Mandamus will issue to require the assessors to make and file a statement of the amount of damages sustained in changing the grade of a street, and this direction, by the statute of 1872, was absolute and not dependent on any other certificate whatever. People v. Asten. 398
Where a son lived with his father and assisted him in his business. Held, that he acted as ser- vant or clerk of his father and had he not been a son would clearly have been considered a clerk or servant and have been entitled to pay- ment for his services. Queen v. Foulkes
Duty of master to employee to construct safe, Power of married women to convey separate and to keep safe, machinery. Notice to party estate. May do so when the power is not with- of contract with third party to keep machinery held in deed or devise; and without the consent in safe condition. Duty of party to notice con- of the husband, if there is a private examina-dition of machinery as to safety for use. King tion legally taken under Tennessee statute. v. New York &c. R. R. Co. Can convey with the husband's consent, if so examined, and the husband may join in the deed. Hodges v. Williams. 162
Married women may sue for their own money lent during their husband's lifetime. Or a due-bill to them after husband's death is evidence of debt to them. Wilby v. Elgee. 186 Married woman, liability of, and remedy against. Jourdan v. Bernheim. 282
A wife may constitute her husband her agent and be bound by his acts, but the agency will not be assumed without any evidence. There must be some evidence that in his dealings the husband acted as agent and not as principal; that his contracts were for the wife, upon her credit, with her assent, with knowledge that her credit was pledged, and that she was under- stood to be the contracting party. Jones V. Alker.
Though, at common law, the personal pro- perty of the wife belongs to the husband, his long acquiescence in the investment of her money and earnings in real property, in her own name, puts the property beyond his reach and control. Jackson v. Jackson.
The chairman of a public meeting is not liable for an assault by one who seeks to repress a dis- turbance by his direction. Lucas v. Mason 187
Where the title to a bankrupt's property passed to an assignee in bankruptcy before a me- In such a case the presumption is not that chanic's lien attached, as authorized by a stat- there is a resulting trust in him, but that there ute of Michigan, Held, that proof of the claim as was an advancement for the grantee's benefit. a secured claim could not be filed. Re Sabin Ib. 101
As to a mechanic's lien for work on wife's property by employment of husband, when there is no proof of agency and the wife seeing im provement being made and not objecting. -See Jones v. Alker.
Though it is undisputed in the case that the wife has a separate estate, that would not give her note validity; proof of further extrinsic tor, though he is the same person. Ryan v. Gir-
facts to bind her must be shown.
The lien must name both owner and contrac-
A married woman who hires a house for the purposes of her business, and uses a portion of it for the family residence, her husband living with her, is liable for the whole rent, the con- tract being one contract. Monheimer v. Muller 562
Lien cannot be amended in such a matter. Ib.
A personal judgment may be recovered in an action to foreclose a lien. Ib.
Where a request for a lease of premises for military purposes was not in favor of any par- ticular troop or regiment, but for the cavalry, generally, in an action to recover arrears of rent. Held, that the request was not in com- pliance with § 120 of the military code, and the lease was therefore without authority. That the New York act of 1873, in reference to ar- rears in rent did not protect the claim since it accrued after the passage of the act. Dickel v. Mayor, &c., of New York.
A third person who supplies the money to pay the coupons of bonds, secured by a mort- gage, will have the security of the mortgage, though the coupons have been detached. Union 400 Trust Co. v. Monticello, &c., R. R. Co.
But the equities of the bondholders, who sup- posed their coupons were paid on delivery, are superior to those of such person.
In a foreclosure suit, a motion to open a de- fault by the owners of the equity of redemp- tion, indorsed by T as their attorney is suf- ficient appearance. Martine v. Lowenstein.
Parties interested in a judgment in foreclos- ure can appear, even after judgment, to take care of their interests in the subsequent pro- ceedings, which the plaintiff must necessarily take. Ib.
By Rule 39, notice of the filing of the report must be given to all who are entitled to notice. The report is confirmed eight days after the Ib. notice of filing is served.
An omission to demand judgment for a de- ficiency, does not convert an action into a strict foreclosure, but is an action for the satis faction of a mortgage within the meaning of the statute. Equitable Life In's. Co. v. Stevens.
There is no authority in the common coun- cil of New York city to appoint executive offi- cers; the power of appointment, when it exists, and to whom it may be delegated. Hartman v. the Mayor, &c., of New York.
To avoid the payment of present assessment, payment of former assessment for public im- Authority of comptroller in New York city,provement, must be shown; it cannot be pre- to fix salaries and compensation, and to pre-sumed from lapse of time. Publication in cor- scribe duties of clerks and employees, deter-poration papers-what is not sufficient. Petition mined. See Burns v. the Mayor &c. of the City of Eiscle. of New York.
The authority of coroners to employ scien tific experts in cases of felonious poisoning, and the compensation for their labor, deter- mined. Doremus v. the Mayor, &c., of New York. 310
No liability of the corporation for debts con- tracted by a department thereof without au- thority. Receipt of principal debt in full, effect of, on claim for interest. Laws of 1872, Ch. 9, 2, construed. Tenth National Bank v. Mayor, &c., of New York. 46
What property is private property of the cor- Where a certain percentage of moneys re- poration. Ferries may be removed. Real es-ceived by a municipal board is given for a defi tate about a ferry as part of the ferry itself. nite purpose, the officers of the board receive People v. City of Albany, &c. the moneys as public agents, in a ministerial capacity, for the recipient of the percentage, and have no discretion as to its disposition. People v. Board of Police
A municipal corporation not liable, at com- mon law, for injuries resulting from the defec- tive condition of a public highway or bridge. Neither is a public officer, whose duty it is to keep the road or bridge in order, liable person- ally. Wheatly v. Mercer. 123
The determination of the common council of the City of Brooklyn is final and conclusive as to facts to be ascertained for the purpose of carrying on improvements. Wicks. v Hatch.
A provision in a temporary act-such as the annual tax levy of the city of New York, will The necessity of an appraisal of New York not operate to repeal or modify charter regula-city property, is to be determined by the board tions, or general laws, without an express in- of commissioners of the sinking fund. Muller tention to that effect. Costello v. Mayor, &c., of v. Mayor, &c., of New York. 522 New York.
When there is a fund in a department of the When the comptroller must fix the compen-city of New York, at the time a debt was in- sation for a public service, it is a condition pre-curred, it will be presumed that payments of cedent to a recovery that he shall fix it. A sums made therefrom for other purposes, were recovery cannot be had on a quantum meruit. for debts which had acerued after the fund was Muller v. Mayor, &c., of New York. exhausted. Lewis v. Mayor, &c., of New York.
The only authorized appraisals of the prop- erty of New York city are to fix rents on the renewal of leases, and to value city property to be sold. Ib.
As to Assessments for local improvements, see ASSESSMENTS.
who is corroborated in some particulars. The jury determines the question of veracity, in such a case. People v. Court of Special Sessions.
In an action brought to recover damages for A new trial will not be granted, though a alleged negligence on the part of the defend- verdict is found on the testimony of one wit- ant's testator, resulting in the loss of twenty-ness against the testimony of another witness two cows, where it appeared that the cows were delivered to the testator, at his cattle yards, to be kept until they could be shipped East, and the yard in which they were put was one in or- dinary use, but lower than the others, and in case of a flood liable to be overflowed, and during the night an unprecedented and un- expected storm arose, the yard was overflowed, and they were drowned. Held, that the evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant's testator was not sufficient to justify the sub- mission of the question to the jury, and the
fact that defendant's testator put his own cat-
tle in a yard where they escaped injury, did not tend to show negligence. Morgan v.
Costs must be paid as a condition for grant- ing a new trial for newly discovered evidence. Bailey v. Park.
Where a witness, from his connection with
the transaction out of which the suit arose, would in all probability be a material witness, the failure to have him in court is laches of so positive a character that his testimony will not be such newly discovered evidence as to give a party a new trial. Hernstein v. Fleming. 401
An agreement by a person to pay the share of the partner whose interest is purchased by him, made at the time of the purchase, is part of the consideration of the purchase, and is not a promise to pay the debt of another. Haggerty v. Johnston. 129 Agreement to pay a certain portion of the pro- fits of a venture, for services therein not void under the statute of frauds. Kelsey v. Henry. 129 The special partner must contribute cash. Any other contribution makes him a general partner, for the statute is not complied with, and the representation is not true. Van Ingen V. Whiteman. Re Merrill.
The war proclamations of April 15, 1861, April 19, 1861, and August 16, 1861, and act of As to the option of date with a borrower to July 13, 1861, and their effect upon copartner-pay, when two dates are named. See Reed v. ships. Discussed and determined. Matthews Kilburn Society. v. McStea.
Where a complaint alleged that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a copartnership to continue five years; that by the partnership agreement the business was to be done in the defendant's name, that plaintiffs were to, and did advance $16,500 for the purposes of the business, and were to receive interest thereon, and one quarter of the net profits, and that de- fendant refused to give plaintiff any account of the receipts and profits, and asked for the dis- solution of the copartnership, and an account- ing. Held, that the issue made by the plead- ings was whether a partnership existed between plaintiff and defendant, and whether the latter had violated the terms thereof, and when that issue was decided against the plaintiff, the ac- tion was at an end, and the defendant was en- titled to judgment. Arnold v. Angell 286
Owners of a boat, though tenants in common as to their property in the boat itself, are part- ners as to its earnings. Callahan v. Brewer.
The purchaser of personal property known to him to be mortgaged, is bound by the equi- It is inequitable to allow a partner who has ties between the parties to the mortgage. Coble an interest in the earnings of the partnership | v. Nonemaker.
« 이전계속 » |