People ex rel. Emerich v. Fire Com'rs.
People ex rel. Jefferson v. Smith et al.
People ex rel. Duffy v. The Prest., &c., of West Troy.25 Hun, 179.
People ex rel. Fries v. Riley...
People ex rel. Keech v. Thompson..
People ex rel. Kimball v. The Board of Supervisors. .25 Hun, 131
People ex rel. Loughlin v. Finn
People ex rel. Loughlin v. Finn
People ex rel. Reynolds v. Oneida Sessions
People ex rel. Robison et al. v. The Board of Super
visors of Ontario Co...
People ex rel. Rosenkrantz v. Carr.
People ex rel. Schlosser v. Porter.
People ex rel. Shaw v. McCarty et al..
People ex rel. Swinburne v. The Trustees of the Alby. Med. Coll..
Troy & Boston RR. Co. 'v. The B., H. T. & W. RR. Co.86 N. Y., 107.
Trust & Deposit Co. v. Pratt et al.
1. The provisions of the Code directing the continuance of an action by or against the representatives of a party who has died since the commencement thereof do not in- clude a case where all the parties are dead at the time of the action, and by the com- mon law such action abates.-Holsman v. St. John, 345.
2. An action to recover taxes, &c., which de- fendant, as lessee, had covenanted to pay, was commenced in 1859. Plaintiff died in 1864 and defendant in 1879. On motion of plaintiff's administrator to continue the ac- tion, Held, That the cause of action, arising out of the contract, survived and passed to plaintiff's administrator; that no revivor was necessary, the only question being the bringing in of the proper parties to con- tinue the action.-Holsman v. St. John et al., 511.
3. Section 757 of the Code is applicable to a case where a sole plaintiff and a sole de- fendant are both dead.-Id. See WILLS, 1.
1. In an action of ejectment, defendant, to show adverse possession, offered to testify to a bargain made with one R., who con- veyed to plaintiff's grantor, who was dead. Held, Inadmissible under $ 829 of the Code.-Pope v. Allen, 414.
2. The possession by a party concurrently with one who has a deed of the premises on record is not constructive notice. In such case it will be inferred that such possession was under the apparent owner by the re- cord and in subordination to the true title. -Id.
See ATTACHMENT, 3, 5, 10-12, 15, 17.
1. Where a party receives money through or from an agent in satisfaction of his obliga- tion against the agent, with notice of the principal's rights, the principal may recover of him to the extent of such rights, but cannot recover at all if such party had no notice of such rights.- Keator v. Smith et al., 64.
2. Where the value of property sold is shown the price will not be presumed to be less, in the absence of evidence tending to show it.-ld.
3. Where a person is appointed by a transpor- tation company to contract with the United States for the conveyance of its mails, he is not necessarily the contractor simply be cause the contract is in his name. He may act in a representative capacity, and there is nothing in the Statute, U. S. R. S., 2d Ed. (1878) $$ 3941 to 3953, which prohibits such a contract being made between the parties. Nothing in § 3963 prevents a per- son who obtains a contract from the United States to carry the mails from agreeing that he will do so as the agent of another.-The Oregon SS. Co. v. Otis, 165.
4. Evidence showing that an agent to collect rents had frequently taken notes for rent,
« ForrigeFortsett » |