bad reasons for a sound conclusion, but it is nearly impossible for the most highly skilled person to give good reasons for a bad conclusion." The case of Shaffer v. Martin, 20 App. Div. 304; 80 St. Rep. 992; 46 Supp. 992, appears to be precisely in point. The decision there, like the decision here, merely directed the judgment to be entered, and the appellate division in the Fourth department, speaking through Mr. Justice Follett, said that the judgment must be vacated, and the case remitted to the special term for decision by the judge who tried it. In so doing the court FORM OF DECISION OF Court, or REPORT OF REFEREE, AFTER TRIAL OF ISSUES OF FACT,-continued. which are inconsistent with those contained in the signed decison, they will be disregarded on appeal. O'Brien v. Buffalo Traction Co. 86 St. Rep. 322; 52 Supp. 322. After the trial of issues joined by the return to a writ of certiorari, findings should be made, or a decision stating the grounds upon which the issues have been decided, and a mere formal dismissal of the writ is irregu lar. People v. Buffalo, 39 App. Div. 245; 91 St. Rep. 261; 57 Supp. 261. A judgment entered upon a mere direction of a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the evidence of both parties will be reversed because of the absence of any decision of the court before which the trial was had. Lemien v. Lemien, 16 App. Div. 264; 78 St. Rep. 674; 44 Supp. 674. In Shaffer v. Martin, 20 App. Div. 304; 80 St. Rep. 992; 46 Supp. 992, the appellate division vacated a judgment entered upon a short decision which stated no grounds for the same and remanded the case to the special term for a proper decision by the justice who tried it, and indicated that such course was the proper practice. A statement at the close of an opinion rendered by the judge who tried · the case that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for a certain amount is not such a decision as will support a judgment. Hall v. Beston, 13 App. Div. 116; 77 St. Rep. 304; 43 Supp. 304. An indorsement on the cover of the summons and complaint, after the trial of issues, as follows, "Judgment of foreclosure and sale, with deficiency judgment" will not support a final judgment. Osborne v. Heyward, 40 App. Div. 78; 91 St. Rep. 542; 57 Supp. 542. Likewise, of an endorsement as follows, "Complaint dismissed with costs, judgment may be entered accordingly." McManus v. Palmer, 13 App. Div. 403; 77 St. Rep. 601; 43 Supp. 601. Appellate Division. treated the direction for judgment standing by itself as no decision at all. The suggestion is made here, as it was made there, that the pleadings showed what were the essential issues which must have been determined; to which we answer, in the language of Judge Follett in the case cited: "If it be said that the pleadings can be resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the issues, the answer is that, under our modern system of pleadings and the practice which prevails, they frequently do not state all the essential issues tried and determined and embrace many that were not determined." The order of the county court, so far as it refused to vacate the decision and judgment, should be reversed, leaving the county judge at liberty, however, to make and file a decision in compliance with section 1022 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to direct the entry of a judgment thereon without taking further evidence in the action. Order of the county court of Putnam county, so far as it refuses to vacate the decision and judgment, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. ACTION. See Depositions. See Discontinuance. ADOPTION. recting payment to the wife of insured, and, on her death before insured, to her children, for their use, does not create a trust, within such exception, since on the death of the wife the surviving children took a vested interest in the policy, not as beneficiaries of a trust but as the persons for whom the contract was made. Von Beck v. Thomsen, 33. Consent of parents necessity. Adoption Laws 1873, c. 830, § 11, declares that, whenever a child has been abandoned, the person maintaining it may adopt it, without the consent of Right to insurance for benefit of chil its parent, within six months from the dren.-Under Laws 1873, c. 830, § 10, time such person obtained custody of as amended by Laws 1887, c. 703, prothe child. Held that, since the limita-viding that a child, when adopted, shall tion in such section only applied where the child was abandoned after its enactment, a person maintaining a child abandoned previous to the adoption of the statute was entitled to adopt it without the consent of the parent, though proceedings therefor were not begun within the time limited. Von Beck v. Thomsen, 33. Objections to proceedings-presence of parties-recitals of order.-An objection to a proceeding for the adoption of a child that the agreements for its adoption were not executed in the presence of the judge before whom the proceedings were had is immaterial, where. by the order entered, the judge himself certifies that the persons adopting the child appeared before him, that the child was present, and that such parties executed the necessary consents. Von Beck v. Thomsen, 33. Rights of adopted child-inheritance --trusts.-Laws 1873, c. 830, as amended by Laws 1887, c. 703, prescribing the proceeding for adoption, declares (section 10) that a child when adopted shall have all the rights of the relation of parent and child, including the right of inheritance, except that, as to the limitation over of property in trust dependent on the foster parent dying without heirs, such child shall not be deemed to sustain such relation to such parent as to defeat the rights of remaindermen. Held, that a policy di sustain towards the person adopting it the relation of parent and child, and shall have all the rights of that relation, including that of inheritance, a child adopted after the issuance of a policy payable to its foster mother, and on her death to her children, is entitled to share with the other children on the happening of the contingency. Von Beck v. Thomsen, 33. Laws Jurisdiction of surrogate's courtcharitable institution.-Under 1896, c. 272, §§ 65, 67, providing that the surrogate and the county court shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the adoption of children made from orphan asylums or charitable institutions, the surrogate has jurisdiction over the adoption of a child made from the superintendent of the poor. Trimm, Matter of, 293. Revocation-effect.-Where an order of adoption has been set aside by the surrogate's court, the status of the child is the same as if no proceedings of adoption had ever been had. Trimm, Matter of, 293. Surrogate-concurrent jurisdiction. Under Laws 1896, c. 272. § 67, giving the surrogate and the county court concurrent jurisdiction to make and revoke orders in adoption proceedings, the surrogate's court has no authority to revoke an order of adoption made by the county court, as by making such 502 To Court of Appeals-leave-retroaction. The Constitution, Art. 6, § 9, provides that appeals may be taken to the Court of Appeals, as of right, only from judgments or orders entered on decisions of the Appellate Division finally determining actions or proceedings, but that the Appellate Division may allow an appeal on any question of law which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Defendant served a notice of appeal from an order not a final order in a special proceeding. Subsequently he obtained an order allowing an appeal. Held, that the notice of appeal was a nullity and the appeal was properly dismissed. Steamship Richmond Hill Co. v. Seager, 125. -condition precedent.-Code Civ. Proc. § 1325, which provides that au appeal to the court of appeals from an order must be taken within 60 sion Appellate division—judges—participation in decision.-Under Code Civ. Pro. § 46, as amended by Laws 1897, c. 268, providing that "a judge other than a judge of the appellate divishall not decide or take a question, part in the decision of which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge," a judge of such court may participate in the decision ment. Wittleder v. Citizens Electric though he did not hear the oral arguIllum. Co. 229. -unanimous decision.-A decision of a court is none the less unanimous because a judge who heard the oral argument became disqualified before the decision. Wittleder v. Citizens Electric Illum. Co. 229. NOTE. WHAT IS UNANIMOUS DECI SION OF APELLATE DIVISION. 229–232 days after service of a copy of the order appealed from on the at- Form of case-titles of action-verifitorney of the party adversely affected cations.-In preparing a case on appeal, thereby, does not authorize an appeal the title of the action should be written from an order not a final order, with- or printed but once, and such matters out the previous allowance of an ap- as verifications should be merely noted, peal by the Appellate Division. unless the appeal involves some point V. Steamship Richmond Hill Co. v. Sea- concerning them. Sickles Kling, ger, 125. 492. APPELLATE DIVISION FOR DEFAULT OF PRINTED PAPERS..484-485 submission of a controversy on agreed Submission of controversy.-On the facts, the court is not entitled to draw tion as to the legal effect of their conany inference as to the parties' intentract, but it must be construed according to its terms. American Box Machine Co. v. Zentgraf, 182. and serve his printed papers within 20 NOTE.-DISMISSAL OF APPEAL TO days after the appeal is taken, or, if a case and exceptions are desired, within 20 days after the filing thereof. Rule 33 declares that amendments suggested by the respondent shall be allowed unless the appellant serves notice of settlement thereof. Rule 35 requires that a case and exceptions shall be signed and filed by a referee within 10 days after its settlement. Held, that where appellant's case and exceptions were settled after service by his failure to give notice of settlement of amend-mony.-The decision of a question of ments suggested, and he failed to have fact by a referee on conflicting testisame signed and filed by the referee for mony should not be disturbed. Nugent 10 days after such settlement, his case v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. 193. and exceptions were abandoned, and, more than 20 days having elapsed since the appeal was taken, respondent was entitled to a dismissal of the appeal. Vandenberg v. Mathews, 484. Relief from defaults-special term.Sup. Ct. Rule 41 provides that an appellant must serve his printed papers within 20 days after the signing and filing of his case and exceptions. Rule 33 declares that, unless appellant gives notice of settlement, amendments suggested by respondent will be allowed, and the case and exceptions will be thereby settled. Rule 35 provides that when a case is settled, it must be presented to the referee within 10 days thereafter to be signed and filed. Held, that where an appellant has failed to give notice of settlement, or to have his case and ex ceptions signed and filed by the referee within 10 days after settlement, or to serve his printed papers within 20 days, he could only be relieved from his defaults on motion addressed to the special term. Vandenberg v. Mathews, 484. -opportunity to move for relief.— Where an appellant served his case and exceptions, but failed to give notice of its settlement, and suggested amendments were allowed, and the case settled, and, failing to have it signed and filed by the referee within 10 days there. after, it was considered abandoned, more than 20 days having expired since the appeal was taken, he should be given time by the appellate division to move the special term to relieve him of his defaults, before dismissal of the appeal. Vandenberg v. Mathews, 484. Question of fact-conflicting testi Case on appeal-insertion of evidence.-An appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes raises the questions whether the verdict is excessive or contrary to the evidence, and hence, where plainto have all the evidence showing the extiff recovered for injuries, he is entitled tent of the injury, and the time he was disabled thereby, inserted in the case on appeal. Gibson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. 455. Certificate as to completeness of evidence-review of facts. A certificate that a case on appeal contains all the evidence only has place and effect where it serves as the only notice that review of the facts is sought, and is therefore unnecessary on an appeal from a judg ment on a verdict of the jury and from an order denying a new trial on the minutes, since such an appeal raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and is notice that the facts will be reviewed. Gibson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. 455. NOTE. CERTIFICATION OF СомPLETENESS OF EVIDENCE IN CASE .455-464 ON APPEAL a. Necessity of certificate. 2. Judgments on verdicts. b. Form of certificate. c. Practice-Amendment. Motion for reargument.—Where the commissioner of excise, admitting the correctness of a decision, asks for a reargument on appeal for the reason that |