safe rule in New York

1985(See, Note, Auditor’s Liability, 48 Alb L Rev 876, 880-885; Prosser and Keeton, Torts, at 668 [5th ed]; Bohlen, Fifty Years of Torts, 50 Harv L Rev 1225, 1232.) By the time 90 years had passed, however, this court could note in Ultramares that the “assault upon the citadel of privity is proceeding in these days apace.” ( 255 NY, at p 180 .) We acknowledged that inroads had been made, for example, where third-party beneficiaries or dangerous instrumentalities were involved.

1956Comm., p. 121.) These comments, while entitled to consideration, do not subtract any meaning from the plain language of the statute enacted by our Legislature that the warrant ‘ ‘ must substantially recite the facts necessary to the validity of its issuance.” It has been written in this area of statutory construction that “ It is a safe rule to consider the revisors ’ notes as explaining the object, but not as limiting the extent of the law, especially where, as in this case, the language is clear and unambiguous.” (Stephens v. People, 19 N. Y. 549, 563 .) The order appealed from should be rev

1944Co., 252 N. Y. 284, 297-298 .)

1930(People v. Hart, supra.) A plea of guilty waives any defect not jurisdictional (People v. Earing, 71 Misc. 615 ; affd., 146 App. Div. 903 ), but not what may relate to the jurisdiction of the court (People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509, 542 ) and cannot confer jurisdiction upon it where no crime exists.

1930(People v. Hart, supra.) A plea of guilty waives any defect not jurisdictional (People v. Earing, 71 Misc. 615 ; affd., 146 App. Div. 903 ), but not what may relate to the jurisdiction of the court (People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509, 542 ) and cannot confer jurisdiction upon it where no crime exists.

1930(People v. Hart, supra.) A plea of guilty waives any defect not jurisdictional (People v. Earing, 71 Misc. 615 ; affd., 146 App. Div. 903 ), but not what may relate to the jurisdiction of the court (People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509, 542 ) and cannot confer jurisdiction upon it where no crime exists.

1905The limitation is expressed in the leading case of Nicholls v. Webb ( 8 Wheat. 326, 337 ) where the court, per Story, J., said: “We think it a safe principle, that memorandums made by a person in the ordinary course of his business, of acts or matters which his duty in such business requires him to do for others, in case of his death, are admissible evidence of the acts and matters so done.” In other words, the production of the time book, with the proof that the entries were made by the deceased bookkeeper, would have been sufficient to render the book competent if coupled with the evidence o

1905The time book was not admissible under the well-known doctrine of Vosburgh v. Thayer ( 12 Johns. 461 .

1900(Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300 ; Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. 144 ; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. 701,705 ; 2 Bates on Part. § 618; City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 N. Y. 240 ; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571 ; Natl.

1900(Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300 ; Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. 144 ; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. 701,705 ; 2 Bates on Part. § 618; City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 N. Y. 240 ; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571 ; Natl.

1900(Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300 ; Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. 144 ; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. 701,705 ; 2 Bates on Part. § 618; City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 N. Y. 240 ; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571 ; Natl.

1900(Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300 ; Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. 144 ; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. 701,705 ; 2 Bates on Part. § 618; City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 N. Y. 240 ; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571 ; Natl.

1883It lays down a clear rule which (I am of opinion) the courts must apply also to personal estate.” In Cutting v. Cutting ( 86 N. Y. 522 ), we held that it was the intent of the legislature to make the article of the Revised Statutes “of powers” a complete and exhaustive Code on the subject, and that it included and was applicable as well to powers concerning personalty as to those affecting real estate.

1883The surrogate of New York, in Van Wort v. Benedict ( 1 Bradf. 114 ), said: “Nor do I think it unreasonable to apply the same rule which the legislature has adopted for the construction of testamentary appointments in regard to real estate to such appointments when they affect personal estate, and to hold that personalty covered by a power shall pass by a bequest of ‘all the personal property,’ just the same as lands embraced in a power pass by a devise of ‘all the real estate.’ I think it would be a safe rule of construction, at least in cases where the estate was a single fund of a mixed char

1883The surrogate of New York, in Van Wort v. Benedict ( 1 Bradf. 114 ), said: “Nor do I think it unreasonable to apply the same rule which the legislature has adopted for the construction of testamentary appointments in regard to real estate to such appointments when they affect personal estate, and to hold that personalty covered by a power shall pass by a bequest of ‘all the personal property,’ just the same as lands embraced in a power pass by a devise of ‘all the real estate.’ I think it would be a safe rule of construction, at least in cases where the estate was a single fund of a mixed char

1882(Smith v. Newburgh, 11 N. Y., 130 , 136; Delafield v. State of Illonois, 26 Wend., 192, 221 .) It cannot be claimed that the town is estopped to urge that these bonds are void.

1875I do not think it would be a safe rule for us to adopt, to disregard an error in admitting a party to give direct and very material evide'nce in opposition to evidence as direct and material ( Williams v. Fitch, 18 N. Y., 546 ), unless it can be substantially demonstrated that the error did not in fact affect the result.

1865Libby (36 Barb., 70 ).