sounder rule in New York

1924Co. v. Waldorf ( 168 App. Div. 473 ) Jenks, P. J., said: I think that the sounder rule is that which denies the right to assess station property for a street improvement such as is contemplated in this case. * * * And the reason for exemption rests in the inability to perceive how such premises are made by the improvement any more valuable for the purposes for which the railroad company can use them.

1917Co. v. Waldorf ( 168 App. Div. 473 ) Jenks, P. J., said: “ I think that the sounder rule is that which denies the right to assess station property. * * * And the reason for exemption rests in the inability to perceive how such premises are made by the improvement any more valuable for the purposes for which the railroad company can use them.

2015The "troublesome" consequences of Bard "on our jurisprudence" (Bing, 76 NY2d at 348 ) were clear early on.

2015The “troublesome” consequences of Bard “on our jurisprudence” (Bing, 76 NY2d at 348 ) were clear early on.

1967Neither the principal or income is at any time inalienable. ’ In Erickson v. Erickson, 197 Minn. 71 , 266 N. W. 161 , 267 N. W. 426 [1936] it was said, ‘ the sounder doctrine upholds the validity of the spendthrift trust impressed upon the corpus of the estate.

1967Neither the principal or income is at any time inalienable. ’ In Erickson v. Erickson, 197 Minn. 71 , 266 N. W. 161 , 267 N. W. 426 [1936] it was said, ‘ the sounder doctrine upholds the validity of the spendthrift trust impressed upon the corpus of the estate.

1967The legal title to the corpus is in the trustees * * * and they have the full right to transfer the corpus of the estate * * * so there is no restraint upon the transfer of the title * * #\ In Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Collier, 222 Mass. 390 , 111 N. E. 163 [1916] the court approved the restraint on alienation of principal, stating that any distinction was only a matter of degree.

1950(Matter of Sielcken, 176 Misc. 235 , affd. 263 App. Div. 866 ; Matter of Ziegler, 170 Misc. 748 ; Matter of Geller, 167 Misc. 578, 580 ; Matter of Chaves, 143 Misc. 872 .) Though petitioner is not an attorney, it is asserted that the same rule should apply to his claim.

1950(Matter of Sielcken, 176 Misc. 235 , affd. 263 App. Div. 866 ; Matter of Ziegler, 170 Misc. 748 ; Matter of Geller, 167 Misc. 578, 580 ; Matter of Chaves, 143 Misc. 872 .) Though petitioner is not an attorney, it is asserted that the same rule should apply to his claim.

1950(Matter of Sielcken, 176 Misc. 235 , affd. 263 App. Div. 866 ; Matter of Ziegler, 170 Misc. 748 ; Matter of Geller, 167 Misc. 578, 580 ; Matter of Chaves, 143 Misc. 872 .) Though petitioner is not an attorney, it is asserted that the same rule should apply to his claim.

1950(Matter of Sielcken, 176 Misc. 235 , affd. 263 App. Div. 866 ; Matter of Ziegler, 170 Misc. 748 ; Matter of Geller, 167 Misc. 578, 580 ; Matter of Chaves, 143 Misc. 872 .) Though petitioner is not an attorney, it is asserted that the same rule should apply to his claim.

1950(Matter of Sielcken, 176 Misc. 235 , affd. 263 App. Div. 866 ; Matter of Ziegler, 170 Misc. 748 ; Matter of Geller, 167 Misc. 578, 580 ; Matter of Chaves, 143 Misc. 872 .) Though petitioner is not an attorney, it is asserted that the same rule should apply to his claim.

1948(See Banking Law, § 317, subds. 1, 2, and § 331, subd. 4; Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57 ; Carples v. Cumberland Coal & Iron Co., 240 N. Y. 187 .) The company, in consequence, would possibly have the sounder claim upon custody of the currency in question, if a customer had dropped it upon the floor of the booth,— at least if the customer had first removed the currency from his safe deposit box.

1948(See Banking Law, § 317, subds. 1, 2, and § 331, subd. 4; Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57 ; Carples v. Cumberland Coal & Iron Co., 240 N. Y. 187 .) The company, in consequence, would possibly have the sounder claim upon custody of the currency in question, if a customer had dropped it upon the floor of the booth,— at least if the customer had first removed the currency from his safe deposit box.

1948Herbert v. Hanley ( 142 App. Div. 421 [1911]) involved a situation in which the court, during the progress of a trial, granted the prosecutor’s motion to withdraw a-juror on the basis of certain information which indicated that the continued presence of two of the jurors might interfere with the orderly progress of the trial.

1935(Bank of British North America v. Merchants National Bank of N. Y., 91 N. Y. 106 ; Keleher v. Mfrs.