Volume 164 — New York Appellate Division Reports

Appeal by the defendant, William Willett, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered against him on the 3d day of February, 1914, convicting him of the crime of requesting and accepting a nomination for a public office, upon the understanding and the promise of a valuable consideration, and upon the payment of a valuable consideration.

Appeal by the defendant, Joseph Cassidy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered against'him on the 3d day of February, 1914, convicting him of the crime of making, tendering and offering to procure and to cause a nomination to a public office, upon the payment and contribution of a valuable consideration, and upon the understanding and promise thereof.

Appeal by the defendant, Louis T. Walter, Jr., from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered against him on the 3d day of February, 1914, convicting him of the crime of making, tendering and offering to procure and to cause a nomination to a public office, upon the payment and contribution of a valuable consideration, and upon the understanding and promise thereof, and also from an order made on the 3d day of February, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the defendants, Max Jaffe and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 3d day of November, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Orange Special Term. Also a motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal of the defendants herein.

Appeal by the defendant, Philip Bruno, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, Part Two, rendered against him on the 10th day of March, 1914, convicting him of the crime of falsely making and counterfeiting a trade mark.

Appeal by the defendant, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 22d day of April, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 30th day of April, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Crime — grand larceny, second degree—failure to connect defendant with crime — proof necessary to convict former offender.</p> <p>Appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, as a second offense. Evidence examined and field, insufficient to identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime, and that a judgment of conviction should be reversed. A former offender may not be convicted upon evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction of a person charged with a first offense.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, McCormack Real Estate Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 18th day of February, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said' clerk’s office on the same day denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, Mary E. Maxon, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Nassau Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Nassau on the 30th day of June, 1914.

Appeal by Jacob Seibert, Jr., from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Suffolk, entered in the office of said Surrogate’s Court on the 17th day of March, 1913, in so far as said order adjudges that the 620 shares of stock in the William B. Dana Company, now held by appellant, are subject to a transfer tax.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Wyandank Pharaoh, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Suffolk on the 28th day of November, 1910, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Suffolk Special Term.

Appeal by the plaintiff, The Lehigh and Hudson River Railway Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 15th day of December, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Orange Special Term.

Appeal by the defendant, Maria Keenan, from an' order of the County Court of Queens county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 17th day of June, 1914, denying her motion for judgment on the pleadings.

<p>Deposition — examination of defendant before trial—pleading — complaint uniting suit of foreclosure with action to recover prospective profits — equity — power to give complete relief.</p> <p>A plaintiff suing for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s hen on real property may unite in the same complaint a cause of action for loss of anticipated</p> <p>profits arising from a breach, of the contract upon which the mechanic’s lien was founded although no hen exists for such anticipated profits. When equity has acquired jurisdiction to enforce the hen on one part of the contract, it may retain control of the entire controversy and give judgment finally determining the same, though, it seems, should the defendant demand a jury trial on the question of anticipated profits it may have such trial upon a framed issue.</p> <p>Under such complaint, uniting the equitable suit of foreclosure and the action for damages caused by loss of anticipated profits, the court may order an examination of the defendant before trial.</p>

<p>Appeal—review of order amending findings and judgment—motion to vacate after time for appeal has expired.</p> <p>An order amending findings of fact and conclusions of law and amending the judgment so as to conform therewith, of which order made upon notice the court had jurisdiction, can only be reviewed by an appeal within the time prescribed by law where there is no claim of inadvertence or clerical mistake.</p> <p>Thus, where such order has been entered on motion of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s time to appeal has expired, he cannot move for an order vacating the order amending the findings and judgment or compelling the plaintiff in the alternative to re-enter the judgment as amended.</p>

<p>New trial — newly-discovered evidence — testimony formerly given in supplementary proceedings.</p> <p>A judgment founded upon a breach of contract should not be set aside and a new trial granted upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence, unless it appear that such evidence has been discovered since the trial; that it could not have been obtained for use upon the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; that it is material to the issue and goes to the merits of the case; that it is not merely cumulative and that its character is such that it would probably have changed the result or would probably change it upon a new trial if granted.</p> <p>Thus a new trial should not be granted merely upon the ground that testimony formerly given by the plaintiff on supplementary proceedings will tend to contradict his subsequent testimony that he was illiterate, where the defendant was examined as a witness in the supplementary proceedings, and the plaintiff’s testimony was fully discussed before him and he had been informed on requesting a copy of such testimony that it could be obtained from the files of the register’s office.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendants, Mary Hotaling and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 3d day of March, 1914, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term.</p>

Motion by the plaintiff, Frederick A. Jones, to dismiss an appeal taken by the receivers of the corporation against whom judgment was rendered but who had not been substituted as parties in the action.

<p>Appeal by the defendants, George Archer and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rock-land on the 20th day of October, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Rockland Special Term.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, The Board of Supervisors of Onondaga County, from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, made at the Onondaga Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on the 28th day of January, 1914, directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue to the defendants. The order was made upon the report of a referee appointed to hear and determine the issues.

Appeal by the defendant, C. Klinck Packing Company, from a judgment of the County Court of Erie county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 3d day of June, 1914, affirming four separate judgments of conviction against the defendant rendered by the City Court of the city of Buffalo.

Appeal by the defendant, Erie County Agricultural Society, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 3d day of March, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 16th day of March, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 28th day of October, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury for $25,000, later reduced by the court to $18,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes, except such part of the…

Appeal by the plaintiff, McClure Newspaper Syndicate, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 6th day of July, 1914, granting a motion to vacate and set aside the service of the summons herein.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Foster Milliken, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 5th day of June, 1914, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint.

Appeal by the defendants, Edward L. White and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of July, 1914, denying defendants’ motion for a retaxation of costs.

Appeal by the defendant, Frederick Loeser and Company, Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 19th day of June, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for an order directing that the issues arising upon the counterblaim herein be tried at Special Term without a jury and prior to the trial of the other issues in the action.

Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central and Hudson Eiver Eailroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 16th day of April, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $3,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 22d day of April, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, Francesco Criscuoli, from a judgment of the County Court of Kings county, rendered against him on the 27th day of April, 1914, convicting him of the crime of carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of section 1897 of the Penal Law.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, William J. Bague, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Bichmond on the 24th day of October, 1913, denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.</p>

<p>Cross-appeals by the plaintiff, Mechanics’ Bank, and by the defendant, The City of New York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 26th day of February, 1913, upon the general verdict of a jury, rendered by direction of the court, certain questions of fact having first been submitted to the jury, and a special verdict rendered thereon, and also cross-appeals from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 27th day of February, 1913, as resettled by an order entered on the 4th day of March, 1913.</p> <p>The plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as dismisses the first and fifth causes of action set up in the amended complaint, which was done by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case, and it also appeals from so much of the order as denies plaintiff’s motion to set aside the directions of dismissal as to those causes of action and for a new trial thereof.</p> <p>The defendant appeals from so much of the judgment as awards damages to the plaintiff upon the second, third, fourth and seventh causes of action set up in the amended complaint, and from so much of the order as denies defendant’s motion to set aside the special and general verdicts of the jury as to these causes of action and for a new trial thereof.</p>

<p>Appeal by Bart Dunn, as executor, etc., from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, entered in the office of said Surrogate’s Court on the 5th day of May, 1914, directing the executor to take up a referee’s report and pay the fees of the referee and of the stenographer.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Adolph E. G-utgsell, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Bronx Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Bronx on the 25th day of July, 1914, denying a motion to vacate an ex parte order heretofore granted ordering the appellant to disclose the address and residence of another of the defendants.

Appeal by the defendant, Michael Tannenbaum, from - an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day of August, 1914, granting plaintiffs’ motion to continue an injunction pendente lite.

Appeal by the defendants, Felix Isman and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 12th day of May, 1914, denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Appeal by the relator, Henry Wallace Phillips, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 3d day of August, 1914, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the relator to custody.

Application on the report of official referee upon charges against the respondent, an attorney at law, presented by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

<p>Attorney at law suspended — procuring conveyance of property to delay foreclosure.</p> <p>Attorney at law suspended from practice for procuring a conveyance of property upon which a mortgage was about to be foreclosed to persons who had no interest in the property so as to delay the foreclosure, in violation of section 1170 of the Penal Law, making it a misdemeanor to become a party to a conveyance of real estate with intent to defraud creditors or other persons, etc.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant, The Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Company, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of June, 1914, overruling a demurrer to the amended complaint upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, John Doyle, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 30th day of April, 1914, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Appeal by the defendant, William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 7th day of May, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Kings County Special Term. The judgment permanently enjoined the defendant from removing a liquor tax certificate issued to the plaintiff.

Appeal by the relator, Urban Water Supply Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 19th day of August, 1914, denying its motion for a writ of mandamus, and also from an order made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 14th day of September, 1914, denying relator’s motion for leave to renew its…

Appeal by the plaintiff, Frank A. Cunningham, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 24th day of November, 1913, upon the dismissal of the complaint on the merits by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Appeal by the defendant, H. G. Vogel Company, from a determination of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on or about the 11th day of June, 1914, affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, borough of Manhattan, third district, overruling demurrers to the complaint and the amended complaint and granting plaintiff damages, and also an appeal from the judgment…

Appeal by the defendant, Rockville Centre Improvement Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New Yoik Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 15th day of July, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a separate trial of the issues arising upon the counterclaim and reply herein at Special Term, and his further motion that in the meantime the trial of the issues raised by the complaint and answer be stayed.

Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 18th day of September, 1912, directed to Max S. G-rifenhagen, register of the county of New York, commanding him to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of New York all and singular his proceedings had in removing the relator from his office as clerk in the office of the register of the county of New York.

<p>Contract —jurisdiction of equity to rescind executed contractffor purchase of personal property—false warranties and representations — remedy at law.</p> <p>A complaint in a suit in equity to rescind a contract for the purchase of personal property and to recover back the purchase price, upon the ground of false warranties and representations on the part of the defendant, and seeking as incidental relief to enjoin the prosecution of an action by the defendant to recover the cost of repairs made upon the property after the purchase, does not state a cause of action in equity. It seems, however, that such a complaint contains all the necessary allegations for an action at law to recover the price paid.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, George Rector, Inc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of July, 1914, upon the report of a referee.

Appeal by the defendant, Joseph R. Clevenger, from a judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 30th day of December, 1913, affirming a unanimous judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, borough of Manhattan, first district, in plaintiff’s favor, entered upon a directed verdict after a trial of the issues.

Appeal by the defendant, Rothschild Realty Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the-office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of November, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,600, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 8th day of December, 1913, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Practice—place of trial-—action affecting title to real property.</p> <p>An action for the cancellation of a lease of real property and for possession of the premises, and for an alleged trespass by defendants in possession under an assignment of said lease, must, under section 982 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be tried in the county where the property is situate.</p> <p>The mere fact that the title to real estate is involved in an action does not necessarily bring the case within the provisions of this section; but the section applies if the judgment demanded involves a change in the title.</p>

Appeal by the defendants, Charles D. Warren and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 15th day of August, 1914, appointing a referee to hear and determine the issues herein, without the consent of the appellants.

Appeal by the defendants, Charles D. Warren and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew Y ork on the 5th day of August, 1914, denying their motion for a further bill of particulars herein.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Frank E. Poss, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 27th day of August, 1914, denying his motion to vacate an order herein directing the payment of alimony pendente lite.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, George E. Fisher, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 23d day of January, 1911, whereby the court on its own motion when the case was reached for trial at Special Term referred the issues to one of the official referees to hear, try and determine.</p>

<p>Pleading—irrelevant and redundant allegations.</p> <p>Where, in an action to recover the purchase price of merchandise, the plaintiffs, after the necessary allegations, further allege that they have offered to arbitrate with the defendants, which offer has been rejected, and the defendants deny the same, statements in complete defenses-that the provisions for arbitration were in themselves null and void, and hence ousted the court of jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs have failed to comply with the agreement for arbitration, are irrelevant and redundant, and should be stricken out.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Walter J. Diamond, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 21st day of April, 1914, denying defendant’s motion to vacate an order for his examination before trial.

Appeal by the defendants, Gustav Grossman and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff and against the appellants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 16th day of February, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the llth day of February, 1914, denying appellants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Contract — sale of ore — right of purchaser to reject ore which fails to meet specifications.</p> <p>Under a contract for the sale of a large quantity of antimony ore, providing that the purchaser should have the right to reject the ore if it did not assay fifty per cent after arrival in New York, the right to reject affords the purchaser an exclusive remedy in case the ore falls below fifty per cent, and no damages can be legally recovered.</p>

<p>Contract—agreement giving exclusive right to produce play—production by means of moving pictures.</p> <p>A contract with the writer of a play, giving a manager of theatres the exclusive fight to produce said play and permitting him to lease the same to stock companies, is violated by an agreement by the father of the writer, who succeeded to his interest, giving the right to another to produce said play by means of moving pictures, which method of production has become possible since the execution of the original contract.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, German Savings Bank in the City of New York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of January, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.

Appeal by the defendant, American and British Manufacturing Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of May, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on or about the 3d day of June, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, New York, New Haven and Hartford Eailroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 23d day of May, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 21st day of May, 1913, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Fenella Burrell, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 11th day of December, 1913, dismissing her complaint upon the merits on the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.

<p>Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Doull Miller Company, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of July, 1912, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.

<p>Appeal by Anton H. Meyer, as assignee, etc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 6th day of June, 1914, confirming the report of a referee in a proceeding to enforce respondent’s lien, with notice of an intention to bring up for review an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 24th day of June, 1913, establishing the respondent’s lien and directing a reference to determine the amount thereof.</p>

<p>Corporations — membership corporations — expulsion of member — right to hearing—when mandamus issues to compel restoration to membership.</p> <p>Where the by-laws of a labor union, incorporated under the Membership Corporations Law, provides that members whose acts are detrimental to the welfare of the organization shall be subject to forfeiture of membership, or any action “the body may see fit to take after a fair trial before the Executive Board or the body in session,” a resolution providing that the action of the executive board in proceedings to expel a member shall be final is unwarranted, for no member may be disciplined except by the body of the corporation itself.</p> <p>Hence, where a member, having been tried only before the executive board, was denied admission to a subsequent meeting at which the report of the executive board was presented to the corporation, .and thereafter, at another meeting, was expelled by action of the corporation itself, but without notice, the expulsion is unlawful and mandamus will issue to compel his reinstateipent.</p> <p>The court" in reviewing proceedings to discipline a member of a voluntary association or membership corporation will search the record to see whether the proceeding has been in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the organization, whether the charges are substantial, and whether the member has had fair notice and opportunity to be heard. If so, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the organization.</p>

Appeal by the relator, John Mulhern, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk'of the county of New York .on the 15th day. of April, 1911,'denying his motion for a.writ.' of mandamus requiring respondent to reinstate him as a member.

Appeal by the defendant, Henry A. Pollette, from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster county, rendered against him on the 23d day of June, 1913, convicting him of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

<p>Bills and notes — check payable to vendor of real estate—fraudulent execution of contract and indorsement of check in name of vendor — when drawee not liable to refund.</p> <p>In an action by a depositor against a bank to recover the amount of a check, it appeared that a real estate broker fraudulently executed a contract of sale in the name of a vendor who had no knowledge of the transaction or interest in the property; that a check drawn by the purchaser, subsequently certified and indorsed payable to the vendor, was delivered to the broker on account of the purchase price; that he indorsed it in the name of the vendor payable to his own firm, then indorsed the firm name and procured the money thereon.</p> <p>Held, that a judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed and a new trial granted.</p> <p>As the check and its proceeds reached the identical person whom the drawer intended it should reach, to wit, the person who signed the contract of sale, the bank is not liable.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, Joseph Gulla, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Madison on the 27th day of October, 1913, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, John Myer, from a judgment, of the Supreme Court, rendered against him on the 27th day of May, 1914, convicting him of the crime of arson in the second degree, also from an order entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Seneca on the same day overruling the amended demurrer interposed to the indictment, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Libbie D. Smith, individually and as executrix, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Cattaraugus on the 20th day of March, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Cattaraugus Trial Term before the court without a jury.

<p>Fraud—action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by fraudulent representations, inducing plaintiff tó exchange property with defendants — liability of wife for fraudulent representations by husband—evidence — damages.</p> <p>Action against a wife and her husband to recover damages caused by alleged false and fraudulent representations by which the plaintiff was induced to part with certain property in exchange for a bond and mortgage. Evidence examined, and held, sufficient, to require the submission to the jury of the question as to whether or not the alleged false statements were made by the defendant wife before the transaction was completed.</p> <p>It seems, that under the circumstances the wife may be liable for misrepresentations made by her husband who was acting for her.</p> <p>The fact that the plaintiff subsequently bid in the mortgaged premises upon a sale under a judgment not disclosed to him, which was a lien prior to the assigned mortgage, does not necessarily entitle him to recover from the defendants the amount so bid and paid, and a judgment against the defendant husband, awarding damages on such a basis, should be reversed.</p> <p>The usual rule of damages in such a case is the difference between the value of the article sold as it was represented to be and as it actually was.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, William S. Tevis, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 11th day of December, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term, a jury having been waived.

Appeal by the defendant, William S. Tevis, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 11th day of December, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term, a jury having been waived.

Appeal by the defendant, Elias C. Benedict, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 2d day of September, 1914, overruling his demurrer to the complaint.

<p>Municipal corporations — city of New York — civil service — appointment of chief inspector of building bureaus — right of commissioner to discharge employee.</p> <p>The commissioner of the tenement house department of the city of New York by writing a letter appointing a person “Chief Inspector of the Old Building Bureau in the Brooklyn Division of the Tenement House Department ” at a certain salary, does not create a bureau in addition to the three bureaus created by the statute, nor does he thereby designate the appointee as head of one of the designated bureaus. Hence, such inspector is not within the protection of section 1543 of the Greater New York charter and may be discharged without being allowed an opportunity of making an explanation and without a statement showing the reasons of his dismissal.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Elizabeth J. Graham, from part of a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 22d day of December, 1913, as amended by a judgment entered in said clerk’s office on the 9th day of January, 1914. The judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court.</p> <p>Appeal by the plaintiff, E. Platt Stratton, from so much of said judgment as finds that the defendant is entitled to the possession of certain diamonds now in the possession of the plaintiff, which diamonds are claimed by defendant in her counterclaim, and as awards to said defendant possession of said diamonds, and six cents damages for the withholding of the same. Plaintiff also appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Queens County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 12th day of March, 1913, denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.</p>

Appeal by the defendants, Joseph H. S. Muller and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of May, 1914, overruling separate demurrers by the several defendants to the complaint.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Gilbert C. Davidson, from, an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the respondents, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 15th day of May, 1914, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York'Special Term, sustaining separate demurrers by the defendants Geisha Realty Company and Louis M. Simson to the amended complaint.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Press Publishing Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 26th day of June, 1914, striking out certain allegations contained in the amended answer as irrelevant and requiring defendant to serve a further amended answer omitting said allegations and stating separately the facts which it claims constitute a complete defense and those which it claims constitute a partial defense and omitting from the complete defense the denials of the allegations of the complaint.</p>

Appeal by William N. Bavier and another, as executors and trustees, etc., and others, from part of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 11th day of February, 1911, upon an accounting involving the construction of the will of Mary A. S. Bums, deceased.

Appeal by William N. Bavier and another, as trustees, etc., and others, from parts of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, county of New York, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 11th day of February, 1914, settling the accounts of the trustees herein.

Appeal by the defendants, William Frederick Peters and another, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of June, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Angldile Computing Scale Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Delaware on the 15th day of April, 1914, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Master and servant—negligence — liability of master for failure to provide safe scaffolding, equipped with railing — liability where carpenter is injured while tearing down platform — evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover for the death of a carpenter alleged to have been caused by the failure of the defendant employer to provide a safe scaffolding, equipped with a railing, in compliance with the provisions of the Labor Law, it was contended by the defendant that the deceased at the time of the accident was engaged in tearing down the platform from which he fell, while the plaintiff claimed that the deceased was engaged in erecting a brace used in supporting the electrical equipment. Held, on all the evidence, that a verdict for the plaintiff was against the weight of the evidence and that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiffs, Agnes Gaffey and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, .entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rensselaer on the 17th day of December, 1913, upon a dismissal of the complaint on the merits by direction of the court at the close of plaintiffs’ case.

Appeal by the plaintiff, John Schmidt, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 15th day of April, 1914.

Appeal by the defendant, William Mueller, from an order of the Oounty Court of Queens county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 27th day of June, 1914, affirming a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court of the city of New York, borough of Queens, adjudging the defendant a disorderly person in having abandoned his two children and ordering him to pay a weekly sum for their support.

Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central and Hudson Biver Bailroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 21st day of February, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial before the court without a jury at the New York Trial Term.

Appeal by J. Boyce Smith, Jr., from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 3d day of July, 1914, denying the application of the appellant for the issuance to him of letters of guardianship as testamentary guardian of Marion Adelaide Tombo, an infant.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Bert L. Carpenter, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Washington on the 10th day of June, 1914, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the opening.

<p>Appeal by the Mutual Bank of Roseville, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of June, 1914, resettling an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 1st day of June, 1914, denying appellant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s warrant of attachment herein, or, in the -alternative, to vacate the levy made thereunder.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, Rose Drusky, as administratrix, etc., from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schenectady on the 1st day of July, 1914, upon a dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of the case.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Prince Line, Limited, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 9th day of January, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $7,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of January, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes..</p>

Appeal by the defendant, American Sugar Refining Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 3d day of February, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $10,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 18th day of February, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Mary L. Coen, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the respondent, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 22d day of November, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Kings County Special Term.

Appeals in each case by the defendant, the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, from two judgments of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, one in each case, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 9th day of January, 1914, upon verdicts of the jury, and also from two orders, one in each case, entered in said clerk’s office on the 26 th day of January, 1914, denying the defendant’s motions for a new trial.

Appeal by the plaintiff, The Phoenix Hermetic Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 2d day of February, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of February, 1914, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiffs, Jennie Heyman and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 18th day of July, 1913, dismissing the complaint on the merits upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Kings County Special Term. The suit was brought to compel the removal of a sewer pipe on plaintiffs’ land and for other relief.

Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of St. Lawrence on the 22d day of September, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury for $2,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 18th day of September, 1913, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, The P. & H. Morton Advertising Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 23d day of March, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after twelve questions of fact had been submitted to the jury and a special verdict rendered thereon.

Appeal by the defendant, Wilbert W. Mountjoy, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 23d day of May, 1913, directing an accounting between the parties upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.

<p>Appeal by the defendants, Duncan I. Eoberts, as president, etc., and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 19th day of June, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $6,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 23d day of June, 1914, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Rinehart & Dennis Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 22d day of April, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $7,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on or about the 21st day of April, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 29th day of May, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $850, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 15th day of June, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The action was brought by a servant against his master to recover damages for personal injuries.

Appeal by the defendant, I. M. Ludington’s Sons, Inc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 24th day of March, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term'.

Appeal by the defendant, Dietrich 0. Gercken, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 4th day of October, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term. The judgment required a purchaser to specifically perform a contract for the purchase of a parcel of real estate.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Manhattan Rubber Manufacturing Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of December, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 15th day of December, 1913, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, Deborah Van Ness, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Nassau on the 26th day of December, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court, both sides having moved for the direction of a verdict at the close of the case, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 5th day of January, 1914, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Atlantic Stevedoring Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 22d day of October, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury for $2,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying appellant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendants, Gr. Emil Hesse and another, and Henry H. McCorkle and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the Jth day of July, 1914, adjudging the appellants guilty of contempt of court and fining them therefor.

Appeal by the defendants, Samuel V. Hoffman, as executor, etc., and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of certain of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of June, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term. Action to construe a will.

<p>Principal and agent—provisions of power of attorney construed — insurance — action on life insurance policy — set-off—loan to agent of beneficiary procured by forging the names of the insured and the beneficiary.</p> <p>Provisions of a power of attorney executed by the beneficiary of a life insurance policy to her son conferring upon him authority to transact certain business affairs in her behalf, examined and held, not to confer authority to pledge the policy of insurance for a loan.</p> <p>Where, in an action on a policy of life insurance, it appears that the plaintiff’s son, without authority, had pledged the policy with the defendant as security for a loan which he had devoted to his personal use; that the defendant supposed that it was dealing directly with the plaintiff and her husband, and in making the loan relied upon their signatures which had been forged by the son, it cannot set off the amount of the loan against the sum due on the policy.</p> <p>As the plaintiff had no power to assign the policy without her husband’s consent the assignment effected by forging his name was void.</p>

Appeal by the defendants, Guisepina Santangelo and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of New York on the 11th day of February, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.

<p>Civil service — rule 16 construed — indefinite leave of absence without pay — right of employee to reinstatement.</p> <p>The words “ separated from the service,” as used in rule 16 of the State Civil Service Commission relating to reinstatement of employees in the civil service without re-examination within one year from the date of separation from service, when construed in connection with section 19 of the Civil Service Law mean separation from the service by dismissal, resignation, cancellation of appointment or death.</p> <p>Hence, where an employee in the civil service has at her request been granted an “ indefinite leave of absence without pay,” she is entitled to reinstatement without examination although more than one year has elapsed since the commencement of the leave of absence.</p> <p>Moreover, as the employee was granted an indefinite leave of absence without pay, she was not “ separated ” from the service within the meaning of the rule and is entitled to reinstatement in the service.</p>

Appeal by the claimants, John B. Miller and others, from a judgment of the Court of Claims, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 13th day of June, 1910, dismissing their claims in this proceeding.

Appeal by the defendant, Margaret A. Moot, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Montgomery Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schenectady on the 10th day of August, 1914, granting plaintiff’s motion to settle the issues herein for a trial by jury.

Appeal by the defendant, Edward Stetson Griffing, as mayor, etc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 25th day of June, 1914.

Appeal by the defendant, John Wanamaker, New York, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 26th day of June, 1914, denying its motion to strike out certain items of the bill of costs as retaxed from the judgment.

Appeal by the defendant, Hortense Powers, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 20th day of July, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion for a modification of the final decree of divorce herein by granting her leave to see the children of the marriage.

Appeals by the plaintiffs, Louis G-reenspan and Charles Hoffer, in each of the above-entitled actions, from orders of the Supreme Court, made at the Albany Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 1st day of June, 1914, denying in each case the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pendente lite.

Appeal by the defendant, Theodore Roosevelt, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Albany Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 5th day of October, 1914.

Appeal by the defendant Arthur Schwarzenbach from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Otsego Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Otsego on the 26th day of November, 1913, confirming the report of commissioners of appraisal herein, with notice of an intention to bring up for review an interlocutory judgment entered in said clerk’s office on the 24th day of February, 1913, and all proceedings antecedent or subsequent thereto, except the…

<p>Attorney at law censured — professional misconduct in bankruptcy proceedings.</p> <p>An attorney censured for his lack of frankness to the attorneys for creditors who employed him, and for failure to inform them that he had an office with the attorney for the bankrupt, and had discussed with.him, the bankrupt’s affairs.</p> <p>Attorneys will be held to the strictest accountability for the utmost good faith in bankruptcy proceedings, and any suppression of information which would influence the action of creditors, or any collusive action which results in fraudulent misappropriation of the bankrupt’s property, will be treated as serious professional misconduct requiring discipline.</p>

Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on or about the 4th day of February, 1913, directed to Rhine-lander Waldo, as police commissioner of the city of New York, commanding him to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of New York all and singular his proceedings had in dismissing the relator from the police force of the city of New York.

Appeal by the defendant, Village of Union, from a judgment of the County Court of Broome county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 29th day of October, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury for $138.75, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendants, Sagamore Development Company and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 11th day of December, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Westchester Special Term.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, John 0. Kalb, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Queens County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 29th day of August, 1914, denying plaintiff’s motion for an injunction.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, George W. Bell, from a judgment of the County Court of Broome county, entered in the office of the clerk of said comity on the 14th day of May, 1914, affirming a judgment of the City Court of Binghamton in plaintiff’s favor.

Appeal by the defendant, The City of New York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 31st day of March, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $12,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 15th day of April, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Insurance — liquidation of business of surety company pursuant to section 63 of the Insurance Law — violation of order restraining creditors from taking proceedings against insolvent corporation — filing claim in another State — contempt.</p> <p>The Supreme Court, in a proceeding directing the Superintendent of Insurance to take possession of the property and liquidate the business of a surety company, pursuant to section 68 of the Insurance Law, may grant an order restraining creditors of the surety company from taking proceedings against it for the purpose of recovering them claims.</p> <p>Where such a restraining order is served upon a creditor and he files his claim with the Superintendent of Insurance, the Supreme Court acquires jurisdiction over his person, and may punish him for failure to obey the order.</p> <p>Hence, a creditor of such a corporation who after the service of said order upon him files a claim in the United States court in another State, against funds deposited by said surety company, as a condition of doing business within that State, violates the provisions of the injunction order and may be punished for contempt.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiffs, Otto M. Eidlitz and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 2d day of March, 1914, dismissing the complaint upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.</p> <p>The suit was brought for the reformation of a written contract.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, Rensselaer L. Ourtis, as receiver, etc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 20th day of April, 1914, denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Appeal by Sidney Wallach, as executor and trustee, etc., from part of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, entered in the office of said Surrogate’s Court on the 19th day of March, 1914, confirming a referee’s report. The appeal is from so much of the judgment as surcharges the accounts of the appellant with the sum of $200.

Appeal by the defendants, Salem Rosenblatt and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 12th day of March, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $5,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of March, 1914, denying defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Thomas E. Oolby, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Bronx Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Bronx on the 30th day of July, 1914, granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.</p>

Appeal by the defendants, Frank W. Blair and others, as receivers, etc., appearing specially, from two orders of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 25th day of August, 1914, denying their motions to set aside the service of the summons and complaint attempted to be made upon them in this action.

Appeal by the defendants, Arthur Schwarzenbach and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 20th day of February, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 17th day of February, 1914, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Samuel Rosenbaum, from a judg- . ment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 25th day of June, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, George P. Oleary, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on the 14th day of March, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, American Locomotive Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schenectady on the 9th day of March, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $3,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of March, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Post' Pubhshing Company, from a judgment of the County Court of the county of St. Lawrence in defendant’s favor, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 8th day of April, 1914, reversing a judgment of the Justice’s , Court in plaintiff’s favor, with notice of an intention to bring up for review the order of the County Court reversing said judgment.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Isidor Tolchinsky, as administrator, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 12th day of May, 1914, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court after the jury had disagreed, and also from an order entered on the 5th day of May, 1914, denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Ervin A. Keith, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Essex on the 5th day of May, 1914, upon a dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at'the close of plaintiff’s case.

Appeal by the defendant, Bankers Life Insurance Company of the City of New York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favdr of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on the 22d day of December, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on .the 26th day of December, 1913, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Obed A. Seely, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Tioga on the 1st day of November, 1913, upon a dismissal of the complaint on the merits by direction of the court, defendant having moved for a dismissal of the complaint on the pleadings at the opening of the case.

<p>Blaster and servant — negligence — injury by removal of supports from platform — evidence — cross-examination tending to show contributory negligence.</p> <p>Where in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by an order of the defendant directing the removal of supports of a platform upon which the plaintiff was working, it appears that the plaintiff heard the direction of the defendant, it is reversible error to refuse to allow the defendant when cross-examining the plaintiff to ask him if he understood that the order involved the removal of the supports. This, because if the plaintiff understood that the posts were to be removed he was called upon to take care of himself and might be found guilty of contributory negligence.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant, New York Railways Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 24th day of April, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $5,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 21st day of April, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the 'minutes.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiffs, Henry G-ilsey and another, as executors, etc., and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 4th day of November, 1911, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 6th day of November, 1911, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, Herman Markowitz, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 6th day of April, 1914, denying his motion to set aside the verdict of a jury in his favor for one dollar on the ground of inadequacy of damages.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, John Sloan, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 17th day of July, 1911, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

Appeal by the plaintiff, William Harcourt King, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the,clerk of the county of New York on the 1st day of July, 1913, upon a dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of the case upon a trial before the court and a jury.

Appeal by the defendant, The Ninigret Mills Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 15th day of January, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 28th day of January, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiffs, Julia Kelly and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Bronx Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Bronx on the 8th day of July, 1914, overruling their demurrer to the counterclaim contained in the amended answer. The motion was brought to a hearing, pursuant to section 976 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Appeal by the defendant, New York, New Haven and Hartford Eailroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 30th day of January, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $9,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 10th day of February, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Charles Earle, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 17th day of June, 1912, as amended by an order entered in said clerk’s-office on the 27th day of April, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial- at the Westchester Special Term. The defendant also appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 25th day of April, 1914, which confirmed the report of a referee and modified the judgment herein, with notice of an intention to bring up for review an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 2d day of December, 1913, appointing a referee herein.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiffs, David Jacobs and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 5th day of February, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial before the court at the Kings County Trial Term, a jury having been waived.

Appeal by the defendant, The City of New York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 3d day of April, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Queens County Trial Term, a jury having been waived.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Elizabeth P. Hicks, from a judg- . ment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 1st day of April, 1914, dismissing the complaint upon the merits upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Dutchess Special Term.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Jacob Bachmann, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the respondents, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 24th day of July, 1914, upon an order granting respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Appeal by the defendant, Margaret Eleanor Forbes Debovoise, individually and as executrix, etc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 28th day of August, 1914, overruling her demurrer to the complaint, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 25th day of August, 1914, denying defendant’s motion to sustain her demurrer herein and for judgment on the…

<p>Judgment — dismissal of counterclaims “on the merits.”</p> <p>Where, upon the trial of an action, the defendants consent to a nonsuit as to certain counterclaims, and introduce no evidence, a judgment dismissing them “on the merits” is unwarranted, and should be modified.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Village of Union, from an order of the County Court of Broome county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 6th day of May, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a retaxation of costs.

Appeal by the defendant, Sun Printing and Publishing Association, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of December, 1913, granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside a verdict in her favor for $100 and granting a new trial.

<p>Trust — action upon trust bond — reliance of trustee upon certificate of title insurance company — negligence of trustee in accepting substituted security upon insufficient report of appraiser.</p> <p>In an action to recover upon a collateral trust bond, issued by a building association and secured by mortgages on improved real estate, it appeared that the trustee, upon accepting other mortgages as substituted securities, received policies of title insurance to the effect that the mortgages were first liens on the premises; that an appraisal furnished to the trustee, pursuant to the trust agreement, showed that" the value fixed upon the buildings was that of completed buildings, while it was stated that they were only in course of erection, and that the value of the land alone was insufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement. It thereafter developed that the mortgages were not first liens, and were valueless to the bondholders.</p> <p>Held, that a dismissal of the complaint was error;</p> <p>That, although the trustee was justified in relying upon the certificate of the title insurance company, a question of fact was presented as to whether the trustee was guilty of gross negligence in accepting the substituted security upon the report of the appraiser.</p>

Appeal by the defendants, W. Irvin Seligman and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 31st day of August, 1914, granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the second cause of action because of the insufficiency- of the demurrer thereto.

Appeal by the defendant, • August Oppenheimer, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 15th day of January, Í913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 14th day of February, 1913, resettling certain findinsg of fact and one of the conclusions of law herein.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Anthony Patrick, as administrator, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant Atlas Knitting Company, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schenectady on the 15th day of July, 1913, upon a dismissal of the complaint as to the respondent by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Appeal by the plaintiff, The People of the State of New York, from an order of the Comity Court of Schuyler county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 20th day of January, 1914, setting aside the verdict of a jury convicting the defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree and granting him a new trial on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to try the cause.

Appeal by the defendant, The Home Insurance Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rensselaer on the 13th day of March, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 16th day of March, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendants, Reuben H. Gulvin and others, from part of a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the relators, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Ontario on the 14th day of August, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial before the court, a jury having been waived.

Appeal by the defendant, Thomas H. Karr, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 27th day of January, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $3,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 3d day of February, 1914, denying appellant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, J. Walter G-age Realty Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Monroe Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 12th day of January, 1914, granting plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and directing that a writ of inquiry issue to assess the damages, with leave to the defendant to move at the next Special Term for contested motions to amend its answer, and staying plaintiffs’…

Appeal by the defendant, Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Madison on .the 27th day of October, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury for $5,325, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 30th day of October, 1913, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Municipal corporation — duty of city treasurer to place funds in depositary designated by city — liability of public official for loss of funds.</p> <p>Under the provisions of the charter of the city of Newburgh, the city treasurer may be compelled by mandamus to deposit all city funds in a depositary designated by the city council.</p> <p>The general rule that a public official assumes all risk of- loss a nd is charged with the duty to account as a debtor for funds in his custody, and his liability under a bond to pay over all moneys received by him, do not extend to moneys received, while they are held by a depositary designated by another body or officer, pursuant to law.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Grace V. Sutphin, from an order of the County Court of Nassau county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 30th day of July, 1914.

Appeal by the relator, Charles Deutermann, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 9th day of May, 1914, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.

Appeal by the petitioner, William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of August, 1914, denying his application herein.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Orton G-. Orr, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 19th day of August, 1914, denying his motion to strikeout certain parts of the answer as irrelevant, immaterial and redundant, and to require defendant to make more definite and certain the allegations contained in the first affirmative defense, and separately to state and number the defenses set…

Appeal by the defendant, May Soper, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 28th day of May, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.

<p>Appeal by Mollie Ebling, as guardian ad litem of the plaintiff herein, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 12th day of August, 1914, resettling a prior order entered in said clerk’s office on the 11th day of July, 1914, and also an appeal from said original order as so resettled. The order appealed from vacated and set aside an order heretofore made appointing Mollie Ebling guardian ad litem of the infant plaintiff herein.</p> <p>Appeal by Enos S. Booth, as guardian ad litem of the plaintiff herein, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 6th day of October, 1914, appointing him guardian ad litem for the infant plaintiff herein, and granting him leave to take an appeal to the Appellate Division from said order, with notice of an intention to bring up for review an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 4th day of May, 1914.</p>

<p>Real property — enforcement of covenant restricting use of land for private dwellings —injunction.</p> <p>A covenant in a deed of a villa lot, that neither the parties nor their heirs or assigns shall at any time hereafter “ erect, cause, procure, permit or suffer to be erected (except upon certain specified blocks), any building other than a building or buildings to be used or occupied or for the purpose of being used or occupied as a private dwelling house or habitation,” restricts the use of the land to private dwellings.</p> <p>Hence, where all of the deeds of lots from the tract of land in question contained such a covenant, the defendants may be restrained from using a building on the premises for hotel purposes and from selling intoxicants thereon. This is true, although such covenants in the defendant’s deed were erased before execution.</p>

<p>Executors and administrators—when court will not interfere with exercise of discretion by appointors—bad faith — evidence.</p> <p>Executors, as appointors, were directed to divide the testator’s residuary estate “not equally but according to then* discretion and judgment as to the respective needs ” of certain charities, and certain of the legatees. The testator also provided “It is my Will that the amount to each, be fixed by my Executors as before said, and they may also abate one or more from the above list.” Some of the beneficiaries under the execution of the power challenged the exercise of their discretion by the appointors as unfair and unreasonable, and one alleged bad faith.</p> <p>Evidence examined, and held, insufficient to warrant a finding of bad faith against the executors, and that a decree settling their accounts should, be affirmed.</p> <p>The court will rarely interfere with the honest exercise of their discretion by appointors.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, Catherine Mary Fuller, as administratrix, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, Mulcahy & Gibson, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 16th day of February, 1914, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court as to the respondent at the close of the plaintiff’s case upon a trial before the court and a jury, and also, as stated in the notice of appeal, from the decision…

Appeal by the plaintiff, Robert Adamson, as fire commissioner, etc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 30th day of June, 1914, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the hearing having been brought on as a contested motion.

<p>Trust—limitation upon majority or earlier death of youngest child surviving testator.</p> <p>Where a testator, having several children, leaves his property in trust “until the youngest surviving child shall have reached the age of 21 years,” the trust is limited upon the majority or earlier death of the youngest child surviving the testator, and not upon the youngest of his children naned in the will attaining the age of twenty-ene years.</p>

Appeal by Frederick Schwartz from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 3d day of May, 1913, in so far as it denies a motion to confirm the report of commissioners of estimate herein as to damage parcel No. 5, and returns said report to the commissioners, with directions to make a new award for said parcel.

Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 28th day of February, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $32,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 5th day of March, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, C. Adelbert Becker, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 13th day of October, 1914, denying a motion to vacate a judgment against the defendant 0. Adelbert Becker.

Appeal by Matthew Morgan, the executor of Annie Cole Morgan, deceased, from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, entered in the office of said Surrogate’s Court on the 4th day of June, 1914, denying his motion to modify an order of said court entered as of course, on the report of the transfer tax appraiser on the 16th day of March, 1908, fixing the' cash value of the property and the transfer tax of the respective interests of the three children of…

<p>Guaranty and suretyship — action upon bond to reimburse employer for funds wrongfully appropriated by employee — evidence — admissions — res gestee —larceny—intent.</p> <p>Where the plaintiffs in an action upon the bond of a surety company conditioned for the reimbursement of the plaintiff for loss sustained by “ any act of larceny or embezzlement ” on the part of a collector of rents employed by them, alleged that the collector failed to account and pay over a certain sum which he had wrongfully appropriated to his own use, it is error to allow them to prove the collector’s wrongful intent by testimony of then* agent that the collector, who is now dead, after the event, had said that he used the money.</p> <p>Such testimony is not admissible as part of the res gesto because it was not contemporaneous in time with the taking of the money.</p> <p>Paper slips in the handwriting of the collector, showing amounts collected by him, are competent evidence as against the defendant.</p> <p>The felonious intent with which the money was retained is an essential element of the crime committed.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, Leopold Levy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of certain of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 15th day of December, 1913,- dismissing the complaint on the merits upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, Ida 0. Schowerer, as administratrix, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rockland on the 20th day of April, 1914, upon a dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of the case, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 29th day of April, 1914, denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Application for relief made directly to the Appellate Division.</p>

<p>Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, entered on the 12th day of April, 1912, directing that the executor of Cyrus Lawton, deceased, be paid a legacy under the will of the testator.</p>

<p> JSminent domain —railroad—damage to adjoining parcels. </p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 26th day of May, 1914, denying defendant’s motion that plaintiff be required to accept service of an amended answer.</p>

<p> Negligence—master and servant—failure to show that negligent person was defendant's employee. </p>

<p> Will—trust — agreement by trustee to resign —accounting —pleading. </p>

Appeal by The City of New York from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 7th day of March, 1911, resettling a prior order entered in said clerk’s office on the 30th day of January, 1911, denying a motion to confirm the supplemental and amended report of the commissioners of estimate and assessment herein, and returning the said report to the commissioners for revision and…

<p> Pleading—broker's commissions—sale of tapestries—attempt to hold purchaser for commissions of broker. </p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 28th day of May, 1914, denying a motion" to continue a temporary injunction pendente lite.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 29th day of April, 1914, denying the petitioner’s application for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the examining board of plumbers in the city of New York to reissue and return to petitioner his certificate as a master plumber.</p>

<p>Submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 29th day of September, 1913, denying a motion to set aside a sale of property on a judgment of foreclosure.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 3d day of March, 1914, denying a motion to frame issues for trial before a jury.</p>

<p>Mortgage—foreclosure — answer of junior mortgagee.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office, denying a motion to dismiss the judgment and all proceedings thereon, and to order the case off the calendar, or to order it set down and tried at a date known to defendant.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 29th day of January, 1914, in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 6th day of February, 1914, denying a motion for a new trial.</p>

Cross-appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Special Term, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Bangs on the 11th day of February, 1914.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme' Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 10th day of February, 1914, setting aside a verdict in his favor and granting defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 11th day of December,. 1913, in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying their motion for a new trial.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 19th day of January, 1914, in favor of plaintiff, and from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 21st of January, 1914, denying its motion for a new trial.

<p>Crime — discharge of smoke in city—health regulation.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the Schenectady county clerk’s office on the 5th day of November, 1913, in favor of the plaintiff upon a decision of the court.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the County Court of Rens, selaer county, entered in the clerk’s office of that county on the 31st day of December, 1912, dismissing her complaint, with costs.

Appeal by the defendant, Arthur T. Dunn, as sole administrator, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Cortland on the 21st day of November, 1912, upon the report of a referee.

Appeal by the defendant, Harry A. Thomas, from a judgment of conviction of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, rendered against him in the County Court of the county of Erie on the 11th day of April, 1910.

Appeal by the defendant, Theodore Carter, from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 22d day of September, 1913, affirming a judgment of the Justice’s Court in favor of the plaintiffs.

<p>Election Law—primary — cancellation of certificate.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 9th day of June, 1914, appointing a receiver.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 8th day of July, 1914, denying a motion to open default in service of answer.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 11th day of June, 1914, granting a motion of the defendant to strike out certain parts of the complaint.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 10th day of July, 1914, restraining the defendants from prosecuting certain Municipal Court actions during the pendency of this action.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 20th day of August, 1913, denying a motion to compel an attorney to turn over certain moneys.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 11th day of June, 1914, granting a motion to strike out certain parts of the complaint.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 7th day of August, 1914, denying a motion to vacate the service of the summons.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 24th day of March, 1914, denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of defendant before trial.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 6th day of June, 1914, denying a motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 26th day of August, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion to separately state and number causes of action.</p>

<p> Practice —payment of costs of prior action. </p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 20th day of May, 1914, granting motion to vacate order for examination of defendants before trial.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 12th day of August, 1914, denying the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, enfered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 8th day of October, 1914, denying the defendants’ motion to vacate an order for the examination of the defendants before trial and directing the production of books and papers.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order and determination of the Appellate Term, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 14th day of April, 1914.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 26th day of May, 1914, requiring a bill of particulars.</p>

Appeals from orders of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 11th day of September, 1914, denying motions for temporary injunctions.

<p>Decedent's estate — accounting — commissions on sale of real estate.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 24th day of June, 1914, resettling a prior order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 2d day of October, 1914, granting the motion of the guardian ad litem, to be relieved from acting as such guardian.</p>

<p>Appeal from order granting leave to sue as a poor person.</p>

<p>Appeal from part of an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 16th day of June, 1914, as resettled by an order entered on the 3d day of July, 1914, granting an alternative writ of mandamus.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Rew York county clerk’s office on the 9th day of June, 1914, as resettled by an order entered on the 19th day of June, 1914, vacating an order for the examination of defendant Smith before trial.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Rew York county clerk’s office on the 6th day of March, 1914, denying the motion of David Rosing to intervene.</p>

<p>Attorney at law — discipline.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made at Special Term, Bronx county, and entered on the 28th day of July, 1914, denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of the plaintiff before trial.</p>

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, made at Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 33d day of August, 1913, and separate appeals from two orders of said court entered in said clerk’s office on the 7th and 9th days of August, 1913, respectively, granting the lienors taxable costs but refusing an additional allowance.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 12th day of December, 1913, in favor of the plaintiff; also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 22d day of January, 1914, denying a motion for a new trial.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of Erie county on the 15th day of January, 1913, upon the report of a referee.</p>

<p>Motion for reargument, or for leave to appeal from judgment of affirmance entered upon decision made July 7,1914. (See ante, p. 910.)</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of Tates county on March 19,1914, as amended and resettled by an order entered April 3, 1914, granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence.</p>