Baker v. Ludlow
2 Johns. Cas. 289
Opinion
By the terms of the memorandum, fish in general were not intended to be included ; and the expression dried fish implies that other fish were not intended; for expressio unius exclusio est alterius.(
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Baker v. Ludlow, 2 Johns. Cas. 289 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1801).
2 Johns. Cas. 289 (Baker v. Ludlow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Munro v. Syracuse, Lake Shore & Northern Railroad
128 A.D. 388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Cavan v. City of Brooklyn
5 N.Y.S. 758 (New York City Court, 1889)
Flanagan v. Hollingsworth
2 How. Pr. 391 (New York City Court, 1885)
Coit & Pierpoint v. Commercial Insurance
7 Johns. 385 (New York Supreme Court, 1811)