584 JOHN P. McCORMICK, Respondent, v. THE BROOKLYN CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
McCormick v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 10 Misc. Rep. 8, affirmed.
(Argued October 16, 1896; decided October 30, 1896.)
APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, entered October 26, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
Albert C. Tennant for appellant.
James D. Bell for respondent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: ANDREWS, Ch. J., O'BRIEN, BARTLETT and MARTIN, JJ.
Dissent: HAIGHT and VANN, JJ.
Not sitting: GRAY, J.
HENRY H. FOWLER et al., Appellants, v. ZILLAH H. WOOD,
Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
Fowler v. Wood, 78 Hun, 304, affirmed.
(Argued October 16, 1896; decided October 30, 1896.)
APPEAL from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered August 9, 1894, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granted a new trial.
William L. Snyder for appellants.
A. J. Adams for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs, and judgment absolute ordered against the plaintiffs on the stipulation, on opinion below.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX
MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. EDWARD P.
BARKER et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assess-
ments of the City and County f New York, Respondents.
RE-ARGUMENT ordered October 30, 1896, with leave to argue orally, only as to whether that clause of the Constitution which provides that "No unanimous decision of the Appellate Division that there is evidence supporting or tending to sustain a finding of fact or a verdict not directed by the court, shall be reviewed by the Court of Appeals," is applicable to this appeal.
JANE A. BAKER et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS BROWN et al.,
Appellants.
(Submitted October 26, 1896; decided October 30, 1896.)
MOTION for re-argument denied, without costs. p. 567.)
a new trial on the grounds that
the verdict was excessive, con-
trary to the evidence and contrary
to law. The motion was denied,
and judgment entered upon the
verdict. The defendant appealed
to the General Term from the
judgment and from the order
denying the motion for a new
trial. The General Term re-
versed the judgment and order
"upon the law," and granted a
new trial. From the order of
General Term the plaintiff ap-
pealed to the Court of Appeals,
with a stipulation for judgment
absolute in case of affirmance.
The defendant stipulated to waive
any objection to the appealability
of the order. Held, that the Court
of Appeals was not authorized to
entertain the appeal; but that,
instead of dismissing it, the ap-
peal should, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, be per-
mitted to be withdrawn, without
costs.
Id.
Order in Action for Dissolution
of Corporation, for Payment of
Claim of Creditor by Receiver, not
Appealable to Court of Appeals —
Constitution, Art. 6, § 9- Code
Civ. Proc. $ 190. An order of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court, affirming an order of Special
Term directing the permanent re-
ceiver of an insolvent domestic
corporation, appointed by a final
judgment in an action brought by
the attorney-general for the disso-
lution of the corporation, to pay,
out of the fund in his hands, the
claim of a creditor of the corpora-
tion (as, e. g., a judgment re-
covered by the receiver of a de-
cedent's estate against the corpo-
ration through its receiver), made
upon an application by the cred-
itor in the action for dissolution,
is not an order finally determining
an action or special proceeding,
and, hence, by force of section 9
of article 6 of the Constitution
and section 190 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, is not appealable
|