Statement of the Case. ant has no legal ground of complaint, and that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed with costs. SEDGWICK, Ch. J., and FREEDMAN, J., concurred. PROGRESSIVE HANDLANGER UNION NO. I., APPELLANT, v. THE GERMAN SAVINGS BANK IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT. Savings Banks, interpleading in action by depositor, persons not parties claiming the deposit under Laws 1882, chap. 439, § 259. Before FREEDMAN and INGRAHAM, JJ. Decided February 6, 1890. Appeal from order of interpleader. This action is brought to recover a certain sum deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant. The defendant on an affidavit showing that certain persons, naming them, not parties to the action, made a demand on it for the identical sum; that such demand was made without collusion of defendant or any of its officers, and that defendant was ignorant of the rights of the respective parties, moved to interplead the named parties. The judge at special term, on granting the motion, wrote as follows: "SEDGWICK, Ch., J.-The application should be granted under § 259, ch. 439, Laws 1882. That section contemplates that, as in the present case, an action of law may be brought by a person in whose name the account with the bank is, and then that a third person may claim the deposit as a fund equitably belonging to the third person, and that in such a case the section should be applied. I have a little May 6, 1889. doubt as to whether the claimant actually claims the whole of the deposit. If this be so, I am of opinion that the section will still apply. Motion granted." Goodhart, Phillips & Rosenberg, attorneys and of counsel, for appellant. Sanders, Wagner & Auerbach, attorneys, and Lewis Sanders of counsel, for respondent. PER CURIAM:-The order appealed from should be affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements upon the opinion rendered by the learned chief judge at special term. JOHN WECKMANN, Respondent, v. CHARLES G. AM ENDE, Appellant. Decided May 6, 1889. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered in favor of plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury and from order denying defendant's motion on the minutes for a new trial. Talcott & Meyer, for appellant. Frederick A. Botty, for respondent. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J. The only question in this case was whether there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant to carry the case to the jury. The Court (Freedman, J., writing, and Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurring) held there was, and affirmed the judg ment entered on a verdict for plaintiff. WILLIAM JUKES, Respondent, v. Aмos R. Eno, Appellant. Decided May 6, 1889. Appeal from judgment entered upon verdict of jury, and from order denying May 6, 1889. motion for new trial, made upon the judge's minutes. Thomas C. Ennever, for appellant. Wager & Acker, for respondent. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J. Per Curiam:-Judgment and order affirmed with costs. LOUISA LENNER, Appellant, v. JEAN WESTEN, IMPLEADED, etc., Respondent. Decided May 6, 1889. Appeal from judgment entered upon a direction of judge dismissing the complaint on a trial before a jury. Arthur Furber, for appellant. Fettretch, Silkman & Seybel, for respondent. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J. Per Curiam:-The testimony upon the trial required the decision made below. Judgment affirmed with costs. DWIGHT ASHLEY and Another, Appellants, v. JAMES W. WHITNEY, et al., Respondents. Decided May 6, 1889. Appeal from order denying plaintiffs' motion for a reference. Baldwin & Blackmar, for appellants. Arnoux, Ritch & Woodford, for respondents. Before Freedman and O'Gorman, JJ. Per Curiam:-The order appealed from should be affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. FRANCIS H. FERRY, Respondent, v. THE MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. Decided May 6, 1889. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and from order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Davies & Rapallo, for appellant. Benjamin G. Hitchings, for respondent. Before Freedman and O'Gorman, JJ. The Court held (Per Curiam), that the exceptions urged May 6, 1889-June 3, 1889. on the appeal were without merit, and affirmed the judgment and order with costs. JACOB R. SHIPHERD, Appellant, v. AARON B. COHU, et al., Respondents. Decided May 6, 1889. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and O'Gorman, JJ. Motion by appellant for a re-argument, on the ground that the Court mistook a fact. The Court held (Sedgwick, Ch. J., writing, Freedman and O'Gorman, JJ., concurring), that there was no mistake of fact, and that, even if there was a mistake and the fact was as claimed, the result would not have been different, and denied the motion with costs. WILLIAM S. MACFARLANE, Respondent, v. THOMAS H. WALTER, Appellant. Decided May 24, 1889. Appeal from order directing judgment for plaintiff on demurrer as frivolous. W. T. Birdsall, for appellant. F. E. Anderson, for respondent. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J. Per Curiam.-Order affirmed with $10 costs. WILLIAM S. MACFARLANE, Respondent, v. THOMAS H. WALTER, Appellant. Decided May 24, 1889. Appeal from order denying motion to vacate attachment. Same counsel. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and O'Gorman, J. Curiam.-Order affirmed with $10 costs. Per THOMAS C. AVERY, Respondent, v. WILLIAM H. STARBUCK, Appellant. Decided June 3, 1889. Appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial on the minutes. Holmes & Adams, for appellant. James C. Anderson, for respondent. June 28, 1889. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and O'Gorman, J. The questions involved on the appeal were whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and whether the decision of the trial court in denying defendant's motion to amend the answer by setting forth in substance that since the commencement of this action and the service of the answer herein the plaintiff had prosecuted in the United States courts an action by way of libel commenced there before this action for the same cause as is here involved, and that after a trial on the merits judgment was there rendered for the defendant herein, was correct. The Court (O'Gorman, J., writing, Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurring) held, that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and that the decision of the trial court in refusing to allow the amendment was correct, and affirmed the judgment and order appealed from with costs. ODILE H. SOUTHWICK, Respondent, v. ANDREW S. HAMERSLEY, Appellant. Decided June 28, 1889. Appeal by defendant from an order denying, without costs, his motion to set aside an inquest taken. August P. Wagener, for appellant. S. Jones, for respondent. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J. The Court (Freedman, J., and Sedgwick, Ch. J., both writing) affirmed the order with $10 costs and disbursements. AUGUSTA G. GENET, Appellant, v. PRESIDENT, MANAGERS & COMPANY OF THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL COMPANY, Respondent. Decided June 28, 1889. George C. Genet, for appellant. Frank E. Smith, for respondent. Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and Truax, JJ. modified. Order |