Page images

STEINHARDT et al. v. BINGHAM et al. by Mary E. Stresi against John Breidmyer. E. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- W. S. Johnston, for appellant. J. Murphy, for partment. February 20, 1903.) Action by respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with Emanuel Steinhardt and another against David / $10 costs and disbursements. Bingham and another. Plaintiffs move for new trial on exceptions ordered to be heard in the STRONG, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL first instance at the Appellate Division. New RY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appeltrial. A Blumenstiel, for plaintiffs. Jacob F. late Division, Fourth Department, January 20, Miller, for defendants.

1903.) Action by Bushnell Strong against the MCLAUGHLIN, J. For the reasons stated in International Railway Company. No opinion. the opinion of Mr. Justice Hatch on the previous Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. appeal in this case (Steinhardt v. Bingham, 53 App. Div. 286, 65 N. Y. Supp. 838), the excep- STROWGER et al., Plaintiffs, V. AMERItions should be sustained, and a new trial order- CAN BONDING & TRUST CO. of BALTI. ed, with costs to the plaintiffs to abide the MORE CITY, Defendants. (Supreme Court. event.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department. JanuHATCH and LAUGHLIX, JJ., concur.

ary 6, 1903.) Action by Walter s. Strowger and VAN BRUNT, P. J. I dissent for the same

another against the American Bonding & Trust reasons upon which I based my dissent upon the

e Company of Baltimore City, impleaded, etc. No former appeal. which grounds have been since opinion. Defendants' exceptions overruled, mosustained by the Court of Appeals in the case

tion for new trial denied, and judgment ordered of Peabody v. Satterlee, 166 N. Y. 174, 59 N. E.

for the plaintiffs on the verdict, with costs. 818, 52 L. R. A. 956, where the precise question involved seems to have been disposed adversely SUGDEN, Appellant, v. PARTRIDGE, to the position taken by this court upon the Com'r, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate former appeal.

Divsion, First Department. January 16, 1903.) O'BRIEX, J., concurs.

In the matter of Edward D. Sugden against

John N. Partridge, commissioner. W. C. De STEINSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Witt, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De

No opinion." Order affirmed, with $10 costs and partment. January 9, 1903.) Action by George

disbursements, on the opinion in Lahey v. PartSteinson against the Board of Education. No

ridge (decided Jan. 9, 1903) 79 N. Y. Supp. 724. opinion. Motion denied.

SUTHERLAND V. MEAD et al. (Supreme STIASNY v. METROPOLITAN ST. R. CO. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- February 13, 1903.) Action by George R. Suthpartment. January 16, 1903.) Action by Caro- erland against Charles H. Mead and Thomas line Stiasny against the Metropolitan Street Taft, impleaded. From an order denying a moRailroad Company. No opinion. Motion de- tion to open a default, defendants Mead and nied, with $10 costs.

Taft appeal. Affirmed. A. H. F. Seeger, for

appellants. Edward Hassett, for respondent. STOUTENBURGH, Respondent, V. BUSH HATCH, J. This case is disposed of by the CO., Limited, Appellant (two cases). (Supreme

opinion in Sutherland v. Mead et al. (handed Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. down herewith) 80 N. Y. Supp. 504. The orFebruary 11, 1903.) Action by Arthur T. Stout- der shonld he affirmed with s

der should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disenburgh, as' temporary receiver, etc., against | bursements. All concur. Bush Company, Limited. (Actions Nos. 1 and 2).

PER CURIAM. This is a renewal of an ap- SVENSON, Appellant, V. SVENSON, Replication for leave to appeal to the Court of spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeals. The original application was opposed Second Department. January 23, 1903.) Acand denied. No papers are presented to us upon tion by Marguerite Sveuson against Oscar H. this application, except the notice of motion and Svenson. No opinion. Motion denied. the admission of service by the attorney for the respondent. These papers are manifestly insuf In re TALBOT. (Supreme Court, Appellate ficient, and the motion is denied, with $10 costs. Division. Fourth Department. January 27.

1903.) In the matter of the proceedings for the STREETS y. GRAND TRUNK RY. Co. of disbarment of Frank W. Talbot, as attorney and CANADA et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate counselor at law. No opinion. Order to show Division, Fourth Department. January 30, cause returnable March 10, 1903, entered. 1903.) Action by Jesse Streets against the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and TALLON, Respondent, v. MORGAN et al., the New York Central & Hudson River Rail Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. road Company. No opinion. Motion for rear- Second Department. January 16, 1903.) Action gument denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. by Katherine Tallon against Joseph F. Morgan Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Ap- and Robert W. Oliver. No opinion. Judgment peals denied. See 78 X. Y. Supp. 729.

| and order of the County Court of Queens county

aflirmed, with costs. STRESI, Respondent, v. BREIDMYER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellant Division, TANESBAUM, Appellant, v. WHIFFEN, First Department. February 6, 1903.) Action Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diand 114 New York State Reporter vision, First Department. February 6, 1903.) | VALENTINE v. HEALEY et al. (Supreme Action by Moses Tanenbaum against Thomas Court, Appellate Division, First Department. B. Whiffen. L. N. Levi, for appellant. 0. C. January 16, 1903.) Action by Henry C. ValenSommerich, for respondent. No opinion. Or- tine against Warren M. Healey and another. der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

TEACHOUT et al., Appellants, v. TRUAX, V. LOEWERS GAMBRINUS BREWERS Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di

| Co., Respondent, v. LITHAUER, Appellant. vision, Fourth Department. January 6, 1903.) | (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De Action by Phebe R. Teachout and another partment. January 9, 1903.) Action by the V. against Murty Truax. No opinion. Interlocu

Loewers Gambrinus Brewers Company against tory judgment affirmed, with costs to the re Edward T. Lithauer. W. H. Bennett, for appeispondent, with leave to the plaintiffs to serve lant. C. J. G. Hall, for respondent. No opinion an amended complaint upon payment of the costs Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburseof the demurrer and of this appeal.

ments. See 73' N. Y. Supp. 947. TEW v. WOLFSOHN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 23,

VOLLKOMMER, Respondent, v. HUMMEL, 1903.) Action by H. Whitney Tew against

| Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirision,

Second Department. January 9, 1903.) Action Henry Wolfsohn, impleaded. No opinion. Mo

by Joseph Vollkommer against Gottlieb Hummel, tion granted.

impleaded, etc. No opinion. Motion denied. TIRRILL, Respondent, V. SNIFFEN et al.,


(SuDefendants '(LIVINGSTON, Appellant).

(Supreme Court, Appel

I late Division, Fourth Department. January 13, preme Court, Appellate Division, Second I partment. January 16, 1903.) Action by Oakes

1903.) In the matter of the final judicial settle

ment of Patrick F. Wallace, as executor, etc., Tirrill against Edward D. Sniffen and others;

of Michael Killeen, deceased. No opinion. De James Duane Livingston, appellant. No opinion.

cree of Surrogate's Court affirmed, with costs. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

In re WARREN'S ESTATE. (Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. TIRRILL, Respondent, V. SNIFFEN et al.

January 13, 1903.) In the matter of the estate (NORTH AMERICAN TRUST CO., Appel- of Gardner'D. Warren. No opinion. Order aflant). (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- firmed. with $10 costs and disbursements ond Department. January 9, 1903.) Action by Oakes Tirrill against Edward D. Spiffen, the

WASSERMAN, Respondent, v. RICHARDS North American Trust Company, appellant, and

et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate the Washington Life Insurance Company, de

Division, Second Department. January 9, 1903.) fendant. No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 |

Action by Benoit Wasserman against Eugene costs and disbursements, and order for examina

Lamb Richards, Jr., and others. No opinion. tion vacated on the ground that no sufficient

Judgment affirmed, with costs. reason appears for examining the officers of the defendant before the trial rather than at the trial itself. See Hay v. Zeiger, 50 App. Div.

WEDDIGAN et al., Respondents, v. WHIT. 462, 64 N. Y. Supp. 202.

ING, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Fourth Department. January 13, 1903.)

Action by Frank A. Weddigan and others against In re TOWNSEND AVE. (Supreme Court,

William F. Whiting. No opinion. Judgment afAppellate Division, First Department. January

firmed, with costs. 9, 1903.) In the matter of Townsend avenue. No opinion. Motion denied.

ADAMS, P. J., not voting.

In re WEEKS. (Supreme Court, Appellate TREADWELL et al., Respondents, V. J. A. | Division. Second Department. January 9, 1903.) MEAD MFG. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, In the matter of the application of c Louis Appellate Division, First Department. Decem

| Weeks for admission to the bar. No opinion. ber 19, 1902.) Action by M. H. Treadwell &

Application granted. Co, against the J. A. Mead Manufacturing Company. R. B. Knowles, for appellant. J. J. Ad WENK, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK ams, for respondents. No opinion. Motion de

et. al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate nied, without costs.

Division, Second Department. January 9, 1903.)

Action by Theodore Wenk against the city of UPTON et al., Plaintiffs, V. SCOTTISH New York and others. No opinion. Motion UNION & NATIONAL INS. CO., Defendant. granted, and reargument of demurrers to the

eme court, Appellate Division, Fourth De: answer set down for January 23, 1903. partment. November 18, 1902.) Action by Eli M. Upton and another against the Scottish WERNER, Respondent, v. HEARST, AppelUnion & National Insurance Company. No lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Seeopinion. Defendant's exceptions overruled, mo- ond Department. January 9, 1903.) Action by tion for new trial denied, with costs, and judg- Melle S. T. Werner against William R. Hearst. ment ordered for the plaintiffs upon the verdict, No opinion. Leave to appeal to the Court of Ap with costs.

| peals granted.

WERNER, Respondent, v. HEARST, Appel- | WILSON v. WILSON et al. (Supreme Court, lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- Appellate Division, Third Department. January ond De artment. January 23

uary 23, 1903.) Action by 20, 1903.) Action by Edward C. Wilson, an inMelle s. T. Werner against William R. Hearst. fant, by Eliza J. Sponenberg, bis guardian ad No opinion. Order settled by certifying that a litem, against Winfield Wilson and others. No question of law is involved which ought to be opinion. Motion granted. reviewed by the Court of Appeals, under subdivision 2 of section 191 of the Code of Civil

In re WILSON'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court, Procedure, without specifying any particular

Appellate Division, Third Department. January question. See Commercial Bank v. Sherwood,

23, 1903.) In the matter of the estate of Mary 162 N. Y. 310, 56 N. E. $34.

Sutherland Wilson, deceased. No opinion. Mo

tion granted. In re WHITE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 16,

WISE et al., Respondents, V. NEW YORK 1903.) In the matter of the application of John

" ELEVATED R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme A. White for admission to the bar. No opinion.

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Application granted.

February 6, 1903.) Action by Adelia Wise and

another against the New York Elevated RailWILLETTS. Appellant, V. OTISCO & C. road Company. F. Allis, for appellant. A. B. TEL, CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel- | Smith, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment late Division, Fourth Department. January 6, affirmed, with costs. 1903.) Action by William A. Willetts against the Otisco & Cedarville Telephone Company, etc. ZELTNER V. HENRY ZELTNER BREWNo opinion. Judgment of County Court affirmed, ING CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, with costs.

Second Department. February 11, 1903.) AC

tion by William H. Zeltner individually and as WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. SYRACUSE, L.

executor, etc., against the Henry Zeltner Brew& B. RY., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel

ing Company. No opinion. Application for leave late Division, Fourth Department. January 13,

to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and 1903.) Action by Jenet C. Williams, an infant,

questions certified as formulated in the brief for by guardian, etc., against the Syracuse, Lake

the Yorkville Bank. side & Baldwinsville Railway. No opinioni. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and

ZIMMERMAN v. MEYROWITZ. (Supreme disbursements. Motion for leave to appeal to

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Court of Appeals denied.

February 6, 1903.) Action by Charles L. Zimmerman against Emil B. Meyrowitz. No opin

ion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. WILSON, Respondent, v. WILLIAMS et al., Appellants.' (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PUTNAM et al., Appellants, v. PUTNAM et First Department. February 20, 1903.) Action al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate by William C. Wilson against Charles H. Wil- | Division, Third Department. December 9, liams and another. C. P. Howland, for appel 1902.) Action by John Lewis Putnam and othlants. H. Wallis, for respondent. No opinion.ers against John R. Putnam and others. No Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- opinion. Motion denied. See 78 N. Y. Supp. ments.





ment to satisfy judgment for $226.29.-Shanley

v. Koehler (Sup.) 679.
Or easement, see "Easements,” 8 1.

Facts held to establish prima facie an accord

and satisfaction.-Jackson v. Volkening (Sup.)


Of nuisance, see “Nuisance," $ 1.

See "Account Stated."
ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. Accounting as to firm business, see “Partner-

ship,” $ 1.
Election of remedy, see "Election of Reme- Accounting between partners, see “Partner-

ship," $ 3.
Judgment as bar to another action, see "Judg- | Accounting by broker, see "Brokers," $ 1.
ment," 8 5.

Accounting by executor or administrator, see
Right of action by or against personal repre- "Executors and Administrators," 8 7.

sentative, see "Executors and Administra- Accounting by guardian of infant, see “Guard-
tors," $ 6.

ian and Ward," $ 1.
f 1. Transfer or devolution of title,

| Accounting by receiver, see "Receivers," 8 2.
right, interest, or liability.

Accounting by trustee, see “Trusts," $ 5.
An assignee cannot be substituted as plaintiff, / 8 1. Proceedings and relief.
in an action commenced by his assignor under Employé of law firm, suing for an accounting,
Code Civ. Proc. 8 756. without notice to him.- held to have an adequate remedy at law, en-
Betts v. De Selding (Sup.) 799.

titling case to be put on jury calendar.-Lee v."

Washburn (Sup.) 1040.
§ 2. Death of party and revival of ac-

Under Code Civ. Proc. 88 756, 757, an action

held properly continued in the name of plaintiff's
administrator.-Betts v. De Selding (Sup.) 799. Evidence held sufficient to establish an ac-

count stated prima facie.-Forbes v. Wheeler

(City Ct. N. Y.) 373.
Assessments for expenses of public improve-

ments, see "Municipal Corporations," $ 5.
Compensation for taking of or injury to lands of right of action, see "Limitation of Ac-

or easements for public use, see “Eminent' tions," $ 2.
Domain," 88 1, 3.


Restrictions on accumulation, see “Perpetui-
of goods sold within statute of frauds, see ties."

"Frauds, Statute of," $ 1.
Of performance of contract, see “Contracts,"

oi surrender of lease, see “Landlord and Ten-

“Landlord and Ton. Operation and effect of admissions as evidence,
ant," $ 2.

see "Evidence," 8 4.

Testimony, see "Criminal Law," § 3.

A batement, see "Abatement and Revival."

Accrual, see "Limitation of Actions," $ 2.

Bar_by former adjudication, see "Judgment,"

$ 5.
See "Compositions with Creditors"; "Compro-

Election of remedy, see "Election of Remedies."
mise and Settlement"; "Novation"; "Pay-

Jurisdiction of courts, see "Courts."
ment"; "Release.”

Limitation by statute, see “Limitation of Ac-

Payment of $50 cash and giving judgment Review of proceedings, see "Appeal”; “Cer-
debtor's note for $50 held not to support agree- tiorari."
80 N.Y.S.-73


[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »