Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Clark, Tilson v. Clarke, Christy v.

[merged small][ocr errors]

-----

Latourette v.---

1

Cockroft, Vose v.----

Coller v. Wenner,
Collins, Crawford v.....
Commissioners for the erection of

a Public Market, The People ex rel. The Common Council of New York v............-Common Council of New York, The People ex rel. The Commissioners for the erection of a Public Market v.---Cooke, Swanson v..

Cooper v. Burr,..........

Corning, The Troy Iron and Nail

Factory v.

Corey v. The People,-
Cowing v. Greene, --

Crandall v. Vickery,.
Crane v. McDonald,.
Crawford v. Collins,.

[ocr errors]

D

Guiteman v. (note) -.

-------

The People v.---

Dennis, The People ex rel. v Bren

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

178 Frink v. The Hampden Insurance

529

Co.

327

58

397

269

44

------- 576

494

Ferris, Sheldon v......
Finney v. Veeder, --
Firemen's Fund Insurance Co., Ap-

pleby v..

473

[ocr errors]

473

574

9

East River Bank v. Butterworth,- 476 Ely, Huber v..

169

457

490

69

124

388

G

Genesee County Bank, The People ex rel. v. Olmsted,.

Genet v. Beekman,.

454

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

231

262 Hall, Thompson v.

210

585 Hampden Insurance Co. Frink v.. 384 156 Hasbrouck, Van Hoevenbergh v... 193 354 Hazard, McHenry v.---

657

269

549

Heydrick, Mosher v..

Houghton, Martin v..

Howland, Genet V.-------------
Hubbard, The People ex rel. v. An-
nis,
Huber v.

Ely,...

K

--

[blocks in formation]

384

644

382

560

344

585

576

258

560

304

169

136

150

138

--------- 618

499

119

308

182

327

448

152

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

McHenry v. Hazard,.
McLean, Botsford v...
Mahler v. The Norwich and New

York Transp. Co.------------
Manhattan Gas Light Company,
The People ex rel. Kennedy v... 136
Marshall v. The New York Central
Railroad Co.

340

N

129

95

510

610

354

[ocr errors]

657

478

222

Norton, Lawrence v..
Norwich and New York Transpor-
tation Co., Mahler v..-----.

Mathews v. Duryee, ---

69

Mayor &c. of New York, Baldwin v. 359

Merritt, Willard v.

295

Mitchell, The People ex rel. The

Albany and Susquehanna Rail

road Co. v.

Mosher v. Heydrick, .

Mount v. Porter,

Mudgett, The Bank of the Commonwealth v.

502

258

142

37

337

142

People, Corey v..

v. Davis, ...

- v. The Third Avenue Rail-
road Co.....
People v. The New York and Har-
lem Railroad Co.......
People v. Williams,.

ex rel. The Albany and Sus-
quehanna Railroad Co. v. Mitch-
ell,..

People ex rel. The Commissioners
for the erection of a Public Mar-
ket v. The Common Council of
473
New York,...
People ex rel. Dennis v. Brennan,- 457
The Genesee County
644
Bank v. Olmsted, --
People ex rel. Geery v. Brennan,.. 344
Hubbard v. Annis,.. 304
Kennedy v. The Man-

204

549

hattan Gas Light Company,---- 136 422 People ex rel. Livingston v. Taylor, 129 Stover v. Stiner,.... 56 Pike, Savage v... Pilling v. Pilling,. Pond v. Leman, -.

663

464 86

152

422

348

524

New York Central Railroad Co.,
Marshall v....

New York Central Railroad Co.,
Warner v...

299
New York, City of, Baldwin v.... 359
New York and Harlem Railroad
Co., The People
New York and Harlem Railroad
Co., Roosevelt v...

V.---

0

Olmsted, The People ex rel. The
Genesee County Bank v........ 644

502

73

P

554

Porter v. Mount,.

Postley, Sherman v..

Powers v. Shepard,

448

[ocr errors]

222

R

262

494

63

73

197

208

[blocks in formation]

Roberts, Bank of Auburn v... Roosvelt v. The Bull's Head Bank, 579 V. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company,... 554

Seaman v. Civill,

Seeley, Starkweather v...

Sheldon v. Ferris,

S.

St. James Church v. Church of the

Redeemer,

356

464

Savage v. Pike,--..
Schoonmaker, Stockbridge v... 100

Scovil v. Scovil, -

517 267

164

124

524

Shepard, Powers v..
Sherman v. Postley,...
Silliman v. Tuttle, -

348

171

Sixth Avenue Railroad Co. v. Kerr, 138 Slauson, Van Vleet v......

317

111

610

Soule v. The Union Bank,.
Smith v. McClusky,.
Spalding, Woods v.....
Starkweather v. Seeley,-

602

164

56

100

Stiner, The People ex rel. Stover, v.
Stockbridge v. Schoonmaker, ----
Stone, Angrave v...--
Stover, The People ex rel. v. Stiner, 56
Swanson v. Cook, -

35

574

T

Taylor v. Brookman,.

-----

407 | Tilson v. Clark,..

1-8

The People ex rel. Living

ston V...--

Third Avenue Railroad Co., The

People v.

Thomas v. Chapman,

Thompson v. Hall,.
Thornton, Welles v..

106

129

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

63

98 Willard v. Merritt,.

[ocr errors]

W

Wardens &c. of St. James Church v. The Rector &c. of the Church of the Redeemer,. Warner v. The New York Central Railroad Company, -.

Welles v. Thornton,-.

Wenner, Coller v.

Western Transportation Company, Chamberlain v.

--

178

438

308

490

150

V

Van Hoevenbergh v. Hasbrouck,-- 193 Van Nostrand, Bradbury v...---- 190 Van Vleet v. Slauson, ....

317

388

156

58

210 Williams v. The People,.

390 Woods v. Spalding, ---.

231

171

111

274

356

299

390

397

214

295

197

.. 602

CASES

IN

Law and Equity

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK.

MARY COOPER vs. MELANCTHON BURR and others.

It is essential to a valid gift by parol that there should be an actual or symbolical delivery. The title does not pass unless possession, or the means of obtaining it, are conferred by the donor and accepted by the donee,

The situation, relation and circumstances of the parties, and of the subject of the gift, may be taken into consideration in determining the intent to give, and the fact as to delivery.

A total exclusion of the power or means of resuming possession by the donor
is not necessary.

C. who had been confined to her room by illness for nineteen or twenty years,
and to her bed for five or six years, prior to her death, kept in her room a
bureau and trunks containing gold and silver coin and jewelry. About six
weeks before her decease, handing to the plaintiff, who had lived with and
taken care of her for twenty-seven years, the keys of the bureau and trunks,
she said: "Mary, here are these keys; I give them to you; they are the
keys of my trunks and bureau; take them and keep them, and take good
care of them; all my property, and every thing, I give to you; you have
been a good girl to me, and be so still. *
You know I have given

45

9

60h 575

45b 9 47ap475 45b

9

65 AD 2593 65 AD 4594

Cooper v. Burr.

it all to you, take whatever you please; it is all yours, but take good care of it." Held that the language of the donor, accompanied by a delivery of the keys to the trunks and bureau, evinced the intention of the donor, and placed the donee in possession of the means of assuming absolute control of the contents at her pleasure, and constituted a valid gift of the coin and jew elry in the trunks and bureau.

Held, also, that the fact that the trunks and bureau, or their contents, were not

removed, or even handled, by the donee, was not a controlling consideration. Where it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff, suing as Mary Cooper, was called Mary Flood, during her early infancy, but that she had been called Mary Cooper by C. with whom she lived, and whose name she took, and by all her acquaintances, since about the age of nine or ten years, a period of about twenty years; Held that the action was properly brought by the plaintiff by the name of Mary Cooper; that being the name by which she was generally known.

PPEAL by the defendant from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order made at a special term, denying a motion for a new trial. The action. was brought to recover a quantity of gold and silver coin, jewelry, silver ware, household furniture, &c. which the plaintiff claimed as a gift from one Mary Cooper, deceased, the former owner, and which the defendants had taken possession of, and detained, claiming the same as the next of kin of the said Mary Cooper, who died intestate. The defendants alleged in their answer that since the commencement of this suit, letters of administration had been issued to two of them, Melancthon Burr and Ann S. Lyons, upon the estate of said Mary Cooper, by the surrogate of New York. The action was tried at the New York circuit, in April, 1863, before Justice HOYT and a jury. The plaintiff was examined as a witness, and testified as follows: That she had lived with deceased from the plaintiff's sixth year of age till the death of the deceased in 1861, a period of twenty-seven years, and that no one else lived with her, except as occasional sub-tenants of parts of the house. That the decedent was confined to her room by illness for nineteen or twenty years prior to her death, and kept her bed for five or six years. During this period no one but the plaintiff took care of the decedent,

« ПретходнаНастави »