Volume 155 — New York Supplement

<p>Elections <@=»145-—Nominating Petitions—Objection—Statutes.</p> <p>Under Election Law, § 55a, added to Consol. Laws, e. 17, by Laws 1913, c. 820, and amended by Laws 1914, c. 244, providing that a written objection to any petition for the designation of a candidate for party nomination or election may be filed with the board or officer with whom the original petition is filed, within three days, whereupon the objector may have a hearing before the Supreme Court, and section 56, providing that the court, on a showing of irregularities, shall do whatever justice may require, the petitions of candidates for membership of Republican county committees, properly circulated by one acting as a public officer, who, after the three days allowed for filing objections, filed an affidavit exciting the suspicion of the commissioners, would be ordered to be filed by the commissioners, so as to place the two candidates on the ballot.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. § 127; Dec. Dig. <S=3.14o.]</p> <p><gz^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In the matter of the judicial settlement of the accounts of the administrators of James Farley, deceased. • On determination of the claim of Henry C. Ricketson, assignee of Catherine Farley. Claim disallowed.

Action by Julius G. Kugelman against Leo Ritter and another. From an order compelling the acceptance of an answer served to a supplemental complaint, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and motion to continue action in plaintiff’s name as sole surviving partner denied. See, also, 90 Mise. Rep. 279, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1027.

<p>Pleading @=>329—Bill of Particulars—Failure to Furnish.</p> <p>Where plaintiff sued assignees of his lessee for rent, it was no excuse for his failure to comply with the order of the court for bill of particulars for a true copy of assignments of the lease, by merely stating the purport of the alleged writings, to state that the papers were in the defendant’s possession, and that the latter refused to furnish him copies, since in that case plaintiff could force their production.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 995; Dec. Dig. @=>329.]</p> <p><ñ=s>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.</p> <p>Action by Leopold Sutra against the Rubber Trading Company. From an order denying its motion to vacate its examination before trial, defendant appeals. Order reversed, and motion granted.</p>

Action by Philip Chimbaluk against Carlos Garcia. Prom an order granting defendant’s motion for bill of particulars, plaintiff appealed. Modified and affirmed.

Action by the J. Liebling Furriers’ Supply Company, Incorporated, against William I. Cohn and Joshua Cohn, copartners trading as W. I. & J. Cohn. A default was entered upon failure of defendants to serve an amended answer. From an order vacating it, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and motion denied.

<p>1. Sales <§=e372—Contract—Anticipatory Breach—Election—Necessity.</p> <p>Where plaintiff contracted to sell tin to defendant, the contract providing that defendant should put up margins under the rules of the New York Metal Exchange, and, upon defendant’s notifying plaintiff that defendant considered the contract no longer effective, demanding the release of all margins deposited, plaintiff replied that defendant had no right to consider the contract no longer effective, and that the plaintiff considered it still in effect and would act accordingly, thereafter electing to declare the contract broken, not for defendant’s breach in repudiating it, but on account of defendant’s failure to deposit more margins, plaintiff could not sue as for an anticipatory breach by the defendant, since a party so suing must have elected to consider the contract as terminated by the breach.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Gent. Dig. § 1089; Dec. Dig. <S=^372.]</p> <p>2. Sales <S=»62—Contract—Breach.</p> <p>Where three separate contracts were made for the sale of tin for July, August, and September, each contract providing that the buyer should put up certain margins to cover fluctuations in the market under the rules of the New York Metal Exchange, and where the buyer had on deposit more than enough margins to cover the August and September contracts, the plaintiff could not claim a breach of such contracts by the buyer for the latter’s refusal to deposit an additional amount of margin to cover an amount unpaid on the July contract.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Gent. Dig. §§ 171-179; Dec. Dig. <@=^62.]</p> <p><§=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>3. Customs and Usages @=314—Control by Specific Contract.</p> <p>Where three separate contracts ior the sale of tin, providing that the buyer should put up margins to cover fluctuations in the market according to the rules of the New York Metal Exchange, specifically provided that the margins should be considered as separately deposited, a custom of the Exchange that margins should be usually retained until all contracts were fulfilled was not binding upon the defendant.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Customs and Usages, Cent. Dig. § 29; Dec. Dig. @=>14.]</p> <p>4. Sales @=>190—Contract Providing for Margin—Waiver of Deposit.</p> <p>Where defendant, by three separate contracts, contracted to buy tin from plaintiff, such contracts providing that defendant should put up margins to cover fluctuations in the market price under the rules of the New York Metal Exchange, and where, after deposit of margin by the defendant in bank, the plaintiff, while expressly refusing to admit that such deposit constituted “good margin," yet demanded only additional margin, plaintiff waived any defect in the form of deposit previously made as margin.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 510; Dec. Dig. @=>198.]</p> <p><§^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In the matter of. the estate of Josephine B. Chambers, deceased. From an order fixing the estate tax, the executor appeals. Appraiser’s report remitted for correction, and for further report.

Action Jay William A. Rees and others against the United States Oxygen Company. From an order denying in part a motion for an order assessing damages sustained by defendant by reason of an injunction, defendant appeals. Modified.

Appeals from Special Term, New York County. Application by Knapp & French, Incorporated, for voluntary dissolution. From an order granting a motion requiring the petitioners to give an undertaking as a condition of granting an order for an injunction and a receiver, an order dismissing the proceeding for failure to give such undertaking, and an order granting a motion to resettle both of the other orders, certain parties appeal.

<p>Corporations <§=>621—Dissolution—Receivership.</p> <p>Where a proceeding for dissolution of a corporation was dismissed, an order appointing a receiver also falls.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2461-2469, 2471; D'ec. Dig. <@=>621.]</p> <p><Szs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by Philip Phillips against the Rosenthal-Romagnoli Company, Incorporated. From an order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendant appeals. Reversed, with leave to plaintiff to amend.

<p>Application by Hermann F. Goldschmidt for a writ of mandamus against the Board of Education of the City of New York. Writ issued.</p>

In the matter of the estate of John S. Kennedy, deceased. Report of appraisers valuing securities belonging to the estate remitted for reappraisal.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by James F. Stocking against the Seed Filter & Manufacturing Company. From a judgment entered upon the dismissal of the complainant at the close of plaintiff’s case, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.</p>

<p>Master and Servant <s==»43—Wrongful Discharge-—Question fob Jury— Damages—Computation.</p> <p>Where, in an action for wrongful discharge, the evidence on the issue of damages showed that plaintiff’s new employment was at the rate of $22 a week, but the evidence was indefinite as to the time actually put in ■ by plaintiff, the amount of damages is for the jury to assess, and is not a matter of mathematical computation for the court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 57, 58; Dec. Dig. <S=43.]</p> <p><£=s>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by Margaret H. Fordyce against Charles Wolff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.</p>

Action by the New York Polyclinic Medical School and Hospital against the Mason-Seaman Transportation Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by Isidor S. Tunick against Morris Jasper. From a judgment-in favor of plaintiff upon a verdict directed by the court, and from an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by Joseph Schwartz against Sarah Mann. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.</p>

Action by Francis H. Doane and another against Ethan H. Hescock and others. From an order granting defendants’ motion for judgments on the pleadings, and a judgment entered thereon, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by Philip Steinman against Martin Tully. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.</p>

<p>Appeal and Error <@=>1033—Harmless Error—Errors Favorable to Appellant.</p> <p>An error in the charge, requiring plaintiff to prove facts which were not essential to her recovery, was in defendant’s favor, and in no way prejudiced his case.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4052-4002; Dec. Dig. <@=51033.]</p> <p>tg^Eor otbjer cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Usury <@=385—Defense—Persons Affected.</p> <p>In an action on a note, where the defense was usury, It was contended that plaintiff had discounted the notes for the original lender with knowledge that a usurious rate of interest had been charged. Held that, as the notes did not bear the original lender’s name as payee, the fact that he had not indorsed them would not deprive defendants of the benefit of that defense.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Usury, Cent. Dig. § 1(18; Dec. Dig. <@=385.]</p> <p>2. Bir.us and Notes <@=3885—Actions—Usury.</p> <p>Acquisition of a note with knowledge of the original usury is a complete defense to an action by the holder.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 817; Dec. Dig. <@=>835.]</p> <p><§^>Bur other cases see same topic & KBY-NUMBBIt in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by Leo> J. Lehman against the Cores-Martinez Company. From a judgment upon a directed verdict for defendant, and an order denying new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by Albert Harare against the Terry & Tench Company, Incorporated. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.</p>

<p>1. Tenancy in Common ©=>21—Use of Property—Rights of Parties.</p> <p>The general principle that such property as a trade-name, the good will of a business, trade-marks, copyrights, and labels is susceptible of separate and independent use by co-owners, and may be so used separately by each so long as such use is not exclusive of the rights of the others also to use the common property, is subject to the qualification that there must be no restriction upon such right, either by agreement of the parties or in the nature of the tenancy, creating a quasi fiduciary relation between the tenants or inhibiting the separate use.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Tenancy in Common, Cent. Dig. § 62; Dec. Dig. ©=>21.]</p> <p>2. Tenancy in Common ©=>21—Fiduciaby Relation—Devisees of Business.</p> <p>Where two brothers were joint devisees of their father of rights in the firm name, good will, trade-marks, copyrights, and labels of a business, they occupied a confidential relation to one another by operation of law as to the joint property, as if a joint trust had been created, and an obligation rested upon each to do nothing to the prejudice of the other's rights.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, sec Tenancy in Common, Cent. Dig. § 62; Dec. Dig. ©=>21.]</p> <p>3. Tenancy in Common ©=>35—Tbansfeb to Cobpoeation—Effect.</p> <p>A father jointly devised to his two sons the firm name, good will, and trade marks, copyrights, labels, etc., owned by him and used by a copartnership under a rental agreement. Such sons made an agreement tiiat, they being owners in equal shares as tenants in common of the business, good will, and firm name of the copartnership, and of all trade-marks, etc., and desiring that upon the death of either the survivor should have the right to continue the business and to use all trade-marks, etc., such survivor should have the exclusive right during his life, or until a sale was made as later provided, to use the half interest of the deceased party in the jointly owned property. The provision for the sale of the business was that the personal representative might not sell the share of the deceased brother until 60 days’ notice to the other brother to purchase. After the death of one of the brothers, the business was continued by the surviving brother through a corporation of which he owned all but 12 shares of the common stock; he having conveyed the good will, trade- , • marks, copyrights, etc., of the original business to such corporation in return for its stock. The profits of the deceased brother’s share of the property were paid to his widow and executrix until a certain date, when the surviving brother notified her in writing that after a certain date he would no longer exercise the exclusive right to use her half interest in the firm name of the original business, the good will, trade-marks, copyrights, etc., under the agreement between the brothers. Later such surviving brother notified the corporation, purporting to terminate its right to use the privileges given it previously in return for its stock. Thereafter the corporation continued to use such privileges as before, but no returns were made to the deceased brother’s widow and executrix, who sued her brother-in-law and the corporation. Held, that relief could not be denied on account of the separate corporate entity that used the property, since, when a,court of equity is endeavoring to adjust rights between parties, it looks at the merits rather than the legal form, and therefore will disregard the fiction of separate corporate existence, where justice requires.</p> <p>®=sPor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numberod Digests & Indexes</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Tenancy in Common, Cent. Dig. § 27; Dec. Dig. @=>35.]</p> <p>4. Tenancy in Common @=>37—Accounting—Decree.</p> <p>Where plaintiff widow and executrix sued her brother-in-law and a corporation, to which he had transferred his interest as joint tenant with the decedent in the good will, trade-marks, etc., of a business, in an attempt to defraud plaintiff, such brother-in-law being the chief stockholder and executive officer of the corporation, the plaintiff could ratify the sale to the corporation and recover one-half of the amount of stock the defendant, her brother-in-law, received for the common property, or could have a decree that the corporation took the property charged with the performance of an agreement between the brothers, when they became joint tenants of the property, regulating their mutual rights upon the death of one.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Tenancy in Common, Cent. Dig. § 106; Dec. Dig. @=>37.]</p> <p><g^Por other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by Solomon Harris against John Kaufman and another, doing business as Kaufman Bros. From a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon the verdict of a jury, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by Currie D. Mathews against Gertrude E. Iiogan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.</p>

<p>Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.</p> <p>Action by George T. Hellwig against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. From a judgment dismissing an action for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment directed for plaintiff.</p>

<p>Negligence <@=>124—Actions—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for personal injuries sustained "by slipping upon a wooden bench in the steam roo-m of defendant’s baths, testimony by one who had for many years been, employed in such baths of the practice to cover benches with matting is admissible.</p> <p>(Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 235-238; Dec. Dig. <@^124.]</p> <p>^^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by I. Tanenbaum, Son & Co. against Ida B. Cook and another. From a judgment dismissing the complaint as to both defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Action by George J. Pflugheber against the Universal Motor Truck Company. Verdict was directed for plaintiff, and defendant moves for new trial. Motion denied.

Action by John PI. Kuder against Arthur Mary. From an order granting defendant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and judgment reinstated.

Action by Joseph Leif against Joseph Pansick and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, dismissing defendant’s counterclaim on the merits, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

<p>Fraud <S==?58—Falsity of Representations—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for fraudulent representation in the sale of a candy and cigar stand, evidence held, not to show that a representation that the stand produced an income of §105 a week was false.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraud, Cent. Dig. §§ 55-59; Dec. Dig. <s=»58.]</p> <p><g=>Por otb(er cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by Sophia Reiter against Harris Miller and another. From an order of the Municipal Court, denying defendants’ motion to open their default, they appeal. Order reversed, and default opened.</p>

Appeal, from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District. Action by James Kakavas and another against Athanasios Maniotas. From an order of the Municipal Court, refusing to amend a judgment of that court by adding the words, “Defendant subject to arrest and imprisonment upon this judgment,” plaintiffs appeal. Order reversed, and motion granted.

<p>Animals <§=>70—Personal Injuries—Does.</p> <p>Where the owner of a dog did not know or believe, or have reason to know or believe, that the animal was vicious or dangerous to mankind, was not negligent in allowing it to run at large, and violated no ordinance in doing so, he was not liable for personal injuries inflicted by such dog.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. §§ 225, 228-237; Dec. Dig. <§=>70. ]</p>

<p>1. Contracts @=280—Construction Company—Skill Required—Breach—Quantum Me.ruit.</p> <p>Where one contracts with a construction company to do work at cost and a percentage, he can expect the same skill and ability on the work as would be given where the contractor must do the work at less than the contract price to secure its profit, especially where the contractor refuses to allow'1 he owner’s inspection of the work; and if the work is done in reckless disregard of its obligation, the contractor can recover only the reasonable value of the work, any loss due to inefficiency of its employes properly falling on the company.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1249-1280; Dec. Dig. @=280.]</p> <p>2. Bills and Notes @=363—Holders in Due Course—Rights.</p> <p>A holder in due course of notes in suit can recover their face value, with interest, but if not in due course, only the amount actually due on them.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 790, 791, 930, 962; Dec. Dig. @=363.]</p> <p>3. Bills and Notes @=318—Negotiation—Breach of Faith.</p> <p>Where the defendant gave his notes to a construction company for work done and materials furnished under an express agreement that he should investigate the work, and any allowances due him as shown by his investigation would then be deducted from the notes, they were subject to all claims and defenses, and negotiation prior to the adjustment was in breach of faith, and the title to the notes defective, as provided by Negotiable Instruments Law (Consol. Laws, c. 38) § 94.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 754; Dec. Dig. @=318.]</p> <p>4. Bills and Notes @=497—Holders in Due Course—Burden of Proof.</p> <p>Under Negotiable Instruments Law (Consol. Laws, c. 38) § 91, requiring one claiming to be a holder in due course to show that he took the note without notice of any infirmity or defective title of the one negotiating it, the burden of proof is constantly on him to show that he gave value and had no notice of defects, although the burden of going forward does shift.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1448, 1675-1681, 1683-1687; Dec. Dig. @=497.]</p> <p>5. Banks and Banking @=116—Officers—Notice—Holders in Due Course.</p> <p>Relations of a construction company, the assignor of notes in suit, and a bank, the assignee, because of interlocking directorates and ownership of stock, held to impute constructive notice to the bank, through the knowledge of its officers, of defects in the construction company’s title to the notes, so that the bank was not a holder in due course.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 282-287; Dec. Dig. @=116.]</p> <p>6. Bills and Notes @=525—Holders in Due Course—Notice—Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence in an action on notes by the assignee held to show actual notice to it of defective title In the assignor, so that it was not a holder in due course.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1832-1839; Dec. Dig. @=525.]</p> <p>@=For other cases seo same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>7. Pleading <©=>144—Set-Off—Failure to' Plead—Effect.</p> <p>The defendant, in an action on notes claiming fraud in their negotiation, cannot also have damages for delay in the work for which they were given, where he fails to plead in his answer the facts as to the delay and the set-off prayed for.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 293; Dec. Dig. <©=144.]</p> <p>8. Bills and Notes <@=>530—Unliquidated Amount—Interest.</p> <p>Where notes are given under an agreement that the work for which they are given shall be investigated and any allowances found due thereon made, the actual amount due being unliquidated, and the payee then refused an adjustment, he cannot collect interest after the date on which the investigation concluded, and adjustment and liquidation might have been had.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—-For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1941-< 1944; Dec. Dig. <@=>530.]</p> <p><g=^>For other cases see same topic & ICEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.</p> <p>Action by Arthur Galambos against Harry Hershkowitz. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.</p>

<p>Sales <@=>178—Mistake—Acceptance.</p> <p>Where yellow thread was furnished upon on order for white thread, and used before discovery of mistake, the retention and use of the goods after reasonable opportunity for observing their color constituted an acceptance, precluding any recovery on a counterclaim, in the absence of any showing of difference in value between white and yellow thread.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 45D455; Dec. Dig. <@=>178.]</p> <p><@zs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.</p> <p>Action by William H. Heddendorf against the Manhattan Produce Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Prom an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed.</p>

Summary proceeding by the Halcyon Real Estate Corporation against Rudolph C. Von Bayer. From a final order in favor of the landlord, after a trial, the tenant appeals. Reversed, and proceeding dismissed.

<p>Principal and Agent ©=»24—Evidence of Agency—Question fob Juby.</p> <p>In an action for the price of goods, bought at auction by defendant’s son and delivered at defendant’s place of business, evidence held sufficient to go to the jury on the issue of the son's agency.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 722, 723 ; Dec. Dig. <§=24.]</p> <p><g^>For other cases seo same'topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District. '</p> <p>Action by Concetta Sagone, as administratrix of Giacomo Sagone, deceased, against David Clinton Mackey. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.</p>

Action by Aaron Kriegelman against Abraham Ariewitz, sued as Abraham Jaronowitz. From an order denying plaintiff’s motion to correct a judgment in his favor, he appeals. Reversed and rendered.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action by the Croker National Fire Prevention Engineering Company against the Montauk Club. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.</p> <p>Action by George W. Krahe against the Electric Conservation Company, Incorporated. Judgment for plaintiff for $98.72, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.</p>

<p>1. Principal ahb Agent <@=>123—Actions—-Evidence.</p> <p>In an action lor the purchase price of wines, evidence held insufficient to show that the purchaser was justified in deducting from the price indebtedness due from the wine agent who made the sales; it not appearing that the agent was authorized to allow such deductions.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 420-429; Dec. Dig. <@=>123.]</p> <p>2. Principal and Agent <@=>137—Authority of Agent—Admissions—What Constitute.</p> <p>Where a dealer in wines twice acquiesced in a customer’s deduction of amounts due from its wine agent, such acts, if admissions, were only admissions concerning those bills, and were no ground of an estoppel to deny authority to make deductions upon subsequent bills.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 492— 494; Dec. Dig. <S=>137.]</p> <p>3. Evidence <@=>220—-Admissions.</p> <p>Where a debtor returned a bill with a chock and a statement of credit given the seller’s agent, the seller’s failure to protest or reply for some weeks will not preclude recovery of the full amount.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 771-785; Dec. Dig. <@=>220.]</p> <p>4. Acoobd and Satisfaction <S=>10'—Essentials-</p> <p>There can be no accord and satisfaction of a claim, where there was no dispute.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Accord and Satisfaction, Cent. Dig. §§ 67-74; Dec. Dig. <@=>10.]</p> <p><©^>Fo-r other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.</p> <p>Action by Giacoma Sorrusca against William Hobson, doing business as Hobson’s Storage Warehouse. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.</p>

Attachment by Charles S'chavrien against Mary Reich. From an order denying her motion to vacate the attachment, defendant appeals. Reversed, and motion to vacate granted.

<p>Appeal from Appellate Term, First Department.</p> <p>Action by Harry J. Fitzgerald against Walter 0. Kelly. An order of the City Court, holding defendant in contempt of court and fixing his fine, was affirmed by the Appellate Term, and he appeals. Modified and affirmed.</p>

Supplementary proceedings by Henry Baum against Max Rosenberg. From an order adjudging him in contempt, fining him $250 and costs, and directing) that a commitment issue in case of his failure to pay, the judgment debtor appeals. Reversed.

<p>Negligence <@=>139—Damages—Rroximate Cause.</p> <p>Where the negligence alleged in the complaint is not the proximate cause of the injury complained of, it is proper to dismiss the complaint.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent Dig. §§ 277-353; Dec. Dig. <@=>136.]</p> <p>Laughlin, J., dissenting.</p>

Action by Demetrius M. Botassis, as administrator, against George A. Thanasules. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

<p>Appeal and Ebbob <§=^516—Mattebs Reviewáble—Recobd on Appeal.</p> <p>Where defendant objects and excepts to portions of the summing up by plaintiff’s counsel, he is entitled to have the address in the record, and its exclusion from the record is error, though his exceptions may not present a question of law, since the argument may have aided in increasing the verdict.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§' 2332-2340; Dec. Dig. <@=^>516.]</p> <p><gzs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by Willis Holly against Harry Rosenstein and another. From an order dismissing the complaint, and denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Action by Joseph Ribak and another against Herman Worhaftig, doing business as Metropolitan Chandelier Company. From an order granting a motion to vacate an attachment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

<p>Judgment <§=>720—Former Adjudication—Injury to Chattels.</p> <p>In an action for damages to a showcase, a judgment in a prior replevin suit to recover the showcase in favor of plaintiff “for a return of the property subject to defendant’s special property for a stated amount for repairs, defendant to retain the property until the lien is paid,” was conclusive against plaintiff’s claim that the showcase was injured during the repairs.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 1251; Dec. Dig. <§=>720.]</p> <p><gz^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Landlord and Tenant @=>231—Re-entry—Notice.</p> <p>Where a notice from the landlord to subtenants to pay no more rent to the lessee was served subsequent to the service of the precept on the lessee, the notice was improperly stricken from the evidence, since it is evidence of acceptance of a surrender by the lessee of the premises, while the precept does not permit exercise of dominion over them.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 926-934; Dec. Dig. @=>231.]</p> <p>@=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Corporations <@=642—Foreign Corporations—“Doing Business.”</p> <p>The mere solicitation of orders, which, are to be filled in another state and shipped into the state of the former, is not “doing business” within that state, within the purview of General Corporation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 23) § 15, requiring foreign corporations to 'obtain a certificate of the secretary of state before engaging in business within the state.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2520-2527; Dec. Dig. <@=642. .</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Doing Business.]</p> <p><gEs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by Abraham Levine against Max Morrison. From an order setting aside a verdict and ordering a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and judgment reinstated.

<p>Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.</p> <p>Action "by Louis Steiner against the National Cash Register Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed,' and complaint dismissed.</p>

In the matter of the estate of Seymour J. Hyde. Motion was made for exemption from a transfer tax, which was denied, and a referee was appointed to determine testator’s residence. Reversed.

In the matter of the settlement of the executors of Benjamin Altman, deceased. From the decree (89 Misc. Rep. 697, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1092) disallowing certain claims, claimants appeal. Affirmed.

Action by Charles P. Howland against the Bradley Contracting Company. From an order requiring him to furnish a bill of particulars, plaintiff appeals. Modified and affirmed.

<p>Courts <3=3190—Municipal Courts—Record on Appeal—Return.</p> <p>When a return on an appeal from the Municipal Court has been filed with the cleric, and contains within the indorsed cover the minutes in a motion entitled in a case other than the one appealed, the appeal will be dismissed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note,—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. <§=3100; Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 103.]</p>

<p>Sales <@=3166—Sale by Sample—Compliance wmr Agreement—“As Is.”</p> <p>Where pussy willow tail'eta was sold by sample “as Is,” which entitled the seller to deliver the goods, even in a damaged condition, the seller cannot recover the purchase price, where the goods delivered were not oí the kind sold.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, ace Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 391-400, 402; Dec. Dig. <@=3'166.]</p> <p>,g—.Enr Other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Beneficial Associations <@=»18—By-Laws—Residence—“Leave.”</p> <p>The by-law of a benevolent association, which provides that “a member who leaves Greater New York to establish himself in other cities shall remain a member,” but shall not be entitled to sick benefits, does not apply to a member who has, with the knowledge of the society, lived outside Greater New York both before and after joining the society.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Beneficial Associations, Cent. Dig. §§ 41-50 ; Dec. Dig. <S=>18.</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Leave.]</p> <p>>inor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by Florence Noble against Alvah C. Haff and another, individually and as executors of Alvah W. Haff, deceased. From an order directing that the complaint be made more definite and certain, plaintiff appeals. Modified and affirmed.

<p>Evidence @=>563'—Opinion Evidence—Handwkiting—Competency of Witness.</p> <p>A witness, who stated that she had always understood she was D.’s daughter, but who was not shown to have ever lived with D., or had any means of knowing her handwriting, except from letters said to have been written her by Í)., was not competent to identify D.’s handwriting, where there was no evidence that such letters were written by D., or evidence of a course of correspondence between the witness and D., from which the witness could know that the letters were from D., since a witness to identify handwriting must have seen the party write, or have seen specimens of his handwriting shown to be genuine; and it is not enough that such specimens purported to come from the person whose handwriting is in question, though, when letters are directed to particular persons oil business, and answers are received in due course, a fair inference arises that they were written by the person from whom they purported to come.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2347, 2383, 2384; Dec. Dig. <§=563.]</p> <p><@^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Bailment @=>31—Diability of Bailee—Doss of Goods—Negligence.</p> <p>Where a patron oí a public bath placed Ms money and jewelry in an envelope, sealing, signing, and placing it in an iron safety box, which he handed to the clerk of the establishment, who replaced it in its place in a cabinet in the wall and locked it in, returning the single key to the owner of the valuables, who, when he returned from his bath, opened the box and took therefrom the envelope, tearing off the top and discovering that a diamond stud was missing, the proprietor of the baths was not liable for the loss of such stud, since the facts proved were as consistent with a finding that the plaintiff lost the stud when he opened the envelope as with a finding that it was lost or stolen while in the proprietor’s custody.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bailment, Cent. Dig. §§ 124-131; Dec. Dig. >@=>31.]</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from Special Term, Westchester County.</p> <p>Petition for mandamus by Charles Hecht against George K. Cox, Town Clerk of the Town of White Plains, and others. From an order denying the writ, ho appeals. Affirmed.</p>

<p>Action by the Public Service Commission, Second District, for an injunction to prevent Elmer G. Booth from operating his jitney bus. Injunction granted.</p>

<p>Action by Clinton W. Richards against Steuben County. Judgment for plaintiff.</p>

Action by Alice M. Moncrief against James R. Moncrief. On motion by the plaintiff to punish the defendant for contempt for failure to pay alimony and a counsel fee, as directed, and to stay all proceedings and the trial until the alimony and fee are paid. Motion granted. f

<p>Action by one Skidelsky against one Rosenbloom. Defendant moves to vacate an order. Order signed.</p>

<p>Contested claim by Julia L. Sutliff against James C. Doubleday and Clarence B. Plainer, as administrators of James D. Clyde, deceased. Claim allowed in part.</p>

Proceeding between John Pladdock and the heirs of Thomas Haddock and the executor of Bridget Haddock for the construction of the will of Bridget Haddock. Prom a surrogate’s decree construing the will, the executor of Bridget Haddock and the heirs at law of . Thomas Haddock appeal. Reversed.

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County.</p> <p>Action by Clara S. Barclay, trustee, against Reginald G. Barclay.</p> <p>From an order denying her motion for discovery and inspection of books and papers, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and motion granted.</p>

<p>Action by Mary E. Mixter against the Mohawk Clothing Company, Incorporated, and others. Claim for taxes allowed.</p>

Action by Scott MacReynolds against the Coney Island & Brooklyn Railroad Company. From an order setting aside the verdict and granting plaintiff new trial, defendant appeals. Order reversed, and verdict reinstated.

<p>Appeal from Special Term, New York County.</p> <p>Action by Bertha L. Ostro against Leo E. Ostro. Erom an interlocutory judgment sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer, defendant appeals. Affirmed.</p>

Petition for writ of mandamus by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of the Elmira Advertiser Association, against Frank J. Gorman, as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Chemung County, and others. Writ denied. Order affirmed by Appellate Division, 155 N. Y. Supp. 727.

<p>Discovery @=>52—Jurisdiction of Application—Court or Judge.</p> <p>Order, under Code Civ. Proc. § 873, which provides that the judge to whom an aflidavit for the taking of a deposition is presented must grant an order for the examination, must be made by the judge, and not by the Special Term.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Discovery, Cent. Dig. § 64; Dec. Dig. @=>52.]</p> <p><gzs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBKR in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Action by James Devonish against the Imperial Investing Corporation. From a judgment entered on a verdict, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Judgment and order reversed, and complaint dismissed.

<p>Appeal from Appellate Term, First Department.</p> <p>Action by Isidor Dang against the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company. From a determination affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court, defendant appeals. Determination and judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed.</p>

Action by August Neldert against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company. From a determination of the Appellate Term, reversing a judgment of the City Court for plaintiff for $1,045, directed by the court, and dismissing the complaint,’ plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Petition by William H. Woodbury, a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Niagara Falls, to expunge from the records of the Supreme Court and to set aside and quash the presentment of the Niagara County Grand Jury. Petition granted.

Mandamus by the People, on the relation of Daniel N. Harrington, against Edward Cornish and others, constituting the Boards of Inspectors of Elections in the Town of Naples, Ontario County, N. Y., and others. On return of a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the production of certain ballots marked void, etc. Application denied.

<p>Appeal from State Workmen’s Compensation Commission.</p> <p>Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Martha Chappelle, widow of Joseph T. Chappelle, deceased, for compensation for the death of her husband, opposed by the Four Hundred and Twelve Broadway Company, employer, and the Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, Limited, insurer. Compensation awarded, and the employer and insurer appeal. Award affirmed.</p>

Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by William Sheridan for compensation, opposed by the P. J. Groll Construction Company, employer, and the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, insurer. Compensation awarded, and the employer and insurer appeal. Award affirmed.

Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Nora Cremin for compensation for herself for the death of Andrew Cremin, opposed by A. L. Mordecai & Son, employers, and the General Accident, Eire & Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, insurer. Compensation awarded, and the employers and insurer appeal. Award affirmed.

<p>Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.</p> <p>Petition of William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, for an injunction order, etc., against Frederick C. Volckening. Judgment for defendant, and petitioner appeals. Reversed, and motion for injunction granted.</p>

<p>1. Courts <®=>91—Precedents—Decisions of Higher Courts.</p> <p>Until the Supreme Court of the United States definitely passes upon the constitutionality of a New York statute, the decisions of the New York appellate courts that such statute is constitutional are binding on the lower courts, though decisions of the Supreme Court as to statutes of other states raise serious doubt as to whether it would not hold the New York statute unconstitutional.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 313, 325, 326; Dec. Dig. @=»S)1J</p> <p>2. Courts <S=>11—Jurisdiction—Statutory Provisions.</p> <p>Prior to 1913, Code Civ. Proc. § 1780, authorized actions against a foreign corporation by a nonresident in those cases only where the action was brought for breach of a contract made within the state, or relating to property within the state, to recover real property in the state, or a chattel replevied within the state, or where the cause of action arose within the state. In 1913 it was amended to authorize such an action where the foreign corporation is doing business within the state. Held, that the amendment is retroactive, and applies to causes of action already in existence at the time of its enactment.</p> <p><Srs>For otft.er cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 39; Dec. Dig. @=14.]</p> <p>3. Courts @=14—Jurisdiction—Statutory Provisions.</p> <p>Where, in an action commenced before the amendment of Code Civ. Proc. '§ 1780, by a nonresident against a foreign corporation, for personal injuries sustained in Texas, defendants had appeared and answered, joined in interrogatories, and were asking the court to take affirmative action by a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, the court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the action; it not being denied that defendants were doing business in the state, since, though the court, prior to the amendment had no power to make orders or issue process, and defendants were therefore not in court through any process issued by the court, and their consent could not give validity to anything done by the court without authority, they were in court submitting themselves to its jurisdiction, and it therefore had jurisdiction both of the cause of action and of the persons of defendants.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 39; Dec.' Dig. @=14.]</p> <p>@=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Proceeding by Abraham Possner for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law against the Smith Metal Bed Company, employer, and the Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, Limited, insurer. From an award of compensation, defendants appeal. Award reversed, and further compensation denied.

<p>Appeal from Workmen’s Compensation Commission.</p> <p>Proceeding by Edward J. O’Neil for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law against the West Side Storage Warehouse Company, employer, and the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, insurer. From an award of compensation, defendants appeal. Award reversed, and further compensation denied.</p>

Action by Albert P. Hill and George W. Tryon against Ernest R. Philo. Judgment for plaintiffs, and from it, and an order denying his motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action by one Shalelc against the Jetter Brewing Company and one Schnueriger, with others. On the latter’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Motion denied.

<p>1. Pleading <@=176—Denial upon Tnfokmation and Belief—Sufficiency.</p> <p>A denial in a reply upon information and belief is not a good pleading, where the facts denied are within the knowledge of the pleador.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 343, 345-353; Dec. Dig. <@=176.]</p> <p>2. Pleading <@=345—Denial upon Infobmation and Belief—Sufficiency—</p> <p>Effect.</p> <p>Plaintiff: cannot be deprived of his right to a trial or to amend by the mere fact that denials on information and belief, in Ms reply to a portion of the allegations of the answer are insufficient as pleadings.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 1055-1059; Dec. Dig. <@=345.]</p> <p><g^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Pleading <3^350—Motions—Hearing—Judgment on Pleadings—Bill</p> <p>oe Particulars.</p> <p>On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, made by defendant, plaintiff’s bill of particulars may be considered.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 1053, 1054, 1070-1077; Dec. Dig. <3=)350.]</p> <p>2. Charities <S=»45—Administration—Liability eor Torts.</p> <p>A charitable organization is not liable for the tortious acts of its physicians and servants in charging a patient with being insane and having him placed in an asylum.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Charities, Cent. Dig. §§ 80, 81, 102-104; Dec. Dig. <S=45.]</p> <p>other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Action by J. Wilson Bryant and Max S. Grifenhagen, as Sheriff of New York County, against the Century Bank of the City of New York. Judgment for defendant.</p>

Action by one Grossman and others against the Loeber Hair Company. Judgment against defendant by default, and plaintiffs apply for an ex parte order to amend the summons, complaint, and judgment to conform to defendant’s correct name. Application granted.

<p>Action by Alvin J. Marsch against Simon Seibert and others, constituting the Board of Fire Commissioners. On motion f,or injunction. Motion denied.</p>

In the matter of the estate of Gustav Amsinck, deceased. From an order fixing the tax upon the estate according to the transfer tax appraiser’s report, allowing deductions from the decedent’s realty in the state of the dower interest of his widow, the State Comptroller appeals. Order fixing tax affirmed.

Action by Abraham H. Altschul against Alfred Ludwig, as Superintendent of Buildings, and' others. From an order denying a motion to continue pendente lite a preliminary injunction restraining the Superintendent of Buildings from ^ approving plans for the alteration of a building used as a theater, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and motion granted. See, also-, 155 N. Y. Supp. 1091.

<p>Action by Joseph Aiello against Frank Rocco.</p>

<p>Action by Champe S. Andrews against Asa Bird Gardiner.</p>

<p>Action by 1-lyman Bauman and another against Mendle-Lunopp Company.</p>

<p>Action by Alice Bennett, an infant, against Louis J. Cihayes.</p>

<p>Action by the Bens Auto Import Company against Jesse Froelich.</p>

<p>Action by huther Bernstein against Isaac Friend.</p>

<p>Action by the Butterick Publishing Company against Mistrot-Munn Company.</p>

<p>Action by Elsie Carey, as administratrix, etc., of Joseph Carey, deceased, against the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal.</p>

<p>In the matter of Bernard F. Cecire.</p>

<p>Action by Dorothy P. Ohatillon against the Co-operative Apartment Company.</p>

<p>Action by C. Ludwig Baumann & Co., Brooklyn, against Amelia Baumann and others.</p>

<p>Action by Daniel 0. Ounneen against Lawrence J. Kennedy.</p>

Action by Vera Robinson Coyne against David P. Morehouse and another, individually and as executors and trustees, etc., impleaded with others.

<p>Action by Vera Robin~dn Coyne against David P. Morehouse and another as executors and trustees, etc.</p>

<p>Action by Alfred P. Delcamljre, Sr., against Marie H. Delcambre and others, in which Edward W. Valentine, purchaser, appeals.</p>

<p>Action by Leander J. Dc llekker against the Frederick A. Stokes Company, Incorporated, and another.</p>

Aotion by John F. Dieterich' against the J. & M. flaffen Brewing Company, impleaded, eta. From a~i order gra~tting a thotion for a bill Qf particulars, plaintiff appeals. Modifta& ap~i, affirwed.: ~anklin Bien, of New York City, for appellant. Car1~S.ohip~z Petrasch, of New York City, for respondent.

Action by James M. Donohuc, as receiver, etc., against the City Water Power Company and others. Motion for reargument denIed. Motion fqr leave to appeal granted.

<p>In the matter of James A. Puffy, deceased.</p>

<p>Action by Clara Ebbesen against the City of New York.</p>

<p>Action by Daniel Doonan and another against Thomas Kfflulea and others.</p>

<p>Actioi by the Empire City Racing Associatioi against the National Fair & Exposition Asso ciation, Incorporated, and others.</p>

<p>Action by the Empire City Racing Association against the National Fair & Exposition Association, In corporated, and others.</p>

<p>Action by Wm. W. Parley, as State Commissioner of Excise, against Henry F. Petersen, impleaded with others.</p>

In the matter of the petition of William W. Parley, as State Commissioner of Excise, for an order revoking and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 16468, issued to John W. Sage and transferred to Thomas A. Jones and John F. Maloney.

<p>ActIon by the First Natlonal Bank of Brownsville, Tex., against Lida If. Fleitmann, as administratrix, etc.</p>

<p>Actions by• Patrick H. Flynn against William A. Boland impleaded with others, and against 3. Benedict Roache, impleaded with others.</p>

<p>Action by Henry Iii. Fox against the City of New York and others.</p>

<p>Action by Elizabeth French against Benjamin F. Ii'rench.</p>

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

<p>Action by William B. Franklin and another against Joseph Leiter, impleaded with others.</p>

<p>Action by Louisa Fribourg against the Emigrants' Industrial Savings Bank, impleaded with Esther Robitscher, as executrix.</p>

<p>Action by ]ddward 5. Fulton against Charles H. Ingalls and the Richmond County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.</p>

<p>Action by Fifi Ganim against Beshara Ganim.</p>

In the matter of the application of the Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo for the appointment of commissioners, etc. In the matter of the change of grade of Urban and Fougeron Streets. In the matter of lands claimed to be owned by the Urban Milling Company and others. Proceeding No. 101.

<p>Action by the Granite City Soap Company, Incorporated, against the Harmoiiy Supply Company and another.</p>

<p>Actions by Abraham Greenberg against Goldberg A Greenberg, impleaded with othern</p>

In the matter of the claim of John Hall for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Con-sol. Laws, c. 67) against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, employer.

<p>Action by James S. Herrmau against Francis L. Leland.</p>

<p>Action by the H. G. Vogel Company against George N. Reinhardt.</p>

<p>Action by Frank Hooey against Morris Kantrowitz.</p>

<p>Action by Carrie R. Hunter against Grace S. Ramsay, individually and as administratrix, etc., of Malcom Ramsay, deceased.</p>

<p>Action by Elizabeth Hubbell, as administratrix, etc., against the Pioneer Paper Company.</p>

<p>In the matter of Moses Jaffe.</p>

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

<p>Action by the McCreery Realty Corporation against the Associated Merchants’ Company and others.</p>

<p>Action by John Jameson & Son, Limited, against John Reilly.</p>

<p>Action by Ervin A. Keith against Daniel F. Payne.</p>

<p>Action by Julia R. Kelsey against William Bradley.</p>

<p>In the matter of proceedings supplementary to execution, etc. Action by David Klein against Sirrontis Maravillas and others, wherein Peter Maravelas appeals.</p>

<p>In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of the. Kings County Trust Company, as executor and trustee, etc., of Mary Elizabeth Lewis, deceased.</p>

<p>Action by Paul Kratka against the Boston & Maine Railroad.</p>

<p>Action by John F. Lambden against George K. Thompson.</p>

<p>Action by Henry Leerburger against Henry R. C. Watson, as executor.</p>

<p>Action by Nellie Levene against Louis Levene.</p>

<p>Action by Luke V. Lockwood against.the United States Steel Corporation.</p>

<p>Action by Alfred E. F. McCorry and another against John C. Wiarda.</p>

<p>In the matter of Andrew F. McNamara.</p>

<p>Action by Michael Marks against David Magid and another.</p>

<p>Action by tlie Mamaroneck Sash, Door & Trim Company, Incorporated, against Francis B. Wood and another.</p>

<p>Action by Mary Meagher against Sesrun Society.</p>

<p>Action by Ellen C. Millette, as administratrix, etc., against the New York, Westchester & Boston Railway Company.</p>

<p>Action by George Muench against the Terry & Tench Company.</p>

<p>Action by Addie L. Nichols against Libbie D. Smith, individually, etc.</p>

<p>Action of Alice Noller, as administratrix, etc., against the Erie Railroad Company.</p>

<p>In the matter of proving the last will and testament of Mary Oates, deceased.</p>

<p>Action by Adolph E. Norden and others against the Guaranty Trust Company of New York.</p>

<p>Action by 1175 De Kalb Avenue Company, Incorporated, against. Thomas A. Clarke.</p>

<p>Action by Francesco Pensabene, as administrator, etc., against the F. & J. Auditors Company.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Yves De Villers.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against the McDermott Dairy Company. J. P. Donellan, of New York City, for appellant. E. C. Kindleberger, of New York City, for the People.</p>

<p>Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Mart-' zel Skarwinkiewicz, against the Warden of the City Prison.</p>

<p>Action by Jennie D. Petrie and another, etc., against the Lancaster Realty Company and another.</p>

<p>Action by Perle W. Root against John M. Brainard.</p>

<p>In the matter of Alfred J. Rifkind.</p>

<p>In the matter of Alfred T. Rowe.</p>

<p>Action by Solomon Schinasi and others against Louis Schinasi and others.</p>

<p>Action by Josephine A. Ryan, as administratrix, etc., of John J. Ryan, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Mary Ryder and others against Meta A. Kennedy, individually and as administratrix, etc., of Thomas J. Kennedy, deceased, and others.</p>

<p>Action by Mary Ryder and others against Meta A. Kennedy, individually and as administratrix, etc., and others.</p>

In the matter of the claim of Richard Shea for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Con-sol. Laws. c. 67) against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, employer.

<p>Action by S. C. Posner, Incorporated, against Emanuel A. Jackson and others. E. E. Wise, of New York- City, for appellant.</p>

<p>Action by Sarilla E. Smith, as administratrix, etc., of Christopher Smith, deceased,, against the State of New York.</p>

<p>Action by Harry Stambul against the Estate of Henry G. Miner, deceased. A. H. Sarasohn, of New York City, for appellant J. Fischer, of New York City, for respondent</p>

<p>In the matte of the claim of Augustus Albert Stevens fo compensation under the Workmen’s Compensa tion Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67) against tlie Le-high Valley Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by Joseph Sutkar against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by the Tenement House Department of New York against Henry Neugass, impleaded with others. J. P. O’Brien, of New York City, for appellant. J. A. Whitehom, of Brooklyn, for respondent.</p>

<p>In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of the Union Trust Company of New York, as trustee, etc., of Charles F. Hoffman, deceased.</p>

<p>Action by William D. Tyndall and others against the Pinelawn Cemetery.</p>

<p>Action by the Troy Waste Manufacturing Company against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.</p>

<p>Action by the United Transportation Company against John D. Hass.</p>

<p>In the matter of Alfred W. Varían.</p>

<p>Action, by Nathaniel Walkoff, as trustee, against Hugh C. Fox and others. W. C. Rosenberg, of New York City, for appellants. M. Cohen, of New York City, for respondent.</p>

Application of George H. Warren and others, executors, for writ of certiorari to review the action of the Board of Taxes' and Assessments of the City of New York. From an order quashing the writ, petitioners appeal, and from so much of such order as fails to award costs, and also from an order denying their motion to resettle the order, defendants appeal.

<p>In the matter of Samuel S. White-house.</p>

<p>Action by Madison H. Wet-more against the Conger & Phelps Lumber Company.</p>

<p>Action by Samuel T. Williams and anther against the Peter Keeler Building Company and others. Joseph G. Abramson, of New York City, for appellant.</p>

<p>Action by William Stake & Go., Incorporated, against Oswald Roth and another. J. E. Kelly, of Now York City, for appellant. H. Eseher, Jr., of Brooklyn, for respondents.</p>

<p>Action by Jacob Willey, Jr., against Andrew Mynderse.</p>

<p>Action by Sarah E. Wibirt against George N. Miller, Jr. J. C. Jackson, for appellant. J. B. Sheehan, of New York City, for respondent.</p>