right to deter- mine location of farm crossings) in Wade- man v. Albany, &c. R. R. Co., 51 K Y. 568, 576. v. Ruckman, 1 Robt. 408. Subsequent decision in 7 Id. 4+7; s. c, 35 How. Pr. 350; which was aff'd in 51 If. Y. 39.1. Also another decision as it seems in 5 Robt. 702. Decision in 51 iV. Y. cited (Dismissal of complaint as bar to subsequent action) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 782. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1209. v. Rnthven, 2 Bed/. 491. Aff'd in part in 13 Hun, 530; and that affd in 74 If. Y. 428; s. c, 30 Am. P. 315. See King v. Talbot. v. Scofield, 6 Hun, 655. Affd in 67 If. Y. 311. Compare (Lien of material man in case of completion of work by owner after contractor's default) Rodbourn v. Seneca Lake, &c. Co., Id. 215. v. Spinola, 54 iV. F.377. See People v. Tibbetts. Cited as laying down the established rule (Low water-mark as bound- ary of private ownership on fresh water lakes and ponds) in 13 Cent. L. J. 3. See cases cited in 5 Abb. If. C. 174, n. Com- mented on (Title by adverse possession) in Sedgw. . Pinckney, 5 All. N. 0. 184. See (Distinc- tion between legal and equitable actions as to mode of trial of issues) Code Civ. Pro 1881, ch. X, tit. I, art. 1, n. Explained in 3 Oreenl. on Eo. 14 ed. § 266, ». a. _ v. Tanner, 39 N. T. 481. Explained Duty of seller as to delivery) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1018, n. 6 (Corbiu's 4 Am. ed.). v. Young, 4 Wend. 647. Limited (Lia- •oility for injury resulting from construction of canal) in St. Peter v. Denison, 58 Jf. Y. 416, 422. Wheelwright v. Beers, 2 Hall, 391. Exam- ined and -limited (Valuation of goods lost by carrier) in Lakeman v. Grinnell, 5 Bosw. 625, 629, 633, 639, 644. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 193, n. u. v. Depeyster, 1 Johns. 471 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 345; 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 214, with brief note, questioning doctrine of the case (Effect of sales by prize court on neu- tral country). ,. — v. Loonier, 4 Edw. 232. Further de- cision in 3 Sandf. Ch. 135. t. Wheelwright, 2 Red/. 501. Dis- ting'd (Liability of executors for. interest when commissions voluntarily appropri- ated) in Whitney v. Phoenix, 4 Id. 180, 195. Whelan t. Lynch, 65 Barb. 326. Affd in .60 N. Y. 469; s. c, 19 Am. R. 202. See Thayer v. Manley. Decision in 60 If. Y. collated with other cases (Damages in case of failure of factor to obey orders to sell) in 58 Am. Dec. 160, n. Decision in 65 Barb, quoted in Benj. on Sales, § 870, n. a. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Decision in 60 N. Y. followed (Price current as evidence of value of stockj in Vogt v. Cope, 66 Cal. 81. Cited at length in 1 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 674, n. v. Whelan, 3 Cow. 537. Applied (Ef- fect of contract attained by undue influ- ence) in Brice v. Brice, 5 Barl. 540 ; Brand v. Brand, 39 Sow. Pr. 265, 275. Applied to will, in Tyler «. Gardiner, 35 N. Y. 595 ; Clark v. Fisher, 1 Paige, 177. Cited as authority (Marriage as valuable considera- tion) in 1 Add. on Contr. 4. n. 1, Abb. ed. Whipple v. Christian, 15 Hun, 321. Affd in 80 K Y. 523. — - v. Foot, 2 Johns. 418 ; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 442. See Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary ; Foote v. Colvin ; Green v. Armstrong ; Stew- art v. Doughty. Applied (When execution becomes dormant) in Russell v. Gibbs, 5 Cow. 392; Storm v. Woods, 11 Johns. 112. Explained in Rew v. Barber, 3 Cow. 279. Disting'd in Doty v. Turner, 8 Johns. 22. Followed with Storm v. Woods, 11 Id. 110, in Michie v. Planters' Bank, 4 How. '{Miss.) 130; s. c, 34 Am. Bee. 112, with Bote. I.— 53 Applied (Growing crops as chattels) it i Aus- tin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. 42; Harris 0. flrink, 49 If. Y. 28 Disting'd and questioned in Norris v. Watson, 22 N. H. [364; s. c, 55 Am. Dee. 160, with note. v . Williams, 4 How. Pr. 28. Cited as well decided, but not on the right ground (Computing length of time of notice) m Taylor v. Corbiere, 8 Id. 385. Whispell v. Whispcll, 4 Barb. 217. Quoted (Considering rank and condition of parties in action for divorce for cruelty) in 1 Bishop on Mar. & D. § 742, 6 ed. Doctrine discussed and cases cited (Condonation) in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 647. Whitaker. Matter of, 4 Johns. Ch. 378. Col- lated with Matter of Brick's Estate, 15 Abb. Pr. 12, and other cases (Effect of marriage of testamentary ward before full age, as determining guardianship) in Tyler on Inf. 6 Cov. 2 ed. $ 170. Whitaker V. Brown, 8 Wend. 505. Subse- quent decisions in 11 Id. 75; 16 Id. 50a ; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1178. with brief note. Decision in Id. explained (Giving of note in the name of firm as evidence of existence of partnership debt) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 182, n. d. Cited with other cases (Ratification by partnership) in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 543. With decision in 8 Wend, compare (Evidence of declara- tions, as against transferee of note) Earl «. Clute, 2 All. Gt. App.Dec. .1, and cases there cited; 1 Fair/. (Me.) 249. y. Chapman, 3 Bans. 155. Limited (Debts that are not affected by discharge in bankruptcy) in Shuman i>. . Strauss, 52 AT. Y. 408. Followed (What is debt in fiduciary- character, withiu meaning of bankrupt act) in Hardenbrook v. Collson, 24 Hun, 476. Followed in Banning v. Bleakley, 27 La. Ann. 257; s. c, 21 Am. £. 554, 556, cit- ing Duguid v. Edwards, 50 Barb. 290. v. Coue, 2 Johns. Cas. 58; s. c, 1 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 437, with brief note (Effect of grant of land held adversely). — t. Besfosse, 7 Bosw. 678. Approved (Reference involving long account) in Batchelor v. Albany City Ins. Co., 6 Abb. Pr. K 8. 240, 249. Collated with other cases in Hoffm. on Referees, 12. — v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 51 If. Y. 295. Rev'g Whittaker v. Same, 5 Robt. 650. See Luby ». Hudson River R. R. Co. — v. Farmers' Union Ins. Co., 29 Barl. 312. Followed (Liability of insurance company, before payment of premium) in Baldwin v. Chouteau Ins. Co., 56 Mo. 151 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 671, 673, citing Lightbody ■i). North Missouri Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 18. — v. Merrill, 28 Barb. 526. Further de- cision in 30 Id. 389. Decision in 28 Id. dissented from (Verdict subject to opinion of court) in Wilcox v. Hoch, 62 Id. 509 514. — v. Whitaker, 6 Johjis. 112. Followed ^Declaring on promise by or to executors) in Jones v. Moore, Binn. (Pa.) 573;. s. c, 6 834 WIIITAKER— WHITE. i Am. Dee. 428. Included with notes (Ad- ministration by husband on estate of mar- ried woman) in Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf., &e. 513. v. , 52 N. Y. 368; s. c, 11 Am. R. 711. Oases of same name in 54 N. T. 638 and 4 Sun, 810, are different from this and from each other. See Filer v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co. Whitbeck v. Building Material Co., 2 Sun. 161 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 679. Aff'd, it seems, in 62 K Y. 613, but with- out opinion. r. Cook, 15 Johns. 483; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 272. See Edwards v. Davis ; Greene v. Col- lins; Jackson v. Hathaway. Distiug'd (Ex- istence of public way as breach of covenant against warranty) in Rea v. Mingler, 5 Lans. 196, as not applicable to private way. Cited in Beach v. Miller, 51 111. 206 ; 2 Am. R. 290, 294. Compared in Kellog v. Malin, 50 Mo. 496; s. c, 11 Am. R. 426. Cited as authority in Rawle on Cov. for Tit. 4 ed. 80, and Id. 102, 104, n. v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 36 Barb. 644. Disting'd (Measure of damages for injury to timber) in Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 JST. Y. 308, 313. Approved (Opinion as to damages caused by trespass on land) in Richardson v. Northrup. 66 Barb. 85, 88. v. Rowe, 25 Sow. Pr. 403. Followed (Setting aside mortgage sales) in Kellogg v. Howell, 62 Barb. 280, 289. T. Van Ness, 11 Johns. 409; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 383 ; 5 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 202, with brief note. See Ontario Bank v. Light- body. Disting'd (Effect o[ note, &c. of third person, as payment)- in Gibson v. Toby, 53 Barb. 195; Porter v. Ta]cott, 1 Cow. 385 ; Darnell «. Morehouse, 36 Sow. Pr. 523 ; Lightbody v. Ontario B'k, 11 Wend. 17. Applied in Breed v. Cook, 15 Johns. 242 ; Hardin v. Kretsinger, 17 Id. 295; Whites. Howard, 1 Sandf. 86. Re- viewed and criticised with Porter v. Talcott, 1 Cow. 359 ; Rew a. Barber, 3 Id. 272, in Lowrey v. Murrell, 2 Port. (Ala.) 280; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 651.' t, Whitbeck, 9 Cow. 266; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 503, with note, wherein it is said to have been frequently followed (Acknowl- edgment of consideration in deed is not conclusive). See Shephar 3 . ^.Little. Ap- plied (Husband, as bound by covenants in deed executed by himself and wife) in Grincr v. Butler, 61 Ind. 362; s. c, 28 Am. R. 675. Wliiteomb v. Fowle, 7 Abb. K C. 295 ; s. c, 56 Sow. Pr. 365. • v. Hungerford, 42 Barb. 177. Dis- ting'd (Amendment of complaint on trial) in Vibbard v. Roderick, 51 Barb. 629; Bigelow v. Dunn, 53 Id. 571. White t. Anthony, 21 N. Y. 164. Followed (Costs in Court of Appeals on appeal from order) in Tauton v. Groh, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 453, 458. v. Ash ton, 51 N. Y. 280. Previous de- cision to same effect as White v. Van Kirk, 25 Barb. 16. v. Baxter, 41 Super. Ct. (J". & S.) 358. Aff'd in 71 K Y. 254. Decision in Id. followed (Consideration for promise) in Roberts •». Cobb, 31 Sun, 150. v. Brownell, 3 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 318. Affd in 4 Id. 162 ; s. c, 2 Daly, 329. De- cision in Id. disting'd (Action against president of voluntary association) in Fritz v. Muck, 62 Sow. Pr. 69, 73. Disting'd with Olery v. Brown, 51 Id. 92 (Remedy of expelled member of voluntary association) in Hutchinson v. Lawrence, 67 Id. 38. Ex- plained in Olery v. Brown, 51 Id. 94, 96. Compare (Membership in exchange) Ritter- band v. Baggett, 4. ^165. N. C. 67. See cases cited in Id. 305, n., 311, n. Explained (Effect of arbitration by authorities of com- mercial exchange) iu Heath v. President of Gold Exchange, 7 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 257. v. Bullock, 20 Barb. 91. Rev'd in 15 Sow. Pr. 102; s. c, 4 Abb/ Ct. App. Dec. 578. Decision in Id. disting'd (Com- missions to executors, &c.) in Ward v. Ford, 4 Red/. 34, 40. With decision in 20 Barb, see cases cbllcjeted (Liability" for acts of co-trustee) in 15 Am. L. Rev. 175. v. Buloid, 2 Paige, 47o. See (Transfer of interest, on death of partv) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 760, n. v. Calder, 33 Sow. Pr. 392. For cor- rection of foot note, see 34 Id. 96. See Green v. Telfair. v. Canfleld, 7 Johns. 117; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 249. See Van Raugh v. Van Arsdaln. v. Carpenter. See Rogers v. Murray. v. Carroll, 42 N. Y. 161. Applied (Privilege of alleged libel in judicial pro- ceedings) in Aylesworth v. St. John, 25 Sun, 157. Explained and applied in Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 K Y. 309, 313. Explained in Moah's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 154. . v. Case. See Moakley v. Riggs. v. Chouteau, 10 Barb. 202. Subsequent decision in 1 E. D. Smith, 493. • Both de- cisions discussed and cases cited (Evidence of declarations of deceased persons) in 3 Am. L. Reg. K S. 648. Decision in 10 Barb, explained (Action in name of broker for price of goods sold for owner) in 1 Bevj. on Sales, § 241, n. 39 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). \. Coatsworth, 6 K Y. 137. See Hess v. Beckman. ' Applied (Effect of judicial determination, as conclusive) in Demarest v. ' Dai£, 11 Abb. Pr. 15; which was affd in. 32 K Y. 290, which sec: Glackin v. Zel- ler, 52 Barb. 150; Matter of Leland, 14 Blatchf. C. Ct. 240. Disting'd in People v. Eddy, 57 Barb. 602; 3 Lans. 82; Gillilan v. Spratt, 3 Daly, 445. Applied (Conclusive- ness of verdict of jury in summary proceed- ings) in Yonkers & N. Y. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 1 Daly, 451. v.. Cole, 24 Wend. 116. Rev'd in 26 Id. 511. ' Decision in 24 Id. referred to as over- • ruled- (Effect of retention of possession on WHITE. 835 sale, &c. of chattels).— in Stewart e. Slater, 6 Duet, 96. Criticised in Hanford v. Artcher. 4 Hill, 303. Disting'd (Interest as disqualifying witness) in Moak «. Guion, 7 Hill, 59. v. Continental Nat. B'k, 64 If. Y. 316. See Marine Nat. B'k e. Nat. City B'k. Dis- ting'd (Warranty of genuineness of com- mercial paper) in Susquehanna Val. Nat. B'k v. Loomis, 85 If. Y. 207, 211. v. Corlies, 46 If. Y. 467. See Trevor v. Wood. Included (Formal requisites of contract) in Latoson's Lead. Gom. L. Gas. Simplified, 1. . v . Coulter, 1 Hun, 357 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. ('/'. & 0.) 608. Rev'd in part in 59 N. Y. 629. Compare (Sufficiency of ser- vice on husband alone, in foreclosure against husband and wife) Nagle «. Tuggart, 4 AM. If. 0. 144, n. v. Delavan, 17 Wend. 49. Rev'd in Ryckman v. Delavan, 25 Id. 180. t. Evans, 47 Barb. 179. Disting'd (Who bound by judgment as privies) in Bennett v. Couchman, 48 Id. 83. y. Featherstonhaugli, 7 How. Pr. 357. Referred to as overruled by Abbott v. Smith, 8 Id. 463 (Appearance by defendant, when in time) in Carpenter v N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 11 Id. 481, 483. v. Fuller, 4 Hun, 631 ; s. c, more fully, 67 Barb. 267. v. Geraerdt, 1 Edw. 336. Overruled (Necessity that execution issue before cred- itor's action) in Geery v. Geery, 63 If. Y. 257. Followed with Devoe v. Ithaca & Owego R. R. Co., 5 Paige, 521 (Chose in action as subject to process of sequestration) . in Grew v. Breed, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 363 ; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 687, 689. Collated with other cases in 14 Am. Dec. 531, n. v. Hackett, 24 Barb. 290. Rev'd in 20 If. Y. 178. v. Haigh*, 16. .W". Y. 310. Followed (Liability on note given on organization of insurance company) in Howland v. Ed- monds, 24 Id. 307, 311, 313 ; Tuckerman i>. Brown, 11 Abb. Pr. 389, 394; 33 If. Y. 304; Hart v. Achilles, 28 Barb. 581 ; Bell v. Yates, 33 Id. 632; Elwell v. Crocker, 4 Bosw. 32 ; Bell v. McElwain, 18 How. Pr. 150; White «. Foster, Id. 151. Disting'd in Savage v. Medbury, 19 K Y. 33. Ex- plained in Dana v. Munson, 23 Id. 566. v. Hicks, 43 Barb. 64. Affd in 33 If. Y. 383. Decision in Id. relied on (Execu- tion of power created by will) in South v. South, 91 Ind. 221 ; s. c, 46 Am. It. 591 ; Warners. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 109 U. 8. 357, 367. Decision in. 43 Barb, explained (Extrinsic evidence to show that power has been executed by will) in Bingham's Ap- peal, 64 Pa. St. 345. Decision in 33 If. Y. approved in Funk v. Eggleston, 92 111. 515; s. c, 34 Am. R. 136, collating many- cases. Explained and case cited to the contrary, in 2 Jarm. on Wills, Rand.,& T. ed. 273, n. T . Howard, 52 Barb. 294. Affd, though questioned on some points in 46 If. Y. 144. Decision in Id. followed (Right of foreign corporation to take real estate by devise) in Draper v. President, &c. of Har- vard College, 57 How. Pr. 273. Disting'd in Prichard v. Thompson, 29 Hun, 295, 298. Applied to devise to U. S., in U. S. «. Fox, 94 U. 8. 315, 321; affg Mat- ter of Fox. 52 N. Y. 530, 534; 03 Barb. 157, 160. Followed (Validity of bequest to unincorporated society) in Betts v. Betts, 57 How. Pr. 355. Compare Sherwood «. Am. Bible Soc, 4 Abb. Gt. App. Dee. 227 ; Harris v. Slaght, 46 Barb. 470. See cases cited in 4 Abb. If. G. 311, n. Collated with other cases in Gerard Titles to Seal Est. 2 ed. 305. Followed (Requisites of equitable conversion) in Gourley v. Campbell, 66 If. Y 173; McCarty v. Deming, 4 Lans. 442. Applied (Vesting of interests under will) in Chapman v. Nichols, 61 How. Pr. 275, 280. Explained and disting'd (Intestacy as to re- mainder) in Newell v. Nichols, 12 Hun, 604, 623. T. Hoyfc, 7 Daly, 232. Afl'd in 73 K Y. 505. v. Jones, 1 Abb. Pr. K S. 328; s. c, 1 liobt. 321. See (Violation of contract transferring good will) Grimm v. Warner, 45 Iowa, 106. • Explained in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 117, n. 2, Wood's Am. ed. v. Joy, 11 How. Pr. 30. Rev'd in 13 If. Y. 83. See Gillet v. Fairchild. These decisions disting'd (Pleading authority to sue, in action by receiver) as inapplicable to case of assignee for benefit of creditors, — in Butterfield «. Macomber, 22 How. Pr. 150, 154. v. Kibling. See Stafford n. Rice. v. Knapp, 47 Barb. 549. Followed (De- livery required by statute of frauds) in Wooster «. Sage, 6 Han, 285, 288. v. Lester, 1 Keyes, 510. Explained (Ef- fect of mortgage sale by U. S. Loan Com- missioners) in Thompson ». Comm'rs for Loaning, &c, 79 N. Y. 62. v. Lovejoy. See Jackson v. Ham- mond. v. McLean, 57 If. Y. 670; s. c, fully reported, 47 How. Pr. 193. v. McNett, 33 N. Y. 371. Reviewed with dther cases (Charging separate estate of married woman) in Coakley «. Chamber- lain, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 177. Applied in Prendergast v. Borst, 7 Lans. 491. Criti- cised but applied in Manhattan B. & M. Co. «. Thompson, 58 If. Y. 83. Disting'd in Tread well v. Hoffman, 5 Daly, 207, 210. v. Madison, 26 If. Y. 117; s. c, 26 How. Pr. 481. See Dusenberry v. Ellis; Palmer v. Stephens ; Passinger v. Thor- burn ; Rossiter v. Rossi ter. Applied (Parol evidence of grounds of judgment, &c.) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Ryan, 7 Daly, 438. Disting'd (Liability on contract entered in- to by assumed agent without authontv) in Aspiuvvall v. Torrance, 1 Lans. 386.. 836 WHITE. Explained and applied in Dung v. Parker, 52 N. Y. 494, 500, which rev'd 3 Lans. 89, 98, which see. Dicta explained in Noe v. Gregory, 7 Daly, 283, 285. Cited (Execu- tion of power given to factor to insure) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 782. v. Mealio, 37 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 72. Rev'd in 63 JV. Y. 609. Further decision in i% Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 163. v. Merritt, 7 K Y. 352; s. a, 57 Am. Bee. 527, with notes. Followed (Remedy against judgment, as having heen obtained by fraud) in Farrington v. Bullard, 40 How. Pr. 517. Applied (Conclusiveness of judg- ment by default) in Gates v. Preston, 41 If. Y. 115. Explained (Liability for false representations) in Wakeman v. Dalley, 44 Barb. 5,02, which was affd in 51 If. Y. 33, which see. v Miller, 7 Hun, 427. Rev'd in 71 If. Y. 118_; s. c, 27 Am. R. 13. Further de- cision in 78 N. Y. 393. See Hawkins v. Pemberton; Hoe v. Sanborn ; Luby v. Hud- son River R. R. Co.; Passinger v. Thor- burn ; Seixas «. Woods. Decision in 71 Id. explained (Sale of specific chattel by des- cription) in 2 Ben), on Sale*. § 966, n. 24 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. § 988, n. 35. De- cision in 78 If. Y. followed (Allowance of interest) in Robbins v. Carll. 93 Id. 656. v. Moore, 1 Paige, 551. Disting'd (Effect of mistake in recording mortgage) in Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb,. If. 0. 381, 391. Applied (Effect of deed absolute in terms, as mortgage) in Odell v. Montross, 68 If. Y. 503. v. Mnnroe, 12^55. Pr. 357; s. c, 33 Barb. 650. Applied (Discretion as to hear- ing renewal of motion) in Belmont v. Erie R'y Co., 52 Barb. 648; Smith v. Spalding, 30" Sow. Pr. 341. Cited as authority in Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N. Y. 879. Referred to as overruled in effect (Appeal from discre- tionary order) by Matter of Duff, 41 Mow. Pr. 350,— in Central Nat. B'k v. Clark, 34 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 487. v. Nellis, 31 Barb. 279. AfTd in 31 If. Y. 405. See Bartley v. Richtmyer; Hewjt v. Prime; Knight v. Wilcox. See cases cited (Proof to sustain action for seduction) in 34 Am. R. 367, n. v. Osborn, 21 Wend 72. See Wilson v. Reed. Approved as established law (Con- version as between co-tenants) in Osborn v. Schenck, 8:{ If. Y. 201, 204. Though thought to conflict with Mersereau v. Norton, 15 Johns. 179, yet recognized as authority in Rains ®. McNairy, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 856; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 651, with note, citing tlso as authority Waddell v. Cook, 2 Hill, 47 (Effect of judicial sale of share of one co-tenant). Commented on in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 646, n. 1. r. Parker, 8 Barb. 48. See Egleston v. Knickerbacker. Followed (Power of guard- ian to bind ward) in Carman «. Cowles, 2 Bed/. 414, 417. - — v. Piatt, 5 Den. 269. Followed (Claims against attorney for money collected, how affected by discharge in bankruptcy) in Flanagan ». Pearson, 42 Tex. 1 ; s. a, 19 Am. R. 40. Cited as authority (Rights of pledgee of commercial paper) in Clarke v. Iselin, 21 Wall. 360, 368. — T. Ross, 15 Abb. Pr. 66; s. a, 4 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 589. Approved (Liability of premium notes received in one department to assessment in another) in Sands v. Bout- well, 26 2V. Y. 233 236, and see reporter's note on p. 236. — v. Sclmjler, 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 300. Approved (Equitable remedy to compel transfer of stock) in Cushman v. Thayer M'f'g Jewelry Co , 76 N. Y. 365, 369. — v. Scott, 4 Barb. 56. Dictum disap- proved (Validity of town ordinance allow- ing animals to run on highway) in Griffin e. Martin, 7 Id. 297, 302. — t. Seaver. See Tallman v. Green. Disting'd (Liability for false representa- tions on sale) in Sherman v. Johnson. 5G Barb. 5;), 03. Disting'd in Wheaton v. Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 215, statement on settlement of 48 of Newcombe, 219, a case account. — v. Skinner 13 Johns. 307; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 381. See Dusenberry v. Ellis. Dis- ting'd (Liability on contract made as agent) in Hegeman v. Johnson, 35 Barb. 200, 205 ;. St. Andrew's Bay Land Co. v. Mitchell, 4 Fla. 192 ; s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 340, with" note. v. Smith, 4 Hill, 166. Rev'd in 7 Id. 520. v. , 1 Lans. 469. Rev'd in 46 If. Y. 418. Decision in 1 Lavs, disting'd (Reference on reversal of judgment) in Devlin m. Mayor, &c: of N. Y., 6 Daly, 386, 389. v. , 6 Lans. 5. Aff'd in 54 N. Y. 522. Decision in 6 Lans. cited (Liability of stock-broker for revoking general agree- ment to buy, hold and sell stocks for com- mission) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 726. v. Spencer, 14 N. Y. 247. Applied (Enjoyment of easement by license, not evidence of title) in Flora v. Carbeau, 38 If. Y. 116. Approved (Waiver of defects in form, by neglect to correct them by motion) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 600. t. Springfield Bank, 1 Barb. 225. Further decision in 3 Sandf. 222. See Stalker v. McDonald. Decision in 3 Sandf. followed (Effect of payment of precedent debt, to make one holder for value) in Pur- chase v. Mattison, 3 Bosw. 310, 312; Farring- ton v. Frankfort Bank,31 Barb. 183,188,193; Prentiss v. Graves, 33 Id. 621, 626 ; N. Y. Marbled Iron Works v. Smith, 4 Duer, 362, 377. Questioned with N. Y. Marbled Iron Works v. Smith ; Purchase v. Mattison, in Hoyt v. Iloyt, 8 Bosw. 511, 627. v. Story, 2 Hill, 543. Reconciled with Howard ■». Caveudish, Palmer, 246 (Assign- ing widow portion of building for dower) in 'lyler on Inf. & Oov. 2 cd. 628. - — v. Vankirk, 25 Barb. 16. Further de- WHITE— WHITING, MATTER OR- BS'? cision to same effect, as White v. Ashton, 61 N. Y. 280. v. Wager, 32 Barb. 250. Affd in 25 JV. Y. 328. See Miniers. Minicr; Sbepard t>. Sbepard. Decision in Id. explained as a case arising at law (Validity of deed from wife to husband) in Townshend «. Townshend, 1 Abb. XT. C. 83; Hunt v. Johnson, 44 H. Y. 34. Followed in Winans *>. Peebles, 32 Id. 425. Applied to sale of personalty by husband to wife, in Savage v. O'Neil, 42 Barb. 379. To wife's right of action against husband, in Frcethy v. Freethy, Id. 644, and to husband's against ■wife, in Perkins v. Perkins, 62 Id. 533. Disting'd with Winans v. Peebles, 32 K Y. 423, in Sims ». Rickets, 35 Ind. 181 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 679, 686, a case of conveyance by husband to wife, citing Simmons v. Mc- Elwain, 26 Barb. 419. Referred to in Ty- ler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 454, as stating a principle which has never been directly re- pudiated, the doctrine being, however, said to be technical, and to have been easily and frequently evaded. Compared with other authorities in 7 South. L. J. N~. S. 84. Ap- plied (Right of married woman to. convey real estate) in McKesson v. Stanton, 50 Wise. 297, 305. v. Williams, 1 Paige, 502. See Hil- dreth v. Sands. Followed and approved (Assignability of vendor's lien) in Briggs v. Hill, 3 Sow. (Miss.) 362; s. c, 38 Am. Deo. 441, 444, with note. Reviewed with other cases in Hall's Exec. v. Click, 5 Ala. 363 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 327, 329, with note. Followed in Wellborn v. Williams, 9 Oa. 86; s. c, 52 Ani. Dip. 43,7, 434, as accord- ing with the weight of authority. Reviewed at length in Schnebly v. Ragan, 7 Gill & J. ■ I (Ind.) 120; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 195, with note. Relied on with Hallock ». Smith, 3 Barb. 267, in Perkins v. Gibson, 51 Miss. 699; s. c, 24 Am. R. 644, .653. Collated with other casesin 12 Am. Dec. 263, n. \ v. , 48 Barb. 222. Rev'd (Discrep- ancy between distance named in convey- ance, and fixed monument) in 48 W. Y. 344. White's Bank of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 K Y. 65. Followed (Effect of conveyance of land bounded by highway) in Putzel v. Van Brunt, 40 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 501,. 511 ; Matter of Opening 67th St., 60 How. Pr. 264, 269. Whited v. Germanin Fire Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 191. Aff'd in 76 AT. Y. 415; s. c, 32 Am. R. 330. Decision in Id. followed (Waiver of conditions by agent of insurance com- pany) in Putnam v. Commonwealth Ins. Co.. 18 Blatchf. O. Ct. 368, 373. Applied in Home Ins. Co. «. Duke, 84 Ind. 253, 255. Collated with other cases in 27 Am. R. 597, n. Whitehall Transp. Co. t. N. J. Steamboat Co., 51 N. Y. 369. Applied (Interest in action for injury caused by negligence) in Lackin v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 22 Hun. 339. Whitehead v. Buffalo & Lake Huron R'y Co., 18 How. Pr. 218. See Hulbert v. Hope Mut. Ins. Co. Disting'd (Jurisdic- tion over foreign corporations) in Prouty v. Mich. Southern, &c R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 658. v. Kennedy, 7 Hun, 230.. Rev'd in 69 K Y. 462. Decision in Id. disting'd (Attor- ney's lien) in Matter of Knapp, 85 Id. 284, 299. See Code Giv. Pro. § 1881, § 66. v. Smith, 14 Hun, 531. Affd in 81 N. Y. 151. Decision in 14 Hun disting'd and explained (Who may be witness against ex- ecutor) in Hall «. Richardson, 22 Id. 444, 447. ' Whiteman v. Leslie, 54 How. Pr. 494. Affd in effect, it seems, in 77 -V. Y. 609, but without opinion. Whiteside v. People, 26 Wend. 634. Cited with other cases (Proceedings of public bodies) in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 549. Whitford v. Laidler, 25 Hun, 136. Com- pare (Contracts by trustees of association) Steams v. Allen, Id. 559. v. Panama R. R. Co., 3 Bosw. 67. Aff'd with approval of the reasoning, in 23 N. Y. 465. See Vanderwerken v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. Decision in 23 N. Y. applied (Law of place, as governing car- rier's performance) in Faulkner v. Hart. 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 486. Disting'd (Lia- bility for tort committed in another juris- diction) in Van Buskirk «. Warren, 2 Keyes, 129. Compare (Territorial effect of statu- tory liability) Lowry v. Inman, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 397. Followed (Right of action for injury causing death) in Green i>. Hudson River R. R. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 282, 286. Explained and applied in Mahler 11. Norwich & N.'Y. Transp. Co., 45 Barb. 226 ; Stallk-necht v. Peun. R. R. Co., 13 Hun, 453; 53 How. Pr. 308. Explained in Mc- Donald v. Mallory, 77 J/! Y. 550 ; Leonard v. Columbia Steam Nav. Co., 84 Id. 48, 53. Applied in Schlichting v. Wintgen, 25 Hun, 626, 629. Disting'd in Littlewood v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 89 K Y. 24, 29. Relied on in Hyde v. Wabash, St. Louis, &c. R'y Co., 61 Iowa. 441 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 820. Followed in Willis v. Missouri, Pacific R'way Co., 61 Tex. 432; s. c. 48 Am. R. 301 ; McDonald v. Mallory, 77 K Y. 546, be- ing disting'd and also said to be repudiated in part by some of the courts and text- writ- ers. Disting'd, and Leonard v. Columbia Steam Nav. Co., 84 K Y. 48, followed (Extra-territorial force of statute giving right of action for personal injury) in Hcrrick ■». Minneapolis & St. Louis R'y Co., 31 Minn. 11 ; s. c, 47 Am- R. 771. Disting'd with Leonard v. Columbia Steam Nav. Co., 84 .V. Y. 48, and the latter approved in Boyce v. Wabash R'y Co., 63 Iowa, 70, 72. Ap- plied (Presumption as to statute law of an- other jurisdiction) in Ellie v. Maxson, 19 Mich. 186; s. «., 2 Am. R. 81. Whiting, Matter of, 2 Barb. 513. , Applied (Validity of statute requiring railroad com- 838 WHITING— WHITNEY. pany, &c. to make change or improvement ou its property) in Commonwealth v. Penn. Canal Co., 66 Penn. 41; s. c, 5 Am. R. 329, 339. Whiting v. Barney, 38 Barb. 393. Further decision in 30 N. Y. 330. Reviewed at length with Hebbard v. Haughian, 70 Id. 54; Edington v. Mtna, Life Ins. Co., 77 Id. 564; Sloan v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 Id. 125 ; Dilliber v. Home Life Ins. Co., 69 Id. 256; Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 67 Id. 185 ; Grattan v. Metrop. L. Ins. Co., 80 Id. 281 ; Bacon v. Frisbie, Id. 394; Pierson b. People, 18 Hun, 139 ; Staunton «. Parker, 19 Id. 55 (Extent of 'privilege as to professional communications) in Pcar- sall c. Elmer, 5 Bed/. 181. See Prouty v. Eaton, 41 Barb. 409; Brand v. Brand, 39 How. Pr. 289 ; Britton v. Lorentz, 45 K Y. 51. Collated with other cases in 36 Am. R. 631, n. Discussed in 1 Best onEo. § 184, n. a, 330, Wood's ed. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 835, n. v. Mayor, &e. of N. T., 37 K Y. 600. See opinion of Grover, J., on the merits, in 6 Transc. App. 193. v. Otia, 1 Bosw. 420. See other cases collected (Testimony of parties) in 1 Abb. JST. 0. 362, n. Whitley v. Leeds, 27 Row. Pi: 378. Disap- proved (Allowing stamp to be affixed in court) in Lewis 11. Randall, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 135. Whitlock's Case, Tuck. 491. Aff'd as Hoyt d. Bonnett, 58 Barb. 529, but the latter rev'd in 50 N. Y. 538. Compare (Limita- tion of time for enforcing claim against decedent's estate) Doendorff «. Utz, 48 Md. 298. Whitlock v. Duffield, Hoffm. 110. Rev'd in 26 Wend. 54. Decision in Hoffm. explained, as not authority, and the contarary held (Specific performance of covenant of renewal of lease) in Kelso v. Kelly, 1 Daly. 419, 422; Robinson v. Kettletas, 4 Edw. 67. Fol- lowed and explained in Western Trans. Co. of Buffalo v. Lansing, 49 K Y. 499, 505. Whitman v. Conner, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 339. Followed with Guillander v. Howell, 35 K Y. 657 (Mortgage of chattels, by what law governed) in Ames' Iron Works v. Warren, 76 Ind. 512 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 258. v. Hogan, 15 Hun, 197. Rev'd in 85 N. Y. 243. v. Nicol, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 528. Further proceeding in 16 Abb. Pr. JV". S. 329 ; s c, 49 How. Pr. 88. Whitmarsli v. Hall, 3 Den. 375. See Med- bury v. Watrous. Disting'd (Right of set- off) in Taylor v. Mayor. &c. of N. Y., 82 W. Y. 10, 19. Explained (Recovery by infant ■who has disaffirmed contract) in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 37, n. g. Referred to in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 39, as laying down what is undoubtedl}' the true rule. Included in Ewell lead. Gas. on Inf. &c. 107. Ex- plained in 1 Ghitty on Gontr. £00, n. o, 11 Am. ed. Explained (Contracts for work labor and services) in 2 Id. 856 t n, z. Wliitmore r. Foose, 1 Den. 159. Followed and approved (Limitation of time within which to enforce claims against decedent's estate) in Tucker v. Tucker, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 428, 433. Compare Dolbeer v. Casey, 19 Barb. 149. -> — v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Hun, 195. Affd on the construction of the statute, . solely, in 67 N~. Y. 21. Decision in Id. applied (Who are local officers of N. Y. city, &e. government) in People ex rel. Phelps®. General Sessions, 13 Hun, 398; Taylor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 67 JST. Y. 93. Decision in 5 Hun applied in Goettman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Id. 132. Dis- ting'd in Brinck v. Mayor, 16 Id. 340, 343. Whitney V. Allaire, 4 Den. 554. Aff'd in 1 N. Y. 3,05. Prior decision as Allaire v. Whitney, 1 Hill, 484. Decisions in 1 N. Y.; 4 Den. applied (Remedies of party that has been defrauded in making of contract) in Harris v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc , 3 Hun, 732. Applied (Liability for false representations as to value of real estate) in White v. Seaver, 25 Barb. 239. Approved in Clark v. Baird, 9 K Y. 197. Cited as settled law in Haigbt v. Hayt, 19 Id. 471, 474. Disting'd in People ■». Stephens, 71 Id. 540, 553. Followed (Parol proof of representations made at time of executing lease) in Sharp o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Id. 270. Decision in 1 Id. limited (Damages for injury resulting from fraudulent repre- sentation) in Sharon v. Mosher, 17 Barb. 521 v. American Ins. Co., 3 Cow. 210. Aff'd in 5 id 712. * v. Black River Ins. Co., 9 Hu:i, 37. Aff'd in 72 N. Y. 117; s. c, 28 Am. R. 116. See Paine v. Agricultural Ins. Co. Decision in 72 2f. Y. followed (Building, wheu vacant or unoccupied, within mean- ing of law of insurance) in Stnpitski v. Trans. F. Ins. Co., 43 Mich. 373, 375. v. Elmer. See Gillet v. Mead. v. Ferris, 10 Johns. 66. Applied with Sweeting*. Turner, 10 Id. 216 ; Whitney v. Sterling, 14 Id. 215 ; Harris v. Wilson, 7 Wend. 57 (Declarations of partner, as evi- dence that another person is member of the firm) in Grafton B'k v. Moore, 13 N. H. 99 ; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 478, with note, as sustain- ing a well established principle. v. Groot, 24 Wend. 82. Disting'd with Rogers v. Warner, 8 Johns. 119 (Liability for statements inducing sales) in dissenting opinion of Russell, J., in Macullar v. Mc- Kinley, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 5. Criti- cised (Continuing guaranties) in Menard e. Scudder, 7 La. Ann. 385; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 610. See to the contrary Rose: N. P. 457, and see Abb. Tr. Ev. 473. Collated with other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 6 ed. 109. v. Hitchcock, 4 Den. 401. Applied (Exemplary damages in case where defend- WHITN ET— WHITON. 839 ant is liable criminally) in Fay v. Parker, 63 K H. 842 ; s. c, 16 Am. R. 270, 325; People v. Goodwin, 18 Johns. 187, being also cited (Effect of constitutional provision against one being twice put in jeopardy of life or limb). . v. Krows, 11 Barb. 198. Sustained (Validity of assignment with discretionary power) in Benedict v. Huntington, 32 K_ Y. 219, 222. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. Collated with other cases in , Bishop on Assign. § 211. v. Lewis. See Frisbie v. Hoffnagel ; Tallmadge v. Wallis. v. Murtine, 6 Abb. N. ft 72. Rev'd in 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 396, and that rev'd in 88 N. T. 535. — - v. Mayor, &c. of N.T., 6 Abb. N. ft 329,n. See Presbyterian Church v. City -of N. Y. Applied (Rights of one to whom land under water is granted by municipal corporation) in Langdon v. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. N. ft 328, which" was rev'd in 98 K Y. 129, where also Furman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Samlf. 16; Marshall v. Guion, 11 N~. Y. 461; Van Zandt v. Mayor, 8 Bosw. 375, were disting'd. v. Meyers, 1 Duer, 266. Explained (Eviction as bar to rent) in Healy v. Mc- Manus, 23 Sow. Pr. 238, 240. v. Nat. B'k of Potsdam, 45 N. Y. 303. Disting'd (Warranty on transfer of note) in Littauer o. Goldman, 72 Id. 506, 511. v. N. Y. Firemen Ins. Co., 18 Johns. 208. Disting'd (What constitutes total loss of freight) in Hubbell ». Great Western Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 246, 254. - — v. Shufelt, 1 Den. 592. Applied (Proof that authorizes granting of judicial order) in Scott v. Durfee, 59 Barb. 393, n.; Sperry o. Major, 1 E. D. Smith, 363. v. Snyder, 2 Lam. ¥11. See Chapman v. Rose. Disting'd ( Rights of bona fide hold- ers on note obtained by fraud or misrepre- sentation) in Chapman v. Rose, 56 JV. Y. 137, 142. Disting'd in Mosher !>. Carpenter, 13 Hun, 604. Questioned, but followed as authoritive until rev'd, — in Head ». Smith, 44 How. Pr. 476. Applied in Hotchkiss v. English, 4 Hun. 371. Followed and ap- proved in Gibbs v. Linabury, 22 Mich. 479 ; s. c, 7 Am. It. 675, with note collating cases; Briggs v. Ewart, 51 Mo. 245; s. c, 11 Am. R. 445, 449, with note collating cases. Followed in Walker v. Egbert, 29 Wis. 194; s. c, 9 Am. B. 548, with note; Cline v. Guthrie, 42 Ind. 227 ; s. c, 13 Am. Ii. 357. See Douglas v. Matting, 29 Iowa, 498; s. c, 4 Am. R. 238, with note. v. Sterling, 14 Johns. 215. See Halli- day v. McDougall; Whitney*. Ferris. Op- posed with McPhersou v. Rathbone, 11 Wend. 97 (General reputation as evidence of partnership) in Bo wen v. Rutherford, .60 III. 41; s. a, 14 Am. R. 25. Said with Gowan v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 176; McPher- son v. Rathbone, 11 Wend. 96, in Grafton Bank v. Moore, 13 JV. H. 99; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 478, 480, with note to have. been over- ruled in Halliday v. McDougall, 20 Wend 81. Compare Bernard v. Torrance, 5 Gill & J. (Mi.) 383; Roscoe on Ev. 212. y. Sutton. See Noyes v. Hewitt. v . Taylor, 54 Barb. 536. Explained (Warranty on sale of horse) in 2 Benj. o)i Sales, § 941, n. 12 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Thomas, 23 JV. Y. 281. Applied (Deed, &c. as evidence of regularity of tax sale) in Sanders v. Leavey; 38 Barb. 73. Disting'd (Jurisdiction to make assessment) in Stewart v. Fonda, 19 Hun, 197 ; Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co. v. Sup'rs of Erie, 48 JST. )* 97; Reviewed with other cases and applied in Nat. B'k of Chemung v. City of Elmira, 53 Id. 53. v. Tovfiisend, 7 Hun, 233. AfE'd in effect in 67 iV. Y. 40. v. Waterman, 4 How. Pr. 313. Dis- ting'd (Appealable order) in Salters v. Genin, 10 Abb. Pr. 478, 480. V. Wells. See Simmons «. Sherman. T . Whitney, 49 Barb. 319. Compared (Right of wife to contract with husband) in Van Order v. Van Order, 8 Hun, 315. v. Wright, 15 Wend. 171 ; s. c, 12 iV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 825, with brief note. Commented on, and reporter's abstract cor- rected (Evidence of former recovery in ejectment) in Wheeler v. Ryerss, iHill, 466. Whitney Arms Co. T. Barlow, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 554. Rev'd in 63 N. Y. 62; s. c, 20 Am. R. 504, on question of suffi- ciency of report. Further decision in 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 220 ; and that affd in 68 2T. Y. 34. See Bissell v. Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 63 Id. dis- ting'd (Estoppel of corporation to show invalidity of its contract) in Joslyn i>. Dow, 19 Hun, 497. Applied in Seeley v. Morgan, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 346. Followed in Hatch •». Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. JST. C. 430, 435; Ward v. Johnson, 95 111. 215, 240. Explained with Parish u. Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 494 ; Bissell v. Michigan South- ern, &c. R. R. Co., Id. 258, in Memphis & Little Rock R. R. Co. ■«. Dow, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. Y. 17 Reporter, 424; s. c, 19 Fed. Rep. 388. Explained in Morawetz on Corp.'§ 103. ^Applied (Judgment against corporation, as evidence against trustees) in Esmond v. Bullard, 16 Hun, 67. Fol- lowed in Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S. 452, 459; s. c, 19 Reporter, 420. Disting'd (Sufficiency of statement as to amount of capital, in trustee's report) in Glen's Falls Paper Co. v. White, 18 Id. 216. Explained (Penal character of liability of trustees, of corporation) in Glen's Falls Paper Co. v. White, 58 How. Pr. 174. Decision in 68 N. Y. followed as decisive (Liability of trustees for making untrue report) in Bon- nell v. Griswold, 80 Id. 136. See other cases collected (Nature of liability of officer, &c. of corporation) in *6 Abb. JV. C. 259, n. Whiton t. Spring, 74 K Y. 169. Quoted m WHITTAKER— WIGG1N. (Authority to receive payment) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1095, n. 25 (Corbin's 4 Am., cd.) ; 2d. § 1099, n. 26. See to the contrary Rose. 27. P. 657. And see Alb. Tr. Eo. 801. Whittaker v. Eight Ave. R. E. Co. See Whitaker ». Same. Whittemore v. Elliott, 7 Hun, 518. Cited (Separate liability of particular partner ■when a liability of the firm) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 367, n. v. Farrington, 12 Sun, 349. Affd in 76 27. Y. 452. Previous decision in 7 Hun, 392. See Penny v. Martin. Whittlesey v. Prantz, 74 If. Y 456. Pol- lowed (Jurisdictional averment, when taken as true) in Matter of Farnham, 75 17. Y. 190. Wibert v. N. T. & Erie B. B. Co., 19 Barb. 36. Affd, on the around that the defend- ants were not liable for the delay, in 12 27. Y. 245. See Bostwick v. Champion ; Con- ger v. Hndson Kiver R. R. Co. ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. Decis- ion in 19 Barb, dissented from (Measure of damages for failure of carrier to transport according to contract) in Kent e. Hudson j River R. R. Co., 22 Id. 278, 286. Followed 1 in Jones v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 29 Id. C33, 635 ; Kirkland v. Leary, 2 Sweeny, 677, 683 ; Conger v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 Duef, 379, 382. Limited with Jones v. N. ,Y. & Erie R. R. Co., in Wards. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R Co., 47 27. Y. 29, 33. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 183, n. 4. Decision in 12 N. Y. explained (What is reasonable time for performance of contract) in New Haven & Northampton Co. «. Quintard, 6 -466. Pr. 27. S. 131. Disting'd (Liability , of carrier for delay) in Blackstock v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 1 Bosw. 81; which was affd in 20 27. Y. 50, which see. Disting'd in Tierney «. ( N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 76 Id. 305, 311, Approved (Effect of gen- eral railroad act on liability of companies as carriers) in Bissell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 25 Id. 452. Wice v. Commercial Ins. Co., 7 Daly, 258; s. c, 2 .466. N. ft 325. Another proceed- ing in 8 Daly, 70. See (Liability for costs of guardian ad litem) Sparmann v. Keim, 6 Abb. 27. ft 353, and Id. 354, n. Wickelhansen v. Willett, 10 ^66. Pr. 164. Affd in 12 Abb. Pr. 319 ; s. c, 21 How. Pr. 40 ; and that affd as Wilckens u. Wil- lct, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 596 ; s. c, 1 Keyes, 521. Decision in 10 Abb. Pr. 168, not followed (Power of legislative bodies to punish for contempt) in People ex rel. Mc- Donald v. Keeler, 32 Hun, 592. Wicker v. Dresser, 4 .466. Pr. 93 ; s. c, 13 How. Pr. 331. Approved (Punishment for contempt in supplementary proceedings) in Kearney's Case, 13 ^66. Pr. 459,466, in pref- erence to Shepherd v. Dean, 13 How. Pr. 173. Explained in Holstoin v. Rice, 15 .466. Pr. 313. Followed in Hilton v. Patterson, 18 Id. 248; Tremain v. Richardson, 68 27. Y. 617, 619. Explained in People v. Brennan, 45 Barb. 347, a case of proceeding for can' cellation of lien. Wickes v. Adirondack Co., 2 Hun, 112; s. c, with opinion, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & ft) 250. v. Clark, 3 Edw. 53. Modified in 8 Paige, 161. Approved and disting'd (Con- tract by wife with husband) in Campbell t. Campbell, 79 Ky. 395, 398. Wickliam v. Freeman, 12 Johns. 183. Ap- plied (Disseisee's right of action for tres- pass) in Budd v. Bingham, 18 Barb. 497. Relied on with Case v. De Goes, 3 Cai. 261 ; Van Brunt v. Schenck, 1 1 Johns. 377 ; in Bacon v. Sheppard, 6 Hoist. {N. J.) 197; s. c.,. 20 Am. Dec. 583, with note. See ex- position in 13 Go. 21. Wicks v. Bowman, 5 Daly, 225. Explained (Effect of destruction of property contracted to be sold, before delivery of deed) in Aspinwall v. Balch, 4 .466. 27. G. 193, 197. Cited_ and compared in 25 Moah Eng. 71. Collated with other cases in McAdam on Land. & T. 2 ed. § 64. v. Hatch, 38 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 95. Affd in 62 27. Y. 535. See Kingsbury «. Kir wan. Wickware v. Bryan, 11 Wend. 545. Over- ruled (Passing on issue of law after plea of general issue) in Jones v. Thompson, 6 Hill, 621. Wickwire v. Chapman, 15 Barb. 302. Ap- proved and followed (Preference of guard- ian of infant, as to letters of administration) in Cluett v. Mattice, 43 Id. 417, 419. But compare Cottle v. Vanderheydcn, 11 .466. Pr. 17. £.17. Widening Carlton St., Matter of, 10 Bun, 497. Aff'd.as Matter of City of Buffalo, 78 27. Y. 362. Widows' and Orphans' Ben. Life Ins. Co., Matter of, 13 Hun, 115. Aff'd, it seems, in 74 27. Y. 617, but without opinion. Widrig v. Oyer, 13 Johns.- 124. Collated with other cases (Charge of crime involv- ing moral turpitude) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 cd. 99. Wiest v. Critsinger, 4 Johns. 117. See (Costs in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. Wigand v. Dejonge, 18 Hun, 405. Another proceeding in 8 .466. 27. C. 260. See Wood v. Wood. v. Sichel, 3 ITeyes, 120; s. c, 33 How. Pr. 174; and as Weigand v. Same, 4 .466. Ct. App. Dec. 592. Affg Kayser v. Sichel, 34 Barb. 84. See Roth v. Palmer. Decis- ion in 4 .466. Ct. App. Dec. doubted (Rem- edy by assumpsit on rescission of contract) in Kellogg v. Turpi'e, 93 111. 265; s. c, 34 Am. R. 163. Decision in Id. approved (Remedy of seller on discovery that credit was obtained by fraud) notwithstanding conflicting authorities, in Dietz v. Sutcliff, 80 Ky. 650, 654. Wiggiu v. Bush, 12 Johns. 306 ; s. a, 7 Am. Dec. 324. See Callagan «. Hallett. Dis- ting'd (Illegality in consideration of bill WIGGIN— WILCOX, .841 or note, when to be set up against third person) in Haight v. Joice, 2 Gal. 64; s. c, 66 Am. Dec. 811, Followed (Validity of obligation executed on condition that obligee withdraw his objections to discharge of obligor as bankrupt, &c.) in Rice 1>. Max- well, 13 Smedes & M. (Mm.).2SQ; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 85, with note ; Payne v. Eden, 3 Gai. 217, being also cited as bearing on the point. v. Gans, 4 Sand/. 646. Explained (Ex- amination of party to suit) in Phoenix v. Dupuy, 7 Daly, 238, 241. Commented on in Uoffm. on Referees, 45. y. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Paige, 16. See Hartwell v. Armstrong; Livingston v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Van Rensselaer v. Kidd. Followed (Assessment as creating cloud oh title) in Murphey v. Mayor, Del Ct. of App. &c. June, 1880 ; 22 Alb. L. J. 387, ■ 889. y. Woodruff, 16 Barb. 474. Compare (Affidavit in summary proceedings) Matter of Wiggins, 1\ N. Y. Leg. Obs. 89. Wiggins v. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Gh. 144. See McDowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Followed as settled law (Right of creditor at large to control disposition of debtor's property) in Greenwood v. Broadhead, 8 Barb. 595. Followed in Rhodes v. Cousins, 6 Rand. (Va.) 188; s. c, 18 Am. Dee. 715, with note. Disting'd in Ward v. Mc- Kenzie, 33 Tex. 297; s. c, 7 Am. R. 260. Quoted in 2 Sigh on Inj. 2 ed. § 1403, n. 2. Commented on and quoted in Wait on Fraud. Oonv. § 52. t. Howard, 22 Run, 126. Aff'd in 83 K Y. 613. v. Tallmadge, 11 Barb. 457. Subse- quent docisjon dismissing appeal in 7 How. Pr. 404. See Brown v. Brown. Decision in 11 Barb, criticised with Holdane «. Trustees of Cold Spring, 23 Id. 103; 21 iV. Y. 474 (Gul-de-sac as public highway) in Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburgh, 41 Barb. [ 130, 136. Approved in People v. Kingman, 24 N. Y. 559. Collated with Holdane v. Trustees of Cold Spring, 23 Barb. 103; People v. Kingman, 24 N. Y. 559, and other cases in 29 Am. R. 51. Wightmau v. Wightman, 4 Johns. Gh. 343. Compare (Effect of marriage within degrees of consanguinity) Campbell ». Crampton, 8 Abb. iv". G. 383, 373. Discussed in 2 Kent Com. 83. Relied on (Ratification of mar- riage contracted between parties not capa- ble of contracting at the time) in Jones v. Jones, 36 Md. 447; s. c, 11 Am. R. 505. Said with Ferlat v. Gojon, Eoph. 487 (Au- ■ thority of court of chancery in N. Y, to de- clare marriage null and void) in Mattison v. Mattison, 1 Strob. Eq. (So. Gar.) 387; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 541, 543, to declare a doctrine not applicable to the court of equity in that State. Disapproved (Attacking void mar- riage collaterally) in Mountholly v. Andover, 11 Verm. 226; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 685. Followed., (Marriage of lunatic, is void) in Crump®. Morgan, 3 Ireil L. (K G.) 91 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 447, 452. Included with notes in Ewell Lead. Gas. on Inf. &c. G02. Relied on (Propriety of judicial decision pronouncing nullity of marriage void for insanity) in Powell v. Powell, 18 Kant. 371 ; 8. c, 26 Am. R. 774. Confirmed with Wil- liamson v. Williamson, 1 Johns. Gh. 489 (Annulling marriages) in 21 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 564. Discussed in 1 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 120, n. 3, 6 ed. Wilbcr v. Sissou, 53 Barb. 258. Aff'd in 54 N. Y, 121. Wilbur y. Danolds, 59 N. Y. 057. Compare (Discretion as to granting writ of assistance) Thomas on Mort. 372. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1075. Wilbraud v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 3 Bosvo. 314. Criticised as obiter (Extent of rights of city railroad companies in streets) in Adolph v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 33 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 186, "188. Relied on in States. Foley, 31 Iowa, 527; s. c, 7 Am. R. 166, 170. Wilbur v. Brown, 3 Den. 356. Explained (Requisites of complaint in action for diverting water) in Beckwith v. Griswold, 29 Barb. 291, 294. r. How. See Doolin v. Ward ; Jones v. Caswell. v. Hubbard, 35 Barb. 303. Discussed (Trespasses on realty by cattle and domes- tic animals) in 1 Add. -on Torts, 389, n. 1, Wood's ed. Explained (Presumptions) in 2 Best on Eo. § 446, n. a, Wood's ed. v. Selden, 6 Oow. 162; s. c, 8 JST. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 867, with brief note. See to the contrary (Requisites of proof of what deceased witness said on former trial) Martin v. Cope, 3 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 182 ; Crary v. Sprague, 12 Wend. 45 ; Cor- nell v. Green, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 16 ; Chess v. Chess, 17 Id. 409; Ballenger v. Barnes 3 Dev. (N~. G.) 460; Bowie v. O'Neale, 5 H. & J. {Md.) 226 ; Pegram i\ Isabel, 2 II. & M. (Va.) 193; Mayor of D. v. Day, 3 Taunt. 261. Followed in Commonwealths. Rich- ards, 18 Piclc. (Mass.) 434; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 608, with note. Criticised as laying down too strict a rule, in 1 Taylor on Eo. 501, citing also Jackson «. Bailey, 2 Johns. 17. Reviewed with other cases (Evi- dence of testimony of witness that is beyond jurisdiction) iu Gcrhausen v. No. British, &c. Co., 7 Nev. 174. Followed in Crite %. Commonwealth, Sup'm. Ct. App. Va. July, 1881, 12 Reporter, 575. Cited in 1 Taylor on Ev. 457. Wilckcns y. Willet. See Wickelhausen v. Willett. Wilcox v. Fitch. Sec People v. Gijbert. T. Green, 23 Barb. 639. Said in Id. 643, n., to have been affd in Ct. of App. 1856. v. Hawley, 31 N. Y. 648. See Hoyt v. Van Alstyne. Applied (Exemption of team of householder from execution) in Smith ». Slade, 57 Barb. 637, 639. Dis- 842 WILCOX— WILDER. ting'd in Brooks v. Hathaway, 8 Hun, 289, 291. See Brown v. Davis, 9 Hun, 43, 45. Explained (Proof necessary to constitute exemption) in Rc'meekc v. Flccke, UG Super. Ct. '{J. & S.) 4U1, 490. Collated with other cases (Meaning of word "family," as used in exemption laws) in Jf. J. L. J. Dec. 1S82; s. c, 11 Wash. L. R. 1. v. Howell, 44 Karli. 396. AfTd in 44 Jf. Y. 398. Decision in Id. followed (Estoppel by certificate as to validity of mortgage) in Eitcl v. Bracken, 38 Super. Ct. (J. t£ S.) 7, 15. Disting'd in Weyh v. Boylau, 85 Jf. Y. 394, 401. v. Paniielec, 3 Sand/. 610. See Bost- wick v. Champion ; Van Santvoord v. St. John ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady It. R. Co. Approved (Liability on contract to forward goods) in Head v. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. 395, 404, 410. Explained (Carrier's responsibility beyond his own route) in 2 Pars, on Contr.%13, n. u. — - v. Rome, Watertowu, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Jf. Y. 358. See Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Dascomb*. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. ; Ernst ». Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Nichols v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. Dis- ting'd (Negligence in crossing track) in Gonzales v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 39 How. Pi: 414; Gillespie v. City of New- burgh, 54 Jf. Y 468, 471; Massoth v. Delaware & Hud. Canal Co., 64 Id. 529. Followed in Mitchell v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 2 Bun, 535, 538 ; Baxter «. Troy & Boston'R. R. Co.. 41 Jf. Y. 503. Ap- proved and followed in Beisiegel i>. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 40 Id. 22 ; Havens v. Erie R'y Co., 41 Id. 299. Cited in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1255, as contrary to Penn. R. R. Co. ii. Weber. 76 Pa. St. 157. — — v. Smith, 5 Wend. 231 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dee. 213, with note, wherein it is said to have been recognized as authority in numer- ous cases there cited. See Hamlin ». Ding- man ; Parker v. Baker. Applied (Effect of acts of officer de /aeto) in Morris v. People, 3 Den. 397. Explained in Lambert v. People, 76 JST. Y. 220, 233. Disting'd in People ». Brennan, 30 How. Pr. 420, Applied (What constitutes officer de /aeto) in Dolan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 68 Jf. Y. 278. v. Ten Eyck, 5 Johns. 78. Explained in Evans «. Harris, 19 Barb. 416, 423, as not authority (What are independent covenants) the cases, on the authority of which it was placed, having been overruled, in Cunning- v. Morrell, 10 Johns. 203. v. Wilcox, 48 Barb. 327. See Woolever v. Knapp. Disting'd (Accounting to co-ten- ant for rent) in McCabo e. McCabe, 18 Hun, 155. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1666, n. v. , 14 K Y. 575. Affg People ex rel. Wilcox v. Wilcox, 22 Barb. 178. Decision in 14 Jf. Y. followed (Authority to determine right to custody of children) in Matter of Watson, 10 Abb. If. C. 215, 217. Explained in People ex rel. Wehlo v. Weissenbach, 60 Jf. Y. 393. Followed (In- trusting mother with custody of child) in People v. Gates, 89 How. Pr. 80. Followed (Equity jurisdiction of Supreme Court judge at chambers) in People as rel. Ileilbrouner e. Hoster, 14 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 420. Quoted and collated with other cases (Practice in cases not provided for by Code) in Colby on Force. 29. v. Wood, 9 Wend. 346. Commented on (Lease, when commencing and ending) in McAdam on Landl. &T.1 cd. § 103. Doc- trine discussed and cases cited in 4 Am. L. Reg. Jf. S. 223. Wilcox Silver Plate Co. v. Green, 9 Hun, 347. Aff' d in 72 Jf. Y. 17. Decision in Id. quoted (Sufficiency of delivery to carrier under provisions of statute of frauds) in Benj. on Sales, § 181, n. 24 (Corbifi's 4 Am. ed.). Wilde v. Cantillon, 1 Johns. Cas. 123. Cited as a leading case with Hyatt v. Wood,- 4 Johns. Rep. 150 (Liability for forcible entry) in 22 Am. L. Reg. Jf. S. 723, n., where latter case is said to have always been followed -in N. Y., and frequently in other cases cited. Followed with Hyatt v. Wood, 4 Johns. 313 ; Ives v. Ives, 13 Id. 235, in Elliott v. Powell, 10 Watts {Pa ) 453 ; s. C, 36 Am. Dec. 200, with note. v. Jenkins, 4 Paige, 481. See City of Utica v. Churchill; Murray v. Toland. Followed (Conclusiveness of stated account) in Brown v. Vandyke, 4 Halst. Oh. (Jf. J.) 795 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 250. Approved with City of TJtica v. Churchill, 33 Jf. Y. 161; Mickles v. Rochester City B'k, 11 Paige, 118; Bennett v. Am. Art Uniou, 5 Sand/. 614 (Rights of stockholders, as owners of the corporate property) in Button «. Hoffman, 61 Wis. 20, 22. Explained in , Ang. & A. on Corp. § 191, 11 ed. v. Joel, 15 How. Pr. 320 ; s. c, 6 Duer, 671.. See Carpenter v. Wright. Disting'd (Damages on injunction) as not wholly applicable as against surety, — in Allen v. Brown, 5 Lans. 511, 515. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 625, n. Wilder v. Bntterfleld, 50 How. Pr. 385. Followed (Liability on collector's bond) in Richardson v.. Rogers, Id. 403, 405. v. Keeler, 3 Paige, 167; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 781, with note. See Meech v. Allen; Morgan v. Skidmore. Applied (Equity of joint debtors in estate of deceased partner) in Stewart's Case, 4 Abb. Pr. 410; Mi>ech v. Allen. 17 Jf. Y. 302. Followed in Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Winslow, 11 Blatchf. C. Ct. 513, 518; Davis v. Howell, 33 Jf. J. Eg. 72, 74; s. c, 35 Am. R. 306, n:; 20 Am. L. Reg Jf. S. 461, 462, citing other cases. See cases in sovoral States collected in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 80. T. Wiune, 6 Cow. 284. AfPd in Wilder v. Fondey, 4 Wend. 100. Decision in 6 Cow. discussed (Provisions in assignment that tend to hindrance and delay of credi- tors) in Burrill on Assign. § 328,- 4 ed. WILDS— WILKINS. 843 WiMs v. Hudson Biver B. B. Co., 33 Barb. 503. Rev'd in 24 K Y. 430; s. c, 23 How. Pr. 492 ; also s. a, 2 ,4wj. L. Reg. N. S. 76. Further decision in 29 JV! Y. 315. Decisions in ZcZ. and 24 Id. disting'd (Negli- gence in crossing track) in Beisiegel v. N. Y. Central B. R. Co., 34 Id, 629. Decision in 24 Id. applied in Grippen v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 40 Id. 34, 52. Decision in 29 Id. com- mented on in Wilcox ». Rome, &e. R. R. Co., 39 Id. 362. See Cosgrove v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 13 Hun, 330. De- cision in 24 N. Y. disting'd (Negligence, as question for jury) in Welling v. Judge, 40 Barb. 207. Decision in 29 N. Y examined with others, in Ernst v. Hudson River R. R Co., 3 Abb. Pr. XT. S. 110. Decision in 24 N. Y. applied in Clark v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 24 How. Pr. 336. Decisions in 24 N. Y and 29 Id. applied in Deyo v. N. Y. Cen- tral R. R. Co., Si Id. 12. Wildy v. Washburn. See Lawton v. Com- missioners of Cambridge. Wiles v. Brown, 3 Barb. 37. Explained (Sheriff's liability for release of debtor im- prisoned on execution) in Bullymore v. Cooper, 2 Lans. 71, 79. v. N. Y. Central, &c. B. E. Co., 2 Hun, 109; s. c, with opinion, 4 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & O.) 264. T. Pick, 26 N. Y. 42. Followed (Ac- knowledgments by married women) in Allen v. Reynolds, 36 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 297, 299. v. Suydam, 6 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & G.) 292; mem. s. c, 3 Hun, 604. Rev'd in 64 If. Y. 173. Further decision in 10 Hun, 578. Decision in 64 N. Y. applied (Demurrer for improper joinder of causes of action) in Harris e. Elclridge, 5 Abb. N. O. 281 ; Cook v. Horwitz, 10 Hun, 588. Disting'd in Victory Webb, &c. M'f g Co. v. Beecher, 55 How. Pr. 203; Smith v. Rathbun, 22' .Hun, 157. Disting'd (Mode of enforcing statutory remedy against stockholders) in Jessup a. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 457. Decis- ion in 10 Hun disting'd (Trustee's liability) in Anderson v. Speers, 21 Id. 568. Decis- ion in 64 J¥. Y. cited as authority with Miller v. White, 50 Id. 137; Merchants' Bank v. Bliss, 35 Id. 412; Garrison v. Howe, 17 Id. 466, in Gregory v. German B'k of Denver, 3 Colo. 332; s. c, 25 Am. R. 760. Wiley v. Brighnin, 16 Hun, 106. Appeal dismissed, in 81 K Y. 13. See Pennie v. Continental Life Ins. Co. . — — v. Slater. See Cady v. Fairchild. Wilgus v. Bloodgood, 33 How. Pr. 289. See Flanagan v. Tine. Disapproved (Execution against estate of deceased judgment debtor) in Wallace v. Swinton, 64 N. Y. 188, 195 ; Marine B'k of Chicago v. Van Brunt 61 Barb. 361. Wilke y. People, 53 N. Y. 525. Explained (Granting new trial under L. 1855, c. 337) iu Levy v. People, 80 Id. 327, 337. Wilkes y. Ferris, 5 Johns. 335; s. c, 4. Am. Dec. 364, with note; 3 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. .1037, with brief note on symbolical de- livery. See Jackson «. Willard. Explained (Sa'.e on execution, of assignor's interest in assignment for creditors) in Austin v. Bell, 20 Johns. 451. Applied in McDermutt v. Strong, 4 Johns. Oh. 690. Applied (Effect of reference to schedule, in assignment for creditors) in Moir v. Brown, 14 Barb. 40. Disting'd in Piatt v. Lott, 17 N. Y. 478, 481. Applied to indemnity bond, in Holmes «. Hubbard, 60 Id. 185. Followed with approval in preference to Piatt v. Lott, — in Mims v. Armstrong, 31 Md. 87; s. c, 1 Am. R. 22, 26; 4 Am. Dee. 366, n., citing also Moir v. Brown, 14 Barb. 39, as authority. Applied (Effect of reservation in assignment for creditors) in Beck v. Bur- dett, 1 Paige, 310. Said in Green v. Trieber, 3 Md. 11, 31, to have been followed by scarcely any case in N. Y. since. v. Harper, 2 Barb. Oh. 338. Aff'd in 1 K Y. 586. Decision in 2 Barb. Oh. col- lated with other cases (Right of surety to subrogation) in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 452. v. Lion, 2 Gow. 333. Further decision on same will, in Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153; Waring «. Jackson, 1 Pet. 570. y. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 407. Aff'd in 79 N. Y. 621. See Peyser ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 79 K Y. disting'd (Recovery of money paid on void assessment) in Horn v. Town of New Lots, 83 Id. 100, 104. v. Rogers, 6 Johns. 566. Disapproved with Matter of Burke, 4 Sandf. Oh. 617 (Allowance to father , from estates of chil- dren, for their support) in McKnight v. Walsh, 23 N. J. Ea. 136, 143. Wilkie v. Bolster, 3 E. I). Smith, 327. Fol- lowed (Proof of accident, as prima facie evidence of negligence on part of carrier of passengers) in Ryan v. Gilmer, 2 Mont. 517 ; , s. c, 25 Am. R. 744, 750. Explained (Damages for injury caused by negligence of such carrier) in 1 Add. on Torts, 573, n. 1, Wood's ed. y. Roosevelt, 3 Johns. Oas. 206 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 149, with note ; also s. c, 1 N. Y. Oom. L. Law. ed. 070, with brief note of cases on weight, &c. of evidence as ground for new trial. See Aeby v. Rapelye; Jones v. Hake. Dissented from and said not to have been generally followed (Valid- ity of note given for usurious consideration) in 2 Am. Dec. 155, n., adopting opposite view expressed in Dickerman v.- Day, 31 Iowa, 444; s. c, 7 Am. R. 156. Wilkin t. Wilkin, 1 Johns. Oh. 111. Cited as authority with Phelps v. Green, 3 Id. 302 (Partition in equity, as matter of right) in Wiseley v. Findlay, 3 Rand. ( Va.) 361 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 712, 718, with note. Wilkins v. Balterman, 3 Barb. 47. Dis- ting'd (Attorney's lien and remedy) in Mur- ray v. Jibson, 22 Hun, 386, 388. 844 WILKINS-WILLEY. ■ v. Earle, 1ft Abb. Pr. 190: s. a, 3 Robt. 352. Eev'd in 44 K Y, 172. See Cromwell v. Stephens ; Jackson v. Pot- ter ; Rulloff v. People. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of testimony of witness, ■when untrue in part) in Deering v. Metcnlf, 74 Id. 501, 505. See other cases collected (Testimony of parties) in 1 ^466. N~. 0. 364, ». v. , 46 tf. Y. 358. Applied (Appeal to Court of Appeals) in Uelaney v. Brett, 51 AT. Y. 83. Explained (Meaning of term " presumption ") in 2 W/iart. Com. on En. § 1284. Disting'd (Judgment on remittitur from Court of Appeals, how far judgment of court below) in Richardson v. Kropf, 5 Daly, 386. v. Pearcc, 5 Den. 541. Aff d in 2 K Y. 469. Decision in 5 Den. cited with Sage ®. Sherman, 2 K. Y. 417 (Continuance of authority of partner to bind others) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 103, n. Wilkinson v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 522. Aff'd in 72 K Y. 499 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 166. See Mayor of N. Y. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. See (Deduction for stay from time limited for commencement of action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 40G, n. v. Gill, 10 Hun, 156. Aff'd in 74 N. Y. 63 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 264. v. Johnson, 4 Hill, 46. Collated with Jackson v. Stiles, 5 Cow. 282, and other cases (Consolidation of actions) in 58 Am. Dec. 511, n. v. Tiffany, 4 Abb. Pr. 98. Applied (Appeal from order for allowance taken by default) in Voorhis ». French, 47 Super. Ct. ' (J. & S.) 365. Wilklow v. Bell. See Bank of Attica v. Wolf. • y. Lane, 37 Barb. 244. Disapproved (Deed as covering interest subsequently acquired by grantor) in Sherman v. Kane, 86 tf. Y. 57, 69, which aff'd 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 310, 325, which see. Limited (Effect of possession begun under lease,, as adverse) in Bedell *. Shaw, 59 iV. Y. 46, 51. Willard v. Reinhardl, 2 E. D. Smith, 148. See Wintermute «. Clark. Commented On (Distinction between inn and boarding- house) in 1 Add. on Torts, 752, n. 1, Wood's ed. v. Sperry, 16 Johns. 121. Applied (Ef- fect, of former adjudication) in Burritt v. Belfy, 47 Conn. 323, 326. v. Stone, 7 Cow. 52; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 496, wjth note. See Hunt v. Peake. Ap- plied (Evidence of plaintiff's misconduct, in action for breach of promise to marry) in Button v. McCauley, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 284; Palmer v. Andrews. 7 Wend. 144. Applied to action for enticing away wife in Bennett v. Smith, 21 Barb. 447. Included in lawson's Lend. Com. Law. Cos. Simplified, 122. Applied (Evidence of refusal to marry) in Hubbard v. Bonesteel, 16 Barb. 361. • v. Tillman, 2 Hill, 274. Prior decision in 19 Wend. 358. . See Graves v. Bcrrfan. Decision in 2 Hill disting'd (Covenants running with the land) raTallman v. Coffin, 4 K Y. 137. Explained (Right of actiou in assignee for rent) in Van Rensselaer v. Read, 26 Id. 578. v. Warren, 17 Wend. 257. See Hyatt v. Wood. Applied (Liability for forcible en- trv) in People ex rel. Niles v. Smith. 24 Barb. 18. Collated with Wood v. Phillips, 43 N. Y. 152; McDougall v. Sitcher, 1 Johns. 42, and other cases' (Forcible entry) in 18 Am. Dec, 139, n. See 4 Bac. Air. tit.- Forcible Entry ; B. Willcooks, Matter of, 7 Cow. 402 ; s. c, 17 Am. Dee. 525. Applied (Requisites of cor- porate meeting) in Lockwood v. Mechanics' Nat. B'k, 9 R. I. 308 ; s. c, 11 Am. R. 253, 269. Discussed in Ang. & A. on Corp. §§ 501, 509, 11 ed. Quoted (Right to vote on hypothecated stock) in Id. § 132. Quo- ted (Corporate elections) in Id. § 141. Willcox v. Smith, 26 Barb. 316. Explained •with Heath v. Grenell, 61 Id. 190 (Limita- tion of action, as affected by presentation of claim) and Peck ■». Randall, 1 Johns. 164; disting'd in Cotter v. Quintan, 2 Bern. 29. Followed (Personal liability of administra- tor for counsel fees on accounting) in My- gatt ». Willcox, 1 Lans. 59. Applied (Costs to counsel, on proceedings before surrogate) in Matter of Gates, 2 Red/. 147. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2558, »., 2561, n. See (Vouchers on accounting by execu- tor, &c.) Id. § 2734, n. Willets v. Phoenix B'k, 2 Duer, 121. Dis- ting'd (Effect of certification of check) in Mutual Nat. B'K v. Rotge, 28 La. Ann. 933 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 126, 128 ; Andrews *. German Nat. B'k, 9 HeisTc. (Tenn.) 211 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 300, 302. See First Nat. B'k v. Leach, 52 N. Y. 350. Disting'd with Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k v. Butchers' & Drovers' B'k, 14 Id. 624; Smith v. Miller, 43 Id. 176; Meads v. Merchants' B'k, 25 Id. 147, in Tripp v. Curtenius, 36 Mich. 494; s. c, 24 Am- R- 610, 613, a case of certificate of deposit, where Nat. B'k of Fort Edward v. Washington Co. Nat. B'k, 5 Hun, 605, was disapproved. In- cluded in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 736. Willett v. Striujrer, 17 Abb. Pr. 152. See other cases collected (Application to inter- vene) 6 Abb. N. C. 306, n. Willetts v. Buffalo & Rochester R. R. Co., 14 Barb. 585. See Harty ». Central R. R. Co.. Applied (Effect of contributory negli- gence of one in charge of passenger or property) in Harvey v. Rose, 26 Ark. 3; s. c, 7 Am. R. 595. Commented on in Thomps. on Carr. of Pass. 293. v. Waite, 13 How. Pr. 34. Aff'd in 25 N. Y. 577. Decision in Id. explained and compared (Title to personal property as af- fected by assignment under foreign bank- rupt law) in Hibernia B'k v. Mechanics', &c. B'k, 21 Hun, 166, 176; which was aff'd in 84 N. Y. 367, 386, which see. Willey v. Shaver, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) WILLIAM, EARL OF CRAVEN— WILLIAMS. 845 324. Compare (Costs against school officer) Code Ok. Pro. § 3244. William, Earl of Craven, v. Price, 37 How. Pr. 15. Compare (Costs in action for tres- pass) Keiny s. Ingraham, 66 Barb. 250, 256. William & Anthony Streets, Matter of. See Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Matter of. Williams' Case, 1 City H. Bee. 29. Pol- lowed with Bowerhan's Case, 4 Id. 138; Mill's Case, 5 Id. 178; Millegan & Welch- man's .Case, 6 Id. 78 (Confessions as evi- dence) in State v. Guild, 5 Haht. (N. J.) 163; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 404, 408. Williams, Matter of, ,12 K T. Leg. Obs. 179. Disting'd (Abatement of legacies to widow and children) in Scofield v. Adams, 12 Hun, 371. Williams v. Allen, 2 Hun, 377; s. c, 4 Sup'm. CI- (T.&C.) 673; and s. c, reported 48 How. Pr. 357. v. Ayrault, 31 Barb. 304. Further decision as Williams v. Fitzhugh, 44 Id. 321 ; and that modided and aff d in 37 JSf. T. 444. Also further decision as Ayrault v. Cham- berlain, 33 Barb. 229". Decision in 31 Id. collated with other cases (Pendency of suit in another jurisdiction as a defence) in Davis v. Morriss, 76 Va. 21, 28, citing also McNamara v. Dwyer, 7 Paige, 239. Decision in 37 2V. Y. applied (Legal rights growing out of illegal transaction) in Madi- *son Ave. Church v. Oliver St. Church, &\ Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 369, 386. Applied (Action for same subject-matter before dif- ferent tribunals) in Berry v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 17. Approved (Conditions of relief against usury) in Ger- wig «>. Shettcrly, 64 Barb. 627. See Browne ». Vredenburgh, 43 N. Y. 199. „ Followed (Loan secured by mortgage, by what law governed) in Cope «. Wheeler, 41 Id. 314. T. Babcock. See Shaughnessey v. Rensselaer Ins. Co. v. Bacon, 10 Wend. 636. Denied (Lia- bility of person extradited on one charge to arrest on another) in Bacharach v. Lagrave, 4 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215, 217, 221. Followed with Browning v. Abrams, 51 How. Pr. 172, and Adriance v. Lugrave, 59 AT Y. 110, in State v. Stewart, 60' Wis. 587, 590. v. D'k of Michigan, 7 Wend. 539. See Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway. Cited in 1 Kent Com. 384, n. e, Holme's ed., and compared with Federal decisions (Sover- eignty of U. S. Government over its terri- tories). v. Barnaman, 28 How. Pr. 59; s. a, as Barnaman v. Williams, 18 Abb. Pr. 158. . Further decision in 19 Id. 69. v. "Birch, 6 Bosw. 299. AfTd in 2 Transc. App. 133. , v. Brown. See Edmeston ». Lyde. v. Cassndy, 22 Han, 180. Followed (Costs, in case of severance) in Royce v. . Jones, 23 Id. 453. r-r-. y. Conrad, 30 Barb. 524., Disting'd (Authority of executor before issuing of letters to him) in Humbert v. Wurster, 22 Hun, 405, 407. Compare (Effect of devise in trust for children, &c.) in Sturge v.. Sturge, 45 L. T. R. N. S. 787. T. Crary, 5 Cow. 368.. Further, decis- ions in 8 Id. 246 ; 4 Wend. 443. Decision in 4 Wend, applied (Parol proof of inten- tion of testator) in Magoe v. Magee, 67 Barb. 494. Followed with decision in 8 Cow. in Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Bed/. 265, 285. See Boughton v. Flint, 5 Abb. N. C 215, and Id. 216, n. Decisions in 5 Cow.; 8 Id.; 4 Wend, quoted (Effect of legacy from debtor to creditor) in Willard on Executors, 365. v. Dakin. See Dakin v. Williams. v. Dlas, 13 Weekly Big. 353; s. c, more fully and correctly reported, as Same v. Kiernan, 25 Hun, 355. Followed (Liability of sureties on bond of administrators, &c.) in Haines v. Meyer, Id. 414, 417. v. Eld ridge, 1 Hill, 249. Approved and disting'd (Objections to interrogatories, &c. annexed to commission) in- Morse v. Cloyes, 11 Barb. 107. Disapproved in Cope v. Siblev, 12 Id. 521, 524. Applied in Hall v. Barton, 25 Id. 276, 278. , v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 54 IT. Y. 569; s.c., 13 Am. R. 620. See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. See (Construction of provision in fire policy, prohibiting keeping of hazardous articles) Collins o. Farmville Ins. & Banking Co., 79 N. C. 279 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 322. v. Fitch, 18 JT. Y. 546. Applied (Ef- fect of admission of illegal evidence) in Foote v. Beecher, 78 Id. 157. Disting'd (Privilege of communications between attor- ney and client) in Marsh v. Howe, 36 Barb. 649, 655 ; Sanford ». Sanford, 61 Id. 305. Applied (Effect of promise to hold property for benefit of another) in Hutchings v. Miner, 46 N. Y. 460. Collated with Nor-, ton v. Mallory, 63 Hf. Y. 434; Meyer v. Meyer. 21 Hun, 67; Spicer v. Spicer, 16. Abb. Pi: K S. 112 (Contracts to make will) in 27 Moah Eng. 516. Included in Red/. Lead. Cas. on Wills, 607. v. Fitzhugh. See Williams v. Ayrault. T. Gillies, 53 How. Pr. 429. Aff'd in. 13 Hun, 422, but that rev'd in 75 iV. Y. 197. Decision in Id. followed with Briggs v. Partridge, 64 Id. 357 (Inad- missibility of parol evidence to establish liability under sealed instrument, of one not party thereto) in Williams v. Gillies, 28 Hun, 175. Cited (Contract for partnership in buying and selling of lands as affected by statute of frauds) in Story on Partn. (7 ed.) §§ 83, n., 94, n. T. Glenny, 16 K Y. 389. Followed (Effect of bill rendered as conclusive as to amount due) in Harrison v. Ayers, 18 Hun, 337 v. Hill, 19 Wend. 305; s. c. 13 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 617, with brief note. — r V- Hogeboom, 8 Paige, 469. Explained 84C WILLIAMS. and cases cited to the contrary (Receiver in judgment creditor's action) in High on Receiv. § 404, n. 1. v. Holdredge, 22 Barb. 896. Followed with Hewitt 4 Redf. 380, 384, 386. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2843, 7i. Confirmed (Affidavit to ac- count of executor, &c.) in Code Civ. Pro. § 2733. v. Rogers, 5 Johns. 163. See Ball v. Ryers. Approvingly cited with Handy v. Dobbin, .12 Id. 220;" Holmes v. Muncaster, Id. 395 (Taking money on execution) in Prentiss v. Bliss, 4 Vt. 513; s. c, 24 Am. Dee. 631, with note. v. Safford. See Holmes v. Seely. v. Sherman, 15 Johns. 195. See (Costs in justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 1831,' § 3074, n. v. Smith, 2 Cai. 1 ; s. c, 2 Am. Dee. 209. Cited with qther authorities (Necessity of notice of blockade) in 1 Kent Com. 147, n. b. v. , 2 Cai. 13. Rev'din 2 Cai. Cat. 110. See Scott®. Libby. y. , 2 Hill, 301. See Bristol v. Sprague. Followed (Amount of recovery by bona fide holder of note) in Allaire v. Hartshorne. 1 Zab. (If. J.) 655 ; s. c, 47 Am. Dee. 175, 181 with note. Disting'd with Youngs v. Lee, 18 Barb. 189; 12 If. Y. 534; Cardwell v. Hicks, 37 Barb. 458; Huff v. Wagner, 63 Id. 2,15, in Riggs v. Hatch, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. If. Y. 15 Reporter, 681 ; s. c, 16 Fep. Rep. 836. Applied in Maitland «. Citizen's Nat'l B'k of Baltimore, 40 Md. 540; s. c, 17 Am. R. 620, 033. Included in 1 Ames Cos: on B. & If. 641. v. Storrs, 6 Johns. Ch. 353; s. c, 10 Aift. Dee. 340, with note. Examined with Doolittle v. Lewis, 7 Johns. Ch. 45 (Rights of foreign administrators, &c.) in Parsons v. Lyman, 20 If. Y. 103. 114. y. Supervisors of Wayne, 14 Hun, 343. ReVd in 78 If. Y. 501. Decision in Id. disting'd (Liability of non resident to per- sonal tax) in Boardman v. Supervisors of Tompkins, 85 Id. 359, 364 ; which rev'd 22 Hun, 231, 233, which see. Disting'd with People ex rel. B'k of Montreal v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 59 N. Y. 40 ; People ex rel. Hoyt v. Same, 23 Id. 224 ; Parker Mills v. Same, 23 Id. 242, in Matter of McMahon, 66 How. Pr. 190. v. Thorn, 70 If. Y. 270. Explained (Right of creditor to reach surplus income of trust fund) in McEweu v. Brewster, 17 Hun, 227. Commented on in Wait on Fraud. Com. §§ 45, 360. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1879, n. Disting'd (Aliena- tion of interest in trust fund) in Cocks v. Barlow, 5 Redf. 406, 415. y. Thorp, 8 Cow. 201. See to the con- trary (Effect of admissions made in connec- tion with proceedings for compromise) Murray v. Coster, 4 Cow. 635; Hartford Bridge Co. v. Granger, 4 Conn. 142; Fuller v. Hampton 5 Id. 410; Gerrish v. Sweetser, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 374. Overruled in Marvin v. Richmond, 3 Den. 58. v. Tilt, 30 K Y. 319. Applied (Right to set up usury as defense) in Knicker- bocker Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 1 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 327; Harger v. Wilson, 63 Barb. 247; Taylor v. Jackson, 5 Daly, 498. Followed 848 WILLIAMS. as decisive in Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Kasson, 37 If. Y. 218, 224. Denied in Nance v. Gregary, 6 Lea. {Tenn.) 343; s. c, 40 Am. R. 41. Applied (Who is bona fide purchaser) in Miller v. Crayton, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & O.y 361. v. Town of Duanesburgh, 66 If. Y. 129. Explained (Validity of law for town bonding) in Rogers v. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 44, 46. Compared in Thomp- , son v. Perrine, 103 U. S. 806, 815. v. Towiisend, 31 N. Y. 411. Approved (Right of mortgagee to purchase) in Ten Eyck v. Craig, 2 Hun, 452, 464, which was affd in 62 If. Y. 406, 421, which see. Approvingly mentioned in Waterson v. Devoe, 18 Eans. 223, 234; Sturdevant «. Mather, 20 Wis 576, 585. v. Tradesincns' Fire Ins. Co., 1 Daly, 322. Followed (Amendment to perfect appeal) in Linsser v. Seiler, 7 Daly, 464, 466. v. , 1 Daly, 437. Explained, and effect of L. 1867, c. 784, § 5, stated (Effect of order for new trial made in N. Y. Marine Court) in Frank v. Benner, 3 Id. 422. v. Vanderbilt, 29 Barb. 491. Aff'd in 28 If. Y. 217. See Ginna v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Decision in 28 If. Y. re-asserted (Liability of part owner of one of several connecting lines of carriers) in Ward e. Vanderbilt, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 521. Followed with Ward v. Vanderbilt ^(Re- covery for consequential injuries caused by negligence) in Ehrgott v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 96 If. Y. 264. Relied on with Eten v. Luyster, 60 Id. 252, in Cincinnati, Hamilton, &c. R. R. Co. ». Eaton, 94 Lid. 474 ; s. c, 48 Am. R. 179. , Included in Sedgw. Cos. on Duma. 152. See cases cited in 34 Am. R. 93, n. Re- lied on (Non -performance of contract when not excused by act of God) in Engster v. West, 35 La. Ann. 119; s. c, 48 Am. R. 232. Decision in 29 Barb, explained in Alig. on Can: § 620a, n. a, 5 ed. v. Wal bridge, 3 Wend. 415. See Staf- ford v. Rice. Disting'd (Firm liability on note of one partner) in Osgood v. Glover, 7 Daly, 367, 371. - v. Walker, 3 Leg. Obs. 204; s. c, 2 Sand/. Ch. 325. See Beardsley v. Root. Approved (Authority of agent to receive payments) in Hatfield ». Reynold, 34 Barb. 613. Applied in Doubleday v. Kress, 50 If. Y. 413; Merritt v. Cole, 9 Hun, 102; Megary v. Funtis, 5 Sand/. 376, 380. Fol- lowed as abundantly sustained by authority, and said to have been frequently cited with approval, — in Smith v. Kidd, 68 If. Y. 131, 137. Disting'd in Wardrop v. Dunlop, 1 Hun, 325, 330. Disting'd in dissenting opinion in Fellows v. Northrup, 39 If. Y. *126. Cited approvingly in 2 Kent Com. 621, n. b. v. Weaver, 75 If. Y. 30. Aff'd in 100 V. S. 547, but overruled in part (Deduc- tion of debts of, owner from assessment of bank shares) in People v. Weaver, Id. 539. See cases collected (Personal liability ol officer making assessment) in 20 Am. L. Reg. If. 8. 5. v. Williams, 8 If. Y. 525. See Down- ing «. Marshall ; Owens o. Miss. Soc. of M. E. Church; Shotwell v. Mott. Disting'd (Charitable uses) as inapplicable to lands, in Beekman v. People, 27 Barb. 260, 275. Applied in Trustees of Theol. Sem. of Au- burn v. Kellogg, 16 If. Y. 89. Explained in Robertson v. Bullions, li Id. 243, 255 ; Owens v. Miss. Soc. of M. E. Church, \ild. 380, 388. Examined and applied in Beek- man ®. Bonsor, 23' Id,. 307. Examined at length and limited in McCaughal v. Ryari, 27 Barb. 376, 382. Examined in dissent- ing opinion in Downing v. Marshall, 23 H'• , 2 Barb. Gh. 281. See Dicken- son ». Codwise. v. Mayor, &e. of N. T., 3 Em, 65 ; s. c, as Petition of Williamson, 5 Sup'm Ct f r-jL a) m Affd - jt socms - as Matter of Williamson, 62 K Y. 618, but without opinion. — — V. Wadswort!i, 49 Barb. 294. Overruled (Who is a "servant") in Coffin v. Rey- nolds, 37 K Y. 640. * v. Williamson, 6 Pa^«, 298. Applied (Interest on legacy) in Campbell v. Cow- drey, 31 How. Pr. 180; Cooke ». Meeker, 36 IF. Y. 20. Followed in Rogers v. Rogers, 2 Redf. 24, 27. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Can. 5 ed. 630. Followed (Right of tenant for life to income of residue from time of testator's death) in Bullard v. Benson, 1 Dem. 486. Followed (Division of funds between life-tenant and remainder-man) iii Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 5 Redf. 264, 267. Disting'd (When legacy, given in lieu of dower, abates) in Orton v. Orton, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 4 1 5. Limited with Babcock v. Stoddard, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 207; Sanford v. Sanford, 4 Hun, 753. Limited in Tickel o. Quinn, 1 Dem. 425. Quoted (Reducing. to writing and preserving evi- dence in surrogate's court) in Willard on Executors, 62. v. , 1 Johns. Ch. 488. See Wight. man v. Wightman. Followed (Effect of conduct of injured party to bar prosecution for divorce for adultery) in Christianberry v. Christianberry, 3 Blaclf. (Lid.) 202; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 96, with note. Discussed (English common law, how far applicable in divorce proceedings) in 1 Bish. on Mar. 6 D. § 75, 6 ed. Willink v. Vanderveer. See Mayor of Albany v. Cunliff, v. Bailey, 19 Johns. 268. Reviewed (Compelling production of books) in Wallis v. Murray, 4 Qow. 401 ; Townsend ■». Law- rence, 9 Wend. 459. v. Corlies, 2 Edw. 281. Quoted (Re- ceiver of real estate) in High on Receiv. § 563, n. 1. v. Forrest. See Fry v. Bennett; Lee v. Woolsey. v. Green, 5 Hill, 232; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 351 ; 16 JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 113, with brief note of other cases. Applied with Cayuga Co. B'k v. Warden, 1 N. T. 418 (Effect of notice of protest served on one of two joint iudorsers) to admissions of one of two joint obligors,— in Lewis s. Woodworth, 2 K Y. 512, 514. Included with note in 2 Ames Gas. on B. & If. 424. v. Havemeyer. See Clark v. Hold- ridge. v. Long Island E. R. Co., 32 Barb. 398. Aft'd in 34 HI. Y. 670. Decision in Id. criticised (Negligence as question of law) in Thrings e. Central Park R. R. Co., 7 Robt. 616. Approved in Bills «. N. Y Central R. R Co., 84 tf. Y. 5, 10.' Dis- ting'd (Contributory negligence in standing on platform of railroad car) in Quinn « Illinois Central R. R. Co., 51 111. 491). v, Mott, 36 N. Y. 486. Explained (Acknowledgment of testator's signature) in Mitchell ». Mitchell, 16 Hun, 97, 100. Disting'd in Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 67 ■a. Y. 414. Followed in Norton v. Norton 2 Redf. 6, 1C; Matter of Harder, Tuck. 426, 430. Applied (Evidence to sustain admis- 850 WILLINK— WILSON. sion of will to probate) in Kinne v. Kinne, ISup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 392. t. Feople, 5 Parle. 621. Aff'd in 32 N. Y. 715. Decision in Id. examined at length (Test of insanity) in People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 215. Followed in Flan- agan v. People, 52 If. Y. 467, 469. Fol- lowed (Power of review by Court of Appeals in criminal cases) in Gaffney v. People, 50 If. Y. 416, 425. Decision in 5 Park, over- ruled (Evidence of declarations of those from whom one has received stolen prop- erty) in People v. Dowling, 84 If. Y. 478, 485. T. Tibbals, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 220. See other cases collected (Usage to vary contract) in 1 Abb. If. G. 472, n. v. Underbill. See Bissell «. Bissell. v. Weaver, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 757; s. c, 1 Hurt, 121. Kev'd in 58 N. Y. 681. Williston v. Jones. See Edgell v. Hart. lYillitts t. Waitc, 25 N. Y. 577. Decision at Special Term reported in 13 How. Pr. 34. See Hoyt v. Thompson ; Runk v. St. John. Decision in 25 If. Y. limited and criticised (Right of foreign assignee to maintain suit in courts of this State) in Hunt v. Jackson, 5 Blatchf. C. Ct. 349, 351. See (Service of summons on dissolved corporation) in Hetzel v. Tannehill Silver Mining Co., 4 Abb. If. C. 40. Willmartta v. Crawford. See N. Y. Fire- men's Ins. Co. v. Ely. Willoughby v. Comstock, 3 Hill, 389. See (Negotiability of instrument as affected by statement as to deposit of collateral secu- rity) in Arnold v. Rock River Valley, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 214. Reviewed with other cases (Necessity of notice of sale by pledgee) in Wheeler v. Newbould, 16' If. Y. 399. Willover v. Hill, 72 .If. Y. 36. Explained and applied (Evidence to mitigate damages in action for slander) in Hatfield v. Lasher, 81 If. Y. .246, 200, which aff'd 17 Hun, 23, 26, which see. Applied to action for seduc- tion, in Wandell v. Edwards, 25 Id. 498, 500. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 536, n. Wills t. Simmonds, 51 How. Pr. 48. Aff'd in part and rev'd in part in 8 Hun, 189. Willson v. Betts. _ See Hewlett i>. Cock; Ridgeley v. Johnson. v. Ellis. See Morse v. Eeyes. v. Foree. 6 Johns. 110; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 195. Questioned but followed (As- sumpsit on sale obtained by fraud) in Nel- son v. Hyde, 66 Barb. 59, 61. Followed with Pierce v. Drake, 15 Johns. 475, in Mann v. Stowell, 3 Chand. ( Wise.) 247. Examined with Pierce v. Drake; Arnold v. Crane, 8 Johns. 82 ; Corlies v. Gardner, 2 Hall, 345, in Galloway v. Holmes, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 340. Willy v. Mnlledy, 6 Abb. If. C. 97. Aft'd in 78 N. Y. 310. Decision in Id. disting'd (Several liability as to negligent use of premises) and Moore v. Goedel, 34 Id. 627. Criticised in Harris «. Perry, 89 Id. 308. Wilmerdings v. Fowler, 45 How. Pr. 142 ; s. c, as Fowler v. Lowenstien, 7 Lans. 167. Affd in 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 249. Further decision in 55 If. Y. G41 ; s. c, fully re- ported 15 Abb. Pr. If. S. 86. With latter decision see (When Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction of case) People, ex rel. Smith v. Village of Nelliston, 79 If. Y. 038. Wilinersdoerffer v. Mtiliopnc Improvement Co., 18 Hun, 387. Approved and ex- plained (Dissiilution of corporation at suit of attorney general) in Kittredge v. Kel- logg Bridge. Co,, 8 Abb: If. C. 168, 170. Wilmont v. Meserole, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 274. Compare (Meaning of term "real property ") Code Civ. Pro. § 3343, subd. 6. Wilinot v. Hurd, 11 Wend. 584. Sec (Ne- cessity that warranty be made at time of sale) Shall v. Ostrander, 63 Barb. 136. Ap- plied (What demands are proper subjects of set-off) in Hart v. Willard, 1 Sandf. 256. v. Richardson, 6 Duer, 328. Further decision in 7 Bosw. 570. Affd in 2 Keyes, 519 ; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 614. Wilsey v. Dennis, 44 Barb. 354. Discussed (Contract for sale of real property) in 1 Chitiy on Contr. 429, n. 4, 11 Am. ed. Wilson v. Abrahams, 1 Hill. 207. See Brant v. Fowler ; People ■». Douglass. Followed (Verdict as invalidated by use of intoxica- ting liquors by jury) in Jones v. People; 6 Colo. 452; s. c, 45 Am. It. 526, citing Peo- ple v. Douglas, 4 Cow. 36, as overruled. Followed with Bullard v. Spoor, 2 Id. 430 ; Rose v. Smith, 4 Id. "i7. in State v. Bruce, 48 Iowa, 530; s. ~., 30 Am. P. 403. — v. Allen. 6 Barb. 542. Qualified (Re- ceiver as representative of creditors of judg- ment debtor) in McIIarg v. Donnelly, 27 Id: 100, 103. — r — v. Baptist Education Society, 10 Barb. 308. Applied (Surrogates jurisdiction as to disputed claims) in Andrews v. Wallege, 8 Abb. Pr. 426; Tucker v. Tucker, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 430; Ruthven v. Patten, 2 Abb. Pr. If. S. 128. Disting'd in Matter of Flood, 16 Id. 409. Criticised in McNulty v. Hurd, 11 Hun, 339, 341 ; which was modified in 72 If. Y. 518, 520, which sec. Reviewed with other cases and applied, in Matter of Shaw, Tuck. 363. Y. Barney, 5 Hun, 257. Explained (Who may be appointed receiver) in Cham- berlain v. Greenleaf, 4 Abb. If. C. 92, 95. T. Boerem, 15 Johns. 286. Discussed (Derivative evidence) in 2 Best, on Ev. § 505, n. a. Wood's ed. v. Britton, 6 Abb. Pr. C3. Rev'd in Id. 97; s. c, 26 Barb. 562, as to evidence of fraudulent intent. Decision in 6 Abb. Pr. 37, followed (Affidavits on motion to vacato attachment) in Dickinson v. Bcnharu, 10 Id. 391; but see Gasherie «. Apple, 14 Id. 64, 67. Decision in G Id. 97. Followed with Dickinson v. Benhain, 10 Id. 390; 12 WILSON. 851 Id. 158; Scott «. Dexter, 1 WeMy Big. 25 ; Talcott v. ' Rosenthal, 22 Hun, 573 ; Tim v. Smith, 13 466. JV 0. 31 (Arrest for intent to defraud creditors) in Farwell «. Furniss, 67 How. Pr. 188. v. Burr, 25 Wend. 3S6. See Watkins «. Halstead. Criticised and the contrary held (Effect of moral obligation to uphold prom- ise of feme covert made after removal of her disability) in Music v. Dodson, 76Mo. 624 ; s. c, 43 Am. R. 780: 15 Reporter,^ 001, citing also as contrary cases Watkins o. Halstead, 2 SamJf. 811 ; Smith v. Allen, 1 Lans. 101 ; Ehle «. Judson, 24 Wend. 67 ; and in Smith v. Ware, 13 Johns. 257. — ,- v. City of Watertown, 5 Suphn. Ct. (T. & 0.) 579 ; s. c, more fully, in 3 llun, 508. v. Davol. See Thomas v. Crofut. — - v. Been, 74 JV. Y. 531. Disting'd (Parol evidence to vary written contract) in Chapin «. Dobson, 78 JV. Y. 74, 80; Funch «. Abenheim, 20 llun, 7. v. Duncan, 11 Abb. Pr. 3. Not followed (Sufficiency of notice, accompanying attach- ment, to be served on third person) in Greenleaf «. Mumford, 19 Abb. Pr. 477. Approved with Kuhlman d. Orser, 5 Duer, 242, in Clarke v. Goodridge, 41 JV T. 210, 214. Followed in O'Brien v. Mechanics, &c. Fire Ins. Co., 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 110, 124; which was rev'd in 56 JV Y. 52, 55, which see. v. Edwards, 6 Lans. 134. Rev'd in 61 JV Y. 65^9. Further decision in 67 Id. 591. Decision in 6 Lans. disting'd (Liability of sureties) in Western N. Y. Life Ins. Co. «. Clinton, 66 JV. Y. 332. v. Forsyth, 24 Barb. 105. Applied (Ef- fect of retention of possession by assignor) in Waverly Nat. B'k v. Halsey, 57 Barb. 263. Explained in BurrUl on Assign. § 281, 4 ed. Applied (Assignment for cred- itors, as affected by fraudulent concealment of assets by assignor) in Miller i>. Halsey, 4 'Abb. Pr. JV S. 33 ; Am. Exch. B'k t>. Webb, 15 How. Pr. 194. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign., § 226. Ex- : plained (Preferences in partial assignments) in BurrUl on Assign. § 169, 4 ed. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 107. v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Barb. 511. Rev'd on ground of insufficiency of notice to agent in 14 JV Y. 418. See Hoffman ». JEtna Ins. Co. ; Til ton v. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co. Both decisions examined and explained (Validity of policy, as aflected by transfer of interest between partners) in Hoffman v. JEtna Ins. Co., 32 JV. Y. 405, 409. Decision in 16 Barb, applied in Pierce v. Nashua Ins. Co., 50 JV H. 297; s. c, 9 Am. R. 235. Followed with Jloffman v. Mtna. Ins. Co., 32 JV Y. 400, in -Dermani «. Home Mut. Ins. Co. of New Orleans, 26 La. Ann. 69 ; s. c, 21 Am. R. 545. — v. Goit. See Terwilliger v. Wands. — V. Green, 20 Wend. . 189. Overruled (Extent of power of review, on certiorari) in Morcwood . Van Allen, 20 Id. 310. Explained in Ang. & A. on Corp. £ 580, 1 1 ed. Applied (Sale by pledgee, when au- thorized) in Durant v. Einstein, 35 How. Pr. 231; Taylor ». Ketchum, Id. 299. Disting'd in Milliken v. Dehon, 27 JV. Y. 375 ; Markham v. Jaudon, 41 Id. 244. Ex- plained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 114, n. c. Applied (Distinction between pledge and mortgage) in Lewis -o. Graham, 4 Abb. Pr. 110; Campbell v. Parker, 9 Bosw. 332. See Ilasbrouck «. Vandervoort, 4 Sandf. 78. Compare Brownell v. Hawkins, 4 Barb. 491 ; Langdon v. Bush, 9 Wend. 80 ; Bun- aoleugh «. Poolman, 3 Daly, 236. Ex- plained in Thomas on Mort. 431. Dis- ting'd with Seymour v. Wyckoff, 10 JV. Y. 213, and Nourse v. Prime, 4 Johns. Ch. 496; Horton v. Morgan, 4 Duer, 58; Allen v. Dykers, 4 Hill, 593 being relied on (Duty of bailee of stocks to restore identical shares received) in Atkins v. Gamble, 42 Cal. 86; s. c, 10 Am. R. 282, 292, 295. Followed (Effect of delivery of certificate of stock in passing equitable title) in Reed v. Copeland, 50 Conn. 472 ; s. c, 47 Am. R. 063. r. Lynt, 30 Barb. 124. Collated with other cases (Trusts for charitable purposes) in Gerard Titles to Real Est. 2 ed. 301. v. Mackenzie, 7 Hill, 95; s. c, 42 Am. Bee. 51, with extended note, wherein are collected citations (Civil liability of military and naval officers, and kindred topics). — - v. Martin, 1 Hen. 602. See Clark v. 852 WILSON. Marsiglia; Young v. Dake. Disting'd and limited (Validity of parol executory con- tract extending over period of more than one year) in Greene v. Waggoner, 2 Hilt. 298. Followed (Contract, for board and lodging is not for interest in real estate) in White i>. Maynard, 111 Mass. 250; s. c, 15 Am. P. 28, 32. — v. Mathews, 24 Barb. 295. See Suy- dara v. Jenkins. Eelied on (Damages in conversion) by Dekio, Ch. J., in Scott v. Rogers, 4 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 15T, 100, n. — v. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. 4 ; s. c, 4 K. D.Smith, 675. See Viburt v. Frost. Disting'd (Injunction against illegal tax) in Fuller v. Allen, 7 Abb. Pr. 16. Followed iu N. Y. Life Ins. Co. *. Supervis- ors of N. Y., 4 Duer, 200; Pumpelly t>. Village of Owego, 45 How. Pr. 259. Ap- plied (Mandamus as remedy against illegal taxation) in People v. Assessors of Barton, 44 Barb. 155. Explained (Taxation of non-residents) in Internat. Life Assur. Soc. v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 28 Id. 320. Exam- ined in Hoyt v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 23 H. Y. 224, 236. v. , 1 Den. 595. See Bartlett v. Crozier; Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.; Lacour ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Weet v. Trustees of Brockport; Yates v. Lans- ing. Applied (Discretion as to construction or repair of public works) in Griffith v. Fol- lett, 20 Barb. 632; Peck e. Village of Batavia, 32 Id. 644 ; Kavanagh v. City of Brooklyn, 38 Id. 237. Approved and ap- plied in Cole, v. Trustees of Medina, 27 Id. 218, 221. Followed as decisive in Ely t>. City of Rochester, 26 Id. 137. Re-aff d and applied iu Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 N~. Y. 496. Disting'd in Douohue v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Daly, 69 ; Lacour v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Duer, 414; Bastable t>. City of Syracuse, 8 Hun, 590 ; Clemence v. City of Auburn, G6 JV. Y. 339. See Hutson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Id. 169. Followed and approved in Imler v. City of Spring- field, 55 Mo. 119; s. c, 17 Am. P. 645, 652. Applied with Mills v. Citv of Brook- lyn, 32 N. Y. 489 ; Masterton v. Village of Mount Vernon, 58 If. Y. 391 ; Smith «. Mayor, &c, 66 N~. Y. 295, as laying down a doctrine very generally applied elsewhere u:;der circumstances almost innumerable, in variety, — in Burford ®. Grand Rapids, 53 Mich. 98, 100. Applied to suspension of ordinance in Hill v. B'd of Aldermen of Charlotte, 72 K O. 55; s. c, 21 Am.. Ii. 451. Disapproved in Nevins v. City of Peoria, 41 III. 512. Disapproved with Mills v. City of Brooklyn. 32 N. Y. 489, in Gillison v. City of Charleston, 16 W. Va. 282 ; s. c, 37 Am. P. 762. See, however, 43 Am. Dee. 723, n. Collated with Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 IT. Y. 161, 170 ; Lacour v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Duer, 406 ; Conrad?;. Trustees of Ithaca, 16 JV. F. 158; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 Id. 463; Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 Id. 489; Wims a. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 59 Id. 500; Barton t>. City of Syracuse, 37 Barb. 292 ; 36 K Y. 5 1 ; St. Peter v. Dennison, 58 Id. 416, and other cases in Ashley v. City of Port Huron, 35 Mich. 296; s. c, 24 Am. P. 552, 554, with note collating cases. Ex- plained (Municipal liability for neglect to repair highway) in Weet v. Trustees of Brockport,. 16 Id. 170, n. Cited with Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 if. Y. 161 ; Lloyd v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 5 Id. 369 ; Hyatt v. Trustees of Rondout, 44 Barb. 385, in Collins i>. City of Council Bluffs, 3 Iowa, 324; s. c, 7 Am. P. 200, as accord- ing with the weight of authority. Criticised and limited (Liability for injury resulting from exercise of authority conferred by law; in City of Pekin c. Brcreton, 67 111. 477 ; s. c, 16 Am. R. 629. Questioned in Inman v. Tripp, 11 R. J. 520; s. C, 23 Am. P. 520, 522. Disapproved with Bailey v. Mayor, &c, of N. Y, 3 Hill, 531, inMeares v. Comm'rs of Wilmington, 9 Ired. (iV. G.) 73; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 412, 417, with note. Disapproved in Thurston v. City of St. Joseph, 51 Mo. 510; s.c, 11 Am. P. 403, 466. Disting'd (Municipal liability for negligence of contractor) in Delnionico v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 227. Ap- plied (Statute, when mandatory) in People ex rel. Raymond v. Connolly, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 377. Approved and applied (Distinction between ministerial and judicial duties) in Nash i>. People, 36 N. Y. 616. Discussed in 1 Add. on Torts, 31, n. 1, Wood's ed. — v. Morgan. See Carpenter i>. Atherton. — v. Onderdoiik, 3 How. Pr. 319; s. c, with points of counsel, 1 Code R. 63. — v. Palmer, 11 Hun, 325. Appeal dis- missed in 75 N. Y. 250. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of notice of entry of judg- ment) in Yates v. Burch, 87 Id. 409. — v. People, 4 Park. 619. See People v. Cogdell. Applied (Effect of irregularities of jurors in obtaining information) in Peo- ple i>. Gaffney, 14 Abb. Pr. K -S. 41. Questioned (Opinion of Medical witness as evidence) in Gardiner v. People, 6 Park. 155, 202. — v. Randall, 7 Hun, 15. Aff'd in 67 K Y. 338. Decision in 7 Hun followed (Re- covery for money paid by mistake as to quantity) in Paine v. Upton, 21 Id. 306, 312. — v. Reed, 3 Johns. 175. Followed (Ac- tion against co-tenant as wrong-doer) in Kellum t>. Knechdt, 17 Hun, 584. Dis- ting'd (Liability for conversions, as between co tenants) in Osborn v. Schenek, 18 Id. 205. Applied in White v. Osborn, 21 Wend. 75. Followed with Farr v. Smith, 9 Wend. 338; Mersereau v. Norton, 15 Johns. 179; Hyde v. Stone, 7 Wend. 357, in War- ren v. Aller, 1 Finn. (Wise.) 479; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 406, with no_te. Cited with Hyde v. Stone, 7 Wend. 354; White v. Osborn, 21 Id. 72; Waddell o. Cook, 2 Hill, 47 ; Farr v. Smith, 9 Wend. 338, as accord- WILSON— WINC HELL. 853 ing with the weight of authority, — in Hall e. Page, 4 Ga. 428; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 235, 237, with note. Cited in Winner v. Pcnni- man, 3.") Md. 163 ; s. C, 6 Am. B. 385, as according with the weight of authority. Disapproved in Sanborn v. Morrill, 15 ■Verm. 700; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 701, 703; Welch «. Clark, 12 Verm. 681; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 368, with note. Cited with Kcl- lum «. Knechdt, 17 Hun, 583; Moody v. Buck, 1 Sandf. 304; Dyckman v. Valiente, 42 If. Y. 549, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 449, n. Quoted in Bigel. Cas on Torts, 448. Commented on in 2 Oreenl. on Et>. 14 cd. § 646, n. 1. v. Roberts, 5 Bosw. 100. Disting'd (What is contract of guaranty) in Gallagher t>. Nichols, 60 N. Y. 438, 446. v. Robertson, 21 If. T. 587 ; a. c, 19 How. Pr. 350. Followed (Effect of appro- priation of firm property to pay individual debt) in Hurlbert v. Dean, 2 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 431 ; Ransom v. Van Deventer, 41 Barb. 316. Applied in Scott v. Guthrie. 10 Bosw. 420; O'Neil 1>. Salmon, 25 How. Pr. 249, 251 ; Menagh «. Whitwell, 52 If. Y. . 153, 162; Martin n. Wagener, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 518. Followed but disting'd in Knauth v. Bassett, 34 Barb. 31, 34, 36, 39. Disting'd in Dimon v. Hazard, 32 If. Y. . 65, 80. Disting'd with Menagh v. Whit- well, 52 Id. 146, in Sherill Roper Air Engine Co. ». Harwood, 30 Hun, 9. Ap- plied in Keith e. Fink, 47 III. 272, 276. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 188. Collated with other cases (Trust for assignor) in Id. § 201. Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 350, n. 4, 4 ed. Quoted (Preferences) in Id. § 211, n. 5, 4 ed. Followed as settled law (Effect of pro- •vision in assignment for creditors giving assignee discretion) in Townsend v. Stearns, 32 If. Y. 217. Discussed in Burrill on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. v. Robinson, 6 How. Pr. 110. Limi- ted (Liability for false imprisonment) in Von Latham v. Libby, 38 Barb. 346. v. Susquehanna Turnpike Co. See Renwick o. N. Y. Central R. R Co. y. Taylor, 8 Daly, 253. Commented on (Weekly or monthly hiring from what acts implied) in MeAdam on Landl. & T 2 ed. §§ 20, 22. y. Troup, 7 Johns. Oh. 25. Affd in 2 Cow. 195; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 458, 474, with note, wherein it is said to have been fre- quently cited and followed (Mortgage is mere security, giving mortgagee, no legal estate). See Bergen ». Bennett; Nixon v. Hyserott. Decision in 2 Cow. disting'd (Rights of grantee of mortgagee) in Davis v. Duffle, 18 Abb. Pr. 365; Mickles v Townsend, 18 If. Y. 578. Examined with other cases in Purdy v. Huntington, 42 Id. 346. Applied (Powers, how regarded in equity) in Cumming v. Williamson, 1 Sandf. Oh. 21. Limited (Who may ques- tion purchase made by trustee) in Iddings v. Brucn, 4 Sandf. Ch. 277. Applied (Parol evidence to explain written contract) in Brown v. Slater, 16 Conn. 192 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 137. Quoted (Effect of assigning debt to transfer mortgage) in 2 Washb. on Peal Prop. 4 ed. 99. v. Van Pelt, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 414. Affd, it seems, in 71 If. Y. 611, but without opinion. v. Wheeler, 6 How. Pr. 49. Restored as authority (Dismissal of complaint for failure to bring cause to trial) by Winchell ■». Martin, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 47. v. Williams. 14 Wend. 146; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 518. Disting'd (Liability of firm on firm note) in Osgood v. Glover, 7 Daly, 367, 372. v. Wilson, 1 Barb. Ch. 592. Doubted (Necessity of conveyance to transfer title of real estate to receiver) as authority under , the Code,— in Porter v. Clark, 9 N. Y. 142, 147. Wilson Collegiate Institute v. Van Horn, 3 Den. 171. Followed (Fees for searches that are not required in foreclosure suits) in Curtiss v. McNair, 6 Hun, 550. Wiltsie v. Beardsley, Hill & D. 386. Dis- ting'd (Misjoinder of causes of action against administrator, &c.) in Day v. Stone, 5 Daly, 353. v. Northam, 3 Bosw. 162. Further decision in 5 Id. 421. Winans v. Peebles, 31 Barb. 371. Rcv'd in 32 N. Y. 423. See Shepard t>. Shepard; White i>. Wager. Decision in 32 if. Y. explained (Validity of deed from wife to husband) in Hunt v. Johnson, 44 Id. 34. Compared with other authorities in 7 South. L. J. N. S. 84. Winants v. Sherman, 3 Hill, 74. See (Ad- missibility of whole of account introduced in evidence) as to contradiction of items, Walden d. Sherburne, 15 Johns. 409. But see Abb. Tr. En. 326. Winchell v. Bowman, 21 Barb. 448. Affd as Winchell v. Hicks, 18, If. Y. 558. See Johnson v. Beardslee. Disting'd (Waiver of right, to go to jury) in Slade v. McMulleu, 45 How. Pr. 55; Low v. Hall, 47 N. Y. 105; Stone ®. Flower, Id. 568; Wombough c. Cooper, 2 Hun, 428, 432 ; Clemence v. Citv of Auburn, 66 N. .Y. 338; Trustees of East Hampton v. Kirk, 68 Id. 465 ; First Nat. B'k of Springfield v. Dana, 79 Id. 116. Followed with approval in Taylor v. Atlan- . tic Mut. Ins. Co., 37 Id. 283. Applied (Effect of payment, to remove bar of statute of limitations) in Miller v. Talcott, 46 Barb. 171: Pickett «. Leonard, 34 N. Y. 176; Harper v. Fairley, 53 Id. 445. Disting'd' and Payne «. Gardiner, 29 If. Y. 146 ; Van » Alen v. Feltz, 1 Keye», 332; Smith v. Ryan, 66 N. Y. 352 ; Harper v. Fairley, 53 Id. 442; Munro v. Potter, 34 Barb. 358; Mil- ler v. Talcott, 40 Id. 171; 54 If. Y. 114, being reviewed in Littlefield r. Littiofjeld, 19 Id. 203. Applied (Effect of payment by one of several joint obligor.;) in Iiaight v. Avery, 854 WIN CIlELL— WINTER. 16 Hun, 234 ; Pitts v. Hunt, 6 Lans. 148. Explained in dissenting opinion in Payne v. Gardner, 29 If. Y. 182. Disting'd'in Cronk- hite v. Herrin, V. S. Cir. Ct. W. D. Wis. 15 Fed. Rep. 888, 890. Approved in Nat. B'k of Delavan v. Cotton, 53 Wis. 31, 34. Followed (Effect of written promise to take pre-existing demand out of statute of limita- tions, under provisions of Code) in Van Alen v. Feltz, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 441. See Coe v. Mason, 41 Barb. 614, with decision in 21 Barb, see cases cited (Pleading stat- ute of limitations) in 8 Abb. If. C. 198, n. — — v. Hicks. See Same v. Bowman. Winchester v. Osborne, 62 Barb. 337. Rev'd in 61 N. Y. 555. Wiudle, Matter of, 2 Edw. 585. Reviewed with other cases (Infant, when considered as holding property as trustee) in Tyler on . Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 107. Windt v. German Reformed Church, 4 Sandf. Gh. 471. See Matter of Brick Church ; Buffalo City Cemetery v. City of Buffalo. Applied with Richards v. North- West Protestant Dutch Church, 32 Barb. 42 (Right to remove bodies from cemetery) in Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Penn. St. 411; s. c, 5 Am. R. 377. Wines v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 9 Hun, 659. AfE'd in 70 If. Y. 613. See Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Both decisions dis- ting'd (Fixing salaries of attendants of court) in Moser v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Hun, 164. Decision in 70 If. Y. disting'd in Rowland e. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 Id. 372, 377. Winfleld v. Bacon. 24 Barb. 154. Examined and disting'd with Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb. 539 ; Davis v. Talcott, 12 If. Y. 184. (Effect of former adjudication) in McDonald v. Christie, 42 Barb. 36, 40. Wilis', Matter of, 2 Hun, 671 ; s. c, reported 5 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 205. Wing v. Disse, 15 Hun, 190. See (Power to accept resignation of receiver) Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, f 2471, n. v. Schramm, 13 Bun, 377. Affd in 79 'If. Y. 619. Decision in Id. said in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 501, to hold n doc- trine different from that of Massachusetts cases there cited (Effect of statute requir- ing^ assent of husband to wife's deed). v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 1 mil. 235. Cited with approval (Degree of care to be exercised by carrier) in Merchants' Despatch &c. Co. v. Cornforth, 3 Colo. 280 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 757, 759. v. Smith, 13 Hun, 408. Affd, it seems, in 80 A''. Y. 650, but without opinion. v. Terry, 5 Hill, 160. Overruled (Lia- bility of drawer of bill who signs as surety) in Suydam v. Westfa'.l, 2 Den. 205. Winne, Matter of, 1 Lans. 508. Rev'd in 2 7(2.21. See Billings a. Baker; Burke v. Valentine ; Jaycox ». Collins. Decision in 1 Lans. collated with other cases (Estate " by courtesy as affected by statute) in Slwmn. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 289. De- cision in 2 Lans. approved in 7 South. L. J. 71. Win ne v. McDonald, 39 If. Y. 233. Dis- ting'd (Rights of one deriving title from fraudulent vendee) in Barnard v. Campbell, 58 Id. 73, 78. v. Reynolds, 6 Paige, 407. Disting'd (Contract for sale of real estate, as affected by existence of incumbrances) iu Morange v. Morris. 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 320. Ap- plied in Pangburn v. Miles, 10 Abb. If. G. 42, 46. v. Sickles, 9 How. Pr. 217. Followed (Answer when not to be stricken out as sham) in Fellows v. Muller, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 137, 139. Wiuship v. Pitts, 3 Paige, 259. Disting'd (Application of common law doctrines of waste) in Agate v. Lowenbein, 57 N. Y. 604, 615. Followed in Pynchon v. Stearns, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 304; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 207, with note. Discussed in 1 Waslib. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 147. Applied (Rehearing matter decided by another judge) in Living- ston's Petition, 34 N. Y. 576. Winslow v. Clark, 2 Lans. 377. Rev'd in 47 N. Y. 261. See Phyfe v. Riley. v. McCall, 32 Barb. 241. Explained (Rights of subsequent incumbrancer in sur- plus on foreclosure) in Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. a. Truchtnicht, 3 Abb. If. C. 135, 138. Applied (Possession by third person, as creating breach of covenant of quiet en- joyment) in Shattuck v. Lamb, Co If. Y. 506. . Winsted B'k v. Webb, 46 Barb. 177. Affd in 39 If. Y 325. See Alcott v. Rathbone. Decision in 39 If. Y. disting'd (Recovery in case of agreement substituted for original one) in Kent v. Reynolds, 8 Hun, 559, 561; Hansee v. Phinney, 15 Id. 154. Winston v. English, 44 How. Pr. 398. Affd iu 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 119; s. c, with points of counsel 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 512. Both decisions followed under Code Civ. Pro. (Right to examination of adverse party) in Levy v. Loeb, 5 Abb. If. C. 156, 160. Decision in 35 Super. Ct. followed in Glenr.y v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 40 Id. 92, *94. y. Kilpntrick, 5 Daly, 524. Affd in 1 Weekly Dig. 569. Winter v. Coit, 7 If. Y. 288. See Bank of Rochester ■». Jones. Applied (Factor's lien, when acquired) in Beel>e ». Mead, 33 If. Y. 592. Cited in Whart. Gom..on Ag. § 769, n. y. Drury, 3 Sandf. 263, n. Aff'd in 5 If. Y. 525. See Cowperthwaite v. Shef- field; Hutter v. Ellwanger. Decision in 5 If. Y. disting'd (Lien of holder of check or bill) in Watts v. Shipman, 21 Hun, 598, 605. Applied with Harris®. Clark, 3 If. Y. 93; Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, Id. 243; Hutter v. Ellwanger, 4 Lans. 11; Brill v. Tuttle, 15 Hun, 289 (Requisites of equitable assignment of debt) in Hart's Assignee ». Dixon, liy. Super Ct. Oct, 1884. 5 Ey. L. Rep & J. 669, 672. WINTER— WITCEEBY. 855 - v. Kinney, 1 IT. Y. 365. Trial at cir- cuit reported as Kinney v. "Winter, 1 Edm. 109. Decision in 1 N. Y. disting'd (Secu- rity, when void as taken colore officii) in Richardson v. Crandall, 48 Id. 361. Ap- plied in Cook «. Freudenthal, 80 Id. 202, 209. Explained and applied in Toles ■». Adee, 84 Id. 222, 237. v. Livingston. See Sill v. Rood. TVintormnte v Clark, 5 Sandf. 242. Fol- lowed (What is inn) in Taylor v. Monnot, 1 Abb. Pr. 325, 327. Followed with People v. Jones, 54 Barb. 316, in Lewis v. Hitch- cock, u. s. nut. ct. s. d. jsr. r. 10 Fed. Rep. 4. Collated with other cases in 7 Am. Bee. 450, n. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 145, n. h. Explained (Innkeeper's liability for property left afcer departure of guest) in Id. 154, n. o. Collated with Wil- lard t>. Rcinhard, 2 E. D. Smith, 148; Fitch v. Casler, 17 Hun, 120, and other cases (What constitutes boarder or guest) in 46 Am. R. lit), n, v. Cooke, 7 Hun, 476. Rev'd in 73 If. Y. 107. v. Light, 46 Barb. 278. Sec to the con- trary (Parol evidence, in case of lease to show reservation of ripening crops) 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 969. Winterson v. Eighth A v. E. R. Co., 2 Hilt. 389. Disting'd (Joinder of causes of action for wrongful acts) in Morenus v. Crawford, 15 Hun, 45, 47. Winthrop v. McKim, 51 Sow. Pr. 323. Rev'd in 6 Hi.n, 59, and that rev'd, it seems, and former aff'd in 66 ±<. Y. 625, but without opinion. v. Meyer, 4 E. I). Smith, 177; s. c, more fully, 1 Abb. Pr. 383. Winton v. Saidler, 3 Johns. Can. 185. Over- ruled (Competency of one who has signed instrument, to testify to its invalidity) in Bank of Utica e. Hillard, 5 Cow. 153, 159 ; Williams t. Walbridge, 3 Wend. 416 ; Staf- ford !). Rice, 5 Cow. 22, 25. See Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 7 T. R. 597. Wintringliam v. Lnfoy, 7 Cow. 735. Dis- ting'd (Liability for sheriff as trespasser for levy) in Wood i>. Orser, 25 N. Y 348, 353 Wise v. Chase, 3 Robt. 35. Rev'd (Payment by delivering vouchers) in 44 ST. Y. 337 Wiseman v. Panama R. R. Co., 1 Hilt. 300. Seo (Action for compensation, by employee) for distinction between action for wages and wrongful discharge, cases cited in Abb Tr. Ed. 858, n.l. ' Wiser V. Blachly, 1 Johns. Ch. 607. Sub- sequent decision in 2 Id. 488. Decision in ' 1 Id. disting'd (Requisites of liabhity on guardian's bond) in Girvin v. Hickman 21 Hun, 317 ; Brown v. Snell, 57 N. Y. 297 • Gosman v. Cruger, 69 Id, 90. Followed in Bumpas v. Dotson, 7 Humph. (Venn ) 810 • s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 81, 85, with note. Fol- lowed (Reformation of instrument as against surety) in Prior v. Williams, 3 Abb Ct App. Dec. 627. Followed and approved with Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. 585 • Lyman o. United Ins. Co., 17 Johns. 374, (When equity will relieve against mistake in written instrument) in Smith «. Allen; 1 Saxt. (N. J.) 43; s. c, 21 Am. Deo. 33, 40, • with note. Decision in 2 Johns. Ch. ap- proved (Bill of review before performance of decree) in Davis v. Spoidcn, 104 U. S. 84. Wisner v. Ocnmpaugli, 71 N. Y. 113. Sec (Equitable defense) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 507, n. Wisser v. O'Brien, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 149; s. c, 44 How. Pr. 209. Superseded (Refiling chattel mortgage) by L. 1873, c. 501; L. 1879, c. 418. Wiswall v. Hall, 3 Paige, 313. Applied (Relief against written instrument on ground of fraud, &c.) in Botsford v. Mc- Lean, 45 Barb. 488; De Peyster v. nas- brouck, 11 H. Y. 590. Examined at length with De Peyster v. Hasbrouk ; Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. 585 ; Cowles v. Bowne, 10 Paige, 535 ; Gouverneur «. Titus, 1 Edw. 480, in Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 418, 431. r. McGowan, Hoffm. 125. Rev'd in 2 Barb. 270; and that aft'd as Price v. Mc- Gown, 10 iv". Y. 465. See Sterry v. Arden. Decision in 2 Barb, explained and applied (Relief in damages in action for specific performance) in Stevenson v. Buxton, 8 Abb. Pr. 415. Disting'd in Hammond «. Pennock, 61 N. Y. 145, 156. Disting'd (Parol enlargement of time of performance of written contract) in Stone v. Sprague, 20 Barb.' 515. Witbeck v. Holland, 55 Barb. 443; s. c, 38 How. Pr. 273. Aff'd in 45 XT. T. 13. Seo Redmond v. Liverpool, &c. Steamship Co. ; Zinn v. N. J. Steamboat Co. v. Van Rensselaer, 2 Hun, 55; s. c, 4 S>tp'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 282. Aff'd in 64 N. Y. 27. Decision in 2 Hun discussed (Writ of possession in ejectment) in Sedyw. <£• W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §§ 551, 553, 556. v.Waine, 16 iv". Y. 532. Applied (Mer- ger of agreement in subsequent written contract) in Silliman v. Tuttle, 45 Barb. 177. Applied, and Howes *>. Barker, 3 , Johns. 506; Houghtaling v. Lewis, 10 Id. 297, explained, in Morris v. Whitcher, 20 N. Y. 41, 46. Disting'd in Davis ■» Lot- lich, 46 Id. 393. 897. \ . 8 Sow. Pr. 443. Applied (Re- settlement of bill of exceptions after appeal) to amendment of case,— in O'Gorman •» Kamak, 5 Daly, 517, 520. Witherby v. Mann, 11 Johns. 518. Fol- lowed (Effect of giving negotiable note to enable action for money paid to be main- tained) in Neale v. Newland, 4 Ark 506 • s. c, 38 \ Am. Dee. 42, with note. Criti- cised wtfh Cumming v. Hackley, 8 Id 202 ' in 38 Am. Bee. 44, n., on the ground of inconsistency. Cited with Bovd% Hitch Wend. 104; Brown v. Peeter, 7 Id. 301- 856 WITHERI1EAD— WOLFE. Evans v. Wells, 22 Id. 224, 341 ; La Farge . 222. Explained and approved (Appropriation of popular signification of word as trademark) in New- man «. Alvord, 49 Barb. 588, 592. Applied in Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co., 07 Barb. 526, 533, which was rev'd, in 10 Abb. Pr. A 7 : S. 348. Followed as having been approved in subsequent cases, in Lea v. Wolf, 13 Id. 389. Collated with other cases in Thomp. WOLFE— WOOD. 831 on Pro*. Rem. 262. Explained in 2 Pars, on Cont. 257, U, n.e. — v. Howard Ins. Co., 1 Sanclf. 124. Affd in 7 K Y. 583. . y Kbwcs, 24 iJarJ. 174, with opinion of Bacon, J., on p. 666. Aff'd in 20 N. Y. 197. See Harmony?). Bingham ; McMillan v. Van- derlip. Decision in 20 Jf. Y. applied (Re- covery, in case of part performance of con- tract) in Clark o. Gilbert, 32 Barb. 582, 585 ; 26 K Y. 282 ; Price v. Hartshorn, 44 Id. 102. Explained in Tipton v. Fcitner, 20 Id. 429 ; Niblo v. Binssc, 44 Barb. 58, n. Applied (What will excuse performance of contract) in People v. Tubbs, 37 Id. 583 ; Cohen v. N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 50 Id. 610, 622. Disting'd in Requa v. Bulkley, 1 City Ct. 153. v. Myers, 3 Sandf. 7. Criticised (Who to sign bill of lading for goods shipped on vessel) in 38 Am. Dec. 408, n., as clearly erroneous. t. Security Fire Ins. Co., 39 N. Y. 49. Explained and applied (Effect of transfer of insured property) in Shearman v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 40 How. Pr. 396, which was aff'd in 46 N. Y. 531, which see. Followed (Waiver by insurer) in Steen v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 61 How. Pr. 144, 148. v. Supervisors of Richmond, 11 Abb. Pr. 270; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 370. Ap- proved (Municipal liability for injury done by mobs) in Davidson v. Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 2 Robt. 230, 249. v. Van Nostraud, 2 2f. Y. 570; s. c, 4 How. Pr. 208. See decision, on the merits, in 2 K Y. 436. Decision in Id. 570, distiDg'd (Additional allowance by appel- late court) in Dupuy v. Wurtz, 3 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C.) 113. Wolff v. Koppel, 5 Hill, 458. Affd in 2 Den. 368. See Leverick v. Meigs. Both decis- ions followed with Sherwood v. Stone, 14 N. Y. 267 (Liability of agent acting under del credere commission, as original debtor) in Lewis v. Brebme, .38 Md. 412 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 190, 198, citing also Leverick v. Meigs, 1 Cow. 645. Decision in 5 Hill commented oa in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 213, 4 ed. Wolfstcin v. People. See People v. Call. Wolstenholine v. Wolsteiiholiue Tile M'f'g Co., 4 Hun, 427. Affd in 64 N. Y. 272. Previous decision in 3 Lans. 457. Wood, Matter of, Hoph. 6 ; s. c, 2 Cow. 29, n. Applied (What included in term office) in People v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 423; People ex rel. Kelly v. Common Council of Brooklyn, 77 N. Y. 508. Applied (Member of the bar, as officer) in Matter of Mosncss, 39 Wis. 509 ; s. c, 20 Am. R. 55 ; Matter of Oaths of Attorneys, &c, 20 Johns. 492, ' being said not to deny this position. Wood v. Anthony. See Blanchard v. Strait. v. Auburn & Rochester R. R. Co., 8 K Y. 160, 168. Followed (Proof of mis- conduct in arbitrators) in Fudickar v. Guard- ian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 358, 378. V. Bach, 54 Barb. 134. Rev'g Jones v. Bach, 48 Id. 568. . v. Belden, 59 Barb. 549. Rev d in 54 2f. Y. 658, on ground that defendant could not complain of disobedience of jury, as it did not preclude another action. v. Brown, 34 K Y. 337. See Bates v. Underhill ; Craig v. Craig. Explained and limited (Liability of executor for mal- administration) in Burt v. Burt, 41 K. Y. 46, 52. Applied (Right to relief, as limited by'statemept of case in complaint) in Jones v. Jones, 18 Hun, 441. Followed (Authori- ty of surrogate over trustees, &c.) in Sav- age v. Olmstead, 2 Redf. 478, 481. Dis- ting'd in Blake v. Sands, 3 Id. 173. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §2685, ». Followed (Proceeding by executor against co-execu- tor) in Matter of Ritch, 2 Redf. 330, 332 ; Price «. Brown, 10 Abb. N. V. 67, 70. v. Burnham, 6 Paige, 513. Affd as Tallman v. Wood, 26 Wend. 9. Decision in 6 Paige explained (Rule in Shelley's Case) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 370. v. Byiugtou, 2 Barb. Gh. 387. Disting'd (Liab.li'ty of decedent's real estate for judg- ment against his representatives) in East River Nat. B'k v. McCaffrey, 3 Redf. 97. See Cde Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. Dis- ting'd (Interlocutory decrees) in Webb v. Buckalevv, 82 N. F.'555, 500. v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509. See Doughty v. Hope; Jackson v. McOhesney. Com- pared (Proof of jurisdictional facts) in Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. 395. Applied (Purchaser at judicial sale, how far pur- chaser for valuable consideration) in Barto v. Tompkins County Nat. B'k, 15 Hun, 13. Approved ia Wood v. Morehouse, 45 N. Y. 308, 376. Doubted (Effect of recorded deed as against prior unrecorded deed) in Ring v. Steele, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 69. Cited as authority in Iloyt v. Jones, 31 Wis. 389, 404. Limited (Effect of consideration clause in deed) to cases under the recording act,— in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 166, 234. Applied in Lacustrine, &c. Co. v. Lake Guano, &c. Co.. 82 N. Y. 476, 483. v. City of Brooklyn, 14 Barb. 425. Disting'd (Injunction to prevent enforce- ment of void city ordinance) in Davis v. Am. Soc. for Prev. of Cruelty to Animals, 75 N. Y 362, 369. Applied (Effect of constitu- tional provision for trial by jury) in People v. Toynbee, 20 Barb. 212. Disting'd (In- junction against arrest) in Burch v. Cavan- augh, 12 Alb. Pr. JST. S. 415 ; Holt e. Comm'rs of Excise, 31 How. Pr. 337, 340, to. v. Colvin, 2 Hill, 566; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 598, with note. Subsequent decision in 5 Hill, 228. See Frost v. Yonkers Sav- ings B'k ; Jackson v. Anderson; Little v. Harvey. Decision in 2 Hill followed (Rights of one claiming title under unauthorized sheriff's sale) in Stafford v. Williams, 12 838 • WOOD. Barb, 243. Followed (Effect of sale under satisfied judgment) in Cameron v. Irwin, 5 Hill, 275. Examined and qualified with Cameron v. Irwin in Warner v. Blakeman, 36 Barb. 501, 516; and see Gillespie v. Splahn, 1 (Wilson) lnd. 228, 235. Collated with other cases in Banks ». Evans, 10, Smedes & M. (Miss.) 35 ; s. c, 48 Am. Bee. 734, 738, with note, Jackson «. Cadwell, 1 Cow. 640, being cited as authority. Decision in 5 Hill approved with Catlin v. Jackson, 8 Johns. 548 (Levy unnecessary where judg- ment is lien on lands) in Bagley v. Ward, 37 Gal. 121. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1481, n. See (Effect of redemption from sale under execution) Id. § 1448, n. T. Donaldson, 17 Wend. 550. AfFd as Donaldson v. Wood, 22 Id. 395. . Dictum in Id. overruled (Extent of mechanics' lien) in McDermott v. Palmer, 8 K Y. 383, 385. v. Draper, 4 Abb. Pr. 322; s. c, 24 Barb. 187. See Christopher v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Explained and cases cited to the contrary (Injunction against taxes) in 1 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 485, n. 2, 312. v. Dwight, 7 Johns. Oh. 295. Followed (Effect of process becoming functus officio) in People ex rel. Roberts v. Bowe, 8 Abb. N. C. 234, 235. Applied (Effect of appeal from order, as stay of proceedings) in John- son v. Scriver, 3 Abb. Pr. 209. Relied on as an authority in Estate of Crosrier, 65 Cal. 332, 334. Quoted in 2 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 1709, n. 1. v. Edwards, 1 9 Johns. 205. See Clark v. Smith. Explained (Mutuality on contracts) in 1 Chitty on Contr. 21, n. s, 11 Am. cd. v. Erie K'y Co., 9 Hun, 64S. Aff'd in 72 AT. Y. 190; s. c, 28 Am. R. 125. See Merritt v. Earle. Decision in 72 If. Y. fol- lowed (Construction of act to prevent trans- action of business under fictitious names) in Ryan v. Hardy, 26 Hun, 176. Disting'd in Lunt «. Lunt, 8 Abb. N. C. 76, 81. Compare Zimmermann v. Erhardt, 60 How. Pr. 163. Applied (Violation of statute as bar to action) in Platz v. City of Cohoes, 24 Hun, 102. - — v. Fisk, 4 Hun, 525. Rev'd in 63 W. Y. 245; s. c, 20 Am. 72. 528. Decision in Id. followed (Effect of death of one of joint sureties) in Davis t>. Van Buven, 72 If. Y. 587, 589 ; Randall v. Sackett, 77 Id. 482. See to the contrary Code Civ. Pro. § 758. v. Fleet, 36 If. Y. 499. Discussed (Effect of partition without deed) in Browne on Stal. of Frauds, § 68, 4 ed. v. Hazen, 10 Hun, 362. Followed (Remedy on claim, as affected by proving same in bankruptcy) in Rosenthal v. Plumb. 25 Id. 336, 339. v. Henry, 40 K Y. 124. SeeRoberts.». Prosser. Followed (Right of execution against person) in Church of Redeemer ». Crawford, 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 307, 318. Disting'd in Roberts v. Prosser, 53 If. Y. 260, 263. Y. llickok, 2 Wend. 501. See Gibson v. Culver. Cited in 2 WliarC. Com. on Ev. § 964, as contrary to what is now settled (Sufficiency of single witness to prove usage). — v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend. 47. Quoted and explained (Essentials of tender) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 644, n. m. CoF.ated with other cases in McAdam on Zand. & T. 2 ed. §153. v. Hollister, 3 Abb. Pr. 14. Explained (Place of trial of creditor's action) in Black ■o. O'Brien, 23 Hun, 83. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 982, n. See (Change of venue) Id. § 986, n. — v. Hubbcll, 5 Barb. 601. Aff'd in 10 N. Y. 479. Both decisions applied (Effect of -destruction of leased premises before lessee takes possession) to case of premises sold under foreclosure, — in Aspinwall v. Balch, 4 Abb. If. C. 193, 197. To contract for sale of land, in Smith v. McCIuskey, 45 Barb. 613. Decision in 5 Barb, explained and compared in 1 Pars, on Contr. 505, n.~ m. Decision in 10 If. Y. disting'd (Refor- mation of lease) in Wilson v. Deen, 74 Id. 531, 536. v. Jackson, 8 Wend. 9 ; s. c, 22 Am. Bee. 603, with note containing citations, and wherein it is said to be a leading au- thority in N. Y. Rev'g Jackson v. Wood, 3 Id. 27. Subsequent decision in 18 hi. 107. See Green v. Clark; Manny v. Har- ris. Decision in 8 Wend, applied (Evidence as to former recovery) in Calkins v. Allcr- ton, 3 Barb. 173; Buckhead v. Brown, 5 Sandf. 151 ; Lawrence v. Hunt, 10 Wend. 84. Approved both on reason and on au- thority, in Bigel. on Estoppel, 90, n. 4 ed. as preferable to King r. Chase, 15 If. H. 9 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 675, with note, which see. Decision in 3 Wend, applied with Lawrence v. Hunt, 10 Id. 80, in Offutt v. John, 8 Mo. 120; s. c, 40 Am. Bee. 125, with note. Disting'd with Lawrence v. Hunt, in Long v. Bangas, 2 Ired. (If. C.) 290; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 694, with note. Both decisions reviewed and criticised in King i>. Chase, 15 K II. 9; s. c, 41 Am. Bee. 675, 681, with extended note. See Abb. Tr. Ev. 828, and authorities cited. Compare Howard v. Mitchell, 14 Mass. 24. Decision in 8 Wend. denied (Special plea in ejectment) in Cran- dall «. Gallup, 12 Conn.- 365. Followed (Extent to which former judgment may be used as estoppel, on question of title to land) in Frantz v. Ireland, 4 Lans. 278, 281 ; Kerr v. Hays, 85 If. Y. 339. Applied (Effect of recerpt of surplus moneys arising from execution sale) to foreclosure sale, — in Candeo v. Burke, 1 Hun, 549. Cited as authority (Marriage as valuable considera- tion for promise) in 1 Add. on Contr. 4, n. 1, Abb. ed. v. Jefferson County B'k, 9 Cow. 194. Approved with Vilas v. Jones. 10 Paige, 76 (Effect of extension of time of payment to release suretj) in Stillwell v. Aaron, 69 Mo. 589; s. c, 33 Am. P. 517. WOOD. 859 T . lafayette, 46 ¥. Y. 484. Subsequent decision in 68 Id. 181. Decision in 46 Id. approved, but disting'd (Effect of agree- ment for arbitration) in Del & Hud. Canal Co. ■». Pa. Coal Co., 50 Id. 250, 263. v. Lester, 29 Barb. 145. Disting'd (Ef- fect of agreement for lien to take effect at a future time) in Hale v. Omaha Nat. B'k, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 46. v. Lowry, 17 Wend. 492. See Griswold v. Sheldon; Russell v. Winne. Applied as still authority (Effect of agreement for sale of mortgaged chattels by mortgagor) though overruled by Smith v. Hoe, 23 Wend 653, upon another point, in Russell 9. Winne, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 384, 389, citing also Gardner ». McEwen, 19 If. Y. 123. Applied in Edgell v. Hart, 13 Bark 3S8, which was aff'd in 9 If. Y. 218, which see. Disting'd in Hull «. Carnley, 2 Duer, 109. Reviewed with other cases and applied in Griswold e. Sheldon, 4 If. Y. 589. Applied (Effect of L. 1833, c. 279, respecting filing of chattel mortgages) in Otis v. Sill, 8 Barb. 109. Explained in Lee v. Huntoon, Hoffm. 458. v. McClnglinn, 2 Hun, 150; s. c, re- ported in 4 Sttp'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 420. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Abb. Pr. 467. Subsequent decision in 4 Abb. Pr. .37". S. 152 v. , 7 Hun, 164. Collated with other cases (Who are agents of municipality) .in 8 Abb. If. O. 282, n. T. Merritt, 2 Bosw. 368. Cited with Boardman d. Gaillard, 60 If. Y. 614, and other cases (Right of part owners of vessel, toancouut.of earnings, &c.) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 449. n. v. Moorliouse, 1 Bans. 405. Aff'd ^as Same v. Morehouse, 45 N. Y. 368. Decis- ion in Id. followed (Sheriff's deed as evi- dence) in Clute v. Emmerich, 21 Hun, 122, 128. Followed (Execution against estate of deceased judgment debtor) in Marino B'k of Chicago v. Van Brunt, 49 If. Y. 160, 164. Explained and applied in Beard v. Sinnott, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 549. Disting'd with Olcott v. Robinson, 20 Barb. 148 (Notice by publication, when complete) in Market Nat. B'k of N. Y. v. Pacific Nat. Bk. of Boston, 89 If. Y. 397. Criticised and authority to the contrary collated in Collins v. Smith, 15 Northw. Rep. 194. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1434, n. See (Waiver of production of papers on redemption from execution) Id. §§ 1468, n., 1474, n. — ■ v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 46 If. Y. 421. See Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. See (Rights under contract for sale of real estate, before delivery of deed) Mut. Life Ins. Co. «. Balch, 4 Abb. If. O. 200, 203, a case of sale in foreclosure. v. Oakley, 4 Mw. 562. Aff'd in 11 Paige. 400. v. Peakc, 8 Johns. 69. See Lawton ». Comm'rs of Cambridge. Approved (Jus- tices act judicially in appointing supervisor) in Wildy «. Washburn, 16 Id. 49; People v. Seaman, 5 Den. 409, 412. v. People, 53 If. Y. 511. Distingd (Requisites of indictment as to alleging dis- charge) in Gibson v. People. 5 Hun, 543. Disting'd (Sufficiency of indictment for statutory defense) in Phelps v. People, 72 N. Y. 355. , n v. , 1 Hun, 381 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm,. Ct. (T. & C.) 506. Rev'd in 59 If. Y. 117. Decision in Id. disting'd (Effect of error in admitting evidence under indictment charg- ing several offenses) in Phelps v. People, 72 Id. 365, 373. v. Phillips, 43 XT. Y. 152 Rey'g in effect previous decision in King v. Phillips, 1 Bans. 421. Another decision in 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 1. See Willard v. , Warren. With decision in 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. see (Abatement of action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 764, n. Decision in 43 If. Y. ex- plained (Actions between tenants in common of land) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 276. See (Forcible entry and de- tainer) 'Code Civ. Pro. § 2233, &c. v. Ponglikeepsic Mut. Ins. Co., 32 If. Y. 619. See Boehen v. Williamsburgh Ins. Co. Disting'd (Evidence of waiver by agent of insurer) in Boehen v. Williams- burgh Ids. Co., 35 If. Y. 131, 133. v. Randall. See Malone v. Clark. v. Robinson, 22 N. Y. 564. See Gar- field v. Hatmaker; McCartney v. Bostwick; Seymour v. Wilson. Applied (Who is purchaser, &c. for valuable consideration, as against prior equity) in Tiffany v. War- ren, 37 Barb. 577 Disting'd in Wood v. Morehouse, 45 If. Y. 377 ; Murphy v. Briggs, 89 Id. 452. Applied in Weaver v. Bardcn, 49 Id. 286, 292 ; Cary t>. White, 52 Id. 138, 145. Followed (Enforcing trust in favor of creditors in case of voluntary con- veyances) in McCartney v. Bostwick, 32 Id. 53, 60. This decision, and those of Gar- field v. Hatmaker, 15 Id: 475 ; Wood v. Robinson, 22 Id. 564; McCartnev v. Bost- wick, 32 Id. 53; 31 Barb. 390, "compared with later decisions such as Ocean Nat. B'k v. Olcott, 46 If. Y. 12; Dunlap ». Hawkins, 59 Id. 342; 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 292,— in Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 615. v. Seward. See Estate of Maxwell. v. Shultis, 4 Hun, 309. See (Amend- ment of pleadings i;n justice's court) Code Civ. Pro. 188!, § 2944, n. T. Squires, 1 Hun, 481 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 468. Rev'd in 60 Jf. Y. 191. v. Stoddard, 2 Johns. 194. Followed (Disqualification of juror for interest, in ac- tion affecting town, &c.) in Diveny v Citv of Elmira, 51 If. Y. 510. — — v. Torrey. See Green v. Burke. — — v. Tunnicliff, 74 If. Y. 38. See (Ad- journment of proceedings before arbitrators) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2308, n. v. Yandenburgh, 6 Paige, 277 Fol- lowed (Liability of decedent's estate for ex- 860 WOOD—WOODCOCK. pense of tombstone 1 ) in Crapos. Armstrong, 61 Iowa, 697. Explained in Willard on Executors, 271. r v. Weiant, 1 N. Y. 77. See brief opin- ion of Sup'm. Ct. on appeal from circuit, and opinion of Jewett, Ch. J., in Ct. of App., in How. App. Cas. 109, 167. v. Wellington, 30 N. Y. 218. Followed (Validity of transfer of premium notes by mutual insurance company) in Brookman «. Metcalf, 32 Id. 591, 594 Distins'd (Repeal of statute by implication) in People ex rel. Brown v. Van Hoesen, 62 Ilow. Pr. 76, 81. — — v. Wilcox, 1 Den. 37. Examined and qualified (Liability for use and occupation) in Hoffman v. Delihanty, 13 Abo. Pr. 388, 390, 392. Disting'd in Hall v. Western Transp. Co., 34 JVT Y. 284, 287. For the rule in action on contract, see Gilhooly v. Washington, 4 1 7. 217. See also All. Tr. Ev. 353. y. Wood, 2 Paige, 108. See Mix». Mix; Tilton v. Beecher. Disting'd (Bills of par- ticulars) in Tilton v. Beecher, 59 K Y. 176, 185. Applied, and Young v. De Mott, 1 Barb. 30 ; People v. Tweed, 5 Pari. 353 ; 63 iV. Y. 201 ; Wigand v. De Jonge, 18 Hun, 405 ; Tilton v. Beecher, 59 XT. Y. 183, disting'd in Kee ». MeSweeney, 66 How. Pr. 447. Disting'd (Pleading in actions for divorce) in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 61 K Y. 398, 404. Quoted in 2 Pish, on Mar. & D. §. 600, 6 ed. Applied (Defendant, when not required to elect between denial and new matter constituting a; defense) in Hollenbeek v. Clow, 9 How. Pr. 291. Applied (Ali- mony, when granted) in Leslie «. Leslie, 6 Alb. Pr. N. S. 205 ; Osgood v. Osgood, 2 Paige, 622. Disting'd (Necessity that in suit for divorce infant prosecute or defend by guardian or next friend) iu Jones v. Jones, 18 Mo. 308; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 723, as resting on local provisions aud rules of practice. See (Condonation) in 5 Am .L. Peg. If. S. 644. v. , 2 Paige, 454. Aff'd in 8 Wend. 357. v. , 4 Paige, 299. Decision in sub- sequent action affecting same estate in 5 Id. 596; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 451, with note, wherein are collected citations. Decision in 4 Id. explained and applied (Liability of sureties of non-resident executor) in Hood ». Hood, 85 K Y. 561, 571. Explained ■with Mandeville «. Mandeville, 8 Paige, 475 (Circumstances affording adequate security for due administration of estate) in Martin •». Duke, 5 Redf 597. See also Shields «. Shields, 60 Barl. 56, and Mandeville v. Man- deville, applied on this point in Ballard v. Charlesworth, 1 Dem. 601; and Shields «. Shields, followed in Hovey v. McLean, Id. 896, in preference to Freeman v. Kellogg, 4 Redf. 218. Commented on in Willard on Executors, 136. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2685, n. Decision in 5 Paige disting'd (Power of guardian to change domicile of ward) in Seiter i>. Straub, 1 Dem. 264 ; Mat- ter of Bosch, N. Y. Daily Reg. July 12, 1SS3. Doubted with Lewis «>. Smith. 9 N. Y. 502 (Widow when put to election between provision in will aud dower) in Colgate v. Colgate, 23 N. J. Eq. 372, 381. Collated with other cases iu Sharsw. & P. Cas. on Real Prop. 300. t. , 28 Bail. 856. Disting'd (Lim- itation of action to reach assets of insolvent estate of decedent) in Malloy v. Vanderbilt, 4 All. N. C. 127, 100. Disting'd (Equit- able relief in rem. where remedy against de- cedent's estate) in Stilwcll v. Svvarthout, 81 N. Y. 109, 110. See (Parties in action against devisees) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1846, n. v. , 18 Htm, 350. AfE'd in 83 K Y. 575. Decision in 18 Hun disting'd with riowland v. Ilowland, 20 Id. 472 (Wife's right to her personal property, as against husband or his creditors) in Kingman v. Frank, 64 Hoic. Pr. 520. Decision in 83 N. Y. quoted in Scliouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 120, a., n. 1. Discussed (Notice to quit in ejectment) in Sedgin. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 376. Quoted (Improve- ments) in Id. § 698. Woodbeck v. Havens, 42 Barl. 66. Re- ferred to in Tyler on Inf. & Con. 2 cd. § 353, as contrary to other authorities (Wife as sole trader and entitled to her own earnings). — - v. Keller, 6 Cow. 118. Disting'd (Quantum of evidence in civil cases) in Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Hun, 251, 253. Followed with Clark v. Dibble, 16 Wend.' 601; Hopkins v. Smith, 3 Barl. 599, in Kane v. Ilibernia Mul. Fire Ins. Co., 9 Vromi (K J.) 441; s. c, 20 Am. R. 409,414. Followed in Newbito. Statuck, 35 Me. 315 ; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 70G. Woodbine Street, Matter of, 17 All. Pr. 112. Applied (Certiorari, to whom to be directed) in People v. Hill, 65 Barb. 170, 174. See (Certiorari without notice) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2128, n. ' Woodburu v. Moslier, 9 Barl. 255. See Brigham v. Tillinghast; Murphy v. Bell; Nicholson ». Leavitt. Overruled with Mur- phy v. Bell, 8 How. Pr. 468 (Power in as- signment for benefit of creditors) in Bene- dict v. Huntington, 32 iV. Y. 219, 222, Explained in Burrill on Assign. § 219, n. 3. 4 ed. ; Id.§ 224, n. 4. Collated with other cases :n Bishop on Assign. § 209. Woodbury v. Delap, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 20 ; s. c. as Woodbury v. Deloss, 65 Barb. 501. v. Deloss. See Woodbury v. Delap. v. Sackrider, 2 All. Pr. 402. Disap- proved (Sufficiency of averment of protest) in Graham v. Machado, 6 Duer, 514, 548. Overruled in Cook v. Warren, 88 JV. Y. 37, 40. Woodcock v. Bennet, 1 Cow. 711; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 508. See Reynolds v. Corp. Applied (Rights of purchaser under errone- ous execution) in Jackson «. Cadwcll, 1 Cow. 643 ; (Jerry v. Post, 18 How. Pr. 122. WOODFORD— WOODRUFF. 861 Approved and followed in Morgan ■». Evans, 72 III. 586; s. c, 22 Am. E. 157. Reviewed at length with Jackson •». Cadwell, 1 Cow. 623 ; Jackson «. Anderson, 4 Wend. 474 ; Swau v. Saddlemire, 8 Id. 676 ; Jackson ». Bowen, 7 Cow. 1 ; Reed v. Pruyn, 7 /o^res. 426 ; Sherman v. Boyce, 15 Id. 444 ; Jack- son v. Morse, 18 Id. 441, and other cases in Boren v. McGehee, C Port (Ala.) 432; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 695, 698. with note. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1479, n. Limited (Irregularity of execution) in Hunt v. Louc'ks, 38 Cal. 372. Followed. (Execution against estate of decedent) in Beard ■». Sin- nott, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 552. Dis- ting'd and disapproved in Martin v. Branch B'k at Decatur, 15 Ala.. 587; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 147, 150, with note. Disting'd in Coleman v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 229. Reviewed at length with other cases (Allowing damages in action for specific performance) in Beck v. Allison. 4 Daly, 4o3. Applied in Wiswall v. Mc- Gowan, Boffm. 131. Relied on in Warner v. Daniels, 1 Woodb. & M. 90, 114, as suit to set aside conveyance for fraud. Applied (Effect of matter in answer, as evidence) in Cushman i>. Shepard, 4 Barb. 124; Forrest v. Forrest, 6 Duer, 128 ; Dunham v. Gates, Boffm. 189. Disapproved in Schwaz v. Wendell, Walk. Oh. {Mich.) 295, citing Clason d. Morris, 10 Johns. 542. Followed in Morgan «. Tipton, 3 McLean, 350. Dis.- ting'd (Diligence in giving notice of dis- honor of bill) in Gibson v. Toby, 53 Barb. 11)9. Woodford v. Patterson. See Brewer v. Salisbury ; Shindler ». Houston. v. People, 5 8up'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 539; s. c. less fully, 3 Hun, 310. Aff d in 02 N. Y. 1 17; s. c, 20 Am. E. 464. See Peo- ple b. Allen ; People v. Wright. Woodgate v. Fleet, 3 Bun, 619. Rev'd, it seems, in 64 N. Y. 566. Former decision in 44 Id. 1 ; s. c, 11 Ahb. Pi: K 8. 41. Woodliead's Estate, Tuck. 92. See (Surro- gate's power to punish for contempt) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2555, n. Woodhnll v. Holmes. See Hcrrick v. Car- man ; Vallett v. Parker. v. Mower, 1 Bun, 495. Fuller mem., s. c, 3 Sup'm Ct. (T. & C.) 765. t. Rosenthal, 61 N. Y. 382. Disting'd (Difference between sub-lease and assign- ment) in Ganson v. Tifft, 71 Id. 48, 54, as not impugning Collins v. Hasbouck, 56 Id. 157. See authorities reviewed in 16 Am. L. Eev. 31. Discussed (Apportionment of mesne profits) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, §§ 685, 699. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1531. Explained (Ejectment for lands inaccessible to sheriff) in Sedgw & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 127. Woodiu t. Bagley, 13 Wend. 453. See Mc- Dowl o. Charles. Disting'd (Right of next of kin to maintain action for distributive share of decedent's personal property) in Jeroms «. Jeroms, 18 Barb. 27. Followed inBeecher?). Crouse, 19 Wend. 308. Fol- lowed (Questions for examination, in case of reference of claim against estate of decedent) in Raynor v. Laux, 28 Bun, 35. Woodman v. Goodenongh, 18 Abb. Pr. 265. See (Title of receiver in supplementary pro- ceedings to after-acquired property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2469, n. Woodmansee v. Rodgers, 58 Bow. Pr. 98. Affd in 7rf..439 ; s. c, 20 Bun, 285; which was affd in 59 Bow. Pr. 402 ; s. c, as Woodmansee v. Rogers, 82 N. Y. 88. Woodruff's Estate, Tuck. 1. See Woodruff v. Woodruff. , Tuck, 58. See Clarkson v. Clarkson. Followed (Tenant for life, when entitled to stock dividends) in Cragg v. Riggs, 5 Eedf. 82, 91. Disting'd in Matter of Pollock, 3 Id. 109, a case of profits from contract. Woodruff v. Bnnce, 9 Paige, 443. Said to be supported by well-considered adjudications in courts of other States (Injunction in case of breach ol covenants) — in Wanzcr v. Tinly, \7 Bow. (U. S.) 584. : v. Cook, 14 Bow. Pr. 481. See Bost- wick v. Brown. Disapproved (Costs against executors, &c.) in Holdridge v. Scott, 1 Lans. 303, 307. -See Smith o. Patten, 9 Abb. Pr. K S. 203 ; Fish v. Crane, Id. 252 ; Howe v. Lloyd. Id. 257. v. Dickie, 5 Eobt. 619; s. c, 31 Bow. Pr. 164. Disapproved (Amendment of pleadings) in Union Nat. B'k of Troy v. Basset, 3 Abb. Pr, K S. 359, 362; Ford v. Ford, 53 Barb. 525, 527; Strongs. Dwight, 11 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 323; Diamond «. Wil- liamsburgh Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 495. Applied in Livermore v. Bainbridge, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 234, n. Doubted in Union B'k v. Bas- set, 3 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 359 ; Robbins v. Rich- ardson, 2 Bom. 248; Hochstetter v. Isaacs, 14 Abb. Pr. K 8. 235; Frazer v. Frazer, IT. Y. Daily Eeg. Nov. 28, 1881. Said to be overruled (Powers of referee as to amend- ment) by Bennett v. Lake, 47 K Y. 93, and Ford *. Ford, 5,3 Barb. 525, followed in preference,— in Hochstetter v. Isaacs, 14 Abb. Pr. K S. 235. v. Fisher. 17 Barb. 224. Quoted (Nuis- ance resulting from not -draining swamp lands) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 118. Dis- cussed in 1 Add. on Torts, ??., 1 Wood's ed. Quoted (Taxation for local improvements) in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 633, n. 1. v. Hiirson, 32 Barb. 557. Discussed (Attorney as witness) in 1 Best on Ev. § 184, n. a, Wood's ed. T. Leonard, 1 Bun, 632. Disting'd (Pleading irregular indorsement) in Lvnch v. Levy, 11 itf.146. v. Merchants' B'k of N. T., 25 Wend. 073. Affd in Merchants' B'k of N. Y. v. Woodruff, 6 Bill, 174. See Frith v. Barker. Both decisions followed (Allowance of days of grace) in Bowen v. Newell, 8 W. Y. 194; which aff'd 2 Duer, 584, 592, 604, which see. Decision in 25 Wend, included in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 295. Both decisions 862 WOODRUFF— TV OOD W OETH explained (Evidence of local custom as af- fecting such allowance) ih Trask 0. Martin, 1 R D. Smith, 609. Decision in 25 Wend. collated with other cases in Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B.ofExrX. 308. Both decis ions followed (Evidence of local commercial usage) in Otsego Co. B'k v. Warren, 18 Barb. 296 ; St. Nicholas Ins. Co. 0. Mer- cantile Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Bosw. 246. See cases collected in 1 Abb. If. C. 472, n. v. Moore, 8 Barb. 171. Included (Ac- tion by indorser against maker) in 2 Ames Cas. on B. &. N. 88. , v. Peterson, 51 Barb. 252. Opinion of Foster, J., in 56 Id. 404. v. Valentine, 57 iV._ Y. 663. Followed in case involving precisely same state of facts, — in Teed 0. Valentine, 65 Id. 474. v. Woodruff, 17 Abb. Pr. 165. Another decision as Matter of Woodruffs Estate, in Tuck, 1. y. , 52 AT. Y. 53. Cited (Using facts of public notoriety in construing ambiguous terms in contract) in 2 Whart. Com. on En. § 939, n. Woodruff & Beach Iron Works t. Chitten- den. See Harger 0. McCulIough. Woods v. De Figauiere, 16 Abb. Pr. 1. For Supreme Court, in caption, read If. Y. Superior Court; s. c, 1 Robt. 610. Sub- sequent decision in 16 Abb. Pr. 159 ; s. c, 1 Robt. 659; also in Id. 681 ; s. c, 25 How. Pr. 522. Decision in 16 Abb. Pr. 159 fol- lowed (Compelling inspection of books, &c. on examination before trial) in De Bary 0. Stanley, 5 Daly, 412. Decision in 1 Robt. 610, approved (Examination of party, in case of corporations) in People v. Mut. Gas Light Co., 74 M. Y. 436. v. Monell, 1 Johns. Ch. 502. See Howell 0. Barker. Followed with Tiernon d. Wilson, 6 Johns. Ch. 411; Jackson 0. Newton, 18 Id. 355 (Validity of sale in mass bv sheriff of distinct tracts of land) in Nesbitta. Dallam, 7 Gill. & J. (Md.) 494; s. c, 28 Am. Bee. 236, 243, with notd. — — t. Moore, 4 Sand/. 579. See Lynes t>. Townsend. Collated with other cases (When property will pass by will, notwith- standing misdescription) in 8 Am. R. 673, n. v. Morrell, 1 Johns. Ch. 103. Quoted (Answer in creditor's action) in Wait on Fraud. Conv: § 162. v. Pangborn, 14 Hun, 540. Rev'd as Woods v. Pangburn, 75 If. Y. 495. Decis- ion in Id. disting'd (Payment of one judg- ment, when satisfaction of another) in Luce 0. Alexander, 49 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 202. - — t. People, 1 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 610. Rev'd in 55 If. Y. 515; s. c, 14 Am. R. 309, with note. Decision in Id. followed (Evidence of dissipated character of prose- cutrix) in Brennan 0.. People, 7 Hun, 171, 173. Coirpare Ford v. Jones, 62 Barb. 484. v. Rowan, 5 Johns. 42. Examined wrth, Andrus v. Waring, 20 Id. 153; Mc- Clurc 0. Erwin, 3 Cow. 313 (Nbn damnify catus as defense to action on indemnity bond) in Wheelock v. Rice, 1 Doug. {Mich.) 209. v. , 5 Johns. 133. Cited with ap- proval (Interest of sheriff in result of action, as cause of challenge to the array) in Mum- shower v. Patton, 10 Serg. & R. {Pa.) 334 ; s. c„ 13 Am. Dec. 678. v. Wilder, 43 If. Y. 164. Commented on (Partnership between alien enemies) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 13, n. 2, Wood's Am. ed. Woodward v. Aspinwall. See Same v. Harris. \. Brigsbee, 2 Hun, 683; s. c, fully reported, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 204. v. Harris, 2 Barb. 439. Subsequent decision as Woodward v. Aspinwall, 3 Sand/. 272. v. Murray, 18 Johns. 400. See Browne 0. Witt;. Kneettle v. Newcomb. Followed (Exemption of household property) in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U. S. 495,499; s. c, 19 Reporter, 163. v. Stearns. See Hall v. Bishop. Com- pare (Jurisdiction to grant attachment) Code Civ. Pro. § 638. v. Washburn, 3 Ben. 369. Approved (Liability for causing loss of service) in Johnston Harvester Co. 0. Meinhardt, 9 Abb. If. C. 393, 396. Followed (Right of . master to maintain action for injury to apprentice, causing disability) in Ames v. Union R'way Co., 117 Mass. 541; s. c, 19 Am. R. 427. Woodworth v. B'k of America, 19 Johns. 391; s. c, 6 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 843, with brief note citing approval in 2 Ban. Neg. Inst. 395; also s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 239, with note wherein it is said to be a leading case in N. Y. and other States. Rev 'g. Bank of America v. Woodworth, 18 Johns. 315. See Redlick 0. Doll. Decision in 19 Johns. applied (Effect of alteration in note, &c.) in Chappell v. Spencer, 23 Barb. 586 ; Niagara District B'k 0. Fairman, &c. Tool Manuf. Co , 31 Id. 405; Reeves v. Pierson, 23 Sun, 185, 187. Disting'd in Mechanics". &c. B'k v. Schuyler, 7 Cow. 338, n. ; Troy City B'k 0. Lanman, 19 N. Y. 480 ; Shuler v. GilL ette, 12 Bun, 279. Explained at length in Benedict 0. Cowden, 49 If. Y. 403. Fol- lowed with Nazro 0. Fuller, 24 Wend. 374, in Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166: s. c, 47 Am. R. 808. Applied in Glover v. Rob- bins, 49 Ala. 219; s. c, 20 Am. R. 272. Followed in Townsend v. Star Wagon Co., 10 Neb. 615; s.. c, 35 Am. R. 493, citing also Clason v. Morris, 10 Johns. 538; Lud- low 0. Simond, 2 Gai. Cas. 1. Cited, in 3 Kent Com. 98, as recognizing the English law on the point (Effect of designating place of payment of note). Cited in 2 Dan. on Ifeg. Inst. § 1397. V. Bennett, 53 Barb. S61. Rev'd in 43 If. Y. 273. Decision in Id. disting'd (Ef- fect of contract containing illegal provJs- W0.0DWQKTI1— WOREALL. 863 ions) in Arnot v. Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., 2 Hun, 591, 594. Disting'd (Recovery of money paid under illegal contract) in Hayne3 «. Rudd, 17 Id. 480; Contra, Knowlton v. Congress & E. Spring Co., U. S. Cir. Ot. N. D. N. 7. 5 Reporter, 166. But see Abb. Tr. Eo. 283. Applied (Effect of secret partnership in public contract) in Kelly v. Devlin, 58 How. Pr. 491 ; People «. Lord, 6 Hun, 894. Disting'd in Bradley v. Kingsley, 43 If. 7. 634, 537, a case of sale under a chattel mortgage. Disapproved ■with Merritt v. Millard, 4 Keyes, 208, in Gregory v. Wilson, 36 N. J. (7 Vroom) 815; s. c, 13 Am. R. 448, 451, citiDg Bel- den v. Pitkin, 2 Cai. 147, as sustaining a contrary view. v. Payne, 5 Hun, 551. Subsequent de- cision in 74 If. 7. 196; s. c, SO Am. R. 298, on substantially the same grounds. Decision in Id. disting'd with Piercy v. Keator, 70 If. 7. 419 (Rights reserved by grantor of land) in Bennett v. Culver, 27 Jlun, 554. v. Seymour, 22 Hun, 245. Re-argu- ment denied, it seems, in 23 Id. 147. v. Sweet, 44 Barb. 2G8. Aff'd in 51 XT. 7. 8. Decision in Id. applied (Effect of preference given by husband to wife, as against his creditors) in Jaycox v. Caldwell, Id. 398. Woolevcr v. Knapp, 18 Barb. 265. Followed (Liability to co-tenant of land for exclusive occupation) in Dresser v. Dresser, 40 Id. BOO, 303;. Everts «. Beach, 31 Mich. 136; s. c, 18 Am. R. 169; Crane v. Waggoner, 27 Ind. 52. Followed as not having been criticised or disapproved in N. Y. — in Kean «. Connelly, 25 Minn. 222; s. c, 33 Am. R. 458, also citing Dresser v. Dresser. 40 Barb. 300; Elwell v. Burnside, 44 Id. 447; Wilcox «. Wilcox, 48 Id. 327, and Scott v. Gurnsev, 60 Id. 168. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1666, n. Woolf v. Jacobs, 34 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 509; s. c, with points of counsel, 45 How. Pr. 403. Woolley v. Constant, 4 Johns. 54; s. c, 4 Am. Dee. ,246. See Ex parte Kervvin. Followed (Liability on instrument executed in blank) in Stahl v. Berg'er, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 170; s. c, 13 Am. Lee. C60, with note. Woolsey v. Brown, 11 Hun, 52. Aff'd in 71 If. Y. 82. See Kelso v. Tabor; Yale t>. Dederer. <-■ — T. Jiidd, 4Duer, 379; s. c, 11 How. Pr. 49. Approved (Property of recipient in letter) in Eyre «. Higbee, 15 How. Pr. 45. Thought with Eyre v. Higbee, 3. 1 ) Barb. 502, in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. § 1012, n. 2 (cited in 49 Am. Bee. 182, n.) to b'o the only decisions, either English or American, supporting the doctrine laid down in 2 Story on Eq. Jar. §§ 946-948 (Jurisdiction of equity to restrain publication of let- ters). v. Morsa, 19 Hun, 273. Explained (Ad verse possession by co-tenants) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 750. Wooster v. Booth, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 715 ; s. c, reported 2 Hun, 426. v. Chamberlin, 28 Barb. 602. Fol- lowed (Setting up in answer failure to join as defendant, one jointly liable) in Mason v. Wells, 2 Hun, 518. v. Forty-second Street, &c. R. R. Co. See VVorster v. Same. v. Sage, 6 Hun, 285. AfFd in 67 If. T. 67. y . Sherwood, 25 If. F. 278. Limited and disting'd (Liability in conversion, of purchaser from wrong-doer', without de- mand and refusal) in Gillet v. Roberts, 57 Id 28 83 v. Woodhnll, 1 Johns. Oh. 542. Exam- ined (Relief in equity from consequences of. default) in Walker v. Rogan, 1 Wise. 644. Worden v. Dodge, 4 Ben. 159. Included with note (Note payable on a contingency) in Bigel. on B. & N.I ed. 8 ; Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 7. Wordsworth v. Lyon, 1 Code R. If. S. 163; s. c, more fully, 5 How. Pr. 463. Work v. Ellis, 50 Biirb. 512. Explained (Terms of sale in assignment for benefit of creditors) in Barrill on, Assign. § 220, 4 ed. Explained (Hindrance and delay) in Id. § 331, n. 1. Collated with other cases in Bishop on Assign. § 222. World Safe Ins. Co., Matter of, 40 Barb. 499. Commented on (What authorizes insurance company to continue in business) in People v. Atlantic Mut. Life Ins. Co., 74 If. F. 177, 180. Worrall v. Judson, 5 If. 7. 229. See Rose- velt ». Brown. Approved (Liability as stockholder, of one appearing on books as le.":al owner) in Rosevelt «. Brown, 11 N. 7. 148, 153. v. Mann, 38 If. 7. 137. Previous decis- ion in 5 Id. 229; s. a, 55 Am. Dee. 330, with note containing citations; also in 17 If. 7. 475. Decision in 38 Id. confirmed on further decision in 53 Id. 185. See Bracketta. Carney; Ex parte Kcrmn. Dictum in 5 If. 7. explained (Lffect of contract for sale of land signed bv vendor onlv) in Levy v. Brush, 8 Abb. Pr. "if. S. 424, and see dis- senting opinion of Daniels, J-, in Burrell o. Root, 40 N. 7. 500. Disting'd in Jus- tice 9. Lang, 30 How. Pr. 430, which was rev'd in 42 N. 7. 513, a case of sale of per- sonality. Disapproved in Gage v. Jaqueth, 1 Lans. 207, 212, a case of bill of lading signed by consignor only. Disting'd in Badenhop v. McOahill, 42 How. Pr. 195 as not authority for sufficiency of verbal agree- ment for sale of land. Disting'd (Dchvery of deed, &c. when absolute) in Graves v Dudley, 20 JJT. 7. 79; Brackets. Barney' 28 Id. 341. Disting'd with Cocks «. Bar- inl' ?il M i 07 .' in Pa y ne8 - Smith - WHun, 104, 106. Reviewed with other cases (Lia- bility on contract executed by agent) in 864 WOREALL— WRIGHT. Ilaighti). Sahler, 30 Barb. 223. Applied in Bellinger v. Bentlcy, 1 Hun, 565 ; Ford v. Williams, 13 If. Y 585. Disting'd in Briggs v. Partridge, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 343, which was aff'd in 64 If. 7. 364, which see. Denied in Fullam ■». Inhabitants of West Brookfield, 9 Allen (Mass.) 6. Ap- proved in Pomeroy on Sp. Perf. § 79, n. Collated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 740. Decision iD 53 N. T. included (Damages for refusal of ven- dor to complete contract of sale of realty) in Sedgy). Cas. on Dama. 40. v. Parnielee, 1 K Y. 519; s. a, 49 Am. Dec. 350, with note, wherein are col- lected citations. Applied, but disting'd, (Effect of improper admission of evidence) in Murray v. Smith, 1 Duer, 431, 433. Disting'd in Logan v. Ogdensburgh, &c. It. R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 335. Worster v. Forty-second St., &c. E. K. Co., 3 Daly, 278. Aff'd in 50 XT. Y. 203. Fur- ther action in 6 Daly, 528, which was affd in 71 N. Y. 471, as Wooster v. Same. See Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co. Decision in 50 If. Y. followed (Presumption of negligence as arising from existence of defect and consequent injury) in France v. Erie R'y Co., 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 12. With decision in 71 If. Y. see (Appeal from decision in N. ,Y. Marine court) Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 3195, n. Wort v. Jenkins, 14 Johns. 352. See Tillot- son «. Cheetham. Applied as stating a well established principle (Awarding vindictive damages) in Linsley v. Bushnell, 15 Conn. 225; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 79, 82, with note. Discussed with other cases in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 253, n. 2. Worth v. Case, 42 K Y. 362. Aff'g North «. Case, 2 Lans. 264. Decision in 42 If. Y. applied (Sufficiency of consideration for note) in Earl v. Peck, 64 Id. 599. Ap- proved and applied (Validity of instruments delivered in escrow to take effect on death of maker) in Ciddings ». Giddings Adm'r, 51 Vt. 227; s. c, 31 Am. R. 682, 684. Quoted in 2 Ames Cas. on B. & N. 711. Wotkyns v. Abrahams. See Watkias v. Same. Wotten v. Copeland, 7 Johns. Ch. 140. Limited with Sebriug v. Mersereau, Hopk. 501 ; 9 Cow. 344 ; Harwood v. Kirby, 1 Paige, 469 (Mortgage and judgment credi- tors as necessary parties in partition) in Whitton e. Whaton, 38 K H. 124. Wray t. Rhinelander, 52 Barb. 553. Aff'd in 39 How. Pr. 299. Wren t. Cosmopolitan Gas. Co., 2 Hun, 666 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (2". & C.) 686. Com- pared (Injunction against publishing let- ters) in 2 High on Jnj. 2 ed. § 1012, n. 2. . Wright, Ex parte. See Camp r. Root; Lar- kin v. Robbins; Miller v. Van Anken. Wright's Accounting, 10 Abb. Pr. K 8. 429. Rev'd as to denial of application to re-open accounting in 7 Hun, 608, as People exrel. Wright «. Coffin. Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 2481, subd. 6. Wright v. Ames, 2 Keyes, 221; s. c, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 644. Cited (Notice to or by one of firm as notice to or by all) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 107, n. v. Bennett, 3 Barb. 451. Doubted (Sufficiency of answer of title in third per- son, in replevin) in Stowell v. Otis, 71 If. Y. 36, 38. v. Black, 2 Wend. 258. Explained (What is non-residency, as affecting liability for costs) in Robert v. Methodist Book Concern, 1 Daly, 3. y. Boughtoii, 22 Barb. 561. Compared (Liability of carrier beyond his line) in Berg v. Narragausett S. S. Co., 5 Daly, 395. v. Boyd. See Babcock v. Beman. v. Brown, 67 If. Y. 1. Disting'd (Evi- dence of fraud in purchaser) in Ellison v. Bernstein, 60 How. Pr. 145, 148. v. Bntler, 6 Wend. 284 ; s. c, 21 Am. Dec. 323, with note containing citations. Aff'g Butler v. Wright, 2 Wend. 369. See Butler v. Wright; Gardner v. Buckbee. Decision in 2 Wend, disting'd (Implied contract to pay, as between parties to note) in Woodruff v. Moore, 8 Barb. 173. Both decisions explained and applied in Barker v. Cassidy, 16 Id. 179. Decision in 6 Wend. disting'd (Effect of one action on entire demand as bar to another) in Bancroft v. Winspear, 44 Barb. 217. See to the con- trary Biiel. on Est. 520. See also Abb. Tr. Ed. 828. v. Delafield, 23 Barb. 498. Rev'd in 25 N. Y. 266, because pleadings were in- sufficient, it being intimitated also that on facts, complaint should have been dismissed. Deeisioh in 23 Barb, applied (Failure of title, as defense to action for purchase price of land) in Lewis v. McMillen, 41 Id. 433. Decision in 25 If. Y. applied (Affirmative judgment for defendant, when not to be allowed) in Rust v. Hauselt, 8 Abb. If. C. 148, 156. Followed (Judgment as limited by allegations and proof) in Carpenter v. Goodwin, 4 Daly, 91. Approved and ap- plied (Amendment of pleadings) in Ballou v. Parsons, 11 Hun, 605. v. Douglass, 10 Barb. 97. Rev'd in 7 N~. Y. 564. Prior decision in 3 Barb. 554, and that rev'd in 2 If. Y. 373. See Thomas v. Crofnt. With decision in 3 Barb, see (Execution against real property held in trust) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1431, n. Decision in 2 N. Y. reconciled (Rela- tion back of sheriffs deed) in Reynolds «. Darling, 42 Barb. 422, 425. Followed in Holman v. Holman, 06 Id. 215, 221. De- cision in 10 Id. applied and explained as being authority, notwithstanding reversal (Showing want of jurisdiction collaterally) in Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 If. Y. 265. Decision in 7 Id. discussed (Statute of frauds as affecting express trusts) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 104, 4 ed. WRIGHT, 865 -r — t. Fleming, 71 IV Y. 612. Farther proceedings in 3 Red/. 325, and in Id. 362. Also other proceedings affecting same estate, in 12 Hun, 469 ; which was affd in 76 IV T. 017. Further proceedings in 18 Hun, 360; and in 19 Id. 370. See Tucker u. Tucker. Decision in 12 Hun disting'd (Surrogate's power to decide as to validity of release of interest in decedent's estate) in Strong v. Strong, 3 Bed/. 477, 480. With decision in 1 8 Hun compare (Costs on ap- peal) Code Ois. Pro. §§ 3239, 3251, subd. 4. v. Garlingliouse, 27 Barb. 474. Rev'd . in 26 IV Y. 539. Decision in Id. cited and compared (Rights of sureties between them- selves) in 13 Am L. Reg. JV. S. 529. v. Hart, 18 Wend. 449. Discussed and favorably commented on (implied warranty in sales of goods) in 2 Kent C.m. 480, n. e. v. Holbrook. 18 Abb. Pi: 202: s. c, 2 Bolt. 517. Aft'd in 32 N. Y. 587. Decis- ion in Id. followed (Remedy of creditor on obligation of decedent secured by mortgage) in Thompson v. Sullivan, 60 How. Pi: 72. t. Hooker, 10 N. T. 51. Disting'd (Effect of judgment by default) in Bullard v. Sherwood, 85 Id. 253, 256. t. Hunter, 46 JV". Y. 409. Followed (Appeal to Court of Appeals from order granting new trial) in Sands v. Crooke, 46 IV Y. 568 ; Dickson v. B'way, &c. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 509; Downing v. Kelly, 48 Id. 434. "With this case and Sands v. Crooke ; Diekson s. B'way, &c. R. R. Co., see as to , form of decision on such appeal, Arnold v. Robertson, 50 Id. 683. Applied with Har- ris «. Burdett, 73 Id. 136; Snebley v. Con- ner, 78 Id. 218, in People v. Boas, 92 Id. 560,564. -^ v. Johnson, 8 Wend. 512. Applied (Liability of guarantor) in BigeloW v. Ben- ton, 14 Barb. 129. Dicing' d in Kingsbury «. Williams, 53 Id. 151. v. Mascras. See Gibney v. Marchay. v. Miller, ] Sandf. Gh. 103. Rev'd in 4 Barb. 600, but latter rev'd and former affd in 8 if. Y. 9; s. c, 59 Am. Dee. 438. Applied (Validity of trust for benefit of grantor) in Foster v. Coe, 4 Lam. 56. De- cision in Id. disting'd (Effect of fraudulent disposition of trust property) in Dooper v Noelke, 5 Daly. 413, 416. Applied (Set- ting aside judgment, &c. obtained by fraud) in Hackley v. Draper, 60 N. Y. 92. i v. Moore, 21 Wend., 230. Applied (Tender of deed, as condition precedent to liability for purchase price of land) in Grant v. Johnson, 6 Barb. 337, 341. Appl;ed (Relief to purchaser in contract for sale of land, in case of inability to pay promptly) in Cythe ». La Fontain, 51 Barb. 190. Fol- lowed with Powers v. Ingraham, 3 Barb. 576 (Right of vendor to maintain ejectment against purchaser in possession under con- tract of purchase) in Browning v. Estes 3 Tex. 462; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 760, wi'th note, citing also Hatch v. Cobb, 4 Johns, (jh. 559. I.— 55 y. Moslier. See Prouty v. Prouty. y. Murray, 6 Jo/ins. 286. Cited (Effect of certificate of clerk of court as evidence) in 2 Whart. Com. on Et. § 841. y. N. Y. Central K. R. Co., 28 Barb. 80. Rev'd in 25 IV Y. 562. See Field v. Same. Decision in 28 Barb, followed with Field ». N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 29 Id. 176 ; John, son v. Mcintosh, 31 Id. 267 (Corporation as a person) in La Farge v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 22 2V Y. 354. Decision in 25 Id. ap- plied (Liability of master to servant for in- jury happening in course of employment) in Spclman v. Fisher Iron Co., 56 Barb. 155, 165; Ilnskin t>. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co.. 65 Id. 131 ; Ross v. Same, 5 Hun, 494; Sizer v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Bans. 69 ; Rose v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 221. Reconciled in Brickner v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 Bans. 511, 517. Explained and applied in Warner v. Erie R'y Co., 39 K Y. 477. Explained in Cone v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., 15 Hun, 111. Disting'd in Stone v. Western Transp. Co., 38 IV Y. 247 ; Chapman v. Erie R'y Co., 55 Id. 579, 586. Followed with Evans v. Lake Shore R. R. Co., 12 Hun, 289; Gibson. v. Erie R. R. Co., 63 IV Y. 449 ; De Forest ■o. Jewett, 88 Id. 264, and Laning o. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 49 Id. 521 ; Hawley v. Northern C. R. R. Co., 82 Id. 372,' disting'd in Conboy v. Donaldson, IV. Y. Daily Reg. Jan. 26, 1S84. Limited and explained in Laning v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 49 IV Y. 521, 528. Followed with Warner v. Erie R'y Co., 39 Id. 471, in Harper v. Indianap- olis & St. Louis R. R. Co., 47 Mo. 567; s. c, 4 Am. R. 353. Followed with Keegan ■o. Western R. R. Co., 8 K Y. 175; Ryan v. Fowler, 24 Id. 410, in Gibson v. Pacific R. R. Co., 46 Mo. 163; s. c, 2 Am. R. 497, 502, 504. Approved in Columbus,- Chicago & Indiana Central R. R. Co. v. Troesch, 68 III. 545: s. c, 18 Am. R. 578, 581. Recognized as authority in Davis v. Detroit & Milwaukee R. R. Co., 20 Mieli 105 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 364, 372. also relying on McMillan v. Saratoga & Washington R. R Co., 20 Barb. 449. Cited at length in 36 Am.. Dec. 282, n. as containing a forcible and succinct statement of principles v. O'Brien, 5 Daly, 54. Explained (Sales as distinguished from agreements for work and labor) in Benj. on Sales, § 109, n. v (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). ' y — — v. Orient Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Bosw. 269 bee to the contrary (Seaworthiness) Pickun v. Thames, &c. Ins. Co., L. £.3 Q. B Die 594. See ,156. Tr. Ev. 497. —7- v. Paige, 36 Barb. 438. Affd, adopt- ing opinion given in Barb, as that of Ct of App. m 3 Reyes, 581. Decision in 36 Barb questioned (Impeaching witness) in Wood v. Rusco, 4 Red/. 380, 388. Cited (Liabil- ity for words charging indictable offense which involves moral turpitude) in 2 Kent Com. 16 Holmes' ed. n. la. * ■ y. Ritterman, 1 Abb, Pr. K s. 428. 866 WEIGHT— WRIGLEY. Followed (Right to arrest twice for same of- fense) in Townsend i>. Nebenzahl, 8 Abb. If. C. 427, 430. v. Rowland, 36 How. Pr. 115. Rev'd (Eight to vacate attachment during appeal) in 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 049; s'. c, 4 Keyes, 165. ■ v. Saddler, 20 If. T. 320. " See (Right of aliens to hold real estate) Ettenhcimer v. Heffcrnan, 66 Barb. 379; Renncr v. Milller, 57 How. Pr. 234. Collated with other cuses in Sharsw. & B. Cas. on Real Prop. 519. Followed (Conveyances to husband and wife as affected by statutory changes) in Hemingway v. Scales, 42 Miss. 1; s. c, 2 Am. R. 586, 588, also relying on Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k of Rochester v. Gregory, 49 Barb. 155. v. Saunders, 65 Barb. 214. Aff'd in 30 How. Pr. 136; s. c, 3 Keyes, 323. See authorities collected (Obstruction of high- ways) in 20 Am. L. Reg. iV. S. 350, n. v. Storrs, 6 Bosw. 600. Aff'd in 32 N. Y. 691. T. Taylor, 1 Edw. 226. Aff'd in 9 Wend. 538. v. Trustees of M. E. Church, Soffm. 202. Examined and followed with Slosson v. Lynch, 43 Barb. 148 ; Murdock v. Ward, 67 If. Y. 387; Luce v. Dunham, 69 Id. 36; Keteltas v. Keteltas, 72 Id. 312 (Meaning of words " heirs " and next of kin) in Till- man 0. Davis, 95 If. Y. 17. Applied (Requisites of equitable conversion) in Bon- ard's Will, 16 Abb. Pr. If. S. 128, 194; Gourley v. Campbell, 66 If. Y. 173. Quoted (Gifts to charitable uses) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 467. Commented on in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 748, n. i See cases collated (Devises to corporations) in 18 Am. Dec. 542, n. v. Weeks, 3 Bosw. 372. Aff'd on sub- stantially same grounds, in 25 If. Y. 153. Latter decision explained and disting'd (Sufficiency of agreement for sale of land) in Foot v. Webb, 59 Barb. 39, 52. Dis- ting'd in Hagan v. Domestic Sew. Mach. Co., 9 Hun, 73, 76, a case of contract tor services. Quoted in 1 Ben), on Sales, § 254, n. 50 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Whiting. See Churchill v. Hunt. v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. 343; s. c, 32 Am. Dec: 507, with note wherein are collected citations. See Richmond Turnpike Co. i>. Vanderbilt. Disting'd (Liability for wrong- ful acts, &c. of agents or servants) by Bps- woetfi, J., in Mechanics' B'k v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 4 Dxier, 551. Dis- ting'd in Weed v. Panama R. R. Co., 5 Id. 196; which was aff'd in- 17 N. Y. 365, which sec; Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co., 73 Id. 547. Applied i:i Vanderbilt v. Rich- mond Turnpike Co., 2 Id. 482; Mali v. Lord, 39 Id. 383; Fraser v. Freeman, 43 Id. 569; Isaacs v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 127. Disapproved in Rounds «. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 475, 482. Reviewed ■with other cases in Rounds v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., 64 IT. Y. 135. Disting'd with Vanderbilt v. Richmond T. Co., 2 Id. 470, in Goodspeed v. East Iladdam Bank, £2 Conn. 530; s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 439; alco relying on Bank Comm'rs v. Bank of Buf- falo, 6 Paige, 502 ; Life and Fire Ins. Go. v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 7 Wend. 81. Ap- plied with Vanderbilt «. Richmond Turn- pike Co., 2 If. Y. 479, in New Orleans, Jackson & Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 48 Miss. 112; s. c, 12 Am. R. 356, 366. Shown in 35 Am. Dec. 200, n. by a series of cases cited to havo been grad- ■ ually overthrown as an authority in N. Y. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 260, in connection with McManus v. Crickett, 1 East. 10(5. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 005, 5 ed. Followed (Joint action against master and servant for negligence) in Phelps v. Wait, 30 N. Y. 79. v. Wright, 1 Cow. 598; s. c, 7 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 630, with brief note. See Coutant v. Schuyler; Harris v. Clark ; Pearson i). Pearson. Said to be against the weight of authority (Donor's note as sub- ject of gift, mortis causa) in Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76, 118; Whitaker r. Whitaker, 52 If. Y. 308, 373. Fol- lowed in Parker ■». Emerson, 4 If. Y. Leg. Obs. 220 ; Coutant v. Schuyler, 1 Paige, 318. Disapproved as opposed to the current of authorities, — in Parish v. Stone, 14 Pic k. (Mass.) 198; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 378, 384, with note. Disapproved in Raymonds Sellick, 10 Conn. 480; Ilolley v. Adams, 16 Vt. 211. Referred to in Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 602, Oil, as . overruled in Harris v. Clark, 3 If. Y. 93, which see ; also see as to effect of latter de- cision Pervfield v. Thayer, 2 E. D. Smith, 311. Applied to gift inter vicos in G rover v. Grover, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 261 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 319, with note. See cases cited in 23 Am. Dec. 004, n. v. , 59 Barb. 505. AfFd in 54 If. Y. 437. See Curtis v. Brooks. Decision in Id. applied (Action by wife against husband) in May v. May, 9 Ifeb. 10 ; s. c, 81 Am. R. 399. 405. Reviewed with other cases in 10 Alb. L. J. 273. Cited as not authority (For right of wife to contract with husband) in Van Order v. Van Order, 8 Hun, 81G. Approved (Removal of distinc- tions between actions at law and suits in equity) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 70, n. 1; 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 354, n. 1, p 383. v. , 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.': 132. Aff'd in 70 If. Y. 96. See (Attorney's lien) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 00, n. v. , 7 Daly, 55. Aff'd in 72 If. Y. 149. Wrigley, Matter of, 4 Wend. 002. Aff'd in 8 Id. 134. See Heidenbach «. Schland. Decision in '8 Wend, reviewed with other cases (Meaning of terms ""residence," &c ) in Crawford v. Wilsoh, 4 Barb. 520. Ap- plied in Union Hotel Co. *. Hersee, 79 If. Y. 401. Explained in Burrill «. Jewett, 2 WYATT— WYNKOOP. 8'C7 Rnbt. 701, 704. Collated with Crawford v. Wilson, 4 Barb. 522, and other cases in 59 Am. Dec. 112, n. Decision in 4 Wend, col- lated with other cases in Thompa. on Prov. Bern. 357. Both decisions examined in " Isham o. Gibbons, 1 Brndf. 80. Applied in Frost v. Bristin, 19 Wend. 13. Wyalt v. Benson, 4 Abb. Pr. 182 ; s. c, 23 Barb. 327. Qualified (Power to mortgage or sell real estate of religious corporation) in Matter of St Ann's Church, 14 Abb. Pr. 425. Explained in Mad. Ave. Ch. v. Bap- tist Ch. in Oliver St., 1 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 214, . 233 ; 1 1 Id. 138. WyckofF v. Mcyers,44 A. 7. 143. See Smith v. Brady. Disting'd (Effect of architect's decision on performance of building con- tract) in Glacius v. Black, 50 Id. 145, 151. Applied, and effect of Glacius v. Black ex- plained in "Weeks v. Little, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) I, 14, 30. : v. Queens Connty Ferry Co., 52 A 7 ! 7. 32; s. c, 11 Am. P. 650, with note. Thought in 47 Am. Dec. 654, n., to hold an opinion better than that of other cases there cited (When liability of common carrier attaches to ferryman). Wylie v. Kelly. See Shindler «. Houston. v. IiOokwood, 20 Han, 377. Rev'd in part in 86 ' N. 7. 291. Decision in Id. disting'd (Provision for "remaining" or "surviving" children), in Kingslaud v. Leonard, 65 Sow. Pr. 7. v. Marine Nat. B'k, 01 A 7 ! 7. 415. Ap- plied (Broker's right to commissions) in Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 Id. 378, 381, 383. Followed in Dolan v. Scanlan, 57 Gal. 261, 265. Followed with Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co. in Hamlin v. Schulte, 31 Minn. 486. Wyman v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 11 Wend. 486. See Matter of Albany St.; Huttemeir v. Albro ; Livingston v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.; Matter of Mercer St.; Matter of Wen- dell. Disting'd (Evidence of dedication of land to public use) in Matter of Fourth Ave., U Abb. Pr, 189, 199. Reviewed and approved with Underwood v. Stuyvesant, 19 Johns. 186 ; Matter of Seventeenth St., 1 Wend. 270 ; Matter of Lewis St., 2 Id. ill; Livingston v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., .8 Id. 85 ; Trustees of Watertown e. Cowen, , 4 Paige, 513, and other cases in Vick v. Vicksburgh, 1 Sow. (Miss.) 379 ; ». c, 31 Am. Dec. 167, 172. v. Prosser. See Wyman v. Wyman. -■ v. Sin end, 31 Sow. Pr. 1. See dissent- , ing opinion of Miller, J., Id. 333. v. Wyman, 26 A 7 ". 7. 253. A/ff'g Wyman v. Prosser, 36 Barb. 308. See Hoffman v. jEtna Ins. Co. Decision in 26 N. 7. disting'd (Effect of change of interest as avoiding policy) in Sherwood v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 73 Id. 447, 451. Decision in 30 Barb. ' opposed (Right to proceeds of policy) in Culbertson v. Cox, 29 Minn. 309, 315. Wynehauier v. People. See Wynhamer v. . game. Wvnliainer v. People, 20 Barb, 507; s. c. as Wynehamer v. People, 2 Parle. a77, where proceedings on trial are more fully stated, but points of counsel omitted ; s. C, less fully, as Wynhamer b. People, 1 1 now. Pr. 530. Rev'd in Wynehamer v. People, 13 A 7 . 7. 373 ; s. c, 2 Parle. 421, where argu- ment of counsel is fully reported. Decision of Sup'm Ct. as to office of writ of error, was not disturbed. See Hand v. Ballou; People v. Toynbeo. Decision in 1 3 N. 7. disting'd (Right of trial by jury) in Crousj o. Walrath, 41 Sow. Pr. 86. 89. Compare People ex rel,. Comaford «>. Dutcher, 83 N. 7, 240, 242. Cited with other cases in Copp v. Hennikcr, 55 K S. 179; s. c, 20 Am. R. 194, 197. Cited with People v. Kennedy, 2 Park, 312, in 48 Am. Dec. 187, n., as maintaining a just and rational view. Disting'd (Validity of statute authorizing destruction of property) in Blazicr v. Mil- ler, 10 nun, 435, 430. Applied in Lowry v. Rainwater, 70 Mo. 152; s. c, 35 Am. It. 420, 423. Disting'd (Validity- of statute restricting use of property) in People v. Hoym, 20 How. Pr. 83. Criticised and disting'd in Munn v. People, 09 III. 80. Disting'd (Statute, when invalid, as tending to deprive one of vested rights) in Phelps v. Racey. 5 Daly, 235, 239, which was affd in 00 N. 7. 10, 13, which see. Dicta disap- proved and limited (Validity of statute regu- lating sale of liquor) in Metropolitan B'd of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. 7 008. Followed with Metropolitan B'd of Excise v. Barrie, in State v. Ah Chew, 16 Rev. 50. Cited with other cases in 10 Am. L. Reg. A 7 ". S. 772. Referred to in 35 Am. Dec. 335, n., as the only case found supporting the doc- trine that intoxicating liquors, to be used as a beverage, are as property entitled to constitutional protection, like other prop- erty. Approved with People i>. Toynbee, 20 Barb. 168; 2 Park. 490 (Bad repute of place as evidence of illegal sale of liquor) in State v. Beswick, 13 R. I. 211; s. c, 12 Reporter, 347; 36 Am. R. 102, n., in pref- erence to Commonwealth «. Williams, 6 Gray (Mass.) 1 ; State v. Hurley, 54 Me. 562. Examined with Taylor t>. Porter, 4 Sill, 140; Embury v. Connor. 3 A 7 . 7. 511, and other cases (Meaning of term ''due process of law") in Rowan ». State, 30 Wis. 129; s. c, 11 4m. R. 559,564. Applied with People n. Kerr, 37 Barb. 357, 399 (What is taking of private property within constitutional meaning of term) in Eaton v. Boston, Concord & Montreal R. R., 51 JST. H. 504; s. c, 12 Am. R. 147, 152. Quoted (Powers of legislative department) in Gooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 107. Wynkoop v. Holbert, 25 Sow. Pr. 158. Aff'd as Wynkoop v. Halbut, 43 Barb. 266. Compare (Notice of appeal from justice's decision) in Pike v. Johnson, 47 A 7 . 7. 1 ; Younghanse v. Fingar, Id. 99; 43 How. Pr. 2D9; Gray ». Hannah, 1 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 43. Decision in 43 Barb. 266, approved, ,and WYNKOOP— YATES, Doron v. McLoughlin, 14 nun, 628 1 ; Cham- berlain o. Chamberlain, 25 Id. 199, criti- cised and disregarded, in Galling v. Ladd, 27 Id. 112. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. v. Sliardlow, 44 Barb. 84; s. C, 29 How. Pr. 868. Explained (Compensation of assignee for benefit of creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 145, n. 7, 4 ed. Wynn v. Alden, 4 Den. 1G3. Questioned but followed (Insufficiency of notice of protest) in Do La Hunt «. Higgins, 9 All. Pi: 423. Wysliam v. Eossen, 11 Johns. 72. Explained and disting'd (Seaman's right of action for wages against substituted master) in Fitz- simmons v. Baxter, 3 Daly, 85. X. Xenia Branch B'k v. Lee, 7 AM. Pr. 372 ; s. c, 2 Bosw. 372. See Mr. Pomeroy's analysis commented on (What is the '* sub- ject of the action ") in 2 South. L. Pen. N. S. 415. y. Yager V. Hannali, 6 Hill, 631. Rc-aff'd (Jurisdiction of justice's court of Hudson) in Bryan v. Cain, 1 Ben. 507. Yale v. Baker, 2 Hun, 468. Compare (Sur- rogate's power to open decree) Code Civ. Pro. § 2481, subd. 0. v. Dederer, 21 Barl. 286. Rev'd in 18 N. Y. 265 ; s. c, imperfectly reported, 17 How. Pr. 165. Further decision in 31 Barl. 525; s. c, 19 How. Pr. 146; which : was rev'd in 22 J7". Y. 450 ; s. c, in part, 20 How. Pr. 242. Further decision in 68 - N. Y. 329. See Jaques v. Methodist Epis- copal Church. Decision in 18 iV! Y. dis- ting'd (Liability of separate estate of mar- ried woman) in Francis ». .Ross, 17 How. Pr. 503. Followed in Willard b. Enstham, 15 Cray (Mass.) 328, 333. Cited as a leading case and applied in Dale v. Robin- son, 51 Vt 20; s. c, 31 Am. R. 669. Dis- cussed in Schouler on Bom. Pel. 3 ed. § 143, and n. 1, etseq. Decision in 22 N. Y. applied in Coaklcy «. Chamberlain, 8 All. Pr. N. S.AZ; Owen v. Cawley, 13 All. Pr. 19; White v. Story, 43 Barb. 129; Eustaphieve v. Ketchum, 6 Hun, 623 ; Eisenlord v. Sny- der, 71 N. Y. 47. Explained and applied in Brown i>. Hermann, 14 All. Pr. 396; McVey v. Cantrefi, 70 N. Y. 297. Followed with Manhattan Co. v. Thompson, 58 N~. Y. 84; Woolsey v. Brown, 11 Hun, 52; Second Nat. Bank of Watkins v. Miller, 63 & Y. '6D9; Coulin v. Cantrell, 64 Id. 217. in Iler- shiser v Florence,' 39 Ohio St. 516, 532. Cited with Methodist Epis. Church v. Jaques, 3 Johns. Ch. 77 ; Jaques v. Metho- dist Epis. Church, 17 Johns. 548, and Nash «. Mitchell, 3 Alb. K C. 171 applied '■ in Eliott . v. , Gower, . 12 P. J. 79 ; s. c, 34 Am. P. 600. Reviewed at length, and strongly disapproved, in Todd 'o. Lee, 15 Wis. 365. Denied in Phillips v. Graves. 20 Ohio St. 371 ; s. c, 5 Am. P. 675, 682, as in conflict with tho English doctrine, and perhaps with the de- cisions of every other State in the Union. Reviewed with other N. Y. cases in Tylef on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 317. Collated with Owen v. Cawley, 36 JV. Y. 600 ; Robinson v. Rivers, 9 Alb. Pr. 144, and authorities from other States, in 17 Cent. L. J. 5. De- cision in 68 N. Y. disting'd in Husted v. Mathes, 77 Id. 390. Compared with con- flicting authorities in Orange Nat. B'k.fl. Traver, V. S. Cir. Ct. Dist. Oreg. 24 Alb. L. J. 11 6. Reviewed with other cases in 1 Id. 225. Decisions in 18 N. Y..; 22 Id. applied, in Deck v. Johnson, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 498; Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 249; which was rev'd in 9 Id. 174, which see; Ledlie v. Vrooman, 41 Barb. 113 ; Gosman e. Cruger, 7 Hun, 60 ; which was aff'd in 69 N. Y. 89, which see. Examined in Cash- man v. Henry, 5 Abb. N. C. 234 ; Ledeliey v. Powers, 39 Barb. 559. Disting'd in Southwick v: Southwick, 9 Alb. Pr. N. S. 123; Quassaic Nat. B'k of Newburgh v.- Waddell, 1 Hun, 128; Maxon v. Scott, 55 N. Y. 250. Disting'd and followed in Kelso v. Tabor, 52 Barb. 128. Reviewed with Corn Exchange Ins. Co: v. Babcock, 42 K Y. 613; Loomis v. Ruck, 56 Id. 462; Maxon v. Scott, 55 Id. 251, in Burchard v. Dunbar. 82 III 450; s. c, 25 Am. P. 334, 337, 338. Relied on in Wil- liams v. Hugunin, 69 111. 214; s. c, 18 Am. P. 607, 012. Disapproved in Deering i). Boyle, 8 Hans. 525; s. c, 12 Am. P. 480, 482, 4S3, and said to have been shaken by Owen «. Cowley, 36 iV". Y. 600 ; Ballin «. Dillaye, 37 Id. 35 ; Corn Exchange Ins. Co. ■». Babcock. 42 Id. 613.- Doubted in 1 Am. L. Peg. N. S. 666. Decisions in 18 m Y.; 22 Id.; 68 Id. discussed with Merchants' B'k v. Hall, 83 Id. 347, and Jaques v. M. E. Church, 17 Johns. 577; M. E. Church v. Jaques, 3 Johns. Ch. 78, in Cartan v. David, 18 JSfev. 310, 319. Compare 7 South L. J. N. S. 90. v. Gwinits, 4 How. Pr. 253. Disting'd (Effect of irregularity in referee's conduct) in Gray «. Fisk, 12 Alb. Pr. K S. 214. Applied in Dorlon v. Lewis, 9 How. Pr. 4. Yates, Case of, 4 Johns. 317; s. c, Yates Set. Cas. 1. Rev'd in Yates i>. People, 6 Johns. 837. Subsequent proceedings as Yates i). Lansing, 5 Id. 282 ; and that aff'd in 9 Id. 395 ; s. c, 4 A'. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 815. with brief note. See Cable*. Cooper; Clark v. Holdridge ; Yates v. Lansing. Decis- ions in 5 Johns. ; 9 Id. ; disting'd (Judicial responsibility) as inapplicable to commis- sioners of excise, in People*. Norton, 7 Barb. 480 ; but applied to supervisors, in People v. Stocking, 50 Id. 577. Explained and ap- plied in Cunningham v. Bucklin, 8 Cote. YATES. 8G9 181. Applied in Lange v. Benedict, 8 Run, 807 ; which was aff'd in 73 K Y. 32, which see. Applied with Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Den. 117; Wilson v. Mayor, &c..of N. Y„ 1 Id. 507, in Rains 9. Simpson, 50 Tex. 405 ; s. c, 32 Am. R. 009. ' Cited as authority and approved in Hamilton 9. Williams, 26 Ala 529. Referred to with approval in Pratt v. Gardner, 2 Cish. {Mass.) 63; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 652, with note. Approved in Scott 9. Stansflold, L. R. 8 Exeh. 224, and . see cases reviewed in 15 Am. Law. Rev. 431, 433. Decision in 5 Johns, applied with Cunningham 9. Bueklin, 8 Cow. 178 ; Bigelowa. Stearns, 19 Johns. 39, in Jordan ». Hanson, 49 If. II. 199; s. a, 6 Am. R. 508. Approved and applied in Busteed »). Parsons, 54 Ala. 393; s. u., 25 Am. R 683. Disting'd with Skinner v. Dayton, 5 Johns.-352, in Kelly 9. Rembert, Harp. (So-. Car.) 33; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 043, with note. Followed with Cunningham 9. Bueklin, 8 Cow. 178, in Stone 9. Graves, 8 Mo. 148; 8. ft, 40 Am. Dec. 131, with note. Followed with approval in Bailey 9 Wiggins. -5 llarr. {Del.) 462 ; s. c, 00 Am. Dec. 650. . Decisions in 4 Johns. ; 6 Id. ; explained and applied (Inquiry into jurisdiction on habeas corpus proceedings) in Devlin's Case, 5 Abh. Pr. 304. Decision in Johns, explained in' People a. Norton, 1 Sill, 100. The various decisions herein explained and disting'd in People ex ret. Tweed 9. Liscomb, 00 N. Y. 570. Decision in 4 Johns, cited approvingly in 2 Kent Com. 31, n. d, as to the same ef- fect as Commonwealth v. Keeper of Debtor's Apartment, 1 Axlim. {Peun.) 10, and sup- ported iu Commonwealth 9. lecky, 1 Watts. {Pa.) 68. Decision in 5 Johns, followed (Allowance of writ of habeas corpus is min- isterial act) in Matter of Nash, 16 Abb. Pi: 284; Nash 9. People, 36 If. Y. 617; Matter of Hopson, 40 Barb. 57; but see People ex re/. Ryan v. Russel, 1 Abb. Pr. If. S. 231. Held not applicable to summary proceedings in People ex rel. Smith 9. Rus- sel, 19 Abb. Pr. 138. Decisions in 5 Johns. ; 6 Id. ; cited with other authorities in 2 Kent, 30, n. a. Decision in 4 Johns, applied (Ef- fect of change of phraseology in statute) in Hoffman v. Delihanty, 13 Abb. Pr. 392; James 9. Patten, 8 Barb. 348; Hall 9' Western Transp. Co., 34 K Y. 287; Doug- lass 9. Rowland, 24 Wend. 47. Decision in 6 Johns, explained as not authority, and that in 9 Id. explained and applied (Review of commitment for contempt) in Mitchells' Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 251. Decision in 6 Johns, doubted (Review of decision in habeas corpus proceedings) in Yarbrough 9 State, 2 Tex. 527; Holmes 9. Jennison, 14 Pet. 567. Decisiou in 4 Johns, followed in Adams Ex parte. 25 Miss. 883 ; s. c 59 Am. Dec. 234. Decisions in 9 Johns'.) 4 Id. ; recognized as authority in Tyler 9' Ilammersley, 44 Conn. 393; s. c, 20 Am R. 471. Decision in 9 Johns, applied (Pre- sumption as to jurisdiction of courts) in Foot 9. Stevens, 17 Wend. 4S5 ; Chemung Canal B'k 9. Judson, 8 If. Y. 200. Ex- plained as not authority (Sufficiency of pro- ceeding's to punish for contempt) in Pitt 9. Davison, 37 Barb. 107. Decisions in 4 Johns. ; Id. ; followed and approved with Matter of Do Costa, 1 Park 129; Mercein 9. People ex rel. Barry, 25 Wend. 64 (Person discharged on habeas corpus cannot be re- imprisoned for same offense) in Ex parte Jilz, 64 Mo. 205 ; s. c, 27 Am. R 218, 223. Yates v. Alden. See Mead v. Bunn. v. Fassett, 5 Den. 21. See Carpenter ■».- Stevens. Approved (Effect of judgment in replevin) in Angel 9. Hollister, 38 If. Y. 378, 380, Disting'd with Kelsey v.. Ward, 38 If. Y. 83 ; Brown 9. Gallaudet, 80 Id. 413 ; Morgan u. Powers, 66 Barb. 3o (Duty of defendant to assert claims existing in his favor against plaintiff) in Nemetty 9. Nay- lor, 63 How. Pr. 387, 389. V. Foot, 12 Johns. 1 ; s. c, 5 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 279, with brief note. See Vischer 9. Yates. Disapproved with Mc- Keon9. Caherty, 3 Wend. 494; and Vischer 9. Yates, 11 Johns. 23, followed (Recovery of money paid or deposited on bet) in Stacy 9. Foss, 19 Me. 335; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 755, with note. Followed and approved in Johnston 9. Russell, 37 Gal. 67o'. Ap- proved and applied (Invalidity of election • bets) in Jeffrey 9. Ficklin, 3 Ark 227; s c, 36 Am. Dec. 456. ' ',' — — v. Joyce, ll v Johns. 136. Disting'd (Right of judgment creditor respecting prop- erty subject to his execution) in Barkers. Mathews, 1 Den. 335. .Relied on (When merely inchoate right to land will sustain action for injury thereto) in Stout9. Keyes 2 Doug. (Mich.) 184; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 465, 467, with note. Followed (Action by judgment creditor for injury causing loss of benefit of judgment) in Findlay 9. McAllis- 609 113 U ' ^ 104 ' H3; *' C '' " Iie P° rier > v. Lansing?. See case of Yates. — - v. Lyon, 61 Barb. 205. Rev'd in 01 If, Y. 344. Decision in Id. explained (Assign- ment by infant for benefit of creditors) °in Bumll on Assign. § 60, n. 1, 4 ed. Col- lated witlr other cases in Bishop on Assign. V ■; D £ 0lslon '" 61 Barb, explained in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 456 ~*K - aF°? ,, '„ 4 * N - Y - 2 ' 7U Explained with Steuben Co. Bank 9. Alberger, 78 M 252 (Statements in affidavit on application for attachment) 111 Bennett 9. Edwards 27 Mun, 352. Compare (Affidavits on motion to vacate or modify attachment) Code Cio. Pm-1881, § 682: Id. c.h. Vn ♦,> m ^t! §6&2;/d ch. VII, tit. — v. Olmsted, 05 Barb. 43. See dissenting opinion ^2. 462. Modified in 50 If. Y. 032 '"' Ncher. See (Privileged See Milliman communications as between attorney and client) Cods Civ. Pro. 1881 « 886 n ~Yat V es Pe0PlC ' 6 Juhua - 335 ' ' Sce ' Case °f 870 YATES— YOUNG. v. , 32 N. Y. 509. Applied (Neces- sity of proof of premeditated design to kill) in People «. Perry, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 35. Disting'd (Evidence as to condition of thing at a time other than that in issue) in King v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. K. Co., 72 N. Y. 610. Commented on and col- lated with other cases (Liability for kill- ing in self-defense) in Ilorrigan & T. Cas. on Self- Del'. 718. Compare (Burden of proving knowledge of official character) 17 Am. L Rev. 917. T. St. Joint. See Carter v. Simpson. T. Yates, 9 Barb. 324. Commented on with Avres 1>. Trustees of Moth. Episc. Ch., 3 Sand/. 351 ; Andrew v. N. Y. Bible & C. P. Soc, 4 Id. 156; Kniskcrn 1>. Lutheran Churches. 1 Saitdf. Gh. 43!) ; Sliotwell «. Mott, 2 Id. 46 (Charitable use-;) in Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 525, 551, 557. Ap- proved in Bookman 'o. People, 27 Barb. 260, 272 ; McCaughal v. Ryan, 27 Id. 37li, 398 ; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. . Y. 584, 608, 610. Collated with, other cases in Gerard Tit. to Real Ext. 2 cd. 293. Yeomans v. Cliatterton, 9 Johns. 295. See . Callagan u. Hallctt. Yerkes r. Salomon, 11 Hun. 471. See Har- ris ii. Tumbridge. Applied (Validity of agreement to pay differences on stock trans- action) in 1 Gregory v. Wendell, 39 Mich. 337; s. c, 33 Am. R. 395. Yertore v. Wiswall, 16 How. Pr. 8. Disap- proved (Effect of statute giving right of ac- tion for wrongfully causing death to create propertv interest in life of deceased) in Rus- sell v. Sunbury,. 37 Ohio St. 372; s. c, 41 Am. R. 523. Yuguanzo v. Solomon, 3 Daly, 153. Disap- proved (Pleading in action for fraud) in Cohn v. Goldman, 76 N. Y. 285. Yorks v. Peck, 14 Barb. 644. Questioned (Liability of deceased partner's estate) in Stahl v. Stahl, 2 Laris. 60. Disting'd (Lia- bility when joint and not several) in Tan- nenbaum v. Cristalar, 5 Daly, 141, 143. v. , 17 How. Pr. 192. Disting'd (Notice of judgment to limit time to appeal) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 62 Id. 167. Youmaus v. Simmons, 7 Hun, 466. As to effect of subsequent legislation, see (Re- lief against wrongful assessment) People ex rel. Ulster &.Dcl. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 24 Id. 67, Young v. Brush. 38 Barb. 294; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 70. Rev'd in 28 If. Y. 667 ; s. c, 18 Abb. Pr. 171. v. Bush, 36 How. Pr. 240. Approved (Right to discontinue) in Matter of Davis, 7 Daly, 1, 7. v. Catlett, 6 Duer, 437. Disting'd (Sufficiency of denial in answer) in Meehan v. Harlem Savings Bank, 5 Hun, 440. v. Covcll, 8 Johns. 23 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 316. See Upton v. Vail. Regarded as un- contradicted in the American courts (Ground of action for deceit) — in Lord v. Goddard, 13 How. (U. S.) 198. / — v. Bake, 5 A 7 ". Y. 463. Applied (Val- idity of parol lease) in Becar v. Flues, 64 Id. 520. Applied to contract to surrender lease, — in Allen c. Devlin, 6 Bosw. 6. Ap- proved as a well considered case, and fol- lowed, in Whiting*. Ohlert, 52 Mich. 403; 23 Am. I. Reg. If. S. 384, with- note. Compare Drown r. Kayser, 60 IVis. 1. Fol- lowed with Wilson v. Martin, 1 Den. 602 (Validity of contracts concerning real estate, — not to be performed within a year) in Fall v. Ilazelrogg, 45 Lid. 576 ; s c, 15 Am. R 278. Cited as authority in Railsback v. Walke, 81 Ind. 412. Cited as overruling Crosswell v. Crane. 7 Barb. 191, — in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 34, 4cd. v. Divine, 12 Weekly Dig. 18. Prom mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 138, it seems, that opinion was delivered by Boaisdman, J. v. Gori, 13 Abb. Pr. 13, w. Explained (Liability of married woman on contract) in Brown v. Hermann, 14 Id. 395. v. Guy, 12 linn, 325. Further decision in 23 Id. 1. Afi'd in 87 N. Y. 457. v. Harmans, 5 Han, 121. Modified in 66 N. Y. 374. Decision in Id. discussed (Fraud per se) in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 10. Commented on in Id. § 1 1. v. Hill, 6 Hun, 613. Rev'd in 07 If. Y. 162; s. c, 23 Ain. R. 99. Decision in Id. applied (Interest on interest) in Jones v. Eunis, 1.8 Hun, 454. Cited as a leading case, but distinguished.in Hovejr v. Edmi- son, Sup'm. Ct, Dale. 1885, 22 Iferthw. Rep. 594, 600. Considered in 6 Am. Dee. 199, n., to be at variance with Camp v. Bates, 11 Conn. 487. See cases cited in 34 Am. R. 101, ii. See to the contrary (Impeach- ing account) Phillips v. Belden, 2 Edw. 1, 17; Ogden v. Astor, 4 Sandf. 330. See also Abb. Tr. En. 463. Cited as weighty authority, in Wharton 'v. Anderson, 28 Minn. 301, 365. v. Langueiii, 7 Hun, 151. Further de- cision arising under same will, — in Mulier v. Struppman, 6 Abb. 1ST. O. 343. v. Miller, 8 Hill, 21. See Brooker v. v. Coffin. Collated with other cases (Slan- derous charge of crime) in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 103; 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 99. v. N. Y. Central B. E. Co. See Gour- dier v. Cormack. — — y. N. Y. & Liverpool Steamship Co., WAbb. Pr.229. Aff d in 15 Id. 09. Both decisions disting'd (Joinder of parties) in Pfohl e. Simpson, 74 If. Y. 137, 144. — - t. Reiner, 4 Barb. 442. Overruled . (Lien of justice's judgment) in Waltormire v. Westover, 14 If. Y. 16. v. Bummell, 2 Hill, 478. See Miller v. Manice. Applied (Evidence of former re- , covery) in Calkins d. Allerton, 3 Barb. 173; Niles v. Totman, Id. 595 ; Duncklc u. Wiles, 6 Id. 529; Royco v. Burt, 42 Id. 352; White v. Coatsworth, A 7 . Y. 142 ; Tim-co v. Tuttle, 58 AT. Y. 651. Examined with other cases in Davis v. Talcott. 14 Barb. YOUNG— ZABLtlSKIE. 871 620. Explained (What must bo specially pleaded) in Barber v. F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 072. Cited in Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 207. v. Scott, 3 Hill, 32. See (Discontinu- ance of proceeding before justice who is material witness) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3152, n. •- — v. 'Western Union Teleg. Co., 34 Super. Cl. (J. & S.) 390. Rev'd in 05 N. Y. 163. Decision in Id. relied on with Breese v. U. S. Tel. Co., 48 N. Y. 132 (Right of tele- graph company to limit its liability) in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Jones, 95 Ind. 223; s. c, 48 Am. R. 7,13. Applied in Ileimann v. Western Union Tel. Co., 57 Wis. 062, 566. See cases cited in 31 Am. It. 511, n. Decision in 65 H. Y. collated with Rose v. U. S. Tel. Co., 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 408 ; MeCollfl. Western Union Tel. Co., 7 Abb. N. C. 151, 154, %.; Sprague v. Western Union Tel. Co., Daly, 200 ; 67 N. Y. 590 ; Hart i). Direct U. S. Cable Co., 80 N. Y. 633, and many other cases (Liability of telegraph companies) in 45 An. B. 486, n. v. Willet, 8' B»sw. 486. Explained (Damages in replevin) in Twinam a. Swart, 4 Lans. 263, 271. v. Young, 80 K Y. 422 ; s. c, 30 Am. P. ,634. Previous- decision in 5 Weekly Big. 109. Decision in 80 N. Y. followed and approved (Necessity of delivery in order to make a valid gift) in Brumm V. Schuett, 59 Wis. 201 ; s. c, 48 Am It. 499. Followed (What is necessary to render voluntary .settlement effectual as trust) in Pope v. Burlington Savings Bank, 56 Vt. 2S4; s. c, 48 Am. li. 781. Decision in 5 Weekly Dig. applied (Surrogate's authori- ty to determine ownership, on application to amend inventory of decedent's property) in Greenough v. Greenough, 5 Pedf. 191, 193. Younghanse v. Fingar, 43 How. Pr. 259. Aff'd in effect in Younghause v. Fingar, 63 Barb. 299. Prior decision in 47 N. F.'99. Decision in Id. followed (Sufficiency of no- tice of appeal from justice's judgment) in Bigsby e. Warden, 62 Id. 27; Bixby ». Wortlen, 66 Barb. 520, 522; Kirkwood v Griffin, 64 Id. 566. Collated with other cases in T/iroop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 91. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. Younghause v. Fingar. See Younghanse v Fingar. Youngs v. Carter, 50 How. Pr. 410- s c 1 Abb. N. C. 136, n. Aff'd in 10' Hun, 194 Decision in 50 Bow. Pr. approved (Effect of conveyance before marriage, in fraud of dower) in Pomeroy v. Pomeroy, 54 Id. 228 2o3. v. Kent, 2 Sweeny, 248. Rev'd in 46 N Y. 672. Decision in Id. followed (Suffii ciency of denial in answer coupled with ad missions) in Haines v. Herrick, 9 Abb. lY. C. v. Lee, 18 Barb. 187. Affd in 12 jfr. y. Col. See Coddington «. Davis; Williams «. Smith. Decision in 12 A 7 ! I" applied (Surrender of note, &c. as constituting one holder for value) in Day v. Saunders, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 490 ; Stettheimer v. Meyer, 33 Barb. 217; Bromley t>. Walker, 51 Id. 207; Meads v. Merchants' B'k of Albany, 25 N. Y. 149 ; Essex Co. B'k ». Russell, 29 Id. 682 ; B'k of N. Y. v. Vunderhorst, 02 Id. 558. Disting'd in Phoenix Ins. Co. t. Church, 81 Id. 218, 223; Farrington «. Frankfort B'k, 31 Barb. 183, 193. Ex- lained (Effect of payment of debt to make one holder for value) in Wright v. Delafield, 23 Barb. 520 ; Cardwcll v. Hicks. 37 Id. 404 ; Tiffany v. Warren, Id. 576 ; Bright *>. Judson, 47 Id. 37 ; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 8 Bosw. 527. Applied in Purchase v. Mattison, 3 Id. 312; Gould v. Segee, 5 Duer, 270. Col- lated with other cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 cd. 423. Followed (Sufficiency of notice of protest) in Artisan's B'k v. Backus, 37 N. Y. 441 ; Davenport v. Gil- bert, 4 Bosw. 535; 6 Id. 180; B'k of Cooperstown v. Woods, 28 AT. Y. 558; Gates ■». Beecher, 00 Id. 527 ; First Nat. B'k of Groton v. Chittenden, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 123. Compared with other cases in Arnold v. Kinloch, 50 Barb. 44, 50. Disting'd in Home Ins. Co. ■». Green, 19 If. Y. 518, 520. v. Peck, 21 Wend. 389. Aff'd in 26 Id. 613. v. Seeley,- 12 How. Pr. 895. Ex- amined (Separate answer by married woman) in Harley v. Ritter, 9 Abb. Pr. 401. v. Stahelin, 34 N. Y. 258. Commented on (Payment by note of third person) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1081, n. 17 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). v. Wilson, 24 Barb. 510. Rev'd in 27 N. Y. 351. v. Youngs, 45 N. Y. 254. Further de- cision in 53 Id. 013. Decision in 45 Id. disting'd (Exoneration of personalty from payment of legacies or debts) in Dill « Wisner, 23 Hun, 130. Applied (Effect of introductory part of will on construction of subsequent portions) in Betts v. Betts 4 Abb. H. C. 317, 426. Zabriskie t. Smith, 13 If. Y. 322 • s c 64 Am. Dec^ 551, with notes. See Byxbie « Wood. Explained and qualified (Assignabili- ty of right of action for deceit) in Johnston ». Bennett, 5 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 331. Explained and apphed in Lamphere ■v. Hall" 26 How Pr. 512 Disting'd in Graves v. Spier, 58 Parb. 384; Sheldon «. Wood, 2 Bosw. 277- WestcotU-. Kecler, 4 Bam*. 572; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. , Y 610- IlydeV Tuffts, 45 W. Ct. (J. & S.) 60. Disapproved in Jackson v. Daggett, 24 Hun, 205. Referred to in Pomeroy on Hera. § 152, as a well considered case, but thought to have been very much shaken though not expressly £72 ZACHRISSON— ZDLICK. overruled. Explained and applied (Assign- ability of right of action for injury affect- ing property) in Smith *. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 28 Barb. 606. Applied in Drake v. Smith, 12 Hun, 533. Applied but criticised in Fried v. N. Y. Central 11. R. Co., 25 How. Pr. 285. Quoted in 2 Ohitty on 1J0n.tr. 1364, n. i, 11 Am. ed. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1910, n. Applied (Survival of right of action for. personal injury) in Best v. Vedder, 58 How. Pr. 188; Cox d. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 11 Hun, 623. Explained and applied (Sur- vival of right of action for breach of prom- ise to marry) in Wade v. Kalbfleisch, 58 JT. Y. 284. Explained (Liability for fraud- ulent representations) in Marsh 1>. Falker, 40 . Id. 573. Applied (Effect of false represen- tations as to solvency when question of fact) in Von Brack «. Peyser, 28 How. Pr. 207. Applied (Sufficiency of pleading in- tended to set up deceit) in Star Steamship Co. «. Mitchell, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 402 ; Bar- ber d. Morgan, 51 Barb. 133; Morrison v. Lewis, 49 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 178,181. Applied (Construing allegations of plead- ing liberally) in Dempsey v. Willett, 16 Hun, 265 ; Conaughty v. Nichols, 42 W. Y. 86 ; Mario v. Garrison, 83 Id. 14, 23. Com- pared with contrary decisions (Setting up matter in abatement in answer containing matters in bar) in Van Buskiik v. Roberts, 14 How. Pr. 63. Applied (Remedy, when to be had by demurrer, and not by answer) in Depuy v. Strong, 37 K Y. 373. Applied (Remedy for mis-joinder) in W ells v. Cone, 55 Barb. 589 ; Eaton v. Balcom, 33 How. P.. 82 ; Merritt v. Walsh, 32 K Y. 690 ; Rhodes v. Dymock, 33 Super. Ct. {J. <6 S.) 144. Followed (Remedy for non-joinder of party. Apportionment of damages) in Abbe v. Clark, 81 Barb. 239; Patchin v. Peck, 38 2f. Y. 40. Disting'd (Sufficiency of exception to charge) in Betz v. Conner, 7 Daly, 554. Zaclli'isson v. Ahman, 2 Sand/. 68. Com- mented on (Possession that enables factor to pledge) in Bonito v. Mosquera, 2 Bosw. 433. Examined and limited in Pegram v. Carson, in Id. 505, 513. Zborowski, Matter of, 68 K Y. 88. Fol- lowed (Power of department of public works in N. Y. »ity to order construction of sewer) in Matter of Do Peyster, 80 Id. 565, 569, 571, 573. Explained (Authority cf common council in N. Y. city as to local improvements) in dissenting opinion in Mat- ter of Deering, 85 Id. 1, 18. Followed (Act when not unconstitutional as causing illegal delegation of taxing power) in Matter of Roberts, 17 Hun, 560. Zeregr.il \. Benoist, 7 Pobt. 199; s. c, 33 Hoie. Pr. 129. See (Vacation of warrant of attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 682, n. Zimmer v. N. T. Central, &c. R. E. Co., 7 Hun, 552. Aff'd on the facts in 07 N. Y. 601, but without opinion. Zimmerman v. Erhard, 8 Daly, 811; s. c, 58 How. Pr. 11. Affd in 83 N. Y. 74; s. c, 60" How. Pr, 163 ; 38 Am. R. 396. De- cision in 8 Daly disapproved (Partnership between husband and wife) in Fairlee v. Bloomingdale, 14 Abb. N. C. 341. Cited with Hamilton v. Douglas, 46 N. Y. 218; Shuler v. Douglas, 61 Id. 637; Scott v. Conway, 58 Id. 019, in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. § 464, as indicating what is there thought to be the better opinion. Zinh v. Attenburg, 18 How. Pr. 108. Over- ruled (Costs in case of several defendants) in All is v. Wheeler, 56 K Y. 51. v. People, 16 Hun, 390. Rev'd in 77 K Y. 114; s. c, Abb. K C. 413; 33 Am. P. 589. See Collins v. Ralli. Zinii v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 49 N. Y. 442. See Fonner v. Baltimore, &c. R. R. Co. Relied on with Witbeck v. Holland, 45 N~. Y. 13 (Duty of carriers by water as to de- livery) in The Drew, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. K Y. 27 Alb. L. J. 510. Zinsser v. Seiler, 7 Daly, 464. See (Appeal from decision in N. Y. district court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3213, n. Zogbaum v. Parker, 66 Barb. 341. Affd in 55 N. Y. 120, without passing on question of set-off. Decision in Id. disting'd (Equit- able set-off) in Davidson v. Alfaro, 16 Hun, 353, 359. Znle v. Zule, 24 Wend. 76 ; s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 600. Reviewed with other cases (When rent cannot be apportioned) in Nich- olson v. Munigle, Allen {Mass.) 215, 217. Zulick v. Markliam, Daly, 129. Explained (Liabilitv for conversion) in MoaTSs Under- bill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 575. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. [In order at once to bring the entire work into one volume, and give the reader fuller in- formation of the later criticisms than would otherwise be practicable, criticisms and citations which have appeared while this work was passing through the press, together with all others exhibited in tho pages of Annuals issued in continuation of Abbott's Kew York Digest, down to date, are indexed hero by .the name of the case noted, and a reference to the volume, subject and paragraph in the Annuals, where the case will be found commented on. Thus Abbot t . Am. HardBubber Co., '84; corp. 46 n. ; '85; corp. 16; trusts, 43, means that that case will bo found cited or commented on in the Annual of 1884, tinder the title of "Corporations," at para- graph 46 n., and in the Annual of 1885 under the title of " Corporations," at paragraph 16, and under the title of "Trusts," at paragraph 43. This method, beside saving space, and bringing the work into one volume, has these additional advantages: It gives the reader ready access to other caseB on the same subject whero the principal case has not been cited, and it includes all citations which have any significance for the practitioner, thus making the work a table not only of cases criticised, but also, in respect of the period frcm July 1 , 1882, to 1887, a complete Table of Cases Cited, with information as to the subject on which it was cited.] Abbe v. Eaton, '85 ; bills of 1. 3, 4n. Abbett v. Frederick, '83 ; pawn- br. 1. Abbey v. Deyo, '85 ; husb. 4 w, 15, 15 n, 27 n. ' v. Christy, '84 ; wills, 28 n. Abbot v. Am. Hard Eubber Co,. '84 ; corp. 4(i n. ; '85 ; corp. 16 ; trusts, 43. Abbott v. Allen, '83 ; bills, u. 4 c. 10 ; pi. 142 n. v. Blossom, '83 ; debtor 4 cr. 1 ; '86 ; con vers. 1. v. Curran, 98 A'. Y. 665 ; affg 20 Weekly ]). 344; '85; surr. ct. 34; '86; partn. 12. v. Draper, '83;moneyp'd, 5. v. Johnstown, &o. It. K.Co., '83 ; carriers, 2 n. ; '84 ; r. r. co., 38 n. ; '85 ; r. r. co. 76 ; '86 ; corp. 2 ; costs, 36 ; r. r. co. 4 n. 68 n. v. People, '81 ; quest, of 1. 4 f. 2 ; '85 ; ev. 15s ; '86 ; trials, 107 n . v. Sebor, '86 ; ev. 94. v. Yost, '66 ; taxes, 72 n. v. Eadcliff, '86 ; lsase, 17 n. Abeel u.Van Gelder, '86; ev. 138. Abels v. "Westervelt, '83; attach. 53 ; exec. 1 ; '84 ; exec. 23. Abendroth v. Manhattan By. Co., 52 Super. Ct. {J.&F.) 274. Subsequent-decis. as to costs, in 9 Civ. Fro. B. 406. Aberdeen v. Blackmar, '84 ; in- demnity, 1; n oney p'd, 5. Abernathy v. Abernathy, '84; costs, 12. Abraham v. Plestoro. Limited (Eight of foreign statutory assignee Jin Matter of Waite, 99 2V.r.433, 442. '84;disch. 5; '85; assign. 7; confl. 1. 3 n. Abrams v. People, '85 ; larceny, Academy of Music v. Hackett, '85 ; landl. & t. 14. Acer i). Hotchkiss, 15 Weekly D. 337. Eev'd in 97 N. Y. 395 ; '85 ; rec. deeds, 4 ; subr. 5 ; '86 ; elect, of rights, 5 n. v. Westcott, '83 ; fraud. conv. 3 n. Aohley's Case, '85 ; offr, 3 n. Acker v. Acker. '84 ; lim. of a. 2, 8, 9 ; '85 ; exec. 2 n. ; lim. of a. 10, 56 n. ; '86 ; devise, 2 n. v. Campbell, '85 ; election of rights, 8 n. v. Ledyard, '83 ; bankr. 8, ev. 57 n. v. Phoenix,'86 ;sp. pert 2. u. White, '83 ; replev. 2 ; '85 ; exec. 9 n. Ackerman v. Ackerman, '83 ; att'y 4 c 44. v. Delude, 29 Bun, 137. Subsequent decis. in 36 Id. 44 ; '85 ; «osts, 4, 9 ; '86 ; costs, 14 n. 82 n. v. Emott, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 112 ; '86; trustB, 34 n. v. Finch, '86; just's c't, 4n. - v. Gorton, '83 ; legacies, 20 ; '85 ; wills, 132 n v. Hunsicker, 83 ; rec deeds, 5 ; '84 ; mort. 5 ; 85 ; fraud, conv. 4. Ackley v. Dygert, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 236 ; insane, 17 ; '85 ; ex. 4 ad. 170. - v. Parmenter, 31 Hun, 470. Affd in 98 N. Y. 425. v. Tarbox, '83; costs, 9,10. [1] Ackroyd STTPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. A y ford Ackroyd v. Ackroyd, '83 ; sup pro. 36. Adair v. Brimmer, 15 Wvk'y D. 421. Eev'd in 95 K. Y. 35. '83 ; ex. & ad. 78 n. b9 n. 91, 96, . Outhouse, '85 ; corp. 26 a. ; '86 ; partn. 13. c. People, '86 ; indict. 1 v. Perry, 83 ; trusts, 27 ; wills, 64; '84; wills, 38.; '86 ; susp. of power of a. 2. !i. Itivers, '85 ; em. dom. 7 ; '86 ; nuis. 3. -, v. Sage, 28 N. Y. 103 ; '83 ; ratif'n, 1. Cited as to com- promise in 33 Hun, 497. v. Saratoga & W. E. B. Co. '84 ; statutes, 13 ; '85 ; sup pro. 13; '86; court-mart. 2 n v. Smith, '86 ; appeal, 50. r. Stern, 29 Hun, 280. Sub sequent decis. in 18 Weekly D. 311. v. Willoughby, '86; tracts. 26 n. Adams Express Co. v. Board of Police. See Dinsmore v The same. Adderly v. Storm, '83 ; corp. 36: '84 ; banking, 8 n. Aldington v. Allen, '86 ; deceit, 15. Adee v. Bigler, '83 ; cred. s. 10 ; '85 ; contempt, 7 ; '86 ; cred- itor's a. 19 n. v, Campbell, '83 ; surr. ct. 27 ; '84 ; distrib. 4 ; surr. ct. 23 : '86 ; depos'n, 7. v. Cornell, 25 Hun, 78. Aff'd in 93 N. Y. K. Adolphu.Cent. Pk..etc. E.E.Co. '84;negl. 35; '86; trials, 68. Adriance t. Lagrave, i 9 A. !T.110. Followed (Effect of extradi- tion proceedings in secur- ing immunity from other of- fenses than one surrendered for) in Matter of Miller, 19 .Rep. 453. '86; extradition, In. — -v. McCafferty, '85 ; tax, 49 n. 61. v. Koome, '85 ; ev. 223 ; '86 ; relig. corp. 7 n. Adsit v. Adsit, '83 ; -wills, 240. v. Brady, '84; offr, 16; '85 ; off'r. 21. v. Butlep, 87 N. Y. 585 ; s. c, as Adsit v. Sanford, 14 Weekln D. 37 ; affg 23 Hun, 45 ; '83 ; forec. 7 ; '84 ; ered. s. 2 n. 4 n. 7 n. 8 ; '85 ; cred. s. 18 n. ; '86 ; cred. s. 2, 6, 19 n. ; exec. 2 ; surr. ct. 8 n. - v. Sanford. See Adsit v. Butler. '83 ; forec. 7 ; '84 ; cred. s. 2 n. ; '85 ; cred. s. 18 n. .Etna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, '84 ; chat. mort. 9. iEtna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, '8:i ; attach. 72 ; bank- ing, 2 n. ; counties, 2 : '84 ; lim. of a. 26 n. Agan v. Hey, '85 ; ev. Ill, 112. Agate v. Sands, '83 ; mfg. co. 10. Agawam Bank v. Strever, '83 ; ev. 1 ; guaranty, 1 ; '84 ; ev. 90 ; '86 ; mort. 4 n. Agent of Mount Pleasant Prison v. Bikeman, '83; parties, 36. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Barnard, 14 Abb. N. V. 502 ; s. c. 96 N. Y. 526 ; rev'g 26 Hun, 602 ; '86 ; appeal, 22. v. Bean, '85 ; costs, 36. Ahern v. Goodspeed, '83 ; estop- pel, 8 ; '86 ; usury, 4. Ahrenberg v. Wright, '84 ; char- ter-party, 1. Ahrens v. Burke, '85 ; district ct. 1. Aikin v. Wasson, '83 ; mfg. co 19, 21 ; munc. corp. '38; '85 ; const, law, 37 n. ; defin. 14. „. Western E.B. Corp., '86 ;. munc. corp. 1 Aikins v. Colton, '86 ; pay't into ct, 1 n. Aikman v. Harsell. 63 How. Pr 110. Aff'd in 31 Han, C34; s. c, 5 Civ. Pio. R. 93, and that aff'd in 98 JV. Y. 186. Ainslie u.Boynton, '84; set-off. 7. v. Mayor, &c, of N. Y., '84 ; costs, 15. Ainsworth v. Aldrich, 15 Weekly D. 1,99 ; '85 ; guard. 4 w. 8. Akely v. Akely, '84 ; ex. & ad. 99. Aken v, Kellogg, 16 AW. N. C. 265 ;s. c, 2 How. Pr. X. ft. 136. Eev'd as Akin v. Kel- logg, 39 Hun, 252. Akin tf. Kellogg. See Aken (above). Akrill v. Selden, '85 ; in]'. 3. Albany City Bank v. Schermer- horn, '86 ; contempt, 34 ; cred. s. 19 n. Albany City Nat. Bank v. City of Albany, '85 ; munc. corp. 5n. Albany City Sav'gs Inst. v. Burdick,87 N. r.,40;s. c, 13 Weekly D. 575 ; rev'g 20 Hun, 104 ; s. c, 9 Weekly D. 435; '83; mort. 40'; negl. 56 n ; '84; reformation 1 ofinst. 1;'85 ;ev.320;'86; judgm. 33. Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, '86 ; acknowledgment, 2 n. powers, 2 n. Albany Northern E. B. Co. v. Brownell, '83 ; def. 103 ; r. r. co. 63. — i- v. Lansing, '83 ; r. r. co. 9; '85 ; r. r. co. 46 n. 50 n. ; '86 ; compensation, 8 n. Albany & Susquehanna E. E. Co. v. Dayton. '85 ; r. r. co. 50 n. 56 ; ! 86 ; compensa- tion, 8 n. Albany & West Stockbridge B. E. Co. v. Town of Canaan, '83 ; tax, 82. Albany St. , Matter of, '83 ; com- pensation, 17 n ; real prop. 5 n. Albert v. Back, f>2 Super, (t. (J. & S.) 550. Affd, it seems, but without opin- ion, in 101 N. Y. 656. Albert Palmer Co. v. Van Or- den, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 89 ; s. c, 4 Civ. Pro. R. 44 ; modifying 64 How. Pr. 79. Albright v. Biker, '84; appeal, 9. Albro n. Figuera, '84 ; lim. of a. 26 n,; pi. 46. Alcock v. Giberton, '83 ; con- tracts, 56 n. Aldama. See De Aldama. '83. Alden v. Clark, '85 ; paym. 8. Aldrich v. Pyatt, '85; sales, 25 n. v. Eeynolds, '85 ; undert. 13 n. ; '86 ; inj 49 n. Alexander v. Bennett, '83 ; undert. 2- u. Cauldwell, '85 ; ev. 223; '86 ; corp. 19. v. Dutcher, '85 ; wit. 30. -: v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., '83 ; ins. 33 ; '85 ; ins. 27 n. u. Greene, 83; carriers, 28. v. Hard, '83 ; husb. & w. 18 ; '86 ; husb. & w. 2 n. v. Katte, '85; pi. 27 n. Alfaro v. Davidson. '85 ; appeal, 23. Alford v. Cobb, 28 Hun, 22 ; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 557. Subse- quent decision in 35 Hun, 651; '85;. attachment,. 36 n. ; '86 ; attachment, 35, Algeo SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Anderson Algeo v. Duncan, '83 ; new t. 3 ; trial, 624. Cited as to, new trial in 34 Hun, 182. AJger v. Scott, '86 ; bills, n. 4 c. 19. Algur v. Gardner, '83 ; usury, 20 n. ; '85 ; canel. of wr. instr. 4 n. ; usury, 4. Allaire v. Whitney, '83 ; former adj. 32 n. ; '84 ; former adj. 21 n. ; '86 ; deceit, 3. Allard v. Greasert. See Stone v. Browning. '84; appeal, 20 ; '85 ; sales, 7 n. Allegany Oil Co. v. Bradford Oil Co., '86 ; licenses, 6. Allen, Matter of, 24 Hun, 408 ; '83 ; assign, for b. of c. 40; bankruptcy, 1 ; discharge, , 29 Hun, 7. Aff'd in 96 A. A. 327; '84; trusts, 36. , 7 Vio. Pro. li. 159. See Curtis v. Williams. , 2 City Hall Kec. 118; '85 ; ex 4 ad. 155, 159 ; lar- ceny, 2. Allen v. ASeck, '86 ; husb. 4 w. 5, 8. v. Allen, '86 ; appeal, 87. v. Blanchard, '86 ; wit. 18. v. Brown, '83 ; assign- ment for b. of c. 22 ; munc. corp. 176 n.; trusts, 26 ; '86 ; parties, 8; '86 ; lease, 29. v. City of Buffalo, 84 ; cloud on title, 2 n. v. Clark, '83 ; parties, 15. v. Commissioners of Land Office, '85 ; stipulation, 2 n. v. Cook, 26 Barb. 374. Cited as to exemptions in 63 Hun, 586. v. Cowan, '83 ; assignment, 7 ; gift, 2 n. v. Culver, '83 ; contracts, 17. v. Crofoot, '86 ; taxes, 63. v. Eighmie, '84 ; sales, 11; '85 ; appeal, 78 a; '86 ; sales, 8. v. Forty-second St. B.B. Co., '85 ; const, law, 30 n.; '86 ; inj. 14 n. — - — v. Jaquish, '85 ; ace. 4 sat. 11 ; '85 ; lease, 7 n. v. Judson, '83 ; replevin. 6. v. Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co.. '8'i; ins. 46 n. v. Merchant's B'k of N. Y., '83; banking, 14 n.; '86 ; banking, 17 n. v. Meyer, '85 ; appeal, 40 ; city ct of N Y. 1. v. Mille, '83 ; lim. of a 30 n ; '85; lim. of a. 12. v. Patterson, '83 ; pi. 109, 139 n.;'84; ,.1. 7n.; '86; attachment, 27 ; pi. 123. u.Pub. Administrator., See Jackson n. Van Dusen. '83 • wit. 20, 25. v. Reynolds, '84 ; acknowl- edgment, 2 n. v. St. Louis Ins. Co., '86; ev. 289. v. Scandinavian Nat. B'k, '83 ; attach. 79. v. bewail, 86 ; mfg. co. 2. v. Stone, '85; judgm. * de- cree, 1. v . Swan, '86 ; city ct. of N. ¥. 1. v. Utica, I. & T. It. B. Co. 83; r. r. co. 66. v. Williamsburgh Savings Bank, '8o ; sav'gs b'ks, 5 ; '86; sav'g3 b'is, 9, 10 n. Allerton v. AlleTton, '84 ; corp. 47 ; '85 ; ins. 72. v. Belden, '83 ; usury, 36; '84 ; cancl. of wr. instr. 1 n. ;'85; cancl. of wr. instr. 4n.;'86 ; pi. 111. v. Johnson, *84 ; sales, 13. Alliance Ins. Co. u. Cleveland, '86 ; arrest, 6. Ailing v. Fahy, '84 ; city ct. of a. y. 5. Allis v. Leonard, '84 ; pi. 38 n. ; '85 ; pi. 4. v. Bead, 86 ; sales, 11. v. Stafford, '83 ; wit. 29; '84 ; wit. 13. v. Wheeler, '86 ; costs, 13, 18 n. Allison v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., '85 ; ins. 40. v. Matthieu, '83 ; pi. 131. Allyn i). Thurston, '83 ; cred. s. 1, 8; forec. 7; '84; cred. s. 1 n. ;'85; cred. s. 18 n. Almy v. Harris; '83;' munc. corp, 65 ; towns, 8; '84 ; statutes, 20 n. v. Thurber, 12 Abb. A. C. 459; s. c, 3 ?5u. Pro. li. 351; 65 How. Pr. 481 ; and 12 Hay, 3. Aff'd in 99 A. T. 407. '86; attachment, 39 n. Alston v. Conger, '83 ; sher, 32. v. Mechanics' M\it. Ins. Co., '86 ; amend. 1 n. Alt y. Weidenbergh, '86 ; lodg- ing-house keepers, 1. Althorf v. Wolfe, '83 ; master 4 & 16 ; '84; master & s. 6; '86; master 4 s. 5; negl. 25. Altman v. Altman, '84; con- tracts, 30. Alvord o. Baker, '84; ev. 27 n. v. Beach, '83; amend 3; '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n.; '86; surr. ct. 19 n. v. Syracuse Savings Bk . 98 jv. Y. 599; IfTg 34 Hun, 143; s. c, Ml Weekly D. 421; '86; const, law, 2 n. Alward v. Holmes, '84 ; parties, 5. Amadon u.Jngersoll, '86; trials, Ambler v. Cox, '85 ; contracts, 74 n. Amburger v. Marvin, '83; pi. 45; services, 9. American Bible Soc. v Hebard '83; lim. of a. 2; '85; ex. 4 ad. 128 n.; '86; lim. of *,. 21. American Corrugated Iron Co. v. Eisner, '84; contracts, 75. American Exchange Bank v. Webb, '84'; assignment for b. of c. 89. American Flask it Cap Co. v. Son. '83 ; bankruptcy, 14. American Hosiery Co. v. Riley, 12 Aib. A'. V. 335; dismiss- ing appeal from Id. 329. American Ins. Co. v. GriswolJ, '83 ; ins. 29. v. Oakley, 85; atty. 4 c. 5 n. ; judicial sale, 8 n. 11 n American Mills Co. tf. Schnit- zer, '85; attachment, 21 n. 22. American Seaman's Friend Soc. v. Hopper, '85; insane pei. 2. American Tool Co. v. Smith, 14 Abb. N. C. 378; s. c, 3i Hun, 121. AfFd, it seems, in 96 A. r. 670, but without opinion; '85; tax, 26. American Union Tel. Co. v. Middleton, '83 ; juris. 1 1 ; '85 ; juris. 5; '86 ; undeit. 15 n! Ames v. Blunt, '85; assignment for b. of c. 47. v. Downing, '83; trusts, 61 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 114 n. v. N. Y. Union Ins. Co., '83; ins. 21; '81; ins. 6; '85; 30 n. Amory v. Lord, '83; susp. of power of a. 20; wills, 139; '85; susp. of power of a. 6 n. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Spear, '84 ; tradem. 1. Amsbey v. Hinds, '83; munc. corp. 55 n.; '84; sec. for costs, 4. Amsden v. Manchester, '84; ev. 196. Anable v. Anable, '86: verif In. Anderson v. Anderson, '86; husb. 4 w. 7, 8. v. Austin, '83; forec. 3; '84; forec. 1. v. Doty, 33 Hun, 160. Sub- sequent decision in Id. 238. v. Dickie, '86 ; negl. 23 n. 24 ; nuis. 2. v. Haddon, 33 Hun, 435 ; rev'g 9 Abb. A. C. 289. v. Hill, '83 ; joind. of a. 3 ; '86 ; pi. 18 n. v. Jackson, '84 ; devise, 1 ; '86 ; devise, 2 n. v. James, '84; deed, 7 n. v. Market. Nat. Bk., 66 How. Pr. 8. Modified in 19 Weekly £>. 373 ; s. c, with opinion in full, A". Y Daily Reg. Aug. 6, 1884.' '85 ; new to. 16. Anderson SUPPLEMENTABT TABLE. Arnold Anderson — continued v. Nicholas, '81 ; conver- sion, 1 n. v. Roberts, '84 ; receivers, 8. v. Rochester & Lockport R. R. Co., '85 ; parties, 21 ; '86 ; compensation, 4 n. v. Rome, W. & O. R. R. Co., '85 ; ev. 252 ; '86 ; new tr. 32. v. Sibley, '83 ; lira, of a. 4. v. Speers, '84 ; pi. 14 ; '85 ; mfg. co. 23. Andrew v. Dieterich, '85 ; ev. 254 n. ; felony, 1. v. Newcomb, '84 ; exec. 5. Andrews v. iEtna Life Ins. Co., '85 ; lease, 2 n. ; ratification, 3 n. v. Artisans Bk,'83 ; money p'd, 5 ; '84 ; countercl. 5 ; '86 ; set-off, 5. v. Durant, '83 ; sales, 23, 24 n. ; '86 ; contracts, 88. v. Gillespie, '83 ; forec. 1 ; reformation of inst. 2. v. Glenville Woolen Co., '83;inj. 64, 64 n.; '84; inj. 48; '85; undert. 13 n.;'86; inj. 49 n. v. Goodrich, '86; trusts, 28. v. Harrington, '85; excise, 5. v. Keene. See Andrews v. Prince. v. Kneeland, '86 ; principal 4 a. 9 n. v. Long, '84 ; appeal, 112 ; '85 ; appeal, 114. v. Miles, '85 ; trial, 55. v. Moller, 20 Weekly D. 377. Subsequent decision in 37 Bun, 480. v. Montgomery, '84 ; inter- est, 8 n. v. Nat. B'k of No. Am.,' '83; wit. 37. v. Prince, 31 Bun, 233 ; s. c, 66 Bow. Pr., 280; s. c, as Andrews v. Keene, 4 Civ. Pro. B. 330 ; '85 ; depositions, 24. . v. Richmond, '85 ; sales, 33 n. - v. Schwartz, '85 ; attach- ment, 23. v. Thorp, '84; district ct. 1. v. Townshend, 48 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 162 ; s. c , 2 Civ. Pro. E. (Browne) 76 ; Further decision as it seems in 53 Super. Ot. (J. & S.), 522 ; '86 ; disc. & insp. 5. v. Tyng, '84; appeal, 105 n. v. Wallege, '83 ; surr. ct. 22 n. Angel v. Hollister, '85 ; former adj. 3. v. Town of Hume, '83 ; munc. corp. 174 ; '85 ; exec. 2 n. Augell v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 85; ev. 9; '86; ins. 10, 24. Annett v. Kerr, '83 ; ex. & ad. 105 ; '85 ; ex. & ad. 128 n. v. Terry, 35 N. Y. 256. Cited in 1 Bow. Pr. N. S. 204, which was rev'd in 1 Ventr. Rep. 282. Anonymous, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 307. Overruled- in 31 Bun, 290 ; '83 ; alimony, 7; ap- peal, 67; arrest, 20; divorce, 3 n. ; forec. 20; parties, 53; pi. 137; '84; alimony, 8. , 13 Abb. N. C. 54, '84; costs, 75 n. , 67 K. Y. 598; '85; banking, 3; bills of par. 12; city ct. of N. Y. 1; judgm. & de- cree, 4; Sunday, 4 n. ; '86; banking, 8; divorce, 6. v. , 10 Bow. Pr. 353; '83; appeal, 118. v. Gelpke, '83; trusts, 52. Ansen v. Tuska, '85; disc. & insp. 9; '84; depositions, 29 n. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Babbitt, '84 ; assignment for b. of c. 28, 39; exec. 10; sher. 1. v. Conner, 11 Daly, 326; s. c, 3 Civ. Pro. B. 88; sub- sequent decision in 6 Id. 173; s. c, 67 Bow. Pr. 157. Appeal dismissed in 98 N. Y. 574, s. c, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 248; and 1 Bow. Pr. N. S. 499, on ground that it should have been from this judgment and not from that of city ct. of N.Y.; '84; exec. 10. v. New Lamp Chimney Co., '83; bankruptcy, 10 n. ; '84; discharge, 1 n. v. Pratt, '84; cred. s. l'n. Anstice v. Holmes, '85 ; replevin, 4. Anthoine v. Coit, '85; ev. 122 n. Anthony v. Harrison, '83 ; guar- anty, 4; '85; ev. 88. v. Smith, '85; ev. 224 n.; '86; ev. 56 n. v. Stype, '84; attachment, 3, 11. v. Wood, 14 Abb. N. C. 383; s. c. 96 N. Y. 18U; 67 Bow. iV.424, and 6 Cm. Pro. R. 164; rev'g 29 Bun, 239; '85; attachment, 47; '86; at- tachment, 36 n. 39 n. 43. Anthony Street, Matter of, '85; costs, 41; '86; discont. 1. Appleby, Matter of, '85; money p'd, 12. Appleby v. Astor Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 7; '86; appeal, 19. ii. Erie Co. Savings Bank, '85; sav'gs b'ks, 5; '86; sav'gs b'ks, 10'n. Appleton v. Water Commission- ers of N. Y., '83; villages, 2; '84; off'r, 19; '86 ; munc. corp. 45 n. '53; off'r, 7 n. Apthorp v. Comstock, '83; ap- peal, 42. Arbogast, Estate of. See Yogel v. Arbogast 86. Archer v. flubbell, '83; marine ct. 7. v. O'Brien, 'H4; fraud, conv. 5 ; '86; fraud, conv. 8 n. Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, '85; juris. 14. Arcularius v. Geisenhainer, '83; wills, 179; '84; ev. 84; '85; wills, 126 n. Arden v. Patterson, '86; att'y & c. 3; champerty & main 2 n. Arent v. Squire, '83; bailment, 3. Areson v. Areson, '84; wills, 104. Argall v. Bryant, '85; lim. of a. 42, 43 n. v. Jacobs, 87 N. Y. 110; s. c, 41 Am. R. 3i7, and 13 Weekly D. 409; aff'g21 Bun, 114; which affd 56 Bow. Pr. 167; '83; bankruptcy, 10 n. v. Pitts, '85; receiver, 1; '86; judgm. 23. v. Raynor, '83; judicial sale, 6; spec. peri. 6, 8; trusts, 61 n. ; '85; judicial sale, 5, 7. v. Smith, '86; partn. 32 n. 40 n. Argus Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Al- bany, '86; munc. corp. 31. Armitage v. Mace, 48 Super. Ct. (J.&S.) 107. Aff'din96iT. r. 538; '85; gift, 4. — — v. Pulver, '85; judgm. & decree, 13. Armour v. Michigan Cent. R.R. Co., '83; bills of lading, 6 n.; '85; bills of lading, 4 n.; principal & a. 3; '86; princi- pal & a. 14 n. v. Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co., 9d N. Y. 450; s. c, 16 Weekly I). 102 ; affg 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 352. Armstrongs. Craig, '86; justices' courts, 18. v. Cummings, 4 Month. L. Bui. 4. Further decisions in proceedings between same parties in 20 Bun, 313; 22 Id., 570, and 17 Weekly D. 165; '83; att'y & c. 62, 64; inj. 39; '84; inj. 33. v. Cushney, '86; assign- ment, 5 ; attachment, 43. v. Du Bois, 90 N. Y. 95; s. c, 15 Week. D. 553; Cited as to referee's findings in 37 Bun, 563. Garrow, '83; exec. 46. v. Moran, '85; legacies, 13. v. N. Y. Central, &«. R.R. Co., '85; exceptions, 8 n. ; negl. 55 n. v. People, '84; seduction, 2; 85; trial, 99; '86; trial, 120, 121. v. Percy,. '86; damages, 15 n. Arnhout, Matter of, '83; insane per. 23. Arnold v. Arnold, 90 tf* Y. 580; Arnold SUPPLEMENT AEY TABLE. J.uburn s. c, 16 Weekly D. 38; aff'g 11 Id, 227. , v . Clark, '84; landl. 4 1. 12 n. ; negl. 5. v. Foot, '85; waterc. 1. . v . Gilbert, '83; ex. 4 ad. 172; -wills, 178; '85; susp. of power of a. 16; '86; legacies, 17 n. 1,. Hudson Eiver E.E. Co., '83; compensation, 10. .: v . Nichols, '84; parties, 47; '86; promise, 3 n. v. Oliver, 2 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 457; s. c, 64 How. Pr. 452; 16 Weekly D. 280, and N. Y. Daily Beg. Jan.5, 1883; aff'g 4 Month. L. Bui. 50; '84; judgm. 4 decree, 32; '86; bankruptcy, In. v. Parmelee, 97 IT. Y. 652; '85; special pro. 2; '86; cer- tiorari, 23. v. Patrick, '85; deeds, 3. v. People, '83 ; r. r. co. 19; '86', new trials, 4 a. v. Sanford, '83; wills, 104; '85; surr. ct. 36. v. Shapiro, '85 ; attach- ment, 58. v. Steeves, '84; escapes, 2; '86 ; arrest, 16 n. v. Suffolk Bank, '84;' dam. 16. Arnot v. Erie E'way Co., '84; bills, n. 4C. adden. 3 a. v. Gilbert, '86; wills, 59 n. .-p. McClure, '83;forec. 3. v. Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., '84; sales, 25; '85; con- tracts, 54, 69; '86; con- tracts, 56. , v. Post, '85; forec. 14. Arnstaedt v. Blumehfeld, 23 Weekly D. 31. Subsequent decision in N. Y. Daily Meg. June 17, 1884. Arosemeha v. Hinckley, '85 parties, 41. Arrowsmith v. Arrowsmith, '83; forec. 5. Artcher v. Whalen, '86; deeds, 6 n. Arteaga v. Conner, 88 Jf. Y. 403; s. c. as Arteaga v. Flack, 14' Weekly I). 278; and 2 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 152; aft'g 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 494. Arthur v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., '85; ins. 22. v. Griswold, '86; appeal, 78; deceit, 5. Ash v. Putnam, '83; pi. 100; '86; sales. 33 n. Ashburner v. Balehen, '83; charter-party, 1. Aspinwall v. Sacchi, '84; estop- pel, 3n.;'85; contribution, 1 n. ; '86; corp. 35 n. ; lim. of a. 8 n. Association for Belief of Ee- spectable, &o. Females v. Eagleson, '83; usury, 16. Association, &c. of Colored Orphans v. Mayor, &c, of N Y., '86; taxes, 31 n. Astor v. Hoyt, '83 ; judgm. 4 decree, 16; munc. corp. ueuJLec, a", «-- 126; '85; lien, 3. „. Mayor fte. of N. Y., '84; const, law, 33; ob, munc. corp. 83. v. Miller, '83; judgm. i de- cree, 16; '85; lien, 3. u.Turner, '84: receivers,7 n. Ateheson v. Mallon, '83; con- tracts, 63; '85; contracts, 53 n. ; '86; contracts. 54 n. Atchison v. Bruff, '83; infants, 7n. Atkins v. Elwell, '83; deceit, 2; '«5; trial, 28; '86; ev. 116 n. v. Kinnan, '86; ex. 4 ad. 130. v. Saxton, '83; exec. 28 n.; '85; exec. 9 n. Atkinson v. Manks, '83; guar- anty, 11 n. ; interp. 6. Atlantic & Pacific 'lei. Co. r. Baltimore & O. E. E. Co., 87 N. Y. 355; s. a, 14 Week- ly D. 365; aff'g in part 46 buper. Ct. (J. & U.) 377 ; abridg't s. a, 11 Weekly D. 122. Cited as to injunction in 51 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 248 ; butthelatterrev'dinid.482. v. Barnes, '83 ; principal s s. 11. Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, '84; covenants, 5n.; mort. 17; '86; deeds, 29 n. ;partn. 9n. v. Libby, '83; costs, 80 n. ; '85; costs, 25. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; payni. 1; '84; joint debtors, 4n.; '85; paym. 8 n. ; '86; paym. 5 n. Atlantic State Bank v. Savery, '83; banking,l n. ; bills n. & c. 26;teleg. 3 n. ; '85;corp. 14; '86; banking, 4 n. ; bills, n. 4 c. 17 n. Attorney, Matter of an, !83;sup. pro. 1. Attorneys, Matter of. See Oaths of Attorneys. Attorney General v. Atlantic Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 How Pr. X. S. 146. Further deci- sion in 1 Cenir. Mep. 518 ; s. c, 2 Eastern Bep. 689; and 100 N. Y. 279. v. Bank of Niagara, '86; receivers, 9. v. Chenango County Mut. Ins. Co., '84; receivers, 3bJ '86; receivers, 12 n. v. Cohoes Co., '84; parties, 39. Attorney General v. Conti- nental Life Ins. Co. See list of various decisions made in the course of these litigations on p. 27. The following are additional: v. , 15 Weekly D. 247; '83; ins. 93 v . ,16 Weekly D. 164; '83; ins. 87. „ , 27 Hun, 524; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 239. Appeal dismissed, in 93 N. Y. 45 (Fees of referee). \. , 68 N. Y. 343; '83; corp. 79. ■ i. - — , 88JV. Y. 571; s. o, UWeekhi D. 163. Followed i^ 11 Abb. N. C. 304; '83; att'vgen. 3; costs, 120. .„._, 90 A. Y. 45; dis- missing appeal from 27 Hwi,l»5; B.C., 63#ou>. Pr. 129; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 450; •which rev'd 62 How. Pr. 130 (Allowance to coun- sel for creditors). „. , 93 JV. Y. 70. „. , 93 N. Y. 630; '84; contr. 34. v. ,94JV. r.,199. „ , 19 Wetkly D. 385. „. , 33 Hun, 138. v . , 38 Hun, 521. The citations of these various decisions are us follows : '83; assignment, 5, 6, 7, 7 n. 16; corp. 65,79; costs, 120; '84; sup. pro. 26; '85; bills of lading, 24; contracts, 95; ins. 60 n. 79; '86; assign- ment, 5; attachment, 43; counties, 2; ins. 63 n. 96; receivers, 1*2 n. ; ref . 25. v. Empire Mut. Life Ins. Co., 28 Hun, 358. Aff" d as People v. Empire Mut. Lite Ins. Co., 92 A. Y. 105. u. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 14 Weekly D. 328. Aff d, it seems, in 91 A'. Y. 65b, without opinion; '8J; ins. 95; place of tr. 3; receivers, 1, '84; inj. 3U; receivers, 34, 35; slay of pro. 3n. ; '85; pi. 130; receivers, 12, 22 n. ; '86; ins. 61, 96. v. North Am. L. Ins. Co., 89 N. Y, 9.4; s. c, 15 Weekly 1). 53, mouiiying 26 Hun, 294. Other proceedings in 91 A. Y. 57; 92 A. Y. 654; aff g 15 Weekly D. 51,4, and also 93 A. Y. 387; '83; ex. 4 ad. 200; ins. 47, 55; place of trial. 3; receivers, 19; '84; costs, 71 ; ins. 41 n. ; motion & o. 21; receivers, 37; '86; ins. 03 n. ; receivers 12 n. v. Utiea Ins. Co., '85; inj. 14; '86; receivers, 9. Attrill v. Eockaway Beach Imp. Co., '84; appeal, is; receiv- ers, 9, 12. Atwater v. Atwater, '83; alimo- ny, 2; hnsb. 4 w. 27; '84; divorce, 7 ; '85 ; divorce, 4 n. Auburn and Cato Plank Eoad v. Douglass, '83; r. r. co. 106; '85; franchise, 1. Auburn City Bank v. Hunsiker, '86; ref. 18. Auburn SUPPLEMENTABY TABLE. Baker v. Leonard, '83; ev. 130; '84; ev. 67. Auburn Exchange Bank v. Fitch, '84; fraud, conv. 5; '85; fraud, conv. In. 4; '86; fraud, conv. 8 n. 9. Auburn Theol. Seminary v. Cal- houn, '81; wills, 26 *n. 27, 59 n; wit. 41. Audubon v. Excelsior Fire Ins. Co., '86; former adj. 9. Auerbach v. N. Y. Central, etc. B.E. Co., 89 . JV. Y. 281; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 469 and 21 Am. L. Reg. 790, with note, rev'g 60 How. Pr. 382; s. a, 11 Weekly D. 382; '83; r. r. co. 3. Austin i'. Dye, '83; sales, 14, 17; '84; conversion, 12 n. ; '85; sales, 27. v. Field, '85; lease, 7 n. v. Goodrich, '86; pi. 163. )'. Hinkley, '84 ; place of tr. 14. v. Holland, '83; partn. 30. v. Munro, '83; parties, 24 n.;'84;ex. & »d. 39, 40; '85; att'y & e. 5 n ; ex. & ad. 41, 47, 80; trusts, b9; '86; as- signment, 8 ; ex. & ad. 56 n. 66; juris. 7 n. ; parties, 15. v. Rawdon, '83; pi. 16. v. Searing, '83; associa- tions, 2 n. Averill v. Loucks, '83; judgm. & decree, 20. D. Patterson, '84; discont. 7; '85 ; election of rights, 8 n. . ^.Taylor, '84; forec. 8; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. ; lien, 3. v. Williams, '83; att'y & c. 31; '86; copyright, n. Avery, Matter of, '85; lim.' of a. 53. Avery v. Lathrop, '83; costs, 124 a. v. Slack, '84; justices' ct. 16; '85 ; judgm. & decree, 1 . v. Willis, '83; county ct. 1. v. Willson, '83; sales, 13; '85; sales, 22 n. Ayers v. Ayers, '83 ; wills, 32 n. v. Lawrence, '83; towns, 3; '85; munc. corp. 82, 121 n. ; statutes, 3 n. 8; '86; munc. corp. 94. v. Western K.E. Co , '83; costs, 38, 40. Aymar v. Sheldon, '86 ; bills, n. & c. 22 n. Ayrault v. Pacific Bank, '85; ex- ceptions, 8; '86; banking, 17 n. ; exceptions, 3. Ayres v. Covill, '85; indict. 9. v. O'Farrell, '85; pi. 8. v . Scribner, '83 ; bankrupt- cy, 16. B. Babbettu Young, '83; ev. 130. Babbott v. Thomas, '83; wit. 48. Babcocku. Babcock, '85; subr.3. v. Bonnell, '83; sales, 29 n. ; '84; ins. 24; '85; ins. 58. v. Booth, '85; cred. s. 5 n.; receiver, 14; '86; pi. 138 n. v. Clark, '86; depositions, 17. v. Eckler, '83; fraud, conv. 7. v. Gifford, '86; towns. C. v. Lake S. & M. S. E. B. Co., '83; bills of lading, 4. v. Lillis, "83; surr. ct. 22. < v. Stoddard, '83; legacies. 22, 34 a, n.; wills, 147; '85; ex. & ad. 120 n. ; '86; lega- cies, 20; wills, 47. v. Utter, '83; deeds, 16, 18. Biccio v. People, '85; ev. 315, 31G;'86;ev. 272. Bach v. Levy, 50 Svppr. Ct. (J. & 8.) 519. Affdin 101 IV. Y. 511. Bache v. Doscher, '83 ; e v. 305 Bachman v. Goldmark, '84; ar- rest. 14. Backer, Matter of, '83; assign- ment for b. of c. 40; bank- ruptcy, 1; discharge, 4; '64; assignment for b. of c. 28. Backer r. Board of Supervisors of Schuyler Co., '83; coun- ties, 2. Bacon v. Burnham, '84; pi. 103. v. Cropsey, '84; ev. 124 n. ; '85; exec. 17 n. v. Frisbi-3, '83; wit. 22, 26; '85; wit 7 a. v. Gilman, '86; sales, 31. v. Van Sehoonhoven, 87 JV". r.446;s c, 14 Weeklu D. 17;aff'g 19 Hun, 158; s. c, 9 Weekly D- 84; '84; mort. 23. Badeauu. Niles,'S6; attachment, 27. Badger v. Badger, 88 K. Y. 546; s. c, 14 Weekli/D., 397; rev'g 13 Id. 35; '86; ev. 244 n. Badgley v. Docker, '83; dam. 18 n. Bagg v. Jefferson, '83; set-off, 6. Baggott v. Boulger, cited as to sureties in 1 How. Pr. N. S. 204; '83; surr. ct. 26; '84 ; ex. & ad. 68. Bagley v. Peddie,'83; contracts, 26 ; '85 ; contracts, 34. — v. Smith, '86 ; damages, 4, 9n. Bailey, Matter of, 31 Hun, 008; s. c, 5 ('iv. Pro. Jt. 253; oft'g 4 Id. 140; s. c, 66 Horn. Pr. 64; '84; att'y & c. 23, 24. Bailey v. Bailey, 28 nun. 603. Further decision in 97 A'. Y. 460. — v. Bancker, '84; ex. & ad. 81. — v. Bergen, '84 ; assignment for b. of c. 86. — v. Briggs, '83; wiljs, 234; '86 ; wills, 80 n. — v. Buell, '83; tax. 82. — v. Buffalo Crosstown B. R. Co., '85; att'y & c. 5. — r v. Burton, '83, chat, mort.' 7n. — v. Dean, '83; depositions, 26; '84; depositions, 22, 30. — v. Freeman, 'b3 ; guaranty, 17. — v. Hilton, '85; former adj. 31. — v. Hudson Biver B. B. Co., '83 ; bills, n. & c. 41;' sales, 24, — v. Inglee, '85 ; joinder of a. 1 n. ; parties, 21; '86; parties, 40 n. v. Johnson, '83 ; amend. 17. — —j). Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83; negl. 92 ; villages, 2 ; '84; interest, 7 n. ; munc. corp." 14, 14 n. ; offi'r, 19 ; '86 ; munc. corp. 45 n. 53. ■ v. Ogden, '83 ; guaranty, 6. v. Park,- '83 ; costs, 45. Bailey v. Bichmond, 49 Super, C'l. (J. & if. ) 519. Further decision in N. Y. Daily Meg. August 17, 1883. v. Ryder, '86 ; juris. 9 n. r. Southwick, '84 ; parties, 32. v. Spofford, '88; ev. 140 n. Bain i>. Matteson, '63 ; ex. 4 ad. 29, 57, 58 n. ; powers, 6 ; '85 ; trusts, 12. Bainbridge v. Bichmond, '85 ; ev. 279 Baine v. City cf Rochester, 84; costs, 66, CG n.; '85 ; costs, 94 '84; ev. 219; costs, 58 95. ' Baird v. Daly, '85 ; ev. 55. v. Gillett, '85 ; new tr. G ;'86 ;newtr., 32. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 96 N. :rV597; rev'g 18 WeMy D. 39 ; '83 ; munc. corp. 58; '85 ; munc. corp. 43 ; stip- ulation, 2 n. ; '83 ; judgm. 10 " n. ; stipulations, 1 n. Bajus v. Syracuse, &c. E. E. Co., 16 Weekly 2). 109. Further decision in 34 Hun. 153. Baker, Matter of, '85 ; am. 25. Baker r. Baker, 21 Weekly D 64. Aff' d, it seems, but without opinion, in 99 jV. Y. 033 ; '84; contempt, 11 n.; '85; contempt, 5, 7 ; '86; husb. & w. 27 n. v. Barney, '83 ; husb. 4 w. 24. v. Bliss, '83 ; fraud, conv. 3'n. 4; 'N5 ; trusts, 14 n. v. City of Utica, '83 ; munc. corp. 129 n. ; '85 ; munc. corp. 45 ; '86; munc. corp. 63. v. Drake. 'S3 ; brokeis, 7 n. ; oorp. 8"; dam. 19, 20;" Baker SUPPLEMENTARY. TABLE. Bank '84 ; brokers, 7 n. ; dam. G. 7 ; '85 ; assignment for b. of c. 13 n. ; attachment, 39; dam. 31 n. ; '86 ; dam. 23, 23 n. 24 n. u. Higgins,'85 ; sales, 22 n. v. Hoag, '86 ; replev. 2. v . Hunt, '66 ; paym. into ct. 1 n. v. Johnson, '84 ; canals, 4n. v. Kenworthy, '83 ; assign- ment, 5 ; '85 ; sales, 4"n. v. Kingsland, '8j ; judgm. 4 decree, 6 n. v. Lamb, '84 ; husb. 4 w. ; 12 n. • v. Lorillard, '80 ; infants, An. v. Ludlow, '85 ; covenants, 2. v. McDuffie, '86 ; eject- ment, 7. v . N. Y. National Exeh. B'k, N. Y. Daily Meg. April 3, 1883 ; abstr. s. c, 16 Weekly D. 531 . Aff d in 16 Abb. k C. 458. , v. People, '84; offlr. 3 n. ; '83; const, law, 7 n. !>. Bemington, '86; appeal, 96. v. Simmons, '83; new tr. 27. i\ Star Printing Co., '86; pi. 33, 125, 127. ■ v. Union Life Ins. Co., '84; pi. 155; '86; ins. 6 n. 70. • — — v. Village of Oneonta, '83; raunc corp. 75 n. • v. Wheeler, '83; dam. 30 n. Balbo p. People, '83 ; trial, 103, 113; '84; appeal, 130; trial 72; '86; trial, 107 n. 110. Balch v. N. Y. & Oswego Mid- land B. K. Co., '83; mfg. co. 19. Baldwin t?. Brown, '83; justices' ct. 19; '86; deeds, 14. i'.. Calkins, '85; associa- tions, 3; '8fi; r. r. co. 65. ■ v. City of Oswego, '83; munc. corp. 129 n. v. Humphrey, 85 ; contracts, 3. v. Kimmel, '86; judgm. 14 n. v. Latson, '86; att'y 4 c. 3. v. Mayor, etc. of Hew York, '83; const, law, 35 n. ; '86; em. dom. 9 n. ■ v. Moffett, 94 K. Y. 82; aff' g 26 Hun, 209. v. Munn, '84; dam. 9 n. ; '86; dam. 17 n. - — v. Eoberts, '86; judgm. 16. ■ ■ v. U. S. Teleg. Co. See Griffin v. Colver. '86; dam. 17 n. ; teleg. co. 3 n. v. Van Deusen, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. ; '85; contracts, 86 n. Bailey v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 20, 34. '86 ; justices' Balja v. Eawley, ct. 2. , , Ball t> Billiard, '85; husb. 4 w. 3n. „ ,,. , : ,. Evening Tost Publish- ing Co., 38 Hun, 11. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opinion, in 101 A. ^•641. , . ,, p. Gardner, '83; undert. 11 ; '86; justices' ct. 7 n. ,.. Liney, '85; former adj. 44; receivers, 11. v. Miller, '84; ex. i ad. 153. ,.. Slafter, 26 Hun, 353. Aff'd in 98 N. Y. 622; '85; partn. 17 n. Ballard v. Ballard, '83; appeal, 117. v. Burgett, '33; action, 1; sales, 12 a, 14; '84; conver- sion, 12 n. ; estoppel, 10 n. ; '85; principal 4 a. 7 n. ; sales, 27. v. Burrowes, '83; surr. ct. 6; '85; pi. 35. Balltu v. Dillaye, '83;rec. deeds, 6n. Ballou v. Ballou, '85; appeal, 103; '86; em. dom. 3. v. Jones, '84;. cred. s. 8. v. Parsons, '86; ref. 16. Ballouhey u. Cadot, '85; attach- ment, 36 n. Ballow v. Cunningham, '83; chat. mort. 7 n. Baltimore & Ohio KB. Co. v. Arthur, 90 K Y. 234; s. ft, 15 Weekly D. 374; rev'g 13 Id. 333. Further de- cision, as it seems, in 17 Id. 388; '86; interpl. 3, 5. Baltes v. Bipp, '83; chat. mort. 7 b. Baltzeru. Nioolay,'86; contracts, 7a; officers, 18; principal and a. 15. Bamber i>. City of Rochester,'86; munc. corp. 51 n. Bame v. Neuss, '85; ref. 14. Bancker v. JUayor, &c. of N. Y., '85; inunc. corp. 81. Bancroft v. Wardwell, '86; use i occupation, 3 n. v. Winepear, '85; former adj. 24. Bangs v. Mcintosh, '83; insane per. 19; '85; justices' ct. 3. v. Mosher, '85; principal and s. 1. v. -Ocean Nat. Bk., '80; bills of par. 4.. v. Strong, '83; paym. 8; principal and s. 1. Bank Comm'rs v. St. Lawrence Bank, '86; bills, n. & o. 2. Banker v. Banker, '85; ev. 164 n. ; former adj. 36 n. v. Braker, '86; lease, 17 n. Bank for Savings v. Frank, '86; mort. 21, 22. Bank for Savings in N. Y. Bank of Albion v. Smith See Hall v. Newcomb; 85; cv. 'Wl. „ , Bank of Attica r. Manufacturers , etc. Bank, '86; inand. 1 n. v. Wolf, '84; costs, 19. Bank of Auburn v. Boberts, 83; chat. mort. 1. t,. Weed, '84; pi. 114n. Bank of Beloit v. Beale, '83; for- mer adj. 32 n. ; '84; election of rights, 4; sales, 28 n; '85; attachment, 52; election of rights, 8 n. 10, 11. Bank of British North America v. Merchants Nat. Bk. of N. Y., 91 N. Y. 106; aff'g 48 Super. Ct. (J.&8.)V, s. c, 13 Weekly D. 394; '84; lim. of a. 26 n.; '86; lim. of a. 15. Bank of Buffalo v. Boughton, '86; bail, 3 n. Bank of California v. Collins, '8'.; abate. 4 r. 5; '86; abate. 4 r. 3 n. v. Webb, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 175. Aff'd in 94 N. Y. 467. ; Bank of Chenango v. Brown, '83; const, law, 22; tax. 1; '85; const, law, 22, 59. v. Hyde, '83; former adj. 33. v. Osgood, '85; principal 4 s. 9 n. Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge, '83; ev. 27. Bank of Columbia p. Sutherland, '86; paym. into ct. 1 n. Bank of Commerce v. Bissell, '85; carriers, 2. v. Michel, '86; depositions, 4. v. Union Bank, '86; bank- ing, 7. Bank of Commonwealth v. The Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; money p'd, 14 n. ; vil- lages, 5; '84; lim. of a. 19; money paid, etc. 14 n. ; '86; money paid, etc. 11 n.; taxes, 58, 60 n. v. Mudgett, '84; wit. 40. Bank of Geneseo v. Field, '83; judgm. & decree, 35. v. Patehin Bank, '83; ev. 271; '85; estoppel, 9; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 1; pi. 33. v. Spencer, 13 N. Y. 150, '83 ; exec. 2 ; ex. 4 ad. 233; '84; sum. pro. 13. Cited in 15 .466. JV. V. 493. Bank of Geneva v. Gulick, '85; pi. 126. Bank of Havana v. Magee, '83; arrest, 34; '84; amend. 17, 19. v, Moore, '86; undert. 2 n. Bank of Lansingburgb. ti. Orary, '84; chat. mort. 10 n. '86; Bank of Michigan v. Ely, ' bills, n. 4 c. 15 n. . — - v. Williams, '84; pL 114 n. GrSce, 1C2 K Y. 313; aff'g Bank of Mobile v. Phoenix Ins, N.Y. Dally Reg. Feb.2,188U. I Co.,. 16 Weekly D. 226. 8 Bank SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Barnes Further decision in action by the same parties in 3 Civ. Pro. H. 212. Bank of Monroe,Matter of, '85; exec. 16. Bank of Monroe v. Widner, '84; arbitration, 3 n. ; bail, 4 n. ; '86 ; em. dom. 9 n. Bank of Niagara, Matter of, '83 ; receivers, 16 ; trusts, 59 ; '84 ; ex. 4 ad. 125 n. ; receivers, 38. ■ v. McCracken, '84 ; bills, n. 4 c. 15 n. Bank of Ogdensburgh v. Arnold See Warner v. Gouver- neur. '84; receivers, 3 n. ; '85 ; waste, 2 n. Bank of Orange Co. v. Brown, '83 ; pi. 15. Bank of Orleans v. Smith, '83 ; principal & a. 9 ; '85 ; bank- ing, 7. Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Has- brouck, '84 ; ex. 4 ad. 60. Bank of Rochester v. Jones, '85 ; partn. 17 n. ; principal 4 a. 18 ; '86 ; banking, 16. ^ v. Monteath, '83 ; ev. 70; partn. 6, 20 n. Bank of Borne v. Curtiss, '84 ; dam. 37 n. v. Mott, '84 ; offir. 5 n. v. Village of Borne '83 ; const, law, 22 ; '86 ; const, law, 43 n. Bank of Bondout v. Dreyfus, '86 ; exec. 2. Bank of Rutland v. Buck, '83 ; bills, n. 4 c. 61. Bank of St. Albans v. Knicker backer, '86 ; place of trial, 3. Bank of Salina v. Alvord, '83 ; corp. addenda. v. Babcock, '85 ; questions of 1. & f. 2 n. v. Henry, '86 ; wit. 58. Bank of Sandusky v. Scoville, 'Gj; questions of 1. ft f . 2 n. Bank of Troy u. Topping, 85 ; ex. 4 ad. 46 ; '86 ; ev. 23. Bank of United States v. Davis, '83; notice, 3 n. ; '84 ; corp. 34 ^principal & a. 9 n.; '85; notice 1, 2 ; '86; mort. 2'2. v. Houaman, '83 ; fraud. conv. 6 n. Bank of Utica v. Childs, '85 ; lim. of a. 42, 43 n. ■ v. City of Utica, '81 ; taxes, 12 n. v. Finch, 83 ; mort. 44. v. Hillard, '83 ; disc. 4 insp. 4 n. v. Mersereau, 85 • tax. 21. Bank of Vergennes v. Cameron, '83 ; bills, n. 4 c. 18. Banks v. Banks, '83 ; paym. into ct. 5. v. Carter, '83 ; surr. ct. 35 n. v. Phelen, '84 ; legacies, 7. v. Potter, 83 ; sup. pro. 23; '84 ; sup. pro. 27. v. Wilkes, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 89 n. Bannerman v. Quackenbush, 2 Bow. Pr. N. 8. 82; s. c. 7 Civ. Pro. R. 428. AfE'd in 17 Abb. N. V. 103; s. c, l J Civ. Pro. 108. Bannigan v. Piek, '85; sup. pro. 22 n ; '86 ; sup. pro. 21 n. Banta v. Garmo, '83 ; paym. 1 n. ; '85; rec. deeds, 4 ; subr. 5. Barber v. Abendroth Bros. , 20 Weekly D. 7 ; s. o. with opinion in full, in N. Y. Daily Meg. Dec. 23, 1884. Barber v. Bennett, '85 ; pi. 92. v. Converse, '84 ; ex. 4 ad. 161 n. v. Harris, '85 ; husb 4 w. 4; '86 ; husb. 4 w. 4 n. v. People, '86 ; ev. 235. Barbour, Matter of, '85 ; city ct. of N. Y. 4. Barbour v. De Forest, 28 Bun, 615, modifying and aff g 6 L Hrne. Pr. 181. ReVd in 95 N. Y. 13. Id. cited as to actions to construe wills,in 36 Han. 531 ; '83 ;"accumu- lations, 5 n. Barclay, Matter of, 91 XT. Y. 430; s. c, 16 Weekly I). 325, aud N. Y. Daily Meg. 1883, aff'g 15 Weekly 1). 213. Barclay v. Culver, 30 Ban, 1. Further decision in action by same parties in 4 Civ. Pro. B. 365; s. c, 66 How. Pr. 342. v. Quicksilver Mining Co. , '83. pi. 198 ; '85 ; assign- ment, 7 ; parties, 34 ; '86 ; pi. 78. Bard v. Poole, '86 ; ins. 30 n. jjareiuore v. Taylor, 52 tiuper CI. (J. & a.) 448 ; s. c, 9 Civ. Pro. H. 76. Further decision affecting the same order in 53 Super. Ct. {J. & K) 119. Barhydt v. Ellis, '83 ; contracts, 18 ; '86 ; lim. of a. 14 n. Barhyte v. Shepherd, '83; offir. 25 ; '86 ; tax. 58. Barker. Matter of, '85 ; former adj.' 36 n. ; insane per. 11 ; '86 ; corp. 33 n. Barker v. Bradley, '83 ; ev. 127 n. ; 139 n. v. Bucklin, '85 ; guaranty, 2 ; '86 ; contracts, 7 J n. ; promise, 7 n. v. Cocks, '84 ; appeal, 57 n. v. Coffin, '83 ; r. r. co. 3. • t'. Cook, '86 ; attachment, 36 n. v. Jjoomis, '84 ; highw. 27 n. v. Mathews, '84 ; attach- ment, 39 ; '84 ; cred. s. 1 n. v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., '84 ; contracts, 6 n. — v. People, '86 ; const, law, 15 n. — i), Savage, '84 ; ev. 210 ; negl. 44 n. 58 ; question of 1. 4 f . 5 n. — v. Webster, '84 ; district ct. 7. — v. Wheeler, '84 ; pi. 23. — v. White, '83 ; forec. 6 ; '85 ; appeal, 13 n. — v. Woods, '83 ; legacies, 20; r. r. co. 15. Barkley v. Wilcox, '85 ; ease- ments, 9 n. ; waterc. 1, 4, 5, 6 ; '86; nuis. 6 n.; waterc. 1. Barlow v. Barlow, '86 ; costs,ll, 14 n. v. Myers, '83 ; ex. & ad. 56; '84 ; promise, 1 ; '85 ; mort. 24 n. ; promise, 2. v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, '83; tax. 24 ; '85 ; tax. 66; '86 ; deeds, 7 ; taxes, 31 n ; v. 4 p. 6. Barnard v. Campbell, '85; bills of lading, 4 n. ; principal 4 a. 7 n. v. Heydrick, '83 ; sum: mons, 4. v. Kobbe, '85 ; attachment, 33 n. v. Morrison. See Bernard v. the same. v. Onderdonk, 11 Abb. K C. 349 ;s. c.,2 Civ. Pro.- if. (Browne\ 294. Aff'd in 98 N. Y. 158. v. Viele, '83 ; bonds, 1 ; 'B6 ; bail, 3 n. Barnes v. Atlantic Mut.' Life Ins. Co., '83; costs, 120. v. Barrow, '83 ; guaranty, 11 n ; '85 ; principal 4 s. 1 n. ; '86 ; principal 4 s. 4. v. Brown, '84 ; trusts, 26 n. ; '85 ; contracts, 62 n. ; corp. 7; ins. 73; '86; ev. 30. v. Harris, '86; justices' ct. 4n. v. McAllister, '83; inj. 5 n. v. Morgan, '83; sup. pro. 14 n. v. Mott, '83; mort. 32, 57; '84; mort. 16; '85; subr. 2 n. 8 n. ; '86; judgm. 9 n. ; mort. 7 n. ; subr. 2, 3. v. Newcomb, 89 A T . 1". 108; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 433; aff'g 11 Id. 505; '85; corp. 41, 45. v. Ontario Bank, '83; bank- ing, 17; '84; bail, 7. v. Perine, '84; contracts, adden. 16a; '85; appeal, 90: bills of lading, in.; excep- tions, 3. v. Quigley, '86; amend. 2 n. 12; pi. 12. v. Smith, '86; judgm. 16 n. v. South Side B.R. Co., '84; dam. 34 n. v. Underwood, '83; ex. 4 ad. 68; '84; distribution, 2 n. ; '85; distribution, 2 n. ; '86; distribution, 1 n. 2. Barnes SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. fiaucus „. West, '83; divorce, 3 n. ; '84; ref. 3. Barnett v. Kincaid, 85; ex. 4 _- a uSeffing ( 70F,r,492 Cited as to replevin in Si Hun, 502; '83; arrest, lv; '84; arrest, 2, 3; undert. 18. v. Zacharias, '86; estoppel, 12. Barney v. Dewey, '86; deceit, 6 v. Griffin, '84; assignment for b. of c. 90 n. ; fraud. conv. 1; '86; assignment for b. oi c. 33; fraud conv. 23. — v. Worthington, '84; bills, n. 4 c 7; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 15. Barnum v. Childs, '85 ; contracts, 23. v. Hempstead, '86; fraud. conv. 2'2. 1\ Seneca Co. Bant, '84; ap- peal, 126. Barr v. N. Y. & Canada R. E. Co., '85; parties, 9 n. v . N. Y, Lake Erie and W. B.B. Co., '86; corp. 30; par- ties, 9. v. Shaw, '85; joinder of a. 3. Barras v. Barras, '83; ex. 4 ad. 137. Barrett v. Third Ave. E'.R. Co., '83; ref. 33 ; trial, 62; '84; joint debtor, 4 n. ; '85; par- ties, 44; release, 2; '86; ap- peal, 63, 88. . v, Warren, '86; replevin, 2. v. Western, '84; arbitration, 3 n. Barringer v. Del. and Hudson Canal Co., '85; master 4 s. 38. Barrow v. People, '85; const, law, 16. Paxton, '86; mdrt. 1. . v. Eiohard, '83 ; covenants, 5; '84; covenants, 5 n. ; '85; nuis. 3; '86; covenants, 5 n. Barry v. Bockover, '85; sec. for costs, 2. v. Boyle, '83; wills, 117. — — v. Brown, '86; wills, 18 n. v. Brune, '83; ins. 68, 73; '85; ins. 63 n.; '86; cred. e. 21; former adj. 23; ins. 8i n. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y, 'B3; contracts, 17; ins. 63, 64, 68; pi. 186; husb. 4 w. addenda; '86; cred. s. 21; duress, 6 ; ins. G9 n. - — r. Fisher, '83; attach. 53. ■ v. Merchants' Exch. Co., '83; def. 12 n. v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; stipulations. 2; '84; stipula- tions, 1. t-. N. Y. Central, &c. E.B. Co., '84; negl. 63; '85; negl. 4; '86; negl. 27 n. 64 n. 67, 118. v. Ransom, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 19; ev. 139 n.; '84; wit. 9 n. v. Whitney, '83; atty 4 c. 36. , .„ Barstow v. Goodwin, 83; wills, 195 Barteau v. Phcenix Mut. Ins. Co., '85; ins. 55 n. Bartholomew r. Finnemore, 84; infants, 3. v. Seaman, '83; lim. of a. «. Yaw, '83; assignment for b. of c. 22. Bartle v. Gilman, '83; costs, 13, 124. ,., Bartlett v. Ci'y of N. Y., 85; judgm. 4 decree, 7 n. v. Crozier, '84; bridges, 1. v. Drew, '83; mfg. co. 11; '85; lim. of a. 33. v. Judd, '83; deeds, 15. Barlett v. Musliner, 28 Hurt, 235; s. c, 15 Y/eek\<> D. 452. Further decision in 92 A. Y. 646. v. Tarbox, '86; ev. 123. v. Wheeler, '85; contracts, 77. v. Wyman, '83; guaranty, 5n. Bartley v. Richtmeyer, '83; re- duction, 1 n. ; '84; parent 4 c. <7 n. Bartot-. Himrod, '83; const, law, 24; '86; const, law, 43 n. ; trials, 99 n. Barton v. City of Syracuse, '83; mine. corp. 75 n. v. Plank Eoad Co., '86; bills, n. 4 c. 2. v. Hermann, '84; contracts, 27 n. v. Fort Jackson, &c. Co., '85 ; conti acts, 69. v. Scramiing, '86; wit. 37 n. v. Speis, '83; stay of pro. 1. Bartow v. People, '83 ; bank- ing, 3. Bascom v. Albertson, 34 A". Y. 584. Followed (bequests to unincorporated associa- tions), in Carpenter v. His- torical Society, 2 Bern. 574 ; '83; surr. ct. 19 ; uses, 1 n., wills, 64; '85; wills, 108 n.; Baskin v. Baskin, 48 Barb. 200; cited ( execution of will), in Matter of Bogert, 4 Civ. Pro. B. 445; '83; trusts, 54; wills, 31 n. 36, 45 n.; '85; wills, 14 n. 15 n. 19, 20, 23 n. ; 86 ; wills, 14 n. 18. Bass v. Comstock, '8G ; pi. 18 n. Bassettr. Fish, 75 A" Y. 303. Cited (Boards of education) in 34 Hun, 16 ; '83 ; amend. 12; com. S';h. 7 ;highw. 17 ; negl. 25, 62 ; '85 ; atty. a c, 5n. Basstord, Matter of, '83 ; munc. corp. 151. Bastable v. City of Syracuse, '85 ; munc. corp. 71 n. ; '86 ; munc. corp. 47 n. Bate v. Graham, '83 ; forec. 8; trial, 17 ; '85 ; cred. s. 3 n ; 5 n. ; parties, 12, 22 ; '84 ; cred. s. 19 n. ; parties, 27 ; pi. 138 n. . v. McDowell, 48 Super. CI. (J. & S.) 219. Aff'd in 49 ««per. Ct. (J. & S.) 106. Appeal dismissed, in 97 A. Y. 616. Bates v. Cherry Valley,&c. E. K. Co., '85 ; contracts, 86 n. v. CoBter, '86 ; sales, 7 n. v. Cunningham, '85 ; fac- tors, 2. v. Delevan, '85 ; former adj. 40 n. 1). First Nat. Bk. of Brock- port, 89 N. Y. 286 ;s. c, 14 Weekly H. 554 ; aff'g 23 Him, 420 ; s. c, 11 Weekly V. 434; '83; principal 4 a. 6 ; '85 ; gift, 3. ■u.Pinstein, 15~Abb. N. C. 480 ; s. c, 7 Civ. Pro. B. 300, and 1 How. Pi: N. «. 335 ; rev'g 15 Abb. A". C. 349 n.;'85 ; attachment, 36 n. ; '86 ; attachment, 31. v. Plonsky, 28 Han, 112 ; s. c, 64 How. Pr. 232 ;2 Civ. Pro. B. [Browne) 239 ; 2 Id. (McCarthy) 231 ; 15 Weekly D. 379,and N. Y. Daily Beg. Oct. 30, 1882, aff'g 62 How. Pr. 429 ; '84 ; fraud, conv. 10 ;*85; attachment, 57; '86; attachment, 43 n. v. Eosekrans, '83 ; debtor 4 cred. 9 ; paym. 4 ; '85 ; justices' ct. 21 n. ; pi. 3, 63, 64. v. Stanton ; '84 ; pledge, 2. v. Stearns, '85 ; former adj. 43. v. , '86 ; Indians, 1 n. ; new tr. 22 n. v. TJnderhill, '83; ex. 4 ad. 91, 125; '85; ex. & ad. 92 n. Bathgate v. Haskin, '83 ; jus- tices' ct. 19 ; ref. 7, 8 ; set- off, 1 ; '84 ; atty. 4 c. 11 n. ; services, 8 ; '86 ; atty. 4 c. 7n. Battell v. Torrey, '83 ; insane per. 18. Batterman v. Pierce, '83 ; ev. 139 n. ; '84 ; ev. 69 ; '85 ; ev. 74; lim. of a. 3;'86;ev. 76 n. Battershall v. Davis,'86 ; appeal, 85. Battersonu. Sanford, '83; depo- sitions, 30; '85; depositions, 6 n. Battle r. Rochester City Bank, '83 ; lease, 31. Baucus v. Stover, 89 A'. Y. 1. ; s c, 14 Weekly D. 313 ; rev'g 24 Han, 109; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 507 ; '84 ; ex. 4 ad. 31, 114 ; '85 ; ex. 4 ad. 57, 166 ; '86 ; ex. 4 ad. 85. JO Bauer SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Beisiegd Bauer v. Kastner, '86 ; eurr. ct. 9. Bauleo v. N. Y. & Harlem B. E. Co., '83; ev. 81'; '84; car- riers, 11 ; '85 ; ev. 29. Baum v. Mullen, '83 ; arrest, 20; husb. & w. 12 ; '8 J ; husb. &, w., 3n. Baur v. Betz, 1 'How. Pr. If. S. 344; s. a, 7 Cic. Pro. R. 233. AfE'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 99 JV. T. 672. Baiter u. Bell, '83 ; debtor & cred. 10. v. Drake, '84 ; former adj. 26 n. • v. McDonald, '84 ; -wit. 29. r v. Missouri, K. & T. By. Co., '84 ; attachment, k9 ; '86 ; attachment, 39 n. v. Troy & Boston K B. Co., '84; negl. 56 n. Bay v. Goddington, '83 ; pledge, 3 n. ; '86 ; bills, n. & c. 17 n. Bayard, Matter of, 63 How. Pr. 73; s. c, 25 Hun, 546 ; rev'g 61 How. Pr. 249 ; '83 ; statutes, 29. Bayard v. Hoffman, '83; cred. s. 3 n. • v. Malcolm, '85 ; ev. 73. Bayeaux v. Bayeaux, '83 ; trusts, 32 n. Baylis v. Swartwout, '80 ; ex. & ad. 81. Bayne v. People, '33 ; disorderly persons, 3 ; '85 ; poor, -l. Beach v. Beach, '86 ; parties, 36. v. City of Elmira, '86 ; munc. corp. 47 n. v. Grain, '84; spec. perf. 3; '86;inj. 1. v. Endress, '83 ; bills, n. & c. 63. v. Hollister. See Miller v. Miller. '83 ; deeds, 28 n. v. King, '83 ; pi. 139 ; '86 ; pi. 140 n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; depositions, 16, 17, 24, 25 ; '84 ; depositions, 20 ; '85 ; depositions, 6 n. v. Nixon, '83 ; lease, 17. v. Baritan, &c. B. B. Co., '83 ; ev. 400. v. "Wise, '84 ; ev. 106 n. Beal v. Finch, '85 ; trial, 82. v. N. Y. Central, &c. E. E., 41 Hun, 172 ; aff'g 3 How. Pr. N. S. 319. Beall v. Dey, 't4; depositions, 1. Beals v. Cameron, '85 ; election of rights, 8 n. ■ v. Guernsey, '84 ; fraud. conv. 5. v. Home Ins. Co., '83; ins. 22; '86; ins. 20. Bean v. Edge, '84 ; conversion, 12 n. v Tonnelo, '84; ev. 20; motion 4 o. 15 ; '85 ; exec. 2n. Bear v. American Bapid Teleg. Co., CO now. Pr. 274. Bev'd in 36 Hun, 400; '86 ^parties, 28. Beard v. Ci'„y of Brooklyn, '86 ; munc. corp. 63. v. Boot, '86 ; paym. 4. v. Sinnott, '86 ; judgm. 19. v. Yates, '83; pi. 16; '85 ; op- peal, 103 ; '86 ; costs, 57 n. Beards v. Wheeler, '83 ; fraud. conv. 1 1 ; '8 j , fraud, conv. In. Beardslee v. Eichardson, '83 ; carriers, 13. Beardsley v. Duntley, '84 ; ev. -77 ; '88 ; deceit, 3. v. Hocchkiss, H6 N. Y 201; modifying 30 Plum, 60:.; '86; ex. & ad. 120 n. ; infants, 4 n. v. Boot, : 86; lim. of a. 20 n. v. Warner, '83; bills, n. & c. 42 n; '86; lim. of a. 14 n. Beardsley Scythe Co. v. Foster, '84; judgm. & decree, 29; '85; judgm. & decree, 25. Bearnes v. Gould, '83; surr. ct. 17. Beattie v. Delaware, etc. B.B. Co., 90 If. Y. 643; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 338; aff'g 12 Id. 334. v. Qua, '83; costs, 100; '86; costs, 71. Beaty v. Perkins, '85; false im- pris. 6 n. v. Swarthout, '84; pi. 64 n. Beaver v. Van Every, '86; jus- tices' ct. 4 n. Bebinger v. Sweet, '83; pi. 125. Becht v. Corbin, '85; r. r. co. 4. Beck v. Allison, '84; pi. 53; '85; spec. perf. 6; '86; inj. 1. v. Burdett, '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Carter, '83; negl. 25; '85; land. & t. 5 n. ; '86; negl. 27 n. ; nuis. 2 n. v. McGillis, '83; wills, 199 n. v. Sheldon, '83; sales, 20. Becker, Matter of, '84; wills, 55; '85; ex. & ad. 176 n. ; surr. ct. 19; '86; surr. ct. 19. Becker v. Becker, '84; sup. pro. 21. v. Boon, '83; award, 11; paym. into ct. 1, 3; tender, 8; '84; paym. into ct. 1 n. ; pledge, 1; tender, 1, 4 n. *8:.;I>1. 156 n. v. Boldridge, '84; taxes, 52. v. Ten Eyck, '83; const. law, 46. v. Torrance, '83; sup. pro. 10; '84; sup. pro. 27; '86; sup. pro. 7 n. v. Van Valkenburgh, '85; spec. perf. 12 n. Beckett, Matter of, 35 Hun, 447; s. a, 1 How. Pr. K 8. 391. •Aff'd in 4 Central Rep. 381. Beokwith, Matter of, 87 N. Y. 503; s. o., 14 Weekly D. 346. Further decision in 90 N. r. 667; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 472; '83; appeal, 48. Beckwith v. Bruekett, '86; con- tracts. 9 n. v. Union Bank, '83 ; assign- ment, 5; set-off, 3; '84; set- off, 7 n. v. Whalen, '84; appeal, 20; '86; highw. 8 n. Beddoeu. Wadsworth, '83; cov- enants, 7; '86; covenants, 5; rec. deeds, 1 n. Bedell v. Barnes, '86; costs, 84. v. Carll, '83; gift, 9; '85; ev. 31; trial, 47. v. Chase, '83; ev. 276; '84; fraud, conv. 5; '85; fraud, conv. 4; '86; fraud, conv. 8 n. v. Guyon, '83; wills, 196 n.; •81; wills, 117 n. v. Hoffman, '83; interp. 6; '86; costs, 92. v. Long Island E.B. Co., '83; ev. 109 n. v. Shaw, '83; adv. poss. 2; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. 3. Bedford v. Terhune, '85; lease, 7 n. ; '86; lease, 24. Beebe, Matter of, '85; ex. & ad. 170; '86; ex. & ad. 45. Beebe v. Elliott, '84; pi. 132; '85; former adj. 43; '86; Indians, 1 n. v. Estabrook, '85; wills, . 103 n. 123; '86; advance- ment, 4. v. Grifttng, '85; const, law, 7 n. ; deiin. 14. v. Marvin, '84; pi. 89. v. Pyle, 'b3; bankruptcy, . 14. Beecher v. Conradt, '83; assign- ment, 18; '86; v. 4 p. 12. : v. Crouse, '83; parties, 23; '84; parties, 36. Beekman v. Bonsor, '83; ex. & ad. 66; parties, 25; uses, 1 n:; '84; wills, 41 n.; '85; trusts, 8, 12. v. Frost, '86; deeds, 6 n. u. Gibbs. Cited (litigations between co-defendants) in Kenney v. Apgar, 93 N. Y. 546;'83;forec. 33. v. Hale, '85; contracts, 24 n. v. People, '83; wills, 27 n. v. Saratoga & Schenectady B.E. Co. See Hartwell v. Armstrong; '84; const, law, 15 n. Beekman Street, Matter of, '86; appeal, 5 n. Beer v. Benner, '86; district ct. 4. Beers, Matter of, '84; wills, 28 n. v. Shannon, '84;, pi. 11; '85;forec. 1; pi. 10. Beirne v. Dord, '83; sales, 11 a, n. Beisiegel v. New York Central B.B. Co., '83; dam. 34; negl. 1; r.r. co. 24 n.; '84; negl. Beldcn SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Bentley 11 38; '85; animals, 5; master 4 b. 42 n. ; r.r. oo. 8 n.; trial, 66; i86; ev. 252. Belden v. Devoe, '83; affid. 1. v. Meeker, '83; ev. 29, 49; '85; mort. 24. v. N. Y. & Harlem K.E. Co., '85; judgm. and decree, 1; juris. 11. v. Slade, forec. 14 n. ■ v. State of N. Y., 31 Sun, 409. Affd in 4 Ventral Rep. 180. Belding v. Leichardt, '83; wills, 37, 122. Belger v. Dinsmore, '83; carri- ers, 28 n. ; '85; carriers, 15; '86; ev. 81 n. Belknap v. Bender, '84; guaran- ty, 12; '85; guaranty, 3, C; '86; guaranty, 5. v. Mclntyre, '85; appeal, 74; '86; costs, 80, 101. v. Sealey, '83; mistake, 3; v. & p. 6; '86; trials, 53. is. Trimble, '86; waterc. 2 n. v. Waters, '86; appeal, 92 a, Bell v. Dagg, 86 n. '85 ; contracts, ■ v. Day, 20; 24 n. Baldwin. 83; usury, 19, See Condit v. ».' Dix, '86 removal of c. 2 v. Hunt, '83; interp. 6. v. Leggett, '83; contracts, 68; '86; parte. 10. v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., '83; corp. 14. v. McMaster, '85; trial, 73 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '84; int. 4; '85; subr. 2 n. v. Pierce, '83; offi'r, 25; '84; taxes, 30; '85; judgm. 4 decree, 7 n. v. Quin, '85; contracts, 69. v. Tilden, '83; parties, 44. v. Warn, '86; wills, 61 n. v. Yates, '83; pi. 55, '84; pi. 38 n. Bellemont & Ohio Co. v. Fifth Bapt. Church, '84; nuis. 2. Bellinger v. Bentley, '84; ev. 67. v. Craigue, '83; former adj. 37 n.; '85; former adj. 28. v. Ford, '83; ex. & ad. 17; '84; ex. 4 ad. 35 n. v. Gray, '83; ev. 301; money paid, 12; principal & a. 13; tax. 48; '85; tax. 44; '86; certiorari, 7 n.; taxes, 75 n. v. New York Central R.R., '83; compensation, 10; real prop. 10; '84; dam. 34 n.; |85; ev. 55; r.r. co. 50 n.; '86; compensation, 8n. ; highw. l;r.r. co. 28. v. People, '83; wit. 86; '86; wit. 58. — u Shafer, '83; trusts, 52 n. BeUom v. Freeborn, '86; dam. 2 ; guaranty, 2 n. ; un- dert. 3. Bellows v. Folsom, '83; bills, n. & c. 9. v. Sackett, '83 ; munc. corp. 74 n. ; '85 ; easements, 9 n. v. Shannon, '83 ; trials, 93 ; '86 ; arrest, 16 n. Belmont v. Coman, '83 ; mort. 37 ; '86 ; deeds, 30 ; mort. 15 n. v. Cornen, '84; service 4 p. 12, 25. v. Erie B. B. Co., '83 ; mo- tions 4 o. 16. v. Lane, '85 ; attachment, 15 n. v. O'Brien, '85 ; spec. perf. 12 n.; wills, 87 n. v. Ponvert, '86 ; trusts, 10. Belmont Branch B'k v. Hoge, '83 ; fraud, conv. 3 n. ; '86 ; usury, 12 n. Belter v. Lyon, 2 K. T. State Rep. 505 ; aff'g K T. Daiiy Reg. Mar. 23, J 886. Belton v. Baxter, '83 ; negl. 87 ; '84; negl. 44 n. ; question of 1. 4 f. 5 n. Bement v. Smith,'86 ; contracts, 88. Bemus v. Beekman,'83 ; amend. 40. Bend v. Georgia Ins. Co., '86 ; ev. 76 n. Bendernagle v. Cocks, '83; cause of action, 4, 4 n ; contracts, 34; '86 ; former adj. 26 n. Bendit v. Annesley, '83 ; costs, 21 ; paym. 2. Benedict v. Beebe, '83 ; con- tract, '83 ; 84; contracts, 80 n. v. Benedict, '83 ; inj. 27. v. Cowden, '83 ; bills, n. 4 c. 55. v. Dixon, '84 ; parties, 43. v. Driggs, '86 ; husb. & w. 14. v. Field, '83 ; mistake, 2 ; paym. 4; '85; contracts, 86 n. v. Hocox, '86; wit. 37, 37 n. — v. Lynch, '83; v. 4 p. 15 n. ; '86 ; contracts, 7 n. ; spec, perf. 2 n. v. Seymour, '85; pi. 25- '86 ; pi. 18 n. v. Stuart, '84 ; champerty fc.m. 2 n. v. Vanderbilt, '83 ; const. law, 8 ; harbor masters, 3 Bengston v. Thingvalla Steam- ship Co., 31 Sun, 96; s. c, 4 CSu. Pro. R. 260 ■ aff'g 2 do. Pro. R. (Mo (£>ty) 441; s. a, 3 Civ. Pm R. 263; '83; pi. Benjamin v. Benjamin '84 ■ sum. pro. 4; '86 ; .'use & , o.l. >c"; Elmira » &ft B. K. Co., 84; r.r. co. 40. i'. Smith, '85 ; abate. 4 r. 14 n. Benkard v. Babcock, '85 ; ap- peal, 11, 13 n. 15. Benn v. Bank of Elmira, '86 ; ref. 1 Bennac v. People,'85;hab. corp. 5. Benneoke v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 12. Benneti!. Hurd, '85 ; pi. 143. v. Jenkins, '84 ; dam. 9 n. Bennett v. Austin, '84 ; appeal, 57. v. Bates, 26 Sun, 364. Affd in 94 Jf. T. 354: Oiled as to appeals in 99 X T. 243 ; '86 ; int. 5 n. : mort. 15. v. Brown, '83; undert. 11 j '86 ; justice's ct. 4 n. 7 n. v. Buchan, '84 ; deceit, 5 n. ; '85 ; appeal, 33. v. Burch, '84 ; offr. 24 n. v. Byrne, '83 ; guardian 4 w. 4. v. Chapin, '86 ; receivers, 12 n. v. City of Buffalo, '84; munc. corp. 96. v. Culver, 27 Hun, 554. Aff'd in 97 K T. 250. v. Edwards, '84; attach- ment, 13; '85 ; attachment, 33 n ; motions 4 o. 5 ; '86 ; attachment, 25, 35, 44. v. Garlock, '83 ; trusts, 44. v. Ingersoll, '85 ; justipe's ct. 1 n. v. Irwin, 86 ; rec. deeds, 1 n. v. Judson, 84 ; dam. 14 n. ; pi. 155; '85 ; deceit, 2. v. Leach, ev. 156 n.; former adj. 32. v. Lycoming Mut. Ins. Co.,'86;ins. 50 n. 51. v. Matthews, '85 ; appeal, 23 ; trial. 8 n. ■ v. Smith, 21 Barb. 439. Cited as to age of consent in37/r«n ) 29,i;'83;husb. 4 w. 6 n. ; '84 ; attachment, 17. v. Van Syckel, '85 ; appeal, 11, 13, 15 ; counties, 1 n. v. Whitney, '85 ; offr. 17 17 n. 19. Benninghoff v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 84 ; principal & a. 9n. Bensel v. Gray, '83 ; v. & p. 5n. 84 ; v. 4 p. 1. v. Lynch, 83; exec. 2 ; '84 sher. 3 n. Benson, Matter of, 96 N.T. 499 modifying s. c. as Bullard «. Benson, 31 Sun, 104, whtfh aff'd 1 Dm.. 486; '86 ■ dower, 9 ; impris. 2 Benson i>. Berry, '83 ; exec. 25 n.; sher. 31 n. — - v. Leroy, '84 ; pi. 169. Bentley u. Jones, '85 ; pi. 126 12 Beniley SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. BioUey Bentley — continued v. Vanderheyden, '86 ; re- lease, 4 n. Benton v. Dole, '85 ; costs, 8 n. v. Martin, '83 ; ev. 127 n. 139 n. ; '84 ; contracts, '21 ; '86 ; bonds, 2 n. ; ins. 13. v. Pratt, '86 ; deceit, 6 n. ; slander, 2n. ■ v. Wickwire, '83 ; mech. 1. 8 ; '86 ; assignment for b. of c. 7 n. ; com. schools, 1 ; partn. 43 ; r. r. co. 62. Berdan v. Sedgwick, '84 ; deeds,* 26 n. 27 ; usury,12 n. Berdellu. Parkhurst, '83; husb. 4 w. 43. Berg v. Grace, 1 N. Y. Stale Rep. 418. Appeal dis. missed, it seems, but with- out opinion, 102 X. Y. 739. Bergen v. Bennett, '83 ; lim. of a. 6 ; '86 ; trusts, 23 n. v. Carman, '83 ; forec. 32 ; '84 ; appeal, 70 ; '85; appeal, 43 ; '86 ; forec. 25. v. Powell, 30 Hun, 438. Aff' d in 94 TV. Y. 591. v. Udall, '85 ; fraud, 7. v. Valentine, '86 ; tenants for life, 2 n. Berger v. Duff, '84 ; powers, 4; '85 ; powers, 2 n. Bergmann v. Jones, '84 ; trials, 52 n. ; '86 ; new trials, 10 ; trials, 19, 21, 25. Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Juil- lard, '85 ; assignment for b. of c. 34. Berley u.Rampacher,'83; munc. corp. 55 n.; '85; huBb. 4 w. 3 n. Bernard v. Morrison, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (MeCarty) 425; s. c, 16 Weekly B. 428 ; rev'g 2 Civ. Pro. R. (McCarty)213 ; s. c, 2 Id. (Browne) 399 ; 64 How. Pr. 108; 4 Mouth. L. Bui 90 ; N. Y. Daily Reg. Oct. 31, 1882 • and as Bar- nard v. Morrison, 29 Hun, 410. Bernes v. Weisser, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 123. Berney v. Drexel, 63 How. Pr. 471 ; s. c, N. Y. Daily Reg. Sept. 8, 1882, and 4 Month.' L. Bui. SI. Aff din 33 Hun, 34; which was reaff'd on re- argument in Id. 419 ; '86 ; pi. 35. Bernheim v. Daggett, 12 Abb. N. 0. 316. Aff d by Ct. of App. without opinion, Id. 321. Bernstein v. Solomon, '83 ; ser- vice & p. 25. Berriau v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., '83 ; pi. 17. -^ — v. Olmstead, '86 ; justices' ct. 10 n. Berrien, Matter of, '86 ; ex. & ad. 121 n. Berrien v. Steel, '84; parties, 30 n. ; '85 ; huab. & w. 3 n. Berry v. Biley, '84 ; exec. 23 n. Bertholf v. O'Reilly, '83 ; const, law, 32 ; '84 ; civil damage act, 1 ; const, law, 18 ; '85 ; const, law, 10 n. 11 n. 13 n. 18, 19; tax, 3; '86; adul- teration, 1 ; const, law, 2 n. Bertine v. Varian, '85 ; ex. & ad. 128 n ; '86 ; lim. of a. 18 n. Bertles v. Hunan, '84 ; husb. & w. 4 n. ; '85 ; dower, 11 n. : husb. & w. 3 n. 4, 5, 6 n. 10, 15, 26; '86; husb. & w. 4, 15. Bertram v. Bernett, '85 ; attach- ment, 36 n. Bertschy v. Bertschy, '86 ; ali- mony, 1. Besel v. N. Y. CentralR. E. Co.; '84 ; master & s. 13, 18 ; '86 ; negl. 49 n. Besson u.Southard,- '83 ; ques- tion of 1. & f. 15. Best v. Brown, '8G ; ev. 21. v. Staple, '86 ; chat. mort. 4 n. Betsinger v. Chapman, 88 K. Y. 487; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 303, and 14 Reporter, 90 ; aff'g 24 Ban, 15 ; abridgt. s. c, 12 Weekly D. 36. Bettinger v. Bridenbecker, '84 ; money paid, 10. Bettis v. Goodwill, '85 ; costs, 13. Betts v. Bache, '83 ; arrest, 7 n. v. Betts, '83 ; ex. & ad. 172. trusts, 30, 75 n. ; 76 ; wills, 189, 190 ; '81 ; ex. 4 ad. 125 n. ; sum. pro. 3 ; trusts, 28; wills, 22 ; '85 ; legacies, 5 n. ; '86 ; legacies, 3a, n. ; wills, 59. v. City of Williamsburgh, '85; munc. corp.98;'86; inj. 33 n. v. Hillman, '83 ; arrest, 7 n. v. Hoyt, '85 ; sales, 40 n. v. Jackson; '83 ; wills, 48 ; '84 ; ev. 248 n. ; '86 ; wills, 19, 35. Betz v. Baur, '85 ; parties, 31 n. v. Conner, '84 ; fraud. conv. 12. Beudel v. Hettrick, '84 ; partn. 1 n. Bevan v. Cooper, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 142 , 154 ; legacies, 22 ; snrr. ct. 13, 18, 19, 22, 22 n. 24, 28 n.; wills, 146, 157 ; '84'; surr. ct. 21 ; '85 ; ex. 4 ad. 165 ; wills, 69 ; '86 ; surr. ct. 11 n. Bevier v. Covell, 87 N. Y. 50 ; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 297; affg7 Weekly D.' 527. v. Delaware, etc. Canal Co., '83; negl. 62. ir v. People, '83 ; abduc- tion, 1 ; '85 : abduction, 2. Bickerton v. Ja2ques, '86 ; ins. 68, 69 n. 71. Bickett v. Taylor, '83 ; nons. 1 n. Bicknell v. Byrnes, '85 ; con- tracts, 72 n. Biddlecom v. Newton, '85 munc. corp. 116. Bidwell v. Northwestern Ins, Co., '83 ;ins. 16. Bielschofsky v. People, '83 ; ev. 279 ; false pret. 3 ; '85 ; ev, 230, 254 n. Bierbauer v. New York Central, etc. B. E. Co., '83 ; ev. 295 '85 ; dam. 37 n. Bigelow v. Benedict, '86; dam. 17 n. ; pi. 9 n. v. Finch, '83 ; sum. pro. 3. v. Hall. 91 N. 7. 145 : affg 12 Weekly D. 436 ; '86; wit. 51. v. Heaton, '85 ; lien, 5. v. Johnson, '84; pi. 151n.: '85; 154 n. v. Stearns, '85 ; sup. pro. 13. Bigler v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y , '86 ; munc. corp. 51 n. v. Morgan, '83 ; v. & p. 16. v. Pinkney, '85; appeal, 32. Billings v. Billings, '85 ; fraud. -conv. 1 n. ; 'ti6 ; ev. 31 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. Cited in Cregier v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 15 Wttkiy D. 282 ; '85 ; const, law, 49 n. v. Robinson, 28 Hurt, 122 s. c, 15 Weekly D. 521 Aff d in 94 X X. 415 ; '84 : corp. 19 n. v. Sawyer, '86; ev. 31 n. v. Vanderbeck, '84 ; at- tach. 17. Billington v. Forbes, '85 ; judi ■ cial sale, 11 n. v. Wagoner, '83 ; usury; 3J n. Bills v. Nat. Park Bk of N. Y., 89 JV. Y. 343 ; s. c, IS Weekly D. 175 ; rev'g 4' Super Lt.(J. & a'.) 302 ; '84 attach. 25, 33 n. 37 ; 'So attach. 44, 51 n.; '86 attach. 43 n. v. N. Y. CeDtral E. E. Co. '83 ; trials, 19. Bilsborrow v. James, '83 ; bills n. 4 c. 19. Binck v. Wood, '85 ; forme: adj. 40 n. Bingham v. Disbrow, '85 ; sup pro. 5. u. Jones, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 57 Bininger v. Clark, '83; gooi will, 1 n. Binney v. Le Gal, '84 ; judgro 4 decree, 25 ; '85 ; costs, 13 '86 ; costs, 24 n. Binns v. Williams, 88 N. I 660 ; s. c, more fully, 1 Weekly D. 17. Binsse v. Wood, '85 ; judgm. decree, 29 ; money paic 5 ; '85 ; former adj. ■ 25 judgm. 4 decree, 'Ad ; '86 trials, 52, 53. Biolley's ISstate, '85; guardian w. 5. BirbecTe SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Bloodgood 13 Birbeck v. Ackroyd, '83 ; ev. 42. Birch v, Kavanaugh, '84 ; in j. 5. Birahell v. Strauss, '85 ; attach- ment. 15 n. Birekhead v. Brown, '83 ; ev. 117. Bird v. Caritat, '85 ; assign. 7. Birdsall v. Clark, '84; mnnc. ,corp. 5. v. Edgerton, '84 ; contracts, 10 n. v. Hewlett, '83 ; legacies, 20. v. Patterson, '83 ; trials, 10 ; '84 ; appeal, '88 ; '85 ; trial, 85, 87 n. v. Phillips, '83 ; certiorari. 7 v. Kussell, '84 ; trials, 64. Birdseye v. Smith, '84 ; pi. 10 Birkhead v. Brown, '83 ; guar- anty, 11 n ; parties, 10 ; '86 ; trials, S9 n. Bisbey v. Shaw, '83 ; pi. 182 ; '84 ; libel, ,9. Bishop u. Barton, '83; statutes, 10 ; '85 ; statutes, 9. v. Bishop, '83 ; fixtures, 2. v. Davis, '85; deceit, 6. v. Earl. '83 ; sher. 27. v. Edmiston, '85 ; ten. in com. 6. Bissell v. Bissell, '86 ; alimony, 1 ; ev. 214 n. v. Cornell, '83 ; pi. 182 n. v. Harrington, 'oo ; con- tracts, 73. v. Hopkins, '84 ; fraud. conv. 12 n. v. Michigan Southern B. E. Co., '81; bail, 8h. ; corp. 21; l. r. co. 38 n.; 'o5 ; corp. 14; '86; bills n. & c. 17 n.;r. r. co. 2 n. v. New York Central B. B. Co., '83 ; deeds, 18 ; sum- mons, 3 ; '84 ; judgm. & de- cree, 26; '8-3 ; deeds, 20; em. dom. 6 n. ; niunc. corp. 56 n. ; '86 ; carriers, 21 n. ; com- pensation, 8 n. ; summons, 5. v. Payn, '85 ; sup. pro. 33 n. v. Pearce, '83 ; lien, 10 n. ; '86 ; lodging-house keepers, v. Saxton, '85 ; lands, 14 ; ev. 116. Bitter v. Kathman, '85 ; husb. & w. 12. Bixby v. Mead, '83 ; judicial sale, 5. v. Smith, '84 ; service & p. 12 ; '86 , judgm. 30. Black v. Camden & Amboy B. E. Co., '83 ; dam. 32 ; int. 5 n. t>. O'Brien, '84 ; cost, 14 ; '86 ; costs, 44, n. i). White, '84 ; ev. 27 n. ; '86 ; trials, 8. Black Biver B. B. Co., Matter of. '83 ; r. r. co. 94, Black Biver & M. E. B. Co. v. Barnard, '83 ; compensa- tion, 7 ; '85 ; r. r. co 49, 50 n. Blackie v. Neilson. Disting'd as to bills of particulars in Kee v. McSweeney, 66 How. Pr. 451; '85; pi. 154 n. Blackley v. Sheldon, '83; trial, 90. Blackstock oN.IA Erie B. E. Co., '85; r. r. co. 6n.;'86 ; carriers, 2, 4 n. Black well v. Wiswall, '84 ; libel, 2. Blade v. Noland, '83 ; ev. 102, 297. Blain v. Taylor, '83 ; covenants, 13 n. Blair v. Bartlett, '83 ; es- toppel, 13 ; former adj. 37 n.; sales, 3 0; '85; estoppel, 5 n ; former adj. 28. v, Erie By. Co., '84 ; negl. 16 ; r. r. co., 1 ; '85 ; negl. 50 n. v. Wait, '83 ; estoppel, 6 ; ev. 251 ; '84 ; estoppel, 13 n. ; 85;' ejectment, 1 n ; estop- pel, 9 ; '86 ; ins. 63 n. Blaisdell v. Eaymond, '83 ; pi. 176 ; '84; verif. 1 n.; '85; verif. 4. Blake v. Blake, '85 ; ex. & ad. 36 n. v. Buffalo Creek E. E. Co., '83 ; principal 4 a. 5 ; '85 ; ins. 73 ; '86 ; corp. 22. I-. City of Brooklyn, '83 ; inj. 8. v. Ferris,'83 ; highw. 21 n. ; master k s. 18 ; negl. 14 ; '84 ; munc. corp. 64 ; '85 ; negl. 39 n.; '86; negl. 31. v. People, '83 ; ev. Ill n.; '84 ; ev. 63 ; '85 ; ev. 69 ; '86 ; ev. 59. Blakeley v. City of Troy, '84 ; munc. corp. 63 n. Blakely v. Calder, '83 ; parti- tion, 5 ; '85 ; ex. & ad. 176 n. ; partition, 1 ; '86 ; parti- tion, 11 ; surr. ct. 19 n. Blanchard v. Blanchard, '85; powers, 5 ; wills, 118. v. Ely, '85; sales, 15. v. Nestle, '83 ; wills 18; '84; ev. 251. v. Trim, '83 ; sales, 1;'84; contracts, 76. v. Western Union Tel. Co., '81 ; nuis. 1. Blank, Matter of, '84 ; munc. corp. 5. Blasdale v. Babcock, '84; ev. 123 ; '86; dam. 16 n. Blasdel v. Hewit, '84 ; pi. 154 n.; '85; pi. 155. Blason v. Bruno, '83 ; arrest, 14. Blatchford v. Boss, '86 ; corp, 21. ' > v Blatchley v. Moser, '85 ; crim. law, 3n. Blaut v. Gabler,'85; replevin 4. Blanvelt v. Woodworth, '85 ; mech. 1. 2. Blazier v. Miller, '85 ; const. law, 13. Bleakley v. White, '83; paym. 1 ; '84; joint debtor, 4 n. ; '85 ; paym. 8 n. ; '8a; paym. 5 n. Bleecker v. Ballou, '86; taxes, 2 n. v. Johnston, '83; ev. 6 n. ; 350 ; '84 ; ev. 161 ; trials, 49 n.;'85; ev. 305 ; '86; trials, 61. v. Lynch, '84 ; ev. 251. Bleeker v. Smith, '83; forfeit- ure, 2n. v. Graham, '83 ; interp. 6. Blend v. Peqple, '84 ; sentence, In. Blewett v. Baker, '83 ; sales, 21. Bliss v. Bliss, '83 ; principal & a . 20 ; '85 ; principal 4 a. 10 ; sales, 46 n. ; set-off, 3, 6n. v. Cottle, '83 ; pi. 131; '84 ; replevin, 4; '85; election of . rights, 8 n. v. Hoggson, '84 ; appeal, 51. Bliss v. Johnson, 74 N. T. 529. Cited on a further decision in the same cause in 94 N. Y. 238 ; '83 ; arrest, 38 ; '85 ; tax, 55; '86 ; husb. & w. 3. v. Lawrence, '86 ; assign. 1 n. ; sup. pro. 25. v. Matteson, '83 ; con- tracts, 63 ; principal * a. 6; '85; corp. 26 n. ; '86; corp. 34 n. v. Sheldon, '84 ; ex. & ad. 63 ; '86 ; ex. 4 ad. 54 n. Bliven v. Hudson Eiver E. E. Co., '84; carriers, 6 n. v. Peru Steel, etc. Co., '86 ; pi. 132. v. Seymour, '86; wills, 74. Blodget v. Conklin, '85 ; judgm. Blodgett, Matter of, 89 N. Y. 392 ; rev'g 27 Hun, 12. Further decision in 91 N. Y. 117; '84; const, law, 40; costs, 23 n. Blodgett v. Bace, '83; arrest, 41; '84 ; false impris. 1, -Blodgett's Petition, 16 Week- ly D. 99 ; rev'g 15 Id. 433 Biood v. Goodrich, '84; con- tracts, 102 n.; debtor & cred. 3 n. Bloodgood v. Bruen, '83; ex. * ad. 67; Urn of a. 41, 44; '84; ex. &ad. 112; lim. of a. 27; '85; ex. s ad. 101 ; lim. of a. 53; '86; ev. 14o n. ; ex. & ad. 109. — v. Clark, '83; receivers, 4. — v. Mohawk & Hudson Biver B. B. Co., '83; car- riers, 2 n. ; const, law, 44 '84; const, law, 21; '85 .ompensation, 2, 9; '86 14 Bloom SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Booth const, law, 9 n. ; em. dom. 3. Bloom v. Burdiok, '83 ; insane per. 17 ; wills, 76; '84 ; ex. 4 ad. 6; juris. 1 n.; '85 ; ex. & ad. 171; surr. ct. 31; '86; court-martial, 2 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 130. Bloomer v. Sturges, '86; debtor & cred. 6 . v. Waldron, '86; powers, 2 n. ; wills, 58 n. Bloomiield, etc. Gasjight Co. v. Calkins, '83; compensation, 2 ; inj. 15 ; '80 ; dedica- tion, 6; nuis. 3. v. Biehardson, '86; const. law, 9 n. Bloomingdale v. Lisberger, '83; 'ins. 68. Blossom v. Dodd, '84; carriers, 8. v. Estes, '83 ; attach. 62, 65; service 4 p. 5; '84 ; attach. 31; 86 ; attach. 40 n. i v. Griffin, '83 ; contracts, 74 ; ev. 127 n. v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., '86 ; ins. 15. Blott v. Eider, '83 ; divorce, 3 n.; ev. 336; '86; divorce, 1. Blumenthal v. Anderson, 91 A'. Y. 171 ; s. c, 16 Wtelcly D. 78; aff'g 28 Hun, 93; abridg't a. c, 15 Weekly D. 427. v. Bloomingdale, N. Y. Duily Reg. Sept. 22, 1883. Aff d in 1U0 JS. Y. 558; s. c, 1 Ceidr. Rep. 513; a. c, 2 Modern Rep. 827; affg 30 Hun, 382; '86 ; contr. 97 n. Blunt v. McCormick, '83; dam. 37 ; '86 ; dam. 40 n. Blydenburgh v. Bingham, '83; debtor 4 cred. 6. v. Cotheal, '85 ; new promise, 1. Blyer v. Monholland, '86 ; deeds, 3Un. Blythe v. Tompkins, '83 ; dam. 18 n. ; '84 ; false impris. 1. Board of Corrections, &c. v. Hammill, ;'86 j bail, 3 n. Board of Education of Fair- port v. Fonda, '85 ; munc. corp. 125 n. Board of Excise v. Sackrider, '83; costs, 124 a. Board of Excise of Ontario Co. v. Garhnghouse, '83; par- ties, 61. Board of Excise of Westcnester v. Curley, '83 ; munc. corp. 146; '85 ; statutes, 12, 13. Boardman v. Halliday, '83; assign, for b. of c. 22 ; '85; offr. 13. v. Lake Shore & M. S. B. B. Co., '83 ; corp. 11, 44; '84 ; corp. 54 ; '85 ; estoppel, 9. v. Supervisors of Tomp- kins, '83; tax, 10; '86; taxes, 4. Bockes v. Hathorn. Cited as to costs in 39 Hun, 569 ; '83 ; costs, 70; '84; costs, 36. v. Lansing, '85; pi. 27 n. 28 n.; '86; amend. 17 n.; pi. 111. Bodine v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 56; '85; ins 7. 23;' principal 4 a. 6; '86; ins. 24. v. Killeen, '85; husb. 4 w. 12; '86; husb. 4 w. 2 n. 17. Boehen v. Williamsburgh City Ins. Co., '85 ; ins. 7. Boerum v. Betts, '84; surr. ct. 37. v. Schenck, '83 ; election of rights, 3 ; ex. & ad. 77 n.; '85; assign, for b. of o. 20. Boese i>. King, '83 ; assign. for b. of c. 5. Bogirdus v. Clark, 83; wills, 101 n.; '84 ; devise, 3; '85; former adj. 31. Bogart, Matter of, 28 Bun, 466. Aff'din20 Weekly D. 141; '85; wills, 55. Bogart v. Burkhalter, '83 ; v. 4 P-.i v. Dart, '83 ; attach.' 11; '85; attach, 4; '86 ; attach. 1. v. Van Velsor, '84; ex. 4 ad. 62. Bogert, Matter of 2 Dem. 117; s. c, 4 tSi>. Pro. 441; 67 How. Pr. 313. Affdin 6 Civ. Pro. R. 128. Bogert v. Gulick, '84; husb. 4 w. 4 n. 12 n. v. Haight, '85; assign. for b. of c. 35. v. Hertoll, '83; "join, of a. 1; wills, 178, 178 n.; '81; powers, 5; '85 ; ex. 4 ad. 40 ; '86; wihs, 58. Bold v. O'Brien, 17 Weekly D. 466 ; rev'g A. Y. Dai:y Reg. Oct. 31, 1882. Boldt v. N. Y. Central, &c. E. E. Co., '83; master 4 s. 22. Bolen v. Crosby, '85 ; abate. & r. 5; assign. 17; '86; abate. 4 r. 3 n. Boiler v. Mayor, etc. of N. T., '85 ; sum, pro. 6. Bollerman v. Blake, '85; aliens, 3; '86; aliens, 1. Bolles v. Duff, '83; mort. 28; surr. ct. 35 n. ; '86 ; juris. 9 n.; redemption, 1 n. Bolt v. Keyhoe, '84 ; sup. pro. 22. Bolton v. De Peyster, '83 ; pow- ers, 1. v. Jacks, '83 ; accumula- tions, 5 n. v. Lawrence, 9 Wend. 439. Disting'd (sheriffs fees) in Flack u. State, 95 JV. Y. 471. Bolz v. Bidder 12 Daly, 329; s. c, A'. 1'. Daily Reg. Aug. 7, 1884, and less fully 19 Weelcly D. 463. Bommer v. American Spiral Spring Co., '83 ; trials, 19; '86 ; partn. 9 n. Bond v. Mitchell, '85; pi. 102. v. Smith. '83 ; abate. & r. 11; ev. 306. v. Willett, '83 ; exec. 32 ; '86 ;cityct. of N. Y. 2. Bonesteel v. Lynde, '85 ; wit. 2 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y.,'86 ; munc. corp. 30 n. Bonfanti v. Beguerre, '83; surr. ct. 22 n.;'84 ; ex. sad. 110. Bonnell v. Griswold, 89 A". Y. 122. Further decision in action by same parties in 8 Civ. Pro. R. 280; s. a, 15 A'ib. K (. 470 ; s. c, 2 How. Pr. JV. S. 451; '83;mfg. co. 26; pi. 40; '84;mfg.co. 10 n. ; pi. 32 n.; '85; appeal, 33; '86; mfg. co. 7 ; partn. 43 ; pi. 38. v. Borne, etc. B. E. Co., 'e4 ; outlawry, 2 n. v. Wheeler, '84; mfg. co. 21. Bonner, Matter of, '83; assign. for b. of c 51. v. McPhail, '83; marine ct. 9. Bonney v. Seely, '86; lim. of a. 20 n. Bonynge v. Watorbury, '86; costs, 39. Bookstaver v. Jayne, '83 ; bills, ix. ic c. 9 ; ev. 139 n. ; guar- anty, 4; '84; fcontracts, 21; '86; bonds, an. Bool v. Mix, 83; infants, 2. Boone v. Citizens' Savings Blc. N. Y., '83; trusts, 8, 26; '84; lim. of a. 23; "8i ; sav'gs bks. 9, 10 n. Boorman v. Atlantic & Pacific E. E. Co., '83; depositions, 21. v. Johnson, '86; ev. 71; trials, 43. Boos v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., '85; appeal, 23, 78; '86; appeal, 32. Booth v. Amerman, '83 ; assign. 4; ex. 4 ad. 217; '84; annuities, 1 ; legacies, 18. v. Boston & Albany E. E. Co.. '83; master & s. 24, 25, 34 n. ; '84; master 4 s. 23 n. 28 n. ; '85; master 4 s. 16,17; trial, 78 n.; '86; negl. 56 n. v. Cleveland Eolling Mill Co., '83; contract, 39; '.-4; contracts, 52 n. ; '86; con- tracts, 27 ; mort. 15. v. Farmers & Me- chanics' Bank, '84; join- der of a. 4; '86; juljn. 9 n. ; pi. 13 n. v. Jarrett, '83; fradcc!. 16 n. v. Kehoe, 'So ; lien, 3 v. Kitchen, 83; wills, 51, 84. Booth SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Boylan 15 ■ — — v. Powers, '85; bonds, 5 ; '86; banking, 5; bills, n. 4 o. 8 ; conversion, 14. v. Spuyten D. E. Mill Co., '83 ; contracts, 111 ; dam. 5 n.; '84; pi. 134; '85; con- tracts, 87. v. bwezey, ; '83; ev. 206. Boots v. Washburn, '84; towns, 1 ; '85; county treas. 4. Borden v. Fitch, '83 ; divorce, 29 ; '84; divorce, 9 n ; '85; judgm. & decree, 7 n. ;'86; divorce, 2 in. 25 n. Bordewell v. Colie, '83 ; sales, 31 ; '86; sales, 37. Boreel v. Lawton, '84; appeal, 96 ; landl. & t. 6 ; '84; landl. 4't. 12 n.;'85;forec. 7 n.; '86; covenants, 2 n. v. Mayor, '83 ; deeds, 2. Borell v. Newell, '85; election of r. 11. Bork v. People,91 K Y. 5; s. c, 16 Weekly J). 153, andl N. Y. Vrim. X. 379; aff'g Id. 368; '85; indict. 6. Borland v. Stewart, '84; exec. 23 n. Borries v. Horton, '86 ; highw. 16 n. Borst v. Corey, '84 ; lira, of a. addend. 10 a; '85; contribu- tion, 1 n.;ex. sad. 128 n.; lim, of a. 11, 19, 20. v. Crommie, '86; legacies, 10. v. Griffin, '83 ; mech. 1 . 8. v. Spelman, '83 ; husb. 4 w. 20 n. Bort v. Smith, '86; parties, 4 n. Bortle u. Mellen, '84 ; excep- tions, 6. Boston & Albany B. B. Co., Matter of, '83; const, law, 35 n.; def. 103; '85; em. dom. 4, 5. Boston, Hoosac Tunnel & W. K. B. Co., Matter of, '83 ; r. r. co. 66, 94, 102 ; '85; r. r. co. 41. Boston Boad, Matter of, '83 ; r. r. co. '85 ; r. r. co. 50 n. Boston Silk Mills u.Eull, '84; costs, 12 ; '86; costs, 7. Bostwick, Matter of, '83; lega- cies, 29 n.; 84; parent 4 c. 2; '85; former adj. 10 n. ; guardian 4 w. 8; '86; ex. 4 ad. 120 n. Bostwick v. Atkins, '84 ; infants, 5 n. v. Bait. & Ohio E. E Co., '86 ; carriers, ] 8. v. Barlow, '85; appeal, 78 a; •86; towns, 4. v. Burnett, '85; assign forb. of c. 35. v. Brown, '83 ; costs, 114 115. v. Champion, '83 ; carriers, 6 n. v. Dry Goods Bank, '86 ; pi. 123. v. Frankfield, '83 ; dower, 8 ; '84; v. 4 p. 9; '86; lease, 23 n. 25 n. v. Menck, '83; sup. pro. 18; '84; assign, for b. of c. 89 ; exec. 11; pi. 57 ; sup. pro. 34; '85; fraud, conv. 21 ; receiver, 13 ; '86 ; sup. pro. 7 n. Boswell v. Welshoefer, '84; pi. 1U8 n. Bosworth f. Tandewalker, '83 ; ev. 24; '84 ; service 4 p. 14 n. Botsford v. Burr, '83 ; contracts, 81; '85; trusts, 14. d. McLean. '83; negl. 56 n ; reformation of inst. 2. Boucher v. Pia, '83; sec. for costs, 12. Boucicault v. Boucicault, '83 ; arrest, 23. Boughton v. Flint, '83; ex. & ad. 136, 187; lim. of a. 9n. 22; surr. ct. 22 n. 31; '84; ex. & ad. 114; lim. .of a. 23, 24 ; '85 ; former adj. 10 n. ; legacies, 13; lim. of a. 34; '86 ; lim. of a. 13; surr. ct. 11 n. v. Otis, '83;mfg. co. 31 n. Boulle v. Tompkins, '84; ex. & ad. 130. Bours v. Tuckerman, '83; wit. 2 n. Boutonu. Bouton,' '83; appeal, 12 ; partn. 15; '86; ref. 20 n. v. City of Brooklyn, '86; ev. 25;inj. 33 n. Boutwell v. O'Keefe, '85; sales, 25 n. Bovee v. King, '85; offr. 22 n. Bowditch v. Salisbury, '85; jus- tices' ct. 1 n. Bowdoin v. Colman, '83; assign. 12. Bowe v. Arnold, 31 Hun, 256. Cited (Creditors' suits) in 33 Huv, 59. 84; cred. s. 2 n. v. Campbell, '84; sher. 3 n. v. Gano, 85; lim. of a. 29. v, U. S. Keflector Co., 4 Civ. Pro. M. 154; s. c, 66 How. Pr. 41. Affd in 36 Hun, 407; s. c , 2 How. Pr. N. 8. 440, and 8 Civ. Pro ft. 33. Bowen v. Argall, 40 n. ' v. Beck, '85; mortgages 18, '86; deeds, 29 n. D.Bell, '83; contracts, '83; ev. 139 n. v. Bowen, '83; services, 5; 84; contracts, 2 n. ; ex 4 ad. 66. v. Clarke, '86; appeal, 11 a. v. First Nat. Bank of Medi- na, 34 i/oio. Pr. 408. See 6 South. L. Rev. 2t. n. n 6 y. Idley, '85; surr. ct. 19- '86; wills, 33 n. rr?' l r } sh Pr esbyterian Church,'84; defenses, 3; '86; account 4 accounting, 1. partn. v. Lease, '83; corp. 10, n ; mech. 1. 2, '86; wills, 10 n. v. Mandeville, 95 N. Y. 237; aff'g 29 Hun, 42; '85; election ofr.2; '86; amend. 2; fraud, 9. v. Newell, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. v. N. T. Central E.E. Co., '86; negl. 78 n. v. Widner, '85; appeal, 112. Bowers v. Smith, '83; wills, 234, 236, 238; '85; equity, 1. Bowery National Bank of N. Y. v. Mayor, etc., of N. X. '83; contracts, 89; '84; contracts, 27 n. ; '85 munc. corp. 81 n. ; '86 munc. corp. 29 n. Bowes v. N. Y. Christian, &c. Home, '86; mech. 1. 3. Bowie v. Brahe, '83 ; exec. 4. Bowker v. Wells, '86; wills, 56 n. Bowling Green Sav. Bank v. Todd, '83; atty. 4 c. 44; '84; atty. 4 c. 18 n. ; '85; atty. 4 c. 16 n. ; fraud, conv. 3 n. Bowman v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 'c5;ev. 9; '86; ins. 10. v. Earle, '84; bills of par. 7n. v. Sheldon, '85; pi. 92. v. Tallman, '83 ; bankrupt- cy, 5; '85; atty. 4 c. 5 n. ; ex." 4 ad. 88. v. Travis, '86; animals, 4 n. Bown v. Catholic Mut. Ben. Assoc, '85; ex. 4 ad. 21; '86; ex. 4 ad. 39. Bowne v. Joy, '83; defenses, 4; '80; defenses, 2. v. Lynde, 91 N. Y. 92; s. c. 16 Weekly D. 248; aff'g 13. Id. 97. v. Underhill, '83; wills, 180 n. Boyce v. Bates, '83; atty. 4 c. 18. v. Brockway, '86; conver- sion, 1, 7; trusts, 31. v. Brown, '85; crim. law, 3. v. People, '84; seduction, 2. v. Eussell, '86; paym. 1 n. v. Washburn, '84; trusts, 7. Boyd v. Colt, '84; wit. 29; '86; appeal, 93. V- Commings, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 25. v. De La Montagnie, '86; fraud, 3. v. Dunlap, '83; fraud. conv. 19; '85; fraud, conv. 10. v. Gray, '84; taxes, 30; '85; ev. 52; tax, 52; '86; taxes, 60 n. v. Hoyt, '85; joinder of a 1 n. u. Vanderkempt, '84; amend 19 n. Boyer v. Scofield, '86; former adj. 31. Boylan v. Mathews, '83; sec. for costs, 11 n. 16 Boyland SUPPLEMENTABX TABLE. Brewer Boyland v. Mayor, etc. of K.Y., '86 ; munc. oorp. 46 n. Boyle v. City of Brooklyn, '85; munc. corp. Ill n.; pi. 110 n. Boylen v. McAvoy, '85; surr. ct. 19. Boynton v, Andrews. Cited (mfg. co's.), in 40 Hun, 487; '84- mfg. co. 10. v. Clinton and Essex Mut. Ins. Co., '83; parties, 34. v. Hatch, '83; mfg. co. 16; '84; mfg. co. 10 n. v. Hoyt, '83; accumulation, 1, n. 5 n. ; ev. 306; accumula- tions, n. v. liawson, '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Jackway, '85 ; assistance, 1. Brace v. Gould, '85; husb. & w. 17. . v. N. Y. Central, etc., R. K. Co., '85 ;r. r. co. 21. Brackett v. Barney. Cited (ex- ecuting and delivering con- tracts) in Whitford v. Lin- dler, 94 JV. Y. 152. ' v Harvey, 91 Ji. Y. 214; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 257 ; rev'g 25 Hun, 502 ; s. c, 13 Weekly J). 326; '83; chat. mort. 8, '85; chat. mort. 3; partn- 17 n. v. Wyman, '83; contracts, 63; '85; contracts, 53 n. Bracy u.Kibbe, '83; ev. 250 n. Bradbury v. Van Nostrand, '83; marine ct. 6. Bradford v. Fox, '86; paym. In. Bradhurst v. Bradhurst, '86; devise, 2 n. v. Columbian Ins. Co., '86; ins. 46 n. v. First Great S. W. Turn- pike K. Co., '83;mand. 16. Bradish v. Gibbs, '83; powers, 6; '84; marr. settlement, 1. Bradley v. Aldrich, 40 N. Y. 504. Cited (specific per- formance) in 36 Hun, 477; '86; pi. 35. v. Amidon, '83; trusts, 23; '84; parties, 26. ; v. Angel, '83; set-off, 1. v. Bishop, '83; sher. 27. . v. Bosley. Cited (relief in equity) 102 N. Y. 561. v. Bradley, '86; ex. 4 ad. 33. v. Burwell, '83; costs, 113. v. Mirick, 91 A". Y. 293; s. c\, 16 Weekly 1). 200; afpg 25 Hun, 272; '85; serv- ice 4 p. 12;'86;ev. 100 n. d. Boot, '83; assign. 5 ; '86; money paid, 17. v. Van Zandt, '84; appeal, 126; '86; appeal, 97. v. Ward, '83; tax, 46; '85; ev. 52; tax, 44; '86; tax, 75 n. v Wheeler, '84; sales, 3; '84; ev. ^42; sales, 23; '85; ev. 204 n. ; sales, 35 ; '86 ; ev. 289 n. ; sales, 31. Bradner, Matter of, '86; exec. 21 ; juris. 1. Bradner- v. Faulkner, 93 N. Y. 515; rev'g 16 Weekly D. 240; '83; legacies, 28; '85; joinder of a. 3; legacies, 35 n. 36, 39; '86; ex. 4 ad. 54 n. ; legacies, 21; pi. 149. v. Strang, 89 21. Y. 299; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 162; aff g 23 Hun, 445; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 504; '84; dis- charge, 2; '86; ev. 48 a n. Bradshaw v. Heath, '83; divorce, 29; '84; divorce, 9 n. Bradstreet v. Clarke, '83; wills, 215, n,; '85; ev. 186; spec. perl 12 n. Bradt v. Benedict, '83; corp. 61. Brady, Matter of, '83; impris. 1,11, 24; '84; impris. 5; '85; impris. 2; '86; impris. 13 n. Brady v. Bissell, '83; arrest, 22. v. Donnelly, '84; appeal, 15. v. Hennion, '86; deeds, 14. v. McCrosson, '86; wills, 11 n. v. Mayor etc. of N. Y., '83. munc. corp. 58, 117, 118; '85; munc. corp. 48; '86; estoppel, 8; munc. corp. 30 n. v. Rensselaer, etc., B.B. Co., '85; r. r. co. 11 n. v. Smith, '84; service & p. 12. v. Supervisors of N. Y.,'85; counties, 1 n. v. Weeks. '85; nuis., 6. Bragelman v. Daue, '84; ins. 23. Brague v. Lord, 2 ^466. JV. 0. 1. Qualified (competency of witness) in Holcomb v. Holcomb, 95 N. Y. 325. Brainard v. Cooper, '83 ; attach. 42; mort. 28; parties, 28; '84; forec. 11; '85; foret. 14 n. v. Jones, '84; int. 4. Brainerd v. Heydrick, '83; sum- mons, 4. v. N. Y. & Harlem R.R, Co., '86; bills, n. & c. 18. Bramanu. Bingham, '86; deeds, 6. Bramhall v. Ferris, '83; wills, 178; '85; trusts, 30. Brandon v. Avery, '84; const. law, 59. v. People, '83; wit. 78, n. ; '84; wit. 58; '86; wit. 3 n. Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Bridgman, '83; depositions, 26; '84; depositions, 30. Brandt v. Klein, '83; atty. & c. 14. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Cited in a further decision in the same cause, 48 Super. CI. (J. & 8.) 293. v. Ogden, '84; adv. poss. 12 n. ; deeds, n. Brantigham v. Fay, '83; dam. 34. Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Ch. 242. Cited (pro- ceedings by petition) in 34 Hun, 544; '86; insane per. 7. Brassell v. N. Y. Central, etc., KB. Co., 34 If. Y. 241. Fol- lowed in Murphy v. The Same, 88 JV. Y. 445; '85; exceptions, 8 n; negl. 18; r. r. co. 4; '86; negl., 112. Braudlacht, Ex parte, '83; ap- peal, 55; '84; prohibition, 2; '86; prohibition, 2. Brauneck v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., '83; juris. 9; '84; juris. 8n. Brazill v. Isham, '83; pi. 2; '84- pi. 132. Breasted v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., '83; ins. 60 n.; '86; ins. 67 n. Breck v. Cole, '83; debtor & cred. 10; '85; corp. a6 n. Breese v. United States Tele- graph Co., '84; teleg. 1. Breiman v. Paasch, '85; husb. 4 w. 22; '86; husb. t w. 27 n. Brennan v. Lane, '86; trusts. 42. v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. Disting'd (What is on officer) in MacDonald v. Mayor, etc, of K. Y., 32 Hun, 92; 'ti3; ev. 217, 23C; munc. corp. 16. v. Willson, '83 ; assign. forb. of c. 9; trusts, 51; '84; assign, for b. of c. 12, 22, 88; powers, 4; '8u; assign, for b, of c. 11, 35; '86; assign, forb. of c. 13. Brett v. Brett, 33 Hun, 547. Aff d, it seems, but without opinion in 98 If. Y. 619. v. Bucknam, '85 ; wit. 2 n. Breunich v. Weselman, 100 if. Y. 609; s. c. more fully, 1 Central Hep. 11; s. c, 1 Eastern Rep. 752; aff'g 49 tiuper. Ct. (J. & S.) 31 ;s. o„ 16 Weekly U. 556. Brevoort v. Brevoort, '85; ap- peal, 74. v. City of Brooklyn, 89 if. Y. 128; s. c, 15 Weekly B.\ 66- rev'g 18 Hun, 383; '84. villages, 11, '85; tax, 37, 49 n.; '86; tax, 42. v. Randolph, '83; mort. 13; '85; mort. 15 n. v. Warner, '83; disc. & insp. 8 n. Brewer v. Brewer, '84; susp. of power of a. 2. Brewer SUPPLEMEJsTAEY TABLE. B onson 17 d. Salisbury, '83; antes, 12 a. v. Temple, '83; joinder of a. 3. Brewers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Bur- ger, '85; ev. 75. Brewster v. Oity of Syracuse, '84; const, law, 37 n. 40; '85; forec. 24 n. ; '86; const, law, 23, 24, 32 v. Colwell, '85; common schools, 4. v. Hatch, '84; motion 4 o. 9;'86;corp. 26. v. Silence, '83; guaranty, 17; '85; contracts, 82 n., v. Striker, '83; election of r. 1; trusts, 23, 44; wills, 205, 222; '84; hush. & w. 4n- ; '85 ;wills 107. Briant v. Trimmer, '86; trials, 19. Brick v. Brick, '83; -wills, 5, 21, 22; '84; appeal, 121; undue inf. 1. v. Gannar, '86; impris. 2. Brickner-u. N.Y.' Central E. K. Co., '84; master 4 s. 28 n. ; '85; master 4 s. 42 n.;'86; pi. et n. BricK's Estate, '83; surr. ct. 34; wills, 73. Bridenbecker v. Hoard, '83; parties, lf>;'85; associations, 10; '86; joint stock co. 3. v. Mason, '84; judgm. 4 decree, 25; '86; confession of judgm. 3 n.; costs, 24 n. Bridge v. Pierson, '86; trials, 83. Bridgeport Fire and Marine Bis. Co. v. Wilson, '83; former adj. 17; '84; money pail, 5; '85; former adj. 24; '86; costs, 18 n. Bridger v. Pierson, '85; deeds, 36. v. Weeks, '85 ; appeal, 89. • Bridges v. Supervisors of Sulli- van Co., 92 A'. Y. 570; aff'g •11 Hun, 175; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 506; '84; pi. 166; '85; parties, 28. Briesen v. Long Island B. B. Co., '85; r. r. co. 50 n. ' Brigg v. Hilton, 99 N. Y, 517; aff'g 11 Daly, 335; '86; con tracts, 93; dam. 14 n. ; principal 4 a. 11 ; sales, 38. Briggs v. Allen, '83; costs, 24; '86; costs, 11. v. Boyd, '83; tender, 6. v. Bergen, '86; appeal, 40 n. v. Central Nat. Bank of N. Y, 89 N. Y. 182; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 425; 63 How. Pr. 309; aff'g 61 Id. 250; s. c, If. Y. Daily Hrg. Apr. 27, 1883; 12 Weekly D. 167. v. Davis, '83; estoppel, 12; trusts, 102; '85; assign, for b. of c. 12; '86; trusts, 9, 18 n. v. Law, '86; judgm. 15 n. -_-. Mackellar. Cited (con- tempt and arrest) in 66 How. Pr. 513 ;s. a, 32 Hun, 587. v. Merrill, '84; fraud. con v. 5. v. M. Y. Central, etc., E.E. Co., '85; waterc. 7 n. v. Palmer, '85; assign, for b. of 0.12. v. Partridge, '83; ev. 154; mort. 37; partn. 31;'84;ev. 68, 77 ; parties, 35; principal 4 a. 11 n. ; '85; associa- tions, 10; ev. 80; '86; con- tracts, 6, 70; parties, 7. v. Penniman, '83 ; mfg. co. 11. v. Prosser, '84; adv. poss. In. v. Smith, '83; arbitration, 7. i!. Thompson, '84; atty. 4 c. 7. v. Tillotson, '86; contracts, 9n. v. Vandenburgh, '86; ap- peal, 40 n. v. Waldron, '84; trials, 52 n. v. Wells, '85; ev. 112; for- mer adj. 43; '86; Indians, In. Bright v. Milwaukee E.E. Co., '84; costs, 7. v. Supervisors of Chenan- go, '86; taxes, 41. Brill u. Turtle, '83; assign. 16; gift, addenda; '85; ev. 82; '86; assign. 2; bills, n. 4 c. 19: Brinck v. Hamrver Fire Ins. Co , '86; ins 19. Brinckerhoff v. Board of Educa- tion, '84; mech. 1. 3. v. Bostwick, 88 N. Y. 52; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 157; rev'g 23 Hun, 2j7; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 214. Further decision in action by same parties, in 99 If. Y. 185; s. c, 7 Viv. Pro. M. 349, and 21 Weekly D. 468; rev'g 3± Hun, 352; '84; par- ties, 53; '85; motion 4 o. 1 n. ; parties, 9 n.; pi. 130; '86; corp. 28, 3i, 34 n.; forec. 4; parties, 9. v. Brown, '83; cred. s. 8^ '86; ored. s. 13; joinder of a. 6 ; '85 ; joinder of a. 1 n. v. Wemple, '81; canals, 4 n. ; '86 ; taxes, 3 n. v. Bemsen, '84; wills, 28 n. 70. Brink v. Gould, '83; gift, 9. v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co '83; ev. 110; '85; ins. 12; '86; ins. 51. v. Eepublic Fire InB. Co., '84;acct. 3. v. Richtmyer, '83; deeds, 4; '85; contracts, 28. Brinkerhoff v. Olp, '83; rec. deeds, 6 n. Brinkley v. Brinkley, '83; ah- moDy, l;ev. 333, 337; '84; alimony, 1, 2; '86; ev. 244n. Brisban v. Boyd, '85; ev. 187. Brisbane v. Adams, '83; con- tracts, 54. v. Brisbane, 34 Hun, 339; aff'g 67 How. Pr. 184; s. c, 5 Civ. Pro. H. 352; '84; depositions, 7; '85; de- positions, 5; '86; contempt, 32.' v. Delaware, L. & W. E.E, Co., 94 N. r., 294; aft'g 25 Hun, 438; '84; corp. 21, 22. Cited (stock) in 39 Hun, 563. Bristol, Matter of, '85; assign. 7. v. Burt, '83; chat. mort. 7; '85; conversion, 11. British Commercial Life Ins. Co. d. Commissioners of Taxes, '84; taxes, 1 n. Britt v. Alexandre, 15 Weekly Dig. 443; s. c. more fully, N. Y. Daily Hen. Dec. 27, 1882; '86 ; master 4 s. 33. Brittan v. Peabody, '83; place of tr. 8 n. ; '84; place of tr. 14. Brittingham v. Brittingham, '86; arrest, 10. Britton v. Lorenz, '84; assign. for b. of c. 5 ; '85 ; assign, for b. of c. 11; '86; assign, for b. of c. 3 n. 6, 7 n. Brizsee v. Maybee, '84; dam. 36. Broadway Underground E.E. Co., Matter of, '85; r. r. co. 30, 38. Broad well v. Getman, '83; con- tracts, 75; husb. 4 w. 23. i;. Holcomb, '84; inj. 32. Brock u.Barnes, 83; att'y 4 c. 36. Brockway v. Allen, '83; con- tracts, 5 n.; '84; ev. 69 n ; principal 4 a. 11 n. v. Ireland, '83; mfg. co. Brod v. Heymann, '83; service 4 p. 26, 27. Broderick v. Smith, '86; ex. 4 ad. 75. Broistedt v. South Side E.E Co., 55 If. Y. 220. Cited (adverse possession) in 51 buper. Ct. (J. & ,S.) 17; '83; inj. 43; '84; champerty 4 Brokaw v. Brokaw, "84; appeal, 52. Broman v. Young, '86; real prop. 8. Bromley v. Miller, '83; wills, 106. Bronk v. N. Y., N. H., &c. E.E Co., '84;negl. 48 n. 50 n. Bronson v. Bronson, '83; wills. 152. 18 Bronson SIJPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Brown Bronson — eontinued ■ v. Noyes, '84; escape, 2. v. Ward, '83; appeal, 135. v. Wiman, '84; sales, 31. Brooker v. Coffin, '86; slander, 2n. Brooklyn & Newtown R R. Co. v. Coney Island R.R. Co., '85; r. r. eo. 31. Brooklyn Bank v. DeGrauw, '83; ace. 4 sat. 1 n. ; tender, 7 ; '86; tender, 1. v. Willoughby, '83; costs; 10. Brooklyn Central E.E. Co. v. Brooklyn City RR. Co., '85; munc. corp. 30 n. Brooklyn City R.R.Co. v. Furey, '83; gas light co. 4; 8.1; munc. corp. 30 n. Brooklyn Daily Union v. Hay- war J, '85; attach. 31 n. Brooklyn L. Ins. Co. v. Pierce, '82; disc. & insp. 8 n. Brooklyn ParK Commissioners v. Armstrong, '83; deeds, 23 n. 24 n. ; em. dom. 4; munc. corp. 61 n.; spec, perf. 6; '81;' statutes, 13; '85; em. dom.' 3; v. & p. 5; '86; dedication, 6; r. r. co. 29 n. Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. v. City of Brooklyn, '80; em. dom. 7. Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Bulmer, '8-i; service & p. 26; '84; serv- ice & p 20 n. Brooklyn, W. &N. E. E. Co., Mitter of, '83; const, law, 70; '85; r. r. co. 17; '86 ; em. dom. 7 ; r. r. co. 53. Brookman v. Kurzman, 94 A T . Y. 272; s.o., 6b Mow. Pr., 237;rev'g48 Super, a. (J. & S.) 178; '85; judicial sale, 6; '86; deeds, 12 n. 14; for- mer adj. 36. Brookmire v. Monaghan, '83; civil damage act, 2. Brooks v. Avery, '83; usury, 12, 36; '84; usury, 1. v. Curtis, '86; party-walls, 2n. v. Hanchett, '86; amend. 11. v. Mexican Nat. Cons. Co., 93 iV. Y. 647; dismiss- ing appeal from 49 Super. Ct. (J. & «.) 234, which affd 3 Civ. Pro. 36; s. a, 64 Huw. Pi: 364; '85; appeal, 40. v. N. Y. & Greenwood Lake E. E. Co., '85; dam. 23. v. Schwerin, '83 ; husb. 4 w. 34 ; '86; ev. 285. v. Steen, '83; ev. 6 n. v. Weaver, '85; husb. 4 w. 17. Broome v. Taylor, '83; husb. 4 w. 31, 38. Broome Co. Bank v. Lewis, '86; pi. 88 n. Brotherson v. Consalus, '84 ; champerty 4 m. 1. Brotherton v. Downey, '84; pi. 41, 43, 44, 45; '85; pi. 64 n. 56, 83, 98; '86; pi. 52 n. v. People. See Walter r. People, '83; ev. 9 , 91 ; '84; ev. 191; '8.; ev. 232; '86; appeal. 106; ev. 101 n. Brouwer v. Appleby, '86; corp. 34 n. 35. v. Harbeck, '84; corp. 25; '86; pi. 131. 132. v. Jones, '84; covenants, 5n. Brower v. Bowers, '83; ev. 336; '84; ev. 205 n. v. Peabody, '85; bills of lading, 4 n. Brown, Matter of, 93 N. Y. 295; aff'g 29 Hu„, 412. , 65 H. /to Pr. 387, 461; s. o. more fully as Du Bois v. Brown, 1 l>4; trusts, 7. v. Thurber, '83; ev. ]ii9. v. Torrey, '83; ev. 79; '85; ev. 36. v. Town of Canton, '83; parent & c. 8 n. ; '84; parent 4 c. 6. v. Treat, '83; arrest, 9;pL 15. v. Volkening, '83; notice, 1 ; parties, 48; rec. deeds, 15 ; '85 ; forec. 3, 5 n. v. Weber, '83; guarantee, 18; v. 4 p. 5 n. ; '84; guar- anty, 9. 11 n. v. Williams, '83; discharge, 1; '84; bills of par. 7 n.; '86; more. 17. v. Wmdmuller, 'K4;ref. 23. v. Zeiss. 9 Duly, i!40; rev'g 59 How. Pr. 345; '84; mech. 1. In. Brown SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Buffalo 19 Brown's, "W. F., Co. v. French, '83; guaranty, 5n. Browne v. Murdock, '85; ap- peal, 85. o. Kobinaon, '85; set-off, 4 v. Scofield, '85;, grants, 2 n. ; patents for lands, 1 n. v. Taylor, '84; pi. 13. Brownell v. Akin, '83; ex. 4 ad. 78 n. v. (Jurtis, '83; cred. b. 3 n. ; " '85; cred. s. 5 n. v. MoEwen, '83; new tr. 28. v. Nat. Bank of Glovers- ville, '83; disc. &insp. 1, 8 n. ;'86; appeal, 6 n. v. Kuckman, '83; undert. 1; '85; costs, 41. v. Winne, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 4; '85; bills, n. 4 c. 0. Browning v. Hanford, '84; at- tach. 39; sher. 1; '86; ejectment, 7; surr. ct. 4 n. v. Home Ins. Co., '83; ins. 9, 35. v. Marvin, 17 Weekly D- 428. Aff d, it seems, in 100 N. T. 144; s. c, 1 Centr Rev. Ib7, and 2 Eastern Ref 294; '86; champerty & m. 2 v. Wheeler, '83; arbitra- tion, 2 n. ; '85; waiver, 1. Brace v. Burr, '83 ; amend. 24 : guaranty, 18 n. v. Carter, "t-3; bills, n. 4 c. 9 ; contracts, 25. v. Griscom, 'c6; advance- ment, 1. v. Kelly, '83; contracts. 25. v. Pearson, '85; contracts, 24 n. Bruce v. Piatt, 80 N. Y. 379. Followed (Construction of statute holding trustees lia- ble (or debts j in Chase v. Curtis, U3 U. H. 452; s. c, 19 Reporter, 4z0; '85; mfg. co. 17 n. - — v. Tilson, '83; lim. of a. 9 n,; '84; lim. of a. 26 n.; sales. 21. v. Wright. See Hall v. Newcomb. '83; bills, n. 4 c 19. Bruecher v. Village of Port Chester, 31 Him, 550; s. c, 17 West. Jur. 423; aff'd in 17 Abb. N. C.361;s. c, 101 .V. Y. 240; '85; courts, 3; '86; lim. of a. 20 n. -. Willcocks, '85 ; lim. of a. 53. Bryce, Matter of, '£5; assign. for b. of c. 27. Bryce r. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., '85; ev. 320; reformation, 2 n. ;'86; ins. 3 n. 55 n. Bryon v. Durrie, '84; appeal, 104; '85; appeal, 104. Buchan v. Kintoul, 3 Dem. 353. Aff'd in 10 Hun, 183, which was also aff'd in 70 N. Y. 1. The opinion of the surro- gate is reported as Matter of Bitch, 2 Reaf. Surr. 330; '83; ex. & ad. 183; surr. ct. 23;'8+;ex. & ad. 25; '86; ex. & ad. Kio. v. Sumner, '86; city ct. of N. Y. 2. Buchanan v. Exchange F. Ins. Co., '84; ins. 7. v. Hunt, 98 K. Y. 560; rev'g 33 Hun, 329. v. Smith, '86; chattels, 3 n Buck v. City of Lockport, '83; munc. corp. 61; '86; mand. 1 n. ; munc. corp. 29 n. v. Colbath, '84; resistance, 1. v. Bemsen, '83; exec. 23; replevin, 6; '84; judgm. & decree, 29; '85; judgm. & decree, 25. Buckbee v. Brown, '86; parties, 4n. Buckhout v. Hunt, '83; costs, 113. Bucking v. Hauselt, '85; appeal, 74. Buckingham v. Corning, 91 N. i. 525; s. c, 16 Weekly J). 492; aff g 64 How. Pr.503; s. c, N. Y. Daily Reg. Nov. 19, 1881; '85, cancel, of wr. instr. 4, 4 n. v. Dickinson, '83; appeal, 56; '85; amend. 7. — — v. White, '86; attach. 3'.) n. Buckland v. Gallup, '86; ex. 4 ad. 124. Buciley r, Drake, 41 Hun, 384; aff'g 9 uv. Fro. R. 336. v. Furniss, '83; sales, 12a; '86; lien, 6. v. Gutta Percha and Rub- ber Mfg. Co., 3 Civ. Pro. R. 428. Affd in 41 Hi.n. 450. Appeal dismissed in 93 jV. F. 637; '84; sec. for costs, 9; '85; sec. for costs, 1. v. Leonard, '85; ev. 65. v. Wells, '85; husb. 4 w. 15 n. Bucklin v. Bucklin, '83; trusts, 19; '85; lim. of a. 45. v. Chapin, '83; ex. 4 ad. 67, 128; ref. 48; '84; lim. of a. 28. Bucknam v Brett, '84; wills, 57. Budd v. Jackson '83; judgu. 4 decree, 45. v. Monroe, '83; trusts, 106. Buddington v. Davis, '86; pi. 148. Budlong, Matter of, 1 Centr. Rep. 286; s. c. 2 Easttrn Rep. 5b6; aff'g 33 Hun, 235. Buel v. Dewey, '84; arbitration, 3n. v. N. Y. Central, etc., R.B. Co., '86; ev. 62. v. People, "84; homicide, 7; '85; trial, 105 n. 119. v. Southwick, '85; wills, 90; '86; devise, 2 n. v. Trustees of Lockport, '85; stipulation, 2 n. Buffalo & Allegany B. B. Co. v. Cary, '84; corp. 63; es- toppel, 8n.; '86; corp. 35 n. Buffalo & Jamestown K. B. Co. v. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294; s. c, 11 Weiky JJ. 18; affg 22 Hun, 35y; s. c, ll Weekly D. 29. Buffalo & Niagara Falls B. B. Co. v. Buffalo, '83; munc. corp. 46; pi. 38; '86; munc. corp. 20, 20 n. Buffalo & N. Y. City E. B. Co. v. Dudley, '83; corp. 34. Buffalo & St. Line K. E. Co. v. Reynolds, '83; r. r. co. 82. v. Supervisors of Erie Co., '83; money paid, 14 n. ; tax, 46; villages, 5; '84; money paid, 14 n. ; '86; money paid, 11 n. ; taxes, 49, E8. Buffalo Catholic Institute v. Bit- ter, '84; ex. 4 ad. 24; pi. 32 n.; '86; pi. 38. Buffalo City Cemetery Co. v City of Buffalo, '83; stat- utes, 10 n.; '84; taxes, 13n. Buffalo, N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. v. Stigeler, '84; deeds, C n. ; '85;nuis. 1 n.; '86; deeds, 12 n. Buffilo Pipe Line Co. v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc., R. R. Co.', '86; munc. corp. 73; watero. 9 n. Buffalo Steam Engine Works v. Bulkehy SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. BurraU Sun Mut. Ins. Co., '83; ins. 45; '86; ohat. mort. 2 n. ilkeley v. Keteltas, '83; trials, 88; '86; ev. 243. Llliley v. Eedmond, '84; ev. 248 n. — v. Staats, '86; ex. & ad. 79, 80. — v. Van Wyek,'86; verif. 1 n. ill, Matter of, '83; parties, 25. dlu. Church, '86; wills, 85. — v. Ketchum, '84; int. 7n. ; '85; costs, 7; '86; costs, 11. [Hard v. Benson, '85 ; legacies, 43. — v. Pearsall, '83; costs, 37; wit. 84 n. ; '84; wit. 43 n. — r. Saratoga Vict. Mfg. Oo. , '83, waterc. 2. — v. Sherwood, '85; pi. 27 n. ; '86; city ct. of N. Y. 1. illis v. Montgomery, '83 ; chat. mort. 10; '85; ev. 128; '86; ev. 128 n. 129, 131. illock v. Bogardus, 83; costs, 113; ex. & ad. 76. — u. Boyd, '84; int. 4. — v. Mayor, etc. of N. X., 99 N. Y. 654; rev'g 51 Super. Vi. (J. <6 6'.)36;'86; appeal, 69;negl. 88. illymore v. Cooper, '83; sher. 23, '86; ev. 153. dson v. tonnes, '83; arbitra- tion, 1 ; lease, 28. iloid I'. Miller, '86; appeal, 89. imp v. Sumner, '85 ; trial, 44. impus v. Platner, '84; mort. 14 n. lmstead v. Dividend Mut. Ins. Co., '8b; carriers, 29; '85; ins. 12. — v. Head, '85; surr. ct. 11; '86; surr. ct. 6. ince v. Beed '83; forec. 20; service & p. 27. — r. Vander Gript, '83 ; wills, 178 n. indy r. Bundy, '83; wills, 213, 215 n. ; '86; trusts, 20. inge o. Koop, '85; pi. 3. mn v. Croul, '85; trial, 80. — v. Daly, '84; sup. pro. 30; 'o5; defin. 41. — v. Delaware, L. & W. B.B. Co. , '84; negl. 38. — v. Vaughan, '83; trusts, 26. — v. Winthrop, '85; attach. 43 n. ; deeds, 7 n. ; pow- ers, 6. mnell v. Banney, '85; ex. & ad. 126 n. inner v. Storm, '84; ex. & ad. 14; '85;legacies,21; wills, 78. lrbanku. Beech,'83;ev. 139 n. — v. Fay, '83; grants, 3; '84; adv. poss. 4 n. ; '85; ev. 27 n. ; '86; highw. 3. — v. Beed, '83; depositions, 29. arbridge v. Beed, '84; deposi- tions, 33. — v. Marcy, '83; mech 1. 4; '84; mech. 1. In, Burch i>. Cavanaugh, '83; inj. 18, H 40. v. Newbury, '83; int. 9; judgm. & decree, 5; '85; statutes, 2. v. Spencer, '83; sales, 11 n. Burchellu. Voorhis, '85; judicial sale, 11 n. Burclde v. Eckhart, '83 ; city ct. ofN. Y. l;partn. 6; '85; pi. 35 n. ; '86; negl. 4 n. ; pi. 144 n. Burdctt v. Lowe, '84; costs, 23. Burdick v. Green, '84; debtor & cred. 3 n. v. Hale, '85 ; justices' ct. 2. v. McVanner, 'S3; chat. mort. 7 n. Burger v. Baker. 4 Abb. Pr. 11. Cited in 35 Hun, 115; '85; appeal, 88. v. Hill, '83; wills, 101 n. Burgess v. N. Y. Central, &c. B. B. Co., 34 Hun, 233; s. c. more fully, 20 Weekly 1). 249 ; aff ' d it seems, but with- out opinion, in 98 iV. Y. 641; '86; negl. 10U. v. Simonson, '86; former adj. 13 n. Burhansr. Blanchard, '83; costs, 114; '86; discont. 4. v. Burhans, '85; ev. 249. v. Sandford, '83;mal. pros. ln.;'86;ev. 243. v. 'libbits, '83; amend. 40; trial, 90; '84; costs, 16. v. Van Zandt, '84; adv. poss. 7. Burk v. Ay ers, '85 ; drainage, 1 ; justices' ct. 3. Burke, Matter of, '84; parent & c. 2; '86; ex. & ad. y6 n. 120 n. v. Broadway B'y Co., '83; negl. 86 n. v. Candee, '84; appeal, 104; '85; appeal, 104; costs, 21 n. ; '86; costs, 44. v. De Castro, &c, Sugar Eefining Co., '85; negl. 9. ' v. Nichols, '83; deeds, 25. v. Nolan, '84; wills, 273; '85; wills, 22 n. v. Thorne,'85; justices' ct. 21 n. ; pi. 64. v. Valentine, '83; wills, 185; '84; wills, 91. v. Webb, '85; trial, 80. v. 'Wetherbee, 18 Weekly D. 369. Aff d it seems, in 98 N. Y. 562; '86; appeal, 27; master & s. 10 n. 21, 22 v. Wolfe, '85; ev. 186 r,. Burkitt v. Harper, '83; mech. 1. 3, 4; '81; mech. 1. In. Burkle v. Luce, '83; exec. 25; '8 >; exec. 9 n. Burleigh u. Gebhard Fire Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 220; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 325; and 12 Ins. L. J. 141, rev'g 12 Weekly D. 235; '85; ins. 52. Burley v. German-American Bank, '84; pi. 38 n. Burlingame v. Burlingatne, '85; contracts, 79 n.; '86; dam. 16 n. Burmeister v. N. Y. Elevated B. B. Co., '84; highw. 3 n. Burnell v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., '83; ev. 68; '84; ev. 6n. Burnet v. Bagg, '85; parties, 21; '86; compensation, 4 n. Burnett v. Phalon, '83; tradem. 1 n. v. Snyder, '83; partn. 5, 6a n.; '85; partn. 2; '86; parties, 34; partn. 3 n. Burnham v. Brennan, '83; ev. 206. v. De Bevorse, '83; costs, 22. v. Onderdonk, '86; wills, 10 n. Burns v. Erben, 40 S. Y. 463. Cited as authority (Arrest without warrant) in Nealu. Joyner, 89 A. C. 287; s. c, 18 Beporltr, 56. v. Howard, '86; justices' ct. 2, 7n. 10d. v. O'Neil, '86; pi. 144 n. v. People, '86; former adj. 42. v. Bowland, '83; bills, n. & c. 6; debtor & cred. 2. Burnside v. Whitney, '85; stat- utes, 11. Burr, Matter of, '85 ; insane per. 11. Burr v. Beers. Cited (Actions by third persons) in Todd v. Weber, 95 Jf. Y. 195; '83; corp. 44; v. & p. 3; '84; bills, n. & c. 8; conversion, 7; contracts, 94; deeds, 26 n. ; parties, 8 n.; promise, l;wit. 5. '85; covenants, 12; ex. k ad. 95; mort. 24 n. ; '86; mort. 15; promise, 3 n. 7 n. ; subr. 3. v. Broadway Ins Co., '86; ev. 72. v. Burr, '83; alimony, 13; '85; alimony, 5 n.; dam. 28 n. ; divorce, 4 n. ; trusts, 31 n. v. de La Vergne, 19 Weekly D. 573. Aff' d in 102 JV. Y. 415. v. Mills, '84; deeds, 25 n.; easements, 6 n. v. Smith, '85; bills of lad- ing, 20;:86;subr. 3 n. v. Stenton,'85; lien, 3. u.Veeder,'83; mort. 13; '85; mort. 15 n. v. Wilcox, '83; ins. 4 n.; mfg. co. 9, 22. huirall v. Acker, '86; bail, 3 n. v. Bush wick E.E. Co., '83; attach. 50 n. ; corp. 8; def. 12 n. ; '85; corp. 10; gift, 4; '86; pi. 26 n. v. De Groot, '85; justices' ct. 21 n.; '86; pi. 108. Burrell SUPPLEMENTABY TABLE. Caldwell 21 Burrell v. Bull, '86; trusts, 9 n. v. Boot, '84; contracts, 80 n. Burrill v. Boardman, '85; lega- cies, 4, 5 n. ; ■wills, 37. Burritt v. Saratoga County Mut. Ins. Co., '83; ins. 5. " v. Silliman, '83; trusts, 17; wills, 39, 114, 117; '84; wills, 28 n. Burrows v. Erie B.K. Co., '84; negl. 60. v. Miller, '85; defenses, 2; '86; defenses, 1. v. Norton, '83; amend. 9. v. Whitakcr, '86; sales, 31. Burt v. Brew ers & Malsters' Ins. , Co., '86; ins. 42. v. Burt, '83 ; ex. k ad. 98 n.; 'rt(i; ex. & ad. 54 n. v. Dewey, '83 ; sales, 31 ; v. & p. 5 n. ; '86; dam. 1ft; sales, 15. v. Horner, '83; guaranty, 15. v. Mapes, '84; defenses, 2. v. Myers, '86; lim. of a. 16. v. Saxton, '84 ; debtor 4 cred. 3 n. Burtch v. Nickerson, '83; slan- der, 1. Burtis v. Dodge, '84; assign, for b. of c. 71. Burtnett, Matter of, '83; assign, for b. of c. 27; '84; as- sign, for b. of c. 34; '85; assign, for b. of c. 22, 27; '86; assign, for b. of c. 24. Burton v. Baker, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 4. v. Burton, '85; citizens, 1 n. ; defin. 34; '86; naturaliza- tion, 1. v. Sherman, 20 Weekly D. 419. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opin. ion, in 98 N. Y. 629. Burtus v. Tisdall, '83; attach. 19. Burwell v. Jackson, '83; v. 4 p. 5 n.;'84; v. 4 p. 1, 2; '85; judgm. 4 decree, 6 n.; '86; v. 4 p. 3. v. Knight, '85; former adi. 5, 36 n. v. Shaw, '83; surr. ct. 22, 23; '84; ex. & ad. 38; '86; ex. k ad. 49. Buschti. Buffalo Creek R.B. Co., '85; ncgl. 84 n.; '86; negl' 128 n. s v. Busch, 12 Daly, 476. Aff'd it seems, but without opinion, in 102 N. Y. 672. Bushy. Tavidson, '86; cloud on title, 1. ; v. Lathrop, '83; costs, 7; '85; bills of lading, 4 n. i'. Prosser. '84; ev. 201 n • libel, 9; pi. 64 n. r. Treadwell, '84 ; place of tr. 5 n. v. Weeks, '85 ; justices' ct. Bushnell v. Carpenter, 92 If. Y. 270; s. c, 16 Weekly I). 440; affg 28 Hun, 19; s. c, 15 Weekly J). 559; '86; fraud, conv. 9. v. Harford, '84; infants, 4. Bushwellu. Lincks, '84; cred. s. 4n. Bushwick Avenue, Matter of, '86; em. dom. 4n. Bussing v. Bushnell, '85 ; pi. 146 n. Butler, Matter of, 8 Civ. Pro. R.&6. Aff'd in 101 N. Y. 307; s. c.,3How. Pr. A". 8. 500; '84; ex. 4 ad. 36. v. Benson, '84 ; wills, 70; '85 ; trial, 44. v. Boston & Albany K.B. Co., '85; costs, 55. !'. Butler, '83; master 4 s. 3a; '84; wills, 91. j v. City of Kochester, '84 ; costs, 66 n. v. Kent, '86; negl. 1. v. Kidder, '86; lease, 11. v. Livermore, '85; motions 4 0. 6. v. Mann, '84; bills of par. 15; pi. 76. v. Mason, '84 ; indict. 18 n. v. Maynard, '83 ; false pre. 3; '84 ; cred. s. 1 n. v. Miller, '83; chat. mort. 7 n.; former adj. 33; '85; election of r. 8 n. v. Murray, '86; ev. 94. v. N. Y. & Erie B.E. Co., '83; assign. 9 n.; '86; assign. 1 n. v. Niles, '83; receiver, 7. v. Palmer, '83; mfg. co. 31; '85; const, law, 17; exec. 2 n. ; mfg. co. 17 n. ; '86; const, law, 4 n. v. Stoddard, '85; assign. for b of c. 44 n. v. Tucker, '84; contracts, 27 n. 28. v. Viele, '85; pi. 13. v. Warren. '85; wit. 18. Butt v. Cameron, '86; parties, 10. Butterfleld v. Macomber, '84 pi. 81. Butternuts and Ox. Tpke. Co i'. North, '84; munc. corp. 99. * Butterworth v. Crawford, '83 easements, 6; '84; ease ments, 6n. v. Gould '85; deeds, 39 '86; money paid, 17; pi.' 157. v. O'Brien', n. v. Peck, 4. Button v. Hudson Kiver B.B. Co '84; negl. 36; questions ofl. 4f. 5n. Butt ? f- ,Genung, '83; parties, 22; 85; joinder of a. 9. usury, 12 > ; assign. v. Wood, '83; corp. 59; nat. bk. 6; '84; corp. 11 n. 57; trusts, 26 n.; '85; corp. 28; parties, 9 n.;'86; con- tracts, 57; corp. 20 n. 34 n. Byrd v. HalJ, '83; arrest, 13. Byrne v. Benton, '84; pi. 44; '8C; pi. 99. v. N. ¥. Central, etc. E.E. Co., 91 A*. Y. 12; rev'g 28 Hun, 438; '83; negl. 86; '86; negl. 118. Byrnes v. Baer, 86 N. Y. 210; s. o., 2 Am. Prob. Li. 383, with note on devises passing al- ter-acquired property. v. City of Cotoes, '83; highw. 21 n. ; munc. corp. 75; negl. 34; '84; munc. corp. 17; '85; appeal, 61; munc. corp. 71 n. ; '86; munc. corp. 47 n. Byxbie v. Wood, '83; pi. 16; '85; assign. 1. C. Cable v. Cooper, '86 ; hab. corp. In. v. Dakin, '84; dam. 36 n. Cadmus v. Oakley, 2 Bern. 298. Eurther proceeding in 3 hi. 324; s. c. as Estate of Voor- his, lHow. Pr. N. IS. 261; '86; depositions, 4. Cadwell v. Colgate, '83 ; undert. 2. Cady v. Jennings, '86; ev. 88. v. McDowell, '83; boarding house keepers, 1. v. Sheldon, '83;rec. deeds, 8. Caggerv. Lansing, '84; parties, , 26; '85; ev. 28 n. ; former adj. 43; '86; Indians, 1 n. ; parties, 25; v. 4 p. In. Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, '83; ev. 95; munc. corp. 161 n. 174, 175, 176,176 n.;'84; estoppel, 5; '85; munc. corp. 117, 120. Cahill v. Hilton, 31 Hun, 114. Other proceedings in 21 Weekly 1). 541. v. Palmer, '83; money paid, 17; '84; adv. poss. 4n. ; '85; ex. 4 ad. 43; spec. perf. 12 n. ; '86; spec, perl 8 n. Cain ?). Oity of Syracuse, 29 Hun , 105. Aff'd in 95 N. Y. 83, '86; raunc. corp. 41. Cairns v. Chabert, 83; mort. 15; '85; ex. 4 ad. 147 n. v. Oaubert, '8:>; trusts, 66; '86; ex. 4 ad. 94 n., 127; re- ceivers, 12 n. Caldwell, Exparte,'83; attach. 2. Caldwell v. Cassidy, '85; bills of lading, 27; '86; forec. 15; paym. into ct. 1 n. v. Leiber, ''86; costs, 15 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 'b4; bail. 4n. v. Murphy, '85; ev. 126,236. 22 CcddweU SUPPLEMENT AEY TABLE. Carleton Caldwell — continued v. N. J. Steamboat Co., '83; dam. 17, 18; ev. 340; '84; ev. 41 n. ; '85, dam. 23; ev. 46;'86;negl. 78 n. v Raymond, '83; indict. 13; pi. 176; '85; pi. 132. Calhoun v. Delhi & Middletown B.B. Co., 'c4; munc. eorp. 99; '85; statutes, 14 n. v. Hallen, 84; pi. 38 n. ; '85; pl. 3; '86 ;pl. 50. Calkin v. Conner, '86; fraud. conv. 1 n. v. Manhattan Oil Co., '84; appeal, 62. Calking v. Baldwin, '83; const. law, 44; munc. eorp. 42; '84; statutes, 19 n. Calkins v. Atkinson, '83; mfg. co. 24. v. Calkins, '85; wills, 98. v. Isbell, '85 ; ex. & ad. 146. u.Long, '83;husb. & w. 23, 25;'86;husb. &w. 5. v. Smith, '85; parties, 31 n. Callahan, Matter of, '83; con- tempt, 5. Callahan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. , '83; former adj. 12. v. Sharp, 27 Jlant 85; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 204 ; Subse- quent proceeding in 16 Id. 505;'85;negl. 84 n. Callanan u. Gilman, 67 Sow. Pr. 464. Further decision in 5i Super. CI. {J. & ,'84; ten- ant lor 1. 3; '85; ex. & ad. 135n. Cammeyer v. United German Lutheran Churches. '84; contract, 80 n.; '86; relig. eorp. 7 n. Camp v. Camp, '85; ev. 109; wills, 123. v. Garr, '83; atty. & c. 25 n. v. Ingersoll, '83;ref. 3, 11; '84; ref. 4; '86; ref. 5, 6,7. ' r. Eoct, '83; divorce, 3n.; '84: arbitration, 3 n: '86, discont. 5 n. — - v. Wood, '83; innk. 3;negl. 25;'85;landl. it. 4. Campbell v. Beaumont, '83; wills, 161 n; '84; wills, 100, 106; '85; wills, 68,102, 108 n. 113, 114, 126 n.; '86; de- vise, In. 2 n. ; wills, 49, 61 n. 61,, 63 n. v. Bruen, '83; appeal, 135; surr. ct. 22; '84; ex. * ad. 25. v. Butts, '83; pl. 67. v. Campbell, '86; judgm. 18. v. Champlain & St. Law- rence E.E. Co., '85; juris. 4n. v , Clark, '86; arrest, 10. v. Consalus, '85; former adj. 29, 36 n. p. Cothran, '83; atty. & c. 21, 22, 25 n.; '84; sher. 3n. v. Cowdrey, '85, legacies, 36. v. Erie E.E. Co., '84; at- tach. 27. v. Evans, '83; const, law, 37 n. ; '85; animals, 8; ex. & ad. 170. v. Foster, '86; trusts, 9 n. 15 n. v. Genet, '86; sup. pro. 29 v. Hall, '83; ev. 128; '84, usury, 4; '86; former adj. 7; 20, 33. v. Hoge, '83; disc. & insp.l. v. International -Life Ins. Co., '83; excise, 3. ■ v. Mesier, '83; costs, 120; '85; bills of lading, 26 n. v. Moers (MS.). Ques- tioned in Flack v. The State, 95 X. Y. 473. v. Parker, '86; replevin, 2. v. Perkins, '83; arrest, 9; pl. 15. ■ v. Purdy, '86 ; ex. & ad. 78. v. Bawdon, '85; wills, 94. v. Seaman, '85; inj. 37; nuis. 6. v. Smith, '83, v. & p. 2. v. Spratt, '84; receivers, 21. v. Thatcher, '83. surr. ct. 34; '86; surr. ct. 21, 24 n. v. Tousey, '84; ex. & ad. 3 n. ; '86; ex. & ad. 2 n. v. Western, '83; arbitration, 7. v. Woodworth, '86; taxes, 31 n. Canada S. S. Co. v. Sinclair, '84 ; depositions, 33. Canaday v. Krum, '83;ev. 285. Canal Appraisers^. People, '83; real prop. 5 n. ; '85; grants, 2 n. ; patents for lands,' 1 n.; waterc. 9 n. 11. . Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, '83; bills, n. & c. 56. v. Mayor of Albany, '86; new tr. z6. Canal Com'rs v. People, '83; compensation, 4 n. ; real prop. 5 n.; '8j ; patents for lands, 1 n. ; waterc. y n. Canal & Walker Sts., Matter of, '83; appeal, 104. Canandaigua Academy v. Mc- Kechnie, '84; ev. 234 h ; '86; acknowledgment, 1. Canandaigua &, Niagara Falls E. E. Co. v. Payne, '83; r. r. co. 91. '85; r. r. co. 50 n.; '66; compensation, 8 n. Canastota, etc. Plank Koad Co. v. Parkhill, '84; plank roads, 1 Canavan v. McAndrew, '84 ; sup. pro. 8; '85; sup. pro. 9. Cancemi v. People, 83; courts of oyer & terminer, 1 ; trial, 132; '84; depositions, 5; sentence, 1; '85; const, law, 17 n. ; depositions, 2; '86; const. law, 8 n. ; trials, 115. Cauda v. Wick, 100 X. J 7 ". 1^7; s. c, 1 Oentr. Bep. 12; 1 Eastern Rep. 74'.);aff'g 49 Super CI. {J. & S.)4b7. Candee v. Hayward, '85; munc. eorp. 5 n. v. Lord, '83; estoppel, 1; judgm. & decree, 8; 'bV; for- mer adj. 5, 30; '86; former adj. 13 n. v. Smith, '84; joint debtors, 3 n. ; '8ft; debtor & cred. 2 n. ; joint liab. 1; '86; joint debtors, 3. Candler v. Candler, '85; wills, 88. Canfleld v. Baltimore & Ohio E. E. Co., '83; ev. 6^; '84; master & s.23 n. ; '85 ; ev.302 ; '86; new tr. 36. v Lindley, '86; place of tr. 3. v. Morgan, '83; munc. eorp. 126. Cannavan v. Conklin, '83; jus- tices' ct. 4. Canover v. Cooper, '85; death, 5n. Cantrell v. Connor, '83; exec. 2i), 30; '84; sup. pru. 2:. Capron v. Thompson, '83 ; brok- ers, 7; '84; brokers, 11. Card v. Miller, '83; bills, n. & c. 4. Cardell v. McNeil, '83 ; guaranty, 18 n. ; principal & s. 19. Cardot v. .barney, 'S6; receivers, 8n. Cardwell v. Hicks, 'S3; bil's, n. & c. 41 n ; '86; money paid, 3n. Carhart v. Auburn Gas -light Co,, '85; munc. eorp. 72. v. Blaisdell, '85; costs, 46. v. Eyder, '86; lease, 2. Carl v. Ayres, : 83; nons. 1 n.; '85; defin. 38; joind. of a. 3 ; slander, 3 n. Carleton v, Carleton, '84; serv- Carkton SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Cassard 23 ice 4 p. 10, 12; '85; service & p. G; '86; judgm. 30; serv- ice * p. 4, 5. v. Darcy, 90 N. Y. 566; s. c.,16 Weekly D. 125; rev'g • 46 Super. Vt. (J. & 8.) 484; '83; discont. 4; '85; costs, 41, 42; ejectment, 2; '86; discont. 1. Carley v. Hodges, '86; abate. & r. 5; '86; abate. 4 r. 3 n. Carman, Matter of, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 145. 195; trust, 71, 74, 75; '84; ex. 4 ad. 120; trusts, 33 n. Carman v. Beach, '86; brokers, 14. v. Mclncrow, '86; mech. 1. 5n. 1!. Hass, '86; parties, 41 n. v. Townsend, '85; assign. for b. of c. 32. Carrnichael v. Carmichael, '83; remainders, 3. Caro u. .Metropolitan Elevated Ey. Co., 4S Super. Vt. (J. & S.) 845; B. o., 64 How. Pr. 224, and 2 Viv. Fro. B. (Browne) 374. Other pro- ceedings in 48 Super. Vt. (J. & S.) 544; e.o., 64 How. l J r. 225; and 2 Viv. Pro. B.. (Browne) 371; '83; nuis. 5; '84; dam. 34 n. Carow v. Mowatt, '85; bonds, 12, 13. Carpenter v. Black Hawk Gold Mining Co., '83; mfg. co. 2; '84; mfg. co. 5; '85; mfg. cos. 1, 5. v. Boston & Albany B.R. Co., 14 Weekly JJ. 517. Bev'd in 97 N. Y. 494. — ■• — v. Butler, '85; ex. 4 ad. 69. v. City of Cohoes, '85; munc. oorp. 53 n. ; '86; vil- lages, 3. v. Coe, '83; new tr. 25. v. Continentallns. Co., '86; place of tr. 2. v. Eastern Transportation Co., '84; ev. 55; '85; negl. 6 n. v. Gwynn, '83; inj. 43. v. Kent, 50 /Super-. CI. (J. & S.) 371. Aff'd in 101 N. Y. 591. v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 93 If. Y. 552; aff g 22 Hun, 49; '83; counterol. 12; "86; countercl. 3 ; set-off, 5. v. Muren, '85; ev. 43. v. Mutual Safety Ins. Co., '83; ins. 1 n. v. Nixon, '83; larceny, 5 n. ; '84; wit. 37; '85; wit. 55. v. Oswego & Syracuse K.R. Co., '85; em. dom. 7. v. People, '86; trial, 111. v. Eoe, '86; impris. 13 n. v. Shimer, 24 Hun, 464. Cited in 34 Hun, 357, which was rev'd in 7 Viv. Pro. B. 340. v. Soule, 88 N. Y. 251; s. c, 14 Weekly !>■ 100; aff' g 13 Id. 65; '83; gift, 8 n.; parent 4 c. 9 n ; '84; wit. 13;'85;mort. 25. v. Stevens, '83; replevin, 6 n.; '84; sales, 4. v . Stilwell, '83; chat. mort. 23; '86; election of r. 5n. v. Taylor, '83; innk. 4, 5; '86;innk. 1. — — v. Town, '86; ins. 46 n. v. Ward, '83; wit. 114, 117, 118. v. Weller, '84; debtor & cred. 1 n. v. Willett, '83; sher. 21. v. Wright, '83; inj. 27, 61. Carru Berdell, '83;ref. 7. v. Breese, '85; trial, 44; '88; fraud, conv. 10. v. Carr, '83; forec. 9; '85; ejectment, 1 n. ; '86; trials, 99 n. v. Ellison, '86; lease, 17 n. v. Great Western Ins. Co., '85; depositions, 6 n. v. Thompson, 87 N. Y. 160; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 437; aff g 9 Daly, 279; s. c, 10 Weekly D.ZiZ; '85; lim. of a. 22, 23; '86; lim. of a. 16, 19 n. v. Van Hoesen, '86; attach. 42. Carrier v. Dellay, '86; amend. 1 n. Carrington v. Crocker, '83; lim. of a. 44. Carroll v. Carroll, '83; pi. 45 n ; '86; ev. 217. v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., '84; estoppel, 16. v. Cone, '85; sales, 40 n. v. Deimel, '85; appeal, 85; . ev. 214. v. Goslin, '86; default, 2 n. v. Hughes, 5 Redf. 337. Bev'd as Matter of Hughes, 95 N. Y. 55 v. Lufkins, '83; ref. 32 n., '85;ref. 16. v. N. Y. & New Haven R.B. Co., '83; r. r. co. 9 n. ; "36; negl. Ill n. - r - i'. -Norton,-'84; wills, 8. - — v. Staten Island K.B. Co., '83; negl. 92; '84; negl. 39; '86; carriers, 4 n. v. White, '86; slander, 2 n. Carson v. Murray, '83; husb. 4 w. 23, 26; '85; dower, 11 n.; husb. 4 w. 8; '86; husb. 4 w. 5, 8. Cartan v. Father Matthew TJ. B. Soc, '83; ben. assoc. 7. Carters. Beckwith, '83; appeal, 72; '86; costs, 57 n. v. Hamilton, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 17 n. v. Holahan, 11 Ddtti, 104. Aff' d in 92 M. Y. 498; v . Hunt, '83; wills, 173. v. Kockett, '83; mort. 20. v. United Ins. Co., '83; parties, 10 n. Cartwright v. JVtaplesden, '84; inj. 2.1. v. vVilmerding, '85; factors, 2. Carver v. Creque, '86; money paid, 17. — ^- v. Lane, '85; sales, 25 n. Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo E. E. Co., '83; warehousing, 1. v. Gruman, '83; sales, 34; '86; dam. 14 n. v. Hotailing, '83; pi. 131. v. White, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 6, 7; debtor 4 cred. 2; wit. 28, 32; '84; wit. 23; '85; rec. deeds, 6; '86; chat. mort. 4 n. ; contracts, 17; exec. 8n. ; paym. 4; wit. 27. Case, Matter of. See Case v. Campbell. Case v. Abell, '83; good-will, 1 n. ; '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. ; partn. 15. v. Bougkton, '83; pledge, 4 n. Case v. Campbell, 16 Abb. N. C. 269; s. c, as Matter of Case, 2 How. Pr. JV". 8. 8.3. Other proceedings in 17 Weekly D. 473; 'S5;omr. 23. v. Carroll. Cited as to pur- suing property in dissent- ing opinion in 37 Hun, 83; '83;atty. &c. 36; '86; ex. 4. ad. 10b ; trusts, 23 ' n. v. Hall, '83; sales, 31, 31 n. v. Phelps, '86; appeal, G6; impris. 13 n. v. Potter, 'ei5; ev. 186 n. v. Price, : 83 ; costs, 92. v. Eeeve, '86; former adj. 7. v. Shepherd, '86; pi. 13 n. Casey v. Brush, '83; surr. ct. 29; '84; lim. of a. 11; '86; lim. of a. 8 n. v. Dwyre, '80; trials, 99 n. v. Mayor, etc. of JM. Y., 'Hi; munc. corp. 142. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E.E. Co., '83; ev. 295; '8l; ev. 95 n. v. People, 31 Hun, 153; s. c. , aj People v. Casey, 2 M. Y. Urim. It. 187. Cashman v. Henry, '83; husb. 4 w. b8; '86. husb. 4 w. 17. Casoni v. Jerome, '83; ex. 4 ad. 24; ! 84;cv. 235; '85; bonds, 5. Oass -u. Higenbotam, 100 K Y. 248; s. c, 8 Civ. Pro. 329; 1 Cenir. Rep. 315; 2 Eastern Rep. 680; rev'g 27 Hun, 406; s. c. 15 Weekly D. 135; and K Y. Daily Beg. Sept. 14, 1882; CSBsard v. Hirnnan, '83; disc, b 24 CasseU SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Chance ins p. 3 n. ; '85 ; depositions, 26;'86;ev. 86 n. Cassell v. Fisk, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 94;s. c, 2 Civ.Pro. B. (McCarly) 241; and 15 Weekly D. 255. Subsequent proceedings in 16 Id. 112; ■84; inj. 33. Oassidy v. Cassidy, '84; lega- tees, 2. v. Hall, '86: partn. 3 n. v. Leiteh, '85; judgm. 4 de- cree, 7 n. v. Meacham, '83; exec. 46; '85;cred. s. 1. v. Sohedel, '83; principal 4 s. 25. v. V. S. Reflector Co., 5 Month. L. Bid. 63. Other proceedings in Id. 54. Cassin v. Delaney, '84; appeal, 107. Castellanos v. Jones, '83; insane per. 15. Castle u. Beardsley, '83; guaran- ty, 18; '84; sales, 14 n. ; '85; contracts, 82 n. v. Lewis. Disting'd in Grady v. Bowe, 11 Daly, 269. '83; assign, for b. of c. 6; 84; attach. 33 n ; corp. 29 n. ; in. 3; '85; at- tach, fjl n.; corp. 14. Caswell v. Davis, '83; tradem. 5 n. 12 n. v. Districh, '83; lease, 1. Catholic Protectory, Matter of '83; tax, 5, 81. Catlin v. Adirondack Co., 11 Abb, N. C. 377; rev'g 20 Sin, 19. Subsequent pro- ceed.ngs in 15 Weekly D. 256; '85; amend. 2; '86; atty. 4 c. 27. v. Billings, '85; amend. 6. v. Catlin, '84; ref. 17. v. Grissler, '84; forec. 5; appeal, 57 n. v. Gunter, '83; usury, 12; var. 1, 2. v. Hansen, '83; defense, 8; bills, n. & c. 9; '85; bills, n. 4 c. 14 n. v. Ricketts, 91 N. Y. 668; dismissing appeal from Pomeroy v. Ricketts, 27 Han, 242; '83; appeal, 68; attach. 62. v. Tobias, '83; contracts, 107. v. Valentine, '85; inj. 12 n ; nuis. 3, 6. Caton v. Southwell, '86; sup. pro. 25, 29. Catton v. Taylor, '83; trusts, 45. Caujolle v. Ferrie, '83; ev. 5; surr. ct. 27, '86; ev. 244 n. Caulfield v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., '84; master & s. 23 n. v. Sullivan, 85 N. Y. 153; s. c, 2 Am. Prob. R. 43, with note as to estoppel by ac- cepting benefit under will, and 12 Weekly D. 442; aff'g 21 Ban, 227; '83; pi. 208. Caulkins v. Eolton, 31 Hun, 458. Modified in 98 N. Y. 511; '86; pi. 42. v. Hellman. See Stone v. Browing, in principal table, '83; sales, 23, 24; '85; sales, 7n. Caussidiere v. Beers, '83 ; arrest, 7n. Cavanagh v. Morrow, '85; elec- tion of r. 1 n. ; '86; sup. pro. 22 n. Caw v. Robertson, '83; legacies, 13, 14 a. Caylus v. N. Y. Kingston, etc. U.K. Co., '84; former adj. 26 n. ; '86; coupons, 1 n. Cayuga Bridge v. Magee, '85; const law, 5dd n. Cayuga County Bank v. Ben- nett, '86; ev. 40 n. v. Daniels, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 41; '86; banking, 16. v. Dill, '86; bills, n. 4 c, 22. v. Hunt, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 44; '84; ev. 50. v. Warden. See "Willis v. Green, in principal table. '83; bills, n. 4 c. 33. Cazneau r. Bryant, 'E6 ; judgm. 25; motions & o. 6. Ceas v. Bramley, '86 ; fraud. conv. 6. Center v. Fairman, '84; place of tr. 13. Central Bank of Troy i\ Hey- dorn, '86; ev. 5. Central City Savings Bank v. Walker, '84; partn. 3 n. Central Cross TownK. B. Co. v. Twenty-third Street By. Co , '84 ; corp. 44 n. Central Gold Mining Co. v. Piatt, '85;mfg. co. 5. Central Nat. Bank v. Arthur, '85 ; wit. 2 n. Central Park Extension, Matter of, '85 ; munc. corp. 99 n. Certwell t. Hoyt, '65; parent 4 c. 2. Cesar v. Karutz. Cited (Land- lord's liability) in 53 Super. Ct. {J. <6&)479. '84;landl. 4 t. 15 n. ; '85 ; land!. 4 t. 9. Chace u. Higgins, '85; lim. of a. 53. Chadsey v. Guion, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & «.) 267. Aff din 97 N. Y. 333; '86; ins. 31, 36 n. Chadwick v. Fonner. Cited as to admissions as evidence in 39 Hun, 170. v. Spargur, '85; sum. pro. 6. v. Woodward 12 Daly, 399; s. c, 1 City H. Supv. 94; aff-g 13 Abb. N. C. 441; '86; leuse, 3. Ohaffee v. Baptist Miss. Conv.j '83, ov. 59; guardians ad. 1. 4; wills, 31, 48, 117; '84; wills, 59 n. 70; '85; wills, 17, 19, 23 n. ; '86; wills, 14 n. 16 n. r v. Fort, '84; ev. 185. Chained. Wilson, '85; judgm. 4 decree, 7 n. ; sec. for costs, 2. Chalmers v. Wright, '85. adv. poss. 1 n. ; '86; champerty 4 m. 4 n. Chamberlain v. American Nat. Life & Trust Co., '84; pi. 38 n. v. Beller, '86; attach. 45. — - v. Chamberlain, '83; jus- tices' ct. 22; -wills, 23, 58, 144, 242; '84; legacies, 3; partn. 11 n. ; sum. pro. 3; wills, 21, 23 n. 128; '85; dower, 9; wills, 41 n. ; '86; ev. 244 n . ; ex. 4 ad. 1 35 n. v. Day, '84; set-off, 7 n. v. Dempsey, '83; service 4 p. 27. v. Gorham, '83; ev. 297. v. Martin, '83; chat. mort. 7n. • v. Pratt, '85; chattels, 3. v. Rochester Seamless Pa- per Vessel Co., '83; insane per. 1; '85; corp. 39. v. Taylor, 92 JV. Y. 348; s. c, 12 Abb. K C. 473; rev'g 26 Han, 601 ; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 336. Subsequent decis- ion in 36 Sun, 24; '83 ; eject- ment, 5; '86; const, law, 27 Chamberlin v. Cuyler. '85; lim. of a. u0 n. Chambers v. Clearwater, '84; sentence, 1 n. ; '85; waiver. 1; '86; em. dom. 9 n. v. Lewis, '83; mfg. co. 31 n.; '84; countercl. 6, 7; '86; sales, 39 n. Chamboretu. Cagney,'84;husb. 4 w. 4 n. ; '86; husb. 4 w. 14 n. Champion v. Bostwick, '83; partn. 6a n. ; '85; negl. 37; '86, animals, 4 n. ; negl. 4 n. v. Brown, '86; lease, 23 n. Champlin v. Champlin, '86; husb 4 w. 8. v. Johnson,'83; chat. mort. 7n. v. Seeber, '84; fraud, conv. 9; '85; wit. 18. v. Stoddard, '85; sup. pro. 19. Champney v. Blanchard, '83; gift, 8. See addenda; '8u; gift, 1. v. Coope,'83; contracts, 15; merger, 2; mort. 34, 56;'83; cited as to omission to in- dorse payment, in 94 i\T. Y. 352. Chanco v. Isaacs, '84; set-off, 7n. Chandler SUPPLEMENTARY T\BL>U. urnpman Chandler v. Herrick, '85 ; accord. 4 sat. 1. v. Hoag, '83; corp. 76. v. Northrop, '84; forec. 7. v. Sutton, '84; brokers, 4. v. Town of Attica, '83; munc. corp. 103 n. 105 n. Channon v. Lusk, '84; ten. in com. 2; '85; conversion, 7; ten. in com. 6. Chapin v. Dobson, '83; ev. 127 n.; 137, 147 n.; '84; ev. 65; '85; ev. 75, 86, 101 n.; '86; amend. 2 n. ; contracts, 2 n. ; ev. 75, 76 n. 82. Chapin v. Foster, 101 N. Y. 1; s. c, 3 Northeast. Sep. 786; 3 Mist. Hep. 206; modifying mem. 31 Sun, 88; 'b6; appeal, 17. v. Shafer, '84; infants, 5; '85; infants, 2. v. Skeels, '83; justices' ct. 19. v. Thompson, 89 N. Y. 270; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 159, modifying 23 Hun, 12; '83; assign, for b. of c. 3; depositions, 17, 24; excep- tions, 10; '84; depositions, 19, 20, 24; '85; appeal, 85; assign, for b. of c. 16, 27; depositions, 5, 6 n. ; '86; disc. 4 insp. 5. v. Weed, '86; trust, 23 n. Chapman, Matter of, '83; wit. 25; '86; wit. 5. Chapman v. Albany & Schenec- tady E.E. Co., '83; com- pensation, 2; '84; dam. 34 n. v. Brooks, '83; husb. & w. 38; wit. 114. v. City of Brooklyn, '86; munc. corp. 81 n. ; tax, 51. v.Delaware, Lackawanna & Western E.E. Co.; '83; ejectment, 1. v. Dyctt, '83; defenses, 6; '85 ; false impris. 3. v. Erie Ky. Co., '83; ev. 175 n. 212 n. ; '84; master 4 s. 5 n.; '85; trial, 119; '86; ev. 147 n.; new tr. 36; pi. 67 n. v. Gates, 54 N. Y. 132. Col- lated with cases from other states (Time for making compensation for land taken for public highway) in Smeaton v. Martin, 57 Wis. t64, 375; '83; const, law, 42, 43; '84; const, law, 21; '86; const, law, 10; em. dom. 3. v. Hatt, '85; chattels, 4. v. Lathrop, '85; sales, 46 n. v. McCormick, '85;trial,68. 69. v. New Haven B,B. Co., '83; negl. 7, 95; '85; negl. 84 n.; '66; carriers, 15 n. ; negl. 128 n. I v. New York Central, etc. E.B. Co., '83; ev. 352; '86; ev. 248. v. O'Brien, '85; parties, 46 n. v. Palmer, '83; nuis. 9 n v. Eobertson, '83; usury, 2 n.; '86; trials, 6. v. Eodgers, '84; wills, 66. v. Eose, '81; bills, n. & c. 40 n.;'o6; bills, n. 4 c. 24 n. v. Smith, '86; perjury, 3 n. v. Swan, '86, highw. 8 n. v. Tibbits, '85; guardian 4 w. 4. v. Webb, '86; amend. In. v. White, '83; banking, 2 n. ; bills, n. 4 c. 29, 41; in- terp. 56 n.; '86; assign, 4; partn. 36 n. Chappcl v. Brockway, '83 ; con- tracts, 56 n. ; '84; contracts, 56 n. ; '85; contracts, 58 n. v. Chappel, '84; confess. of judgm. 1; '85, confess, of judgment, 1; '86; con- fess, of judgm. 1. v. Spencer, '83; bills, u. & c. 4. Charles v. People, '83; const, law, 9; lotteries, 3; usury, Charlick's Estate, 11 Abb. K C. 56; s. c, as Smith v. Mur- ray, 1 Dem. 34; '86; ex. & ad. 81. Charlotte, Columbia & Augusta E.E. Co. v. Jesup, '83; con- tracts, 43. Charter v. Stevens, '83; chat, mort. 7 n. ; '86; chat. mort. 2 n. ; money paid, 16. Chase, Matter of, 32 Han, 318. Subsequent decision in 41 Id. 203; '86; ex. 4 ad. 30. Chase v. Behrman, 1 City Ct. 352. Aff'd in 10 Daly, 344. v. Chase, 29 Hun, 527; s. c, 65 How. Pr. 306. Subse- quent proceedings in Id. 308; '85; courts, 3; divorce, 2. v. County of Saratoga, '86; supervisors, 2 n. v. Ewing, '83; advance- ment, 1. v. Hamilton Ins. Co. '85; ins. 55 n.; '86; ins. '£'. v. James, '83; ref. 39. v. Lord, '83; mfg. co. 16. — v. Peck, '84; ejectment, 3 n.;'85; spec. pert. 13; '86; husb. 4 w. 12 n. — v. Second Ave. E.E. Co. 48 Super VI. {J. & a.\ 22u. Aff'd in 97 N. Y. 384. v. Vanderbili, '86; juris. 8, Chatfield v. Simonson ,'84; attv. k c. 30. Chatham Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. O'Brien, '85; chat. mort. 3. Chauncey, Matter of, '85; surr. ct. Vs7. Ohatauqua Co. Bank v. White, '83: cred. s. 8; dower, 6. Chatauque County Bank v. Eis- ley, '83; former adj. 19; sup. pro. 18, 24; '84; cred. 5,8; sup. pro.34;'86;amend. 23 n.; cred. s. 13, 14 n.; ev. 30; sup. pro. 7 n. Cheeney v. Arnpld, '84; wills, 70. Cheesebrough, Matter of, '85; const, law, 11 n.; drainage, 2n.;ev. 24. Oheesbrough v. Agate, '84, un- dert. 16. v. Millard, '83; rec. deeds, 8; subr. 2. Chegaray v. Jenkins, '83 ; ofn'r, 15 ; '84 ; offi'r, 25 n. v. Mayor, etc. N. Y. '83; statutes, 10 n. ; '84; tax, 14; '85; tax. 17. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Eohner, '83; debtor 4 cred. 10; '84; banks, 6; '85; mfg. co. 13. Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, '84; ev. 124 n. ; juris. 1 n.; '86; receivers, 2 n. v. Supervisors of Chem- ung, '85; towns, 6. Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bing- hamton Bridge Co., '85; const, law, 58d n. v. Lewis, '84; dam. 34 u. ; '85; ev. 193 n. v. Paige, '83; real prop. 5 n ; waterc. 3 n. ; '84. waterc. 2; '85; ferries, 1. Cheney v. Wolfe, '84; mech. 1. 9. Chester v. Bank of Kingston, '85; bills, n. 4 c. 14 n v. Dickerson, '85; contracts, 73; partn. 1 n. v. Dorr, '83; bills, n. 4 o. 43. ' Chesterman v. Eyland, '83; ex. 4 ad. 116; trusts, 90; ; appeal, 57 n. Chicago & Great Eastern E.E. Co. v. Dare, '86; contracts. 24 n. Child v. Brace, '85; joinder of a. 1 n. v. Starr, '83; boundaries, 1 n.; '85; waterc. 11. Children's Aid Soc. v. Love- ridge, '83; wills, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 84, 113, 125; wit. 44; '84; undue inf. 1; '85; wills, . 3 n.; '86; wills; 5,38; wit. 17. Childs i;.Barnum,'85; contracts 23. v. Bostwick, '84; mech 1 10 n. v. Kendall,'84; pi. 121; '85; cred. s. 5 n. v. Village of West Trov. '85; pi. 142 n. *' Chipman v. Martin, '83; former adj. 3j n. 26 CMpman STJPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Clark CMpman — continued v. Montgomery, '83; assign. for b. of c. 33; wills, 234, 236; '84; assign. for b. of c. 36; '85; assign.- for b. of c. 3i; wills, 133; '86; costs, 41 n. v. Palmer, '85; parties, 44 n. Chism v. Keith, '85; parties, 81. Chittenango Cotton Co. v. Stewart, '85; amend. 17. Chitty, Matter of, '83; atty. & c. 37. Chouteau v. Suydam, '84; con- tracts, 19; ev. 66, 6i; prin- cipal 4 a. 11 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 2, 66, 121 n. Chretien v. Doney, '83; lease, 18; '85; lease, 11 n Christalu. Kelly, 88 N. T. 285; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 28a; affg24if«n',115. Christian v. Gouge, '83; sec. for costs, 4. Christensen v. Quintard, '86; set-off, 2. Christie v. Bishop, '85; judicial sale, 11 n. ; set-off, 5. v. Gage, '83; adv. poss. 3; uses, 1 n. ; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. Christopher v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '85; inj. 20; munc. corp. 84. v. Stockholm, '83; parties, 24 n. Christopher & Tenth St. R.R. Co. v. Central Crosstown R.R. Co., '85; r. r. co. 31. Christy v. Libby, '86; account 4 accounting, 1. Chrysler v. Canaday, 90 N. Y. 272; s. c, abridgt. 15 Week- ly J). 399; rev'g 12 Id. 214; '85; deceit, 7; '86; deceit, 1, 10 n. v. Renois, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 48; '8ti; ev. 37 n. Chrystie v. Phyfe. '83; wills, 215 n.;'84; wiUs, 80, 112; '85; wills, 87 n.; '86; judicial sale, 6 n. ; wills, 41. Chubbucku. Vernam, '84; acct. st. 1 n. Church, Matter of, 92 N.T.I; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 510; aff'g 28 Iptn, 476; '85; com- pensation, 1 ; '86; con»t. law, 22. Church v. American Rapid Tel. Co., '84; appeal, 1; pi. 24; '86; appeal, 1. i; Brown, '83; guaranty, 6, 11 n. 17; |85; contracts, 82 n. ; '86; guaranty, 2 n. v. Gilman, '83; deeds, 3 n. v. Howard, '83; ev. 188; wit. 29, 37; '84; wit. 13; '85; wit. 18, 30; '86; ev. 140 n.; wit. 16, 30, 37 n. * v. Kidd, '85; judgm. 4 de- cree, 1; new tr. 25; '86; aew tr. 7. p. Landers, '83; conver- sion, 1 n. ; '86; husb. 4. w. 3. v. Maloy, '83; principal 4 a. 13. v. Rhode's, '84; appeal, 34 Churchill v. Marsh,'84; statutes, 16. v. Onderdonk, '86; pi. 163. Churchill v. Prescott, '85; ex. 4 ad. 9, 15, 24; '86; ex. 4 ad. 10, 31 n. Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Allison, 37 Sin, 13~i. Subsequent proceeding, it seems, in 23 Weekly D. 235; '8K; con- fess, of judgm. 1. City Bankfc. Bangs, '83; undert, '3. v. Lumley, '83; arrest, 14. v. Borne, Watertown, &c. R.R. Co., '84; bills of lad- ing, 4; carriers, 6; '80; bills of- lading, 4 n. ; '86; corp. 8 n. City Bank of Brooklyn v. Mc- Chesney, '83; partn. 25 n. City Bank of Columbus v. Bruce, '84; savings banks, 1. City Bank of New Haven v. Perkins, '84; ev. 234 n.;'8f>; pi. 105 n.; '86; banking, 15; bills, n. 4C. 17 n. City Bank of Rochester v. West- bury, '83; chat. mort. 18a, 211. City National Bank of Dallas v. National Park Bank, '84; calendar, 3. City of Brooklyn, Matter of,'83; munc. corp. 124. City of Brooklyn v. Breslin, '83 ; munc. corp. 46; '86; munc. corp. 21. v. Brooklyn City R.R. Co., '83; munc. corp. 72 n.; '84; dam. 3; ev. 123; '85; master 4 s. 2 n. ; '86; contracts, 84. v. N. Y. Ferry Co., 87 N. T. 204; s. c„ 13 Weekly D. 485; aff'g 23 San, 277. v. Nodine, 26 Hun, 512. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opinion in 89 N. T. 640; '83; munc. corp. 8, 51, 52. City of Buffalo, Matter of, '83; const, law, 35 n. ; r. r. co 59; '84; em. dom. 5; stat- utes, 13; villages. 11; '8">; em. dom. 4; highw. 12; r. r. co 49 n. City of Buffalo v. Bettinger,'85; munc. corp. 5 n. v. Holloway, '85; pi. 110 n. 145. v. Mackay, '83; offi'r, 11; parties, 38. City of New York v. Mapes, '84; munc. corp. 1. City of Oswego v. Oswego Canal Co. Commented on at length, in 11 Abb. N. C. 263, note. '83; dedication, 1; deeds, 8; '85; em. dom. 611. City of Rochester v. Montgom- ery, '84; ev. 123; money paid, 4. v. Town of Rush, '83; munc. corp. 177; tax, 4U; '65; tax, 15. City of Troy v. Winters, '84; villages, *6 n. Claflin v. Farmers', etc. Bank, '86; ref. 5. v. Frenkel, '84; costs, 7. v. Hamlin, '84; inj. 31; '83; inj. 31; '86; inj. 20, 23. — ~ v. Hirsch, '86; attach. 11. v. Meyer, '83; bailment, 3; '84; ev. 6 n.; '86; bailment, 1. v. Olstrom, '85; assign. 17; 86; promise, 3 n. v. Smith, 15 466. N. C. 241; s. c, 35 Sun, 372. Another decision in 21 Weekly D. 212. ■ v. Taussig, '83; debtor 4 cred. 1; '85; attach. 58. Clancy v. Byrne, '85; landl. 4. t. 5a; '86;negl. 23 n. 24. ■ v. Terhune, '84 ; city ct. of N. Y. 1. Clapp, Matter of, '85 ; insane per. 14. Clapp v. Astor, '83 ; apportion- ment, 1; ex. 4 ad. 231. v. Bromagham, '83; adv. poss. 1; '86; wills, 69. v. Fullerton, '83 ; ev. 112, 144; insane per. 1; wills, 5, 22, 93;'84; undue inf. 1;'85; ev. 64; wills, 1. v. Graves, '83 ; marine ct. 6; '86; notice, 5. v. Hawlev, '86; amend. 8. v. Rogers, '83; partn. 25 n. v. Wright, '86 ; counterc. 11. Clapper v. Fitzpatrick, '84 ; verif. 1 n. Clark, Matter of, 18 Weekly D. 552. Subsequent decision in 40 Sun, 233; '83 ; exec. 15, 20. Clark v. Baird, '83; ev. 139 n. 157; '85; ev. 58; '86; tax, 34n.; wit. 1. v. Bininger, '86; contempt, 34, 35. v. Blumenthal, 52 Super. a. {J. & 8.) 355; s. c, 9 Civ. Pro. B. 40. Further proceeding in 53 thtpvr. Ct. {J. & S.) 211; '86; pi. 8. v. Bowe, '85; pi. 13. — v. Brooks, '83; ev. 305; '84 ; trials, 5 n. — v. Brown, '86; r. r. co. 9. — v. Bruce, 12 Sun, 274. Clark SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Clinton 27 Cited as to opinions of wit- nesses in 34 Han, 134; '86; ev. 52 n. ; wit. 1. v. City of Lockport, '86; munc. oorp, 46. ii. City of Bochester, '83; const, law 22. — o. Clark, '83; alimony, 1; ex. 4 ad. 29, 8a n. 96; guardian, 7; marr. 6; trusts, 87; '84 ; ex. 4 ad. 3.5; '85; pi. 86; '86; ex. 4 ad. 108. — v. Cleveland, '83; pi. 183. — v. Crego, '83 ; adv. poss. 1. — v. Dakin, '85; cred. s. 1. — i). Dales, '83; sales. 1;'84; debtor 4 cred. 3 n. — v. Davenport, 30 Hun, 161. Aff'd in 95 N. Y. 477; '86; cloud on title, 1 ; mand. 9. v. Dillon, 97 N. Y. 370; s. o. , with opinion below, 15 A'*. If. 0. 261; aff'g 11 Daly, 110; s. c, 2 (llv. Pro. Ii. (McCtirty) 73; '84; pi. 38 n.; '85; pi. 6; '86; pi. 1, 49, 50. — v. Dutcher, '83 ; ev. 27 n.; '84; money paid, 13 n. — v. Eighth Avenue B.B. Co. , '83 ; negl. 90; r. r. co. 26; '85 ; questions of 1. & f. 7. — v. Ely, '85 ; principal & s. 2. — v. Fisher, '83; ev. 112 n.; '84; wills, 8. v. Flint Pere Marquette E. Co., '81; corp. 51 n. v. Foot, '84; negl. 2 n. v. Ford, '84 ; lim. of a. 27; '85; ex. & ad. 128 n.; '86; ex. & ad. 133 n,; lim. of a. 21. v. Gilbert, '85; contracts, 98 n.; '86; contracts, 104, 105. v. Griffith, '85 ; sales, 33 n. d. Henry. '85; mort. la. v. Holdridge, '84; false im- pris. 1. v. Hopkins, '84 ; ev. 19 n. v. Hutchinson, '85; exec. 2 n. v. Jacobs, '85 ; spec. perf. 13. v. Jones, '83; covenants, 5; lease, 17, 41; sales, 12. . b. Lake Shore & M. S. Ey. Co., 94 K Y. 217; aff'g 14 Wtelcly D. 177. v. Leupp, '83; trusts, 15 a; '84; legacies, 13; wills, 87 n ; '85; wills, 108 n. 126 n. v. Mackin, 30 Han, 411. Modified in 95 X. Y. 346. Subsequent decision in 34 Him, 345;'85;subr.2n. v. Marsiglia, '83 ; contracts , 96; '84; contracts, 101; '85 ; lease, 6n. v. Mauran, '83 ; bills, n. 4 c. 41. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.,'84; dam. 2. „ Mechanics' Nat. Bank, '84; trials, 57; '86 ; appeal, 88 v. Meigs, '84; appeal, 15. v. Merchant's Exch. Bank, '83 ; bills, n. & c. 29. v. Metropolitan Bank, 83; brokers, 1. „_,,,„ v. Miller, '85; offi'r, 17; '86; offir,18. v. Montgomery, '83; guar- dian s w. 7; infants, 7 n. v . N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., '83;inj. 23. v. Norton, '83 ; superv. 4; tax, 41, 48, 54, 55, t>6; '84; tax, 30, 40; '85; ruunc. corp. 126; tax, 52; '86; em. dom. 3. u. People, '86; ev. 335. v. Pmckney, '86 ; appeal, 7. v. Pinney, '83 ; defenses, 6; exec. 57, 57 n. v. Bowling, '83; bankrupt- cy, 15 n. : discharge, 3 n.; estoppel, 2; forec. 32; judgm 4 decree, 52 n. ; '85; discharge, 3 n. ; '86; bank- ruptcy, 1 n. ; merger, 1 n. v. Sickler, '83; bills, n. & c. 28; guaranty, 15, tender, 2. v. Taylor, '86; ev. 48a n. v. Tucker, '85; sales, 7 n. v. Van Amburgh, '81; ex. 4 ad. 112. v. Van Vrancken, '86; pi. 15, 165. o. Village of Dunkirk, '66; munc. corp. 77 n. v. Vorce, '86; ev. 100 n. v. Woodruff, '84; offi'r, 13; '85 ; ev. 274. Clarke v. Blackmar, 47 N. Y. 152. Cited as to injunc- tions in dissenting opinion in 33. Han, 164; '86; inj. 14 n. v. Bogardus, '83; ex. 4 ad. 148. v. Cummings, '83 ; forfeit- ure, 2 n. v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674. See Mowatt v. Wright, in prin- cipal table. Disting'd (Eat- ification by principal) in Whittemore v. Hamilton, 51 Conn. 153, 158; s. c, 19 Re- porter, 7. v. Gibbons, '86; devise, 2 n. v. Sawyer, '83; trials, 1. v. Sheehan, 47 N. Y. 188. Applied (Usury in mort- gage contract; in Hall v. Ditson, 5 A'jb. N. C. 198, 208; '86; usury, 1. Clarkson v. Clarkson, '83; ex. 4 ad. 232; ten. fori. 3, 5; '85; ex. 4 ai. 134 n. ; ten. for 1. n. ; '86; corp. 9 n. 1 v: De Peyster, '84; cred. s. 7n.; '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Skidmpre, '86; forec. 21. Clason v. Bailey, '86; contracts, - v. Morris, '86; lira of a. 14 Clausen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. E. Co., '85; highw. 3 n. Clay v. Baker, 41 Han, 58; s. c, 11 Viv. Pro. R. 1 ; and as Caly v. Baker, 2 iV. Y. State Rep. 275. v. Clay, '83; parties. 53. Clayes v. Hooker, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 54; var. 1. Clayton v. Wardell, '83; ev. 335; marr. 2; '85; ex. 4 ad. 8 n.; '86; ev. 244 n. v. Wolven. See People ex rel. Clayton v. Wolven. Clearwater v. Brill, '85; offi'r, 22 n. Clegg v. Cramer, 3 How. Pr. N. H. 128; s. c. as Clegg v. Chi- cago Newspaper Union, 8 Civ. Pro. H. 401. Cleghorn v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. E. Co., '85; dam. 23, Clemenceu. City of Auburn, '83 munc. corp. 78 ; nons. 1 n. : '85; munc. corp. 57, 58; '86; questions of 1. 4 f. 14. Clemens v. Clemens, '84; former adj. 1, 30' n.; '86; ev. 19; former adj, 35. Clement v. Cash, '83; contracts, 30. dementi v. Jackson, '85; ev. 23; mand. 11; '86; mand. 9. Clements, Matter of, '84; guard- ian 4 w. 11. Clements v. Village of West Troy, '85; easements, 11; munc. corp. 56 n. v. Yturria, '86; conversion, 11. Cleveland v. Barrows, '84; joind- er of a. 5. v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 68 N. Y. 306. Subsequent de- cision in 89 Id. 627. Cleves v. Willoughby, '84; ev. 82; '86; ev. 85. Clewes v. Bank of N. Y. Nat t B'k i Assoc, 89 N. Y. 418; s. a, 15 WeMu 1>. 196; rev.'g in effect 8 Daly, 476. Clifford v. Dam, '83; ev. 85;.lim. of a. 14; negl. 33; nuis. 13; '84; inj. 19 n. ; '85; negl. 29 n. ; '86; ev. 209; inj. Ion.; negl. 23 n. 24. Clift v. White, '83; mort. 55. Clifton v. Brown, 27 Hun., 231; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. R. [Browne) 44; Id. (McCarty) 136; and as Clifton v. Lawrence, 14 WeMu D. 454. Clinch v. Eckford, '83; ex. 4 ad. 207. Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., '84; ins. 6. v. Myers, '83; waterc. 3 n. Clinton Liberal Inst. v. Fletcher,. 83; inj. See Addenda. 28 Clock SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Coles Clock v. Chadeagne, '84; lim. of a. 27; '86; surr. ct. 10. Close v. Van Husen, '83; ex. 4 ad. 148. Clough v. Murray, '83; ace. 4 sat. 1; '85; lease, 7 n. Clow v. Borst, '85; paym. 8n.; '8u; paym. 5 n. CloweB v. Hawley, '84; conver- sion, In.; '86; deeds, 5. v. Van Antwerp, '85; guard- ian 4 w. 8. Clute v. Clute, '85; new prom- ise, 1. v. Emmerich, 26 Hun, 10. Affl'd in 99 JV. Y. 342; '85; subr. 8 n. v. Emmerick, '83; marine ct. 7; '84; new tr. 36. v. Fitch, '83; fraud, cony. 1. v. Bobinson, 21 Weekly D. 120. Subsequent deci- sion in 38 Hun, 283. v. Small, '84; ev. 140; '85; bonds, 5. v. Voris, '85; ev. 28 n. Clyde v. Eogers, 87 A. Y. 626; s. c.,, 13 Weekly D. 334 ; dismissing appeal from 24 Hun, 145. Coan v. Osgood, '83; ev. 128. Coatest). Donnell, 94 JV. Y. 168; affg 48 Super. Ct.(J.& S. ) 46. v. First Nat. B'k of Em- poria, 91 K Y. 20; rev'g 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 322; '85; bills of lading, 24. v. Goddard, '83; costs, 81. Cobb v. Dows, '84; joinder of a. 4; '86; conversion, 7. v. Hatfield, '85; fraud, 9. v. Knapp, '83; principal 4 a. 11; '84; brokers, 2; prin- cipal & a. 10; '85; parties, 41; '86; principal & a. 11, • v. Titus, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 4; usury, 12. Cochran v. Ingersoll, '83; con- tempt, 6, 34; '85; contempt, 7. Cockerill v. Loonan, 36 Hun, ■ 353. Bev'd on reargument in Id. 353 n. Cockroft v. N. Y. & Harlem B. B. Co., '86; dam. 17 n. Cocks v. Barker, '83; ev. 149; partn. 31; '85; ev. 104; ins. 6 n. ; '86; deeds, 6 n. V- Weeks, '83; ev. 71; '85; new promise, 4. Codd v. Ooad, '85; divorce, 4 n. v. Bathbone, '83; pi. 123. Codding v. Wamsley, '83; lease, 38 n. Coddington v. Bay, '83; pledge, 3n.; '86; bills, n. & c. 24 n. u.Davis, '83; pi. 110; '84; pi. 104. v. Webb, '86; contempt, 14, 23. Codwise v. Field, '83; exec. 46. Coe v. Coe, '83; ex. & ad. 128; ref. 46. ii.De Witt, '8.">; deeds, 27 n. v. Hobby, '85; lease, 7 n. ; '86; contracts, 97 n. v. Raymond, 89 K Y. 612; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 496; and 14 Reporter, 154; affg it seems 22 Hun, 461. v. Schultz, '85; const, law, 11 n. Coffin v. Coffin, '83; wills, 37, 39 n. 40, 68, 114; '84; ev. 28 n. ; wills, 26 n. ; '85; wills, 14 n. 21. -■- — - v. McLean, '85; ex. ft ad. 121 n.; set-off, 1; '86; leg- atees, 3 n. v. Reynolds, '83; mfg. co. 19, 21; munc. corp. 38; '84; services, 5; '85; const, law, 37 n. ; defin. 14. v. Scott, 19 Weekly D. 413; s. c, with opinion in full, N. Y. Daily Meg. Aug. 28, 1884. Coggins v. Bullwinkle, '83; cause of a. 4, 4 n. Coggswell v. N. Y., New Haven, etc.,B B. Co., 4 Ccntr. Hep. 225; rev'g 48 Super. Ct. (J. <& S.) 31. Cohen v. Cohen, '83; ten. for 1. 2. v. Dry Dock, East Broad- way, etc., E. B. Co., '83; master ft s. 13 n. ; '86; mas- ter 4 s. 7 n. ; trials, 68. v. N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co., '85; ins. 63 n. v. People, '83; indict. 8. Cohn, Matter of, 20 Alb. L. J. 352. Cited (Qualification of assignee) in Matter of Schang, 66 Horn. 1'r. 201. '83 ; assign, forb. of c. 51; '85; ex. 4 ad. 5 n. v. Goldman, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & SA 446. Cited (change of title) in 34 Hun, 152. v. Husson, 6"> How. Pr. 150. Subsequent proceed- ings in 67 id. 461; s. 0,5 (iv. Fro. R. 334; and 3 How. I J r. 'K S. 130. Cohoes Co. v. Goss, '83; forec. 3; '84; force 1. Coit v. Campbell, '83; abate. & r. 5. McBeynolds, '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n; '86; surr. ct. 19 n. v. Patchen, '83; wills, 5, 22; '84; undue inf. 1. v. Stewart, '84; countercl. 7. Colah, Matter of, '85; insane per. 14. Colburn v. Morton, '85; trusts, 43. Cole v. Goodwin, '84; carriers, 6n. v. Hughes, '83; covenants, 12; '85; covenants, 8; '86; covenants, - 4; party walls, 2n. — v. Irvine, '83; pi. 103. — v. Jessup, '84; lim. of a. 13; '85; lim. of a. 28 n. ; '86 lim. of a. 10 n. — v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., '83 ; corp. See Ad- denda. v. Mahoney, 12 Daly, 405; s. c, 67 How. Pr. 227; atf'g 6 i Id. 499. — v. Malcolm, '83; attach. 42; forec. 32; subr.4; '84; forec. 8; mort. 24;'8o; ex. 4 ad. 97 n.; subr. 2 n. 8 n.; '86; judgm. 9 n. ; release, 2 ; subr. 2, 3. — v. Mann, '83; sales, 14, 15; '84 ; conversion, 12; '86 ; consignor 4 consignee, 1, — v. Moffitt, '84; forec. 1. v. Beynolds, '83; partn. 17; '85; abate, ti. 4n. — v. Byan, '83; mfg. co. 5. — u. Savage, '83; usury, 36; '8^; deeds, 26 n. ; usury, 12 n. — v. Smith, '84; pi. 15 1 n.; '85; pi. 137 n. 154 n. — v. Terpenning, '83; lim. of a. 1; '85; ex. 4 ad. 125, 128 ii. ; '86; appeal, 92a n. — v. T»ler, '84; cred. s. 8; fraud, conv. 9; '86; cred. s. 5. — v. Van Keuren, '85; veaiver, 1; '86;highw. 16 n. — v. White, '83; partn. 13. Colegrove v. N. Y. & Harlem B. B. Co., '83; negl. 7, S n. 94; '86; negl. 128 n. Coleman v. Beach, '86; powers, 2; wills, 52. — v. Bean, '83; mech. 1. 10; undert. 13. -v. Burr, 93 K Y. 17; affg 25 Hun, 239. Disting'd in 38 Hun, 225. '84; husb. 4W. 1 n. 4 n. ; '85; attach. 15 n. ; exec. 7; husb. 4 w. 10, 18. — v. Chauncey, '84; costs, 34. — v. Coleman, '85; ex. 4 ad. 92 n. — v. Crump, '83; tradem. 12; '86; tradem. 1. — v. Eyre, '83; contracts, 13; '84; ion tracts, 80 n. : '85; contracts, 73. — v. First Nat. Bank of El- mira, '83; ev. 129. — v. Lansing, '83; app. of payments, 3. — v. Manhattan Bbach Im- provement Co., 94 N. Y. 229;aff'g 26 Hun, 525; '85; deeds, 11. — v. People, '83; ev. 279; '84; countercl. 5; ev. 150, 196; '85; ev. 141 n. 254 n. 263; wit. 51; '86; ev. 118b n. 203. — v. Second Avenue B. B. Co., '85; corp. 28; '86; con- tracts, 57 n. ; corp. 2u n. — v. Van Bensselaer, '83 mort. 8; '84; mort. 1. — v. Wade, 'b3; award, 5, '84 arbitration, 3 n. I.Coles v. Appleby, 87 N. Y. 114 Coles SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Commissioners 29 s. c. 13 Weekly D. 345; aff'g 22 Hun, 72; s. c, Id W(t kly B. 532. v.Brown, 'S3; wills, 180 n. v. Coles, '86; counterol. 1. ■ v. Hannigan, '84; district oi. 6. Coley's Estate, '84; ex. ft ad. 16. Colgate v. Pennsylvania Co., 31 Man, 297. Afi'd, it seems, in 102 N. Y. 120. Colgrove v. Tallman, '83; bills, n. & c. 28; principal & s. 19; '84; partn. 15 n.; pi. 156; principal ft a. 8; '85; princi- pal ft s. 8, 10, 11; '86; re- lease, 3 n. Colie v. Jamison, '83; deeds, 32. v. Tifft, '81; appeal, '88; '85; trial, '85. Collonder v. Dinsmore, '83; car- riers, 15; def. 10; '85; ev. 204 n. v. Phelan, '86; partn. 15. Collier v. Idley, '83 ; wills,101 n. ; '84; wills, 54; '85; wills, 49. v. Munn, '83; ex. ft ad. 205, 207, 215, 224; trusts, 59; '86; ex. ft ad. 78. .v. Whipple, '83; judicial sale, 5; '86; judicial sale, 9n. Colliganu. McKernan, '86; wills, 33 n. v. Scott, '86; trials, 84. Collins, Matter of, 6 Viv. Pro. R. 85. Subsequent deci- sion in 41 Hun, 403. See Dennis v. Jones; '86; at- tach. 7. Collins v. Ball, '8i; under t. 11. v. Bennett, '83; bailment, 3; estoppel, 13. v. Campneld, '85, service 4 p. 4. ■ v. Coggill, 7 Rdbt. 81. Cited in dissenting opinion in 7 Civ. 1'ro. R. 40. v. Collins, '83; alimony, 6; appeal, 57 ; marr. 2 ; '85 ; ali- mony, 3;'86;ev. 244 n. v. Ellis, '86; wit. 37 n. v. Hasbrouck, '83; forfeit- ure, 2 n.; '85; lease, 14; '86; lease, 23 n. v. Hoxie, '85; legacies, 21, 78. v. Manning, 1 N. T. State Rep. 193. Other proceed- ings in Id. 204. v. Ragrew, '83; arrest, 7 n. v. Balli, 84; chattels, 1; '85; factors, 2. v. Ryan, '85; service 4 p. 3. -^ — v. Standish, '86; forec. 8. v. Suan, '83; pi. 87; '86; pi. 87. v. Torry, '83; dower, 2; '85; subr. a n. ; '86; countercl. 1. Collombu. Caldwell, '84; fraud, conv. 1 ; '85 ; assign, for b. of c. 34, 38; attach. 15 n.;'86; assign, for b. of c. 33. Collumb v. Read, '83: wills, 164; 'S4; partn. 11 n.; '86; partn. 12. Colman v. Crump, '83; estoppel, 9. v. Dixon, '84; trials, 1. v. Shattuck, '83; ev. 30; '84; appeal, 87; '85; ev.52; offi'r, 8; tax, 44; '86; deeds, 11; tax, 75 n. Colson u.^Brainard, '85; judgm. & decree, 6 n. v. Leitch, '86; inj. 29. Colt v. Heard, '83; 'wills, 215 n. ; '85; wills, 88; '86; wills, 65. v. Lasmer, '86 ; parties, 27. v. Owens, 90 N. Y. 368; s, c, 15 Weekly D. 439; affg 47 Super. Cl.{J.&S.) 430; s.c, 13 Wetky D. 40; '84; dam. 7; negL 26; '85; at- tach. 39; '86; dam. 23, 23 n. 24 n. v. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co., '86; sup. pro. 2. v. Sixth Ave. R.R. Co.,|83; nons. 1 n. ; trials, 57; '86; trials, 50. Colton v. Fox, '83; legacies, 6 n.; susp. of power of a. 19; '81 ; susp. of power of a. 3 n. v. Jones, '85; pi. 92; '86; joinder of a. 5. v. Ross, '83; wills, 101 n. v. Simmons, '8§; costs, 56. Columbian Ins. Co. v. Black, 18 Johns. 149. Cited as to set-off in 51 Super. Ct. (J. *a.)458. v. Stevens, '83; costs, 125; '85; ex. ft. ad. 104; '86; partn. 26 n. Columbian Mfg. Co.' v. Vander- poel, '85 ; children, 4. , Colvin v. Burnet, '83 ; deeds, 4. '85; contracts, 28; trials, 48; waterc. 12 n. v. Colvin, '83; marr. 7. v. Corwin, '83; cause of a. 4 n. ; contracts, 34. v. Holbrook, '85; banking, 7; '86; principal & a. 18. Colwell v. Lawrence, '83; con- tracts, 30; '85; contracts, 3. v. N. X. & Erie R.R. Co., '84; joinder of a. 4. Coman v. Larkey, '84; conver- sion, 12 n. Combs v. Bateman, '83; dis- cont. 3. v. Bowen, '85 ; confess, of judgm. 1. v. Combs, '83 ; costs, 42. Comer v. Cunningham, '83; sales, 17; 'S5; sales. 27. Comfort v. Fulton, '83; arrest, 41; larceny, 3; '86; false im- pris. 1. Comins v. Pottle, '85; uhdert. 9. Commercial Bank v. Dunham, '85; wit. 2 n. v. Hughes, '83; banking, tn. Commercial Bank of Albany v. Canal Commissioners, '83 ; trials, 25. u. Hughes. Cited as to ef- fect of deposit in 99 H. Y. 133; '83; banking, 2n. v. Ten Eyck, '84 ; joint debtors, 4 n. Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Kortright, '86; inand. 1 n. v. Warren, '83; carriers, 15. Commercial Bank of Keokuk v. Pfeiffer, '85; bills of lad- ing, 4 n. ; '86 ; corp. 35. Commercial Bank of Lake Erie v. Norton, '86; bills, n. s c. 12; partn. 11. Commercial Bank of Penn. v. Union Bank of N. Y„ '83; depositions, 7; '86 ; banii- ing, 17 n. ; depositions, 10. Commercial Warehouse Co. v. Graber, '85 ; sec. for costs, 11; '86; sec. for costs, 1 n. Commissioners of Bushwick v. Meserole, '84; high w. 23. Commissioners of Canal Fund v. Kempshall, "83 : grants, 3 ; lakes, 1 ; real prop. 5 n. ; '85 ; . grants, 2n. ; waterc. 11. Commissioners of Carmel v. Judges of Putnam, 'c4; sen- tence, 1 n. Commissioners of Central Park, Matter of, '83; compensa- tion, 12; mech. 1. 2; mon- ey paid, 17; munc. Corp. 124; receivers, 16; statutes, 28; '85; drainage, 3 n.;inj. 6 n. ; munc. corp. 99 n. ; r. r. co. 49 n. 56; statutes, 17 n. ; '86 ; inj. 45 n. Commissioners of Cortlandville v. Peck, '83; parties, 36; '85; parties, 26. Commissioners of Excise v. McGrath,'85; sec. for costs, 10. Commissioners of Excise of Au- burn v. Burtis. See Ex- cise Commissioners of Au- burn u. Burtis. v. Merchant. See Excise Commissioners of Auburn v. Merchant. Commissioners of Excise of Orange v. Dougherty, '85; excise, 5. Commissioners of Excise of Tomkins v. Taylor, '83 ; ex- cise, 3U2 n.; questions of 1. & f. 17;'85; ev. 255; excise, 5. Commissioners of Excise of Yonkers v. Glennon, '85; excise, 7. Commissioners of Kingston v. Osterhoudt, '85; excise, 7. Commissioners of Pilots v. Spofford, '83; costs, 38. Commissioners of Public Char- ity of N. Y. v. Casiatir, '83; £0 Commissioners SUPPLEMENTAEY table. Cook costs, 124a; sec. for costs, 9. # ' Commissioners of State Reser- vation at Niagara, Matter of. See State xteservation, etc. Commissioners of Washington Parii, M.itter of, '83; com- pensation, 14 ; '84 ; statutes, lit; '8.; costs, 41. Commonwealtli of Kentucky v. Bassfjrd, '86; lotteries, 1 n. Comstock v. Ames, '83 ; parties, 57. v. Dodge '83 ; abate. & r. 14 n. ■ v. Drohan, '83; mort. 23; v. 4 p. 2; 'oo; ex. 4 ad. 95; mort. 18. v. Dye, '86; costs, 39. v. Uier, '83 ; conversion, 6 ; dam. 3U; pledge, 3 n. ; '84; conversion, 13; '8(i; conver- sion, 1; trusts, 6. v. Hoag, '86 ; banking, 15. v. Hutchinson, '86; dam. 14 n. v. Hoeft, '83; pi 8. v. Johnson, '83; deeds, 24 n. 26; inj. 47; waterc. 1; '84; deeds, 23. v. Olmstead, '83; ex. & ad. 128. Conant v. Tan Sohaick, '83; mfg. co. 19. Conaughty v. Nichols, '83; exec. 5o; pi. 34; '84; cause of a. 1; '86; arrest, 7. — - — v. Saratoga County Bank, 92 iV. Y. 401; rev'g 28 Hun, 373; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 5*6. Cited as to costs, 39 Hun, 570; '85; costs, 25, 29. Conboy v. Jennings, '83; wills, 32 n. 44, 92; '86; wills, 14 n. Concord Granite Co. v. French, 12 Daly, 228; s. c, 65 How. Fr. 317; and 3 Uv. Pio. R, 445; aff'g 2 id. 56. Conderman v. Smith, '83 ; mort. 1;'84; chat. mort. 10 n. Condict v. Grand Trunk E.R. Co , '84 ; carriers, 4, 9. Condit v. Baldwin, 21 X. Y. 219. Collated with Bell v. Duy, 32 X. Y. 165, and other cases, (Usury as af- fected by '■ bonus ") in 17 Vent. L. J. 102; 'e'3; usury, 19, 20, 20 n. 21 n. Cone v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R. Co., '83; master & s. 19, 25; negl. 88; '84; master & s. 28; '85; master s s. 39a n. ; negl. 16; '86; master & s. 10 n. 29 n. 41;pl. 67 n. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., '86; contracts, 96. Conger's Case, '85 ; larceny, 2. Conger v. Duryee, 90 X. Y. 594; s. c, 12 Abb. X. C. 43, and 10 Witkly 1). 8J; rev'g 24 Him, 617; s. c, 12 Wtekly D. 226. Subsequent pro- ceedings in 34 jj.un, o60, and 2j it e< toy D. 193. i>. Hudson itiverR. R. Co., '83; sup. pro. 3. v Ring, 'SO; trusts, 43, '8C; trusts, 'Si. i'. Van Aernum, '84; ex. & ad. G6. c. Vanderwater, '85; lim. of a. 8. Congress SpriDg Case, '83; tradem. j.6 n. Congress & Empire Spring Co. o. High Uock, etc., Spring Co., '86; tradem. 4. Congreve v. Morgan, '83; highw. 2U; '86; ne,;!. 23 n. 24. u. Smith, '83; lim. of a. 14; negl. 15; '86; negl. 23 n. ConhocDon Stone Road Co. v. Buffalo, etc., R. it. Co., 3 Han, 5-3; s. c, 5 Supvi. CI. ( 7". & t.) 651. See cases cited ( V\ hat constitutes wa- tercourse) in 5 A b. X. U Yli n. ; '83; nuis. 12, 13 n. ; '85; ev. 55; '80; em. dom. 4 n. ; negl. 23 n. Conkey «. Bond. Cited as to pursuing property in dis- senting opinion in 37 Hun, 83; ', 530; s. c, 10U X. Y. 365; '86; juris. 4, 6. Converse v. Cook, 31 Hun, 417; reaffg 25 Hun, 44. v. Kellogg, '83; wills, 185; '86; contracts, 9 n. u. McArthur. '83; surr. ct. 3; '86; legacies, 10. v. Walker, '86; wharves, 1. Converseville Co. v. Chambers- burgh Woolen Co., '83; as- sign, for b. of c. 33. Conway v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., '86; amend. 17 n. v. Moulton, '86; wit. 22. Cook v. Allen, '83 ; contracts. 2, u. Barr, '84; trials, 32; '80: pi. 82 n. ■r — v. Champlain Transporta- tion Co , '86; fixtures, 2 n.; negl. 107. Cook SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Corning 31 t). Dickenson, '83; att'y 4 c. 30; ev. 305. v . Freudenthal, '85; bonds, 6; '86; bail, 3n.; bastardy, 1; undert. 1. v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co., '83; defenses, 3. v. Harris, '85; highw. 11; munc. corp. 56 n. ; '86 ; highw. 8 n. 9. v. Hill, '83; libel, 5 n. ; '85; slander, 3 n. _- v. Holt, '84; conversion, 10 n. v. Husted, '83; gift, 9. v. Kroemeke, '86; brokers, 4n. v. Leonard, '85; appeal, 23. v. Litchfield, '84; pi. 104; '85; defenses, 2; '86; de- fenses, 1. v. Lowry, 95 N. Y. 103; afi'g 29 Hun, 20; '85; lega- ■ cies, 2 n.; '86; trusts, 27. v. McClure, '85; accretion, 1, 3 m; '86; deeds, la n. v. Munn, 12 Abb. A 7 . C. 344; s. c, 65 How. Pr. 514. Further proceedings in 33 Hun, 25; '86; legacies, 6. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E.B. Co., '86; ev, 159 n. v. People, '86; trials, 121. v. Eyan, '84; ex. 4 ad. 33. 1). Satterlae, '84; contracts, 90. v. Soule, '85; lease, 4; '86; leasp, 9, 10. v. Starkweather, '85; trade- in. 4. ■ v. btaats, '83; affid. 1, v. "Wardens, etc. of St. Paul's Church, '83; pi. 103. v. Warren, '84; pi. 104; '65; pi. 98. v. Whipple, '85; amend. 6. Cooke v. Beach, '84 ; discont 2. v. Lalance Grojean Mfg. Co,, 29 Hun, 6*1; s. c, 3 Civ. Pro. R. 332. lurther decision in 33 Hun, 351; which was rev'd in 99 M. Y. 649; and still further decision in 1 N. Y. Halt Sep. 590; '84; depositions, 29 n. v. Meeker, '84; legacies, 18; wills,109;'85; legacies, 35 n.; 42; '86; legacies, 21. v Millard, '85; sales, 1 n. 7 n. ; '86 ; sales, 7 n. v. Piatt, .98 A". 1'. 35; aff'g 51 Super. U. {J. & b.) 55; '86; trusts, 10; wills, 70. v. State Nat. Bank of Bos- ton, '83; juris. 2. Cooley v. Betts, 24 Wend. 203. Followed (Maintaining ac- tion for money received by agent without demand) in Anderson v. Hulme, 5 Mon- tana, 295; s. c, 19 Reporter, 439. v. Lawrence, '81; motion 4 o. 21;'«5;sup. pic. 3 Coon v. Knap, '83; receipts, 1; '85; ev 104. v. Seed, '85; contracts, 99. v. Syracuse, etc. E.B. Co., '86; master 4 s. 44. Coonley v. Anderson, '84; pi. 65; sales, 81. Coope v. Bowles, '86; assign. for b. of c. 1 n. v. Lowerre, '84; ex 4 ad. 161 n.; '85; ex. 4 ad. 4, li; '86; ex. 4 ad. 2r>, 34 n. Cooper, Matter of, 93 A. Y. 507; dism'g appeal from 28 Hun, 515; s c, 16 Weekly V. 291; '83; atty. & c. 5; '84 ; cunst. law, 21 ; em. s dom. 5 ; ex. 4 ad. 126 ; munc. corp. 90; '85; stip- ulation, 2 n. ; '86; const, law, 9 n. ; costs, 72 n. Cooper v. Bean, '83; ev. 33, v. Burr, '83; arrest, 34; as- sign. 7; gift, 4n. v. Dedrick, '84; ev. 7 n. v. Eastern Transportation Co., '83; negl. 8 n ; '85; ap- peal. 23. c. Felter, '83; surr. ct. 22 n.i '85; ex. 4 ad. 177 n. v. Jolly, 30 Hun, 224; rev'g 3 Cw. l'ro. R. 9; 'oft; costs, 7; '86; costs, 11, 14 n. v. Newland, '85; assign. 17. v. Bemsen, '85; legacies, 15 n. v. Smith, '85$ r. r. co. 63 n. v. Whitney, '84; trusts, 1C; '86; contracts, 26 n. Cope v. Wheeler, '84; deeds, 2C n. 27. Copeland v. Citizens' Gaslight Co., '85; corp. 16. Copperman v. People, 56 A. Y. 591. Followed { Facta not connected with transaction of crime, as competent evidence) in People v. Gray, 66 Cal. 271, 27-.; s. c, 19 Reporter, i70; '85; ev. 254, 263. Corbett v. De Comeau, '83; de- positions, 3, 28, 29; '84; depositions, S3, 34, 36; '85; deposition 24. Corbin v. Knapp, '83 ; cause of a. 2 ; pi. 67 ; '86 ; pi. 01. v Milton, '83; costs, 19. Corbitt v. Miller, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 43. Corcorun v. Holbrook, '83; mas- ter 4 s. 36; '84; master k s. 5 n. 18, 2b, 28 n. ; '85; mas- ter 4 s. 13; negl. 58; '86; master & s. 16 n. 43; need. 34 n. v. Jndson, '83;inj. 64; '86; "^nj. 49 n. Cordell v. N Y. Central. &o. B. E. Co,'83;ev. 83; negl. 45, 4«, 85; r. r. co. 15 n. 21; '84 ; ev. 43 n. ; negl. 38, 56 n.; r. r. co. 7; '85 ; master & 8. 28; questions of 1. 4 f. 10; r. r. co. 4. Corey o. Buffalo, etc. BE. Co., '81; dam. 34 n.; "85; r. r. co. 50 n. v . Harte, 21 Weekly 7>. 247; s c, with opinion in full, in A. Y. Daily Reg. May 8, 1885. v. People, '86; husb. 4 w. v. White; '86; judgm. 9 n. Corking v. State, 16 Abb. N. C. 448; s. c as Corkings v. State, 99 A. Y. 491. Corlies v. Cumming, '83; prin- cipal 4 a. 19 n. Cormer v. Hawkins, '84; former adj. 21 n. Corn v. Corn, 4 Dem. 394; a. c, as Estate of Corn, 3 How. Pi., A. S. 357; and 9 Civ. Pro. R. 243. Cornelius v. Barton, '84; ref. 12; '85; ref. 12 n. Cornell v. Barnes, '84; offi'r, 21 n. v. Barney, 26 Hun, 134. Affd in 94 A. Y. 394. v. Dakin, '84; attach. 33; ins. 24. v. Evans, '85; removal of c. 1. v. King, '84; contracts, 72; estoppei, 11. v. Moulton, '86;lim. of a. 26. v. Prescott, '86; deeds, 30 n. v. Todd, '83; contracts, 4; ev. 152. v. Town of Guilford, '85; parties, 28. u. Utica, etc. E.E. Co., '84; contracts, 72 ; estoppel, 11. Corn Exch. Bank v. Cumber- land Coal Co., '83; munc. corp, 176; '86; relig. corp. 7n. Corn Exchange Bank of Chicago v, Blye, 37 Hun, 473. Aff d in lul A". Y. 303. Further decision in 102 A". Y. 303; b. c , 9 Civ. Pro. R. 412; and 2 A 7 . Y. tila.e Rep. 112. Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Bab- cock, '83; rec, deeds, 6 n.; '84 ; former adj . 21 n. 24 n. ; '86; husb. 4 w. 14 n. 19. Corning v. Ashley, '83; ev. 238; '85; ev. 186 n. v. Corning, '83; amend. 40; '84; amend. 11. v. Green, '83; parties, 15; '85; associations, 10. 32 Corning SDPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Coyhendall Corning — continued v. Lowerre, 6 Johns., Ch. i'.V.), '85. Cited as to injunc- tion in dissenting opinion in 33 Han, 164, 167; '86; inj. 14 n. 17. v. McCullough, '83; mfg. co. 22;munc. corp. 38; '85; , const, law, 37 n. ; defin. 14; mfg. co. 23 n. ; '«6; mfg. co. 2. v. Smith, '83; mort. 24; '85; parties, 14. v. Troy Iron and Nail Fac- tory, 40 N. T. 191; 39 Barb. 311; 34 Id. 485. Discussed with Foot v. Bronson, 4 Lans. 47; and many other cases (Mandatory injunc- tions) in 18 Vent. L. J. 323; '83; judgm. 4 decree, 15; waterc. 3 n. ; '84; champer- ty & m. 2; '85; champerty 4 m. 1; easements, 5; inj. 26; nuis. 1; '86; defenses, 7n.; inj. 1, 40 n. v. Walker, 100 JV. Y. 547; b. c, 1 Centr. Rep. 517; B.C., 2 East. Rep. 824; aff'g 28 Hun, 435; s.o., 16 Weekly D. 53. Prior decision in 14 Id. 314. ■ v. White, '86; cred. s. 19 n. Cornish v. Graft, 36 Hun, 160; aff'g in part, 7 Civ. Pro. R. 204. Cornwall v. Haight, '83; sales, 21. v. Mills, '86 ; dam. 30 n. Corn well v. Cornwell, '86; ex. & ad. 35. v. Eiker, '85; wills, 3 n.; '86; wills, 4. Corporation of N. T. v. Mapes, '83; corp. 47. Corsanu. Oliver, '86; conversion, 11. Corai v. Maretzek, '83; ev. 113. Cortelyou v. Lansing, '86; mort. 8; pledge, 1 n. v. Van Brunt, '84; adv. poss. 11 n. ; '85; covenants, 7. Cortland & Homer Horse B.E. Co., Matter of, 31 Hun, 72. Further proceedings in 98 M. Y. 336. Corwin v. Daly, '84; tradem. 1. v. N. Y. & ErieB E. Co., '85; r. r. co. 11 n., '86; r. r. co. 9, 10 n. v. Merritt, '83 ; insane per. 17. Cory v. Leonard, '84; guaranty, 8. Cosgrove v. Bowe, 4 Month. L. Bui. 7. Subsequent pro- ceedings in 2 Civ. rro. R. (Browne} 61; 8. c, 14 Week- ly D. 446. v. N. Y. Central, &c. B.B. Co., '83; negl. 81; '84; negl. 54. v. Ogden, '83; master 4 8. 9. Costar v. Brush, '85; ferries, 3; const, law, 58d n. Coster, Matter of, '85; forec. 11. Coster v. Griswold, '84; set-off, 7n. v. Lorillard. Beiterated (Suspension forbidden) in Hobson v. Hale, 95 N. Y. 611 ; '83 ; ten. in com. 1; wills, 139, 163. — — v. Mayor of Albany, '83; const, law, 35 n.; '84; bills, n. 4 c. 8; '86; compensation, 4 n. ; guaranty, 6. v. Murray, '85; lim. of a. 30 n. v. Peters, '83; appeal, 50; ejectment, 9. v. Van Schaick. See Kos- ter v. Van Schaick. Costigan v. Mohawk & Hudson Eiver B. B. Co., '85; de- fenses, 1 ; ev. 238; '86 ; contracts, 104; master 4 8.3. v. Newland, '85; banking, 7; '86; principal 4 a. 18. Cotes v. Carroll, '83; ex. 4 ad. 246. Cothealu. Talmadge, '83; con- tracts, 30. Cotter v. Quinlan, '85; ex. 4. ad. 100. Cotterell v. Brock, '84; ex. 4. ad. 38; '86; ex. 4 ad. 49. Cottle v. Vanderheyden, '85; ex. 4 ad. 15. Cottman v. Grace, 41 Hun, 345; rev'g N. Y. Daily Reg. Oct. 3, 188r>. Cottrell, Matter of, '84; wills, 63; '85; wills, 22 n. 56; '86; appeal, 60. Couch v. Delaplaine. '85; forec. 10. v. Millard, 41 Han, 212, rev'g 3 How. Pr. K 8. 22; 8.O., 8 Civ. Pro. R. 431. v. Mills, '85 ; principal & s. 9 n. ; '86 ; release, 3 n. 4 v. Mulhane, '84; appear- ance, 1; '85; appearance, 4. Coughlin. Matter of, '83; stat- utes, 29. v. N. Y. Central, &c. E.E. Co., '83; assign. 10; atty. 4 c. 57 n. 70n.;'84; atty. & o. 8 n. 24, 27; cham- perty 4 m. 2; sup. pro. 23; '86; atty. 4 c. 12, 18, 20. Coughtryu. Globe Woolen Co., '8); master 4 s. 18; '86; master 4 s. 16 n. ; negl. 34 n. 54 n. 78 a. Coulson v. Whiting, '84; landl. 4t. 29 n. ; '86; lease, 3. Coulter v. American Merchant &c. Express Co., '83; wit. 84 n.; '84; ameDd. 11; '85; questions of 1. 4 f. 10. v. Murray, '85; relig. corp. 7n. v. Bichmond, '85; bills of lading, 17 n. Courter v. McNamara, '86; attach. 36 n. Courtney v. Baker, '83; wit. 4. Ccutant v. Catlin, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 16, v. People, '83; statutes, 17. Covell v. Hart, '83; atty. 4 c. 23. v. Hill, '84; conversion, 4; '85; factors, 1; '86; ev. 81 n. Coveney v. Tannahill, '85; wit. 6; '86; wit. 7 n. Covenhoven v. Shuler, '83; leg- acies, 19; wills, 215 n. ; '85; wills, 98; '86; ex. 4 ad. 63, 94 n. 127. Covert v. Henneberger, '84 ; pi. 20. Cowden v. Pease, '85 ; pi. 142 n. Cowdin v. Stanton, '85 ; pi. 142 n. Cowdrey v. Coit, '85; forec. 7 n. ; '86 ; covenants, 2 n. Cowee v. Cornell, '84; 28 n. ;'86; contracts, 8 n. Cowen u. Village of West Troy, '85; munc corp. 33. Cowing v. Altman, '81 ; appeal, 83; bills, n. 4 c. 2 n. ; trials, - 67. v. Howard, '85 ; trusts, 47. Cowles v. Cromwell, '83; mfg. co. 4 n. 25; '84 ; corp. 36. v. Watson, '85; appeal, 23. Cowley v. People, '83 ; trials, 123; wit. 96; '84 ; wit. 56; '85; children, 6; ev. 58. Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, '85; new tr. 9. Cox. v. Jagger, '84 ; sum. pro. A. • v. James, .45 N~. Y. 557. Followed in cases cited in 11 Abb. N. C. 269 n.; '85; em. dom. 6 n. v. N. Y. Central, etc. B.E. Co., '84; judgm. 4 decree, 2; '85; abate. 4 r. 14 n. ; '86; summons, 4. v. Piatt, '85; assign, for . b. of c. 38. v. People, '84; appeal, 130; trials, 72; '85; indict. 4; '86; trials, 107 n. 110. v. Schermerhorn, '8i; as- sign, for b. of c. 43; '84; ex. 4 ad. 123. v. Stafford, '83; ev. 10. v. Wightman, '83; mort. 7. Coykendall v. Constable, 99 K Y. 309; aff'g 19 Weekly J). 169. v. Eaton, '83; bailment, 4. Coyh SUPPLEMENTABY TABLE. Cromwell 33 Coyle u. Father Mathew, etc., Socy.,.'84; ben. assoc. 20. o. Pierrepont, 37 Hun, 379; rev'g on re-argument, 3a Id. 3J1. Coyne v. Weaver, '86; ev. 129, 130. Cozine v. Graham, '84; sales, 12. Cozzens v. Higgins, '86; ev. 179, 189. Crabb v. Young, '84; assign, for b. of o. 85. Craft o. Merrill, 14 N. Y. 456. Cited as to taxes in 37 Hun, 622. '83; chat. mort. 23. Crafts v. Mott, '83; principal 4 s. 13 n. Cragg v. Kiggs, 5 Bedf. 82. Aff'd as Riggs v. Cragg in 26 Him, 89; and that rev'd in 89 N. Y. 479; s. c, 11 Abb. N. 0. 401; '83; ten. for 1. 3. Cragie v. Hadley, 99 N. Y. 131; aifg Cragie v. Smith, 14 Abb. JV. 0. 409; '86; bank- ing, 8. Cragin v. Lowell, 88 N. Y. 258; s. c, 14, Weekly 1). 204; and 2 Civ. Pro. li. (Browne) 128; rev'g Cragin v. Quit- man, 22 Hun, 101; '85; juris. 5; '86; juris. 9 n. Craig v. Craig, '83; accumula- tions, 5 n.; trusts, 17, 23; wills, 222; '84; accumula- tions, 2; addend, legacies, 18; 'bo; susp. of power of a. 12; wills, 64 n. ti.Hone, '85; trusts, 33 n. v. Parkis, '83; guaranty, 15; principal 4 s. 21; '85; as- sign. 17. v. Rochester City & Bright on R. B. Co. ,'83; compen- sation, 4 n. ; const, law, 35 n.; '84; dam. 34 n. ; '85; em. dom. 7; '86; compensation, 8n. v. Swinerton, '85; lien, 2n. v. Town of Andes, '85; munc. corp. 120; '86; re- ceivers, 2 n. • v. Wells, '84; deeds, 13; '85; grants, 5; '86; deeds, 26 n. Crain u. Cavana, '85; dower, 11 n. v. Petrie, '85; negl. 16, 55 n.; '86; negl. 1. Cram v. Cram, '83; ex. 4 ad. 145, 195; '84; ex. 4 ad. 125 n.; trusts, 28. ■ v. Hendricks, '83; usury, 12. v. Union Bank, '85; assign. lln.;ev. 104. Cramer v. Benton, '84; lim. of a. 17. u. Blood, '83; fraud, conv. 6. v. Lovejoy, 17 Weekly D. 381. Further decision in 41 Hah, 581. Crandall v. Brown, '83; chat, mort. 10n.;'85;partn. 17n. v. Clark, '84; contracts, 19. Crane u. Baudouine, '83; new tr. 13; '84; appeal, 77, 102; '85; pi. 111. v. Bunnell. Cited as to jurisdiction in 102 N. ?■ v. Evans, 2 How. Pr. A. S. 310. Aff'd in 1 M. Y. Stale Rep. 216. • v. Genin, '84; mech. 1. 6. v. Bubbel, *t»3; usury, 21. v. McDonald,'85;paym,3n. v. Price, '83; usury, 16. v. Turner, '83; assign. for b. of c. 13; deeds, 31; '84; bills of lading, 2; '85; foreo. 7 n. ; mort. 8 n. Crannell v. Comstock, '86; jus- tices' ct. 2, 10 n. Crary v. Goodman, 83; adv. poss. 1; '84; adv. poss. 5; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. 3; ev. 185; '86; champerty 4 m. 4 n. ; ejectment, 4. v. Smith, '83; sales, 21; '86; tender, 1. v. Sprague. Disting'd on point of evidence in 40 Hun, 181. '83; ev. 159; '85; const, law, 7, 16 n. Crater v. Bininger, 45 N. Y. 545. Cited as to partnership in 51 Super. Ct. (6; s. c, 59 How. Pr. 93. Other pro- ceedings in 9 Daly, 482; s. c, 12 Weekly D. 120, and JS.Y.D vly Reg. July 3,1884. v. Hewitt, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 64; '85; bills of lading, 17. v. Hull, '86; judicial sale, 9. v. Kirk, 1 Dem. 383. Other proceedings in Id, 599; '86; ex. & ad. 90. 34 Cromwell SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Curtis Cromwell — continued v. belden, 'b4; deeds, 23. ■ v. Stephens, '83; gas-light co. 3. Cronin v. Gundy, '83; judges, a; '85;om'r, V. v. People, '8B; munc. eorp. 46. Cronkkite v. Cronkhite, '85 ; deeds, 25; license, 1; 'bb; license, 2. Crooke v. Andrews, '85; cloud on title, 2. v. Corbin, '83; depositions, 17, 24. v. County of Kings, '86; paities, 26 n. Crooked LakeNav. Co. v. Keuka .Nav. Co., '86; ev. 4; lease, 29 n. Crooker v. Bragg, '86; inj. 40 n. Croo.^ v. Moore, '8l; brokers, 13. Crookskank v. Burrell, '84; sales, 8 n. ; '85; sales, 1 n.; '86; contracts, 88. Cropsey v. McKinney, '83; ev. 336; '86; marr. 5; parties, 36. v. Ogden, '83; Tnarr. 5 n. ; '85; marr. 4; '86; divorce, 24 n. v. Perry, 1 How. Pr. X. S. 40. Purlher decision in 23 Weekly D. 162. Crosbie v. Leary, '86; former adj. 29. Crosby v. Day, '83; trials, 123; '8o; trials, 29, 31, 33; 'o6; trials, 25. v. Moses, 92 X. Y. 634; modifying' 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 146. v. Stephan, 32 Hun, 478. Appeal dismissed in 97 JV. 1 . 606. Cited as to ex- ceptions in opinion of Bockes, J., in 3b Hun, 587. — - v. V< ood, '83; guaranty, 5 n. Crbsley v. Cobb., 9 Uiv. Pro. H. (ilrowne) 322; further deci- sions in 3 How. Pr. N. S. 37; and 37 Hun, 271. Cross v. Beard, '83; demurrage, 1; '86; contracts, 29, 91; de- murrage, 1, 2. v. O'Bonnell, '85 ; sales, 7 n.; '86; lien, 7 n. v. Williams, '84; exec. 11. Crossuian v. Crossman, 95 X. Y. 145; s. c, 5 Uiv. Pro. R. 204; aff'g 30 Hun, 385; which afi'd 2 Dem. 69. Croswell v. Crane, '85; statutes, 9. Crotty v. Kimball, '86; exec. 21. v. McKenZie, '83; costs, 13. Crouch v. Hayes, 27 Hun, 222; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 528. Aff'd in 98 X. Y 183. Crouse v. i'rothingham, 27 Hun, 123; s. c, 15 Weekly 1). 219. Rev'd in 97 X. Y. 105; '85; cred. s. 5n, Crow v. Colton, '83; ev. 209. Crowder v. Hopkins, '85; ev. 180. Crowe v. Lewin, 16 Weekly D. 550. Affid in 95 iV. Y. -isd; '85; promise, 2 n. Crowley v. Panama B. JX Co., '84; ev. 104. v. ltoyal Exchange Ship- ping Co., '84; ct. oi ccmmon pi. 3 n. Crozier v. People, '83; seduc- tion, 1 n. ; '86; ev. 278 n. Cruger, Matter of, '86; munc. corp. 77 n. Cruger v. Dougherty, '83; tax. 22; '84; tax. 25. v. Halliday, '83; trusts, 17. o. Hudson lii ver li. K. Co. , '84; pi. 1; '85; pi. 3, 137 n. v. Jones, '86; trusts, 14. Cuck v. Quackenbush, '85; lim. of a. 3u n. Cudlipp v. Whipple, '81; pi. 7 n. Cudney v. Cudney, '86; wills, 15, 17, 20, 2i, 48, 110, 125; '84; ev. 248 n. ; undue int. 1; '85; wills, 4; '86; ev. 114. Cuff v. Dorland, '83; spec. perf. 1. Culhane v. N. Y. Central, &c. B.li. Co., '83; ev. 65, 3o2; '84; questions of 1. & f, 6; '85; ev. 293; negl. 55 n. 83 n. ; nons. 3; trials, 65; '86; ev. 245; 248. Culver v. Avery, '84; election of r. v. Haslam, '83; ev. 112 n. v. Sisson, '83; mort. 8; '84; mort. 1. v. Van Anden, '83; pi. 179. : Cumberland p. Codrington. Cited (Action by third per- son) in Todd v. Weber, 95 if. Y. 194. '86; contracts, 7n. Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co., '83; costs, 22; '84; costs, 1; '85; juris. 4 n.; '86; corp. 32 n. ; juiis. 8. v. Sherman, '83; juris. 5; trusts, 112; '84; corp. 46 n. ; 51, 56 n.; trusts, =26 n. ;'8o; trusts, 43; '86; contracts, 57 n. Cumines r. Supervisors of Jef- ferson County, '85; munc. corp. 121 n. Cummhig v. Brown, '84; bonds, 8n. v. Egerton, '83; sum. pro. 23. v. Hackley, '86; lim. of a. 20 n. v. Mayor, etc. of Brooklyn, '83; munc. corp. 129 n. ; '86; munc. corp. ii9 n. Cummings v. Morris, '83; par- ties, 34. Cummins v. Agricultural Ins. Co., '86; ins. 54 n. v. Barkalow, '83; trusts, 26. r. City of Syracuse, 100 X. Y. 637; s. o., 3 Xonheant. Rep. 680; 3 Sunt. Rtp. 108; rev'g mem. 29 Hun, 144. Cunningham v. Bay State Shoe and L. Co., 93 IV. Y. 481; aff'g 25 Hun, 210. v. Cassidy, '83; sher. 4; '84; forecl. 7; '8o; judicial sale, 2 n. v. Freeborn, '83; fraud. conv. 7, 10; '85; attach. 15 n. ; 86; questions of 1. & f. 5n. v. Goelet, '85; judgm. & do- creo, 1. d. Judson. 100 X. Y. 179; s. o , 1 Uenlr. Rtp. 274; 2 Kid. Sep. 498; 2 North- east. Rep. 915; rev'g 30 Han, 63. v. McGregor, '83; sup. pro. 3 v. Pell, '85; lim. of u. 6; '86; parties, 40 n. v. People, '85; forgery, 3; indict. 12 n. v. White, '84; parties, 46. Curley v. Tomlinson, '83; ap- peal, 128; surr. ct. 35 n. Curnen v. Mayor, &c. of N, Y., '83; estoppel, 11; '84; acct. st. 1 n. Currie v. Cowles, '83; appeal, 41; '86; ret'. 20 n. v. Henry, '83; pi. 139 n. v. Bilcy, '85; undort. 13 n. Currier v. N. Y., West Shore, etc. B. R. Co., '86; corp. 25. Curry, Matter of, '83; const, law, 36; '86; ex. & ad. 43, 45. Curry v. Curry, '83; contracts, 51; '85; contracts, 79 n. v. Fowler, 87 N. Y. 33; s. c, 13 Weekly l>. ^87; and ■j.1 Am. R. 33; aff'g 4b tiuper. Cl. (J. & X.) 196; s. c, 10 Weekly D. 165; '84; partn. 1 n. ; '85; partn. z; '8^; partn. 3 n. v. Powers, '86; gift, 3 n. Curser, Matter of, b9 X. Y. 401 ; s. c, 15 Wei-ldi/ D. 20; and 2 Civ. Pen. R. (Bi-uirne 4ij ; rev'g 25 Hun, .336; '8-j; costs, 51 n. Curtis v. Besson, '83;' unlert. 2. v. Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. K.K. Co , '83; ev. 38. (;. Gauo, '85; ev. 5 >. v. Gokey, '84; contracts, 56 n. v. Hubbard, '84; resistance, In. v. Keesler, '85; easements, 11. Curtis SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Davidson 35 v. Lawrence, '84; amend. 11. v. Leavitt, '83; undert. 3; '84; bail, 7; trusts, 16; '85; former adj. 3, 30; fraud, conv. 1 n. ; mfg. eo. 17 n. ; '86; assign, for b. of c. 53 n. v. Rochester and Syracuse RE. Co., '84; dam. 32; ev. 41 n.; '86; dam. 4; ev. 9 n. 217. v. Williams, 3 Bern. 63; s. 0. as Estate of Allen, 7 Civ. Pro. M. 159. Curtiss v. Ayrault, '85; deeds, 25. v. Bush, '85; forec. 7 n. Cushingham v. Phillips, '84; leases, 10. Cushmanu. Addison, '85; partn. 23; '86; assign, for b. of a. 41. v. Brundrett, '84; appeal, 60. v. Horton, '83; ex. & ad. 144; surr. ct. 18, 19. ■ v. Leland, '85; inj. 31. v. Thayer Manufacturing Jewelry Co. Cited as to stock in 39 Hun, 563. '83; coip. 10 n. ; teleg. 3 n. ; '84; juris. 5; spec. perf. 2. v. United States Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 52; '85; ev. 55. Gusson v. Whalon, '83; amend. 22. Cutler v. Rathbone, '84; exec. 23 n. v. Wright, '84; conflict of 1. 5; '85; ev. 47. Cutter «. Doughty, '84; devise, In. v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 92 N. Y. 166; aff'g 14 Weekly 1). 296; '86; costs, Cutting v. Cutting, '83 ; powers, ■ 1, 4; '84; accumulations, addend. 2; '85; powers, 1 n. v. Damerel, 88 iV. Y. 410; s. c, 14 Weekly D. i95; rev'g 23 Hun, 339. Cutts .v. Guild. Cited (Rights of assignees) in dissenting opinion in 37 Hun, 77. '83; assign, for b. of c. 13; '86; sales, 6. Cuykendall v. Corning, 8S N. Y. 139. Further decision as Ensign v. Cuykendall, 95 Hi. Y. 664; '83; mfg. cos. 14. v. Douglas, '83; corp. 79 n. ; mfg. co. 5 n. ; '84; mig. co. 11 n. Cuylert;. Coats, '83; costs, 100. v. Cuyler, '85; principal a s. 9 n. v. McCartney, '84; inj. 13; ev. 105a; '85; ev. 135, 136; '86; ev. 129, 141, 142. D. Dabney v. Stevens, '84; relig. corp. 13; '85; ev. 223; '86; relig. corp. 7 n. Daby v. Ericsson, '83; exec, 48. Dack v. Dack, '84; wills, 26 n. Daggett v. Mead, '84; ex. k ad. 78; '85; costs, 51 n.; '86; costs, 89. Dakin, Matter of, 4 Bill, 42. Cited in 36 Hun, 571; '83; atty. & e. 10 n. 36, 37. Dakin v. Demming, '83; ex. & ad. 163, 211; '84; ex. 4 ad. 94, 97; '85; ex. 4 ad. 126 n. v. Dunning, '86; payment into court, 1. n. 2 n. v. Williams, '84; contracts, 56 n.; '85; sales, 31. Dale v. Del., Lack. & W. R. R. Co., '84; ev. 217, 218. v. MoEvers, '83; redemp- tion, 1 n. v. Roosevelt, '85 ; ex. & ad. 47. v. Smithson, '86; tradenx 2n. Dallas v. Fosdick, '84; const, law, 8 n. Dalrymple v. Hannum, '84; ap- peal, 67. v. Hillenbrand, '83; bills, n. & c. 39 n. v. Hunt, '84; pi. 131. Dalton v. Loughlin, '86; jus- tices' c. 10 n. K.Smith, '86; debtor&cred. 6. Daly, Matter of, '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. Daly jj. Byrne, '83; exceptions, 7, '85; trials, 29; '86; new tr. 19, 24, 25. v. Jacob. Cited (Ref- erees) in 9 Civ. Pro. E. 286. v. Smith, '84; inj. 8. ' Dalzellu. Raw, '85; appeal, 103. Damb v. Hoffman, '86; con- tracts, 97 n. Dambman v. Empire Mill, '85; parties, 9 n. Dambmann v. Schulting, '83; fraud, 5; mistake, 2; '84; arrest, 9; mistake, 3; '85; fraud, 1; '86; appeal, 17; new tr. 21 n. Damon v. Moore, '83; dam. 18 n. ; seduction, 1. Dan v. Brown, '84; ev. 248 n.- wills, 66. Dana v. Fiedler, '84; ev. 66; '85; dam. 11; ev. 94 n. v. Munro, '85; contracts, 24 n. v. N. Y. Central, etc., R.R. Co., '83; master & s. 25 n.; '84'; master & s. 20, 23 n. v. Tucker, '86; new tr. 26. Daneu. Mallory, '83; chat, mort 7n. Danforth v. Dart, '83; fraud, conv. 3 n 4. v. Suydam, '86; .tax. 77 n. Daniel v. Morrison. Cited in 9 L'w. Pro. E. 383. Daniels v. Hallenbeck, '84; pi. 6m.; '85; payin. 8 d.; '86; payiri, 5n. Danks o. Quackcnbush, '85; statutes, 3 u. 8. Dannat v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., '85;mune. corp. 18, 81, 81 n. Danolds v. State of N. y., 89 JV T . Y. 36; s. u., 14 We^lcli/ D. 437; affg 14 /./. 268; '84; contracts, 24; '86; dam. 9n. Darbee v. Elwood, '85; new tr. 16. Darby v. Condit, '83; sec. for costs, 1. Dargin v. Wells, '84; descent, 2n. Darling v. Halsey, '86 ; services, 5. v. Mayor, '83; negl. C8; '86; munc. ccrp. 42 n. v. Pierce. '83; surr. ct. 3. Darlington v. McCunn, '83 ; niech. 1. 14. v. Mayor, '83; const, law, 39; '84; mnnc. corp. 1 n. ; riots, 1. Darnall u. Morehouse, '85 ; paym. 6 n. Darrow v. Lee, '85; sup. pro. 31. v. Morgan, '85; mech. 1. 2. Darry v. People, '84; homicide, 7. Dart v. Ensign, '85; lien, 5. v. Laimbeer, '85; deposi- tions, 6 n. Darvin v. Hatfield, '85; ex. &ad. 176 n.; '86; surr. ct. 19 n. Dash v. Van Kleeck, 83 ; offi. 4 n.; tax, 2; '84; int. 8 n.; '85; const, law, M. Dauchy v. Bennett, '33; mort. 28; '86; inj. 27. v. Brown, '86; justices' ot. 10 n. v. Drake, 9 Daly, 31. Aff'd in 85 N. Y. 407; s. c, 12 Weekly DUj. 415; and 12 Heporter, 148. Davenport v. Doady, '83; dis- trict ct. 9; offi'r, 27. v. Kelly '84; sup. pro. 27; '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Ludlow, '84; sup. pro. 23. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. '85; munc. corp. 18. v. Ruckman, '86; negl. 23 n. 21. Davenport Glucose Manf 'g Co. v. Taussig, 5 Giv. Pro. E. 60; s. c, 31 Hun, 563. Further decision in 33 Hun, 32; s. c, 67 Horn. Pr. 499, and 6 Civ. Pro. M. 152. David v. Williamsburgh City Ins. Co., '86; ev. 13, 109. Davidsburg v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co., '84; juris. 1 n. 8 n.; '85; pi. 35; '86; pi. 144 Davidson v. Alfaro, '84; costs, 8; counterc, 1 n. ; set-off, 6; '85; atty. a c. 26;set-olf, 2; 38 Davidson SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Becker Davidson— continued '86; atty. 4 o. 28 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 81. ■ v. Remington, '84; coun- tercl. 1 n. Davies v. Davies, '86; divorce, 3n. v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 93 N. Y. 250; rev'g 48 Super. (Jt. (J. & 8.) 194; '83; atty. gen. l;munc. corp. 64; '85; munc. corp, 5 n. v. Skidmore, '84; ex. 4 ad. 84. Davis, Matter of, '85; offi'r, 25. Davis v. Allen, '83; partn. 30. v. Bechstein, '83; principal 4 s. 15; '84; assignment, 10; '85; bills of lading, 4 n. ; '86; mort. 7. v. Bemis, '84; dam. 14 n. ; '86; offi'r 18. v. Bowe, '84; judgm. 4 de- cree, 21 n. — — v. Brooks, 14 Weekly D. 454; aff'g 4 Month. L. Bui. 49. v. Bruns, '83; cred. s. 1 v. Clark, 87 K Y. 623. Cited in 99 N.Y. 101; '83; appeal, 146; '84 ; appeal, 123. v. Crandall, 17 Weekly D. 364; aff'd in 101 N. Y. 311. v. Copeland, '85; principal 4 s. 1 n. v. Davis, '83; alimony, 2; divorce, 24; husb. 4 w. 27; '84; divorce, 1, 4; '86; alimony, 2. v. Durne, '84; outlawry, 2 n. ; '85 ; civil death, 1 n. - v. Dunham, '83; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. v. Uorton. Disting'd (Jur- isdiction) in 40 Bun, 283; '83 ; lim. of a. 46. v. Herrig, '85; sup. pro. 14. v. Kinney, '85; undert. 9. v. Lambertson, '86; nuis. 1. v. Leopold, 87 N. Y. 620; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 337; rev'g 10 Id. 266; '84; trusts, 25 n.; '85; fraud, conv. 2, 3- n. 5 n. 10, 19; '86; appeal, 71. v. McCready, '83; usury, 17. v. Marshall, 14 Barb. 96. Cited in 9 C.v. Pro. B. 211. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; nuis. 2; '84; inj. 19 n.; '85; contempt, 17; inj. 21; nuis. 4; '86; compensation, 8 n.; inj. 14 n. ; judgm. 33; r. i. co. 28. v. Morris, '85; lease, 15; '86; lease, 24; promise, 3 n. v. N. Y. Central, etc. R.R. Co., '85;negl. 83 n. v. Packard, '84; juris. 1 n. v. Perrine, '85; bills of lading, 26 n. v. Shields, '84; attach. 17; sales, 14; '85; dam. 11; wills, 15 n.; '86; con- tracts, 7 n. v. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, '83 ; const, law, 15; inj. 8, 24; '84; mal. pros. 1; '86; inj. 31, 32. v. Leopold, '83; fraud. conv. 11. v. Spencer. Cited (Omis- sion to indorse payment) in 94 N. Y, 362; '85; accord & sat. 1, 2. v. Standish, '85; dam. 28 n.. v. Stover, '84; ex. 4 ad 130; '85; atty. 4 c. 5n.;'86; receivers, 5 n. v. Sturtevant, '85; con- tempt, 21. v. Tallcot, '83; sales, 30. v. Van Buren, '83; assign. for b. of c. 14; guaranty, 12; '85; undert. 9. Davison, Matter of '83 ; accu- mulations, 5 n. ; trusts, 37; '85; wills, 122. v. Associates of Jersey Co. ,'83; contracts, 93; trials, 1; v. & p. 15 n. D.Powell, '85; ev. 186 n. Davoue v. Fanning, '83 ; ex. & ad. 77 n. ; trusts, 61 ; wills, 68 n.; '84; trusts, 26 n.; wills, 49; '85; ex. 4 ad. 5 n. ; trusts, 43; '86; trusts, 23 n. Davy v. Hallett, '86; ins. 46 n. Dawley v. Brown, '83; eject- ment, 9; former adj 6; '84; former adj. 20 n.; landl. it. 4; '85; adv. poss. In. 3; for- mer adj. 43; '86; indians, 1 n. Dawson, Matter of, '85; guar- dian & w. 5. Dawson v. Horan, '85; statutes, 13. v. Kittle, '85; contracts, 43 n. Day v. Bach, 87 A r . Y. 56; s. c, 13 We Uy D. 296; aff'g 46 bttper. Vt. i.J. & S.)460; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 438; '83; arr.st, 36; '84; false impris. 2 n.; pi. 159; '85; false impris. 3; '86; attach. 47. v. Brooklyn City B.R. Co., '83; master & 8. 15. v. Grossman, '85; negl. lln.;'86;negl. 2 n. v. Hammond, '83; arbitra- tion, 2 n. 10; '84; contracts, 31; '85; arbitration, 2. v. Mooney, '86; ev. 21. v. N. Y. Central, &o., R.E. Co., 89 if. F 616; s. c, 15 Wetkiy D. 170; mem. aff'g 22 Hun, 412; s. c , 11 Weekly D. 239. v. Perkins, '83; election of r. 1. v. Pool, '83; saleB, 10, 11; '84; sales, 17; '85; countercl. 6; sales, 44. v. Roth, '83; trusts, 4 n.; '84; accord 4 sat. 2 n. ; con- tracts, 65 n. 69 n.; '85; i trusts, 1; '86; lien, 11; trusts, 1. v, Stone, '83; pi. 34. Dayton v. Borst, '83; mfg. co. 4 n. v. Johnson, '83; ex. 4 ad. 24; '84; parties, 41 n. v. Tillou, '83; wills, 197. r v. Wilkes, '84; inj. 24. Dean, Matter of, '83; assign, for b. of c. 43; '84; assign, for b. of c. 85. Dean v. De Wolf, '83; mfg. co. 19, 2.1. v. Eldridge, '85; defenses, 2. v. Hall. See Hall v. New- comb. '83; parties, 16 n. v. Mace, '83; lim. of a. 26. v. Roesler, '84; parties, 35. v. Roseboom, '86; costs, 85. v.. Williams, '85; costs, 36. Deaneu. O'Brien, '83; abate. 4 r. 7. Deansville Cemetery Ass'n, Matter of, '85; const, law, 11 n.; '86; const, law, 9 n. Dean Street, Matter of, '83; munc. corp. 104. Dearborn v. Cross, '83; sales, 1; '85; lease, 7 n. Deas ?.'. Harvie, '85; depositions, 6. v. Thome, '83; appeal, 145. v. Wandell, '83; ev. 77; wills, 17. De Barante v. Deyermand, '83; discont. 1 ; '84 ; discont. 5. v. Gott, '83; contracts, 52. De Busierre v. Holladay, '83; trials, 1; '85; pi. 27 n.; '86; wills, 81. De Campu. Eveland, '85; const. law, 49 n. v. Marshall, '86; assign. for b. of c. 47. De Caters v. De Chaumont, '86; ex. 4 ad. 1(J8; trusts, 23 n. De Caumont v. Morgan, 21 Weekly D. 357; s. c, with opinion in full, N. Y. BaMy Reg. June 30, 1885. Deck v. Works, '83; discharge, 1. Decker v. Anderson, '83; ap- ' peal, 117. Decker SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Denny 37 v. Boioe, '83; rec. deeds, 9, 10. v. Decker, '83; lease, 1. v. Elwood, '83; surr. ot. 34. v. Gay lord, '86; libel, 4 n. v. Judson, '83; ev. 149; mech. 1. 10; undert. 1; '86; juris. 1 ; undert. 1. v. Livingston, '83; ev. 36; '84; ev. 27. v. Mathews, '83; conver- sion, 6; pi. 131; '84; con- version, 13; joinder of a. 6; '85; lira, of a. 43 n.; '86; pi. 123; trials, 136. v. Miller, '83; ex. 4 ad. 134; '85; ex. 4 ad. 57. v. Parsons, '84; amend. 11. v, "Waterman, '83; gift, 7. Decouche v. Savetier, '85; lim. of a. 11. De Courcy v. Stewart, '83; juris. 11. Dederer v. Voorhis, '83; pi. 124; '84; cloud on title, 2 n. Dederick v. Richley, '83; di- vorce, 3 n. Deen v. Cozzens, '83; trusts, 37; '85; wills, 122. v. Milne, '86; inj. 23. Deering, Matter of, '84; judicial sale, 6; '84; munc. corp. 101, 111 n.; '86; munc. corp. 68. v. Metcalf, '85; trials, 115 n.; '86; trials, 129. De Figaniere v. Youngs '85; atty. 4 c. 20. De Forest v. Baker, '83; inj. 61 n. v. Farley, '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n.; '86; surr. ct. 19 n. v. Jewett, 88 N. Y. 264; s. 0., 14 Weekly D. 80; affg Wi Hun, 4y0; s. c, 11 Week- ly D. 485; '83; master 4 s. 30; '84; masters s. 5 n. 13; '65; master & s. 9, 26, 37, 42 n. negl. 16; '86; master 4 s. 13, 26 n. 29 n. 30 n. 31. v. Parsons, '86; ex. js ad. 17 n. De Freest v. Bloomingdale, '84; ev. -11 n. • v. Warner, '85; ev. 6. Defreeze v. Trumper, '83; sales, 131. De Graff v. Carmichael, '85; trials, 15. v. N. Y. Central & H. E. BR. Co., '83; master 4 s. 17 n. 20; negl. 9, 43 n.; '84; master 4 s. 5 n. 16, 23 n ; 'c5; master 4 a. 26; '86; infants, 1 n.; master & s. *8 n. Degraw v. Clason, '83; assign. 4. v. Elmore, '86; amend. 12. De Grove v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., '83; ins. 21, 79; '85; stipulation, 2 n.; '86; ins. 1 rj. De Hart v. Hatch, '83; mand. 3. De Herques v. Marti, '84; estop- pel, 22 n. Deidericks v. Commercial Ins. Co., '85; ins. 35. DeKay v. Irving, '83; wills, 128; '85; wills, 120. Delacroix v. Buckley, '85; lease, 7. Delafield v. Parrish. See Jack- son v. Van Dusen, '83;ev. 78, 79, 112 n. ; wills, 3, 4, 11, 90, 109, 125; '85; ev. 36; insane per. 11; wills, 49; '86; wills, 8 n. v. State of Illinois, '83; munc. corp. It, 176; '85; munc. corp. 116 n. v. White, 19 Weekly J). 474; s. c, with opinion in full. N. Y. Daily Keg. Aug. 21, 1684. Delahunt v. Mtna, Ins. Co. of Hartford, 26 Hun, 668; s. c, 14 Weekly I). 479. Affd in 97 N. Y. 537. Delamater v. Kussel, '85; cause of a. 1 n. Delancey, Matter of, '83; forec. 24; '84; judicial sale, 6. De Lancey v, btearns,'86; mort. 21. De Lancy v. Ganong, '84; adv. poss. 1; v. 4 p. 12. Delaney v. Blizzard, '85; pi. 28 n v. McCormack, 88 K Y. 174; s. c, 14 Weekly I). 499; and liBeporkr, 155; aff'g 25 Hun, 574; '83; trusts, 4B; '85; deeds, %) n. ; '86; infants, 4. n. ; legacies, 5. -— v. Van Aulen, '83; annui- ties, 2; wills, 129. Delano v. Blake, '84; infants, 5n. Delaplaine v. Hitchcock, '86; ruort. 17. De Lavalette v. Wendt, '83; ev 127 n. ; lim. of a. 24; '85; judgm. 4 decree, 23; '86; lim. of a. 23. Delavanu. Duncan, '85; judgm. 4 depree, 6 n. ; spec, pert 10; v. 4 p. 6; '8b; v. 4 p. De La Vergne v. Morris, '86; dam. 6 n. Delavigne v. United Ins. Co. , '86; ins. 5 n. Delaware v. Ensign, '84; chat. mort. 4 n. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. Exparte, '83; receivers, 16; '84; statutes, 14; '85; r. r. co. 57, 64; statuter , 17 n. v. Lawrence, V,; ev. 27 n. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., '86; contracts, 26 n.; em. dom. 9 n. ; ins. 14 n. v. Village of Whitehall, 90, N. Y. 21; aff'g 12 Weekly D. 392. Delaware Bank v. Jarvis, '83; money paid, 8 ; sales, 31. Delaware, L. etc. K.B. Co. v. Bowns, '84: sales, 19. v. Burkard, '86; mort. 4 n. Delcomyn v. Chamberlain, '84; appeal, 104. DeLeonu. De Lima, '85; depo- sitions, 6n. 19. Delevan v. Simonson, '83; pi. 14 n. De Lisle v. Herbs, '83; dower, 2. Delmonico v. Guillaume, '83; partn. 26n.;'84; partn. 11 n. De Luce v. Kelly. Followed (Bequisites of motion lor new trial) in McAleer v. Corning, 49 ttuper. Ct. (J. .) 174; and as Desham v. Lee, 23 Alb. L. J. 216; '86; parties, 39. De Rivafinoli v. Corsetti, '84; spec. perf. 4. Derrenbacher v. Lehigh Valley By. Co., 87 X Y. 636; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 19; rev'g 21 Hun, 612; s. c, 10 Weekly It. 347, and 59 How. Pr. 283. Des Arts v. Leggett, '83 mis- take, 2; '84; mistake, 3. Desbrough v. Desbrough, '85; parties, 19; '86; divorce, 19. Desdoity, Matter of, '83; corp. 63. De Shay v. Persse, '84; deposi- tions, 1. Desmond v. Rose, '85; master 4 s. 38. Desobry v. Morange, '83; estop- pel, 2. Despard v. Churchill, 53 X. Y. 192. Disting'd (Conflict of laws) in Matter of Hughes, 95 X Y. 60; '83; ex. 4 ad. 19, 138, 175; '85; lien, 3; '86; ex. 4 ad. 129. v. Walbridge, '84; landl. 4 t. 1, 4; '86; surr. ct. 11 n. Dethl'els v. Tamsen, '83; con- tracts, 56 n. ; '84; contracts, 56 n. Detmold v. Drake, '84; const, law, 2. Deutsch v. Keilly, '83; assign, for b. of c. 6. Deutsche Nat. Bank v. Sonne- born, '83; pi. 151. Devanbagh v. Devanbagh, '83; disc. 4 insp. 9; '84; deposi- tions, 29 n. Devendorf v. Beardsley, '86; re- ceivers, 12 n. Devenpeck v. Lambert, '85; munc. corp. 56 n. Devens v. Mech. & T. Ins. Co., '81; estoppel, 16; '86; ins. 19, 51. Deviu v. Patchin, '83; surr. ct. 45; appeal, new tr.; ad- denda. Devlin, Matter of, '84; legacies, 18. v. Bevins, '85; pi. 97. v. Devlin, '85; tradem. 4- v. Gallaher, '85; ev. 293 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 9 Daly, S31. Further decision in Id. 334. v. , 63 How. Pr. 206. Rev'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 90 X Y. 689; and on re-argument, it seems, in 11 Ddy, 363. Further decision in 41 Hun, 281; '83; contracts, 109; '84; assign. 4; assign, for b. of c. 15; ref. 19; '86; guar- anty, 3. v. People, 63 If, Y. 8. Cited in Cregier v. Mayor, 11 DaJy, 176. u. Pike, '83; ex. & ad. 77 n. v. Shannon, 14 Weekly D. 320. Further opinion in bo Hum. Pr. 148; s. c, X Y. Diily Reg. June 8, 1883; '83; forec. 13 n. v. Smith, 11 Abb: X G. 322; s. a, 89 2V. Y. 470; 15 Week- ly D. 316; confirming . 25 Sum, 2i.6; s. a, 13 Weekly D. 214; '84; master 4 t, o n. 24; negl. 7; '86; negl. j9 n. ; '86; master 4 s. 28 n. 44; negl. 33 n. 34 n. v. "Woodgate, '83; con- tracts, 79. Devoe v. Brandt, '83; arrest, 13; '84; ev. 185; question, of 1. 4 f. 4. Devolu Barnes, '83; parties, 44. Devoyu. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 36 X Y. 449. Cited in Cregier v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 11 Daly, 170; '86; munc. corp. 4. Devyr v. Schaefer, '86; devise, 2n. De Weerth v. Feldnor, '84; ser- vice 4 p. 12. Dewey v. Moyer, '84; judgm. 4 decree, 32; '85; cred. s. 3 n. ; ev. 135; parties, 12; '86; cred. s. 28; ev. 141, 142; surr. ct. 8 n. v. Osborn. Cited in Lane v. Wheeler, 101 X Y. 17. v. Sup'rs of Niagara, '83; money paid, 16. De Witt v. Barly, '84; ev. 58; '85. ev. 58, 224 n. ; '86; tax. 34 n. v. Brisbane, '83 ; mort. 7. u„ Chandler, '83; parties, 15; '85; assoc 10; '86; joint- stock co. 3. v. Flmira Nobles Mfg, Co., '85; inj. 23; juris. 12; '86; juris. 5. v. Schoonmaker, '83; ex. 4 ad. 154. v. Walton, '84; principal 4 a. 12; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 1. Dexter v. Clark, '84; trespass, 1. v. Norton, '83; contracts, 100;'84; contracts, 101 n. ;'85; contracts, 87; '86; contracts, 104, 105. Dexter & L. P; E. Co. v. Allon, '83; mfg. co. 3_; '85; stat- utes, 12, 13. Dey v. Dunham, '83;rec. deeds, 6 n. 15. v. Nason, 17 Weekly D. 113. AfE'dinlOOif. Y. 166; s. 0., 1 Vent. Rep. 13; s. c, as Day v. Nason, 1 East. Rep. 754. Dey Ermand, Matter of, '83; surr. ct. 35 n. Deyermand v. Chamberlain, 88 X. Y. 1,58; s. c, 14 Repoit- er, 121: aff'g it seems, 13 Weekly D. 6U. v. Chamberlain, '86; re- lease, 4 n. Deyo, Matter of, 36 Hun, 512; Aff' d in 2 X Y. State Reu. 503; s. c, less fully, 102 If. Y. 724. Deyo v. N. Y. Central, . Phelps, '83; ev. 34; '85; ev. 181. •v. Provost, '85; wills. 60. v. Boa, '&•}; wills, 122; '84; wills, 27; '8.i ; divorce 8 n.; '86; divorce, 2; pi. 28 n. - v. Thompson, '84; adv. poss. 1 12, '86; deeds, 12 n. Doellnerr. Tynan, '85; nuis. 5. Dohnng v. People, '84; const. law, 60. Doke v. James, '83; arbitration. 7. Dolan, Matter of, 88 X Y. 309; s. c, 14 Reporter, 154, and 14 Weekly B. 512; rev'g 26 Hun, 46; '84; ex. & ad. 159; 85; ex. & ad. 176 n. 184- '86; surr. ct. 19 n. 40 Dolan SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Drake Dolan v. Fagen, '84; dam. 15 n. v. Mayor, '83; money paid, 17; mum. corp. 24, 60; offi'r, 18, 21, 21 n.; '84; judgm. 4 decree, 10; '86; const, law, ll;munc. corp. 83, 87; offi'r, In. 8 n. ; quo warranto, 1. v. People, '84; indict. 12; '85; indict. 4. Dole v. Van Rensselaer, '86; slander, 2 n. Dolittle v. Eddy, '83; easements, 5; '86; ejectment, 1 n. Dollner v. Lintz, 9 Daly, 17. Aff'd, it seems, in 84 A". Y. 669. Dolph v. White, ^5; forea. 16; '86; covenants, 5. Dolz v. Atlantic, etc. Transpor- tation Co., '85; attach. 36 n. v. Morris, '83; ev. 125. Doming v. Miller, '85; ev. 247. Dominick v. Eacker, '84; exec. 23 n. v. Michael, '83; ex. & ad. 58 n. ■ v. Sayre, '84; wills, 87 n. Donahue v. O'Conor. Cited in Franklin v. Pearsall, 53 Super. Vt. (J. 3; ref. 36. Doron v. McLoughlin, '83; jus- tices' ct. 22. Dorrance v. Henderson, 92 TV. Y. 406; pfTg 27 Hun, 206; s. c , 14 Weekly D. 388. Dorrity v. Rapp, '83; inj. 13. Dorwin v. Potter, '84; dam. 3; landl. & t. 12 n. Doty v. Baker, '83; dower, 4. v. Brown, '83; ev. 158; '86; former adj. 4, 38 n. ; trusts, 15 n. v. Wilson,, '83; bills, n. & c. 63; appeal new tr., ad- denda. Doubleday v. Kress, '85 ; bills n. and c.18 a n. ; '86; principal ka. 5. Dougan v. Champlain Trans. • Oo„ '84; ev. 218, 219; '85; master & s. 35. Dougherty v. Van Nostrand, '83; goodwill, 1 n. ; '86; ex. & ad. 114 n. Doughty v. Hope, '85; munc. corp. 23. v. btilwell, '83; wills, 223; '84; wills, 89; '86; deposi- tion, 7. Douglas v. Cruger *83; trusts, . 34, 47; '86; trusts. 14. v. Douglas, '83; alimony, 2; '84; divorce, 7; '86; ali- mony, 1. v. Haberstro, 88 A'. Y. 611; s.c, 14 We; appeal, 89; '86; judgm. 24. Eaton, C. &B.Co. v. Avery, '84; arrest, 3; deceit, 3, 4; ev. 4; '85; deceit, 11. E. B. y. E. C. B., 28 Barb. 303. Cited (Refusal to hear one not a party) in Simmons v. Simmons, 32 Hun, 553. Ebbinghousen v. Worth Club, '83; assoc. 2 n. ; parties, 15; '85; assoc. 10. Eberhardt v. SchuBter, '85; costs, 55. Ebersoleu Northern Cent. R.R. Co., '83; trials, 94; '84; trials, 63. Eckertu. Long Island R.R. Co., '86; negl. 65 n.; r. r. co. 2n. Eckford v. De Kay, '83; wit. 48. Eckhard v. Donohue, '86; lien, Eddy v. Co-operative Dress As- soc, 3 liv. Pro. R. 434. Further decision in ac- tion by same parties in Id. 442; '86; ev. 48. v. O'Hara, '86; paym. into ct. 1 n. v. Traver, '85;forec. 10. Edgell v. Hart, '83; chat. mort. 11, 21 ; fraud, conv. 7; mort. 1;'84; fraud, conv. 9. Edgerly v. Bush, '83; attach. 69; '84; chat. mort. 9; conflict of 1. 2. Edgerton v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., '84; ev. 41 n. 212, 21 2 n. ; '86; pi. 67 n. v. Page, '83; lease, 6; pi. 172; '84;landl. & t. 12; '85; lease, 4; '86; covenants, 2n. v. Peckham, '83; v. & p. 15 n. v. Ross, '83; replevin, 2. Eddington v. iEtna Life Ins. Co., 17 Weekly D. 565. Aff'd in 100 N. Y. 536; s. c, 1 Centr. Rep. 524; aff 'g 30 312; '83; wit. 26,27, 27 n.; '85; wit. 8. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., '83; wit. 22, 26, 27; '^4; wit. 3; '85; wit. 8. Edmeston v. Lyde, '86; cred. s. 19 n. Edmonston v. McLoud, '83; sup. pro. 29; '84; sup. pro. 2; '86; sup. pro. 7 n. Edmonstone v. Thomson, '85; lim. of a. 30 n. Edsall v. Waterbury, '83; wills 139. Edson'u. Girvan, '85; pi. 27 n.; '86; pi. 3i, 105. . Edwards v. Bishop, '83; parti- tion, 3. v. Bodin6, '83; inj. 64 n. ; '84; inj. 48; '85; undert. 13 n. ; '86; inj. 49 n. v. Campbell, '85; pi. 105 n. v. Farmers' Fire & Life Ins. Co., '8±; defenses, 5. v. Jones, 12 Daly, 415; s. c. , more fully, in 67 Hotc. Pr 177. v. N. Y. & Harlem R.R Co., '83; negl. 36; '86; lease, 3; negl. 23 n. 24. v. INintb. Ave. R.R., '83- costs, 7. v. Russell, '83; surr. ct. 3; '84 ; const, law, 60; sentence, 1 n.; '85; associations, 3. u.-Varick, '83; assign. 4 - v. Woodruff, 90 N. Y 396- s. c, 16 Weekly JJ. i' rev'g Edwards v. Downs 13 Id. 57; '84; appeal, '83; v. Mutual Ins. Co. ins. 6. v. Rooney, '86; sup. pro. o. Egberts!). Wood, '83; ex. & ad. 165; partn. 28; '84; assign, for b. of c. 14; 'b5; partn. 23; '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. 41; partn. 29. Eggert v. Bonnett, '83; surr. ct. 35 n. Eggler v. People, '85; trials, 119. Egglessen, Matter of, '83; forec. 5. Eggleston t. Columbia Turn- pike Co. Road, '84; ev. 112 n.; '85; munc. corp. 69 n. v. Smiley, '84; const, law, 60. Ehel v. Smith, '83; contracts, 69. Ehle v. Bingham, '84; joint debtors, 1 n. ; '85; former adj. 18; '86; costs, 67 n. v. Chittenango Bank, '83; corp. 10 n. v. Judson, '83; guaranty, 5n. v. Purdy, '84; parties, 43. v. Quackenboss. Cited in 101 N. Y. 160; '83; justices' ct. 4; '84; costs, 15. Ehrgott v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 96 N. Y. ; rev'g 66 Hon . Pr. 161; '84; offi'r, '8 ,; dam. 5 n. 20; munc. corp. 60 n. 63n.;offi. 17 n.; '86; munc. corp 33, 45 n. 51; negl. 7 n. ; offi'r, 7 n. ; pi. 69 n. Ehriciis v. De Mill, '85; appeal, 109; '86; bills, n. & c. 19. Ehrmann v. Rothschild, '8.1; case, 1. Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288. Subsequent decision on motion to amend com- plaint in 39 Han, 366; '85; ev. 104; '86; contracts, 2 n ; ev. 75, 81 n. 82. Eighmy u. People, '83; error, 3; '84; bills ot par. 16; ey. 248 n. ; '85; bills of par. 8; 'so; wills, 35. Eisner v. Averv, '86; atty. sc. 2u. Elder v. Morrison, '84; resist- ance, 1 n. '83; mort. 8; '84; mort. 1. '86; inj. 13 n. 83; costs, 68; v. Rouse, pledge, 4 n. ; Eldridge v. Hill, v. Strenz, '84; costs, 23. Electro Silicon Co. v. Trask, '83; tradeni. 5 n. Eleventh Avenue, Matter of, '83; coinpensation,6; easements 7; '86; v. & p. 7. Elias v. Farley, '85; fraud, conv In. Ellicott v. Mosier, '85; dower, 8. Elliot v. Brown, '85; trials, 68'n. v. Cronk, '84; ev. 73. v. Dudley, '86; partn. 7 n. v. Gibbons, '83; infants, 7n. Ellis v. Albany City Fire Ins. Co , '86; ins. 1 n. 3, 5, 24. v. Andrews, '83; fraud. 5 6; '86; deceit, 1. u Ellis SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Erkenbrach Ellis — continued. v. Howe Machine Co., '86; appeal, y3;corp. 13. v. N. Y., Lake Khol'ii, stc. Ry. Co., '84; master 4 s. 16 n.; '85; master 4 s. 39a n. ; '86; master & s. 9, 10 n. 17, 29 n. 41. ■ v. Phoenix National B'k, 17 Weekly D. 475. Aff-d in 19 Id. 183; s. c, 12 Daly, 177. v. Rice, '83; atty. & c. 19. v. Willard, '85; bills of lading, 3; ev. 83. Ellison v. .Bernstein, '84; ev. 385; '85; attach. 19. v. bmoller, '83; partn. 12 n. Ellsworth v. JEtna Ins. Co., 89 JV. X. 186; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 120. Further decision in action bv the same par- ties in 21 Id. 469. v. Lockwood, '83; attach. 42; '85; assign. 5 n. ; subr. 2n. v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc. B. E. (Jo., 19 Weekly D. 211. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 97 JV. 7. 648. v. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute E. It. Co., 98 JV. Y. 553; aff'g Ellsworth v. Same, 33 Hun, 7; '86; corp. 14. Elmendorf v. Harris, '85; arbi- tration, 2. v. Lansing, '85; assign. 11; '86; bonds, 4. v. Lockwood, '83; dower, 6, 8; '85; dower, 11 n.; 86; dower, 6. v. Mayor, etc. of N. ¥., '85; munc. corp. 6 n. Elmore v. Hyde, '83; deposi- tions, 23-, disc. 4 insp. 3; '84; depositions, 20; '85; de- positions, 6 n. Elsey v. Metcalf, '83; appeal, 41. Elwell v. Chamberlain, '83; banking, 17; '84; dam. 14 n. v. Dodge, '84; corp. 44. v. Johnston, '84; appeal, 57 n. Elwood v. Deifendorf, '83; lim. of a. 8 n. ; money paid, 8; '84; lim. or a. 2d, '86; ev. 140 n. ;' paym. 4; wit. 16. v. Gardner, 84; exec. 20. v. Western Union Tele- graph Co., '83; questions of 1. & f. 1, 4, 6; wit. 65; '84; appeal, 78; ev. 130 n. ; '85; money paid, 12 n. ; wit. 46; '86; assign, lor b. of c. 52; trials, 80 n.; wit. 40. Ely v. Ballantine, '83; eject- ment, 3; '«4; inj. 19 n.; mand.l; '86; munc. corp. 26. v. 'Carnley, '83; chat. mort. 26 n. ; '8u; chat. mort. 4 n. v. Oity of Rochester, '84; dam. 34 n. — v. Clute, '84; wit. 13; '85; wit. 18. — v. Cook, '83; atty. 4 c. 44 n. 63; '86; atty. & c.28n. — v. Ehle, '83; pi. 191; '85; election of r. 8 n. — v. Holton, '83 ; const, law, 75;mfg. co. 7; munc. corp. 146; statutes, 15, 16; '84; munc. corp. 102; '85; stat- utes, 12, 14 n. — v. Kilborn, '83; ev. 139 n. — v. Lowenstein, '86; inj. 22. — v. New Haven Steamboat Co. Cited in 53 Huper. Ct. (J. & K) 198. — v. Norton, '85; banking, 13. — v. Ormsby, '84; contracts, 69 n. ; '86; assign. 5; attach. 43. — v. Scofield,'83; rec.deeds, 9. Emans v. Hickman, '83; wills, 59; '85; susp. of power of a. 14. v. Turnbull, '83; bound- aries, 1; '86; definitions, 1; real prop. 1. Embree v. Hanna, '83; attach. 9; defenses, 5. Embury v. Connor, '83; const. law, 17 n.; r. r. co. 39; 't4; const, law, 2 n. ; ex. & ad. 131; former adj. 1, 30 n. ; waiver, 3; '85; const, law, 31; former adj. 28, 36 n.^ stipulation, 2 n. ; undert. 17; '86; const, law, 9 n.; costs, 72 n. ; former adj. lu n. ; munc. corp. 87. v. Sheldon, '83; wills, 196 n. ; '84; devise, 4; wills, 117 n.; '85; parties, 31; trusts, 27; wills, 90, 92; '8o; devise, 1 ; wills, 53 n. 67 n. 78 n. Emerson v.Bleakley, '83; trusts, 26. v. Bowers, '85 ; ex. & ad. 4, 5 n. 11; '86; ex. 4 ad. 25, 34 n. v. Spicer, '83; parent 4 c. 8n. Emery v. Emery, '86; costs, 24n. v. Pease, '83; pi. 3, 194; '84; pi. 169. Emigraui Ind. Sav. Bk. v Gold- man, 97 JV. Y. 619; aff'g 33 Hm, 54; '83;former adj. 18; mort. 24; munc. corp. 121; '85; forec. 2, 3, 4, 5 n ; par- v. 'Eoche, 93 JV. Y. 374. Cited (Assignment for ben- efit of creditors; in 97 JV. Y. '84; 112; assign, for b. of c. 88 Emmons v. Cairns, '83; def. 102; wills. 139. Empire City Bank, Matter of, '83; corp. 42. Empire Mutual Life Ins. Co., Alatter of, '84; ins. 32. Emrich v. White, 66 How. Pr. 154. Aff d, it seems, in 102 JV'. 1'. 657. Endersi;. Enders, '84; legacies, 19. v. Sternbergh, '85; ev. 95. Engel v. Fischer, 15 Abb. JV C. 72; s. c, 51 Super. Li. (J. & £T) 71; and 1 How. Pr. JV. S. 147. Eev'd in 102 JV. Y. 400; e. c. , as Engle V.Fis- cher, 9 Civ. Pro. H. 318; '85; munc. corp. 5 n. v. Thorn, '86;inj. 2 n. English v. Brennan, '83; deeds, 18, 20; '84; deeds, 7 n.;'85; deeds, 18, 20 n.; defin. 6; '86; deeds, 15. Ennis o. Currie, '83; atty. 4 c. 62; '85;eet-ofl, 8 n. 9; '86; set-off, 7 n. v. Harmony Fire Ins. Co., '83; parties, 34. v. Pentz, '85; wills, 126 n. Eno v. Crooke, '86; judgm. 9 n. v. Diefendorf, 18 Weekly D. 4. Aff'd it seems, in 2 JV. Y. St te Rep 500; s. c , less fully, 102 JV. Y. 720. v. Mayor, '83; munc. corp. 146. Enoch Morgan's Sons' Co. v. Schwachofer, '85; tradem. 4. Ensign, Matter of, 37 Han, 152. Aff'd in 4 Lentr. Rep. 376. Ensign v. Sherman, '85; pi. 11/3; '86; pi. 99. Eppendorf v. B. C. & E. E. Co., '85;negl. 55 n. Equitable Co-operative Foun- dry Co. v. Hersee, 33 Hun, 169. Aff d in 4 Uentr. Rtp. 189; '86; election of r. 1, 5 n. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of U. S.- u. Bostwick, 100 iv. Y. 628; s. c, more fully, 1 Centr. Rep. 523; aff'g 28 Hun, 512. v. Cuyler, '84; pi. 34; ,'85; justices' ct. 21 n. 62, 6J, 64. Equitable Life Ins. Soc'y v. Stevens, '83; parties, 29; '86; mort. 9. Erben v. Lorillard, '83; ev. 159; new tr. 6; '86; dam. 16 n. ; new tr. 32, 34. Erickson v. Quinn. Cited ( Fraudulent conveyance) in 101 JV. Y. 508; '84; fraud. conv. 9. Erie County Savings Bank v. Baldwin, '86; corp. 35. v. Eoop, '85; subr. 3 n. Erie Railway Co. v. Eamsey, '84; contempt, 35; inj. 6, 36, 46, 67; '84; inj. 30; '85; contempt, 17: inj. 31; '&6; inj. 23. Erkenbrach n. Erkenbrach, 96 JV. IT. 456; afl'g 5 Civ, Pro. Ernst SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Fanning- 45 R. 1£4; which modified 63 How. Pi: 194; '85; divorce, 4. Ernst f. Hudson River R.R. Co , '83; negl. GO, 77 n. ; '85; carriers, 9 n ; negl. 83 n. ; questions of 1. tf. 10; trials, C3. v. Reed, '83; deeds, 3 n. E'rvin v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 28 Hun, 269; aff'g 4 Month. L. Bui. 33; '85; const. law, 5; '86; appeal, 6 n. ; pi. 60. Erwin v. Downs, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 39 n. v. Hamilton, '86; trials, 95. v. Hurd, 13 Abb. N. V. 91, with note; s. c, 18 Wteldy D. 158. v. Loper, '84; ex. * ad. 68. v. Neversink Steamboat Co., 88 N. Y. 134; s, c, 15 Weekly D. 43; aff'g 23 Hun, 673; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 347; '83; ev. 293; int. t); judgm. 4 decree, 5; us- ury, 16; '86; dam. 30 u.; int. 5 n. • v. Olmstead, '86; ejectment, In. v. Saunders, '83; ev. 127 n. 139 n.; sales, l;'84;debt- or & cred. 3 n. Esmay v. Fanning, '85; conver- sion, 10;lim. of a. 41. Esmond, Matter of, '84; wills, 55. Esmond v. Bullard, '85; mfg. co. 25. v. Tuttle, '86; ev. 126. v. Van Benschoten, '83; sales, 1; '88; ev. 85a. Espy v. Bank of America, 20 Weekly D. 25; s. c, with opinion in full, in N. T. Daily Reg. Jan. 7, 1885. Ess v. Toplonyi, '86; attach. 39 n. Estes v. Wilcox, '83; cred. s. 1, 8, 10;forec.7;'84;cred. s. 2, 2 n. ; '85; contempt, 7; cred. k. 18 n.; '86; legatees, 4; sun-, ct. 8 n. Estevez v. Purdy, '83; trusts, 113; usury, 19, 20, 24 n. ; '85; cancel, of wr. instr. 4 n. ; usury, 4. Eten v. Luyster, '83; dam. 6n. ; '84; landl. 4 t. 4. Etherington v. Prospect Park, etc. U.K. Co. ,'86; questions of 1. 4 f. 16. Etz 5. Daily, '86; dam. 41. Eureka Basin Warehouse <& • Mfg. Co., Matter of, '85; const, law, 11 n. Evans v. Begleys, '84; duress, X, v. City of Utica, '83; negl. 6s; '85; munc. corp. 57; negl. 56: '86; munc. corp. 42 n. ; negL 91. v. Cleveland, '83; abate. 4 r. 3; '85; abate. 4 r. 14 n. v. Deming, 20 Weekly D. 71. Decision in another action by the same parties, in 2 N. Y. Stale Rep, 349. v. Ellis, '83; wills, 68 n.; '84; atty. 4 c. 29; '85; du- ress, 1 ; wit. 35 n. v . Evans, '83;partn. 27. v. Harris, '83; bail, 1; '86; undert. 7. v. Hill, '83; forec. 7. '86; judgm. 19. v. Holmes, '85; attach. 36 n. u.Lake Shore R.R. Co., '84; master & s. 13; '86; mas- ter 4 s. 29 n. 30 n. v. Warner, '84; attach. 3, 11. - — v. Wells, '83; principal 4 a. 14. Evansville Nat. Bank 11. Kauf- man, '85; contracts, 82 n. ; principal & s. In.; '86; guaranty, 2 n. Everett v. Everett, '85; cred. s. 12. v. Lockwood, '85; pi. 81. v. Saltus, '84; defenses, 5 ; '85; pi. 102. Evergreen, Matttr of, '83; stat- utes, 2; '85; statutes, 17 n. '86; r. r. co. 33. Everingham v. Vanderbilt, '84; appeal, 1C4; '85; cred. s. 3 n. 5 n. ; parties, 12, 22. / Everit, Matter of, '85 ; assign, forb. of c. 22; '85; sup. pro. 22 n.; '86; assign, for b.of c. 24; "sup. pro. 21 n. Everit v. Strong. '83;partn. 19; '86;partn. 9n. Everitt v. Everitt, '83 ; legacies, 1, 4 n. ; susp. of power of a. 1, 9, 9a; wills, 48, 185; '84; susp. of power of a. 3 n. ; wills, 70; '85; cred. s. 12; legacies, 6; susp. of power of a. 1; wills, 118; '86; wills, 78 n. Everson v. Carpenter, '84; in- fants, 5. v. City of Syracuse! 3 East. Rep. 134; s. c, 3 north- east Hep. 784; rev'g 29 Hun, 485. v. Gehrman, '85; costs, 13; '86; costs, 24 n. v. Powers, 89 N. Y. 527; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 515; affg 60 How. Pr. 166; s. c, 11 Weekly I). 244; '86; ev. 210 n. Everts v. Everts, '83; ex. 4 ad. 78 n.; '86; ex. 4 ad. 78, 85 n. Evertson v. National Bk. of Newport, '85; coupons, 1. y. Sawyer, 2 Weml. 5u7. Cited (Rents and profits) in 51 Super. Vt. (J. & S. ) 504. Id. rev'd in 98 N. Y. 669; '85; sup. pro. 33 n. Every v. Edgerton, '84; motion 4 0. 2. Ewart v. Schwartz, '86; arrest, In. Ewen v. Perrine, '83; wills, 21. Ewing v. Johnson, '84; con- tracts, 56 n. Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Lacey, '85; children, 4; statutes, 17 n. Exchange Bank v. Monteath, '83; munc. corp. 74. Exchange Fire Ins. Co. v. Irv- ing, '84;ref. 28. Eyre v. Everett, '83; principal 4 s. 18. Fabbri v. Kalbfleisch, '83; ap- peal, 94. v. Phoenix Basurance Co., '85; ev. 82; '86; ins. 24. Fabbricotti v. Launitz, '84 ; countercl. 1 n. Faberu. Faber, '86; tradem. 3. Fadnerv. People, '85; indict. 9. Fagen v. Davison, '85; v. 4 p. 5. Fagnan v. Knox, '86; false im- pris. 2. Fahy v. North, '85; contracts, 98 n.; '86; contracts, 105. Fairbanks v. Bloomfield, '84; conversion, 12 n . v. Mothersell, '85 ; husb. <* w. 17, -il n. Fairchild v. Bentley, '85; ani- mals, 5. iv Fairchild, '84; partn. 11 n.; '85; trusts, 23 n ; '86; partn. 12. v. Slocum, '83; carriers, 6n. v. Warren, '84; debtor 4 cred. 2. Fairfax v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. R. Co., '84; ev. 6 n. Fairlee v. Bloomingdale, 14 Abb. iV. V. 341; s. c, 67 How. Pro. 292. Bev'd in 38 Hun, 220; '85; husb. 4 w. 10, 11 n. Fake v. Smith, '83; trials, 27. Falconer v. Buffalo & James- town R. R. Co., '86; munc. corp. 94 n. ; offi'r, 17. Falker v. N. Y., West Shore, etc. Ry. Co., 17 Abb. jV. a 279. Gen. Term order del nying motion to dismiss appeal rev'd in 100 N. Y. 86; B . c, 1 Cent. Rep. 172. Falkland v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bk., '83; assign, tor b. of c. 40; banking, 2; bank- ruptcy, 1, discharge, 4; '86; money paid, 14. Falkenau v. Fargo, '86; carriers, 20. Fallon v . Central Park, etc. B . R. Co., '85; questions of 1. &f. 11. v. Durant, '84; pi. 44. Fanning v. Consequa, '83 ; usury, 2 n. 46 Fanning SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Ferrin Panning — continued v. Dunham, '83; assign. for b. of c. 22; '85; cancel, of wr. instr. 4. v. Osborne, 34 Hun, 121. Bev'd in part in 10^ N. Y. 441. v. Trowbridge, '86; jus- tices' ct. 4 n. Fanshawe v. Lane, '85; assign. for b. of c. 37. Fargo v. McVicker, '83 ; parties, 15. Farish v. Austin, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 31; '85; pi 40. Farley v. Browning, 15 Abb. N. v. 301 ; s. c„ 1 How. 1'r. N. S. 307. Another decision in 5 Month. J,. Bui. 94. v. Carpenter, '86; fraud. ccnv. 20 n. v. Cleveland, '84; promise, 1; '86; contracts, 7 n.; promise, 7 n. Farmer v. Walter, '85; lim. of a. 22; '86; duress, 3. Farmers' Bk. i>. Blair, '83; discharge, 1; '83; accord & sat. 2. Farmers' & Manuf's. Bk. v. Whinfield, '8<;ev. 139 n. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bk. v. Butchers' & Drovers' Bk., '83; munc. corp. 74; '85; banking, 6 n. ; bills of lad- ing, 4 n.; munc. corp. 129 n.; '86; partn. 7 n. v. Empire Stone Dressing Co , '83; bills, n. 4 c, 49; '84; pi. 7 n.; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 11 n. v. Joslyn, '83; amend. 11. v. Kayner, '84; pi. 114 n. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bk. of Buffalo v. Atkinson, '86; corp. 8 n. v. Erie Bailway Co., '85; bills of lading, 4 n. v. Hazeltine, '86; corp. 8 n. v. Lang, 87 N. Y. 209; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 556; rev'g 22 Hun, 372; s. a, 10 Weekly D. 574; '83; exec. 26; '85; partn. 17 n. v. Logan, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 41 n.; '85; sales, 33; '86; corp. 8 n. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bk. of Rochester v. Gregory See Miller v. Miller in principal table. '83; deeds, 28 n. ; '85; husb . 4 w. 4. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Curtis, '86; nat. bks. 1. v. Hendriakson, '84 ; chat. mort. 11; '86; chat. mort. 5. v. McHenry, '86; inj. 23. v. Walworth, 1 N. Y. 438. Cited (Cancellation of writ- ten instrument) in 99 #. Y. 321; '83; election of r. 3; '86 ins. 33; judgm. 7. Farnam, Matter of, '86; assign. • for b. of c. 13. Farnhnm v. Benedict, 29 Hw, 44. Subsequent decision in 32 Hun, 22. v. Campbell, '85; sup. pro. 33 n. v. Hildreth, '83; arrest, 34. Farnsworth v. Ebbs, '83; wit. 48; '84; wit. 21. v. Oliphant, '83 ; ex. & ad. 163; '84 ex. & ad. 94; '85; bonds, 13; ex. & ad. 126 n. v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 1 N. Y. State Bap. 80; s. c, N. Y. Daily Keg. May 14, 1886; aff'g Id. April 27, 1886. v. Woo'd, '84; corp. 36 n. Farquar v. Crowell, 14 Weekly D. 145; affg Farquhar v. Crowell, 9 Daly, 310. Farrand v. Marshall, '83; inj.13. Farrar v. Chauffetete, 83; chat. mort. 7. v. McCue, 89 N. Y. 139; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 556; rev'g 26 Hun. 477. Farrell v. Hiidreth, '84; exec. 4; 'So; ev. 221 n. Farrington v. Bullard, '83 ; fraud, 1; 86; judgm. 15 n. v. Frankfort Bank, '86; exec. 8 n. v. Payne, '83 ; contracts, 34. v. Sinclair, '83; former adj. 4 n. Farron v. Sherwood, '84; pi. 7; '85; pi. 78; '86; pi. 118. Farwell v. Importers', etc. Nat. Bk. of N. Y., 90 JV. Y. 483; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 20; aff'g 47 Super. Ct. \J. & S.) 409; '84; trials, 3. v. Tweddle, '83; legacies, 32; statutes, 1; '84; ex. & ad. 128; '86; ten. for 1. 2 n.; trusts, 18 n. Fash v. Third Avenue K. B. Co,, '83; negl. 35, Fasnachtu. Stehn, '86; pi. 84. Fassetti;. Smith, '83; com. law, 1; '84; larceny, 2; '85; ev. 254 n. ; felony, 1 ; '86; homi- cide, 5 n. ; mort. 19. Fassin v. Hubbard, '85; bills of lading, 18 n. Faulkner, Matter of, '83; ex. 4 ad. 17; '84; ex. 4 ad. 35 n. ; tax. 29 n. ; '85 ; ex. & ad. 32; shipping, 5. Faulkner v. Brown, '86; partn. 2 n. Faulks v. Kamp, '83; pi. 28. Fauro u.Winans,'85; mort. 15 n. Fawcett v. Vary, '83; affid. 1. Fay v. Ames, '85; undert 17. v. O'Neill, '83; pi. 183; trials, 88. Fearing v. Irwin, '83; const. law, 35 n. ; '84; deeds, 7 n. ; '85; subm. of contr. 1; '86 compensation, 4 n. Feely v. Buckley, '8); deeds, 28 n.;husb. & w. 16 n. Feeter v* Weber, '86; ace. st. 3. Fellows v. Barton, '83; nons. 1 n. v. Fellows, '8o; joinder of a. 1 n. v. Heermans, '83; former adj. 1; inj. 68. v. Kittredge, '83; discharge, 13. v. Longyor, '83; parties, 24 n.; trusts, 106; '65; at- tach. 45; '86; usury, 9 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N.Y., '83; ev. 301. v. Northrup,'86; appeal, 42. v. Prentiss, '83; tills, n. 4. c. 6; paym. 5; 't>5; principal 4 s. 1 ; '86; principal 4 s. 4. Felt's Case, '83; election of ofli'r, 1. Felt v. Tiffany, '83; r'ef. 7, 8, 9; '84; ref. 0; services, 8. Felttr d. Mulliner, '85; justices' ct. 11. Fenner v . Buffalo & State Line B. 11. Co., '83; carriers, 24. ■ v. Lewis, '85; ev. 116. Fenton v. Garlick, '85; juris. 2n. v. Beed, '83; ev. 5; marr. 3; '86; ev. 244 n. Fergusons. Broome, '83; ex. 4 ad. 243, 244, 245. v. Cuiumings, 1 Dem. 433; s. c. as Estate of Kellinger, 2 Civ. fro E. (flr..u>ue) 68. v. Crawford, '81; judgm. 4 decree, 15; jurisi 1 n.; '85; judgm. 4 decree, 7 n. ; '86; court-martial, 2 n. ; hab. corp. 5; judgm. 18 v. Hubbell, 26 Hun, 250; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 118. Eev'din97 N. t. (-07; '85; ev. 55; '86; ev. 47, 49, 208. v. Lee, '83; chat. mort. 7n. v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 19 Weekly D. 424; a. c, in full, 32 Hun, 3l>6. Cited in a further decision. in the same cause in 7 9; '84; crod. s. 10. <- v. Day, '84 ; assign, for b. ofc. 89. Field v. Bland, '83; former adj. 32n.;'84; sales, 28. v. Meld, 5 Civ. 1'ro. Ii. 34; s. c, 66 How. l'r. 346; and 15 A'-b, A'. 6. 431. Affd in Id. 437; '83; costs, 113; '84; costs, 60. ■ v. Gibson, '84; service & p. 21; '86 ; juris. 7 n. v. Holbiook. 'K6; cloud on title, 3 n. ; inj. 21 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. , '83 ; arrest, 4 n. ; assign. 17, 17 n. ; '85; assign. 18; '86; as- sign. 1 n. ; guaranty, 2 n. ;. ins. tO n. v. Munson, '85; ev. 82; '86; ev. 72. - v. Paulding, '83 ; exec. 10. v. Sohieffelin, 'S3; trusts, 104 n.; '85; ex. 4 ad. 491; guardians w. 4; '86; corp. 8 n.; parties, 27. v. \anCott. '83; meeh 1 10; '84; parties, 46. Fielden v. Lahens, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 2U; joint debtors, 1. Fielding v. Lucas, 87 A'. Y. 197: s. c, 13 Weekly B. 553; affg 22 Hun, 2n; s. u., 60 How. Fr. 134. — — v. Waterhouse, '83; debtor & cred. 6; '86; bills,n.4 c.*6. Fieldings v. Mills, '86; lien, 7 n. Fields v. Fowler, '85; tax, 4. Fiester v. Shepard, 92 If. Y. 251; s.c, 16 Weeklu B. 565: affg 26 Hvv, 183; s c, 13 Weekly D. 546; '84; ex. &ad. 92; surr. ct. 21; '85; ex. 4 ad. 81, 111, 165, 177 n.; surr. ct. 9; '86; appeal, S3; ex. 4 ad. 22 ; surr. ct. 10. Filer. Matter of, 11 AW: if. C. 107; s. c , as Estate of lilor. 2 Civ. l'ro. B. (M'tartu) 61; and Eieck v. Fish, 1 Van. 75; '84; undert. 1;'&5; un- dert. 5. Filer v. N. Y. Central, &c. E E. Co., '83; husb. *w. 34; wit. 96; '84;'dam. 32; '85; ev. 58; negl. 19, 53, 55 n.; ques tions of 1. & f. 7; '8b, ev. 62; negl. 92 n. Filkins v. People, '86; inj. 34 n. v. Whyland, '85; ev. 75; '86; ev. 75. Filley v. Gilman, '83; atty. £ c. v.9. Finch v. Cleveland, '86 ; com. schools, 3. v. Hull, '83; wills, 147. Finck, Matter of, '86; assign. for b. of c. 47. Fincke v. Funke, '83; receivers, 15; '88; inj. 43. v. Bourke, '83; pi. 67; '84; pi. 57. Fink v. Cox, '86; deeds,, 23. Finkelmeier v. Bati s, 92 If. Y. 172; aff'g48 iSupn: Ct. (J. & S.) 433. Finnegan v. Carraher, '85; es- toppel, 2; '86; ev. 150 n. Fire Dept. of M. Y. v. Har- rison, '85; fire3 4 fire-ese. In. v. Noble, '83; const, law, 56. v. Tallman, '85 ; fires 4 firo- esc. 1 n. Firemen's Ins. Co. r. Lawrence, '83; ex. 4 ad. 214. FirnieLich v- Boveo, '84; costs, 8; '8o; set-off, 8 n. First Baptist C h. v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., '86; ins. 3. First Nat. Bank of Auburn v. Beardsley, '86; sup. pro. First Nat. Bank of Buffalo v. Wood, 83; chat. mort. . 5. First Nat. Bank of Canandaigua v. Garlinghouse, '85;"husb. 4 w. 27 n. First .Nat., Bank of Cooperstown , v. Tamnjo, '83; atty. ic.i3; ref. 31 n. :-,9. First Nat. Bank of Cortland v. Green, '84; ev. 35; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 23. First Nat. Bank of Jersey City " 1 ""'■'' 'c5 ; banking, v. Leaeh, 13. First Nat. Bank of ■ Lyons v. Ocean Nat. Bank, '81; ev. 110, 213n.;'86;relig. Corp. 7 n. First Nat. Bank of Meadville v. Fourth Nat. Bank of N. Y., 89 N. Y. 412; s. c, 15 Week- ly B. 116; modifying 24 Hun, 241; s. c, 12 Weekly D. 71; 83; costs, 40, 41, 131; '84; int. 4; '8.3; paym. 6 n.; '86; costs, 10, 20. First Nat. Bank of Oswego v. Dun, 29 Han, 529. Kev'd in 9/ N. Y. 149. First Nat. Bank of Oxford v. Wheeler '83; offi'r, 12; '85; county treas. 8. First Nat. Bank of Plattsburgh v. Heaton, '80; new tr. 16. First Nat. Banki of Portland v. Schuyler, '86; bills, n. 4 o. 11 n. First Nat. Bank of Home v. Wil- son, '83; sup. pro. 9; '84; sup. pro. 10; '85 ; sup. pro. 15; '86; sup. pro. 12. First Nat. Bank of Springfield v. Dana, '83 ; - partn. fa; '86; appeal, 19. First Nat. Bank of Toledo v. Shaw, '85; factors, 1. First Nat. Bank of Utica v. Bal- lou, '83; lim. of a. 41, 47, 49. First Presbyterian Society of Chili v. Bo wen, '86; lega- cies, 3a n. First Beformed Presb. Church v. Bowden, 14 Abb. If. C. 356; s. c, less fully, 16 Weekly B. 387 ; re-aff'g 10 Abb. N. 0. 1. Fischer v. Hope Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 94 n ; '84; ins. 32; '86 ; contracts, 19 n. v. Langbein, 10 Abb. N. C. 1*8; s. c, 62 How. l'r. i.38. Affd in 65 Id. 382; s. c, 13 ^66. N. C. 10; and that aff din 4 Centr. Bep. 215 ;s. c, 2 M. Y. tita e Hep. 268. Another decision in 31 Hun, 272 ; '86; appeal, 95 n. ; costs, 18 n. v. Eaab, '83; atty. & c. 19; '84 ; false impris. 2 n.; '86; contempt, 9. Fish, Matter of, '85; legacies, 35 n. Fish v. Cottenett, '84; contracts, 76. v. Davis, '83;nons. 1 n. u. Dodge, '83; negl. 37 n.; '84; amend. 11; 'so ; nuis. 3. v. Ferris, '83 ; guardians ad. 1.4. v. Fish, '85; adv. poss. 1 n. ; '86 ; champerty & m. 4 n. v. Howland, '84; wills, 49. v. Hubbard, '85; deeds, 12- '86; cv. 72. ' v. 'Miller, '83; ev. 372. 48 Fish SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Floyd Fish — continued — - v. Payne, '84; ev. 185. v. Wood, '85; principal 4S. 13 n. Fisher, Matter of, '83; fraud. 1. Fisher v. Andrews, '86; eorp. 32. v. Banta, '85; ex. 4 ad. 132; '86; ex. 4 ad. 135 n. ; lega- cies, 17 n. v. Bishop, 16 Weekly H. 194. Subsequent decision in 36 Hun, 112. v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 11 Abb. N. (7.32; s. a, 67 How. Pr. 191. Aff'd in 52 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 179; '85; pi. 27 n. v. City of Bochester, '85; highw. 8; '86; highw, 23. v. Fisher, ex. 4 ad. 126 n. ; '84; sum. pro. 4; '85; ex. & ad. 159. v. Gould,'86; appeal, 103. v. Hall, '85; deeds, 6 n.; gift, 4; '86; deeds, 6 n. v. Hepburn, 48 IV. Y. 41. Cited (Impropriety of one judge reviewing the decis- ion of another) in People v. Nat. Trust Co., 31 Hun, 27; '83; bankruptcy, 7; '84; mo- tion & o. 4 n. ; '86; former adj. 21 n. — — v. Hubbell, '85 ; receivers, 22 n. v. Hunter, '83 ; costs, 58 . v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; ev. 233; lim. of a. 18, 54; '84; ev. 22; '85; interpl. 2; lim. of a. 22; super, city ct. 1; '86; const, law, 4 n. ; costs, 9; pi. 151 n. v. Murray, '83 ; assign, for b. of c. 3 n. ; '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. v. N. Y. Central, &c. E.E. Co., '84; corp. 44 n. ; r. r. co. 38 n. ; '85; justices' ct. 1 n. ; statutes, 15 n. v. Pond. '83; pi. 55. v. Verplanck: '85; wit. 31, 32. Fishkill Sav'gs Inst. v. Nat. Bank of Fishkill, '83;atty. & c. 31; '85; bills of lading, 4 n. ; r. r. co. 5. Fisk v. Chicago, Bock Island, &c. B.B. Co., '85; contracts, 64 n. v. Potter, '83 ; judgm. 4 de- cree, 23. Finke v. Anderson, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 7. Fister v. La Bue, '85 ; com. schools, 4; '86; com.schools, 3. Fitch v. Baldwin, '86; ex. i ad. 81. v. Devlin, '86; ejectment, 7. v. Hall, '84; appeal, 2. - v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 88 JV. Y. 500; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 250; affg 9 Daly, 514. v. Bathbun, '83; appeal, 87; conversions, 1; '85; husb. 4 w. 27 n. - v. Smith, '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Witbeck, '84; ex. 4 ad. 153. Fitzgerald, Matter of, '83; at- tach. 2. Fitzgerald v. Fuller, '85 ; princi- pal & a. 7 n. v. People, '84; commit- ment, 2; '85; indict. 17. v. Quann, 33 Hun, 652; rev'g Gerald v. Quam, 10 Abb. IV. C. 28; '84; parties, 29, 30 n. v. Eedfield, '83; slander, 1. Fitzgibbons v. Freisen, '85; dam. 9 n. Fitzhugh v. Wiman, '85 ; trials, 1. Fitzpatrick v. Brady, '83; surr. ct. 22 n. v. N. Y., New Haven, etc. B. B. Co., 48 Super. CI. (J. & S.) 539. Eev'd in 21 Weikly B. 169. v. Slocum, '84; munc. corp. 77; '86; ev. 262; '86; munc. corp. 50. v. Van Schaick, '85; depo- sitions, 6 n. v. Woodruff, '86; sales, 8. Fitzsimmons v. Barter, '86; shipping, 1 n. v. Harrington, '84; parties, 30 n.; '85; husb. & w. 3 n. Five Points House of Industry v. Amerman, '85; wills, 77. Flack v. State, 95 IV. Y. 461; s. c, 6 Civ. Pro. JR. 286; affg 2d Hun, 286; '86; joint debtors, 4 n. Flagg v. Munger, '85 ; judgm. & decree, 2. v. Euden, '84 ; ev. 19 n. v. Swift, '83 ; assoc. 2 n. ; '85; assoc. 11. v. Thurber, '86; deeds, 30 n. Flagler v. Schoeffel, '86; assign, for b. of c. 32. Flake v. Van Wagenen, '83; ap- peal, 3; '85; judgm. 4 de- cree, 24. Flanagan v. Flanagan, '85 ; wills, 98; '86; ex. & ad. 63; lega- cies, 11 n. ; wills, 51 n. 52, 61. v. People, '83; ev. 91 n. ; '84; insane persons, 5; '86; trials, 133. Flanders v. Odell, '83; ref. 7. Flandrow, Matter of, 92 N. Y. 256; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 569; affg 28 Hun, 279; s. c, 16 Weekly B. 36; '86; attach. 36 n. Flanigan v. People, 86 N: Y. 554; s. c, less fully, 13 Weekly B. 242; and 40 Am. H. 556, with note on intox- ication as a defense. Fleet v. Hegeman, '84; oysters, Fleetwood v. City of New York, '84; money jjaid, 12; mane, corp. 123 n. ; '86; money paid, 5. Fleishhauer v. Docllner, '85; ex. & ad. 95 ; mort. 15 n. Fleischman t- . Bennett, 82 N. Y. 231; s. c, 13 Weekly B. 561; aff'g 23 Hun, 200; '85; pi. 133; '86; parties, 33; pi. 145. v. Stern, 90 N. Y. 110; s. c, 15 Weekly B. 274; affg 24 Hun, 265; s. c, 61 How. Pr. 124; '84; trials, 67; '86; payment, 4. Fleiss v. Buckley. See Fliess v. Buckley. Fleming v. Burnham, 36 Hun, 456. Eev'd in 100 JV". Y. 1; s. c, 1 Centr. Hep. 267; 2 East. Mep. 466 ; 2 North- east. Sep. 905; '86; spec, perf. 12. v, Gilbert, '83; contract, 100; sales, 1; '84; debtor k cred. 3n.;'86;ev. 85a. v. Griswold, '85; spec. perf. 12 n. i>. People, '83; indict. 23; '86; indict. 7. Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse E. B. Co., '83;negl.35; '86; dam. 40 n. ; - highw. 1 ; r. r. co. 28. v. Troy Savings Bank, '84; interp. 6; parties, 56; sup. pro, 25. v. Updike, '85; ex. 4 ad. 101; lim. of a. 53. Fliess v. Buckley, 90 IV. Y. 286; b. c, 15 Weekly D. 540; affg 24 Hun, 614; s. c, 12 Weekly B. 227; '84; place of trial, 5 n. ; '85 ; exec. 12 ; '86 forec. 25. Flike v. Boston & Albany B. K. Co., '83; master 4 s. 20, 24, 25, 34 n. 36; '84; master & s. 23 n. 28, 28 n. ; '85; mas- ter 4 s. 14, 42 n. ; '86; mas- ter 4 s. 16 n. 29 n. 44; negl. 34 n. 56 n. Flint v. Bell, 27 Hun, 155; s. c, 15 Weekly V. 30. Further decision in 19 Id. 267. v. Corbitt, '86; sales, 7 n. v. Van Lusen, '86; atty. 4 c. 20. Flood v. Moore, '86; costs, 57 n. Flora v. Carbean, 85; appeal, 22. Florence v. Hopkins, '83; adv. poss. 1. Flower v. Garr, '86 ; amend. 1 n. v. Lance, '83 ; money paid, 14 n. ; '84; estoppel, 19; money paid, 6 n. 8 n. 14 n. ; mort. 20. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. See Fowler v. The amend. 1 n. Floyd v. Barker, '85; legacies, 20 n. v. Caron, 88 IV. Y. 560; s. o., 2 Am. Prob. B. 499, and 14 Floyd SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Fourth 49 Weekly D. 300; aff'g 9 Daly, 535; '84; wills, 110. v. Jayne, '83; former adj. 3. Flushing Ave., Matter of, 98 N. Y. 445. further decision in 101 Id. 678. Flynn v. Bailey, '84; joinder of 7, a. 4. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc '83; costs, 77; ins. 51 n.; '85; ins. 21. v. Hatton, '86; lease, 10; '85; landl. & t. 9. v. N. Y. Elevated R. B. Co., 49 Super. Ct. (J. db S.) 60. Further decision in 50 Id. 375. Fogarty v. Cullen, '86; release, 3 n. v. Wick, '84; mech. 1. 10 n. Foland v. Dayton, 20 Weekly 1). 59. Subsequent decision in 40 Hun, 563. Foley v. Eagan, '86; receivers, 12 n. v. Eathborne, '83; costs, 7. - — v. Speir, 100 N. Y. 552; s. c, 2 East. Hep. 929; 3 Northeast. Rep. 477; aff'g 11 Daly, 254; a c, WWeekly D. 171; '86; lotteries, 2. Folgcr, Matter of, '83; appeal, 64. Folger v. Fitzhugh, '83; appeal, 118. v. Hoogland, '84; contempt, 27 n. Follett v. Badeau, '84; deeds, 19 n. Folliard v. Wallace, '85; master & s. 2 n. ; '86; contracts, 84. Folsom v. Streeter, '86; tax. 61. Fonda v. Borst, '85; em. dom. 6n. v. Chapman, '83; forec. 7. v. Sage, '84; deeds, 13; '86; cloud on title, 3 n. 4 n. v. Van Horn, '83; infants, 2 ; parent 4 c. 8 n. ; '84; re- sistance, 1. Fontaine v. Phoenix Ins. Co., '83 ; forfeiture, 1. Foose u.\vhittemore,'83; trusts, 15a; '84; wills, 86, 87 n. 106; '85; wills, 108 n. Foot v. .Etna Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 5 n. - — - v. Bronson. See Corning v. Troy Iron & Nail Fac- tory in principal table; '83; anno. corp. 74 n. ; '85; ease- ments, 9 n. ; waterc. 6. v. Brown, '86; slander, 2 n. v. Farrington, '83; lim. of a. 9 n.; '84; sales, 21; '85; lim. of a. 23; '86; lim. of a. 18 n. v. Harris, '85; service * p. 4. v. Marsh, '85; sales, 83 n. ; '86; sales, 31. v. Morgan, '83; surr. ct. 3; '84; const, law, 60; sentence, 1 n. o. Stevens, '83; ev. 28; '84; ev. 124 n. v. Stiles, '83; offi'r, 9,9 n.; '84; sup. pro. 26; '85; offi'r, 7, 13; '86; highw. 21; offi'r, 5; taxes, 39. Foote v. Bryant. Disting'd (Parol evidence to establish trust) in Eandall v. Con- stans, 33 Minn. 329, 337; s. a., 23 Norlhw. Rep. 530, 534; '83; fraud, 15;trusts, 4. v. Colvin, '84 ; case, 16. v. Lathrop, '85; Burr. ct. 35. v. People, '84; civil damage act, 2. Forbes v. Halsey, '83; trusts, 60, 61. v. Waller, '85; attach. 15 n. ; ev. 277 n.; sup. pro. 11; 'S6; ev. 238 n. v. Whitock, '84; corp. 57 n. v. Willard, '83; wit. 104. Force v. Gower, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 7. Ford r. Babcock, '84; lim. of a. 13; '85; lim. of a. 28 n.; pi. 15:'t,6; lim, of a. 10 n. v. Cobb, 'h6; fixtures, 1. i. David, '84 ; parties, 60 n. v. Harrington, '84; atty. 4 e. 29. v. James, '86; deeds, 6 n. v. Jones, '83; ev. 250 n. v. Joyce, '85; ev. 320. v. Knapp, 31 Hun, 522. Eev'd in 102 N. Y. 135; '85; ten. in com. 3. v. Lyons, 40 Hun, 557. Further decision in 41 Id. 512. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; assign. 17. v. Mies, '84; wills, 51. v. Whitridge, '85; judgm. & decree, 4. v. Williams, '83; chat mort. 13, 21; fraud, conv. 7; '84; chat; mort. 3 n. Foreman v. Edwards, '84; atty. & c. 28. Forman, Matter of, '84; ev. 251; '84; wills, 47 n. Forman v. Smith, '83; wills. 11 90. ' ' v. Whitney, '83; annuities, 1; '8(>;ex. 4 ad. 57 n. Forrest v. Forrest, 25 N. Y. 501. Approved and follow- ed (New trial lor admission of improper evidence) in MolinePlow Co. v. Gilbert, 3 Dak. 239, 245; s. c„ 15 Norlhw. Rep. 3; '8 .; divorce 3 n. 17n.;ev. 220; trials! 51; 86, appeal, 40; divorce, 7. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y.,'83- munc. corp. 123 n. Forster v. Kane, '85; surr. ct. 30 n. Forstman v. Schulting, 35 Hun, 504. Subsequent proceed- ings in 38 Id. 482. Forsyth v. Ediriinston, '83; amend. 13; '84; p.. 76, 154 n.; '85; pi. 154 n. v. Eathbone, '83; accumu- lations, 5 n. Fort v. Burch, '83; mort. 10; rec. deeds, 15; statutes, 12; '84; statutes, 11. v. Gooding, '83; costs, 109, 113; '85; legacies, 13. v. Whipple, '85. master « s. 42 n. Fort Edward & Fort Miller Plank Eoad Co. v. Payne, '84; munc. corp. 99 n. Fort Plain Bridge Co. v. Smith, '83;nuis. 1U ; '84 ; waterc. 2; const, law, 36 n. Fort Stanwix Bank v. Leggett, '85; cred. s. 3 n. 5 n.; '86; fraud, conv. 6. Forty-second Street E.E. Co. v. Thirty-fourth Street E.E. Co., 52 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 252. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, but with- out opinion, 102 N. Y. 691. Fosaick v. Cornell, '86; devise, 2n. v. Delafield, '83; ex. 4 ad. 25. Fosgate v. Herkimer Mfg. Co., '83; parties, 1,2; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. Foshay v. Ferguson, '84; duress, 1; '8.">; duress, 2 n.; cv. 285;- '86; duress, 2 n. ; mal. pros. 2. Foster, Matter of, '83; ins. 104; '»4; ex. 4 ad. 62. Foster v. Beals, '84; ev. 83 n. v. Foster, '83; surr. ct. 53; wills, 82. v. Hawley, '83; ev. 17; surr. ct. 27; '84; surr. ct. 23; '86; ev. 244 n. v. Julien, '83; bills, n. & c. 37. v. Milliner, '83; former adj. 24; '85; former adj. 40 n.; '85; former adj. 7. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E.E. Co., 2 How. Pi. A. S. 416. AfE'd in 23 Weekly D. 18. v. People, "85; crim. law, 7; ev. 254 n. ; triads, 105 n. ; '86; homicide, 5n. v. Person, '83; principal 4 a. 11; '85; husb. 4 w. 15 n. 27 n. v. Pettibone, '83; exec 25; offi'r, -il n.; '84; principal* a.2 ; resistance,! n. ; '85 ; con- tracts, 43 n. v. Prince. '85; sup. pro. 14. v. Townshend, '83; receiv- ers, 15. v. Van Wyck, '86; tax. 44. v. Wood, '86; judgm. 15 n. Fountain v. Pettee, '85; trials 29,31. Fourth ft at. Bank of N. Y. v. Boynton, '85; depositions' 6 n. 50 Foider SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Frith Fowler, Matter of, '85; impris. 2. Fowler v. Callan, 102 X Y. 395; s. c, 9 Civ. Pro. JJ.331; rev'g 12 Dily, 2«3; s. c, 4 Ciu. J'ro. B. 413. v. Depau. '84 ; wills, 97. v. Haynes, 91 N. Y. 346; s c, 16 Weekly U. 400, modi- fying 14 1,1.' 376. v. Hollenbeck, 'SG; appren- tices, 2 n. v. Hunt, '84; lira, of a. 13; '85; lira, of a. 28 n. v. Kennedy, '85; pi. 58 n. v. Liverpool & G. W. Steamship Co., 87 M. Y. 190; b. c, 13 Weekly 1). 435; aff' g i3 ihw, 196. v. Lockwood, '85; ex. & ad. • 138; '86; ex. & ad. 36. — — v. Martin, '85; ev. 314. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 41 Him, 357; s c, as Flower u.TheSame, 2N.T. Uuie Rep. 583. v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., '86; ins. 67 n. ; parties, 39. v. N. Y. Gold Exeh. Bank, '85; banking, 14 n.; '80; banking, 2. v. N. Y. Indemnity Ins. Co., '84; ins. 24. v. Palmer, '84; cane, of wr. instr. 1 n. v. Van Nurdam, '£3; arrest, 7n. Fowles v. Bowen, '85; ev. 19, 20 n. ; 86; libel, 4 n. ; slander, 2n. Fox, Matter of, 92 XT. Y. 93; s a, 16 Weekly D. 454; an'g 14 M. 339; '83; trusts, 31; '86; ex. & ad. 129; wills, 59. Fox v. Burns, '83; chat. mort. 7 n. v. Carr, '83; ex. * ad. 138; '86; ex. & ad. 47 n. v. Drake, '83; contracts, 5 n. v. Erie Preserving Co., '86; pi. 125. v. Fox, '83; costs, 115; '85; costs, 21 n. : '86; iliscont. 4. v. Gould, '85; costs, 21 n. v. Heath, '85; assign, for b. of c. 38; '86; assign, for b. of c. 7. • v. Jackson, '83 ;_atty. 4 c. '49. v. Lipe, '84; ejectment, 3 n. v. Moyer, '83: cred. s. 8, 9; '84; cred. s. 4 n. 8; fraud, conv. 9; '86, cred. a. t; fraud, conv. 13. v. Smith, '85; trials, 83 n. v. Vanderbeck, '86; pi. 146. Fraenznick v. Miller, '84; surr. ct. 21 • '85; ex. 4 ad. 165; '86; ex. & ad. 49, 98. Fralich v. People, '83; excep- tions, 2 ; new tr. 24. Fralick v. Betts, '85 ; shipping, 3. France v. Hamilton, '8.>; infg. co. 16; '86; city ct. of IS'. Y. 2. Franchot v. Leach, '83; sales, 1. Francis v. City of Troy, '84; mand. 3, r. Schoellkopf, 53 K Y. 152. Cited as to injunc- tion in dissenting opinion in 33 Hun, 164, 166; '83; inj. 13; '84; dam. 3 4, n. ; '86; dam. 28. 44; inj. 15 n. Francisco v. Filch, '84; ex. u ad. 75. Francke v. Youmans, '84; landl. 4 ten. 5 n. 30 n. Frjnk v. Chemical Nat. Bk. of N. Y., '86; banking, 10 n. v. Bush, '84; pi. 55. v. Lanier, '63; ev. 391; '8j; contracts, 86 n. v. Mutual Ins. Co., 12 Daly, 267; s. a, N. Y. Drily lieg. May 7, J 884. Modified in 102 N. Y. 266. v. Wessels, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 1; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 25. Franklin v. Low, '85; abate. & r. 2. v. Bobinson, '86; ex. 4 ad. 114 n. v. Schermerhorn, '85; dam. 28 n. — : — v. Talmadge, '83;judgm. & decree, 18;'86;ev. 13. Franklin Bank, Matter of, '83; bills, n. & c. 29; savings bks. 2n. Franklin Bank v. Baymond, 'Ho; money paid, 13. Franklyn v. Havward, 83; mort. 28. Fraschieris v. Henriques, '83; salos, 36 n. Fraser u. Child, '84; contracts, 80 n. v. Gilbert, '83; chat. mort. 20; debtor & cred. 4. v. Ward. See Frazer i> Ward. Frasier v. Town of Tompkins, '85; pi. 146 n. Frazer, Matter of, '84; ev. 32; wit. 5; '85; ex. 4 ad. 42, 178; trusts, 2 A; '86; wills, 84. Frazer v. People, 't>5; accom- plice, 2 n. v. Ward, 2 How. Pr. 2f. S. 47. Further decision as Fraser v. Ward, 9 Viv. Pro. H. 11 Frazier v. Tru»x, '84; assign, for b. of c. 89; '86; assign, for b. of c. 50. v. Trow's Printing, etc. Co., 90 N. Y. 678; aff 'g 24 Hun, 281. Frear v. Hardenbergh, '83; con- tracts, 83; '84; contracts, 80 n. ; '85 ; compensation, 8. Fredenburgh v. Biddlecom. 85 JV. Y. 196. Cited as to ap- peal in 97 iV. Y. 609. Fredericks v. Taylor, 84; verif. In. Fredonia & Sinclearville Plank _ Boad Cd. v. Wait, '83; jus- tices' ct. 4. Freel v. Buckley, 92 M. Y. 634; rev'g Freeley v. Buckley, iG Hun, 451, on opinion in 92 N. Y. 152. Freelove v. Cole, '85; atly. 4 c. 24; duress, 1. Freeman v. Auld, '83; deeds, 31; estoppel, 10; v. & p. 2. v. Barber, '83; deeds, 28 n. v. Coit, 27 Huii, 447; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 142. Further decision in 96 iV". Y. 63; '86; ex. 4 ad. 67. v. Falconer. '83; parties, 5. v. Frank, '85; civil death, 1 n. i'. Freeman, '83; ex. 4 ad. 192; husb. 4 w. IS; spec, perf. 4 n. ; trusts, 72; '85; deeds, 35; '86; ex. 4 ad. H3n. ?•. I ulton Fire Ins. Co., '84; ins. 24. v. Kellogg, '83; ex. 4 ad. 38, 41; '85; ex. 4 ad. 4. v. Lawrence, '83; wit. 42; '86; wit. 22. v. Panama B. B. Co., '85; const, law, 49 n. v. People, '83; ev. 91 n. ; exceptions, 2. Freer v. Denton, '86; pi. 1-jn. Frees v. Ford, '86; pi. 144 n. Freeson v. Bissell, '83; spec. perf. 5. Frieberg v. Popper, '84; dis- charge, 1 n. Freligh v. Brink, '85; confess. of judgm. 1. Frelingnu,) sen v. Colden, 'S3; assistance, 1. French v. Buffalo, N. Y. & E. li.B. Co., '84; carriers, 2 n. v. Carhart, '83; deeds, 17; '84; easements, 6 n. ; '85; contracts, 27; deeds, 12, 29 n. 31. v. New, '83 ; sales, 1. v. Powtrs, '84; appeal, 115. v. [Salter, '83; joinder of a. 2. French v. ShotweH, '86; former adj. 13 n. v. Wiilett, '84; pi. 7 n.; '86; attach. 2i; impris. 1, French Mfg. Co., Matter of, '83; corp. 76; '84; corp. 27; 'o5; corp. 39. Freund v. Importers' & Trad- ers' Nat. Bank, '83; assign. 8; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 25.- Fridenberg v. Jarosiauski, '83; pi. 49. Fried v. N. Y. Central B B. Co., '83; assign. 9 n.;'8o; lim, of a. 26; '86; assign. 1 n. Friery v. People, 'o3; grand jury, 4; '86; trials, 13. Friess v. Bider, '«3; dam. 28; sales, 1. Frisbie v. Larned, '85; principal 4 s. 10. Frith v. Barker, '83; ev. 391. Frilae SUJtTJjEJttJBJNlAilX lAJJiJB. \J \Ait IA/IIVI Fritze 11. Pultze, '85; justices' ot. 3. Frost v. Beekman, '83 ; reo. deeds, 14 n. v. Brisbin, '83; place of tr. l;'84;domicil, 3. v. Carter, '84; assign", for b. of c. 52 n ; '85; assign, for b. of o. 19 n. v. Clarkson, 'bB; sales, 21 n. il. Everett, '83; ev. 139 n.; sales, 1; '84; debtor & cred. 3n. v. Koon, '83; estoppel, 1; judgm. 4 decree, 8; '85; forec. 5; parties, 14. v, McCargar, '83; arrest, 11. — v. Mott. Cited as to chat- tel mortgages, in 34 Hun, 192; '83; assign, for b. of c. 6; cred. s. 4; exec. 29, 30; '84; sup. pro. 21; '86; attach. 43 n. ; ev. 31 n. ; replevin, 2. v. Yonkers Savings Bank, '83; chat. mort. 2;j;mort. 21, 53; '84; mort. 24; '85; rec. deeds, 4; subr. 2 n. 8 u. Fry v. Bennett, 'S3; amend. 7; appeal, 33; pi. 175, 176; '86; appeal, 84; atty. & c. 7 n. • v. Evans, '83; joinder of a. 1. q. Smith, '84; distribution, 3; '85; distribution, 2n.; '86; distribution, 2. - Fryer v. Rockefeller, '84 ; ju- dicial sale, 3. Fudickar v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; arbitra- tion, 1, 8;ref, 37; '85; r. r. co. 63 n. ; ref. 16. Fuentesu. Mayorga, '86; arrest, 7. Fullan v. Hooper, 66 How. Pr. 75. Aff'd in 19 Weekly I). 93. Fuller v. Acker, '83; chat. mort. 7n.. '86; tax. 62. v. Conde, '84; costs, 11, 18; ref. 10; '85; justices' ct. 2. v. Jewett, '83 ; master 4 s. 17, 24,. 34 n.; negl. 9, 40; '84; master & s. 5 n. 15 n. ; negl. 55; '85; master & s. 18 n.,; '86; master 4 s. 10 n. 19 n. 41, 43 n. ; negl. 3, 27 n. 34 n. 56 n. i>. Kead, '84; countercl. 1 n. v. Kobinson, '83; ev. 391. v. Van Geesen, '86; trials, 99 n. Fullerton r. Dalton, '85; con- tracts, 24 n. — — v. McCurdy, '86; parties, oJ. v. National Burglar, &c. Ins. Co., 10 Abb. H. C. 364; s. c, 63 How. Pr. 5. Aft'ct in 16 Weekly D. 56; and the latter aff'd in 1' if. Y. 76; s. c.,1 Geidr. Hep. 168; and 2 Eiist. R*p. 288. v. Viall, '84; fraud, conv. 5. Fulton v. Fulton, '85; gift, 4. v. Kosevelt, '85; surr. ct. 19 - v. Whitney, '83; ex. 4 ad. 77 n. ; '85; former adj. 47. 51; trusts, 43; '86; trusts, 23, 23 n. Fulton Bank v. N. Y. & Sharon Canal Co., '84; corp. 34; principal 4 a. n. Furman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. See Lansing v. Smith, in principal table; '83; deeds, 23n.;'84; patents for 1. 2 n. ; waiver, 3 Furman i>. Titus, '83 ; fraud, 5. v. Van Sise, '85; parent 4 c. 2. v. Walter, '83; sher. 30; '85; justices' ct. 3. Furman St., Matter of, '83; conv pensalion, 17 n. ; munc. corp. 124; r. r. co. 9">; '85; munc corp. 99 n. ; r. r. co. 49 n. ; '86; munc. corp. 66 n. Furniss v. Furni'ss, '83; trusts, 42 Furst v. Second Avenue Ii. K. Co., '84; ev. 213 n. G. Gadsden v. Woodward, 4 Centr. Hep. 208; rev'g 38 Hun, 548; s. c, 3 How. Pr. N. 8. 109. Gaffney v. Feople, '83; excep- tions, 7; new tr. 24. v. Public Administrator. See Smith's Estate. Gage v. Brewster, '83; merger, 2 n. v. Dauchy, '85; husb. 4 w. 15, 15 n. v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western K. R. Co., '86; master 4 s. 29 n. v. Jaqueth, '85; ev. 81 n. v. Reed, '84; husb. 4 w. 3 n. v. Village of Hornellsville, 41 Hun, 87. Further ap- peal in 2 if. Y State Sep. 351. r Gaillard v. Smart, '83; ref. 39. Gale v. Delaware, Lackawanna & W. R. K. Co., '83; r. r. co. 3. v. Mead, '86; tax. 61. v. N. Y. Central, &c. K.E. Co.. '83; new tr. 28; ref. 37; wit. 73; '86; neel. 65 n. > » b u. Nixon, '8p; partn. 9 n. Galen v. Brown, '84; chat, mort.' a. Gallaghar v. White, '83; guar- anty, 15. Gallagher v. Nichols, '83; con- tracts, 95; sales, 12; '85; as- sign. 17; contracts, 84. Gallaher v. Vought, "84; con- tracts, 2 n. Gallarati v. Orser, '83; assign. 12; 85; trials, 1. Gallatian v. Cunningham, '86; trusts, 2 1 n. Gallie v. Eagle, '84; partition, 7. Galloway, Matter of, '84; sum. pro. 4 n. Gallup v. Perue, '86; atty. 4 c. 11; int. 7 n. Galway v. U. S. Steam Refining Co., '85; parties, 9 n. Gamble v. Gamble, '84; wills, 27; ''85; wills, 23 n. v. Village of Watkins, '85; munc. corp. 5 n. Gane v. Gane, '85; contempt, 7. Ganley v. Troy City -Nat. Bu., 98 N. Y. 4d7; aff'gzO Weekly D. 5 1. Gans v. Thieme, '84; mort. 20; '85; subr. 4, 8 n. Gansevoort v. Nelson, '85; ex. 4 ad. 81 n. Ganson v. City of Buffalo, '83; munc. corp. 61; '86; munc. corp. is9 n. v. Lathrop,'86; partn. 26 n. — - v. Tiift, '85; lease, 14; '85; lea^e, 23 n. 25 n. ; merger, 2. Gardenier v. Tubbs, '86; fraud. conv. 21 n. Gardiner v. Gardiner, '84; ev. 113; wills, 17, 22; '84; un- due inf. i; '86; undue inf. 1. v. People, '86; ev. 228. v. Schwab, '85; amend. 4n. v. Suvdam, '8u; sales, 33 11. v. Tyler, '83; receivers, ' 24 n. Gardinier v. Knox, '85; bilis of par. lu. Gardner v. Astor,'83; merger, 2. — r- v. Clark, '84; waiver, 5 n. v. Finley, '83; fixtures, 2. ■ v. Gardner, 87 if. Y. 14; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 282; and 62 How. Pr. 265; rev'g 24 Hun, 627; s. c, 12 Weekly D. 357. Another decision in action by the same par- ties in 19 Weekly D. 249. '83; surr. ct. Ii. n ; wills, 125; appeal, new tr. (ad- denda); '84; ex. & ad. 114; husb. 4 w. 19. v. Heyer, '86; ev. 72. v. Keteltas, '83; lease, 2, 3; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. v. Locke, '83; pi. 8; '81, pi. 14. v. McEwen, '83; chat. mort. 8, H; mort. 1; '85; chat, mort. 3. v. Miller, '86; ex 4 ad. 84 n. v. Ogden, '83; corp. 59 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 77 n. ; trusts, 60, 61; '84; contracts, 65, 69 n.; trusts, 26; '85; juris. 4 n.; '86; juris. 9 n. ; trusts, VS n. v. Oliver Lee's ±sank, '83; discharge, 2. v. Picket, '84; trials, 50 n. v. Printup, '83; wills, .217. 52 Gardner SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Ohormlcy Gardner— conllnwd v. Smith, 'S3; ins. 29. v. Thomas, '83; juris. 10. v . Trustees of Newburgh, '83; compensation, 4 n. ; const, law, 42; waterc. 3 n. ; '86; const, law, 10 n. Garfield v. Hatmaker, '83; fraud, 15;'85;cred. s. 12. Garlicku. James, '83; pledge, 3 n.;'86;mort. 8. v. Strong, '83; dower, 4; '85 ; subr. 3 n. Garling v. Ladd, '84; costs, 9. Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, 'K5 ; pi. 146 n. Garner v. Gladwin, '84; atty. 4 c. 23, 24; '85; atty. 4 c. 20; '86; atty. & c. 27. v. Harmony Mills, '85; joinder of a. 1 n. v. Mangam, '81; pl.-155. r v. Thorn, '86; joinder of a. 6. Garnsey v. Bogers, '83; corp. 44; mort. 35; '84; contracts, 94; deeds, 26 n.; wit. 5; '85; promise, 2 n. ; '86; mort. 15; promise, 3 n. 7 n. Garr v. Mairet, '83; costs, 13; '86; atty. 4 c. 11. v. Martin, '86; principal 4 s. 2. v. Selden, '83; notice, 6. Garretson v. Clark, '85 ; highw. 13. Garrison v. Carr, '85; pi. 92. v. Garrison, '85; costs, 13; '86; costs, 24 n. v. Howe, '83; corp. 39; mfg. co. 12, U8, 3U, 31, 31 n. ; statutes, 20 n. ; '84; mfg. co. 17. v. Mooney, '84; mech. 1. 6. v. Smith, '86; ev. 285. Garvey, Matter of, '83; munc. corp. 150; '85; munc. corp. 85. v. Fowler, '83; pi. 108. r. McDevitt, '83; trusts, 44; '84; wills, 38. Garwood v. N. Y. Central, etc. B.K. Co., 19 Weekly D. 416. Subsequent decision in 2 IV. y. btate Re/.,. 701; '83; waterc. 3 n. ; '86; mj. 4U n. Gasherie v . Apple, '85 ; assign. for b. of c. 44 n.; attach. 9. Gaskin v. Anderson,'83; amend. 3; '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n.; '66; surr. ct. 19 n. v. Meek, '83; amend. 3; '84; statute*, 19 n. Gate's, Matter of, 14 Weekly D. 501. Further proceedings, in 26 Hun, 179; '85; exec. 2n. v. Beecher, '86; lim. of a. 14 n. v. Canfield, 28 Hun, 12; s. c, Gillow. Pr. 81; 15 Week- ly D. 389, and 2 Civ. Pro. R. (McOirly) 255; rev'gJtf. 16; s. c. Id. {Browne) 254; '86; costs, 12. v. MeKee, '83; guaranty, 1, 6, 11 n. 17; principal & s. 2, 5; '85; principal & s. I n. v. Madison County Mut. Ins. Co. '83; ins. 5, 9. v. Preston, '83; former adj. 34, 37, 37 n.; sales, 30; '85; estoppel, 5 n, ; former adj. 28, 40 n. Gatfield v. Hanson, '86; pi. 60. Gauhn v. Mills, '83; oil wells, I. Gantier v. Douglass Mfg. Co., '83; new. tr. 35; '86; con- tracts, 94 ; chattels, 3 n. Gawtry v. Doan, '86; pi. 81; trials, 39 Gay v. Gay, '84; set-off, 7n. ; '85; set-off, 1, 2, '86; atty. 4 c. 28 n. v. Siebold, 3 Civ. Pro. 11. Another decision as it seems, in 97 N. Y. 472. Gaylord v. Knapp, '83; mort. 8; '84; mort. 1, 3. Gaylord Mfg. Co. v. Allen, '85; contracts, 101. Geariy v. Mayor, '86; r. r. co. 29 n. Geary v. Page, '83 ; gift, 2 n. Gedney v. Purdy, 'o3; sec. for costs. 6. Gee v. Chase Mfg. Co., '86; bills of par, 4. Geer v. Archer, '83; guaranty, 5 n. Geery v. Geery, '83; contempt, 14; cred. s. 1, 8, 10; exec. 5; forec. 7, 15; '84; con- < tempt, 11 n. ; cred. s. 4 n. ; pi. 121; '86; surr. ct. 8 n. v. Webster, '83 ; defenses, 2. Geib v. Topping. '83; ins. 107; '84;ref. 11, 12;'65;ref. 12, 12 n.; '86;ref. 26 n. 27. Geismer v. Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Ky. Co., 34 Hun, 50. Bev'd in 102 IV. Y. 563. Gelch v. Barnaby , '83 ; sec. for costs, 12. Gellatly v. Lowery. '83; trials, 56. Geller v. Baer, '85; attach. 29 n. Gelpcke v. Quentell, '84; bills, n. 4 c. 7. Gelston v. Marshall, '83; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. Gemp i'. rratt, '85; juris. 11. Genesee River Nat. Bank v. Mead, '84 ; cred. s. 4 n. ; '86; cred. s. 5; surr. ct. 8 n. Genesee Valley Nat. Bank v. Supervisors, '86; tax. 58, 60 n. Genet v. Beekman, '85; ev. 224 n. v. City of Brooklyn, 94 K Y. 645. Further decision in 99 N. Y. 296; and other proceedings in 1 TV. Y. Mate Rep. 581. v. Davenport, '85; appeal, 15 ; costs, 40. v. Tallmadge, '83; parent 4 c. 8 n. George, Matter of, '86; ex. 4 ad. Ili2. George v. Fish, '86; judgm. 25. v. Grant, 28 Han, 69; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 402; and JV. Y. Daily R- Pr. N. S. 157; '83; parties, 31, 32; '84; parties, 31; '85; husb. & w. 26. Gerard, Matter of, '85 ; ex. 4 ad. 163 n. Geraty v. Beid, '84; const, law, 59 ; election of off'r, 5. Gere v. Clarke, '84; legatees, 2. v. Gundlach, '85; amend. 6; judgm. & decree, 28; '86; attach. 40 n. Geregani v. Wheelwright, '86; sup. pro. U5. Gerlach v. Edelmeyer, '85;negL 9. Germain v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 26 Hun, 604; s. c, 14 ' Weekl-, D. 286. Further de- cision in 30 Hun, 535. German v. Machin, '86; spec, perf. 2. German American Bank v. Mor- J0, Bun Coal Co., '83; sher. ris 14; '84; sher. 3 n. Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Mem- phis, etc. B. K. Co., '86; carriers, 17. Germania Nat. Bk. of New Or- leans i\ Taaks, 31 Hun, 260. Bev'd in 101 N. Y. 442. Germond v. People, '84; sen- tence, 1 n. Gerould v. Wilson, '84; bonds, 3; former adj. 13; undert. 12 n.; '85; bonds, 8; ex. 4 ad. 1-28 n.; undert. 8; '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. Gerry v. Post. '85; ev. 13 n. Gerwig u. Shetteiley, '83; at- tach. 42, v. Sitterly, '84; usury, 10; '85; bills of lading, 26 n.; '85; forec. 15. Getman v. Getman, '83; spec, perf. 4 n. u. Second Nat. Bk. of Os- wego. 89 JV". Y. 136; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 351; affg 12 Id. 557. Getty v. Binsee, '83; guaranty, 12; joint debtor, 5 n. v. Devlin, '84; corp. 7; '85; contracts, 73. Getty i'. Hudson Biver B. E. Co., '84; dam. 34 n. Ghormley v. Dinsmore,51 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 196. Bev'd on re argument in 53 Id. 36. Gibbes SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Glendening 53 Gibbes v. Jenkins, '84; leases, 5. v. Hew York Lite Ins. Co. See Gibbs v. Same. Gibbons v. Bernard, '83 ; appeal, 117. v. Ogden, '83 ; grants, 1 n Gibbs v. Continental Ins. Co., '86; contracts, 26 n. — — v. Queen Ins. Co., '83; ev. 24; service i p. 1, 2; '84; ct. of com. pi. 3 n. ; juries, 8 n.j '85; judgm. & decree, 7 n. ; juris. 2 n. 4 n. ; '86; di- vorce, 24 n. Gibney v. Marchay, '83; ev. 206; '86; ev. 136. Gibson?). Erie BailroadCo., '83; master & a. 19, 20, 28, 30; negl. 58, 88; '84; master & s. 13;. '85; master & s. 9; 26, 34 n. 37, 42 n.; '86; master is. 13, 26 n. 29 n. 30 n. 31; negl. 51 n. o. National Park Bank of N. Y., 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 429. Aff'd in 98 N. J. 87; '86; attach. 43 n. v. Benne, '85; debtor & cred. 4. v. Stetzer, '85; trials, 28. v. Stone, '84; partn. 1 n. v. Tobey, '86; contracts. 86 n. ; '86 ; lien, 7n.;paym 2n. v. Toby, '83 ; guaranty, 12 receipts, 1. Giddinga v. Seward, '83; lega- cies, lii, 33; '86; legacies, 19, Gifford v. Town of White Plains, '«6; offi'r, 15. Gilbert v. Comstock, 85; lim. of a. 29; '86; lim. of a. 31 v. Dickerson, '85; conver sion, 7. v. Knox, '83, wills, 31, 39 n. 45 n. 122; '84; wills, 26 n. 27, 28 n.; '85; wills, 25. v. Marsh, '86; paym. ,4. v. Moody, '83; exec. 25; '86; const, law, 17. v. People, '83; notice, 6. v. Peteler, '86; legacies, 16. v. Pritchard, '86; pi. 165. v. Sage, '86; wit. 47 n. v. Sharp, '84; ev. 235 n. v. Third Avenue B. B. Co., '85; depositions, 6 n. v. Wiman, '85; former adj. 24; '86; dam. 2. Gilbert Elevated E. B. Co., Matter of, '84; dam. 34 n. ; '86; compensation, 9 n. ; const, law, 43 n. ; r. r. co. 57. Gilbert Elevated By. Co. v. An- derson, '83; const, law, 70, 76; r. r. co. 40; '84; const, law, 40. v. Kobbe. '85; const, law, 57. Gilchrist u. Brooklyn A. M. A., 'e3; exceptions, 9. v. Bea, '83; ex. & ad. 243. Gildersleeve v. Board of Educa- tion, '86; com. schools, 3. v. Dixon, '64, mfg. co. 19. v. Landon, '83; ev. 220;; questions of 1 .& f. 1, 6; '84; appeal, 78; chat. mort. 11; wit. 28; '86; chat. mort. 5. Giles' Estate, '83; surr. ct. 23. Giles v. Austin, '83; surr. ct. 35 n. v. Betz, '84; bills of par. 18. v. Comstock; '83; ev. 139 n,; '84;landl. & t. 2. v. De Talleyrand, '84; surr. ct. 17.' v. Halbert, '84; costs, 68. Gill v. Brouwer, '83; ex. & ad. 144, 156; surr. ct. 18; wills, 162, 217; '85; distribution, 2n. '■ v. McNamee, '86; dam. 11. Gillen ?>. Hubbard, 2 Hilt. 203. DistingM (Effect of breach of building contract) in Dingley v. Greene, tkipm. C. Col., 1885, 19 Beporter, 456. Gillespie .v. Brooks, '83; ex. & ad. 63. v. City of Newburgh, '85; munc. corp; 63 n. v. Miller, 5 Johns. Oh. 21. Cited as to wills in 99 2V. Y. 100. v. Torrance, '83; mort. 26. Gillet v. Fairchild, '83; pi. 139. v. Hutchinson, '86; ex. & ad. 56 n. v. Phillips,'85; bills of lad- ing, 20. v. Boberts,'85 ; conversion, 11; election of r. 8 n. v. Stanley, '83; pi. 103. Gillett v. Balcom, 'b6; mort. 11. v. Borden, '83; pi. 36. v. Campbell, '85; new tr. 9. v. Staples, '84; appeal, 30. Gillette v. Bate, '84; trusts, 25 n.; '85; ins. 47. Gillies v. Kreuder, 1 Dem. 349. Further decision in action by same parties, in 33 Hun, 314. v. Lent, '83; husb. &. w. 12. Gillig v. Maass, '83; rec. deeds, 5, 11. Gillingan v. Commercial Fire Ins. Co., '86; ins. 16. Gilligan v. N. Y. & Harlem B. B. Co., '85; pi. 30 n. Gilliland v. Campbell, '85 ; jus- tices' ct. 2. Gillis v. Brown, '85; adv. po'ss. 1 n. v. Space, '83; com. schools, 8. Gillott d. Esterbrook, '85; tradem. 1; '86; tradem. 2 n. Gilman, Matter of, 'S3; wills, 37; '84; wills, 25, 27; '85; wills, 23 n. Gilman v. Byrnes, 10 Civ. Pro. JR. 46. Affd, it seems, but without opinion, in 102 N. Y. 733. v. Gilman, '83; surr. ct. 45; '86; ex. & ad. 77; trusts, 34 n. v. McArdle, 12 Mb. N. C. 414; s. c, 65 How. Pr. 330, and 5 Month. L. Bd. 67. Further decision in 99 N. Y. 451. '8-5; distribution, 2 n. ; susp. of power of a. i4; '86; distribution, 2; gift, 3 n. ; trusts, 1. 8. v. Bedington, '83; accumu- lations, 5 n; remainders, 1; susp. of power of a. 18; trusts, 29; will, 185, 231; '84; accumulation, 2; ad- dend. ; susp. of power of a. fi; '85; susp. of power of a. 6n.; wills, 87 n.;'86; de- vise, 2 n. Ginna v. Second Avenue B.B. Co., '83;negb90;r.r. co.2C; '84; dam. 33 n.; ev. 41 n.; '85; negl. 80. Girvin v. Hickman, '85; bonds, 11. Glacius v. Black, '83; contracts, 89; master & s. 6; '84; con- tract, 28, 85 n. 87; estoppel, 14; '86; contracts, 76. v. Fogel, '83; surr. et. 22a n. ; '81; cred. s. 18 n. ; ex. & ad. 31; '86; ex. &ad. 48. . v. Moldtz, '83; district ct. 10. Glackin v. Zeller,, '85; justices' ct. 2; '86; justices' courts, 1. Gladding v. Follett, '86; ex. & . ad. 17 n. 120 n. Glann, Matter of, '83; surr. ct. 22n.;'85;ex.&ad. 177 n. Glaubensklee v. Hamburgh & Amer. Packet Co.,'83;verif. 6; '85; r. r, co. 37 n. ; verif. 2. Gleadell v. Thomson, '83; car- riers, 24; '84; trials, 21; '85; carriers, 3n. Gleason v. Amsdel, '84; master & e. 6; '86; master & s. 6. v. Moen, '84; countercl. 1 n. v. Smith, 34 Hun, 547 Subsequent decision in 3; Hun, 617. Glen v. Fisher, '86; legacies, 14 n. v. Hope Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 94 n. Glen'& Hall Mfg. Co. v. Hall, '83; countercl. 12; tradem. 16 n. ; '86; countercl. 3; tradem. 3. Glencove Starch Co. v. Gott- hold, '84; attach. 29;' '86; attach. 39 n. Glendening v. Sharp, '85; mas- ter k s. 28. 54 Glenney STIPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Gould Glenney v. Stedwell, '83; depo- sitions, 13; receivers, 6; '84; depositions, 22; '85; depositions, 5, 6 n. ; '86; de- positions, 24. Glentworth v. Luther, '83; mas- ter & s. 3a. Glenville Woolen Co. v. Eipley, '86; sup. pro. 3. Globe Marble Mills Co.u.Quinn, '86; fixtures, 1. Globe Mut. Ins. Co., Matter of, '86; counteicl. 9 n. Globe Mut. Ins. Co. v. Snell, '86; ins. 3. Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Reals, '84; cane, of wr. instr. 1 n. Globe Woolen Co. v. Carhart, '86; attach. 11. Glover v. Holley, '83; ex. & ad. 219; '86; ex. & ad. 17 n. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 66 How. Pr. 77. Aff'd in .' 1 Super. Ot. {J. & £L)1; '85; compensation, 16;'8li; ease- ments,. 6; r. r. co. 30. v. Jfayn, '83; deeds, 29. v. Shields, '83; deeds, 17. Goddard, Matter of, '85; stat- utes, 17 n. Goddard v. Pomeroy, '83; lega- cies, 22. ■ v. Stiles, 90 N. Y. 199; s. c, 15 Weekly I). 536. Fur- ther decision in 1 Northeast. Rep. 402; mem. s. c, 99 N. Y. 640. ■ v. Trenbath, '83; alimony, 5; atty. & c. 57 n. 60; '85; atty. 4 c. 18; sup. pro. 4. Godding v. Porter, '84; ex. & ad. 76. Godfrey v. Moser, '84; appeal, 77, 85, 100, 102; '86; appeal, 64. ■ v. Pell, 49 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 206; s. c, 4 Civ. Pro. R. 448. Another decision in 49 Super. Ct. {J.ank, '83; lim. of a. 33; '84; cane, of wr. instr. 1 n. ; fraud, 5 ; pi. 20; release, 3; '85; cane. ofwr. instr. 3; ins. 72. v. Central Trust Co., '83; pledge, 3 n. v. Chase, '84;-ev. 27 n. v. Conway, '83; ev. 233; '85; ev. 186 n. 193 n. v. Glass, '83; parties, 36; '85; munc. corp. 56 n. ; par- ties, 26. v. Hill, '84; carriers, 4 n. v. Hudson Kiver E. E. Co., '83; compensation, 10; deeds, 22 ; em. dom. 2 ; r. r. co. 8.i; '84; Jam. 34 n.; waterc. 3 n. ; '8i; grants, 1; r. r. co. 50 n. ; waterc 12 n. v. Moore, '86; trials, 57. v. Mortimer, '81; parties, 53; receivers, 9; '85; judicial sale, 8 n. ; motions & o. 1 n. ■ v. Torrance, '84; sup. pro. 1. v. Town of Sterling, '83, munc. corp. 176 n.; '84; munc. corp. 105 n ; '85; munc. corp. .121. Gould SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Green 55 i,. Town of Venice, 85; munc. corp. 125 n. _ _ Goulding v. Davidson, 80; husb.%w. 3n. Goulet v. Asseler, '83; exec. 24; '36; ins. 46 n. Gouraud, Matter of, 28 Han, 560; 8. a, 16 Weekly D. 265. llev'd in 95 N. Y. 256; '85; former adj. 31. Gourley v. Campbell, '84; -wills, 97 n.: '85; costs, 65; '86; costs, 44 n. Gonrney t>. Wersuland,'S3 ; venf . 5 - Gove v. Hammond, '84; appeal, 9. Governeur v. Lynch, '83; v. 4 p. 7. Gracie v. Freeland, '83; appeal, 118. Grady v. Ward, '83; spec. perf. 9, 10. Graff k. Bonnett. Cited (Ap- plication of real prop- erty rales to personalty) in 95 N. Y. Ill; '83; susp. of power of a. 18; trusts, 34; '85; trusts, 30, ii3 n.; '86; sup. pro. 23, 29; trusts, 15 n. - v. Kinney, 37 Hun, 405; aff'g 15 Abb. JV. C. 397; p. c. , I tfou>. Fr. M. S. 59; '86; husb. 4 w. 18. Graham v. Adams, '85; civil death, 1 n. . v. Atlantic Co., '86; pi. 129. v. Bleakie, '85; ex. 4 ad. 176n.;'86;surr. ct. 19 n. v. Dickinson, '85; forec. 10. v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 87 N. Y. 69; s. c.,41^im. R. 349, and \1 Weekly D. 338; aff'g 9 DaZy,341 ; '83; waiver, 2; '85; ins? 55 n. 57. ■ v. First Nat. Bank of Nor folk, '83; tax. 10. v. Fitzgerald, '86; lien, 10. v. Golding, '83; replevin 5. v. James, '83; inj. 38. v. Livingston, '83; ex. 4 ad, 172; wills, 178; '86; wills, 59. v. Luddington, '86; lim. of a. 4. v. Meyer, 99 A". Y. 611; aff g 33 Hun, 489. v. O'Neil, '83 ; principal 4 a. 11. v. Public Administrator, '85; judgm. & decree, 7 n. v. Scripture, .'86; pi. 151 n. v. Van Wyck, '85; dower, II n. Gram v. Caldwell, '83; lim. of a. 44. . v. Prussia, etc. Society, '83; relig. corp. 5; '85; relig. corp. 7 n. v. Seton, '83; ev. 106. Grand Trunk Bailway v. Ed- wards, '85; banking, 13; '86; trusts, 31. Grangiac v. Arden, '83; assign. 7; gift, 4n. 9. Grant v Chester, '83; atty. 4 c. v. City of Brooklyn, '83; dam. 34; '84; ev. 169. v. Johnson, '83; v. 4 p. 11; '84; pi. 12. . Qn v. Morse, '83; appeal, 90; '84; appeal, 86. Graser v. Stellwagen, '83; parti. 19; '86; assign, for b. ol t. 1 n. Giattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 92 N. r. 274; aff'g 28 Hun, 430; s. c, 16 Week- ly D. 50; '83; ins. 51 n.; wit. 22, 26, 27; '84; wit. 3, 4; '85; ben. assoc. 7; ev. 146; ins. 21, 22; wit. 8; '86; ins. 20 - T, ,. Gravi?3 t>. American Exec. Bank, '83, bills, n. 4 c. 56; contract, 17; money paid, 8. v. Berdan. '85; lease, 7 n. v. Friend, '85; ev. 101. v. Merry, '84; lim. of a. Si - . - , v. Mumford, '85; principal 4 s. 6. v. Spier, '84; election of offi'rs, 1; '85; assign. 1. v. Waterman, '82; trusts, 61 n. v. White, '83; lease, 32; '80; ins. 1 n. ; pi. 12. v. Woodbury, '83; assign. 5; '84; set-off, 7 n. Gray, Matter of, 91 JV. Y. 502; s. c, 15 Reporter, 657; mod- ifying 27 Han, 455; '84; va- grants, 1; '85; hab. corp. 5; '66; ex. & ad. 121 n. Gray's Case, '83; commitment, 2. Gray v. Barton, '83; assign. 7; contracts, 12; gift, 8, 8 n. 9; '86; debtor & cred. 11 n. v. Central R.R. Co. of N, J., '85; sales, 24; '86; con- In. cts, 86 n. v. City of Brooklyn, '63; munc. corp. 66, 88, 129 n. ; '84 ; const, law, 53. 1'. Cook, '83; ev. 305; '84; contempt, 4. — : — 0. Crosby, '83; covenants, ' 5. v. Durland, '85; parent &c. 2. t. Fisk, '83; ref. 32 n. 35, 36; '84; appeal, 63. v. Gannon, '86; parties, 4 n. 0. Green, '85; pi. 116. v. Hannah, '83; costs, 42. v. Hook, '83; contracts, 58, 68; '84; contracts. 57. v. Lessington, '84; infants, 3. v. N. V. & Virginia S. S. Co., '85; parties, 9n. v. N. Y. Floating El. Co. Followed (Requisites of mo- tion for new trial) in 4 J buper. a. (J. ; parties, 9 n. 12, 22; pi. 130; '86; corp. 26; forec. 4; par- ties, 9. Great Western Turnpike Co. v. Loomis, '84; trials, 39. Greeley's Will, Matter of, '84 ; taxes, 29 n. Green v. Ames, '85; lim. of a. 30 n. v. Banta, '84; master 4 s. 15 n. v. Bliss, '83; new tr. 28. v. Burke, '86; ofS'r, 9. v. Collins, 86 JV. Y. 246; s. c. , with note on easements, 40 Am. R. 531, and 13 Weekly D. 179, rev'g W Hun, 474; s. c, 10 Weekly D., 89. '83; cove- nants, 8, 25, 25 n. ; ease- ments, 2 ; '86 ; covenants, 3 ; deeds, 12 n.; real prop. 10 n. v. Disbrow, '83; ev. 2R5, 306; lim. of a. 45; '84; lira, of a. 2Gn.;'85;lim. of a. 29, 30 n. ; pi. 18. v. Edick, '83; wit. 38, 92; '84; wit. 15. v. Erie K.B. Co., '85; ex- ceptions, 8 n. v. Green, '83; ex.4 ad. G; '81; ref. 17;infants, 3;ben- assoc. 9 n. ; '85; divorce, 2; estoppel, 4;infants, 2; '86; infants, 2. v. Hart, '83; assign, for b. of c. 22. v. Hudson River U.K. Co., '85; abate. 4 r. 2. v. McArthur, '83; debtor 4 cred. 9. v. Milbank, '84; mort. 16. v. Miller, '83; lease, 28. v. Morse, '83; assign, for b. of c. 22; '85; assign. 6 n. v. N. Y. Central R. B. Co., '84; dam. 31 n. 35 n.; '86; dam. 26 n. 32 n. 40 n. ; inj. 15 n. v. Putnam, '84; sum. pro. 2; '84; parties, 6. 53 Green SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Grow Green — continued v. Rochester Iron Manuf. Co., '86; paym. 3. v. Russell, '85; sales, 40 n. v. Slayter, '86; ered. s. 19 n. ■ v. Stern, '84; attach. 35. v. Telfair, '85; libel, 3 n.; '86; trials, 95. v. U. S. .Dealers' Protective Assoc. & Mercantile Agency, 16 Abb. A. C. 419. Afl'd in 39 Hun, 300. — ■ — v. Van Buskirk, '85; assign. 8 n.; receivers, 7. v. Walkill Nat. B'k, '83; parties, 41. v. Winter, '83; trusts, 52 n. Greenbaum v. lawyer, '86; at- tach. 44; judgm. 30; service 4 p. 5. v. Stein, '85; r. r. co. 63 n. Greene v. Hates, '85; principal & s. 1. v. Greene, '84; ben. assoc. 9n. v. Martine, '83 ; abate. 4 r. 4; '85; abate. 4 r. 15; joinder of a. 9. . v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; rnunc. eorp. 116. v. N. T. Central, etc. R. R. Co., 12^66. N. G. 124; s. c, 65 How. Pi: 154. Further proceeding in 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 333; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. It. (Browne) 427; '85; dam. 44 n.; deed, 25; ±'. r. co. 50 n. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., '83; trusts, 26. — — v. Warnick, '83; assign, for b. of c. 13; '84; estoppel, 2, 10 n. Greenfield v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83, carriers, 29; '84; pi. 38 n. 106. v. People, '83; ev. Ill n.; trial, 107; '85; new tr. 27; trials,25, 119; '86; ev. 2u6n. ; trials, 107 n. Greenhough u. Greenhough,'8G; ex. 4 ad. 51 n. Greenleaf v. Brooklyn, etc. Ry. Co., 37 Hun, 435. Appeal dismissed in 102 N. Y. 96. v. Mumford, '84; attach. 27; '85; cred. s. 2; '86; ex. 4 ad. 133 n. Greenpoint Sugar Co. v. Whitin, '84; corp. 29 n.; mfg. co. 1; '85; mfg. co. 1, 5. Greentree v. Rosenstock, '83; assign. 8; exec. 50; pi. 34; '84; arrest, 8, 18; cause of a 1; exec. 17; '85; attach. 42; '86; arrest,' 7; judgm. 15 n. Green vault v. Davis, '86; cove- nants, 2 n. Greenwood v. Aldridge, '86; partn. 3 n. • v. Spring, '86; brokers, 14. Greer v. Allen, '83; depositions, 17; '85; depositions, 6 n. - v. People's Telephone, etc. Co., 50 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 110. Another decision in action by same parties in Id. 517. '8-i ; serviceR, 5. Gregory v. McArdle, '86; costs, 7. v. Thomas, '83 ; chat. mort. 25 n. ; '86; chat. mort. 4 n. v. Wright, '86; pi. 43. Grey v. Vorhis,'83; niech. 1 6. Gribbon v. Back, '86; attach. 24, 31. v. Preel, '84; city ct. of N. Y. 2; '8o; service 4 p. 7 n. Gridley v. Dole, '83; ev. 139 n. v Gridley, '83; wills, 150. Grier v. City of Lockport, '86; costs, 94, 95. Grierson v. Mason, '83 ; ev. 127 n.; '84; ev. 69;'85;ev. 82. Griff en v. Brown, '86; costs, 7. v. Ford, '83; susp. of power of a. 19. Griffey v. X. Y. Central Ins. Co., 30 Him, 299. Aff'd in 100 A. Y. 417; s. c, 1 Cuntr. Rep. 528. Grffin v.' Banks, '83; ev. 336; '86; marr. 6. v. Colver, '84; dam. 11 n. v. Goff, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. v. Griffin, '84; alimony, 1, 2; divorce, 1; '85; divorce, 2. v. Keith, '83; principal 4 a. 11. v. Long Island R. R. Co. , 101 A. Y. 348; s. c, 9 Civ. Pio. R. 84. Another deci- sion in 102 N. Y. 449. v. Marquardt, '83; assign. for b. of c. 13. v. Mayor, '83; munc. corp. 76 n. ; '84; munc. corp. 57, 61; '85; negl. 66; '86; munc. corp. 33, 34. v. Potter, '84; contracts, 23. Griffingu. Slate, '86; ref. 20 n. Griffith v. Griffith, '84; mort. 14 n. v. Iladley, '83; judicial sale, 5. v. Robert on, '83; guar- anty, 15; parties, 29. v. Wells, '83; contracts, 69. Griffiths v. De Forest, '85; costs, 13; '86; costs, 24 n. — — v. Hardenbergh, '83; sher. 32; '85; parties, i6n. Griggs v. Dyar, '83; adv. poss. 1. v. Griggs, '85; parties, 28. Grimstone v. Carter, '83 ; ins. 43 ; notice, 2 n. Grimwood v. Wilson, '84; un- dert. 12 n ; '85; undert. 8; '86; bonds, 2 n. ; contracts, 22 n. Grinnell v. Cook, '83; lien, 5, 9; '84; lien, 4 n. v. Dalley, Matter of, '85; deeds, 45. Grippen v. N. Y. Central, &o. R.R. Co., '83; negl. 1; trials, 79; '85; r.r.co. 8n. ; trials,66. Grissler v. Stuyvesant, '83 ; costs, 84; '85; costs.. 20. Griswold, Matter of. Cited (Attachment) in 38 Han, 212; '83; attach. 79; sher. 30. Griswold v. Griswold, '83; ex. 4 ad. 125; '85; ex. 4 ad. 9-i n. v. Haven, '84; dam. 14 n. ; principal 4 a. 9 n. ; '85 ; bills of lading, 4 n. v. National Ins. Co., '84; pi. 27; '86; ev. 94. v. N. Y. Ins. Co., '86; ins. 46 n. r. S6dgewick,'83; arrest, 34. v. Sheldon, '84; chat. mort. 11 n. ; '85; chat. mort. 3. v. Slocum, '85; bills, n. 4 c. 17. Groat v. Gile, '84; sales, 3. v. Monk, 94 N. Y. 115; afl'g 26 Hun, 380. v. Rees, '86; ev. 31 n. Grocers' Bank v. Murphy, '83; exchanges. 3 n. ; sup. pro. 13; '84; exchanges, 1; sup. pro. 17. v. Penfield, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 20, 46, 47, 61; '85; rec. deeds, 6; '86; contracts, 17; paym. 4. Grocers' Bank of N. Y. u.Bayaud, '84; sup. pro. 8. v. Fitch, '85; debtor 4 cred. 2n. v. O'Rorke, '84; pi. 44. Groshon v. Lyon, '83 ; defenses, 2; '85; atty. 4 c. 13. Gross v. Bouton, '84; undert. 12 n.; '85; undert. 8. v. Clark, 87 if. Y. 272; s. c, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 464, and 13 Weekly D. 434; aff'g 1 Civ. Pro. R. 17; s. c, 11 Reporter, 583. '86; libel, 9. v. Welwood, *84; ejectment, 3 n.; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. Grosvenor v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 45; '86; par- ties, 28. v. Day. '83; assign, for b. of c. 22. v. N. Y. Central, etc. R. R. Co., '86; carriers, 15 n. Grosz v. Jackson, '86; fixtures, 1. Grote, Estate of. See Rank v. Camp. Grout v. Cooper, '84; bail, 4 n. v. Townsend, '85; deeds, 27 n, ; '86; devise, 2 n. Grover v. Morris. Cited in ap- plying lottery laws in 94 M. Y. 143. '83; const, law, 9; lotteries, 2; '85; justices' ct. 1 n. ; '86; ev. 37 n. v. Wakeman, '83; assign. for b. of c. 22, 49 n.; '84; ev. 188: '85; assign, for b. of c. , 38; fraud, conv. 5 n. Grow v. Garlock, 15 Weekly D. 259. Rev'd, it seems, in 97 K Y. 81; s. c, 11 Abb. Grubb SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Sail 57 N. C. 487. '83; ev. 302; '86; mort. 17;undert. 2 n. Grubb v. Hamilton, '86; ex. 4 ad. 6. Grube, Matter of, '85; muno. carp. 85. Grumau v. Smith, '83; brokers, 7, 7 n. ; dam. 20; '84; brok- ers, 7 n. 11; '85; dam. 6; '86; dam. 23 n. 24 n. Grunberg v. Blumenlahl, '86; appeal, 17. Grymes v. Hone, '83; assign. 7; corp. 10; '85; mistake, 3 n. ; '86; gift, 1. Guardian Mutual Co., Matter of, '83; corp. 79. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kashaw, '83; ev. 56. Guckenheimer v. Angevine,'86; costs, 39. Guenther v. People, '83; costs, 25. Guerlain v. Columbia Ins. Co., '85 ; ins. 39 n. . Guernsey v. Carver, '83; cause of a. 4, 4 ii.; contracts, 34; former adj. 4n. ; '86; former adj. 26 n. 41 n. v. Guernsey, '85; wills, 103 n. v. Miller, '83 ; bankruptcy, 12; nat. b'k. 3; '85; amend'. 7. Guest v. City of Brooklyn, '83; offi'r, 13; '84; cloud on title, 2 n.; '85; equity, 2; '86; cloud on title, 3 n. ; inj. 33 n. Guggerheimer v. Geiszler, '83; usury, 9. Guidet v. Brown, '85; dower, 11 n. v. Mayor, etc. N.Y.,'83; for- mer adj. 12; surr. ct. 35 n. Guild v. Peck, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 141. Guillander v. Howell. '83 ; as- sign, for b. of c. 5; conflict of 1. 2 n.; '84; conflict of 1. 2; '86; assign, for b. of c. 2 n. Guille v. Swan, '83; negl. 2 n.; '84; dam. 13; '85; negl. 84; '86; licenses, 7 n. Guilleaume v. Howe, 94 If. Y. 368; aff g 48 Hujxsr. Ut. {J. & S.) 169; s. c,66 How. Pr. 175; '84; atty. 4 c. 6 n. Guinivan v. Carroll, '84; ref. 33. Guion v. Underbill, '86; ex. 4 ad. 41. Guiterman v. Liverpool, ete Co., '83; ev. 117, trials, 123; '84; wit. 56; '86; ev. 68. Gulerette v. McKinley, 84; ev 55. Gulickv. Gulick, '84; service 4 p.- 21;'85;ex. 4 ad. 70. Gundlach v. Germania Mech. Assn. F., '84; ben. assoc. 17 n. 20. Gunning v. Carman, '83; ex. 4 ad. 125. Gurney v. Atlantic & Gt. West. E. E. Co., '83; mfg. co. 21; '84; services, 6; '85; contracts, 101; sales, 44; '86; contracts, 94. Gurnsey v. Lovell, '83; arrest, 34. Gustine v. Stoddard, '84; atty. & c. 11 n. Guston v. People, *85; ev. 305 n. ; indict. 18. Gutbrecht v. Prosfcect Park, etc. R.R. Co.) '84; justices' ct. 15; '86; justices' ct. 15 n. Gu ten ess u. Gutchess, '85; trials, 44. Guy v. Mead, '83; ev. 238; '84; ev. 140; '86; ev. 110, 174; 179. Guyon v. Lewis* '84; principal 4 a. 11 n. Gyre v. Culver, '86; husb. 4 w. 3. H. H- — , An Attorney, Matter of. See Matter of Hahn. _ v. Hilmeyer, 15 Weekly D. 323. Further decision in 41 Sm, 390. Haas v. O'Brien, '83; assign, for b. of c. 9, 40. Hackett v. Connett, '84; set-off, 7 n. ; '86; legatees, 3 n. Hackford v. N. Y. Central, ete. E. E. Co., '85; pi. 144; ques- tions of 1. 4 f. 10. Hadden v. Spader, '86; cred. s. 19 n. Haddock v. Grinnell, '86; partn. 43. Haddow v. Lundy, '83; assign, for b. of c. 29; '85; trusts, 22. Hadencamp v. Second Ave. E. E. Co., '83; r. r. co. 26. Hadley v. Chapin, '86; ex. 4 ad 84 n. — j v. Mayor, ete. of Albany, '86; munc. corp. 7 n. Hadsall v. Scntt, '83; wit. 52- '86; wit. 37 n. Hagadorn v. Connecticut Mut Ins. Co., '86; trials, 111. v. Eaux, '83; juris. 2; stat- utes, 19 n. ; '84; statutes, 12- '85; parties, 28; r. r. co. 24' 25 n. Hagan v. Domestic S. M. Co '83; contracts, 74. Hagenlooher v. Coney Island etc. E. E. Co. , '86 ; ev. 1U3 n' Hagenmayer, Matter of, '85; Busp. of power of a. 14. Hagerty v. Andrews, '86; pi 85 Haggart V.Morgan, '83;undert.' 13; 85, attach. 8; judgm 4 decree, 7n.; '86; contracts, '26 n. Haggerty v. Brooklyn City, etc E. E. Co., '84: ev. 56 v. Granger, '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. v. People. See 30 Moak &ig. 513 n. '86; hab. corp. In. v. Simpson, '83; debtor 4 Hahn, Matter of, 16 Weekly 1). 357. Affd as Matter of H , in 93 if. r. 381. Pre- vious decisions in 87 M. Y. 521; s. c, 14 Wei-kli/D. 259; and 63 How. Pr. 151. See other proceedings in 11 Abb. N. C. 423. Haight v. Brisbin, 16 Weekly D. 187. Affd in 96 N. Y. 132. v. , 1 Sow. Pr. A. it. 189; s. c, 7 Civ. Pro. B. 152. Aff'd in 36 Sun, 579; and the latter rev'd in 100 N. Y: 219; s. c, 1 Cerur. Rep. 28U; and 2 Mist. Bep. 644; 'SO; ex. & ad. 17 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 129. v. Child, '86; spec. perf. 6. v. Haight, '86; infants 4 n. v. Hayt, '85; abate. & r. 2; assign. 1 ; lim. of a. 26. v. Holcomb, '86; atty. 4 c. 20. v. Holly, '85; appearance, 2. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 32 Sun, 153. Affd in 99 A. Y. 28u; '86; munc. corp. 81 n. v. N. Y. Elevated E. E. Co., '83; const, law, 35 n. v. Suhler, '84; ev. 67. Haines v. Herrick, '84; pi. 38 n. v. Hollister, '83; pi. 38; '86; partn. 27, 29. v. Jeroloman, '85; exec. 23; '86; exec. 14 n. v. Judges of Westchester,- '86; certiorari, 12. v. Meyer, '85; ex. 4 ad. 61. Hait v. Benson, '83; parties, 36. Hale v. Clausen, '85; judicial sale, 9; '86; em. dom. 9 n. v. Omaha National Bank, '83; lien, 3; pi. 38,41; '84; lien, 3; '86; assign. 8; ins. 46 n. ; pi. 40. v. Eogers, '83; depositions, 23; disc. 4insp. 3. v. Smith, '84; ev. 43 n • negl. 43; '85; ev. 44; '86; negl. 124. ti. Stawart, '85; fraud, coriv. 1 n. ; '86; debtor 4 cred. 12; fraud, conv. 9. v. Sweet, '86; city ct. of N Y. 2; exec. 4. v. Swinburne, 17 Abb. N. G. 381; s. c, 3 Sow. Pr. j\. S. 472. Previous proceedl ings in 66 Sow. Pr. 38? Haley v. Connell, '83; courts of sess. 2. ~ "lEarle, '86; negl. Ill n . Hall, Matter of, '83; ex. 4 ad b fe *S -ign. for Hall? Irn^'ev^. u. 01 c. ii n. 1 Vt Bennetti 4g Sa ^ ^ 58 Hall SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Hancox Hale — co iinued, (J. & S.) 302. Further de- cision in 50 Id. 496. v. Brooks, 89 N. Y. 33; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 198; 14 Weekly!). 312; rev'g as to costs and dism'g resi- due of appeal from 25 Hun, f>77; '83; attach. 59; '64; at- tach. 35; '86; attach. 39 n. v. Bruen, '83; surr. ct. 22 n. v. Campbell, '84; ex. & ad. 120. : v. Ditson, '86; chat. mort. 2 n. v. Edmonds, '85; costs, 44, 51 n. ; '86; costs, 89. v. Emmons, '84; motions 4 o. 19. v. Gird, '84; atty. 4 c. 3. ■ L — v. Hall, '83; ex. 4 ad. 90, 145, 195; trusts, 71, 74, 75 n. 76, 77; '84; ex. sad. 120; trusts, 33 n. 35; '85; citi- zens, i n. ; defin. 34; ex. 4 ad. 155, 156; wills, 44; '86; aliens, 3; ex. 4 ad. 8. v. Hodskins, '84; cost, 16. v. Lauderdale, '83; muse. corp. 63; '86; principal 4 a. 18. v. McKechnie, '85; justices' ct. 1 n. v. McMahon, '85; sup. pro. 35. v. Merrill, '83; debtor 4 cred.'ll. v. Munger, '84; service 4 p. 14 n. v. Naylor, '8i; ev. 198; pi. 136. v. Nelson, '86; parties, 21. v. Xewcomb, '84; ev. 153. v. Perkins, '85; actions, 3. v. Bichardson, 89 N. Y. 636; afi'g, it seems, 22 Hun, 444, but without opinion. '84; wit. 5; '85; wit. 18. v. Bobinspn, '84; replevin, 4n.; '85; sales, 46 n. v. Sampson, '83; exec. 24, 26; '84; exec. 4; pi. 59; '85; ev. 221 n.jlien, 2 n. — — v. Sheehan, '84; mech. 1. 7. v. Sigel, '84; fish 4 fisher- ies, 1. v. Southmayd, '86; use 4 o. 1. v. Stryker, '83; assign, for * b. of c. 6; sher. 29; 'so; for- mer adj. 5, 3U; '86; attach. 44 n. ; former adj. 13 n. v. Supervisors of Greene Co. See People ex rel. Hall v. Supervisors of Greene. — - v. Templeton, '85; judgm. 4 decree, 4. v. Thomas, '83; contempt, 11 n. v. Thompson, '83; wills, 147. v. U. R. Eeflector Co., 30 Hun, 375. Other proceed- ings in 31 Id. 609; 34 Id. 467; 21 Werldy D. 37; 5 Month. X. Bui. 1 ; and 4 Civ. Pro. B. 148; s. o , 66 How. Pr. 31. '84; attach. 45 motions 4 o. 23; pi. 108 n. '85; const, law, 31 ; motions 4 o. 1 n. v. Wilson, '83; usury, 16. Hallahan v. Herbert, '83; oil wells, 1, Hallenbeck v. Donnell, '84; re- ceivers, 12. Halle t v. Halle tt, '83; ex. 4 ad. 165; '84; wills, 49; '85; par- ties, 43. v. Hare, '83; surr. ct. 27; '84; surr. ct. 23. v. Thompson, '85; trusts, 33 n. v. Wylie, '85; lease, 7 n. Halliday v. Carman, '86; partn. 16. v. Hart, '83 ; principal 4 s. 13; '85; contracts, 3. Hallo ck v Dominy, '84; mal. pros. 1. v. Losee, '85; lim. of a. 30 n. v. Miller, '84; ev. 167 n. v. Scheyer, '86; inj. 16. Halsey, Matter of, 93 N. Y. 48; affg 16 Weekly D. 437. - v. , 13 466. N. C. 353; s. c. as Hoes v. Halsey, 2 Dem. 577. v. McCormick, '83; bound- aries, 1 n. ; '84; deeds, 7 n. ; '85; accretion, 1, 3 n.; '86; defin. 1; real prop. 1. v. Beed,, '86; contracts, 7 n. ; deeda, 30 n. v. SInsebaugh, '85; wit. 2 n.; '86; ev. 174; wit. 53. v. Van Amringe, '83; ex. e ad. 211; appeal, new tr., addenda; '84; appeal, 126; assign, forb. of c. 71, 77. Halstead v. Halstead, '84; par- tition, 6; '85; former adj. 40 n.; '86; ten. in com. 6n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. '85; atty. & c. 5 n. v. Nelson, '85; slander, 6. v. Schmelzel, '86; parties, 18 n. Hdlterline v. Bice, '83; sales, 24. Hamu. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 70 JV. Y. 459. Cited in Two- good v. The Same, 11 Day, 168. '83; munc. corp. 47, 70; '84; mech. 1. 3; munc. corp. 14; '86; munc. corp. 51 n. 54. v. Van Orden, '83; will?, 184; '84; trials, 26; '80; sale*, 7 n. ; wills, 87 n. Hamburger v. Hodman, '86; lien, 7 n. HamersLey's Estate, 15 Abb. A'. C. 187; s. c. as Mason v. Williams, 3 Dem. 285. See . Jones r.Hainersley. Anoth- er decision in A. Y. Daily Beg., Jan. 8, 1886. Hamersley v. Lambert, '84; partn. 15 n. Ham ill v. Gillespie, '85; lien, 2n. Hamilton t«. Butler, '83; costs, 38; '86; costs, 27. v. Eno, '83; pi. 175; trials, 60; '86; libel; 11 n. v. Ganyard, '85; sales, 22 n. -v. Lomax, '84; infants, 8. v. McPherson, '83; dam. 9, 19; sales, 10; '84; dam. 3; contracts, 101. v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., 51 N. Y. 100. Cited - (Reference) in 36 Hun, 441. '83; r r. co 3; trials, 43; '8±; ev 213 n.; '86; pi. 81. v. Third Ave. R. B. Co., '83; dam. 17; trials, 62; '85; trials,"78 n. ; '86; dam. 24 n. v. Van Bensselaer, '83; guaranty, 8, paym. 6; '84; int. 7 n. — v. Wilson, '83; covenants, 7. v. Wright, '83; appear. 1; atty. 4 c. 2; ejectment, 6; parties, 8; '84; parties, 20. Hamilton & Deansville Plank Boad Co. v. Bice, '83; mfg. co. 9. Hamlin v. Osgood, '83; wills, 194, 230. v. Sears, '85; amend. 7; '86; ins. 67. Hammer v. Barnes, '86; inj.. 27. Hammett v. Linneman, '83; sales, 23; '86; paym. 2 n. Hammon v. Huntley, '86; ev. 140 n. Hammond r. Earle, '83; pi. 47; '84; pi. 6,38 n.; '85; pi. 47, 52; '86; pi. 5, 51. v. Fuller, '83; judgm. 4 de- cree, 15. v. Hopping, '83; usury, 26. v. Hudson Biver Iron & Machine Co., 'So; joinder of a. 1 n. ; parties, 43. v. Morgan, 51 Super. Ct. (J. &S) 4M. Eev'd in 101 N. Y. 179; s.o., 3 ifuto. Pr. K 8. 438; '86; trials, 3. v. Pennock, '83; dower, 8; .'85; ins. 72; '86;.partn. 19. v. Varian, '86; witn. 1. Hance v. Cayuga, etc. it. B. Co., '65; r. r. Co. 11 n. Hancock, Matter of, 91 N. Y. 2S4; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 301; rev'g 27 Him, 78'; s. c, lo Weticly D. 205. Other de- cision in Id. 324; s. c, 27 Hun, 575. Hancock v. Band, 94 JV. Y. 1; affi'g 17 Hu.ii, 279. '8o ; inn*. In. — v. Sears, 93 N. Y. 79; rev'g 29 Hun, 96. '8o; sup. pro. 30. Hancox v. Meeker, '84; ex. 4 ad. 14; '85; trusts, 45, 46; '66; ex. 4 ad. 113 n. — v. Wall, '84; 'ex. 4 ad. 42; '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. Hand SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Harrison 59 land v. Atlantic Nat. Bank, '85; parties, 9 n. v. Ballou, '83; const, law, 32; '85; const, law, 19. v. Burrows', '86; appeal, 99. t!. Kennedy, '83; corp. 14; '86; deeds, 29 n. landley v. Quick, '84; service & p. 14 n. landy t>. Chatfield, '86; pi. 18 n. v. Draper, 89 N. Y. 334; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 473; rev'g 23 .Htm, 256; B.o., 11 Weekly D. 256. Hanil v. Baare, '83; costs, 92. ttanford v. McNair, '86; partn. 9n. Hangen v. Hachmeister, 49 Huper. 01. (J.&S.) 34; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 552. Further decision in 53 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 532. Hankinsv. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '84; statutes, 5, 6. Hanna v. Curtis, '84; inj. 13; ev. 105a. v. Dexter, '83; costs, 58, 98. Hannahs v. Hannahs, '84; ex. ' 4 ad. 45. Hannan v. Osborn, '86 ; ten. in com. 3. Hannay v. Pell, '86; wit. 16. Hannon v. Agnew, 1 City CI. Supp. 64, with decisions in Cam. PI. and Ct. of App.; latter also in 96 if. Y. 439. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Tom- linson, '83; ev. 305; forec. 32. Happy v. Mosher, '85; ex. 4 ad. 170. Harbeck v. Harbeck, 4 Month. L. Bui. 43. Affd in 18 Weekly D. 525, and the lat- ter affd in 102 if. Y. 714. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '86; const, law, 1 n. v. Vanderbilt, '83; atty. 4 c. 21; contracts, 15; exec. 6; mort. 34, 56; '86; subr. 3n. Harbinson v. Von Volkenburgh, '83; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. Hard v. Shipman, '84; juris. 1 n. Harden v. Palmer, '85; lim. of a. 28 n. Hardenburgh v. Crary,'85; trials, 8n. Hardin v. Kretsinger, '85; con- tracts, 86 n. Harding v. Harding, '83; di- vorce, 3 n; '86; divorce, 7. v. Tifft, '84; app. of paym. Hardmannu. Bowen, '84; assign, for b. of c. 5; '85; assign, forb. of c. 11; '86; asssigi. for b. of c. 3 n. 6, 7 n. Hardt v. Schulting, '86; ev. 48a n. ; new tr. 21 n.; set- off, 6. lardy v. Ames, '86; ex. 4 ad. 75. v. City of Brooklyn, '83; munc. corp. 69 n.; '84; munc. corp. 77; '86; ev. 262; munc. corp. 50. Hargeru. McCullough, '86; mfg. co. 2. „, Worrall, '86; bills, n. & c. 12. Hargous v. Ablon, '85; sales, 15. Harker v. Anderson, '83; pi. 108. Harland v. Lilienthal, '86; serv- ices, 4. Harley v. Eleventh Ward Bk., '83; banking, 8; '84; ev. 96 n. ; '86; acc't st. 5. Harlinger v. N. Y. Central, etc. B. H. Co., '83; ev. 293; '85; dam. 37 n. Harman v. Brotherson, '84; false impris. 1. Harmony v. Bingham, '83 ; money paid, 11 n., 12; '84; pi. 160. Harnett r. Garvey, '83; wit. 96. Harp v. Osgood, '86; bail, 3 n. Harpell v. Curtis, '83; negl. 60. Harpending v. Arnot, 16 Weekly D. 392. Affd in 19 Id. 418. v. Shoemaker, '85; ev. 58. Harper v. Albany Mut.- Ins. Co., '83; contracts, 18; '85; ins. 39 n. ; '86; ins. 56 n. — - v. Faii-ley, '83; lim. of a. 44, 47, 48, 49. v. Harper, '83; divorce, 3 n. v. N. Y. City Ins. Co. '85; ins. 39 n. Harring v. Coles, '86; ex. 4 ad. 96 n. Harrington v. Bigelow, '83; new tr. 25. v. Erie County Savings Bk. , 16 Weekly B. 294. Affd in 101 JV. r257. v. Keteltas, 92 JV. Y. 40; s. c, 16 WteklyD. 494, and A'. Y. Daily Reg., Apr. 13, 1883; aff'g irf. Oct. 6, 1882; '84; ex. & ad. adden. 48 a. v. People, '84; dis-charge, On.; '85; sup. pro. 13. v. Snyder, '86; chattels, 3 n. i>. Trustees of Kochester, '86; r. r. co. 33; Burr. ct. 1 n. Hariott v. New Jersey It. K. Co., '84; ct. of com. pi. 3 n. ; '84; juris. 8 n. Harris v. Am. Bapt. Home Miss. Soc , '85; wills, 132 n. v. American Bible Society, '83; wills, 29 n.; '84; wills, v. Brown, 29 Sim, 477. Affd in 93 N. Y. 39u. v. Burdett, '83; appeal, 168; .city ct. of N. Y. 9; '84; appeal, 66; negl. 48 n. 50; '85; appeal, 130. y. Clark, '83; accumula- tions, In. 5 n. ; assign. 5, 7; gift, 13 n. ; gift, addend. ; 'e4; appeal, 126; wills, 97; '85; bills of lading, 24; '86; deeds, 23; wills, 59. v. Durkee, '84; affid. 3 n. ; '85; affid. 2 n. 3; '86; affid 2,4. — — v. Ely, '83; surr. ct. 22 n.; 10. 5; ex. 4 ad. 98; surr. ct. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of U. S., '83; sales, 37. v. Fly, '83; legacies, 22, 23; '86; legacies, 12 n. v. Hammond, '84; counter- cl. 1 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 116 n - v. Hanover Nat. Bk., 83; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. v. Harris, '83; wills, 9o; '84; former adj. 30; wills, 65; '85; former adj. 40 n. v. Hiscofifc, 91 TV. Y. 340; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 300; rev'g, 14 Id. 219. v. Jex, '83; chat. mort. 2; mort. 52. v. Moody, '85; dam. 6 n. v. Palmer, '83; set-off, 6; '86; appeal, 50. v. Panama B. E. Co., '85; ev. 341. v. People, 59 if. Y. 599. Cited in Cregier v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y„ 11 Daly, 175. '83; const, law, 59 n. 64 n. ; '84; const, law, 34 n. ; '86; const, law, 28 n. v. Perry, 89 K Y. 308; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 41; rev'g 23 jHun, 244. v. Schultz, '83; conversion, 4. v. Slaght, '83; wills, 29 n. — — v. Super's of Niagara Co., '85; const, law, 47; '86; const, law, 27 n. v. Taylor, 20 Weekly D. 379. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opinion, in 97 if. Y. 647. v. Thompson, '83; munc. corp. 104; '84; corp. 25. v. Troup, '84; paym. 4. v. Tumbridge, '83; amend. 32; '85; ret 10; '86; amend. On. v. Waite, '86 ; new tr. 22 n. v. White, '83; ev. 21; '£4; contracts, 64 n. ; judgm. 4 decree, 15; '85; betting 4 g. l;pl. 137 n. «. Whimt-y, '83; case, 6. Harrison v. Brooklyn, Bath & C. I. B. B. Co., 10 N. Y. 621; s. c, 1 Ceiiir. J?.p^512; and 2 East. Rrp. 66"i ; affg mere mem. 29 Han, 674. Previous decision in 15 ■Weekly D. 362. v. Clark, '84; false impris. 1; '85; former adj. 47; surr. ct. 34. ■ v. Close, '85; principal t s. 9 n. v. Gibbons, '85; confess. of judgm. 1. v. Harrison, '83; susp. of power of a. 22; trusts, 35; '84; susp. of power of a. 7; '85; susp. of power of a. 6 n. ; wills, 120. 60 Harrison SUPPLEMENTABY TABLE. HawUy v. McMahon, '84; ex. 4 ad. 161 n. v. N. Y. Elevated B. B. Co., 89 N. Y. 628; off 'g 24 Sun, 184; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 552 ; '83 ; disc. 4 insp. 9. v. Peck, '85; dower, 4. v. Simons, '85; receivers, 22 n. Harrold v. N. Y. Elevated K. K. Co., '84; depositions, 29 n. Harsha v. Beid, '86; covenants, 4 b. Hart v. Britton, '86; covenants, „ 6. v. City of Brooklyn, '86; ev. 7. v. Cleis, '85; pi. 143. v. Floating Dry Dock Co., '84; master 4 s. 13; '86; master 4 s. 38. v. Hoffman, '86; brokers, 4n. v. Hudson River Bridge Co., '83; husb. 4 w. 18; negl. 9, 58; questions of 1. 4 f. 13, 14; '84; ev. 43 n. ; landl. & t. 5 n. ; negl. 38, 43, 44 n. 54; questions of 1. 4 f. 5 n. ; '85; deceit, 1; ev. 46; lien, 5; munc. corp. 56 n. ; negl. Sin. ; questions of 1. 4 f. 10; trials, 52; '86; negl. 84, 90. v. Lyon, 90 K T. 663; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 462; aft'g 12 Id. 258. ! 85; covenants, 11 n. ; '86; party-walls, 2n. v. Mayor, etc. of Albany, '83; munc. corp. 46 n. 47 n.;'86;inj. 39. v. Bensselaer & Saratoga B. B. Co., '83; carriers, 6 n. 22 n.; '86; carriers, 15a. v. Seixas, '83; ev. 28. v. Ten Eyck, '86; chat. retort. 2 n. v. Vose, '85; ev. 27 n. v. Wandle, '85; forec. 6. v. Wheeler, '85; mech. 1. 2. v. Wright, '83; sales, 11 n. ; '86; sales, 14 n. Hartfield v. Boper, '83 ; negl. 85, 86 n. ; '85; negl. 2; '86; negl. 119 n. 122, 128 n. Hartford Life, etc. Ins. Co., Matter of. See People ex rel. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Fairman. Hartley v. Harrison, '83; forec. 13 n. ; '84; deeds, 26 n. v. James, '83; spec. perf. 8; '85; spec. perf. 12; '86; spec. perf. 8 n. v. Tatham, '83; deeds, 31. Hartnett v. Wandell, '83; surr. ct. 5; '84; tax., 29; forec. 1. v. Harvey, '83; inj. 17; '85; relig. corp. 7 n. Hartung v. People, '83; judgm. 6 decree, 3; statutes, 15 n. ; '84; appeal, 34; '85; const, law, 3 n. ; new tr. 33; sen- tence, 5. Haitwell v. Bissel, '84; cred. s. In. v. McMaster, '84; surr. ct. 39; '85; surr. ct. 27; '86; surr. ct. 11 n. v. Boot, '83; ev. 33; '84; ev. 18 n. Harty v. Central B. B. Co. of N. J., '86; r. r. co. 14 n. Harvey, Matter of, '83; ex. 4 ad. 69. Harvey v. Cherry, '85; ins. 47. Harway v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '84 ; countercl. 5. Harwood v. Keech, '83; pi. 184; '85; ev. 20 n. ; slander, 6. v. Kirby, '86 ; ten. in com. 6 n. Hasbrook i>. Paddock, '83; guar- anty, 1. Hasbrouck v. Bunco, '86 ; abate. 4 r. 1. v. Childs, '84; partn. 7. v. Lounsbury,'83; sales, 14. v. Shuster, '83; pi. 67. v. Tappen, '83; sales, 1. Haskin v. Teller, '83; legacies, 37 n. ; legatees, 1 ; surr. ct. 22 n ; '86; ex. &ad. 113 n. Haskins, Matter of, '83; atty. 4 c. 10 n. 37. Haskins v. People, '86;' indict. 16. Hassan v. City of Eochester,'85; munc. corp. 99 n. Ill n. ; '86 ; munc. corp. 81 n. Hastings v. Drew, '85; lira, of a. 33. v. Lusk, '86; libel, 6, 9. v. McKinley, '85 ; abate. & r. 14 n. ; parties, 34. v. Palmer, '84; wills, 5i. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 73 JV. Y. 141. Cited in 99 K Y. 41. '83; ins. 45. Haswell v. Mayor,, etc. of N. Y. , 9 Daly, 1. Aff'd in 81 N. Y. 255. Hatch, Matter of, '83; munc. corp. 129 n.; '86; costs, 9. Hatch v. American Union Teleg. Co., '83;teleg. 4. v. Bassett, '85; wills, 66 n. v. Benton, '84; countercl. 1 n. v. Central Nat. Bank, '83; abate. 4 r. 7; amend. 32; '86; amend. 2 n., 15; judgm. 35; new tr. 21 n. v. City of Buffalo,'86; cloud on title, 4 n. ■ v. Elkins, '85; ev. 115. v. Mann, '86; contracts, 60. ■ t>. Mayor, etc. of N. Y , '83; munc. corp. 126; '84; deeds, 10: '85; munc. corp. 97. v. Peugnet, '85; trials, 87. v. Pryor, '86; trials, 43. Hatfield v. Lasher. Cited in 52 Super. Ct. (J. ; lien, 2 n. v. Howell, '85; mfg. co. 16; '86; exec. 6. v. Johnson, '83; arrest, 16; • '84; arrest, 1; '85; arrest, 3; bills of lading, 20. v. Payne, '85; deeds, 7; '86; gift, 1 ; lease, 23 n. v. Power, '84; deeds, 6 n.; '86; deeds, 12 n. 14. v. Town of Cincinnatus, '83; parties, 37; '85; forec. 24 n.; parties, 28; '86; mon- ey paid, 17. v. Town of Homer, '83; parties, 36. Hatnornu Ely, '83; carriers, 12, 13. Hathorne v. Hall, '85; arrest, 4. v. Hodges, '84; pi. 136. Haths v. Hatha, 18 Weekly D. 544. Cited in 33 San, 414. Hat Sweat Manuf. Co. v. Bein- oehl, 40 Bun, 47 Further decision in 102 N. Y. 167. Hauck v. Craighead, '84; joint debtors, 3. Hauenstein v. EulL '85 ; ten', in com. 3; '86; guardian" 4 w. 7. Hauptman v. Catlin, '83 ; wit. 11 ; '86; mech. 1. 6 n. Hauselt v. Yilmar, '85; assign. for b. of c. 37 ; fraud, conv. 7; "86; costs, 18 n.; ev. 48a, n.; surr. ct. 29. Hauteman v. Gray, '84; pi. 43. Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, '84; costs. 51; '85; contracts, 59; '86; costs, 35. Havens v. Havens, '85; defin. 27; wills, 97. v. Huntington, '83; pi. 117. v. Hussey, 86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. v. Patterson, '85; contracts, 99. v. Sherman, '85; ex 4 ad. , 171. v. Willis, 17 Weekly D. 372. Affd in 100 N. Y. 482; s. c, 3 Sis'. Sep. 125; s. c, 3 N.hihensl. Rep. 313. Haviland v. Chace, '86; part. 40 n. ; pi. 159. v. Haviland, '85; bills of lading, 17 n. v. White, '83; certiorari, 7. Hawk v. Thorn, '84; joinder of a. 4. Hawker v. People, '83; indict. 11; trials, 102; '85; trials, 99; '86; indict. 8; trials, 120, 121. Hawkins v. Hoffman, '84; con- version, 1 n. v. Pemberton, '83; con- tracts, 111; "sales, £0; '86; chattels, 3. n. ; sales, 28. Hawks v. Munger. '85; pi. 58 n. Hawley, Matter of, 36 Hun, 258. BeVd inlOOiV; Y. 206; s. c, Centr. Hep. 287; and 2 Mst. Bep. 650; 'ati; surr. ct. 21. Haivley SUPPLEMENTAKY TAELE. Heerittance 61 ^ — v. Bennett, '85; contempt, 15. ■ v. Bradford, '84; dower, 2n.; '85;subr. 3 n. v. Cramer, '83; atty. 4 e. 36; lim. of a. 6; '85; trusts, 43. v. Davis, '85; costs, 14. v. Foote, '83 ; ace. 4 sat. 1 n. v. James, 16 Wend. 62. Restated (Suspension for- bidden) in Hobson v. Hale, 95 N. Y. 611. '83; accumu- lations, 1 n. 3 ; remainders, 2; susp. of power of a. 2; '85; susp. of power of a. 3, 6 n.; '86; accumulations, n. ; dower, 11 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 58 n. ; wills, 59. — ■- v. Keeler, '64 ; waiver, 1. - — v. MortoD, '84; contracts, 40; '86; legacies, 10. v. Northern Central B. E. Co., '84; master 4 s. 13; '85; questions of 1. if. 11; '86; master 4 s. 14, 19 n. 23, 26 n. Haxtun v. Bishop, '84; bills, n. & c. 15 n. ; corp. 29 n. v. Corse, '63; accumula- tions, 5 n. ; susp. of power of a. 18; '84; accumulations, addend. Hay v. Cohoes Co., '83; negl. 34; '84; dam. 34 n.; '86; nuis. 2. v. Star Fire Ins. Co., '83; appeal, 4; ins. 21; '84; re- formation of inst. 2; '85; ins. 30 n. Hay croft v. Lake Shore & Mich. Southern B. E. Co., '85; negl. 73; '86; infants, In.. Hayden v. Bucklin, '83; defin. 106; munc. corp. 10. v. Florence Sewing Machine Co., '84; landl. 4 t. 4. Haydook v. Coope, '85; assign, for b. of c. 20. Hayes v. Ball. Cited (Import of alleged slanderous words for jury) in 39 Hun, 15. v. Bement, '85; assign, for b. of c. 37. v. Bush & Denslow Mfg. Co., 19 Weekly I). 436. Bev'd in 102 N. Y. 648. Subse- quent decision in 41 Hun, 407. v. Davidson, 98 JV. Y. 19; s. c. , 1 How. Pr. N. S. 310, and 7 Civ. Fro. R. 46; rev'g 34 Sun, 243; s. c, 6 Civ. Pro. R. 377. Previous de- cision in Id. 330; s. c, 15 Abb. m C. 85, and 33 Hun, 446. v. Forty-second St., etc. E. E. Co., 14 Weekly D. 28. Bev'd in 97 N. Y. 259. v. Heyer, '85; assign, for b. of c. 37; former adj. 11. • v. O'Eeilly, '86; costs, 7. v. Fhelan, '83; civil dam- I age act, 2; '85; abate. 4 r. 2n. v. Keese, '85; former adj. 40 n. v. Second Ave. B. B. Co. , '85; costs, 1. v. Symonds, '85; poor, 3. v. Thompson, '85; trials, 8 n. v. Ward, '83; forec. 32; principalis. 19; '84; prin- cipal is. 9; '85; assign, for b. of c. 28 n. ; "86; in]. 21 n. Hayner v. American Popular Life Ins. Co. Cited (What must be shown to en- title one to equitable relief), in 49 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 284. v. James, '86; depositions, 17; '85 ; statutes, 17 n. Haynes, Ex parte, '8 J; exec. 14. Haynes v. Brooks, '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. v. Hunt, '84; leases, 11. v. Mosher, '83 ; costs, §2. v. Budd, 30 Hun, 237. Bev'd in 102 JV. Y. 372; '85; duress, 1, n. Hays v. Berryman, '8G; judgm. 25. v. Hathorn, '83; assign. 11; parties, 44 ; '84 ; ev. 234 n. ; pi. 1U5; '85; parties, 34; pi. 105 n.; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 17. v. Hibbard, '85; advance- ment, 2. v. Miller, W; ev. 110; '85; ev. £,4; '86; lease, 23 n. v. People, '84; assault & b. .In.; '86; assault lb. 3, 3n. v. Biddle, '86; conversion, 14 n. v. Thomas, '85; receivers, 22 n. Hayward v. Hood, '86; inj. 24. v. Place, 4 Dem. 487; s. c, as Estate of Place, 9 Civ. Pro. R. 435. Haywood v. Judson, '86; parti- tion, 2 n. v. Miller, '85; com. sch. 6. v. Nooney, '85; judgm. & decree, 2. Hazard v. Caswell, 93 If. Y. 259; rev'g 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 559. '86; inj. 34 n. v. Fiske, '85; factors, 1. v. Hefford, '86; undue infl. v. Wilson, '84; stay of pro. 4. Hazewellti. Coursen, '85; trials, 79. ■ Hazlett v. Gill, '83; atty. 4 c. 33 n. Heacock v. Sherman, 14 Wend. 59. Followed (Admission of judgment against corpo- ration as evidence against trustees) in Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S. 452; s. c, 19 Re- porter, 420; '83; munc. corp. Head v. Smith, '85; r. r. co. 63 n. Heady's Will. '83; wills, 34, 44. Healey v. Dudley, '81; atty. 4 c. 5 n. v. McManus, '84; leases, 10. Health Dep't v. Knoll, '83; ins. 81; '85; fires 4 fire-esc. 1 n. v. Purdon, K Y. Daily Reg. Dec. 1, 1S83. Aff'd in 51 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 10P; and the latter aff'd in 99 A". Y. 237. v. Van Cott, N. Y. Daily Reg. June 11, 1884; s. c, with affirmance, 51 Super. Ct. (J. . District No. 1 of Ind. Order of B'nai Berith, '84; ben. assoc. 12; '85; ben. assoc. 2; '86; ben. assoc. 4; ins. 101. v. Independent Order of B'nai Berith, '85; ben. as- soc. 1 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 21, 22; '86; ex. 4 ad. 39. Heller, Matter of, '86; insane per. 4, 7; partition, 5 n.' Hellreigel v. Manning, '86; ju- dicial sale, 4; spec. pert'. 8n. 12; v. & p. 14 n. Helmer v. Shoemaker, '86; de- vise, 2 n. ; wills, 51 n. Helms v. Otis, '85; lim. of a. 30 n. Heming, Matter of, '84; stay of pro. 3. Hemingway v. Poucher, '86; ex- ceptions, 6. Hencken v. James, '86 ; int. 5 n. v. V. S. Life Ins. Co., 20 Weekly D. 412; afi'g 11 Daly, 282; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 44. Henderson v. Fullerton, '86; surr. ct. 11 n. v. Jackson, '85; pi. 33. v. Manning, '86; pi. 52 n. v. New York Central, &c. B. B. Co., '83; compensa- tion, 8; inj. 15; r. r. co., 93, 94; '84 ; dam. 34 n. ; r. r. co. , £4; '85; compensation, 16; dam. 44 n. ; inj. 25, 27 ; munc. corp. 109; r. r. co. 49 n. 50 n. ; '86; dam. 26 n. 40 n.; em. dom. 4 n. ; ev. 2i'5; highw. 5 n. ; judgm. 3; pi. 8; r. r. eo. 27, 30. Hendricks v. Decker, '84; con- vereion, 10 n. ; pi. 132. v. Judah, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 17 n. T v. Bobinson, '84; mort. 5. v. Stark, '83 ; contracts, 83. Hendrickson v. People, '83; ev. Hen 180. kel v. Murr, '85; landl. 4 t. Hennequin v. Clews, '83; dis- charge, 8, 10, 12; '85; dis- charge, 2. v. Naylor, '84; ev. 172, 196; pi. 36; question of 1. 4 f. 4. Hennessy v. Patterson, '85; wills, 131. Henriques r. Hone, '85; cred. s. 5n. Henry, Estate of. See Henry v. Henry. . Henry v. Bank of Salina, '84; verif. 1 n. ; '85; courts, 3 n. ; wit. 66; '86; wit. 56. v. Brady. '85; master 4 s. 41 n. v. Daley, '83; mort. 26. v. Fowler, '83; trubts, 58. v. Henry, 3 Dim. 322; s. c, as Matter of Henry, 1 Sow. Pr. N. S. 297. Further de- cision in 2 LI. 250; and still further decision in 4 Dem. 253; s. c. in 'part, as Estate of Henry, 3 .Hou>. Pr. y. K 386; and 9 G-v. Pro. P. 100; '84; arrest, 10; '85; divorce, 8 n. ; '86; pi. 28 n. v. Lowell, '83; husb. 4 w.38. v. Marvin, '85; principal 4 a. 10. v. Boot, '84; infants, 5, Hentz v. Long Island B. B. Co. , '84; dam. 34 n. Hepburn v. Hepburn, '84; costs, 5; legacies, 19; '85; legacies, 43. v. Montgomery, 5 G'v. Pro. B. 244. Three cases, two of which are rev'd and. one aff'd in 97 i\ r . Y. 617. Herbert v. Day. See Herbert v. Dey. v. Dey, 15 Abb. N. 0. 172; s. c., as Herbert v. Day, 33 Sun, 461. v. Smith, '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n. ; '86; surr ct. 19 n. v. Stevenson, 3 Dem. 236; s. c. , as Estate of Smith, 1 Sow. Pr. N. 8. 64. Hercules Hut. Life Assur. Soc'y v. Brinker, '83; ins. 1)1 n. Herkimer County Nat. Ek. v. Bust, '86 ; bills, n. 4 c. 1. Hermance v. Supervisor of Ul- ster, 71 N. Y. 485. Eeitcr- ated (what are "clerical errors" mentioned in the fax laws) in People ex rel. Chamberlain v. Forrest, 98 Id. 544. Hermann v. Aaronson, '85; sec. for costs, 11; '86; sec. for costs, 1 n. v. Kreppel, '84; trials, 57. Heron v. Davis, '85; sales, 24. Herrick v. Catley, '83 ; contracts, 67; '86; atty. 4 c. 3 n. v. Malin, '83; ev. 57 n. ; '81; ev. 247 n. v. Smith,.'86; wit. 47 n. v. Stover, '83; r. r. co. 66. v. Woolverton, '83; lim. cf a. 9 n. ; '85; bills, n. 4 c. 18a n'.; '86; lim. of a. 14. Herring v. Fisher, '83; deeds, 18. v. Hoppock, '83; sales, 14, 15; '85; parties, 46 n.; '86; license, 7 n. v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc. B. B. Co., '85; corp. 27 n. v. Sanger, '83; guaranty, 12. Harrington v. Eobertson, '83; costs, 108, 116. Herrman v. Adriatic Fire Ins. Co., '85; ins. 50 n.; '8G; ins. 54 n. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., '83 ; principal 4 a. 3 ; '85; ins. 50 n.; '86; ins. 30 n. 36 n. 54 n. Herschell v. Bogers, '84 ; ref. 23. Hersey v. Benedict, '85; election oi r. 2. Hershberg v. Dinsmore, 19 Weekly D. 497; s. c, with opinion in full in N. Y. Daily, Reg., Sept. 18, 1884. Hertell v. Bogert, '86; ex. 4 ad. 54. Hess v. Appell, '85; excise, 6. v. Fox, '83; contracts, 83; spec. perf. 4 n. v. Eau, 95 N. Y. 3C9; affg 49 Super. Ct. (J. & ,s.) 324. Hessberg v. Eiley, '85; parties, 46 n. Hetfleld v. Newton, '83; forec. 13 n. Hetzel v. Barber, '83; accumu- lations, 5 n.; '84; adv. poss. 5; wills, 91 n.; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. Heurtematte v. Morris, 23 Bun, 77; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 373. Bev'd in 101 N. Y. 63; s. c, 3 East. Rep. 441, and 4 Kortheas'. Bep. 1. Hewitt SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Hinds 63 Hewitt, Matter of, 1 Dem. 249; s. c, 65 Hove. Pr. 187; 4 Giv. Pro. B. 57, and 5 Month. L. £ul. 56. Previous proceed- ing in 91 Hun, 261; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 224. '86; wills, 11 n. 14 n. Hewitt v. Hewitt, '86; ex. * ad. 137. v. Mason, '83; pi. 178. v. Northrup, '83 J , partn. 41 ; '85;partn. 17 n. v. Prime, '85; parent* c. 2. Hewlett v. Cock, '83; ev. 34. v. Elmer, 17 Weekly D. 468. Affd in 4 Centr. Rep. 351. v. Wood, '83; ev. 112, 114; '84; ev. 58; '85; ev. 64; '86; judgm. 20; partition, 5 n. Hey decker v. Lombard, .'85; con- tracts,. 102. Heyer v. Burger, '86; husb. 4W. 8. Heyward v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. , '83; em. dom. 4, 5; '86; compensation, 9 n. ; r. r. co. 29 n. Heywood v. City of Buffalo, '86; cloud on title, 3 n. ; inj. 33 n. Hexteru Knox, '86; lease, 9. Heyliger v. N. Y. Fireman's Ins. Co., '86; ins. 46 n. Hibbard v: N. Y. & Erie R. B. Co., 15 N. F.455. Cited in Pease v. Delaware, L. & W. B. E. Co., 11 Daly, 352. '83; pi. 1; r. r. co. 1, 2, 5, 6 n. ; '86 ; carriers, 14. Hibernia National Bank v. La- combe, '83; attach. 50 n. 69; discharge, 2;. '84; con- flict of laws, 2, 3; juris. 5; '85; assign. 7; '86; receiver, 7. Hickey v. Monell. See Hickey v. Morreli. Hickey v. Morreli, 12 Daly, 482; s. c, N. Y. Daily Beg., Aug. 18, 1884; und, less fully, as Hickey v. Monell, 19 Weekly D. 475. Bev'din 102 N. Y. 454. v. Schwab, '85; mech. 1. 1. v. Taaffe, 99 N. Y. 204; rev'g 3a_HJ4Ji, 7. '86; chil- dren, 3; impris. 5. Hickok v. Hickok, '83; lim. of a. 20. Hicks v. Brennan, '84; discont. v. Cleveland, '84; contracts, 69 n. v. Marshall, '85; insane per. 6. v. Williams, 17 Barb. 523. Cited (Vessels) in 34 Hun, 188. Hides v. Hides, '83; ev. 25 n. Hier v. Abrahams, '83; trade-m. 2,6 a; '84; trade-m. 1; '85; trade-m. 1, 4. v. Grant, '83; wit. 56. Higbie v. Heath, '85; appeal, 103. _ v. Westlake, '83; ex. & ad. 206; '85; appeal, 11, 13 n. Higenbotam v. Green, '84; bills of par. 4. Higgins, Matter of, '86; wills, 14 n. Higgins v. Callahan, 2 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 302; s. ft, 15 Weekly D. 113; aft'g 1 Oily a. 354. v. Chrichton, 63 How. Pr. 354; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 317; Id. (McCarty) 78; 15 Weekly D. 248; and 11 Daly, 114. Affd in 98 N. Y. 266. '84; pi. 19. v. Delaware, L. & W. B. B. Co., '83; sales, 12; '86; con- tracts, 98. . v. Freeman, '84; appear- ance, 3. v. Healy, 89 N. Y. 636; aff g, it seems, 22 Hun, 444. v. Murray, '84; sales, 6, 7; '86; contracts, 88; sales, 7. v. Newtown & F. B. B. Co., pL 78. v. People, '85; ev. 315 n. 317; '86; ev. 272. v. Phcenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 33. v. Reynolds, '85; accretion, 3n. v. Watervliet Turnpike Co., '83; assault 4 b. 1; mas- ter & s. 14; r. r. co. 5; '86; master & s. 7 n. v. Whitson, '83; trusts, 87. High v. Wilson, '86; ev. 286 n. Higinbotham v. Stoddard, '85; adv. poss. 1; '86; deeds, 12 n.14. Hildebrand u. People, '83; lar- ceny, 2; '85; defin. 25 n.; larceny, 4 n. Hildebrant v. Crawford, '83; costs, 3; wit. 28. Hildreth v. City of Troy, 18 Weekly D. ' 156. Bev'd in 101 N. Y. 234; s. c, 2 How. Pr. JV. AL 483. v. Ellice, '84; sher. 3 n. v. Sands, '83; fraud, conv. 6n. v. Shepard, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 54. Hill, Matter of, 17 Abb. N. C. 273; s. c, as Quinnu. Hill, 4 Dim. 69. Hillu. Alvord, '84; wit. 13; '85; wit. 18. v. Beebe, '86; chat. mort. 4 n.; exec. 4; payment, 1 n. v. Berry, '84; civil damage act, 1. ■ v. Blake, '84; contracts, 7. v. Burke, '83; appeal, 117; '85; undert. 9, 11. v. Covell, '86; trials, 99 n. v. Cummings, '86; place of trial, 3. v. Draper, '86; pi. 98. v. Haynes, '83; exec. 2; '84; exec. 23 n. v. Heermans, '83; set-off, 7; wit. 52. v Heller, '85; sales, 22 n. v. Hill, '85; wills, 96, 114; '86; adv. poss 7. v. Hotchkin, '83; new tr. 3; wit. 29, 37; '84; wit. 13; V5; trials, 88; wit. 18; '86; witn. 16, 37 n. v. Miller, '84; covenants, 5; 'ri6; covenants, 5 n. v. Nelson, '86; ex. 4 ad. 114 n. v. Nye, '85; wills, 80 n. v. Place, '83; tender, 8; '84; bills, n. 4 c. 15. v. Priestly, '85; contracts, 3; gifts, 5. v. Spencer, '83; mfg. co. 19. v. Supervisors of Living- ston, '83; money paid, etc. 16. v. Syracuse, Binghamton &N. Y. E. B. Co., '85; bills of lading, 1; ev. 101; '86; carriers, 18. v. Thompson, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 481; s. c, with affirmance, in 50 Id. 165. Hillman v. Hillman, '86; joind. of a. 6. Hills v. Bannister, '86; ex. 4 ad. 56 n. v. Miller, '83; covenants, 5, 11; '85; deeds, 25. v. Peekskill Savgs. Bk., 26 Hun, 161. Further decisions in 30 Id. 546; and 101 N. X. 490. v. Place, '85; bills, n. 4 c. 27; '86; forec. 15; tender, 1. Hillyer v. Bennett, '84; infants, 3n. Hilsen v. Libby, '85; pi. 13. Hilsley, v. Palmer, *8o; ev. 145; '86; trials, 135. Hilton v. Bender, '85; ev. 23; mand. 11. v. Bissell, '86; forec. 7 n. ; mort. 7 n. v. Fonda, '85; stipulation, 2 n.; tax. 66; '86; tax. 45. v. Sinsheimer, '85; atty. 4 c. 20. v. Thurston, '86; attach. 41. v. Vanderbilt, '86; factors, 1. Hinchliffe v. Shea, 34 Hun, 365. Bev'd in 4 Czrtir. Bep. 214; s. o.,.2 A'. Y. State Bep, 728. Hinckley v. Boardman, '83; costs, 100. v. Cooper, '85; tax. 49 n.; '86; tax. 75 n. v. Emerson, '86; husb. 4 w. 20 n. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. B. Co., '84; wit. 59; '85; ev. 104; '86; ev. 81 n. Hincken v. Mut. Ben. Life Ins. Co., '86; trials, 38. Hindley v. Hindley, '86; dower, 11 n. Hinds v. Doubleday, '83; sher. 1; '86; impris. 1. 64 Hine SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Holmes Hine v. Woolworth, 93 N. Y. 75 ; aff'g Hine v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 29.JHun, 84. Hines v. City of Lockport, '83 munc. corp. 74 n. 78, 84 '84; munc. corp. 67; '85 munc. corp. 55 n. 63 n. ■villages, l;-'86; munc. corp. 47 n. ; towns, 6. Hinman v. Bergen, '83; costs, 58. v. Booth, '86; deeds, 6 n. v. Judson, '86; money paid, etc. 16. v. Moulton, '86; contracts, 15; ev. 23. v. People, '84; sentence, 1 n. Hinneman u. Eosenback,'84; ev. 66; '86; ev. 80. Hinsdale v. White, '84; landl. 4 t. 3. Hintermister v. First Nat. Bk. of Chittenango, '83; nat. bk. 3 n. ; '84; nat. bk. 1 n. ; '86; subr. 3 n. Hirst v. Brooks, '83; lim. of a. 9 n. Hiscock v. Phelps, '86; partn. 12. Hitchcock v. Harrington, '83; dower, 2; 85; subr. 2 n. v. Linsly, '85; parties, 42. v. Marshall, '83; surr. ct. 22 n. ; '84; ex. 4 ad. 102. v. Northwestern Ins. Co., '85; ins. 54 n.; '86; ins. 30 n. v. Peterson, '85; arrest, 3. v. St. John, '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. v. Skinner, '86; partition, 6. v. Thompson, '83; wills, 45 n. Hitchins v. People, '83; disor- derly per. 2. Hitchman v. Baxter, 5 Civ. Pro. H. 226. Further proceed- ing in 34 Hun, 271. Hoag v. Lamont, '83; juris. 9; '85; abate. 4 r. 5; '86; abate. 4 r. 3 n. ; corp. 19. Hoard v. Garner, '83; debtor 4 cred. 5. Hobart v. Hobart, '83; wit. 40, 48, 49; '84; appeals, 51; '85; set-off, 9; wit. 15; '86; witn. 18, 37 n. Hobbs v. City of Yonkers, 32 Hun, 454. Affd in 102 N. Y. 13. v. Francais, '86; inj. 34 n. Hochstetter v. Isaacs, '83 ; amend. 26; '85; amend. 17; '86; amend. 6n. Hodge v. City of Buffalo, '84; ev. 130 n. v. Gallup, '85; redemption, 1. v. Hoppock, '84; estoppel, 19. v. Security Ins. Cou, '85; principal 4 a. 9; '86; ins. 13, •a. Hodges v. City of Buffalo, '83; munc. corp. 74; questions of 1. 4 f. 4; '85; atty. 4 c. 5 n.; munc. corp. 5 n. v. Lathrop, '86; pi. 124 n. v. Porter, '83; sec. for costs, 12. v. Shuler, '83: bills, n. 4 c. 1. v. Tennessee Marine & Fire Ins. Co., '84; ev. 81 n.; '86; ins. 55; sufr. ct. 11 n. Hodgman v. Western E.K. Co., '84; sup. pro. 23. Hoe v. Sanborn, '83; appeal, 1; contracts, 111; '84; sales, 18a; '86; sales, 16. Hoeft v. Seaman, '83; harbor masters, 3. Hoes v. Halsey. See Matter of Halsey. . v. Van Hoesen, '86; ev. 90. Hoff v. Pentz, '86; bills of par. 12. Hoffman v. Etna F. Ins. Co., '83; ins. 21; '85; ins. 50 n. 54 n. ; '86; ins. 12. u.Barry, '83; contempt, 14. v. Conner, '86; ev. 212. v. De Graaf, '8b; appeal, 38. v. Gallaher, '86; contract, 86, 86 n. v. Hoffman, '85; divorce, 4n. v. Lachman, '84; parties, 30 n. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E E. Co., 87 ./V. Y. 25; s. c, with note on carriers' liability, 41 Am. R 337; aff'g 46 Super. 01. {J. & S. ) 526. '83; master 4 s. 14 n. 15; '84; master 4 s. 7; '85; excep- tions, 8 n. ; false impris. 7; pi. 56; '86; master 4 s. 7 n. v. N. Y. , Lake Erie, etc. E. E. Co. 50 Super. Ct. i.J. & S.) 512. Previous decision in Id. 403. v. Penn Hospital, '85; leg- acies^, 40; '86; legacies, 23. Hoffmire v. Hoffmire, '86; di- vorce, 12. Hofnagle v. New York Central & K. E. E. E. Co., '83; mas- ter 4 s v 14 n. 36; '85; negl. 55 n.; '86; negl. 2 n. Hogan v. Cregan, '83; ev. 250 n. ; seduction, 1. v. Curtin, 88 N. Y. 162; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 307; aff'g 47 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 250. v. Hoyt, '83; affid. 1; bank- ruptcy, 2. v. Laimbeer, '86; appeal, 42; ref. 18. v. Shorb, '83; principal 4 a. 20; '85; banking, 13; prin- cipal 4 a. 1U; sales, 46 n.; set-off, 3, 6 n. Holbrook, Matter of, N. Y. Daily Reg., Jan. 31, 1884. Further decision in 99 N. Y. 539; '86; assign, for b. of c. 16; estoppel, 1; supp. pro. 22 n. Holbrook v. Baker, '85; pL 35; '86; pi. 144 n. v. Brennan, '83; service 4 p. 13. v. New Jersey Zinc Co. , '83 ; corp. 10 n. ; '86; gift, 5. v. Ctica, etc. E. E. Co., '83; bills, n. & c. 12; '85; ev. 46; '86; negl. 114. v. Wight, '85 ; assign, for b. of c. 29; principal 4 a. 18. Hoi comb v. Holcomb, '83; mort. 24; wit. 28, 59; '84; iorec. 2; wit. 21; '85; ev. 64; forec. 5 n. ; trials, 43; wit. 19, 27 34, 35 n. ; '86; wit. 22, 29, 34, 35. Holdane v. Trustees of Cold Spring, '85; munc, corp. 56 n.; '8b; highw. 9. Holden v. Gilliert, '85; mort. 7. v. N. Y. & B. Bank, 72 N. Y. 286. Citod (Notice, io. 99 K Y. 134. 83; wills, 213; '84; corp 34; deceit, 5 n. ; ev. 123. v. Saekett, '84; forecl. 13; '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n.; '8b; surr. ct. 19 n. Holdrigeu. Gillespie, '84; leases, 5. v. Scott, '83; costs, 114, 115. Holland v. Ferris, '86; wills, 19. v. Smith, 40 Hun, 372; con- firming 3 How. Pr. N. S. 106. Hollenbeck v. Donnell, 94 N. Y. 342; rev'g 29 Hun, 94. 'i.5; receiver, 1; waste, 2 n.;Mu; receivers, 9. Holley v. Chamberlain, '84; guardian 4 w. 9. v. Mix, '83; arrest, 34. v. Mayor, etc. of M. Y., 59 N. Y. 166. Said to be de- cided under misapprehen- sion in 32 Ilun, 'Jz. v. Van Dolsen, 'Ud; mech. 1. 4. Hollis v. Drew Theological Sem- inary, '85; wills, 1, 132 n. ; '86 ; wills, 10 n. 44 n. v. Hollis, '83 ; wills, 9 n. Hullister v. Hopkins, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 13. v. Livingston, '84; amend. 16. v. McNeill, '86; undert. 2 n. Holmes, Ex parte, '8b; corp. 33 u. Holmes v. Broughton, '83; pi. 198 n.; '85; pi. 137 n. v. Bush, '8.>; judgm. 4 de- cree, 4. • v. Carley, '85; partn. 7 n. v. Cock, 86; ex. 4 ad. 109. v. Davis, '84; costs, 15. v. Holmes, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 37; '84; waiver, 2; t85; for- mer adj. 12; '86; acknowl- edgment, 2 n. ; . alimony, 8 n. ; pledge, 1 ; tender, 4 n. v. Hubbard, 84; assign. 8; assign, lor b. of c. 13. v. Mead, 'e3; uses, 1 ; wills, Holmes SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Eoughhirk 65 62, 64, 227; '85; legacies, 3; wills, 37. v. People, '85; indict. 14. v. Reinsert, '85; assign. 7. v. Seely, '83; pi. 103. v. Tremper, 85; fixtures, 2n. Holsapple v. Rome, W. & O. R. R. Co., '83; carriers, 26. Holsman v. Abrams, '83; lease, 28 n. v. St. John, 90 N. Y. 461; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 511; rev'g 48 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 3U6; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. li. (Browne) 48; Id. (McCarty) 146; 15 Weekly D. 315. Holt v. Johnson, '86; const, law, 17. v. Ross, '83; bills, n. a o 56. Holtsinger v. Nat. Corn Exch. B'ki '83;atty. 4 c. 29. Holyoke v. Adams, '83; pi. 65. Homan v. Brinckerhooff, 83; mech. 1. 10. v. Earle, '85; - ev. 314. Home Ins. Co. v. Dunham, '86; usury, 1. v. Jones, '85; judicial sale, 2. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. , '83; dam. 32. • v. Sherman, '83; pi. 172. v. Western Trans. Co., '84; trials, 21; '85; appeal, 133. Hone v. Fisher, '83; mort. 8; '84; mort. 1, 3. v. Locknian, '85 ; ex. & ad. 92 n. v. Van Schaick, '83; susp. of power of a. 20; '85; wills, . 103 n. ; '86; dower, 11 n. 12; susp. of power of a. 9 ; wills, 78 n. Honegger v. Wettstein, 13 Abb. if. 0. 393; s. c, 94 N. Y. 252; rev'g 47 /Super, Ct. [J. <££.)125. '84; pi. 108 n. Honegsberger v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., '83; negl. 85. Honseeu. Hammond, '85; munc. corp. 72. Hood, Matter of, 27 Hun, 579; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 333. Rev'd in Id. 507; s. c, 90 N. Y. 512. Subsequent proceedings in 30 Hun, 472; and 33 Id. 338; which latter was rev'd in 98 N. Y. 363; s. c, 7 Civ. fro. R. 257. Other proceedings as Hood v. Hood, 2 Dem. 583; 1 Id. 392; and 12 Daly, ,113. '85; former adj. 10; '86; inj. Sat). Hood v. Hallenbeck, '84; ev 77. v. Hood. See Matter of Hood. '83; ex. * ad. £9, 57, 105, 195; wills, 178 n.; '85; bonds, 11; ex. s ad. 36, 61; trusts, 12; '86; ex. & ad. 17 n. 109. Hoodless v. Brundage, '85; jus- tices' ct. 2. Hooghkirk v. Delaware & Hud- son Canal Co. See Hough- kirk v. The Same. Hoogland v. Wight, '86; ref. 18. Hook v. Pratt, '83; wills, 116; '84; contracts, 10 n. Hooker v. Cummin gs, '83; real prop. 5 n. v. Eagle Bank of Rochester, '85; atty. tc,5n, v. Rogers, '84; depositions, 1. v. Utica & Minden Turn- pike Co., '86; compensa- tion, 8 n. v. Gieve, 9 Daly, 104; aft" g 9 Abb. N. C. 8; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 111. '83; app. of payments, 3; trusts, 9; '84; trusts, 9; '85; assign, for b. of c. 13 n. ; trusts, 43 n. ; '86 ; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. 12 n. Hooper v. Hudson River P. Ins. Co., '83; ins. 20; '84; ins. 7, 8. v. Tuckerman, '86 ; assign. 7. Hoover v. Greenbaum, '83; money paid, etc. 1. Hoose v. Sherill, '86; hab. corp. In. Hope v. Acker, '83; costs, 133; inj. 61 n. v Balen, '83; ev. 139 n. 146. v. People, '85; appeal, 131; '86; indict. 9. Hope Mut. Ins. Co. v. Perkins, '83; liiu. of a. 37. Hopf v. Myers, '83 ; cause of ac- tion, 4; former adj. 4 n. Kopfensack v. Hopfensack, 9 Daly, 457; s. c, with tip. T. decisions, 31 How. Pr. 498. '85; const, law, 31; '86; ref. 25. Hopkins v. Banks, '83; assign. 23. v. Coburn, '84; service & p. 2n. v. Hopkins, '83; wills, 196 n. ; '84; dam. 36 n.; wills, 117 n. v. Van Valkenburgh, '85; ex. & ad. 177 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 144, 145. Hopper v. Hopper, '85; divorce, 10; '86; pi. 54 n. Hopping v. Quinn, '83; bills, n. & c. 44. Hoppock v. Donaldson, '84; conf. of judgment, 1. v. Moses, '83; ev. 210. v. Tucker, '83; surr. ct. 19; wills, 217; '84; wills, 90; '85; legacies, 20 n.; wills, 80; '86; device, 2 n.; wills, 67 n. 76 n. Hoppough v. Struble, '86; eject- ment, 4. Horgan v. Krumwiede, '85; lease, 7 n. Horn's Case, '84; munc. corp. 92 Horn 'v. Keteltas, '85; ev. 279; '86; deeds, 1; ins. 55. v. Pullman, '83; ev. 77, 188 n.; wills, 9, 22,119, 122; '84; ev. 248 n.; undue inf. 1; wills, 8; '85; wills, 1, 3n. v. Town of New Lots, '83 ; money paid, 14 n.; munc. corp. 177; '84; money paid, 14 n.; '85; forec. 24 n.; munc. corp. 43; '86; lim. of a. 20 n. ; money paid, 11 n.; munc. corp. 92; taxes, 1. Hornbeck v. American Bible Society, '83; wills, 144. v. Westbrook, '86; bonds, 5 n. Horsfall, Matter of, '85; r. r. co. 58. Horton v. Borthwick, '85 ; exec. 17 n. v. Carrington. See Horton v. Parsons. v. Davis, '83 ; estoppel, 10. • v. Fancher '84; attach. 11; '86; fraud, conv. 1 n. v. Garrison, '85; common Schools, 4. v. Horton, '84; r. r. co. 29 n. v. McCoy, '83; ex. 4 ad. 172. v. Morgan, '83; corp. 8. v. Parsons, 37 Hun, 42; aff'g Horton v. Carrington, 1 How. Pr. N. S. 129. Sub- sequent proceedings in 40 Hun, 224. v. Town of Thompson, '83; inj. 28; munc. corp. 174, 176; reformation of inst. 4n. Hosack v. Rogers, '83 ; contempt, 5; ex. & ad. 197; '84; con- tempt, 12; ex. & ad. 125 n. Hosford, Matter of, '85; guar- dian & w. 5. Hosford v. Nichols, '83; usury, 2 n. v. Merwin, '83; cred. s. 12. Hosley v. Black, '84; pi. 7 n.; '85; pi. 78. Hotaling v. Hotaling, '84; re- ceivers, 7n. ;'86; ejectment, 1 n. v. Marsh, '83; costs, 120. Hotchkiss v. Elting, '85; susp. of power of a. 16. v. Germania Ins. Co. '83; wit. 72, 73; '86; wit. 47 n. v. Mosher, 86; ev. 86 n. Hough v. Brown, '96; ins. 3. Houghkirku. Delaware & Hud- son Canal Co., 20 Weekly D. 558. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 98 N. Y. 633. v. , 92 A T . Y. 219; rev'g 28 Bun, 407; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 522; which aff'd Hoogh- kirk v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 11 Abb. N. 0. 72; s. c, 63 How. Pr. 328; and 4 MoniK L. Bui. 65, '84; 66 Houghtaling SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Hubbett appeal, 105 n.; '85; dam. 37 n. ; death, 5 n. ; ev. 293; r. r; co. 8 n.; '86; dam. 30 n.; negl. 65 a.; new tr. 18. Houghtaling v. Kelderhouse, '84; ev. 201 n. Houghton v. Adams, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. v. Bachman, '84; replevin, 2. v. Kenyon, '83; justices' ct. 9, 23; '84; justices' ct. 17. v. McAulifie, '85; attach. 45; bills of lading, 20. House v. Agate, '83; lim. of a. 1; '85; ex. & ad. 125. v. Burr, '85; lease, 11 n. ; '86; contracts, 79 n. v. Eisenlord, 30 Hun, 90. Afl'd in 102 N. Y. 713. v. Raymond, '83; powers, 10; '85; costs, 66. Houston Street, etc. R. B. Co. v. Forty-second Street, etc. E. R. Co., '86;inj. 14 n. Hover v. Barkhoof, '83; highw. 16; '84; offi'r, 15; '85; evr55; offi'r, 17, 21; pi. 146 n.; '86; towns, 3, 6. Hovey v. American Mut. Ins. Co. Followed (Variance) in 49 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.\ 522. v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., '83; atty. 4 c. 62; inj. 64; '84; juris. 13; '85; undert. 13 n.; '86; inj. 49 n.; juris. 5. v. Starr, '83; husb 4 w. 41. v. Ten Broeck, '83; mfg. co. 19, 20. Howard v. Albany Ins. Co., '84; ins. 8. v. Daly, '83; contracts, 99 n. ; '84; contracts, 101; '85; contracts, 24n.; ev. 238; '86; ev. 210 n.; master 4S. 3, 4n. v. Doolittle, '83; landl. 4 t. 4 n.; lease, 3. v. Dougherty, '83; ex. t ad. 31. v. France, '83; lim. of a. 9 n. ; '85; lim. of a. 34. v. Hayes, 90 jfc Y. 643; aff'g, it seems, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & a. ) 89. — — v. Johnston, '86; amend. 17 n. v. McDonough, '86; wit. 52. — — • v. Moot, '85; const, law, 19. v. Orient M. Ins. Co., '85; ins. 40. v. Sexton, '83; arbitration, 2, 2 n. ; '85; slander, 3 n.; trial, 8 n. ; waiver, 1. . v. Thompson, '85; ev. 20 n. ; slander, 3 n. v. Tiffany, '85; crim. 1. 3. Howard Ins. Co. v. Halsey, '83; notice, 2 n. ; rec. deeds, 82. Howard Nat. Bank v. King, '85; conflict of laws, 3 n. Howe, Matter of r '86; banking, 14. Howe v. Howe, '85; contempt, 5. v. Howe Machine Co , '86; trade-m. 3 n. v. Searing, '83; good will, 1 n. ; partn. 34; '85; good will, n. v. Welch, 2 Hove. Pr. N. S. 507. Eev'dinl7^6(«. K V. 397; s. c, 3 How. Pr. N. P. 465; and that afi'd by N. Y. Com. Pleas, Gen. Term, Dec. 6, 1886. See 17 Abb. N. V. 513 n. v. Willson, '86; pi. 15, 165. Howe Machine Co. v. Avery, 85; ev. 183. v. Farrington, '84; princi- pal 4 a. 11. v. Pettibone, '84; service 4 p. 12; '86; ev. 37 n. ; service 4 p. 7. Howell, Matter of, 61 How. Pr. 179. We are informed that this was reversed on anoth- er point by the JT. Y. Cwn. Pleas. Howell v. Adams, '83; banking, 12; '84; lim. of a. 24; '86; lim. of a. 13. v. Baker, '86; judicial sale, 9 n. v. Biddecom, '84; pi. 64 n. v. Chicago & N. W. E. E. Co., '83; corp. 10 n.; '86; corp. 32 n. ; juris. 8. v. City of Buffalo, '84; con- str. law, 43 n. ; '86; inj. 33 n. v. Gould, '83; nons. 1 n. v. Knickerbocker Ins. Co. , '86; ins. 63 n. v. Leavitt, 90 H. Y. 238; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 447; 15 Weekly B. 377. Further decision in 95 N. Y. 617; '86; ejectment, 3. v. Mills, '83; contracts, 63; partition, 5; '84; city ct. of N. Y. 5; '85; infants, 7; par- tition, 1. v. People, '86; questions of 1. 4 f. 1. v. Eansom, '85; duress, 1. v. Eipley, '83; forec. 18 n. ; sup. pro. 23; '84; receivers, 7 n. ; '85; receivers, 1, 5 n. v. Van Siclen, 'S3; costs, 38, 38 n. 40, 131 ; '85 ; wit. 33. Howes v. Davis, '83; ex. 4 ad. 199; '85; ex. 4 ad. 147 n. Howland v. Cuykendall, '86; lim. of a. 13 n. v. Edmonds, '83; lim. of a. 24; '85; bills, n. 4 c. 18a n. ; '86; contracts, 38; lim . of a. 13 n.; pi. 151 n. v. Fldredge, '84; mand. 3 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 117 n. ; '86; supervisors, 2 n. v. Heckscher. '86; dower, 11 n. v. Howland, '83; husb. 4 w. 40; '85; appeal, lu3. ij. Taylor, '85; wills, 48. v. Willetts, '83; chat. mort. 7n.; '84;attagi.39. v. Woodruff, '83; case, 2. Howlett v. N. Y., West Shore, etc. Ey. Co., '84; r. r. co. 35. Hoylo v. Plattsburgh, etc. E.R. Co., '83; contracts, 63; '84; corp. 51; r. r. co. 40; trusts, 26 n. ; '86; contracts, 57 n. ; corp. 22. Hoysradt v. Kingman, '84: wills, 29; '85; wills, 14 n. 15 n. 2z: '86; wills, 18 n. Hoyt, Estate of. See Hoyt v. Jackson. '86; wills, 31. Hoyt v. Am. Exch. Bank, '83; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. v. Bonnett, '85; ex. s ad. 82; '86; ex. 4 ad 122. v. Carter, '8.3; inj. 61 n. v. Commissioneis of Taxes, '83; tax. 1U; '86; tuxes, 4 n. v. Godfrey, 88 N. Y. 669; s. c, 15 Weelcl ii D. 4f>. Sub- sequent decision in 16 Id. 91; s. c, 11 Duly, 278; and 3 Civ. Fro.Ii.liti. '80; ar- rest, 14; atty. 4 c.27; set-off, 7n. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., '85; partn. 17 n. v Hilton, '83; ex. 4 ad. 144; surr. ct. 18. v. Hoyt, '83; wills, 146 n. 147; '86; arrest, 3; set-off, 9; '85; legacies, 24; '86; lega- cies, Jan. 13. v. Hudson, '83; exec. 46, — v. Jackson, 1 Vein. 553. Further proceedings in 2 Dan. 443; s. c, as Matter of Hoyt, 67 Haw. Pr. 57; and 3 Ban. 388; s. c, as Estate of Hoyt, 7 Civ. Pro. B. 374. '85; wills, 48. v. Long Island E. E. Co., '8ti ; exceptions, 3. v. Martense, '86; debtor s cred. 5; ex. & ad. 84. • v. Shelden. '86; statutes, 2n. v. Story, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 41. v. Thompson, '83; corp. 31; munc. corp. 162; '84; chat, mort. 9; corp. 46 n. ; dis- charge, 6; ev. 234 n. ; '85; assign. 7; corp. fc9; '86; corp. 34 n. ; statutes, 2 n. Hoxieu. Greene, '85; trial, 15. v. Hoxie, '84; wills, 112. Hubbard v. Briggs, 31 A'. Y. 518. Cited in 36 Hun, 465. '83; mort. 26. v. Gurney, '83; bills, n. 4 o. 6; mort. 46; pi. 9U; '84; ev. 77 n.; ex. 4 ad. 6U; '85; principal 4 s. 1 ; rec. deeds, 6; '86; payment, 4. v. National Protection Ins. Co., '83; place of tr. 6;'a6; district ct. 3. Hubbell i!. Blakeslee,' 83; mer- ger, 2 n. ; mort. 44 v. Carpenter, '86; mort. 17; release, 3 n. v. Dana, '86; receivers, 5 n. EnbbeU SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. HurVmrt 67 v. Great "Western Ins. Co., '86; freight, 1 ; ins. 46 n. ■ v. Livingston, '86; pi. 3. ■ v. Medbury, '84; lim. of a. 31; 'b5; parties, 19; '86; par- ties, 4. v. Meigs, '84; joind. of a..4; '85; joinder of a. 7; '86; fraud. 8. v. Moulson, '83 - receivers, 2. v. Schreyer, '84; mech. 1. 4; '86; new trials, 7. v. Sibley, '86; adv. poss. 6. v. Van Schoening, '83; lease, 38 n. ; v. 4 p. 15, 15 n.;'85; mort. 12; spec. perf. 10; v. 4 p. 6; '86; contracts, 98 n. Huber v. Ely, '83; contracts, 79. v. People, 49 N. Y. 132. Cited in Creiger v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 11 Daly, 174. '83; tax. 8. Hudler v. Golden, '83; lien, 8; '86; health, 1 n. Hudson v. Caryl, '84; trials, 6. v. Guttenberg, '83; costs, 25. v. Hudson, '84; husb. 4 w. 12 n. v. Plets, '84; sup. pro. 23. v. Swan, '83; pi. 2. Hudson Iron Co. v. Alger, '86; com. schools, 1 ; costs, 31 n. Huebner v. Bosevelt, '84; new tr. 36; '85; lim. of a. 30 n. Huestis, Matter of, '86; wit. 17. Huff v. Wagner, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 41 n., '85; subr. 8 n. Huffstater v. People, '83; indict. 24. Huggans v. Fryer, '85 ; ev. 221 n. Huggins v. King, '86; judgm. 15 n. Hughes, Matter of. See Carroll v. Hughes. '85; money paid, 13; munc. corp. 103 n. 105 n. — v. Hughes, 11 Abb. K C. 37; s. c, Hi How. Pr. 408; 2 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 139, and Id. (McOarty) 100. Aff'd in 30 Hun, 349. '86; partition, 3. - — v. Mulvey, '86; justices' ct. 4n. v. New York & New Haven R.R.Co., 'S3; master 4 s. 12. v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 12 Daly, 45. Aff'd in 100 N. Y. 58; s. c. , 1 Vmtr. Rep. 319; and 2 East. Rep. 462. v. Vermont Copper Mining Co., '84; corp. 12. v. Wheeler, '84; debtor 4 cred. 3 n. ; '85; ev. 2ul. Huguenot Nat. B'k v. Studwell, '83; mfg. co. 29. Hulbert, Matter of, 10 Abb, N. C. 284; rev'g 9 Id. 132. '86; assign, for b. of c. 28; re- ceivers, 12 n. Hulbert u. Hope Mut. Ins. Co., '83; judgm. 4 decree, 7. . v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., '86; negl. 71 n. v. Nichol, '84; lim^ of a. 28 Hulburt, Matter of. See Mat- ter of Hurl burt. Hulett v. Whipple, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 24. Hull v. Bums, 17 Abb. N. C. 317; rev'g N. Y. Daily Reg., May 16, 1885. v. Carnley, '83; exec. 21, 24, 26; '86; chat. mort. 1; ins. 46 n. — - v. Halsted, '86; costs, 79 n. v. Hull. Cited (Accumula- tions), in 95 N. Y. 109, 110. '83; susp. of power of a. 18; '85; ex. 4 ad. 113; '86; aliens, 1. v. Ruggles, '83; indict. 15 n.; lotteries, 2; '84; sales, 25; '86; lotteries, In. 2. v. Supervisors of Oneida, '86; supervisors, 2 n. Hulse, Matter of, 35 Hun, 331; affg Hulse v. Reeves, 3 Devi. 486. Hulse v. Reeves. See Matter of Hulse. Hulsen v. Walter, '83; chat. mort. 7, 7 n. Humbert v. Trinity Church, '84; lim. of a. adden. 10a; '85; lim. of a. 11, 12; '86; dower, 11 n. Hume v. Mayor, &a. of N. Y., '83; munc. corp. 76 n. 81; '85 ; munc. corp. 68, 69 n. ; '86; ev. 7, 249. Humerton v. Hay, '8 courts, 7 n. Humiston v. Ballard. 22. Humphrey v. Persons, '85; at- tach. 5; '86; attach, 3. Humphreys v. Chamberlain,'83 ; amend. 7; '84; bail, 4 n. Hun v. Cary, '84; ev. 130 n. ; '86; corp. 34 n. v. Salter, '85; costs, 31. v. Van Dyck, '84; pi. 64 n. Hunn v. Bowne, '85; partn. 1.7 n. v. Norton, '86; costs, 15 n. Hunnier v. Rogers. See Kin- nier v. Rogers. Hunt's Estate, '83 33. Hunt v. Amidon, '83 '85; forec. 7 n.; nants, 2 n. v. Bennett, '83; dam. 31 : pi. 175. v. Bloomer, '83; ev. 139 n. ; '85; case, 6. v. Chapman, '84; costs, 36; '86; costs, 53. v. City of Utica, '83; munc. corp. 129 n.; '86; munc. corp. 63. v. Fish, '84; former adj. 6. v. Hunt,. '83; divorce, 29 n.; plitop tr. 1; towns, 3; 3; justices' , '83; costs, atty. 4 c. ; forec. 32; '86; cove- '85; judgm. 4 decree, 1 n. 7 n.; '86; divorce, 24 n.; em. dom. yn.; judgm. 13. v. Johnson, '85; deeds, 2M n.;husb. 4 w. 7. v. Middlebrook, '83; costs, 10;'85;surr. ct. 30 n. v. Mootrie, '84; wills, 26 n. v. Purdy, '83; guaranty, 15; principal 4 s. 23; '8o; principal 4 s. 11. v. Roberts, '84; principal 4 s. 5. • Hunter, Ex parte, '83; lease, 38 n.;'86; contracts, 7n.; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. Hunter v. Burtis, '83; justices' ct. 3. v. Herrick, '83; wit. 34. v. Hudson Iron & M. Co., '83; pi. 100, 131. v. Hunter, '85; costs, 56; deeds, 6 n. ; '86; ev. 238 n. v. Puwell, '84; joinder of a. 4. v. Starin, '85; adv. poss. 2n. v. Trustees of Sandy Hill, 6 HiU, 407. Followed (Proof of dedication of land to pub- lic) in Davidson v. Reed, Super. Ct. 111., 1884, 19 Re- porter, 335. v. Wetsel, '85; sales, 9; '86; sales, 11. Huntingdon v. damn, '83; county ct. 2; master 4 s. 3. Huntington v. Asher, 96 JV. Y. 604; rev'g 26 Han, 496. v. Conkey, '83; insane per. 23; trials, 24. v. Forkson, '83; eject. 9; '84;discont. 7. - ' Huntley v. Baker, '85; juris. 2n. Hurd v. Cook, '86; sales, 31. v. Davis, '84; motion 4 o. 1. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 63 How. Pr. 314; s. c, 4 Month. L. Bal. 50. Other proceeding in 16 Weekly I). 480. '86; costs, 44 n. v. Green, '83; sav'gs bks. 5. v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co., 33 Hun, 109; s.c, 67 How. Pr. 516; and 6 Civ. Pro. R. 386. Other pro- ceeding in 18 Wtelcly D. 239. v. Kelly, '83; sav'gs bks. 5. v. Peaks, '84 ; infants, 8. v. Tallman, '83; mfg. co. 5 n. 32. v. Warren, '83; ex. 4 ad. 226;surr. ct. 43. v. West, '85; exec. 12. Hurlbert v. Dean,. '85; assign. for b. of c. 36. Hurlburt, Matter of, 89 N. Y. 259; s. c, as Matter of Hul- bert, HM'<6. A*. C. 452. 'sa; assign, for b. of c. 43. 68 Hurlburt SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Isaacs Hurlburt v. Banks, '85; const. law, 49 n. v. Durant, '83; trusts, 71, 74, 75, 77-, 78; '84; ex. 4 ad.. 92, 120, 125 n.; surr. ct. 24; trusts, 33 n. 35, 47; '85; ex. 4 ad. 36 n. 84, 111, 116; '86; ex. 4 ad. 12, 108; trusts, 37 n. 41. Hurley v. Van Wagner, '83; elec- tion of offi's, 12; '86; con- tracts, 68. Hurst, Matter ot '84; corp. 25. Huist v. Litchfield, '84; pi. 7 n. ; '85; pi. 78; '86; contracts, 26 n. Hurtin v. Proal, '83; surr.ct. 27; '84; surr. ct. 23. Hussner v. Brooklyn City B..K. Co., 30 Hun, 409. Aff'd in 96 Ji. Y. 18. '86; deeds, 14. Husson v. Oppenheimer, 66 How. Pr. 306. Further de- cision in 23 Weekly J). 237. Hussy v. People, '83; assault 4 b. 3. Husted v. Craig, '85; sales, 22 i). v. Ingraham, '86; husb. 4 w. 12 n. v. Mathes, '83; mech. 1. 3; '84; ev. 190; '86; mech. 1. 6n. Hutcheson v. Peek, '86; husb. 4 w. 28. Hutchings v. Miner, '83; corp. 44; pi. 38. Hutchins v. Hebbard, '83; ev. 127 n. 139 n. v. Hutchins, '83; conspir- acy, 1; parties, 57; '86; ev. 88, 136. v. Smith, '84; trials, 6; '85; contracts, 74 n. ; pi. 28 n. Hutchinson v. Brand, '85 ; exec. 23 n. Hutchinson v. Chamberlain, '83; ev. 10. v. Lawrence, 29 Han, 450; s. c, 3 C,v. 1'ro. E. 98; aff'g 5 Month. I. Bui. 26. Sub- sequent proceeding in 67 How. Pr. 38. '84; clubs, 7 n. ; '85 ; assoc. 7. v. Keed, '83; principal 4 a. 19; '86; parties, 40 n. c Smith, '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. 41. Hutson v. Mayor, etc. ofN. Y., '83; statutes, 19 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 55 n. v. Morrisania Steamboat Co., '84; former adj. 6. Huttemeir u. Albro, '83; deeds, 24 n. ; '84; easements, 6 n. ; '85; deeds, 23, 24; easement, 6n. Hutton v. Benkard, 92 N. Y. 295; aff'g 16 Weekly D. 75. '84; accumulations, adden. 2. Huwer v. Dannenhoffer, '83; partn. 34; trade-m. 14. Hyatt v. Allen, '83; ex. 4 ad. 232. v. Ingalls, '84; election of r. 2. v. Village of Rondout, '84; munc. corp. 67; '86; munc. corp. 46. v. Wait, '83; ben. assoc. 5. Hyde v. Goodnow, '85 ; conflict of laws, 3; ins. 8 n. v. Hyde, '85 ; bills of par. 12. v. Lynde, '86; ins. 102 n. — v. Patterson, '86; replevin, 3. v. Salg, '86; verif. 2. v. Stone, '83; parent 4 c. 8 n. ; '84; parties, 36. v. Tanner, '83; ex & ad. 243; '84; ex. 4 ad. 152; '85; devise, 6. Hyland v. Baxter, 31 Hun, 354. Aff'd in 98 N. Y. 610. '85; guardian 4 w. 8; '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. 57 n. 120 n. ; surr. ct. 8 n. v. Paul, '84; sales, 4. v. Sherman, '86 ; ev. 147. Hynes v. McDermott, 9 Daly, 4; s. c, 7 Abb. Jf. C. 98; and 19 Am. L. Pieg. N. M. 219. Aff'd in 82 .V. Y. 41; s. a, 37 Am. R. 538. Further pro- ceedings in 10 Only, 423; and the latter aff'd' in 91 N. Y. 451; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 323; and N. Y. Daily Meg., March 22, 1883 '83; ev. 25; '85; deposition, 6 n. marr. 3; '86; ev. 244 n. v. Patterson, 95 N. Y. 1; affg 28 Huh, 528. '85; damages, 6 n. Hyslop v. Clarke, '86; fraud, conv. 22. Id dings v. Bruen, '83; trusts, 61 n. Idley v. Bowen, '83; wills, 53 n. ; '86; wills, 19, 33 n. Ihl v. Forty -second Street E. B. Co., '83; ev. 295; new tr. 15 n. ; '85; dam. 37 n.; death, 4; '86; dam. 30 n. ; ques- tions of 1. 4 f. 16. Indianapolis, P. & C. E. E. Co. v. Tyng, '85; deceit, 6. Indig v. National City Bank, '83; banking, 14; bills, n. 4 c. 34 n.; '86; banking, 13; '86; banking, 17 n. ; forec. 15; payment, 1 n. Ingalls v. Morgan, '83; pledge, 3 n ; '84; principal 4 a. 9 n. ; '86;mort. 22. Ingersoll u. Bostwick, '85; ap- peal, 74. v. Jones, '83; dam. 18 n. v. Mangam, '83; wills, 76; '84;service4 p. 22; '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n.; '86; appearance, 1; former adj. 22; surr. ct. 19 n. v. Van Bokkelin, '84; dam. 15 n. v. Miller, '84; seduction, 1. Ingraham, Matter of, '8j; ev. 24; '86; ev. 25. Ingraham v. Baldwin, '84; r. r. co. 38. Ingram v. Bobbins, '83 ; confess. of judgm. 1; '86; amend. 23 n. Inman v. Foster, '84; ev. 202. v. Western Fire Ins. Co., '86; ins. 50 n. Innes v. Lansing, '85; former adj. 34; parties, 9 n. v. Purcell, '83; appeal, 3; '86; corp. 29. Inslee v. Hampton, '83; estop- pel, 13; '84; counterc. 3; '86; pi. 89. International Life Assurance Co. v. Sweetland, '84; place oftr. 12. Insurance Department v. North America Life Ins. Co. See Attorney-General v. The Same. Ireland v. City of Rochester, '83; munc. corp. 110. v. Ireland, '83; trusts, 42; wills, 152; '86; ex. & ad. 57 n. v. Litchfield, '85; ex. 4 ad. 69. v. McGarvish, '83; slander, 1. v. Metropolitan By. Co., '86; easement, 6. v. Oswego, Hannibal & Sterling Plank itoad Co., '85; munc. corp. 56 n. Irish v. Nutting, 't6; gift, 3 n. Irr v. Schroeder, '85; justices' ct. 3; '8">; justices' ct. 3. Irvine v. Milbank, '85; principal 4 s. 9 n. v. Wood, '83; embezzle- ment, 3; ev. 85; highw. 20; lim. of a. 14; negl. 15; nuis. 13; '84; dam. 34 n. ; '85; ac- cessory, 1; negl. 29 n. ; '86; negl. 23 n. Irving v. De Kay, '83; trusts, 85. v. Garrity, '85; costs, 1. v. Bankine, '86; tenants for life, 1 n. Irving Nat. of N. Y. v. Adams, 90 K Y. 682; s. a. 16 Week- ly D. 129 Other proceed- ings in Id. 113; and 28 Hun, 108; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 381. v. Corbett, '86; pi. 33, 125. ■ i'. Manhattan El. B.B. Co., '86; highw. 2 n. Irwin v. Chambers, '84; sup. pro. 7. u. Muir, '83; amend. 7. Isaac v. Denver & Bio Grande By. Co., 12 Daly, 340. Aff'd, it seems, but without opin- ion, 102 N. Y. 718. Isaacs v. Isaacs, '84; contempt, 24. .i). New York Plaster Works, '83; costs, 131; '84; sales, 31. Isaacs SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Jackson 69 v. Third Ave. B. E. Co., '83; carriers, 17; master 4 s. 12; r. r. co. 9 n. ; '84; master k s. 4 n . 8. Isaacson u N. Y. Central E. E. Co., 94 Jff. Y. 278; rev'g 25 Hun, 350; '85; carriers, 8 n. Iselin v. Henlein, 16 Abb. N. V. 73; s. c, 2 2/oio. Fr. N. S. 2U,and7 Civ. Fro. li. 431. Other proceeding in 23 Weekb) D. 422. Iseman v. Meyers, '83; wills, 189. Isenhart v. Brown, '83 ; legacies, 34a n. 40; wills, 207; '85; dower, '9; ex. 4 ad. 120 n. ; 'a6; legacies, 20. Isham v. Buckingham, '83 ; mfg. co. 5; teleg. 5 n. ; '84; corp. 19 n. 36. v. Davidson, '83; abate. 4 I. 11; ev. 306; '84; parties, 60 n.; '86; counterc. 11. v. Gibbons, '83; ev. 410; wills, 73. ■ v. If etchum, '83 ; attach. 79. Isidor, Matter of, '85; assign. tor b. ot c. 27. Isnard v. Cazeaux, '83 ; costs, 5. Ithaca Gas-light Co. v. Treman, 30 Hun, 212. Appeal dis- missed in 93 N. Y. 660. Ives v. Holden, '83; attach. 85. v. Ives, '86; ejectment, 1 n. v. Miller, '86; said in 40 Hun, 498, to have been dis- regarded. Jacklingu. Edmonds, '83; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. Jacks v. Darrin, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 25. 4. Nichols, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 53. Jackson v. Allen, '83; forfeiture, 2 n. ; '84; deeds, 16. v. Anderson, '83; atty. & c. 21; exec. 6; '85; exec. 17 D. v. Andrews, '83; forfeiture, 2 n.; '84f mistake, 15; '86; waste, 1 n. v. Aspell, '84; sum. pro. 2. - v. Austin, '85; judgm. 4 decree, 2. v. Jiabcock, '83 ; easements, 5 n. v. Bailey, '85; ev. 162. v. Bard, '«3, wit. 48. 1: Bartiett, '85; exec. 17 n.; '86; champerty 4 main. 4 n. v. Betts, '84, ev. 248 n.; wills, 66. v. Blanshan, '85; ev. 181 '86; devise, 2 n.; statutes 3. v. Blodget, '83; assign. 17 deeds, 8; mort. 24 n. v. Bodle, '86; infants, 3. v. Boneham, '85; ev. 13 n v. Bowen, '85; bills of lad- ing, 26n.;forec. 14 n.; '86; taxes, 77 n. v. Brink, '83; adv. poss. 1. v. Brookins, '83; civil dam- age act, 2; '85; dam. 28 n. v. Buel, '85; waterc. 13. v. Bull, '38; v. &"p. 7; wills, 161; '84; devise, 2 n.; '86; devise, 2 n. v. Burgott, '83; rec. deeds, 15. v. Burr, '86; wills, 59 n. v. Burtis, '85 ; wit. 6. v. Cadwell, '83; defenses, 6; '85; judicial sale, 11 n. ; set-off, 5. v. Campbell, '83 ; banking, 17; '85; attaoh. 45. v. Carey, '86; champerty 4 m. 4 n. v. Carpenter, '84; infants, 5 n. ; '85; infants, 2 n. v. Latlin, '86; deeds, 6 n. v. Chase, '85; new trials, 3. v. Christman, '83; trials, 27; '84; devise, 3. v. Churchill, '83; wills, 241 n. v. Clark, '84; deeds, 6 n. ; '86; deeds, 12 n. v. Claw, '83; ev. 17. v. Collins, '86; champerty &m. 4 n. v. Cornell, '85 ; partn. 17 n. ; '86;partn.26n. v. Crissey, '86; ev. 100 n. i).Davis,'84; adv.poss.l ; '85; adv. poss. 1 n.; attach. 48; ev. 180; landl. &t. 3n. ;sher. 2; '86; champerty 4 m. 4n. ; ev. 4; lease, 29 n. v. De Lancey, '84; mort. 6. v. Demont, '83; eject. 3. v. Denison, '85; wit. 6. v. De Witt, '83; dower, 2; '85; ex. 4 ad. 97 n.; subr. 2'n. 'v. Deffendorf, '86; new trials, 22 u. v. Dobbin, '84 ; question of 1. 4 f. 3. v. Duiilap, '86; deeds, 6n. v. Edwards, '85; wills, 81, 87 n. ; '86; tenants in com. 6 n. v. Elston, '83; rec. deeds, 15. v. Elsworth, '86; lease, 29, 29 n. ' ' - v. Esty, '86; cloud on title, v. Etz, '85; ev. 13 n. v. 'Passitt, '83; amend. 9; '06; bills, n. 4 c. 20. v. Fish, '86; deeds, 2 n.; rec. deeds, 1 n. v. Florence, '84; covenants, 3 n. - v. Frier, '83; appeal, 83; ev. 102,297,298. - v. Gardner, '85; deeds, 11. • — v. Garnsey, '86; pi. 138 n. - v. Gilchrist, '85; ev. 249 - v. Given, '83; rec. deeds, 15. — v. Graham, '8C; champerty 4 m. 4 n. — v. Gumaer, '83; mort. 9; '84; ev. 133, 133 n.; '85; affid. 4; '86; acknowledg- ment, 1. — v. Harder, '85; ev. 28 n. — v. Harper, '85; landl. 4 t. 3n. — v. Harrison, '85 ; v. 4 p. 2. — v. Hasbrouck, '84; devise, 3; '85;nuis. In. — v. Hathaway, '83; deeds, 18, 20, 21 ; em. dom. 4; '85; cov- enants, 7; highw. 8; '86; highw. 6; nuis. 3. — v. Hawks, '85; trial, 53 n. — v. Hollo way, '84; wills, 31 n.; '86; wills. 22. — v. House, '84; wills, 87 n. ; '85; wills, 108 n. — v. Jackson, 39 if. Y. 153. Cited (Place of signing will) in Younger v. Duffle, 94 N. Y. 543; '83; divorce, 29; wills, 31, 32 n. 35, 48; '48; '85; wills, 29. — v. Johnson, 86; adv. poss. 9. — v. Kasseall, '86; lien, 9. — v. King, '83; ev. 79, 112 n. ; '84; arrest, 10; '85; ac- ' tion, 3. — v. Kniffen, '83; wills, 110; '84; ev. 85 n. 548 n. ; wills, 21 n. — v. Lamb, '83; ev. 34; '85; ev. 180. — v. Laroway, '83 ; ev. 34. — v. Lawton, '84; patents for invent. 1 n. -v. Leek, '84; wit. 43 n. — v. Leggett, '83; ejectment, 3. — v. Le Grange, '84; devise, 3; wills, 66. — v. Leonard, '84; adv. poss. 12 n. — v. Lewis, '85; const, law, 37n.;defin. 14. — v. Livingston, '84; ev. 133; '85;affid.\4. -v. Loomis, '85; deeds, 12; '86 ; appeal, 47 ; partition, 7 n. — v. Luquere, '83; ev. 34; '84; devise, 3; '85: ev. 180. — v. McConnell, '85; husb. 4 w. 4. — v. McKenny, '8.';; judgm. 4 decree, 2. -i). Malin, '83; fraud.conv. 1. — ti. Marsh, '85; deeds, 12. -li. May, '85; waterc. 13. — v. Miller, '84; receivers, 7 n.;'86;ev. 136. -v. Moncrief, '83; v. 4 p. 16; '86; eject. 1 n. — v. Moore, '85; spec, pert 12 n. ; trusts, 14. — v. Morse, '85; trusts, 14. — v. Myers, '63; waterc. 1; '85; deeds, 29 n. -u.Neely, '83; ev. 105. — v. Nestles, '86; relig. corp. 70 Jackson SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Jennery Jackson — continued. v. Newton, '85; ev. 185. v. N. Y. Central, etc. RE Co., '84; trusts, 26 n. ; '85; atty. & c. 5; '86; corp. 20 n. 22 n. v. Odell, 9 Daly, 371; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 325. Another decision upon a subsequent appeal in 12 Daly, 315; s. c, 14 Abb. N. C. 142. • v. O'Donaghy, '84; sum. pro. 2. v. Page, '84;' exec. 23 n. v. Parker, '85; fraud, conv. 5n. ■ v. Phillips, '85; trusts, 8. • v. Phipps, '86; lease, 1. ■ v Plnmbe, '84; pi. 114 n. • v. Post, '83; notice, 2 n.; '85 ; covenants, 4. • v. Potter, '84; ev. 7 n. ■ v. Pratt, '84; ev. 19 n. v. Ransom,'83; deeds, 17. ■ v. Eayner, '85; guaranty, 3. • v. Bichards, '83; bills, n. & c. 33. v. Rightmyre, '85; ev. 28 n.;'86;ev. 156. ■ v. Bobins, '84; adv. poss. 5; '86; devise, 2 n.; wills, 51 n. 58 n. • v. Robinson, '85; appeal, - 115; ex. 4 ad. 25. • v. Boot, '86; ev. 37 n. ■ v. Bosevelt, '85; exec. 17 n. ; '86; champerty 4 m. 4 n. ■ v. Rowland, '85; landl. 4 t. 3n. ■ v. Eumsey, '83; wit. 48. v. Sackett, '84; ev. 19 n. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 99 N. Y. 124; rev'g 33 Hun, 60; ins. 16, 17. ■ v. Schauber, '84; wills, 91 n. ; '86; wills, 59 n. ■ v. Schoonmaker, '86; adv. poss. 9. ■ v. Scissam, '84; adv. poss. 1. — — v. Second Ave. R. E. Co., '83; master &s. 15;r. r.co. 5. v. Sellick, '86; adv. poss. 9. v. Seward, '85 ; fraud, conv. 3n. ■ v. Shaffer, '84; ev. 18 n.; '85; ex. & ad. 40. v. Silverhail, '85; v. & p. 2; '86; ins. 30 n. v. Sisson, '86; champerty 4 m. 4 n. v. Smith, '83; adv. poss. 1. v. Spear, '86; adv. poss 7. v. Staats, '86; devise, 2 n. v. Stevens, '85; husb. 4 w. 4; '86; husb. 4 w. 4n. - — v. Stiles, '84; adv. poss. 3. v. Thomas, '84; adv. poss. 7. v. Thurman, '85; wills, 80 n. v. Tibbitts, '83; adv. poss. v. Todd, '86; champerty 4 m. 4 n. v. Topping, '84; deeds, 16. v. Town, '86; fraud, conv. 6n. v. ' Twenty-third St. By. Co., 88 N. Y. 520; rev'g 47 Super. Ct. (J.& 8.)85. '86; ev. 238 n. ; gift, 3 n. v. Vanderheyden, '84; sum. pro. 2; '85; dower, 11 n. v. Van JJusen, '83; wit. 48; '85; ev. 36. v. Van Valkenburgh, '84; rec. deeds, 15. v. Vickory, '83; deeds, 15; '84; devise, 3. ■ v. Vredenbergh, '83; eject- ment, 3. v. Waldron, '83;assign. 4n. v. Walker, '83; contracts, 72; '85; contracts, 69; landl. & t. 3 n. ; '86; contracts, 67. v. Westerfield, (51 How. Pr. 399. Cited (Lapse) in Wetmore v. Peck, 66 How. Pr. 58; '85; wills, 39; '86; ex. & ad. 67. v. Whedon, '86; trials, 101. v. Willard, '86; lim. of a. 3n. v. Winslow, '85; assign. 15 n. v. Wiseburn, '84; bail, 4 n, v. Wood, '84; bail, 4 n. ; .'85; const, law, 7 n. v. Woods, '86. trials, 95 n. v. Zimmerman, '84; ques- tion of 1. 4 f . 4. Jacobs, Matter of. 98 N. Y. 98; s. c, 2 N. Y. Grim. It. 539; aff'g 33 Hun, 374; s. c, .more fully, 2 N. Y. Orim. B. 346. '86, adulteration, 1. Jacobs v. Fyler, '86; perjury, 3 n. v. Hogan. Cited (Attach- ment) in 38 Hun, 210. '85; attach. 33 n. v. Remsen, '84; debtor 4 cred. 6; '85; assign, for b. of c. 37; '86; assign, for b. of c. 47. Jacobsohn v. Belmont, '83 ; costs, 38. Jacobson v. Le Grange, 3 Johns. 199. Cited (Consideration and death without perform- ing) in Todd v. Weber, 95 N. i". 193. Jacques u. Elmore,'85;wit. 3">n. v. Greenwood, 'e3; judgm. & decree, 35. Jacquin v. Jacquin, '86; con- tempt, 7; exec. 18. Jaeger v. Kelly. '85; ev. 43; fraud.conv.5 n. ; '86 1 ; judgm. 10 n. Jaffe v. Harteau, '83; landl. & t. 4; '84; landl. & t. 5 n. 10; '85; landl. & t. 5 n. 9; '86; lease, 3. Jaffrav v. Brown, '83; bills, n. & c."l9. Jagger v. Littlefield, '85; excep- tions, 5. Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker, '85; questions of 1. 4 f . 2 n. ; '85; pi. 105. James v. Beesly, '86; ex. & ad. 129. v. Cowing, '85; appeal, 32. v. Gurley, '83; exec. 'A\ '84.; exec. 23 n.; '85; exec. 17 n. v. Hackley, 'b5; debtor & cred. 3. v. Morey, '83; merger, 2; '86; ex. & ad. 81 n. — — v. Patten, '84; sales, 14; '85; wills, 15 n.; '86; con- tracts, 73. — — v. Eichardson, 39 Han, 399; modifying Moore j;. Eich- ardson, 3 How. Pr. K S. 238. v. Vanderheyden, '83; / partn. 31. Jamieson v. Jamieson, '83; husb. & w. 43 Janinski v. Heidelberg, '83; ar- rest, 20; '81; parties, 2U n.; '85; husb. & w. 3 n. Jaquesu Greenwood, '85; fraud. conv. 7; '86; ev. 48a n. — v. Todd, '85;'principal 4 a. 13 n. Jarvis v. Driggs, '83; appeal, 118;sum. pro. 8; '86; former adj. 40. v. Peck,' '83; contracts, 56 n. ; estoppel, 9. Jauncey v. Thome, '84; wills, 59 n.; '85; wills, 1* n. 22 n. Jay v. Da Groot, '86; motions 4 o. 6. v. Martine, '85; ex. 4 ad. 69. Jaynes v. Jaynes, 8 Civ Pro. E. 94. Further decision in Id. 99. Jefferson v. People, 28 Hun. 52; s. c, 15 Weekly J). 542. Affdinl01A T . Y. 19. Jefferson County Bank v Chap- man, '81; bills, n. 4 c. la n. Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Cotheal, '83; wit. 12 n. Jenkins v. Adams, '83 ; alimony, 5; atty. 4 c. 60. v. Brown, '85; justices' ct. 5. v. City of Hudson, 16 Abb. N. 0. 137; s. c, 2 How. Pr. N. ii. 244, and 8 Civ. Pro. H. 70. Rev'd in 40 Hun, 424. v. Continental Ins. tip., '83;mort. 2i. r. Fahey, '8t; bonds, 6; '86; const, law, 4 n. ; in- fants, 4 n. ; pi. 99. v. Freyer, '83; parties, 23. v. Hinman, '86; tender, 1. v. Jenkins, '86; ex. 4 ad. 58a. v. Smith, '83; service 4 p. 3; wit. 1. v. Waldron, '83; election of offr, 7. Jenner v. Joliffe, '84; sher. 1. Jennery v. Olmstead, 90 N. Y. 363. See later decision, 36 Hun, 536. Jennings SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Jones 71 JeTinings, Ex parte, '83; bound- aries, 1 n. ; real. prop. 5 n. '84; patents for 1. 2 n. v. Conboy, '83; wills, 219; '85; wills, 66 n. v. Jennings, '85; susp. of power of a. 6 n. v. Osborn, IN Y. State Rep. 267; rev'g N. Y. Daily Reg. Feb. 4, 1886. v. Phelps, '83; surr. ct. 26. v. Webster, '86; legatees, etc. 3 n. ; trials, 6. Jermain v. Booth, '85; costs, 8 n. v. Lake Shore, etc. By. Co., 91 N. T. 483; s. c 16 Week- ly D. 465; affg 14 Id. 166. Subsequent decision in 31 Han, 558. Beiterated on the merits in Sanders v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ey. Co., 94 if .T. 642. Jerome v. Boss, '84; inj. 34 n. ; '86; em. dom. 2 n. Jessop i). Miller, '84; replevin, 4n.; '86; banking, 16. v. Carnegie, '86; statutes, 2n. -, — v. Hulsei '85; assign, for b. of c. 43; '86; assign, for b. of c. 47. Jetter, Matter of, '83; munc. corp. 121 n. Jetter v. N. Y. & Harlem E.E. Co., '83; negl. 55 n.; '86; ev. 9 n. ; master & s. 26 n. ; negl. 50 n. Jewell v. Schroeppel, '85; pi. 78. — — v. Van Steenburgh, '83; easem. 2; '86; tax. 72 n. v. Wright, '84; conflict of 1. 4; '86; conflict of 1. 2 n. Jewett v. Belden, '85; deposi tions, 5. v. Crane, '85; parties, 33; principal & s. 4. v. Keenholts, '84; ex. 4 ad. 132; '85; devise, 6. v. Miller, '83; corp. 59 n.; '85; estoppel, 1. v, Noteware, '84; fraud. cony. 5; '85; fraud, conv. 1 n. ; '86 ; fraud, conv. 8 n. v. Palmer, '85; judicial sale, 11 n. ; set-off, 5. v. Woodward, 'M4; assign. for b. of b. 65. Jext;. Jacob, '83; contracts, 34 '86; former adj. 26 n. Jobbitt v. Giles, '86; excise 6. Joel v. Bitterman, 5 Redf. 136 Another decision in 2 Dem. 242. John and Cherry Streets, Mat- ter of, '83; compensation 17 n. ;'85;em. dom. U, Johnson, Matter of, '86; assign. forb. of c. 30. Johnson v. Adams Tobacco Co. '83; juris. 5. i'. Agricultural Ins. Co., '84 ev. 42 n. — v. Albany & Susquehanna E. E. Co., '85; ex. &ad. 128 n. — v. Beardslee, '83; lim. of a. 51 n - — v. Bennett, '83; trusts, 61 — v. Brooks, 98 N. Y. 337; affg 46 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 113. — v. BnrreH, '83; receivers, 16. — u. Bush, '83; mort. 7. — v. Carnley, '85; appeal, 74. — v. City of Eochester, '83; inj. 42; '85; inj. 37. — v. Clark, '84; bills, n. t c. 7. — v. Corbett, '83; ex. *ad. 89 n. ; forec. 28. — v. Cornwall, '85; judgm. t decree, 9. — v. Covert, '83; paym. into ct. 1. — v. Crofoot, '84; leases, 1. — v. De Peyster, '83; con- tracts, 89; '84; contracts, 85, 85 n. — v. Dixon, '85; landl. i t. 9. — v. Donnell, 90 N.Y.I; s. a, 15 Weekly D. 279; affg 47 Super. Ci.' (J. & S.) 187.S.C, 11 Reporter, 275. — v. Dow, '83; justices' ct. 23 ; '84; justices' ct. 17. — v. Elwood, 84; parties, 43; '86; tax. 75. n. — v. Everett, '83; ev. 305. — v. Farrell, '85; set-off, 8 n. — v. Fellows, '85; costs, 9 n.; '86; costs, 79 n. — v. Florence, '84; district ct. 6. — v. Frew, '86; election of r. 5n. — r. Gilbert, '85;.undert. 15. — v. Hart, '86; bills, n. & c. 17 n. ; ins. 30 n. — v. Hartshorne, '84;acet. st. In. — v. Harvey, '83; guaranty, 12 ; '84; joint debtors, 3 n. — v. Hathorn, '83; ev. 139 n. — v. Hicks, '83; appeal, new tr. addend.; '84; wit. 9 n.; '86;newtr. 28 n. — v. Hudson E.E.E. Co., '83; ev. 343 n. ; '85; const, law, 37n.;defin. 14; negl. 54 n.; trials,66; '86;assign.forb.of c. 7n. ; com. schools, 1; ev. 264n.;r. r. do. 62. — v. Hunt, '84; discharge, 5; '85 ; assign. 7. — v. Jeniiins, '83; dam. 18 n. — v. Johnson, '84; alimony, 10; '85; divorce, 7 n.; '86; pi. 28 n. — v. Lawrence, '84; surr. ct. 24; trusts, 34; '85; ex. & ad. 36, 156, 158; '86; ex. & ad. 8, 111 ; trusts, 30 n. 37 n. — v. Learn, '86; tax. 49. v. Mcintosh, '83; ev. 139 v. MaHory,'83; bills of par. v. Meeker, 96 N. Y. 93; affg 31 Hun, 92. v. Miln, '86; contracts, 2 'v. Monell, '84; ev. 172, 185. v. National Bank of Glov- ersville, '83;nat. bk. 3 n. v. New York Central, etc. E.E. Co., '84; carriers, 9. v. Oppenheim, '83; lease, 3; 85; ev. 74; lease, 7 n. v. People, '83; ev. 270. v. Eogers, '85; husb. * w. 10. .». Spies, '83; gift, 9; '85; wit. 35. n. v. Dnderhill, '83; corp. 10 , n. ; mfg. co. 5; '84; mfg. co. 11 n. v. Valentine, '83; wills, 196 n.;'84; wills, 117 n. v. Weed, '83; paym. 4; '86; paym. 2 n. v. White, '83; chat. mort. 1. v. Whitman, '83; arrest, 14. v. Williams, 63 How. Pr. 233. Afi'd in 16 Weekly D. 196. v. Zink, '83; mort. 52; '84; deeds, 26 n.; mort. 20; '85; assign. 15 n. ; subr. 2 n. ; '86; release, 4 n. Johnston v. Brannan,'83; t>aym. 6. v. Catlin, '83; justices' ct. 19. v. Columbian Ins. Co., '86; paym. into ct. 1 n. v. Fellerman, '86; amend. 23 n. v. Stimmel, 89 N. Y. 117; s. c, 14 Reporter, 27; and 14 Weekly D. 470; afi'g 26 Hun, 435. Jones, Matter of, '83; surr. ct. 22 n.; trusts, 66; '84; trusts, 36; '85; ex. &ad. 146; trusts, 56; '86; ex. & ad. 122; guar- dian & w. 15; receivers, 12 n. ; trusts, 36 n. Jones v. Bach, '84; assign, for b. of c; '86; assign, forb. of c. 3 n. v. Baker, '83; amend. 13; '84; pi. 76. v. Barlow, '83; mfg co. 28; '84, pi. 119; '85; lim. of a. 38; mfg. co. 17 n. 25. v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., '83; ev. 73; '86; trials, 38 n. v. Butler, 87 N. Y. 613; s. c, 14 Reporter, 27, and 14 Weekly D. 275; affg 23 Hun, 367. — v. Caswell, '85; contracts, 53 n. ; '86; contracts, 54 n. ; — v. v Cook, '84; costs, 9; '86; motions & o. 7. — v. Cuyler, '83; divorce, 3 n. — v. Derby,'85; service &p. 4 t 72 Jones SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Kavanagh Jones — continued v. East Society of M. E. Church, '86; ev. 128 n. v. Felch, '84; wills, 57; '85; parties, 4<. v. Graham, '84; chat. mort. 8; '85; chat. mort. 4; partn. 17 n. ; '86; chat. mort. 5, 6. v. Grant, '83; pi. 58, 159. — >- v. Gray, '83; costs, 124. v. Hamersley ; 2 Dem. 286. Another decision in 4 Id. 427; s. c, as Estate of Hamersley, 9 Civ. Pro. B. 293. — — v. Hausmann, '84; assign. for b. of c. 18 n. v. Jones, '83; alimony, 3; '84; appeal, 58; '86; judgm. 17; wills, 81. v. Judd,'85;contracts, 98 n. v. Kent, '83; contracts, 39. v. McGee,'84; counterc. 1 1;. v. Mayert, '85; subr. 2 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 90 JV. Y. 387; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 44u; aff'g 47 Super. Gl. (J. <& S.)21d. v. Morgan, 90 JV. Y. 4; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 318; afFg 24 Hun, 372. v. Morrill, '73 ; boarding-h. keepers, 1. v. Natl. Printing Co., '85; damages, 12 n. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. B. Co., '84; negl. 54; '85; ques- tions of 1. 4 f. 10; '86; negl. 50 n. 90. v. Osgood, '85; exceptions, 7. v. Palmer, '83; pi. 8. v. People, '85 ; certiorari, 16. v. Phcenix Bank, '84; con- tract, 52 n. v. Piatt, '83; bills of par. 7. v. Porter, '86; sup. pro. 15. - v. Boach, '83; master 4 s 30. v. Seligman, '84; spec. perf. 3; '85; spec. perl'. 6; '86;inj. 2n.;r. r. cp. 10. ■ v. Sheldon, '85; animals, 10; statutes, 9. o. Smith, '86; deeds, 8. ■ v. Sparks, 1 If. Y. State Bep. 476. Another decision in 2 JV. Y. Stale Mep. 139. — — v. Terre Haute, etc. B. B. Co., '83; corp. 10 n. — — v. Underwood, '84; coun- terc. 4. v. U. S. Slate Co., '83; affid. 1; ret 33; '85; amend. 6. v. Utica & Black Biver B. B. Co., 36 Hun, 115. Sub- sequent appeel, as it seems, in 40 Hun, 349. v. Zoller, 29 Hun, 551. Sub- sequent appeal in 32 Hun, 280; '85; dower, 1. Jordan v. National Shoe and Leather Bank, '83; coun- terc. 5; set-off, 1, 5 n. ; '85; subr. 8 n.; '86; legatees, 3 n. v. Poillon, '83; judicial sale, 6; trusts, 61 n. ; '84; judicial sale, 3; '85; ex. 4 ad. 175; judicial sale, 5, 7; parties, 30; '86; judicial sale, 7. v. Bichardson, '86; attach. 31. v. Van Epps, '84; former adj. 30 n. ; '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n. ; former adj. 40 n. ; par- tition, 7; '86; former adj. 35, 36; surr. ct. 19 n. Joslin v. Cowee, '83; brokers, - 2n. Joslyn v. Dow, '83 ; bonds, 1. v. Joslyn, '86; amend. 17 n. Jourdan v. Donahue, '85; extra- dition, 1 n. Journault v. Ferris, '86; ex. 4 ad. 119. Journeay v. Brackley, '84; as- sign, forb. of c. 18 n.; '85; insane per. 13 ; '86; insane per. 4. Joy v. Hopkins, '85 ; ev. 58. v. Schloss, 12 Daly, 533; s. c, IT. Y. Daily Beg., April 22, 1885; rev'g 15 Abb. If. G 373. Joyce v. Adams, '86; sales, 32. v. Holbrook, '85 ; appeal, 5 n. v. Spafard, 9 Civ. Pro. B. (Browt*) 342. Appeal dis- missed, it seems, but with- out opinion, in 101 JV. Y. 657. J. Bussell Mfg. Co. v. N. H. Steamboat Co. , '84; ev. 41 n. Judd v. O'Brien, '83; trials, 19. — — v. Seekins, '84; merger, 2. v. Smith, '83; pi. 108. Judge v. Hall, '86; pi. 144 n. Judson t>. Easton, '83; chat. mort. 7n.; '85; ev. 68. v. Gibbons, '83; trust, 17 ; '85; ex. 4 ad. L v. Gray. Cited (Action by third party) in Todd v. Weber, 95 A". Y. 193. '83; atty. & c. 2 n. ; '84; atty. & o. 1 n. ; parties, 8 n. ; '86 ; promise, 7 n. v. Stilwell, '85; principal 4 a. 10; sales, 46 n. ; set-off, 3, 6n. Juilliard v. Chaffee, 92 If. Y. 529; aff'g, it seems, 14 Weekly D. 354; '85; ev. 83, 101 n. ; replevin, 4. Juliand v. Grant, '83 ; case, 5. Julio v. Ingalls, '86; appeal, 6 n. Jumel v. Jumel, '85 ; former adj. 10 n. ; subr. 2n. Jurgenson v. Hamilton, '84; sup. pro. 7. Justh v. Natl. Bank of the Com- monwealth, '85; banking, 13; money paid, etc. 3 n. Justices. Lang, '83; ev. 309; '84; contracts, 69 n. 80 n; '85; deceit, 1; lien, 5; '86; sales, 10. Justices of Special Sessions of N. Y. v. People ex rel. Henderson, 90 If. Y. 12; s. a, IN. Y. Grim. B. 83; rev'g People ex rel. Henderson v. Special Sessions of N. Y., 26 .Him, 537; s. a, 1 N. Y. Grim. B. 76, -and 40 Am. B. 553. Jutte v. Hughes, '83; dam. 40; negl. 34; '84.; dam. 34 n.; pi. 124 n. ; '85; waterc. 4. Kade v. Lauber, '85; distribu- tion, 6. Kain v. Delano, '83; ref. 3, 8. v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 375; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 160; aff'g 23 Hun, 146; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 138. '83; master & s. 20; '84; master & s. 5 n. 28; negl. 55 ; '85 ; master & s. 42 n. ; '86; master 4 s. 10 n. 13, 14, 23, 26 n. 27, 28 n. Kaiser v. Hirfch, '83; negl. 6. v. Kaiser, 3 How. Pr. N. S. 104. Subsequent decision in 1 JV. Y. State Bep. 258. Kale v. Elliot, '83; wit. 92. Kalt v. Lignot, '83, costs, 23. Kammerer v. Ziegler, '85; ex. & ad. 177 n. Kamp v. Kamp, '83; alimony, 7;, divorce, 13, 15, 16, 17; '84; alimony, 7, 9, 10; divorce, 1; motion s o. 23, 24; '85; motions 4 o. 1 n. ; parties, 19; '86; alimony, 8 n. ; di- vorce, 9. Kane, Matter of, '83; legacies, 29 n. ; '84; debtor 4 cred.l n. ; parent 4 c. 2; '86: ex, 4 ad. 96 n. 120 n. Kane v. Astor, '86 ; stipulations, I n. ; wills, 78 n. v. Bloodgood, '84; lim. of a. 4, 5;'85;lim. of a. 11, 21; '86; lim. of a. 6 n. v. Dulex, '84; former adj. 2. v. Gott, '83; susp. of power of a. 18; trusts, 29; wills, 178 n. v. Johnston, '83 ; contracts, 69. Kanna v. Kester, '85; trial, 55. Kanter v. Brophy, '85; deposi- tions, 5. Karnes v. Bochester & Genesee Valley B. E. Co., '84; corp. II n. Kauffmann v. People, 'tf5; ab- duction, 2. Kaufman v. Schoeffel,'86; husb. 4 w. 18. Kavanagh v. Beckwith, '84; as- sign, for b. of c. 89; '85; as- sign, for b. of c. 27; attach. 15 n. ; '86; assign, for b. of c. 47. v. City of Brooklyn, '85; munc. corp. 56 n. v. Wilson, '83; questions of 1. * f. 1, 4, 6; '84; appeal, Kay SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Kendall 73 78; ev. 130 n.; wit. 28; '85; money paid, etc. 12 n. ; '86 ; ev. 248; trials, 80 u. Kay v. Whittaker, '83; pi. 58; 159; '85; disc, s insp. 1; pi. 65. Kayloru. O'Connor, '84;; me eh. 1.16. Kayser v. Sichel, '83; debtor 4 ored. 1. Kearney v. McKeon, '84; ex. 4 ad. 66, 114. v. Missionary Society of St. Paul, '84; distribution, 3; '85; distribution, 2 n.: '86; distribution, 2; trusts, 10. Keating c N. Y. Central, etc. R. R. Co., '85; negl. 47. v. Price, '83; sales, 1; '84; debtor 4 cred. 3 n. Keator v. Smith, '85; banking, 13. u. Ulster & Del. Plank Road Co., '85; trial, 8 n. Kedian v. Hoyt, 33 Hun, 145; s. c. , with opinion in full, in N. Y. Daily Beg., Oct. 4, 1884. Kee v. McSweeney, '85; bills of par. 12. Keefe v. People, '83; indict. 28. 1). Warner, '83; fraud, conv. 11. Keeler v. Belts, '86; attach. 36 n. v. Clark, '85; exec. 23; '86; exec. 14 n. v. Frost, '83; com. sch. 7. v. Salisbury, '85; principal 4 s. 10. v. Yan Wie, '83; costs, 21. Keeney v. Home Ins. Co., '83; receivers, 15; '86; receivers, 9. Keep v. Kaufman, '84; joinder of a. 4; 'oft; joinder of a. 2, 8; pi. 27. Keep v. Keep, '81; arbitration, 3d. Keese v. N. Y., New Haven R. R. Co., '84; negl. 38. Kehn u. State, '84; offi'r, 8; '86; offl'r, 13. Kehoe v. Kehoe, '83; trusts, 19, Keifer v. Webster, 6 Hun, 526, Cited (Attachments) in 7 Cfo. Fro. E. 149. v. Tupper, '83; sales, 23; '86; sales, 32. Keiny v. Ingraham, '85; costs, 8n. Keirsted o. Avery, '85; trusts, 4n. . Kelaber v. McCahill, '84; guar- dian 4 w. 11; '85; guardian 4 w. 9 n. Keller u. Strasburger, 90 If. Y. 379; s. c, 15 Weekly I). 437; aff g 23 Hun, 625; s. c", 11 Weekly D. 349. '85; trial, 58. v. Stuck, '83; services, 5; '84; ex. s ad. 66. Kellett v. Rathbun, '83; appeal, new trial, addend. ; '81; ex. 4 ad. 118; receivers, 27; 85, ex. 4 ad. 146; surr. ct. 32; '86; former adj. 22. Kelley v. MeMahon, 32 Hun, 347. Subsequent appeal in 37 Hun, 212. v . Mayor of Brooklyn, 8b; bills, n. 4 c. 13. v. People, '85; ev. 141. Kellinger, Matter of, '85; tax. 4. Kellinser v. Forty-second St., etc. R. R. Co., '83; const. law 35; '84; dam. 34 n. ; 85; r. r. co. 50 n. ; '86; highw. 4;r. r. co. 28. v . Roe, '83; guardians ad. 1.4. Kellogg, Matter of, '83; ex. 4 ad, 199; trusts, 63; '84; ex. 4 ad. 125 n. ; '85; ex. 4 ad. 147 n.; '86; guardian 4 w. 15. Kellogg v. Ames, '83; contracts, 15; merger, 2 n. ; mort. 56; '86; counterc. 1. v. Howell, '85; judicial sale, 8 n. v. Kellogg, '85; wit. 6. — v N. Y. Central & H. R. R.R. '83; negl. S9, 77 n. 81; '84; negl. 54; questions of 1. 4 f. 6; '85; questions of 1. 4f. 10;r.r. co. 4; '86; negl. 96. v. Olmsted, '83; mort. 46; '86;lim. of a. 27. — v. Richards, '83; ev. 156; receipts, 1; '85; ev. 104. v. Schuyler, '84 ; constables, 1. — v. Smith, '83; mort. 49; notice, 2 n. — v. Thompson, '84; appeal, 3>. Kellum, Matter of, '83; wills, 39 n. 48, 101, 101 n. 123; '84; former adj. 28; wills, 59 n. 70; '85; former adj. 31; '86; wills, 30 n. Kelly's Estate, '83; ex. 4 ad. 236. Kelly, Matter of, '83; atty. 4 c. 19; inj. 22 n. Kelly v. Archer, '83; mech. 1." 10. v. Babcock, '83; trusts, 13. v. Baker, '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. v. Bloom, '85; counties, 1 n. v. Bonesteel, 29 Hun, 546. Another decision in 20 Weekly D. 38. v. Breusing, '83; attach. 55; '84; attach. 34. v. Burroughs, 33 Han, 349. AffdinlU2JV.r. 93. v. Campbell, '85; ev. 201. v. Case, '83; husb. 4 w. 40. v. Countryman, '83; city ct. ofN. Y. 4. v. Crapo, '85; assign. 7. v. Downing, '84; pi. 33; '85; pi. 27 n. u. Frazier, '84; trials, 58. v. Geer, 19 Weekly D. 279. Affd, it seems, in 101 N. Y. 664. u Kelly, '83; wills, 196 n; '84; devise, 4 n.; ev. 84; wills, 103, 117 n.; '85; wills, 90; '86; devise. 1; wills, 53 n. v. McCormick, '83; exec. 2; '84; exec. 23 n. ; '85; bonds, 6; munc. corp. 125 n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y , '83; highw. 21 n.; munc. corp. 76 n. ; '84; master 4 s. 6 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 52 n. ; negl. 39 n. v , N. Y. & Manhattan Beach R.R. Co., '84; costs, 15,16; '85; costs, 8 n. — - v. People, '83; ev. 182; '84; ev. 96. v. Roberts, '83; attach. 72; chat. mort. 12; trusts, 13; '84; promise, 1; v. 4 p. 9. v. Sheehan, '83; appeal, 115; '86; notice, 5, 6 n. v. TUton, '86; husb. 4 w. 20 n. v. Waterbury, "86; libel, 10. v. West, '85; surr. ct. 34; '86; paym. into ct. 1 n. Kelsey v. Barney, '84; questions ofl. 4f. 5. v. Bradbury, '83; forec. 32; '86; judgm. 9 n. v. Darrow, '83 ; arbitration, 2n. v. G-riswold, '83; lim. of a. 32;'84;lim. of a. 26 n.; '85; conversion, 10; lim. of a. 41. v. Jewett, 28 Hun, 51; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 457. Subse- quent appeal in 34 Run, 11. '85; abate. & r. 3. v. King, '83; compensation, 2; const, law, 35 n. ; '86; nuis. 3. v. Tabor, '86; husb. 4 w. 14 n. v. Ward, '83; former adj. 37. v. Western '83; wills, 150. Kelso v. Kelly, '83; lease, 18. v. Lorillard, '83; wills, 135 n. ; '85; wills, 80; '86; wills, 78 n. Kemble v. Bowne, '84; ins. IS n. Kemeys v. Richards, '86;partn. 7. Kemp v. Knickerbocker Ice Co^, '83; contract, 26; '86; ev. 76. Kenada v. Gardner, '85; landl. 4 t. 3 n. ; adv. poss. 7. KendaU, Matter of, '83 ; off r, 9 n. ; '84; off r, 6 n.; '86; ex. 4 ad. 94 n. Kendall v. Hodgkins, '86; con- fess, of judgm. 3. v. Niebunr. See The Same v. Woodruff. '86; mort. 22. n Kendall SUPPLEMENT AET TABLE. King Kendall — continued v. Woodruff,, 87 N. Y. 1; s. c, 13 Wak'y 0.486; affg Kendall v.' Niebuhr, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & «.) 544; which aff'd 45 Id. 542; s c, 58 Horn. Pr. 156, on opinion below. Kendrick's Estate, '86; ex. 4 ad. 86. Kennedy v. Kennedy, '83; pi. 151; '84; divorce, 3, 6; '86 divorce, 3 n. ; 17, 20. v. Manhattan By. Co., '86 master 4 s. 37. -. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83 negl. 2 n. 31; '85; munc. oorp. 60 n. 63 n. ; negl. 11 n. v. N. T. Life Ins. & Trust Co , 32 Him, 35. Aflf'd in part, and rev'd in part, in 101 M. Y. 487. '85; service &p. 6; '86; judgm. 30; ser- vice 4 p. 5. v. People, '84; crim. law, 1 n.;'85; indict. 17; '86; ev. 52 n. v. Byall, '86; attach. 7. v. Strong, '83; forfeiture, 1; '84; assign, for b. of c. 52 n. ; '85; assign, for b. of c. 19 n. v. Thorp, '85; election of r. 11. v. Town of Palmer, '83; wills, 64. Kenner v. Morrison, '84; false impris. 1. Kenney u. City of Cohoes, 3 Nurtheast. Rep. 187; s. c, 1 Ctntr. Rep. 505; 2 East. Hep. 670; affg 29 Hun, 2U5. Kenney v. Wallace, '85; assign. 10; '86; r. r. co. 29 n. Kent v. Fire Comm'rs. See People ex, rel. Kent v. Fire Comm'rs. i). Friedman, 17 Weekly D. 484. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 101 N. Y. 616. v. Harcourt, '85; trial, 48. v. Kent, '86; legatees, etc. 4. v. Quicksilver Mining Co., '83; corp. 18, 44; teleg. 3n.; '84; ben. assoc. 20 n. ; corp. 11 n.; estoppel, 8 n.; '85; corp. 29; parties, 9 n.; '86; contracts, 57; corp. 7; relig. corp. 7 n. Kenyon v. N. Y. Central, etc. K. It. Co., '83; pi. 148. v. People, '84; seduction, 2. v. See, . 29 Hun, 212. Aff'd in UN. Y. 563. Kenzel v. Kirk, '85; shipping, 2. K:ogh v. Main, 53 Super. Ct. (J. & H. ) 183. Further decis- ion in 52 Id. 10 J. '85; wech. 1. 1. v. Wesiervelt, '83, appeal, 118. Kerby v. Daly, '83; former adj. 4 n. Kernochan v. N. Y. Bowery Fire Ins. Co., '86; ins. 58 n. Kerr v. Blodgett, '83; corp. 79; '84;assign. for b. of c. 58, 62 n. ; '85 ; assign, for b. of c. 19 n.; fraud, ccnv. 22; '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Bryan, '85; wills, 92; '86; devise, 1. v. Dougherty, '83; wills, 26, 189, 242; '84; wills, 21; 23 n. 110, 128; '85; distri- bution, 2d.; legacies, 23, 36, 39; wills, 9 n. 132 n.; '86; wills, 10 n. v. Hays, '84; form. adj. 30; '86; former adj. 10 n. v. Kreuder, '86; exec. 2. v. Mount, '84; pi. 159. v. People, '85; highw. 2. v. Shaw, '85; contracts, 82 n. Kerrams v. People, '85 ; ev. 277. Kerrigan v. Force. Cited in Cregier v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 11 Daly, 175. '83; const. law, 61, 71 ; tax. 8 ; '84 ; const, law, 41; '85; const. law, 38, 49 n. Kessel v. Albetis, '86; assign. 5; attach. 43. v. Butler, '84; ev. 169. Kessler v. N. Y. Central, &c. E. K. Co., 'SS; r. r. co. 3; '85; carriers, 8 n.; '86; carriers, 15a. Ketcham, Matter of, '84; atty. & c. 9; exchanges, l;sup.pro. 17. Ketcham v. Woodruff, '84; ap- peal, 6; case, 7. v. Zerega, '85; pi. 36. Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, '83; munc. corp. 103. v. Clark, '83 ; surr. ct. 30. - v. Evertson, '84; leases, 11. v. Ketchum, '83; attach. 79; costs, 114; '86; costs, 84; ex. 4 ad. 124. Keteltas v. Keteltas, '83; lega- cies,. 8; legatees, 2; '84; distribution, 2 n. u.Myers, '83; pi. 109. v. Penfold, '83; covenants, 13 n. Kettle v. Crary, '84; wills, 49. Keuka Nav. Co. v. Holmes, 98 N. Y. 655, dismissing ap- peal from Lake Kenka Nav. Co. v. Holmes, 20 Weehy D 32. Keyes v. Brush, '85; principal 4 s. 2. v. Devlin, '83; appeal, 33; '86; appeal, 88. Keyser v. Harbeck, '85; ev. 254 n, , Kibbe v. Wetmore, '86; attach- 46. Kidd v. Chapman, '83; surr. ct. 22 n.; '80; ex. 4 ad. 82. v. Dennison, '86; waste, 1 n. v. McCormick, '86; dam. 3. Kiefer v. Webster, '83; attach. 33; '84; attach. 20, 21. Kiernan v. Manhattan Quota- tion Teleg. Co., '86; inj. 37. Kiersted v. Orange & Alexan- dria R.K. Co., '83; mort 37; '81; parties, 35; principal 4 a. 11 n.; '86; dam. 28. Kiff v. Youmans, 86 N. Y. 321; s. c.„ 40 Am. R. 543, and 13 Weekly D. 273; rev'g 20 Hun, i23; s. c, 9 Weekly D. 461. '84; dam. 15 n. Kilbourne v. St. John, '85; equity, 2. Kilburnu. Lowe, '86; costs, 14n. v. Woodworth, '85; judgm. 4 decree, 7 n. Kilfoy v. Powers, 6 Dern. 198; s. c, as Matter of Powers, 6 Civ. Pro. R. 326. Killmer v. H. Y. Central, etc. K. K. Co., 100 N. Y. 395; s. c, 1 Centr. Rep. 525; aff'g 30 Hun, 80. Killmore v. Culver, '85; pi. 105 n. Kilmer v. Hathorn, '83 ; appeal, 115; '86; notice, 5, 6 n. v. O'Brien, '83; usury, 27; '86; ev. 14 a. v. Smith, '83; mort. 40; negl. 56 n. ; reformation of iust. 2. Kilpatrick c. Johnson. Cited (Accumulations) in 95 JV. Y. 110. '83; susp. of pow- er of a. 18; '85: legacies, 1; '86; accumulations, n. Kimball v. Brown, lira, of a 30 n. v. Huntington, '86; ev. 86 n. v. Mapes, 19 Weekly D. 481. Aff d, it seems, in 99 i\T. Y. 629, but no opinion. v. Munger, '84; exec. 23 n. Kimberly v. Patchin, '83; ins. 18; '85; contracts, 43 n. ; ev. 41; sales, 33n.;,'86; sales, 16 n. Kimpton v. Bronson, '84; as- sign, for b. of c. 52 n. Kincaid v. Archibald, '85; lim. of a. 50. v. Dwinelle, '83 ; "corp. 67, 69: lim. of a. 26; mfg. co. 20. — — v. Richardson, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 32; '84; costs, 9; '86; judgm. 16. King v. Arnold, '86; arrest, 7. v. Brtldwin, '83; principal 4 s. 8 n. 18, 19; '85; divorce, 7n. v. Bardeau, '84; spec. perf. 7. King SUPPLEMENTAKT TABLE. Knickerbocker 75 v. Brown, '83; hash. 4 w. 23; '86; dam. 16 n. v. City of Brooklyn, '83; muno. corp. 129 n. v. Despard, '83; contracts, . 79. v. Donnelly, '83; trusts, . 51 n. v. Duntz, '84; forecl. 1. ■ ■ v. Fitch, '84; ev. 1; '86; lien, 7n. v. Green way, '85; shipping, 3. v. Havens, '85 ; costs, 8 n. v. Knapp,. '84; .contracts, 85 n. ; '86; judicial sale, 8. ■ v. McVicker,'83; rec. deeds, 8. v. N. Y. Central, etc. K. K. Co., '83; negl. 8,15, 18, 20; '84; master & s. 6 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 52 n. ; '86; ani- mals, 4 n. ; negl. 3U. v. Paddock, '83; ev. 17. v. Parks, '83; partn. 13. v. People, '83; exceptions, - v. Poole, '83; costs, 22; '84; costs, 1. ~- — v. Boot, '85; dam. 28 n. ; '86; libel, 11 n. v. Strong, '84; legacies, 7; '85; costs, 65. v. Talbot, '83; ex. & ad. 64, 112, 114, 191; legacies, 37 n.; trusts, 64, 57, 8b, 91, 108; '84; ex. 4 ad. 62; trusts, 141; '85; ex. & ad. 67; lega- cies, ii; '86; trusts, 34 n. v. Whaley, '83; appeal, 42. v. Whitely, '83; mort. 35; '86; contracts, 7 n. ; subr. 3. : v. Wilcouib, '85 ; waste, 2 n. v. Woodhull, '84; wills,110. Kingman v. Prank, 64 How. Pr. 520; s.c, iV. Y.Daly Ken. March 6, 1883, and 5 Month . 1. Bui. 34. Subsequent decision in action by the name parties in 33 Hun, 471; s. o., 24 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 468; rev'g 9 Grim. L. Bui. 147. v. Sparrow, '85; grants, 2 n. ; patents for 1. In.; waterc. 9 n. Kingsbridge Boad, Matter of, '85; r. r. co. 56. Kingsbury v. Kirwan, '86; con- tracts, 62. v. YVestfal], '83; guaranty, Kings County Elevated By. Co., Matter of, '85; r. r. co. 60. Kings County Pire Ins. Co. v Stevens, 87 if. Y. 287; s o ' 41 Am. B. 361, and 13 Weekly i). 534. Subsequent appeal in 101 N. Y. 411. '84; deeds, 7 n. ; '85; deeds, _, 18, 20 n.; '86; deeds, 15. Kmgsland v. Braisted, '83- partn. 17; '84; pi. 91; '85; associations, 10; pi. 58 n. v. Boberts, '84; hin. of a. 4. Kingsley v. City of Brooklyn, '84; ev. 188. v. Vernon, '85 ; principal 4 s. 11. Kingston Bank v. Eltinge, '83; receipts.l; '85; money paid^ 3 n. ; '86; money paid, 10. Kinnan v. Guernsey, C4 Mow. Pr. 253. Aff'd, it seems, in 19 Weekly D. 410; s. c, with opinion in full, in N. Y. Daily Ben., July 31, 1884. Kinne v. Johnson, '83 ; wills, 4, 17, 18, 68 n, 119. v Kinne, '85; wills, 22 n. 23 n. 55, 56; '86; wills, 14 n. Kinney v. Kiernan, '83; sales, 35; 'e5; election of r. 8 n. v. Nash, '86; libel, 2. v. Boberts & Co., 26 Hun, 166; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 541. Appeal dismissed in 89 N. Y. 601; but without opin- ion. Subsequent appeal in 17 Weekly D. 75. '83; depo- sitions, 29; '84; depositions, 3 J, 33; '85; depositions, 6 n. ; '86; depositions, 17. !•. Schmitt, '85; bonds, 5. Kinnier v. Kinnier, 45 M. Y. 535. Cited (Former judg- ment) in 36 Hun, ill. '83; canals, 3; pi. 40; '84; former adj. 12; judgm. 4 decree, 20; pi. 32 n. ; '86; divorce, 24 n. 25 n. ; former adj. 10 n.; wills, 27. v. Bogers, '83; legacies, 22; wills, 147; 80; powers, 8; '86; powers, 2. KinBey 0. Leggett,'85; factors, 1. Kinsman t>. Birdsall, '85; bills of lading, 24. v. N. ¥. Mut. Ins. Co., '84; ev. 187. Kip, Matter of, '86; ins. 58 n. Kip v. Bank of New York, '85; assign, for b. of c. 13 n. v. Ueniston, 'e3; ex. 4 ad. 89 n. 94. v. N. Y. & .Harlem B. E. Co., '85; r. r. co. 33. v. Van Cortlandt, '86; wills, 44 n. Kipp v. Kapp, 2 How. Pr. A~ S 169; s. c, 7 Vw. Pro. B. 385. Another decision in Id. 316. atty. 4 c. '1%. Kirby v. Kirby,'83; contracts, 9. v. Lake Shore, etc. '83- liin. of a. 11 n. v. Schoonmaker, '83; ar- rest, 19; '«,,; assign, for b of c. 39; partn. 17 n.; '86; assign, for b. of c. 40. v. Taylor. '83; guardian 4 w. 8 n.; '85; guardian 4 w 14. „„ u Tumer > '83; ex. 4 ad. ey n. Kirku Cashman, '86; wills, 73. Kirkland v Aiken, '33; verif 5 v. Kille, 16 Weekly D. 227 ,l "''' : " ™ N. r.'390. Euv'd in ! Kirkpatrick v. Stainer, '86; principal 4 a. 15 n. Kirschmann v. Lediard, '84; dam. 16. Kissenger v. N. Y. & Harlem B. B. Co., '86:r. r. co. 14. Kissock v. Grant, '83; defenses, 6. Kitchen v. Lee, '84; infants, 3. v. Place, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 4, 9 n. Kitts v. Massasoit Ins. Co., '85; ins. 54 n. Klein v. Wolf solm, '83 ; marr. 6. Kleinpeter r/Enell,'85; costs, 1. KlincJ£ v. Colby, '84; libel, 9; slander, 1, 2; '85; ev. 20 n. ; '86; libel, 4 n. 6. Kline v. L'Amoreux, '83; in- fants, 7 n. Klock v. Buell, '86; taxes, 77 n. v. People, '84; ev. 254 n. v. Bobinson. Cited (Na- ture of judgment) in 95 N. Y. 438, 440. Kloppenberg v. Neefus, '83; exec. 49. Knapp, Matter of, '83; atty. 4 c. 4.3, 44, 46, 57n.;'85; fraud. conv. 3 n.; 'SO; assign. 8; atty. 4 c. 27. Knapp v. Anderson, '83; appeal, 117; undert. 6. v. Brown, '83; mech. 1. 5-; '84; meoh. 1. In.; '85; ap- peal, 11, 13 n. 15; counties, 1 n.; '86; appeal, 18; super- visors, 2 n. v. City of Brooklyn, 28 Hun, 500. Aff'd in 97 iV. Y. 520. v. Curtis, '85; ex. 4 ad. 106. v. Fowler, 26 linn, 200; s: c, 13 Weekly D. 517. Fur- ' ther decision in- 30 Hun, 512; s. c, less fully, 18 Weekly D. 230. '83, mo- tions 4 o. 2; '86; amend. 6 n. 17 n. — — "• Hyde, '86; duress, 2 n. 3. v. Knapp, '83; wills, 48; '84; ev. 248 n.; '86; wills, 19, 35. v. McGowan, '85; fraud. conv. 4. v. Maltby, '85; contracts, 76. v. Boche, '84; damages, 18 - — v. Simon, 96 if. Y. 284; s. c, 6 Civ. Pro. R. 1 ; rev'g 49 iiuper. Ct. (J. & S.) 17. '84; mech. 1. 1 n. ; '85; par- ties, 41 ; principal 4 a. 13 n. ; '80; trials, 38. v. Smith, '85; husb. 4 w. 12, 15 n.; '86; husb. 4 w. 2 n. v. Warner, '84; patents for 1. 2 n. Knauer v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., '84; receivers, 1. Kneettle v. Neweomb, '84- ex 4 ad. 30. " Knickerbacker v. Colver, '85- release, 2. Knickerbocker v. People, '83- const, law,. 32; indict. 12. ' 76 Knidkerlocher SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Lalce Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, '84; pi. oftr. 5n. v. Ecclesine, '84; pi. 142 n. v. Nelson, '8:;; amend. 30: foreel. 13 n. ; '84; deeds, 26 n. ; v. 4 p. 8; '85; promise, 2n. Kniffen v. McConnell, '85; ev. 313, 314. Knight v. Beach, '83; tender, 9. v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc. K. K. Co., 30 Hun, 415. Rev'd in 99 N. Y. 25; '85; r. i. co. 11 n. ; '86; r. r. co. 9. v. Wilcox, '83; dam. 18 n. ; '84; seduction, 1. Knowles v. Cuddeback, '83; guaranty, 12. v. Gee, '85; crim. law, 3. v. Toone, 96 N. Y. 534; rev'g 10 Daly, 388; '80; gift, 3n.; husb. 4 w. 17. Knowlton v. Bannigan, 11 Abb. N. C. 4111; s. c, 2 Civ. Pi O.K. (McCurty) 317; and 5 Month. L. Bui. 7. Subsequent decision in 51 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 521; '84; depositions, 14. v. Congress and Empire Spring Co., '85; contracts, 64 n. 69. v. Fitch, '84; brokers, 7 n. 8. Knoxu Baldwin, '83; mfg. co. 7; '84;mfg. co. 16;'85; corp. 37; mfg. co. 17; parties, 7; statutes, 14 n. v. Hexter, '83 ; former adj . 4 n. ; '86; accord. & sat. 1. v. Jones, '83; real prop. 8; wills, 139; '85; susp. of power of a. 4, 6 n. ; wills, 1 120; '86; wills, 78 n. v. McDonald, '83; inj. 39; '84; inj. 33; '86; prohibition, 2. v. Mayor, etc. cf N. ¥., '83; const. law,35n. ; '84; equity, 2; 85; highw. 3 n.; parties, 21; pi. 28n.;'86;ev. 60. Knupfle v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.. '83; cause of action, 3; '84; ev. 222; '85; ev. 293 n. Koch's Estate. See Koch v. Woehr. Koch v. Woehr, 3 Bern. 282; s. c, as Koch's Estate, 15 Abb. A'. C. 139 n. Koehlerr. Adler, '83; questions of 1. 4 f. 6; '84; appeal, 78; wit. 20; '80; appeal, 90; ev. 32; money paid, 12 n. ; wit. 19, 35 n. Koelges v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., '86; trials, 56 n. 57. K-jenig v. Nott, '86; action, n. v. Steckel, '83; sher. 16; '84;sher. 3 n.; '85; chattels, 4. Kohler v. Matlage, '85; guaranty, 2; undert. 10; '86; contracts, 87. Kohn v. Koehler, '83; lotteries, 2; '86; lotteries, 2, 2 n. Koon v. Mazuzan, '86; former adj. 31; justices' courts, 1 n. Koonz, Matter of, '85; assign. for b. of c. 27. Koppel v. Ueinrichs, '85; city ct. ofN. Y. 4. Kopper v. Willis, '83; innk. 5; '86; innk. ]. Kortright v. liwffalo Commer- cial Bank, '83; banking, 6 n. v. Cady, '83; mort. 13 n.; receivers, 2 ; tender, 8, 10 n., '84; mort. 2 n.; trusts, 7; '85; pi. 156 n.; '86; tender, 4 n. 8 n. Kowing v. Manly. Cited (Hus- band 4 wife) in 33 Han, 656. '83; arrest, 20; bailment, 4; '84; parties, 30 n. Kraft v. Freeman Printing, etc. Assoc, '86; corp. 13. Kramer v. Police Dept. of N. Y., 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 492; rev'g N. Y. Daily Beg. Nov. 24, 1885. Krauseru. Ruckel, '83; mfg. co. 19. Kraushaar v. Meyer, '84; wit. 23. Krekeleru. Bitter, '84; pi. 131; '86;former adj. 17; judgm. 4. Krohn v. Sweeney, '83; innk. 4. Kromer v. Heim, '83; accord. 4 sat. 1 n. ; debtor 4 cred. 10; '84; accord. 4 sat. 2 n. ; '85; accord. & sat. 1. Krulder v. Ellison, '83; sales, 23, 24; '86; sales, 29. Krumm v. Beach, '85; fraud, 8. Kuhn v. Stevens, '85; lease, 7 n. Kuhne v. Daily, 89 JV". Y. 631, dismissing appeal, it seems, from 23 Hun, 282; s.o.,11 Weekly D. 247. Kundolf v. Thalheimer, '85; juslices' ct. 16, Kuney v. Amazon Ins. Co., '86; principal & a. 1. Kunz v. Stuart, 85; master 4 s. 33 n. Kupfer v. Frank, 30 Sun, 74; s. c, as Cupfer v. Frank, 64 How. Pr. 396; 4 Civ. Pro. B. 53. Korst v. Paton. See Matter of Paton. Kyle v. Kyle, '83; appeal, 144a; assign, for b. of c. 31 ; ex. 4 ad. 136; surr. ct. 22 n. ; '84; divorce, 6; ex. 4 ad. 114, '86; dower, 9. Labar v. Koplin, '85; trial, 83 n. La Bau v. Yanderbilt, '83 ; ex, 4 ad. 139; legacies, 31; wills, 15, 21, 4b; '84; ex. 4 ad. 93; '85; wills, 3n. La Beau v. People, '85; ev. 72. Lablache v. Kirkpatrick, 8 Civ. Pro. H. 256. Another de- cision in action by the same parties in Id, 340; s. c, in part, 3 How. Pr. N. S. 61. La Bussiere v. N. Y. and New Haven R.R. Co., '85; r. r.co. 11 n. Lace's Case, '85; munc. corp. 6 n. Lachaise v. Libby, '84 ; parties, 37. Lachenmeyer v. Lachenmeyer, 26 Hun; 542; s. c, 14 Week- ly D. 488. Appeal dismiss- ed, it seems, in 89 N. Y. 632, but without opin- ion. Subsequent pro- ceeding in 65 How. Pr. 422. '85; abate. 4 r. 1; '86; atty. 4 c. 27. Lacustrine Fert. Co. v. Lake Guano, &a. Co., '86; inj. 39. Lacy v. Getman, 3 How. Pr. 2f. S. 250. Eev'd in 35 Hun, 46. Subsequent decis- ion in 23 Weekly D. 264. Ladd v. Moore, '83; sales, 33 n. Ladue v. Griffith, See McDon- ald v. Western B.K. Co., in this table. La Farge v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., '84; fish 4 fisheries, 1. v. Herter, '83; usury, 25, disc. 4 insp. 4 n. r. Kneeland, '86; principal &a. 18. v. La Farge Ins. Co., '83; 34 n. Lafferty v. Lafferty, '84; surr. ct. 25. Laflin t>. Griffiths, '83; chat, mort. 1. Lafonde v. Deems, '84; ben. assoe. 17 n. 21; '85; equity, 3; '86; clubs, 5. La Forge v. Chilson, '86; costs, 24 n. LaFrombois v. Jackson, '84; adv. poss. 1 n. ; '85; ev. 185. Lake v. People, '85; wit. 55. • v. Eanney, '83; wills, 117, 118. v. Tysen, '84; ev. 27 n. Lake Kenka Nav. Co. v. Holmes, 20 Weekly D. 32. Con- firmed on dismissal of ap- peal as Keuka Nav. Co. v. Holmes, in 98 N. Y. 655. Lake Ontario Shore B.B. Co. v. Curtiss, '83; r. r. co. 37. v. Mason, '86; contracts, 38. Lake Shore & Michigan South- Lake SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Latham 77 em U.K. Co.u. Boach, '83; const, law, 58; tax. G4; '84; fieri u fisheries, 1 ; '36 ; const. law. 17. Lake Superior Iron Go. v. Drexel, 90 N. Y. 87; s. c, 15 Weekly V. 341; affg 12 Weekly D. 300; '83; mfg. cos. 17; '84; business corp; 1;'86; mfg. co. 4. Lamb v. Camden & AmboyB.B. Co., '83; carriers, 23; ev. 82; trial, 75; '84; ev. 39, 211. Lambert v. Craft, '86; ex. & ad. 82, 122;surr. ct. 10. v. People, '85; notaries, v. Staten Island E.B. Co., '83; harbor masters, 4. Lament v. Haight, '86; towns, 6. Lamkin v. Douglass, 27 Sun, 517; s. o., 15 Weekly D. 314; rev'g 63 Sow. Pr. 47. '85; attach. 31 n. 36 n. 37; '86; attach. 29, 33. Lamont r. Cheshire, '84; cloud on title, 3; '85; attach. 43 n. Lamoure v. Caryl, '84; costs, 11; '86- costs, 7; justices' ct. In. L'Amoureux v. Crosby, '85; ev. 164 n. v. Gould, '84; contract, 52 n. ; '85; bills, n. 4 c. 15. Lampert, Matter of, '83; arrest, 6, 28. Lampmanu Milks, '83; deeds, 24 ji. ; easements. 6, 6 n. ; '84; easements, 6 n. ; '85; deeds, 24; easements, 6 , n. Lampmann v. Hammond, '84; seduction, 1. Landeu. Smith, '85; husb. & w. 8 b. Landers v. Bartle, '84; legacies, 4. v. Frank Street, etc. Church, '86; relig. corp. 7 n. v. Staten Island B.E. Co., '83; city ct. of N, T. 1; juris. 9; '«5; juris. 11; pi. 35. u.Watertown Fire Ins. Co., 86 N. Y. 414; s.c , 49 Am. B. 554; rev'g 19 Hun, 174; '83; ins. 13 n. Lands in Town of Flatbush, Matter of, '85; const, law, 46, 54. Land t v. Hilts, '84; false impris. 2 n. ; '85; false impris. 3. Lane v. Arnold, 63 Sow. Pr. 40. Eev'd in 11 Daly, 293; s'c, 13 Abb. JSl. V. 73; and that rev'd, it seems, but with- out opinion, in 99 A. Y. 648. '83; partn. 12n.; '84; partn. 5; '86; names, 1. ' v. Bailey, '83; banking, 15; pledge, 2. v. Brown, '85; wills, 118. ■ v. Doty, '86; ev. 140 n.; partn. 27. „ v . Hitchcock, '86; lim. of a. 8a. See addenda. v . King, '8a; waste, 2 n. v. Lane, '85; wills, 28, 56. u Lewis, 4 Bern. 468; s. c, as' Estate of Brick, 9 C'iu. Pro. H. 397. v. Morse, '83; affid. 1. v. Salter, '85; defenses, 2; ex. & ad. 69; pi. 9. ■. v. Schermerhorn, '86; in- sane per. 4; taxes, 4. v. Van Orden, '86; costs, v. Wheeler, 35 Hun, 606. Appeal dismissed, as it seems, in 101 N. Y. 17. v. Williams, 20 Weekly D. 16. Subsequent decision in action by the same par ties in 37 Sun, 388. Lanergan v. People, '84; ev. 96 n. Lang v. Brown, '85; inj. 6 n. ; '86; inj. 45 n. v. Marks, '85; district ct. 4. v. Eopke, '83; accumula- tion, 5 n. ; susp. of power of a. 19; trusts, 44; '85; powers, 5. v. Wilbrahame, '85; former adj. 43; '86; indians, 1 n. Langdon i: Astor, '83; legacies, 16, 34; '85; devise, 7 n. v. Buel, '83; chat. mort. 7 n. ; pledge, 4n. ; '85; assign. 17; mort. 24 n. v. Guy, '86; pi. 18 n. v. MayoT, etc. of N. Y., 92 N. Y. 427; s. c, 16 Weekly V. 513; aff'g 27 Sun, 288; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 101; which aff d in effect 63 Horn. Pr. 134. v. , 93 N. Y. 129; affg 28 Hun, 158; s. a, 16 Weekly V. 289, and N. Y. Daily Reg., Nov. 29, 1882; which rev'd 6 Abb. N. 0. 314. '83, highw. 37; '84; patents for 1. 2 n. ; grants, 1 ; '85 deeds, 15, 36; grants, 1; munc. corp. 39 n.; '86; real prop. 7. Lange, Estate of. See Bowne v. Lange. '86, munc. corp. 67, 78, 90. Lange v. Benedict, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 2; '84; false im- pris. 1; '85; munc. corp. 117 n. ; trial, 88. Langley v. Wadsworth, 18 Week- ly J). 138. Aff d, it seems, in 99 A', Y. 61. '86; trials, 38. v. Warner, '86; atty. & c. 2; receivers, C; trisils, 99 n. Langworthy «. Broomley, '85; pi. 137 n. Lanigan v. N. ¥. Gas-light Co., '83;negl. 62; '85; trials, 56. Laning v. N. Y. Central E. B. Co., '83; master & s. 20, 22, 24, 25, 33; '84; appeal, 46; master &s. 13, 18,28, 28 n.; '85; appeal, 89; master & s. 13, 16, 28 n. 37, 42 n.; i 86; master * s. 16 n. 20 29 n. 30 n. ; negl. 56 n. ; pi. bl n. Lanning v. Carpenter, '83; ret- ormation of inst. 4 n. v . Streeter, '83; attach. 55; '81; attach. 27. Lanphire v. Slaughter, '83; ev. 137; '86; contracts, 2 n. Lansing v. Blair, '83; lim. of a. ± 8 - v. Capron, '85;- lim. of a. 45. v .. Easton, '85; contempt; 15. v Eddy, '84; judgm. « de- cree, 27. v. Goelet, '86; juris. 9 n. v. Hadsall, '83; wit. 52; '85; disc. & insp.; pi. 65. v. Lansing, '83; ex. & ad. 64 n. 197, 217; trusts, 75 n. ; '84; contempt, 11 n. ; re- ceivers, 27; trusts, 28, 33 n. ; i85; contempt, 5; trusts, 31 n. v. McKillup, 1 Cow. 35. Cited (Execution) in 36 Hun, 635. v. Montgomery, '86; trials, 95 n. v. Eussell, '85; trial, 87 n. : v. Smith, '83; compensa- tion, 10; grants, 1 n. ; wa- terc. 3 n. ; '84; waterc. 3; '85; inj. 12 n. v. Starr, '85; depositions, 5. Lantz v. Buckingham, '85 ; ceme- teries, 2. Lanz v. Trout, '84; corp. 14. Lapeous v. Hart. '8'J; stay of pro. 4. Lapham v. Eice, '84; bridges, 1. Lappin v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 36; '85; ins. 55 n. Laraway v. Perkins, '83; pi. 2. Larkin v. Hardenbrook, 90 N. Y. 333; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 472; aff'g 11 /d. 550. v. Mann, '83; wills, 150; '85 ; guardians ad 1. 2. v. Eobbins, '84; arbitra- tion. 3 n. ; '86; discont. 5 n. v. Steele, '86; depositions, 17; motions & o. 3. Larned v. Hudson, '85; abate. & r. 9. Larrabbe v. Van Alstyne, '83; dower, 7. Larson, Matter of, 96 N. Y. 381; rev'g 31 Sun, 539. Larson v. Wyiuan, '83; ques- tions of 1. 4 f. 8. Larue v. Eowland, '83; ey. 242. Lasher v. Lasher, '83; dower, 7. v. Northwestern Ins. Co., '83; ins. 56; parties, 34; '86; parties, 28. v. Si. Joseph Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 84; ins. 23. Latham v. Eichards, '83; towns, 3; '86; villages, 11. 78 Lathrop SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Lee Lathrop v. American Board of I Foreign Missions, '83 ; -wills, 5; '85; wills, 3 n. v. Borden, '83 ; wills, 5. v. Bramball, '85; ev. 119 n. v. Brown, '85 ; depositions, 19. v. Clapp, '84; sum. pro. 14; '85; sup. pro. 21, 22 n.; '86; sup. pro. 21 n. i). Hoyt, '83; contracts, 81. v. Kneeland. '83; corp. 6n. ■ • v. Singer, '83; exec. 30 n. — v. Smith, '83; ex. tad. 12. Latson, Matter of, '83; con- tempt, 5. Lattiiuer v. Livermore, '83; costs, 80 n. 85. Lattimore v. Harsen, '83; guar- anty, 5 n. Lattin v. McCarty, '84; joinder of a. 4; pi. 19, 101; '85; pi. 28 n.; '86; cloud on title, 4 n.;pl. 35. Laude v. Smith, '85; husb. 4 w. 3n. Laughran v. Smith, '84; leases, 4; '85; landl. & t. 2; lease, 7 n.; '86; contract, 71. LavaUe v. Skelly, 90 JH. Y. 546; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 41;aff'g in effect, 24 Hun, 642. '83; amend. 7; '84; justices' ct. 11; '86; amend. 8. Laverty v. Snethen, '84; con- version, 4; '86; conversion, 7; pi. 124 n. Law v. McDonald, '83; forec. 6; '86; stppeal, 89; costs, 15 n. v. Merrills, '84; partn. 15 n. Lawless v. Hackett, '86; amend. 23 n. ; confess, of judgm. a. Lawrence v. American Nat. Bk., '84; money paid, 13 n. — — v. Bank of Republic, '84; attach. 27; '86; attach. 43 n. r— v. Barker, '84; wit. 43; '85; principal k s. 10. v. Brown, '85; landl. 4 t. 3 n. v. Clark, '83; bills, n. & c. 25, 49; debtor 4 cred. 10; '85; corp. 26 n. v. Cook, N. Y. Daily Reg. Oct! 6, 1882. Bev'd as The Same v. Cooke in 19 Weekly D. 257; s. c, with opinion in full, 32 Hun, 126. '85; judgm. 4 decree, 9; wills, 108 n.; '86; wills, 53 n. v. Dale, '83; ins. 94 n. , v. Elliott, '83; wills, 27 n. ; '84; wills, 21. . v. Elmendorf, '83; ex. 4 ad. 19. «. Ely, '85; appeal, 111, 112; new tr. 3. v. Embree, '85; legacies, 35 n. 36, 37; '86; ex. 4 ad. 94 n. 127; legacies, 21. v. Farley, 'S4; city ct. of N. Y. 5. I v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., '83; forec. 3; '84; forec. 1. v. Fowler, '84; ref. 14. v. Fox, '83; pi. 38; promise, 1; '84; bills, n. 4 c. 7; con- tract, 94; parties, 47; prom- ise, 1; wit. £>; '85; assign. 15 n ; contracts, 15; cove- nants, 12; mort. 24 u. ; par- ties, 19; promise, 2, 2 n.; '86; contracts, 7 n. ; guar- anty, 6; mort. 15; promise, 1, 3 n. 7 n. ; sav'gB b'ks, 2. v. Foxwell, 49 buptr. VI. [J. & S.) 273; s. a, 4 Civ. Pro. R. 340, Other proceedings in Id. 278 and 506. '84; ar- rest, 5. v. French, '86; lease, 21 n. ■ v. Hebbard, '83; wills, 180 n.; '85; wills, 79, 103 n. — — v. Hunt, '85; former adj. id v. Jones, '83; ref. 33. v. Kidder, '84; contracts, 56 n ;'85; contracts, 58 n.; '86; contracts, 55. v Lindsay, '83; surr. ct. 19; wills, 151; '85; wills, 123; '86; appeal, 92a, n. ; costs, 44 n. v. Maxwell, '83; corp. 45; '86; pledge, 3. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '85; parties, 21. v. Merrifield, '83; partn. 38; '85; partn, 28, 35. v. Miller, '83; sales, 21; '84; bankr. 6; '85; dower, 3; spec. perf. 10; v. 4 p. 6. v. Nelson, '83; sav'gs bks, 2 n. ; set-off, 1 n. v. Norton, '84; wills, 70. v. Palmer, '85; nuis. 1 n. ^— v. Spence, 29 Han, 169. Aff d in 99 N. Y. 669. v. Taylor, '83; v. 4. p. 16. v. Trustees Leake & Watts Orphan House, '84; partn. 15 n.;'86; partn. 27, 29. Lawson v. Hogan, '84; contracts, 98. v. Jones, '86; ev. 100 n. Lawtonu Green, '83; inj. 63. v. Kiel, '83; attach. 25; '86; amend. 6. v. Sager, '86; deeds, 3. Lawyer v. Loomis, '83; pi. 184. Lax v. Forty-second, etc. B»R. Co.;'84;negl. 26. Layman v. Whiting, '83; forec. 3. Laytin u. Davidson, 29 Hun, 622. Aff'd in 95 N. Y. 263. '84; trusts, 3o; '85; ex. 4 ad. 36, 147 n. 156, 158; '86; re- ceivers, 12 n. ; trust;, 30 n. 37 n. Lea v. Wolf, '83; trade-m. 12; '85; trade-m. 4. Leach v. Kelsey,'85; cred. s. 5 n. Leahy, Matter of, '86; assign. for b. of o. 3 n. Leaird v. Smith, '86; eject. 1 n. Leake & Watts' Orphan Home, Matter of, '84; const, law, 34 n. Learn v. Currier, '84; costs, 16. Learned v. Tallmadge, '85; adv. poss. 1 n. v. Tillotson, 48 Super.. Ct. {J. & S.) 239. Affd, it seems, in 97 N. Y. 1; s. 6., 6 Civ. Pro. R. 42r>. Leary, Matter of, 27 Hun, 563. Subsequent decision in 30 Id. 394. Leary v. Boggs, 3 Civ. Pro. R. 227. Kev'd, it seems, in 1 K Y. Mate Rip. 571. '83; pi. 47 n. ; '84; pi. 38n.;'85; pi. 51. v. Woodruff, '86; negl. 9. Leavitt v. Blatchford, '84; bail, 8 n. ; mort. 5. v. Palmer, '83; husb. & w. 23; '84; corp. 24 n.; '85; contracts, 69; reformation, 2n,;'86; bills, n. & c. 2. v. Pell, '85; wills, 87 n. v. Wolcott, 65 How. Pr. 51. Rev'din95J^. Y. 212. '85; former adj. 3; '86; former adj. 1. Leavyu Gardner, '85; abate. 4 r. 11. Leaycraft v. Simmons, '84; wills, 8; '85; wills, 14 n. Le Baron v. Long Island Bank, '86 ; assign. 8. Le Blanc, Matter of, '8'?; trusts, 13; '84; bail, 6; '86;banking, 14. Le Clare v. Stewart, '83; wit. 37, 47. Le Count v. Le Count, '84; ex. 4 ad. 97, 98; '85; ex. 4 ad. 126 n. Le Couteulx v. City of Buffalo, '85 ; munc. corp. 5 n. Ledgerwood Manufg Co. v. Baird, '85; pi. 98; '86; pi. 52 n. Ledwith v. Union Trust Co., '86; guardian 4 w. 12. Ledyard v. Butler, '83; fraud. conv. 6. v. Jones, '84; dam. 37. v. TenEyck, 86; real prop. 7. Lee i;. Adsit, '83; ev. 323a. v. Ainslie, "83; ev. 54. v. Chadsey, '83; usury, 24 n. v. Dill, '85; wit. 11. 17. Huntoon, '86; chat. mort. 4 n. 17. Lee, '83; surr. ct. 45; '85; judicial sale, 7; legar cies, 21; wills, 78. v. Methodist Episcopal Church, '84; ev. 67. v. Pfeffer, '84; parties, 54. v. Pittsburgh Coal & Min- ing Co., '86; corp. -34 n. Lee SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Lewis 79 v. Tillotson, '84; -waiver, 3; '86; costs, 72 n. v. Village of Sandy Hill, '83; deeds, 8; '85; munc. corp. §5 n. ; '86; munc. corp. 65. v. Woolsey, '84; dam. 15 n. Leeds v. Merchants' Ins. Co., '85; ins. 39 n. v. Metropolitan Gas-light Co., '83; death, 2 n.; '84; trials, ia;'85;dam. 21; '86; dam. 28. Leefe, Matter of, '85; assoc. 3. Leet v. McMaster, '85; fraud, conv. 10. Lefevre v. Laraway, '85 ; infants, 7; '86; judicial sale, 9 n. v. Lefevre, '83; legacies, 3; wills, 26, 144, 189; '84; wills, 23 n. 43, 83; '85; distribu- tion, 2 n. ; ev. 107; legacies, 3; wills, 9 n. 37, 108 n. 132 n. ; '86 ; legacies, 3, 3a n. ; ■wills, 10 n. — v. Toole, '83; wills, 147; '84; dower, 5; '85; wills, 69; '86; legacies, 13. Lefferts v. Hollester, '84; indict. 18 n. Lefler v. Keld, '84; exceptions, 2; pi. 61. Leger v. Bonaffe, '83 ; bills, n. * c. 22 n. ; mistake, 2. Legg v. Meyer, '83; wills, 94. Leggett, Matter of, '84; trusts, 29. Leggett v. Boyd, '83; judgm. & decree, 35. v. Hunter, '83; trusts, 33. 46; '84; contempt, 28; '85; receiver, 15; trusts, 10. v. Hyde, '83; partn. 5, 6, 6a n ; '84; partn. 1 n.;'85; negl. 37; '86; animals, 4 n. ; negl. 4 ii. ; partn. 3 n. v. Mutual Ins. Co. of N.Y., '83; v. & p. 5 n. v. Perkins, '83; trusts, 30, 33, 44; wills, 152; '84; wills, 91. v. Postley, '85; depositions, 5. Le Guen v. Gouverneur, '84; former adj. 1. ; '85; former adj. 40 n. ; '86; alimony, 8 n. ; appeal, 19 n. Lehman v. City of Brooklyn, '83; ev. 295; '84; dam. 22 V v. Boberts, '84; cloud on title, 3. Leichtweiss v. Treskow, '84; in- _ fants, 8. Leiegne v. Schwarzler, '85- mech. 1. 2. Leighton v. People, 88 2f. Y. 117; s. c, 13 Weekly h. 182- aft'g 10 Abb. JV. C. 261; s c. 12 Weekly I). 467. '83; ev. 309; homicide, 6; new tr 24; trials, 111, Leitch v. Hollister, '84; fraud conv. 1; '85; assign, for b.' of c. 38; fraud, conv. 1 n • '86; fraud, conv. 23. ' j v. Wells, '83; corp. 10 n.; ex. & ad. .56; '84 ; principal & a. 9 n.; '86; fraud, conv. 20. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., '83; ins. 7. Leland v. Hathorn, '84; place of tr. 5 n. Leraoineu.Gauten,'83; trade-m. 10. Lenhart v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc. K. B. Co., 19 Weekly D. 17. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 98 N. Y. 635. Lennon v. Mayor, etc. of K. T., '84; tax. 56. Lent i'. Howard, '84; sum. pro. 3; susp. of power of a. 5; trusts, 40; wills, 97 n.; '86; ex. & ad. 109, 135 n. Leonard v. Barker, '86; former adj. 9. v. City of Brooklyn, '86; mech. 1. 6 n. v. Clinton, '83; cred. s. 2; '84; cred. s. 9; '85; cred. s. 5 n.; '86; assign, for b. of c. 2n. v. Collins, 79 If. Y. 90. Cited (Master's care) in 99 If. Y. 375. '86; negl. 66. v. Columbia Steam Nav. Co., '83; appear. 3; '85; cause of action, 2; citizens, 1 n.; civil damage act, 1; death, 1, 1 n. ; defin. 34; ev. 14; '86; statutes, 2 n. v. Davenport, '85; ev. 107. v. Morris, '83; forec. 29; parties, 29; '84; forec. 1. v. Mulry, 5 Month. L. 'Bui. 24. Aff d in 93 N. Y. 392. v. N. Y., etc. Tel. Co., '84; dam. 13; '86; dam. 17 n. v. Pitney, '83; lira, of a. 39n.;'85;lim. of a. 12. v. Keynolds, '83; tax. 40. - v. Vredenbergh, '83; con- tracts, 84; guaranty, 17; '84; guaranty, U n.; '85; guar- anty, 2, 7; '86; guaranty, Leonardsville Bank v. Willard, '85; assign, for b. of c. 12. Le Koy, Ex parte, '83; wills, 39 Le Koy v. Globe Ins. Co., '86- banking, 14. v. Mathewson, '83; trusts, v. Piatt, '83; pi. 123; '84; appeal, 30. Leseutr v. Leseuer, '83; divorce, Leslie j). Johnson, '86; estoppel, 12 v. Knickerbocker Life Ins Co., '85; ins. 63 n. v. Lorillard, 31 Hun, 305. pother appeal in 40 M. <5»A 86; parties, 9. "■ Eugg, 'd5; assign, for b. of o. 36. Lesser„. People, '83; false pre. Lessler v. Wunder, '84; ev. 130 n. Lessels v. Earnsworth, 3 Jioic. Pr. N. 8. 364; affg U. 73. Lester v. Crary, '86; justices' ct. 4n. v. Bedmond, '85; lira, of a. 8. Levenu. Smith, '83; fraud, conv. 17. Levi v. Dorn, '83; ev. 149. Levin v. Kussell, '83; excep- tions, 7; '84; pi. 95; trials, 26; '85; trials,43; '86;appeal, 33 n. ; fraud, conv. 6, 21 n. ; new tr. 10, 25; trials, 19. Leviness v. Cassebeer, '83; surf. ct. 22 n. Levy, Matter of, '83; assign, for b. of c. 11; ex. 4 ad. 187; '84; assign, forb. of c. 6i, 65, 66; '85; sec. for costs, 2; '86; assign, for b. of c. 30. Levy v. Appleby, 1 City CI. 252. Subsequent decision in Id. 258. v. Bend, '83; pi. 173. v. Brush, '83; contracts, 81; ev. 3u7; spec. pert'. 4 n. ; '84; bail, 8 n. ; contracts, 61, estoppel, 11; '85; contracts, 71 n. v. Cavanagh, '83; principal 4 a. 19. v. Levy, '84; trusts, 17^85; wills, 1U8 n. ; 'a6 ; wills, 10 n . v. Lock, '86; partn. 40, 40 n. v. Loeb, '85; ev. 5; trials, 88. v. Nicholas, '84; bail, 4 n. Lewis, Matter of, 'S3; assign. forb. of c. 22; 'tio; assitm. forb. of c. 16. Lewis v. Burr, '84; assign, for b. of c. 18 n. ; '86; insane per. 4. v. Chapman, '84; slander, 1; '85; ev. 20 n.; '86; libel, 4n. v. Davis, '84; trespass, 1. v. Day, '84; atty. & c. 20. v. Earrell, '05; sec. for costs, 4. v. Pew, '86; libel, 11 n. v. Greider, '86; negl. 4 n. v. Irving Fire Ins. Co., '84; appeal, 15. v. Jones, '83; ev. 139 n. v. Kendall, '86; pi. 148. v. Lewis, '83; wills, 31, 39 n. 45 n. 48; '84; sec. for costs, 7 n.; wills, 26 n. 59 n. 72; '85; divorce, 4 n ■ wills, 19, 21, 23 n. 31; '86: wills, 14 n. v. Maloney, '85; legacies, v. Merritt, '85; wit. 24, 35, 35 n.; '86; wit. 25, 32,34, 38. v. Mott, pledge, 1 n. 3. v. Oliver, '85; inj. 18. v. Palmer, '83; chat, mort 80 Lewis SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Lockman Lewis — continued 7 n. ; forec. 32; '84; chat, mort. 11; guaranty, 8. v. Ryder, '83; oorp. 39; '84; oorp. 37. ■ v. Seabury, '85 ; ev. 101 n. v. Smith, '83; mort. 24; '84; dower, 4; '85; forec. 3, 5 n. 14; '86; former adj. 4 n. > v. State of N. Y., '85; states 1. v. Trickey, '86; appren- tices, 2 n. ; services, 5. v. Varnum, '83; pledge, 3 n. v. Watson, '84; ex. 4 ad. 28. Lewis Street, Matter of, '83; dedication, 1; munc. corp. 124; '84; deeds, 9 n. Lexington' Avenue, Matter of, 29 Hun, 303; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 481, and N. Y. Daily Reg., March 8, 1883; aff'g 63 How. Pr. 462. '84; const, law, 43 n. Libbey v. Strasburger, '84; dis- charge, 1 n. Lichtenberg v. Herdtfelder, 33 Hun, 57; s. c, 5 Geo. Pro. R. 426; and 67 How. Pr. 196. Aff'd in 4 Centr. Rep. 387. '86; exec. 2; surr. ct. 8 n. Liddell v. Paton, '83; arrest, 5a; '84; arrest, 14 Lidgerwood Manufacturing Co. t&. Baird. See Ledgerwood. Liegeois v. McCrackan, '84; pi. - 24; '86; appeal, 1. Lightbody v. Ontario Bank, '83; mistake, 2; '85; contracts, 86 n. ; '86; payment, 2 n. Likeu. McKinstry, '85; pi. 136. v. Thompson, '83; arrest, 7n. Lima, Matter of, '83; money paid, 14 n. ; '84; money 14 n. ; '85; money paid, 13; munc. corp. 103 n. 105; '86; money paid, 11 n. Lincoln v. Orandell, '84; prin- cipals a. 11 n. v. Lincoln, '83; divorce, 3 n. v. Saratoga & Schenectady B. E. Co., '83; dam. 18 n.; '84; dam. 32. Lindauer v. Fourth Nat. Bank, '86; banking, 17. Linden v. Graham, '84; ev. 167 n. v. Hepburn, '83; forfeiture, 2 n. Lindenmueller v. People, '85; Sunday, 4 n. Linderman v. Foote, '86; set-off, 7n. Lindsay v. Jackson, '86; lega- tees, etc. 3 n. Lindslay v. Deafendorf, ''84; costs, 19. Lindsley v. European Petrole- um Co., '83; trials, 24. v. Ferguson, '85; fraud, 9; '86; pi. 60. v. People, '83; trials, 116, 131; wit. 88; '85; trials, 94; '85; new tr. 27; trials. 25. v. Simonds, '83 ; lim. of a. 26. Linnendoll v. Doe, '86; taxes, 63. Lion v. Burtis. '86; devise, 2 n. Liotard v. Graves, '83; interest, 2. Lipe v. Eisenlerd, '83; dam. 18 n. ; '84; seduction, 1. Liscomb v. N. J. R. K. & Transp. Co., '86; r. r. co. 4 n. Litchfield v. Burwell, '86; con- tempt, 16. v. Vernon, '83; tax. 1; '85; compensation, 1; '86; tax. 1. v. White, '83; trusts, 54; '84; assign, for b. of c. 61. Littell v. Sayre, '86; pi. 30. Little v. Banks, '85; contracts, 33; '86; ev. 76; guaranty, 6. v. Denn, '83; pi. 73. i'. Harvey, '85 ; exec. 5. v. Lynch, 99 J)l. Y. 112; rev'g 34 Hun, 396; s. c, 1 How. Pr. N. S. 95; 6 Civ. Pro. R. 418; which rev'd 5 Civ. Pro. R. 216; s. c, 67 How. Pr. 1. '86; ref. 16, 26. ' Littlefield v. Albany Co. Bank, '86; bills, n. & c. 17 n. v. Littlefield, 91 N. Y. 203; rev'g 13 Weekly D. 308. Littlewood tx Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 89 -N. Y. 24; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 400; and 1 Am. law Mag. 247, aff'g 47 Super. Gt. (J". ■ 260, affg 25 Bum, 537; s. c, 13 Week- ly D. 366. '83; wills, 51. Love'tt v. Adams, '84; contracts, 18. v. Buloid, '83; wills, 196 n.; '84; wills, 117 n. v. Gillender, '83; wills, ' 179; '86; wills, 78 n. v. Steam Sawmill Assn., '83; corp. 29; ev. 16; '85; ev. 183. Low v. Gray don, '83; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. ; ref. 33. v. Harmony, '83; wills, 181, 187; '85; wills, 64 n. 131. v. Payne, '85; ev. 186 n, Lowber v. Kelly, '83; parties, 8. v. Le Eoy, '83; ev. 139 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '85; r. r. co. 63 n.; '86; em. cloiu. 9 n. Lowden, Matter of, 89 N. Y. 548; s.c.; 15 Weekly D. 3^5; modifying 25 Hun,' 434. '86; tax. 43. Lowell v. Lane, '83; set-off, 3; '86; set-off, 3 n. Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Safeguard Ins. Co., '83; ev. 128. Lowenberg 'v. People, '86; trials,* 111. Lowenstein v. Flaurand, '84; assign, for b. of c. 2; '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. Lower v. Winters, '83; con- tracts, 83. Lowery v. Clinton, '85; cred. s. 5 n. v. Manhattan Ey. Co. 12 DaJ i/, 431; mem-, s. c, 2\ : . Y. Daily Req., May 23, 1884. Aff'd in 99 #. Y. 158. v. Steward, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 17; '86; assign. 4. 82 Lowery SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. McCafferty Lowery— continued v. Western Union Tel. Co., '85; negl. 16, 55 n. Lowndes v. Dickerson, '83; pat- ents for 1. 2. Lowry v. Inman, '8f>; corp. 27 n ; judgm. 4 decree, 8. v. Smith, '84; merger, 2; '86; fraud, conv. 14. Luby v. Hudson Biver B. B. Co., '84; ev. 95 n. 213 n.; '85; ev. 139. Lucas v. Ensign, '83; statutes. 19 n. v. McEnerna, '86; cloud on title, 1. v. N. ¥. Central E. E. Co., '84; joinder of a. 8. ' v. Second Baptist Church, '83; ev. 33. Luce, Matter of, '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n.; '86; surr. ct. 19 n. v. Alexander, '84; pi. 7 n. 38 n. ; '86; joint debtors, 4 n. v. Dunham, '83; legacies, 8; legatees, 2; surr. ct. 19; ■wills, 193, 230; '84; distri- bution, 2 n. Lackey, Matter of, '83; ex. 4 ad. • 108. Luokey v. Gannon, '86; replev- in, 2. Ludden v. Hazen, '83; sales, 15. Ludingtonu. Bell, '85; principal 4 s. 10; '86; debtor 4 cred. 11 n. Ludlam v. Ludlam, '86; natur- alization, 1 n. Ludlow, Matter of, '86; surr. ct. 19 n. Ludlow v. Hudson Biver E. E. Co., '84; deeds, 20; forfeit. 1. — — v. Simond, '83; principal 4 s. 2 ; '35 ; principal 4 s. 1 n ; '86; principal 4 s. 4. v. Van Vcss, '84; trusts, 7. v. Village of Yonkers, '83; dam. 37. Ludlum v. Otis, '84; wills, 4 n. Luers v. Brunges, '84; ex. 4 ad. 32; '85; ex. 4 ad. 47. Luff v. Pope, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 13. Luhrs v. Eimer, '83; aliens, 2; , '85 ; citizens, .In,; defin. 34 ; wills, 44. Lultgor v. "Walters, '83; costs, 27. Lund v. Broadhead, '85; justices' ct. 2. v. Seamen's Bank, '83; in- terp. 6; '84; pledge, 2; '85; pi. 36. Lunt v. Bank of North America, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 25. v. Lunt, '83; partn. 12 n.; '84; partn. 5; '86; names, 1. Lupton v. Jewett, '84; appeal, 15. v. Lupton. '83; legacies, 22; wills, 146, 147; '84; leg- acies, 18; '85; assign, for b. of c. 15; legacies, 42; '86; ex. 4 ad. 138; legacies, 14 n. Lusk v. Hastings, '86; atty. 4 c. 7n.; sup. pro. 3. v. Smith, '83; marine ct. 7. Lyddy v. Chamberlain, '85; ap- peal, 102. Lyle v. Murray, '83; lim. of a. 20. Lynch, Matter of, 67 Sow. Pr. 436; s. c, 33 Sun, 309; rev'g Wolfe v. Lynch, 2 Bern. 610. '84; legacies, 18; '85; lega- cies, 35 n. ; '86; insane per. 3n. Lynch v. Clarke, '86; naturali- zation, 1 n. v. Crary, '84; attach. 36. v. Davis, '86; dam. 32 n. v. Johnson, '83; sup. pro. 10; '84; usury; 13; '86; sup. pro. 7 n. v. Livingston, '85 ; attach. 48; '86;rec. deeds, In. v. McNally, '85; animals, 5; '86; animals, 7. — v. Mahoney, '84; wills, 1U9; '85; legacies, 35 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. V., '84; inj. 17", '80: munc. corp. 71 n.; '86; munc. corp. 47 n. 58 n. v. Metropolitan Elevated By. Co., 90 N. Y. 77; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 317; aff g 24 Sun, 506; s. c, 12 Weekly D. 228. '85; r. r. co. 2. v. Patchen, '86; ex. 4 ad. 129. , v. Pendergast, '83; wills, 129. v. Binaldo, '83; v. 4 p. 9. v. St. John, '84; conver- sion, 10 n. ; replevin, 2. v. Stone, '85; master 4 s. 2 n. v. Todd, '85; verif. 4. Lynde v. Hough, '85; v. s p. 2. Lynes v. Coley, '83; ex. 4 ad. 176. v. Townsend, '84; legatees, etc. 1. Lynn v. Smith, '86; contracts, 1. Lyon v. Adde, '86; ev. 4; lease, 29 n. v. Blakesly, '85; attach. 33 n. ; '86; attach. 31. v. Hersey, 32 Sim, 253. Aft'd in 100 N. Y. 641. v. Isett, '84; pi. 56. v. Jerome, '84; const, law, 21; '86; em. dom. 2 n. v. Manly, '83; judgm. 4 de- cree, 32; judgm. 16. v. Marshall, '83; costs, 115. . v. Udell, '86; ev. 4, 5; lease, 29 n. v. Bichmond, '83; ev. 27 n.; '84; mistake, 3. v. Tallmadge, '85; amend. 11 n.; parties, 33; principal 4 s. 4. v. Wilkes, '83; costs, 100. Lyons v. Mahan, '84; legacies, 3; wills, 91. v. Murat, '84; stay of pro. 4. v. Bosenthal, '84; ev. 22 n. Lytle v. Beveridge, '83; wills, 129; '84; devise, 1; "86; wills, 21, 76 n. M. Maas v. Chatfield, 90 JT. Y. 303; s. a, 15 Weekly D. 434; aff'g 12 Id. 268. v. La Torre, '83 ; impris. 2. Mabbett v. White, '83; partn. 19; '84; judgm. 4 decree, 25; '86; assign, for b. of c. 1 n. ; partn. 10. Mabie v. Bailey, 12 Daly, 60; s. c, 16 Weekly It. 557. Affd in 95 N. Y. *06. '86; ex. 4 ad. 36; savings bks. 6. McAdam v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '86; munc. corp. 17. McAleert). Corning, '86; appeal, 23. McAlpin v. Powell, '86; negl. 119. McAndrew v. Whitlock,'83; car- rier, 9, 24. McArthur 'v. Sears, '84; wit. 43 n. Macaulay, Matter of, 27 Sun, 577 ;s. c, 15 Weekly D. 519. Affd in 94 N. Y. 574. '85; ex. 4 ad. 84. Macaulay v. Porter, '86; trusts, 24 n. v. Bromell & Barclay Print- ing Co., '86; pi. 52 n. v. Palmer, '86; contempt, 14. McBratney v. Borne, Watertown & O. E. E. Co., 87 N. Y. 467; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 535; affg 17 Sun, 385. McBride v. Farmers' Bank, '83; cause of a. 2; teleg. 3 n. ; '85; banking, 13; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 23; banking, 16. McBurney v. Cutler, '84; ev. 177. v. Martin, '83; arrest, 5a; • '84; brokers, 6; '86; money paid, 15. v. Wellman, '85; ejectment, In. McCabe v. Doe, '83; district ct. 9. — — v. Father Matthew Society, '84; ben. assoc, 17 n. 21. v. Fogg, '83; atty. 4 c. 55. v. Fowler, '83; ex. 4 ad. 64 n.;'84;ex. 4 ad. 48. v. McCabe, 18 Sun, 153. Explained, as turning on thf fact of waste, in Ford v. Knapp, 31 Sun, 525. McCafferty p. Spuyten Duyvil, etc. B. B. Co., '83; negl. 14, 15; '84; munc. corp. 64; McCaffrey SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE. McOuinness 83 munc. oorp. 52 n.; . 7; '8fi; muno. corp. '85; nagl R7 McCaffrey v. City of Albany, '86;nuis. 5. v . Hiokey, '84; cred. 5, 7 n. „. Wooden, '83; lien, 3; mort. 1; '84; lien, 3; '85; chat. mort. 5. ' . MoOabill i>. Hamilton, '83; judi- cial sale, B; munc. corp. 55 n.; '85; judicial sale, 7. v. Kipp, '84; negl. 2n. McCall v. Frith, 2 Viv. Fro. B. (Browne) 9. Subsequent decision in action by same parties, 4 Id. 102. u. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., '86; ins. 45; trials, 83. v. Town of Hancock, '83; munc. corp. 176 n. McCarney v. People, '85; acces- sory, 1; ev. 254. McCartee v. Camel, '83; ev. 336; '84; ex. ft ad. 112; lira, of a. 27; '85; ev. 13 n.; ex. ft ad. 128 n.; '86; lim. of a. 21. v. Chambers, '85; appear- ance, 2. : v. Orphan Asylum Soc, '86; wills, 10 n. v. Teller, 2 Paiqe, 11. Cited (Doijer) in 37 Hun, 231. McCarthy v. Bonynge, 12 Daly, 356. Aff d on this opinion in 101 A". Y. 668. v. City of Syracuse, '84; munc. corp. 59 n ; '86 ; munc. oorp. 47 n. ; towns, 4. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. , 14 Weekly D. 280. Aff'd in 96 N. Y. 2. v. Whalen, 87 £ Y. 148; affg 19 Hun, 503. McCartney v. Bostwick, '83; cred. s. 1, 8; fraud. 14; '84; cred. s. 2 n ; '85; cred. s. 12, 18 n.; trusts, 14 n. McCaity v. Deming, '86; wills, 59. v. Terry, '86; wills, 59. McCaughey v. Smith, '83; bills, n. k e. 4. McCaulay v. Palmer, '86; con- tempt, 23. McClean,. Matter of, '83; appeal, 64. McCleary v. McCleary, '84; di- vorce, »2; '86; stipulations, In. McClure v. Supervisors of Ni- agara, '84; costs, 66 n. McCluskeyu. Cromwell, '83; ev. 147; principal 4 s. 2; '84; principal ft s. 3; statutes, 8; '85; const, law, 37 n. ; defin. 14; parties, 48; '86; partn. 43; statutes, 3. McCollum v. Seward, '83; int. 3; '86; int. 7 n. McComb, Mi parte, '83; assign. 4. McConihe v. N. Y. & Lake Erie E. E. Co., '83; Bales, 24 n. MoConnell v. Sherwood, '85; assign, for b. of o. 43; at- tach. 15 n. , McCoon v. Smith, '85; estoppel, McCormack v. Horan, '85; munc. corp. 71 n. McCormick v. Penn. Central a. B. Co., '83; appear, 3; 84; ct. of common pi. 3 n.; juries, 8 n.; '85; juris. 4n.; '86; int. 1. v. Sarson, '83; sales, 20; '85; contracts, 101. McCorn v. McCorn, 100 K Y. 511; s. c, 2 East Bep. 92 °: s c, 3 Korlheas. Bep. 480; aff'g 30 Hun, 171. '86; fraud. conv. 9; wills, 47. . McCosker v. Long Island B. E. Co., '83; master 4 B. 34 n.; '85; master ft s. 20, 42 n.; '86; negl. 49 n. McCotter v. Hooker, '85; exec. 2n. v. Jay, '85; judicial sale, 8n. McCoun v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. E. Co., '83; marine, ct. 6; '84; attach. 22; int. 7n.; '86; service ft p. 7 n. McCoy v. Artcher, '86; sales, 15. v. Lord, '86; covenants, 2 n. McCrea v. Purmort, '85; ev. 104; money paid, etc. 14; '86; contracts, 7n. ; ex. ft ad. 17 n. McCue v. Garvey, '83; husb. ft w. 4; '85; ex. ft ad. 141; '86; ex. 4 ad. 67. v. O'Hara; '86; ex. & ad. 147. v. Tribune Assoc, '86; depositions, 19. McCuBeyu. Heller, '86; service ftp. 7 n. McCulloch v. Norwood '84; abate. & r. 8; judgm. ft de- cree, 2; sup. pro. 33. McCullough v. Colby, '63; cred. s. 8; '84; ev. 235 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; munc. corp. 129 n.; '86; mand. 1 n. v. Moss, '83; corp. 31; '84; corp. 46 n.; '86; relig. corp. 7n. v. Thompson, '85; princi- pal ft a. 13 n. McDonald, Matter of. See Peo- ple ex rel. McDonald v. Keeler. '83; ex. ft ad. 89 n. Maodonald v. Brass Goods Mfg Co., '83; sec. for costs, 13; '84; guardian ad. 1. 4. v. Kountze, '84; joind. of action, 4. v. MaUory, '83; costs, 77; '84; abate. & r. 1; '85; abate. ftr. 2; death, 1. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; munc. .corp. 64 n.; '85; munc. corp. 18, 43; '86; munc. corp. 30, 30 n. v . Boss-Lewin, '8G; receiv- ers, 12 n. „. Walgrove, '86; devise, i ' v . -Western E. E. Co., 34 X. Y. 497. Followed (.Li- ability for failure to deliver goods to next carrier, where shipped over connecting lines) in Condon e. Mar- quette, H. & O. B. E. Co., 65 Mich. 218, 220; s. c, 19 Beporter, 54; citing also Ladue v. Griffith, 25 _\. 1 . 364; Mills v. Michigan Cen- tral E. E. Co., 45 Id. 022. v. Whitney, '83; pi. 65._ McDonough v. Loughlin, '83; wills, 39 n.; '86; wit. 17^ McDougall v. Bichardson, '83; costs, 1; '84; juris. 2. McDowle, Matter of, '86; ap- prentices, 2 n. Mace, Matter of, '85; surr. ct. 30 n. McElroy v. Mancius, '85; elec- tion of r. 8 n. McElwain v. Willis, '84; attach. 27; cred. s. 4 n. McEncroe v. Decker, '85; pi. 51, 52. McEntee v. N. J. Steamboat Co., '83; bailment, 4. McEteere v. Little, '84; city ct. ofN. Y. 5. McEvers v. Lawrence, '86; ins. 60 n. McEwen v. Brewster, '85; sup. pro. 34. McFadden v. Kingsbury, '86; ev. 37 n. McFarlandu. Wheeler, '83; lien, 5. McParlane v. Kerr, '85; adv. poss. 2. McFarren v. St. John, '84; judgm. ft decree, 24; 'to; amend. 6. McGaffuuj. City of Cohoes, '85; const, law, 37 n. ; defin. 14; surr. ct. 33. McGarry v. Loomis, '83;highw. 14; '85; negl. 2; '86; negl. 122. v. Supervisors of N. Y.,'83; surr. ct. 35 n. McGary v. People, '83; ev. 270; '84;ev. 156. McGiffert v. McGiffert, '84; di- vorce, 9 n. McGiffint). Baird, '83; sales, 31; v. & p. 5 n.; '86; sales, 37. McGinity v. Mayor, &.c. of N. Y., '86; munc. corp. 33. McGinley v. U. S. Life Ins. Co., '85; exceptions, 8; trials, 71. McGinness v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 26 Hun, 142; s. c, as McGuiness v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y.,13 Weekly D. 522. '84; pi. 38 n. v. Smythe, 50 Super. CI. I J. &S.)103. Aff'd, it seems, in 23 Weekly U. 203. 84 McGivney SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. McLaren McGivney v. N. T. Central, &c. K. K. Co., '86;negl. 118; r. r. co. 14. McGoldrick v. Willets, '84; trials, 60. v. 'Wilson, '83; ev. 233. v. Traphagan, '85; ev. 186 n. McGovern v. N. T. Central & H. B. E. E. Co., '83; death, 3; ev. 295; new tr. 15 n. ; '81; negl. 63; '85; negl. 4. McGowan, Matter of, '84; ex. & ad. 93. McGrane v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y., amend. 1 n. McGrath v. Clark, '86; bills, n. & c. 9, 9 n. v. N. Y. Central & H. E. E. E. Co., '83; ev. 352 n. ; negl. 1, 55 n.; r. r. co. 24; '85; r. r. co. 8 n. McGraw v. "Walker, '86; lim. of a. 26. McGregor v. Brown, '85; ev. 54; 224 n. v. Buel, '83; costs, 68; '84; costs, 23; ex. & ad. 24; '85; ex. & ad. 4; '86; ex. 4 ad. 30. v. Comstock, '83; costs, 13; '84; set-off, 7; '85; appeal, 43. v. McGregor, '83; abate. 4 r. 1; ex. & ad. 134; '85; costs, 56; '86; ex. & ad. 25, 34 n. McGuffinu. City of Cohoes, '85; pi. 142 n. v. Dinsmore, '84; deposi- tions, 10; '85; wit. 2 n. McGuinty v. Herrick, '85; false impris. 3. McGuire v. Kerr, '83; wills, 32 n. 33, 44, 45 n. ; '84; wills, 25. v. New York Central E. E. Co., '84; judgm. 4 decree, 2. v. Spence, '84; question of 1. t f. 8; '85; munc. corp. 56; negl. 2, 29 n. 72. McHarg v. Eastman, '83; mfg. co. 31. Machen v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 Civ. Prof R. (Browne) 28; s. c, Id. (McCarty) 81, and 14 Weekly D. 430; rev'g 24 Hun, 485. McHenry's Petition, '86; inj. 23. McHenry v. Hazard, '86; con- tracts, 98; inj. 6; trials, 11. v. Jewett, 90 N. Y. 58; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 295; rev'g 26 -Hun, 453; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 217. '84; appeal, 65; '85; inj. 21, 41; '86; inj. 14 n. Mcllvane v. Hilton, '85; husb. 4 w. 21. Mclntireu Morris, '86; ev. 140 n. Mcintosh -c. Ensign, '84; coun- tered. 2; '86; joint debtors, 1. v. Mcintosh, '85 ; cause of action, In.; '86; pi. 28 n. Mclntyre, Matter of, '86; ex. 4 ad. 51 n. Mclntyre v. Mancius, '83; depo- sitions, 26. v. New York Central E. E. Co., '83; dam. 34; death, 2 n. ; '84; ev. 169; '85; dam. 37 n. ; death, 4, 5 n. ; '86; dam. 30 n. v. Sanford, 9 Daly, 21 ; s. c, 9 Weekly D. 277. Subse- quent decision in 89 N. Y. 634; s. c, fully reported in 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 306; 15 Weekly D. 161. '86; city ct. of N. Y. 2. v. Strong, 48 Super. Gt. (J. &S.) 127; s.c, 63 Hoic. Pr. 43. Subsequent proceeding in 48 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 299; s. c, 63 Bow. Pr. 405; 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 36; and Id. ( McCarty) 126. Mack v. Austin, 29 Hun, 534. Aff'd in 95 K Y. 513. v. Mack, '83; gift, 4 n. ; husb. 4 w. 20 n. ; '85; husb. 4 w. 17. — — v. Patchin, '84; dam. 5; '85; dam. 9 n. ; former adj. 7; '86; dam. 6a. v. Phelan, 92 N. 7. 20; aff'g 14 Weekly D. 404. McKay v. City of Buffalo, '84; animals, 6; '85; negl. 3. v. Harrower, '85 ; exec. 17 n. v. Lewis, '83 ; arrest, 6. McKeage v. Hanover Eire Ins. Co., '84; fixtures, 1. McKecknie v. Ward, '84; prin- cipal 4 s. 5. McKee v. Judd, '83; assign. 9 n. ; t'eleg. 3 n. ; '85; abate. & i. 2; assign. 1; '86; assign. In. v. People, '84; sentence, In. v. Tyson, '86; amend. 23 n. McKeen v. Fish, 33 Hun, 28. Affd, it seems, but without opinion, 98 JCT. Y. 645. McKeever v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. E. Co., '84; question of 1. & f. 6; '85; ev. 293; nons. 3; trials, 65; '86; ev. 248. Mackellar v. Eogers, 52 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 360. Decision in subsequent proceeding in 52 Super. Ct. (J. & S,) 468; s. c, 9 Civ. Pro. R. 6. '86; mand. 12. McKenna v. Bolger, 17 Weekly D. 431. Appeal dismissed, 94 N. Y. 641. Another de- cision in action by same parties in 37 Hun, 526; s. c , 8 Civ. Pro. R. 127, and 2 How. Pr. N. S. 411. v. Edmunstone, '84; mech. 1. 10 n. 11; tax. 48; '85; corp. 6; mech. 1. 1, 2; stat- utes, 17 n. ; '86; r. r. co. 33. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '86; munc. corp. 33. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. E. Co., 9 Duly, 262; re-aff'g s. c, 8 Id. 304. v. People, '85; trials, 105 n. ; '86 ; questions of 1. 4 f . 1. Mackenzie v. Alster, '84 ; forec. 1. McKenzie v. Farrell,'85; undert. 12; '86; guaranty, 9. v. L'Amoureux, '84; wills, 49, 57; '85; parties, 43. McKeon v. Caherty, '84; stat- utes, 20 n.; '85; pi. 137 n. v. Horsfall, 88 N. Y. 429; s. a, 14 Weekly D. 162; rev'g it seems, 13 Id. 252. .'84; costs, 48 ; '86 ; contracts, 60. v. See, '85; nuis. 3; '86; dam. 40 n. McKernan v. Kobinson, '85; pi. 40. Mackesey v. People, '83; indict. .8. Maekey v. Mackey, '83; set-off, 8; '84; set-off, 7. Mackie v. Cairns, '83; cred. s. 3 n.; '85; assign, for b. of c. 38; '86; judgm. 8 n. McKie v. Clark, '86; ex. 4 ad. 8. McKillip v. McKillip, '84; con- tracts, 40; '86; legacies, 10; tax. 4. McKinlay v. Fowler, 1 How. Pr. N. S. 282; rev'g 67 How. Pr. 388. . • McKinley v. Bowe, '86; pi. 74. McKinhey v. Collins, 88 N. Y. 216; s. c, 14 Reporter, 26, and 14 Weekly D. 281; rev'g 13 Id. 131. v. Jewett, 90 K Y. 267; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 397; affg 24 Hun, 19; abridgt. s. c, 12 Weekly D. 42; '83; car- riers, 26. v. Phillips, '86; mfg. co., 2. McKinnon v. Bliss, '85; ev. 180. Mackinnon Pen Co. v. Fountain Ink Co., '86; contracts, 55. McKinstryu. Davis, 'S3; husb. 4 w. 41; '85; husb. 4 w. 3 n. v. Sanders, '83; wills, 196 n. . '84; wills, 117 n. McKnight v. Devlin, '86; for- mer adj. 4, 38 n. v. Dunlop, '83; sales, 12; '85; sales, 25 n. ; '86; sales, 12. McKyring v. Bull, '83; ev. 74; pi. 2; '84; pi. 64 n. 132; '86; pi. 71. McLachlin v. Brett, 27 Hun, 18; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. R. ( rowne) 194; 14 Weekly D. 360. Ap- peal dismissed, it seems, in 90 JV. Y. 653, 'but with- out opinion. '84; abate. 4 r. 6. McLaren v, McMartin, '83; ex. 4 ad. 67; lim. of a. 44, 47; '85; ex. 4 ad. 41, 99; '86; wit. 24. v. "Watson, '86; guaranty, 2n. Missing Page 106 ^People SUPPLEMENT AEY TABLE. People People — continued v. Brown, '83; wit. 79; '84; contempt, 28; wit. 39 n. ; '86; wit. 3 n. ex rel. Martin v. Brown, '83; parties, 37. ex rel. Joyce v. Brundage, '84; const, law, 60; '85; surr. ct. 3 n. v. Bruno, '83 ; indict. 5. ex rel. Fowler v. Bull, '83; statutes, 1 n. ; '84; statutes, S; '85; munc. corp. 6 n. ;'86; surr. ct. 1 n. v. Burleigh, '84; police ct. 1; '85; certiorari, 18 n. v. Bush, '83; ev. 345; '85; ev. 141. v. Butler, '83; indict. 28. ex rel. Nubell v. Byrnes, '85; hab. corp. 7. ex rel. Haddock v. Cady, 41 Hun, 539; aff'g A. Y. Daily lieg., April 7, 1886. ex rel. Townsend v. Cady, 51 ihiper. Ct. (J. & S.) 316. AfE'd, it seems, but without opinion, 99 N. Y. 620. '86; mand. 9. v. Call, '86; larceny, 9 n. ex ret. Campbell v. Camp- bell, '85; munc. corp. 17 n. ; '86; officers, 3. ex rel. Lunney v. Campbell, '83; mand. *2; '85; mand. 3. ea; rel. N. Y. Medical Col- lege, etc. v. Campbell, 93 A. Y. 196; rev'g 4 Month. L. Bui. 46. '86; taxes, 79. v. Canal Appraisers, '83; compensation, 4 n.; real prop. 5 n. ; '85; ev. 4; grants, 'A ii.; patents lor 1. 1 n. ; waterc. 9 n. 11. v. Canal Board. '83; gas- light co. 3; inj. 6, 8, i.2 n. ; '84; const, law, 40; '85; const, law, 57; inj. 21; munc. corp. 84; '86; inj. 3; munc. corp. 4. ex rel. Seymtfur v. Canal Board, '83; canals, 1. v. Carnal, '83; new tr. 27. v. Carnley, '83; sher. 3. v. Carpenter, 102 jV. Y. 238; s. c, 4 A". Y. Crim. R. 177; aff'g Id. 39; s. c, 38 Han, 490. Previous deci sion in 36 Id. 315; s. c, 3 A. Y. Crim. R. 92, and 16 Abb. N. C. 128. '83; inj. addenda; '84; pi. 7 n. v. Uarr, '86 ; surr. ct. 1 n. ex rel. Rosenkranz v. Carr, '86; surr. ct. 1 n. v. Carrique, '83; munc. corp. 40; !b5.; offi'r, 7. v. Carroll, '86; wit. 56. v. Caryl, '86; carriers, 15. v. Casey, 96 N. Y. 115; s. c, 2 A. Y. Crim. R. 194; rev'g Id. 187; s. c, as Casey v. People, 31 Hun, 158. '8j; exceptions, 2; new tr. 24; wit. 79; '84; wit. 38, 39 n. 58; '85; appeal, 127; trials, 93; '86; appeal, 106; new tr. 30; trials, 107 n. 112 n.; wit. 62 n. v. Cassels, '84; juris. 1 n. , '86 ; court-martial, 2 n. v. Cassiano, distinguished in 38 Hun, 424; '85; trial, 80. ex re 1 . Dunkirk, etc. B. B. Co. v. Cassity, '83; real prop. 6; tax. 35; '85; munc. corp. 99 n. ; '86; district ct. 3. v. Chacon, 3 $~. Y. Grim. R. 418. Aft'd in 4 M. 173; s. c, 102 N. Y. 6-9. v. Chalmers, '83; ev. 147; guaranty, 1 ; lotteries, 3. ex ret. Wright v. Chapin, 23 Weekly I). 410; dismiss- ing appeal -from 38 Hun, 272. '86; mand. 9. ex ret. Ruggles v. Chap- man, '83; ins. 97. ex rtl. Sichel v. Chapman, '86; hab. corp. 7. v. Chase, 28 Hurt, 310; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 143. Previous decision in 27 Hun, 256 ■ v. Cipperly, 4 A. Y. Grim. H. 69; rev'g, on dissenting opiniun of Learned, J., 3 Id. 385; s. c, 37 Hun, 324. '86; crim. law, 2. v. City Bank of Rochester, 93 A. Y. 582; affg 17 Weekly D. 185. '85; banking, 2; '86; banking, 14; parties, 2 n. v. City of Albany, '86; munc. corp. 1. ex rd. Markey v. City' of Brooklyn, '86; munc. corp. 46. ex rel. Reynolds v. City of Brooklyn, '85; money paid, etc., 13. ex rel. Ross v. City of Brook- lyn, '85 ; inj. 6 n. ; '86 ; const, law, 45; inj. 45 n. ex rel. (Jas-light Co. v. City of Syracuse, 78 A. Y. 56. Cited (Effect of award) in 36 Hun, 630. ex rel. Ryan v. Civil Ser- vice, etc. Boards of N. Y., 17 Abb. A. a 64; s. c, 3 How. Pr. A. S. 40. Aff d in 41 Hun, 287. '86; munc. corp. 45 n. v. Clark, 2 if. Y. State Rep. 540; s. c, less fully, lu2 A. Y. 735; aff'g 38 Hun, 214. '85; homicide, 1, 2n. ex rel. Kingsland v. Clark, '83; lim. of a. 5 a. ; inj. ad- denda. v. Clements, '85; indict. 14. v. Clews, '83; bail, 7; '86; hab. corp. 7. ea; rel. Furman v. Clute, '83; const, law, 47; election of offi'r, 5 n. v. Clough, '86; indict. 11. v. Coffee, '83; statutes, 29. - ex rel. Wright v. Coffin, '83; surr. ct. 22 n. - v. Cogdell, '85; larceny, 3 n. - v. Cohocton Stone Road, '83; assign, for b. of c. 32. - ex rel. Banks v. Colgate, '85 ; accretion, 2, 3 n. - ex ret. Barnet v. College of Physicians, etc., '83; trials, 25. - ea: rel. Bush v. Collins, '83, ins. 109. - ea; rel. Case v. Collins, '83; carriers, 2 n.; '85; equity, 2; mand. 1, 5 n. - ea; rel. Gould v. Commis- sioners of Excise of K. Y., '86; prohibition, 2. - ex rel. Van Demark v. Com- missioners of Excise of Sar- atoga, '84; mand. 11 n. - ex rel. Huntting v. Commis- sioners of Highways of East Hampton, '83; certiorari, 7. - ex rel. Thomas v. Commis- sioners of Highways of Mil- ton, '86; private ways, 4. - ea; rel. Hawver v. Commis- sioners of Highways of Redhook, '83; r. r. co. 66; '8d; private ways, 4. - v. Commissioners of High- ways of Salem, '83; carriers, 2n/ - ea; rel. Cayuga Indians v. Commissioners of Land office, 34 Hun, 588. Rev'd, it seems, but without opin- ion, 99 A. Y. 048. - ex rel. Evans v. Commis- sioners of Public Parks, 9S A. 1'. 6.9; aff'g 60 Hone. I'r. 130. - ea; rel. Second, etc. R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Public Parks, 66 How. Pr. 293. Rev'd in 97 A. Y. 37. 86; appeal, 52. - ea; rel. American Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, '83; tax. 66 n. - ea; rel. Am. Geographical Soc. v. Commissioners of Taxes, '86; tax. 30, 31 n. - ea; rel. Bank of Montreal v. Commissioners of Taxes, '8(; tux. 1 n. ; '86 ; tax. 9 n. - ea; rel. Bank of Common- wealth v. Comrs of Taxes. Distinguished (Taxation of capital) in 31 Hun, 34. '86; corp. 6 n. - ex ret. Broadway & Seventh Avo R. 11. Co. i>. Com'is of Taxes, V3; tax. 13. - ea; rel. Caswell v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, '86; taxes, 3n. - ex rel. Coudert v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, '86; taxes, 60 n. - ex rel. Davies v. Com- missioners of Taxes, 47 N. Y. 501. Cited (Title People SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. People . 107 of local or private bill) in Cregier i>. Mayor, etc. of M. Y., 11 Ddy, 175, ex rel. Haneman v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, '8b'; ap- peal, 52. ex rel. Hoyt v. Commission- ers of Taxes, '84; conflict of laws, 2; tax. 1 n, ; '85; conflict of laws, 3 n. — ex rel Law v. Commission- ers of Taxes, '86; certiorari, 2, 7n. ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co v. Commissiners of TaxeB, '83; tax. 37,40,57. ex ret. Metropolitan Bank v. Commissioners of Taxes, '83; tax. 51. ex rel. Mutual Union Tel. Oo. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 31 Hun, 568. AfE'd in 99 A. Y. 254. '86; tax. 14, 60 n. ex rel. N. Y. Elevated B. B. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, '83; real prop. 6; tax. 3 i, 40; '84; tax. 36 n.; '85; munc. corp. 99 n.; '86; tax. 18. ex rel. Osgood v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, etc., 99 A. Y. 154; afE'g Si Em, 506. ex rel. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Commissioners o*' Taxes, '85; conflict cf laws, 3 n.; tux. 15 n. ex rel. Parker Mills v. Com- missioners of Taxes, '84; tax. 1 n. ; '86 ; tax. 9 n. ex rel Smith v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, etc., 100 A. Y. 215; rev'g The Same v. Asten, 36 Hun, 359. SSuDsequent decision in 101 A. r. 651. ex rel. Trowbridge v. Com- missioners of Taxes, '83; tax. 10. ex rel. Twenty-third Street B. E. Co. v. Commission- ers of Taxes, '84; tax. 30; '85; statutes, 2; tax. 1U; '86; tax. 10, 30, 31 n. ex rel. Valentine v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, etc. of N. Y., 41 Him, 373; affg 17 Abb. N. V. 376 n. ex rel. Van Nest v. Com- missioners of Taxes, '83; real prop. 6; tax. 23, 35. ex rel. Fiske v. Common Council of Brooklyn, '83; statutes, 19 n. ex rel. Kelly v. Common Council of Brooklyn, '85; offi'r, 13. • ex rel Lake Shore, etc. B. B. Co. v. Common Council of Dunkirk, '86; certiorari, 7n. ■ ex rel. Market Com'rs. v, Common Council of N. Y., '85; munc. corp. 46. ex rel. White v. Common Council of Eochester, '83; .courts of sess. 2. — ex rel. Gas Light Co. v. Common Council of Syra- cuse, '84; mand. 18. — ex rel. Francis v. Common Council of Troy, '84; offi'r, 16; '86; mand. 9; supervis- ors, 2 n. — ex rel. Geer v. Common Council of Troy, '83; ap- peal, 127; court, 2; '86; stat- utes, 4. v. Compton, '85 ; contempt, 15, 17, 21 n. — ex rel. Dannat v. Comp- troller, '84; assign. 9; '85; assign. 18. — ex rel. Lyndes v. Comptrol- ler of N.Y., '83; nor. sen. 1. — v. Comstock, '84; appeal, 129. — ex rel. Hatfield v. Corn- stock, '85; const, law, 59. v. Conklin, '85; relig. corp. 7 b. ex rel. Commissioners of Highways v. Connor, '83; highw. 27; ins. 12. v. Conroy, 97 A. X. 62; s. c, 2 A. Y. Crim. H. 565; afE'g Id. 247; s. c, 33 .Him, 119. '85; homicide, 6; '86; homicide, 6; indict. 15, 20. v. Cook, '83; election of oft'r, 1; insane per. 23; trials, 123. ex rel. Welch v. Cook, '83; election of ofE'r, 3. ■ v. Cooper, '84; offi'r, 24 n. ; resistance, 1 n. ex rel. Scudder v. Cooper, '85; contempt, 20, 21 n. v. Corlies, '83; ex & ad. 105; '86; ex. & ad. 17 n. v. Cornell, '86; records, 5. v. Cornetti, '84; appeal, 130; sentence, 1 n.; trials, 72 ; '85 ; homicide, 2 n. v. Coming, '84; appeal, 129. v. Corporation of Albany, '8a ; nuis. 9. v. Costello, '83; trials, 131, 138; wit. 88, 89; '84; ev. 162; '85; accomplice, 2 n. ex rel. Parker i\ County Court of Jefferson, '86; munc. corp. 77 n. v. County of N. Y, '83; paym. G. ex rel. N. Y. Consolidated Stage Co. v. Court of Com- mon Pleas of N. Y., '84; prohibition, 2. ex rel. Munsell v. Court of Oyer & Terminer, 36 Hun, 277; s. c, 3 A. Y. Grim. B. 208. Eev'd in 101 A. Y. 245; s. c, 4 2V. Y. Orim. R. 70; and 3 . How. Pr. A. S 413. v. Courtney, 94 A. Y. 490; J3. o., 1A. Y. dim. B. 573; affg Id. 557; s. c, 31 Him, 199. Previous de- cision in 28 Id. 589; s. c, 1 A. Y. Orim. B. 64. ex rel. Crouse v. Cowles, '86; hab. corp. 1 n. exrel. Davies v. Cowles, 83; election of offi'r, 11. v. Craft, '84; contempt, 22 n. 27 n. v. Orapo, '83 ; ev. 302 ; wit. 76, 78 n. 79; '84; wit. 39n.;58; '86; wit. 60 n. ex rel. Woods v. Crissey, '84; parties, 33; '85; offi'r, 7. v. Crissie, '83; false pre. 1; '86; indict. 11. ex rel. Port Chester Sav'gs Bk. v. Cromwell, 102 A. Y. 477; rev'g 38 Hun, 284. v. Crowley, 102 A. Y. 234; s. c, 4 N. Y. Onm. B. 16»; affg/d. 26. v. Oruger, 102 A. Y. 510; s. c, 4 A. Y. Orim. H. 452; rev'g Id. 60; s. c, 38 Hun, 5U0. v. Cunningham, '86; negl. 43. ex rel. Barlow v. Curtis, '85 ; const, law, 8. v. Cutler, '85; betting. & g. 2n. v. Damon, '86; trials, 105, 106. v. D'Argencour, 95 A. Y. 624; s. c, 2 A. Y. Crim. B. 267;aff'g32.ffu7;, 178. '85; new tr. 28; trials, 90; '86; appeal, 106. — — ex rel. Cornell University &. DaveDport, '86; ex. & ad. 95. ex re'. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 91 A. r. 574; afE'g 14 Weekly D. 2. '83; const, law, 52; statutes, 13; tax. 4, 15, 17, 18 n. 26 ; '84 ; tax. 44 ; i munc. corp. 102; '85; stat- utes, 3 n. 8, 9 ; tax. 35. t>. Davis, '83; ev. 167 n. 284; wit. 88, 89; '8i; ev. 95 n. 189; statutes, 16; wit. 157 n.; '85;a[>peal, 131; ev. 134, 272 n. ; munc. corp. 28; '86; ct. of sess. 1; ev. 103 n. 116 n. ; indict. 15. ex rel. Board of Charities of Uticau. Davis,'83; bastardy, 1; '84; attach. 28. ?>. Dayton, '85; const, law, 22. v, Dean, '85; notaries, 1. fee rtl. Marsh v. Delaney, '86; certiorari, 7 n. v. Denison, '83; canals, 1; pi. 17; real prop. 5 n. ; stat- utes, 5; '84; money paid, 15: set-off, 2; '85: ev. 6. v. Devlin, '«3; const, law, 73; '86; const, law, 11. v. Dohring. '84; const.- 108 People SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. People People — continued law, 60; sentence, 1 n. ; '85; assault & b. 3; rape, 1 n. ; '86; ev. 273. v. Dolan, '83; tax. 13. ex rel. Ireland v. Donohue, '85; inj. 6n.;'86;inj. 45 n. ex rel. Jourdanu. Donohue, '84; extradition, 1. v. Donovan. 101 A. Y. G32; s. c, 4 A. Y. trim. R. 86, aud 3 How. Pr. A. H. 355; affg3 A. Y. Orim. R. 79. v. Doty, '86; banking, 20. v. Dowling, '83; ev. 279; '85; ev. 254 n. ; new tr. 30. v. Draper, '83; new tr. 28; '85; newtr. 32, 33. — — ex rtl. Wood v. Diaper, '83 ; const, law, 46, 77; statutes, 10; '85; inj. 18; statutes, 9; '86; munc. corp. 4; offices, 7n. ex rel. Grissler v. Dudley, '85;const. law, 49n.;lien, 3. v. Dunn, 90 A". Y. 104; s. C , 15 Weekly D. 450; rev'g Dunn v. People, 27 Hun, 272; s. c, 15 Weilcly D. 11. v. , 29 A. Y. 523. Cited (Accomplices) in 98 m y. 62i. v. Dunning, '84; exec. 23 n. ex rel. Brunett v. Dutcher, '86; sup. pro. 19. ex rel. Comaford v. Dutch- er, 83 A. Y. 240. Cited (Grade of offense) in SJ9 A. Y. 221. '83; larceny, 5; '86; const, law, 7. ex rel. Green v. Dutchess & C. R. R. Co. ; '83; carriers, 2 n. ; maud. 19; negl. 35; turnpike co. 1; '86; r. r. co. 4n. ex rel. Negus u. Dwyer, 90 A. Y. 402; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 379; 15 Weekly D. 494; aff g 27 Hun, 548; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 2u7; 03 Horn. Pr. 115. '85; con- tempt, 17; '86; contempt, 1; munc. corp. 4. ex rel. Valiente v. Dyck- man,'85; wit. 2 n. v. Doyle, '83; trials, 131; '84; ev. 160; trials, 49 n.; '85; ev. 305 n. ; '86; trials, 61. ex rel. Dietz v. Easton, '84; const, law, 8 n. v. Eastwood, '83; ev. Ill n.; '84; ev. 63; '85; ev. C9. ex ret. Roosevelt v. Edson, 51 Super, ft. (J. & S.) 238; s. c„ 1 How. Pr. A. S. 231, and 7 tiv. Pro. R. 5. Rev'd in52%>er. Ct. 'J. & 3.) 53; s. c, 1 How. Pr. A. U. 482. , Ellis v. See Randolph v. Loughlin. v. Empire Mut Life Ins. Co., 92 A. Y. 105; s. c, 12 Ins. L. J. 355; aff'g Attor- ney-General v. Empire Mut. Life Ins. Co., 28 Hun, 358; which rev'd Matter of Em- pire Mut. Life Lis. Co., 64 Huw. Pr. 51. Other -pro- ceedings in A. Y. Daily Meg., Oct; 19, 1883; and fur- ther decision of latter in iS., Nov. 5, 1883. '84; ins. 44 n. ;'8o; ins. 61; '86; pi. 113. - v. Enoch, '84; commit ment, 2; '85; indict. 17. - v. Equitable Trust Co. of New London, '85; const, law, 10, 11 n.; tax. 9; teleg. 3;'e6;tax. 9 n. - v. Erwin, '83; embezzle- ment, 3; 'S>5; accessory, 1; ev. 254 n.;'86;bawdy house, n. - v. Evans, '85; trials, 115 n. - v. Faber, 92 A. Y. 146; s. c, 1 A. Y. Crlm. R. 117, and 15 Reporter, 604; rev'g 29 Han, 320; s. c, 1 A. Y. Crim. R. 115. '85; distribu- tion, 1; marr. 4; '86; di- vorce, 24 n. - ex rel. Hartford Life, etc. Ins Co. v. Fairman, 91 A. Y. 385; s. c, 16 Weekly I). 222; and 12 Abb. A. 0'.'261; where decisions below are reported also. '85; mand. 14. - ex rel. Phelps v. Eancher, 2 Hun, 226. Cited (Habeas corpus) in People ex ret Macdonald u. Keeler, 32 Hun, 570 n. - ex rel. Nash v. Faulkner, 31 Hun, 317. Subsequent decision in 38 Id. 6U7. -v. Feeter, '86; costs, 11. - ex rel. Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, '83; tax. 13, 57. - ex rel. Faile v. Ferris, '83; mand. 3; offi'r, 11; parties, 38; '86; offi'r, 8 n. 76 n. - v. Fields, '84; const, law, 46; '86; fraud, 1. - v. Finn, '8o; ev. 254 n. - ex rel. Loughlin v. Finn, 87 N. Y. 533; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 16; aff g 26 Hun, 58; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 463. - v. Finnegan, '86; wit. 47 n. - v. Fire Association of Phil- adelphia, '84; costs, 1. - fa; rel. Donovan v. Fire Commissioners of N. Y., '84; munc. corp. 23. - ex rel. Dumahaut v. Fire Commissioners of N. Y., 96 A'. Y. 672; rev'g 49 Su^er. a. (J. & 8.) 369. '85; munc. corp. 20. - ex rel. Emerick v. Fire Commissioners of N. Y., '86; munc corp. 13. - ex rel. Hart v. Fire Com- missioners of N. Y., '83; appeal, 92; certiorari, 6; police, 1; '84; certiorari, 8; '86; certiorari, 16 n. 22. ex rel. Munday v. Fire Comm'rs of N. Y., '83; munc. corp. 30, 33, 35; '84; certiorari, 10; '85; munc. corp. 16, 17 n. 20; '86; offi'r, 3. ex rel. Sims u.Fire Comm'rs, '83; nor. sch. 1; offi'r, 5; '84; munc. corp. 19; '86; certio- rari, 14; com. schools, 2. v. Fishkill, etc. Plank Road Co., '83; carriers, 2 n. ex rel. Central Nat. Bk. v. Fitzgera'd, '84; offi'r, 11. v. Fitch, '85; forgery, 3. v. Fitzpatrick, 30 Hun, 493; s. c, 1 N. Y. Grim. R. 426; rev'g Id. 307; s. c, 65 How. Pr. 365. '84; appeal, 129. ex rel. McLean v. Flagg, '85; const, law, 59; '86; tax. 1. ex rtl. Chamberlain v. For- rest, 30 Hun, 240. Aff' d in 96 A'. Y. 544. '85; munc. corp. 126. • ex rel. Mills Water Works Co. v. Forrest, 29 Hun, 518. AfE'd in 97 A. Y. 97. ex rel. Sayre v Franklin, 5 Ldns. 129. Cited in 99 N. Y. 333. ex rel. Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Fredericks. '84; tax. 36 n.; '85; juris. 11; '86; certiorari, 2. v. Freer, '85 ; contempt, 14 n. v. French, '84; mand. 22; '85; lim. of a. 10. ex rel. McCarthy v. French, '86; certiorari, 13. ac rel. Murphy v. French, '83; certiorari, 5; '84; munc. corp. 23. ex rel. Ryan v. French, 91 K Y. 265; s. c, 14 Weelcly B. 173; 16 Id. 203; 13 Re- porter, 599, and N. Y. Dailii Reg., Feb. 12, 1883: rev'g 24 Hun, 263; s. a, 12 Weekly D. 456. '83; munc. corp. 20, 21; offi'r, 19; '84; offi'r, 8, 10; '86; const, law, 11 n.; offi'r, 13. v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co., '83 ; real prop. 5 n. ex rel. King v. Gallagher, 11 Abb. JST. C. 187. Aff'd in 93 A*. Y. 438. v Galloway, '85; indict. 12 n. ; '8ti; indict. 11. ex rel. Masterson v. Gallup, 96 A. Y. 628; aft'g 30 Hun, 501; which rfev'd 12 Abb. A. C. 64; s. c„ 65 How. Pr. 108. v. Gardiner, '83; excep- tions, 2. ex tel. Davis v. Gardner, '84; const, law, oO; '85; People SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. People 109 '85; munc. oorp. 6n.; surr. ot. 3 n. - ex rel. Jefferson v. Gard- ner, '83; attach. 69; tax. 10; '8u; tax. 4n. _ v. Gates, '86; ev. 235. - ex rel. Barbour v. Gates, '86; apprentices, 2 n. 3. - v. Gay, '83; removal of causes, 4; '86; wit. 45. - tx rel. Hasbrouck v. Gen- eral Sessions of M. Y., '83; removal of causes, 4. - v. Genesee Valley Canal B. E. Co., 30 Hun, 565. Aft'd in 95 A 7 . Y. 666. '85; costs, 29. - v. Genet, '83; appeal, 7 n.; '85; crim. law, 7 n. - v. Genung, '86; indict. 11. - ex rel. Dilcher v. German Church, '83; certiorari, 3 n. - v. Gibbs, '85; abate, a. r. 2; ev. 254. - fa; rel. Bork v. Gilbert, '85; hab. corp. 1. - ex rel. Society for the Pre- vention of Cruelty to Chil- dren v. Gilmore, 88 X. Y. 626; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 206; rev'g.'as to costs, 26 Huv, 1. '8J; contempt, 26; '86; contempt, 12, 38; hab. corp. 7, 8. - v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. 174; s. c, 64 How. Pr 485; 16 Weekly D. 225; and 15 Reporter, 278; aft'g C4 ffoio. Pr. 240. Pre- vious decision in 27 Bun, 539. Other proceedings in 65 How. Pr. 239; s c , as Matter of Booth, 11 Alb. A" C. 115. '83; corp. 69; '84; contracts, 34; '85; contracts, 95, 98 n. ; trials, 8 n. - co; rel. Oswald v. Goff, '83; const, law, 57 ; tax. 0. - v. Gold & Stock Tel. Co , 32 Jlun, 491. Affd in 98 X. Y. 67 ; motion for re-argument denied in Id. 80; s. c, 21 Weekly J). - v. Gonzales, '83; ev. 121; '85; new tr. 27. - v. Goodwin, '85; const. law, 7 n. ; surr. ct. 3 n. - i'. Graves, '85; sentence, 4. - v. Gray. See Matter of Gray. - i>. Green, '85; former adj. 51 n. ; surr. ct. 3 n. - ex rel. Navarro v. Green '84; mand. 3. ' - ex rel. Byan v. Green, 'S3- offi'r, 4 n. - «? rd - Schanck v. Green, 86; const, law, 35. - ex rel. Seaver v. Green, '83- munc. corp. 135. . ' - v. Greene, '83; bail, 2; '85; bonds, 10; '86; bonds, 6 - v. Greenfield, '83; trials, 116; '84; wit. 58 n. v . Griffin, '86; assault &b. 3. — v. Groat, '84; parties, 41 n. — v. Gunn, 90 X. T. 317; aff'g 30 Sun, 322. — v. Gutahess, '83; nuis. 10; '85 ; patents for 1. In.; waterc. 9 n. — v. Hackley, '86; contempt, 19 n. — ex rel. Supervisors of Westchester v. Hadley, '84; certiorari, 12; '86; tax. 36. — v. Hagadorn, '86; tax. 75 n. — v. Haggerty, '83; sentence, 2. — ex rel Williams v. Haines, '85; contracts, 86 n. ; drain- age, 2 n. 3 n. ; ev. 24. — v. Hale, '86; assault & b. 3. — ■ ex rel. Hatzel v. Hall, '84; former adj. 24 n.; statutes, 20 n. ; '85; certiorari, 12 ; ev. 254 n. ; munc. corp. 5 n. — ex rel. Stephens v. Halsey, '83; carriers, 2 n.; '85; mand. 1, 5 n. — ex rel. Hubbard v. Harris, '8 1 ; certiorari, 9. — v. Harrison, '85; forgery, 3; indict. 12 n. — v. Hartung, '83; new. tr. 27, 30. — ex rel. N. T. & Harlem B. B. Co. v. Havenieyer, '83; const, law, 35 n. ; offi'r, 12; '85 ; const, law, 49 n. — v. Hawkins, '84; mand. 11 n. — v. Haws, '85; forec. 24n. — ex rel. Utley v. Hayden,'83; const, law, 42; munc. corp. 129 n.; '84; canals, 4 n.; const, law, 21. — v. Hayes, '83; costs, 124. — v. Haynes, '83; false pre. In. — v. Hazard, '84; statutes, 20 n. — v. Hektograph Co., '84; default, 2. — v. Henderson, '83; indict 8. — v. Herkimer, '86; mand. 11 n. — v. Higbie, '86; indict. 11. — ex rel. Cole v. Hill '86- mand. 8. — ex rel. Davi3 v. Hill '86- appeal, 52; former adj 6 ' — u. Hills, 35 A. r. 449. Cited (Constitutional law) in Cre- gier v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y U Duly, 173. '86; const, law, 28. — *• Hillsdale, etc. Turnpike Co., '83; carriers, 2 n • munc. corp. 42; turnpike co. 1. r — v. Holmes, '83; trials, 27. — ea rel. Slmter v. Holstein- Pnesian Assoc. , 41 i&m,439; aff'g 16 Ahh. X. C. 307. c Home Ins. C*>., "St; const law, 29. 30; IS; const. law, 10;tax.9;teieg. 3. i. Hooghkerk, !*o: ev. 32i ex re). Supervisors of Richmond i\ Hopkins, "85; citizens, 1 n.; defin. 34. v. Hopson, "83; sher. 16; '84; attach. 39; cred. s. In.; sher. 6; '85; offi'r, 14. v. Horton, '83;nuis. 3; '86; negl.43. v Hovey, 92 A". T. 554; s. c , 1 X. Y. Crim. B. 283; aff'g 29 Hun, 3&>: s. c, 1 X. Y. Crim. B. is,'. Fur- ther proceedings in Id. 4< . ; aff'g Id. 324; s. c, 30 Etn, 354. '83; bigamy. 1; "84; sentence, 1 n.; '85; appeal, 56: homicide, - n. : wit 5; '86; appeal, 100, 205; di- vorce, 24 n. ex rel. Ainslee v. Hewlett, former adj. 27. t-. Hudson Biver B. B. Co., 31 Barb. 138. Applied (Corporation, where locat- ed) in 1 Smo. Pr. X. S. 54. ex rel. Mclntyre r. Hulbert, 67 How. Pr. 356. Further proceedings in Id. 362. ex ret Freeman v. Hulburt, '83 ; certiorari, 1 n_ ; insane per. 17. i\ Hulse, "86; wit 45. v. Humphrey, '85; er. 282. ex rel. Gilmonr r. Hyde, 89 -V. Y. Il;s.cl4 WeekbjB. 395; rev'g 13 Id. 3^. v. Infield, 184; indict 11. v. Tngersoll, '•?£■, const law, 46, '86; fraud, 1. ex rel. Harnett i: Inspec- tors of Common Schools, '84; mand. 3. — — v. Irvine, 95 A. Y. 541; s. c. 2 X.'Y. Crim. B. 171; affg 31 Uiat, 514; s. c, 2 A. Y. Crim. R. 47. '84; wit. 38; 55; ev. 3:22; '86; wit GO n. 62. o. Isaacs, '85; crim. law. 3. v. Jackson, '83; ev. 250 n. ; indict. H. ex rel. Burnet v. Jackson, '83; offi r, %>. exrel. Woolf v. Jacobs, '83; sentence, 3 n.; '84; con- tempt, 20; '85; contempt, 5, 21 n.; '86; contempt, 30; hab. corp. 1. v. Jaehne, 4 X. Y. Crim. E. 161. buoscquent proceed- ings in Id. 4/8; s. c, 4 Cerur. Hep. 165. v. James, '84; intoxication, v. Jansen, '83; guaranty, v. Jayne, '83; bail, 2; '86- bonds, 6, v. Jewett, '83; new tr. 2 a. 110 People SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. People People — continued v. Jillson, "86; carriers, 15 n. v. Johnson, '86; ir.diot. 11. , ex I'd. Wyman v. Johnson, '85; judgm. & decree, 1. v. Jones, U3 if. Y. 667; s. c, 3 if. Y. trim. B. 252; aff'g 34 Hun, 620. '83; innls. 4 n. ex rel. Kiley v. Jourdan, '84; munc. corp. 23. i\ Judges of Albany May- or's Court, '63; costs, 114. u. Judges of Cortlandt, '86 ; highw, 16 n. ■ ex rel. Tremper v. Judges oi Ulster, '86; mand. 11 n. ct rel. linapp v. Judges of Westchester, '83; trials, 20; '86; mand. 11 n. ex id. Henderson v. Jus- tices of Special Sessions. See Justices of Special Ses- sions v. People ex rel. Hen- derson. ex rel. Murray v. Justioes of Special Sessions, 'B4; const, la',7, 14; '86; munc. corp. 22. i v. Katz, '85; ev. 254. ex rel. Wallkill Valley E. E. Co. v. Keator, 67 Had. Pr. 277. Aff'd in 36 Hun, 592; appeal from latter dis- missed for not having been taken in time, in 101 N. Y. 610; s. c, 3 How. Br. N. <£ 210; 3 Northeast Rep. 432; 3 Jiaat. tiep. 432. Another decision in 17 .466. if. V. 369. '85 ; tax. 30, 3i n.; '86; tax. Id n 13. v. Keeler, '84; election of offi'r, 5; '86; surr. ct. 1 n. ; ex rel. McDonald v. Keeler, 32 Han, 6j3;.s. c, 2 N. Y. Crim. R. 141; s. c, as Mat- ter of McDonald, 66 How. Pr. 487. Eev'd in 99 if. Y. 463; s. c, 3 if. Y. Crim. R. 348. '86; contempt, 37 n. ex rel. MaEwan v. Keeler, '85; const, law, 40. v. Kelly, 94 if. Y. 526; s. c, 2 N. Y. Grim. R. 15; affg 31 Hun, 225. ex rel. Caldwell v. Kelly, '83; arrest, 19. ' ex rel. Devoe v. Kelly, 97 if. Y. 212; s. c, 2 M. Y. Crim. R. 428; affg, in part, 32 Hun, 536. '84; nab. corp. 7; '85; hab. corp. 4; '86; sentence, 1. ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly, '84; verif. 1 n. ; wit. 58 n. ex rel. Jessup v.. Kelly, 33 Hun, 389; aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, 98 if. , Y. 653, max. 4. ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly, '83; hegl. 15; '84; corp. 3; '85; const, law, 54; '86; offi'r, Vn. - v. Kerin, '86; dairy pro- ducts, 3. - v. Kerr. Commented on in 11 Abb. if. C. 281 n. '83; const, law, 35, 35 n. ; high- w. 5 ; '84 ; dam. 34 n. ; rnunc. corp. 1; '85; r. r. co. 21, 50 n. ; '86; compensa- tion, 4 n. 9 n.; highw. 4. - ex rel. Morgan v. Keteltas, '86; sum. pro. 3. - ex rel. Eagle v. Keyser, '84; principal & a. 9 n. - v. Kiernan, 101 if. Y. 618; a. a, 4 if. Y. Grim. R. 8o; and 3 How. Pr. N. 8. 26 1; affg 3 K Y. Crim. R. 247. - ex ; cl. McCann v. Kilbourn, '85; munc. corp. 6 n. - ex rel. Williams v. King- man, '83; highw. 22; '85; munc. corp. 56 n. ; '86; lighw. 8 n. - v. Kingsley, '85 ; indict. 15. - ex rel. Jjishop v. Kingston, etc. Turnpiiie Co., '83; car- riers, 2 n. - v. Knapp, 'S3 ; new tr. 30. - v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 3J Hun, 475. Affd in 99 if. Y. 181. '86; ins. 95, 96. - ex rel. Wood v. L-icombj, 99 if. Y. 43; aff'g 34 Hun, 401. '86; r. r. co. 4 n. -v. Lake, '83; ev. 113. - 1 x rel. Hatch v. Lake Shore, etc. it. it. Co., '84; mand. 16. - v. Lamb, '83 ; trials, 132. - v. Lambier, '83; munc. corp. 124; '86; hignw. 10. - v. Lane, 31 Uui, 13; s. c, more fully, 1 A~. Y. G im. R. 548. '84; mand. 12; '86; offj'r, 8 n. - ex rel. Crowell v. Lawrence, 36 Baib. 177. cited k Title of local act; in Cregier v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 11 Daly, 175.. '83; const, law, 41; '86; const, law, 24. - ex rel. Merritt v. Lawrence, '84; money paid, etc. 7; '85; atty. 4 c, 5 n. ; town, 7; '86; payment, 1 n. - ex rel. Mitchell v. Law- rence, '83; highw. 27. - v. Learned, '84; contempt, 28; '85; const, law, 20. - ex rel. Owen v. Leary, '86; villages, 10. - ex rel. Gass v. Lee, 28 Hun, 469. Another decision in 15 Weekly D. 449. '84; const, law, 41. - v. Leigh ton, '85; homicide, 1; '86; homicide, 6. - v. Lewis, '83; costs, 100. - ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, '83; hab. corp. 1; sentence, 2; '84; contempt, 28; juries, 1 n. ; sentence, 1 n; '85; hab. corp. 5; sentence, 1 n. ; '86; hab. corp. 1, In. C; in- dict. 26; sentence, 1 n. - v. Livingston, '85; exec. 2n. - ex rel. Dailey v. Livingston, '84; trials, 52 n. - v. Lockwood, '85; ev. 122 - v. Loew, 102 if. r. 471; . aff'g 39 Hun, 490. - ex rel. Wheeler v. Long Island E. E. Co., '86; r. r. co. 4 n. - v. L iomis, '83; indict. 19; '84; larceny, 1; '86; larceny, 1. - ex rel. Plagg v. Lowber, '33; munc. corp. 103. - ex rel. Corns Lock v. Lucas, 93 if. Y. 585; rev'g 25 Hun, 610. '84; bonds, 7 n.; '85; costs, 51 n. - ex rel. Pugsley v. Luther, '83; mech. 1. 8. - v. Lyon,. 1 A". Y. Crim. R. 400. Aff'd in 2 Id. 484; s. c, 33 Hun, 623; and the lat- ter rev'd in 99 A. Y. 2.0; s. c, 3 A"! Y. Vnm. R. 161. '85; const, law, 13 n. 19; '86; adulteration, 1; homi- cide, 5 n. - ex rel. Commissioners of Charities v. Lyons, '83; mech. 1. 10. - ex. rel. Brown v. McAdam, '06; prohibition, 2. - ex rel. Higgins-u. McAdam, '85; prohibition, 2 n.; '86; champerty & main. 4 n. ; ex. & ad. 129. - ex rel. Newcomb v. McCall, 65 How. Pr. 442; s. c, 5 Month. L. Bui. 84. Subse- quent decision in 94 if. Y. 587. '86; receivers, 12 n. - v. McCann, '83; ev. 317 n ; exceptions, 2; '85; crim. law, 7n.;ev. 232. - v. McCarty,'84; const, law, 14. - ex rel. Shaw v. McCarty, '83 ; sum. pro. 7. - ex rel. Mason v. McClave, 102 if. Y. 468; aff'g 39 Han, 511; which rev'd3 How. Pr. K N. 8; '86; district ct. 1; receivers, 9; surr. ct. 1 n. - v. McCoy, '83; bail, 2. - v. McCuuiber, '84; pi. 81; '86; pi. 88 n. - v. McDonald, '83; larceny, 2; '85; larceny, 4 n. - ex rel. Kilmer v. McDonald, '85; const, law, 33. - v. McGarren, '85; larceny, 3 n. ; '86 ; larceny, 9 n. - v. McGee, '85; ev. 315 n. ; '86; ev. 272. - v. McGeery, '83; indict. 5. - v. McGloin, 91 N. Y. 241; s. c, 12 Abb. if. V. 172; 16 Weekly J). 255; and 1 if. Y. Crim. R. 154; affg 28 Hun, 150; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 138; and 1 if. Y. Orim, R. 105; '84; statutes, 4. People SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. People 111 - v. McGowan, '84; chattels, 4; '86; indict. lOn. - v. McKinney, 3 Park. 610. Applied (Perjury) in 38 Hun, 177. - ex rel. Marshall v. McKin- ney, '85; associations, 5. - ex rel. Williamson v. Mc- Kinney, '86; quo warranto, 1. -ex rel. Bay State, &o. Co. v. McLean, '83; tax. 13; '86; certiorari, 7 n. - v. McLeod, '83; warrants, In.; '85; homicide, 1. -v. McMahon, '83; tv. 180; new tr. 24. - v. McWhorter, '81; trials, 49 n. - v. Macy, '84; parties, 39. - v. Majone, 91 2f. Y. 211; B. o. , 16 Weekly D. 199, and I N. Y. Orim. B. 94; aff'g 12 Abb. if. G. 187; s. c, 1 K Y. Orim. B. 86. '85; homicide, 1, 2n. ; '86; hom- icide, 6. - ex rel. Kennedy v. Manhat- tan Gas-light Co., '86; r. r. co. 4 n. - ex rel. Lawrence v. Mann, 32 Hun, 440; aff'g 66 How. Pr. 337. - v. Manning, '86; costs, 4. - ex rel. Brbwnson v, Marine Court, '85; city ct. of N. Y. 4; '86; city ct. of N. Y. 1. - v. Martin, 36 Hun, 462; s. c, 3 if. Y. Grim. B. 122. Previous decision iu 2 Id. 51. - v. Marx, 99 2T. Y. ST!; s. 0., 3 if. Y. Grim. B. a00; rev'g id. 11; s.c, 35 Hun, 528. '84; adulteration, 1; '86; adulteration, 1; const, law, 1 n. ; dairy products, 3. -v. Mather, '84; conspiracy, 1; '85; conspiracy, 1 n. ; wit. 66 n.; 86; wit. 28. - v. Mattier, '85 ; inj. 18 ; re- lig. corp. 7 n. - v. Mauran, '85; waterc.13. - ex rel. Griffing v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, '83 ; const. law, 41; tax. 1; '84; const, law, 30, 43 n. ; '85; compen- sation, 1 ; drainage, 2 n. ; foree. 24 n. ; munc. corp. 98; tax. 3; '86; const, law, 19, 32; tax. 1. - v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; inj. 8; mune. corp. 50; '84; inj. 19 n. ;'85; fires & fire-esc. 1 n. ; inj. 42. - ex rel. Agnew v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '86; certiorari, 7 n. - ex rel. Houston v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '86; munc. corp. 21. - ex rel. Moulton v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '84; mand. II n. - ex rel. O'Beilley v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '84; mand. 7, 13; '86;ev. 225;munc. corp. 26. - ex rel. Fiedler v. Mead, '83; ev. 95; '85; bonds, 6; coun- ty treas. 8; munc. corp. 125 n. ; '86; mand. 6. - ex rel. Sherwin v. Meail, 92 JS. Y. 415; s. c, 1 if. Y. Crim. B. 417; affg 28 Hun, 227; s. c , 64 How. Pr. 41; and 15 Weekly D. 552. An- other proceeding in 64 How. Tr. 252. '83; embez- zlement, 3; '86; contempt, 38. - v. Mechanics', etc. Sav'gs Inst., 92 iV. Y. 7; rev'g k8 Han, 375; s. ft, 1.5 Weekly D. 524; N. Y. Dtil,/ Bey., Feb. 2, 1883; and A. Y. He, aid, Jan. 5, 1883. '85; sav'gs bks. 1. - ex rel. Bartlett v. Medical Society of Erie, '83; mand. 20. - v. Meighan, '86; bail, 3 n. - v. Menken, '86; indict. 8. - v. Mercein, '83 ; husb. & w. 25. - v. Merchants' Bank, 35 Hun, 97. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, 90 N. Y. 042. - v. Merchants' and Mechan- ics' Bank, '84; bail, 6; pi. 145; '86; banking, 13. - v. Merrill, '83; error, 1. -v. Metropolitan Telephone, etc. Co., 11 Abb. N. G 3u4; s. c, 64 How. Pr. 06; and 2 Giv. Pro. B. ( UeQtrty) 3U4. Further proceedings in 31 Hun, 496. '84; lnunc. corp. 1; '85; .compensation, 16 n. ; parties, 21. - v. Metropolitan Telephone Co., '85; highw. 3 n.;'8U; trials, 3. - v. Miller, '86; indict. 11 - ex rel. Van Aken v. Mill- ham, 29 Hun, 151. lievdin 100 if. Y. 273; s. a, 4 if. Y. Grim. B. 127; 1 Genlr. Bep. 615; and 2 Eastern Bep. 681. - v. Moett, '86; trials, 129. - ex rel. Haggert v. Moffit. See 30 Moak Eag. 514 n. - v. Molyneux, '83; stat- utes, 10; '85; statutes, 3 n. 8,9. - v. Mondon, 4 Centr. Bep. 357; s. c, 2 M. Y. Male Bep. 713; rev'g 33 ttm, 188; s. c, 4 if. Y. Orim. U. 112. - v. Moore, '84 ; wit. 41. - v. Morgan, '84; certiorari, 12 n. - i!. Morrell, '83; mand. 6; '84; const, law, 1 n. - v. Morris, '86 ; corp. 4 n. - v. Morrisette, '84; sentence, 3 n. ; '85; sentence, 4, 4 n. - v. Morrison, '85; assault 4 b. 3; rape, 1 n.; '86; ev. 273. ■ ex rel. Steiner v. Morrison, 'a5; munc. corp. 5 n. v. Morse, 99 if. Y. 662 ; s. c. 3 if. Y. Crim. B. 321; aff'g Id. 104. ex rel. Larrabee v. Mulhol- land, '86; munc. corp. 24. v. Murphy. 3 N. Y. Cr m. B. 338. itev'd in 4 Id. 95; s. c. , 10 1 N. Y. 126; and 3 How. Pr. N. #. 469. v. Murphy. See Murphy v. Pepple. '84; appeal, 126; '86; indict. 22. ea, rtl. Gilchrist v. Murray, '83;offi'r, 21. v. Mutual Gas-light Co., '83; depositions, 21; '84; depositions, 10. u. Muzzy, '85; bonds, 5. ' v. Myers, 83; removal of causes, 4. ex ni. Douglass v. Naehr, '84; disorderly per. 1; '85; certiorari, 18 n. ; '86; dis- orderly per. 4 n. ex rel. Welch v. Nash, '83; contracts, 1(1. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford. 'S3;def. 39. i.\ National Trust Co., '83; ins. 90; '86; insane per. 7. v. Naughton, '86; bills of par. 13. ex rel. Blossom u. Nelson, '83; corp. 6J n. v. Newell, 1 How. Pr. 3". S. 8. Aff'd in 38 Hun, 78. v. Newman, '85; const. law, 7, 16 n. v. N. Y. & Staten Island Ferry Co., '83; costs, 8J, 8!>; grams, 1 n . ; '85 ; ev. 27 n. 332. ex rel. Van Heck v. N. Y. Catholic .frotectory, 1U1 N. Y. 195; s. o., 3 lino. Pr. A'. & 3J3; and 4 N. Y. Grim. B. 79; aff'g 38 .tf an, 127. - v. N. Y. Central, etc. K. K. Co., 23 llun, 543; s. ft, 15 Beportei; 378; 3 C:v. Pro. B. 11, and2 Id. (McCarty) 345; rev'g 63Hoio. Pr. 291; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 82. Further decision in 30 Hun, 78. '85; costs, 21 n.; stat- utes, 2; '86; r. r. co. 4 n. ex rel. Thacher v. N. Y. Commercial Assoc, '83; ben. assoc. 10; '84; const, law, 13. ex )•• /. Baker v. N. Y. Com- mon Pleas, 'c6 ; verif. 1 n. ex rel Fryer v. N. Y. Com- mon Pleas, '85; costs, 8 n. ex rel. Lownds v. N. Y. Common Pleas, '85; costs, 9 n. v. N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 92 .V. Y. 487; aff'g, in effect, 11 Abb. N. G 40; s. c, 63 How. Pr. 451; «nd 112 People SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. People People— continued K Y. Daily Beg., Sept. 6, 1882. '84; tax. 10. v. N. Y. Gas-light Co., '84; nuis. 1. ex rel. Roddy v. N. Y. Juv- enile Asylum, '85 ; hab. corp. 1 n. v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc.E. E. Co., 40 Hun, 570; aff'g . 17 Abb. N. C. 304; r. r. co. 4, 5, 6. ex rel. Ohlen v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc. E. E. Co., '83; carriers, 2 n. v. N. Y., New Haven, etc. E. E. Co., 89 A". Y. 266; s, a, 15 W;eklyD. 60; aff'g 12 Id. 434. v. Nichols, '86; former adj. 42. ex rel. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. v. Nichols, '83; munc. corp. 32; offi'r, 5; ref.43; stay of pro. 5; '84; munc. corp. 20; prohibition, 2; '85; munc corp. 17 n.; prohibition, 2 n ; '86; com. schools, 2; ev. 160 n. ; motions, etc. 4. ex rel. Washington v. Nich- ols, '85; munc. corp. 23. v. Nobles, '86; crim. law, 3. v. Noelke, 1 N. Y. Crim. B. 495; aff'g Id. 252; s. c, 29 Hun, 461, and 16 Weekly D. 528; '84; wit. 37, 38, 3D n.; '85; wit. 55; '86; lotteries, 1 n. ; wit. 60 n. ex rel. Swinburne v. Nolan, 65 How. Pr. 468. Eev'd, in effect, in 30 Hun, 485. Eur- ther decision in 32 Id. 612; and the latter aff'd in 101 N. Y. 539. '84; judgm. & decree, 10; '85; pi. 154 n. ex rel. Conlissu. North, '83; munc. corp. 5. v. Northern E. E. Co., '84; pi. 38 n.; '85; pi. 4.- v. Norton, '83; receivers, 4; trusts, 100; '84; assign, for b. of c. 85; auction, 4; parr ties, 41 n. ; '85; trusts, 56. v. Nostrand, '8i; offi'r, 7, 14 ; '86 ; munc. corp. 17 ; offi'r, 9. u. Oakes, '83; costs, 100. v. O'Brien, '84; statutes, 19 n. ex rel. Eobinson v. 0'K.eefe, 17 Weekly D. 536. Aff'd in 100 A". Y. 572; s. c, 2 East. Bep. 181. ex rel. Van Cortlandt v. Onondaga Common Pleas, '84; arbitration, 3 n. ; '86; discont. 5 n. v. Open Board of Stock Brokers' Building Co., 92 N. Y. 98; s. c, 15 Beporler, 532, and N. Y. Daily Beg., Oct. 7, 1883; rev'g, in part, 28 Han, 274; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 527. '86; judicial sale, 7. - v. Oswego & Syracuse Ey. Co., '84; carriers, 6. - ex rel. Manhattan Sav'gs Inst'n of N. Y. v. Otis, 90 A. Y. 48; B. c, 15 Weekly D. 305; aff'g 24 Hun, 519. '85; appeal, 89; const, law, 11 n. -v. Otto, lul A r . Y. 690; s. c, more fully, 4 A". Y. dim. B. 155; aff'g Id. 150; s. c, 38 Hun, 97. - ex rel. Phelps v. Oyer and Terminer, '83; false pre. 1; trials, 1L'6, 107; wit. 79; '85; bail, 1; '86; trials, 107 n. llUjwit. 62 n. - ex rel. Kingsland v. Palmer, '83; ex. tad. 14. - v. Park, '85; ev. 254 u. ; felony, 1. - v. Parker, '85; prohibition, 2n. - ex rel. Jenkins v. Parker Vein Coal Co., '84; inand. 16. - v. Paulding, '83 ; sum. pro. 5. - v. Payne, '83; indict. 14, 15 n. - v. Peabody, '83; case, 6; '84; ev. 157 n. -v. Pease, '85; pi. 81; '86; ev. 3n. - v. Peck, '86; indict. 27. - ex rel. Hoag v. Peck, 4 Luns. 528. Cited (With- drawal of consent) in 99 N. Y.- 333. '84; munc. corp. 103. - ex rel. Smith v. Peck, '83; election of offi'r, 11; '86; re- lig. corp. 4. - v. Pennock, '85 ; principal & s. 12, 13. - ex rel. Van Allen v. Perry, '83 ; certiorari, 3. - ea; rel. Mann v. Peterson, 21 Hun, 421; rev'g, in part, 16 Weekly D. 70. - v. Petmecky, 99 N. Y. 415; s. p., 3 N. Y. Grim. B. 288; aff'g 2 Jd. 450. - v. Petrea, 92 A". Y. 128; s. c, 1 A'. Y. Grim. Jt. 233; 65 How. Br. 69; affg 30 Han, 98; s. a, G4iZ.no. Pr. 139; 1 A". Y. Gam. H. 198, and 16 Weekly JJ. 6. '83; grand jury, 11; '84; appeal, 129; grand jury, 1; '85; appeal, 125; highw. 12; '86; grand jury 3n. - v. Pettit, '86; disorderly persons, 4 n. - ex rel. Hudson Eiver E. E. Co. v. Pierce, '85; juris. 11. - v. Pinclmey, '83; offi'r, 1: '86; offi'r, 7 n. -v. Plath, 36 Hun, 454; s.c, as People v. Piatt, 3 A". Y. Grim. B-. 129. Eev'd in 4 Id. 53; s. c, 100 A. Y. 590; 3 Harlhea.it. Bep. 790; and 3 J'iistemBep. 211. '86; accom- plice, 1. - v. Piatt. See People v. Plath. '83 ; real prop. 5 n. -ex rel. Connolly v. Police Commissioners, '84; munc. corp. 23. -exiel. Flanagan v. Police Commissioners of N. Y. Followed (Proceedings to remove officer) in 31 Hun, 211. '84; munc. corp. 23, 26; '85; munc. corp. 13; special pro. 2. - ex rel. Gilhooly 'v. Police Commissioners of N. Y. , '84; munc. corp. 17; '85; munc. corp. 13. - ex rel. Kopp i\ Police Commissiouers of N. Y., 102 A*. Y. 583; s. c, 4 N. Y. Crim.B. 447; affg Id. 300; s. c, 39 Hun, 507. - ex rel. Mohr v. Police Com- missioners of N. Y., '84; munc. corp. 17. - ex rel. Sibert v. Police Commissioners of N. Y., '83; certiorari, 1 n. ; '84-; munc. corp. 23. - ex rel. Swift i'. Police Com- missioners, 31 Han, 40. Aff'd in 99 A'. Y. 676. - ex rel. Ogdensburgh, etc. E. E. Co. v. Pond, '85; tax. 29, 31 ; '86 ; tax. 12 n. 21. - v. Porter, '86; hab. corp. In. - ex rel. Townsend v. Porter, 90 N. Y. 68; s. c, 15 Week- ly D. 409; aff'g 26 Hun, 622; s.c, 14 WeekbiD. 481. - v. Potter, '86; hab. corp. In. - v. Poucher, 30 Hun, 576; s. c, 1 A". Y. Crim. B. 544. Appeal dismissed in 3 Id. 560; s. a, 99 A. Y. 610. - v. Powell, '86; conspiracy, 7n. - ex rel. Kingsley v. Pratt, '83; arrest, 41. - v. Quant, '85; ev. 195. - v. Quigg, '85; statutes, 17 n. - v. Quinn, '85; rape, 1 n. ; trials, 105 n.;'86; ev. 273. - ex rel. Morris v. Kandall, '83 ; inj. 67 ; sup. pro. 35. - v. Eansom, '86; trials, 13. - ex rel. Post v. Eansom, '83; trials, 25. - ex rel. Eice v. Eansom, '85; exec. 16. - v. Eathburn,'83; contempt, 2n. - ex rel. Stetzer v. Eawson, '83; larceny, 5; '85; ev. 254 n. -v. Eaymond, 96 N. Y. 38; affg 32 Hun, 123 ;s. a, 2 A. Y. Lrim. B. 295. '83; const, law, 46. People STJPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. People 113 — v. Keavey, 29 Hun, 364; s. o., more fully, 4 N. T. Crim. R. 23. Another de- cision, denying motion for re-argument, Id. 1 ; s. c. , 38 JLoi, 418. — v. Rector, '84; homicide, 7. — ex rel. Raplee v. Reddy,'83; certiorari, 8; '84; costs, 54; '86; certiorari, 2, 7n. — ex rel. Knapp v. Reeder, '84; attach. 39. — ex rel. Brack v. Reilly, '86; exec. 19. — ex rel. Fischer v. Reilly, '84; false impris. 2 n. — v. Restell, '86; contempt, 19 n. — ex rel. German Am. Loan, etc. Co. v. Richards, '86; mand. 7, 15. — v. Rickert, '83; arrest, 38. — ex rel. Fries v. Riley, '83; contempt, 5; '84; contempt, 11 n. ; '85; contempt, 5; 't6; contempt, 7, 38. — v. Robinson, '86; ev. 101 n. — ex rel. Garbutt v. Rochester and State Line R. R. Co., '83; carriers, 2 n.; '84; spec, perf. 3; '85; contempt, 21 n. ; costs, 43; '86; r. r. co. 4 n. 10. — v. Rockaway Beach Imp. Co., '8^; costs, 85. — v. Rogers, '83; crim. 1. 3 n. ; exceptions, 2; '84; crim. 1. In.; '85; trials, 105 n. — ex rel. Delaware & Hud- son Canal Co. v. Roosa, '86; tax. 12 n. ^ — v. Roper, 83 ; grants, In.; '86; const, law, 11. — v Rowland, '86; ex. &,ad. 17 n. — v. Rugg, 98 K Y. 537; s. c, 3 iV. Y. Crim. M. 172, aff'g 21 Weekly D. 84. '85; indict. 4; '86: indict. 15. — ex rel. Bean v. Russell, '86; prohibition, 2. — ex nl. Smith v. Russell, '85; prohibition, 2 n. — ex rtl. 'luthill v. Russell, '84; wit. On. — - ex rel. Thurman v. Ryan, '83; certiorari, 8; '84; costs, 54; tax. 3, 10. — ex rel. Crane v. Ryder, '83; parties, 39; pi. 198; '84; pi. 7 n.; '85; pi. 110 n. — ex rel. Simmonds v. Ryken, '84; certiorari, 12 n. — v. Ryland, 28 Hun, 568; s. c, 16 Weekly 1>. 232 ; and 1 iY. Y. Cnm. B. 123. Affd in 2 Id. 441; s. c, 97 A. Y. 126. — v. Rynders, '85; indict. 14. — ex rel. Van Houten v. Sad- ler, '86; mine. corp. 22. — v. Safford, '85; wit. 60. r— ex rr!. Newman v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, '83; mand. 20. — r tx rel. Schmitt v. St. Fran- ciscus Benev. Soc, '83; ben. ftssoo. 10. — v. Sammis, '86; place of trial, 7. < rvu — ix ,rtl. Little v. Sampson, '83; inj. 17. ,. — ex rel. Lincoln v. Saratoga Common Pleas, '83; dis- trict ct. ? lL,.. , — v. Satterlee. '84; wit. 37; '85; wit. 55; '86; trials, 121. — ex rel. Irwin v. Sawyer, '85; munc. corp. 116 n. — ex rel Smith v. Schiellein, '86; const, law, 15. — v. Schryver, '85; ev. 232. — ex rel. Kellogg v. Schuyler, '83; dam. 8; '84; bonds, 8 n. ; '86; attach. 45. — v. Seaman, '85; associa- tions, 5. — ex nl. Attorney-General v. Security Life Ins. Co., '85; ins. 80 n. — v. Security Life Ins. etc. Co., '83; corp. 79; ins. 83, 88, 89, 91 n. 94 n. 95, 96 n. ; receivers, 21; savgs. bks. 2 n.; '84; ins. 32; '8.^; ins. 79, 80 n.; '86; ins. 61, 96. — ex rel. Attorney-General v. Security Life Ins. etc. Co., '83; appeal, 104; ins. 91 n. 94 n. 95; receivers, 24 n. — v. S'rgeant, '8J; betting & g- 2 n. — v. Sessions, '83; indict. 33; warehousing, 2; '86; re- moval of c. 1. — r. Seward, '85; prohibi- tion, 1. — v. Shall, '85; forgery, 3. — ■ v; Shaw, '&4; sentence, 1, 1 n. ex rel. McMullen v. Shep ard, '83 ; const, law, 77. ex rel. Utica & B. 11. R. Co. v. Shields, '84 ; tax. 44. v. Shulman, '85; ev. 254 n. ex rel. Perkerson v. Sisters of St. Dominick, '85 ; certio- rari, 17; '86; hab. corp. 6. v. Smith, 's;i; indict. 23; '84; larceny, 3 n. ; '86.; in- dict. 7. ex rel. Green v. Smith, '83; munc. corp. 173; '84; munc. corp. 99 n. ; '86; munc. corp. 93. ex rel. Haines v. Smith, '83; appeal, 92; certiorari, 1 n.;munc. corp. 161 n.; '85; munc. corp. 117. — ea; rel. Herrick v. Smith, '83; munc. corp. 104; '84; statutes, 13; '86; const, law, 9n. ex rel. Jefferson v. Smith, 88 N. Y. 576; s. c, 14 D. 317; and 14 Be- porter, 91 ; aff'g 24 Hun, 492. '84; conflict of 1. 2; '86; tax. 4n. — ex rel. Ulster & Delaware R. R. Co. v. Smith, '85; cer- tiorari, 4. — v. Snedeker, '83; const.- law, 47; offi'r, 3. — v. Snyder, ev. 1 ; pi. 38 n. — v. Spalding, '85; contempt, 17. ■- — ex rel. Backus v. Spalding, '83; contempt, 14. — ex rel. Cox v. Special Ses- sions, '85; const. laWj 13; '86; legislature, 2. — ex rel. Lngelu. Special Ses- sions, '84; assault & b. 4. — ex rel. Murray v. Special Sessions, '83; certiorari, 1 n. — ex rel. Dusenbury u. Speir, '84; int. 6 n. — ex rel. Rogers v. Spencer, '83; munc. corp. 166; '84; juris. 1 n.; '85; tax. 47. — ex rel. Collins v. Spicer, 34 Hun, 584. Previous deci- sion in 99 N. Y. 225. — v. Starkweather, '85; ex. sc ad. 128 n. — v. Stearns, '83; indict. 8; '85; forgery, 3; indict. 14. — v. Steele, '86; appeal, 16 n. — v. Stephens, '8a; mort. 26; '84; acct. st. 1; ev. 188; joint debtors, 4; v. & p. 7. — v. Stevens, '85; crim. law, 3n. — ex rel. Bradley v. Stevens, '86; const, law, 11 n. — ex ret. Hodgkinson v. Stev- ens,'83; r.r. co. 85; states, 2; '85; offi'r, 25; '86; offi'r. 8 n. — ex rel. Vanderbilt v. Stil- well, '86; appeal, o2; former adj. 6. — v. Stocking, '83; towns, 3; '85; former adj. 13; '86; bills of par. 13; superv. 2n. — v. Stokes, '85; homicide, 1; trials, 108. — v. Stone, '84; appeal, 129. — ex rel. Downing v. Stout, '85; tax. 3; '86; compensa- tion !> n.; wit. 9. — v. Sto-well, '85; offi'r, 3 n. — ex ret. Becar v. Struller,'84; parties, 41 n. — ii. Sturdevant, '83; const, law, 9; inj. 7, 8; lotteries, 3; '84; costs, 1; '85; contempt, 17; inj. 21; 'S6; former adj. 21 n. ; munc. corp. 4. — ex rel. Gillies v. Suffern, '83; tax. 46; '85; munc. corp. 126; tax. 37, 49 n.; '86; tax. 76 n. — v. Sully, '83; false pre. 1. — v. Superintendents of House of Refuge, '85; hab. — corp. 1 n. — v. Superior Court, '83; new tr. 22. — ea; rel. Hadley v. Superri- 114 People SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. People People — continued sorsof Albany, '86 ; atty. & e. 10; superv. 2. ex rel. Hilton v. Supervi- sors of Albany, '86; tax. 41. ex rel. Hotchkiss v. Super- visors of Broome, '85; towns, C. • ex rel. Lee v. Supervisors of Chautauqua, '84; const, law, 34 n. ; statutes, 19 n. ex rel. Mygatt v. Supervi- sors of Chenango, '8a; tax. 66; '85; equity, 2; '86; judgm. 14. ex nl. Scott v. Supervisors of Chenango Co., 8 JV'. Y. 318. Cited (Mandamus) in People ix rel. Smith v. Schiellein, 95 A". Y. 134. ex rel. Peake v. Supervisors of Columbia, '83; receivers, 16; tax. 2; '84; munc. corp. 102; '8.">; statutes, 3n. 8. ex rel. Van Tassel v. Su- pervisors of Columbia, '86 ; money paid, etc. 11 n. - — v. Supervisorsof Delaware, 85; atty. & c. 5; munc. corp. 83. ex rel. Johnson v. Supervi- sors of Delaware, '86; tax. 41. ex rel. Saunders v. Super- visors of Erie, '86; atty. &c. 10. ex rel. Witherbee v. Super- visors of Essex; as to "due process of law," cited, 32 Hun, 577 n. '85 ; ex. & ad. 171; statutes, 3 n. 8; '86; const, law, 32. ex rel. Ayres v. Supervisors of Pulton, '86; compensa- tion, 5 n. ; superv. 2 n. ex rel. Bailey v. Supervis- ors of Greene, '84; mand. 11 n. ex rel. Cole v. Supervisors of Greene, 15 Abb. K G. 477. Aff'd in 39 Hun, 299.' ex rel. Deane v. Supervi- sors of Greene, 14 Abb. N. C. 29; s. c, as Deane v. Su- pervisors of Greene, 67 How. Pr. 461. ex rel. Hall v. Supervisors of Greene, 13 Abb. A. ' 0. 421; s. c, as Hall v. Super- visors of Greene, 66 How. Pr. 330. ex rel. Mott v. Supervisors of Greene, '83; statutes, 19 n. ;'85;mand. 14; '86; mand. 6, 15. ex rel. Pirst Nat. Bank v. Supervisors of Herkimer, '83; statutes, 19 n.; '86; su- perv. 2 n. ex rel Hoyt v. Supervisors of Kings, '86; compensa- tion, 5 n. — - ex rtl. Conway v. Supervi- sors of Livingston, '84; statutes, 12; '85; r. r.co. 24, 25 n. ex rel. Oneida Valley Nat. Bank v. Supervisors of Madison, '86; certiorari, 7 n. , ex rel. Commissioners of Beoords v. Supervisors of New York, '83; statutes, 19 n. ex rel. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Supervisors of New York, '83; statutes, 17; tax. 20; ^4; receivers, 35; tax. 19; '85; const, law, 20. ex rel. Phcenix v. Supervi- sors of New York, '86; su- perv. 2 n. ex rel. Canajoharie Nat. Bank v. Supervisors of Montgomery, '85; statutes, 14 n ; tax. 3, 11. ex rel. Bansom v Supervi- sors cf Niagara, '86; atty. & c. 10. ex rel. Brown v. Supervisors of Onondaga, 3' Una. Fr. N. K l;s. c, 4N. r. r r im. P. 102. Affcl in 102 N. Y. 691, on opinion below. ex rel. Bobison v. Supervi- sors of Ontario, '84; stat- utes, 14. ex rel. Burrows i;. Supervi- sors ol Orange, '83; const. law, 52; superv. 3. ex rel. Otsego County Bank v. Supervisors of Otsego,' '83; statutes, 19 n.; '84; munc. corp. 59 n. ; '85; r. r. co. 24, 25 n. ; '86; superv. 2n. ex rel. McDonough v. Su- pervisors of Queens, '86; Buperv.- 2 n. ex rel. Onderdonk v. Super- visors of Queens, '86; pro- hibition, 2. ex rel Weekes v. Supervi- sors of Queens, '85 ; certio- rari, 7. ex rel. Sherman v. Supervi- sors of St. Lawrence, '86; superv. 2 n. ex rel. Thompson v. Super- visors of Schenectady, 'S3; towns, 3; '84; superv. 3; '85; former adj. 13. ex rel. Cagger v. Supervi- sors of Schuyler, '83 ; costs, 121. ex rel. Everett v. Supervi- sors of Ulster, S3 A. Y. 397 ; aff' g 29 Hun, 185 ; '84; highw. 27 n.; '85; pi. 146 n. ; '86; const, law, 30 n. ex rel. First Nat. Bank v. Supervisors of Ulster, '86; certiorari, 7 n. ex rel. Hermance v. Super- visors of Ulster, '83; tax. 5. ex rel. Lefever v. Supervi- sorsof Ulster, '83; superv. 3. - ex rel. McKenzie v. Super- visors of Ulster, 94 A'. Y. 263; aft'g 30 Hun, 148; towns, 5, 6. - ex ril. Pells v. Supervisors of Ulster, '83 ; tax. 2. - ex rel. Pitts v. Supervisors of Ulster, '83; tax. 2; '86; const, law, 4n. - ex rel. Lawrence v. Super- visors of Westchester, '83; mand. 2l;'S5; county treas. 7n.; equity, 2; mand. 14; statutes, 17 n. ; '86; highw. 25; mand. 15; r. r. co. 33. - ex rel. Lorillard v. Supervi- sors of Westchester, '83; tax. 55. - ex rel. Olmsted v. Super- visors of Westchester, '83; mand. 2. - ex rtl. James v. Surrogate of Putnam, '86; surr. ct. 6. - v. Swan, '85; larceny, 3 n. - exrel. Salke r. Talcott, '85; prohibition, 2n. -v. Taylor, '83; indict. 14, 15 n ; '84, sentence, 1 n. ; trials, 86; '85; trials, 114 n. - ex rel. Smith v. Taylor, '85; waiver, 1. - ex r>l. Teed v. Teed, '84; sum. pro. 4. - ex re . Judson v. Thacher, '83; appeal; 71; '85; munc. corp. 5 n. ; '86; quo warranto, - ex rel. Jermain v. Thayer, '85; canals, 7. - v. Third A*duo Savings Bank, '66; savgs. bks. 10 n. -v. Thomas, '86; indict. 11. -v. Thompson, '8<.; appeal, 106; ev. 236; trials, 128. - ix rel. Dowdney v. Thomp- son, 19 Weekly D. 450 ;s. C, With opinion in lull, N. Y. Daily Meg., Aug. 1J, 1884. Appeal dismissed in 99 A. Y. 641. - ex rel. Keech v. Thomp- son, 26 Him, 28. Afi'd in 94 N. Y. 401. '83; munc. corp. 3Q; 'c4; certiorari, 10; munc. corp, 25 n.; '86; offi'r, 3. - ex rd. McManus v. Thomp- son, 65 How. Pr. 4n7; s. c , 5 Month. L. BuL.US. AffM in 32 Han, 93. '85; highw. 3 n. ; wit. 49. ex rel. Stranahan v. Thompson, 98 A. Y. 6; rev'g 67 H>w. Pr. 491. -v. Thorns, '86; ev. 254 n. -v. Throop, '86; appeal, 16 n. - v. Tibbetts, '83; cm. dom. 2; waterc. 3 n. ; '84; patents for 1. 2 n. ; waterc. 3 n. ; '85; navig. 1; waterc. 12 n. 13, People SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Perry 115 — ex rel. Morton v. Tieman, '86;offi'r, 8n. — v. Tighe, '84; excise, 2, 4. — ex rel. Stanton v. Tioga Common Pleas, '83; assign. 9, 15; '85; abate. 4 r. 2. — v. Tompkins, '83; false pre. 2; fraud, J. — v. Townsend, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 89 n.; '84; parties, 41 n. — ex rel. Spahn t>. Townsend, '86; certiorari, 8a. — ex rel. Weller v. Townsend, 102 A r . Y. 430; rev'g 40 Hun, 360. — v. Toynbee, '83; const, law, 32 n. — ex rel. Schaghticoke v. Troy 6 Boston it. B. Co., . '86; munc. corp. 46; r. r. co. 4n. — v. Trumble, '84; police ct. 1 ; '85 ; certiorari, 18 n. — ex rel. Faulkner r. Trustees of Dansville, '85; const, law, 49 n. ; '86; const, law, 27. — ex rel. Hetfield v. Trustees of Fort Edward, '86; const, law, 41. — ex rel. Westbrook v. Trus- tees of Ogdensburgh, '83; tax. 10. -v. Tubbs, '83; bail, 4 n. — v. Tuthill, '8a; relig. corp. 3. — v. Tweed, '83; ev. 6 n.; sentence, 3 n. ; surr. ct. 3; '84; arrest, 16; election rights, etc. 3; pi. 72, 154 n. ; '85; parties, 44; pi. 154 n.; '86; arrest, 1 n. — v. Tyrrell, '86; trials, 110. — ex rel. Aitorney-Gfeneral v. Uticalns. (Jo., '83; statutes, 6; '84; bail, ti n. ; fish & fish- eries, 1; '85; corp. 35; partn. 7 n. -v. Vail, '86; offi'r, 8 n. — ex rel. Garling c. Van Allen, '84; const, law, 11. — ex rel; Van Bennselaer v. Van Alstyne, '86; highw. 8 n. — v. Vahderbilt, '83; lakes, 1; nuis. 9; '84; parties, 39; '85; ev. 27 n.; '86; ini. 14 n. 40 n. — v. Vane, '86; wit. 47 n. — ex ret. Simpson v. Van Home, '83;def. 106; munc. corp. 10; '85; munc. oorp. 6n. — ex rel. Na,varro v. Van Nort, '84; ruand. 3. — v. Van Bensselaer, '83; patents for 1.1; real prop. 5 n. ; '85; waterc. 12 n. -r- v. Van Santvoord, '84; in- dict. 18 n. — v. Van Steenburgh, '85; ev. 254 n. felony, 1. — v. Van Wyck, '85; con- tempt, 14 n. -v. Vedder, 98 JV. Y. 630; I s. a, 3 N. Y. Orim. R. 32; aff'g Id. 23; s. o., 34 Hun, 280. - v. Vermilyea, '84; deposi- tions, 1; '86; certiorari, 19 n. ; place of trial, 7. - v. Vilas, '83 ; principal & s. 10; '84; bonds, 8 n. ; tres- pass, 1 ; '85 ; munc. corp. 5 n. ; offi r, 11; principal 4 s. 12. - ex rel. Duffy v. Village of West Troy, '83; mand. 1. - ex rel. Johnson v. Village of Whitney 's Point. 32 Hun, 508. Affdinl02A. Y. 81. - ex rel. Weatherhead v. Wal- dron, '86; hurr. ct. 6. - ex rel. Hawes v. Walker, '84; assign, for b. of c. 5; pi. 7 n. - ex rel. Kehlbeek v. Walsh, '83; certiorari, 1 n. - ex rel. Vogler v. Walsh, 87 If. Y. 481; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 440; affg 22 Him, 139. Decision in 87 A". Y. cited (Evidence) in 37 Hun, 168. - v. Walter, '85; certiorari, 1. - ex rel. Frey v. Warden of N. Y. County Jail, 34 Hun, 393. Bev'd in 100 N. Y. 20; s. c, 3 .A. Y. Orim. R. 545, 1 Gentr. Rep . 173 ; 2 Mxst. Hep. 3U8; 2 Northeast. Rep. 870. - v. Warner, '83 ; indict. 15 n. - v. Warren, '84; offi'r, 2i n, - ex ?«/. Albany it. Greenbush Bridge Co. v. Weaver, 34 Hun, 321; aff'g 67 -How. Pr. 477; an appeal from this decision dismissed, as it seems, but without opin- ion, in 99 A. Y. 659. '85; tax. 30, 31; '86; tax. 12 n. 21. - ex rel. Slavin v. Wendell, '86; mand. 6. - v. Wentworth, 3 XT. Y. Orim. Ji. 111. Further de- cision in Id. 207. - v. Wentz, '83; ev. 178, 182; '85; ev. 121. - ex rel. Adams v. West- brook, 89 N. Y. 152; s. c, 2 U.v. fro. R. (Browi.e) 180; 14 Weekly D. 472; dismiss- ing appeal from order aff'g 61 How. Pr. 138. '85; ex. 4 ad. 177 n. ; prohibition, 1, 2 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 145. -v. Wheeler, '86; offi'r, 5; tax. 39. - v. White, '83; judges, 2; '84; canals, 4 n. ; '85; nota- ries, 1;'86; offi'r, 9. -ex rel. Gere v. Whitlock, '84; const, law, 38; '86; com. schools, 2; const, law, 27 n. - v. Whitwell, '84; pi. 55. - v. Widows' & Orphans' Ben. Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 94 n. - v. Wiggins, 92 K Y. 656; s. c, 1 K. Y. Grim. R. 29C; aff'g Id. 290; s. c, 28 Ilun, 308, and 16 Weekly IK 141. v. Wiley, '83; indict. l.t; '84; larceny, 1; '86; larceny, 1. v. Willett, 36 Hun, 50H; s. c, 3 N. Y. dm. J,'. 324. Further decisions in lui JV. Y. 251; s. c, 4 If. Y. Orim. It. 20U; also another decision in 1 How. Pr. X. 8. 196; s. c, 3 iV. Y. Orhn. R. 54. See Willett v. People, '83; arrest, 9; '86; indict. 15. v. Williams, '83 ; false pre. 1; '86; trials, 128, 135. v. Williamsburgh Turn- pike, etc. Co., '86; trials, 99 n. v. Wilson, '83; ev. 121. v. Wood, '83; ev. 27y; '85; ev. 254 n. ■ ex ret. Cooke v. Wood, '85; statutes, 3 n. 8, 9. ex rel. Green v. Wood, '84; mand. 13. v. Wright, '85; extradition, In. ex rel: Beller v. Wright, '83; ev. 302; trials, 138. People's Bank of it. Y. v. Bo- gart, '84; fraud, 1. v. Mitchell, '83; legacies, 24* sales 13 Pepoon, Matter of, 91 N. Y. 255; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 223; aff'g 14 Id. 355; '83; wills, 123, 124; '84; wills, 26 n. 70, Pepoon v. Jenkins, '83 ; inj. 29 n. Percy, Matter of, '83; atty. 4 c. 10 n. Perkins v. Hill, '86; case, 2; costs, 57 n v. Kendall, '83; sup. pro. 4n. . v. Mitchell, '86; libel, 2. v. N. Y. Central K. B. Co., '84; ev. 104; '86; negl. 8 n. v. Perkins, '83; husb. 4W. ' 40, 43; '85; husb. 4 w. 3 n. 27 n.; '86; husb. 4 w. 14 n. v. Taylor, '86;ref. 27. v. Washington Ins. Co., '83; ins. 1 n. Per Lee v. Beebe, '83; sales, 13. Perley v. Sands, '86; ex. 4 ad. 28. Perrin v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., '85; deeds, 20. Perrine v. Hotchkiss, '85; ap- peal, 103; lim. of a. 3u n. - v. Striker, '85; depositions, 5. Perry v. Chester, '83; atty. 4 c. 63; set-oa, 8; '84; atty. 4 c. 23; set-off, 6, 7; '85; atty. 4 c. 20; set-off, 8 n. 9; '86; atty. 4 c. 28 n. ; set-off, 3 n. 7n. 116 Perry SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Phoenix Perry— continued v. Dickerson, '83; former adj. 6; '85; pi. 114. «. Poster, '83 ; trusts, 19. - v. Lansing,'85; negl. 84 n. ; '86; negl. 128 n. v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co. , '83; ins. 37 n. 45; '85; ins. 54 n. v. Perry, '85; divorce, 4 n. 9; '8S; alimony, 2; di- vorce, 3 n. v. Rollins, '83; ref. 7. Person v. Grier, '83; arrest, 6 n. ; service 4 p. 4 n. ; wit. 2 n. ; '84; service 4 p. 2, 2 n. v. Warren, '85; tax. 4. Persse and Brooks Paper Works v. Willet, '83; ref. 33. Perzel v. Shook, 50 Super. (It. ' (J. &S.) 206; s. c, 5 Civ. I J ro. R. 397. Further de- cision in 53 Super. Ct. (J. & s.) 5oi. Peters, Case of, '83; Indians, 1 n. Peters v. Delaplaine, '83 ; spec. peif. 1; '84; lim. of a. 11; '86; lim. of a. 8; v. 4 p. 14. v. Henry, '86; imptis. 3. — — v. Kerr, '85; sup. pro. 35; '86; 6up. pro. 23. v. tublio Administrator, '85; ex. 4 ad. 14; '86; ex. 4 ad. 11. v. Sanford, '84; joint debt- ors, 3 n. ; '86; judgm. 18 n. Petersen^. Chemical Bank, '83; cause of action, 2; ex. & ad. 1U7 n. ; judgm. & decree, 31; '84; ex. & ad. 3, 16; '85; ex. & ad. 52-n.; parties, 34; '86; ex. & ad. 2; pi. 139. v. Swan, 50 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 46. Further decision in 53 Id. 151. Peterson v. Clark, '84; waiver; 5n. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; munc. corp. 103, 162. Petreeu. Lansing, '85; narties, 43. Petrie v. Adams, '84; appeal, 72. v. Howe, '83; ev. 254. v. Shoemaker, '86; insane per. 4. Pettee v. Orser, '86; assign, for b. of c. In. Pettibone v. Drakeford, 37 Hun, 62b ; confirming on re-argu- ment, 21 Weekly D. 96. Another decision in 1 How. Pr. A. 8. 141. Pettit v. Shepard, '86; deeds, 12 n. v. Shepherd, '86; fraud. conv. 8n. Petty v. Tooker,'83; relig. corp. y; '84; relig. corp. 3; '85; relig. corp. 3. Peugnet, Matter of, '83 ; statutes, 1J. Peugnet v. Phelps, '83; divorce, 3 n. ; '86; divorce, 1. Peverly v. Poole, A. Y. Daily Bey., June 3, 1885. Aff'd in Id. Jan. 28, 1886. Pew v. Hastings, '86; surr. ct. 21, 24 n. Peyser v. McCormack, '85; pi. 126. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y..'83; money paid, etc. 12, 13 n. ; tax. 82; '84; money paid, etc. 14 n. ; '85; estoppel, 5 n. ; money paid, etc. 13; '86; money paid, etc. 5, 6, 9,'ll n. v. Metropolitan Elevated R. E. Co., '85; dam. 44 n.; '86;highw. 2 n. v. Wendt, '85; amend. 2; ex. & ad. 108 ; '86; amend. 17 n. Pfeffele v. Second Ave. B. E. Co., 19 Weekly D. 44. Fur- ther decision in 34 Hun, 497. Pfeiffer v. Adler, '83; guaranty, 18; '84; guaranty, 10n.;'86; guaranty, 5. Pfohl v. Simpson, '83; mfg. co. 13. Phelan v. Kelley, '83; adv. poss. Phelps, Matter of, '83; tax. 40. Phelps v. Baker, '85; judgm. 4 decree, 7 n. v. Barton, '83; sher 21. v. City of Watertown, '85; munc. corp. 121 n. v. Hawley, '83; statutes, 19 n. v. McDonald, '83; appeal. 90; '84; appeal, 86. v. JJowlen, '84; dam. 15 n v. People, '85; appeal, 131; indict. 5,' 12 n. ; '86; indict, 9, 13, 15 ; larceny, 1 ; trials, 107 n. 110. v. Phelps, '84; affid. 3 n.; '85; affid. 2 n. ; amend. 6; '86; affid. 4. v. Piatt, '83 ; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. ; '86; appeal, 6 n. v. Pond, '83; susp. of power of a. 18; '86; accu- mulations, n.; wills, 59. v. Bacey , '85 ; const, law, 8. v. Vischer, '85; appeal, 33; bills of lading, 17 n. —— v. Williamson, '83; dam. 24. Phenix v. Baldwin, '85; deposi- tions, 1. Philbrick v. Dallett, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 11 n. Philips v. Mackellar, '85; can- cel, of wr. instr. 4 n. ; usury, 4. Phillip v. Gallant, '83 ; contracts, 89; master 4 s. 6; '84; con- tracts, 85 n. 86. Phillippi v. Wolff, '86; dam. 32. Phillips, Matter of, 98 N. Y. 267; affg 1 How. Pr. A. 8. 291. '83; munc. corp. 147; '86; wills, 5, 14 n. 1U n. Phillips v. Bartlett, '84; pi. 126. v. Berger, '8±; spec. perf. 2. v. Chater, '85; wills, 3d.. v. Davies, 92 A. Y. 199; affg 15 HeekluD. 121; s. a, A. 2'. Daily Rey., Aug. 8, 1882. '85; wills, 59; '86; wills, 70, 76 n. v. Dusenberry, 8 Han, 348. Citedt Appointment of guar- dian) in 36 Hun, 376. '84; parties, 32. v. Gorham, '84; pi. 101; '86; pi. 111. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 88 A. i. 24o; s. a, 14 Weekly D. 161; affg 13 Id. 426. Decision in 88 A. Y. fol- lowed, but point not indi- cated, in People tx rel. Clark v. French, 9H Id. 649. '83; munc. corp. 30. v. Melville, '86; trials, 97. v Rensselaer & Saratoga E. E. Co., '83; r. r. co. 26; '84; negl. 50. v. Schumacher, '86; highw. 22. v. Speyers, '80; interest, 1. v. Stagg, '83; atty. 4 c. 51. v. Suydam, '83; amend. 22. v. Taylor, 49 Super. Ct. (J, & S.) 318. Aff'd in 23 Weekly D. 257. • v. Terry, '83; dam. 37. v. Therasson, '8a; mfg. co. 12; '86; mfg. co. 2. v. Thompson, '85; con- tracts, 71 n. v. Wheeler, '83; atty. 4 c. 13; motions 4 o. 10. v. Wicks, '83; set-off, 7. v. Wilpers, '83 ; nons." 1 n. Phinney v. Broschell, '83; mo- tions 4 o. 20; '85; motions & o. 9. v. Phinney, '83; pi. 201. Phipps v. Carman, '84; ref. 11, 12; '85; costs, 68; ref. 12,. 12 n.; '86; costs, 31 n. Phoenix v. Dupuy, '83; deposi- tions, 26, 28, a9; '84; depo- sitions, 22, 27, 30, 34; '85; depositions, 5, 6 n. v. Livingston, '86; trusts, 37 n. Phoenix Bk. of N. Y. v. Donnell, '86; pi. 33. Phoenix Foundry, etc. Co. v. North Eiver Construction Co., '84; receivers, 12; '85; corp. 39. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 25; '84; ev. 228; fraud, conv. 11; '85; paym. 3 n. ; questions of 1. & f, 2n. v. Continental Ins. Co., '84; covenants, 5 n. ; '85; forec. 6; inj. 8. Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badgei, '83; mig. oo, 4 n. Phyfe SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. PoiUon 117 Phyfe, Matter of, '84; ex. 4 ad. 74; '86; ex. & ad. 122. Phyfe o. Eimer, '83; const, law, 17 n. ; '85; stipulation, 2 n. ; '86; costs, 72 n. v. Masterson, '86; now tr. 22 n. v. Riley, '84; ejectment, 3 n. ; '85;forec. 14 n. v. Wardell, '84; leases, 5. Pickard v. Collins, '83; negl. 37 n.; '84; dam. 15 n.; '85; n ii is. 6. v. Yencer, '83; atty. & c. 57 n. 59; '85. atty. 4 c. 18, 21; sup. pro. 4. Pickersgill v. Read, '85; tax. 4. Pickett v. Atlas Steamship Co., 1 City Ct. Supp. 4 ; s. c, N. Y. Daily Keg., June 5, 1884. Aff'd m 12 i>>ly, 441. v. King, '86; lim. of a. 29 n. v. Leonard, '85; lim. of a. 63. - — v. People, '83; indict. 15 n. ; '85; indict. 5. Pier v. George, '84; mfg. co. 16; '85; abate. 4 r. 5; mfg. co. 17 n. ; '86; abate. & r. 3 n. v. Hanmore, '83; mfg. co. 26; '84; business corp. 1; mfg. co. 10 n. ; '86 ; mfg. co. 7. Pierce v. Chamberlain, '84; leg- acies, 18; '85; legacies, 35 n. v. Kearney, '83; wit. 37; '84; joint debtors, 1 n. - — v. Keator, '83; deeds, 27. v. Pierce, '83; contracts, 52; receipts, 1. v. Sheldon, '84; const, law, 60. v. Tuttle, '83 '84; receivers, ejectment, 1 n. v. Van Dyke, for b. of c. 29. Pierrepont v. Barnard, '84 ; con- tracts, 80 n ;'86;inj. 2 n. v. Edwaids, '83; legacies, 33 ; '84 ; annuities, 2 ; wills, 120; '86; legacies, 19. Pierson v. Freeman, 85; attach. 31 n. v. McCurdy, 33 Hun, 520. Aff'd in 1U0 A r . Y. 608; s. c, more fully, 1 Centr. Rep. 175; 2 East. liep. 188; and 2a WeekyD. 253. v. Morch, '84; contracts, 52 n. v. People, '83; ev. 279; new tr. 33; wit. 22; '84; ev. 159; '85; depositions, 3; ev. 230, 254 n. ; trials, 90; wit. 8, 10; '86; trials, 115; wit. 9. Piggott v. Mason, '86; lease, 17 n. 25 n. Pike, Matter or, '83; ex. 4 ad 145. Pike v. Johnson, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 4r>; justices' ct. 19. ■ o. Nash, '85: costs, 36. v. Seiter, 'fc6;mort. 15. V. 7 4 p n. ; 16; '86; set-off, 6. 85 ; assign. v. VanWormer, '83; indict. 13. v. Wieting, '83; arrest, 13. Pilcher v. Brayton, '85; assign. 17. Pilling v. Pilling, '85; wills, 3n. Pillow v. Bushnell, '86; r. r. co. 4n. Pinckney v. Pinckney, '84; wills, 106. . Pindar v. Kings County Fire Ins. Co., '85; ev. 93. Pineo v. N. Y. Central, etc. K. E. Co., 34 Ban, 80. Aff'd, it seems, but without opin- ion, 99 .V. 1. 644. Pinneo v. Higgins, '85; corp. 26 n. Pinney v. Fancher, '85; wills, 126 n. — r- v. Gleason. '85; dam. 6 n. i'. Jonnson. Cited (Ad- ministrators) in 101 A'. Y. 558. v. Orth, '83; wit. 56, 57; '84; ev. 112 n.; wit. 20; '85; wit. 21, 24, 35, 35 u.; '86; wit. 32, 34. Piper v. Elwood, '86; appeal, 50. v. Van Buren, '83 ; appeal, 161; '84; justices' ct. 11; '86; amend. 8; appeal, 84. Pirnie's Estate, '83; ex. & ad. 195. Piser v. Lockwood, '84; judicial sale, 4. v. Stearns, '84; counterc. 6,7. Pitcher v. Clark, '86; appeal, 11a. v. Hennessey, '85; reforma- tion, 2 n. v. Livingston, '84; dam. 9 n.; '86; dam. 6 n. Pitney v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., '84; contracts, 69 n.; '85; ev. 82. Pitt v. Davison, '83; ex. 4 ad 233; '84; contempt, 16; ser- vico 4 p. 27; sup. pro. 1, 2. Pittman v. Mayor, etc. of N. X. , '83; justices' ct. 23. Pitts v. Congden, '85; bills of lading, 23. Pixley v. Clark, '83; waterc. 3 n. Place, Estate of. See Hayward v. Place. Place v. Butternuts Woolen & Cotton Mfg. Co., '84; const. law, 60. v. Hayward, 51 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 509; appeal dis- missed in 100 A. Y. 626; s. c, 1 Centr. Rep. 505; 2 East. Rep. 691. Further proceeding in 3 How. Pr. A. 8. 59; s c, 8 Civ. Pro. R. 352. '86; set-off, 7 n. v. Mcllvain, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 6; '85; principal 4 s. 1. v. Minster. Cited (Con- federation; in 33 Hun, 528. '84; ev. 250; '86 ; conspiracy, •1. v. Biley, 32 Hun, 17; s. c, 4 Civ. P10. R. 393. Aff'd in 98 K Y. l;s. c, 7 Civ. Pro. R. 403. Planck v. Schermerhorn, '85; fraud, conv. 1 n. Plank v. 8. Y. Central, etc. E. K. Cc, '83; master 4 s. 28; '84; master 4 s. 23 n. ; '8^; master 4 s. 42 n. ; '86; mas- ter & s. 29 n. Plant v. Long Island E. E. Co., '84; dam. 34 n. Plate v. N. Y. Central E. E. Co., '86; dam. 40 n. ; r. r. co. 27. Platner ti. Lehman, '86; pay- ment into court, 1 n. ; ten- der, 2. ' v. Platner, '86; ev. 43, 179; trials, 39. v. Sherwood, '85; civil death, In." Plato v. Eeynold3, '83; wit. 114. - ,' Piatt v. Hibbard, 83; carriers; 13. v. Jones, 96 N. Y. 24; affg 49 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 279. '85; exchanges, 2; inj. 10. v. Lott, '84; assign, for b. of c. 12. v. Moore, '85 ; legacies, 38, 41 n. v. Piatt, '86; partn. 9. v, Sherry, '83 ; costs, 124. v. Stark, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 6. v. Stewart, '86; munc. corp. 81 n. v. Stout. '83; offi'r, 21; '84; pi. 7 n. v. Townsend, '84; pi. 22. Platz v. City of Cohoes, 89 A. Y. 219; s.c, 15 Weekly D. 61; aff'g 24 Hun, 101; s. c, 12 Weekly D. 106. '84; appeal, 15; negl. 39; '85; appeal, 15. Plestoro v. Abraham, '85; con- flict of I. 3 n. Plimpton v. Bigelow, 13 Abb. A'. V. 173; rev'g 12 Id. 202; s. c, 29 Hun, 362; 3 Civ. fro. R. 182, and 2 Jd. {McCariy) 421: which rev'd Plympton v. Bigelow, 11 Abb. iY. C. 180; s. c, 63 How. Pr. 484. 2 Civ. Pro. R (McCariy) 131. '85; attach. 42. Plumb v. Tubbs, '84; deeds, 15; '85; deeds, 32 n. Plympton v. Bigelow. See Plimpton v. The Same. Poerschke v. Kedenburg, '83; mech. 1. 8; oil wells. 1. Poillon v. Lawrence, '84; dis- charge, 4; lim. of a. 13; '85: discharge, 3n.;lim. of a. 23 n.; '86; lim. of a. 10 n. v. Martin, 'fc6; trusts, 23 n. v. Secor, '83; partn. 8; 'o4; partn. 3n. 118 ■Polar SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Power Polar Star Mut. Benefit Assoc. of N. Y. v. Boniface, 2 > Wtehli D. 522: s. c, -with opinion in full, in A". Y. Daily Reg., Feb. 3, 1885. PoUnsky v. People, '83; indict. 5; '85; const, law, 13; '86; indict. 8, 26. Pollack, Matter of, '84; ex. 4 ad. 130. Pollen v. Le Boy, '84; brokers, 13; sales, 32, 35; '85; sales, 24. Pollett v. Long, '83; ice, 1; negl. 2n,;'85;negl.84;'86; negl. 7. Polley e. Wilkinson, '86; joind- er of a. 5. Pollock, Matter of, '86; tenants for life, 2 n. Pollock v. National Bank, '84; juris. 5. , v. Pollock, '83; divorce, 3 n.; -wit. 84 n. ; '84; ev. 53; '85; wit. 00; '86; appeal, 34; ev. 42. Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, '84; conflict of 1. 5; '85; ev. 47. - — v Moss, 15 Weekly D. 25; aff'g 4 Month. L. Bui. 19. v. Ricketts, '83; att ich. 34; '84; attach. 18, 20; '85; at- tach. 21; '86; attach. 40 n. v. Tanner, '85 ; principal 4 s. 1. Pomfrey v. Village of Saratoga, '86; munc. corp. 42 n. Pondu. Bergh. '83; wills, 127, v. Comstock, 87 A Y. 627; affg 20 Hun, 492, but no opinion. '83; fraud, conv. 6; '85; fraud, conv. 5n. v. Curtiss, '85; guardian 4 w. 4. v. Hudson River R. E. Co., '85;juris. 11. v. Starkweather, 99 K Y. 411; affg 20 Weekly D. 265. Pontius v. People, '83; ev. 279; '85; appeal, 131; ev. 230, 254 n. Poock v. Miller, '85; ev. 224 n. Pool v. Pool, '84; contracts, 40. Poole v. People, '85; ev. 272. Popeu. Cole, '84; partn. 15 n.; '8o;partn. 26 n. 27, 29. v. Mead,'86; cloud on title, 2. v. Porter, 19 Weekly D. 103. Bev'd in 102 it. Y. 366. v. Terre Haute Car, etc. Co., 87 A". Y. 137; s c, 13 Weekly D. 317; affg 24 Jlun, i38;s. c, 60 How. Pr. 419; and 11 Weekly D. 526. '66; divorce, 24 n. Popfinger v. Yutte, 49 Super. CI. (J. & /S.)312. Affdin 102 N. Y. 38. '86; const, law, 47; cred. s. 5. Popham v. Cole, '83; tradem. 7. v. Spencer, '84; ex. s. ad. 94. Poppenhusen v. Seeley, '84; undert. 16, Port v. Jackson, '83; deeds, 31 n. ; '85; covenants, 4; '86; bonds, 5 n. Porter v. Bleiler, '85; lease, 2 n. ; '86; contracts, 70. - v. Kingsbury, '83; undert. 17; '86; pi. 151 n. v. Knapp, '84; ev. 35. v. Lobach, '85; undert. 12. v. Parks, '85; trials. 29. v. Parmly, '83 ; chat. mort. 7n.l0, 26 n.; '86; exec. 4. v. Purdy, '85; munc. corp. 116 n. 117 n. v. Smith, '86; case, 2; corp. 8n. v. Talcott, '86; pay. 2 n. v. "Waring, '83; ev. 1. v. Willett, '86; costs, 7S n. v. "Williams, '83; sup. pro. 18, 23; '84; sup. pro. 34; '86; assign, for b. ofc. 35. r. Wormser, '85; pi. 60; '86: dam. 24 n. Post v. Mlna Ins. Co., '86; ins. 24. v. Bank of Utica, '83; usury, 3G; cancel, of wr. instr 4. i!. Bernheimer, '86; spec. perf. 12. v. Campbell, 83 K Y. 279. Cited (Allowance of pay- ment) in Gibson v. Lenane, 94 J. Y. 188. v. Dart, '84; deeds, 26 n.; usury, 12 n. v. Doremus, '83; undert. 2; '84; contracts, 9; undert. 12 n.; 85; undert. 8; '86; undert. 1 , 2 n. v. Dorr, '84; receivers, 2; '85 ; receivers, 5 n. v. Hover, '83; trusts, 23, 29; wills, 165, 205, 222, 234, 238; "84; susp. of power cf a. 6; wills, 88; '85; deeds, 29 n. ; susp. of power of a. 3. v. Kearney, '85; forec. 16; '86; lease, 25 n. v. Kreischer, 4 Centr. Rep. 219; s. c, 2 N. Y. State Rep. 795; rev'g 32 Hun, 49; s. c, 14 Abb. A'. C. 38. v. Martens, '85; lease, 2; '8fi; contracts, 70. v. Mason, 91 A*. Y. 539; s. c, 16 Weekly I). 439; affg 26 Hun, 187; s. c, 14 Week- ly D. 7. '84; ev. 28 n. 39; '85; duress, 1; '86; wills, 9. 4. Neafie, '83; ev. 305. t>. N. Y. Central K. B. Co., '83; costs, 47. v. Pearsall, '83; deeds, 26; '84; deeds, 11; real prop. 1; '85; easements, 11. v. Robertson, '86; charter- party, 1, v. Weil, '84; deeds, 13, 15;" '85;. wills, 108 n.;'8C; wills, Prickhardt v. Eobertson, '84; pi. 7n. Priest v. Cummings, '83; ev. 11. v. Watkins, 83; ex. 4 ad. 17; '84; ex. & ad. 35 n. ; tax. 29.; '85; ex. & ad. 32. Prime, Matter of, '85; hab. corp. 5. Prime r. Koehler,'84; guaranty, 10 n. ; '85; guaranty, 7; '86; guaranty, 4. Prindle v. Aldrich, '86 ; amen d. In. v. Caruthers, '83; pi. 7, 109; '84; contracts, 90. Pringle v. Phillips, '83; fraud. conv. 3 n. 4. v. Woolworth, 90 JV. Y. 502; s c, 16 Weekly D: 17; affg 12 Id. 554. Pritchard v. Hicks, '86; deeds, 12 n. v. Pritchard, '85; con- tempt. 5. Probst v. Delamater, 17 Wetk'y D. 355. AffdinlOOJV. Y. 26G;s. c, 1 Cenlr. Hep. 507; 2 Mist, Rep. 687; and 3 Northeast. Rep. 184.. Proctor v. Andrew, '06; amend. In. i>. Wanmaker, '86; ex. &ad. 31 n. • surr. ct. 24 n. Produce Bank v. Bache, '86 ; ev. 88. v. Morton. '83; sup.,pro. 8; '84; contempt, 11 n. ; 'S5; appeal, 116; new tr. 25; '86; cred. s. 16. Prospect Park & Coney Island E. E. Co., Matter of, '83; r. r. co. 8u, 93; '84; r. r. co. 29 n ; '85; compensation, 11 ; const, law, 49 n. ; courts, 1; ev. 12; munc. corp. 3 i n. ; r. r. co. 40, 49 n. 59, G3 n. 64; '86; compensation, 8 n ; era. doiu. 9 n. ; highw. 5 n. ; r. r. co. 65. Prospect Park, etc. K. E. Co. v. Williamson, 91 JV. Y. :>i2; s. c, 16 Wtelcly D. 398; rev'g 24 Han, 216; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 496. Further de- cision in 18 Id. 257. '85; em. dom. 4. Prosser v. Matthiessen, 26 Hun, 537; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 224, and as Pusser v. Matthies- son, 63 Houc. Pr. 157. Protestant Epis. Public School, Matter of, '83; co*ts, 40; '86; appeal, 92a n.; const, law, 20, 36 n. Prouty v. Eaton, '83; wit. 32. v. Lake Shore & M. S. E. E. Co., 85 JV. Y. 273. Fur- ther decision in Clark v. The Same, 94 JV. Y. 219. v. Michigan Southern & N. I. E. E. Co., '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Swift, '83; set-off, 7; '84; 120 Providence SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Bandall set-off, 7; '85; atty. & o. 20; setoff, 8n.; '86; set-off, 3 n. Providence & Stonington Steam- ship Co. v. Phcenix Ins. Co. , 89 N. Y. 559; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 3U0; modifying 22 Hun, 517; s. c, 11 Week- ly D, M. Provost v. Farrell, '83; costs, 131; '84; costs, 51. v. Provost, '85; susp. of power of a. 6 n. Prowitt v. Eodman, '83; wills, 180 n. 191; '85; wills, 103 n. Pruyn v. Brinkerhoff, '83; wit. 44; '86; wit. 17. Public Adm'r v. Peters, '83; ex. & ad. 12. v. Watts, '83; ex. 4 ad. 12. Pugsley v. Anderson,'84; highw. 8. v. Murray, '83 ; brokers, 2 n. Pulling v. People, '83; excise, 3. Pullman v. Coming, '86; wit. 1. Pulver v. Harris, '83; assign. 10; atty. & c. 70 n. ; costs. 13. v. Richardson, '83; debtor & cred. 4; '86; chat. mort. 2n. Pumpelly v. Phelps, '86; dam. 17 n. ; ex. & ad. 56 n. Purchaser. Mattison, '83; bills, n. & c. 61; county ct. 2; '86; bills, n. k c. 25. Purdy v. Hayt, '84; surr. ct. 21; '85; ex. & ad. 165; wills, 119. v People, '83; ev. 229 a.; '84; statutes, 8. v. Rochester Printing Co.. , 26 Hun, 206; s. c, 13 Week- ly D. 419. Rev'd in 96 N. Y. 372. v. Sistare, '83; lim. of a. 32. - v. Warden, '83; bills of par. 12. Purple v. Hudson River R. R. Co., '84; sup. pro. 23. Purselli;. Fry, '85; costs, 46. Purser r. Anderson, '86; coun- terc. 1. Purssellu. Mayor, etc. ofN. T., '84; judicial sale, 6; '»5; money paid, etc. 13. Pusseru. Hatthiesson. SeePros- ser v. The Same. Putnam v.- Broadway and Sev- enth Ave. R. R. Co., '85; negl. 50 n. 84; '86; negl. 2 n. v. Furnam, '86; ev. 81 n. v. Hubbell, '85; inj. 20, 42. v. Lewis, '83; bills, n. & c. 6; debtor k cred. 2; paym. 5. v. Putnam, '85; wills, 118. v. Stewart, 2 Civ. Pro. H. (Brvwne) l'i2; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 495. Aff d in 97 N. Y. 411. v. Wise, '83"; lease, 1; '84; ten. in com. 2 n. ; '85; lease, 8n.; '86; sales, 39 n. Pyrolusite Manganese Com- pany, Matter of, '85; corp. 40. Q. Quackenbos v. Sayer, '84; cred. s. 10. Quackenboss v. Southwick, '83; trusts, 71; '84; ex. & ad. 12; '85; ex. & ad. 5 n. Quackenbush, Matter of, '84; election of offi'rs, 5. Quackenbush v. Ehle, '83; lim. of a. 9 n.; '85; former adj. 3. v. Johnson, '84; ref. 11, 12. ^.Leonard, '83; undert. 3. Quain v. Russell, '83 ; civil dam- age act, 2; dam. 25; '85; abate, & r. 2 n. Quick v. Wheeler, '83; sales, 12. v. Wixon, '86; justices' ct. 13. Quigley v. Walter, '85 ; mfg. cb. 8. Quimbo Appo v. People, '83; removal of c. 4; '85; prohi- bition, 2 n. Quimby v. Claflin, '86; amend. 2 n ; pi. 61. . • ' — — v. Vanderbilt, '84; carriers, 8. Quin v. Bowe, '86; costs, 36. v. Hanford, '83; bills, n. & c. 15 n. v. Hill. See Matter of Hill. v. Lloyd, '83; trials, 32; '86; trials, 40. v. Moore, '83; death, 2 n. 3 n. ; ev. 295 ; parent & c. 7 ; '84; dam. V.2 n. Quinby v. Claflin. See Quimby v. Claflin. v. Strauss, '83; cred. s. 9a; '.84; trials, 26; '85;.trials, 29; '86; ev. 81 n.; new tr. 10; trials, 19, 21, 25. Quincey v. White, '84; estoppel, 19; '85; aect. St. 2; estoppel, 5 n. ; '86; acet. st. 1. v. Young, '86; appeal, 42, 93; partn. 2. Quincy v. Cheeseman, '84; re- ceivers, 3 n. 7 n. Quinlan v. City of TJtica, '83: ev. 349; '84; costs, 66 n., '85 ; pi. 142 n. v. People, '83; husb. 4 w. / 29 n. v. Russell, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & K) 537. Subsequent proceeding in 91 iV. Y. 360. Quinn, Matter of, '84; const, law, 28, 29. Quinn v. Hardenbrook, '83; wills, 135 n. 179; '85; wills. 114. v. Lloyd, '84; pi. 64 n. v. Long Island R. R. Co., '85; trials, 78 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y.,'83; sup. pro. 14; '86; offi'r, 7 n. v. Power, 87 K Y. 535; s. c. 41 Am. Jt. 392, and 14 Weekly D. 32. Subsequent decision in 29 Hun, 183; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 158. '86; master & s. 7 n. v. Quinn, '83 ; wills, 50. Quintard v. De Welf, '83; con- tracts, 79. ■ v. Newton, '85 ; joinder oi a. 7. Race v. Gilbert, 32 Hun, 360. Rev'd, in part, in 102 N. Y. 298; s. c, 10 Cv. Pro. M. 1. Radcliff v. Mayor, etc. of Brook- lyn, 83; compensation, 10; munc. corp. 42; '84; dam. 34 n.; nuis. 20; '85: munc. corp. 108; '86; com. pensation, i n. 10 n. ; highw. 1; munc. corp. 48, 49; r. r. co. 28. Radleyu. Brice, '86; costs, 8 n, v. Fisher, '83; ref. 46. v. Kuhn, 28 Hun, 573, Affd in part and rev'd in part, in 97 & Y. 26. iRadway v Graham, '84; appeal, "15;»*'85; appeal, 13; costs. 43. . Rae v. Beach, '83; undert. 17; '86; notice, 5. Rafferty v. Williams, 34 H, 544 Another decision in 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 66. Rafters. Sullivan, '84; mech. 1. 9. Ragan v. Allen, '83; wills, 147. Rahl v. Rahl, '84; contempt, 24. Rail v. Buckhout, 2 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 442; s. c, as Buck- hout v. Rail, 28 Hun, 484. Raines v. Totman, '86; ev. 18. Ramsden v. Ramsden, 91 Al Y. 281; s. c, 2 Civ. Pro. E. (Mr.Girlt/) 4.\S, and 16 Week- ly D. 175; aff g 28 Hun, 285: s. c. , 2 Civ. Pro. S. (Browne) 416; Id. (McCarfy) 408; 15 Weekly P. 481, and N. Y. Daily Reg., Dec. 14, 1882. '86; judgm. 18. Ramsey v. Gould, '86; parties, . 10. Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., '84; master & s. 28. v. Carpenter, '84; inj. 48. v. Dusenbury, '84; con- tempt, 11 n. v. Parker, '84; fraud, con v. 12. v. Sackett, '84; int. 7 n. ; '85; undert. 9. v, Sanders, 87 if. I*. C78; Randall SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Reformed 121 b. a, 14 Weekly D. 51; affg 23 Hun, 611. —— v. Van Veohten, '83; prin- cipal fc a. 15; '84; principal & a. 11 n. v, Wilkins, '84; lim. of a. 13; '85; lim. of a. 28 n. Rank v. Camp, 3 Dem. 278; s. c, as Estate of Grote, 2 How. Pr. JV. S. 140; '86, trusts 41 - v. Grote," 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 502. Further decision in 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 275. Eankin v. American Ins. Co., '83;ev. 391;'86;ev. 94. v. Arndt, '85 ; cred. s. 5 n. Kann v. Home Ins. Co., '85; ins. 52; '86; ins. 12. Eanney, Matter of. See Bun- nell v. Eanney. Eanney v. McMullen, '85; ref- ormation, 2 n. v. People, '83; false pre. 2; fraud, 1; '85; larceny, 2; '86; false pre. n. v. Peyser, '83; mort. 18; re- ceivers, 2. v. Eussell, '83; costs, 47. Ransom v. N. Y. & Erie E. E. Co., '86; dam. 22; trials, 78 n - v. Nichols, '85; distribu- tion, 2 n. ; '86; distribution, In. 2. v. Van Derventer, '83; at- tach. 19; '85; assign, for b. of c. 36. Eapalee v. Stewart, '84; assign. forb. of c. 90; '85; assign. for b. of c. 46; election of r. 1 n.; '86; sup. pro. 22 n. Eapaljc v. Hall, '84; assign, for b. of c. 77; '85; money paid, etc. 4. Eapelj e v. Anderson, '83 ; usury, 18. v. Prince, '85; new tr. 3. Rappelyea v. Eussell, '86; ex. & ad. 67, 68. Rathbone v. Hooney, '83; estop- pel, 12; '85; forec. 1, 14. ■ v. Lownsbury, '83; divorce, 3n. - v. McConnell, '84; costs, 15, 16; '85; costs, 8 n. Rathbun v. Acker, '84; motion & ' o. 1. v. Eathbun, '86; gift, 5; spec. perf. 7. Ruttoon v. Overacker, '85; ex. & ad. 32. Ratzky v. People, '84; sentence, 1 n. Rau v. People, '83; ev. 302 n.; . questions of 1. & f. 17. Raubitchek v. Blank. Cited (Memorandum under stat- ute of frauds) in 52 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 246. Rauth, Matter of, '86; assign, for b. of c. 29. Eaven v. Eubino, 20 Weekly B. Iz4; s. c, with opinion in full, in JV. Y. Dally Beg., Jan. 12, 1885. Eaw. Dalzell v., '86; costs, 57 n. Eawley v. Brown, '84 ; pi. 126. Eawls v. American Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 46 n.; wit. 12 n.; '84; ins. 24. Eawson v. Lampman, '83; con- tracts, i. — — v. Pennsylvania B. E. Co., '83; ev. 38, 39; husb. & w. 20 n.; '84; carriers, 8; '85; husb. & w. 17. v. Turner, '85; election of r. 8n. v. Van Eiper, '86; tax. 53. Bay v. Birdseye, '86; exec. 8 n. v. Hogeboom, '83; sher. 21. Eaymond, Matter of, '86; surr. ct. 8 n. Eaymond v. Johnson, '85; as- sign. 7. v. Bicnmond, 88 N. Y. 671; s. c, 14 Meporter, 121; aff'g, it seems, 11 Wteldy J J. 53C. '85; trials, 69; '86; former adj. 13 n. Eaynor v. Pacific Nat. Bk. of Boston, 93 N. Y. 371; aff'g 49 Super. Ct. (J". & 8.) 119. Cited (National banks) in 37 Hun, 474. Eea v. Winkler, '86; covenants, 1 n. Eeabu.McAllister.'83; ev. 139 n. v. French, '83; attach. 34. v. Lozin, '86; ref. 5, 6. v. Worthington, 'S3; fraud. conv. 10. Eeade v. Commercial Ins. Co., '84; ins. i9 n. v. Livingston, '86; fraud. conv. 20 n. v. Waterhouse, '83; costs, 114. Eeal v. People, '84; ev. 58; wit. 39 n.; '86; wit. 62 n. Eeal Estate Trust Co. v. Keech, '83; principal & s. 13; usury, 31; '86; usury, 2. v. Seagreave, '66; estoppel, 12. Eeardon v. N. Y. Consolidated Card Co., 5j Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 514. Further decision in 51 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 134. '86; infants, 1 n. Receiver of Middle District Bk., Matter of, '84; con- tracts, 34. Eeciprocity Bank, Matter of, '83; eorp. 42. Eeck v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 3 Civ. Pro. 11. 376. Decision in action by the same parties, as it seems, in 18 Weekly J). 505. Becordu. Messenger, '83; costs, 124a. Eector v. Eidgewood Ice Co., 38 Hun, 293. Aff'd, it seems, but without opin- ion, in 101 If. Y. 656. Eector, etc. of Christ Church v. Mack, 93 JV. Y. 488; rev'g 25 Hun, 418. '85; forec 6; '86; deeds, 26 n. Eector, etc. of Church of Holy Sepulchre, Matter of, '85; tax. 26. Eector, etc. of Church of Ee- demption v. Eector, etc. of Grace Church, 68 N. Y. 570. Followed in subsequent ap- peal, 89 N. Y. 615. Eector, etc. of Trinity Church v. Higgins, '83; surr. ct. 35 n. ; v. & p. 4; '85; covenants, 4; lim. of a. 38. v. Vanderbilt, 15 Weekly D. 499. Aff'd, it seems, in 98 JV. Y. 170. Eedfield v. Holland Patent Ins. Co., '83; r. r. co. 82. v. Utica, etc. E. E. Co., , '86; dam. 41. Eedlich v. Doll, '85; bonds, 5; '86; bills, n. & c. 9 n. Eedmond v. Liv. , N. Y. and P. S. Co, '86; carriers, 9. Eeed, Matter of, '84; bonds, 8 n. Eeed v. Gannon, '83; fraud. conv. 3 n. ; notice, 2n. ; '85; husb. & w. 17. v. McConnell, 17 Weekly D. 575. Eev'd in 101 JV. Y. 270. v. Marble, '83; rec. deeds, 8. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 31 Hun, 311. Eev'd in 97 JV". Y. 620. - v. N. Y. Central E. E. Co., '85; ev. 236. v. People, '86; health, 1 n. v. Pruyn, '83; exec. 46. v. Randall, '83; sales, 20; '84; sales, 17; '85; contracts, 101. v. Eeed, '83; surr. ct. 45. v. St. John, '83; lease, 18. v. Stryker, '84; joinder of a. 10. v. Cnderhill, '86; waiver, 2. Eeeder v. Sayre, '84; leases, 4; '8o; lease, 7 n. ; ref. 10; '86; amend. 6 n. ; contracts, 71. Reese v. Boese, 92 JV. Y. 632. Another decision in action by the same parties in 94 JV. Y. 623. v. Smyth, 95 JV. Y. 645. Further decision in 95 JV. r. 549. '86; appeal, 84. v. Stadler, '83; new tr. 28. Eeeve v. Crosby, '83; wills, 114. Reeves v. Kimball, '85; bills of lading, 4 n. Reformed Church of Gallup- villeu. Schoolcraft, '85; ev. 185. Eeformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Brown, '83; cause of a 4, 4 n. ; '86 ; for- mer adj. 41 n. 122 Behberg SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Richardson Behberg v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 91 JV". Y. 137; s. c, 15 Report- er, 310; rev'g 12 Weekly D. 502. v. , 1 East. Bep. 182; mem. s. c, 99 JV. Y. 652; qualifying result of former decision, 91 JV. Y. 137; s. c, 43 Am. B. 657. '83; highw. 14; munc. oorp. 90; '85; negl. 2, 3, 29 n.; '86; munc. corp. 44. Reich v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., '86; new tr. 12. Reid v. Giflord, '83; waterc. 3 n. v. Martin, '84; discharge, In. v. Rensselaer Glass Fac- tory, '83; int. 2. v. Sprague, '83; estoppel, 12. Reiff tj. Western Union Tel. Co., '83; inj. 23. Reigal v. Wood, '86; judgm. 15 n. Reilly v. Coleman, '84; offi'r, 13. — — v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 20 Weekly D. 290. Rev'd in 102 N. Y. 383. '86; appeal, 98, 100. v. Duffy, 4 I)em. 366; s. c, as Matter of Duffy, 3 How. Pr. JV. 8. 240. v. Roche, 11 Daly, 201, s. c, as Reilly v. Roache, 64 Mow. Pr. 87. v. Sisson, 31 Hun, 572 ; s. a, 66 How. Pr. 228; 4 Civ. Pro. B. 361; afE'g 66 How. Pr. 224. Reimeru. Doerge, '83; paym. 2; '84; atty, 4 c. 28. Reinach v. Meyer, '84; inj. 31; '85; inj. 31; '86; inj. 23. Reinhard v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '86; munc. corp. 56. Reiper v. Nichols, '86; negl. 2 n. Reis v. Rohde, '86; relig. corp. 6. "Reitzu. Reitz, '84; trusts, 13. Remington v. Walker, 86; ex. 4 ad. 70. Remington Paper Co. v. O'Brien, '86; costs, 69. v. O'Dougherty, 18 Weekly I). 190. Other decisions in 32 Run, 255; s. c, 6 Civ. Pro. B. 79, and 36 Hun, 79. Case of this name aff'd in 96 JV. Y. 666. '83; former adj. 5;mort. 25; '86; cloud. on title, 4 n. ; debtor 4 cred. 12 ; fraud, conv. 9. Remsen v. Beekman,'83; debtor 4 cred. 5; principal 4 s. 19; '85; divorce, 7 n. v. Brinckerhoff, '83; ev. 59; wills, 45; '84; wills, 26 n. 28 n. 30; '85; wills, 23 n. 25; '86; wills, 14 n. v. Hay, '85; ev. 114. v. People, '85; ev. 254 n, Renard v. Sampson, '83; ev. 139 n. Renaud v. O'Brien, '83; exec. 46; sher. 3. Renner v. Muller, '85; citizens, 1 n. ; defin. 34. Rennie v. Bean, '84; assign, for b. of c. 5 ; '85 ; assign, for b. of c. 6/ 11; '86; assign, for b. of u. 3 n. 7. Renouil v. Harris, '86; stipula- tions, 1 n. Rensselaer & Sar. R. R. Co. v. Davis, '83; costs, 129; 1: r. co. 9«; '84; costs, 33; '85; costs, 41; r. r. co., 56, 67; special pro. 1. Rensselaer Glass Factory v. Reid. Cited (Interest on judgments) in O'Brien v. Young, 95 JV. Y. 438. Renwick v. Macomb, '84; mech. 1. 15 n. v. Morris, '84; statutes, 20 n. v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., '83; questions of 1. 4 1 3. Republic of Mexico v. De Ar- rangois, '84; pi. 68. Requa v. City of Rochester. Commented on in 11 Abb. JV, C. 269. '83; deeds, 8; munc. corp. 84, 90; '84; munc. corp. 67; '85; munc. corp. 56 n. 69 n. ; negl. 11 n. v. Holmes, '83; parties, 11; receivers, 8. • Ressequie v. Brownson, '84; ar- bitration, 3 n. ; '85; judgm. 4 decree, 1. v. Mason, '85; wit. 34. Reubens v. Joel, '84; pi. 20. Revere Copper Co. of Boston v. Dimmock, 90 JV. Y. 33; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 349. An- other decision in action by the same parties in 29 Hun, 299. '85; discharge, 3 n. ; '86; bankruptcy, 1 n. Rewley v. Riley, '86; trials, 55. Rexford v. Knight, '84; canals, 4 n. ; const, law. 21 ; '85 ; ac- cretion, 3 n. ; compensa- tion, 2; '86; em. dom. 3. v. Rexford, '86; duress, 6. v. Widger, '83; usury, 36. Reynolds v. Collin, '85; adv. poss. 1 n. v. Collins, '84; lim. of a. 28. v. Commerce Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 21; '85; ins. 50 n. v. Corp, '85; false impris. 3. v. Ellis, 34 Hun, 47. Affd in 4 Cenir. Bep. 232; s. c, 2 JV. Y. State Bep. 786. v. Fargo, '83; easements, 6n. v. Mason, '83; mfg. co. 31 n.; statutes, 20 n.; '85; abate. 4 r. 5; '86; abate. 4 r. 3n. v. Moore, '85; com. schools, 4. v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., '83; ev. 84; negl. 9, 86; '84; ev. 43 n.; negl. 38, 54. v. Park, '86; depositions, 19. v. People, '85 ; assault 4 b: 3. v. Reynolds, '83; legacies, 22; parties, 24 n. ; wills, 147; '85; devise, 6; '86; ex. 4 ad. 138; legacies, 12 n. v. Robinson, 82 JV. Y. 303. Affirmance because no ques- tion of law was raised, etc. Followed (Review of find- ings, by Court of Appeals) in Whittaker v. Imperial Shirt Mfg. Co., 94 JV. Y. 647. '83; ev. 125, 157n. ; husb. 4 w. 34; '86; ev. 68. v. Root, '83; wills, 125; '85; wills, 1, 3 n. v. Shuler, '83; chat. mort. 7; '84; conversion, 1 n. v. Schultz, '85; fires 4 fire< esc. 1 n. v. Ward, '83; bills, n. 4 c. In. Rhinebeck & Connecticut R. R. Co., Matter of, '85; costs, 41; '86; em. dom. 3. Rhinelander, Matter of, '85; ev. 24; '86; dedication, 4; nuis. 5. Rhinelander v. Seaman, '86; lease, 3. Rhoads v. Woods, '84; cred. s. In. Rhodes v. Rhodes, '84; pi. 160. Ricard, Matter of, '84; guardian & w. 5. Ricard v. Sanderson, '85; mort. 24 n. Rice v. Barrett, 99 JV. Y. 403; rev'g 35 Hun, 366. Subse- quent appeal in 102 JV. Y. 161. U.Buchanan, '85; justices' ct. 9. v. Dewey, '83; fixtures, 2. v. Ehele, '83; motions 4 o. 10, 11; receivers, 6. v. King, '84; former adj. 20, 21. i\ Manley, '84; contracts, 69 n.; '85; contracts, 15; de- ceit, 9; ev. 341. ■ v. Motley, '83; wit. 61. v. O'Connor, '85; pi. 36. v. Peet, '83; equity, 3 n. Rich, Matter of, '84; munc. corp. 92; '86; ex. 4 ad. 105. Rich v. Husson, '83 ; costs, 9, 10. v. Jakway, '64; ev. 55. v. Rich, '85; nuis. 1 n. Richards v. Edick, '85; con- tracts, 34 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y.,'84; munc. corp. 14; '86; munc. corp. 46 n. v. Warring, '85; bills of lading, 17. Richardson v. Ains worth, '83; Richmond SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Robert 123 -s— v. Bates, '83; service 4 p. 26, 27. d. Craig, '86; undert. 9 n. v. Draper, 87 N. Y. 337; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 15; aff'g 23 Hun, 188. '84; -joint debtors, 3 n. v. Herron, '86; assign, for b. of c. 9. v. Hughitt, '83; partn. 2, 5, 6a n.; '84; partn. 1 n. ; '85; partn. 2; '86; negl. 4 n. ; partn. 3 n. v. Kropf, '86; justices' ct. 7n. v. McDougall, '83; v. & p. 11. -, — v. Mason, '86; dam. 14 n. v.TS. Y. Central, etc. B. E. Co., '86; negl. 64 n. v. Northrup, '86; pi. 18 n. v. Rogers, '86; bonds, 2 n. ; contracts, 22. v. Boot, '84; ex 4 ad. 114; '86; surr. ct. 8 n. v. Warner, '83; wit. 37; '84; wit. 12. ■ v. White, '83; costs, 7. Richmond v. Bronson, '83; int. 5n. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 45; '84; ins. 5. v. Richmond, '84; ev. 27 n. v. Tallmadge, '85; trials, 83. v. Union Steamboat Co., 87 N. Y. 240; s.c, 13 Weekly 1). 470; modifying and affg, it seems, 8 Abb. JV". C. 66. '83; freight, 1. Richmond, &c. Turnpike Co. v. Vanderbilt, '83; master & s. 13 n. ; '84; master 4 a. 4 n. Richter v. Poppenhusen, '86; partn. 27. Richtmeyer v. Remsen, '86; amend. 14. Rickets v. Livingston, '83; ex. 4 ad. 148. Ricketts v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y , '85; munc. corp. 19. Rider, Matter of, '85: appeal, 112. Rider v. Bagley, '83; receivers, 2; '85; receivers, 1. v. Legg, '84; wills, 70. v. Miller, '8-1; ev. 58. v. Powell, '83$ negl. 56; -86; eject. 4. v. Stryker, '86; em. dom. 3. v. Union Rubber Co., '86; contracts, 7. v. White, '85 ; animals, 5. Rider Life Raft Co. v. Roach, '86; appeal, 71. Ridgeley v. Johnson, '83; trusts, 51;'84;ev. 247 n.; '86; tax. 3n. Riebenu Hicks, '85; wills, 21; '86; ex. 4 ad. 98. Riegelmann, Estate of. See Riegelman v. McCoy. Riegelmann v. McCoy, 1 Dem. 86; s. c, as Estate of Riegel- mann, 2 Civ. Fro. R. (Browne) 98. Rieser, Matter of, '85; assign. for b. of c. 36. Riggs v. Am. Home Miss. Soc, '85; insane per. 6,9; wills, 3n. Riggs v. American Tract Soc, 16 Weekly D. 391. Aff d in 95 N. Y.503. v. Cragg, 26 Hun, 89; affg 5 Eedf. 82. Decision in 26 Hun, rev'd in 11 Abb. N. V. 401; s. c, 89N.Y. 479. See Cragg v. Riggs. '83; surr. ct. 2-s n. 22a n. 24, 27; '84; ex. & ad. 92; surr. ct. 21, 23; '85; ex. & ad. 85, 110, 111, 134 n. 165; former adj. 10 n ; surr. ct. 10; '86; corp. 9 n. ; surr. ct. 10. v. Hatch, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 41 n. v. Murray, '83; assign, for b. of c. 22; '85; assign, for b. of c. 44 n. v. Purssell, '83; abate. 4 r. 11; ev. 306; former adj. 9; '84; judicial sale, 4; parties, 60 n. ;'86; ev. 281; former adj. 38 n. ; motions & o. 1,6; newtr. 27. v. W%ydell, '83; amend. 41; '84;judgm. 4 decree, 24; '85; amend. 6. Righter v. Stall, '86; costs, 15 n. Rightmire v. Kimball, '86; de- ceit, 6 n. Riley v. City of Brooklyn, '86; chattels, 3 n. v. Delafield, '83 ; ins. 37. v. Diggs, '85; wills, 10. Rinchey v. Stryker, '83; assign, for b. of c. 6; sher. 29; '84; attach. 33 n. ; fraud, conv. 10; '85; attach. 51; '86; at- tach. 43, 43 n. Rindge v. Baker, '83; contracts, 83; covenants, 13 n. v. Judson, '83; guaranty, 1. Rindskopf, Matter of, '86; as- sign, for b. of c. 21. Ring v. City of Cohoes, '83; negl. 2; '84; dam. 32; '85, munc. corp. 60 n. 64; negl. 11 n. ; '86; negl. 2,2 n. Rinn v. Astor Fire Ins. Co. ,'83; place of tr. 3; receivers, 7. Ripley v. sales, n. v. McCann, 34 Hun, 112; s. c, as Overseers of Poor v. McCann, 20 Weekly D. 114. Risdon v. De La Rua, 51 Super. Ct. (J. i n. v. Stephens, '85; const. law, 47. v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., '83; ins. 2o. v. Verona, '83 ; principal 4 a. 11. i>. Village of S;.ndy Hill, 14 Weekly D. 45. Appeal dismissed, as it seems, in 94 A'. Y. 638, v. Warner, 84; deceit, 5n. v. Weir, '86; conversion, 11. v. Wheeler, '86; ref. 18. Rogers Locomotive, etc. Works v. Kelley, 88 N. Y. 234; s. c, 14 H eekly D. 184: aff g l'J Huv, 399; p. c, 9 Weekly B. 174. '83; trusts, 13; '85; trusts, 17. Ro'get v. Merritt, '83; mistake, 2; '85; contracts, 86 n. Rohrbaeh u.ttermanialns. Co., '85; ins. 27 n. 47; '86; ins. 28. Rollin v. Cross, '84; mech. 1. zO. v. Pickett, '83; rec. deeds, 6n.;'84;mort. 6. Rollins v. Parley, 18 Weekly D. 136. Affd in 22 We-Mn D. 34-J; s. c , 1 Ontr. Ee[>. 301; 2 East. Be r . 672. Eollwagen v. Rollwagen, '83; wills, 17, 21, 119. Romain v. Gaith, '83; set-off, 0. Romaine v. Cornwell, '84; pi. 22. v. Van Allen, '86; dam. 24 n. Roman CatholicGerman Church of Albany v. Wachter, '83; •wills. 147. Roman Catholic Orphan Asy- lum v. Strain, '63; husb. & w. 20 n. Rome, Watertown, etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 39 Han, 332. Affd, it seems, but no opinion reported, in 101 A". Y. 684. Roof v. Meyer, 2 Bow. Pr. N. S. 2i);a. c, 8 Civ. Pro. R 60. Affd, it seems, in If. Y. Daily Beg., July 3, 1885. '85; amend. 6. v. Stafford, '84; infants, 3 n. Roome v. Phillips, '83; ex. 4 ad. 57, 58 n. ; ! 85; receivers, 15; susp. of power of a. 8; trut,ts, 10 Rooney v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., '83;atty. * c. 44, 44 n.; costs, 13; "86;atty. & c. 11, 28 n. Roosa v. Saugerties & W. Turn- pike Road Co., '83; ref. 32 n.; '85; pi. 92. v. Smith, '83 ; new tr. 13. Roosevelt, Matter of, '83; trusts, 74; '84;surr. ct. 24; '85; ex. & ad. 147 n.; '86; trusts, 37 n. Roosevelt v. Bull's Head Bank, '83; tender, 7; '86; tender, 1. v. Draper, '85; equity, 2; niune. corp. 121 n. v. Ellithorp, '83; ex. & ad. 68. v. Gardinier, '83;judgm. 4 decree, 18. - — v. Godard, '83; harbor masters, 3. v. Mark, '86; lim. of a. 29 n. Root, Matter cf, '84; ex. 4 ad, 161 n. Root u. Prench, '86; sales, 33 n v. King, '63; case, 7. v. Lowndes, '83; pi. 67. v. Sherwood, '83; trials, 90. v. Stuyvesant, 18 Wend. 257. Cited (Suspension of power of alienation) in 97 A. Y. 445. v. Taylor, '86; countercl.- 13. v. Wagner, '86; costs, 72 n. v. Wright, '63; wit. 17, 26; '84 ; contracts, 94; atty. 4 c. 30; '86; promise, 3 n. Rorabacku. Stebbins,'85; husb. 4 w. 27 n. Rorke v. Thomas, '85 ; mf j. co. 25. Rosa v. Brotherson, '84; con- tracts, 12 n. i'. Jenkins, '86; appeal, 89; costs, 53. Rose v. Clark, '83; ev. 5; marr. 2; surr. ct. 27; '84; surr. ct. 23; '66; ev. 214 n. v. Post, '83; inj. 64; '85; undert. 13 n. v. Truax, '83; services, 2; '85; contracts, 69. Roseboom v. Billington, '86; ev. 171. — — v. Mosher, '85; ex. 4 ad. 43. v. Roseboom, '83 ; trusts, 15a: wills, 215 n. ; '64; wills, 78, 87 n. 104,112; '85; wills, 108 n. 126" n.; '86; devise, 1 n. Rosekrans v. People,'85; indict. 14. v. Van Antwerp, '86; jus- tices' ct. 4 n. v. White, '86; ten. in com. 6n. Rosenberg, Matter of, '83; im- pris. 15 n. Rosenberg v. Block, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 488. Subse- quent decision in 50 Super, a. (J. & S.1357, which was rev'd in 102 N. Y. 255. 'S5; inj. 20, 42. Roseniield v. Haight,'83; partn. 5. Rosenthal v. Dessau, '86; sales, 40. Rosenwald v. Hammers tein, '86; pi. 4'Jn. Rosevelt t;. Brown, '83; corp. 36. Ross, Matter of, 87 N. Y. 514; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 39; aff' g 12 Id. 34. '84; appeal, 113, 114, 123; ev, 58; '85; ap- peal, 56; '86; appeal, 73. Roes v. Boardman, 'e5; forec. 14 n. ; '86 ; juris. 9 n. - — r. Crary, '85; parties, 43. v. Curtis, '85 ; county treas. 7h. v. Hardin, '85; services, 2; '86; contracts, 1. v. Longmuir, '83; verif 5. v. Mather, 'S3; pi. 14 n. ; '85; amend. 12; pi. 12, '86; pi. 135. v. N. Y. Central, etc. R. R. Co , '84; r. r co. 3 n.; '85; death, 5 n.; '86; negl. 49 n. v. Roberts, '83; ex. 4 ad. 172; wills, 178. v. Ross, '83; lim. of a. 41; '84; ex. 4 ad. 112; susp. of power of a. 3 n ; '85; lim. of a. 53; '86; divorce, 6; wit. 22. v. Sadgbeer '85 ; contracts, 61; 'H6; contracts, 55. v. Stilwell, '85; statutes, 17 n. 126 Boss STJPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Butty Ross — continued , v. Wigg, 34 Hun, 192; s. c, 6 Civ. Pro. B. 263, 2G8 n. Further decision in 36 Hun, 107. Subsequent ap- peal in 100 N. Y. 243; s. c, 8 Civ. Pro. B. 273; 1 Cenir. Rep. 292; 2 Mast. Hep. 662. v. Wood, '83; former adj. 3; '84; former adj. 17 ii.; '85; guardian 4 w. 14; '86; judgm. 13. Rosse v. Bust, '85; former adj. 6. Roth i). Palmer, '83; debtor 4 cred. 1; pi. 131; '86; sales, 39 n. v. Wells, '85; trials, 115 n. ; '86; city ct. of N. Y. 2; ex- ec. 10. Rothery v. N. Y. Rubber Co., 90 N. Y. 30; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 343; aff'g 24 Sun, 172; s. c, 11 Weekly V. 557. '83; costs, 85, 93. Rothwell v. Paine, 9 Civ. Pro. B. 128; affg Rothnell v. The Same, 3 Sow. Pr. N. S. 187. Rounds v. Delaware, Lack. & W. R. R. Co., '83; master 4 s. 9, 11, 13 n. 14, 15; r. r. co. 9 n. ; '84; master & s. 7; '88; animals, 4 n. ; .master & s. 7n. Rourk v. Murphy, 12 Abb. N. C. 402. Disting'd (Mort- gage by married woman) in Durant v. Kenyon, 32 Sun, 635. Rouse v. Lewis, '83; contracts, 107; trials, 76. v. Whited, '83; ev. 195, 220;'85;ev. 146. v. Northern Ins. Co., '86; ^int: 5 n. Rowe v. Guilleaume, '83; dis- charge, 12; judgm. 4 de- cree, 27. v. Smith, '85; husb. 4 w. 3 n.;'86; husb. 4 w. 2 n. 20 n. v. Stevens, '83; brokers, 2 n.; contracts, 67; trials, 62; '86; contracts, 54. Rowland v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 83 N. Y. 372. Explained (Who is an officer) in Mc- Donald v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 32 Hun, 92. — - v. Morgan. See Morgan's Estate. '86; trusts, 29. Rowley v. Empire Ins Co., '83; ins. 16; '84; estoppel, 16; '85; ins. 21. v. Gibbs, '83; replevin, 6 n. v. Stoddard, '85; principal & s. 9 n. Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Sherrell, '86; tradem.. 1. Royce v. Burt, '83; ev. 158; '86; former adj. 38 n. v. Jones, '86; costs, 18 n. Royer Wheel Co. v. Fielding, 31 Hun, 274. Rev'd in 101 N. Y. 504. '84; cred. s. 2 n. ; '85; cred. s. 18 n.; '86; cred. s. 2; fraud, conv. 13. Rozier v. Buffalo, N. Y., etc. R. K. Co., '85; ev. 75. Ruan v. Perry, '86; ev. 41 n. Ruckman v. Cowell, '84; dis- charge, 6. v. Pitcher, '85; betting 4 g. 1; '86; pi. 9 n. Rudd v. Baker, '84; amend. 15; district ct. 7. Rudderow v. Huntington, '84; contracts, 52a. Rudge v. Rundle, '83 ; estoppel, 2. Ruff v. Rinaldo, '86; contracts, 29. Rugenu. Collins, '83; costs, 22. Ruger v. Belden. '84; ref. 5. v. Heckel, '86; wills, 27. Ruggu. Rugg, '83; wills, 123; wit. 14; '84; wills, 26 n. 59 n. 70; '85; wills, 55, 56; '86; wit. 17. v. Spencer, '84; ev. 124 n. Ruggles v. Brock, 'o3; corp. 42. v. Chapman, '83; ins. 97. v. Lawson, '85; deeds. 6 n. Ruhe v. Law, '85; judicial Ruhl v. Phillips, '85; ev. 43. Ruiz v. Renauld, 17 Weekly D. 538; s.c, N. Y. Daily Beg., Sept. 14, 1883. Aff'd in 100 N. Y. 256. Rulofl v. People, '83; trials, 116, 124 n. ; wit. 64. Rumsey v. City of Buffalo, '85 ; miinc. corp. Ill n.; tax. 64. v. Goldsmith, '86; wills, 16 n. v. Lake, '84; parties, 30 n. Rundell v. Lakey, '83; const. law, 58; tax. 24; '85; tax. 66; '86; v. 4 p. 6. Rundle v. Allison, 34 N. 7. 508. Cited as to limitations" in Matter of Neilly, 95 N. Y. 390; '85; contribution, 1 n. ; lim. of a. 11, 20. Runku. St. John, '85; assign. 7. Runnell v. Griffin, '85; judgm. 4 decree; 16. Runyon v. Stewart, '83; dower, 2; '85; subr. 2 n. Rupp 4 Blanchard, '83; fraud. conv. 10; '86; assign. 5; at- tach. 43. v. Lobach, '83; charter-par- ty, 1. Ruppertu. Uaug, '83; attach. 38, 39, 62, addenda; '85; attach. 28;negl. 30, 33 n. 36 n.; '86; attach. 31, 32, 46. v. Union Mutual Ins. Co., '86; ins. 68, 71. Ruse v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., '84; ins. 24; '80; ins.63 n. 71. Rusku. Soutter, '85; principal * s. 10. Russel, Matter of, 33 Hun, 27. Aff'd, it seems, but with- out opinion, in d8' N. Y. 633. Russell v. Allen, '85; trusts. 14. v. Allerton, '85; sales, 24; v. Burton, '86; ref. 18. v. Carrington, '85 ; sales, 33 n.; '80; sales, 31. v. Clapp, '85; pi, 126. v. Button, '85; money paid, etc. 4. v. Freer, '84; contracts, 18, 21; '86; bonds, 2 n. ; con- tracts, 22 n. v. Hartt, 87 JV. Y. 19; s c, 2 Am. Prob. H. 297, and 13 Weekly D. 309; aff'g 9 Id. 54. '83; pi. 2H8; '85; wills, 42. v. Hudson River R. R. Co. , '83;ev. 233, 238; 84; r. r. co. 3 n. v. Kinney, '83; deeds, 31; election of r. 1. v. Lane, 83; costs, 113; ex. 4 ad. 127; '84; costs, 61. v. Lytle, '83; ace. 4 sat. 1 n. v. Mayor, etc of N. Y., '83; ruunc. corp. 4a; '86; offi r, 7 n. v. Minor, '83 ; fraud, conv. 17. v. Nicoll, '83; contracts, 107. v. Pistor, '83; mort. 41; '85 ; assign. 15 n. ; cove- nants, 1 1 n. , subr. 2 n. v. Rogers, '85; corp. 26 n.;. '86; debtor 4 cred. l>; ev. 90. v. Russell, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 235 ; lease, 1 ; '85 ; deeds, 29 n. ; powers, 10. v. Somerville, '84; atty. 4 c. 14; sup. pro. 3. — v. Winne, '84; chat. mort. 2; '85; chat. mort. 3.' Russell Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Steamboat Co., '84; ev. 41 n. Rust i>. Hauselt, '86; costs, 57 n. Rutgers v. Hunter, '86; lease, 17 n. Rutherford v. Holmes, '86; con- tempt, 17 n. v. Rutherford, '84; wills, 27, 28 n. 59 n. Ruthven v. Patten, '83; surr. ct. 22 n.;*'86; ex. 4 ad. 122. Rutter v. Boyd, '84; attach. 20; '86; attach. 39 n. v. Kilpatrick, '85; corp. 10, gift, 4. v. Puckhofer, '84; guar- dian ad 1. 3. Rutty v. Person. 12 Abb. N. C. 352; s. a, 49 buptr. Ci. iJ. & &'.) 55. Further decis- ion in 52 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 329. RyaU SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Sands 127 Byall v, Kennedy, '83; exec. 51. Eyan v. Dox, '83; contracts, 81; fraud, 14; spec. perf. 2, 4 n. ; trusts, 4; '84; contracts, 61; estoppel, 11; '86; trusts, 6n. v. Fowler, '86; master & s. 29 n. 34. — v. Knorr, '85; Indians, 1; '86; Indjans, 1 n. v. Lewis, '85; justices' ct. 4. v . New York Central, eta, R. It. Co., '83; negl. 2 n.; '84; negl. 2 n.; '85; negl. 84; '86; negl. 2 n. 40 n. 64 n. v. People, '83; wit. 76, 79; '84; wit. 39n.;'86; ev. 206; wit. 60, 60 n. v. Potter, '85; sec. for costs, 1. — - v. Ward, '83 ; debtor & cred. 9;'84;ev. 83. v. Wilson, 87 N. Y. 471; s. o., 41 Am. B. 384; 63 Hom. Pr. 172; and 13 Weekly D. 513; aff'g 45 Super. Gt. (J. & V.) 273; s. c, 8 Weekly J). 2. '85; landl. 4 t. 5 n. Byckman v. Gillis, '86; real prop. 8. v. Kyckman, 32 Hun, 193. Further decision in 34 linn, 235, afC'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 96 K Y. 639. Eyder, Matter of, '83 ; guardian 4 w. 7; remainders, 3; trusts, 37; '85; wiLs, 122; '86; wills, 78 n. Eyder v. Gilbert, '85; attach. 57. v. Hulse, '85; distribution, 2 n. ; '86; distribution, 1 n. 2. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y„ '84; appeal, 105 n. ,Eyers, Matter of, '84; ref. 20; '85 ; associations, 3 ; const. law, 11 n.; drainage, 1, 2 n. 3 ; '86; highw. 21; tax. 39 Eyle v. Pali, '83; sher. 16, 18. S. Saal v. Abeles, '85 ; watere. 4. fciacia v. Berthoud, '86; parties, " 27. Sackett v. Andross, '83; pi. 149; '84; discharge, 6 n. v. Newton, 'B4; ev. 124 n. ; '85; sup. pro. 14. v. Palmer, '85; ev. 86 n. Sackett St , Matter of, '83; const, law, f>9 n. 64 n.; '84; const, law, 34 n. ; '85; const, law, 49 n. Saddlesvene v. 'Arms, '85; at- tach. 5; '86; attach. 3. Safford u. Brew, '84; ev. 104. v. Stevens, '83; eject. 9. Sage v. City of Brooklyn, 89 N. Y. 189; s. c, 15 Weekly I). 37;affg 8 Abb. N. G. 279. '8a; const, law, 43; villages, 2; '84; const, law, 21; for- mer adj. 3; '85; const, law, 27; '86; munc. corp. 29 n. ; surr. ct. 1 n. v. Harpending, '85; munc. corp. 116. v. Sherman, '83; ev. 357; partn. 19. v. Truslow, 88 if. Y. 24(1; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 77; aff'g 11 Id. 211. St. Ann's Church, Matter of, '84; corp. 44 n. St. Pelix v. Eankin, '86; parti tion, 5n. St. James Church v. Church of Eedeemer,' '85; contracts, 62 n. St. John v. American Mutual Fire.&c. Ins.Co.,'83; ev. 23; ins. 62 n. 83; ! 84;ins. 24. v. Bumpstead, '85; forec. 14 n. v. Croel, '83; ev. 306. v. Diefendorf, '83; atty. & c. 51. v. McKee, '84; trusts, 37; '86; ex. 4 ad. 119. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; munc. corp. 103; '84; dam. 34 n. v. Palmer, '86; covenants, 2n. v. Voorhies, '83; exec. 20. v. West, '83; ev. 306. St. Joseph's Asylum, "Matter of; '86; munc. corp. 90. St. Luke's Home v. Association for Aged Indigent Females, '84; wills, 42, 83. St. Mark's Church, Matter of, '85; r. r. co. 21. St. Peter v. Denison, '83; negl. 34;nuis. 7; '86; munc. corp. 47 n. Sale v. Darragh, '86; sales, 10. Salisbury u. Howe, '83 ; trials, 117; '84; trials, 9 v. McClaskey, '85; trials, 8 n. v. Morss, '83; wills, 150; '85; ex. 4 ad. 128 n. v. Stinson, '84; pi. 153. v. Van Hoesen, '83 ; ex. 4 ad. 105; guardian 4 w. 17; '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. Salles v. Butler, '83; amend. 7. Sails v. Butler, '85; surr. ct. 41. Salmon v. Allen, '83; mort. 28. v. (jedney, >'83; appeal, 96; '85; costs, 41. Salomon v. Moral, '84; fraud. conv. 5. Salter v. Neaville, '83; ex. 4 ad. 123. v. Utica & Black Eiver E. 11. Co., 'S3; int. 8, 9; judgm. 4 decree, 5; negL 62; '84; int. 7 n. ; questions of 1. & f. 6;' 85; ev. 67; negl. 53, 83 n. v. Weiner, '86; sec. for costs, 1 n. SaJteis v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., '84; ev. 219; master 4 s. 23 n. Salt Springs Nat. Bk. of Syra- cuse v. Burton, '85; bills of lading, 27. Saltus' Estate, '83; wills, 74. Saltus, Matter of, '86; ex. 4 ad. 16. Saltus v. Bayard, '86; amend. 1 n. i'. Commercial Ins. Co., '86; ev. 94. v. Everett, '85; bills of lad- ing, 4 n. Sammis v. Brice, '85; justices' ct. 5. Samuels v. Evening Mail Assoc, '84: dam. 29; parties, 3. Sanabria v. People, '84; indict. 9. Sanchez v. People, '85; wit. 60. Sanchez de Agreda v. Faulberg, '83, arrest, 34. Sander v. Hoffman, '83; con- tracts, 57 n. Sanders, Matter of, '85; deeds, 27 n. Sanders v. Gillespie, '85; bills, n. 4 c. 16. v. Gillett, '84; atty. 4 c. 23, 24; '85; atty. 4 e. 20; '86; ex. 4 ad. 81. v. Lake Shore & M. S. By. Co. Eeiterated (Bate of in- terest) in O'Brien v. Young, 95 K Y. 435. '66; int. 2. v. Leavy, '85; pi. 103; '86; pi. 99. v. Townshend, '83 ; costs, 41. v. Village of Yonkers, '83; cloud on title, 2; pi. 124; '84; cloud on title, 2 n. ; "86; pi. 30. Sanderson v. Caldwell. Cited as to slander, 39 Hun, 15. '84; pi. 143; '85; libel, 3 n. v. Goodrich, '83 ; contracts, 69. Sandford v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., '83; money paid, etc. 12. v. Norris, '86 ; trusts, 9 n. v. Sandford, '86; husb. & w. 15. v. Sinclair, '84; sum. pro. 13. Sands v. Church, '83; estoppel, 10; '84; deeds, 26 n.; '85; usury, 5. v. Craft, '84; ex. 4 ad. 99. v. Crooke, '83; contracts, 13; '84; appeal, 66. v. Hill, '84; corp, 27; '86; corp. 35 n. v. Hughes, '83; eject. 5; '84; adv. poss. 1; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. ; ev. 185. 128 Sands SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Schmittler Sands — continued v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., '85; ins. 63 n. v. St. John, '84; indict. 18 n. v. Sanders, '83; ben. assoo. 6, v. Shoemaker, '83; ben. assoc. 6. Sanford v. Chase, '83; arrest, 6 n. ; wit. 2 n. v. Ellithorpe, 14 Weekly D. 154. Eev'din 95 JV. Y. 49; '85; trial, 27; '86; ev. 114. v. Granger, '«3; ex. & ad. 243, 255. v. Handy, '84; dam. 14 n. v. Jackson, '83; wills, 240. v. McLean, '83 ;paym. 1 n. ; subr. 1. v. Sanford, '83; ex. 4 ad. 134;husb. & w. 19 n.; lega- cies, 34a n. ;'84; ev. 234 n. ; ' '85; costs, 56; ex. 4 ad. 120 n. ; '86; ins. 69 n. Sanger v. Wood, '83; former adj. 32 n. ; '85; election of rights, etc. 11. Saratoga County Bank v. King, '84; contracts, 56 n.; '85; contracts, 69; '86; con- tracts, 56. v. Leach, '86 ; wit. 25. v. Pruyn. 90 JV. Y. 250; s. c., 15 Weekhi D. 366; aff g 11 Weekly D 418; '84;. husb. & w. 12; '86; hush. 4 w. 17. Sargent v. Nat. Fire Ins. Co. , '85; ins. 3. Satterthwaite v. Vreeland, '84; brokers, 4. Saulsbury v. Village of Ithaca, 94 JV. Y. 27; rev'g 24 Hun, 12; '83; munc. corp. 84, 90; '84; munc. corp. 59 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 57, 58; '86; vil- lages, 1. Saunders v. Hares, '85; deeds, 29 n. v. Springsteen, ''86; tax. 22. Sauter v. N. Y. Central, etc. B. B. Co., '84; dam. 33; '86; ins. 61 ; negl. 7. Savacool v. Boughton,'83; offi'r, 27; '84; offi'r, 24 n.; '85; offi'r, 22 n.. Savage, Estate of. See Vernet v. Williams. Savage v. Allen, '84; costs, 23; ■ '86; ins. 23. v. Burnham, '83; remain- ders, 3; susp. of power of a. 9a, 22; wills, 178, 240, 241 n. ; '85 ; susp. of power of a. 1, 4, 6 n. ; wills, 64 n. 89, 119, 120, 129. v. Gould, '83; surr. ct. 38; '85; ex. 4 ad. 4; surr. ct. 5. v. Howard Ins. Co., '83; ins. 7; '84; ins. 23; '85; ins. 54 n.; '86; ins. 30 n. v. Long Island Ins. Co., '85; ins. 54 n. . v. Medbury, '86; lira, of a. 13 n. v. Murphy, '83; fraud. con v. 19; subr. 3 n. ; '86; impris. 13 n. v. O'Neil, '83; ev. 38; husb. 4w. 20 n.;'84; ev. 14; '85; husb. 4 w. 17; '86; husb. 4 w. 14 n. v. Sherman, 87 JV. Y. 277; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 392; rev'g in part, 24 Hun, 307; '83; trusts, 64; costs, 120; '84; trusts, 29, 30. Savings Bank, Matter of, '86; munc. corp. 90. Saw-Mill Co. v. Dock, 3Dem. 55; s. c, as Estate of Dock, 7 Civ. Pro. iiT237. Sawyer v. Chambers, '83; par- ties, 54 n. ; '85; bills, n. 4 c. 14n. ; '8b;undert. 15 n. v. People, 27 Han, 286; s. c„ 14 Weekly D. 534. Aff d in 91 JV. Y. 667; s. c, 1 JV. Y. aim. R. 249. Saxton's Estate, '84; legacies, 4. Sayles v. Olmstead, '84; ev. 27 n. Sayre v. Austin, '84; int. 8 n. Sayres v. Bathbone, '86; cham- perty 4 m. 4 n. Scarff v. Metcalf, '86; shipping 1. Scattergood v. Wood, '86; ref. 18. Schaefer v. Henkel, '84 ; parties, 35; principal 4 a. 11 n.; '85; ev. 80; '86; contracts, 6, 70. Schafer v. Beilly, '84; assign. 10. Schanck v. Conover, '85; sup. pro. 10. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '83; munc. corp. 46; '86; const, law, 35. Scharpenburgh v. Smith, '86; paym. 3. Schaus v. Putscher, '83; arrest, 20. Schell, Matter of, '83; trusts, 64; '86; munc, corp. 90. Schell v. Erie By. Co., '84; inj. 30. v. Plumb. Cited (Impeach- ment) in Woodward v. lie- public Fire Ins. Co., 32 Hun, 376. '83; ev. 241 n.; wit. 117; '86; dam. 9 n. 40 n. ; ins. 61. Schenck v. Andrews, '84; mfg. co. 10 n. 11 n. v. Dart, '84; appeal, 121; wit. 9; '86; receivers, 12 n. — - v. McKie, '84; motion 4 o. 1. v. Naylor, '83; pi. 129. Schenectady & Saratoga Plank Boad Co. v. Thatcher, '85; trial, 48. Schenke v. Eowell, '66; con- tracts, 78. Schepmoes v. Bousson, '83; de- positions. 16, 17; '84; depo- sitions, 20, 27; '85 ; deposi- tions, 5, 8 n. Schermerhorn v. Anderson, '86; legatees, etc. 3 n. v. Barhydt, '84; legatees, etc. 2; '85; joinder of a. 9. v. Hull, '86; apprentices, 2 b. v. Loines, '86; consignor 4 consignee, 2. v. Negus, '85; ev. 180; wills, 126 n. v. Niblo, '85; spec. perf. 12n.;'86; v. 4 p. 15. v. Prouty, '84; ref, 33. v. Schermerhorn, '83; trials, 93. v. Talman, '83; forec. 13 n. ; usury, 35, 36; '84; bail, 8 n. ; contracts, 60; ev. 18 n. ; '85; cancel of wr. instr. 4, 4 n. v. Tyler, '85; ev. 58. v. Vanderheyden, '84; par- ties, 8; '86; contracts,' 7 n. Schettler v. Smith, '83 ; susp. of power of a. 1, 18, 19, 20; '84; wills, 38, 102; '85; susp. of power of a. 5, 17; wills, 120. Scheu v. Lehning, '86; parti- tion, 3; pi. 158. Schieffelin v. Carpenter, '85; lease, 7 n. ; '86; contracts, 97 n. v. Hawkins, '83; assign. for b. of c. 13; set-off, 1. v. Stewart, '84; receivers, 27; '86; trusts, 34 n. SchifEer v. Dietz, '86; election of r. 2 ; lease, 2. Senile v. Brocktiahne, '86; ev. 211. v. Brockhahus, '83 ; excep- tions, 7; : 84; dam. 5, 34 n. Schlegel v. American Beer, &o. Co., '85; citizens, In. ;denn. 34. Schlesinger v. Foxwell, 1 City Ct. 461; s. c, A. Y. DOly Reg., Dec. 11, 1882. Fur- ther decision in Id., Dec. 18, 1882; s. c, 1 City a. 461 n. Schley v. Freyer, '86; mort. 15. Schlichting v. Wingten, '83; death, 1 n. Schmidt v. Blood, '84; ev. 6 n.; '86; lien, 6, 8. v. Cowperthwait, '84; con- tracts, 7, 8. , v. Herfurth, '83; ev. 109 n. v. Kattenhorn, '84; arrest, 8. Schmittler «. Simon, 101 JV. Y. 554; rev'g JV. Y. Daily Reg., April 10, 1883; the latter re-affg former decision in 25 Han, 16. Schmitz SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Scacord 129 Schmitz v. Langhaar, 8S X. Y. 503; s. c, 14 Weekly i). 428 nff'g 24 Jinn, 168. '83 judgm. 4 decree, 20; '84 ered. s. 2 n. ; '85; cred. s. 18 n. Sehnicker v. People, '84; ev. 95 n.; '85; abduction, 2. Schneider v. Irving Bank, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 25. v. Quosbarth, 19 Weekly D. 627; s. c, with opinion in full, in N. Y. Daily Rerj., Sept. 13, 1884. Sohoenwald v. Metropolitan Savgs. Bank, '86; savgs. ~ bks. 8, 11 n. Schofield v, Hernandez, '85; ev. 32 n. i: Whitelegge, '83; ev.3C6; pi. 132; '84 ; pi. 95, 126; '85; pi. 46, 102; '86; pi. 124. Scholey v. Mum ford, '83; money paid, etc. 11 n. ; tender, 6. Schoonmaker, Matter of, '85: wills, 43. Schoonmaker v. Brooks, '86; summons, 6. u. Clearwater, '83 ; surr. ct. 3. v. Sheely, '85; deeds, 27 n. v. Spencer, '83 ; attach. 27, 28; '86; justices' ct. 17. i>. Van Wyck, '84; ex. 4 ad. 33. v. Wolford, '85; wit. 11. Schouton v. Kilmer, '83; exec. 30 n. Schrauth v. Dry Dock Savings Bank, 'b3; ev. 43; '84; ior- mer adj. 11. Schriver v. Schriver, 86 N. Y. 58U; as to not forcng doubtful title, followed in Scheu o. Lehning, 4 Civ. Pro. R. 391. '85; lim. of a. 56 n. Schroeder, Matter of,'83; attach. 2. Schroeder v. Gurney, '86; cloud on title, 3 n. Schroeppel v. Shaw, '83; bills, n. & c. 28; debtor 4 cred. 6; principal 4 s. 17, 18; '85; bills ol lading, 23; undert. 9. Schroeter v. Schroeter, '83; di- vorce, 3 n.; '84; divorce, 2; '86;' divorce, 6, 11. Schubart v. Harteau, '86; coun- terc. 6. Schuele v. Beiman, '83; assign, for b. ofc. 33; '85; assign, for b. of c. 31. Schufeldt v. Sehnitzler, '84; ev. 185; '86; fraud, 7. Schular v. Hudson Eiver B. B. Co., '84; munc. corp. 64. Schultz v. Hoagland, '84; ev. 53, 186, 188; '85; attach. 16. v. Pulver, '83; appeal, new tr.; see addenda; ex. & cd. 19, 74. f. Bose, '86; spec. perf. 8 n. v. Schultz, '83; wills, 48, 52. 53 n.: '86; wills. 35. v. Stutzer, 5 Rertf. 344. Modified as Matter of Stut- zer, 26 Hun, 481. v. Third Ave. E. E. Co., 89 X. Y. 242; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 80;rev'g 46 Super. Ct. (J. & H.) 211. Another decis- ion in 49 Id. 95. '83; wit. 114; '85; false impris. 7. Schumaker v. Crossman. Cited (Orders of court and judge) in 31 Hun, 612. '85; service & p. 9 Schuster v. Dutchess County Mut. Ins. Co., 17 Weekly 1). 386. Further decision in 19 Id. T87; and that aff'd in 102 X. Y. 260. v. Metropolitan Board of Health, '86; inj. 13 n. Schuyler v. Englert, '85; un- dert. 12; '86; undert. 10, 15 n. v. Leggett, '85; lease, 7 n. v. Smith, '83; munc. corp. 64n.;'84; landl. 4 t. 2; '85; bills of lading, 26 n. ; chat- tels, 3; landl. 4 t. 2. Schwartz v. Atlantic & P. Tel. Co., '86; teleg. co. 2. Schwarz v. OppoM, '84; city ct. . of N. Y. 5. Schwenk v. Naylor, 49 Super. Ct: {■I. & S. ) 98. Further de- cision in 50 Id. 57; and that rev'd in 102 TV". Y. 683. Schwenn?;. McKie, '83; ev. 68. Schwier v. N. Y. Central, etc. B. E. Co., '84;negl. 53. Schwmger v. Hickok, '85; for- mer adj. 11. v. Eaymond, '83: appeal, 39; estoppel, 13; '85; appeal, 33 ; estoppel, 5 n. Scofield, Estate of. See Sco- field v. Adriance, '83. Scofield, Matter of, 'e4; trusts, 42. Scofield v. Adams, '85; parties, 10. v. Adriance, 1 Bern. 196; s. c. , as Estate of Scofield, 3 Civ. Pro. R. 323. Further decision in 2 JJem. 436. '86; ex. & ad. 17 n. 52. v. Churchill, '83; ex. & ad. 43; '8i; former adj. 13; '86; ex. & ad, 17 n. v. Doscher, '83; parties, 29; '85; pi. 40. v. Whitelegge. See Scho- field v. The Same. Scott, Matter of, '84; contracts, 2 n. ; '86; ex. & ad. 121 n. Scott v. Brown, '85; lim. of a. 26. — — v. Central E. E. and Bank- ing Co. of Georgia, '83; corp. 10 n. v. Conway, '85; husb. 4 w. 12. v. Delahunt, '83; lien, 9, 10, 10 n. ; '85; lien, 2 n.; 86; sales, 22. v. Depeyster,'84; corp. 11 n. v. Dexter, '84; attach. 11. v. Ely, '83; arrest, 34. v. Guernsey, '83 ; wills, 135 n. 180 n. 181, 196 n. ; '84; wills, 117 n.; '85; ten. in com. 3; wills, 131; '83; par- tition, 5; tenants in com. ■ 3. v. Guthrie, '85 ; assign, for b. of c. 35, 38; '86; assign, for b. of c. 7. v. Howard, '85; exec. 5. v. Lilienthal, '85; ev. 213. v. McMillan r 83; cove- nants, IJ,; '85; covenants, 9; '86; covenants, 4, — — v. Middletown, etc. B. B. Co., '84; ev. 234. v. Morgan, '84; cred. s. 1 n. v. Nevins, '85; trusts, 33 n. v. Ocean Bank, '83 ; bills, n. & c. 29; '86; banking 16. v. Onderdonk, '83; cloud on title, 1; pi. 124; '81; civil damage act, 2 n. ; '85 ; cloud on title, 2; tax. 64; '86; cloud on title, 3 n. 4 n. v. Otis, '86; husb. & w. 17. : v. Pilkington, '84; bills, n. 4 c. 8. v. Boyal Exch. Shipping Co., '84; pi. 38 n. v. Shaw, '84; sher. 3 .n. v. Shufeldt, '83; niarr. 6. • i\ Stebbius, 91 X. Y. 6u5; s. c, 16 Weekly L>. 373; aff'g, 27 Hun, 335; s c, 10 Weekly 1). 97- '85; contri- bution, In. ; litu. of a. 19; '86; fraud, conv. 9; legacies, 13. Scovelu. Boosevelt, '86; 9n. Scovillv. New, '84;verif. Scrantom v. Booth, '83 ; 2. Scribner v. Beach, mort. 1. v. Crane, '83; wills, 39 n. v. Kelley, '83; assign. 9 n. Scriver u. Smith, 100 X Y. 471; s. c , 3 J&tst. Rep. 193; 3 Xoifh-easl. Rep. 675; affg 30 Hun, 129. '86 ; munc. corp. 47 n. Scrugham v. Carter, '83: attach. 5J. v. Wood,'85; deeds, 6n.7n. Scudder v. Gori, '83; costs, 10. ■ v. Van Amburgh, '86; cred. s. 19 n. v. Voorhis, '85; former adj. 22 n. Scully v. Sanders, '84; appeal, 72. Seabury v. Bo wen, '83; ex. & ad. 125; '85; ex. 4 ad. 92 n. Seacord v. Burling, '84; con- tracts, 90. corp. . 1 n. sales, '83; chat. 130 Seacord SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Shcder Seacord — continued ■ v. Miller, '85; bills of lading, 19 n. v. Morgan, undert. 18; '86; undert. 1. Sea Ins. Co. v. Stebbins, '84; receivers, 7 n. Seaman v. Benson, '86; tax. 61. v. Duryea, '84; ex. 4 ad. 63; '85; ex. & ad. 166; for- mer adj. 10 n. ; '86; account 4 accounting, 1; ex 4 ad. 17 n. 54 n. • v. Glegner, '83; costs, 27. v. Low, '83; receipts, 1. v. Luce, '83; exec. 30. v. Van Bensselaer, '83 ; set-off, 1. v. Whitehead, '83; surr. ct. 45; '84; appeal, 2; receivers, 9. Seaman's Friend Soc'y v. Hop- per, '83; insane per. 1; wills, 6, 53; '84; insane per. 4; '86; wills, 7 n. Searles v. Harvey, '85; for- mer adj. 36 n. v. Manhattan Elevated Ey. Co., 49 Super. Ct (J". * <\) 425. JEtev'd in 101 N. Y. 661;'86;ev. 258. Scars v. Brink, '86; contracts, 82 n. v. Shafer, '83; gifts, 7; '85; lim. of a. 22. Seaton v. Davis, '84; parties; 26. Seaver v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., amend. 20. v. Bobinson, '84; service & p. 2 n. Second American Building Asso. v. Piatt, '85; mort. 7. Second Ave. M. E. Church, Matter of, '84; forec. 1; vil- lages, 11; -86; r. r. co. 60. Second Hat. Bank of Oswego v. Burt, 93 JV. Y. 233; modi- fying 14 Weekly D. 290. v. Poucher, '83; guaranty, 15. Second Nat. Bank of Watkins v. Miller, '83; husb. 4 w. 31; '84; husb. & w. 4n. Secor v. Harris,'86; slander, 2 n. v. Sentis, '84; ex. 4 ad. Ivi6; '85; ex. 4 ad. 163 n. v. Sturgis, '83; cause of action, 4, 4 n; contracts, 34; former adj. 33; '86; for- mer adj. 26 n. 41 n. Security Bank of N. Y. v. Na- tional Bank ofBepublic, '63; banking, 9; bills, n. 4 c. 58; ev. 391. Security Life Ins. Co., Matter of, '84; costs, 71; ins. 44 n. Sedgwick v. Stanton, '83; cham- perty s m. 2 n. ; con- tracts, 58; '84; champer- ty 4 m.-l, 2; contracts, 57; '85; deeds, 45;'86; cham- perty 4 m. 1, 2 n. ; distri- bution, 2. Seeley v. Black, '83; ex. 4 ad. 233. v. Engell, '83; trials, 17, v. Garrison, '85; sup. pro. 13. v. N. Y. Central, etc. B. K. Co., 15 Weekly D. 231. Aff'd in 2 N. Y. rotate J8ej>. 452; s. a, less fully, 102 if. Y. 719. '8i; trial, 61. v. N. Y. Nat. Exchange Bk. 8 Bali), 400. Cited as to specific performance in 36 Hun, 477. '84; Corp. 14. & Jobson, case of, '84; con- tempt, 17 n. Seguine v. Sanguine, '83; surr. ct. 38; wills, 7, 22, 93; '84; undue inf. 1; '85; wills, 1. Segelken v. Meyer, '84; exec. 19; '85; pi. 81; '86; arrest, '7; exsc. 16; guardians w. 7; parties, 25, 30; pi. 13; trusts, 31. Seifert v. City of Brooklyn, 101 if. Y. 136; affg 15 Abb. N. a 97. Seller v. People*, '83; husb. 4 w. 29, 29 n. ; '84; husb. & w. 7; '85; husb. 4 w. 9. Seixas v. Woods, '84; sales, 18 n.; '86; sales, 14 n. Selchow v. Baker, 64 How. Pr. 212. Aff'd in 11 Dily, 353; and that aff'd in 93 N. Y. 59. '85; trade-m. 4; '86; trade- in 2. n. v. Stymus, '86; promise, 5. Selden v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., '86; highw. 1. v. Vermilyea, '85; susp. of power of a. 16. Seligman v. Dudley, '85; forec. 7n. v. Wallaoh, '86; supp. pro. 21 n. Sellecku. Tallman, 87 N. Y. 106; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 334; aff'g 10 Id. 188. Further decision in 11 Daly, 141. '83; v. 4 p. 15. Selover v. Coe, '84; bail, 4 n. v. Culver, '86; costs, 39. Semel v. N. Y., New Haven, etc. B. E. Co., 9 Daly, 321. Further decision in 14 Weekly D. 24. Seneca County Bk. v. Scherm- erhorn, '86; usury, C. Seneca Nation of Indians v. Knight, '84; appeals, 40; deeds, 7 n. ; '85; waterc. 11. Senior v. Marcinkowiski, '85 ; land! 4 t. 3 n. Serat v. Utica, Ithaca & Elmira E. E. Co, 19 Weekly D. 196. Aff'd in 102 N. Y. 681. Settle v Van Evrea, '85; surr. ct. 3 n. ; '80; surr. ct. 3 n. Seventeenth St., Matter of, 1 Wend. 26i. See this case followed in a number of cases in 11 Jbb.N. V. 269 n. Severance v. Griffith, '83; mort. 8. Severn v. National State Bank of Troy, '84; wit. 14; '85; ex. 4 ad. 179. Sevestre v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '85 ; negl. 11 n. Sewall v. Allen, '83; carriers, 28 n. Sewall v. Fitch, '84; sales, 7; '85; sales, 1 n. Seward v. Huntington, 94 N. Y. 104; rev'g 26 Han, 217. '85; p rtn. 17 n. ; '86; promise, 3 n. v. Jackson, '84; fraud. conv. 12 n. ; '80 ; trials, 99 n. Sewoll v. City of Cohoes, '85; munc. corp. 53 n. 56 n. 63 ; '86; munc. corp. 34 n. 51 n. ; villages, 3. Sexton, Estate of, '85; surr. ct. 30 n. Sexton v. Zett, '8 J; lim. of a. 14; negl. 33. Seybolt v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc. E. E. Co., 95 if. Y. 56z: affg 31 Htm, 100. '«U; debt- or 4 cre.l. 11 n. ; ev. 2i; negl. 84; trials, 58a. Seymour v. Billin s, '85; costs, 3, 4, 9; '86; costs, 14 n. 80 n. o. Butler, '85; legacies, 43. v. Canandaigua, etc. E. It. Co., '83; mort. 1; '06; husb. 4 w. 12 n. — .— v. Cowing, '83; ev. 127 n. v. Davis, '85; sales, 7 n. 25 n. u. De Lancey, '85; v. & p. 5; '86; spec. perf. 8 n. v. Fellows, '83; husb. 4 w. 20 n. ; '85; husb. & w. 12. v. JuJd, '83; appeal, 48. v. Lorillard, 'Sj; joinder of a. 7. v. Mercer, '86; depositions, 17. d. Minturn, '84; brokers, 2. v. Newton, '83; attach. 60; exec. 25; '85; exec. 9 n. v. Seymour, '86; assign. for b. of c. 31; legacies, 33. — . — 1>. Sturges, '83; mfg. co. 9; '84; corp. 36. v. Van Wyck, '83; wills, 31 n. 48; '84; wills, 28 n. v. Wilson, '83; fraud, conv. 6; '86; ev. 238 n.; pledge, 2 n. Shackleton u. Hart, '85; atty. & c. 21. Shafer v. Guest, '83; boarding- house keepers, 1. Shakespeare v. Markham, '83; ex. 4 ad. 138; surr. ct. 22 n. ; '84 ; contracts, 45 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 114. Shale v. Schantz, '86; assign, forb. of c. 1 n. Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. v. Bliss, '83; mfg. co. 28, 31 n. ;'8a; lim. of a. 38; ques- tions of 1. 4 f. 2 n. Shanchan SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Sherwood 131 Shanchan v. N. Y. & New Haven U.K. Co.,'85;r. r. co. 11 n. Shand v. Hanley, '83, fraud, conv. 19; '86;impris. 13 n. Shank v. Shoemaker, "83; atty. 4 e. 70 n. ; '85; fraud, 1. Shannon v. Comstock, '86; mas- ter 4 s. 3. v. Howell, '86; cos's, 14 n. ; lim. of a. 21. Shapley v. Abbott, '83; lim. of a. 41, 42; '8-J; ex. 4 ad. 150. Sharkey v. Mansfield, '84; de- mand, 1; '86; account stated, 1. Sharp v. Cropsey, '84; ex. & ad. 667. v. Fancher, '85; sec. for costs, 10. v. Freeman, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 20. v. Hutchinson, 48 Suptr. Ct. (J. & 8.) 101. Further de- cision in 49 Id. 50; and that affd in 100 A", Y. 533; s. c, 3 Northeast. Beii. 500. '85; depositions, 27; '86; partn. 36. v. Johnson, '83; tax. 21; '85; tax. 48; '86; ev. 25; tax 51 v. Pratt, '85; ex. 4 ad. 43. v. Spier, '83; corp. 75; ev. 30; insane per. 17; '85; tax. 48;'86;ev. 2-5; tax. 51. Sharpe v. Freeman, '86; ex. & ad. 129. ■ v. Kelley, '86; v. & p. 6 n. Sharpsteen v. Tillou, '83; wills, 30; 84; wills, 35. Shattuck v. Lamb, '85; forec. 7 n.; '86; covenants, 1 n. Shaw's Estate, '83; surr. ct. 22 n. Shaw, Matter of, '86; wills, 7 n. Shaw v. Cock, '83; amend. 12. v. Coster, '83; interp. 6. Shaw v. Crawford, '85; ease- ments, 11. v. Davis, '84; ex. 4 ad. 30; sup. pro. 21. v. D wight, '83; cred. s. 8, 9;'8J; cred. s. 4 n. v. Jewett, '86; negl. 96. v. McCarty, 2 Civ. Pro. B. 33. Cited ^osts on appeal) in 7 Civ. Pro. B. 113. v. Bepublic Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 88, 89 ; '85 ; ev. 104; '86; pi. 113. v. Smith, '86; trials, 19. v. Tobias, '83;mech. 1. 10; '84; offi'r, 14; undert. 12 n. ; '85;undert. 8. v. Yan Kensselaer, '83; disc. 4 insp. 9. Shawangunk Kill Bridge, Mat- ter of, 20 Weekly D. 503. AfE'd in 100 N. Y. 642. Shay v. People, '85; ev. 254 n. ; felony, 1. Shea v. Sixth Ave. E. E. Co., '84; master 4 s. 8. Shear v. Van Dyke, '84; ev. 139. Shearman v. Henderson, '84; trials, 57. it. N. Y. Central Mills, '83; inj. 27; '84; appeal, 28; pi. 45. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 20; '84; ins. 7; '86; ins. 30 n. Shehan v. K. Y. Central, &c. It. It. Co., '84; master 4 s. 20, 23 n. ; '85; master 4 s. 25, 25 n. 39a, 42 n.; '86; master 4 s. 12, 28 n. Sheerin v. Public Administra- tor, '86; ex. 4 ad. 51 n. Sheldon v. Clews, '84; ev. 185. v. Dodge, 'o3; assign, for b. of c. 1; '86, fraud, conv. 22. v. Edwards, '83; merger, 2; '85; judgm. & decree, 1. v. ierris, '83; ev. 336. v. Havens, '83; ev. 3U6. v. Haxtun, 91 JV. Y. 124; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 180; aff'g 24 Hun, 196. v. Horton, '84; bills, n. 4 c. 19; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 22. v. Sabin, '86; pi. 52 n. v. Smith, '86; assign, for b. of e. 1 n. v. Soper, '86; tax. 63. v. Stryker, '85; assign, for b. of c. 5 ; new tr. 3. v. VanBuskirk, '83; const. law, 58; '84; ev. 73; '85; offi'r, 22 n. ; '86; const, law, 17; ev. 286. v. Wood, '83; depositions, 7; '84; exceptions, 6. v. Wright, '83; service 4 p. 27; '84; ex. 4 ad. 161 n.; '85; surr. ct. 11. Sheldon Hat Blocking Co. v. Eickemeyer Hat Blocking Machine Co., 90 JV. Y. 607; s. c, 64 JIuw. Pr. 467; 16 Weekly D. 133; affg 10 Weekly I). 438. '84 ; estop- pel, 8'; ev. 234 n.; '85; corp. 29 Shell v. Telford, '83; bills, n. & c. 43. Shellington v. Howland, '83; bankruptcy, 10 n.; mfg. co. 22; pi. 2(0; '84; mfg. co. 11 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. Sheltharu. Gregory, '83; husb. 4 w. 24. Shelton v. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., '83; carriers, 31. Shepard v. Buffalo, etc. E. B. Co , '85; r. r. co. 11 n. v. Parker, '84; perjury, 2 n. v. Eowe, '86; supp. pro. 2. v. Saitus, '86; ex. 4 ad. 121 n. v. Wright, '84; juris. 4; '85; appearance, 1. Shephard v. Watrous, '86; du- ress, 3. Shepherd v. Lincoln, '85; offi'r, 21. v. McEvere, 'S3; trus'.s, 17. v. People, '84; sentence, 1 n. ; '86; ev. 200 n. v. Shepherd, '83; divorce, 17 n. ; '83; trusts, 31 n. Shepherd's Fold, etc. of N. Y. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 96 N. Y. J37; rev'g 10 Duly, 319. Sheppard v. Earles, '83; chat, mort. 23. v. Steele, '84; app. of paym. 1. Sheridan v. Andrews, '86; for- mer adj. 32. v. Brooklyn, etc. E. E. Co., '83; negl. 7; 85; ques- tions of 1. 4 f. 7. v. Houghton, '83; wills, 48, 115; wit. 23; '86; appeal, 9^a n. ; wit. 5. v. House, '86; wills, 78 n. v. Mayor, Lo. of N. Y., '83; assign. 22; ev. 251; '84; ev. 234; '85; parties, 8; '86; bills, n. 4 c. 17; surr. ct. 11 n. Sheridan v. Smith, '83; tender, 9; '86; paym. into ct. 1 n.; tender, 2. Sherill Bo per Air Engine Co. v. Harwood, '8ft; attach. 16. Sherman v. Boy ce, '83 ; exec. 46. v. Burnham, '85; parties, 42. v. Bushnell, '84; pi. 85. v. Butts, '84; contr. 4T> n. v. Elder, '85; husb. & w. 15 n. v. Kane, '84; adv. poss. 4 n. v. McKeon, '83; const. law, 17 n. ; deeds, 18; guar- dian 4 w. 8 ; '85 ; stipulation, 2n. v. Mclntyre, '84 ; ev. 27 n. v. Partridge, '83; parties, 56; sup. pro. 25; '85; inter- pl. 2; '86; interpl. 5. v. Scott, '84; husb. 4 w. 5 n.; '85; contracts, 71 n; '86; wit. 71 n. v. Sherman, '85; wills, 90, 103 n. v. Smith, '85; arrest, 3. v. Village of Clifton Springs, '86; money paid, etc. 11 n. v. Wells, '83; amend. 9. v. Willett, '83; estoppel, 10; receivers, 2; '86; ex. 4 ad. 54 n. v . Wright, '83; forcible e. 4d. 2; inj. 39; '84; inj. 33; '85; infants, 7. Sherrill v. Hopkins, '83; dis- charge, 2. Sherwood v. Agricultural Ins. Co. Cited as- to the effect of. violating a condition in a firo policy, against trans- fer of the property, in 132 Sherwood SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Simpson Sherwood — cordinued Benninghoff v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 93 A. Y. 504. '83; ins. 36; '36; ins. 50 n. v. American Bible Soc. , '84; parties, 5; wills, 21, 23 n. ; '85 ; legacies, 5 n. ; wills, 41 n. v. Gardner, '85; lease, 6 n. 11 n. v. Hauser, '84; appeal, 102; '86; ev. 248. v. Judd, '83; wills, 114. v. Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co., '85; ins. 43. ■ v. Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co., '85; juris. 11. v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 12 Daly, 137; s. c, 65 How. Pr. 193, and 3 Civ. Pro. B. 281; rev'g 2 Id.' 67; s. c, 4 Month. L. Bui. 63. Shields v. Pettie, '84; deceit; 1. — — v. Shields, '83; ex. & ad. 38, 40, 41. v. Sullivan. See Heather's Estate. '86; partn. 26. Shindler v. Houston, '83; sales, 3; '8-3; sales, 7 n. Shipley v. Mechanics' Bank, '86; mand. 1 n.; paym. 1 n. Shipman v. Beers, '85; ease- ments, 6 n. v. Clark, '83; exec. 25. v. Rollins, 98 A 7 . Y. 311 ; rev'g 33 Hun, 89. '86; lega- cies, 1. Shoe and Leather Bank v. Thompson, '84; pi. 142 n.; '86; damages, 28. Shoe & Leather Rep. Assoc, v. Bailey, '86; disc. & insp. 5. Shoemaker v. Benedict, 'd3; lim. of a. 44, 47, 49, 51 n. ; '86;lim. of a. 14 n. 29 n. • v. Shoemaker, '85; ease- ments, 6 n. Short v. Home Ins. Co., '85; ins. 19. Shorter v. People, '8u; ev. 141 . n. Shotwell v. Jefferson Ins. Co., '8i;ins. 21. v. Mott, '83; uses, 1 n. ; "86; trials, 53. v. Murray, '83; ev. 27; '84; mistake, 3. Shriver v. Shriver, '83; spec. pert'. 8; '84; judicial sale, 0; spec. pert. 5; '85; ex. & ad. 128 n. ; forec. 14 n.; judicial sale, 5; spec. perf. 12 n. 13; v. & p. 5; '86; judicial sale, 4 ; spec. perf. 8 n. ; v. & p. 13, 14. Shuart v. Taylor, '83; chat. niort. 7n. Shufelt v. Shufelt, '84; usury, 12 n.; '85; usury, 5; '86; former anj. 13 n. v Shuler v. Maxwell, 38 Hun, 240. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opinion; in 101 N.- Y. 657. Shull v. Green, '84; costs, 16. Shulters v. Johnson, '83; wills, 147; '8 5; wills, 60. Shults v. Andrews, '83; sup. pro. 33 n. Shultz v, Depuy. '83; pi. 108. i'. Hoagland. '84; assign. forb. ofc. 89; ev. 185; '85; assign, for t>. of c. 45, 45 n ; '86 ; assign, for b of c. 44, 51, 52; attach. 10; judgm. 10 n. — v. Whitney, '84; ref. 23. Shuman i\ Strauss, '84;' former adj. 26 n. Shumway v. Harmon, '83 ; ex. & ad. 172. v. Stillman, '83; ev. 24; '86; ev. 154 n. Shute v. Hamilton, '83; waiver, 1. Shuttleworth v. Winter, '83; gift, 9; husb. & w. 43; lega^ cies, 37 n. ; '84; husb. & w. 13; . trusts, 13, 40; '86; trusts, 34 n. Sibbald v, Bethlehem Iron Co.. '83; brokers, 3; '84; brokers, , 4, 4 n; '86; brokers, 5. Sibell v. Remsen, '84;corp. 25. Sibley v. Howard, '86; justices' ct. 10 n. v. Waffle, '85; ex & ad. 176 n. ;'86;surr. ct. 10 n. Sick els v. Pattison, '85; sales, 52 n. Sickles v. Flanagan, '84; usury, 1 ; '85 ; exceptions, 2. ■ v. Gillies, '83; trials, 62; '86; banking, 15. v. Manhattan Gas-light Co., 64 How.Pr. 33. Afl'd in 66 Id. 304; further deci- sion in Id: 314. v. Mather, '85; ev. 186 n; lim. of a. 30 n. v. Richardson, '85; costs, 21 n. v. Sharp, 13 Johns. 493. Cited in 11 Daly, 121, on construction of statute in Meiers v. Metropolitan Gas Lt. Co. Sidenberg«. Ely, '85; mort. 15 n. Siegel v. Gould, '83; brokers, 2 n. ; contracts, 67. Sieman v. Austin, '85; trusts, 4 n. Siemon v. Schurck, '87; fraud, 15; trials, 4; '85; attach. 43 n. Siglar v. Van Riper, '83; adv. poss. 1. Sill v. Village of Corning, '83: const, law, 77; '84; const. law, 59. Silleck v. Heydrick, '85; .ex. & ad. 176 n. ; '86; surr. ct. 19 n. Sillick v. Mason, '85 ; ev. 224 n. Silliman v. Wing, '83 ; money paid, etc. 12; tax. 82; '84; money paid, etc. 6 n. Silver v. Holden. See De Sil- ver v. The Same. Silverbrandt v. Widmayer, '85; ex. & ad. 30. Silver Lake B'k v. North, '85; mort. 15 n. Silvernail v. Pelts, 'C6; parties, 17. Simart). Canaday, '83; dower, 4; fraud, 6; '84; appeal, 211; '85; subr, 3 n.; '86; deceit, 1, 10 n. Simers v. Saltus, '85; forec. 7 n. Simmonds v. Simmonds, '85; contempt, 20. Simmons v. Cloonan, '83; deeds, 24 n. ; '85; easements, 6 n. ; '86; easements, "4. v. Pay, '86; costs, 39. v. Havens, 29 Hun, 119. Afi'd in 101 W. Y. 427. v. Law, '85; ev. 204 n. v. Richardson, '86; ref. 18. v. Simmons, '83 ; divorce, 3 n.; '85; wills, 35. v. Sisson, 26 A*. Y. 564, Qualified in effect (Com- munication with deceased) in Holcomb i;. Holconb, 95 Af. Y. 325. '83; wit. 28. Simms v. Voght, 11 Abb A. C. 48. Afi'd in 94 A*. Y. 054. ■ Simon v. Kaliske, '85; assign, for b. of c. 9. Simonds v. Catin, '85 ; exec. 14 n. Simons v. First National Bank, ' '84; mort. 5; '85; fraud, conv. 4; nat. bks. 1; '86; mort. 4n. v. Monier, '84; master & s. 6; '85; ev. 224 n.; '86; mas- ter 4 6. 5. v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., A 7 ". Y. Dady lieg., March. 14, 1883; abstr. s. c, 16 Weekly D. 272. Further de- cision in :;8 Him, 309. Simonson v. Blake, '83; pi. 38; '85; pi. 27 n.; '86; judgm. 14 n. v. Palihee, '83; rec. deeds, 14. Simonton v. Barrell, '83; ali- mony, 8; sher. 16. Simpkins v. Smith & Parmelee Gold Co., '85; receivers, 7. Simpson, Matter of, '84; wills, 66, 68; '86; appeal, 92a n. Simpson v. Buck, '85; parent* c. 2. v. Burch, '86; attach. 40 n. v. Carter, '84; amend. 15; district ct. 7. v. Del Hoyo, 14 Weekly D. 178. ReVd in 94 N. Y. 189. '86; fraud, conv. 19. v. Downing, '84; trials, 26. v. French, '83; tender, 8, 9; '86; tender, 1. v. Hornbeck, '85; false impris. 3. v. McKay, '86; judgm. 14 Simpson SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Smith 133 — r v. Moore, '83; ex. & ad. 232; '86; corp. 9 n. v. N. Y.,- West Shore, etc. K. B. Co., '86; parties, 3. v. St. John,'84; conversion, 10 n. Sims v. BroWD, '83; money paid, 1. v. Sims, '85; ex. & ad. 10. Simser v. Cowan, '83; pi. 131; '85; pi. 8. . Simsonu. Brown, '86; promise, 3n. v. Satterlee, '86; ins. 30 n. Sinclair v. Jackson, '83; trusts, 51; '85; nuis. 1 n. v. Jackson ex dem. Field, '86; champerty 4 m. 4 n. v. Tallmadge, '83; v. 4 p. 5n.;'86; ref. 18. Sindram v. People, 88 N. T. 196; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 202; afl'glJV; Y. Crim. R. 448. '83; ev. 309; '85; homicide, 2 n. ; trial, 119 ; '86 ; tr. 132. Sine v. Smith. See Tim v. Smith. Singer, Estate of. See Singer v. Hawley. Singer v. Hawley, 3 Dem. 571; s. c, as Estate of Singer, 6 Civ. Pro. R. 389. '86; surr. ct. 20. Sink v. Sink, '83; wills, 139. Sipperly v. Baucus, '83; ex. 4 ad. 142; surr. ct. 28 n.; '85 f appeal, 121; former adj. 10 n.; 'Mi; surr. ct. 20, 21, 24 n. v. Warner, '84; costs, 30. Sisson v. Conger, '83; wills, 110; '84; ev. 248 n. Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, '83 ; costs, 41; wills, 32, 33, 44, 45, 92, 142; '85; wills, 19, 29; '86; wills, 11 n. Sixth Ave. B. K. Co. v. Gilbert Elev. R. E. Co., '83; bank- ruptcy, 7; const, law, 35 n. ; inj. 67; '86; compensation, 4 n. v. Kerr, '83; em. dom. 5; '84; statutes, 13. Sizer v. Burt, '85; ev. 224 n. v. Daniels, '83;assocns. 2 n ; election of offi'r, 12; '85; contracts, 69; '86; con- tracts, 68. Skidmore v. Collier,'86; assign, forb of c. 1 n, v. Davies, '86; appeal, 11 n. ; surr. e\ 24 n. v. Desdoity, '86; ins. 36 n. v. Hart, '86; deeds, 6 n. v. Post, 32 Hun, 54. Fur- ther decision in 20 Weekly D. 319. v. Bomaine, '85; ex. 4 ad. 181. Skinners. Dayton, '83; ev. 106; principal 4 a. 15; '86; partn 9n. 1 v. Oettinger, '86; attach. v. Stuart, '84; cred. s. 1. Skinnion v. Kelley, '85; ship- ping, 5. Slack v. Brown, '86; paym. into ct. 1 n. v. Cotton, '85; pi. 82. Slade, Belden v., '8 J; attach. 42. Slade v. VanVechten,'85; forec. 10. Slater v. Jewett, '83; mas- ter 4 s. 22, 25, 34 n. ; negl. 41; r. r. co. Ill; '85; master 4 s. 14, IS n. 39a; '86; mas- ter 4 s. 16 n. 17, 38. v. Mead, '86; trials, 95. v. Merritt, '83; sup. pro. 35. Slatter v. Carroll, '86; partn. 29. Slauson v. Watkins, '86; mort. 15. Slee v. Bloom, '85; corp. 38 n. U.Manhattan Co., '83; forec. 6; '84; lease, 5; '86; debtor 4 cred. 5. Sleght v. Kane, '86; lim. of a. 10 n. Slingerland, Matter of, 36 Hun, 575; rev'g Tracey v. Slin- gerland, 3 Dem. 1. Slingerland v. Bennett, '83; dam. 8;'84;ev. 56. Sloan v. Case, '84; constables, 1. v. Kane, '83 ; marr. 6. v. N. Y. Central R. 11. Co., '86; wit. 49. v. Van Wyck. '85; sales, 8 n. Slocum v. English, '85; devise, 6. v. Hooker, '83; infants, 1. Slosson v. Lynch, '83 ; wills, 230; '84; distribution, 2 n. v. Naylor, '84; ex. 4 ad. 122; '8o; trusts, 45. Sluyter v. Williams, '84; replev- in, 4 n. Smadbeck v. Sisson, 31 Han, 582; s. c, 4 Viv. Pro. R. 353, and 66 How. Pr. 225; aff'g Id. 220. Small i: Bixley, '85 ; costs, 2 n. ; '86; costs, 79 n. v. Edrick, '83 ; surr. ct. 7. v. Graves, '83 ; bankruptcy, 14, 16. v. Herkimer Manufactur- ing Co., '83; rufg. co. 4 n. v. McChegney, '85; new promise, 1; '86; sup. pro. 15. v Eobinson, '85; ten. in com. 6. Smalley v. Doughty, '86; ev. 14a. Smart v. Bement, '84; mort. 14 n. v. Haring, '84; pi. 92; '86; infants, 5. Smedberg v. Simpson, '84; us- ury, 9; '86; ev. 14a. v. Whittlesey, '»6; ev. 14a. Smedes v. Bank of Utica, '86; banking, 17 n. Smedis v. Brooklyn & Bocka- way Beach E. E. Co,, 88 JV. Y. 13; s. c, 14 Weeldy D. 185;aff'g23 Hun, 279. '83; negl. 55, 81; '85; ques- tions of 1. 4 f. 11; trials, 66, 72; '86 ; exceptions, 3; trials, 70 93. Smiley u.Fry, 100 N. Y. 262; s.c, 1 Oentr. Rep. 510; 2 East. Rep. 668; aff'g 40 Super. Vt. {J. & S. ) 134. Smillie v. Quinn, 90 K Y. 492; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 15; aff'g 2o Hun, 332; s. c, 13 Weekly D. 278, which aff'd 2 Month. L. Bnl. 32. '83;husb. 4 w. see addenda; ins. 63, 66a; see addenda; '84; conver- sion, 11; pi. 122; '86; ins. 77 n. Smith's Estate, 17 .466. N. C. 78; s. c, as Gaffney v. Pub- lic Administrator, 4 Dem. 223. Smith, Estate of. See Herbert v. Stevenson. Smith, Matter of, 90 N~. Y. 424; aff'g 67 How. Pr. 501. '85; appeal, 87; wit. 11; '86; wills, 9. Smith v. Acker, '85; partn. 17; '86; ev. 31 n. v. .Etna. Life Ins. Co., '83; trials, 62. v. Applegate, '83; bills, u. 4 c. 6 ; paym. 4. v. Argall, '86 ; partn. 32 n. 40 n. v. Arnold, '86; attach. 31, 46. v. Aylesworth, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 44. o. Babcock, '83; v. s p. 5 n.' v. Banker, '83; mfg. co. 31. v. Barse, '84; arbitration, 3n. v. Beattie, '83; exec. 24; '85; mort. la. v. Benson, '83; real prop. 6; '86; fixtures, 2 n. v. Bixby, '85'; guardian s w. 9 n. v. Bodine, '86; negl. 4 n. v. Bowers. See Smith v. Bowes. v. Bowes, 11 Daly, 320; s. c, as Smith v. Bowers, 3 Cm. Pro. R. 72. v. Boyd. See Smith v. Tim. '85; assign, for b. of c. 3, '86; assign, for b. of c. 3 n. v. Boyle. See Smith v. Tim. v. Brady, '83; contracts, 89; '84; contracts, 28, 85 n. 87; '86; contracts, 79. v. British & N. Am. Packet Co. , '83 ; questions of 1. 4 f . 12. v. Britton, '83; judgin. ; decree, 31; '85; ex. 4 ad 69; pi. 40. 134 Smith SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Smith Smith— continued v. Burch, 82 N. Y. 228; rev'g 28 Hun, 331; s. o., 16 Weekly D. 26. v. Burtis, '83; adv. poss. 1; ev. 37; '84; questions of 1. 4 f. 3. • v. Carll, '85; const, law, 17 n. v. Castlers, '83; corp. 10; '85; surr. ct. 30 n. v. Cheetham, '86; new tr. 26. v. City of Buffalo, '83; munc. corp. 74. v. City of Newburgh, '83; munc. corp. 176; '85; munc. corp. 43. v. City of Kochester, 92 N. Y. 463. Further decision in 38 Hun, 612. '83; munc. corp. 68, 70, 72; '85; grants, 1, 2 n. ; munc. corp. 80 n. ; waterc. 9 n.; '86; em. dom. 4 n. ; inj. 40 n. ; munc. corp. 51 n. 54. v. Clews, 14 Abb. N. G. 465. Another decision in 33 Hun, 501. v. Cooper, '86; chat. mort. 4 n. v. Countryman, '84; landl. 4t. 5 n.; '86; deceit, 5. v. Cross, '84; usury, 1; '85; usury, 1. v. Crouse, '86; justices' ct. 7 n. v. Cutler, '85; t. ±. co. 63 n. v. Davis. '83; exec. 14; '84; attach. 18, 20. Vi Devlin, '85; lease, 7 n. v. Dinsmore, '84; carriers, 3; '85; carriers, 12, 16. ■u.Douglass, '85; master 4 s. 2n. v. Duffy, 1 How. Pr. N. S. 340. Further decision in 37 Han, 506; s. c, 8 Civ. Pro. li. 191. v. Dunning, '85; husb. 4 w. 27 n. u.Edwards. 88 N. Y. 92; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 434; affg23 Hun, 2.3; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 309. '83; real prop, 8; trusts, 45; '84; susp. of power of a. 3 n. ; '86; wills, 78 n. v. Felton, '83; legatees, etc. 1 ; set-off, 1 ; ' 85 ; ex 4 ad. 121 n.; set-off, 1; '86; legatees, etc. 3 n. ; set-off, v. Frankfield, '86; new tr. 21 n. v. Frost, '86; exec. 15. v. Gardner, '83; dower, 2; '85;forec. 14 n. v. Genet, '86; contracts, 70. v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co.. '86;ref. 18. v. Goertner, '84; parent 4 c. 2. , 211; '83; 10 -»■ U: Greenin, '85; pi. 36. - v. Hall, '83; justices' ct. 23;'85; replevin, 4. - v. Hathorn, 88 K Y. rev'g 25 Hun, 159; usury, 16. - v. Holland, '85; ev. 83. - v. Howard, '85; assign, for b. of c. 38. - v. Ives, '84; guaranty, n. - v. Jackson, '85; dower, 2 n. - v Jones, '83; cause of action, 4; contracts, 34; for- mer adj. 4 n. - v. Kearney, '83; ex. 4 ad. 148, 148 n. 172, 188 n.; '86; trusts, 15 n. - v. Keeler, '85; costs, 8 n. - v. Kerr, '86; partn. 9 n. - v. Kidd, '83; paym. In.; '85; paym. 5; '86; principal 4 a. 6. ' -v. Knapp, '83;sher. 17; '84;. exec. 20; sher. 3 n. ; '86; undert. 15 n. -v. Lansing, '84; trusts, 26 n. - v. Lawrence, '83; ex. 4 ad. 134, 141, 156; parties, 24 n. ; '85; costs, 56. - v. Levinus, '85; adv. poss. 2. - v. Lewis, '83; ev. 305. - v. Lockwood, '85; pi. 110 n. -i). Long, 12 Abb. N. 0. 113; s. c, 3 Giv. Pro. K 396, and 15 Weekly D. 321; rev'g 9 Daly, 429. '85; bankr. 1. -v. Long Island R. R. Co., 32 Hun, 38. Rev'd in 102 N.Y. 190. -v. Longmire, '83; attach. 51;cred. s. 4; '85; attach. 42. - v. Lorillard, '83; eject- ment, 7; '85; ev. 28 n. - v. Lowry, '83; former adj. 3. - v. Luce, '83; exec. 14. -v. Lusher, '83; parties, 24 n. - v. Lynes, '83; sales, 17; '86; ev. 80; paym. 2 n. - v. McClusky, '83; assign. 18; '86; em. dom. 9 n. - v. McDonald, '85; wit. 2 n. - v. McGowan, '83; ev. 57 n; '84; ev. 247 n. -v. Mackin, '85; mistake, 3 n. -v. McNamara, '86; ev. 138. -v, Mahon, '84; service & p. 15. - v. Marvin, '83 ; ev. 56. - v. May, '83; justices' ct. 19. - v. Mayor, etc. of N. T., '83; deeds, 2, 22, 23 n.; inj. 19 ; offl'r, 18 ; tax. 35 ; '85 ; tax. 31; '86; const, law, 11; money paid, 4 ; munc. corp. 47 n. 6G ; tax. 18, 21. han, 28 fl"«n,423; s. c , 16 Weekly D. 3.i. Fur- ther decision in 43 Hiu, 401. '84; wit. 13. - v. Miller, '83; ev. l;lim. of a. 44; '85; exec. 10; paym>. 6 n. ; '86; paym. 1 n. - v. Murray, '8G;, ex. 4 ad. 126. - v. Nelson, '83; bankruptcy, 15; '84; judgm. 4 decree, 15;'86;judgm. 10 n. 13. - v. N.X Central E. K. Co., '84; carriers, 4 n. ; ev. 1, 7 n. ; '85; sales, 1 n. ; '86; con- flict of 1. 2 ; negl. 100 ; sales, 7 n. - v Niver, '85 ; lease, 7 n. ; '86; contracts, 97 n. - v. Orser, '84 ; exec. 6. - v. Patten, '83; costs, 114; '84; ev. 185; ex. 4 ad. 70. - v. People, '83; larceny, 2; mfg. co. 21; statutes. 8, 1 >; '8); statutes, 15; '85; lar- ceny, 4 u. ; statutes, 9; '&6; receivers, 9. - v. Pettee, '86; parties, 4 n. - v. Piatt, '85; appeal, 111; '86; appeal, 96. - v. Poillon, 87 JV. Y. 590; s. c, 41 Am: li. 4o2; and 14 Weekly D. 138; aft'g 23 Hun, 628. '84; waiver, 2. -v. Post, '85; assign. 6a; ev. 221 n. ; wills, 66 n. - v. Proctor, '86; amend. 1 n. -v. Randall, '86; tax. 61. - v. Rathbun, 88 A". Y. 66"; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 318. Further decision in 15 Iii. 403. '83; amend. 32; '85; pi. 130; '86; amend. 6 n.; appeal, 1, 17, 40. - v. Remington, '85; ex. 4 ad. 128 n.; '86; lim. of a. 21. - v. Reynolds, '83; civil damage act, 2 ; '85 ; ev. 258. - v. Roberts, 91 N. Y. 470; s. c, 16 Weekly V. 481; aff'g in effect, 62 How. Pr. 196. - v. Robertson, 89 JV. r.«55; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 277; aif g 24 Hun, 210; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 530. '84; descent, 1; '85; eject. 2 n. - v. Robinson, '86; ex. & ad. 1. - v. Rockwell, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 25. - v. Rosenthall, '83;verif. 5; '86; verif. 2. - v. Rowley, '85; duress. 2. - v. Ryan, '83; lim. of a. 41, 44, 47, 48; '85; lim. of a. 50. - v. Saratoga Co. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., '86; ins. 30 n. Smith SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Spear 1£5 v. Seholtz, '83; wills, 25 n.;'86; wills, 78 n. v. Schulting, '84; pi. 19. v. Sergeut, '84; ev. 55; '85; trials, 44. v. Shaw, '86; court-martial, 1, 2n. v. Sixbury, '83; tradem. 1 n. v. Slade, '83; exec. 30; '84; sup. pro. 21. v. Smith, 35 Hun, 378. Affd it seems, but without opin- ion, in 99 K T. 639. '83; dis- charge, 2; ev. 222; trials, 93; wills, 57; '84; former adj. 30 n. ; '85; costs, 65; former adj. 3, 30 n. 40 n. ; mal. pros. 2 n. ; slander, 7; '66; divorce, 2 n. ; former adj. 35; partition, 7 n. ; pi. 28 n. v. Smith Moquette Loom Co., 20 Weekly D. 342.. Ap- peal dismissed, it seems, but without opinion, in 9a A'. Y. 679. v. Sonnekalb, '85 ; lease, 7 n. v. Soper, '85 ; devise, 6. v. Spalding, '83 ; motions & o. 10; '80; motions t o. 1, 7. v. Starr. Disting'd as to guaranties, in 4U ilun, 251. '85; appeal, 02. v. Stickney, '8G; wit. 47 n. v. Thompson, '.84; r. r. co. 29 n. v. Tiffany. '83 ; receivers, 2. v. Tim, 14 Abb. N. C. 447; s. c, sub nom. Kmitli v. Boyd, 10 Dull/, 149; and Smith v. Boyle, 67 How. 1'r. 351 ; rev'g in effect Tim v. Smith, 13 Abb. A r . t'. 31; but the former rev'd as Smith v. Boyd, 101 A 7 ". Y. 473. '84; as- sign, for b. of c. 97 n. ; '85; attach. 15 n. ;'86;affid. 4. ■ v. Townsend, '85; principal 4 S. 1. v. Tracy, '86; principal & a. On. v. Truslow, '86; mort. 15. v. Tucker, '84; ev. 27 n. v. Van Kuren, '84; ex. & ad. 25. v. Van Ostrand, '83; wills, 161; '84; legacies, 13; ten. f or 1. 2 ; wills, 100 ; '85 ; wills, 98, 114; '86; costs, 83; de- vise, 2 n. ; ex & ad. 63 ; leg- acies, 11 n. ; wills, 51 n. 52, 65, 74. v. Velie, '83; int. 2; lim. of a. 46; '85; lim. of a. 29; '86; int. 7n. v. Wait, '83; wills, 53 n. v. Ware, '83; guaranty, 5 n.; '84; contracts, 16 n. v. Wilcox, '85; Sunday, 1; '86; contracts, 64. v. Wright, '84; contracts, 27n.;'85; offi'r, 21. < v. Zalinski, 26 iZ«n, 225; s. o., 13 Weekly 1). 566. Aff'd in 94 N. Y. 519. '84; ev. 125; '85; parties, 50. Smyles v. Hastings, '84; ease- ments, 6 n. Smyth, Matter of, '84; ex. & ad. 140; tax. 1 n.; '85; ins. 81 n. ;'86; tax. 60 n. Smyth v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., '86; estoppel, 12. v. Lombardo, '86; estop- pel, 12. v. Monroe, '86; estoppel, 12. v. Eowe, 33 Hun, 422. Affd it seems, on this opin- ion, in 98 N. Y. 665; s.c, more fully, 21 Weekly D. 368. Snape v. Gilbert, '86; justices' ct. 5. Snebley v. Conner, '83; appeal, 168. Snedeker v. Warring, '85; ques- tions of 1. & f. 3 n. Snelling v. Mclntyre, '84; mort. 16; '85; subr. 2 n.; '86; mort. 7 n. Snook v. Fries, '85; sales, 25 n. v. Lord, '84; ev. 110. Snow v. Boy, 22 Wend. 602. Followed (Damages in re- plevin) in McBrian v. Mor- rison, 55 AJich. 351; s. c, 19 llepmier, 84. v Snowdon t;. Guion, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 137. Eev'dinlOl A. Y. 458. Snyder, Matter of, 34 Hun, 302. Appeal dismissed in 4 Ceidr. Rep. 210; si c, 2 N Y. Slate Hep. 758. '86; contempt, 3; ex. & ad. 85. Snyder v. Canal Kailroad Co., '84; canals, 4 n. v. Collins, '83 ; costs, 38. v. Hughes, '86; justices' ct. 13. v. Sherman, 88 A 7 ". Y. 656; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 299; affg 23 Hun, 139; s. c, 11 Weekli/ D. 158. '83; wills, ls2; '85; wit. 11. v. Snyder, 96 N. Y. 88; s. c, 5C:v. Pro. B. 267; rev'g 4 Id. 370; s.c, 30 Him, 1815. Previous proceedings in 26 Id. 324; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 123; and in Id. 30. '86; ap- peal, 87. v. Van Ingen, '83; con- tempt, 36. r. Warren, '84; exec. 12. v. White, '84; pi. «6. Society of N. Y. Hospital v. Coe, '85; costs, 18. Solingeru, Earle, '84; contracts, 60. v. Patrick, '83; district ct. 9. Solomon v. Manhattan B. B. Co., 95 A 7 . Y. 642; dismiss- ing appeal from 31 Hun, 5 ; s. c, 13 Abb. A. V, 200. v. Solomon, '86; alimony, 1. v. Waos, '83; arrest, 20. Somerville v. Crook, '83; ref. 46; wit. 42; '84; trials, 26; '86; contracts. 104; wit. 22. Sonneborn v. Lavarello, '83; arbitration, 2. v. Libbey, 102 N. Y. 539; rev'g 12 Djdji, 509; s. c, N. Y. Daily Keg., Aug. 4, 1884. Southard v. Benner, '83 ; as- sign, for b. of c. 7, 52; chat. mort. 13, 18a, 21, 22; cred. s. 2, 10; forec. 7, 15; fraud. conv. 10; '84; chat. mort. 11 n.; pi. 121; '85; chat. mort. 3 ; cred. s. 5 n. ; partn. 17 n. ; receivers, 14; '86; cred. s. 11; ev. 26"«; fraud. conv. 6; parties, 18; surr.ct. 8n. v. Bexford, '85; ev. 314; wit. 2n.;'86; wit. 56. v. Walsh, '84; paym. 2. Southern Boulevard, Matter of, '85 ; assocns. 3. Southern Cent. B. B. Co. v. Town of Moravia, '84; int. 7n. Southern Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Packer, '83; attach. 50 n. Southern Inland Navigation, &c. Co. v. Sherwin, '84;ar- rest, 12. Southgate v. Montgomery, '85; former adj. 40. Soutiiwick v. First Nat. Bank of Memphis, 'b3; counties, 2; pi. 2; moneypaid, 5; '84; appeal, 83; demand, 1; '85; money paid, 3 n.; pi. 46; '86; amend. 2 n. ». Hayden, '86; trials, 43. v. Sax, '86; paym. 1 n. v. Stevens, '86; ev. 37 n. Southworth v. Bennett, '86; wit. 60 n. Souverbye v. Arden, '83; ev. 139 n.; '85; deeds, z, 7 n. Soverhill v. Suydaui, 'S3; ex. 4 ad. 78 n. ; '84; ex. & ad. 31 ; '85; ex. 4 ad. 57; '86; ex. & ad. 84 n. Spader v. Davis, '85; cred. s. 15. Spalding v. Bosa, '84; contracts, 41; '85; contracts, 98 n. v. Vandercooji, '86; paym. into ct. 1. Sparks v. Andrews, '84; impris. 4. v. Bassett, '86; dam. 37. Sparman v. Keim, '84; in- fants, 5. Sparrowhawk v. Sparrowhawk, '83; divorce, 3 n. Spaulding v. Gibbons, '85; wills, 22 n. Spear v. Crawford, '83; corp. 42; mfg. co. 9. v. Downing, '85; pi. 3. 136 Spear SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Starr Spent— continued ■ -v Tinkham, '85; wills, 98; '86; ex. 4 ad. 94 n. 127. • v. Wardell, '85; fraud. conv. 7; '86; ev. 48a n. Spears v. Mathews, '83; inj. 63. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. '83; compensation, 17 n. ; mand. 3; muno. eorp. 126; trials, 19; '85; interpl. 2; super, city ot. 1. Speokels v. Sax, '86; contracts, 2n. Speer v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., '86; ins. 61, Spelman c. Terry, '85; legacies, 33. Spenco v. Chambers, '88; ap- peal, 25. Spencer v. Ayrault, '85; merger, 1. h. Barber, '84; set r off, 7 n. u. Barnett, '86; inech. 1. 5 n. v. Blackman, '85; sales, 30. v. Carr, '83 ; deeds, 3 n. ; '86; infants, 3. v. Clarke, N. Y. Daily Beg., April 8, 1886. Aff'd in -i'i Weekly D. 490. '86; corp. 26. ' - — v. Cuyler, '83 ; exec. 46. v. Halstead, '83; contracts, 75. v. MeGowen, '86; const. law, 17. v. Fopham, '84; ex. & ad. 94. v. Wait, 2 Htu>. Pr. N. S. 117. Aff'd in 9 Civ. Pro. B. 93. Sperling v Levy, '85; sup. pro. Sperry v. Gardner, '93 N. Y. 661;aft'gl4 Weekly D. 47. v. Major, '84 j district ct. 1. - — v. Miller, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 12. v. Eeynolds, '86; justices' ct. 4 n. Speyors v. Lambert, '83; guar- anty, 17, 17 n. ; '85; con- tracts, 82. Spicer v. Ayers, '83; forec. 7. v. Spicer, '83; ev. 336; ser- vices, 4 n. Spickerman v. Clark, '85; ev. 55. Spies v. Gilmore, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. v. Joel, '85 ; attach. 15 n. Spillane v. Duryea, '83; lega- cies, 22; wills, 147. Spooner v. Brooklyn City B. B. Co., '85; questions of 1. & f. 7. v. Keeler, '85; abate. 4 r. 14 n. Sprague v. Birdsall,j85; const, law, 58d n. ; parties, 48. v. Butterworth, '86; depo- sitions, 17.. v. Holland Purchase Ins. Co,, '8i;*ins. 6. v. Hosmer, '84; ev. 27 n. v. Irwin, '86; summons, 5. v. Parsons, 12 Daly, 392; s. c, 14 Abb. N. G. '320; and 6 Civ. Pro. B. 26. Subse- quent decision in 11 Id. 17. Spraights v. Hawley, '83; action, 1; '86; banking, 16; •con- version, 1, 7. Sprakerv. Cook, '85; sum. pro. 7. • Spring v. Ansonia Clock Co., '85; master & s. 2 n. . — — v. Day. '83; costs, 38; '86; costs, 27. v. Sandford, '86; v. 4 p. 15. v. Short, 90 JV. T. F>38; s. c, 16 Weekhi D. 143; affg 12 Weekly D. 360. '83; as- sign, for b. of c. 52; cred. 8, 2; '84; cred. s. 9; pi. 121; '85; cred. s. 3 n. 5 n. ; exec 12; '86; cred. b. 11. Springer v. Dwyer, '83; pi. 191. Springstead v. Lawson, '84; joinder of a. 4; 83; join- der of a. 7. Springsteen v. Powers, '86; judgm. 15 n. v. Samson, '83; guaranty, 1. Sprong v. Boston & Albany B. B. Co., '84; negl. 38. Squires v. Seward, '85; costs, 8n. v Staab v. Shupe, '86; undert. 10, 15 n. Staats v. Garrett, 21 Weekly D. 33. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 98 JH. Y. C30. Stackpole v. Bobbins, '86; Km. of a. 5. Stackus u. N. X. Central, &c. B. It. Co., '83; ev. 351; negl. 58, 68, 81; questions of 1. & f. 13; '84; master & s. 28; negl. 3 i, 34, 58; questions of 1. & f . 5 n. 8; 'da; negl. 90, 106. Stacy, Matter of, '83; hab. corp. 12 n. Stacy v. Deshaw, '86; debtor 4 cred. 12. v. Graham, '83; bonds, 7; lim. of a. 9 n: ; '84; sales, 21;'85;lim. of a. 34. Stafford v. Bacon, '86; con- tracts, 9 n. v. Ingers.ol, '83; munc. corp. 66; towns, 8. v. Mayor, etc., of Albany. '83; munc. corp. lvJ9 n. - v. Bichardson, '83; lim. of a. 2, 20. v. Boof, '83; infants, 2. Stage Horse Cases, '83; inj. 22 n. Stagg v, Beekman, '83; ex. 4 ad. 188 n. u. Jaclison, '83; accumula- tions, 5 n.; ex. & ad. 29, , 171, 172; surr. ct. 19; wills, 176, 178,178 n.; '85; ex. & ad, 36; '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. 109; legacies, 17 n. Staiger v. Schultz, '83; dis- cont. 1; '84; discont. 5. Stalker v. MoDonald, '83; pledge, 3 n. StaE v. CatskillBank, '86; bills, n. 4 o. 20;witn. 37. v. Wilbur, '84; ten. in cam. 2; '85; conversion, 7; ten. in com. 6. Stanard v. Eldridge, '86; dam, 6n. Standard Oil Co. v. -Amazon Ins. Co , '83; city ct. of N. Y. 5. '85; appeal, 30; city ct. of N. Y., 2; '86; appeal, 101. v. Triumph Ins. Co., '85; ins. 6n.;27n.;'86;ins. 23; principal 4 a. 2. Stanriard v. Eytinge, '83; arrest', 7 n. v. Mattice, '85; debtor & cred. 2 n. Stanton v. Allen, '83; contracts, 54 n. v. Camp, '85; indict. 12 n. u.Ellis, '83; bankruptcy, 14. v. King, '84; ex. 4 ad. 39; '85; atty. 4 c. 5 n. v. Miller, '85; cv. 83; new tr. 25. v. Pritchard, '85; costs, 8 n. v. Wether wax, '8.3; appeal, 41; insane per. 1; wills, 5. Stape 13. People, '83; ev. 250 n. Stapenhorst v. Wolff, '85; appeal, 133. Staples v. Anderson, '84; landl. 4 t. 5 n. 8. v. Pairchild, '84; service 4 p. 14 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 117 n. ; service & p. 7; ship- ping, 4. v. Gould, '83 ; contracts, 68; '84; money paid, 10. Starbird v. Barrens, '86; con- tracts, 29. Starbuck v. Murray, '83; ev. 28; '85; juris. 2 n. Starin v. Kelly, 88 N. Y., 418; s. a, 14 Weekly D. 283, and 14 Beporter, 26 and 118; affg 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 288; '83; fraud, conv. 9; '84; ev. 37; '85; trespass, 3; '86; fraud, conv. 8 n. 9, 18, 19. — - v. Town of Genoa, '83; const, law, 22; ev. 9>; munc. corp. 17a n. ; '85; munc. corp. 117. Staring v. Bowen, '85; ev. 179. Stark v. Lansing, '85 ; ev. 256. Starks v. Bates, '84; place of tr. 5n. v. People, '83; wit. 72, 73; '86; trials, 80 n. Starr v Cragin, '83; wit. 73.- v. Ellis, '83; raergar, 2. Starr SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Stewart 137 * — v. Francis, '83; stay cf pro. 6. Startwell v. Field, '83; appeal, 67. Staten Island Rapid Transit B. B. Co., Matter of, '86; r. r. eo. 19. State of Michigan v. Phcs^ix Bank, '83; canals, 3. State Reservation at Niagara, Matter of, 37 Uun, 537 ; s. c. , 16 Abb. A'. 0. 305; confirm- ing Id. 159. Staunton v. Parker, '83; wit. 22, 25. Stearns v. Field, '85; ev. 58. v. Gage, '83 ; fraud, con v. 3 n. ; '86; fraud, conv. 20 n. . v. Marsh, '83; counterc. 7; '86; pledge, 2 n. Stebbins v. Brown, '83; ref. 35, 36, 37; '85; ref. 16. v. Cowles, '85; appeal, 112, 11J. Stedeker v. Bernard, 102 N. Y. 327; s. c, 9 Cm. Pio. U. 374; aff'g 12 Duly, 212; s. c, 17 Weekly D. 540. Pre- vious proceeding in 93 A'. Y. 58&; also in 4 Month. L. JSul. 31 ; s. c. , as Stedeker v. Taft, iV. Y. Drily Jieq. Sept. 16, 1882; and the lat- terrev'd in 10 Daly, 466. '84; pi. 55 n. ; '80; stipulation, • v. Taft. See The Same v. Bernard. Stedman v. Davis, 93 N. Y. 32; rev'g 11 Wetkty D. 86. ■ v. Feidler, '86; contracts 104. Steele v, Benham, '83; chat. mort. 10; '85; lease, 8 n. ; partn. 17 n. v. Lord, '83; ev. 102. - — v. Macdonald, '85 ; justices' ct. 2. v. Smith, '85; animals, 5. v. Ward, '85; wit. 15, 18; '86; wit. 18, 37 n. Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 N. Y. 315: s. c, 15 Weekly D. 41; aff'g 12 Id. 3. '85; ins. 30 n. ; stipula- tion, 2 n.; '86; ins. 22. Steere v. Steere, '83; contracts, 81; '85; trusts, 14. Steers u. City of Brooklyn, 4 Northeast. Hep. 7; s. o , 3 East. Rep. 439; affg mem. 29 Hun, -278. v. Liverpool, K. Y. & P. S. S. Co., '»4;ev. 6jg. ;'8o; car- riers, 14. Stefian v. Lockwood. See Stef- fan v. Steffan. Steffin v. Steffin, 4 OJv. Pro. It. 179, 18 u ; s. c, as Steffin v. Lockwood, 17 Weekly D. 418. Stein v. Wilzinski, '83; wills, 39 n. 109 n. Sieinbaeh v. Lafayette Fire Ins. Co., n. '85; cv. 93; '86; ins. 56 v. Belief Fire Ins. Co., '84; former adj. 20 n. Steinberg v. Lasker, '85; cause of a. 1 n. v. Manhattan Railway Co. , '85; costs, 1. Steinert, Matter of, '83; atty. 4 c. 3b; contempt, 38; '86; contempt, 4. Steinle v. Bell, '83; service 4 p. 28; '84; services p. 14 n. ; 'b6; notice, 3. Steinwegu. Erie Ry. B. Co., '84; carriers, 4. Stent v. Continental Nat Bank, '84; pi. 43, 44,105; '86; pL 52 n. Stenton v. Jerome, '83 ; brokers, 7 n. ; '84 ; brokers, 7 n. ; '85 ; account stated, 2; '86; ac- count stated, 1. Stephens v. Board of Education, '83; counties, 2; 'e5: bank- in.;, 13; money pi. id, 3 n. \i n. ; '88; trusts, 31. u. Buffalo &. N. Y. City B. B. Co, '83; deeds, 3 n. v. Ely, '84; discharge, 6 n. v. Fox, '84; corp. S7; '85; lim. of a. 33; mfg. co. 25. — — v. Reynolds, 'do ; contracts, 71 n. v. Santee, '85; sales, 1 n. 7n. ; '86; sales, 31. Stephenson c. Clark, '83 ; costs, 109. v. Hanson, '85; sec. for costs, 5. v. Ontario Orphan Asylum, 27 Man, 3I-.C; s c, 15 Weekly D. 215. Aff'd as Stephen- son u. dhoit, 9-i N. Y. 433. v. Short. See Stephenson v. Ontario Orphan Asylum. '84; wills, 23 n.; '85; wills, 9n.; '86; wills, 10 n. v. Stepnenson, '86; vcrif. 1 n. Sterling, Estate of. See Post- ley v. Cheyne. Stern v. Knapp, '86 ; amend. 3a. Sternberger v. McGovern. Cited (Retaining action tu give legal relief) in Hencken o. 1). S. Life Ins. Co., 11 Daly, 29J. '83; action, 2 spec. perf. 1; '84; cane, o wr. instr. 3; cred. s. 10; '86 pi. 38; trials, 8. Sternbergh v. Schoolcraft, '84 insane per. 16. Sternhuus v. Schmidt, '84; un- dert. 6. Sterry v., Arden, '85; contracts, 79 n. ; '86 ; fraud, conv. 6 n. Stettheimer v. Kiilip, '83; negl. 56 n. ; '84; mist.ike, 2n. v. Meyer, '8J; bills, n. & c. 48. Steuben Co. Bank v. Alberger, '83; attach. 27, 28, 30, 31, 36,77, 79; '85; attach. 28 n. 33 n. 36 n. 59; '86; attach. 46. Stevens v. Benton, '8G; justices' ct. a. v. Brennan, '85; ev. 55; '86; pledge, 2 n. ; trials, 25. v. Commercial Ins. Co., '81; ins. 16. v. Hauser, '83; eject. 5; '84; champerty 4 m. 4. v. Hyde, '84; appeal, 20: '85; election of r. 8 n.; sales, 40 n. v. Lockwood, '83 ; cause of a. 4; contracts, 34; former adj. 4 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y, '83; mort. 8; '84; pi. 20. v. Middleton, 26 Hun, 470; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 126; affg 4 Munth. L. i.nl. 1. '84; attach. 37; '86; attach. 32. v. Rodger, '84; pi. 30 n. v. Stevens, '83; assign. 7; gift, 4 n.; '84; ex. 4 ad. as. v. Veriane, '83; ref. 31; '81; inj. 43; '86; appeal, 89; costs, 44 n. v. Watson, '83; mort. 1. v. Webb, 12 Daly, 88; s. c, 4 Cm. fro. li. 64. Case of same name aff'd, but with- out opinion, in 102 N. Y. 691. '86; bills of par. 4. Stevenson, Matter of, '83; par- ties, 25. Stevenson v. Beecker, '83; di- vorce, 3 n. v. Lesley, '83; remainders, 4; susp. of power of a. 9a; wills, 196 n. ; '84; legacies, 6, 21 ; susp. of power of a. 1; trusts, 27; wills, 117 n. ; '85; wills, 131; '86; trusts, 30 n.; wills, 78 n. v. Maxwell, '84; spec. perf. 14 n.;'86; tender, 1. Steves v. Oswego & S. R. R. Co., '83; ev. 352. Steward v. Green, '83; estoppel, 2. v. Hotchkiss, '86; pi. 88 n. u. Lamoreaux, '83; costs, 10. Stewart's Case, '85; hab. corp. 5. Stewart, Estate of. See Billings v. Stewart. Stewart v. Ahrenfeldt, '86; ac- count stated, 3. i\ Beale, '84; chat. mort. 10; cred. s. In. 7 n. v. Brooklyn & Cros-itown B. B. Co., '85; costs, lrf; false inpris. 7; master 4 s. 8; negl. 36, 50 n. — — v. Brown, '84; sup. pro. 21; '86; attach. 34; exec. 5 n. — — v. Chambers, '86; annui- ties, 1. 138 Stewart SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. Streat • Stewart — continued v. Crysler, 100 .A". Y. 378: o. C, 1 Gentr. Rep. 549; rev'g 21 Hun, 285. v. Eden, '86; lim. of a. 14 n. v. Hawley, '83; negl. 8; '84; false impris. 1; '85; false impris. (i n. v. Keteltas, '83; contracts, 100, 102. v Lispenard, '83; wills, 4; '86; wills, 8n. v. McCready, '83; board- ing-house keepers, 1. v. McMartin, '83; dower, 0. v. Marvel, N. Y. Daily Reg., Sept. 18, 1883. Bev'd in 101 K Y. 357. v. N. Y. Common Pleas, '83; district, ct. 13 v. Orvis, '83; bills* n. * c. 22 n.- '■ v. Smithson, '86; tradem. 2n. v. Turner, '84; const, law, 28; '86; wit. 56. Cliabeling v. Lockhaus, '83; bills of par. 7, 8. £tiof v. Hart, '83; exec. 21; '85; munc. corp. 45; '86; tax. 63. Stiles v. Burch, '83; ex. 4 ad. 77 n. 156. v. Hooker, '85; waterc. 12 n. v. Howland, '86; lien, 7 n. Still v. Little, '83; pi. 14. .Ktillman v. Van Beuren, 100 N. Y. 439; s. c , 3 Eva. liep. 190; 3 Northeast, liep. 671; aff'g49 Super. Ct. (J. & IS.) 86. Slillwell v. N. Y. Central, etc. B. B. Co., '83; negl. 77 n.; '85; negl. 83 n. v. Staples, '85; justices' ct. 2. Stilwell v. Carpenter, '83 ; ex. & ad. 142; set-off, 4; surr. ct. 22 n. 28 n. ; '84; judgm. & decree, 15; surr. ct. 17; '85; forec. 1; former adj. 10 n. ; money paid, 12 n. ; pi. 10; set-off, 9; '86; ex. & ad. .81; suit. ct. 11 n. l\ Hubbard, '86; deeds, 6 n. v. Mills, '83; ex. & ad. 105; '86; ex. & ad. 17n. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., '85; principal & a. 9; '86; corp. 34 n. ; ins. 28, 72. v. Swarthout, '83; insane per. 17, 18; '85; ex. & ad. 170. Stimson v. Wrigley, '85; partn. 17 n. Stinson v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., '84; negl. 16. Stitt v. Bowley, '8G; costs, 39. Sxockwell v. Veitch, '83; const. law, 58. Stoddard v. Clark, '85; costs, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9n.; '86; costs, 82 n. v. Denison, '83; chat. mort. 7 n.; '86; chat, mort 3. r. Gailor, 90 N. Y. 575; s. c, 10 Weekly. D. 4U; modi- fying 12 Weekly D. 244. v. ilart, '83; mort. 44; '86; forec. 2. v. Onondaga Annual Con- ference, '83; ev. 271; '84; pi. 38 n. v. Whiting, '83; forec. 9; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. Stokes, Estate of. See Stokes v. Dale; Dale v. Stokes. Stokes, Matter of, 28 Hun, 564; aff'gUale v. Stokes, 5 lied/. 586. v. Dais, 1 Dem. 260; s c, as Estate of Stokes, 3 Ctv. l'ro. H. 384. '85; ex. & ad. 91; surr. ct. 28. v. Johnson, '86; trials, 39. v. People, '83; grand jury, 1; wit. 114; '85; ev. 145, 232; trials, 61; '86; homi- cide, n. ; new tr. 36; trials, 128, 135. v. Stickney, 5 Month. L. Bid. 55. sseems to have been aff'J by Gen. Term, but no opinion reported, and the latter aff'd in 96 In. Y. 323. Decision in Id. followed (Nature of liabil- ities of trustees of corpora- tion for its debts) in Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. ij. 452, 457; s. c, 19 Eeporter, 420. '«5; abate, u r. 2, 5; mfg. co. 17 n. ; '66; abate, n. Sn.' Stoll v. King, '86; arrest, 7. v. Browning, '83; con- tracts, 74; '85; contracts, 82 n. ; sales, 7 n. 35; '86; sales, 30 n. — — v. Cooper„ '85; pi. 134. o. De Puga, '84; pi. 151; '86^1. 159. v. i'rost, '85; parties, 8. v. Morgan, '83; appeal, 135. v. Seymour, '84; app. of paym. 1. v. Sprague, '83; sales, 1; '86; ev. 8ja. v. Wood, '83; principal 4 a. 15; '84; principal & a. 1 L n. Storey v. Brennan, 83; trials, 76; '86; pi. 9 n. Storm v. Badger, '86; cred. s. 19 n. i. Davenport, '83; cred. ». 3 n. v. Waddell, '86; cred. s. 19 n. ; supp. pro. 7 n. Storring v. Borren, '83; ex. 4 ad. 214. Storrs v. Barber, '83; ev. 27 n. jj. Barker, '84; mistake, 3; '86; estoppel, 9 n. v. City of ptica, '83; highw. 21 n. ; munc. corp. 69 n. 76; '84; munc. corp. 64; '85; munc. corp. 52 n. Story v. Dayton, '85; surr. ct. 30 n. 32. ■ v. Furman, '83; ben. assoc. 6; mfg. co. 5 n.; 14, 24, 32; '85; mfg. co. 23 n. v. N. Y. Elevated B. B. Co., 11 Abb. N. C. 236; s. c. with dissenting opinion, 90 N. Y. 122; rev'g 3 Abb. JV. 0. 478. Opin- ion, of Danforth, J. , in 90 A r . Y. approved in 17 Am. L. Rrv. 709. '83; compensa- tion, 10; highw. 7; '84; const, law, 23, 55; dam. 34 n. 35; inj. 27; munc. corp. 1; '85; compensation, 16; deeds, 20; easements, 1, 4; highw. 2, 3 n. ; inj . 25, 27;r. r. co. 50 n. 51; '86; compensation, 3, 4 n. 8 n. ; covenants, 1 n. ; deeds, 16; easements, 6; em. dom. 2; highw. 1, 2 n. 5 n. 6; r. i. co. 27, 29 n. 30. v. Salamon, '86; pi. 9 n. v. Williamsburgh Mason- ic Mut. Ben. Assoc, 16 Weekly D. 473. Aff'd in 95 N. Y. 474. '85; ben. assoc. 2; '86; ins. 99. Stout v. Eyder, '83; trusts, 113. Stoutenberg v. Dunbar Box Co. , '86; master 4 s. 34. Stouvenel, Matter of, '86; ex. & ad. 16. Stouvenal v. Stephens, '85; ev. 13 n. Stover v. Eycleshimer, '86; guaranty, 2 n. v. Flack, '84; bail, 8 n. v. People, '83; indict. 12; '85; ev. 254 n. ; trials. 111. Stow v. Hamlin, '83; costs, 13; '86'; atty. & c. 11. v. Tifft, '85; ex. & ad. 97 n. Stowell v. Chamberlain, '83, former adj. 6; '85; former adj. 3; '86; former adj. 27. v. Haslett, '84; cred. s. 7 n. . u.Otis, '85; defenses, 5; pi. 122; '86; pi. 70. Straiten v. N. Y. & New Haven B. B. Co., '86; carriers, 15a. Strang v. N. Y. Bubber Co., '84; r. r. co. 32 v. Whitehead, '83; dam. 18 n. Stratford v. Jones, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & SA }85. Affd in 97 K Y. 586. '86; ins. 63 n.; trials, 26. Strau3 v. Schwarzwaelden, : 85; cause of a. In. Strauss v, Parker, '85; pi. 96. Streat v. Bothschild, 12 Da'y, Slreat SUPPLEMENTAKY TABLE. SutpJien 133 9.-; s. o., 12 -466. N. C. 383. In case of same name appeal was dismissed, but with- out opinion, in 101 if. Y. 635. '86; ref. 5. Strebe v. Albert, '84; assocns. 2; cty cfc. of N. Y. 1; 'Su; joint-stock co. 4. Streety v. Wood, '85; slander, 3 n. 6. Striker, Matter of, '85; lim. of a. 22. Striken). Kelly, '83; ev. 30; in- sane per. 14. v. Mo t, '83; wills, 215 n.; '8(5; justices' ct. 10 n. Stringfield v. Fields, '86; at- tach. 9. Stringham w. Stewart, 27 Sun, 562; s. c, 61 Horn. tr. f>; 15 Weekly D. 33H; and N. Y. Dally Reg., Sept. 29, 1883. Further decision in 100 A". Y. 516. Strobridge v. Strobridge, '83; contempt, 14; '84; con- tempt, 11 n. Stroher v. Elting. See Stroker v. Elting. Strohm v. N. Y., Lake Erie, etc. R. 11. Co., 96 A". Y. 305; rev'g 32 Hun, 20; '85; dam. 21 ; '86; ev. 52, 56 n. 62, 217. Strolin v. Epstein, See Strong v. The Same. Stroker ». Elting, 15 Weekly D. 203. Aff'd as Stroher v. The Same, 97 A". Y. 102. '8o; animals, 4 n. ; negl. 4 n. Strong v. Brooklyn Cross-town R. R. Co., '84; corp. 17. v. Campbell, '84; offi'r, 15. v. City of Brooklyn, 'bi; r. r. co. 20; '85; compensa- tion, 16; '86; dedication, 4; r. l. co. 29 n. v. Epstein, 14 Abb. K C. ! 322; s. c, as Strohn v. Ep- stein, 6 Civ. fro. It. 36. v. Urannis,'85; duress, 2 n. v. Jones, '84; costs, 6; '8o; costs, 43. v. National Mech. Bank'g Assoc, '83; pledge, 3 n. ; '86; conversion, 1. v. Sproul, '84; pi. 87; '85; mfg. co. 8, 15. v. Stewart, '86; ins. 55. v. Strickland, '83; assign. for b. of c. 22. v. Strong, 19 Weekly D. 491. Aff'd in 102 N. Y. 60. '83; alimony, 1; deposi- tions, 23; disc. & insp. 3; ref. 33; surr. ct. 22 n.; '84; ten. in com. 3; '86; surr. ct. SSI. v. Taylor, '83; sales, 11. Stroud u. Tilton,'85; ev. 186 n. Strusburgh v. Mayor, etc. of .N • Y., 87 A. Y. 452; rev'g 45 Super. Ct. (J. dbtf.) 508; '83; cloud on title 2; pi. 124; '84; money paid, 12; '85; mune. corp. 112; '86; munc. corp. 92. Struthers v. Pearce, '83; costs, 80 n. Stryker v. Cassidy, '83; mfg. co. 21. Stuart v. Foster, '85; lim. of a. 53. v. Palmer, '83; const, law. 41, f>5; money paid, 14 n. ; '84; const, law, 20; mon- ey paid, etc. 14 n. ; '85 ; const, law, 11 n.; forec. 24 n.; '86; const, law, 8 n. ; tax 2. Stubbsu. Ripley, 39 Man, 626. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opinion, in 102 A". Y. 734. i'. Stubbs, '83 ; ex. & ad. 217. '84; ex. & ad. 121. Stud wellu. Baxter, '86; costs, 25. v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., '83; pi. 137. v. Terrett, '83; deeds, 17. Stull v. Westfall, '83;inj. 39. Sturgesu. Allis, '83; exec. 57. v. Vanderbilt, '83; cred. s. 1;'85; corp. 27 n. ; lim. of a. 33. Sturgis v. Hendricks, '85; ev. 213. - v. Spofford, '83; costs, 38; '84; costs, 14; '85; appeal, 43; mfg. co. 17 n. Sturm u Atlan'ic Mut. Ins. Co., '83; depositions, 7. Sturtevant u. Orser, '85; sales, . 34. Stutzjr, Matter of. See Schultz v. Stutzer. Stuyvesant, Matter of, '85; trusts, 56; '86; trusts, 36 n. Stuyvesant v. Davis, '83; for- feiture, 2 n. ; lease, 17. v. Mayor, e Camp, '86; arrest, 7. v. Newton, 15 Abb. N. 0. 452; s. c.,2 How. Pr. N. K 56, and 7 Giv. Pro. R. 333. Rev'd in 22 Weekly D. 140. '85; costs, 51 n. v. N. Y. Central R. E. Co., '84; negl. 34. v. Eay, '85; appeal, 119; '86; newtr. 28 n. Suydam v. Barber, '84; joint - debtors, 1 n. 3 n.; '86; judgm. 18 n. v. Bartle, '83; parties, 29. v. Belknap, '85; impris. 2. --. — v. Jackson, 'S3; lease, 9. v. Jenkins, '83; replevin, 6n. v. Moore, '83; master 4 s. 16. Swaine v. Perine, '85; subr. 2 n. Swan, Matter of, 97 N. Y. 492; rev'g 33 Hun, 200. Another decision in 35 Id. 625. '85; munc. corp. 72. Swanu. People, '85; trials, 44. v. Saddlemire, '83; abuse of process, 1. — - v. State of N. T., 89 JV. Y. 52; s. c, 14 Weekly I). 548; rev'g 26 Hun, 508; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 176. Swart v. Boughton, '85; motions & o. 6. Sweatman, Matter of, '83; sen- tence, 2. Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Hun, 162. Cited (Examination of par- ty) in 37 Hun, 287. '83; de- positions, 18. Sweet v. Buffalo, N. Y. & Phil. R. It. Co., '84; statutes, 13. — — v. Chapman, '83; usury, 16. v. Chase, '83; legacies, 4 n.; '85; legacies, 5 n, ; wills, 126 n. ■ v. Ingerson, '84; joinder of a. 4; '85; joinder of a. 7. v. Low, '85; wit. 40. v. Tuttle, : 85; appearance, 2; pi. 35. v. Village of Gloversville, '84; munc. corp. 64. Swerarton, Matter of, 20 Weekly D. 378. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opin- ion, in 99 M I. 672. fur- ther decision in 40 Han, 41 ;s. c, 9 Civ. Pro. R. 402. '86; contempt, 13. Swett v. City of Troy, '86; inj. d. v. Colgate, '83; sales, 11a n.; '86, pi. 135. Swettenham v. Leary, '86; ev. 138; spec, pert 8 n. Swezey, Matter of, 64 Bow. Pr. 353; aff'g 62 Id. 215. '83; assign, for b. of c. 27; '85; assign, for b. of c. 27. Swezey v. Lott, '84; attach. 39; dam. 37. Swift v. City of Poughkeepsie, '83; villages, 5; '85; forec. 24 n.; '86; money paid, 11 n. ; tax. 58. v. Hart, '85; chat. mort. 6; '86; chat. mort. 4 n. v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., '83; ev. 175; '84; ev. 95 n. — ^- v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, '84; munc. corp. 36. Swinburne v. Stock well, '85; pi. 54 n.; '86; pi 52 n. Swinnerton v. Columbian Ins. Co., '83; ev. 4; '84; munc. corp. 36. Swords v. Edgar, '83; munc. corp. 91; negl. 37, 58; '84; negl. 2;); '85; landl. &■ t. 4; lease, 3n. ; '86; negl. 23 n. 78a. v. Owen, '83; partn. 12, 13. Sykes v. Delaware, Lackawan- na, &o. It. It. Co., '86; negl. 100. Sylvester v. Ralston, '83 ; parent & c. 8 n. ; '86; use k o. 1. Symonds v. Craw, '83; bills of par. 12. Symson v. Silheimer, '8G; con- fess, of judgm. 2. Syracuse, B. and N. Y. R. K. Co., Matter of, '83; r. r. co. 98 Syracuse. B. & N. Y. It. E. Co. v. Collins, '84; assign, for b. of c. 12; '85; assign, for b. of c. 11; costs, 42; '86; paym. 1 n. Syracuse Chilled Plow Co. v. Wing, '86; fraud, conv. 8 n. Syracuse City Bank v. Tollman, '83; receivers, 2; '81; re- ceivers, 7 n. Syracuse Savings Bank v. Town of Seneca Falls, '84; munc. corp. 102; 's5; statutes, 14 Tabor v. People, 90 N. Y. 248; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 320; aff'g 25 Hun, 638. v. Robin son, '86; covenants, 6. Taddiken v. Cantrell, '86; at- tach. 40 n. Taft v. Brewster,'84; principal k a. 11 n.; '86; ex. & ad. 56 n. v. Sergeant, '84; infants, 5. Taggart v. Murray, '83; lega- cies, 29a; wills, 215 n. 222; '84; wills, 78, 100; '85; stat- utes, 4; '86; devise, 2 n ; infants, 4 n. ; wills, 41, 51 n. 65. Taintor v. Hemmingway, '83; v. £ p 4 Tait v. Culbertson, '8.'); husb. & w. 3 n. Talcott v. Belding, '84; replev- in, 4n. v. Bronson, '83; atty. & e. 57 n. v. Harris, '85; ev. 122 n. v. Hess, '85; assign, forb. of c. 4,">, 45 n. ; attach. 1 6. v. Olcott Mfg. Co., '84; ser- vices, 4; '86; corp. 22 n. v. Rosenberg, '84; servies k p. 14 n. v. Van Vechten, '83; pi. 8. Tallmadge v. East Elver Bani, '85; inj. 13. v. Supervisors of Bensie - aer, '85; tax. 44. Tallman v. Hooy, '83; gift, 14 (addenda ; '85; trusis, 19. v. "White, '83; tax. 21; '83; deeds, 11; tax. 51. Talmadge v. E. * S R. E. Co., '83; contracts, 83. Talmage v. Huntting, '83; highw. 16 n. v. Pell. '83; mort. 7; par- ties, 58; '84; abate. & r. 8; bail, 8 n. ; '85 ; atty. k c. 5n. Talman %,. Smith, '83; chat. mort. 7 n. Tanner v. Marsh, '83; appeal, 129. ■ v. Parshall, '83; ev. 238. v. Trustees of Albion, '83; disorderly persons, 2. Tappan u. Gray, '83; inj. 17; '85; inj. 18; munc. corp. 6 n.; relig. corp. 7 n. v. Powers, '8j; ev. 13C; '86; ev. 141. v. Young, '84; munc. corp. 5. Tappen v. Crissey, '84; parties, 33. v. M. E. Church, 3 Dem. 187; s. c, as Estate of York, I How. Pr. JH. 8. 16'. '85; surr. ct. 9; '86; surr. ct. 7. Tarbel v. Bradley, '84; partn. II n. v. "West, '83; partn. 26 n.; '85; partn. 18 n. Tarbell v. Griggs, '83; cred. s. 1 n. ; mfg. co. 23. Tarrant v. Ware, '83; wills, 39 n. 109; '84; wills, 59 n. Taskeru. Wallace, '85; contracts, 64 n. Tate v. McCormick, '83; lease, 29. Taussig v. Hart, ' 84; dam. 8; trusts, 26 n.; sales, 2 ,; '85; attach. 3D; ev. 5; '36; con- version, 1. Taylor, Matter of, '83; wit. 115. Taylor SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Thistle 141 Taylor v. Baldwin, '8G; parti- tion, 5 n. • c. Bates, '83; lira, of a. '20. v. Betsford, '85; triads, 80. v. Bradley, '83; darn. 4; lease, 1; '84; ev. 54; '85; lease, 8 n. ; '86; dam. On.; ov. 60; ins. Gl. ■ v. Brodhead, '85; wills, 23 n. v. Bullen, '83; guaranty, 16. v. Carpenter, '83; tradem. In. v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 9 Ddy, 489; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 443, and N. Y. Daily Keg., Feb. 24, 1881; aff'gS^M. N V. 331; s. c, 59 How. Pr. 468. '83; ins. 33; '85; pi. 27 n. v. Church, '83; dam. 31; '85; abate. & r. 4 n. v. Delancey, '83 ; statutes, 18. '84; ex. & ad. 161 n.; statutes, 11. v. B-jdd, '83; wills, 147, 150. v. Gillies, '83; tradem. 12 n. v. Grant, '83; surr. ct. 35, 35 n. ' v. Guest, 58 A". Y. 262. Cit3d (Deceit ) in 36 Hun, 465. '86; deceit, 14. v. Hopper, '84; deeds, S; '88; v. & p. 7. ■ v. Mayor, &o. of N. T.,'83; lira, of a. 54; '85; pi. 142 n.; subr. 8 n ; '86; counterc. 7 n.; pi. 151 n. v. Metropolitan El. By. Co., 50 Super. Gl. {J. & S. • 311. Another decision in action by the same parties, in 52 Super. C(.(J. & S.) 299. '85; compensation, 16; dam. 42, 44 n. ; r. r. co. 50 n. ; '86; dam. 26 n. 40 n. ; casements, 6; r. r. co. 30. v. Morris, 'ti.i; powers, 10. v. North, '85; cause of ac- tion, 1 n. v. People, '84; indict. 11; '86; indict. 8. v. Porter, '84; contempt, 23; '85; const, law, 31 ; '86; const, lew, 9 n. u. Banney, '86; sup. pro. v. Bennie, '86; contracts, 9 n. v. Boot, '83; int. 9; judgm. 4 decree, 5; '84; int. 8 n. ; '85; attach. 5 n. v. Snyder, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. v. Tillotson. '84; sales, 3; '85; sales, 35. v. Troncoso, '86; attach. 40 n. v. Wendell, '86; legacies, 11 n. - — v. Wing, 84 N. Y. ill. Followed (Interest) in 33 Uuii.il. '84; int. 8 n. v. Wood, '86; wit. 56. Teacaout v. People, '83; ev. U0. Teall v. Barton, '85; ev. 54. v. City of Syracuse, '85; joinder of a. r, 7, Tebbetts v. Dowd, '86; ev. 13 n. Tebo i). Bobinson, 1 Centr. Rep. 6; s. c, 1 Etst. Rep. 750, and 8 G.v. Pro. R. 141; rev'g 29 Hun, 243. Teed v. Morton, '83; ex. 4 ad. 144; surr. ct. 18, 19; trusts, 45; '85; legacies, 20 n. ; '86; wills, 73 n. Teel v. Fonda, '85; pL 143. T6fft v. Munsen, '86; counterc. 1. Tell v. Beyer, '83; pi. 46; '85; trials, 17. Teller v. Bandall, '83; sup. pro. 29. Temple v. Sammis, 48 Super. CI. [J. & S.) 324. Aff'd in 97 A. Y. 526. Temple Grove Seminary v. Cramer, H8 A r . Y. 121; af- f'g 20 Hun, 309 ; s. c, ' 14 Weekly D. 123; which afl'd 10 Abb. A. V. 424. '85; trials, 105 n. ; wills, 3 n. Ten tiroeck v. Paige, '86; costs, lm v. fcloo, '84; sup. pro. 23. • TenEyek v. Bill, '86; wit. 19 n. v. Craig, '84; forecL 11; trusts, 25 n. v. Holmes, '85; principal 4 s. 2; '86; costs, 44 n. Tenney v. Berger, 93 A. Y. 524; afE'g 48 Super. Gt. (J. & S. ) 11. Terhune v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. , 88 N. Y. 247; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 106; aff'g 12 Id. 333. '83: munc. corp. 60, 70;* offi'r, 18; '86; quo warr into, 1. v. Terhune, '85; divorce, 8n. Terpenning v. Agricultural Ins. Co., '83; wit. 21 n. v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., '85; ev. 58. Terrett v. Brooklyn Impr. Co., 81 X. Y. y2; s. c, 13 Week- ly D. 385; rev'g in effect, 13 Hun, 6. Terrett v. Crombie, '86; debtor k cred. 6. . Terrill v. Pub. Administrator, '84; legacies, 4. Terry v. Flushing, N. S. & C. B. E. Co., '83; r. r. co. 3. v. Jewett, '84; negl. 29; '85; exceptions, 8 n.; negl. 18, 55 n. ; r. r. co. 4. v. N. Y. Central B. E.Co., '86; negl. 14; r. i'. co. 29 n. v. Boberts, '86; set-off, 6. v. Wait, '83; surr. ct. 35; '85; statutes, 17 n. v. Wheeler, '8.1; sales, 23; '84; sales, 23; '86; sales, 32. v. Wiggins, '83; wills, 161, 161 n. i-15 n.; '84; wills, 100; '85; deeds, 29 n. ; wills, 62, 87 n. 88; '86; devise, 2n. ; legacies, 11 n, ; wills, 49, 51 n. 61, 65. Terwilliger v. Brown, 83; ex. & ad. 77 n.; '85; trusts, 43. v. Wands, 'o5; pL 134; '86; slander, 2 n. Teyn, Matter of, '84; ex. 4 ad. 66. Thacher U.Bancroft, '83: attach. 79; '86; sup. pro. 7 n. Thacker v. Henderson, '85; guardian 4 w. 4. Thallhimer v. Brinkerhoff, '86; contracts, 68. Thatcher v. Candee, '86; tax. 3n. v. Trustees of Columbia College, '«3; inj. 15. Thaule v. Frost, '84; stay of pro. 3 n. i\ Krekeler, '84; mal. pros. 1; '86; false impris. 2. Thayer, Matter of, '85; amend. 20. Thayer v. Clark, '86; ex. 4 ad. 17 n. v. Holland, '83; costs, 25; '86; costs, 10. v. Lewis, '84; pi. 154 n. v. Manley,'83; conversion, 6; ex. & ad. 77 n. ; 'S6; dam. 6 n. ; liin. of a. 43 n. v. Marsh, '85; trials, 51; '86; subr. 3; trials, 38. r. Bock, '83; equity. 3 n. Theall v. City of Yonkers, '85; parties. 44. Therasson v. White, '85; parti- tion, 4. Theriot v. Prince, '83; costs, 10. Thieta v. Madden, '84; costs, 1. Third Ave. B. B. Co. v. Ebling, 1 Centr. Hep. 178; s. c, 2 Emit. Rep. 291; rev'g 10 Daly, 325. Subsequent ap- peal in 100 JV. Y. 98; rev'g 12 Daly, 99; s. c, 17 Weekly D. 306. '86; appeal, 31. v. Mayor, '83; inj. 6; '85; inj. 31; '86; inj. 13 n. Third National Bank v. Blake, '83 ; rec. deeds, 6 n. v. Comes, 20 We, ktu D. 33. Afif'd, it seems, in 2 A'. Y. Slate Rep. 543. Third Nat. Bank of Syracuse v. MeKinstry, '85; costs, 18; '86; costs, 25. Thirty-fourth Street B. B. Co., Matter of, 37 Hun, 442; s. c, •& IIolo. P,. A. S. 369. Bev d in 1 2 M. Y. 343. Thirty-»ecoud Street, Matter of, 'B3; munc. Corp. 124. Thistle v. Thistle, '86 ; servics & p. 7n. 142 Thomas SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Thurber Thomas v. Allen, '86; bonds. 5 n. ; dam. 2. v. Barton, '83; v. 4 p. 5 n. -, v. Beebe, '84; judgm. 4 decree, 15; '86; contracts, 2 ii. ; v. & p. 17 n. c. Bennett, '83< parent 4 c. 8; '84; parties, 26; '85; tax. 4; ten. in com. 3; '86; guardian 4 w. 7. v. Brackney, '85; munc. Corp. 72. v. Cameron, '84; ex. 4 ad. 35 n.. v. Chapman, '83; new tr. 28. * v. Clapp, '86; tax. 61. v. Desmond, '85; pi. 126. v. Dickinson, '83; con- tracts, 8.S; ev. 139n.; '84; v. 4 p. 10; 'b5; contraots, 79 n. v. Fish, '83 ; usury, 12. u. Fleuvy, '83; contracts, 83; '84; contracts, 27 n. 85 n. v. Hubbell, 'K3; assign. 12; '81; wit. 9; '85; undert. 15. v. Leland, '8o; compensa- tion. 1. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '85; negl. 66. v. Merchants' Bank, 'S3: mfg. co., 23. v. Murray, '83; usury. 7. v. Nelson, '84; '85; lease, 2 n. v. N. Y. Life Ins Ouper. Ct. (J. & Further decision in Id. 523. Subsequent appeal in 99 N. Y. 250; s.c, 8 &v. Pro. B. 1. v. Pardee, '86; legacies, 11 n. ; wills, 51 n. 52. v. People, false pre. 1; '86; indict. 11; trials, 107 n. v. lieab, '84; services, 8 v. Rumsey, '84; joint debtors, 4 n. ; '86; joint debtors, 4 n. v. Thomas, '85; appeal, 88. v. Thompson, '85; mort- gages, 18. v. Todd, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 22 n. ; '86; lien, 7 n. v. Utica- & Black River K. R. Co., 6 Civ. Pro. B. 353. Affirmed on this opinion, 34 Han, 626, and that affirmed without opinion, 98 N. Y. 649. '86; pi. 25; r. r. co. 9. — — v. Whallon, '83 ; ben. as- soc. 6. v. Williams, '85; conver- sion, 7 n. ; lease, 8 n. v. Winchester, '83; master 6 s. 18; negl. 54 n. ; '85; landl. it. 5 n. ; . negl. 14, 39 n. 84; '86; negl. 3m. Thomason v. Demotte, '83; pi. 183. Thompson, Matter of, '84; at- tach. 4; '8o; judgm. 4 decree, 7 n ; '86; attach. 7. Thompson v. Ashton, '83; ev. 391. 56; lease, 4; Co , 50 S.) 225. - v. Berry, '83; assign, for b. of c. 22. . - v. Blanchard, '83 ; undert. 2; '85; partn. 17 n. ; wit. Ui . - v. Bower, '84; costs, 15; '86; use 4 o. 1. - v. Brown, '83; ex. 4 ad. 64; '84; stay of pro. 3 n. ; '85; fraud, conv. 22; parties, 4 i; '86; ex. 4 ad. 121 n. - v. Buihans, '83 ; affid. 1 ; '84; adv. poss. 12; '85; ev. 28 n.; tax, 48, 49 n. ; tres- pass, 5; '86; adv. poss. 3. - v. Button, '85; exec. 9 n. - v. Carmichael, '85; ad- vancements, 2; devise, 7 n. - v. Clendening, '83; wills, 139. - v. Commissioners of Canal Fund, '83; husb. 4 w. 20 n. ; '85; husb. 4 w. 6 n.; inj. 18. - v. Conway, '85; wills, 66 n. - v. Davies, '83; contracts, 54; debtor 4 cred. 3; '85; contracts, 53 n. - v. Dickerson, '83; nons. 1 n. - u. Ebbetts, '83; munc. corp. 126. - v. Erie E. R. Co., '83; stay of pro. 4; '84; pi. 80 n. 8b; '85; depositions. 26; r. r. eo. 51; '86; appeal, 6n.; pi. 88 n. -v. Fargo. '83; sales, 24. - v. Hall, '83; guaranty, 15; '84; ev. 56. - v. Hickey, '83 ; cemeteries, 1 ; burial, 1 ; '8o ; cemeteries, 2. - v. Ketcham, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 18 n. ; ev. 139 n. ; '85; ev. 47. - v. Lockwood, '84; bonds, 3n. - v. Lumley, '83; nons. 1 n. ; '86; judgm. 25. - v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '85; ev. a7 n. -v. Menck, '83; trials, 62. - v. Mott, 5 Heclf. 574. Fur- ther decision in 2 Bern. 154. - v. St. Nicholas Bank, 38 Hun, 504. Appeal dismissed, it seems, but without opin- ion, in 102 JV. r. 733. '84; joinder of a. 4. - v. Schermerhorn, '83; munc. corp, 44; '84; munc. corp. 5; '85; munc. corp. 33. - v. Seastedt, '84; wills, 26 n. - v. Stevens, '83; wills, 37, 39n.;'84; wills, 26 n. - v. Taylor, '83; money paid, etc. 38; '84; ex. 4 ad. 86. - v. Van Vechten, '83; chat, mort. 20; '84; chat, mort. - 4; usury, 12 n. ; '85; partn. 17n.;'s6;exec. 9. - v. Whitmarsh, 100 K T. 35; s. c.,8Cu>. P10. H. 183; 1 Centr. Bep. 4; s. c, 1 East. Bep. 714; aff'g 16 Weekly V. 283. '83; costs, 83; '85; countercl. 13. v. Wood, '8'J; former adj. 24; '86; master 4 s. 4 n. Thomson v. Bank of British North America, 'b3; bank- ing, 12; lim. of a. 9 n. ; '8i; appeal, 82. ■ v. Thomson, 'S3; ex. 4 ad. 54; surr. ct. 22; '84; ex. 4 ad. 38; wills, 91; '86; ex. 4 ad. 49, 51 n. 53. v. Tracy, '84; prohibition, 2. Thorington r. Merrick, 101 A". Y. 5;s. c, ii jEas..Brp.2M; 3 Jsurtlieusl. Bep. 79*; afi'g mem. 35 Hun, Gtiti. Thorn, Matter of, '85; surr. ct. 21. Thoinu. Fellows, '86; sup. pro. ' 23. <• v. Knapp, '83; dam. 18 n. ; '84; slander, 3; '85; ev. 313. v. Moser, '85; cv. 19. v. Smith, '86; partn. 7 n. Thorne v. Turck, 94 A'. Y. 90: aff'g 10 Daly, 327. '8a; ev. 254 n. ; larceny,' 4 n. ; '86, homicide, 5 n. ; new tr. 13. Thornton v. Crowley, 89 K Yr 644; aff g it seems, 47 Super. Ct. (J. db S.) 527. '85; ref. 12 n. Thorp v. Burling, '83; conver- sion, 1. u. Fowler, '83; atty. « u. 30. ■ v. Keokuk Coal Co., '85; mort. 24 n. v. Boss, '86; trials, 43. v. Thorp, 90 N. Y. 602; s. c, 16 Werldy D. 82; rev'g 47 Baper. Ct. \j. & S.) 30; s. c, 11 Weekly I). 412. '83; marr. 5 n. ; '85; marr. 4. Thorpe v. N. Y. Central & Hud- son Kiver B. B. Co., '85; r. r. co. 1. Thrasher v. Bentley, '83; as- sign, for b. of c. 9. Throop v. Hatch, '83; pi. 198 n. 201. Throop Grain Cleaner Co. v. Smith, 34 Han, 91. Sub- sequent appeal in 3 How. Pr. A. & ;s90. Thurber v. Blanck, '83; assiga. for b. of c. 6; attach. 51, 08; cred. s 41; '84; attach. 33 n. 36, 33; cred. s. 8; interp. 3; '86; attach. 43 n.;' interp. 4n. v. Chambers, '83; wills, 162, 217; '85; legacies, 13; wills, 61. v. Harlem Bridge M. & F. R. R. Co., '83; negl. 85,86; questions of 1. 4 f 1 3; trials, 59; '84; negl. 33; '8.3; Thistle SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE. Tooker 143 negl. 2; questions of 1. 4 f. l;'86;negL 83, 106, 118. v. Townsend, '85; appeal, 23; '86; appeal, 96. Thurnian v. Cameron, '83;affid. 2; ev. 16. v. Van Brunt, '83; guar- anty, 1 1 n. Thurstu. West, '85; chattels, 4; receiver, 11. Thurston v. City of Elmira, '85;' munc. corp. 103 n. v. Cornell; '83; usury, 7. v. King, '85; ex. 4 ad. 69. Tibbets v. Blood, '83; assoc. 2; parties, 15; '85; assoc. 10; '86 ; joint-stock co 3. Tice v. Annin, '86; inj. 27. v. Zinsser, '83; lease, 13; v. £ p. 16. Tiedemann v. Ackerman, '85; cancel, of wr. instr. 4 n. Tiemeyer v. Turnquist, '83; husb. 4 w. 30,37, 38; '84; assign, for b. of c. 4; '85; husb. 4 w. 21; '86; husb. 4 w. 17. Tiernan v. Wilson, '86; judicial sale, 9 n. Tierney v. N. Y. Central, etc. K. E. Co., '83; carriers, 16. Tiers v. Tiers, 32 Hun, 184. Afi'din98 If. T. 568. '86; ■wills, 81. Tiffany v. Bowerman, '83; pL 67; '84; ev. 235 n.; '86; pi. 60. v. Driggs, '84; pi. 154 n. ; '85; justices' ct. 1 n. v. U. S. Illuminating Co., 51 Super. Cl.(J. & &)28Q; aff'g 67 How. Pr. 73. '85; highw. 3 n. v. Warren, '86; rec. deeds, In. Tifft v. Barton, '83; ev. 277. v. City of Buffalo, '84; const, law, 34 n. ; '85; const, law, 33; munc. corp, 121 n. v. Horton, *85; questions of 1. &f. 3 n. v. Porter, '83; legacies, 16; '86; legacies, 19. Tilby, Estate of. See Tilby v. Tilbv. Tilby v. Tilby, 2 Dem. 514. Fur- ther decision in 3 Dem. 258 ;s. c, as Estate of Tilby, 1 How. Pr. N. S. 452. Tilden, Matter of, 5 Civ. Pro. B. 449. See Tilden v. Dows. Subsequent decision in 6 Civ. Pro.R. 15; s.c, 67 How. Pr. 4A7; which was rev'd, as it seems, in 98^. Y. 434; s. c, with opinion below, 1 How. Pr K S. 4j9. '85; surr. ct. 32; '86; infants, 7; surr. ct. 20. v. Dows, 2 Dem. 489. Fur- ther decision in 3 Dem. 240. Tilley v. Hudson E. B. E. Co., '83; dam. 37;death, 2n.;ev. 295; '85; dam. 37 n. ; death, 4, 5 n.; '86; dam. 30 n. Tillman v. Davis, '86; ben. assoc. 3; definitions, 16. Tillotsont). Cheetham, '83; dam. 25; pi. 182 n.;'8B; judgm. 25. v. Preston, '83; paym. 6. v. Woolcott, '85; sup. pro. 26 n. 31; '86; bup. pro. 29. Tillou v. Clinton & Essex Mut. Ins. Co., '84; ev. 247 n. v. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co., '85; ins. 54 n. Tillspaugh v. Dick, '83 ; costs, 57. Tilson v. Terwilliger, '83; ev. 201, 206; '84; ex. 95 n.; '86; ev. 142; fraud, conv. 21 n. Tilton v. Alcott, '83; accord & sat. 1 n. v. Beecher, '83; bills of par. 3 n. 7, 8, 9; '84; bills of par. 12 n. 13; pi. 154 n.; '85; pi. 154 n.; '86; bills of par. 3. 12; pi. 28 n. Tim v. Smith, 93 K Y. 87; s. c, 13 Abb. K. C. 31, 46; 3 Civ. Pro. B. 4 1 6 ; and as Sine v. Smith, 65 H;w. Pr. 353; aff'g Id. 199; s. c, 3 Civ. Pi-o.B. 347. '84; attach. 11; '84; attach. 51; '85; motions & o. 5. u,Tim, '86; pi. 28 n. Timon v. Claffy, 'S3; wills, 95. Tindal v. Jones, sec. for costs, 2; surr. ct. 26. Tinker v. Geraghty, '85; mech. 1. 2. Tinkey v. Langdon, '84; sup. pro. 30. Tinkham v. Tapscott, '83 ; const. law, 8. Tinsley, Matter of, '86; con- tracts, 60. Tipton v. Feitner, 20 K Y. 423. Cited (Entirety) ' in 37 Hun, 612. '86; sales, 32. Titus v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., '83; ins. 11, 12;'84;ins 8. v. Great Western Turn- pike Eoad, '85; bills of lad- ing, 4 n. v. Eelyea, '84; service 4 p. 15. Tobey v. Barber, '83; guaranty, 12; paym. 4; '85; paym. 3 n. ; '86; paym. 2n. Tobias i>. Harland, '84; ev. 167 n. ; '8h ; libel, 3. i). Ketchum, '83: trusts, 23, 44; wills, 233, 24U, 241 n.; '84; dower, 5; wills, 91; 'b5; wills, 64 n. v. Lissberger, 20 Wtekly D. 39; s. c, with opinion in full, in N. Y. Daily Beg., Jan. 10, 1885. v. Eogers, '85; undert. 9. Todd v. City of Troy, '83; munc. corp. 90; negl. 21; nuis. 6; '84; trials, 64; '85; munc. corp. 57; '86; ev. 261; munc. ccrp. 42 n. ; negl. 9 '. ; towns, 4. v. Fire Department, '3i; fires & fire-esc. 1 n. v. Warner, '83; ev. 109 n. v. Weber, 95 N. Y. 181; aft'gl7 Weekly D. 72; '85; contracts, 71 n. ; parties, 19; '80; mort. 15. Tolan v. Care, 12 Daly, 520; k. c, A*. Y. DMii Beij. Sept. 13, 1881; and less fully, 1J Weekly D. 484. Toles v Adee, '83; bills, n. & <•. 23; principal & s. 23; 'I 5. bonds, 6; '86; bastardy, 1, undert. 2 n. 12. Toll v. Hiller, 'Si; costs, 21. v. Thomas, '83; costs, 100. Tolles v. Wood, '86; trusts, hi n. Tolley v. Greene, '85; judgm. « decree, 9. Tolman v. Syracuse, etc. B. E. Co., 31 Hiw^ 397. Subse quent decision in 91 N. Y. 353. Decision in 31 H«". rev'd in 98 2V". Y. 198. '84; appeal, 48, 89; questions oi 1. if. 6; '84; negl. 38; '85; appeal, 60, 104; '86; ev. 26i. Tomlinson v. Borst, '83; ev. 242; '85;ov. 186 n. v. People, '85; indict. 15. Tompkins v. Brown, '85; new promise, 4. v. Elliott, '85; contracts, 83. v. Fonda, '83; dower, 6; sup. pro. 21 ; '85; dower, 5 n. ; '86; cloud on title, 2; counterc. 2. v. Hodgson, '83; const. law, 35 n.; inj. 15. v. Hyatt, '86; appeal, 43 n. v. Lee, '85; appeal, 33. v. Moseman, 5 Bedf. 402. '83; ex. & ad. 50; '84; surr. ct. 30;'85; surr.ct.12; trusts, 54, 56; '86; trusts, 36 n. v. Smith, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 113; s. c, 64 How. Pr. 499; 2 Civ. Pro. B. (McGarty) 21; and 14 Week- ly D. 65; aff s 1 Civ. Pro. B. 398; s. c, 4 Month. L. Bui. 13. v. Snow, '86; ev. 4; lease, 29 n. Tonawanda E. E. Co. v. Mun- ger, '86; negl. 14. Tone v. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., '83; mune. corp. 42, 61, 70, 129 n. ; '86; munc. corp. Sin. Tonnele, Matter of, '83; ev. 57 n.;'85; wills, 22. Tonnele v. Hall, '83; contracts, 2; statutes, 3; -wills, 141, 143; '85; attach. 36 I..; tax. 28. Tooker v. Arnoux, '84; trials, 61; '85; pi. 12b; '86; billo, n. 4 c. 13. 1U Toohy SUPPLEMENTABY TABLE. Troup Tootey v. Bacon,'83; executions, 7; new tr. 12; trials, 123; '85; trials, 33,43; '86; ev. 81 n. ; trials, 25. v. Dibble, '85; deeds, 6 n. ; '86; deeds, 6n. Topping v. Lynch, '85; partn. 17 n. Torrey v. Bank of Orleans, '83; corp. 59 n. ; '84; trusts, 23; '85; covenants, 11 n. ; nuis. 1 n., '86; trusts, 23. v. Torrey, '83; deeds, 28 n. v. Twombley, '86; partn. 16 Torry v. Bowen, '84; wills, 27. Totten v, Phipps, '83; negl. 5; questions of 1. & f. 13; '84; negl. 40. v. Stuyvesant, '86; tenants in com. 6 n. Tousley v. Barry, '83; ev. 199. Tower v. Utica & Schenectady K. R. Co., '83; carriers, 1. v. "White, '84; mech. 1. 15 n. Towle v. Remsen, '84; deeds, J.3; patents for 1. 2 n. Town v. Needham, '86; parti- tion, 5 n. v. Stetson, '83; tradem. 5 n. Towner v. Church, '85; attach. 8. v. Tooley, '84; wills, 49. Town of Duanesburgh v. Jen- kins; '86; legislature, 1. Town of Essex v. N. Y. & Can- ada E. R. Co., '84; pi. 72. Town of Greene, Matter of, 38 Hour. 1'r. 515. Cited in 99 N. T. 333. Town of Guilford v. Cooley, '85; parties, 28. — — v. Supervisors of Chenan- go, '85; compensation, 1; equity, 2; tax. 3; '86; legis- lature, 1. Town of Lyons v. Chamberlain, 89 A T .r.578; s. c, 15 Weekly J). 344; aff'g 25 Hun, 49. '84; estoppel, 5, 19. v. Cole, '85; parties, 28. Town of Middletown v.Rondont & Oswego R. R. Co., '84; inj. 25 n. Town of Ontario v. Hill, 99 N. Y 324; aff'g 33 Hun, 250. '85;lim. of a. 42. Town of Pierrepont v. Love- less, '83; const, law, 2; negl. 8; '85; parties, 28 Town of Springport v. Teutonia Savings Bank, '83; munc. corp. 161 n. 176; '86; munc. corp. 117, 126 n. ; nuis. 1. Town of Thompson v. Norris, '86; inj. 21 n. Town of Venice v. Breed, '85 ; lim. of a. 43 n. ; munc. corp. Ul n. t. Woodruff, '83; ev. 95; inj. 6, 28; '84; cane, of wr. instr. 1 n.;'86;pl. 111. Town of Verona v. Peckham, '84; estoppel, 19. Town of Wayne v. Sherwood, '83; bonds, 1; munc. corp. 177. Town of Wellsborough v. N. T. & Canada R. R. Co., '84; munc. corp. 99 n. Towns v. Wilcox, '86; discont. 5n. Townsend, Matter of, '83; em. dom. 3; munc. corp. 104; '84; const, law, 20 n. ; '85; const, law, 11 n. Townsend v. Corning,'83; prin- cipal & a. 14. v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., '83; mort. 44. v. Goewey, '83; partn. 17; '86; partn. 16, 18 n. v. Hayt, '84; deeds, 6 n. ; '86; deeds, 12 n. 14. v. Hendricks, '83; ref. 3, 11; '84; city ct. of N. Y., 5. v. Hubbard, '83 ; principal & a. 11 n. v. Masterson Stone Dress- ing Co. Cited in New v. Pisher, 11 Daly, 312. v. Mayor, '83; cloud on title, 1; tax. 66; '86; cloud on title, 3 n. v. Nebenzahl, '83; arrest, 4. v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R. Co., '83; carriers, 17 n.; r. r. co. 1; '85; dam. 23. v. Stearns, '84; ev. 39. v. Townsend, '85; dower,. 11 n. ; '86; husb. & w. 21 n. v. U. S. Trust Co.,"84; ex. & ad. 128; '86; ten. for life, 2n. v. Whitney, '86; lim. of a. 14 n. Tracey v. Corse, '83; forfeiture, 1. Tracy, Matter of, '83; appeal, 64. Tracy v. Albany Exch. Co., '83; lease, 18. v. lirst Nat. Bank of Sel- iua, '83; attach. 79. v. McManus, '83; partn. 6. v. Stearns, '83; ref. 7; '84; ref. 5. v. Suydam, '83; ex. &. ad. 128;'86; partn. 27. v. Talmadge, '83; appeal, 118; '84; bail, 8; contracts, 52a; '86; banking, 4n. v. Thorn, '85; deeds, 46. v. Tra,oy, '83; wills, 147. v. Yates, '83; mfg. co. 9, 12. Traders' Bank of Rochester v. Bradner, '83; bills, n. & c. 6; debtor & cred..2. Train v. Holland Purchase Ins. Co., '86; ins. 24. Traphagen v. Burt, '83; ev. 357; '85; contracts, 73; partn. 19; pi. 148. Traver v. Eighth Ave R. R. Co., '83; arrest, 34. v. Nichols, '86; justices' cts. 7 n. v. Scholl, '86; wills, 78 u. Travis v. Myers, '86; cred. ». 19 n. v. Waters, 1 Johns. Cli. 48. Cited (Appeal) in 97 A". Y. 609. Treadwell v. Archer, '84; con- tracts, 25; cred. s. 10; usury, 9. v. Sackett, '84; assign, for b. of c. 5; '86; assign, for b. of o. 3 n. v. Van Schaick, '83; munc. corp. 57 n. Trebing v. Vetter, '84; parties, 30 n. ; '85 ; husb. & w. 3 n. 26. Tremain v. Cohoes Co., '86; nuis. 2. v. Richardson, '85; munc. corp. 5 n. ; '85 ; statutes, 17 n. Trenor v. Jackson, '83; inj. 5 n. ; '84; inj. 19 n. ; '86; inj. 16. Trevor v. Wood, '85; contracts, 24 n. Tribune Association v. Sun Printing & Publishing As- sociation, '83; inj. 22 n. 42. Trigg v. Hitz, '85; interpl. 2; '86; interpl. 5. Trimble v. Dziedugyiki, '83; ex. k ad. 138; '85; guardian & w. 5. v. Thorne, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 42 n. ; principal & s. 19; '86; ev. 13 n.; lim. of a. 14 Trimm v. Marsh, '83; mort. 28; questions of 1. & f. 5; receiv- ers, 2; '84; trusts, 7; '85; eject. 1 n. ; lien, 3. Trinity Church v. Higgins, '83 : deeds, 31 n. pi. 87; '86; contracts, 87. Tripp v. Childs, '86; cred. s. 26. v. Cook, '86 ; judicial sale, 9n. v. Riley, '85; ten. in coin. 6. v. Saunders, '84; judgm. & decree, 25. v. Vincent, '85; subr. 2 n. ; '86; release, 4 n. Trotter v. Hughes, '83; mort. 35, 37. v. Mills, '86; hab. corp. 1 n. Troup v. Haight, '83; mort. 9; '86; acknowledgment, 1. „. Hurlbut. '85; ev. 180. v. Smith, '83; lim. of a. 39 n.; '84; lim. of a. 13; '85; lim. of a. 28 n. v. Wood, '85; civil death, 1. Troto SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Twogood 145 Trow v. Shannon, '83; gift, 4 n. ; tax. 64; '85; ex. & ad. 1; '86; ev. 238 n. Trowbridge v. Horah, '84; tax. 25; '80; mune. corp. 81 n. Trows Printing Co. v. Hart, '84; attach. 46; '85; attach. 28, 33 n. Troy & Boston B. E. Co. v. Bos- ton, Hoosac Tunnel & W. B. E. Co., '83; teleg. 3n.; '84; cane, of wr. inst. In. ; r. r. co. 38 n. ; 39; '86; inj. 10. v. Lee, '83 ; compensation, 7, 12; r. r. co. 93, 96; '84; r. r. co. 29 n. ; '85; r. I. co. 50 n. G6;'86; compensation, 8 n. ; em. dom . 4 n. v. Northern Turnpike Co. , '83; r. r. co. 91; '86; em. dom. 4 n. v. Tibbits, '83; amend. 15; '86; amend. 1 n. — — v. Warren, '83; r. r. co. - 60. Troy & Lansingburgh B. B. Co. , 'v. Kane, '85; munc. corp. U9 n. Truaxv. Slater, '85; ev. 128; '86; assign. 5, 7; attach. 43; ev. 128 n. 131. Trull v. Granger, '83; ejectment, 1; lease, lease, 38 n. ;'86; eject. 1 n. Van Cleef u. Sickles, 5 Paige, 505. Cited (Joinder of parties) in 33 Hun, 290. Van Court v. Armstrong, '84; cloud on title, 3. Van Cortlandt v. Underbill, '83; lease, 28. Van Cott v. Van Brunt, '85; parties, 9n. ; '86; contracts, 57. Vandemark v. Schoonmaker, '86; costs, 16. Vandenburgh v. Truax, '83; negl. 2 n. ; '84; dam. 13 n. ; '85; negl. 84; '86; negl. 7. v. Van Valkenburgh, '85; pi. 102. Van . Denburgh v. Village of Greenbush, '83; mech. 1.2; '84; statutes, 16; '85; inj. 6 n. ; '86 ; inj . 45 n. ; statutes, 6. Vandenheuvel v. United Ins. Co., '85; former adj. 11. Vanderbiltu. Adams, '83; const, law, 8; harbor masters, 3, 4; '85; wharves, 1; '86; const, law, 35. v. Richmond Turnpike Co., '81; master ft s. 4 n. v v. Schreyer, 91 K Y. 392; a. a, 12 Abb. K C 390: and 16 Weekly D. 4C4; rev'g 21 llun. 537; s. c , 10 Weekly D. 352. Another decision in action by the same par- ties, in 28 Jinn, 61 Id. aff d, it seems, in 92 N. Y. 643; but without opinion. '84; contracts, 16 Vanderheyden v. Crandall, '85; deeds, 27 n. v. Mallory, 1 N. Y. 432. Cited (Husband and wile) in 33 Hati, 657. v. Vanderheyden, '83 ; ex. ft ad. 207; '84; ex. & ad. li.5 n.; '86; trusts, 34 n. Vanderkemp v. Shelton, '85; forec. 6;'8(i;inj. 27. Van Derlip .v. Keyser, '86; case, 1. Van Derminden v. Elsas, '83; pi. 132. Vanderpoel v. Van Valkenburgh, '83; judgm. ft decree, 13; pi. 38; wills, 101, lul n.; '85; dormer adj. 10. Van Derveer v. Wright, '83; guaranty, 15. Vandervoort, Matter of, '86; ex. ft ad. 109. Vandervoort v. Columbian Ins. Co., '80; depositions, 4. Vanderwiele v. Taylor, '85 ; wa- terc. 4. Vanderzee v. McGregor, '85; slander, 6. Van Deusen v. Charter Oak Fire & Marine Ins. Go. , '83 ; ins. 37, 37 n. v. Sweet, '85; insane per. 6. v. Young, '85; costs, 8 n. Vandewater v. Osmer, '83; sales, 10; Van Dewater «. Kelsey, '84; appeal, 65. Vandevoort v. Gould, '85; dam. 25. Van Doran v. Baity, '84; ten. in com. 2. Van Doren v. Horton, '83 ; new tr. 3; partn. 27; '85; new tr. 23 ; trial, 88. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; cloud on title, 2 n. Van Duyne v. Thayre, '84; eject- ment, 3 n. ; '8o; forec. 14 n.; subr. 2 n. 3 n. ; '86; coun- tercl. 1. Van Duzer v. Howe, '86; bills, n. ft c. 4, 9. v. Van Duzer, '86; acknowl- edgment, 2 n. , Van Dyck v. McQuade, '85; gift, 3. v. Van Beuren, '86; wills, 53 n. Van Dyke v. Jackson, '86; partn. 21. Van Dyne v. Thayre, '83 ; dower, 3. VanEppsu. Harrison,'85; fraud, 8; '86; deceit, 10 n. v. Van Deusen, '83; ref. 19; 148 VanEpps SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Van Wye?: Van Epps— continued '85; parties, 2; '86; ex. 4 ad. 90. v. VanEpps, '83; divorce, 3 n. ; trusts, 61; '84; trusts, 25 n.; '85; trusts. 43. Van Eps u.Dillaye, '83; guaran- ty, 12; paym. 4; '84; lim. of a. 34; '85; paym. 3 n. v. Mayor of Schenectady, guaranty, 5 n. Van Etten v. Hurst, '86; ev. 286 n. v. Troudden, '86; paym. 4. Van Every v. Adams, '83 ; costs, 13. Van Gelder v. Van Gelder, '84; costs, 31; '85; wit. 35 n. Van Giesen v. Van Giesen, '84 ; pi. 64 n. Van Giessen v. Bridgford, 83 A T . Y. 348. Cited as to juris- diction in White v. Nelson, 2Dem. k68. Van Guysling v. Van Kuren, '83; wills. 4,119; '86; wills, 7n. Van Hagen v. Van Rensselaer, '85; assign. 11. Van Hanswyck v. Wiese, '85; wills, 17. Van Heusen v. Kadcliff, '83; chat. mort. 8; '85; partn. 17 n. ; '86; exec. 8n. Van Hooku. Throckmorton, '85; assistance, 1. v. Whitlock, '83; lim. of a. 26 a. VanHoozerii. Cory, '83; mort. 1; '84; chat. mort. 10 n. ; ex?c. 5. Van Home. Matter of, '85; guardian 4 w. 14. Van Home v. Campbell, 17 Meekly D. 108. Another decision in 30 Hurt, 215. . Aff d m 100 N. Y. 287. Mo- tion for reargument denied in 101 10. 608; s. c, 3 How. Pr. N. S. 202. '86; devise, 1, 1 n. 5. *-'■ — v. Everson, '85 ; principal & s. 7. v. Fonda, '86; partition,-6. Van Ingen v. Whitman, '85; partn. 28, 30; '86; partn. 32 n. 36 n. 40 n. Van Keuren v. Corkins, '83; ev. 236; forec. 19; paym. 1 n. ; ree. deeds, 9; '84; mort. 23; '85; mort. 16. v. Parmelee, '83; lim. of a. 41, 51 n. ; notice, 3 n. ; '86; lim. of a. 14 n. 29 n. Van Kirk v. Sedgwick, 87 N. T. 265; rev'g 23 Hun, 37. Van Kleeck v. Phipps, '83; wills, 109 n. v. Reformed Dutch Church of N. Y., '83; wills, 135 n. Van Kleek v. Leroy, '84; pi. 136. Van Kuren v. Saxton, '84; ex. 4 ad. 66. Van Leuvan v. Lyke, '85 ; ani- mals, 5; '86; animals, 4 u,; pi. 15, 18 n. 165. Van Liew v. Johnson, '83; wit. 2. Van Loan v. Farmers' Mnt. Life Ins. Assoc, of Catskill, 9u N. Y. 280; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 393; aff'g 24 Hun, 132; s. c, 12 We,hly D. 38. Van Loon v. Lyons, '83 ; undert. 2. Vann v. Rouse, '86: lease, 11. Van Nebs v. Day, '86; infants, 4 n. Van Nest v. Yeomans, '84 ; mo- tion 4 o. 2. v. Yoe, '86; assign, for b. of c. 53 n . Van Nostrand v. Moore, '83; contracts, 18; susp. of pow- er of a. 19; wills, 215 n ; '84; ev. 84; wills, 80; '86; devise, 2 n. Van. Nuysv. Terhune, '83; wit 48. Van Order v. Van Order, '86; spec. perf. 2 n. Van Ostrandu. Reed, '86; con- tracts, 2 n. Van Pelt v. McGraw, '83; chat, mort. 1; ev. 26; '85; waste, 2n. v. Van Pelt. '83; wills. 117. Van Rensselaer, Matter of '84; exec. 12. Van Rensselaer v. Ball, '84; deeds, 17 n. ; exec. 12. v. Barringer, '86; ins. 48. v. Bradley, '86; lease, 21. v. Dennison, '86; lease, 29 n. v, Gallup, '85; lease, 15; '86 ; lease, 21, 23 n. v. Hays, '85;forec. 16; '86; lease, 21 n. v. Jewett, '83; lease, 41; nuis. 4. v. Jones, '86 ; lease, 21. v. Owen, '85; former adj. 43; '86; Indians, 1 n. v. Penniman, .'85 ; landl. 4 t. 1 n. v. Poucher, '85; deeds, 27 n. v. Read, '85; forec. 16. v. Stafford, '86; trusts, 13. v. Witbeck, '83; superv. 4; tax. 40; '85; tax. 37, 49 n . '86; tax. 75 n. Van Riper v. Poppenhausen, '84; partn. 15. Van Rossum ». Walker, '85; as- sign, for b. of c. 39. Van Santvoord d. St. John, '83; carriers, 11. Van Santwood v. Sandford, '85 ; indict. 12 n. Van Schaick v. Sigel, 9 Daly, 383; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 122; and 11 Weelcl/D.m; aff'g 58 How. Pr. 211. v. Winne, '83; costs, 98. Van Schoick v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 6,9; '84; ins. G; '85; ins. 7; ''86; ev.. 2o9; ins. 48. Van Schoning r. Buchanan, '83; amend. 40. Van Schuyver v. Mulford, '83; s'usp. of power of a. 22; wills, 139. Van Slyck v. Newton, '85; fcn> mer adj. 18. v. Snell, '86; animals, 4 n. 5. Van Slyke v. Hyatt, '83; appeal, 67, 94; pi. 166 n. v. Shelden, '83; mort. 28. Van Steenbergh v. Bigelow, '85; ruunc. corp. 116 n. Van Tassel v. Capron, '86; libel, 2. Van Tuyl v. Van Tuyl, '83; wit. 115. Van Valkenburg v. Croffut, '84; v. & p. 10. VanValkenburgh v. Am.Popular Life Ins. Co., '83; ev. 73. v Doolittle, '85; contempt, 21 n. v. Lenox Fire Ins. Co., '85; principal & a. 9; '86; ins. 6, 28, v. Watson, '83 ; guardian 4 w. 7. Van Vechten v. Keator, '85; de- vise, 2 n. v. Van Veghten, '83; ex. 4 ad. 235; wills, 65, 137. Van Vleet v. Slauson, '§5; judgm. 4 decree, 2. Van Vliet v. McLean, '85; pi. 112. Van Voorhees v. Kelly, '85; pi. 103. Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, '83; bigamy, 4; const, law, 9; di- vorce, 27, £9 n.; ev. 21; parent 4 c. 10; '85; distrib- ution, 1 ; marr. 4. v. Budd, '83; election of offi'r, 3. Van Wagner v. Terrett, '84; contracts, 90. Van Wert v. Benedict, '83; powr ers, 1. Van Wezel v. Van Wezel, '83; contempt, 14. Van Wickle v. Mechanics, etc. Ins. Co., 48 Super, ft. (J. & S.) 95. Aff'd in 97 N. Y. 350. Van Wicklen v. Paulson, 14 Barb. 654. Distmg'd (When rent will pass by a grant of the estate) in Riley v. Sexton, 32 Hun, 250. Van Woert v. Albany & Susque- hanna R. R. Co., '85; sales, 25 n. Van Wormer v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, '85; former adj. 13. Van Wyck v. Aspinwall, '85; slander, 3d. v. Baker, '83; discont. 2; fraud, conv. 19; '85; frand. conv. 5 n. 10. v. Hardy, '84; service 4 p. 14; '85; service 4. p. 7. VanWyck SUPPLEMENTAL! TABLE. Von Scheming 149 . v. Mcintosh, '84; wit. 40. v. Seward, '85; fraud, conv. 3n. v. Walters, '83; usury, 12. • v. Watters, '85; oancl. of wr. instr. 4 n. v. Wright, '85 ; nuis. 1 n. Van Zandt v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; deeds, 23 n.; ex. 4 ad. 1..7. v. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co., '83; ins. 60 n.;'86; ins. 67" n. v. Myers, '85; atty. 4 c. 5 n. Varian v. Stevens, '85; ex. 4 ad. 176 n.; '86; surr. ct. 19 n. Varicku. Smith, '83; real prop. 5 n. ; waterc. 3 n. ; '85; par- ties, 39. Vartie u. Underwood, '85 ; subr. 3 n. ; '8ii; dower, 7 n. Vassar v. Camp, '85; contracts, 24 n. Vatable v. N. Y., Lake Erie & W. E. R. Co., 11 Abb. N. 0. 133. Bev'd in 96 N. Y. 49. Cited in 36 Hun, 350. '83; corp. 48; '86; forec. 7 n. Vaughan v. Burford, '83; wills, 37; '85; wills, 14 n. Vaupellu.. Woodward, '84; sales, 12. Vedder v. Fellows, '83; r. r. co. 1. v. Saxton, '84; ex. 4 ad. 30. v. Superintendents of Schenectady, '83; poor, 3; '85; equity, 2; poor, 3. v. Vedder, '83; dam. 37; receipts, 1; '84; receipts, 3. Veeder v. Baker, '84; mfg. co. 16; place of tr. 4, 9, 12; '85; mfg. co. 17 n. v. Judson, 91 2f. Y. 374; aff' g Veeder v. Mudeett, 27 Hun, 519. - — v. Mudgett, 27 Him, 519; s. p., lb Weekly D. 313. Aft'd as Veeder v. Judson, 91 N. Y. 374. Another ap- peal in 95 iv. Y. 295. '85; mfg. co. 23 n. ; '86; partn. 40 n. v. Village of Little Falls, 100 N. r. 343; s. c, 1 Ctnir. Bep. 519; rev'g 20 Weekly D. 445. '86; munc. corp. 34 n. * Veiller v. Brown, '83; mfg. co. 5. Velie v. Newark City Ins. Co '84; pi. 16; '85; pi. 22. Venable v. N. Y. Bowery Ins. Co., '86; interpl. 4 n. Venceu. Vence, 'o3; place of tr. Vermilya v. Beatty, '84; ex. & ad. 59. Vermilyea v. Palmer, '83 ; new tr. 1; '84; trials, 5; '85; ap- peal. 56, 85; trials, 85. Vernam v. Smith, '84; r. r. co. 33 n. Vemet v. Williams, 3 Bern. 349; 8. o., as Estate of Savage, 1 How. Pi: A. & 379. '86; legacies, 21. Vernon, Estate of, '84; ex. 4 ad. 7. Vernon v. Manhattan Co., '83; paitn. 25 n. v. Palmer, 48 Super. Ct. {J. '& 8.) 231. Motion to with- draw appeal to court of ap- peals, granted in 5 Civ. Fro. it. 233; s. c, 67 How Br. 18; 48 Super. C. {J. & 8.) 233. — — v. Vernon, '83; trusts, 23; wills, 241 n.; '81; wills, 01 ; '85; legacies, 20 n. ; wills, 64 n. ; 'C6; wills, 70, 85. Verplanck, Matter of, N. Y. 439; s. c, 10 Weekly D. 495; modifying 27 Hun. 609; s. ft, 10 Weekly D. 463. '84; surr. ct. 21; 'iir, ex. 4 ad. 165; legacies, 21. Verplanck v. Kendall, '83; ref. 11; '86; costs, 72 n. v. Mercantile Ins. Co.. '83; receivers, 4; '84; corp. 11 n. v. Van Buren, '83; amend. 13; '84; pi. 76; '86; judgm.13. Ver Plank v. Sterry, '86; fraud, conv. 6 n. Vial v, Genesee Mut. Ins. Co., '84; estoppel, 16. Vibbardtj. Johnson, '83; sales, 31 n. Vick v. N. Y. Central, etc. K. B. Co., 17 Weekly D. 316. Bev'd in 95 A'. Y. 267. Sub- sequent appeal in 22 Weekly D. 474. Vickers v. Moore, 19 Wee]tiy D. 37U; s. c, with opinion in lull, in A". Y. Daily Beg. Sept. 27, 1884. Victor v. Henlien, 33 Run, 549; s c, 67 Bow Fr. 486. See Vietor v. Henlien. '86; as- cign. forb. of c. 48; attach. 11. v. Strook, '83; amend. 42. Victory v. Blood, '84; appeal, 57 n. Victory Web Printing, etc. Co., v. Beecher. 26 ILm, 4«. Aff d in 97 K Y. 651. Vidvard v. Powers, '86; ev. 128 n. 129. Viele v. Gray, '83; pi. 175; '84; ev. 201 n.; '85; slander, 3 n. v. Judson. '83; rec. deeds, 9, 10; '8">; judicial sale, 8. Vietor v. Henlein, 34 Hun, 562; s. o., 1 Ho'c. Pr. N. H. 159, and 7 Ciu.Pro. R. 07. See Vic- tor v. Henlein. '85; election of r. 1 n. Vilas v. Jones, '83; principal & s. 13; usury, 34 n. 36; '85; cancl. of wr. instr. 4 n. ■ - — v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co.. '84; ins. 6. Village of Delhi v. Youmans, '85; waterc. 1 ; '86 ; watero. 8. Village of Deposit v. Vail, '84; const, law. 09. Village of Fulton v. Tucker, Si; munc. corp. 91. Village of Gloversville ti. How- ell, '83; const, law. 64 n.; '84; const, law. 34 n. Village of Middletown, Matter of, '83; const, law. 47; stat- utes, 1 n.; '86; const, law. l,9n. Village of Port Jervis v. First Nat. Bk. of Port Jervis, 96 N. Y. f)50; aff'g 31 llui; 107. '85; notice, 2. Village of Warren v. Phillips, '85; bonds. 8. Vilmar v. Schall. '84; costs, 42; '85 ; costs, 21 n. Vincent v. Bamford, '83; mfg. co., 19. v. City of Brooklyn, '86; munc. corp. 50. v. Newhouse, '83; trusts, 45; wills, 167; '85; wills, 89, 129; '86; legacies, 5; waiver, 2. v. People, '83-; affid. 1. Viner v. N. Y., Alexandria, etc. Steamship Co., '84; conver- sion, 9; '86; conversion, 2. Vischer v. Vischer, '84; divorce, 9 n. Visscher v. Wesley. See Ken- drick's Estate. Voak v. Northern Cent. B. B. Co., '84; question of 1. 4 f 6. Voessing v. Voessing, '84; guar- dian & w. 11; '85; guardian 4 w. 8; infants, 5 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 96 n. 120 n. Vogel v. Arbogast, 4 Dem. 309; s. a, as Estate of Arbogast, 9 Civ. Pro. B. 231. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. '81; munc. corp. 64, 67; "85; munc. corp. 52 n. Volans v. Owen, '85; abate. 4 r. 2 n. ; civil damage act, 4. Volkening, Matter of. Cited in Cregieru. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 11 Daly, 175. '84; const. law, 34 n. Volkening v. De Graaf, '85; dam. 6 n. Voltz v. Blackmar, '84; dam. 15 n.; '85; dam. 28 n. Von Hoffmann v. Ward, '83 • wills, 70. Von Keller v. Schulting, '84- costs, 23. Von Latham v. Libby, '85; false impris. 6 n. v. Bowan, '86; false impris. Von Ehade v. Von Ehade, '83- attach. 46, 88; '84; service 4 p. 14 n.; '85; service 4 p. 7 Von Sachs v. Kretz, '83; ev 199; n 85;ev.l28 ; '86;e T .88, Von Schoning v. Mitchell,. '83- costs, 19. ' 150 Von Wallhoffen SUPPLEMENT A BT TABLE. Walker Von Wallhoffen v. Newcombe, '85; atty. -4 c. 15. Voorhees v. Burchard, '83; deeds, 24 n. 25; '86; com- pensation, 4 n. • v. Dorr, '83; champerty 4 m. 2n.; '84; champerty 4 m. l,2n. - v. Earl, '83; sales, 34; '85; sales, i-i; '86; dam. 14 n. v. Howard, '84; parties, 17. v. McCartny, '86; costs, 78. u. McGinnis, '85; questions of 1. &f. 3 n.; '86; fixtures, 1. v. Olmstead, '83 ; notice, 3 n. ; '85 ; principal 4 s. 11 ; '86; estoppel, 2 n. v. Presbyterian Church, '84; deeds, 19 n. v. (Seymour, '83; sup. pro. 10; '86: ex. 4 ad. 133 n. ; for- mer adj. 13 n. % Voorhies r. Vcorhies, '84; in f ants, 5 n. ; '85; infants, 2 n. Voorhis, Matter of, 90 N.Y. G68; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 475; rev'g N. Y. Daily Beg., Aug. 1, 1882. See Cadmus' v. Oak- ley. Voorhis iv Baxter, '86; partn. 29. v. Child, '84; partn. la n. ; '86; partn. 26 n. 27, 29. Vos v. Bobinson, '84; ins. 19 n Vosburgh v. Lake Shore & M. S. B. B. Co., 14 Weekly J). 514. Affdin94 N. Y. '374. '84; negl. 55. v. Teator, '85; contracts, 74 n. v. Thayer, '83; ev. 233; '85; ev. 186 n. Vose u. Cockroft, '83; const, law, 17 n.; '84; costs, 1; '85; stipulation, 2 n. v. Florida B. B. Co, '83; discharge, 1; '84; principal 4S. 9; '86; bills, n. & c. 26. v. Willard, '86; tax. 58. Vowles v. Murray, '85; costs, 3. Vreedenburgh v. Calf, '86; surr. ct. 21, 24 n. Vreeland v. McClelland, '83; wills, 109 n. Vroomr. Ditmas, '83; ejectment, 11; '85; forec. 14 n. v. Van Home, '83; ex. 4 ad. 17; '«4; ex. & ad. 35 n ; tax. 29 n. Vrooman u. King, '83; ev. 201, 2U9;'86;ev. 136. v. Lawyer, '85; animals, 5. v. Turner, '83; corp. 44; mort. 35, 35 n.; '84; cove- nants, 6 n.; '85; promise, 2 n.; '86; covenants, 4 n. ; mort. 15; subr. 3. W. Wacher, Matter of, '83; receiv- ers, 16; statutes, 29. Wachttl v. Noah Widows, etc. Benev. Assoc , 9 Daly, 476. Aff'd in 81 N. Y. 28; s. c, 88 Am. R. 478; 60 Bow. Pr. 424; 23 Alb. L.J. 194; and 11 Weekly D. 457. '83; mand. 20; '84; ben. assoc. 17 n.; '85; assoc. 6 n. Wachter v. Quenzer, 't6; pi. 149, 150. Waddell v. Cook, '84; exec. 6 n. v. Darling, '86; countercl. 9n. v. Elmendorf, '84; ev. 19; '85; ex. 2 J 4. Wade v. Kalbfleisch, '85; abate. & x. 2; '86; abate. 4 r. 4 n. v. Matheson, '85; judgm. & decree. 7 n. v. Orton, '8(i; atty. 4 c. 18. Wademan v. Albany & S. B. B. Co., '86; r. r. co. 10. Wadhams v. American Home Missionary Society, '84; marr. settlement, 1. Wadley v. Davis, '84; costs, 9; '85; principal 4 a. 21 n. ; '86; exec. 3. Wadsworth v. Harrison, 89 N. Y. 637; aff'g, it seems, 12 ■ Weekly D. 191. v. Heermans, '83; wit. 52; '85; wit. 19, 21; '86; wit. 2.->, 32. v. Lyon, '85; mort. 18; '86; deeds, 23; release, 2. v. Pacific Ins. Co. , '85 ; ins. 39 n.; '86; ins. 36 n. v. Wadsworth, '85; aliens, 1. v. Wendell, '85; munc. corp. 125 n. Waffle v. Dillenback, '85; trials, 58 n., v. Goble, '83; city ct. of N. X., 4; '84; service 4 p. 14 n.; '86; attach. 40 n. Wager v. Schuyler, '83; death, 4; ev. 241 n. -: — v. Troy Union B. K. Co., '83; trespass, 4; '86; com- pensation, 8 n.; hiehw. 2 n. 4. v. Wager, 89 N. Y. 161; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 67; rev'g 21 Hun, 93. Further de- cision in 16 Weekly D. 460; and the latter rev'd in 96 -A. Y. 164. '83; ex. 4 ad. 57; '85; deeds, 29 n.: wills, 133; '86; devise, 1, 1 n. 2n.; susp. of power of a. 7; wills, 49, 63, 65, 81, 82. Waggoner v. Jermaine, - '85 ; landl. 4 t. 5 n. ; lease, 3 n.; negl. 39 n. v. Walrath, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 37; '84; joint debt- or, 3 n. ; '85; undert. 9. Wagner v. Jones, '83; chat. mort. 21; '84; exec. 4. — — v. People, 'e5; crim. law, 7n. Wagstaff v. Lowerre, '83; trusts, ■ 64, 79; '84; ex. 4 ad. 125 n.; '£5; ex. 4 ad. 147 n.; 'S6; trusts, 30 n. Wait v. Agricultural B-is. Co., '85; ins. 50 n. ; '86; ins. 54 n. v. Green, '83 ; sales, 17. v. Bay, '85; com. schools, 4; '86; com. schools, 3 n. v. Van Allen, '84; bail, 4 n. ; '85; appeal, 41, v. Wait, '83; bigamy, 1; wit. 48; '85; distribution, 1. Waite, Matter of, '86; divorce, 24 n. , Wakefield v. Fargo, '84; mfg. co. 11 n. ; '85; children, l>. Wakefield Bank v. Truesdell, '86; paym. 4. Wakely v. Davidson, '83; wa- terc. 1; '84; deeds, 23. Wakeman v. Dailey, 'S3; frauds, 2; '84; pi. 155. i'. Grover, '83; ex. 4 ad. 165; '86; assign, for b. of e. H n. ; cred. s. 19 n. ; fraud. conv. 22. v. Lyon, '85; chattels, 4. -j — v. Sherman, '83 , lim. of a. 41,44; '85; ex. 4 ad. 101; lim. of a. 53; new promise, 4. v. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., '86; ev. 61. Wakker, Matter of, '83; false impris. 2; judges, 2. Waldele v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. B. Co., 61 JIuw. Pr. 350. Bev'd in 29 Hun, 35; and the latter rev'd in 95 if. Y. 274. '83; ev. 174; negl. 81; '85; ev. 236; '86; ev. 110, 128 n. 179. Walden v. Sherburne, '85; ev. 187. Waldron v. McCarty, '85; forec. 7n. v. Eensselaer & Saratoga B. B. Co., 'o5; r. r. co. 11 n. ; v. Bitchings, '83; ev. 20; '84; ev. 13. v. Willard, '83; teleg. 3n.; '86; undert. 3. WaLser, Matter of, '85; con- tracts, 12 n. ; motions 4 o. 1. Walker i?. Bumham, '83; costs, 124. v. City of Lockport, '83; munc. corp. 90. v. Crain, '83; mfg. co. 5 n. 32. r % Devereaux, '80; corp. 33 n.' v. Erie By. Co., '84; ev. 169; '85; trials, 29; '86; e v. 209. _ ■ v. Granite Bank, '83; disc. 4 insp. 8 n. ; '85; deposi- tions, 26; pi. 92; '86; appeal, 6 n. v. Henry, '86; chat. mort. 4 n. ; ev. 97; exec. 6. v. Hubbard, '83; affid. 1. v. Jackson, '83; election of offi'r, 12. Walter SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. War dell 151 i'. Johnson, '85; costs, 14. v People, 88 N. r. 81; s. C, 1 A. Y. Cnm. It. 22; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 131; afi'g 26 Uun, 67; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 22; and 1 A'. Y. Crim. H. 7. v. Bussell, '86, costs, 19. v. Sherman, '83; fixtures, 2; '84; fixtures, 1 n. v. Shoemaker, '85; lease, 4. v. Spencer, '84; appeal, 57 n. 58. v. Swayzee, '86; lease, 10. v. Wainwright, '86; costs, 72 n. v. Walker, '84; contempt, 18; '85; pi. 88; '86; con- tempt, 11, 32. Wall v. East Biver Mut. Ins. Co., '83; ins. 33; '85; ins. 55 n. v. Howard Ins. Co., '83; ins. 2. v. Osborn, '86; licenses, 7 n. Wallace v. American Linen Thread Co., '86; appeal, 7«. v. Bassett, '85; costs, 51 n.; '8t; husb. & w. 5. v. Beidell, 97 N. T. 13. Further decision in 101 Id. J3; s. c, 8 Civ. Fro. M. 363; and 3 Aoitheast. Sep. 769. v. Castle, J 83; appeal, 67; '85; attach. 7; sec. for costs, 2; '86; arrest, 6; attach. 7. v. Fee, '85; deeds, 21. v Feely, 61 How. Fr. 225. Aff'd in 10 Daly, 331; and the latter aft'd, it seems, but without opinion, in 88 N. Y. 616. v. Lent, '84; landl. 4 t. 5 n. ; '85; landl. & t. 13; '86; lease, 3. v. Long Island E. B. Co., '84; corp. 55 n. v. Marks,'83; questions of 1 if. 6. • v. Swinton, '83; exec. 10. Wallacku. Mayor, etc. of N. Y,, '83; con»t. law, 35 n. ; corp. 2; '84; house of refuge, 1. v. Society for .Reformation, etc., '83; inj. 6; '86; inj. 12, 13 n. Waller v. Harris, '84; contracts, 60 n. ; statutes, 8. v. Thomas, '83; assoc. 2 n. ; parties, 15. Walierstein v. Columbia Ins. Co., '83; ins. 30; '85; ins. 3u, 39n.;'86; ins. 42 n. Wallis v. Loubat, '83; atty. & c. 4n. Walls v. Bailey, '85; ev. 204 n. Wall Street, Matter of, '83 ; com- pensation, 17 n. Wall Street Fire Ins. Co. v. Loud, '84; receivers, 7 n. Wallsworth v. Mead, '86; bas- tardy, 1. Walrath v. Bedfield, '83; dam. 41; int. 5 n. ; '84: estoppel, 22. v. Thompson, '83; guar- anty, 1. Walsh, Matter of, '83; costs, 43. Walsh v. Bailie, '83 ; guaranty, 6; parties, 10. v. Bowery Sav'gs Bank, J Civ. Fro. P.. 32; revg 9 Id. 177. v. Cornett, '83 ; justices' ct. 5. v. Durkin, '85; defenses, 2; '86; defenses, 1. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , '83; ins. 40; '85; ins. 15 n.; '86 ; principal & a. 1. v. Kelly, '85; exceptions, 8. v. Mead, '83; negl. 21 ; nuis. 13. i). People, 88 N. Y. 458: s. c, 14 Weekly D. 508; and 14 Reporter, 153; aff'g 13 Weekly D. 570. v. Powers, 84; infants, 5; '85 ; infants, 2. v. Ryan, '83; wills, 79, 84;' '84; wills, 49. v. Sayre, '83; disc. & insp. 9; '84; depositions, 29 n. v. Schulz, 12 DiUy, 103. Opinion on reargument in s. c, in 67 How. Fr. 186; and 6 Cv. Pro. H. 126. Oth- er proceedings in 1 How. Fr. N. H. 506; s. c, 7 . Nelson,' '83; contempt, 14; '84; contempt, 11 n.; '85; ex. 4 ad. 166; '86; con- tempt, 38; ex. 4 ad. 8j. v. N. Y. Central K. K. Co., '83; r. r. co. 83. v. People, 87 Jf. Y. 561; s. c, 414m. R. 397, with note, and 14 Weekly D. 40, aii'g 26 Ran, 76. v. Bandall, '84; guaranty, 10 n. v. Spence, '85; forec. 14 n. Watt v. itogers, '83; v. & p. 5 n. Watts v. Kinney, 83; juris. 11. v. Shipman, 21 ilun, 5d8. Compare (Trust fund) Pier- son u. Drexel, 11 Abb. JV". C. 150. — — v. Van Ness, '85; Sunday, Wavel v. Wiles, '83; appeal, 129; '85; appeal, 112; '86; appeal, 96. Waveriy Nat. Bank v. Halsey, '84; assign, for b. of c. 9^. Waveriy Water Works Co., Mat- ter of, '83; undert. 1; '84; costs, 7; '85; insane per. 14; costs, 41; '86; const. law, 9 n. Wavle v. Wavle. Cited (New trials) in 38 San, 577. Waydell v. Luer, '84; partn. 15 n. Wayland v. Tysen, '84; pl. 80, 80 n. 86; '85; pl. 83; '86; pl. 88 n. Wayne County Savings Bank v. Brackett, '85; depositions, 6n. v. Low, '83; bills, n. & c. 52, 54, 54 n. ; contracts, 17; '84; conflict of 1. 4. Wead v. Uantwell, '86; wills, 80 n. Weaver v. Barden, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 45 ; v. 4 p. 7; '85; money pd. 3 n.; subr. 8 Weaver SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Welsh 153 n. ; '86; assign. 8 ; exec. 8 n. ; pi. 71; pledge, 2 n. v. Devendorf, '83; offi'r, 25, 25 n.; '84; offi'r, 16. v. Ely, '83; costs, 80 n.; '84; costs. 34. Webb, Estate of, '85; distribu- tion, 1. Webb, Matter of, '86; juris. 7 n. Webb v. Albertson, '86; bail, 3n. v. Buckelew, '83; estoppel, 2; former adj. 5; '85; estop- pel, 5 n. , judgm. & decree, 1. v. Crosby, '83; costs, 100; '86; costs, 70. v. Mott, '86 ; summons, 5. v. Odell, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 27. v. Overmann, '86; sup. pro. , 31. v. Rice, '86; ins. 55. v. Home, Watertdwn, etc. K. B. Co., '83; negl. 2 n.; '84; negl. 2 n.; '85; negl. 84; '86; negl. 40 n. v. Van Zandt, '83; oil wells, 1. Webber v. Blunt, '86; bail, 3 n. v. Gay, '84; offi'r, 24. Weber v. Fowler, '83; judgm. 4 decree, 18. v. Kingsland, '85; trials, 44. v. N. Y. Central, &c. E. E. Co., '83; negl. 55; ques- tions of 1. 4 r. 13; r. r. co. 24; '85; negl. 73, 83n.;r. r. co. 8 n. ; trials, 66; '86; negl. 64 d. '■ v. Weber, '85; trusts, 37. Webster v. Bond, '83; parties, 54 n. v. Hudson Biver E. E. Co., '83; negl. 95; '85; parties, 43; '86; negl. 128 n. ' v. People, 92 N. Y. 422; s. c, 1 if. 7. Cam. B. 190, where Supm. Ct. Gen. T. decision is also reported. '86; trials, 115. v. Van Steenburgh, '83; eject. 5; '85; assign, for b. of c. 9. Weed v. Aldrich, '83; wills, 196 n.;'84; wills, 117 n.; '85; wills, 106. ■ v. Bergstresser, '86; costs, 24 n. ' — v. Lee, '85; justices' ct. 6. — — ■ v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., '83; ins. 60 n.; '86; ins. 67 n. v. Paine, 31 Hun, 10. Cited as to costs in 33 Id. 236. v. Panama E. E. Co., \ '83; carriers, 17; '85; r. r. co., 6 n. ; '86; carriers, 4 n. v. lucker, '8:1; lien, 8. v. Village of Ballston Spa, '83; munc. corp. 74 n.; negl. 62; '65; exceptions, 8 n.; munc. sorp. 56 n. 57; negl. 06. v. Waterbury, '86; ex. & ad. 26. v. Weed, '86; wills, 81. Weeks v. Comwell, 65 How. Pr. 413; modifying 64 id. 276 Other proceedings in 38 Hun, 577; 39 id. 643; s. c, 9 Civ. Pro. B 28; 21 Week- ly D. 208; and 23 id. 187. v. Ellis, '83; offi'r, 9. v. Little, 11 Abb. N. C. 415; s. c, 69 N. Y. 566; 15 Weekly D. 280; rev'g in part 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) v. Love, '83; mfg. co. 13; '85; mfg. corp. 23. v. Lo werre, '83 ; ev. 159 ; 410. v. McMillan, 21 Weekly D. 153; s. c. , with opinion in full, N. Y. Daily Beg, May 1, 1885. v. Ostrander, 52 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 512 ; aff 'g on opin- ion below, s. c, as Weeks v. Weeks, 16 Abb. N. C. 143. v. Southwick, '83;inj. 27. v. Weeks, 16 466. N. C. 143. See Weeks v. Ostran- der. Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, '83; munc. corp. 47; '85; negl. 3; '»6; villages, 1. Weetjen v. St. Paul, etc. E. E. Co., '86;forec. 4. v. Vibbard, '83; ex. 4 ad. 89 n. 90; '84; parties, 53; '85; motions 4 o. 1 n. ; '86; forec. 4. ;man v. Childs, '84; sup. pro. 1, 2; '85; statutes, 17 n. ; sup pro. 2 n. Wehle v. Butler, '84; pi. 159. v. Conner, '83; exec. 25 n. ; sher. 3; '85; sec. for costs, 11. v. Haviland, '83 ; int. 5 n. ; marine ct. 7; '84; pi. 159. v. Spellman,' '83; assign. 12. Wehrlin v. Schmutz, '86; lien, 7 n. Wehrum v. Kuhn, '86; ace. St. 3. Weigand v. Sichel, '83; pi. 193 n. ; '85; attach. 58; pi. 58 n. ; '86; sales, 39 n. Weil, Matter of, '83; munc. corp. 115; '86; munc. corp. 90. Weil v. Martin, '83 ; service 4 p. 22. Weiland v. Eenner, '85; citi- zens, 1 n. ; defin. 34. Weiller v. Schreiber, '86; attach. 1. Weir u.Fitzgerald, '83; ev. 59; wills, 119; '86; wills, 30 n. Weismer v. Village of Douglas, '83; const, law, 38; munc. corp. 176; '85; const, law, 11 n. 31; tax. 3; '86; const, law, 32; tax. 2. Weiss v. Farrington, 49 Supn: CI. (J. & S.) 512. Eev'd in 22 Weekly D. 310; s. c. more fully, 1 Cent. Be\i. 291; and 5 Mar.', zi-y. 671 Weisser v. Denison, '83; bank- ing, 8, 12; money pd. 8; '86; banking, 10 n. Welch v. Preston, '84: pi. &3. v. Pullman Palace Oar Co. , '84; carriers, 11, 11 n. v. Sage, '85 ; money pd. 12 n. | ,'86; pledge, 5. v. Winterbura, '84; arrest, 14. Weldon v. Harlem E. E. Co., '83; negl. 4. Weller v. Hersee, '84; contracts, 56 n. v. Suggett, '85; guardian u w. 5. v. Weller, '84; ex. 4 ad. 70. Welles v. March, '83; assign. for b. of c. 3 n. ; '86 ; assign. for b. of c. 1 n. v. Yates, '83; negl. 56 n. ; reformation of instr. 2; '80; reformation of instr. 2. Welling, Matter of. See Wel- ling u. Welling. Welling v. Welling, 3 Dem. 511; s. c, as Matter of Welling, 7 Ciu. Pro. B. 92, and 1 How. Pr. N. S. 327. Wellington v. Morey, 90 K Y. 65B ; s. c. 15 Weekly D. 435; afl'g 12 id. 470. Wells v. City of Buffalo, '80; const, law, 44. v. Cone, '86; parties, 4 n. v. Cox, '83; amend. 40; trials, 90. v. Gates, '83 ; assoc. 2 n. v. Henshaw,'86; countercl. 9. v. Lain, '84; arbitration, 3 n. v. Lane, '86; discont. 5 n. v. «Mann, '83 ; bills, n. 4 c. 28; principal 4 s. 19; '8-j; bills of lading, 23; '86; Urn. of a. 14 n. v. Miller, '86; ev. 80 n. v. O'Connor, '85; ev. 132. v. Steam Navigation Co., '83; carriers, 28; '8J; car- riers, 2 n. 4. v. Thompson, '85; con- tracts, 24 n. v. Webster, '83; joinder of a. 1. v. Wells, '85; wills, 65. v. Williams, '86 ; assign. 4. Welsh v. Cochran, '83; atty. 4 c. 31 ; sum. pro. 8 ; trespass, 7; 84; atty. 4 c. 6 n. v. Darragh, '83; ref. 5, 11; '85; munc. corp. 5 n. ; ref. 3. u.German Am. B'k, '83; banking, 12 ; money pd. 8; '86; banking, 10 n. 154 Welsh SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Wlieelpr Welsh — continued v. Gossler, 11 Abb. N. C. 452 ;s. c, 89 iK Y. 540; 15 Weekly D. 347; rev'g 47 tiuper. Q. (J. & S.) 104; 85; sales, 11. Werbolowsky v. Greenwich Ins. Co., '85; amend. 6. Weielyu. Persons, '85; ev. 126, 236. Werle v. Long Island B. B. Co., '86; negl. Ill n. Werner v. German Savings Bank, '85; munc. corp. 30 n. Wempleu. Glavin, '83; const. law, 46. v. Stewart, '85; ev. 341. Wendell v. Mayor, etc. of Troy, '85; parties, 21; '86; munc. corp. 56. v. N. Y. Central, etc. E. E. Co., 91 N. Y. 420; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 375; rev'g 14 Id. 406. v 84; ev. 43 n. ; negl. 33; '86; negl. 83, 98, 100. v. People, '84; deeds, 6 n. ; '86; deeds, 12 n. 14 n.; for- mer adj. 36. v. Van Eensselaer, '86; de- fenses, 7 n; estoppel, 9 n. u. Wadsworth, '83; deeds, 1. Wenman v. Mohawk Ins. Co., '83;lim. of a. 24. Wcntzler v. Eoss, '85; attach. ■ii. Wenzler v. McCotter. Eev'd as Wenzlick v. The Same, 87 N. Y. 122. v. People, '83; courts of sess. 2. Wenzlick v. McCotter. See Wenzler v. The Same. '83; negl. 2, 22. Wcrtheim v. Continental Ey. & Trust Co., '85; sup. pro. 20. Wesley v. Bennett, '85; pi. 133; '86; pi. 145. Wesson v. Judd, '86; pi. -90. At est v. American Exchange Bank, '83; pi. 46. v. Mapes, '84; ex. 4 ad. 14. v. Mayor, etc., '86; inj. 13 n. Westbrook v. Gleason, 89 N. Y. 611; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 426; aft'gl2 Id. 261. '83; rec. deeds, 9, 10. Westoott v. Cady, '83; wills, 161; '84; ex. 4 ad. 6n.;'86; ex. 4 ad. 63. v. Fargo, '83; assoo. 2; car- riers, 28 n. ; '85; carriers, 14; '86; costs, 57 n. ; joint stock co. 4. v. Thompson, '83; sales, 14. Westerfeldt v. Eadde, '83; mfg. co. 18 n. Westerfield v. Wcsterfield, '83; trusts, 75 n. Westerlo v. De Witt, '83; aHSign. 7; banking, 6; new tr. 13; gift, addenda; '84; appeal, 77, 102; '86; appeal, il. Western v. Eomaine, '83; surr. ct. 45. Western N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Clinton, '83; ev. 139 n. Western E. E. Co. v. Nolan, '83; inj. 22 n. ; parties, 23; trusts, i02; '86; inj. 33 n.; parties, 2 n. Western Transportation, &c. Co. of Mich. v. Kilder- house, '84; conflict of 1. 5; '85; partn. 8; '86; usury, 11. Western Trans. Co. v. Barber, '86; conversion, 11. v. Hawley, '83; carriers, 9. v. Hoyt, '83; dam. 24; freight, 1. v. Scheu, '85; tax. 10. Westervelt v. Gregg, '83 ; const. law, 32 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 183; '84; const, law, 18 n. ; ex. & ad. 25; '86; distribution, 1 n. v. Levy, '83; defenses, 1. v. Smith, '85; undert. 17. Westfall v. Preston, '83; superv. 4; tax. 46, 48, 54, 66; '84; tax. 30, 40; '85; tax. 37, 49 n. ; '86; tax. 51, 55, Westheimber v. Westheimber, '86; stipulations, 1 n. Westlake v. St. Lawrence Coun- ty Mut. Ins. Co., '83; ev. 109 n.;'84; trials, 18; '85; ev. 58. Weston, Matter of. See Matter of Gray; '84; costs, 9; '86; ex. 4 ad. 121 n. Weston v. Barker, '85; money pd. 14. " v. Ives, 14 Weekly D. 413. Eev'd in 97 N. Y. 222. v. N. Y. Elevated E. E. Co., '83; r. r. co. 8; '85; ex- ceptions, 8 n. v. Worden, '83; amend. 21; '86; pi. 61. Westover v Mtna Ins. Co., '86; wit. 7 n. 11, 12. West Point Iron Co. v. Eey- mert, '83; inj. 43; mort. 9; waterc. 3 n. ; '85; assign, for b. of c. 5; '86; acknowledg- ment, 1. West Side Bank v. Pugsley,'83; sup. pro. 26; '85; sup. pro. 31; '86; sup. pro. 23. Wethey v. Andrews, '83; bills, n. i-c. 34. Wetmore v. Brooklyn Gas- light Co., '85; accretion, 3 n. v. Carryl, '84; wills, 65. v. Hegeman, '86; atty. 4 c. 3; parties, 38. v. Jennys, '83; bills of par. 12. v. Law, '86; em. dom. 9 n. v. Parker, '83 ; susp. of power cf a. 4; trusts, 85; wills, 64, 179; '84; deeds, 12 n.; '86; wills, 48. v. Porter, '85; money pd. 11; '86; parties, 2 n.; pow- ers, 3 ; trusts, 31. — — v. Eoberts,'83; rec. deeds, 8. v. White; '84; real. prop. 2. Wetterwulgh v. Knickerbocker Building Assoc, '85; mas- ter ts. 2 b. Wever v. Marvin, '84; ex. 4 ad. 38. Weyer v. Beach, '83; mech. 1. 8, 17; '85; mech. 1. 2; '86; mech. 1. 3, 7. Weyerhauser v. Dun, 100 N. Y. 150; s. c, 1 Cenir. Rep. 1; and. as Wyerhauser v. Bun, 1 East. Rep. 720; rev'g 16 Weekly D. 412. '86; bills, n. 4 c. 6. Weyh v. Boylan„63 How. Pr. 72; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 247; aff'g 62 How. Pr. 397. '86; estoppel, 12. Weyman v. National B'way Bk., '85; abate. 4 r. 12. v. People, '83; ev. 179; '85; ev. 254. Whale v. Whale, '83; divorce, 3 n. Whalen v. Gloucester, '85; highw. 14 n. ; lease, 3 n. v. Supervisors of Albany, '85; trials, 8 n. Wheat v. Eice, 15 Weekly D. 104. AflE'd in 97 N. Y. 296. '86; promise, 3 n. Wheat on v. Baker, '83; sales, 33 n. v. Gates, '86; relig. corp. 5. Wheeler, Matter of, '84; service 4 p. 24. Wheeler v. Allen, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 43. v. Billings, '84; pi. 106; ref. 14; '85; ev. 75; '86; pi. 71. v. Chesley, '83; verif. 5. — — - v. Clark, '86; compensa- tion, 4 n. ; highw. 3, 6. • • v. Clutterbuok, '83; def. 97; descent, 3; '84; descent, 2n. v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., '83; forfeiture, 7 n. ; ins. 55; lease, 38 n. ; '85; ins. 63 n. v. Curtis, '84; pi. 27. ij. Dakin, '83; judgm. 4 de- cree, 31; '85; "ex. 4 ad. 69. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 20 Weekly J). 301. Aff'd, it seems, but without opinion, 99 N. Y. 610. v. Dixon, '84; verif. 1 n.; '85; verif. 4. v. Erie Ey. Co., '83; r. r. co. 17. v. Falconer, '83; ref. 5. Wheeler SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Whitford 155 v. King, 14 Weekly D. 358 Further decision in 35 Han, 101. v. Lester, '83; ex. « ad. 154. «. McFarland, '86 ; replevin, 2. v. MiUar, 90 N. Y. 353; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 513; affg 24 Han, 541; s. a, 12 Wee/c- iy D. 453. '84; mfg. oo. 10 li. v. Newbould, '83; pledge, 3 n.; '85; assign, for. b. of c. 13 n. ; ev. 204 n. v. N. Y. & Harlem R. B. Co., '83; sum. pro. 8. v. Raymond, '86; coun- tercl. 1 n. v. Keynolds,'83; contracts. 81; ~ fraud, 14; '84; con- tracts, 61, 69 n. ; easements, 2n. ; '85; contracts, 71 n. 74 n.; '86; spec. perf. 7. v. Boberts, '84; statutes, 16. v. Buckman, '84; trespass, 1; former adj."4. v. Buthven, '83; legacies, 28, 37 n. 42; 6urr. ct. 19; '8a; legacies, 35 n. «. Scofield, '84; appeal, 72. v. Spinola, '83; ev. 37; '84; adv. poss. 11; '85; adv. poss. 1 n. v. Warner, '83; lim. of a. 9 n. 24; '84; lim. of a. 24; '85; b. n. c. 18a n. ; '86; lim. of a. 14, 23. v. Wheeler, '83; contracts, 54; '85; ex. * ad. 40; '86; ex. 4 ad. 54. v. Wilcox, '83; bail, 1; '86; undert. 7. Wheelock v. Lee, '83; juris. 9; usury, 35, 36; '84; pi. 54; '85; appeal, 13 n. ; pi. 35; '86; pi. 141 n. ; trials, 4. ' v. Tanner, '86; tender, 1,4 n. Wheelwright v. Ehoades. '86; ex. 4 ad. 113 n. v. Wheelwright, '83; trusts, 72; '86; ex. & ad. 113 n. Whelan v. Lynch, '83; ex. 4 ad. 77 n.; '84; ev. 90 n.; '86; dam. 24 n. v. Whelan, '85; cancel, of wr. instr. 1; fraud. 7; 86; undue inn. 2 n. Whepley v. Loder, '86; surr. ct. 28; wit. 5, 36. Whipple v. Christian, '83; mech. 12. • v. Foot, '84; cred. s. In.; exec. 5 n. ■ v. Williams, '83; costs, 98. Whispel v. Whispel, '84; di- vorce, 3; '86; alimony, 8 n. ; divorce, 3 n. Whitaker v. Chapman, '85; ap- peal, 96. ■ v. Eighth Ave. E. R. Co., '84; ev. 95 n. v. Masterson, N. Y. Daily Reg., May 7, 1883. Afl'd in 21 Weekly D. 209. v. Whitaker, '83; husb. 4 w. 34; '84; husband * w. 4 n.; '85; ex. & ad. 97 n ; '86; deeds, 23. Whitbeck v. Cook, '83; cove- nants, 8; lease, 5; '85; cov- enants, 7. v Patterson, '86 ; new tr. 28 n. v. Van Ness, '85 ; contracts, 86n.;'86; paym. 2 n. White v. Ambler, '83; ev. 233; '86; ev. 177. v. Anthony, '84; costs, 24. v. Ashton, '86; ev. 81 n. v. Baxter, '84; contracts, 11, 14. v. Bogart, '83; service * p. 7. v. Brownell, '83 ; assoc. 1; '84; assoc. 1 n. ; ben. assoc. 21; bills, of par. 9; '85; equity, 3. v. Carpenter, '85; trusts, 4n. v. Coatsworth, '85 ; former adj. 13, 36 n.; '86; trusts, 15 n. v. Continental Nat. Bk., 64 N. Y. 357. Cited (Effect of raising,) in Crawford v. West Bide Bank, 49 buper. Ct. (J. & S.) 75. '83; bills, n. 4 c. 56; money pd. 9 ; '86 ; banking, 7. v. Corlies, '85; contracts, 24 n. v. Coventry, '86; corp. 35. v. Dodds, 42 Barb. 554. Cited in 33 Hun, 181. '83; pi. 131. v. Fagan, '85; ettach. 16; '86; assign, for b. of c. 52. v. Fuller, '86; dam. 24 n. v. Hackett, '86; partn. 44 n. v. Hicks, '83; powers, 6; '84; powers, 3 n. v. Howard, '83; trusts, 33; wiUs, 58, 178; '84; conflict of 1. 9 ; sum. pro. 3 ; wills, 22; '85; legacies, 5 n. ; wills, 41 n.; '86; wills, 59. v. Hoyt, '86; contracts, 12, 15. v. Jaudon, '85; set-off, 3. v. Jones, '86; good will, n. v. Joy, '83; pi. 139 n.; '86; pi. 140 n. v. Kane, '86; ex. & ad. 138 n. v. Kibling, '85; ev. 162. v. Knapp, '85; saleB, 7 n. v. Leslie, '84; merger, 2. v. Madison, '86; former adj. 38 n.; offi'r, 18. v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., '86; money pd. 15 n. v. Merritt, '83; former adj. 34; '86; -deceit, 14. v. Miller, '84; ev. 65; '85; ev. 191; '86; dam. 9 n.; int. 7n. o/ Moore, '85; eject. 1 n. v. Munroe, '83; motions 4 0.16. v. Nellis, '84; seduction, 1; '85; parent 4 c. 2. v. Parker, '85; guardian 4 w. 4. v. Beichert, '86; attach. 35. v. Ross, '86; corp. 35, 35 n. v. Schuyler, '83; lease, 38 n. v. Seaver, '83; atty. 4 c. 13. v. Sharp, '85; master 4 s. 26. v. Smith, '84; brokers, 7 n. 8; trials, 67. v. Spencer, ^'83; trials, 17; '85; pi. 8; '86; licenses, 2. v. Syracuse & TJtica H. B. Co.. '84; statutes, 19 n. v. Van Kirk, '83; ev. 156. v. Wager, '83; deeds, 28 n.; statutes, 10; '85; husb. 4 w. 6 n. ; statute, 9; '86; husb. 4 w. 14 n. v. Williams, '86; deeds, 12 n. Whited v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., '83 ; ins. 10 n. ; '84; ins. 3; '85; ins. 27 n.; '86; ins. 28 Whitehead, Matter of, '86; trusts, 36 n. Whitehead v. Buffalo & Lake Huron E. B. Co., '85; juris. 4n. v. Kennedy, '83; appeal, 120; wills, 68; '84; appeal, 105, 107; '85; appeal, 102. v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 63 Mow. Pr. 394; s. a, Brook- lyn Daily Kec, July 11, 1882. Affd in 33 Run, 425; and the latter rev'd in 102 N. Y. 143. '85; ins. 78; '86; ins. 69 n. Whiteman v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '84; contracts, 27 n. White's Bk. of Buffalo v. Myles, '83; ev. 139 n.; '85; princi- pal 4 8. In.; '86; mort,. 4 n. ; questions of 1. 4 f. 4. r. Nichols, '83; deeds, 18, 20; easements, 7; '84; deeds, 7 n. ; '85 ; em. dom. 6 n ; '86 ; deeds, 15 ; hi ghw. 5 n. ; nuis. 3. Whitfield v. Whitfield, '85; wills, 66. ■Whitford v. Laidler, 94 N. Y. 145;rev'g 25 Hun, 136. '85; assoc. 10 ; ev. 80 ; '86 ; bonds, 2 n. v. Panama R. R. Co., '83; death, 1 n. ; '84; abatement 4 r. 1; ev. 104; '85; abate. 4 r. 2; cause of a. 2; civ^ damage act, 1 ; death, 1. 156 Whiting STJPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Willcin "Whiting v. Barney, '83; wit. 17; '86; wit. 7 n. v. Barrett, '83; ins. 65; '84; Bup. pro. 16; '85; sup. pro. 26 n. v. Edmunds, '85; adv. poss. 1 ri. ; sum. pro. 2 n. ; '86; ev. 4; lease, 2d n. v. Kimball; '83; case, 9. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; pi. 63. Whitlock v. Bowery Savings Bank. i\. Y. Daily Beg. Nov. '22,1883. Bev'din 36 Han, 460. Whitmans. Connor, '83; con- flict of 1 2 n. Whitmore v. BischofE, '86; dam. 40 n. v. Foose, '86; ex. 4 ad. 75, 144. v. Mayor, etc. ofN. Y. '86; offi r 7 n. Whitney, Matter of, '86; depo- sitions, 3. Whitney v. Allaire, '84; dam. 27 ; election r. 1; form- er adj. 21 n; '85; adv. poss. I n. ; fraud, b; '86; de- ceit, 3. v. Black Biver Ins. Co.. '85; ins. 50 n. v. Goapman, '85 ; costs, 56. v. Coleman, '85; munc. corp. 125 n. v. Cooper, '84; costs, 68. v. Groot, '84; deceit, 5 n. ; guaranty, 3 n. v. Hitchcock, '85; pi. 30 n. v. McKinney, '86; ins. 30 n. v. Martine, 88 N. Y. 535; s. c. , 14 netldy D. 558; rev'g 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 396; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 50U, which rev'd 6 Abb. N. C. 72. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y. '83; deeds, 23 n. 24 n. v. National Bank of Pots- dam, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 27, 56. v. N. Y. & Atlantic B. E. Co., '84; receivers, 31; '86; receivers, 2 n. v. Phoenix, '83; ex. & ad. 89 n. ; trusts, 72. v. Thomas, '86; munc. corp. 81 n. v. Townsend, '86; appeal, 78. v. Union Trust Co. of N. Y., '83; corp. 29. v. Wells, 'b3; justices' ct. 19. v. Wright, '83 ; eject. 8 ; '85; ev. -M n. Whitney Arms (Jo. v. Barlow,- '83; corp. 27; mfg. 28, 20; teleg. 3n.;'84; bail, 8 n.; corp. 23, 24; ev. 234 n. ; sav- ings b'ks, 2; '85; corp. 14; lim. of a. 38; mfg. co. 17 n. 25; munc. corp. 125 n. ; '86; corp. 13 n.; former adj. 25; r. r. co. 22. Whiton v. Snyder. Cited in 3 How. Pr. N. 8. 434. '85; ev. 58. Whitson v. David, '84; appeal, 66. v. Whitson, '83; ex. 4 ad. 217; surr. ct. 19; trusts, 76; '84; ex. & ad. 127; wills, 120; '85; ex. 4 ad. 135. Whittaker v. N. Y. & Harlem K. K. Co., 51 Super. 01. (J. & 8.) 287. Another decision in Id. 520. Whittemore v. Adams, '83; ar- rest, 14. v. Farrington, '83; negl. 56 n. ; v. 4 p. 2; '84; mistake, 2 n. ; '85,; deeds, 30. Whittick v. Kane, '85; eject. In. Whittleseyu. Delaney, '86;corp. 20 n. v. Frantz, '85; ev. 319. Whitworthv. Erie E'y Co., 87 N. Y. 413; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 56; aff'g 45 Super. CI. (j. ; r. r. co. 4. v. Smith, '83; bankruptcy, 5; costs, 113; infants, 0; surr. ct. 45; '84; lim. of a. 28; '85; atty. 4 c. 5 n. v. Wilcox, '83; parent 4 c. 2; '84; debtor 4 cred. 1 n. ; ex. 4 ad. 66; '85; parent 4 c. 1; '86; contracts, 1. v. Wood, '85; munc. corp. 6n. Wilcox Silver Plate Co. v. Green, '86; sales, 16. Wilde v. Joel, '84; idj. 45. Wilder v. Case, '84; former adj. 30. v. Keeler, '83; partn. 41; '85; partn. 17 n. v. Peabody, '85; trials, 44. v. Banney, 16 Weekly D. 478; s. c, in full, is'. Y. Daily Iieg., Jan. 29, 1883. Aft'd in \il A. Y. 7, v. Seelye, '83; tender, 7; '85; pi. 156 n. ; '86 ; paym. into ct. 1 n. Wildrick v. De Vinney, '85; sup. pro. 26 n. 28. Wilds v. Hudson Eiver B. B, Co., '84; negl. 48; '86; trials, 50. v. St. Louis, etc. B. B. Co., 64 How. Pr. 418; s. c, A'. Y. Daily Reg., Sept. 4, 1882. Aff d it seems by Gen. Term, but no opinion reported; and the latter aff'd in 102 JV. Y. 410. Wile v. Wilson, '84; contracts, 13. Wiles v. Suydam, '83; joinder . of a. 2; '84; mfg. co. 16; '85 ; joinder ot a. 6, 7 ; mfg. co. 17 n. 23 n. ; '86; joinder of a. 8 ; jud m. 22; pi. 18 n. 28 n. 29. Wiley u. Brigham, '86; amend. 6 n. Wilkes v. Ferris, '84: assign. 8; debtor 4 cred. 6; '85; partn. 17 n. v. Harper, '83; subr. 1, 4. v. Lion, '85; ev. 13 n. v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '83; money pd. 14 n ; '84. money pd. 14 n. ; '86. money pd. 11 n. v. Bogers, '84; debtor 4 cred. 1; parent & c. 2; '86; ex. 4 ad. 120 n. Wilkie v. Moore, '83; disc. *' inSp. 8 n. v. Bochester & State Line B. E. Co , '84; inj. 25 n. Wilkin v. Baplee, '85; co^ts, 68. Wilkins SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Willis 157 WilWns v. Baker, '83; wit. 37; 'o5;atty. 4 o. 18. . v. Batterman, '85; atty. 4 c. 21. v. Earle, '84; ev. 7 n. ; '85; trials, 115 n. Wilkinson v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co., '83; ins. 21; '85; stipulation, 2 n. i). Gill, 14 Weekly D. 231. Cited as to attorneys in 36 Hun, 570. '83; indict. 15 n. v. North River Construc- tion Co., '84; inj. 30; re- ceiver, 12. v. 'Parish, '86; ten. in com. 6 n. v. Vorce, '86; justices' ct. in. Wilted v. Spery, '83; cause of a. 4. v. Warren, '85; new tr. 9. Willeocks, Mc parte, '83; corp. 45. Willetsu. Titus, '83; wills, 152. r. WiUets, '86; wills, 53 n. 56 n. Willett v. People, 27 Han, 469. Affd as People v. Willett, 92 N. X. 29; s. c, 1 JSl. Y. Ciim. R. 355. '83; cts. of o.it. 2; '85; codecrim.pro. 1. Willetts v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co , '84; contracts, adden. 10a; '85; bills, n. 4 c. 16; trials, 72. William and Anthony Streets, Matter of, '83; compensa- tion, 12; r. r. co. 85; '85; r. r. co.49n. ; '86; em. dom. 4n. Williams, Matter of, '83; appor- tionment, 7; '84; legacies, 18. Williams v. Aryault, '83; de- fenses, 4 n. v. Blumer, '84; costs 19; •86; costs, 18 n. v. Brown, '86; bills, n. 4 c. 17 n. v. Carrington, '83; re- ceipts, 1. v. Cassady, '83; costs, 33; '86; costs, 14 n. v. Conrad, '83; legacies, 20; trusts, 17; wills, 185. r. Cooper, '83; amend. 21; '86; pi. 61. v. Corwin, '85; default, n. v. Crary, '85; legacies, 13. v. Davis, 16 Weekly p. 390. Further decision in 7 Civ. Pro. R. 282. v. Finch, '86; apprentices, ■ v. Fitch, '83; services, 4 n.; '84; promise, 3; '85; contracts, 71 n. v. Freeman, '83; ev. 157 n. ; '84; ev. 84. v. Gillies, '83; ev. 154; partn. 31; '86; parties, 7. v. Glenny, '84; services, 7. — v. Hogeboom, '83; exec. 46. — v. Horgan, '83; costs, 58. — i». Hutchinson, '83; ser- vices, .'*: '84; contracts, 2, 23; debtor 4 cred. In.; ex. & ad. 66; '86; contracts, 1. — ». Ingersoll. 89 N. X. 508: s. c, 15 Weekly 1). 500; aff'g 23 ffiui, 284; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 259; '85; fraud, conv. 3 n. ; '86 ; atty. & c. 25 ; ten. in com. 5. — v. Jackson, '83; parties, 24 n. — v. Johnson, '83; tradem. In. — v. Kent, '85 ; husb. 4 w. 3 n. -v. Kiernan, '84; parties, 6; '85; ex. £ ad. 61. — v. McAllister, '86; pi. 105. — v. Mclntyre, '86; ex. & ad. 75. — v. Mechanics' & Traders' Fire Ins. Co., '83; amend. 24. — v. Montgomery, '84; ap- peal, 67; '85; contracts, 74 n. — v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., '83; compensation, 2, 8; const, law, 35; inj. 15; '84; const, law, 23; dam. 34 n. 35 n.; inj. 27; '85; highw. 1; inj. 2:>; legislation, 1; nuis. 1;'86; compensation, 5, 8n.; ev. 225; highw. 2 n. 5 n. ; r. r. co. 27. — v. People, '83; trials, 141. — v. Peoples' Fire Ins. Co., '84; ev. 90. — v. Rogers, '84; motion 4 o. 2. — v. Sargent, '83; trials, 123; '84; trials, 26. — v. Shaw, '84; bills of par. 18. — v. Shelly, '86 ; exec. 8 n. -v. Slote, '83; pi. 3, 194. — v. Smith, '83; bills, n. 4 c. 41 n. — v. Spence, '85; tradem. 4. — v. Storrs, '83; parent 4 c. 8 n. ; '85; guardian 4 w. 5. — v. Supervisors of Wayne, '83; tax. 10, 81; '81; tax. In. — v. Syracuse Iron Works, 20 Weekly D. 188. Previ- ous decision in 31 Sun, 392. — v. Thorn, '83; assign. 4; cred. s. 13; sup. pro. 30; '84; accumulations, adden. 2; '85; contempt, 7;' cred. s. 11; eject. 1 n. ; judgm. & decree, 23; sup. pro. 34; trusts, 30. — v. Townsend, '83; mort. 13. — v. Vanderbilt, '84; dam. 31, 32 n. — v. Van Valkenburg, '85; appeal, 13 n. - ii. Waddell, '84; affid. 3 n. ;. '85; affid. 2 n.; '86; affid. 4. v. Walker, '85; paym. 5. v. Weaver, '83 ; offi'r, 25; '86; tax. 44. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 93 iV. Y. 162; rev'g 48 8 iper. Ct. (J. & S.) 349. Other proceedings in 49 Id. It0;3 Civ. Pio.li. 448; and eS How. Ft. 326. '84; corp. VI; '85 ; contracts, 64 n. ; inj. 48; parties, 9 n. ; '86; corp. 30; pi. 26 n. v. Williams, '83; accumu- lations, 4; uses, 1, 1 n. ;-'84; wills, 41a; '85; legacies, 2 n. v. Wilson, '83; goodwill, 1 n. v. Woodard, '83; powers, 4 n. Williamson v. Brown, '83; chat, mort. 25; fraud, conv. 3 n. ; mfg. co. 3 ; notice, 2 n. ; '86; notice, 7. v. Dale, '86; judicial sale, 9n. t). Field, '83; parties, 28; wills, 196 n. 229; '84; par- ties, 23; wills, 117 n. v. Parisien, '83; ev. 336. v. Wadsworth, '83; mfg. co.. 19. v. Williamson, '83; di- vorce, 19 n.; legacies, 34a n. 38; '84; legacies, 18. 19; wills, 109; '85; amend. 6; legacies, 35 n. 39, 42, 43; '86; divorce, 12; wills, 30 n. Williard v. Strachan,'85; costs, 14 n; '86; costs, 11. Willink v. Renwiek, '83; amend. 21; '86; bankruptcy, 1 n. ; pi.' 61. v. Vanderveer, '83; cred. s. 12. Willis, Matter of, '85; munc. corp. Ill n. Willis v. Bailey, '84; bill of par. 7n. — r- v. Bellamy, 53 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 94; s. c, 11 Civ. Pro. R. 104. Previous proceeding in 52 Super. Ct. (J. & &', ) 373. v. Chipp, '83; paym. 2. v. Dawson, '86; spec, perl 11. v. Forrest, '84; dam. 15 n. v. Long Island R. R. Co., 83;negl. 90; r. r. co. 26. v. Mott, '85; wills, 14 n. 23 n.; '86; wills, 16 n. v. O'Brien. Cited 11 Daly, 179, in Werner v. Metro- politan Life Ina. Co., 15 Weekly D. 240. v. Orser, '83; chat. mort. 7n. v. People, '83; ev. 91 n, ; exceptions, 2; new tr. 24, 158 Willis SUPPLEMENTAET TABLE. Witherby Willis — continued • trials, 111; '86; insane per. 1. v. Smyth, 91 N. Y. 297; s. c, lfi Weekly D. 30; aff'g 13 Id. 493. '85; trusts, 2. v. Warren, '84; conversion, 10 n. Williston v. Williston, '85; cem- eteries, 1. Willitts v. Waite, '85; assign. 7. Willoughby v. McCluer, '83; ex. k ad. f>5. Willover v. Hill, '83; pi. 182; '86; pi. 150. Willson u.Willson, '86; ex. * ad. 120 n. Willy v. Mulledy, '83; negl. 6; '85; fires & fire-esc. 1 n. ; negl. 54; '86; death, 1. Wilmarth v. Babcock, '84; pi. 63. Wilmerding v. Cunningham, '88; attach. 44. v. McKesson, '85; ex. & ad. 64. Wilmerdings v. Fowler, '86; atty. & c. 2. Wilmont v. Meserole, '83; wit. 93. Wilmore v. Flack, 16 Weekly 7). 236. Aff'd in 96 JV. J". 572; s. c, 6 Ov. Pro. li. 191, 202. '86; judgm. 17; stip- ulations, 1 n. Wilmot v. Richardson, '86; wit. 37 n. Wilson, Matter of, '83; atty. & o. 16. Wilson v. Abrahams, '84; r. r. co. 29 n. v. Allen, '85; exceptions, 2a. v. Baptist Education So- ciety, '83; surr. ct. 22 n. v. Barney. Cited (impropri- ety of one judge reviewing decisions of another) in People v. National Trust Co., 31 Hun. 26. v. Betts, '83; ev. 34. v. Britton, '84; attach. 11. v. City of Watertown, '86; munc. corp. 46. v. Conine, '83; attach. 53. v. Deen, '83; ev. 140,149; '84; ev. 65; '85; ev. 101,104; '86; contracts, 2 n.; reform- ation of instr 2: trials, 43. v. Duncan, '83; interpl. 6. v. Forsyth, '86; pi. 138 n. -: — v. Goit, '84; ev. 201 n. v. Hetterick, '83; wills, 39 n.; '84; wills, 28 n. 72. v. Holden, '83; spec. perf. 8. v. Lawrence, '83; ins. 68, 69; '85; interpl. 7; '86; cred. s. 21 ; ins. 77 n. v. Lester, '86; contracts, 97 n. ; corp. 34 n. v. Little, '83; pledge, 3 n.; '85; assign, for b of c. 13 n. ; '86; pledge, 1 n. 2 n. 3. v. MacKenzie, '86; court- martial, 1. v. Maltby, '83; chat. mort. 1. v. Martin, '83; contracts, 75; services, 9. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y./83; muncl corp. 47, 74 n. ; '84 ; munc. corp. 59 n. ; '85; munc. corp. 71 n. 117 n. ; offi'r, 17 n. ; '86; munc. corp. 47 n. v. Moran, '83; ev. 203; wills, 68 n.; '86; wills, 9. v. N. Y. Central, etc. R. R. Co., 27 Hun, 149; s. c, 15 WeeklyD. 7. Aff'd in97 N. Y. 87. '86; carriers, 21 n. v. Palmer, '83; appeal, 72; undert. 17. v. People, '85; larceny, 3 n.;'86; ev. 228; homicide, 6n. v. Rondall, '83; reforma- tion of inst. 3. — — v. Reynolds, '85; wit. 35 n. v. Robertson, '83; arrest, 19; banking, 1; partn. 23; '85; assign, forb. of c. 36, 41; attach. 15 n ; partn. 16; '86; assign, for b. of c. 36; fraud, conv. 1 n. v. Simpson, '84; appeal, 1. v. White, '85; judgm. & decree, 4, 6 n. — — v. Williams, '84; arbitra- tion, 3 n.; '86; partn. 7 n. v. Wilson, '84; devise, 1 n. Wilstee v. Northam, '84; coun- tercl. 1 n. Wiltsie v. Shaw, 29 Hun, 195. Aff'd in 100 N. Y. 191; s. c, 3 Northeast. Hep. 331; 1 Centr. Rep. 280; and 2 Eust. Rep. 636. Winans v. Peebles, '83 ; deeds, 28 n. ; '85; husb. & w. 6 n. Winch v. Mutual Benefit Ice Co., 86 N. Y. 618; s. a, 13 Weekly D. 27, modifying 9 Dalti, 177. Winchell v. Hicks, '83; lira, of a. 48, 49, 51 n.; trials, 81; '86; trials, 84. ■ v. Martin, '83; bills of par. 7. v. Winchell, 17 Weekly D. 104. Rev'd in 100 M. Y. 159: s. c, 1 Centr. Rep. 235. '85; contracts, 71 n. Windbiel v. Carroll, '86; duress, 5. Winebrener v. Johnson, '85; cred. s. 1. Winegar v. Fowler, '84; con- tracts, 45 n. ; '85 ; devise, 7 n. ; eject. 1 n. Wines v. Mayor, etc of N. Y., '83; costs, 100; '84; appeal, 44. Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 20 Weekly D. 496. Aff d in 102 N. Y. 531. ti.Disse, '83; sup. pro. 18' '85; defin. 41. Winne v. McDonald, '83; trials, 69. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. 185; afFgl3 Week- ly D. 332. v. Reynolds, '84; spec. perf. 7. Winship v. Pitts, '86; waste, 1. Winslow v. Bliss, 'S3; bank- ruptcy, 5 n. v. Clark, '83; dower, 8; mort. 28; '84; eject. 3 n. v., Collins, '86; appeal, 89. — — v. Moore, '85; contracts, 24 n. Winstead Bank v. Webb, '81; usury, 10; '86; pi. 100. Winston o. English, 'S3; depo- sitions, 16; receivers, 6. Winter v. Eckert, 4 Monlh. L. Bui. 86; s. c, fully reported in W. Y. Daily lifg., Sept. 27, 1882; aff'd in Id. March 29, 1883; and appeal from latter dismissed in 93 N. Y. 367. Another decision in, N. Y. Daily R°rj., April 7, 1883. v. Kinney, '84; offi'r, 14. Wintermute v. Clark, '83;innk. 4n. • v. Light, '84; leases, 16. Winters v. McCarthy, '85; sup. pro. 35. Winterton v. Winterton, '83; lim. of a. 41 ; '85; ex. & ad. 101; lim. of a. :.3. Winton v. Winton, 31 Hun, 290; rev'g 12 Abb. K G. 159; '86; alimony, 6, 9. Wintringham v. Lafoy, '85; as- sign, for b. of c. 12. v. Wintringham, '83; cred. s. 1. Wireman v. Remington S. M. Co., '86; satisfaction of part of pltff s. claim, 1. Wise v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 18 Weekly D. 128. Affd in 101 N. Y. 637. Wiseman v. Lucksinger, '83; easements, 5, 5 n. ; '81; const, law, 55; deeds, 11; easements, 22 n. ; real prop. 1; '85; deeds, 25; drainage, 2 n. ; easements, 9 n. ; li- cense, 1 ; '86 ; easements, 1 ; licenses, 2. v: Panama R. R. Co., '86; justices' ct. 10 n. Wisner v. Ocumpaugh, '83; cause of a. 2 ; lien, 3 ; '84; lien, 3; pi. 160; '86; eject. 4. Wiswall v. Hall, '86; eject. 4. Witbeck v. Holland, '83; car- riers, 15 n. v. Van Rensselaer, '86; eject. 7. . v. Waine, '85; ev. 75. Witherby v. Mann, '83; debtor & cred. 9. Witherhead SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE. Woodworih 159 Witherhead v. Allen, '85;assoc, 11. Withers, Estate of, 2 Civ. Pro. B. (Browne) 162; s. c, 4 Month. L. Bui. 79; and as Walton v. Howard, 1 Bern. 103. '86;surr. ot. 26. Witherspoon v. VanB-olar, '83; pi. 96. Witkowski v. Paramore, 93 N. Y. 467; dismissing appeal from 17 Weekly D. 215. '86; bills of par. 8, 11. Witthaus v. Sehack, 15 Weekly D. 408. Further decisions in 31 Hun, 590; and 39 Id. 560. '83; dower, 4; '85; subr. 3 n. Wittner v. Von Minden, '85 ; at- tach. 4; '86; attach. 1, 5, 44. Witty v. Matthews, '83; landl. 4 t. 4n. ; munc. corp. 91. Witzel v. Chapin, '83; trusts, 4 n. Wixson v. People, '83; embez- zlement, 3; '85; accessory, l;ev. 254 n. Woerishofter v. North Kiver Construction Co., '84; re- ceivers, 12. Wohlfahrt v. Beckert, 92 N. Y, 490; s. c, 12 466. N. C. 478; aff'g 27 Hun, 74; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 202. '85; wit. 46. Wolcott v. Holcomb, '85; costs, 40. v. Van Santvoord, '85; bills, n. k c. 18a n. ; bills of lading, 27; '86;forec. 15. Wolf v. Trochelman, '83; atty. 4 c. 33 n. Wolfe v. Burke, '83; inj. 6; '86; tradem. 3. v. Goulard, '83; tradem. 1 n. 5 n. v. Howes, '83; contracts, 101; master* s. 7; '84; sales, 4; '85; contracts, 98 n. ; '86; contracts, 104. v. Lynch. See Matter of Lynch. >). Security Fire Ins. Co., '84; ins. 9. v. Washburn, '86; former adj. 7. Wolfstein v. People, '86; lar- ceny, 9 n. Wombough v. Cooper, '86; trials, 50. Wood v. Bishop, '85; wills, 1. v. Brown, '83; ex. 4 ad. 89 n.; trusts, 17; '84; ex. 4 ad. 13, 63; '85; ex. 4 ad. 5 n. ; '86; ex. 4 ad. 54 n. 58a. v. Byington, '83; ex. 4 ad. 255; '84; ex. 4 ad. 153. v. Chapin, '85; assign, for b. of c. 9; subr. 8 n. v. City of Brooklyn, '86; inj. 32. v. Clute, '84; sum. pro. 2. u. Colvin, '83; chat. mort. 23; exec. 33; '85; judicial sale, 1; '86; sup. pro. 2. - v. Erie Ey. Co., '83: mort. 7; parte. 11; pi. 43; '84; conflict of 1. 6 ; partn. 4, 5; '85; partn. 7a, 8; '86; partn. 4 n. - v. Fisk, '83; assign, forb. of c. 14; '85; principal 4 s. 9 n. ; undert. 9. - v. Henry, '83; exec. 50; pi. 16; '84; exec. 17; pi. 2; '86; pi. 13. - i>. Hitchcock, '83; tender, 7. - v. Hollister, '84; place of tr. 5 n. - v. Howard Ins. Co., '86; depositions, 3. - v. Jackson, '86; former adj. 4, 38 n. - v. Kelly, '85; inj. 6 n. ; '86; inj. 45 n. - v. Lafayette, '84; pi. 167. - v. Lester, '84; chat. mort. 10 n. ; leases, 15. - v. Lowry, '84; chat. mort. 11 n. ; '85; chat. mort. 3; partn. 17 n. - v. McClughan, '86; release, 2. - v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., '84; counterc. 5. - v. Merritt, '83; contribu- tions, 1. - v. Mitcham, '84; descent, 2n. - v. Moorhouse, '83 ; ev. 33 ; service 4 p. 27; '85; exec. 5; '86; tax. 63. - v. Orser, '84; principal & a. 2. - v. People, '83; indict. 14; '84; perjury, 1; '85; ev. 305 j)..; perjury, 1; '86; ev. 235. - v. Perry; '84; v. 4 p. 9. - v. Phillips, '85; abate, tr. 14 n. - v. Poughkeepsie Ins. Co., '85; ins. 6n.;'86; ev. 289. - v. Eabe, 96 JV. Y. 414. Subsequent decision in 52 Kuper. Ct. (J. & S. ) 479. - v. Bobinson, '83; fraud, conv. 6; '85; trusts, 14 n. ; '86; exec. 8 n. - v. Seely, '83; banking, 17; guardian 4 w. 8; '84; usury, 4; '86; cloud on title, 3 n. - v. Shultis, '85; justices' ct. 5. - v. Terry, '83; ev. 33; ser- vice & p. 37. - v. Tunnicliff, '83; arbitra- tion, 1 ; '86 ; ex. & ad. 2. - v. Vandenburgh, '85; costs, 65; ex. 4 ad. 141; leg- acies, 34. -v. Wheelock, '86; contracts, 73 n. - v. Wood, '83 ; bills of par. 7; ex. 4 ad. 38; husb. s w. 40; trials, 17; trusts, 44; wills, 71, 202, 240; '84; dom- icil, 1; pi. 154 n. ; '85; ex. & ad. 4; pi. 154'n.; '86; husb. & w. 2 n. ; insane per. 3 n. Woodbeck v. Keller, '84; ev. 229; '85; ev. 305 n. Woodbury v. Saokrider, '83; pi. 110; '84; pi. 7n.; '86; at- tach. 27. Woodcock v. Boberts, '86; re- plevin, 3. Wooden v. Waffle, '85; crim. law, 3. Woodford v. Bucklin, '83; ref. 31; '84; appeal, 3; '86; ap- peal, 89; costs, 44 n. v. Patterson, '83; sales, 12a; '34; sales. 8. Woodgate v. Fleet, '83; former adj. 5; '84; sup. pro. 31 ; wills, 124; '85; former adj. 29; ins. 55 n. ; susp. of power of a. 6 n. Woodhouse v. Todd, '83; attach. 31. Woodhullti. Bosenthal, '84; ap- peal, 9; '85; lease, 14; '86; appeal, 47; lease, 24. Woodin v. Bagley, '83; parties, 23; ref. 48; '84; parties, 36. v. People, '85 ; rape, 1 n. Woodman v. Goodenough, '86; sup. pro. 25. Woodruff, Matter of, '86; corp. 9n. Woodruff v. Cook, '83; costs, 114. v. Dickie, '83; amend. 26. v. Erie Ey. Co., 93 N. Y. 609; rev'g 25 Huh, 246. '84; banking, 8 n. ; corp. 44 n. ; '85; r. r. co. 76; '86; insane per. 13. v. Imperial Fire Ins. Co. of London, 90 JV. Y. 521; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 14; affg 27 Hun, 229; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 23. '83; ins. 9; receivers, 16; '84; costs, 48; '85; const, law, 31; ins. 55 n. v. Merchants' Bank of N. Y., '83; ev. 391. v. Woodruff, '86; ex. 4 ad. 16. v. Young, '85; ex. 4 ad. 36 n. Woods v. De Figaniere, '86; ap- peal, 6 n. v. Pangburn, '84; joint debtors, 4 n. ; principal 4 s. 6; '85; surr. ct. 36. Woodward v. Bugsbee, '86; wit. 1. v. Fuller, '84; contracts, 86; '85; contracts, 88, 93; '86; contracts, 76. o. Washburn, '85; lim. of a. 26. Woodworth v. Bank of America, '85; b. n. c. 18a n. v. Bennett, '84; money pd. 10. v. Payne, '83; deeds, 27; '85; grants, 5. 160 Woodworth SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. Yates Woodworth — continued v. Sweet, '85; ev. 43; '86; debtor & ered. 12. Woolbridge v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., '86; munc. corp. 54. Woolen Co. v. Juillard, '86; partn. 28 n. Wooley v. Constant, '85;. con- tracts, 76. Woolley v. Newcombe, 87 N. T. 605; s. a, 14 Weekly D. 52; aff'g 9 Daly, 75; s. c, 9 Weekly D. 480. v. Woolley, '84; wills, 59 n.; '85; wills, 19. Woolner v. Hill, 93 N. Y. 576; rev'g 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 470. Woolsey, Matter of, 29 Hun, 626 Rev'd in 95 K Y. 135. '84; ex. & ad. 120; '85; judicial sale, 8 n. Woolsey v. Morss, '85; ex. & ad. 43; spec. perf. 12 n. Woonsocket Rubber Co. v. Rubber Clotting Co., '84; costs, 42. Wooster v. Chamberlin, '85; pi. 58 n.;'86; pi. 30. v. Sage, '84; sales, 11; '86; sales, 8. v. Sherwood, '85; sales, 83 n. Worrall v. Driggs, '84; ex. & ad. 102. - v. Munn, '83; partn. 31; trials, 3; '85; contracts, 80; deeds, 3; ins. 6 n. ; spec, perf. 14; '86; ins. 13. Worster v. Forty-second Street R. R. Co.,'83;negl. 35; '84; highw. 3 n. Worth v. Case, '84; contracts, adden. 39. v. Edmonds, '84; sales, 4; '86; dam. 24 n. Wortmim v. Wortman, '84; ser- vice & p. 12; '86; judgm. 30. Wotten v. Copeland, '86; par- ties, 32 n. Woven Tape Skirt Co., Matter of, '83; assign, for b. of c. 43; '86; receivers, 12 n. Wright, Matter of, 29 Hun, 357; s. a, 16 Weekly D. 535; and 65 How. Pr. 119; afPg 63 Id. 345. '83; arbitration, 3 n. ; '86; discont. 5. AVright v. Austin, '83; ex. & ad. 148; '85; lease, 6; '86; trusts, 15 n. i'. Brown, '83; appeal, 57; arrest, 13; '84; appeal, 81; ev. 185; fraud, 1. v. Cabot, 89 N. T. 570; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 357; afi'g 47 Super. It. (J. & a.) 229. '85; banking, 13; principal & a. 10; set-off, 4; '86; pow- ers, 3. v. Clapp, '85; cancel, of wr. instr. 4. ■ v. Delafield, '83; pL 2; '85; ev. 14; pi, 64.. v. Douglass, '84; exec. 14. v. Fleming, '83; ex. &ad. 36; '83; surr. ct. 22 n. v. Flemming, '84; costs, 31. v. Garlinghouse, '84; lim. of a. 20. v. Hart, '83; sales, 11a n. v. Holbrook, '85 ; ex. & ad. 92 n. v. Hooker, '85; partn. 7 n. v. Hunter, '83; appeal, 168; trials, 62; '84; appeal, 66; '85; appeal, 23. v. Millbank, '86; new tr. 22 n. v. Miller, '83; undert. 3; '84; infants, 4; '86; husb. & w. 7; wills, 51 n. v. Mischo, N. Y. Daily Ben., April 4, 1885; s.c, 5£ Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 241. Affd on opinion below, in Id. 251. ti. Moore, '83; v. 4 p. 16; '86; eject. In. v. N- Y. Central R. R. Co., '83; master & s. 17, 19, 30; '84; master & s. 13, 18, 27,, 28; '8.V, master &s. 26; '86; pi. 67 n. „. Nostrand, 94 N. Y. 31; rev'g 47 Svper. Ct. (J.& S.) 441. Further decision in 51 Id 499; 53 Jd. 381; 98 N. Y. 669; and 100 H. 616; s. c, 1 Centr. Rep. 235. '84; ev. 119; '85; statutes, 17 n.; eup.pro. 2 n.; '86; receiv- ers, 2 n. w. Orient Mut. Ins. Co., '83; ev. 387; '85; ins. 41. v. People, '86; wit. 69 n. v. Pierce, '85; election of r. 2. v. Ritterman, '85; election of r. 8 n. ; '86; election of i. 1. v. Saddler, '83; deeds, 28 n. ; '85; aliens, 1. v. Saunders, '84; appeal, 78. v. Tallmadge, '85; wills, 87 n. v. Trustees of M. E. Church, '83; trusts, 70; wills, 230; '84; distribution, 2 n. ; wills, 97 n. v. Weeks, '83; contracts, 74; '84; leases, 3; '85; con- tracts, 79 n. 82 n. v. Wilcox, '83; master & s. 13 n. ; '84; master & s. 44 n. ii. Williams, '85; costs, 4, 9 n. ; '86; costs, 82. v. Wright, '83;atty. & c. 57 n. ; costs, 13; gifts, 13 n. ; husb. b w. 42; pi. 3; '84; assign. 23; atty. & o. 24; '85; contracts, 13, 79 n.; '86; appeal, 92a n. ; atty. & c. 20. Wright's Accounting, '83; surr. ct. 34. Wrigley, Matter of, '83; at'.ach." 15 n. Wuesthoff v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 52 S per-. Ct. (J. & 8. ) 210 n. Affd in Id. 208. WunDenburg v. Gearty, '84; judgm. 30. Wurts v. Jenkins, '83; ex. & ad. 134. Wyckoff v. Anthony, 9 Daly, 417; s. c, 11 Weekly D. 345. Other decision in 15 Ii. 461; s. c, 90 if. Y. 442. '83; parties, 17 n. v. De Graff, 98 N. Y. 134; rev'g 11 Daly, 322; s. c, 15 Weekly D. 484. . v. Meyers, '84; contracts, 28. v. Queens County Ferry Co., '83; carriers, 4. Wyeth v. Rraniff, '83; usury, 19. Wygant v. Smith, '84; sup. pro. 16; '85; sup. pro. 26 n. Wylde v. Northern Railroad Co., '84; ev. 10, 40. Wylie v. Lockwood, '83; wills, 191, 194;' '85; wills, 103 n. - v. Marine Nat. Bank, '83; brokers, 3; '84; brokers, 4, 4n.; '86; brokers, 5. v. Spencer, '84; ev. 228; '«5; money pd. Vi n. Wyman v. Mayor, '83; compen- sation, 17 n. ; munc. corp. 124; '85; em. dom. ffn. v. Mitchell, '84; former adj. 26 n. ; int. 7 n. ; pi. 27; '80; merger, 1 n. v. Prossor, '84; ben. assoc. 13. Wynehamer v. People, '83; const, law, 32, 32 n.; '85; const, law, 11, 13 n.; '86; adulteration, 1 ; const, law, 7n. Wynkoop u. Halbut, '83; jus- tices' ct. 22. Wysham v. Rossen, '86; ship- ' ping, 11 n. Yager v. Hannah, '85; justices' ct. 1 n. Yaleu. Baker, '83; surr. ct. 34; '86; surr. ct. 21. v. Dederer, '83; husb. & w. 41 ; '84; husb. & w. 4 n. ; '86; husb. & w. 18 n. 19. v. Gwinits, '83; ref. 32 n. 36. Yamato Trading Co. v. Brown, '83; deposition, 29; '84; de- position, 33; '85; deposition, 24. Yates, Matter of, '85; hab. corp. 1 n. ; '86; hab. corp. 1 n. Yates v. Alderi, 41 Barb. 172. Cited (Presumption of knpwledge) in 36 Hun, 465. v. Blodgett, '83; arrest, 11, v. Burch, '83; undert. 6. Yates SUPPLEMENTAEY TABLE. ZvJlB 161 v. Fassett, '83; former adj. 37; replevin, 6 n. v. Foot, '84; paym. 1. . v. Lansing, '83 ; contempt, 1; '84; contempt, 1,3; '85; hab. corp. In.; '86; hab. corp. In. ; justice of the pence, 2. -v. North, '83; attach. 29,28, 85; '86; attach. 19, 33 n. v. Olmstead, '83; chat. mort. 8. v. People, '85; hab. corp. 1 u. v. Russell, '83; divorce, 3 n. ;'86; discont. 5. v. Tisdale, '83; munc. corp. 126. v. Van De Bogert, '85; adv. poss. 2. v. Yates, '83; wills. 139. Yenni v. McNarnee. '83; ins. 18; warehousing, 2; '85; partn. 17n. ; sales, 33 n. Yennyr. Yenny, '84; service & p. 14 n. Yerkes v. Salomon, '85; con- tracts, 66; '86; contracts, 62; dam. 17 n. ; ev. 86 n. Yert'ore v. Wiswall, '84; abate. &r. 2; '85; abate. & r. 2. York, Estate of. See Tappan v, M. E. Church. Yorks v. Peck, '86; notice, 6 n. Youmans v. Boomhower, '83; ins. 05; '85; sup. pro. 28. v. Edgerton, 91 N. Y. 403; aff'gl6 Hun, 28;'83; assign. 18. Young, Matter of. See Young v. Hicks. Young u. Atwood, '85; ev. 342. v. Brush, '83 ; appeal, 50. v. Case, '84 ; legacies, 4. v. Cuddy, '83; ref. 46; '86; appeal, 12; costs, 89. v. Dake, '85; statutes, 9. v. Davis, '86; appeal, 63. - — v. De Mott, '84; pi. 154 n. ; '85; pi. 154 n. v. Drake, '86; corp. 28, 30; parties, 10. o. Guy, 87 N. T. 457; aff'g 23 Hun, 1; '83; costs, 7. v. Heermans, '83; fraud conv. 2; '85; fraud, con v. 5 n. v. Hicks, 92 N. T. 235; s. a, 16 Weekly D. 570; aff'g Matter of Young, 27 Han', 54; s. a, 14 Weekly D. 367. v. Hill, '86; acct. st. 1. v. Miller, '85 ; slander, 3 n. .». Rummell, '83; pl.74; '84; pi. 132. v. Thurber, 91 .V. T. 388; aff g 12 Weekly D. 52. v. Weeks, '86; undert. 15 n. v. Willet, '86; trials, 97. v. Young, '83; ex. & ad. 54; '84; trusts, 4 n. ; '85; trusts, 2, 18; '86; ev. 238 n.; gift, 3 n. Younger v. Duffle, 26 Han, 442; s. c, 14 Weekly D. 458. An- other decision in action by the same parties, in 28 Him., 242; s. c, 16 Weekly D. 35. Id. affdin94i\ r .r.535;s.c, 5 Civ. Pro. R. 84; '84; pi. 72; '86; wills, 11 n. Youngs v. Carter, '85; subr. 3 n. v. Kent, '83; pi. 93; '85; pi. 98. v. Lee, '83; bills, n. & c. 41 n. 45, 48; pi. 110; '85;paym, 3n. Z Zabriskie v. Smith, '83 ; abate . & r. 1; trials, 88; '84; ev. 172; pi. 125; '85; abate. & r. 2, 4 n. 6; assign. 1; '86; abate. & r. 3 n. 4 n. ; assign. 1 n. Zahrts' Es'.ate, 11 Abb. if. a 225; s. a, 2 Civ. Pro. Ii. {Browne), 272; and as Zahrt v. Zahrt, 1 Dem. 444. Aff'd in 94 N. Y. 605. Zapp v. Miller, 3 Dem. 266. Further proceedings in 2.1 Weekly D. 321; and 23 Weekly D. 378. Zborowski, Matter of, '86; legis- lature, 2. Zellweger v. Caffe, '83; deposi- tions, 7. Zinmerman v. Erhard, '83; for- mer adj. 33; partn. 11 ; '84; husb. 4 w. 4 n. ; '8G; husb. & w. 18. v. Shreever, '86; pi. 18 n. Z.nk v. People, '84; chattels. 1; '85; larceny, 4 n. Zinn v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., '83; carriers, 12, 15 n. 24. v. Eitterman, '84; assign. for b. of c. 52 n; '85; assign, for b. of c. 19 n. Zoeller v. Riley, 1 How. Pr. N. H. 525; s. c, 7 Civ. Pro. R. 303, and again Id 390. Sub- sequent appeal in 100 N. Y. 102. '86; fraud, conv. 9. Zorntlein v. Bram, 103 N. Y. 12; s. c, 2 East. Rep. 40; rev'g 49 Super. Cl. {J. & H.) 476; which affd 63 How. Pr. 240. '83; deeds, 28 n. ; husb. & w. 16 n. Zogbaumu. Parker, '83; atty & c. 63; '84; set-off, 7; '85; atty. & c. 20. Zule v. Zule, '83; apportion- ment, 1. NOTE. For the cases beginning with the following names and which may be cited under either narae, look in the foregoing Supplementary Table under the name directed. Agreda. See Sanchez de Agre- da. Belden v. Slade. See also Slade, Belden v. Berkshire Woolen Co. See also Woolen Co. Brick Presbyterian Church. See Presbyterian Church, &c. Broadway National Bank. See National Bank. Cross v. Jackson. See Trus- tees v. Jackson. Dalzell v. Raw. See also Raw, Dalzell v. Ellis v. People. See People, Ellis v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank. See Savings Bank. Industrial Savings Bank. See Savings Bank.