29 N.Y. St. Rep.
Volume 29 — New York State Reporter
90 opinions
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 22Hudson River Telephone Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike & Railroad (1890)
<p>1. Injunction—Pendente lite.</p> <p>The complaint in an action for an injunction alleged that defendant was about to erect poles and string wires, for the purpose of propelling its cara by electricity, on lines parallel with and in close proximity to plaintiff's wire; and it was shown that their use will produce powerful currents of induction and conduction which will seriously interfere with and prevent the carrying on of plaintiff’s business. Feld, that the case was one within the provisions of §§ 603, 604, sub. 1 of the Code, and that an injunction pendente lite was proper.</p> <p>2. Telephone companies—Street railroads.</p> <p>A telephone company has a right, as against a street railroad, to erect its poles and string its wires in the street through which that railroad runs, and any interference with or destruction of its right,,producing irreparable injury, can be restrained by the court.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 198In re Vanamee (1890)
Appeal by the receiver of the Warwick Machine Co. from an order denying his application for a warrant against William T. Baird. The appellant was appointed receiver of the company in an action for the sequestration of its property, and duly qualified. The application was made upon a verified petition, and upon notice to Mr. Baird.
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 233Hesse v. Mackaye (1890)
<p>Injunction—Will not be granted to restrain payment oe securities EMBRACED IN LITIGATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRY BETWEEN THE PARTIES.</p> <p>Where plaintiff has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the courts of a foreign country, in which country the property sought to be affected by this action is situated, no case is made for an injunction restraining defendants from paying it over.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 234Hesse v. Mackaye (1890)
<p>1. Appearance—Special appearance to deny jurisdiction is not.</p> <p>Where no notice of appearance, answer or demurrer is served, but an attorney appears specially to object to the jurisdiction, this will not constitute an appearance in the action.</p> <p>S. Jurisdiction—Objection to, now raised.</p> <p>Where defendant desires to raise objections to the jurisdiction, he is not obliged to do so by answer or demurrer, but may appear specially for that purpose on a motion.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 278Gurney v. Union Transfer & Storage Co. (1890)
Appeal by defendant from an order denying defendant’s motion to strike out from judgment a provision for an additional sum as costs, and for a stay of proceedings upon the judgment
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 366Minto v. Bauer (1890)
<p>Reargument of appeal from order.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 513Welsh v. Metropolitan Elevated Railroad (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 514Watson v. Metropolitan Elevated Railroad (1890)
<p>Appeal by defendants from order denying their motion to permanently suspend the operation of the injunction given by the judgment.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 516Hughes v. Metropolitan Elevated Railroad (1890)
<p>Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion that the injunction in the judgment be perpetually and permanently suspended.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 579Hollister v. Central National Bank of Troy (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 596New York Lumber & Wood-working Co. v. Schneider (1890)
<p>Appeal from judgment New York court of common pleas, general term, affirming judgment of special term dismissing complaint after trial.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 703Finger v. City of Kingston (1890)
<p>Pleading—Irrelevant allegations.</p> <p>The courts will not favor motions to strike out allegations of a pleading as irrelevant unless the irrelevancy is clear and the danger of false issues something more than barely possible.</p>
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 723People ex rel. Hall v. President of Village of Little Falls (1889)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Costello v. Second Avenue Railroad (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Taylor v. Hall (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Beal v. New York Canal & Hudson River Railroad (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Berford v. Wetmore (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Bullock v. Oppmann (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991In re Newton (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Lesser v. Williams (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Lynch v. First National Bank of Jersey City (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991People ex rel. Vaughan v. Board of Supervisors of Rensselaer Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 991Whitman v. Haines (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Hendricks v. Isaacs (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Howe v. Morehouse (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Lawrence v. Harrington (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Pickett v. Gollner (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Magee v. City of Troy (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Mason v. Williams (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992People v. Duane (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Prochowick v. Boyd (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Adams v. Morrison (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992Cole v. Frost (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 992People v. American Bell Telephone Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993Bajus v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. R. Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993Davis v. Rome, W. & O. R. R. Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993First National Bank of Marietta v. Bushwick Chemical Works (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993Goodyear v. Adams (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993In re Vanamee (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993People v. Price (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993Tracy v. Byrnes (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993Mcdonald v. Van Horne (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993Genet v. President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993People ex rel. Heiser v. Gilon (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 993People v. President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Beinhauer v. Gleason (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Consalus v. McConihe (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Fanning v. Vrooman (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Glenn v. Burrows (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994King v. Walbridge (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Radman v. Haberstro (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Wildrick v. Hager (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Bartlett v. Sutorius (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Cook v. New York Canal & Hudson River Railroad (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Meeker v. Dayton (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 994Beadleston v. Alley (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Hooper v. C. McCulloch Beecher & Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995In re Clark (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995In re Will of Florance (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Lawton v. Steele (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Leverich v. Culver (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995McCord v. Town of Ossining (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995St. Nicholas Bank v. King (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Vail v. Reynolds (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Fourth National Bank v. Burger (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Holdridge v. Hicks (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Farley v. Union Mutual Life Insurance (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 995Herold v. Manhattan Railway Co. (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Coyle v. Nies (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Daly v. Sanders (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Graves v. Deterling (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Harrison v. Vanderbilt (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Metropolitan Concert Co. v. Sperry (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Noonan v. Strahan (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Noxon v. Glen (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Dings v. Guthrie (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Howe v. Lyall (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 996Holthausen v. Pondir (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 997Bottum v. Scott (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 997Morrison v. Maxwell (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 997Simson v. Bank of Commerce (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 998Jarrard v. Bissell (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 999Hopkins v. Niagara Machine Co. (1889)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 999Lenihan v. Bronner (1889)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 999Rauch v. New York, Lackawanna & Western Railroad (1889)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 999Reichel v. New York Canal & Hudson River Railroad (1889)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 1000Quin v. Winter (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 1001Brockman v. Buell (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 1001People v. McQuade (1890)
- 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 1001Gammond v. Bowery Savings Bank (1890)