Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/345

 312

us that the courts below have failed to appreciate the effect produced by the abolition of the dis tinction between law and equity, and the more recent decisions in this State depriving a mort gage of the characteristics of a conveyance. The cases are very numerous in our reports, and so familiar to the profession that we are surprised at the necessity, at this date, of referring to them at all." — Barry v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co., no N. Y. i. "The few words in the opinion of the General Term in respect to the matter are insufficient, either as explanation or 'reasoning.'" — Matter of Selleck, 11 1 N. Y. 284. "The plaintiff's application [which had been successful in the two lower courts] is to the equitable jurisdiction of the court; but a case suggesting fewer considerations likely to influ ence a court of equity in its favor or more op posed to the rules and maxims by which such a tribunal must be guided than the one on which he relies, has not been brought to our attention. In the diversity of causes of action it seldom happens that one is found which has no other support than an admitted breach of confidence, and violation of trust reposed by a father in his son. Such is this case." . . . After citing author ities : " Indeed the decisions are all one way." — Robbins v. Robbins, 89 N. Y. 251. "We think this authority, if authorities were needed on a question so clear, is decisive of this

case," says the Court, in Wilson v. White, 109 N. Y. 59, reversing the court below. "The case is so clear and free from doubt that it would be a waste of time to cite or com ment upon the authorities." — Secor v. Clark, 27 N. Y. State Rep. 169, Court of Appeals, No vember, 1889. [The court below had written an elaborate opinion the other way.] "A bare statement of the facts of this case will show that grave injustice has been done to the rights of the infants who appeal, and that the statutory provisions supposed to be conclusive have been incorrectly interpreted. . . . More of error or of wrong is seldom seen in one adjudi cation:' — Matter of McComb, 27 N. Y. State Rep. 259, Finch, J. Court of Appeals, November, 1889. In Dorman against Broadway R. R. Co. 27 N. Y. State Rep. 841, Court of Appeals, Decem ber, 1889, the whole opinion is as follows : — "Per curiam. — We do not find in this record any evidence that the plaintiff's intestate came to his death from any fault or carelessness attribu table to the defendant. His death was due solely to his accidental falling upon the defendant's railway." Judgment reversed. [This after a judge and jury had found for plaintiff, and the General Term on appeal had affirmed in a writ ten opinion.]