respect the case bar in New York

1893In this respect the case at bar is entirely different from People v. Musical Mutual Protective Union, 118 N. Y. 101 , 23 N. E.

1893Deverell v. The Musical Mutual Protective Union, 118 N. Y., 101 ; 27 St.

1947In this respect the case at bar is clearly distinguishable from the case of Kells v. Boutross ( 184 Misc. 206 ) wherein, prior to August 18, 1945, plaintiff sought recovery of a wage increase which had not been approved by the National War Labor Board.

1934In this respect the case at bar is on all fours with the case of Matter of Jacobs ( 98 N. Y. 98 ), wherein an act to improve public health by prohibiting the manufacture of cigars or preparation of tobacco in any form in tenement houses in certain cases was held not to be within the police power of the State.

1912In this respect the case at bar differs in important particulars from that before this court in the First Department in Hochstein v. Vanderveer Crossings, Inc., No. 1 (150 App. Div. 118), and which was decided since the argument and submission of this appeal.

1911In this respect the case at bar differs from the leading case of Lorillard v. Clyde, 142 N. Y. 456 , 37 N. E. 489 , 24 L.

1911In this respect the case at bar differs from the leading case of Lorillard v. Clyde, 142 N. Y. 456 , 37 N. E. 489 , 24 L.

1911In this respect the case at bar differs from Hislop v. Taaffe ( 141 App. Div. 40 ).

1911Bank of Memphis (supra), in which the bank had innocently and in the regular course of business paid a draft in respect of which there had been fraud by the drawer and mistake by the drawee.

1908I think it plainly appears and certainly it can be “ reasonably presumed ” from the facts within the knowledge of the testator at the time he made his will and from the provisions of the will itself, that he had his after-born children in mind and intended to place them on the same level with his living children, and that within the meaning of the statute he “ provided ” for them by devising his property to his “ beloved wife,” their mother and natural guardian, after his death (in this respect the case at bar is distinguishable from Obecny v. Goetz, 116 App. Div. 807 ), with whom and his chil

1902In this respect the case at bar is distinguishable from Lane v. Town of Hancock (supra) ; Glasier v. Town of Hebron ( 131 N. Y. 447 ); Monk v. Town of Hew Utrecht ( 104 N. Y. 552 ) and other cases relied upon by the defendant, where the question was whether the higliAvay commissioner was negligent in not guarding against dangers which were not of his own creation.

1902In this respect the case at bar is distinguishable from Lane v. Town of Hancock (supra) ; Glasier v. Town of Hebron ( 131 N. Y. 447 ); Monk v. Town of Hew Utrecht ( 104 N. Y. 552 ) and other cases relied upon by the defendant, where the question was whether the higliAvay commissioner was negligent in not guarding against dangers which were not of his own creation.

1894In this respect the case at bar is similar to the case of Shipman v. Bank, 126 N. Y. 318 , 27 N. E. 371 , and differs from the case of Phillips v. Bank, supra. In the Case of Shipman, although fictitious names were used by the clerk, the checks were signed by the firm in the belief that the names of the payees represented real persons entitled to receive the amount of the check, and with the intention that they should be delivered to real payees, and should not go into circulation otherwise than through a delivery to and an indorsement by the payees named.

1894In this respect the case at bar is similar to the case of Shipman v. Bank, 126 N. Y. 318 , 27 N. E. 371 , and differs from the case of Phillips v. Bank, supra. In the Case of Shipman, although fictitious names were used by the clerk, the checks were signed by the firm in the belief that the names of the payees represented real persons entitled to receive the amount of the check, and with the intention that they should be delivered to real payees, and should not go into circulation otherwise than through a delivery to and an indorsement by the payees named.

1892The company may employ by the “job” or “piece” or “hour.” In this respect the case at bar differs radically from that of People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389 , 17 N. E.

1888In this respect the case at bar is anlagous to that of Prichard v. Thompson ( 95 N. Y. 76 ), where the bequest was of a sum of money to the executors to be distributed by them “ among such incorporated societies organized under the laws of the State of Hew York or the State of Maryland, having lawful authority to receive and hold funds upon permanent trusts for' charitable or educational uses ” as the executors or the survivors of them might select and in such sums as they might determine.