Page images
[blocks in formation]

Adair v. Brimmer, XV, 421, Reversed,

Feb. 26, 1884.
Adee v. Cornell, XII, 472, Affirmed,

.XVIII, 83 Ball v. Biddlecome, XVII, 25, Modified,

Feb. 26, 1884. No opinion.
Beatse v. Sharp, XIII, 417, Affirmed,

Nov. 20, 1883. No opinion.
Bergen v. Powell, XVII, 507, Affirmed,

.XVIII, 344 Billings v. Robinson, XV, 521, Affirined,

XVIII, 329 Bollerman v. Blake, XI, 555, Affirmed,

Nov. 20, 1883. No prevailing opin.

ion. Bowen v. Mandeville, XVI, 352, Affirm

XVIII, 452 Bradner v. Faulkner, XVI, 240, Reversed ...

XVIII, 134 Brisbane v. The D., L. & W. RR. Co.,

XIII, 184, Affirmed..... XVIII, 159 Byrne v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co.,

XV, 518, Reversed...... .XVIII, 75 Cain v. The City of Syracuse, XVI, 242, Affirmed

XVIII, 521 Callahan v. Bancroft, XVI, 367, Affirmed,

March 4, 1884. No opinion.
Carroll v. Deimel, XIII, 401, Reversed,

.XVIII, 549 Clark v. Mackin, XVIII, 250, Modified,

March 21, 1884.
Clark v. The L. S. & M. S. RR. Co.,

XIV, 177, Affirmed..
Coleman v. The Manhattan Beach Imp.

Co., XIV, 323, Affirmed......XVIII, 241 Cook v. Lowry, XVI, 408, Modified,

.XVIII, 508

Danenbaum v. Mandelbaum, XVI, 502,

Afirmed, Jan. 22, 1884. No opinion. Derby v. Hulburt, XVI, 446, Atfirmed,


XVIII, 173 Feb. 26, 1884. No opinion.

ed ....

March 11, 1884. No opinion.
Disher v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co.,
XII, 277, Reversed..

.XVIII, 103 Dodge v. Thompson, XIII, 104, Affirmed.

XVIII, 284 Dunham v. Cudlipp, XIII, 464, Revers

..XVIII, 176 Furlong v. Gair, XI, 248, Affirmed, Nov.

27, 1883. No opinion. Genther v. The Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.,

XVI., 310, Reversed ...XVIII, 446 Gilbert v. Comstock, XIII, 166, Reversed

.XVIII, 101 Goddard v. Abbott, XVII, 557, Reversed,

.XVIII, 419 Grandin v. Hernandez, XVII, 88, Affirm

ed, Feb. 5, 1884. No opinion. Gray v. The Supervisors of Tompkins

Co., XIV., 152, Affirmed...... .XVIII, 100 Guilleaume v. Rowe, XIV, 196, Affirmed,

.XVIII, 196 Hall v. The U. S. Reflector Co., XVIII,

7, Appeal dismissed, Feb. 8, 1884. No

opinion. Hallenbeck v. Donnell, XVII, 10, Reversed .....

XVIII, 365 Hancock v. Rand, XIII, 208, Affirmed,

... XVIII, 76 Helmrich v. Hart, XVI, 356, Affirmed,

versed .....

Holcomb v. Holcomb, XVII, 226, Re

XVIII, 551 Hynes v. Patterson, XVI, 344, Affirmed,

XVIII, 421 Affirmed..

[blocks in formation]

In re accounting of Consalus, XIV, 92, McKenna v. Bolger, XVII, 431, Appeal Affirmed, March 21, 1884.


..XVIII, 199 In re accounting of Hughes, XVI, 268, McNulty v. Soliy, XVII., 568, Affirmed, Reversed... .XVIII, 453

.XVIII, 448 In re accounting of Jackson, XVI, 345, Murray v. Marshall, XVI, 117, Reversed, Affirmed ... XVIII, 433

XVIII, 550 In re application of Clement, XVII, 431, Nichols v. Mase, XIII, 419, Modified, Affirmed, March 4, 1884. No opinion.

XVIII, 277 In re application of Cooper, XVI, 291, O'Dea v. O'Dea, XVIII, 377, Affirmed,

Appeal dismissed...... XVIII, 28 March 21, 1884. No opinion. In re application of The Cortland & Ho- Odell v. Mulry, XI, 303, Appeal dis

mer RR. Co., XVIII, 163, Affirmed, missed, Dec. 14, 1883. No opinion. March 21, 1881. No opinion.

O'Reilly v. The City of Kingston, XVII, In re Macauley, XV, 519, Affirmed,

478, Appeal dismissed, Dec. 11, 1883.

.XVIII, 445 No opinion. In re The Columbia Ins. Co., XVII, Peck v. Valentine, XVII, 22, Reversed, 406, Affirmed December 4, 1883. No

..XVIII, 449 opinion.

Plimpton v. Bigelow, XVII, 75, ReversIn re The N. Y., W. S. & B. RR. Co. v.


XVIII, 85 Townsend, XVII, 469, AMirmed, Dec. Prichard v. Thompson, XVI, 419, Re11, 1883. No opinion.


.XVIII, 511 In re The N. Y., W. S. & B. RR. Co., v. Roach v. The Fort Orange Paper Co.,

Walsh, XVII, 360, Affirmed...XVIII, 349 XVIII, 124, Affirmed, March 18, 1884. In re The Security Life Ins. & Ann. Co., No opinion.

XVIII, 154, Affirmed, March 4, 1884. Rogers v. The Village of Sandy Hill, No opinion.

XIV, 45, Appeal dismissed....XVIII, 153 In re will of Cottrell, XVIII, 167, Afirm- Russak v. Sabey, XVII, 202, Affirmed, ed, March 21, 1884.

Dec. 11, 1883. No opinion. In re will of Gouraud, XVI, 265, Re- Sackrider v. Cooke, XVI, 253, Affirmed,

.XVIII, 516 Feb. 5, 1884. No opinion. Isaacson v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Salisbury v. The Village of Ithaca, XII, Co., XIII, 239, Reversed.. ...XVIII, 282 117, Reversed,...

.XVIII, 102 Kenyon v. See, XVI, 575, Affirmed, Sanford v. Ellithorpe, XIV, 154, Revers.XVIII, 422 ed,

.XVIII, 423 Knapp v. Roche, X, 187, Reversed, Scott v. Morgan, X, 531, Affirmed XVIII, 413

.XVIII, 324 Simpson v. Del Hoyo, XIV, 178, ReversLangdon v. The Mayor, &c., of N. Y.,


XVIII, 144 XVI,, 289, Affirmed.... .XVIII, 37 Smith v. Zalinski, XIII, 566, Affirmed, Laytin v. Davidson, XVII, 18, Affirmed,

XVIII 282 XVIII, 564 Sprague v. Richards, XVII, 564, Appeal Leavitt v. Wolcott, XVII, 74, Reversed, dismissed, March 21, 1884. No opinion.

..XVIII, 500 Sutherland v. Olcott, XVI, 281, ReversLoomis v. White, XVI, 407, Affirmed,


XVIII, 499 Feb. 26, 1984. No opinion.

Tenney v. Bergen, XIV, 70, Affirmed, Luffman v. Hoy, XIII, 324, Affirmed,

.XVIII, 30 Nov. 20, 1883. No opinion.

The East River Gaslight Co. v. Donnelly, Mabie v. Bailey, XVI, 557, Affirmed,

XIII, 458, Affirmed... .XVIII, 71

XVIII, 507 The Evansville Natl. Bk. v. Kaufman, McCormack v. The City of Syracuse, XIII, XII, 323, Reversed..

..XVIII, 77 136, Affirmed, Nov.20, 1883. No opin- The Ithaca Gaslight Co. v. Tremain, ion.

XVII, 453, Appeal dismissed..XVIII, 70 McGough v. Sharp, XV, 328, Affirmed, The People v. Courtney, XVIII, 206, March 18, 1884. No opinion.

XVIII, 286 McIntyre v. Strong, XV, 109, Affirmed, The People v. Kelly, XVIII, 234, AffirmJan. 22. 1884. No opinion.


XVIII, 483

versed .....

[blocks in formation]


The People v. McKeon, XVI, 347, Affirm

Yonkers Gaslight Co., XIV, 95, Afed, Jan. 22, 1884. No opinion.

firmed, Dec. 4 1883. No opinion. The People v. Smith, XVI, 238, Affirm- Thorne v. Turck, XIII, 550, Affirmed, ed, Jan. 22, 1894. No opinion.

XVIII, 200 The People v. Noelke, XVI, 528, Affirm- Todd v. Weber, XVII, 72, Affirmed, .XVIII, 134

.XVIII, 496 The People v The City Natl. Bk. of Tozer v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co.,

Rochester, XVII, 185, Affirmed, XVIII, 32 XVII, 370, Affirmed, Feb. 5, 1884. No
The People ex rel. Comstock v. Lucas, opinion.

XIII, 432, Reversed..... .XVIII, 2 Vick v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co.,
The People ex rel. Keech v. Thompson, XVII, 316, Reversed.... XVIII, 505

XIII, 538, Affirmed.... XVIII, 320 Vosburgh v. The L. S. & M. S. RR. Co., The People ex rel. McKenzie v. The Su. XIV, 514, Affirmed.

.XVIII, 300 pervisors of Ulster Co., XVII, 205, Af- Waldele v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR, firmed.....

.XVIII, 220 Co., XVI, 186, Reversed......XVIII, 542 The People ex rel. Owen v. Seavy, XVII, Weed v. Root, XIV, 90, Affirmed, XVIII, 316 116, Appcal dismissed, March 21, 1884. Whitford v. Laidler. XIII, 139, Revers. No opinion.


XVIII, 141 The People ex rel. Smith v. The Trustees Whitney v. Lebenheim, XIV, 415, Afof Flushing, XVIII, 19), Affirmed, firmed, Jan. 29, 1884. No opinion. March 4, 1384. No opinion.

Wilder v. Ranney, XVI, 478, Afirmed, The Rector, &c., of Christ Church v.

XVIII, 400 Mack, XIII, 397, Reversed....XVIII, 3 Woodruff v. The Erie R. Co., XIII, 162, The Second Natl. Bk. v. Burt, XIV, 290,


.XVIII, 197 Reversed.

XVIII, 56 Wooster v. Kisch, XIII, 497, Affirmed, The Union Dime Savgs. Inst. v. Wilmot, Nov. 27, 1883. No opinion.

XIV, 5, Reversed.... .XVIII, 193 Younger v. Duffie, XVI, 35, Affirmed, The Westchiester Gaslight Co. v. The

XVIII, 366

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]


judgment against C. and the sub

sequent proceedings of plaintiff N. Y. COURT OF APPEALS.

thereunder. Upon the trial plainCandee, respt., v. Smith, exix.,

tiff proved his note and rested.

Defendant then moved to dismiss applt.

the complaint, which motion was Decided Oct. 2, 1883.

denied. The court found that Prior to the passage of $ 1278 of the Code a plaintiff was entitled to recover.

judgment by confession against one joint Adelbert Moot, for applt. debtor was a bar to an action against the J. M. Humphrey, for respt. others.

Held, That plaintiff having electOn October 4, 1874, plaintiff, who ed to prosecute one of the joint was payee and holder of a joint makers of the note and proceeded promissory note, took judgment to judgment against him, the note thereon by confession against C., as to all the parties became there. one of the makers. Upon an ex- upon merged in the judgment and ecution issued thereon he collected no right of action survived to the a portion by a sale of C:'s prop-, holder as against any of the joint erty. In July, 1877, plaintiff makers omitted by him in the brought this action against all the original prosecution. makers to recover the balance of This action was tried before said note remaining unpaid. S., de- the enactment of $ 1278 of the fendant's testator, alone appeared. Code of Civil Procedure, which He set up that he was a mere sure- was enacted in 1880 and provides ty for the defendant C. and was that a judgment by confession discharged from liability by the I against one joint debtor should

Vol. 18.-No. 1.

« PreviousContinue »