ROMAINE et al., Respondents, v. BREWSTER, Appellant. (City Court of New York, General Term. April 9, 1895.) Action by Benjamin F. Romaine and others against Thomas T. Brewster. H. W. Schmitz, for appellant. Davison & Chapman, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the common pleas, general term, filed November 5, 1894, and reported in 30 N. Y. Supp. 948.

ROSS, Respondent, v. BRONNER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department. November, 1894.) Action by William M. Ross, as administrator, against Seckel Bronner. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

SEEBECK et al., Appellants, v. JOHNSON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. April 11, 1895.) Action by John H. Seebeck and others against Charles C. Johnson. G. A. Stearns, for appellants. H. Willis, for respondent. No opinion. Order modified by simply allowing service of affidavit of merits on payment of $10 costs and costs of this appeal. The question of amendment of answer to be left to special term upon application for that purpose.

SINK et al., Respondents, v. LONG, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term. Fourth Department. November, 1894.) Action by George Sink and others against Eugene Long No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

RUTHERFORD, Appellant, v. KRAUSE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department. November, 1894.) Action by James Rutherford against Leopold Krause. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 29 N. Y. Supp. 787.

SAFFORD, Appellant, v. SAFFORD, Respondent. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department. May 29, 1895.) Action by Thomas S. Safford against Frank D. Safford. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

--

SAXTON, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 17, 1895.) Action by James Saxton against the Manhattan Railway Company and another. G. T. Aldrich, for appellants. E. W. Tyler, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment modified by reducing fee damage to $1,500, and rental damage to $100 per year, and affirmed as modified, without costs.

SCHOONOVER, Respondent, v. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF DELAWARE & H. CANAL CO., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Gen

: Term, Fourth Department. November, 1804. Action by Christopher C. Schoonover against the president, managers, and company of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

SCRIVER, Respondent. v. FAIRBROTHER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department. May 14, 1895.) Action by Julius Scriver against Dore E. Fairbrother and others. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

In re SEAMAN. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 17, 1895.) No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of O'Brien, J., in Talmadge v. Seaman (Sup.) 32 N. Y. Supp. 906.

FREEDMAN, J. Upon the facts as they ap peared upon the trial of the issues the plantiff's complaint was properly dismissed upon the grounds set forth by the learned trial judge. in the decision filed by him. Even if all others were open to some criticism, the last ground as signed, namely, that the contract upon which the plaintiffs rest their claim had been ter minated before the trial, is quite conclusive. One who invokes equitable relief, and demands a preventive remedy, becomes subject to the practice of courts of equity, where such relief only is administered as the nature of the case and the facts as they exist at the close of the litigation demand. Peck v. Goodberlett, 109 N. Y. 181, 16 N. E. 350. The record discloses no exception which calls for reversal. The complaint having been properly dismissed, no error was committed in denying plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief or the appointment of a receiver during their appeal. The judgment and order appealed from should be severally affirmed, with costs. On the appeal from the order, $10 costs and disbursements may be taxed.

SMITH. Respondent, v. CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department. May 29, 1895.) Action by John A. Smith against the Central Vermont Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

SMITH, Respondent, v. CHAMPLIN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department. November, 1894.) Action by David F. Smith against Alvin B. Champlin No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs.

SOCIETE ANONYME DE MERBLES LE

CHATEAU, Respondent, v. DAVIDSON

SONS MARBLE CO., Appellant. (Superior Court of New York City, General Term. May 6, 1895.) Action by Société Anonyme de Mer

bles le Chateau against Davidson Sons Marble Company. Edward C. O'Brien, for appellant. Omar Powell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to be taxed.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the special term (32 N. Y. Supp. 838), and on the opinion reported in 13 N. Y. Supp. 17.

STANDARD FERTILIZER CO., Appellant, V. CHENEY, Respondent. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department. May 14, 1895.) Action by the Standard Fertilizer Company against Edward D. Cheney. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

STYNE v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. RY. CO. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department. May 13, 1895.) Action by William Styne against the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railway Company. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, J., not sitting.

TALCOTT, Respondent, V. NATIONAL CREDIT INS. CO., Appellant (two cases). (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. April 11, 1895.) Action by James Talcott against the National Credit Insurance Company. J. B. Green, for appellant. T. G. Strong, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

THIELE, Appellant, v. PIERSON et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. April 11, 1895.) Action by Emil Thiele against William G. Pierson and another. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

TOWN OF ANDES, Appellant, v. GLEASON et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department. November, 1894.) Action by the town of Andes against John B. Gleason and others. No opinion. Judg ment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents, and printing disbursements to all respond

ents.

UNION INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA et al., Respondents, v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court. General Term, First Department. May 17, 1895.) Action by the Union Insurance Company of Philadelphia and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania against the Central Trust Company of New York, the Continental Insurance Company of the City of New York, impleaded with Kate E. Dimick, as executrix under the last will and testament of Lorenzo Dimick, deceased. William Allen Butler, for appellants. Treadwell Cleveland, for respondents.

WADE, Respondent, v. GOLDSMI Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. April 11, 15.) Action by Charles H. Wade against Solomon Goldsmith. L. Marshall, for appellant. No opinion. Order reversed, and motion granted, with costs.

WALLACE, Appellant, v. KAEMPF, Respondent. (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term. March, 1895.) Action by Thomas P. Wallace, surviving partner, etc., against Herman Kaempf. George William Wallace, for appellant. Hahn, Myers & Bronner, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 31 N. Y. Supp. 1134.

Abandonment.

Of wife, see "Husband and Wife."

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.

Action against corporation for personal inju-
ries abates in New York on the dissolution of the
corporation. In re New York Oxygen Co. (Sup.)
726.

Action for conversion of bill of exchange will
not abate because of pendency of equitable ac-
tion to enforce specific performance of agreement
for division of proceeds of such bill.-Lawatsch
v. Cooney (Sup.) 775.

ABUSE OF PROCESS.

Good faith in calling posse to aid in executing
warrant of dispossession held a question for the
jury.-McLaughry v. Porter (Sup.) 464.
Whether defendant participated in abuse of
process held a question for the jury.-McLaughry
v. Porter (Sup.) 464.

Acceptance.

Of offer, see "Contracts."

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
Accepting check which recites that it is "in
full" of an unliquidated demand is a satisfaction
thereof, though the creditor states that he does
not accept it in full.-Reynolds v. Empire Lum-
ber Co. (Sup.) 111.

ACCOUNTING.

By executors, see "Executors and Administra-
tors."

By trustees, see "Trusts."

Complaint held not to show a cause of action
for an accounting.-Safety Electric Const. Co.
v. Creamer (Sup.) 411.

ACCOUNT STATED.

Balanced account in book does not constitute
account stated, where it has never been rendered.
-Loeb v. Keyes (Sup.) 491.

Acknowledgment.

Of deed, see "Deeds."

V.33N.Y.S.-72

ACTION.

Abatement of, see "Abatement and Revival."
Against municipal corporation, see "Municipal
Corporations.'
Injunction against, see "Injunction."
Limitation of, see "Limitation of Actions."
Misjoinder of causes,
see "Justices of the

Peace."

On appeal bond, see "Appeal."
On contract, see "Contracts."
On covenants, see "Covenants."
On insurance policy, see "Insurance,"
On judgment, see "Judgment."
To set aside deed made by bankrupt, see "Bank-
ruptcy."

When person for whose benefit promise is
made to third person cannot sue promisor.-
Coleman v. Hiler (Sup.) 357.

Plaintiff may bring assumpsit for value of
goods which defendant wrongfully refuses to sur-
render, though they came into defendant's pos-
session by bailment.-Doherty v. Shields (Sup.)

497.

Conversion of goods may be waived, and as-
sumpsit brought for value, though goods are still
in defendant's possession. Doherty v. Shields
(Sup.) 497.

When denial of motion to consolidate made
before answer is filed will be with leave to re-
new.-Boyle v. Staten Island & S. B. Land Co.
(Sup.) 836.

Consolidation of actions will not be granted
before answer is filed where the issues in the
several actions may be different.-Boyle v. Sta-
ten Island & S. B. Land Co. (Sup.) 836.

Plaintiff may sue defendant on promise by de-
fendant to pay third person amount of debt ow-
ing to such third person from plaintiff.-Wright
v. Chapin (Sup.) 1068.

Adequate Remedy at Law.
See "Equity."

ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.
Owner of lot will not be enjoined from remov-
ing overhanging portion of wall built on ad-
joining lot.-Lyle v. Little (Sup.) 8.

See "Evidence."

Admissions.

Advancement.

See "Descent and Distribution."