Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (Volume 61) (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1876. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Statement of case. where the plaintiff receives no benefit from the expenditure. V. The final claim of the defendants is, that the referee erred in ordering judgment against Pecare and his sub-lessees. They, however, put in answers setting up their title, and litigated the case. Jacobs, Woodhull and Whiteside averred that thev were tenants of the building erected on the premises, for the term of two years and seven months, under Pecare. Pecare set up that he was a tenant under Rosenthal and Levy for the term of two years and nine months. The referee finds that they were in possession of the premises and wrongfully withheld them from the plaintiff for the whole of his unexpired time. Although there may have been some contradictory testimony in the case, yet there was some evidence on which the finding of the referee can be based, and his decision cannot be reviewed in this court. The judgment of the court below should be affirmed. All concur. Judgment affirmed. Alfked Mitchell, Appellant, v. Mary Ann Mitchell, Respondent. Where the complaint, in an action for divorce on the ground of adultery, avers the commission of the offence with a person whose name is unknown to plaintiff, at times between certain specified dates and in a town or city named, with the further averment that plaintiff is unable to state more particularly the times and places, it is sufficient to authorize evidence in proof of the offence so charged; and, if it be proved, to sustain the action although no proof be given of offences particularly charged. Codd v. Codd (2 J. Ch., 224); Germond v. Germond (6 id., 347); Wood v. Wood (2 Paige, 113); Bokel v. Bokel (3 Edw. Ch., 376); H-ydt v. Heyde (4 Sandf. Ch., 692); Anonymous (17 Abb., 48); Strong v. Strong (3 Robt., 719); Pramagiori v. Pramagw...