KUHN v. KUHN. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 4 N. Y. Supp. 952. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. In re LEXINGTON AVE. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. MANNING . AMY. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) Action by Jerome F. Manning against Henry Amy. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. MAYER v. HARDY. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 3 N. Y. Supp. 881. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. In re MAYOR, ETC., OF NEW YORK. In re ELLIS. MEYERS v. TABER. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion granted, with costs, unless appellant stipulates to argue at next general terin. MINTO v. AUSTIN et al. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion denied. MUNRO v. SMITH. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 6 N. Y. Supp. 426; at special term, see 2 N. Y. Supp. 313. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. PEOPLE v. AMERICAN BELL TEL. Co. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) For hearing on agreed statement, see 3 N. Y. Supp. 733. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. PERROW v. LINDSAY. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 4 N. Y. Supp. 795. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. RESTCHOFF v. HECKMAN. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) REYNOLDS v. RODDING. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion denied. In re SMITH. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs by appellant, and stipulation to argue at the next term. WAUGH v. BAILEY. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 4 N. Y. Supp. 817. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion granted, upon appellant giving undertaking in $5,900. In re WIDENING FIFTH AVE. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion granted. WOOD v. SIMMONS. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. May 24, 1889.) FORSYTH et al., Respondents, v. HANNAN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department. June 22, 1889.) Appeal from county court, Monroe county. Argued before BARKER, P. J., and DWIGHT and MACOMBER, JJ. No opinion. Judgment affirmed on opinion of the late county judge, JOHN S. MORGAN. AYLESWORTH, Respondent, v. GALLAGHER, Appellant. BOWERY NAT. BANK v. SNIFFEN. JJ. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. July 9, 1889.) See ante, 520. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT and CULLEN, JJ. CHESTER, Respondent, v. JUMEL et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. July 9, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 5 N. Y. Supp. 809, 819, 820, 822, 823. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. ELWELL V. FABRE. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. July 9, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 5 N. Y. Supp. 60. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. FISHER, Respondent, v. RANKIN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. July 9, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 5 N. Y. Supp. 627. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARTLETT, J. No opinion. Motion for reargument granted. HECKEMAN v. YOUNG. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. July 9, 1889.) For hearing on exceptions, see 5 N. Y. Supp. 212. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. No opinion. Motion for reargument granted. For opinion on reargument, see 8 N. Y. Supp. 111. HORTON, Respondent, v. CHILDS et al., Appellants. See ante, 570. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and CULLEN, J. No opinion. Reargument ordered. MARTIN v. PLATT et al. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. July 9, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 5 N. Y. Supp. 862. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and DANIELS, JJ. MINTO et al., Respondents, v. BAUR et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. November 7, 1889.) On motion for a reargument. For opinion on appeal, see, 6 N. Y. Supp. 444. Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BRADY and BARRETT, JJ. William F. Browne, for appellants. James C. De la Mare, for Minto & McDonald. Thomas B. Browning, for Austin. BARRETT, J. The case of Coster v. Ferry Co., 5 Civ. Proc. R. 146, affirmed 98 N. Y. 660, was not overlooked. It was not specially examined, for the reason that it was not cited by Mr. De la Mare in support of his present contention, but in support of another, and entirely different, proposition, namely, that the attorney might proceed in the action without leave especially obtained. Upon examining the case minutely in the light of Mr. De la Mare's affidavit with regard to the precise facts, I think it is worthy of full consideration. The question is a difficult one, and, in view of this Coster Case, and also of the general term decision in Keeler v. Keeler, 4 N. Y. Supp. 580, I think there should be a reargument; but such reargument should be confined to this single point. All concur. BREVOORT v. BREVOORT. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department. June 28, 1889.) Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. In re BROOKLYN CABLE Co. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department. June 28, 1889.) Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ. Order affirmed, with costs. COOK . LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUf'g Co. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department. June 28, 1889.) Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. GRAUEL v. SOELLER. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department. June 28, 1889.) For hearing on appeal, see 5 N. Y. Supp. 254. Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ. In re NEW YORK & N. H. R. Co. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department. June 28, 1889.) Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and PRAȚT, J. Order appointing commissioners affirmed, with costs and disbursements. RADLIFF, Respondent, v. MATTLAGE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department. May 27, 1889.) Argued before LEARNED, P. J., and LANDON and INGALLS, JJ. No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. PARSHALL, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department. July 20, 1889.) Appeal from Otsego county court. Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ. E. M. Harris, for appellant. Edick & Smith, for respondent. MARTIN, J. We think the evidence was sufficient to justify the justice in finding that the materials furnished by the plaintiff's assignor were furnished to the defendant, and in holding her liable therefor. Fairbanks v. Mothersell, 60 Barb. 406, 408; Fowler v. Seaman, 40 N. Y. 592; Garretson v. Seaman, 54 N. Y. 652; Husted v. Mathes, 77 N. Y. 388; Treman v. Allen, 15 Hun, 4; Tiemeyer v. Turnquist, 85 N. Y. 516; Mackey v. Webb, 6 N. Y. Supp. 795; chapter 381, Laws 1884. We are also of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to establish the sale and transfer to the plaintiff of the claim upon which this action was brought. We have examined the rulings of the justice on the admission and rejection of evidence, and have found none that disclose error or require special discussion. We think the county court has rendered judgment according to the justice of the case, and that such judgment should be affirmed. Sections 1206, 1207, Code Civil Proc. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All con cur. PIPER, Respondent, v. HOARD, Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department. July 20, 1889.) Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of WILLIAMS, J., delivered at special term. RYAN, Respondent, v. SYRACUSE, B. & N. Y. R. Co., Appellant. (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department. July 20, 1889.) Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of PARKER, J., delivered at special term. |