case is within principle in New York

1874And in Caldwell v. Carrington ( 9 Pet., 86 ) the court enforced a parol contract for the exchange of lands, where one party had executed the contract, and no conveyance had been made by the other.

1874And in Caldwell v. Carrington ( 9 Pet., 86 ) the court enforced a parol contract for the exchange of lands, where one party had executed the contract, and no conveyance had been made by the other.

1932There, as the court was careful to point out (p. 331), " the money tendered belonged to them [i. e., to the makers of the tender], and they had the right to say on what condition it should be received.” The payment in this case is within the doctrine of such cases as Mance v. Hossington ( 205 N. Y. 33, 36 ) and Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser ( 157 N. Y. 289 ).

1932What was paid had no connection with what was disputed and reserved. “ The payment of an admitted liability is not a payment of or a consideration for an alleged accord and satisfaction of another and independent alleged liability ” (Mance v. Hossington, supra; cf. Hettrick Mfg.

1932There, as the court was careful to point out (p. 331), " the money tendered belonged to them [i. e., to the makers of the tender], and they had the right to say on what condition it should be received.” The payment in this case is within the doctrine of such cases as Mance v. Hossington ( 205 N. Y. 33, 36 ) and Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser ( 157 N. Y. 289 ).

1931In People v. Jaehne ( 103 N. Y. 182 ), where the question of the enactment of the Penal Code and whether certain provisions of prior laws were repealed was under review, the court said: "No public policy can be assigned for such a discrimination, and we think the case is within the rule that 1 a later statute, covering the same subject-matter and embracing new provisions, operates to repeal the prior act, although the two acts are not in express terms repugnant.’ ” Then, too, in Pratt Institute v. City of New York ( 183 N. Y. 151 ) the Court of Appeals said (at p. 157): “A codifying act is pre

1931In People v. Jaehne ( 103 N. Y. 182 ), where the question of the enactment of the Penal Code and whether certain provisions of prior laws were repealed was under review, the court said: "No public policy can be assigned for such a discrimination, and we think the case is within the rule that 1 a later statute, covering the same subject-matter and embracing new provisions, operates to repeal the prior act, although the two acts are not in express terms repugnant.’ ” Then, too, in Pratt Institute v. City of New York ( 183 N. Y. 151 ) the Court of Appeals said (at p. 157): “A codifying act is pre

1930The case is within the principle of our decision in Manahan v. Petroleum Producing & Refining Co. ( 198 App. Div. 192 ).

1923Upon the first point, it seems to me, the case is within the principle of Schmedes v. Deffaa ( 214 N. Y. 675 ), where the Court of Appeals reversed this court, in the First Department, upon the dissenting opinion of Miller, J., concurred in by Laughlin, J. ( 153 App. Div. 819 ).

1923Upon the first point, it seems to me, the case is within the principle of Schmedes v. Deffaa ( 214 N. Y. 675 ), where the Court of Appeals reversed this court, in the First Department, upon the dissenting opinion of Miller, J., concurred in by Laughlin, J. ( 153 App. Div. 819 ).

1917It is contended that the case is within the rule applied in Kellogg v. Church Charity Foundation ( 203 N. Y. 191 ) and apparently that, if there is any conflict between that case and the Hartell and Schmedes cases, the rule in the Kellogg case is more logical and the better one to follow.

1916The case is within the rule stated in Matter of Van Slooten v. Dodge ( 145 N. Y. 327, 332 ): “Whatever property or money is lawfully recovered or received by the executor or administrator, after the death of the testator or intestate, in virtue of his representative character, he holds as assets of the estate, and he is liable therefor, in such representative character, to the party who has a good title thereto.” It is said by counsel: “ If the action had proceeded to trial, the defendant could have proved a special agreement by the plaintiff to pay this note notwithstanding the discharge in t

1916He does not claim to have performed any such services, and it does not appear to be disputed that the city attorney of the city of Mechanicville has performed the services of an attorney for the defendant and has been paid therefor during all of the time since the city came into being, and under such circumstances the case is within the principle laid down in Terhune v. Mayor, etc. ( 88 N. Y. 247 ) and Higgins v. Mayor, etc. (131 id. 128, 132).

1915The case is within the rule laid down in Gallagher v. Newman ( 190 N. Y. 444, 447 ) where it is said: “This court may be regarded as having formulated under this act (Employers’ Liability Act) the principles that an employer is not liable for the negligent act of an employee simply because the latter ordinarily is engaged in discharging duties of superintendence, nor, on the contrary, is the employer exempted from liability for such act simply because it is one wiiich may be described in some sense as c a detail of the work; ’ but the employer is liable or not accordingly as the negligent act

1911He has intervened and prevented that, not for them, hut exclusively for himself, and it Would be inequitable now to allow him to be deprived of the advantage which his diligence alone has secured. * * *' The case is within the principle applied in the decision of Howell v. Ripley ( 10 Paige, 43 ), where the contest concerning the rents was between the complainants in two separate actions of foreclosure, and it was held that the junior .incumbrancer could not be divested of - his right to the rents and profits- in favor of the party holding the first mortgage, until he had procured the appointm

1911He has intervened and prevented that, not for them, hut exclusively for himself, and it Would be inequitable now to allow him to be deprived of the advantage which his diligence alone has secured. * * *' The case is within the principle applied in the decision of Howell v. Ripley ( 10 Paige, 43 ), where the contest concerning the rents was between the complainants in two separate actions of foreclosure, and it was held that the junior .incumbrancer could not be divested of - his right to the rents and profits- in favor of the party holding the first mortgage, until he had procured the appointm

1910This case is within the principle of Whitney v. Patrick ( 64 Misc.

1909Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98 .

1909The case is within the rule applied in Aquelini v. Provident Realty Co. (Sup.) 84 N. Y.

1908(Ingraham, v. International Salt Co., 114 App. Div. 791 ; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357 .) I think that this case is within the principle of Depew v. Leal ( 5 Duer, 664 , approved in Blackie v. Neilson, 6 Bosw. 683 ), unless the partner makes claim for moneys “ not evidenced by, or intelligible from the entries upon the books,” one partner “ has presumptively as much knowledge of details as the other. \ To furnish a bill of particulars, is to furnish a copy of the books.”' (See, too, American Transfer Co. v. Borgfeldt & Co., 99 App. Div. 470 ; Fink v. Jetter, 38 Hun, 163 .) The order should

1908(Ingraham, v. International Salt Co., 114 App. Div. 791 ; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357 .) I think that this case is within the principle of Depew v. Leal ( 5 Duer, 664 , approved in Blackie v. Neilson, 6 Bosw. 683 ), unless the partner makes claim for moneys “ not evidenced by, or intelligible from the entries upon the books,” one partner “ has presumptively as much knowledge of details as the other. \ To furnish a bill of particulars, is to furnish a copy of the books.”' (See, too, American Transfer Co. v. Borgfeldt & Co., 99 App. Div. 470 ; Fink v. Jetter, 38 Hun, 163 .) The order should

1908I think this case is within the doctrine or rule of responsibility laid down in Bassett v. Fish ( 75 N. Y. 303 ) where it was held that the neglect to perform a duty imposed upon the board of education of a union free school district was the negligence, of the corporation and the trustees were not liable.

1908(Ingraham, v. International Salt Co., 114 App. Div. 791 ; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357 .) I think that this case is within the principle of Depew v. Leal ( 5 Duer, 664 , approved in Blackie v. Neilson, 6 Bosw. 683 ), unless the partner makes claim for moneys “ not evidenced by, or intelligible from the entries upon the books,” one partner “ has presumptively as much knowledge of details as the other. \ To furnish a bill of particulars, is to furnish a copy of the books.”' (See, too, American Transfer Co. v. Borgfeldt & Co., 99 App. Div. 470 ; Fink v. Jetter, 38 Hun, 163 .) The order should

1905This accident happened on July 27,1901. ' I think that this case is within the principle of Corser v. Russell ( 20 Abb.

1904Yet the evidence- is abundant that the defendant permitted its use, and the case is within the doctrine of those patterned upon Thomas v. Winchester ( 6 N. Y. 397 ).

1904In Devlin v. Smith ( 89 N. Y. 470 ) the plaintiff’s intestate was killed by reason of the breaking of a scaffold upon which he was working, ninety feet from the ground.

1903There are few authorities on the subject in this State, but I think the case is within the principle of Hoy v. Smith ( 49 Barb. 360 ).

1901That the note was given for $500 and interest, and that the defendant received for that note only 462.50, are not disputed, but it is said that this transaction was had between Joseph Rosenmeyer, the son of' the plaintiff, and Greenbaum; that the plaintiff herself was not aware of it, and supposed that she was to receive and had received but 6 per cent; and that for that reason the case is within the rule laid down in Condit v. Baldwin, 21 N. Y. 219 .

1901Ch. 507 ) it was held that where a power in trust, to executors, to lease the real estate of the testator until it could be sold, would *376 have the effect to suspend the absolute power of alienation in such real estate, and was, therefore, void, the power in trust to sell, created by the same will, was nevertheless valid: So in Van Vechten v. Van Veghten ( 8 Paige, 105 ) the chancellor, in discussing the provisions of a complicated will, said: “Where personal estate is vested in trustees upon various trusts, some of which are valid and others void, the courts must sustain those which are leg

1900Therefore the case is within the principle of Knapp v. Wallace, 41 N. Y. 477 ; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1 , 29 N. E. 1091 ; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504 , 33 N. E. 599 , 20 L.

1900Therefore the case is within the principle of Knapp v. Wallace, 41 N. Y. 477 ; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1 , 29 N. E. 1091 ; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504 , 33 N. E. 599 , 20 L.

1900Therefore the case is within the principle of Knapp v. Wallace, 41 N. Y. 477 ; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1 , 29 N. E. 1091 ; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504 , 33 N. E. 599 , 20 L.

1900Therefore the case is within the principle of Knapp v. Wallace, 41 N. Y. 477 ; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1 , 29 N. E. 1091 ; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504 , 33 N. E. 599 , 20 L.

1900Therefore the case is within the principle of Knapp v. Wallace, 41 N. Y. 477 ; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1 , 29 N. E. 1091 ; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504 , 33 N. E. 599 , 20 L.