Page images
PDF
EPUB

and 146 New York State Reporter

BARNET TEXTILE CO. v. GREILICH. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. October 2, 1908.) Action by the Barnet Textile Company against William Greilich. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

BASTABLE, Respondent, v. CARROLL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 16, 1908.) Action by Lawrence Bastable against William J. Car roll. W. Armstrong, for appellant. R. W. Crawford, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 116 App. Div. 205, 101 N. Y. Supp. 637.

BATES, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 17, 1908.) Action by Frederick E. Bates against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

BAYNE, Respondent, v. BRADWELL et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 16, 1908.) Action by Rachel Bayne against Herbert A. Bradwell, and others. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight

of the evidence.

[blocks in formation]

BITTMAN, Respondent, v. DUCKWORTE Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate De sion, Second Department. October 9, 19% Action by Fred Bittman against Walter I Duckworth. No opinion. Motion denied.

BLUM, Respondent, v. UNION RY. 00. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate I November 6, 148 sion, First Department. Action by Max Blum against the Union B C. Goldzier, for respondent. No opinion. Jess way Company. B. H. Ames, for appear ment and order affirmed, with costs. Orr

filed.

In re BOARD OF RAPID TRANSIT 2 COM'RS. (Supreme Court, Appellate D sion, First Department. May, 1908.) In th matter of the Board of Rapid Transit Pa In the matter of Th road Commissioners. In the matter of Fourteen avenue route. street route. In the matter of White Pa Railroad route. In the matter of Jerome 17H nue subway. In the matter of Girard are In the matter of Thirty-Fourth street rou In the matter of Seventh and Eighth ave In the matter of Lexington ave route. route. No opinions. See memorandum.

BONHOFF, Appellant, v. FISCHER spondent, et al. (Supreme Court, Appe Division, Second Department. October 2 Action by August Bonhoff against Henry Fischer, impleaded with William Kenze No opinion. Motion denied.

BONIFACE, Respondent, v. MCAVOY, Ap pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divis Second Department. October 22, 1908) 4 tion by Minnie E. Boniface against John McAvoy, executor, etc. No opinion. O affirmed, on argument, with $10 costs and bursements.

BORCHERT, Respondent, v. MANHA? TAN TRANSFER CO., Appellant. (Sup Court, Appellate Division, First Depart October 16, 1908.) Action by Bertha Bor as administratrix, against the Manhattan Tr sit Company. J. J. Mahoney, for appe A. V. Rochester, for respondent. No o Order affirmed, with $10 costs and diste ments. Order filed.

BORGES, Respondent, v. FREEDMAN, AS + pellant. First Department. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divis November 6, 1908) A tion by Henry Borges against Joseph Fre man. M. C. Katz, for appellant. H. SWA for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment afirmed, costs. Order filed. MCLAUGHLIN, J., dissents.

BOYD v. BOYD. (Supreme Court. A late Division, First Department. October 1908.) Action by Margaret P. Boyd Alexander Boyd. No opinion. Motion to op default granted, on payment of $10 costs on condition that appellant have appeal rea

argument at the December term. Settle improper, and that the case should have been submitted to the jury.

r on notice.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

RGHEN, Respondent, v. SAVAGE et al., lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviFourth Department, October 14, 1908.) n by William J. Burghen against LawSavage and others.

R CURIAM. Judgment and order reversnd new trial ordered, with costs to appelto abide event, unless the plaintiff, withdays, stipulates to reduce the verdict to um of $4,000 as of the date of the renthereof, in which event the judgment is fed accordingly, and, as so modified, is, her with the order, affirmed, without costs is appeal to either party.

RNS, Appellant, v. STAUNTON et al., ondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviFourth Department. October 7, 1908.) n by George G. Burns against William mton and another.

R CURIAM. Judgment and order red, and new trial ordered, with costs to apat to abide event. Held, that nonsuit was

MCLENNAN, P. J., dissents.

In re BURWELL'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 17, 1908.) In the matter of the estate of Dudley Burwell, deceased.

PER CURIAM. All the motions to dismiss the appeals are denied, without costs. Leave is given to all the parties to give such addiditional security as is necessary to perfect their appeals. The matter of the settlement of the case and exceptions must be determined by the lower court. Motions with reference thereto are here improper. Order to be settled before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS on two days' notice.

[blocks in formation]

BUTTERICK PUB. CO., Respondent, v. CHABOT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, ApOctober pellate Division, First Department. 16, 1908.) Action by the Butterick Publishing Company against Theodore J. Chabot. S. Bacon, for appellant. J. B. Sheehan, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. INGRAHAM and SCOTT, JJ., dissent. CALVERT v. CALVERT. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 7, 1908.) Action by James A. Calvert against Rebecca M. Calvert.

PER CURIAM. Order modified, so as to permit the plaintiff to pay into court the sum of $250 in lieu of bond, as provided in section 3272 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

CARLSON, Respondent, v. VON HOVELING AMERICAN COMPOSITION CO., Limited, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 16, 1908.) Action by Charles Carlson against the Von Hoveling American Composition Company, Limited. No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that there is no satisfactory proof of negligence on the part of the defendant.

and 146 New York State Reporter

Modified and affirmed. Darius E. Peek i appellant. Henry C. Hunter, for respondet

CAROLAN, Respondent, v. O'DONNELL_et tion of books and papers, defendant appeas al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 6, 1908.) Action by Patrick Carolan, individually, etc., against Anthony O'Donnell and others. J. W. Osborne, for appellants. M. J. O'Brien, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

MCLAUGHLIN, and HOUGHTON, JJ., dissent on the ground that the evidence made a mere question of fact for the jury.

CARROLL, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 16, 1908.) Action by William J. Carroll against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff is entitled to an inspection of the books of the defenda The order, however, is too broad as to what m be inspected and the period covered. The cred should be modified, by striking out the provisi for examination of all books and papers, ex "stock certificate books, stock transfer bot dividend books, and stock certificate stubs." b to these books and papers, covering the perik from December 1, 1870, to June 1, 1887, plaintiff should be permitted an inspection a cording to the terms of the order appe from. The order should be modified in e formity with this memorandum, and, as so mo fied, affirmed, without costs of this appeal either party.

CHILDS, Respondent, v. HOWDEN, A CASSELL & CO., Limited, Respondent, v. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divis H. H. McCLURE & CO., Appellants. (Su-First Department. October 16, 1908.) Act preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- by Starling W. Childs against Thomas F. H ment. October 16, 1908.) Action by Cassell den. A. G. N. Vermilya, for appellant. CE & Co., Limited, against H. H. McClure & Co. Thorn, for respondent. No opinion. Order C. A. Brodek, for appellants. E. P. Lyon, for firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Ü respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with der filed. $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

[blocks in formation]

CHAMBERLAIN et al., Appellants, v. SHERMAN et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 7, 1908.) Action by Dwight P. Chamberlain and others, as executors, etc., against Stephen L. Sherman and others.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Held, that although the finding of the trial court that the premises in question comprise a farm, within the meaning of chapter 305, p. 641, of the Laws of 1903, is contrary to and against the weight of evidence, yet the decision of the court was correct in result, and the judgment entered thereon should be affirmed.

C. H. RUGG CO., Appellant, v. ORMRON
Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate D
October 14, 19
sion. Fourth Department.
Action by the C. H. Rugg Company agains
William L. Ormrod.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of County Cour reversed, and judgment of Municipal Court firmed, with costs in this court and the co below."

KRUSE, J., dissents.

C. H. RUGG CO., Appellant, v. ORMEOT Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate De sion, Fourth Department. November 11, 19 Action by the C. H. Rugg Company aras William L. Ormrod. No opinion. Motion leave to appeal to Court of Appeals granted.

CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. R et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appe Division, First Department. October 23, 1 Action by the city of New York against Is CHANOWITZ, Appellant, V. UNION L. Rice and another. N. G. Johnson, for SWITCH CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, pellants. T. Connoly, for respondent. No Appellate Division, First Department. Novem-ion. Judgment (56 Misc. Rep. 360, 107 N ber 6, 1908.) Action by Charles Chanowitz Supp. 641) affirmed, with costs. against the Union Switch Company. W. S. Burt, for appellant. C. MacVeagh, for respond

[blocks in formation]

Order filled

CLARE, Appellant, v. MUTUAL LIFE IN CO. OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Supre) Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Departme October 7, 1908.) Action by Thomas E. C against the Mutual Life Insurance Company New York. No opinion. Judgment afire.

with costs.

CLARKE, Appellant, v. MATZKIN et Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate D sion, Second Department. October 9, 1** Action by Audley Clarke against Max Maz and others. No opinion. Judgment of County Court of Kings county reversed, ani

trial ordered, costs to abide the event, upon | First Department. October 16, 1908.) Action authority of Weideman v. Zielinska, 102 by Julia Cole against Claus S. Hinck and othp. Div. 163, 92 N. Y. Supp. 493. ers. J. J. O'Kennedy, for appellant. J. H. Esser, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

LARKE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. 1. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, bellate Division, Second Department. Octo16, 1908.) Action by William J. Clarke inst the New York Central & Hudson River Iroad Company. No opinion. Motion deI, on the ground that the motion papers are sufficiently specific to show the points on ch the motion is made. See, also, 104 APP. 167, 93 N. Y. Supp. 525.

COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. GOULD, Defendant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 14, 1908.) Action by Hutson B. Coleman, as administrator, Defendant's exceptions overruled, motion for etc., against William S. Gould. No opinion. new trial denied, with costs, and judgment diLARKSON, Respondent, v. SABINE. Ap-rected for the plaintiff upon the verdict, with ant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, rth Department. September 30, 1908.) on by Alonzo R. Clarkson against John B. ine. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 s and disbursements.

re CLEMENT. (Supreme Court, AppelDivision, First Department. October 30, 3) In the matter of Maynard N. Clement. opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. er filed.

costs.

In re COLLYER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 16, 1908.) In the matter of the accounting of Charles S. Collyer, as administrator of Elizabeth Collyer, deceased. No opinion. In re motion of Henry M. Collyer, as administrator of William Edwin Collyer, that Fanny Collyer, as executrix of Charles S. Collyer, pay money into court. Motion granted. See, also, 113 App. Div. 468, 99 N. Y. Supp. 213, and 124 App. Div. 16, 108 N. Y. Supp. 600.

re CLEMENT, Excise Com'r. (Supreme rt. Appellate Division, Fourth Department. 24, 1908.) In the matter of the petition of COLVIN, Appellant, v. SHAW, Respondent, nard N. Clement, as State Commissioner et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, xcise, for an order revoking and canceling Fourth Department. October 14, 1908.) Action or tax certificate No. 26,202, issued to Nel- by Alice M. Colvin against Sophia Shaw, imLerch. No opinion. Order reversed, with pleaded with others. No opinion. Application and order directed revoking and canceling denied, on the ground that it should be made liquor tax certificate, with $30 costs, in acat Special Term. See section 1299 of the nce with stipulation filed. Code of Civil Procedure and Campbell v. Friedlander, 51 App. Div. 191, 64 N. Y. Supp. 241. re CLEMENT, Excise Com'r. (Supreme t. Appellate Division, Fourth Department. COMPAGNIE COMMERCIALE, Respond24, 1908.) In the matter of the petition ent. v. BRUNN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, aynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner Appellate Division. First Department. Novemscise, for an order revoking and canceling ber 6, 1908.) Action by the Compagnie Comr tax certificate No. 26,233, issued to Han-merciale, etc., against Adolph W. Brunn. A. N. Smith. No opinion. Order reversed, J. Dittenhoefer, for appellant. A. S. Hamlin, costs, and order directed revoking and for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and ling the liquor tax certificate with $30 order affirmed, with costs. in accordance with stipulation filed. -EMENT, Excise Com'r, Respondent, v. SE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, llate Division, First Department. Octo23, 1908.) Action by Maynard N. Cleas excise commissioner, against Richard and another. P. A. McManus, for apnts. H. H. Kellogg, for respondent. No Order affirmed, with costs. Order

on.

[blocks in formation]

Order filed.

CONE, Plaintiff, v. LACKAWANNA STEEL CO., Defendant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 7, 1908.) Action by Catherine Cone, as administratrix, etc., against the Lackawanna Steel Company.

PER CURIAM. Defendant's exceptions sustained, and motion for new trial granted, with costs to defendant to abide event. Held, that the court erred in excluding evidence of the contract between the corporations, and evidence with reference to the pay roll and the contract and pay check, and then holding and charging the jury that deceased was in defendant's employ when the accident and death occurred. See Kirby v. Lackawanna Steel Company, 109 App. Div. 334, 95 N. Y. Supp. 833.

SPRING and KRUSE, JJ., dissent.

COOPER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EDISON CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 6, 1908.) Action by James Cooper against the New York Edison Company. J. R. Oeland, for

and 146 New York State Reporter

[blocks in formation]

COSSMAN,

Appellant, V. CHENANGO

ber 6, 1908.) Action by Eduardo Cupi agains the Hoffman House, New York. A. D. K land, for appellant. J. B. Stanchfield, for spondent. No opinion. Judgment afra with costs. Order filed.

CURTIS v. CURTIS et al. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department. Otület 2, 1908.) Action by Eugene B. Curtis agn Harriet A. Curtis and others. No opinion Xtions denied, with $10 costs in one motion. also, 126 App. Div. 590, 110 N. Y. Supp. 655

DANA, Respondent, v. THAW et al., Appel lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divis First Department. October 16, 1998.) ACCE by Charles L. Dana against Mary C. Thaw another. H. B. Gayley, for appellants. L Lauterstein, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements der filed. See, also, 109 N. Y. Supp. &

DAVIS, Respondent, v. OLMSTEAD et L. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate D Action by Fitch M. Davis, as administrator, sion, Fourth Department. November 11, 196 against William L. Olmstead, as administrat etc., and others.

PER CURIAM. costs.

Judgment affirmed,

ROBSON, J., not voting.

DE LA VERGNE CO., Respondent, v. AN THONY & SCOVILL CO., Appellant.

ment. November 6, 1908.)

SILK CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap-preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depar pellate Division, Second Department. October 16, 1908.) Action by Alfred Cossman against the Chenango Silk Company.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. JENKS, J., not voting.

Action by the I Scovill Company. S. H. Evins, for appellan La Vergne Company against the Anthony & G. C. Fox, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, costs. Order filed.

HOUGHTON, J., dissents on the ground the counterclaim is sufficiently broad to com damages for delay in installing the ice pizz

COUSE, Respondent, v. DELAWARE & H. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di-and that the court erred in dismissing the sa vision, Third Department. September 17, 1908.) Action by Mina L. Couse, as administratrix, etc., of Scott F. Couse, deceased, against the Delaware & Hudson Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with

costs.

CRAMER, Appellant, v. KLEIN, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 9, 1908.) Action by Esther Cramer against Leontine Klein. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See, also, 127 App. Div. 146, 111 N. Y. Supp. 469.

CRIMI, Respondent, v. BUFFALO & L. E. TRACTION CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Sep tember 23, 1908.) Action by Leonardo Crimi, as administrator, etc., against the Buffalo & Lake Erie Traction Company. No opinion. Motion for reargument denied. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied.

CUPI, Appellant, v. HOFFMAN HOUSE, NEW YORK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Novem

DE LONG et al. v. MERCURY REALT. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, F. Department. October 16, 1908.) Action Albert W. De Long and others against the M cury Realty Company. No opinion. M denied, with leave to renew as stated in orist Motion for resettlement denied. Orders filed

DE MARK et al., Appellants, v. LEVISON Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate I sion, Second Department. October 9, 19: Action by Frank De Mark and another ages Isaac Levison. No opinion. Motion denied

DEMUTH GLASS MFG. CO., Appellant. EARLY et al., Respondents. (Supreme Ce Appellate Division, Second Department. O ber 16, 1908.) Action by the Demuth Glas Manufacturing Company against Joseph Early and Charles M. Early, constituting firm of John Early's Sons. No opinion. Orie reversed on argument, without costs.

DIABO, Respondent, v. DIABO, Appellar (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De

« PreviousContinue »