Page images
PDF
EPUB

and 146 New York State Reporter

INDORSEMENT.

holder of a corporation, restraining a defendant from acting as a director of the corpora

Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see Bills tion, and restraining the majority of the board and Notes, § 3.

INFANTS.

from permitting him to so act, and from refasing another party to act as such director.Moir v. Provident Savings Life Assur.. Soc. of New York (Sup.) 57.

An injunction to stay the further prosecution See Adoption; Guardian and Ward; Parent of an action in another jurisdiction should not and Child. be granted, unless extraordinary circumstances shown imperiling the rights of a litigant sk V. Victoria Chief ing such relief.-Johnson Copper Mining & Smelting Co. (Sup.) 346.

§ 1. Actions.

$78. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 471, an infant defendant held not punishable for contempt of an order, where there was no guardian ad litem. -Gross v. Gross (Sup.) 790.

on

§ 114. In an action in this state by an infant a judgment recovered by him in another state, the guardian ad litem of the infant in the original action held not a necessary party.Finn v. Post (Sup.) 1046.

INFERIOR COURTS.

See Courts, § 2.

A plaintiff held, on the pleadings and showing, not entitled to an injunction to restrain the further prosecution of an action in another je risdiction.-Johnson v. Victoria Chief Copper Mining & Smelting Co. (Sup.) 346.

§ 56. Equity will restrain the disclosure of secrets communicated in the course of a eusfidential employment.-Witkop & Holmes Ca v. Boyce (Sup.) 874.

$56. Equity will restrain an employé from making use, after termination of his emph ment, of his former employer's list of customers, independent of any contract; and wher there is an agreement not to do so that fact furnishes an added ground for equitable isCriminal accusation, see Indictment and Infor- terference.-Witkop & Holmes Co. v. Boyce (Sup.) 874.

mation.

INFORMATION.

INFRINGEMENT.

§ 56. Under a contract of employment, ens tomers procured held to be customers of t employer, not of the employé, so as to entite

Of trade-mark, see Trade-Marks and Trade- the employer to an injunction restraining inter Names, § 1.

INHERITANCE.

See Descent and Distribution.

INHERITANCE TAX.

See Taxation, § 2.

INJUNCTION.

Lien of attorney on injunction bond, see At-
torney and Client, § 4.

Right to discovery, see Discovery, § 1.
Relief against particular acts or proceedings.
Collection of municipal tax, see Municipal Cor-
porations, § 7.

Infringement of trade-mark, see Trade-Marks
and Trade-Names, § 1.

Stay of execution, see Execution, § 4.

ference therewith, or disclosure of lists there of by an employé after termination of his eployment.-Witkop & Holmes Co. T. Boyce (Sup.) 874.

§ 2. Actions for injunctions.

A city held not entitled to a preliminary in junction to restrain a gas company from tur ing off the supply of gas to it, unless it pays the admittedly just rates for the gas received. without prejudice to the right to establish a other sum as the reasonable value of such gas. -City of Buffalo v. Buffalo Gas Co. (Sup) 468.

§ 3. Preliminary and interlocutory injunctions.

*Ordinarily a temporary injunction is only granted on security to the party enjoined.People v. New York Carbonic Acid Gas Ca (Sup.) 381.

In an action by the people to restrain the violation of Laws 1908, p. 1221, c. 429, rezilating natural mineral springs of the state. az injunction pending the action held not a proper exercise of discretion.-People v. New York Carbonic Acid Gas Co. (Sup.) 381.

relief.

§ 1. Subjects of protection and relief. *In view of a covenant not to build within 4. Permanent injunction and other seven feet of plaintiff's line, evidence held to warrant an injunction against an encroachment and requiring the removal of a building constructed within three feet of the line.-Taylor v. McAdam (Sup.) 50.

Code Civ. Proc. §§ 603, 604, held not to authorize an injunction in an action by a stock

*A defendant who encroached on an en sement by erecting a building held not entitled to equitable relief permitting the building to stand on payment for the fee value of the lan encroached upon.-Taylor v. McAdam (Sup) 50.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

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

136. Where a lessee of the privilege of carriage service for a hotel clearly shows his rights in the premises and an invasion thereof by the lessor, an injunction pendente lite will be granted in an action by the lessee against the lessor.-Lynch v. Robert P. Murphy Hotel Co. (Sup.) 915.

§ 5.

Liabilities on bonds or undertak-
ings.

§ 241. Statement of costs and disbursements, which under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 3251, 3236, may be awarded on reference under section 623, to determine the damages from an injunction. Harrison v. Hind & Harrison Plush Co. (Sup.) 834.

$241. Statement as to amount of damages from an injunction which should be found on a reference under Code Civ. Proc. § 623.-Harrison v. Hind & Harrison Plush Co. (Sup.) 834.

INNKEEPERS.

Restraining interference with carriage service for hotel, see Injunction, § 4.

Sub-lease of carriage service at hotel, see Landlord and Tenant, § 2.

Termination of lease of right to carriage service for hotel, see Landlord and Tenant, § 2.

INQUISITION.

Of lunacy, see Insane Persons, § 1.

INSANE PERSONS.

§ 1. Inquisitions.

Upon a jury finding of sanity, petitioner cannot claim costs and disbursements, even though there was reason to believe that the party was insane at the beginning of the inquisition.-In re Hammond (Sup.) 296.

Where there was reason to believe that a person was insane at the beginning of inquisition proceedings, upon a subsequent finding of sanity, costs or disbursements should not be awarded against petitioner.-In re Hammond (Sup.) 296.

Under court rule 71 commissioners in inquisition proceedings cannot be awarded more than $10 for each day employed. In re Hammond (Sup.) 297.

Rights of petitioner to expenses where a default verdict of insanity was opened on payment of the costs and expenses, and two subsequent inquisitions were held resulting in a verdict of sanity, determined.-In re Hammond (Sup.) 297. *On discharge of alleged incompetent on proof of sanity, the court cannot charge costs of proceedings against his estate. In re Hammond (Sup.) 298.

§ 2. Guardianship.

[blocks in formation]

Bequest of life insurance, see Wills, § 4.
Demurrer to pleading in action on insurance
Harmless error in action on insurance policy, see
agent's contract, see Pleading, § 4.
Appeal and Error, § 5.

Motions as to pleadings in action on policy, see
Pleading, § 6.

Parol evidence to vary policy, see Evidence, § 7.
Premiums on policy as claim against estate of
decedent, see Executors and Administrators,
§ 3.

Taking case or question from jury in action on certificate, see Trial, § 4.

§ 1. Control and regulation in general. Insurance Law, Laws 1892, p. 1971, c. 690. 8 89, repealed in 1906, held re-enacted and continued by Laws 1906, p. 796, c. 326, § 34. -Akers v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 254.

2. Insurance agents and brokers. A life insurance agency contract for more than 12 months, in violation of Laws 1906, pp. 773, 796, c. 326, §§ 14, 34, held not merely ultra vires, but malum prohibitum; but, the parties not being in pari delicto, the agent could recover the value of his services on an implied assumpsit.-Akers v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 254. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

Certain payments and expenditures by committee of incompetent disallowed.-In re Andrews (Sup.) 167.

and 146 New York State Reporter

§ 3. The contract in general. *Three papers held to constitute marine policy, and not one of the papers alone.-Kuh v. British America Assur. Co. (Sup.) 410.

§ 4. Avoidance of policy for misrepresentation, fraud, breach

or

of

warranty or condition. § 292. A provision in a life policy held to bar recovery thereon, in the absence of evidence contradicting evidence of insured's previous treatment for disease.-Gerlach v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Sup.) 1095.

§ 5. Forfeiture of policy for breach of promissory warranty, covenant, or condition subsequent. Insured in a policy providing for a cash surrender value held entitled to such value, notwithstanding his failure to pay an annual premium.-Hill v. Bankers' Life Ins. Co. of City of New York (Sup.) 120.

$328. Evidence held to show that an agreement of insured to sell the insured property was so changed before the loss as to preserve insured's insurable interest.-Burke v. Continental Ins. Co. of City of New York (Sup.) $65.

§ 6. Extent of loss and liability of in

surer.

$499. A fire policy held to authorize a recovery of the cash value of the property destroyed.-Phillips v. Home Ins. Co. (Sup.) 769.

§ 7. Notice and proof of loss.

*Insured in a fire policy, who fails to file proofs of loss and does not show a waiver thereof, held not entitled to recover.-Stoebe v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 553. § 8. Right to proceeds.

*A wife held to acquire a vested interest in a policy insuring the life of her husband.-Bradshaw v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 107.

had the whole month in which to pay it and such payment was not required by the rules as a condition for reinstatement.-Lounsbury v Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup) 921.

§ 762. Effect of a beneficiary association's local representative's neglect respecting the reinstatement of a member stated.-Lounsbury v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup) 921.

§ 763. Under the facts, a fraternal association member's reinstatement held valid. though the application therefor was not in writing.Lounsbury v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup.) 921.

§ 825. Under the evidence, held a jury question whether a fraternal association abrogated a rule requiring applications for reinstatement of members to be written.-Lounsbury v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup.) 921.

§ 726. If a definition in an insurance policy is susceptible of two interpretations, it should receive that most favorable to insured -Graves v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup.) 948.

§ 748. Insured held not "engaged" in the liquor business, within the meaning of a fraternal benefit certificate, avoiding the policy of a member engaging in such business.-Graves v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup.) 948.

INTENT.

Construction of contract, see Contracts, § 2
Criminal, see Criminal Law, § 1.
Of testator, see Wills, § 3.

INTEREST.

nent Domain, §§ 1. 2. On legacies, see Wills, § 4.

The rights of the mortgagee of premises cover-On award in condemnation proceedings, see Emied by a fire policy held fixed by the policy, and not to be affected by any adjustment made without its knowledge by insured with insurer.Leslie v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J. (Sup.) 496.

§ 9. Actions on policies.

Complaint on policy held not required to set out negatively certain facts, but the same would be solely grounds of defense to be pleaded by insurer.-Kuh v. British America Assur. Co. (Sup.) 410.

§ 668. While the effect of the acceptance of

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.

See Injunction, § 3.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.

*Territory may be acquired by discovery and

a policy is a question of law, whether one has conquest.-Seneca Nation of Indians v. Applebeen accepted is a question of fact.-Manson by (Sup.) 177.

v. Metropolitan Surety Co. (Sup.) 886.

§ 668. Whether a burglary policy was accepted and credit given for the premium held

INTERROGATORIES.

to be for the jury-Manson v. Metropolitan To witnesses, see Depositions. Surety Co. (Sup.) 886.

§ 10. Mutual benefit insurance.

§ 760. A fraternal association member's reinstatement was not vitiated by his failure to pay a rate for the current month, where he

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Regulation, see Carriers, § 1. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Application to, for relief against unreasonable
rates as conditions precedent to judicial pro-
ceedings, see Carriers, § 1.

INTERSTATE EXTRADITION.

See Extradition, § 1.

INTERVENTION.

In actions in general, see Parties, § 1.
INTESTACY.

See Descent and Distribution.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

Competency of expert witnesses in prosecution
for offense against liquor laws, see Criminal
Law, § 4.
Construction of contract for sale of, see Sales,
§ 2.

$ 1. Power to control traffic.

The Legislature has the power to pass local option laws.-People v. Bashford (Sup.) 502. Liquor tax laws are enacted under the police powers of the state.-People v. Bashford (Sup.)

502.

§ 2. Local option.

Where a town voted in November, 1907, that no liquor should be sold in it, any license expired with the excise year on April 30th following, and a change of the expiration of the year by Laws 1908, p. 406, c. 144. did not apply to such town.-People v. Moore (Sup.) 475. The Legislature may fix the dates on which the sale of liquors shall commence in towns voting in favor of license, and when licenses shall cease in towns voting no license, and may change such dates.-People v. Bashford (Sup.) 502.

lation held not sustainable.-In re
(Sup.) 337.

1195

Clement

c. 144, held not to warrant the refusal of a new Liquor Tax Law, Laws 1896, p. 60, c. 112, § liquor tax certificate, because of the convic17, subd. 8, as amended by Laws 1908, p. 414, tion of an employé of the certificate holder.People v. McKee (Sup.) 338.

Provision of Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p. 60, c. 112) § 17, subd. 8, as amended by Laws 1908, p. 414, c. 144, relating to issue of certificate, is within the police power of the state.People v. McKee (Sup.) 386.

*Appeal by state commissioner of excise from order requiring special deputy commissioner to issue liquor tax certificate stays all proceedings without giving security, under Code Civ. Proc. 1313, so that deputy commissioner is not guilty of contempt in refusing to obey order.-People v. Judson (Sup.) 408.

§ 97. A rebate cannot be granted on the surtax law when the certificate was issued, and render of a liquor tax certificate, where the holder was under arrest for violating the liquor 1896, p. 67, c. 112) § 25, as amended by Laws was convicted prior to the application for surrender and rebate under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1903, p. 1122, c. 486, and section 34 (Laws P. 1046, c. 350.-People v. Clement (Sup.) 951. 1896. p. 75, c. 112) as amended by Laws 1908, prior violation of the law continued to sell liq$97. Where a person to whom a liquor tax uor after his conviction no rebate could be grantcertificate was issued while under arrest for a ed on surrender of the certificate before the (Laws 1896, p. 65, c. 112) § 23, as amended by expiration of the term under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p. 67, c. 112), as amended by Laws Laws 1995, p. 1735, c. 680, and section 25 1903, p. 1122, c. 486.-People v. Clement (Sup.)

951.

62, c. 112), § 19, as amended by Laws 1897, p.
§ 69. Under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p.
by the statements in an application for a liquor
222, c. 312, held, that the treasurer is concluded
tax certificate.-People v. Walker (Sup.) 1021.

Under Laws 1908, p. 406, c. 144, amending the
liquor tax law (Laws 1896, p. 45, c. 112), a li-
cense town, voting no license at the biennial
election in November, 1907, cannot prohibit the
sale of liquor until October 1, 1908, and an
applicant for a liquor tax certificate is entitled
thereto until October 1, 1908.-People v. Bash--People v. Walker (Sup.) 1021.
ford (Sup.) 502.

§ 69. A statement in an application for a liqviously filed held not to make such consents a uor tax certificate that consents had been prepart of the application and subject to the treasLaws 1896, p. 62, c. 112) § 19, as amended by urer's consideration, but under Liquor Tax Law concluded by such statement in the application. Laws 1897, p. 222, c. 312, the treasurer was

$ 4. Offenses.

3. Licenses and taxes.
Evidence on a petition by the state commis-
sioner of excise for an order canceling a liquor
tax certificate held to show that liquor had been
illegally sold, notwithstanding evidence that the
service thereof was in connection with meals
ordered and served.-In re Clement (Sup.) 126.
Objection to a proceeding to revoke a liquor
tax certificate that it cannot be maintained be-
cause begun more than 30 days after the hold-
er had surrendered such certificate for cancel-ent v. Smith (Sup.) 955.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

PP. 59, 61, c. 112) §§ 17, 18. Id. § 21, as amend-
$150. Under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896,
31, as amended by Laws 1903, p. 1129, c. 486,
held, that it is no defense to an action for
ed by Laws 1901, p. 1538, c. 640, and Id. §
penalties for selling liquor without having ob-
tained a liquor tax certificate that defendant
was unable to procure it as the treasurer would
applied to the county treasurer therefor, but
not issue the same until he received certain
blanks from the state excise department.-Clem-

and 146 New York State Reporter

$ 4.

§ 150. Certain letters and receipt from coun- | Lien of attorney on, see Attorney and Client,
ty treasurer to applicant for liquor tax certi-
ficate held to afford no protection for sales of
liquor without having obtained a liquor tax cer-
tificate.-Clement v. Smith (Sup.) 955.

[blocks in formation]

On appeal or writ of error, see Appeal and
Error, § 6.

On pleadings, see Pleading, § 6.
Sales under judgment, see Judicial Sales.
Vacation by partner not served with process,
see Partnership, § 2.

In actions by or against particular classes of
persons.

See Infants, § 1; Sheriffs and Constables, § 1;
Street Railroads, § 2.

In particular civil actions or proceedings.
See Specific Performance, § 3.

Foreclosure, see Mortgages, § 5.

For price of goods sold, see Sales, § 5.
Personal judgment for deficiency on foreclo
sure, see Mortgages, § 5.

To foreclose mechanic's lien, see Mechanics'
Liens, § 4.

Review.

See Appeal and Error.

§ 1. By default.

$143. The showing in support of a motion
to vacate a judgment held to require the setting
aside of the judgment.-Reichenbach v. Harris
(Sup.) 1069.

§ 138. Defendant held entitled to the opening
of his default and to the reinstatement of a de-

Of offenses in indictment, see Indictment and fault judgment against plaintiff with leave to
Information, § 4.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.

See Associations.

JUDGES.

See Courts; Justices of the Peace.

§ 1. Disqualification to act.

Power of recorder of city to act as judge on
inability of latter to act must be established by
evidence.-Gasson v. Atkins (Co. Ct.) 224.

On the return day of a summons issued by a
recorder acting as city judge, defendant moved
to dismiss on the ground that the judge was not
disqualified. Held, that the plaintiff must show
affirmatively the existence of the facts giving
the recorder power to act in the event of the
absence or disqualification of the judge.-Gas-
son v. Atkins (Co. Ct.) 224.

JUDGMENT.

Appealability of default judgment in municipal
court, see Courts, § 2.
Appealability of order setting aside default,
see Appeal and Error.

As denial of due process of law, see Constitu-
tional Law, § 5.

In justice's court, see Justices of the Peace, § 2.
In municipal court, see Courts, § 2.
Judgment on pleadings in action on, see Plead-
ing, § 6.

plaintiff to open his default on terms.-Herman
v. Hyman (Sup.) 1077.

§ 2. On trial of issues.

*Facts held not to affect one's right to a re-
versal of a judgment for a failure to deter-
mine certain issues.-Breck v. United States
Title Guaranty & Indemnity Co. (Sup.) 756.

§ 250. Judgment for plaintiff on proof of de-
fendant's written guaranty to pay plaintiff for
certain work was improper, where he sued for
services on defendant's behalf.-Stone v. Stolts
(Sup.) 1045.

§ 3. Equitable relief.

Where the time to move to vacate a default
judgment rendered without jurisdiction had ex-
pired when the party learned of it, he may bring
an equitable action to vacate it: his legal
remedy being inadequate.-New York & New
Jersey Telephone Co. v. Rosenthal (Sup.) 612.
§ 4. Collateral attack.

Proof of service of summons held sufficient as
against collateral attack on judgment.-MeAu-
liff v. Hughes (Sup.) 486.

On collateral attack on judgment, held, the
date of service of summons in affidavit of serv-

ice would be disregarded as a clerical mistake.-
McAuliff v. Hughes (Sup.) 486.

Under Domestic Relations Law, Laws 1896,
p. 227, c. 272, § 63, where a county judge has
made an order of adoption reciting all jurisdi
tional facts required by such law, the order is
not reviewable by the surrogate in administra-
tion proceedings. In re Ward's Estate (Sur.)
282.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

« PreviousContinue »