App. Div
Categories: Property
Definition (1910 Edition)
275, 46 N. Y¥. Supp. 934; Miller v. Insurance Co., 113 Iowa, 211, 8+ N. W. 1049; Washington County v. St. Louis, ete,
374, 58 N; Y. Supp. 114.
170. 83 N. Y. Supp. 130; Ncougale
280, 67 N. Y. Supp. 883; Webb v.
469, 86 N. Y. Supp. 967.
191, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1088; Thornton v. Zea, Tex. Civ. App. 55 S. W. 798; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1 Hun, 354.—Contingent interest in personal property. It may be defined as a future interest not transmissible to the representatives of the party entitled thereto, in case he dies before it vests in possession. Thus, if a testator leaves the income of a fund to his wife for life, and the capital of the fund to be distributed among such of his children as shall be living at her death, the interest of each child during the widow’s life-time is contingent, and in case of his death is not transmissible to his representatives. Mosley & Whitley. —Con t Hability. One which is not now fixed and absolute, but which will become so in case of the occurrence of some future and uncertain event. Downer v. Curtis, 25 Vt. 650;
349, 62 N. Y. Supp. 227.—Necessary damages. A term said to be of much wider scope in the law of damages than “pecuniary.” It embraces all those consequences of an injury usually denominated “general’? damages, as distinguished from special damages; whereas the phrase “pecuniary damages” covers a smaller class of damages within the larger class of “general” damages. Browning v. Wabash Western R. Co. (Mo.) 24 8. W. 746.—Pecuniary damages. Such as can be estimated in and compensated by money: not merely the loss of money or salable property or rights. but all such loss, deprivation, or injury as can be made the subject of calculation and of recompense
277, 51 N. Y. Supp. 937; Reed v.
621, 39 N. Y. Supp. 169.—Duties on imports. This term signifies not merely a duty on the act of importation, but a duty on the thing imported. It is not confined to a duty levied while the article is entering the country, but extends to a duty levied after it has entered the country. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 437, 6 L. Ed. 678.
590, 49 N. Y. Supp. 917; People v.
880, 74 N. Y. Supp. 875; Thurston v. Whitney, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 110.
647, 119 N. Y. Supp. 556; In re
512, 61 N. Y. BOPP oa George v.
118, 77 N. ¥. Supp. 711.
342, 43 N. Y. Supp. 17; Bowe v.
178, 56 N. Y. Supp. 674; State v.
374, 58 N; Y. Supp. 114.
170. 83 N. Y. Supp. 130; Ncougale
280, 67 N. Y. Supp. 883; Webb v.
469, 86 N. Y. Supp. 967.
191, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1088; Thornton v. Zea, Tex. Civ. App. 55 S. W. 798; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1 Hun, 354.—Contingent interest in personal property. It may be defined as a future interest not transmissible to the representatives of the party entitled thereto, in case he dies before it vests in possession. Thus, if a testator leaves the income of a fund to his wife for life, and the capital of the fund to be distributed among such of his children as shall be living at her death, the interest of each child during the widow’s life-time is contingent, and in case of his death is not transmissible to his representatives. Mosley & Whitley. —Con t Hability. One which is not now fixed and absolute, but which will become so in case of the occurrence of some future and uncertain event. Downer v. Curtis, 25 Vt. 650;
349, 62 N. Y. Supp. 227.—Necessary damages. A term said to be of much wider scope in the law of damages than “pecuniary.” It embraces all those consequences of an injury usually denominated “general’? damages, as distinguished from special damages; whereas the phrase “pecuniary damages” covers a smaller class of damages within the larger class of “general” damages. Browning v. Wabash Western R. Co. (Mo.) 24 8. W. 746.—Pecuniary damages. Such as can be estimated in and compensated by money: not merely the loss of money or salable property or rights. but all such loss, deprivation, or injury as can be made the subject of calculation and of recompense
277, 51 N. Y. Supp. 937; Reed v.
621, 39 N. Y. Supp. 169.—Duties on imports. This term signifies not merely a duty on the act of importation, but a duty on the thing imported. It is not confined to a duty levied while the article is entering the country, but extends to a duty levied after it has entered the country. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 437, 6 L. Ed. 678.
590, 49 N. Y. Supp. 917; People v.
880, 74 N. Y. Supp. 875; Thurston v. Whitney, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 110.
647, 119 N. Y. Supp. 556; In re
512, 61 N. Y. BOPP oa George v.
118, 77 N. ¥. Supp. 711.
342, 43 N. Y. Supp. 17; Bowe v.
178, 56 N. Y. Supp. 674; State v.
Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1910) — Public Domain.
UK commentary and modern updates are original additions. This entry is for educational
reference only and does not constitute legal advice.