The rule applicable to actions to recover in tort for unliquidated damages is that the jury may award interest, but are not compelled to

—termining whether particular enactments are in conformity with Constitutional provisions; and if it is adjudged that they are not, such laws are pronounced null and void, either in whole or in part

Neglect to perform a condition subsequent in a deed does not ipso facto determine the estate, but only exposes it to be defeated and determined at the election of the grantor, to be signified by some act equivalent to a re-entry at common law.

—the sinking fund ordinance, not referred to in the first decision, was pressed upon the court to change its conclusion in the first hearing and to hold that the city had the absolute right, by reason of the ordinance, to forbid the filling of the land conveyed.

"Furthermore, if the exception in favor of theatres and other places of amusement be deemed unconstitutional, it can be separated readily from the constitutional part, leaving in full force the constitutional part."

Chief Judge Ruger uses the following language: "If effect can consistently with the general legislative intent be given to such parts of a statute as are not in conflict, with paramount authority and are within the authority of the body enacting them, it is the duty of a court, while rejecting its unconstitutional and unauthorized parts, to enforce the remaining provisions of a law …

Generally speaking, it is in the discretion of the jury whether to allow interest by way of damages in actions ex delicto.

As the acts required were all to be done subsequent to the vesting of the franchise, their nonperformance could only be enforced by the state, and the defendant's status could not be questioned by these plaintiffs

The running of the Avenue B branch of the defendant's railroad was not a compliance with the provisions of the ordinance in question, and, therefore, no defense to this action

[BOOK] Commentaries on the Laws of England: Vol. 2