Volume 131 — New York Supplement

<p>Action by James A. Casey, as administrator of Mary E. Ramsey, deceased, against the Auburn Telephone Company. On defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Motion denied.</p>

Action by William Blaisdell against the LongTsland Railroad Company. On motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Motion denied.

<p>Action by George W. Young against the United States Mortgage & Trust Company. On motion by defendant upon the trial judge’s minutes to set aside the verdict and obtain a new trial. Motion granted.</p>

<p>Action by one Meehan against one Dobson. Complaint dismissed.</p>

<p>1. Corporations (§ 553*)—Receivers—Grounds of Appointment.</p> <p>It was shown that the directors of a corporation, as well as other influential officers, had grossly mismanaged the corporate affairs and are continuing to do so, and that some of the directors conspired to rob the corporation and stockholders, and that some had been convicted of crime, and that the officer in charge was unfit, and that there was no officer able and "sufficiently honest to conduct the affairs of the corporation and protect its assets, and it also appeared that applications for a receiver had been made in the federal court and courts of two other states. EeW¡ that a receiver should be appointed for the corporate assets in the state.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2201-2216; Dec. Dig. § 553.*]</p> <p>2. Corporations (§ 558*)—Receivers—Qualification.</p> <p>One who was an officer of the corporation when the fraud and mismanagement for which a receiver was asked were committed should not be appointed as a receiver, though he denies participating in the fraud; the best interest of the corporation being conserved by appointing a receiver who has had no connection with the corporate affairs.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent Dig. §§ 2237-2240; Dec. Dig. § 558.*]</p> <p>3. Corporations (§ 557*)—Receivers—Commencement obi Proceedings—Effect Upon Property.</p> <p>Upon the commencement of a suit to place the property of a corporation located in the state in the custody of the court by the appointment of a receiver, the property is deemed to be in the possession of the court in the state, though receivership proceedings have previously been taken in another state where a small part of the property is.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 557.*]</p>

<p>1. Intoxicating Liquors (g 106*)—Liquor Tax Certificates—Revocation-Grounds.</p> <p>A bolder of a liquor tax certificate, who sold liquor on Sunday in violation of law, and who maintained a screen shutting off the view of the bar in violation of law, waá guilty of misconduct justifying revocation of the certificate.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 113-116; Dec. Dig. § 106.*]</p> <p>2. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 108*)—Liquor Tax Certificates—Revocation— Grounds.</p> <p>Evidence held insufficient to show that a certificate holder had violated Liquor Tax Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 34) § 30, subd. “e,” by permitting an entrance between rooms where traffic in liquors was carried on and a room where gambling was carried on.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 116-118; Dec. Dig. § 108.*]</p>

Action by one Wieser against the Times Realty & Construction Company. On motion to set aside the judgment, after affirmance on appeal, for perjury. Motion granted.

Certiorari by the People, on relation of the Federal Telephone & Telegraph Company, against William V. Longwell and others, as Assessors of the Village of Bath, to review the action of the Assessors, and to have certain items of the assessment made against relator stricken from the tax rolls. Assessment confirmed, and writ quashed.

<p>1. Taxation (§ 433*)—Assessment Rom>-Veriei cation.</p> <p>Where an assessment roll is comprised, in several volumes, verification attached- to one of them only, without identifying the other volumes, is insufficient compliance with the requirement by Tax Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 60) § 38, for verification.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 747-753; Dec. Dig. § 433.*]</p> <p>2. Taxation (§ 318*)—Assessment—Time.</p> <p>An assessment not made on or before the third Tuesday of August in a given year, as required by Tax Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 60) § 36, but after grievance day, depriving a taxpayer of opportunity to be heard, is invalid.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 530, 531; Dec. Dig. g 318.*]</p> <p>5. Taxation (g 498*)—Subjects—Illegal Taxation.</p> <p>A taxpayer can enjoin illegal tax proceedings clouding his title.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 913-919; Dec. Dig. g 498.*]</p>

<p>Taxation (§ 696*)—Real Estate Taxes—Sales—Redemption.</p> <p>Though Tax Law (Laws 1896, c. 908) §§ 134-137, relating to notice and redemption of land sold for taxes, did not repeal the Suffolk county special act (Laws 1873, c. 620) relating to the enforcement of taxes in that county, it should be construed as supplemental to such special act, and in the absence of explicit prohibition in the special act, the notice of the expiration of time for redemption prescribed by section 134 must be served before the title of an owner of land in that county may be divested by tax sale.</p> <p>[Bd. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 696.*]</p>

Action by Frederick Carleson, suing on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Omaha Water Company and the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, as trustee. Submission of a controversy on an agreed state of facts. Judgment for plaintiff.

Action by Oscher Wilensky against the Philadelphia Casualty Company. From an order of the City Court, denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, defendant appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.

Action by George Schroeder against Samuel Fine and another, co-partners doing business under the firm name of A. Fine & Sons. From an interlocutory judgment, entered in the City Court of the City of New York, overruling a demurrer to the first cause of action alleged in the complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed, and demurrer sustained, with leave to plaintiff to plead anew.

<p>Discovery (§ 40*)—Examination Before Trial—Scope of Order.</p> <p>An order for defendant’s examination before trial should be limited to an examination as to matters alleged in the complaint and denied by the answer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Discovery, Cent. Dig. §§ 52, 53; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]</p>

Two actions, one by Joseph L,. Lokchinsky and others against the Independent Order Brith Abraham of the United States of America and others, and the other by Katie Lokchinsky against said Order. From an order denying the motion of said defendant Order to inter-plead the plaintiff in the second action as a party defendant in the first action in the place and stead of said Order, it appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.</p> <p>Action by Lillian B. Vogel against Mark Vogel. From an order granting defendant a stay pending an appeal, plaintiff appeals. Order modified and affirmed.</p>

Appeals from City Court of New York, Special Term. Actions by John Seebach, Jr., against Charles Fenkart. From orders dismissing the complaints in each action for want of prosecution; plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

<p>Judgment (§ 351*)—Vacating—Grounds—Falsity of Proof of, Service.</p> <p>Where affidavits submitted by defendant conclusively showed that, at the time of the service of summons alleged to have been made on him, he was in another city, and that the process server must have been mistaken as to the identity of the person served, if service was made at all, the judgment would be set aside.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 687; Dec. Dig. § 351.*]</p>

v Action by the City Credit Company against Cornelius M. Donahue and another. From a judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings, defendant William H. Metz appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.' '

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by Arthur T. Legge against William H. Foster. From a Municipal Court judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.</p>

Action by the Addressograph Company against H. B. Goetchius & Co. From an order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, refusing to open a default judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and COHARAN, JJ.

<p>Husband and Wife (§ 232*)—Injury to Wife—Automobile Accident—Burden oil Proof.</p> <p>' In an action for loss of a wife’s services, due to her being struck by defendant’s automobile on a crowded thoroughfare, the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that the accident charged was solely the result of the defendant’s negligence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 844— 848; Dec. Dig. § 232.*]</p>

<p>1. Courts (§ 189*)—Municipal Court—Pleading—Amendment—Conditions.</p> <p>Since, under the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, c. 580), the allowance of material amendments to pleadings, when offered by parties, is mandatory, it was error to require, as a condition of allowing an amendment, an election of one of two counts of the complaint on which plaintiff would proceed, in case her amendment adding a count on a quantum meruit was allowed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 189.*]</p> <p>2. Pleading (§ 369*)—Complaint—Counts—Election.</p> <p>Where a complaint for services alleges a count on a special contract and also on a quantum meruit, plaintiff cannot be compelled to elect upon which he will proceed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 1199-1209; Dec. Dig. § 369.*]</p> <p>3. Brokers (§ 85*)—Action for Services—Reasonable Value.</p> <p>In an action on a special contract for broker’s services, evidence of the reasonable value of the services is admissible, as bearing on the issue of the probability that the agreement pleaded was made.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. §§ 106-115; Dec. Dig. § 85.*]</p>

<p>Sales (§ 279*)—We-ll Contracts—'Warranties.</p> <p>A contractor to install a pumping outfit, who warrants that the outfit will give the owner a specified number of gallons of water per minute, does not warrant the capacity of the well of the owner, though the contractor sent Ms agent to the premises before the outfit was installed; and, to show a breach of contract, the owner must prove that the outfit was not as warranted, and the mere fact that he did not get the specified quantity per minute does not show a breach, in the absence of evidence of the capacity of the well.</p> <p>fEd. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 783-792; Dec. Dig. § 279.*]</p>

<p>Bells and Notes (§ 186*)—Indorsement—Consideration—Pre-Existing Indebtedness.</p> <p>In order for a pre-existing debt to constitute consideration for an indorsement of a note, the holder must show that he has parted with something, that he has given up the original debt, or the right to sue on it.</p> <p>[Ed, Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Dec. Dig. § 186.*]</p>

<p>Trial (§ 242*)—Instructions—Issues.</p> <p>. Wliere a personal injury case presented an issue as to defendant’s-negligence, an instruction that, if defendant’s train stopped and started again under the circumstances detailed by plaintiff, defendant was guilty of a wrongful act as a matter of law, was erroneous, as tending to lead the jury to believe that recovery was dependent upon a finding as to-plaintiff’s credibility and as obscuring the real issues of negligence and contributory negligence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 569-576; Dec. Dig. § 242.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by Charles A. Rogers against the New York Central Storage Company. From a Municipal Court judgment for plaintiff, by default, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.</p>

Action by Vincenzo Nannela against John J. Brady and another, partners as Brady & Gioe. From a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York for plaintiff, rendered on a verdict of the jury, and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Action by Nathan Wishny against Frank Gottfried and Samuel Cohen. From an order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, denying a motion to vacate an attachment, defendant Cohen appeals. Reversed, and attachment vacated.

Action by Walter J. Salomon against Louis Gleichenhaus. From an interlocutory’ judgment of the City Court of the City of New York, overruling a demurrer to a separate defense in the amended answer, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and demurrer sustained, with leave to defendant to amend.

Thompson, deceased. From a decree denying probate, the executors and residuary legatees appeal. Reversed, with directions.

Action by one Guttenbergh against Taibbi Genovese and another. From an order granting a motion to set aside an order vacating a default judgment, defendants appeal. On motion to dismiss. Denied.

<p>Pleading (§ 49*)—Theory of Action—Fraud—Breach of Contract.</p> <p>Where a complaint alleges fraud, but there was no false representation as to an existing fact, it is error to treat the complaint as one for fraud, and dismiss it, if by disregarding as immaterial the allegations of fraud enough remains to set forth an action on the contract.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 107-111; Dec. Dig. § 49.*]</p>

<p>Courts (§ 189*)—Municipal Court of New York—Entry of Judgment-Time.</p> <p>In the absence of any valid consent of the parties extending the time in which the Municipal Court may render judgment, a decision and judgment, rendered after the expiration of the 14 days fixed by Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580) § 230, from the date of final submission, is void.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 189.*]</p>

Action by the Blackall & Baldwin Company against G. Everett Hill. From a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York for plaintiff, after trial without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Application by William H. Danniels, as an elector of the county of Erie, to correct the registry of voters by adding his name thereto. Application granted.

Action by Morris Metzler against Philip Farber. From an order setting aside a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and granting a new trial, he appeals. Reversed, and judgment reinstated.

Action by Edgar T. Brackett against Elizabeth S. C. Seavey and others to foreclose a lien on a future interest in an estate, to remove trustees, and compel an accounting. Judgment for plaintiff enforcing the lien and against him as to removal of trustees and for accounting.

<p>Brokers (§ 62*)—Compensation—Actions—Defenses—Necessity of Pleading.</p> <p>Brokers who procured a purchaser, who signed a contract, but refused to -execute it, because of a shortage of three feet in the dimensions specified in the contract of sale, which corresponded with the contract of employment of the brokers, are entitled to their commissions, notwithstanding a claim of defendant that the brokers knew the actual dimensions when employed, where such defense was not pleaded.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Dec. Dig:. § 62.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.</p> <p>Action by Hugo Gorsch against the Northern Assurance Company of London. From an order denying a motion to set aside a verdict for plaintiff and for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.</p>

Action by the Columbian Engineering Company against Leonard Keil, Incorporated. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff, rendered after a trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

<p>Costs (§ 22*)—Actions in City Court—Recovery of Costs—Statutes.</p> <p>Under Code Civ. Proe. § 3228, subd. 5, providing that a plaintiff in an action in the City Court, which but for the amount claimed could have been brought in the Municipal Court, can have no costs, unless he recovers $250 or more, and Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580) § 1, subd. 9, giving the Municipal Court jurisdiction for the recovery of chattels withheld, where the value thereof as stated in the affidavit does not exceed $500, a plaintiff, suing in the City Court in replevin for property alleged in the complaint and writ to be worth $850, and shown to be worth more than $250, and who is awarded the property, together with $150 damages for the detention, is entitled to tax the costs usual in an action in the City Court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other eases, see Costs, Dec. Dig. § 22.*]</p>

Action by Oscar O. Lauckner against Gustave Heyss and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Summary proceedings by Harris Mandelbaum and another against Charles J. Fromberg and others. From an order granting defendants Charles J. Fromberg and another a new trial, and vacating a judgment of removal, the landlords appeal. Reversed, and judgment reinstated.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.</p> <p>Action by Harris Hausman against Sussman Bros. & Co. and others. From a judgment for the defendants named, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed:</p>

<p>Appeal and Error (§ 843*)—Questions Reviewable—Moot Questions.</p> <p>The court, on appeal from an order which is no longer operative, will ■ not determine its prior validity.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3831-8342; Dec. Dig. § 843.*]</p>

Action by John T. McNichol against Isaac Phillips and another, partners as I. & M. Phillips. From an order denying a motion for leave to serve an amended answer and for relief from defendants’ failure to serve one, defendants appeal. Reversed, and motion granted.

<p>3, Cabbiebs (§ 20*)—Carriage of Passengers—Fabbs—Regulation.</p> <p>A street surface railway running a line through the country between two different towns, and incorporated under Railroad Law (Consol. Laws 1910, c. 49) § 5, is subject to section 59 of tha't act; which imposes a penalty upon any railroad corporation asking or receiving more than the lawful fare.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig'. § 20.*]</p> <p>2. Carriers (§ 20*)—Carriage of Passengers—Faees-¡-Actions for Penalty.</p> <p>Under Railroad Law (Consol. Laws 1910, c. 49) s 59, imposing a penalty upon any railroad corporation asking or receiving more than the lawful fare, a judgment for the penalty cannot be sustained if the overcharge was made through inadvertence or mistake, not amounting to gross negligence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. 'Dig. § 20.*]</p> <p>3. Cabbiebs (§ 20*)—Carriage of Passengers—Fares—Questions of. Fact.</p> <p>In an action against a street surface railway fpr charging a passenger more than the lawful fare, heló,, that whether me railroad was guilty of gross negligence in allowing a conductor to take charge of its cars and collect fares, without adopting some effectual method of notifying him of a change in the rate of fare, is a question of fact.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 20.*]</p> <p>4. Appeal and Error (§ 1010*)—Review—Findings.</p> <p>A finding by the trial court supported by evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3979-3982; Dec. Dig. § 1010.*] ]</p>

<p>Suit by the Long Island Railroad Company against Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company and the Town of Southampton. Judgment for defendants.</p>

<p>Action by John A. Delaney against Rose Delaney Gaylord and another. Judgment for' plaintiff.</p>

<p>1. Trusts (§§ 17. 18*)—Statute of Frauds—Enforcement of Trust—Application of. Statute.</p> <p>Plaintiff, while ill, to obviate the necessity of making a will, conveyed certain property to his wife at her request, under a verbal agreement and understanding that it should be hers if he died, and, if not, that she would reconvey it to him at any time he desired, and both plaintiff and his wife thereafter expended money in improving the property. Held, that plaintiff could enforce Ms wife’s agreement to recouvey, notwithstanding the statute of frauds.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. §§ 15-24; Dec. Dig. §§ 17, 18.*]</p> <p>2. Estoppel (§ 101*)—Estoppel by Conduct—Title.</p> <p>'A husband’s testimony, in a proceeding to collect a judgment, that his wife owned certain premises, would not estop hini from seeking to enforce a prior verbal agreement by her to reconvey the premises to him at his 'request, after he had conveyed them to her during an illness to obviate making a will.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Estoppel, Cent. Dig. § 293; Dec. Dig. § 101.*]</p> <p>3. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 232*)—Bona Fide Purchasers—Possession of Property.</p> <p>Where defendant purchased property from plaintiff’s wife, while plaintiff was in actual and open possession thereof, and his wife was not living upon the premises, defendant was charged with notice of any rights which plaintiff could establish, and hence that thé title was held by plaintiff’s wife in trust under an oral agreement to reconvey to Mm.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 540-502; Dec. Dig. § 232.*]</p>

Action by Mary E. Mullin, individually and as administratrix of the estate of John Mullin, and another, against Mary Nolan, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Richard Nolan. Judgment for defendant.

Action by Charles E. King, jr., against the Briarwood Land Company of Jamaica and others, to foreclose a mortgage. Decree of dismissal as to a part of defendants, and decree of foreclosure as to the others.

<p>1. Master and Servant (§ 170*)—Injuries to Servant—Fellow Servants— Duty of Master as to Selection.</p> <p>A master must use ordinary care to select servants of sufficient care, skill, and prudence to make it probable that they will not cause injury to each other, and the care required is commensurate with the danger to be apprehended.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 336; Dec. Dig. § 170.*]</p> <p>2. Master and Servant (§ 170*)—Injuries to Servant—Fellow Servants— Negligence—Liability.</p> <p>A servant, employed as a blacksmith, was struck in the eye by a piece of metal in consequence of his helper misdirecting a blow, which struck an anvil, instead of a brake lever they were welding. There was no evidence that it was dangerous to strike the anvil under the circumstances. Held, that the master was not guilty of actionable negligence in failing to select a competent helper.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 336; Dec. Dig. § 170.*]</p> <p>3. Evidence (§ 5*)—Judicial Notice—Matters of Common Knowledge.</p> <p>The danger of striking a hard blow on cold iron is not such a well-known fact that the court can take judicial notice of it.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 4; Dec. Dig. § 5.*]</p>

<p>l; Gifts (§ 28*)—Gifts Inter Vivos—Subject of—Insurance Policy.</p> <p>A valid gift in presentí of an insurance policy may be made without writing. I</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Gifts, Cent. Dig. § 51; Dec. Dig. § 28.*]</p> <p>2. Gifts (§ 28*)—Gifts Inter Vivos—Insurance Policy.</p> <p>Where insured, delivered his policy to claimant under circumstances indicating an intent to make a valid gift of the insurance to her, she could not be deprived of the benefit thereof because decedent had made another ineffectual effort to vest the policy in her.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Gifts, Gent. Dig. § 51; Dec. Dig. § 28.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County.</p> <p>Action by John Schepps against the Japanese Fan Company. From an order directing plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars, he appeals. Reversed.</p>

<p>Action by the Albany Hospital against the Albany Guardian Society and Home for the Friendless and others. Judgment for plaintiff.</p>

<p>Exceptions from Trial Term, New York County. ¡</p> <p>Action by Donato Cassano against George L. Brown. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff moves for a new trial on exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the Appellate Division. Exceptions sustained, and new trial granted. j</p>

<p>Action by Alfred J. Austin against the City of Dunkirk.</p>

<p>Action by George Backer against Bernard Ratkowsky.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term. Action by Frank Anderson against John T. Brady and Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.</p>

<p>Action by the Barwin Realty Company against the Union Stove Works.</p>

<p>Action by Ralph S. Baldwin, an infant, etc., against the Locomobile Company of America.</p>

<p>In the matter of the application of the Board of Rapid Transit R.ailroad Commissioners for the City of New York for the appointment of three commissioners to determine and report whether a rapid transit railway or railways, etc., ought to be constructed and operated; Brooklyn and Manhattan loop lines, Brooklyn sections.</p>

<p>Action by Sarah Brooks against the City of Rochester.</p>

<p>Action by the Cameron-Hawn Realty Company against the City of Albany.</p>

<p>Action by Samuel L. Chinman and another against Louis Liebross.</p>

<p>In the matter of the application of the City of New York to acquire certain real estate at Valley Stream, etc., for purposes of water supply.</p>

<p>Action by the Commercial Trust Company of New York against Walter A. Peck and others.</p>

<p>Action by George C. De Lacy against William F. Kelly, Jr., and others.</p>

<p>Action by Gertrude H. Doughty against El wood W. Baker.</p>

<p>Action by the Easton Furniture Manufacturing Company against Bertha Caminez.</p>

<p>Action by the Equitable Trust Company of New York against Charles A. Newman.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term. Action by Joseph' Esterson and another against William Whitman and others. From an order denying a motion for bill of particular of defendants’ counterclaim, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and motion granted. I. Gainsburg, for appellants. Hyman & Campbell (Allan R. Campbell,. of counsel), for respondents.</p>

<p>Action by Sarah Gallagher against George S. Billings, individually, etc., and others.</p>

<p>Action by the Geddes Coarse Salt Company against the Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Company.</p>

<p>Action by Adele Combiner against Alfred A. Gumbiner.</p>

<p>Action by Edward Heilig against William J. Burns.</p>

<p>Action by Catherine Hayes against Edmond J. Hayes.</p>

<p>Action by Clara B. Holmes against Alfred Hem-street.</p>

<p>Action by Henry D. Hotchkiss, as trustee, against Bart-hold Levi.</p>

<p>Action by Charles P. Hofmann ahd John M. Hofmann, as executors, etc., of Barbara Nestel, deceased, against Michael Nestel and others.</p>

<p>Action by John P. Hurley, as trustee in bankruptcy, etc., against the Allman Gas Engine & Machine Company.</p>

<p>Action by Newman Leavy against Abraham Seide.</p>

<p>Action by Conrad Milliken, as trustee, etc., against Enrico Caruso.</p>

<p>Action by John F. Monnot and others, by Louise E. Monnot, their guardian, against Joseph Husson,</p>

<p>Action by Josiah T. Miller against Thomas J. Clary and others.</p>

<p>Action by Siegmund Nathan against William H. Woolverton) as president of the New York Transfer Company.</p>

<p>Action by Harvey Murdock against Thomas L. Deeming and the Brooklyn Trust Company, as executors, etc., impleaded with others.</p>

<p>Action by Ellen Nelson against the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank and James S. Duffy, as executor, etc.</p>

<p>In the matter of John J. Nestell, as executor and trustee, etc.</p>

<p>Action 'by Charles P. Not-man and another against the J. M. Guffey Petroleum Company.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Fred L. Merritt, against John E. Kraft i and others, Commissioners, constituting the Civil Service Commission of the State of New York.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of the New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company, against Egburt B. Woodbury and others, together constituting the State Board of Tax Commissioners of the State of New York.</p>

<p>Action by Frank V. Pollock against the Shubert Theatrical Company.</p>

<p>Action by Will W. Pierson, Jr., against the United London & Scottish Insurance 'Company.</p>

<p>Supplementary proceedings by Jacob Rosenthal against Joseph Albert.</p>

<p>Action by Herbert Rex, an infant, etc., against the Coney Island & Brooklyn Railroad Company, impleaded with others.</p>

<p>Action by Eugene A. Rudiger and another against James S. Coleman and others.</p>

<p>Action by Patrick Ryan against Cornelius J. Sullivan.</p>

<p>Action by Louis A. Seitz and Frederick Marshall, as executors, •etc., against Philip Faversham and others.</p>

<p>Action by Sidney E. Smith against Richard T. Post.</p>

<p>In the matter of the application of J. Edward Simmons and others, constituting the Board of Water Supply, etc., to acquire real estate, etc., Hill View Reservoir, section No. 1, parcel No. 5.</p>

<p>Action by John J. Smith against the Brown Bros. Company.</p>

<p>Action by George A. Stearns against George F. Titus, impleaded with others.</p>

<p>Action by Julius Steinwender and others against the Philadelphia Casualty Company.</p>

<p>Action by Louis M. Starr and others, as executors, against Harriet E. Selleck and others.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District. Action by Isaac Stein against Bernard Hirschhorn. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.</p>

In the matter of the estate of James Surpless, deceased. In the matter of the application of Catharine L. Surpless, etc., of Eleanor L. Surpless, an infant, etc.

<p>Action by the Town of Pelham against John M. Shinn.</p>

<p>In the matter of Ferruccio A. Vivanti, deceased.</p>

<p>In thd matter of Jennie Perkins Williams, an alleged incompetent person.</p>

<p>Action by James Wilson agains : the Central Insurance Company, Limited.</p>