Nanz v. . Oakley
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made October 17, 1885, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A cause of action exists against the defendant and in favor of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made October 17, 1885, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A cause of action exists against the defendant and in favor of plaintiff. (Morrow v. Peyton, 8 Leigh, 64, 65; 3 Bacon’s Ab. 30, 31; Lacey v. Davis, 5 Redf. 301; Bruen v. Gillett, 115 N. Y. 10; Adair v. Brimmer, 74 id. 541;…
1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.
One Eliza Munday, as the present owner of the claim in suit, joins with the plaintiff in this appeal. The action was brought against the defendant, as surety, upon an administrator’s bond to recover the amount adjudged by the surrogate to be due and owing by the administrator, and which he was ordered to pay to Cornelius W. Depew, as administrator of Eachel Depew, deceased.
It appears that one Mary Ann Schultz died in the city of Hew York intestate, and that Eachel Depew was her only heir at law and next of kin. That on her petition Bomt P. Winant and herself were appointed administrator and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bruen v. . GilletNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Braxton v. State ex rel. AlbertIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Tighe v. . MorrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Boyd v. BoydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Babcock v. HubbardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re the Accounting of MatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
- Southern Surety Co. v. TessumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- In re WesterfieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- American Surety Co. of New York v. McMullenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- Cheever v. EllisMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.