2. Neither the marriage of a female with an alien husband, nor her resi- dence in a foreign country, will con- stitute her an alien, so as to prevent her taking real estate in this state ib by devise.
arbitrators should then decide, ac-
tion, by an attorney, is not of itself sufficient evidence of the intent mentioned in the statute. The ille- gal intent and purpose must be proved. ib
the expenses of grading a public | 3. The mere purchase of a chose in ac- street or avenue, upon and amongst the owners and occupants of the lands benefited by such improve- ments in proportion to the amount of such benefits and the estimated expense. MORSE, J. dissenting. The People v. The Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 535
2. Accordingly, where the expenses of grading an avenue in the city of Brooklyn were apportioned, not up- on all the lands in the city, but upon seventy-three lots of ground upon or immediately adjacent to the avenue, the property of seventeen different proprietors, and the as- sessments were to be collected from them in consideration of the bene- fits and advantages which such lands would derive from the improve- ment of the street; Held that the proceedings were illegal and void, and the assessment was vacated and set aside. MORSE, J. dissenting. ib
3. Money, collected upon an assess- ment for grading a public avenue in a city, is property, within the mean- ing of the section of the constitution, which provides that "private prop- erty shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation." ib
See CERTIORARI. COMPENSATION.
ATTACHMENT. See AFFIDAVIT.
1. A mortgage is a chose in action. The statute prohibiting attorneys, &c. from buying choses in action with the intent or for the purpose of bringing suits thereon, extends to suits in equity. Hall v. Bart- lett, 297
2. But a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage by advertisement, is not
a suit in any court, within the mean- A discharge under the bankrupt act ing of that statute.
of 1841 may be pleaded in bar to
an action upon a judgment founded on a debt existing when the bank- rupt filed his petition, but which judgment was recovered before the discharge was granted, so that the defendant had no opportunity of pleading such discharge, in the suit. 498 Fox v. Woodruff,
1. A bet, on the subject of an election, is void at common law, as being
statute, and has no authority to en- tertain claims not presented in the mode, and within the period, pre- scribed by the statute creating it and defining its powers. The Peo- ple, ex. rel. Buell, v. The Canal Ap- 496 praisers, 2. Accordingly, held, that the apprais- ers had no jurisdiction in respect to claims for damages not made within one year after the appropriation by the state of the lands, waters, or streams taken for the use of the canal. ib
against public policy. Like v. Thomp: 1. Matheson v. Weller, (3 Denio, 52,)
overruled. Cole v. Stevens,
2. Such a contract may be rescinded by either party, while it is execu- tory, but not after it has been de- ib cided.
3. An action of trover will not lie, at common law, to recover from a stakeholder the value of a watch staked on the result of an election, where notice not to deliver the watch to the winning party was not given to the defendant till two weeks after the election; though at the time such notice was given, the watch still remained in the hands of ib the stakeholder.
The act of a municipal corporation, in confirming an assessment for grad- ing an avenue, is an exercise of ju- dicial authority; and the proceed- ings may therefore be removed into the supreme court, by the common law writ of certiorari, for review. The People, ex rel. Griffing, v. The 535 Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn,
1. An instrument by which one party agrees to sell and the other to pur- chase, certain personal property, at a specified price, and that the vendor shall retain a lien upon the property until the puschase price is paid, is in the nature of a chattel mortgage. Dunning v. Stearns, 630
2. Where ashes, in an ashery, were among the articles embraced in such an instrument, but the number of bushels was left in blank; Held that the omission to specify the quantity did not render the instrument void for uncertainty; but that as between the parties, it was competent to prove by parol evidence the quanti- ty intended.
ish all distinction between legal and equitable remedies. Crary v. Good- man, 657
2. By that section one form of proceed- ing is made common to both legal and equitable actions. One mode is prescribed for the prosecution of rights and remedies, whether legal or equitable; but the pre-existing distinction between those rights and remedies which the common law en- forced, and those which equity alone could protect and administer, re- mains untouched. ib
On the 6th of October, 1846, the plain- tiffs shipped, at Albany, three cases of goods for Buffalo, on a canal boat. A bill of lading was made out by the plaintiffs and forwarded by the cap- tain of the canal boat, with direc- tions to deliver the goods in the bill as addressed, and collect the charges for transporting on the canal. The three cases were marked, on the bill, "A. B. Case, Chicago, by ves- sel, care of Sears & Griffith, Buffalo." The cases were received by Sears & Griffith (the defendants) at Buffalo, on the 14th of October, and they paid the canal charges, indorsing a receipt therefor, and a memorandum of the receipt of the goods, on the bill of lading. The defendants were at the time engaged in the forward- ing and commission business, at B. That was their principal business, but they were interested to some extent in a transportation line, on the canal, and also in at least one vessel carrying freight upon the lakes. On the 17th of October the defendant shipped the goods on board the schooner C. a transient vessel, which ran between Buffalo and Chicago, in which they had no interest. They took the captain's receipt, and made a bill of lading for the goods, agreeing with the cap- tain as to the amount of freight he should receive. The vessel was a good one, and her captain in good credit. In an action against S. & G. to recover the value of one of the cases of goods, which was lost, and not delivered at Chicago, Held, 1. That the legal import of the memo- randum was, not that the goods
should be stored at Buffalo, and that the defendants should act as agents of the plaintiffs in procuring a car-1. rier of them from Buffalo to Chica- go; but that they were consigned to the defendants at B., with a re- quest or direction that they should be carried, by vessel, from B. to Chicago. 2. That the defendants, receiving the goods, with the accom- panying memorandum, and trans- porting or causing the same to be transported, by vessel, to Chicago, were to be regarded as impliedly contracting to carry; and that upon such receipt the risk of a carrier, and not that of a warehouseman or forwarder, attached. Teall v. Sears, 317
A deed executed by the comptroller to a purchaser, upon a sale of lands for taxes, which purports to be given in pursuance of the statute relative to the assessment and collection of taxes, and recites a sale of the land for taxes, to the grantee, by virtue of that statute, is valid, although it is not executed in the name of the people. Leggett v. Rogers, 406
An error in the notice given to the occupant, on a sale of lands for tax- es, as to the amount claimed to be due for taxes, per centage, &c. will not vitiate a deed executed by the comptroller to the purchaser at the sale. ib
« AnteriorContinuar » |