Volume 144 — New York Supplement

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.</p> <p>Action by Angus S. MacDonald against Emanuel Doctor. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded. ■</p>

Manhattan, First District. Action by Louis Jonap against Joseph H. Siebert and another. From a judgment for defendants, after trial without a jury, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.

<p>Contracts (§ 295*)—Substantial Performance—Defenses.</p> <p>Plaintiff contracted to excavate a cellar 162 feet long, 102 feet wide, and 8 feet deep. Plaintiff only excavated 161 feet in length and 99 feet 8 inches in width, and when requested to complete the excavation failed to do so, imposing on defendants the necessity of performing a large amount of work to complete the same. Held, that plaintiff’s work did not constitute a substantial compliance With the contract, and that he was not entitled to recover a balance due thereon.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1353-1356, 1362; Dec. Dig. § 295.*]</p>

<p>Municipal Corporations (§ 220*)—Salary of Employe—Increase—Waiver.</p> <p>Where the employs of a city accepted his wages for a period of three years, such acceptance was a waiver'of any right he had under the statute to recover the per diem increase for that period.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 599-608; Dec. Dig. § 220.*]</p>

<p>Contracts (§ 335*)—Performance—Architect’s Certificate.</p> <p>Where, in a suit on a building contract requiring production of an architect’s certificate, the complaint failed to allege any excuse for non-production thereof or waiver, plaintiff was not entitled to recover, though he succeeded in proving thát the architect seldom came to the building, and that previous payments had been made without production of the certificate.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1664-1676; Dec. Dig. § 335.*]</p>

<p>1. Appeal and Errob (§ 930*)—Review—Presumptions.</p> <p>Where the jury found for plaintiffs, all disputed questions of fact must be deemed to have been determined in their favor.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3755-3761; Dec. Dig. § 930.*]</p> <p>2. Contracts (§ 232*)—Actions—Damages.</p> <p>Where contractors agreed in writing to do certain extra work for $390, they could not recover more than that sum, less a payment admitted to have been made.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1071-1094; Dec. Dig. § 232.*]</p> <p>3. Set-Off and Counterclaim (§ 29*)—Action on Contract—Expenditures by Defendant.</p> <p>In an action on a contract to do certain work, where it appeared that defendant was put to an expense in raising a machine, which had been placed on a defective foundation, made by the contractors, such expense should have been allowed her.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Set-Off and Counterclaim, Cent. Dig. §§ 49-51; Dec. Dig. § 29.*]</p>

<p>1. " Records (§ 9*)—Scope of Remedy.</p> <p>Where plaintiff, in an action to register her title to land, did not make defendant a party to the proceeding although he claimed an easement in the land and successfully opposed his motion for leave to intervene and, pending an appeal therefrom, caused the entry of judgment for registration which did not mention defendant’s easement, and after reversal of the denial of leave to intervene defendant filed a memorandum with the registrar showing his right to intervene in the action, plaintiff’s remedy is not a suit to quiet title and to strike the memorandum from the records but to serve the complaint in the registration action upon defendant and give him his day in court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Records, Dec. Dig. § 9.*]</p> <p>2. Records (§ 9*)—Registration of Title—Correction of Record—Actions —Question for Determination.</p> <p>In a suit to register title to land, plaintiff did not make defendant a party, although he claimed an easement and contested his motion to intervene, procuring a judgment registering the land pending his appeal from an order denying his motion. Thereafter defendant filed a memorandum with the registrar reciting the reversal of the order denying his petition to intervene. Seld, that, in a suit by plaintiff to quiet her title by striking the memorial from the record, the question to be determined was not. the validity of defendant’s easement but whether he had the right to intervene and have his day in court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Records, Dep. Dig. § 9.*]</p> <p>3. Records (§ 9*)—Registration of Title—Effect—Persons Bound.</p> <p>In a proceeding to register title to land, a judgment is not binding upon one who claimed an easement therein, where he was not made a party to the action and was denied his day in court by reason of plaintiff’s objection to his intervening.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Records, Dec. Dig. § 9.*]</p> <p>1. Recobds (g 9*)—Registration of Title to Land—Proceedings.-</p> <p>In a proceeding to register title to land where defendant who claimed an easement was not made a party thereto, and the trial court overruled his petition to intervene, the plaintiff, upon the reversal of that order upon appeal, should serve him with a complaint and process, even though defendant had already procured a copy of the complaint.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, spe Records, Dec. Dig. § 9.-;:]</p> <p>5. Quieting Title (§ 7*)—Cloud on Title—Unauthorized Record of Paper.</p> <p>Papers which the registrar of deeds is without authority to file in his office cannot constitute a cloud on the title of registered.land and will not authorize an action for the cancellation thereof.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Quieting Title, Cent. Dig. §§ 14-33; Dec. Dig. § 7.*]</p> <p>6. Records (§ 9*)—Registration of Title.</p> <p>Real Property Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 50) § 400, provides that the title to registered land shall be free from all incumbrances except those noted on the certificate. Section 417 provides for the filing of transcripts or certified copies of judgments, executions, attachments, and other liens with the registrar. Section 409 provides for the entering of a memorial of every paper filed with the registrar affecting title to such land, and section 402 declares that, in the absence of fraud, a transferee from a registered owner shall not be affected with notice, actual or constructive, of any unregistered claim whatsoever, while section 418 provides for the filing of assignments of mortgages, leases, and other liens with the registrar ; section 420 providing for the filing and notation on the certificate of title of notice of the pendency of an action. Held, that the filing by one who was not made a party to the proceeding to register title to land or allowed to intervene therein of a copy of an order denying his motion to intervene is authorized to protect his interest and hence will not warrant a suit to quiet title.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Records, Dec. Dig. § 9.*] ■</p> <p>7. Records (§ 9*)—Registration of Land.</p> <p>Real Property Law (Oonsol. Laws 1909, c. 50) §§ 406, 416, 422, respectively providing for the transfer of registered property, for the filing of a memorial reciting a list of mortgages or other liens upon the land, and for an application to the court for direction to the registrar with respect to the memorial to be entered on certificates of title, do not prohibit the filing with the registrar of a copy of an order reversing an order denying defendant’s right to intervene in a proceeding to register the title to land in which he claimed an interest, such sections referring to the nature of the memorial and not the right to file same; this being particularly true in view of section 433, requiring the act to be given a liberal construction.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Records, Dec. Dig. § 9.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth Dis-' trict.</p> <p>Action by Jennie Connors against Solomon Gross, conducting business as Sol Gross & Co. From a judgment for plaintiff, after a trial by the court without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.</p>

<p>1. Trover and Conversion (§ 40*)—Actions—Evidence.</p> <p>Proof by plaintiff that he owned an automobile, and that it was in defendant’s possession in his garage, and that plaintiff duly demanded its return, which defendant refused, established a prima facie case for plaintiff, in an action for the conversion of the automobile, requiring defendant to make a defense.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trover and Conversion, Cent. Dig. §§ 232-244; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]</p> <p>2. Trial (§ 143*)—Nonsuit—Grounds.</p> <p>Where plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case, the fact that some of the evidence on his behalf was contradictory was insufficient to relieve defendant from entering on his defense, since on motion for a nonsuit all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of plaintiff.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 342, 343; Dec. Dig. § 143.*]</p>

<p>1. Corporations (§ 340*)—Liability of Officers.</p> <p>Defendants, wlio were officers of a corporation, are not individually liable on a lease negotiated between plaintiff and the corporation, notwithstanding defects in the execution of the lease by the corporation, where plaintiff accepted their principal, who was disclosed as the contracting party, and received the rent from the corporation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1473, 1474, 1476-1478; Dec. Dig. § 340.*]</p> <p>2. Corporations (§ 409*)—Leases—Construction—Parties.</p> <p>Where the granting clause of a renewal lease was to defendants, trading under the name of the Universal Pad Company, Incorporated, and the lease was signed by defendants as president and treasurer of the corporation, and sealed with the corporate seal, there was no lease to defendants.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1620-1622; Dec. Dig. § 409.*]</p>

Petition by Daniel J. Sweeney, Chairman of the Socialist Committee of Schenectady County, to review the action and neglect of Commissioners of Election in and for Montgomery County, who acted in making returns from the inspectors’ returns and tally sheets at a primary election held September 16, 1913, in Montgomery county, and to correct returns made by the commissioners as provided by Election Law (Laws 1911, c. 891) § 56. Petition granted in part.

<p>Appeal from Special Term, Albany County.</p> <p>Action by the Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Company against John N. Carlisle, as Commissioner of the New York State Highway Commission. Prom an order denying plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed.</p>

<p>1. Mandamus (§ 181*) — Peremptory Writ — Proceedings — Objections to Remedy.</p> <p>Wkere an alternative writ of mandamus was issued to compel relator’s reinstatement in a position from which he had been removed, and the facts set up by the writ had been found on a trial of the issues joined, the legal sufficiency of the ease so alleged must be taken as established for the purposes of an application for the peremptory writ, and respondent could not urge that, because of the appointment of another person to the position, relator’s remedy was by quo warranta.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mandamus, Cent. Dig. §§ 401-404, 406, 408, 409, 418; Dec. Dig. § 181.*1</p> <p>2. Mandamus (§ 16*)—Defenses—Wrongful Removal from Office—Abolition of Office.</p> <p>It was no defense to mandamus to compel relator’s reinstatement in a position from which he had been wrongfully removed that the position had been abolished subsequent to the removal; a final order for reinstatement being a condition precedent to recovery of his accrued salary.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Mandamus, Cent. Dig. §§ 48, 59, 60; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]</p> <p>3. Municipal Corporations (§ 142*)—Employes—“Office.”</p> <p>Greater New York Charter (Laws 1901, c. 466) § 1549, provides that any person holding office, whether by election or appointment, who during Ms term of office shall accept, hold, or retain any other civil office of trust or emolument under the government of the state, or who shall hold or accept any other office connected with the government of the city of New York, shall be deemed thereby to have vacated any office held by him under the city government. Held, that the word “office” as so used was limited by the words “term of office” so as to refer only to an office of a public character having a definite term, not including that of the superintendent of the bureau of highways who was an employs, rather than an officer, and hence the fact that, after relator was wrongfully removed from such position, he accepted an appointment as commissioner of estimate and appraisal in a street opemng proceeding, was not a waiver of his right to his former position.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § . 814; Dec. Dig. § 142.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 4921-4931; vol. 8, p. 7736.]</p>

<p>1. Constitutional Law (§ 278*)—Pensions (§ 1*)—Right to Grant.</p> <p>The authority to grant pensions to public employés who have become incapacitated after long service is a power incidental to government, and hence the use of a public revenue to pay pensions is not a taking of the property of the taxpayers without due process of law; the matter being one for legislative control.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 763, 765, 767-770, 772-777, 779-806, 808-810, 816-824, 907-924, 942; Dec. Dig. § 278;* Pensions, Cent. Dig. § 1; Dec. Dig. § 1.*]</p> <p>2. Municipal Corporations (§ 215*)—City Employés—“Public Officer.”</p> <p>City employés who were granted pensions are not “public officers” within the purview of Const, art. 3, § 18, prohibiting the increasing of allowances of public officers by local statute; and hence a local statute providing for the pensioning of city employés does not fall within the inhibitions of the Constitution.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 575; Dec. Dig. § 215.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, p. 5805.]</p> <p>3. Municipal Corporations (§ 215*) — City Employés — “Extra Compensation.”</p> <p>Laws 1911, c. 669, amending Greater New York Charter (Laws 1901, c. 466) §§ 165, 166, and 167, authorizing the board of estimate to recommend the retirement from active service of any employs for a period of 30 years and upwards of the city of New York who shall have become incapacitated, and providing for his retirement and for the granting of a pension, is not in violation of Const, art. 3, § 28, prohibiting the award of extra compensation to a public officer, servant, agent, or contractor, or article 8, § 10, declaring that no county or municipality shall give the public money to any person.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Oorporations, Cent. Dig. § 575; Dec. Dig. § 215.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, p. 2624.]</p> <p>1. Municipal Corporations (§ 861*) — Use op Funds — Public Purpose — Pensions.</p> <p>The granting o£ pensions is a public or city purpose because of the benefit to the public service, through the incentive offered to faithful devotion to duty, and through retirement rather than the retention in service at full pay of servants who have outlived their usefulness.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1819-1823; Dec. Dig. § 861.*]</p> <p>5. Constitutional Law (§ 70*)—Power op Judiciary.</p> <p>That the provisions of a statute within the power of the Legislature to enact may be improvidently administered affords no ground for judicial interference.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 129-132, 137; Dec. Dig. § 70.*]</p>

<p>1. Assignments fob Benefit of Cbeditobs (§ 235*)—Contract of Assignee— Consideration.</p> <p>The use and occupancy by the assignee for the benefit of creditors of premises leased the assignor is sufficient consideration for the assignee’s personal promise to the landlord to pay the rent so long as he remained in possession.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, Cent. Dig. §§ 762-764; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]</p> <p>2. Assignments fob Benefit of Cbeditobs (§ 235*)—Contracts—Personal Liability.</p> <p>The assignee for the benefit of creditors having continued to occupy premises leased to the lessor, and more than a month after qualifying having, on demand by the lessor for rent, promised that as long as he remained in the premises he would pay the rent at one time, this amounted to an original undertaking, making him personally liable for the rent for the period of his occupancy.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, Cent. Dig. §§ 762-764; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]</p> <p>.3. Assignments fob Benefit of Cbeditobs (§ 235*)—Expenses of Administration.</p> <p>The claim for rent during the time that the assignee for benefit of creditors continues to occupy premises leased to the assignor is to be paid in full as a necessary expense.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, Cent. Dig. §§ 762-764; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]</p>

<p>1. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 343*)—Breach of Contract—Right of Action.</p> <p>The purchaser under a land contract, which provided that the title to be conveyed should be “free and clear of all liens,” could maintain an action for damages for breach of the contract by the existence of an outstanding lease by vendor, binding him to sell to the lessee on demand free from all incumbrances, and of a recorded agreement by a prior owner with adjacent owners that only a one-story building should be erected on a part of the property.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 1023-1029; Dec. Dig. § 343.*]</p> <p>2. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 134*)—“Liens”—Definition—Breach of Contract.</p> <p>A previously executed lease by the vendor, entitling his lessee to purchase the premises on demand free from all incumbrances, and a recorded agreement made by a prior owner of the property with adjacent owners that only a building one story high should ever be erected on a part of the lot, constituted a “lien” within the meaning of a land contract executed by such vendor, which provided that the title conveyed should be “free and clear of all liens”; the parties having showed by their acts that they recognized the lease and building restriction as incumbrances, and a “lien" being defined as “a technical term that means a charge upon lands, running with them, incumbering them, in any change of ownership, as mortgages, judgments, ground rents,” etc. (quoting and adopting Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4145, 4146. See, also, volume 8, p. 7707).</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §| 238, 250-254, 258; Dec. Dig. § 134.*]</p> <p>3. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 350*)—Breach of Contract—Action for Damages—Sufficiency of Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence, in an action by the purchaser of land under a contract which provided that the title should be clear of all liens, held to show that the parties to the contract recognized a lease, with an option to purchase, and a building restriction contract executed by a former owner as incumbrances upon the property.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §*s 1043-1046; Dec. Dig. § 350.*]</p> <p>4. Pleading (§ 237*)—Amendments—Conformity to Proof.</p> <p>An action in equity should not fail because of defects in the allegations of the complaint, so that the proof does not conform thereto, but an amendment will be allowed under Code Civ. Proc. § 723, if necessary to-conform the pleading to the proof.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 603-619;. Dec. Dig. § 237.*]</p> <p>5. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 351*)—Nominal Damages—Breach of Contract</p> <p>—Sale of Real Property. .</p> <p>The purchaser of land under a contract to convey title free from all liens is entitled to recover more than nominal damages for its breach by the existence of an outstanding lease by the vendor which bound him to convey the premises on demand free from incumbrances to the lessee at any time during the term of the lease.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§. 1017, 1047-1058; Dec. Dig. § 351.*]</p> <p>6. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 350*)—Breach of Contract—Actions—Sufficiency of Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for breach of a contract to convey land free from all liens, in which it appeared that, after the contract was executed, the purchaser discovered that there was a recorded contract, executed by a previous owner with adjacent owners, limiting buildings erected to one story, evidence held to show that it was the intention of both vendor and purchaser that the purchaser should be relieved from such restriction on the lot before the vendor’s performance of the contract was considered complete.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§■ 1043-1046; Dec. Dig. § 350.*]</p> <p>7. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 345*)—Breach of Contract—Waiver.</p> <p>The purchaser under a contract to convey land clear of all liens did not waive his right to damages for breach of the contract, by the existence of an outstanding recorded agreement by a former owner with adjoining owners that only a one-story building should be erected on part of the lot, by accepting a deed from the vendor under an understanding that the restriction should be removed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§: 1036-1038; Dec. Dig. § 345.*]</p>

<p>Action by Bessie Warschauser against the Brooklyn Furniture Company and George W. Morgan, impleaded with William G. Cooper. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.</p>

<p>Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Madison County.</p> <p>In the matter of the estate of Elizabeth S. Eaton, deceased. Petition by Genevieve S. Jacobs and another for payment óf a legacy under the will.</p> <p>From a decree granting the petition, Susan C. Higgins appeals. Affirmed.</p>

<p>Action by Joseph B. Rebstock against Blvira C. Rebstock. On demurrer to the complaint. Demurrer sustained.</p>

In the matter of the Judicial Settlement of the estate of Polly L. Martin, deceased. Appeal by the Orange County Trust Company, as executor and trustee, from so much of the final decree of the surrogate as directed payment to Williams & Conlon, claimants.

<p>Witnesses (§ 324*)—Impeachment—Impeaching Own Witness.</p> <p>It was error to permit plaintiff, who had called defendant as a witness for plaintiff, to show, for purposes of impeachment, that defendant had been three times convicted of grand larceny.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1097; Dec. Dig. § 324.*]</p>

<p>Wills (§ 636*)—Construction—Vested ob Contingent Estates—Remainders.</p> <p>Where testator devised his property to his widow during her life, and, after her death, to his son, if living, and, if not, then to the son’s widow and children, share and share alike, the son took a vested remainder, subject to be divested by his death before the termination of the life estate, and the son’s wife and children took a contingent remainder, which, on the son’s death before the termination of the life estate, became vested, and, as such, the widow’s interest was not divested by her remarriage before the termination of the life estate, since the will did not specifically require that she remain a widow, and an estate once vested will not be divested except by words clearly expressing such intention.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 1514-1518; Dec. Dig. § 636.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by Nathan Straus and others, doing business as L. Straus & Sons, against the Schisgall & Kienzle Company. From an order granting a motion to vacate and set aside the service of1 summons and a default judgment, plaintiffs appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.</p> <p>Action by Benjamin G. Hull against the Eighty-Sixth Street Amusement Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.</p> <p>Action by the Onward Construction Company against Frances M. Harris. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.</p> <p>Action by George W. Sweeney against Eugene Van Schaick. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Landlord and Tenan-t (§ 124*)—Appurtenances.</p> <p>Where by the terms of a lease of an apartment the use of a toilet room by defendant was appurtenant to the premises occupied, she was not subject to summary proceedings to evict her.therefrom as a squatter, under Code Civ. Proc. § 2232, providing that in certain specified cases a person who holds over after notice to quit may be removed by summary proceedings.</p> <p>. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 437-440; Dec. Dig. § 124.*]</p>

<p>1. Master and Servant (§ 30*)—Discharge—Justification—Unexplained Absence.</p> <p>An employer was justified in discharging an employé hired at will for his unexplained absence from work.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ SO-SO ; Dec. Dig. § 30.*]</p> <p>2. Master and Servant (§ 20*)—Hiring at Will.</p> <p>There was a mere hiring at will, where the employe’s salary was calculated on a semimonthly basis, so that he could leave or be discharged at any time.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Blaster and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 19; Dec. Dig. § 20.*]</p>

<p>1. Accord and Satisfaction (§ 11*)—Compromise and Settlement (§ 6*)—</p> <p>Part Payment—Conditioned on Acceptance as Payment in Full.</p> <p>The acceptance of a check for the part of a claim admittedly due and owing, even when containing the words “This pays in full,” cannot amount to an accord and satisfaction of the balance of the claim which is in dispute, since the payment of the conceded indebtedness could form no consideration for the satisfaction of the disputed balance.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Accord and Satisfaction, Cent. Dig. §§ 75-82; Dec. Dig. § 11 ;* Compromise and Settlement, Cent. Dig. §§ 35-50; Dec. Dig. § 6.*]</p> <p>2. Accord and Satisfaction (§ 1*)—Grounds.</p> <p>The doctrine of accord and satisfaction is based upon the theory that there exists a valid dispute between parties over some demand, and that by way of compromise a less amount is accepted in satisfaction and adjustment of the dispute.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Accord and Satisfaction, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-13; Dee. Dig. § 1.*]</p>

<p>1. Contracts (§ 205*)—Plumbing and Heating—“Workmanlike Manner.”</p> <p>Where plaintiffs contracted to provide the plumbing and heating for defendants’ house in accordance with a proposition submitted, the work to be done in a workmanlike manner, the agreement to do the work in a “workmanlike manner” covered not only the installation and construction of the plant, but the method or system used to accomplish the desired result</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 878, 905; Dec. Dig. § 205.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 8, pp. 7523, 7524.]</p> <p>2. Contracts (§ 205*)—Heating System—Efficiency—Implied Warranty. _</p> <p>_ Where a contract provided for the installation of a heating system in defendants’ house, the contract implied a warranty that the system installed would be proper and suitable for the purposes for which it was designed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other bases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 878, 905; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]</p> <p>3. Sales (§ 262%*)—Implied Warranty—Written Contract.</p> <p>An implied warranty may attach to a written as well as an oral contract of sale.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 740-748; Dec. Dig. § 262%.*]</p> <p>4. Sales (§ 272*)—Implied Warranty—Articles to be Manufactured.</p> <p>A manufacturer of articles to be manufactured impliedly warrants that the articles sold are free from latent or hidden defects that render them unmerchantable at the time and place of delivery.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 747; Dec. Dig. § 272.*]</p> <p>5. Contracts (§ 205*)—Building Improvement—Heating System.</p> <p>Where a contract to furnish and install a heating system in a house was not based on specifications furnished to the contractor, but the manner and method of heating the house was left to him, he warranted the result he undertook to accomplish.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent Dig. §§ 878, 905; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]</p> <p>6. Contracts (§ 205*)—Building Improvement—Heating System—Installation.</p> <p>Where a contract to install a heating system in a house consisted of the owners’ acceptance of a proposal which provided for the installation of 325 feet of “three col. 38” radiators,” the contractor did not warrant that such amount of radiation would be sufficient to satisfactorily heat the house, and was not therefore required to furnish, without expense to the owner, 100 additional feet subsequently found necessary to supply the requisite amount of heat.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 878, 905; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]</p>

<p>1. Evidence (§ 393*);—Paroi Evidence—Written Contract.</p> <p>In an action against an assignee of a lease to recover rent after he removed from the premises, all the transactions between the parties having been expressed in written agreement, it was error to receive paroi evidence contrary to the terms of the writings.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent.. Dig. §§ 1736-1744; Dec. Dig. § 393.*]</p> <p>2. Landlord and Tenant (§ 208*)—Lease—Assignment—Liability of Assignee.</p> <p>Plaintiffs having occupied certain premises under a lease for a term commencing September 1, 1909, and ending May 1, 1913, assigned the same to defendant, who paid rent to November 1, 1912, when he vacated the premises, and plaintiffs sued to recover rent for November and Decem- . ber, 1912, and January, 1913. Held, that defendant, not having covenanted to pay rent, was not liable for the rent accruing after his removal from the demised premises.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For- other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent Dig. §§ 737, 821-831; Dec. Dig. § 208.*]</p>

Mandamus by the People, on the relation of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, against Michael J. Walsh, Deputy State Comptroller, and others (Pox Ridge Case). Prom an order in favor of relator, defendants appeal. Pinal order reversed with costs, and motion for peremptory writ of mandamus denied.

Action by Herman Leczycki against Szoel Kuczynski, also known as or called Saul or Salomon Kurtz. From an order denying his motion to tax $75 additional costs, plaintiff appeals.

<p>1. Wills (§ 344*)—Foreign Will—Translation.</p> <p>Where a French will is offered for prohate, it must be translated into English before the decree of probate is entered and the will enrolled.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 800, 801; Dec. Dig. § 344.*]</p> <p>2. Wills (§ 243*)—Probate—Fobeign Wills.</p> <p>Where testator, a resident of France, left a will in English executed July 15, 1908, purporting to dispose of personal property only, and on February 1, 1911, he made another testamentary instrument in France in the French language, also disposing of personal property, the two instruments, being conceded to be interdependent, were both entitled to probate in New York.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 573-576; Dec. Dig. § 243.*]</p> <p>3. Wills (§ 309*)—Foreign Wills—Translation—Question op Fact.</p> <p>In a proceeding to translate a foreign will, an issue as to the true translation of foreign words is a question of fact to be determined in the Surrogate’s Court in the probate proceeding.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 735-737; Dec. Dig. § 309.*]</p> <p>4. Executors and Administrators (§ 20*)—Probate—Application por Let-</p> <p>ters Testamentary—Independent Proceedings.</p> <p>A proceeding for letters testamentary is distinct from a proceeding to probate a testamentary script as a last will; the probate proceeding being confined to a determination of the single question whether the testamentary script is entitled to probate, which must be determined before an application for letters may be properly made.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 83-105; Dec. Dig. § 20.*]</p>

<p>In the matter of the estate of Bridget Walsh. Estate ordered sold.</p>

<p>1. Wills (§ 118*)—Signature of Testator—"Acknowledgment.”</p> <p>Though testator does not sign the will before an attesting witness, if it is produced by testator with his signature visible thereon, with a request to witness it, his then acknowledgment to the witness that the instrument is his will is an “acknowledgment” of his signature.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 302-304; Dec. Dig. § 118.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 107-110; vol. 8, p. 7562.]</p> <p>2. Wills (§ 302*)—Probate—Proof of Testator’s Signature.</p> <p>Evidence by an attesting witness that his best recollection is that two signatures were on the will when he signed it was sufficient to show that ' he saw testator’s signature thereon when he attested it.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent Dig. §§ 575, 581, 700-710; Dec. Dig. § 302.*]</p>

. Action by Antonio Di Blasi against Charles Maisel and another, doing business under the firm name of Charles Maisel & Co. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.

<p>Evidence (§ 408*)—Paroi Evidence—Varying Receipt.</p> <p>A receipt for notes given to satisfy a warehouseman’s lien, which provided that the notes were accepted “subject to satisfactory investigation as to signature of indorser, this before the final surrender of the goods,” could be explained by paroi evidence as to the agreement made by the parties when the receipt was delivered; the receipt not being conclusive thereon.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent Dig. §§ 1829-1842; Dec. Dig. § 408.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by Lulu H. Sierra against William I. Cohn and another, trading as W. I. & J. Cohn. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff for less than the relief demanded both parties appeal.</p>

<p>Evidence (§ 353*)—Documentary Evidence—Relevancy.</p> <p>In an action for breach of an alleged oral agreement to hire hoisting machines, plaintiff offered a printed form of contract, which was undated and unsigned, but which plaintiff’s witness testified was a copy of two contracts which he handed to defendant’s managing officer when the agreement was made, and which he claimed such officer agreed to sign and return the following day. This was denied, though the officer admitted that the papers were handed to him, and that he said he would look them over later before signing the contract. The proposed contracts did not mention any number of machines to be installed, nor was there anything in them to indicate that the machines were rented for a period of four weeks, other than that four weeks was stated therein to be the minimum time of rental. Held, that the papers were inadmissible.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1404-1428, 1430, 1431; Dec. Dig. § 353.*]</p>

<p>Action by the Glens Falls Portland Cement Company against the Schenectady County Coal Company and others to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.</p> <p>Action by Benjamin S. Moss and-others against Jacob Bernstein. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.</p>

Action by the Prever Goldring Lumber Company against Bella Ravitch, doing business under the assumed name of A. Cohen. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff upon an inquest, and from an order denying a motion to open the default, defendant, appeals.

<p>In the matter of the estate of Frank Crawford. On motion for an order for the allowance of undertaker’s expenses. Motion granted as stated</p>

<p>1. Frauds, Statute of (§ 138*) — Liability for Rent — Occupancy Under Void Lease.</p> <p>One who enters Into possession of premises under a void paroi lease is liable for the stipulated rent, at least during the time Of his occupancy.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Frauds, Statute of, Cent. Dig. §§ 327-333; Dee. Dig. § 138.*]</p> <p>2. Landlord and Tenant (§ 185*)—Liability for Rent—Occupancy Under Void Lease.</p> <p>A lessee under a paroi lease for three years, to commence February 15th, did not, by requesting a change in certain alterations, which the lessor was making in the premises prior to that date, and when the premises concededly were not ready for occupancy, obtain such constructive possession of the premises as made him liable for one month’s rent.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 751-754; Dec. Dig. § 185.*]</p> <p>3. Landlord and Tenant (§ 18*)—Lease—Evidence.</p> <p>Where a check given by a lessee under a void paroi lease for three years was given as a deposit thereunder, and not as an aliquot payment of rent, the making of a valid lease for a shorter period could not be implied from the giving thereof, if any payment would be material in the absence of occupancy under the lease.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 45-48; Dec. Dig. § 18.*]</p>

Action by Abraham B. Rubin against the Bossak Specialty Eurs, a domestic corporation now known under the firm name of Bossak & Co., Incorporated. From a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Action by C. Ludwig Baumann and another against Edmond A. Rowan. From a judgment for plaintiffs entered upon a trial by the court without a jury, defendant appeals.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by Lettie E. Davison against the Guardian Storage & Transfer Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying its motion for new trial, deféndant appeals.</p>

Action by Bernard Breslin against Philip N. Goldstone. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $633.18, and from an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, he appeals.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.</p> <p>Action by Rose Weber against the Williams & Morford Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by James Taylor against Solomon Fried and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.</p>

Action by the United States Rubber Reclaiming Company against the Manchester Rubber Company. From a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff, defendant 'appeals.

Action by John MacCambridge against Louis Roth and Adolph Roth, trading as the Roth Orthopedic Institute. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

. Action by Sam W. Steel against Max Holtzer. From a final order in summary proceedings awarding possession of the premises to the landlord on account of defendant’s failure to pay rent, the tenánt appeals.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.</p> <p>Action by Andrew Kaht against Sallie Frazin. From a' judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.</p> <p>Action by Helene Bommersheim against Justus M. Forman. From a. judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

Action by Samuel Schoor against Philip Custen and another. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment, defendants appeal.

<p>1. Trover and Conversion (§ 11*)—What Constitutes.</p> <p>Where plaintiff delivered furniture to a dealer not to be put in his place of business, but to be placed in a storage warehouse, and the dealer wrongfully placed the furniture in his place of business and sold it to defendant,- defendant though an innocent purchaser, was guilty of a conversion of the property in reselling it after notice of plaintiff’s rights.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trover and Conversion, Cent. Dig. §'§ 95-98; Dec. Dig. § 11.*]</p> <p>2. Trover and Conversion (§ 42")—Actions—Rights of Defendant.</p> <p>Where plaintiff delivered furniture to a dealer, who had some claim thereto for unpaid installments, giving it to him to be stored, and the dealer wrongfully sold the property to defendant, the dealer’s rights passed to defendant, and, in an action for conversion, defendant is liable only for the value of the furniture above the amount owing the dealer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trover and Conversion, Cent. Dig. § 248; Dec. Dig. § 42.-*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Trial Term, New -York County.</p> <p>Action by Rachel Ginsberg against Harry Wolf and another, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of New York Embossing Company. From a judgment in favor of defendants and from an order denying motion for a new trial, they appeal.</p>

Application by the City of New York to acquire title to Avenue V between' Ocean Avenue and Ocean Parkway and between Stillwell Avenue and Eighty-Sixth Street in the Thirty-First Ward of the Borough of Brooklyn. On motion to confirm the report of Commissioners. Report confirmed in part, and referred back to the Commissioners in part.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by the Birns Express, Incorporated, against the Foster-Scott Ice Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant, appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.</p> <p>Action by Aaron Chansky against the William Construction Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.</p>

<p>Landlobd and Tenant (§ 184*)—Breach by Tenant—Foefeitube of Deposit.</p> <p>A lease provided that, if the tenant failed to comply with any of its terms and conditions, then the landlord may retain the sum of $500 deposited as liquidated damages for any such breach or default by the tenant, the parties agreeing that in the event of any such breach the damages by reason of re-entering or otherwise are unascertainable, and for that reason liquidated damages were fixed. Held, that where lessee’s only breach was in not paying rent, damages for which were ascertainable, he was entitled to have his deposit returned after deducting therefrom any rent due.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §•§ 743-750; Dec. Dig. § 184.*]</p>

Action by Robert J. Sling and Eugene Callahan, copartners doing business under the firm name of Sling & Callahan, against the Central Union Gas Conipay. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

. Action by the Louis Levien Cut Glass Company against Louis Hinsberger. From an order resettling an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside a verdict for plaintiff and for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.</p> <p>Action by Ellen Power against Rodgers & Hagerty, Incorporated. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

Proceeding for the probate of the will of Josephine Townley, deceased, and construction of the same, contested by Garfield Townley. Will admitted to probate and provision construed.

Action by Florence A. West against Harry Jarmulowsky. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appeals.

<p>Husband and Wife (§ 25*) — Agency fob Wife — Undisclosed Pbincipal — Liability.</p> <p>Where goods were sold to defendant’s husband in the belief that he was the real owner of the business in which they were used, the seller, on discovering that in purchasing them he was acting as the agent of defendant, could maintain an action against defendant for the price.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 148-151,153, 154, 525; Dec. Dig. § 25.*]</p>

<p>Landlord and Tenant (§ 195*)—Rent—Covenant for Liquidated Damages —Surrender and Acceptance.</p> <p>Under a lease covenanting that a deposit should become liquidated damages only in case of dispossession or surrender, the tenant, or abandonment of the premises without acceptance of his offer to surrender, was liable for rent accruing thereafter.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 790-793; Dec. Dig. § 195.*]</p>

<p>1. Witnesses (§ 254*)—Examination—Refreshing Memo'ry.</p> <p>Unless a witness has personal knowledge of items contained in an account book, the items cannot be read into the record for the purpose of refreshing his memory.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ S6S-873; Dec. Dig. § 254.*]</p> <p>2. Evidence (§ 376*)—Documentary Evidence—Book Entries.</p> <p>Book entries are not competent evidence unless an appropriate foundation be laid.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1628-1646; Dec. . Dig. § 376.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.</p> <p>Action by Thomas J. Noud against the Van Beuren & New York Billposting Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.</p> <p>Action by the Metropolitan Bindery, Incorporated, against Arthur N. Sohl. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Landlord and Tenant (§ 178*)—Eviction—Waiver.</p> <p>A tenant, who signs a new lease for the premises after the discovery of a condition of the premises, thereby waives a right to claim a constructive eviction by reason of the condition, in the absence of anything to show that he relied on the landlord’s promise to remedy the conditions.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. § 713; Dec. Dig. § 178.*]</p>

<p>1. Landlord and Tenant (§ 90*)—Termination of Tenancy—Continuance of Occupancy.</p> <p>Whether the mere leaving of property in the premises by a tenant upon removal is a continuance of his occupancy is usually a question of fact, in determining which the value of the goods as compared to the amount of the rent is material.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 284r-289; Dec. Dig. § 90.*]</p> <p>2. Stipulations (§ 18*)—Effect.</p> <p>A stipulation by defendant’s attorney, in an action for rent, in which the landlord claimed that the tenant’s occupancy was continued after removal by leaving certain “douche pans’’ on the premises, “If they find 100 douche pans in the place, I am willing to have judgment entered against my client,” if not set aside, would support a judgment for plaintiff, where over 135 pans were found.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Stipulations, Cent. Dig. §§ 41-54; Dec. Dig. § 18.*]</p> <p>Whitaker, J., dissenting.</p>

Action by John A. Seely against the Breakwater Company. From an order denying a motion for a bill of particulars of defendant’s plea of payment, plaintiff appeals.

<p>Pleading (§ 326*)—Bill of Particulars—Services Performed.</p> <p>In an action for the reasonable value of services, where plaintiff voluntarily furnished a bill of particulars, setting forth that he acted as manager of defendant’s office, solicited business, examined stone quarries, figured and submitted bids for work, watched the work while it was in progress, engaged employés, and superintended repairs to various tugs and barges, defendant was entitled to a bill, of particulars showing what business had been solicited, of and from whom, and the nature thereof, the names and locations of quarries examined, a substantially inclusive statement of what work he figured upon and submitted bids for, and what work he watched while it was in progress, the names of the employés engaged by him, the names of the various tugs and barges, repairs to which were superintended by him, and the place of superintendence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 990-992; Dec. Dig. § 326.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by the Riviera Realty Company against Paul Henry and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.</p>

Action by the Zinwell Company against George Adams and another. From a judgment for defendants upon a trial without a jury, plaintiff appeals.

<p>Action by Blanche Kronenthal against Louis Rosenthal and others. On motion to settle and confirm the accounts of a receiver. Motion granted.</p>

<p>Action by one Scanlon against William Henderson, Incorporated. Heard on plaintiff’s motion for bill of particulars. Denied, except in one particular.</p>

<p>Action by Peter Leo Havholm against the Whale Creek iron Works. Motion for new trial after verdict for defendant.</p>

<p>Action by Lucy A. Jefferson against Frederick E. Bangs and others. Judgment for defendants. '</p>

<p>Brokers (§ 40*)—Contract for Commission—Consideration.</p> <p>A property owner’s agreement to pay real estate* brokers, in charge o£ his property as general agents, extra compensation for leasing same is void when made without consideration.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. §§ 38-40; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of Oneonta.</p> <p>Action by the G. B. Shearer Company against B. J. Kakoulis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

Proceedings to determine the amount of the transfer tax on the estate of Mary Loretta Simpson, deceased. From an- order entered upon the report of an appraiser, the administrator appeals.

<p>Action by Alexander Aljnuick against the American Manufacturing Company.</p>

<p>Action by Louis Alpern and another against the Heffron Company.</p>

<p>Action by C. Dudley Allen against Abiel L. Smith. •</p>

<p>Action by Walter Beatty against the Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation.</p>

<p>Action by Vincenzo Bellanca against Guiseppina Catalano Cianciolo.</p>

<p>Action by Annie Brudie, as administratrix, against the Renault Freres Selling Branch.</p>

<p>Action by Alberto H. Gaffee against the A. R. Sax Lumber Company.</p>

<p>Application of James Carney against Thomas F. Powers.</p>

<p>Action by Gouverneur M. Camochan against the Brie Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Molly Cohen against the City of New York.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District. Action by Michael Cerussi against Peter W. Wilkes. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Action by Bernard Cowen against Sophie Bernard and others.</p>

<p>Action by Antoinette Cole against the Rochelle Park Association.</p>

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Hermann Cohen against Edward L. Harper. From an order granting judgment on the pleadings, with leave to withdraw demurrer and plead over on payment of costs, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Action by Herbert W. Cramp against Chester A. Dady and others.</p>

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Celia M. Comings against the Cypress Knitting Mills, Incorporated, and others. From an order denying motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendants appeal. Affirmed.</p>

<p>Action by Aaltje Dekker, as administratrix, against Richey, Brown & Donald.</p>

<p>Action by Annie E. Dederick against Claude A. Conover and Patrick Hart.</p>

<p>Action by Joseph C. Cushman against George D. Cook and another.</p>

<p>Action by Ferdinand Dobek against the Austro-American Steamship Company.</p>

<p>Action by Michael Drummond, as' commissioner, against Charles Siano.</p>

<p>Action by the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn against the Horace E. Frick Company and others.</p>

<p>Action by Alexander Fitton, as administrator, etc., of Joseph Fitton, deceased, against the United Electric Light & Power Company.</p>

<p>Action by William Gabriel against Barbara Gabriel and others, Mamie Mangold and Frank X. Fritz, appellants.</p>

<p>Action by Frank Godesky against Elizabeth A. Cuff and-others.</p>

<p>Action by Everett Greene against Leander B. Faber, individually and as receiver, etc.</p>

<p>Action by James Gnecco against Hans F. Pedersen.</p>

<p>Action by the Greater New York Film Company against the Motion Picture Patents Company.</p>

<p>Action by Everett Greene against Leander B. Faber, individually and as receiver, etc.</p>

<p>Action by Michael Green-berg, an infant, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.</p>

<p>In the matter of Clifford W. Hart-ridge.</p>

<p>In the matter of I-Iarry B. Hollins and others.</p>

<p>Action by Joseph Horenstein against John Marks and another.</p>

<p>Action by George Hoffman against John <L. Murray.</p>

<p>Action by Charles F. H. Johnson against Lewis M. Isaacs and others.</p>

<p>Action by James B. Kilsheimer, Jr., against Louis Kendal and others.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District. Action by Charles Kuntze against Agnes M. Pragnell. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.</p>

<p>Action by Isaac Levitsky against Samuel Brown and others.</p>

<p>Action by Pauly Loble against the Ninth Street Garage.</p>

<p>Action by Hannah S. Long-worth against William H. Longworth and Mary A. Longworth.</p>

<p>Action by May McLough-Iin, by Margaret Mitchell, her guardian ad litem, against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad •Company.</p>

<p>In the matter of Max Mandelbaum and another.</p>

<p>Action by the Manhattan Commercial Company against Frank Paul.</p>

<p>In the matter of Joseph Martin, an attorney.</p>

<p>Action by Elizabeth McNamee, as administratrix, etc., of James McNamee, deceased, against the Western Union Telegraph Company, impleaded, etc.</p>

<p>Action by George Meigel against the E. V. Crandall Oil & Putty Manufacturing Company.</p>

<p>Action by William B. Masterson against the Commercial Advertiser Association.</p>

<p>Action by Albert Mathews against Fred Hill.</p>

<p>Action by Catharine M. Meserole against Richard J. Williams.</p>

<p>Action by Metta F. Merchant, as administratrix, etc., against George M. Ryall and others.</p>

<p>In the matter of Isaac Miller and another, attorneys.</p>

<p>Action by Catherine Murtha, as administratrix, against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Edward J. Murphy against the Long Island Electric Railway Company.</p>

<p>Action by Frank Neumann, as administrator, etc., of Frieda Neumann, deceased, against the Hudson County Consumers’ Brewing Company.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State_ of New York against Ralph Furcolo.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Rebecca Rothenberg.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against John Wilmer.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Frank Zerillo.</p>

<p>Proceedings by the People of the State of New York against David Warblinsky.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Antonio Squillanti.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Sigmund Moses, against William J. Gaynor, as Mayor, of the City of New York.</p>

<p>Action by David Perlman, an infant, against I. Blyn & Sons.</p>

<p>Action by the Pneumatic Signal. Company against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company.</p>

<p>Action by Susan A. Phelps against John Walter Phelps.</p>

<p>Action- by Alexander Potter against the Pictorial Review Company.</p>

<p>Action by Elizabeth W. Power, as administratrix, etc., of Mary Power, deceased, against the New York Central 5s Hudson River Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by the Bamapo Manufacturing Company against Julia Pierson Mapes.</p>

<p>Action by Emory B. Remington against the Shults Bread Company.</p>

<p>Action by Ernest S. Sargent against Dieran L. Dadirrian.</p>

<p>Action by Julia W. A. Siebrecht against Henry A. Siebrecht, Jr.</p>

<p>Action by John A. Smyth against the T. A. Gillespie Company.</p>

<p>Action by William Slaviz, as administrator, against the Barber Asphalt Paving Company, impleaded.</p>

<p>In the matter of Joseph R. Swan and others.</p>

<p>Action by Ida A. Starbuck, as administratrix, etc., of Henry Starbuck, deceased, against the Erie Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Alphonse H. Thomas against the American Molasses Company.</p>

<p>Action by Ovadio Varón against the American Manufacturing Company.</p>

<p>Action by Henry J. Wash-burn against John T. Rainier and others.</p>

<p>Action by Flora L. Vose against Joseph O. Conkling and others.</p>

<p>Action by Frank M. Wells against George K. Day.</p>

<p>Action by Elsa Wittgren, as administratrix, etc., of Nies Bernhard Wittgren, deceased, against the Wells Bros. Company of New York.</p>

<p>Action by Elsa Wittgren, as administratrix, etc., against the Wells Bros. Company of New York.</p>

<p>Action by Elsa Wittgren, as administratrix, etc., against the Wells Bros. Company of New York.</p>

<p>Action by the Yellow Taxicab Company against William J. Gaynor.</p>