Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York, Volume 15Baker, Voorhis & Company, 1891 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 85
Page 20
... jury " ( § 2083 ) , may order a jury trial of con- tested questions of fact ; but the issues framed should not include mere conclusions or matters of inference , motive , or intent , or facts either conceded or of record . The trial and ...
... jury " ( § 2083 ) , may order a jury trial of con- tested questions of fact ; but the issues framed should not include mere conclusions or matters of inference , motive , or intent , or facts either conceded or of record . The trial and ...
Page 21
... jury . The relator had applied to such commissioners for a hotel license to sell intox- icating liquors upon the premises number 38 East 14th Street in the City of New York , and such application was refused . Thereupon , said relator ...
... jury . The relator had applied to such commissioners for a hotel license to sell intox- icating liquors upon the premises number 38 East 14th Street in the City of New York , and such application was refused . Thereupon , said relator ...
Page 22
... jury , " so that the judge at Special Term having decided that the legislature meant " man- damus " when they said " mandamus , " had no option but to order a jury trial of the contested question of fact . We may People v . Woodman ...
... jury , " so that the judge at Special Term having decided that the legislature meant " man- damus " when they said " mandamus , " had no option but to order a jury trial of the contested question of fact . We may People v . Woodman ...
Page 23
... jury will not prevent the court or judge from finally passing upon the question whether the application has been arbitrarily rejected without good or valid reasons . The jury may find against the excise commissioners on every question ...
... jury will not prevent the court or judge from finally passing upon the question whether the application has been arbitrarily rejected without good or valid reasons . The jury may find against the excise commissioners on every question ...
Page 24
... jury , the question stated in the foregoing opinion was submitted upon the proofs to a jury , who found as their answer , " No. " Thereupon the relator moved for a peremptory writ of mandamus to defend- ants directing them to issue to ...
... jury , the question stated in the foregoing opinion was submitted upon the proofs to a jury , who found as their answer , " No. " Thereupon the relator moved for a peremptory writ of mandamus to defend- ants directing them to issue to ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accident action was brought Adler affidavit agreement Albert Watson alleged amount answer applied authority award BOOKSTAVER Bowery Savings Bank cause of action charge City Court Civil Procedure claim Code common carrier complaint concurred contract contributory negligence corporation costs counsel court entered Court of Appeals damages Decided December decision defendant defendant's delivered demurrer denying a motion dismissed district court elevated railroad Elevated Railway entitled evidence facts favor fendant filed fraud ground held HOESEN injury issue J. F. DALY Judgment affirmed Judgment reversed jury justice landlord LARREMORE lease Lewis Seymour liable lien Mahopac Manhattan Manhattan Railway mechanic's lien ment mortgage negligence opinion order denying owner parties payment person plaint plaintiff premises proof purchase question Railroad Company reason refused rent res adjudicata respondent rule Special Term statute stockholder street tenant testimony thereof tion trial ordered trustees verdict Watts York
Popular passages
Page 158 - A cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, or connected with the subject of the action; 2. In an action arising on contract, any other cause of action arising also on contract, and existing at the commencement of the action.
Page 475 - This is an action brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant.
Page 17 - Affidavit above referred to, but as and for damages alleged to have been suffered by the Plaintiff by reason of the sale and conveyance made by the Defendant to one W.
Page 289 - The testimony made out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the...
Page 120 - ... together with all and singular, the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof; and also all the estate, right, title, interest, property, possession, claim, and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in equity, of the said party of the first part, of, in, or to the above described premises, and every part and parcel thereof, with the appurtenances.
Page 74 - An adjudication is final and conclusive not only as to the matter actually determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated and have...
Page 571 - The court may determine the controversy, as between the parties before it, where it can do so without prejudice to the rights of others, or by saving their rights ; but where a complete determination of the controversy cannot be had without the presence of other parties, the court must direct them to be brought in.
Page 180 - There seems no doubt that where there is a positive contract to do a thing, not in itself unlawful, the contractor must perform it or pay damages for not doing it, although in consequence of unforeseen accidents, the performance of his contract has become unexpectedly burdensome or even impossible.
Page 429 - When it is objected at the trial, and appears by the evidence, that the action is brought in the wrong county, or township, or city...
Page 494 - In this case the plaintiff undertook to make a bust which should be satisfactory to the defendant. The case shows that she was not satisfied with it. The plaintiff has not yet then fulfilled his contract. It is not enough to say that she ought to be satisfied with it, and that her dissatisfaction is unreasonable. She, and not the court, is entitled to judge of that. The contract was not to make one that she ought to be satisfied with.