Volume 122 — New York Supplement

<p>Action by the Salvation Army in the United States against the American Salvation Army. Judgment for plaintiff.</p>

<p>1. Corporations (§ 333*)—Indebtedness—Transfer of Assets—Liability of Directors.</p> <p>Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1781, subd. 2 (General Corporation Law [Consol. Laws, c. 23] § 90), making directors of a corporation liable to suit by creditors to compel payment of any money or the value of any property misapplied, directors cannot effect a voluntary dissolution of a corporation, by selling and transferring all its property and distributing the proceeds among the stockholders, without providing for the payment of creditors, even though the purchaser, assumes the payment of the corporate debts.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1451; Dec. Dig. § 333.*]</p> <p>2. Corporations (§ 309*)—Directors—Contracts with Corporation.</p> <p>■While directors may in good faith advance money to a corporation and take security therefor, an officer cannot agree with himself, acting on the one part individually and on the other part in his fiduciary capacity, and . thus claim the property as against corporate creditors.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1366-1373; Dec. Dig. § 309.*]</p> <p>3. Trusts (§ 72*)—Resulting Trusts—Payment of Consideration by Stockholder—'Conveyance to Corporation.</p> <p>Under Real Property Law (Laws 1896, c. 547) § 74 (Consol. Laws, c. 50, § 94), providing that a grant of real property to one person, the consideration being paid by another, is presumed fraudulent against the creditors, and no use or trust results in favor of the person paying the consideration, unless (1) the grantee takes absolute conveyance without the knowledge or consent of the person paying the consideration, or (2) the grantee in violation of some trust purchased the property so conveyed with money or property belonging to another, no trust arose in favor of the stockholders of a corporation who with their individual funds purchased property and had conveyance made to the corporation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Dec. Dig. § 72.*]</p> <p>4. Corporations (§ 333*)—Property—1Title in Name of Officers.</p> <p>Where property owned by a corporation was exchanged for other property, title to which was taken in the name of directors who were majority stockholders, they took title in trust for the corporation and subject to the demands of its creditors, under Code Civ. Proc. 1781, subd. 2 (General Corporation Law [Consol. Laws, c. 23] § 90), making directors liable for misapplying property of the corporation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1451; Dec. Dig. § 333.*]</p>

<p>Application for writ of mandamus by Cornelius Cunningham against Nicholas J. Hayes, Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York, and another.</p>

<p>Action by William T. Leighton, in his own behalf and for all other creditors, against the Leighton Lea Association and others. .Judgment for plaintiff.</p>

<p>1. Chattel Mortgages (§ 79*)—Fraud—Burden of Proof.</p> <p>In an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage, defendant had the burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that she was cheated into signing the mortgage, believing it to be a receipt for the goods.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Chattel Mortgages, Cent Dig. § 142; Dec. Dig. § 79.*]</p> <p>2. Chattel Mortgages (§ 79*)—Fraud.</p> <p>Evidence held insufficient to show that defendant was fraudulently induced to sign a chattel mortgage, represented by defendant to be a mere receipt for the goods.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Chattel Mortgages, Dec. Dig. § 79.*]</p> <p>3. Evidence (§ 434*)—Invalidating Written Instrument—Fraud.</p> <p>A written instrument, even though acknowledged before a notary, may be impeached for fraud and misrepresentation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2005-2020; Dec. Dig. § 434.*]</p>

•Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District. Action by Jacob Rosenberg against the Fireman’s Insurance Company of .Newark, N. J. From an order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, granting a motion of plaintiff to open his default and set aside the judgment, defendant appeals.

<p>Brokers (§ 46*)—Compensation—Sufficiency op Services.</p> <p>A broker, employed to raise a loan secured by mortgage, cannot recover for tils services, where he abandons negotiations, without any inducement on the part of the principal, before they were consummated, and the principal consummated negotiations direct with the lender thereafter, and where he is not the procuring Cause in effecting the loan.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 47; Dec. Dig. § 46.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by the Mayer Bros. Company against Alfred J. Bricca. and Louis Bricca as copartners. Judgment for plaintiff, and Alfred J. Bricca appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.</p> <p>Action by John H. Kyle and another, composing the firm of James Kyle & Sons, against Margaret Horbert. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court1, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by William M. Clemens against the Press Publishing Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Pleading (§ 367*)—Making More Definite and Certain—Complaint Fob Fire Insurance.</p> <p>A. complaint to recover on an insurance policy, assigned to plaintiff, alleged on information and belief in one paragraph that plaintiff’s assignor duly performed all the conditions on her part to be performed, and plaintiff performed all the conditions on his part to be performed, and more than 60 days had elapsed since delivery by plaintiff’s assignor to defendant of due notice and proof of loss, and in another paragraph that, after destruction of the property, plaintiff’s assignor forthwith gave notice to defendant, and within 60 days thereafter, on August 23, 1909, duly delivered to defendant an account of the Joss, signed by her and verified by her oath, stating the knowledge and belief of insured as to the origin of the fire, the interest of assured and all others in the property, and in all other ways fully complied with the conditions of the policy as to proof of loss and with all other conditions thereof except those performance of which was waived by defendant Held, as to each paragraph, that it was uncertain whether plaintiff meant to allege his assignor complied with all conditions on her part to be complied with, or whether he meant to allege she complied with some of them, and that defendant waived such of them as ¿he did not comply with, and pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 546, allowing the court to require amendment of indefinite allegations, the complaint should be amended, stating definitely1 what conditions defendant waived and what conditions plaintiff and his assignor complied with.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 1173-1193; Dec. Dig. § 367.*]</p>

<p>1. Trial (§ 7*)—Note of Issue—Sufficiency—Motion to Strike.</p> <p>. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 3162, requiring a note of issue to be filed at least two days before the day or commencement of the term for which notice of the trial is given, and that it shall state the day and term for which notice of trial had been given, a note of issue filed before notice of trial is not a compliance with the statute, and a motion to strike the cause is proper, though notice of trial was thereafter given.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 19, 20; Dec. Dig. § 7.*)</p> <p>:2. Costs (§ 276*)—Payment—Stay of Proceedings.</p> <p>Though as a rule the court will not impose costs on the denial of a motion to advance cases to the short cause calendar, yet where such an order is made and remains unreversed, all proceedings on the part of the party against which the costs are imposed must be stayed until the costs are paid, as provided by Code Civ. Proc. § 779.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 1045-1047, 1058-1060; Dec. Dig. § 276.*)</p>

Action by Julius Zwirn, by Louis Zwirn, his guardian ad litem, against Adrian H. Joline and another, as receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From an order setting aside a verdict, plaintiff appeals.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.</p> <p>Action by Julius Zwirn against Adrian H. Joline and another, as receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From an order setting aside a verdict, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.</p> <p>Actiqn by Edward D. Vock against Albert Auterborn and another. From an order vacating and setting aside as to one defendant an order of arrest (122 N. Y. Supp. 1023), plaintiff appeals.</p>

Action by Charles Firestone and another against the ¿Etna Indemnity Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court, defendant appeals. Cause returned to the court below for the completion of the record.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.</p> <p>Action by Edward D. Vock against Johnstone Guthier and another. From an order vacating as to one defendant an order of arrest against both defendants, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.</p> <p>Action by Marie Friedlander and another against Nathan Citron and another. From an order setting aside a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered for plaintiffs by direction of the court, plaintiffs appeal.</p>

<p>Sales (§ 441*)—Breach of Warranty—Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence that a horse sold October 30th was unsound on November 12th does not show breach of warranty.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Dec. Dig. § 441.*)</p>

<p>Bills and Notes (§ 103*)—Liability of Makeb—Fbaud—Want of Consid-EBATION.</p> <p>A maker, sued on a demand note, who proves without dispute that he was induced to sign the note because it was represented to him that it was a receipt, and who also proves that the note was without consideration, ' establishes his nonliability.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 233-240; Dec. Dig. § 103.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.</p> <p>Action by Max Rosen against Abraham E. Bamberger. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.</p> <p>Action by Morris M. Rubnitz and another against Mrs. Philip Roseff, also known as Lena Roseff. From a judgment for plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, after trial 'before the court without a jury, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>.1. Sales (§ 32*)—Contracts—Correspondence.</p> <p>Where a solicitor of a dealer in coal booked an order for coal on an unusual credit, without stating that the order would be submitted to the dealer, a letter of the dealer to the customer, received and retained without objection, which recited the understanding between the customer and the solicitor, and which stated that the dealer had entered the order for delivery at a specified time, with the understanding that when it was delivered it should be paid for, constituted the contract.</p> <p>[Éd. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 59; Dec. Dig. § 32.*]</p> <p>:2. Sales (§ 218%*)—Recovery of Goods Delivered — Evidence — Sufficiency.</p> <p>In replevin by a seller of coal sold and delivered, evidence held to show that the sale of the coal was on condition that it should be paid for on delivery, and that it was not paid for on delivery.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 586, 587; Dec. Dig. § 218%.*]</p> <p>3. Sales (§ 218%*)—Payment—Presumptions.</p> <p>Where goods to be paid for in cash on delivery are delivered to the buyer without the cash being given or demanded at the time, the presumption is that the condition is waived and that a complete title vests in the buyer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 586, 587; Dec. Dig. § 218%.*]</p> <p>4. Sales (§ 218%*)—Payment—Presumptions.</p> <p>The presumption that, where goods sold for cash are delivered without the cash being given or demanded, thé condition is waived and a complete title vests in the buyer, may be rebutted by proof of the declaration or acts of the parties showing an intent that the delivery should not be considered complete until payment, and where the testimony is undisputed that payment of cash is not waived the delivery is conditional only.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 586, 587; Dec. Dig. § 218%.*]</p> <p>-5. Sales (§ 202*)—Payment—Presumptions.</p> <p>Coal sold for cash was delivered, and a bill was presented at the same time. An attempt to demand payment was made at the completion of the delivery and a further demand for the money or the goods was made thereafter. The bill presented by the driver was not indorsed with the words “Received payment,” as was customary where he should receive payment. Held, that the seller did not intend to make an absolute delivery, and could recover the coal on the nonpayment of the price.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 545; Dec. Dig. § 202.*]</p>

<p>■I. Judgment (§ 956*)—Res Judicata—Evidence—Admissibility.</p> <p>Where it was not clear from the judgment roll what issues were determined in a prior action between the parties, it was competent to show the scope of the prior adjudication by resort to the minutes of the trial.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 1822-1825; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]</p> <p>2. Judgment (§ 720*)—-Res Judicata.</p> <p>A judgment which adjudges the existence of a lease between parties for six months from a designated date at a fixed monthly rental is res judicata on the issue of the existence of the lease in a subsequent suit for rent during the period.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 1251; Dec. Dig. § 720.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.</p> <p>Action by Thomas F. Devine against John Kilcommons. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Evidence (§ 271*)—Competency—Letters.</p> <p>Defendant, believing that either her guardian or a stranger had diverted funds belonging to her, employed plaintiff, an attorney, to investigate ; his compensation to be contingent on recovery thereof. Held, in an action by him against her, based on the contract and her refusal to prosecute when he discovered the wrong was committed by her guardian, the issue being merely whether their contract was that proceedings to recover the funds should be brought if it was discovered they had been diverted by either her guardian or the stranger, or only in case they had been diverted by the stranger, that a letter written by him to her, two weeks "after he had "reported as to the identity of the guilty person, and which was in the mail at the same time as her letter to him stating that she would not go on with the proceedings, which letter of his merely apparently corroborated him by showing that he then claimed the contract to ■be as on the trial he testified it was, was incompetent.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1068-1079, 1081-1104; Dec. Dig. § 271.*]</p>

Action by Valentine- Corbet, as president of the Kirrweiler Kranken Unterstutzung Verein of New York, against the Union Dime Savings Institution. From an order granting leave for inspection, but denying leave to make photographic copies of certain papers, and from_ an order modifying the order, plaintiff appeals.

Action by Harry Coslow against George S. Mawhinney. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion for discovery and an inspection of defendant’s books and papers, defendant appeals.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.</p> <p>The Butler & Herman Company brought summary proceedings to •dispossess Jacob Meth, a tenant. Possession was awarded to plaintiff, and defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.</p> <p>Action by Louis Brenner against the Long Island Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>1. Evidence (§ 419*)—Parol Evidence—Consideration of Assignment.</p> <p>It was error, in an action on an assignment under seal by one partner after dissolution in consideration of a judgment debt against the firm, to prevent plaintiff from showing the actual consideration, and requiring him to rely upon the presumption of consideration raised by the seal, until rebutted.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1912-1928; Dec. Dig. § 419.*></p> <p>2. Partnership (§ 282*)—Dissolution—Assignments of Book Account.</p> <p>After dissolution, either partner may assign a book account to a firm creditor, or to a purchaser for full value.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. § 639; Dec. Dig. § 282.*]</p>

<p>Corporations (§ 432*)—Membership Corporations—Action for Service— Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for services rendered a membership corporation, where-plaintiff proved that he was employed to render services by the vice president of the defendant, but no evidence was offered to show thát such-person acted for the defendant, or was authorized so to -act, it was insufficient to sustain judgment for plaintiff.</p> <p>[Ed. Nóte.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1730; Dec. Dig. § 432.*]</p>

<p>Action by Josephine Corbett against Peter C. Fleming and others. Plaintiff makes a certain motion.</p>

<p>1. Schools and School Districts (§ 55*)—Powers of Board—Imposition of Fine on Employé.</p> <p>In the absence of statutory authority, a board of education is without power to discipline its employés by the imposition of a fine.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 55.*]</p> <p>2. Schools and School Districts (§¡73*)—Powers of Board—Imposition of Fine on “Employé.” '</p> <p>Greater New York Charter (Laws 1901, c. 466) § 1100, provides that, “the board of education may investigate, * * * either in the board or by a committee of its own body, * * * the conduct of any of its * * * employés; * * * and for the purpose of such investigation such * * * committee and its chairman shall have * * * all the powers which the board of education has or may exercise in the case of a trial under section 1093.” Section 1093 prescribes the requirements1 of law regarding the trial of a teacher or a principal of a public school, and the penalty which may be imposed on one found guilty on charges preferred against him, and provides that “such penalty or punishment shall consist of. a fine, suspension for -a fixed time without pay, or dismissal.” Held, that a janitor of a public school is an “employé” of the board of education within section 1100, and may be tried and fined as a teacher or principal could be under section 1093.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 73.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2369-2377; vol. 8, p. 7649.]</p> <p>3. Schools and School Districts (§ 73*)—Power of Board—Imposition .of Fine on Employé.</p> <p>Greater New York Charter (Laws 1901, c. 466) § 10Q8, providing that-“the board of education shall have power * * * to enact by-laws * * * for the proper execution of all duties devolved on the board, its members and committees, * * * and for the promotion of the welfare and best interest of the public schools * * * in the matters committed to its care,” authorized the adoption of by-laws providing for the imposition of a fine on a janitor of a public school building for a violation of proper rules and regulations.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 73.*]</p> <p>4. Schools and School Districts (§ 84*)—Powers of" Board—Change of Regulation.</p> <p>A contract of employment between a school board and the janitor of a school building does not exempt the janitor from the operation of bylaws, subsequently adopted, regulating the duties of janitors and providing for a fine for the violation of such regulations.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other .cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 84.*]</p>

<p>1. Food (§ 16*)—Sale of “Adulterated Milk”—Evidence.</p> <p>Under Consol. Laws, c. 1, § 32, making it unlawful to sell or offer for sale “adulterated milk,” which is defined by section 30 as “milk containing more than 88 per cent, of water or fluids, and containing less than 12 per cent, of milk solids,” the state, in an action for the penalties for a sale of adulterated milk, makes out a prima facie case by the uncontradicted testimony of two of its agents that defendant delivered at a lunchroom milk containing 88.63 per cent, water and 11.37 per cent, solids.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Food, Dec. Dig. § 16.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 211, 212.]</p> <p>2. Food (§ 1*)—Constitutional Regulations.</p> <p>The law authorizing the recovery of a penalty, in an action by the state, for a violation of Consol. Laws, c. 1, § 32, making it unlawful to sell or offer for sale adulterated milk, is not unconstitutional, as providing two penalties for the same offense.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Food, Dec. Dig. § 1.*]</p> <p>3. Food (§ 16*)—Sale of Adulterated Milk—Evidence of “Sale”—“Offer fob Sale.”</p> <p>The uncontradicted testimony of two state agents that defendant delivered a can of adulterated milk at a lunchroom, taking a receipt therefor from the person in charge, is sufficient evidence of “sale,” or “offer for sale,” in violation of Consol. Laws, c. 1, § 32, making it unlawful to sell or offer for sale adulterated milk.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Food, Dec. Dig. § 16.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and- Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6291-6306; vol. 8, p. 7793; vol. 6, pp. 4919, 4920.]</p> <p>4. Food (§ 16*)—Sale of Adulterated Milk—Evidence of Ownership.</p> <p>That the wagon from which adulterated milk was taken bore defendant’s name on its sides is prima facie sufficient to show that it was the property of defendant and that the driver was in its employ.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Food, Dec. Dig. § 16.*]</p>

<p>Proceedings for the acquisition by the City of New York of title to East 222d street, from Bronx River to Seventh street. Heard on report of commissioners. Matter referred to new commissioners, with instructions.</p>

Proceedings by the City of New York to acquire land for bridge purposes. On objections to report of commissioners of estimate and appraisal.

<p>Gaming (§ 49*)—Action on Note—Legality of Consideration—Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence in an action on a note, alleged by defendant to have been given for a gambling debt, held insufficient to show the legality of the consideration.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—-Por other cases, see Gaming, Cent. Dig. §§ 100-102; Dec. Dig. § 49.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Justice Court.</p> <p>Action by Handel Bros, against Clara Smith Simpson. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County.</p> <p>Action by Marc Klaw against the New'York-Press Company, Limited. From an interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.</p>

<p> (Syllabus by the Judge.) </p> <p>Bailment (§ 12*)—Gratuitous Bailee—Nonfeasance.</p> <p>The rule that a gratuitous bailee is not liable for mere nonfeasance is not applicable, when the subject of the bailment has been actually delivered and accepted by him.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bailment, Cent. Dig. §§ 37-41; Dec. Dig. § 12*]</p>

<p>Proceedings to appraise damages to the property of Charles F. Johns, Augusta Johns, and Dora Hoy for change of grade of a street. On motion by claimants to confirm the report of commissioner, and by the Village of Salamanca and others to set aside such report.</p>

<p>Injunction (§ 136*)—Preliminary Injunction—Right.</p> <p>While ordinarily the Special Term will hesitate to grant a preliminary injunction solely on the ground that a statute is unconstitutional, it will be granted where delay until trial would render it unavailable, if the party seeking it were found to be entitled to such relief, so that in an action to restrain defendant from killing a dog, which it had impounded and threatened to kill, because not licensed, on the ground that the statute under which defendant acted was unconstitutional, a preliminary injunction will be granted, until the formal adjudication of the constitutional question, unless plaintiff’s contention is entirely without merit, and he will not be compelled to pay the license required so as to prevent the dog from being killed before trial, in order to obviate the granting of the injunction.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 305-306; Dec. Dig. § 136.*]</p>

<p>Elections (§ 299*)—Contests—Opening Ballot Boxes.</p> <p>Election Law (Consol. Laws, c. 17) § 374, provides that each ballot box shall be locked and preserved inviolate for six months after election “and' may be opened and their contents examined upon the order of the Supreme Court or a justice thereof or a county judge of such county.” Held, that an order to open a ballot box will not be issued on a petition alleging that the inspectors were careless, and that the petitioners believe-a wrong result of the election was announced; but such order will only be issued in aid of a judicial proceeding.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. §§ 306, 307; Dec-Dig. § 299.*]</p>

<p>Taxation (§'878*)—-Tbansfeb Tax—Pbopebty Subject—Do web Right.</p> <p>A widow’s dower estate in lands of her deceased husband, which became vested on her marriage and consummate on the death" of her husband, independent of the husband’s will, and not by virtue thereof, was not subject to transfer tax.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 878.*]</p>

Action by Edward V. Strodl against the Farish-Stafford Company. Judgment dismissing the complaint, which was subsequently amended by adding the words “upon the merits” (65 Mise. Rep. 625, 121 N. Y. Supp. 93), and plaintiff appeals from the- order granting such amendment.

<p>Action by Henry L. Wheeler against the City of -New York.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by Julius Locker and another, doing business as J. & B. Locker, against William J. Hance; the first name, “William,” being fictitious and the real first name unknown to plaintiffs. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>1. Joint Adventures (§ 1*)—Agreements Relating to Land.</p> <p>An agreement reciting that one party put in $12,000 and the other $6,000 to buy land, and that the title was taken in their name jointly, and providing for an equal division of rents, and for interest out of the profits to be paid to one on his surplus capital invested, in addition to his share of the profits, provided the property was sold in one year, and for payment of the capital contributed in event of sale, and an equal division of the surplus, constitutes a joint adventure.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Joint Adventures, Cent. Dig. § 1; Dec. Dig. § 1.*]</p> <p>2. Executors and Administrators (§ 41*)—Assets of Estate—Joint Adventures.</p> <p>An intestate and another, furnishing money in unequal amounts, took title to certain premises under a contract between them fixing the proportion in-which the expenses were to be borne and the interest and profits divided between the parties. Held, that, considering the contract as a joint adventure, intestate’s administrator had no cause of action to sue for profits collected by the other party after death of his intestate, since the realty descended to the heirs as tenants in common with the other joint adventurer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. § 283; Dec. Dig. § 41.*]</p> <p>3. Executors and Administrators (§ 44*)—Assets of Estate—Profits of Partnership.</p> <p>Held, also, that, considering the transaction as constituting a partnership, the administrator had no right to sue for such profits, since property held by partners for partnership purposes descends to the heirs of a deceased partner as tenants in common with the other partners.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. § 295; Dec. Dig. § 44.*J</p> <p>Bijur, J., dissenting.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eirst District.</p> <p>Action by the Fechheimer Iron & Steel Company against Nathan Baress. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p> <p>Hitchings & Palliser, for appellant.</p> <p>Morton Stein, for respondent.</p>

<p>False Imprisonment (§ 39*)—Malicious Prosecution (§ 71*)—Tort of Servant-Master’s Liability—Authority of Servant.</p> <p>Whether the superintendent of a department of defendants’ store, in causing the arrest of plaintiff, an employs therein, and making a charge of larceny against him, was acting in the general scope of his employment, so as to make them liable therefor, is a question for the jury; all the employés, including plaintiff being subject to his orders, it being his duty to see that all packages purchased to be sent were delivered to the purchaser, to trace merchandise lost of stolen, and to look after the department generally, and this allowing of the conclusion that he was impliedly authorized to apprehend the thief as an incident to the recovery of stolen goods.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see False Imprisonment, Cent. Dig. §§ 116-1Í9; Dec. Dig. § 39;* Malicious Prosecution, Dec. Dig. § 71.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.</p> <p>Supplementary proceedings by William H. Beardsley against the Stone Valley Distilling Company. From an order refusing to vacate an order for examination of the judgment debtor, it appeals.</p>

<p>On reargument.</p>

Action by Julia S. Osterhout against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

<p>1. Assignments (§ 10*)—Compensation Due State Officer—Assignment as-Collateral—Validity.</p> <p>An assignment of compensation due a state officer is valid.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Assignments, Dec. Dig. § 10.*]</p> <p>2. Assignments (§ 115*)—Liabiilty of Subsequent Assignee—Right of Action.</p> <p>"Where a creditor assigned as collateral security a part of the amount due him from his debtor, and thereafter assigned to another assignee mor& than the amount remaining due him, and the debtor, with notice of both assignments, paid the subsequent assignee, the first assignee might have repudiated the payment and recovered of the debtor the amount thereof; but he also had the right to adopt and ratify the debtor’s act in making payment, and sue the second assignee for money had and received.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Assignments, Cent. Dig. §§ 161, 163, 171; Dec. Dig. § 115.*]</p> <p>3. Money Received (§ 9*)—Right of Action.</p> <p>Where there are simply two parties claiming to own the same debt or chose in action, the party having the superior title may sue for money had and received against the wrong claimant, who receives the money.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.'—For other cases, see Money Received, Cent. Dig. § 31; Dec. Dig. § 9.*]</p> <p>Bijur, X, dissenting.</p>

<p>Appeal and Error (§ 1046*)—Misconduct of Judge^-Reversal.</p> <p>Where in an action in which the mere recital of plaintiff’s case was calculated .to prejudice the jury against defendant, the trial court repeatedly sustained objections to questions which were proper, though unimportant, and maintained an apparently hostile attitude towards defendant’s counsel, so that the jury might have been prejudiced against defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though the erroneous rulings would not of themselves have been ground for reversal.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 1046.*]</p> <p>Gavegan, J., dissenting.</p>

<p>1. Parent and Child (§ 7*)—Action for Loss of Affection of Child.</p> <p>No action lies by a parent for the loss of the love and affection of a child.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parent and Child, Cent. Dig. §§ 86-99; Dec. Dig. § 7.*]</p> <p>2. Parent and Child (§ 7*)—Action for Loss of Services of Child.</p> <p>An action lies by a parent for the loss of services of a child.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parent and Child, 'Cent. Dig. §§ 86-99; Dec. Dig. 1 7.*3</p>

<p>1. Bankruptcy (§ 438*)—Composition—Confirmation—Effect.</p> <p>Under Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, g 70f, 30 Stat. 566 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3452), providing that on the confirmation of a composition offered by a bankrupt the title to his property shall revest in him, and section 21g, providing that a certified copy of an order confirming a composition is evidence of the revesting of such title, title to all the bankrupt’s property revests in him on the confirmation of the composition agreement without any further act by the trustee or the court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other, cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 626: Dec. Dig. § 438.*]</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy (§ 151*)—Title of Trustee.</p> <p>Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418), discloses an intent to vest title in the trustee on his appointment to all the bankrupt’s nonexempt property, but only for the purpose of distribution to the creditors.</p> <p>[Ed. Note:—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. gg 193, 239; Dec. Dig. g 151.*]</p> <p>3. Bankruptcy (g 438*)—Composition—Confirmation—Effect.</p> <p>Under Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 12b, 30 Stat. 549 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427), providing that before confirmation of a composition the bankrupt must deposit, subject to the order of the judge, the consideration to be paid by the bankrupt to his creditors, etc., and sections 21g and 70f, providing that on the confirmation of a composition the title to the property shall revest in the bankrupt, the confirmation of a composition operates to vest the title in the bankrupt, not only to the property previously belonging to him, but to all-rights which accrued to the trustee, and a lease executed by the trustee inures to the benefit of the bankrupt, though the trustee has not been discharged.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases,, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. ,§ 626; Dec. Dig. §1438.*]</p> <p>4. Bankruptcy (§"43S*)—Lease by Trustee—Obligation of Lessee.</p> <p>Where a lessee in a lease executed by the trustee of a-bankrupt did not pay rent to the trustee, he. was bound to pay rent to the assignee of the bankrupt, though he had no notice of the revesting of the title to the property in the bankrupt on the confirmation of a composition offered by him.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 626; Dec. Dig. § 438.*]</p> <p>5. Landlord and Tenant (§ 230*)—Rent —Action for—Complaint—Sufficiency.</p> <p>Where, in an action for rent, due under a lease executed by a trpstee in bankruptcy, brought by an assignee of the bankrupt, title to the bankrupt’s property having revested in him on confirmation of a composition, the Complaint alleged due performance by the trustee, the complaint was not defective for failing to allege that the assignee duly performed the conditions of the lease.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. § 908; Dec. Dig. § 230.*]</p> <p>6. Landlord and Tenant (§ 160*)—Premises—Action ' Against Tenant-Injury to Property.</p> <p>A complaint, in an action against a tenant, which alleges that he negligently damaged and injured, or permitted to be damaged and injured, enumerated property, is good, though it does not allege the condition of the property when delivered to him.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. § 623; Dec. Dig. § 160.*]</p>

<p>Divorce (§ 129*)—Adultery—Allegations—Proof.</p> <p>In divorce proceedings, an allegation that defendant committed adultery with a certain male person, naming him, is not supported by testimony which failed to identify the man with whom the offense proved had been committed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Divorce, Dec. Dig. § 129.*]</p>

<p>Petition by Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner, etc., for the revocation of a liquor tax certificate issued to Thomas F. Gallagher.</p>

Summary proceedings by Jane M. Janes against Timothy F. Pad-dell and others. From the final order in favor of the tenants, the landlord appeals.

Action by William E. Pease against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, defendant appeals.

<p>1. Prostitution (§ 6*)—Nightwalking—Punishment.</p> <p>A person convicted under Laws 1882, c. 410, § 1438, providing that every common prostitute or nightwalker loitering or being ira any thoroughfare or public place for the purpose of prostitution or soliciting, to the annoyance of the inhabitants, shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, is to be punished under Greater New York Charter (Laws 1901, e. 466) § 707, which provides for this offense six months in the workhouse, or a fine of $10, or compels the giving of a bond for good behavior.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Prostitution, Cent. Dig. § 6; Bee. Dig. § 6.*]</p> <p>2. Criminal Law (§ 252*)—Summary Trial—Nightwalking—Charge—Sufficiency.</p> <p>Under Laws 1882, c. 410, § 1458, a charge that a person is a common prostitute and nightwalker, and that she was on a certain, night in the city of New York loitering in a certain street, soliciting and importuning men passing in and along said thoroughfare or place for the purpose of prostitution, to the great annoyance of neighbors and passersby, clearly charges disorderly conduct.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Bee. Dig. § 252.*]</p> <p>3. Prostitution (§ 6*)—Punishment—Reformatory Sentence.</p> <p>Semble, the offenses for which women can be sent to- Bedford reformatory do not include disorderly conduct as specified by Laws 1882, c. 419, § 1*58.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Prostitution, Bee. Big. § 6.*];</p> <p>4. Habeas Corpus (§ 105*)—Decisions of Superior Courts—Conclusiveness.</p> <p>Where a woman was sentenced by a magistrate to Bedford reformatory for disorderly conduct, and the case was appealed to the General Sessions and to the Appellate Division, and affirmed without opinion, the power of the magistrate to impose the sentence given having been expressly questioned in appellant’s brief, the Special Term of the Supreme Court cannot release the relator on habeas corpus on the ground that the magistrate was without power to impose the sentence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 98, 94; Dec. Dig. § 105.*]</p> <p>5. Criminal Law (§ 252*)—Magistrate’s Court—Charges—Punishment.</p> <p>The charge in a magistrate’s court against a prisoner should be so specific and definite that the punishment imposed will also be definite and certain.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 526; Dec. Dig. § 252.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Public Service Commission.</p> <p>Application of the town board of the town of Royalton for an order-fixing the manner of crossing of a new highway in said town over the tracks of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From an order of the Public Service Commission directing that the-highway should be constructed over the railroad on a metal viaduct with a clearance of at least 21 feet above the top of the rail of the-railroad, that the town board should submit plans and specifications for the viaduct, showing the height, length, and material to be in accordance with the provisions therein contained, also the length, character, and grade of approaches, and on the submission of the plans- and specifications the same should be considered by a commission with reference to the final approval thereof, and that a final order be entered on the approval of the plans and specifications, as submitted by the-town, it appeals.</p>

<p>1. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 87*)—Purchaser for Valuable Consideration.</p> <p>. Where an insolvent debtor transfers his property to one of his creditors as security for an antecedent debt, and the creditor taking, the property does not advance anything at the time, and does not relinquish the security then held, or suspend any remedy on it, the creditor is not a purchaser for a valuable consideration.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. §§ 221-229; Dec. Dig.. § 87.*]</p> <p>'2. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 300*)—Want of Consideration—Evidence.</p> <p>Where an insolvent executed as collateral for certain notes a mortgage reciting that the sum secured was payable on demand, but the debtor testified that there was no agreement to extend the time of the payment of the existing indebtedness, and there was no mention made of the notes in the mortgage, and none of the past-due notes were surrendered, and anbfficer of the creditor testified that there was an agreement to extend the time of payment, a finding of no consideration for the mortgage was justified.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. §§ 896-903 ; Dec. Dig. § 300.*]</p> <p>3. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 298*)—Intent—Evidence.</p> <p>A voluntary transfer by an insolvent debtor of his property is more than mere evidence of fraud, and is a fact from which a fraudulent intent may be inferred.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. §§ 892-895; Dec. Dig. § 298.*]</p> <p>4. Bankruptcy (§ 180*)—Fraudulent Transfer—Intent of Grantor.</p> <p>Where a mortgage given without consideration by an insolvent debtor as collateral to secure an existing indebtedness was executed with intent on his part to defraud his other creditors, the mortgage was fraudulent as against his trustee in bankruptcy, whether the creditor receiving the mortgage acted with a like intent or not.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 252, 253; Dec. Dig. § 180.*]</p> <p>5. Bankruptcy (§ 181*)—Fraudulent Intent of Grantor—Sufficiency.</p> <p>That a debtor executed without consideration, while insolvent, a mortgage to secure a past indebtedness, shows fraud, and his trustee in bankruptcy may attack it, -under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 67e, 30 Stat. 564 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3449), making incumbrances void, and Real Property Law, § 229 (Consol. Laws, c. 50, § 265), providing that a conveyance shall not be adjudged fraudulent as against creditors solely on the ground that it is not founded on a valuable consideration.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 239-274; Dec. Dig. § 181.*]</p>

In the matter of the application of the City of New York, relative to' acquiring title in fee to the lands, tenements, and hereditaments for the opening and extending of Boston Road between Bronx Park and the White Plains Road, and the Bear Swamp Road between Boston Road and the White Plains Road, in the Twenty-Fourth Ward, Borough of the Bronx, City of New York. Motion to confirm report of Commissioners of Estimate and Appraisal.

Application by the ¿City of New York to acquire title to and possession of wharfage rights, terms, easements, emoluments, and privileges appurtenant to Piers Old Nos. 16 and 17, East River, etc. From an order confirming the report of the commissioners of estimate and assessment, the city appeals.

<p>Action by William A- Trumbley against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Heard on motion to strike case from calendar.</p> <p>After affirmance of a judgment for plaintiff on condition of a remission of part of the recovery (120 N. Y. Supp. 1148), a motion for reargument was granted (120 N. Y. Supp. 1149), with leave to appellant to resettle case, so as to contain all the evidence, and a certificate to that effect.</p>

<p>1. Costs (§.48*)—Allowance—Note of Issue—Necessity.</p> <p>Plaintiff is not entitled to an allowance of costs after notice of trial, where no note of issue was filed; failure to file a note of issue destroying the effect of the notice of trial.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 192-210; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]</p> <p>2. Costs (§ 164*)—Amount—Additional Allowance—Dower Action.</p> <p>Under Code Civ. Proc. § 3252, allowing certain additional costs upon recovery by defendant in an action to foreclose a mortgage for partition of realty or to compel the determination of a claim to realty, etc., an additional allowance should not be made in an action to -admeasure dower; it not being an action to determine a claim to realty within the code.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see -Costs, Cent. Dig. § 622; Dec. Dig. § 164.*]</p> <p>3. Costs (§ 190*)—Disbursements—Feinting Summons and Complaint.</p> <p>Under Code Civ. Proc. § 3256, defining certain charges taxable as disbursements, and permitting the allowance of such other reasonable and necessary expenses as are taxable according to the practice of the court, the cost of printing the summons and complaint will be allowed as a disbursement in a number of actions to admeasure dower in which there were numerous defendants in each action, so that the printing of the summons and complaint was an advantage to the litigants and the court; it having been the practice of the clerk to tax such disbursements, where, because of the size of the pleading and number of parties, the printing of the summons and complaint appeared reasonable.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 660-602; Dec. Dig. § 190.*]</p>

<p>1. Husband and Wife (§ 171*)—Mortgage by Wife—Duress.</p> <p>If one purchasing property for the mortgagor at foreclosure sale could not have been compelled to perform his oral agreement to reconvey to the mortgagor upon payment of the amount advanced, that the purchaser compelled the mortgagor to give a second mortgage to secure an indebtedness from the mortgagor’s husband before reconveying would not constitute duress.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 678; Dec. Dig. § 171.*]</p> <p>2. Husband and Wife (§ 171*)—Mortgage by Wife—Consideration.</p> <p>If one purchasing property for another at foreclosure sale could not have been compelled to perform his oral agreement to reconvey to the mortgagor upon payment of the amount advanced, a second mortgage executed by the mortgagor to such purchaser securing an indebtedness of the former’s husband to him in order to procure a reconveyance was not without consideration.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 675; Dec. Dig. § 171.*]</p> <p>S. Trusts (§ 100*)—Constructive Trusts—Breach of Oral Agreement as to Lands Bought.</p> <p>An agreement to purchase at a mortgage foreclosure sale and hold the property for the mortgagor’s benefit until advances made for purchasing were repaid is enforceable in equity, though it does not comply with the statute of frauds.</p> <p>iE'd. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. § 151; Dec. Dig. § 100.*]</p> <p>4. Husband and Wife (§" 171*)—Mortgage by Wife—Consideration.</p> <p>Since an oral agreement to purchase at mortgage foreclosure sale and reconvey to the mortgagor upon payment of the amount advanced was valid in equity, a second mortgage, given such purchaser by the mortgagor to secure payment of debts due him from her husband in order to procure a reconveyance to her, was without consideration.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see I-Iusband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 675; Dec. Dig. § 171.*]</p> <p>5. Husband and Wife (§ 171*)—Mortgage by Wife—Duress.</p> <p>If one purchasing at a mortgage foreclosure sale for the mortgagor’s benefit was bound to reconvey, a second mortgage, which such purchaser compelled the mortgagor against her will to execute to secure her husband’s debts to such purchaser in order to procure a reconveyance, was invalid.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 671-683; Dec. Dig. § 171.*]</p> <p>6. Husband and Wife (§ 232*)—Mortgage by Wife.</p> <p>In an action to foreclose a mortgage executed to secure a bond to plaintiff’s intestate, evidence held to show that the bond and mortgage were executed in consideration of the cancellation of a debt due on demand to intestate from the mortgagor’s husband.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Dec. Dig. § 232.*]</p> <p>7. Payment (§ 24*)—Character of Payment—Payment by Mortgage.</p> <p>A bond and mortgage may be given in payment of a debt.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig. §§ 28, 29; Dec. Dig. § 24.*]</p> <p>8. Husband and Wife (§ 171*)—Mortgage by Wife—Validity—Duress.</p> <p>Even if one who purchased at foreclosure for the benefit of a mortgagor refused to reconvey as agreed until the indebtedness of the mortgagor’s husband was paid by the execution of a mortgage to him, there would be no duress if the latter voluntarily agreed to pay their indebtedness to procure the reconveyance.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Dec. Dig. § 171.*]</p> <p>9. Mortgages (§ 86*)—Foreclosure—Action—Sufficiency of Evidence-Duress.</p> <p>In an action to foreclose a mortgage executed with a bond'to plaintiff's intestate who purchased for the mortgagor’s benefit on foreclosure of another mortgage given by the mortgagor, evidence held to show that the mortgage in suit was given voluntarily.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 1350, 1355, 1364; Dec. Dig. § 86.*]</p> <p>10. Contracts (§ 270*)—Validity—Duress.</p> <p>One entitled to disaffirm a contract for duress must act promptly, as a contract or deed given under duress may be ratified by acquiescing therein for an unreasonable time.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1189, 1200; Dec. Dig. § 270.*]</p>

<p>Action by Gibson Howard and another against the City of Buffalo and others. Judgment for plaintiff against all defendants.</p>

<p>Action by the Alien Speare’s Sons Company against the Casein Company of America.</p>

<p>Action by Charles W. Barnes against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Mary C. Bogart, as administratrix etc., of John Bogart, deceased, against the Citj of New York.</p>

<p>Action by William J. Braffett agains the Brooklyn, Queens County & Suburban Railroad - Company.</p>

<p>Action by Charles B. Brown against Paul A. English, and others.</p>

<p>Action by John W. Ford, suing in his own behalf, etc., against Benjamin E. Chase and others.</p>

<p>Action by Morton H. C. Foster against the New York & Harlem Railroad- Company and others.</p>

Action by Jennie Goldstein against E. Victor Loew, Jr., as administrator, etc. A judgment in favor of defendant was vacated, and the complaint dismissed, and defendant appeals.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District. Action by Hinda Goldfinger against Fishel Plancer. From an order setting aside the verdict of the jury,_ plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Action by August Heckscher against William Edenborn.</p>

<p>Action by Frank M. Hickock, as receiver, etc., of Frank H. Oowperthwait, against ■Frank H. Oowperthwait and others.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term. Action by Jesper M. C. Jensen against the O’Rourke Engineering & Construction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Action by Coleman J. Knapp, as administrator, etc., against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Christian Koch and others against Sali Rubin and others.</p>

<p>Action by Thomas MacKellar against La Marcus A. Thompson. (Action No. 1.)</p>

<p>Action by Henriette D. Marks against Abraham Schnitzler. M. Schleimer, for "appellant.- P. Heiliger, for respondent.</p>

<p>Action by James A. McKinley against Susan Hessen.</p>

<p>Action by Richard V. Mattison, Jr., against Agnes C. Mattison.</p>

<p>Action by Charles F. Muller and others, as executors, etc., against the Thomas W. Evans Museum & Institute Society and others.</p>

<p>Action by Michael O’Dwyer, as trustee in bankruptcy, etc., against the Castle Square Opera Company.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term. Action by Nathan J. Packard and another against the Long Island Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.</p>

<p>Action by Michael O’Dwyer as trustee in bankruptcy, etc., against the Castle Square 'Opera Company.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People ot the State of New York, on the relation of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, against James Gourley and others.</p>

<p>Action by; Josephine A. Schuller against Filippo .Todaro, impleaded with others.</p>

<p>Action by William J. Scott against the International Paper Company.</p>

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Howard Slade and another against Elbert A. Bennett and another. From an order granting the motion of defendant Bennett, and striking out parts of the supplemental complaint as irrelevant, plaintiffs appeal.</p>

<p>Action by teinhard Stork against John D. Lymber.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District. Action by Bedros Totoian against Mihran H. Harpootlian and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.</p>

<p>Action by 1 Village of Haverstraw against J. Esler Eek son and -others.</p>

<p>Apal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manttan, First District. Action by Morris Wach- ; against 'Louis Fraut and another. From a dgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Action Y Mary Wallace against Patrick H. Wallace.</p>

<p>Action by Jacob Weintraub against Moses I. Siegel and others.</p>

<p>Action by Frederick W. Yurster and others against the City of New fork and others.</p>

<p>Action by Richard S. White and others against the Maryland Casualty Company.</p>

<p>A tion by Charles G. Willoughby against Dai A Patten.</p>

<p>Action by Max Willner against the Mink Restaurant Company.</p>