Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Liquor Tax Rep. 604

In re Lyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1901-11-15

The obligee having contrived to bring about a breach of the condition of the bond, such breach cannot be made a ground of forfeiture against the surety. (Lyman v. Gramercy Club, 28 App. Div. 35; Lyman v. Broadway Garden Hotel Co., 33 App. Div. 130; Lyman v. Shenandoah Social Club, 39 App. Div. 459; Lyman v. Schermerhorn, 53 App.

Relies on Hemmens v. . Nelson · Linkhauf v. . Lombard

Decided 1901-11-15

¶1There was no error in directing a verdict upon their uncontradicted evidence. (Cullinan v. Trolley Club, 65 App. Div. 202; Hemmens v. Wilson, 138 N. Y. 517; Leinkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. Y. 417.)

¶2The plaintiff, as State Commissioner of Excise, was not estopped from bringing suit on behalf of the people, the obligee, under this bond merely because he directed his confidential special agents to investigate the place for which the bond was *605given and obtain evidence of any violation of the law there, as by buying liquors unlawfully for sale.

¶3Order modified by striking out interest, and as modified affirmed, without costs to either party. No opinion.

/2/liquortaxrep/604 · .json · Public domain