and 146 New York State Reporter INDORSEMENT. holder of a corporation, restraining a defendant from acting as a director of the corpora Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see Bills tion, and restraining the majority of the board and Notes, § 3. INFANTS. from permitting him to so act, and from refus ing another party to act as such director.Moir v. Provident Savings Life Assur. Soc. of New York (Sup.) 57. An injunction to stay the further proseng" 01 See Adoption; Guardian and Ward; Parent of an action in another jurisdiction should not and Child. be granted, unless extraordinary circumstans shown imperiling the rights of a litigant ing such relief.-Johnson v. Victoria Chief Copper Mining & Smelting Co. (Sup.) 346. A plaintiff held, on the pleadings and showing not entitled to an injunction to restrain te further prosecution of an action in another ja risdiction.-Johnson v. Victoria Chief Copper Mining & Smelting Co. (Sup.) 346. $56. Equity will restrain the disclosure of secrets communicated in the course of a fidential employment.-Witkop & Holmes Ca v. Boyce (Sup.) 874. $56. Equity will restrain an employé frem making use, after termination of his etaphys ment, of his former employer's list of custuur ers, independent of any contract; and wen there is an agreement not to do so that fact furnishes an added ground for equitable in Criminal accusation, see Indictment and Infor- terference.-Witkop & Holmes Co. v. Boyce mation. INFRINGEMENT. (Sup.) 874. § 56. Under a contract of employment, ers tomers procured held to be customers of the employer, not of the employé, so as to eppe Of trade-mark, see Trade-Marks and Trade- the employer to an injunction restraining interNames, § 1. INHERITANCE. See Descent and Distribution. INHERITANCE TAX. See Taxation, § 2. INJUNCTION. Lien of attorney on injunction bond, see Attorney and Client, § 4. Right to discovery, see Discovery, § 1. Infringement of trade-mark, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, § 1. Stay of execution, see Execution, § 4. § 1. Subjects of protection and relief. *In view of a covenant not to build within seven feet of plaintiff's line, evidence held to warrant an injunction against an encroachment and requiring the removal of a building constructed within three feet of the line.-Taylor v. McAdam (Sup.) 50. Code Civ. Proc. $$ 603, 604, held not to authorize an injunction in an action by a stock ference therewith, or disclosure of lists thenof by an employé after termination of his erployment.-Witkop & Holmes Co. v. Beyo (Sup.) 874. § 2. Actions for injunctions. A city held not entitled to a preliminary injunction to restrain a gas company from turuing off the supply of gas to it, unless it pays the admittedly just rates for the gas receive, without prejudice to the right to establish any other sum as the reasonable value of such gas -City of Buffalo v. Buffalo Gas Co. (Sap.) 468. § 3. Preliminary and interlocutory in junctions. *Ordinarily a temporary injunction is 437 granted on security to the party enjoined.— People v. New York Carbonic Acid Gas C (Sup.) 381. In an action by the people to restrain the lating natural mineral springs of the state. ££ violation of Laws 1908, p. 1221, c. 429, regi injunction pending the action held not a prop exercise of discretion.-People v. New York Carbonic Acid Gas Co. (Sup.) 381. 4. Permanent injunction and other relief. *Point annotated. See syllabus. 136. Where a lessee of the privilege of carriage service for a hotel clearly shows his rights in the premises and an invasion thereof by the lessor, an injunction pendente lite will be granted in an action by the lessee against the lessor.-Lynch v. Robert P. Murphy Hotel Co. (Sup.) 915. $5. Liabilities on bonds or undertak ings. Of corporation, see Corporations, § 5. § 241. Statement of costs and disbursements, See Bankruptcy. & which under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 3251, 3236, may be awarded on reference under section 623, to determine the damages from an injunction.Harrison v. Hind & Harrison Plush Co. (Sup.) $34. $241. Statement as to amount of damages from an injunction which should be found on a reference under Code Civ. Proc. § 623.-Harrison v. Hind & Harrison Plush Co. (Sup.) 834. INNKEEPERS. Restraining interference with carriage service for hotel, see Injunction, § 4. Sub-lease of carriage service at hotel, see Landlord and Tenant, § 2. Termination of lease of right to carriage service for hotel, see Landlord and Tenant, § 2. INQUISITION. Of lunacy, see Insane Persons, § 1. INSANE PERSONS. 1. Inquisitions. Upon a jury finding of sanity, petitioner cannot claim costs and disbursements, even though there was reason to believe that the party was insane at the beginning of the inquisition.-In re Hammond (Sup.) 296. Where there was reason to believe that a person was insane at the beginning of inquisition proceedings, upon a subsequent finding of sanity, costs or disbursements should not be awarded against petitioner.-In re Hammond (Sup.) 296. Under court rule 71 commissioners in inquisition proceedings cannot be awarded more than $10 for each day employed.-In re Hammond (Sup.) 297. Rights of petitioner to expenses where a default verdict of insanity was opened on payment of the costs and expenses, and two subsequent inquisitions were held resulting in a verdict of sanity, determined.-In re Hammond (Sup.) 297. *On discharge of alleged incompetent on proof of sanity, the court cannot charge costs of proceedings against his estate. In re Hammond (Sup.) 298. § 2. Guardianship. INSPECTION. Of corporate records, see Corporations, § 2. INSPECTORS. Of elections, see Elections, § 2. INSTRUCTIONS. In civil actions, see Trial, § 5. In criminal prosecutions, see Homicide, § 1. INSURABLE INTEREST. See Insurance, § 5. INSURANCE. Bequest of life insurance, see Wills, § 4. Motions as to pleadings in action on policy, see Parol evidence to vary policy, see Evidence, § 7. Taking case or question from jury in action on certificate, see Trial, § 4. § 1. Control and regulation in general. Insurance Law, Laws 1892, p. 1971, c. 690. $ 89, repealed in 1906, held re-enacted and continued by Laws 1906, p. 796, c. 326, § 34. -Akers v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 254. $ 2. Insurance agents and brokers. than 12 months, in violation of Laws 1906, pp. A life insurance agency contract for more 773, 796, c. 326, §§ 14, 34, held not merely ultra vires, but malum prohibitum; but, the parties not being in pari delicto, the agent could recover the value of his services on an implied assumpsit.-Akers v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 254. *Point annotated. See syllabus. Certain payments and expenditures by committee of incompetent disallowed.-In re Andrews (Sup.) 167. and 146 New York State Reporter 3. The contract in general. *Three papers held to constitute marine policy, and not one of the papers alone.-Kuh v. British America Assur. Co. (Sup.) 410. § 4. Avoidance of policy for misrepresentation, fraud, or breach of warranty or condition. § 292. A provision in a life policy held to bar recovery thereon, in the absence of evidence contradicting evidence of insured's previous treatment for disease.-Gerlach v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Sup.) 1095. had the whole month in which to pay it and such payment was not required by the rules as a condition for reinstatement.-Lounsbury v Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup) 921. § 762. Effect of a beneficiary association's local representative's neglect respecting the reinstatement of a member stated.-Lounsbury v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup) 921. 763. Under the facts, a fraternal associstion member's reinstatement held valid, though Lounsbury v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup.) 921. § 5. Forfeiture of policy for breach of the application therefor was not in writingpromissory warranty, covenant, or condition subsequent. Insured in a policy providing for a cash surrender value held entitled to such value, notwithstanding his failure to pay an annual premium.-Hill v. Bankers' Life Ins. Co. of City of New York (Sup.) 120. § 328. Evidence held to show that an agreement of insured to sell the insured property was so changed before the loss as to preserve insured's insurable interest.-Burke v. Continental Ins. Co. of City of New York (Sup.) $65. § 6. Extent of loss and liability of in surer. § 499. A fire policy held to authorize a recovery of the cash value of the property destroyed.-Phillips v. Home Ins. Co. (Sup.) 769. § 7. Notice and proof of loss. *Insured in a fire policy, who fails to file proofs of loss and does not show a waiver thereof, held not entitled to recover.-Stoebe v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 553. § 8. Right to proceeds. *A wife held to acquire a vested interest in a policy insuring the life of her husband.—Bradshaw v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (Sup.) 107. $ 825. Under the evidence, held a jury question whether a fraternal association abrogated a rule requiring applications for reinstatement of members to be written.-Lounsbury v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup) 921. § 726. If a definition in an insurance policy is susceptible of two interpretations, it should receive that most favorable to insured-Graves v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup.) 948. § 748. Insured held not "engaged" in the liquor business, within the meaning of a fro ternal benefit certificate, avoiding the policy of a member engaging in such business.-Graves v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World (Sup.) 948. INTENT. Construction of contract, see Contracts, § 2. INTEREST. nent Domain, §§ 1. 2. On legacies, see Wills, § 4. The rights of the mortgagee of premises cover-On award in condemnation proceedings, see Emied by a fire policy held fixed by the policy, and not to be affected by any adjustment made without its knowledge by insured with insurer.Leslie v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J. (Sup.) 496. § 9. Actions on policies. Complaint on policy held not required to set out negatively certain facts, but the same would be solely grounds of defense to be pleaded by insurer.-Kuh v. British America Assur. Co. (Sup.) 410. § 668. While the effect of the acceptance of INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. See Injunction, § 3. INTERNATIONAL LAW. *Territory may be acquired by discovery and a policy is a question of law, whether one has conquest.-Seneca Nation of Indians v. Appe been accepted is a question of fact.-Manson by (Sup.) 177. v. Metropolitan Surety Co. (Sup.) 886. § 668. Whether a burglary policy was accepted and credit given for the premium held INTERROGATORIES. to be for the jury-Manson v. Metropolitan To witnesses, see Depositions. Surety Co. (Sup.) 886. § 10. Mutual benefit insurance. § 760. A fraternal association member's reinstatement was not vitiated by his failure to pay a rate for the current month, where he INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Regulation, see Carriers, § 1. *Point annotated. See syllabus. 2. Local option. Where a town voted in November, 1907, that no liquor should be sold in it, any license expired with the excise year on April 30th following, and a change of the expiration of the year by Laws 1908, p. 406, c. 144. did not apply to such town.-People v. Moore (Sup.) 475. The Legislature may fix the dates on which the sale of liquors shall commence in towns voting in favor of license, and when licenses shall cease in towns voting no license, and may change such dates.-People v. Bashford (Sup.) 502. Liquor Tax Law, Laws 1896, p. 60, c. 112, § 17, subd. 8, as amended by Laws 1908, p. 414, c. 144, held not to warrant the refusal of a new liquor tax certificate, because of the conviction of an employé of the certificate holder.People v. McKee (Sup.) 338. Provision of Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p. 60, c. 112) § 17, subd. 8, as amended by Laws 1908, p. 414, c. 144, relating to issue of certificate, is within the police power of the state.People v. McKee (Sup.) 386. *Appeal by state commissioner of excise from order requiring special deputy commissioner to issue liquor tax certificate stays all proceedings without giving security, under Code Civ. Proc. § 1313, so that deputy commissioner is not guilty of contempt in refusing to obey order.-People v. Judson (Sup.) 408. 97. A rebate cannot be granted on the surrender of a liquor tax certificate, where the holder was under arrest for violating the liquor tax law when the certificate was issued, and was convicted prior to the application for surrender and rebate under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p. 67, c. 112) § 25, as amended by Laws 1903, p. 1122, c. 486, and section 34 (Laws 1896. p. 75, c. 112) as amended by Laws 1908, P. 1046, c. 350.-People v. Clement (Sup.) 951. $97. Where a person to whom a liquor tax certificate was issued while under arrest for a prior violation of the law continued to sell liquor after his conviction no rebate could be granted on surrender of the certificate before the expiration of the term under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p. 65. c. 112) § 23, as amended by Laws 1995, p. 1735, c. 680, and section 25 (Laws 1896, p. 67, c. 112), as amended by Laws 1903, p. 1122, c. 486.-People v. Clement (Sup.) 951. $69. Under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p. 62, c. 112), § 19, as amended by Laws 1897, p. 222, c. 312, held, that the treasurer is concluded by the statements in an application for a liquor tax certificate.-People v. Walker (Sup.) 1021. § 69. A statement in an application for a liquor tax certificate that consents had been pre Under Laws 1908, p. 406, c. 144, amending the viously filed held not to make such consents a liquor tax law (Laws 1896, p. 45, c. 112), a li- part of the application and subject to the treascense town, voting no license at the biennial urer's consideration, but under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, p. 62, c. 112) § 19, as amended by election in November, 1907, cannot prohibit the Laws 1897, p. 222, c. 312, the treasurer was sale of liquor until October 1, 1908, and an applicant for a liquor tax certificate is entitled concluded by such statement in the application. thereto until October 1, 1908.-People v. Bash--People v. Walker (Sup.) 1021. ford (Sup.) 502. § 4. Offenses. § 150. Under Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1896, 3. Licenses and taxes. Evidence on a petition by the state commis- Pp. 59, 61, c. 112) §§ 17, 18. Id. § 21, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 1538, c. 640, and Id. § sioner of excise for an order canceling a liquor 31, as amended by Laws 1903, p. 1129, c. 486, tax certificate held to show that liquor had been held, that it is no defense to an action for illegally sold, notwithstanding evidence that the penalties for selling liquor without having observice thereof was in connection with meals tained a liquor tax certificate that defendant ordered and served.-In re Clement (Sup.) 126. applied to the county treasurer therefor, but Objection to a proceeding to revoke a liquor was unable to procure it as the treasurer would tax certificate that it cannot be maintained be- not issue the same until he received certain cause begun more than 30 days after the hold- blanks from the state excise department.-Clemer had surrendered such certificate for cancel-ent v. Smith (Sup.) 955. *Point annotated. See syllabus. and 146 New York State Reporter $ 4. § 150. Certain letters and receipt from coun- | Lien of attorney on, see Attorney and Client, On appeal or writ of error, see Appeal and On pleadings, see Pleading, § 6. In actions by or against particular classes of In particular civil actions or proceedings.. Foreclosure, see Mortgages, § 5. For price of goods sold, see Sales, § 5. To foreclose mechanic's lien, see Mechanics' Review. See Appeal and Error. § 1. By default. $143. The showing in support of a morica § 138. Defendant held entitled to the opening Of offenses in indictment, see Indictment and fault judgment against plaintiff with leave to JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. See Associations. JUDGES. See Courts; Justices of the Peace. § 1. Disqualification to act. Power of recorder of city to act as judge on On the return day of a summons issued by a JUDGMENT. Appealability of default judgment in municipal As denial of due process of law, see Constitu- In justice's court, see Justices of the Peace, § 2. plaintiff to open his default on terms.-Heraan § 2. On trial of issues. *Facts held not to affect one's right to a § 250. Judgment for plaintiff on proof of de- $ 3. Equitable relief. *Where the time to move to vacate a default Proof of service of summons held sufficient as On collateral attack on judgment, held, the ice would be disregarded as a clerical mistake.- McAuliff v. Hughes (Sup.) 486. Under Domestic Relations Law. Laws 1896, *Point annotated. See syllabus. |