« PreviousContinue »
cision is a provision of law within the and not from the time of the demand
debtors will not revive the debt as against tual account accrued within six years prior
to commencement of suit thereon, the
statute of limitations is no bar.- Eno v.
uniform statutory rule of limitation to all
See LIEN, 1.
6. Defendant, who made the note in suit in
et al., 134.
constitutional. – Id.
an executor until eighteen months after the lottery tickets the defendant
relation to lotteries through the mail.-Id.
such action.-Prentiss v. Cornell, 464.
prescribing the limitations within which service of the summons and complaint upon
them confers jurisdiction of their persons.
See False IMPRISONMENT, 1; PLEADING, 1, 4.
1. Where an Illuminating Company has been
duly authorized by the municipal authori-
ties to erect poles in the streets, and in pur-
suance thereof erecis a pole without con-
sent of the owner of the adjacent premises
and without compensation to him. a man-
damus cannot be granted against the offi-
cers of the city to compel the removal of
such pole, but the remedy is by action.-
The People ex rel. McManus v. Thompson et
TION, 11 ; Towns, 1.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
vessel has left the port of her departure in it appears that the wrongful imprisonment
store, the defendants are not liable unless
such act of their servant was authorized by
them; and the question as to whether such
servant was so authorized, there being a cou-
flict of testimony on that point, is one for
the determination of the jury.- Wallach v.
Ridley et al., 16.
liable to the representatives of a servant of
the railroad company, who was killed upon
the side-track through defendant's negli-
gence ; that defendant's servants and those
of the railroad company were not co-
employees. — Roach v. The Fort Orange
Paper Co., 124.
observe reasonable care in protecting the
persons employed by him from the risks of
injury.--Berg v. The Tilly Foster Mining
other employee is injured, and the grade of
the negligent employee is not maierial. -
Neubauer v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR.
See ANIMALS ; EVIDENCE, 14, 15; NEGLI-
GENCE, 1 ; RAILROADS, 17, 18; SERVICES,
2 ; USURY, 6, 7.
2. In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien
under Chap. 478, Laws of 1862, all the
lienors, both prior and subsequent to plain-
tiff, are proper parties defendant.-Kenny
V. Apgar et al., 73.
properly provide for a sale of the premises
liens according to their priority.-Id.
appurtenance thereto within the meaning
of tlie lien law.-Id.
lien that a copy of the notice of lien should
be served on the owner.--Id.
men to establish a lien, under Chap. 379,
Smith et al., 174.
to that extent.-Id.
S., who agreed to erect a building thereon.
debtedness C. reconveyed the same prem-
susceptible of more than one construction,
parties.-Thurber v. Minturn et al., 25.
ground on which it stands, and also of all
bility to pay the bond to the land by a con-
Lyon et al., 74.
and received the full consideration thereof,
set up his equities in his complaint.-Id.
corporation for which they were not origi-
See TAXATION, 7.
be so clear as to leave no room for doubt.-
Smith et al. v. Knapp, 95.
action based on misrepresentation and mis-
take.-Knapp v. Fowler, 230.
C., plaintiff's intestate, as a mortgage to
nally liable, executed mortgages to a trustee gaged premises to a grantee who assumes
ment of the debt, and the recording of such
deed is not sufficient notice of such fact.-
The Star Fire Ins. Co. v. Waddington, 307.
erty the title to which was in the wife at
the time of executing such mortgage, to
make a valid title.- The Trustees of Jones
cures his debtor's default will not be per-
mitted to take advantage of such default
acres, was sold under the decree, and all Id.
15. Plaintiff purchased of defendants a bond
and mortgage and took a guaranty of pay
ment. Thereafter she purchased the de-
cree on foreclosure of a concurrent mort-
gage and bid in the property on a sale there-
under for a nominal price and took a deed
tion with the mortgagor that the former the foreclosure action. Held, That plain-
16. The assignment contained a covenant that
the defendants had formerly owned a mort-
gage that was a concurrent lien. It did
was ignorant of it. Held, That the facts
found to be rotten from its roots up to a
was any exte.
tree.- Vosper v. The Mayor, &c.,of N. Y., 98.
fective sidewalk in one of defendant's
Saulsbury v. The Village of Ithaca, 102.
fraud on defendants' part in contracting
their obligation to plaintiff.-Id.
to his executors in trust to convert into
The will conferred no power to in-
gage.---Lockman v. Reilley, 548.
The mortgagee, in consideration of
act does not prove negligence in a case
City of Syracuse, 521.
a wall adjoining private premises in which
the corporation was not liable.--Id.
ESTOPPEL, 5; MANDAMUS ; NEGLIGENCE,
See Costs, 20; DEEDS, 2, 10, 11; EJECTMENT,
2, 3; ESTOPPEL, 2; FRAUD, 8, 9; INTER-
1. A complaint in an action against the alder-
men of a city for a violation of duty al-
East River Gaslight Co. v. Donnelly et al., 71.
statute is a public duty to the city or to the
ries caused by the negligence of defendant,
degree, when it appears from the evidence
The People, 488.