THE ADJUDICATIONS OF ALL THE COURTS OF THE STATE, PRESENTED IN THE REPORTS BY ABBOTT, ANTHON, BARBOUR, BOSWORTH, BRADFORD, CAINES, CLARKE, COLEMAN, AND IN THE CHANCERY SENTINEL, THE CITY HALL Recorder, the Code Reports AND REPORTER, HILL & DENIO'S TOGETHER WITH THE STATUTES, As embodied in the Revised Laws of 1818, the Revised Statutes, and the general Acts passed since 1829. PRECEDED BY A TABLE OF CASES CRITICISED. THIRD EDITION: REVISED AND CORRECTED. VOL. II. NEW YORK: JOHN S. VOORHIES, LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER. 1864. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty, By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and AUSTIN ABBOTT, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and AUSTIN ABBOTT, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, By BENJAMIN Vaughan AbboTT and AUSTIN ABBOTT, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. APR 14 1942 Õ་ཨི༦༨ tee་ཆཨ་། RENNIE, SHEA & LINDSAY, STEREOTYPES AND ELECTROTYPEES, BAKER & GODWIN, PRINTERS, NEW YORK. DIGEST OF NEW YORK STATUTES AND REPORTS. FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1860. [Statutes are distinguished by the use of a smaller type.] CONSTRUCTION. ch. 20, § 9], and is not founded on the law of nations or treaty; and such exemption cannot As to the construction of the Constitution, be renounced by the consul by his appearing see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. in an action in the State courts and pleading As to the construction of Contracts, see to the merits. [1 Binn., 138; 7 Pet., 276; 8 CONTRACTS, tit. Interpretation, and the titles Id., 314.] Ct. of Appeals, 1853, Valarino ⚫. of various classes of contracts there referred to. Thompson, 7 N. Y. (3 Seld.), 576 (overruling As to the construction to be put upon the Flynn v. Stoughton, 5 Barb., 115; and Davis Opinions of a court in the decisions of av. Packard, 6 Wend., 327; 10 Id., 50). Folcause, see FORMER ADJUDICATION. lowed in Republic of Mexico v. Arrangois, 11 As to the construction of Pleadings, see How. Pr., 1; Griffin v. Dominguez, 2 Duer, PLEADING. As to the construction of Statutes, see STATUTES, tit. Interpretation. As to the construction of Wills, see WILLS, tit. Interpretation, and titles there referred to. CONSUL 1 Appearance to protect interests of countrymen. The French consul is entitled, both by treaty and comity, to be heard in the Surrogate's Court, not as a party, but informally, as the national agent of parties supposed to be interested. Surrogate's Ct., 1855, Ferrie . Public Administrator, 3 Bradf., 249. 2. Duty of public administrator of the city of New York, to notify consuls of certain cases. 2 Rev. Stat., 124, § 29. 656; S. C., 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 285. 4. Waiver. A foreign consul who was sued and had judgment against him in the Supreme Court, he pleading to the merits, cannot assign as error in fact that he was such consul. Ct. of Errors, 1880, Davis v. Packard,* 6 Wend., 327. 5. Joint suit. The fact that the consul is sued together with another person on a joint contract, will not give jurisdiction to the State courts. Ct. of Appeals, 1853, Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N. Y. (3 Seld.), 576. 6. Appointment pending suit. The appointment to a consulship, of the defendant, and acceptance of the office by him, after suit brought, cannot divest the State court of jurisdiction. [9 Wheat., 537.] Supreme Ct., 1847. Koppel v. Heinrichs, 1 Barb., 449. 3. State courts have no jurisdiction. A * The judgment in this case was reversed by the foreign consul is exempted from liability to be Supreme Court of the United States (6 Pet., 41), sued in the State courts, but his exemption is and the Court of Errors, on receiving the mandate, neither a personal privilege, nor the privilege merely reversed its own judgment, and dismissed of his government. It is the privilege of the the writ of error. 1882, 10 Wend., 50. The Court United States government by virtue of the this decision of the Supreme Court of the United of Appeals, in Valarino v. Thompson (1853), followed judiciary act of 1789 [1 U. S. Stat. at L., 54, States. 7 N. Y. (8 Seld.), 576. |