principle upon rule in New York

1945In Herter v. Mullen ( 159 N. Y. 28, 34-35 ) it was stated: “ The principle upon which the rule is founded is that the holding over is such an act of the tenant that the law implies a contract on his part, or leasing of the premises for another year.

1921(Schuyler v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 309 .) But where in the lease there is given to the tenant a right to renew for a further term, then it is optional with the tenant as to whether he will continue in possession or vacate the premises at the close of his term, but the. landlord has no option. {Bruce v. Fulton National Bank, 79 N. Y. 154 .) In the case of a tenant holding over 'and thereby being held to a renewal of the lease, it is said by Judge O’Brien in Herter v. Mullen ( 159 N. Y. 28, 34 ): “ The principle upon which the rule is founded is that the holding over is such an act of the tenant that

1948On the whole case, we must come to the same conclusion as did this court in People v. Barboto (supra, 254 N. Y. at p. 177 ): “ * * * on the weight of evidence the physical facts corroborate defendant’s statement that injuries were inflicted by the police officers to procure a confession.” Explaining the rule of justice and decency which excludes involuntary confessions, this court said in an early case: “ The principle upon which this rule is based is obvious.

1941(Matter of Hatch, 155 N. Y. 401 ; Gerseta Corporation v. Equitable Trust Company of New York, 241 id. 418 .) In the last case the court said: “ The principle upon which the rule rests is that in case of mutual debts it is only the balance which is the real or just sum owing by or to the insolvent.

1941(Matter of Hatch, 155 N. Y. 401 ; Gerseta Corporation v. Equitable Trust Company of New York, 241 id. 418 .) In the last case the court said: “ The principle upon which the rule rests is that in case of mutual debts it is only the balance which is the real or just sum owing by or to the insolvent.

1938The principle upon which the doctrine of estoppel by silence is predicated is succinctly stated in Rothschild v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. ( 204 N. Y. 458, 462 ) as follows: “A fraudulent purpose or a fraudulent result lies at the basis of the doctrine of equitable estoppel through silence or inaction.

1921(Schuyler v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 309 .) But where in the lease there is given to the tenant a right to renew for a further term, then it is optional with the tenant as to whether he will continue in possession or vacate the premises at the close of his term, but the. landlord has no option. {Bruce v. Fulton National Bank, 79 N. Y. 154 .) In the case of a tenant holding over 'and thereby being held to a renewal of the lease, it is said by Judge O’Brien in Herter v. Mullen ( 159 N. Y. 28, 34 ): “ The principle upon which the rule is founded is that the holding over is such an act of the tenant that

1921(Schuyler v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 309 .) But where in the lease there is given to the tenant a right to renew for a further term, then it is optional with the tenant as to whether he will continue in possession or vacate the premises at the close of his term, but the. landlord has no option. {Bruce v. Fulton National Bank, 79 N. Y. 154 .) In the case of a tenant holding over 'and thereby being held to a renewal of the lease, it is said by Judge O’Brien in Herter v. Mullen ( 159 N. Y. 28, 34 ): “ The principle upon which the rule is founded is that the holding over is such an act of the tenant that

1920(Moore v. Vulcanite Portland Cement Co., 121 App. Div. 667 ; 204 N. Y. 680 ; Boston Ice Co. v. Potter, 123 Mass. 28 ; Kemp v. Baerselman, 1906, 2 King’s Bench, 604.) The judgments appealed from should, therefore, be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

1920(Moore v. Vulcanite Portland Cement Co., 121 App. Div. 667 ; 204 N. Y. 680 ; Boston Ice Co. v. Potter, 123 Mass. 28 ; Kemp v. Baerselman, 1906, 2 King’s Bench, 604.) The judgments appealed from should, therefore, be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

1920(Moore v. Vulcanite Portland Cement Co., 121 App. Div. 667 ; 204 N. Y. 680 ; Boston Ice Co. v. Potter, 123 Mass. 28 ; Kemp v. Baerselman, 1906, 2 King’s Bench, 604.) The judgments appealed from should, therefore, be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

1917The following authorities among others sustain the principle upon which the rule is founded: Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Haven ( 196 N. Y. 487 ); S. C. ( 214 N. Y. 468 ); Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (2d ed. §§ 1211, 1419, note); Markillie v. Allen ( 120 Mich. 360 ); Brannen v. Union Stock *143 Yards Bank of Buffalo ( 215 N. Y. 652 ); Tobin v. Kirk ( 73 Hun, 229 ); Mississippi & M.

1917The following authorities among others sustain the principle upon which the rule is founded: Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Haven ( 196 N. Y. 487 ); S. C. ( 214 N. Y. 468 ); Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (2d ed. §§ 1211, 1419, note); Markillie v. Allen ( 120 Mich. 360 ); Brannen v. Union Stock *143 Yards Bank of Buffalo ( 215 N. Y. 652 ); Tobin v. Kirk ( 73 Hun, 229 ); Mississippi & M.

1917The following authorities among others sustain the principle upon which the rule is founded: Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Haven ( 196 N. Y. 487 ); S. C. ( 214 N. Y. 468 ); Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (2d ed. §§ 1211, 1419, note); Markillie v. Allen ( 120 Mich. 360 ); Brannen v. Union Stock *143 Yards Bank of Buffalo ( 215 N. Y. 652 ); Tobin v. Kirk ( 73 Hun, 229 ); Mississippi & M.

1917The following authorities among others sustain the principle upon which the rule is founded: Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Haven ( 196 N. Y. 487 ); S. C. ( 214 N. Y. 468 ); Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (2d ed. §§ 1211, 1419, note); Markillie v. Allen ( 120 Mich. 360 ); Brannen v. Union Stock *143 Yards Bank of Buffalo ( 215 N. Y. 652 ); Tobin v. Kirk ( 73 Hun, 229 ); Mississippi & M.

1917The following authorities among others sustain the principle upon which the rule is founded: Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Haven ( 196 N. Y. 487 ); S. C. ( 214 N. Y. 468 ); Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (2d ed. §§ 1211, 1419, note); Markillie v. Allen ( 120 Mich. 360 ); Brannen v. Union Stock *143 Yards Bank of Buffalo ( 215 N. Y. 652 ); Tobin v. Kirk ( 73 Hun, 229 ); Mississippi & M.

1912The fact of the casualty and the attendant circumstances may themselves furnish all the proof of negligence that the injured person is able to offer, or that it is necessary to offer.” (Shearm. & Bedf. onNeg. [4th ed.j § 59.) The force and correctness of theseobservations are very clearly brought out by Judge Cullen in an illustration suggested by him in Griffen v. Manice ( 166 N.Y. 188, 193 ), where he said: “ It is not the injury, but the manner and circumstances of the injury, that justify the application of the maxim and the inference of negligence.

1905As soon as the plaintiff was informed of the price at which the defend- • . ant had purchased the stocks he at once repudiated the purchase and asked for a return of the privileges; and to this the plaintiff was clearly entitled, and the refusal of defendant to deliver them when demanded was a conversion and Untitled the plaintiff to maintain an action for such conversion.- The defendant relies upon the principle that where an agent parts with property intrusted to him for sale at a price less than that authorized, he is not liable for a conversion of the property, but only in an action on the

1904The principle upon which this rule rests is discussed in Wamsley v. Atlas Steamship Co., 168 N. Y. 533 , 61 N. E. 896 , 85 Am.

1904The principle upon which this rule rests is discussed in Wamsley v. Atlas Steamship Co., 168 N. Y. 533 , 61 N. E. 896 , 85 Am.

1900(Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 287 ; Adams v. Cohoes, 127 id. 182.) But the question is whether the tenant did, in fact, hold over after the expiration of the term, within the meaning of that rule. * * * The principle upon which the rule is founded, is that the holding over is such an act of the tenant that the law implies a contract on his part, or leasing of the premises for another year.

1897(Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 103 ; Campbell v. Jones, 25 Minn. 155 ; Potter v: Phillips, 44 Io. 357; see, also, Fox v. Moyer, 54 N. Y. 130 .) But the relaxation of the rule has never, so far as we can discover, been extended to the case of an assignment in trust for the benefit of creditors, and the principle upon which the exception is founded does not bring the case within its operation.

1889Of course, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reason about it without recurring to Lawrence v. Fox ( 20 N. Y. 268 ), and ascertaining the principle upon which its doctrine is founded.

1888In Douglas County v. Balles ( 94 U. S. 104 ), an action was brought upon county bonds given to a railroad company in payment of shares in its corporation.

1883Rep. 467 ; Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. 268 ; Moore v. Evans, 14 Barb. 524 .) The principle upon which this rule is founded embraces as well the case of a partial as of a total failure to deliver the subject of a bailment.

1883Rep. 467 ; Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. 268 ; Moore v. Evans, 14 Barb. 524 .) The principle upon which this rule is founded embraces as well the case of a partial as of a total failure to deliver the subject of a bailment.

1883The principle upon which the rule rests was applied by the late Supreme Court in the case of Weaver v. Devendorf ( 3 Denio, 117 ), and sustained by a great array of authorities, to which many later ones might be added, but none to the contrary.

1876Ed. 233), lays it down as a fundamental principle of the common law, that “Where there is a general covenant by the lessee to repair, and leave repaired at the end of the term, the lessee is clearly liable to rebuild in case of the destructian of the premises by accidental fire, or by any other unavoidable contingency—as lightning or an extraordinary flood ; and the principle upon which this rule depends is, that if a party, by his own contract, creates a duty or a charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good, if he can, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity ; for if he had

1876Ed. 233), lays it down as a fundamental principle of the common law, that “Where there is a general covenant by the lessee to repair, and leave repaired at the end of the term, the lessee is clearly liable to rebuild in case of the destructian of the premises by accidental fire, or by any other unavoidable contingency—as lightning or an extraordinary flood ; and the principle upon which this rule depends is, that if a party, by his own contract, creates a duty or a charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good, if he can, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity ; for if he had

1872Where the evidence is clear and explicit at the place of delivery, the value at other places is not strictly competent. ( 8 Wend., 435 .) Hor was it material whether the plaintiff actually realized more or less because the result of his final disposition of it might be produced by contingences entirely foreign to the principle upon which the rule rests.

1852The principle upon which this doctrine is founded is, that exemption from imprisonment in actions upon contract under the statute is a personal privilege, which belongs to the debtor alone (see 19 Wend. 121 , and cases above cited).