Volume 118 — New York Supplement

<p>Appeal from Schenectady County Court.</p> <p>Carl Daniels was convicted of violating a city ordinance, and he appeals.</p>

Application of Mary J. Smith for a writ of mandamus to Charles Mosher and others, as Park Commissioners of the city of Buffalo, to compel the removal of obstructions across streets crossing a parkway. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the alternative writ, relator appeals.

<p>Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.</p> <p>Action by Cora A. Smith, as administratrix, etc., against the Phcenix Bridge Company. From an order-directing an amendment to the summons and complaint,-defendant appeals.</p>

Suit by Frederick Thompson, the sole surviving partner of Thompson & Dundy, against George B. McClellan, as Mayor of the City of New York, and others. On motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Mayor and Police Officers of the City of New York from proceeding to close complainant’s amusement park for alleged violation of the Sunday law.

<p>Action: by' Nicholas Fehlinger against Jacob A. Boos.</p>

<p>1. Injunction (§ 105*)—Interference with Supervision of Theaters.</p> <p>Equity will not interfere by injunction with the necessary police supervision and inspection of theaters and shows to prevent indecent exhibitions.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 178; Dec. Dig. § 105.*]</p> <p>2. Sunday (§ 6*)—Amusements—Shows—Statutes—Construction—“Public-Shows.”</p> <p>Moving picture shows, given indoors, accompanied by music, electric light advertising, and posters, are not “public shows,” within Pen. Code, § 265, prohibiting “all shooting,- hunting, fishing, playing, horse racing, gaming, or other public exercises or shows” on Sunday.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sunday, Dec. Dig. § 6.*]</p>

Action by Rosalynde A. de Lima Mayer against Mary A. Burr and others for foreclosure of a mortgage. From an order distributing surplus money, plaintiff appeals.

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County.</p> <p>Action by the United Electric Light & Power Company against the City of New York. From an order denying its motion for an inspection'and discovery, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>In the matter of the estate of Sylvester Wilcox, deceased. Application by Marion Wilcox, as executrix, for leave to sell real estate to pay a transfer tax.</p> <p>Sylvester Wilcox by his will left his real estate, with a life use, to his widow, Marion Wilcox, and the remainder to his four brothers and sisters, share and share alike, with the provision that, if any of his brothers and sisters died without issue, the surviving brothers and sisters should take their respective shares. The life tenant paid her transfer tax. This is an application by the executrix to sell each separate remainder in the real estate, or so much thereof as may be necessary to pay the transfer tax assessed upon the remainders.</p>

Action by William G. Masterman, as County Treasurer of the County of Steuben, under Tax Law, § 260 (Laws 1896, p. 886, c. 908), for an order commanding the sheriff of the county to levy on real and personal property of Harry L- Cole, Collector of Taxes of the Town of Urbana.

<p>Summary proceedings by Kathinka M. Simon, landlord, against Ignatz Schmitt, tenant, and another.</p>

<p>Adjoining Landowners (§ 3*)—Lateral Support—Excavations.</p> <p>In a suit to restrain owners of land abutting on a street from excavating and removing the support of the street, evidence field to show that the excavation threatened will destroy the street, authorizing the court to enjoin continued excavations and to require the restoring of the necessary support.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Adjoining Landowners, Cent. Dig. § 11; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]</p>

<p>Action by the H. G. Vogel Company against the Standard Cordage Company.</p>

<p>Action by the H. G. Vogel Company against the Lockport Glass Company. Defendant moves for a new trial and to correct verdict.</p>

In the matter of judicial settlement of the account of Margaret McGovern, administratrix. The following is the report of Wilbur Larremore, Referee: John McGovern, who had conducted a saloon at No. 333 Ninth avenue, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, died on August 12, 1905. He had lived in the “upstairs” portion of the premises with his invalid aunt, Margaret McGovern, Sr., and his sister, Margaret McGovern, the present administratrix.

<p>Action by one Cohen and others against one Minzesheimer and others.</p> <p>Plaintiffs alleged that they were members of the New York Stock Exchange; that they sold on the Exchange certain negotiable bonds, of which they were bona fide holders; that defendants later gave notice on the Exchange and to the mortgagor that the bonds had been stolen from them; that the purchaser refused to take delivery, on the ground that under the rules of the Exchange they became “undeliverable” after defendants gave such notice; that they sued the mortgagor on coupons of the bonds, and on appeal were adjudged the owners of the bonds and coupons; that the bonds depreciated meantime, and were sold by them at less than the price on the sale which the former vendee had refused to complete. Judgment was demanded for the depreciation and the expenses of the suit on the coupons. On demurrer defendants asserted that the rule of the Exchange did not release the original vendee, and that, therefore, plaintiffs being able to hold him to his contract, there could be no recovery for depreciation.</p>

Habeas corpus by the State, on relation of Mary C. Thaw, against Robert B. Lamb, as Superintendent of Matteawan State Hospital, for the enlargement of Harry K. Thaw, an alleged insane person, from confinement at such hospital.

<p>Theaters and Shows (§ 6*)—Liability for Injury to Patron.</p> <p>The owner and manager of a theater is liable to a patron injured by the negligent handling of a spot light which fell and struck him, though the operator was not employed by him but the performing company.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Theaters and Shows, Dec. Dig. § 6.*]</p>

<p>Pleading (§ 231*)—Amendment as of Course.</p> <p>After plaintiff had served notice of trial, but within 20 days from the time the answer was served, it had a right to serve an amended complaint.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 598; Dec. Dig. § 231.*]</p>

<p>Action by the Bronx Borough Teachers’ Association against the Board of Education.</p>

<p>Action by one Dobbs against one Pearl. Motion for leave to amend complaint.</p>

<p>Action by one Wells, administrator with the will annexed of M. Amelia Bedford, deceased, against one Bushe and others.</p>

Application by the People, on the relation of Carvalho and others, for a writ of habeas corpus against the Warden of the City Prison.

<p>Reference (§ 8*)—Items of Account.</p> <p>Where the issues have been reduced to an affirmative defense of set-off, and some 90 or more items of account are involved, a referee will be appointed.</p> <p>LEd. Note.—For other cases, see Reference, Cent. Dig. §§ 13-23; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]</p>

<p>. Appeal from Municipal Court of Buffalo.</p> <p>Action by Hyatt Canfield against Valda M. Canfield. Erom a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>"Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 95*)—Unlawful Competition—Preliminary Injunction.</p> <p>Plaintiff manufactured and sold cigarettes under the name “Romanoff” and “Salambo,” while defendants put up similar cigarettes under the names “Ivanoff” and “Salome.” Defendant also imitated the typography of plaintiff’s price lists, and one of plaintiff’s packages, on which nearly all of the printing was covered by a label placed over it transversely, was so closely imitated by defendant that the difference could be detected only by close scrutiny. In other respects there was hardly any danger of diversion of trade by similarity of package, and both of the packages were duplicates of packages previously designed by defendant, marked “Russian Cigarettes,” containing Russian characters with an embossed eagle in different colors. Held that, since defendant exceeded his rights only with reference to the transverse label and price lists, complainant would be denied an injunction pendente lite on defendant’s giving an undertaking to answer a judgment in such sum as might be fixed; otherwise, the injunction would be granted as against such unlawful infringement.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Dec. Dig. § 95.*]</p>

<p>Action by one Rinschler against one Bell. On defendant’s application for vacation of a special execution against wages.</p>

<p>1. Gun's (§ 66*)—Causa Moetis—Bank Deposit.</p> <p>Deceased, having been advised by his physician that he was seriously ill and would ultimately die from the disease, called plaintiff and handed her his purse, containing a certificate of deposit, saying: “Here is. my purse. Take it. If anything happens to me, I want you to keep it. * * * In case I get well, I shall want it back,” etc. About an hour later he died. Held a gift causa mortis.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Gifts, Cent. Dig. § 136; Dec. Dig. § 66.*]</p> <p>2. Gifts (§■ 66*)—Causa Moetis—Cebtificate of Deposit—Indobsement—Necessity-.</p> <p>Indorsement of a certificate of deposit payable only when properly indorsed is not necessary for a gift causa mortis.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Gifts, Cent. Dig. § 136; Dec. Dig. § 66.*]</p>

<p>Judicial settlement of the estate of William Williams, deceased.</p>

<p>1. Executors and Administrators (§ 246*)—Claims—Undertaker’s Services—Debts—Reference—“Debt Due.”</p> <p>A claim against an estate for undertaker’s services is not a “debt due” from the decedent, and is therefore not referable under Code Civ. Proc. g 2718, providing for reference of disputed claims, and hence, even if the parties consented to a reference, jurisdiction to refer would not be conferred as against the subsequent objection of either.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. § 874; Dec. Dig. § 246.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, p. 1890; vol. 8, p. 7628.]</p> <p>2. Executors and Administrators (§ 251*)—Claims—Disallowance—Notice.</p> <p>An executor’s notice to a claimant, reciting that the executor doubted the justice of the claim for $795 against the estate named, and “I hereby dispute the same and offer to refer the matter in controversy to one or more disinterested persons as referees, to be approved by the surrogate,” dated and signed, etc., was sufficient to start the six months’ limitations prescribed by Code Civ. Proc. § 1822.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Dec. Dig. § 251.*]</p> <p>3. Executors and Administrators (§ 251*)—Claims—Enforcement—“Other Remedy.”</p> <p>Code Civ. Proc. g 1822, bars rejected claims after six months from notice of dispute, unless the claimant commences an action for the recovery thereof within that time, declaring that in default thereof the claimant and all persons claiming under him are forever barred from maintaining any such action and from every “other remedy” to enforce payment thereof out of decedent’s property. Held, that the words “other remedy” included summary proceedings by an undertaker to compel payment of his bill authorized by section 2729, subd. 3, which he could not maintain after the expiration of six months from notice of the rejection of his claim.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Dec. Dig. § 251.*]</p>

<p>Action by one Mithertz against the Goldschmidt Bros. Company. Motion for an order to examine the president of defendant before trial.</p>

Action by William M. Dubois against Benson B. Parcells and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, who was a minister of the gospel and was not allowed his exemption as such minister, for the amount of tax paid by him, against defendants individually, who were Assessors of the Village of Painted Post, being members of the Village Board, defendants appeal.

<p>Action by the State Bank of Pike against the People’s National Bank of Franklinville and its receiver.</p>

<p>Motion for injunction by Norman J. Gould and others against the Village of Seneca Falls and others.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York.</p> <p>Action by Samuel Fleischman against Morris C. Mengis. Motion for stay of proceedings in City Court until determination by Appellate Term of appeals from certain orders.</p>

<p>1. Charities (§ 16*)—“Religious Use”—Masses for Repose of the Dead.</p> <p>A bequest for saying masses for the repose of the dead is a gift for a religious use.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Charities, Dec. Dig. § 16.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, p. 6066; vol. 8» p. 7783.]</p> <p>2. Wills (§ 676*)—-Construction—Trusts—Words Sufficient.</p> <p>A direction to executors to expend certain sums from time to time in their discretion for the expense of masses for the repose of the souls of the testatrix and her parents requires possession by the executors of the sum directed to be expended; and hence a gift to such executors in trust of such sum must be implied.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 1591, 1592; Dec. Dig. § 676.*]</p> <p>3. Charities (§ 21*)—Validity of Bequest—Certainty of Beneficiaries.</p> <p>Such bequest is not invalid for want of designation of the person to whom the executor shall pay the money under Laws 1893, p. 1748, c. 701, providing that no gift, bequest, or devise for religious or charitable uses shall be invalidated for uncertainty of the persons designated as beneficiaries.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Charities, Cent. Dig. §•§ 44-50; Dec. Dig. § 21.*]</p> <p>4. Taxation (§ 886%*)—Inheritance Tax—Amount of Tax.</p> <p>A direction to executors to expend a certain sum in their discretion for masses for the repose of the souls of testatrix and her parents, being a valid gift to executors in trust for a religious use, is taxable at the rate of 5 per cent.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 886%.*]</p>

<p>Actions by Nelson L. Drummond, as trustee in bankruptcy of Orlando S. Clark and another, against Frank S. Smith and others and against Frank S. Smith alone.</p> <p>Action No. 1 is brought to set aside a mortgage made by the defendant Orlando S. Clark (purporting also to be signed by his wife) to defendants Frank 5. and Alice J. C. Smith, November 26, 1906, for $4,662.40, recorded in Cayuga county, May 4, 1907, covering premises owned by said Clark on State street in the city of Auburn. A petition in bankruptcy against Orlando S. and Herbert R. Clark was filed July 1, 1907, and they were adjudged bankrupts September 20, 1907. In the answer of the defendants Smith, they set up a prior mortgage on the same property for $1,625, never recorded, the amount of which they claim had been included in the $4,662.40 mortgage. Since the commencement of the action, a first mortgage on the property prior to the two above mentioned was purchased by the defendants Smith and foreclosed, and a surplus arising from the sale amounting to $2,044.59 is now in the hands of the county treasurer or the county subject to the determination of this action.</p> <p>Action' No. 2 is brought to set aside a judgment recovered by the defendant Frank S. Smith for $300.44 damages and $16 costs, May 10, 1907, against said Orlando S. and Herbert R. Clark, on which execution was issued and personal property of the bankrupts sold; the plaintiff Smith realizing therefrom the full amount of his judgment. The trustee in bankruptcy asks that Smith be compelled to pay him the amount realized on the sale as the value of the property seized and sold, if the judgment is held to be an unlawful preference. The actions were tried together.</p>

Proceedings for the liquidation of the affairs of the Brooklyn Bank. On objection to allowances made to receivers and their counsel.

<p>Action by Julia M. Hasbrouck against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, as lessee of the Boston & Albany Railroad Company, to recover damages for loss of baggage.</p>

<p>Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien by Irving W. Smith and another against the State of New York and others.</p> <p>Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon funds of the state of New York applicable to the payment for the improvement of a public highway in the towns of Slcaneateles and Spafford, being known as highway improvement No. 431.</p>

<p>Appeal from Kings County Court.</p> <p>Action by Henry Hack against Michael J., Dady. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.</p>

<p>Action by Julia A. Linton against Charles L. Wanke. Decree for plaintiff.</p>

<p>Insurance (§ 50*)—Receivers—Appointment.</p> <p>Where the State Superintendent of Insurance has taken possession of the assets of an insurance company, no receiver will be appointed unless the conditions are changed.</p> <p>LEd. Note.-—For other cases, see Insurance, Dec. Dig. § 50.*]</p>

<p>Action by Emma Wright against Achsah L. Wright and others. On demurrer to the complaint.</p>

<p>Action by Sarah Armstrong against Russell J. Stone and others to set aside an assignment of the income of a life estate.</p>

Suit by Edward Chittenden against Ellenor Chittenden for annulment of marriage. On plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s answer setting up the statute of limitations.

<p>Action by one Ross against one Epstein and" others. Motion for an order directing a defendant to tax his costs.</p>

Action by Minnie J. Nester and others- against Harold A. Nester and others for a Judicial construction of the will and codicils of Samuel K. Nester, deceased, and adjudging the same void as to certain provisions therein.

<p>Judgment (§ 784*)—Decree fob Alimony—Pbiobities.</p> <p>A decree of alimony payable in future monthly installments takes precedence of a judgment subsequently docketed against the husband.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Dec. Dig. § 784.*]</p>

<p>1. Carriers (§ 876*)—Passengers—Breach of Contract of Carriage.</p> <p>A passenger presented a ticket consisting oí two parts, one for the going trip and one for the return trip. The conductor, by mistake, retained the return ticket, and gave the passenger the going trip ticket. The passenger, on the return trip, tendered this ticket, but the conductor refused it, and the passenger, at the request of the conductor, left the train and walked the distance, as he refused to pay the fare or permit any one else to do so. Held, that the passenger could sue as for breach of contract of-carriage, but he could not sue for a tortious act on the part of the conductor ejecting him from the train, as the ticket presented was void on its face.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1463; Dec. Dig. I 376.*]</p> <p>2. Carriers (§ 382*)—Passengers—Breach of -Contract of Carriage—Damages.</p> <p>The liability of a carrier breaching its contract to carry a passenger and requiring the passenger to leave the train is not limited to the amount of the fare paid by the passenger, but the jury may award damages for humiliation and injury to the feelings, though the ejection was effected as a result of the mutual mistake of the conductor and passenger.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1483-1491; Dec. Dig. § 382.*]</p>

Action by Frank O’Brien against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion by defendant for a new trial on all the grounds specified in Code Civ. Proc. § 999. Granted.

Action by the Northern Insurance Company of New York against one Wood and another. On motion to vacate plaintiff’s order for defendants’ examination before trial.

<p>Action by one Perrin against one Whipple and others. Motions to vacate orders to file bonds for costs.</p>

<p>Specific Performance (§ 32*)—Contracts Enforceable.</p> <p>Under the rule that equity will not enforce performance of a contract at the suit of a party thereto not himself bound to perform, one seeking specific performance of a contract to execute a lease must show an agreement whereby he was required to accept a lease.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Specific Performance, Cent Dig. § 89; Dec. Dig. § 32.*]</p>

<p>Action by the New York City Estates Company against the Central Realty Company.</p>

Suit by one Lyng against one Marcus. On defendant’s motion to vacate an order for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite.

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County.</p> <p>Action by George D. White against the Improved Property Holding Company. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order for examination of certain officers of defendant to enable plaintiff to frame a complaint, defendant appeals.</p>

Action by one Dudley against one Platt. Heard on motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver of the business, property, good will, and assets of the United States Express Company.

<p>Husband and Wife (§ 43*)—Purchase of Partnership Interest with Wife's Money—Riqhts of Wife.</p> <p>Where a husband, as agent for his wife, with her knowledge and consent invested her money in his own name in a partnership, which action was inconsistent with an intent to preserve the money as a separate fund, the wife could not, after the husband had carried on the partnership business for many years successfully and accumulated therein profits many times the capital invested, claim from his estate all his interest as her own, but was entitled only to recover the amount of her money so invested.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 226; Dec. Dig. §,43.*]</p>

<p>Action by Frank P. Anderson and Maude E. Anderson, copartners, etc., against Albert Cohen.</p>

<p>Action by Sarah H. Barnes and others against the Midland Railroad Terminal Company.</p>

<p>Action by Ralph H. Booth against Edward N. Litchfield and others.</p>

<p>Action by Mary Brady, as administratrix, etc., of Patrick Brady, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River' Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Catherine L. Boyer against Frank W. Boyer.</p>

<p>Action by Michael J. Callanan, suing individually and in behalf of other stockholders of the defendant railroad company similarly situated, against the Keesville, Ausable Chasm & Lake Champlain Railroad Company and others.</p>

<p>Action by William Carter against the Builders’ Contracting Company.</p>

<p>Action by Lionel Oharbonneau against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner o~ Excise, against the Empire State Surety Company.</p>

<p>Action by Bird S. Coler against the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.</p>

<p>Action by Nora A. Connell against the New York, Ontaria & Western Railway Company.</p>

<p>Action by Beckie Diamond against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.</p>

<p>Action by Otto Doepfner against Lamont M. Bowers.</p>

<p>Action by Albert H. Dollard against Benjamin Koronsky.</p>

<p>Action by Robev L. Dunn against the New york Herald Coinpany.</p>

<p>Action by Clarence E. E~vans, an infant, etc., against the Eastman Kodak Company.</p>

<p>Action by Frank Gick, as executor of the last will and testament of Rosina Stumpf, deceased, against Frank Stumpf</p>

<p>Action by Santo Giambalvo against William Breul.</p>

<p>Action by Lawrence _ Gruner against the Texas Company.</p>

<p>Action by the Hammond Beef Company against Mary Hayrichak.</p>

<p>Action by Julia Henry against Griffith M. Jones.</p>

<p>Action by Eva Henson, as administratrix, against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Ambrose Hine against Harriet A. Huntington and another, as executrix, etc., of Allen Hine, deceased.</p>

<p>Action by R. Johnson Irving against Charles M. Higgins.</p>

<p>Action by Leonardo Inglese against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Camille B. Johnston, as administratrix, against the Syracuse Lighting Company.</p>

<p>Action by Berthi Kahn against Edward A. Kahn.</p>

<p>Action by Mary E. Johnson, as administratrix, etc._, against the Phoenix Bridge Company.</p>

<p>Action by Robert Kreusch against the Werther & Bausch Company.</p>

<p>Action by Mary E. McNulty against/ Patrick J. McNulty. , ]</p>

<p>Action by Ardil R. Mersereau anc others, individually and as administrators, etc. against James E. Bennet and another.</p>

<p>Action by Jacob Morganthaler against Thomas G. Carlin.</p>

<p>Action by the New York Automobile Company against Herbert H. Franklin and others.</p>

<p>Action by Rose L. Nicoud against the New York Life Insurance Company.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against the City of Syracuse.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against George B. McClellan, impleaded.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Louis B. Boudin, against Josiah T. Marean, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the state of New York.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of James G. Collins, against John F. Ahearn, as President, etc.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of De Forest Grant, against the Atlantic Terra Cotta Company and others.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Mary Carew, against John V. Coggey, as Commissioner of Correction of the City of New Y6rk.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Martha H. Lind, against the City of New York and others.</p>

<p>Action by Jabez 0. Pierce against the Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees of the World.</p>

<p>Action by Charles M. Preston, as receiver, etc., against Franklin C. Albee and others.</p>

<p>Divorce action by Maurice Rosenberg against Bertha Rosenberg, sometimes known as Bertha Rotenberg, sometimes known as Bertha Rose. Motion by defendant to set aside judgment of divorce and for leave to answer. Motion granted.</p>

<p>Action by Morris Rom and another, etc., against Joseph Wallach.</p>

<p>Action by the Rutherford Realty tmpany against Willet F. Cook and others.</p>

<p>Action by Charles Schneider against Morris F. Finkelstein.</p>

<p>Action by Esther Schilt against the ■City of New York and others.</p>

<p>Actions by Clifford N. Searle against Halstead & Co., by the city o~ New York against Henry Corn and another and by Simon Dressel and others against A. ~E1upfel's Sons.</p>

<p>Action by Harris Siegel against Victor Rosensweig.</p>

<p>Action by Patrick Simpson against the Foundation Company.</p>

<p>Action by Patrick Simpson against the Foundation Company.</p>

<p>Action by Louis Smyth and others against Julius B. Fox.</p>

<p>Action by Alfred B. Smith against Benjamin B. Smith, as Street Commissioner, etc.</p>

<p>Action by Esther 5. Stanfield, as administratrix, etc., against the Town of Hamburg.</p>

<p>Action by Frederic B. Studwell against the Bush Company, Limited, and another.</p>

<p>Action by William H. Sweet against Martha J. Marsh and another.</p>

<p>Action by Dc Witt 0. Tracy against Francis K. Pendleton, as Corporation Counsel, etc.</p>

<p>Action by Anna C. M. Webster against the Columbian National Life Insurance Company.</p>