Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

BANKRUPTCY.

§ 1. Petition, adjudication,

warrant,

and custody of property.
In an action by a trustee in bankruptcy to
recover the proceeds of an execution sale on
defendant's judgment obtained against bank-
rupt less than four months before the filing of
the petition in bankruptcy, held, that adjudica-
tion in bankruptcy was conclusive that bank-
rupt was insolvent at the time of defendant's
judgment.-DeGraff v. Lang (Sup.) 78.

A bankrupt firm cannot convey its property
after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.
-Muschel v. Austern (Sup.) 235.

§ 2. Assignment, administration, and
distribution of bankrupt's estate.
Trustee's action under Bankr. Act July 1,
1898, c. 541, § 60b, 30 Stat. 562 [U. S. Comp.
St. 1901, p. 3445], should be one in equity for
an accounting.-Houghton v. Stiner (Sup.) 10.

A receiver in bankruptcy cannot transfer ti-
tle to any of the bankrupt's property without
order of the court.-Muschel v. Austern (Sup.)
235.

Voluntary bankruptcy proceedings on the
part of building contractors, prior to lien being
filed for material furnished to them, do not af-
fect the right of materialmen to file and en-
force their lien.-Crane Co. v. Smythe (Sup.)

Pleading matter in avoidance, see "Pleading," 917.
§ 2.

AWARD.

A transfer of certain insurance policies to a
bank after a loss thereunder had been adjusted
held not to constitute a fraudulent preference,
prohibited by Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, §

Of insurance appraisers, see "Insurance," § 10. 60, subd. "a." 30 Stat. 562 [U. S. Comp. St.

BAIL.

§ 1. In civil actions.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 599, a mere offer by
sureties on a bail bond to surrender their prin-
cipal after the time for answering an action
on the bond was expired held no defense.-
Garofalo v. Prividi (Sup.) 467.

1901, p. 3445].-Engel v. Union Square Bank
(Sup.) 1070.

In order to establish a fraudulent preference
by a bankrupt, it must be shown that the pre-
ferred creditor actually received as a result of
the transfer a greater percentage on his debt
out of that payable to the other creditors.-
Engel v. Union Square Bank (Sup.) 1070.

bankrupt.

That insufficient acts of sureties on a bail§ 3. Rights, remedies, and discharge of
bond in attempting to surrender their principal
were performed on the advice of their attorney
held no ground for a new trial, after judgment
against them for the amount of the bond.-
Garofalo v. Prividi (Sup.) 467.

In an action against the sureties on a bail
bond, a return of not found by the sheriff is
conclusive, and cannot be questioned, except
as expressly authorized by statute.-Garofalo v.
Prividi (Sup.) 467.

In an action on a bail bond for the sum of
$500, a judgment against the sureties for a
sum in excess of such penalty was erroneous.—
Garofalo v. Prividi (Sup.) 467.

BAILMENT.

See "Carriers," § 2; "Innkeepers"; "Pledges."
A bailee for hire of a horse held to have the
burden of proof that its death from injury re-
ceived while he had it was not the result of
his negligence.-Snell v. Cornwell (Sup.) 1.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1268, a discharged
bankrupt held entitled to an order canceling a
judgment against him.-Hussey v. Judson (Sup.)
499.

Under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, § 17, c. 541,
30 Stat. 550, 551 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
34281, a discharge in bankruptcy held not a re-
lease from liability for fraud, though such fraud
was not perpetrated while acting as an officer
or in any fiduciary capacity.-A. G. Hyde &
Sons v. Lesser (Sup.) 878.

Order assigning future earnings and agree-
ment to collect held to render failure to pay
over a misappropriation or defalcation while
acting in fiduciary capacity, within Bankr. Act
July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 17, subd. 4, 30 Stat. 551
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 34281.-J. L. Mott
Iron Works v. Toumey (Sup.) 1020.

Under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, §§ 1,
7, 17, 58, 30 Stat. 544, 548, 550, 561 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3418, 3424, 3428, 3444],
and Code Civ. Proc. § 1268, held, that a motion

and 121 New York State Reporter

for the cancellation of a judgment against one discharged in bankruptcy should have been allowed.-Lent v. Farnsworth (Sup.) 1112.

BANKS AND BANKING.

Attachment of deposits, see "Attachment," § 1.
Deposits in trust, see "Trusts," § 1.
Joint ownership of deposit, see "Joint Ten-
ancy."

Payment by check, see "Payment," § 1.

BILLS AND NOTES.

Operation and effect of usury laws, see "Tsury," § 1.

1. Requisites and validity.

Liability on a note cannot be defeated on the ground that the services constituting the consideration therefor were rendered without any express request or promise to pay therefor, where it appears that the maker received and accepted the services, which were for his bene947.

§ 1. Banking corporations and associa-it-Yarwood v. Trusts & Guarantee Co. (Sup.)

tions.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Where a savings bank deposit is in joint names, and the intent appears to create a joint tenancy, the survivor takes title to the entire fund, irrespective of whether he ever had any possession of the pass book.-Farrelly v. Emi-475. grant Industrial Sav. Bank (Sup.) 54.

BAR.

Holder of a check, indorsed to him in due course, and without actual knowledge of any defenses thereto, as required by Negotiable Instruments Law, Laws 1897, p. 732, c. 612. § for the check from the drawer.-Goetting v. Day (Sup.) 510.

Of action by former adjudication, see "Judg. 95, held entitled to recover the amount paid ment," § 4.

BASTARDS.

81. Illegitimacy in general.

A child of a common-law marriage is, under Laws 1895, p. 313, c. 531, entitled to a distributive share of his mother's estate, equally with the children of the first marriage. In re Schmidt (Sur.) 428.

BATTERY.

See "Assault and Battery."

BEQUESTS.

See "Wills."

BETTING.

See "Gaming."

BIAS.

Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3.

BILL OF PARTICULARS.

See "Pleading," § 5.

Failure to serve as ground for reversal, see "Appeal," § 3.

A judgment against a second accommodation indorser held not to estop the representatives of the first accommodation indorser, in a suit by the second, to claim nonliability by reason of the diversion of the note.-Corn v. Levy (Sup 768.

4. Actions.

In an action on a check, facts held to establish prima facie a valid indorsement.-Goetting v. Day (Sup.) 510.

A defense to an action by a second accommo dation indorser against the first that the note had been diverted, and was not indorsed to give credit to a maker with the payee, held not de murrable for failure to allege when the second indorser acquired knowledge of such diversion --Corn v. Levy (Sup.) 768.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 522, a hypothetical clause preceding a defense alleged in an answer to a suit on a note held surplusage, and not to render such defense subject to demurrer.-Cor v. Levy (Sup.) 768.

In an action on notes, evidence held suf cient to sustain a finding that indorsements were not genuine.-Doty v. Dellinger (Sup) 1001.

BODY EXECUTION.

See "Execution," § 2.

[blocks in formation]

show that she induced the purchaser to buy the
property. Scherer v. Colwell (Sup.) 490.

A broker held not entitled to recover commis-
sions for procuring customers for the sale of real
estate, in the absence of proof of written au-
thority to offer the property for sale.-Borgio v.
Gange (Sup.) 538.

An indorsement on a contract, signed by the
binding agreement as to the amount due plain-
parties, held proof that there was no previous
tiff on the contract.-Hart v. L. D. Garrett Co.
(Sup.) 574.

Under defendants' contract to pay plaintiff a
share of any profits they should realize from a
sale, as soon as received, held, that plaintiff
could not recover till defendants' receipt there-
of was no longer contingent.-Hart v. L. D.
Garrett Co. (Sup.) 574.

A broker, employed to procure a loan, does
not earn his commission by securing a person
who offers to make the loan, but afterwards re-
fuses to consummate the transaction.-Ashfield
v. Case (Sup.) 649.

A real estate broker, having found a person
ready and willing to make an exchange accord-
ing to the terms of the broker's employment,
earned his commissions, though his principal re-
fused to complete the exchange.-Suydam v.
Healy (Sup.) 669.

In an action by broker to recover commis-
sions for selling defendants' real estate, evi-
dence held not to show any liability on the part
of defendants.-Sampson v. Ottinger (Sup.) 796.

he produced a purchaser ready, willing, etc.,
A broker held entitled to commissions, where
but the sale was not consummated by reason
of a defect in title.-Cusack v. Aikman (Sup.)
940.

§ 3. Rights, powers, and liabilities as to
third persons.

A broker, in good faith selling railway bonds,
transferred on a forged authority, held liable
over to the railway company on its being com-
pelled to replace the bonds.-Jennie Clarkson
Home for Children v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
(Sup.) 348.

A broker, in good faith selling registered bonds
belonging to a corporation, transferred under a
forged authority, held liable to the corporation
for the value of the bonds.-Jennie Clarkson
Home for Children v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
(Sup.) 348.

BUILDING REGULATIONS.

§ 1. Duties and liabilities to principal.
Failure of stockbrokers' client to reply to let-
ter held not direction to sell stock on certain See "Health," § 1.
day, so as to charge brokers with the highest
price then obtainable.-Lynch V. Simmonds
(Sup.) 420.

2. Compensation and lien.

Real estate brokers held entitled to recover
for services in preparing for auction, although
owner himself sold property on day before auc-
tion.-Donald v. Lawson (Sup.) 485.

BUILDINGS.

Injuries to servants employed on, see "Master
and Servant," § 4.
Restrictions in deeds, see "Covenants," § 2.

BURGLARY.

A real estate broker held not entitled to re-
cover commissions, where the evidence failed to Burglary insurance, see "Insurance," § 9.

and 121 New York State Reporter

CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS. | for transportation.-Strough v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 30.

Cancellation of judgment against discharged
bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 3.
Cancellation of notice of lis pendens, see "Lis
Pendens."

Rescission of contract, see "Contracts," § 4; "Vendor and Purchaser," § 2.

CARRIERS.

§ 1. Control and regulation of common carriers.

Recovery of the penalty provided by Laws 1890, p. 1114, c. 565, § 104, for refusal to give a transfer "to any passenger desiring to make a continuous trip,' may be had by one riding for the purpose of recovering penalties.-McLean v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 135.

A railroad company, adopting the plan of sending its cars over a switch existing solely for the purpose of delivering freight to cars from shippers located on the switch, held required to serve all shippers alike.-Kellogg v. Sowerby (Sup.) 412.

The right of owners of a grain elevator to recover money paid to an elevator association held not to prevent the owners from recovering damages against the association and railroad companies, because of the companies discriminating in favor of the association.-Kellogg v. Sowerby (Sup.) 412.

Owners of a grain elevator held entitled to recover damages against railroad companies and an elevator association, because of the companies discriminating in favor of the association. Kellogg v. Sowerby (Sup.) 412.

§ 2. Carriage of goods.

Shipper cannot recover increase of freight rates voluntarily paid, though carrier failed to give notice of increase required by Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 6, 24 Stat. 380 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3157].-Strough v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 30.

In an action by a shipper to recover freight charges from a carrier, the court properly refused to submit to jury the issue of reasonableness of increased rates.-Strough v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 30.

Whether a carrier unreasonably neglected to provide a sufficient number of cars to forward plaintiff's freight was a question for the jury. -Strough v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 30.

In an action against connecting carriers for damage to goods, evidence held sufficient to justify a finding of negligence on the part of the final carrier.-Thyll v. New York & L. B. R. Co. (Sup.) 345.

In an action against connecting carrier for damage to goods, evidence, with complaint, held to absolve initial carrier from liability.-Thyll v. New York & L. B. R. Co. (Sup.) 345.

Contract of carriage, limiting liability in certain cases, held not to relieve carrier from liabil ity for negligence, but to impose on owner of goods the burden of proof.-Thyll v. New York & L. B. R. Co. (Sup.) 345.

Where a carrier, though having the consignee's goods in its possession at the point of delivery, refuses to deliver on demand, it redders itself liable for any damage which the goods might thereafter sustain.-Thyll v. New York & L. B. R. Co. (Sup.) 345.

That freight was destroyed by fire while in the freight house of a railroad company does not of itself justify an inference of negligence on the part of the company.-Van Akin v. Erie R. Co. (Sup.) 871.

Exemption in bill of lading from liability for loss by fire held to prevent recovery for destruetion in freight house of railroad.-Van Akin v. Erie R. Co. (Sup.) 871.

3. Carriage of passengers.

Street car passenger, refusing to pay fare, held to have no cause of action against company for forcible ejection.-Hoelljes v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 133.

An elevated railroad company held liable for injury to a passenger by the overcrowding of a car. Viemeister v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. (Sup.) 162.

A conductor, who has no notice that a passenger intends to leave the car, cannot properly The fact that one has large quantity of goods be charged with negligence in starting the car. for transportation, or has been unable to ob--Brown v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 461. tain cars before increased freight rate went into effect, held not to relieve him from such increase. Strough v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 30.

A discrimination excepting a shipper from a general increase of freight tariff is against public policy. Strough v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 30.

A street car conductor held bound to take Dotice of the distance between the car and pillars in the street, and the size of a passenger standing on the car's running board.-Canavan v. In terurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 491.

anticipate that a passenger, standing on the A street railroad company held not bound to running board of an open car, will swing back, Carrier owes duty to use reasonable diligence so as to come in contact with a pillar in the to furnish sufficient cars, but not to discrim-street.-Canavan v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. inate in favor of any shipper, when demands (Sup.) 491. are unusual. Strough v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 30.

Hay not being perishable merchandise, a carrier is not called upon to put forth unusual efforts to remove the same, when delivered to it

Contributory negligence of passenger and neg ligence of defendant, in action against street railroad for personal injuries, held, under the evidence, to be questions for the jury.-Michelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 501.

Instruction, in action by street car passenger
for personal injuries, directing verdict for plain-
tiff if certain facts were found, held error.-

CERTIFIED CHECKS.

Goodkind v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) See "Banks and Banking,” § 2.

523.

Evidence in an action for injuries to passen-
ger alighting at a station held to justify a ver-
dict for plaintiff.-Barnes v. New York Cent. &
H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 608.

In an action against a street railway for in-
juries to a passenger from the sudden starting
of the car while he was alighting, evidence held
sufficient to sustain a verdict for defendant on
the issue as to whether the car was started as
claimed. Fox v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.
(Sup.) 754.

[blocks in formation]

Under doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, street Of civil action, see "Venue," § 1.
car company held bound to explain why street
car left track, injuring plaintiff.-Klinger v.
United Traction Co. (Sup.) 864.

In action against street railway company
operating car and another street railway com-
pany on whose tracks the car was running
to recover for injury to passenger, evidence
held to justify verdict against both defend-
ants.-Klinger v. United Traction Co. (Sup.)

864.

Motorman, using switch in other than the
usual manner, held bound, in the exercise of
reasonable care, to proceed slowly and keep
the car under control.-Klinger v. United Trac-
tion Co. (Sup.) 864.

Street car company, whose car collided with
one on another road in which plaintiff was a
passenger, held bound to use toward him only
reasonable and ordinary care. - Klinger v.
United Traction Co. (Sup.) 864.

A street railway company is bound to use
the utmost skill in operating and keeping in
repair its trains and switches to save a pas-
senger from harm.-Klinger v. United Traction
Co. (Sup.) 864.

The maintenance of a stepping box, instead
of removable stools, at a railroad station, to
enable passengers to board and alight from
trains, over which plaintiff's intestate stumbled
and fell under the wheels of a train, while law-
fully at the station, held not negligence on the
part of the railroad company.-Pitkin v. New
York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 906.

See "Animals."

CATTLE.

CAUSA MORTIS.

See "Gifts," § 2.

CAUSE OF ACTION.

See "Action."

CERTIFICATE.

Of architect as to completion of contract, see
"Contracts," § 5.

CHARGE.

To jury in civil actions, see "Trial," § 6.
To jury in criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal
Law," § 4.

CHARITIES.

Taxation of charitable corporation, see "Taxa-
tion," § 1.

8 1. Creation, existence, and validity.
Charitable bequest held void for indefiniteness
as to legatee.-Bowman v. Domestic & Foreign
Missionary Soc. of Protestant Episcopal Church
(Sup.) 621.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

See "Pledges."

§ 1. Foreclosure.

An agreement held not to authorize a first mort-
gagee to recover more than his interest in the
property sold at foreclosure of a second mort-
gage.-Blumberg v. Marks (Sup.) 512.

In an action against an auctioneer, on an
agreement giving plaintiff, by virtue of his
mortgage, an interest in the proceeds of a sale
of personalty under a foreclosure of a second'
mortgage, the defense that plaintiff's mortgage
was not recorded held not available to defend-
aut.-Blumberg v. Marks (Sup.) 514.

In an action on an agreement giving plaintiff
the right to the proceeds of a sale under a
mortgage foreclosure, on the issue as to the
amount of the proceeds realized by the auc-
tioneer on the sale, evidence held to show that
$391 was realized, and not a sum over $712.40,
as claimed by plaintiff.-Blumberg v. Marks.
(Sup.) 514.

On the issue as to the amount of plaintiff's
interest in the proceeds of a sale of personalty
by virtue of his mortgage on the property sold,
evidence held to fail to show that his interest
amounted to the sum claimed by him.-Blum-
berg v. Marks (Sup.) 514.

See "Fraud."

CHEA1.

« AnteriorContinuar »