This case involved a wrongful death action brought by the widow of a man killed by the Erie Railroad, seeking damages for pecuniary losses under the Code of Civil Procedure. The dispute centered on whether the trial court properly admitted testimony from the widow about the weekly amounts of money her husband had given her from his express business. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that evidence of customary contributions to the wife is relevant to pecuniary injuries and does not violate the rule against admitting uncertain business profits. The court reasoned that the husband's earnings were primarily from his personal labor rather than capital investment, distinguishing this from prohibited profit evidence.
The case concerned the proper distribution of a trust fund established under Christian E. Detmold's will, which terminated upon the life tenant's death, requiring allocation among the testator's descendants. The Surrogate's Court ordered division into twenty shares for all twenty living descendants, including great-grandchildren, but the Appellate Division limited it to eight shares for the testator's grandchildren only, with the order structured to benefit solely the one grandchild who appealed. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order to award equal one-eighth shares to all eight grandchildren, holding that because the non-appealing siblings formed a class whose interests were joint and required their cooperation to comply with the judgment, they were entitled to the same relief as the appellant.
This case involved a dispute over whether New York's Workmen’s Compensation Law, enacted after a constitutional amendment, eliminated the right to pursue wrongful death lawsuits for negligent or wrongful acts in cases covered by the compensation system. The court reversed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the prior right of action no longer exists where the compensation law supplies a remedy. The majority reasoned that the constitutional change and implementing legislation were designed to substitute the new compensation framework for the previous common-law remedies in applicable employment-related death cases. A dissent maintained that the amendment did not intend to remove the death action right without a full substitute.
This case concerned the administration and investment of a trust fund in the Hoffman Estate by the Union Trust Company, with objecting parties challenging the form of the trustee's investments as reflected in its account. The majority of the court, concurring with Chase, J., concluded that the investments conformed to the approved practice for such trusts. As a result, the order under review was affirmed without modification. A separate opinion concurred in the underlying analysis of proper investment forms but would have modified the order to direct changes in the investments before affirming.
The case concerned a vacancy in the office of sheriff of Queens County that arose on October 23, 1916, upon the death of the incumbent, and whether that vacancy had to be filled by election at the general election held two weeks later on November 7. The lower courts held that an election was required, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that no constitutional or statutory provision mandated filling the vacancy at that general election. The court reasoned that the Election Law expressly required an election only for vacancies occurring before October 15, that the Constitution permitted the governor to appoint a temporary successor whose term would extend until the next political year, and that the precedent in People ex rel. Davies v. Cowles was distinguishable because the vacancy there had occurred earlier and actual notice had been given to the electorate. It further noted that the constitutional command to fill vacancies “as often as they happen” did not preclude temporary gubernatorial appointment or require an immediate election.
The case involved the prosecution of defendant Smith for grand larceny in the first degree, charged with embezzling bonds owned by the Fidelity Trust Company as executor of Mrs. Newcomb's estate after her death. The defense claimed that Mrs. Newcomb had gifted the bonds to Smith during her lifetime, so he owned them outright and could not have stolen them from the executor. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge's error in withdrawing the ownership issue from the jury was harmless because the instructions clearly made the existence of a gift the decisive factual question for acquittal, and without a gift the executor's ownership was uncontroverted.
