previously existing rule in New York

1981The rules of evidence, because they relate to remedy (see Board of Comrs. of Excise of City of Auburn v Merchant, 103 NY 143 ; Howard v Moot, 64 NY 262 ), are no exception to the vested rights principles discussed, for there is no right to have a controversy determined by a previously existing rule of evidence (see Marx v Hawthorn, 148 US 172 ; Potter of Ogden, 136 NY 384 ; People v Turner, 117 NY 227 , 145 NY 451 , affd 168 US 90 ; Hickox v Tallman, 38 Barb 608; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed], ch XI, pp 766-770).

1977Since there is no vested right in a rule of evidence (People v Turner, 117 NY 227, 233 ; Matter of L’Hommedieu v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 276 App Div 494 , 507, affd 301 NY 476 , affd 342 US 951 ), the Legislature had the power to enact the evidentiary rule here and make it applicable to pending proceedings even though it effected a change in a previously existing rule of evidence.

1981The rules of evidence, because they relate to remedy (see Board of Comrs. of Excise of City of Auburn v Merchant, 103 NY 143 ; Howard v Moot, 64 NY 262 ), are no exception to the vested rights principles discussed, for there is no right to have a controversy determined by a previously existing rule of evidence (see Marx v Hawthorn, 148 US 172 ; Potter of Ogden, 136 NY 384 ; People v Turner, 117 NY 227 , 145 NY 451 , affd 168 US 90 ; Hickox v Tallman, 38 Barb 608; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed], ch XI, pp 766-770).

1981The rules of evidence, because they relate to remedy (see Board of Comrs. of Excise of City of Auburn v Merchant, 103 NY 143 ; Howard v Moot, 64 NY 262 ), are no exception to the vested rights principles discussed, for there is no right to have a controversy determined by a previously existing rule of evidence (see Marx v Hawthorn, 148 US 172 ; Potter of Ogden, 136 NY 384 ; People v Turner, 117 NY 227 , 145 NY 451 , affd 168 US 90 ; Hickox v Tallman, 38 Barb 608; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed], ch XI, pp 766-770).

1981The rules of evidence, because they relate to remedy (see Board of Comrs. of Excise of City of Auburn v Merchant, 103 NY 143 ; Howard v Moot, 64 NY 262 ), are no exception to the vested rights principles discussed, for there is no right to have a controversy determined by a previously existing rule of evidence (see Marx v Hawthorn, 148 US 172 ; Potter of Ogden, 136 NY 384 ; People v Turner, 117 NY 227 , 145 NY 451 , affd 168 US 90 ; Hickox v Tallman, 38 Barb 608; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed], ch XI, pp 766-770).

1981The rules of evidence, because they relate to remedy (see Board of Comrs. of Excise of City of Auburn v Merchant, 103 NY 143 ; Howard v Moot, 64 NY 262 ), are no exception to the vested rights principles discussed, for there is no right to have a controversy determined by a previously existing rule of evidence (see Marx v Hawthorn, 148 US 172 ; Potter of Ogden, 136 NY 384 ; People v Turner, 117 NY 227 , 145 NY 451 , affd 168 US 90 ; Hickox v Tallman, 38 Barb 608; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed], ch XI, pp 766-770).

1981The rules of evidence, because they relate to remedy (see Board of Comrs. of Excise of City of Auburn v Merchant, 103 NY 143 ; Howard v Moot, 64 NY 262 ), are no exception to the vested rights principles discussed, for there is no right to have a controversy determined by a previously existing rule of evidence (see Marx v Hawthorn, 148 US 172 ; Potter of Ogden, 136 NY 384 ; People v Turner, 117 NY 227 , 145 NY 451 , affd 168 US 90 ; Hickox v Tallman, 38 Barb 608; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed], ch XI, pp 766-770).

1981The rules of evidence, because they relate to remedy (see Board of Comrs. of Excise of City of Auburn v Merchant, 103 NY 143 ; Howard v Moot, 64 NY 262 ), are no exception to the vested rights principles discussed, for there is no right to have a controversy determined by a previously existing rule of evidence (see Marx v Hawthorn, 148 US 172 ; Potter of Ogden, 136 NY 384 ; People v Turner, 117 NY 227 , 145 NY 451 , affd 168 US 90 ; Hickox v Tallman, 38 Barb 608; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed], ch XI, pp 766-770).

1977Since there is no vested right in a rule of evidence (People v Turner, 117 NY 227, 233 ; Matter of L’Hommedieu v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 276 App Div 494 , 507, affd 301 NY 476 , affd 342 US 951 ), the Legislature had the power to enact the evidentiary rule here and make it applicable to pending proceedings even though it effected a change in a previously existing rule of evidence.

1977Since there is no vested right in a rule of evidence (People v Turner, 117 NY 227, 233 ; Matter of L’Hommedieu v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 276 App Div 494 , 507, affd 301 NY 476 , affd 342 US 951 ), the Legislature had the power to enact the evidentiary rule here and make it applicable to pending proceedings even though it effected a change in a previously existing rule of evidence.

1943The action of the Supreme Court in the Williams case was revolutionary in pointedly discarding the rule which it had proclaimed in Haddock v. Haddock ( 201 U. S. 562 ) to the effect that mere domicile within the State of one party to a marriage does not give the courts of that State jurisdiction to render a decree of divorce enforcible in all the other States by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution against a nonresident who did not appear and was only constructively served with notice of the pendency of the action and which granted a divorce upon grounds not r

1931This rule is distinctly established in reference to joint makers of promissory notes.” The relation of an accommodation maker is expressly recognized in section 55 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, and subsequent to its enactment it was determined by the Court of Appeals in Haddock, Blanchard & Co. v. Haddock ( 192 N. Y. 499 ) that the enactment of this law had not varied the previously existing rule, permitting a demonstration dehors the instrument of the actual relation between the parties thereto.

1925The Appellate Division, conceding the previously existing rule, held, however (citing Matter of Berkovitz v. Arbib & Houlberg, 230 N. Y. 261, 269 ), that a new public policy had been declared by the present Arbitration Act (L. 1920, ch. 275; Consol.