1. Loomis v. Hoyt Copy cite
   20 Jones & S. 287 The Superior Court of New York City June 19, 1885
   Not cited

   By the Court.—Freedman, J. The action is based on a promissory note, dated October 30, 1882, and made and indorsed by the firm of George Palen & Co., and the complaint charges the defendants with having been the partners who composed that firm. The several answers

2. McCreery v. Duncan Copy cite
   21 Jones & S. 448 The Superior Court of New York City July 2, 1886
   Not cited

   By the Court. Sedgwioic, Ch. J. The action was upon the following instrument made by the defendant: “Hew York, Oct. 18, 1883. “Messrs. McCreery &Co., Gentlemen :—I will become responsible for $350 of Miss Flora Livingston’s bill of costumes, provided that

3. Matthes v. Kerrigan Copy cite
   21 Jones & S. 431 The Superior Court of New York City July 2, 1886
   Not cited Concurrence · Gorman

   O’Gorman, J. (Concurring).—This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered on a verdict by direction of the court below. The action was brought to recover damages for injuries to the person of the plaintiff, received while he was in the

4. Koota v. Bonanno Copy cite
   52 Misc. 2d 748 New York Supreme Court July 7, 1966
   Cited by 3

   J. Irwin Shapiro, J. Thirteen separate applications to punish for contempt are here involved. They will be discussed jointly in this opinion but separate orders will be entered in each case. The District Attorney of Kings County has applied for an order adjudging

5. Stafford Pavement Co. v. Monheimer Copy cite
   41 Jones & S. 184 The Superior Court of New York City April 3, 1876
   Not cited

   By the Court.—Sedgwick, J. The two most important exceptions argued upon this appeal, cannot be examined upon their merits, because they relate to possible defenses, which are not made by the answer. The first is, that the contract was void as against public

6. Pendleton v. Johnston Copy cite
   27 Jones & S. 331 The Superior Court of New York City May 4, 1891
   Not cited

   By the Court.—Freedman, J. The action was brought to recover the value of services claimed to have been rendered to the defendant by plaintiff’s assignor, an attorney and counsellor at law. The answer is substantially a general denial. At the trial evidence was

7. Peck v. Wood Copy cite
   2 How. Pr. 171 New York Supreme Court June 15, 1846
   Not cited

   Jewett, Justice. Plaintiff shows the service of the costs and notice of taxation to be regular; the defendant can have a retaxation only, on terms. Motion for retaxation granted on payment of $7 costs of opposing motion; the execution to be stayed in the mean

8. Jones v. Roach Copy cite
   41 Jones & S. 248 The Superior Court of New York City May 1, 1876
   Not cited

   By the Court.—Sanford, J. The only question presented on this appeal, is that which was determined adversely to the plaintiff by the learned j udge, before whom the trial was had, when he dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the negligence of the plaintiff

9. Wilmont v. Meserole Copy cite
   41 Jones & S. 274 The Superior Court of New York City May 1, 1876
   Not cited

   By the Court.—Sanford, J. In actions affecting the title to real property, notices of Us pendens may be filed, and subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers *276 are bound by all proceedings taken after the filing of such notices, to the same extent as if made

10. Miller v. Union Switch & Signal Co. Copy cite
    26 Jones & S. 85 The Superior Court of New York City April 9, 1890
    Not cited

    By the Court.—Truax, J. The action was brought by the plaintiff as the assignee of one Charles R. Johnson, to recover the sum of $1,625 as an installment of royalties claimed to be due and payable for the three months ending on the first day of September, 1888

11. Bradley v. Walker Copy cite
    27 Jones & S. 334 The Superior Court of New York City May 4, 1891
    Not cited

    By the Court.—McAdam, J. The covenant was not a conveyance within the statutory meaning of that term, respecting the acknowledgment of convejmnces by married women. (1 R. S., 758, sec. 10.) It did not purport to grant or convey any estate and none passed or was

12. Clark v. Pomares Copy cite
    22 Jones & S. 561 The Superior Court of New York City May 18, 1887
    Not cited

    Order denying motion for new trial, and judgment affirmed, with costs.

13. Reed v. Trowbridge Copy cite
    22 Jones & S. 561 The Superior Court of New York City May 2, 1887
    Not cited

    Per Curiam. Defendant’s exceptions should be overruled, and the plaintiff should have judgment on the verdict, with costs.

14. Ireland v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co. Copy cite
    22 Jones & S. 563 The Superior Court of New York City June 23, 1887
    Not cited

    Opinion Per Curiam. Order amended by-striking out words “ Twenty dollars costs,” and substituting in place thereof, words “ the costs awarded to the appellant on the appeal, and ten dollars the costs of the motion,” and as so modified order affirmed, without

15. Oesterreicher v. Raisbeck Copy cite
    22 Jones & S. 564 The Superior Court of New York City June 23, 1887
    Not cited

    Orders affirmed.

16. Dodworth v. Jones Copy cite
    11 Duer 201 The Superior Court of New York City January 27, 1855
    Not cited

    By the Court. Campbell, J. The plaintiff cannot recover in .this action, without proving that he was entitled to the..possession of the plates at the time it was commenced. They were made by defendant’s firm out of. materials belonging to it, and by'labor

17. In re Reed (Sugg) Copy cite
    2025 NY Slip Op 33347(U) New York Surrogate's Court September 12, 2025 No. File No. 2016-3704/A
    Not cited Unpublished

    Matter of Reed (Sugg) 2025 NY Slip Op 33347(U) September 12, 2025 Surrogate's Court, New York County Docket Number: File No. 2016-3704/A Judge: Hilary Gingold Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U) , are republished from

18. Riggins v. Williams Copy cite
    2 Duer 678 The Superior Court of New York City October 15, 1853
    Cited by 3

    *679 So held by all the judges consulted by Dues, J., and held to apply to all cases when the terms of an order, requiring security to be filed for any purpose, are general.

19. Herring v. Hoppock Copy cite
    3 Duer 20 The Superior Court of New York City January 26, 1854
    Cited by 3

    By the Court. Bosworth, J. The jury, by direction of the judge, before whom this action was tried,found a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to the decision, and appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict. If there was evidence in support

20. Zellweger v. Caffe Copy cite
    5 Duer 87 The Superior Court of New York City December 15, 1855
    Cited by 9

    By the Court. Slosson, J. I shall consider the case principally in its connection with the endorsers, and the conclusions to which we have come will be equally applicable to all the defendants. *91 The form of the contract upon which Youngs and Laverty are sought

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.