exceptional clause in New York

1937Both in this Koerber case and in People v. Moran ( 246 N. Y. 100 ) we called attention of the trial justices to the exceptional rule of People v. Schleiman ( 197 N. Y. 383 ), which case was tried before me in 1909 when I was on the trial bench.

1937Both in this Koerber case and in People v. Moran ( 246 N. Y. 100 ) we called attention of the trial justices to the exceptional rule of People v. Schleiman ( 197 N. Y. 383 ), which case was tried before me in 1909 when I was on the trial bench.

1917(See Croghan v. Hedden Construction Co., 147 App. Div. 631, 634 .) In each case, judgment affirmed, with costs.

1907Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 623 .) But if Congress possess the power claimed and has exercised it in favor of national banks, it does not follow that the state has the same right to grant the exceptional privilege to state banks.

1900(Matter of Union Ferry Co., 98 N. Y. 139 .) The contention that the act is void because it does not require the consents of the abutting owners and of the local authorities is met by the argument made while considering *410 the question whether the act of 1892 operated as a grant of the right to lay down railroad tracks.

1899That the State, may, in the exercise of its undoubted power to regulate the taking of fish and game, prescribe the times and the conditions of catching and killing wild animals or fish, and may even limit the individual right of property in such fish. or game, will not be disputed; the doctrine has been settled by the court in the case of Geer v. Oonnecticut, 161 U. S. 519 , affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of that State.

1877In the dissenting opinion of Judge Denio, in Graff v. Bonnett ( 31 N. Y. 9 ), the position was taken that the exceptional clause of the statute was intended by the legislature to protect the fund itself, and not the income derived from it, from the pursuit of creditors, when such fund had proceeded from some person other than the debtor himself.

1876A contract to “sell” land can only be performed by giving a conveyance that will vest in the grantee an unincumbered and indefeasible estate (Burwell v. Jackson, 9 N. Y. 535 ; Delavan v. Duncan, 49 N. Y. 485 ).

1876A contract to “sell” land can only be performed by giving a conveyance that will vest in the grantee an unincumbered and indefeasible estate (Burwell v. Jackson, 9 N. Y. 535 ; Delavan v. Duncan, 49 N. Y. 485 ).