Nash v. . White's Bank of Buffalo

11 N.E. 946, 105 N.Y. 243, 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 31, 60 Sickels 243, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 714
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 19, 1887·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the effect of the act of 1880 (Chap. 567) was to repeal the penalties imposed by chapter 163 of the laws of 1870, and that consequently this action, which was brought under the act of 1870, could no longer be maintained, the act of 1880 containing no provision saving pending actions or existing rights of action.

The provisions of the general repealing act of 1828 (§§ 6, 7) related only to the acts repealed by that statute and had no effect on subsequent legislation. (Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613.)

If the act of 1870 was repealed by the act of 1880 the subsequent legislation cannot affect this case, for it could not revive an extinguished cause of action.

The judgment should be reversed and complaint dismissed.

All concur, except Danfokth, J., not voting.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nash v. . White's Bank of Buffalo, 11 N.E. 946, 105 N.Y. 243, 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 31, 60 Sickels 243, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 714 (N.Y. 1887).

11 N.E. 946 (Nash v. . White's Bank of Buffalo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spokane & Eastern Trust Co. v. Hart
221 P. 615 (Washington Supreme Court, 1923)
Young v. City of Rochester
73 A.D. 81 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Bank of Metropolis v. . Faber
44 N.E. 779 (New York Court of Appeals, 1896)
People v. Ulster & Delaware Railroad
28 N.E. 635 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
In re City of Buffalo
15 N.Y.S. 775 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1891)
In re Estate of Prout
3 Silv. Sup. 170 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
In re Arnett's Estate
2 N.Y.S. 428 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
Kissam v. People
6 Dem. Sur. 171 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1888)
In re Kissam's Estate
3 N.Y.S. 135 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1888)