Volume 21 — New York Appellate Division Reports

Appeal by the plaintiff, Arthur M. Cortis, 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 31st day of March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office On the 7th day of April, 1897, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, Artlissa V. Gearon, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 24th day of March, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the reply.</p> <p>• The action was brought on three promissory notes of $20 each, alleged to have been made and delivered by the defendants .to the plaintiff. The defendants, after taking issue upon the allegations of the complaint, allege as a separate defense that in May, 1894, the parties entered into an agreement whereby, for the sum of $850 to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, they agreed to pay over to him the sum of $98 for each of ten months, being. the rents as they were collected for that period of ten months, of certain tenants in premises referred to, owned by the defendant Pauline M.' Sacks, and to pay him the sum of $20, and, as security for the payment of the rents as collected, agreed to give him a bond for $1,000, secured by mortgage on the premises; that the rents were paid to the plaintiff as they were collected, but that, as some of the tenants left the premises before the expiration of the ten. months, the amount so collected and turned over to' the plaintiff during that time did not amount to a sum equal to that-which the plaintiff had paid; that, believing that it'was necessary for them to pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to that so paid by him, the defendants paid him $120 for rents collected, and after the expiration of the ten months paid him the further sum -of $42, and that then to make up the balance, $60, they gave to the plaintiff the promissory notes mentioned in the complaint, and that the sum of $162 was paid, and the notes were made under a mistake of fact. They demand' judgment for the amount of the $162 so paid.</p> <p>To this alleged counterclaim, the plaintiff replied, first, by denying any knowledge or information 'sufficient to form a belief, and, therefore, denied each and every allegation in the answer, constituting a counterclaim, except as thereinafter admitted-. Second, by alleging that, in consideration of $850 paid to him by the plaintiff, the defendant Herman Sacks sold and assigned to the plaintiff certain rents amounting to $980, and which were to become due from occupants of the premises referred' to for ten months, commencing with June, 1894, being the sum of $98 per month; that the defendant agreed to collect that amount each and every of the ten months of the tenants, and pay it over to the plaintiff, and that if, for any cause, whether by removal or otherwise, the tenants failed to pay such rents in advance on the first day of each month, the defendant Herman Sacks was to make up the deficiency and to pay it on or before the tenth of each month; that, to secure the performance of the agreement, the defendants made their bond and mortgage conditioned for the payment to the plaintiff of $98 on the 10th day of June, 1894, and of each month thereafter, until the $980 should be paid; that the defendants paid him only $776, and that the plaintiff, having instituted an action against the defendants upon their bond to recover the residue, $204, the matter was adjusted in such manner that the defendants paid to the plaintiff $20, and gave him their four promissory notes for $20 each ; that three of them are the notes mentioned in the complaint.</p> <p>The defendants demurred to the entire reply, on the ground that it was “ insufficient in law upon the face thereof.”</p>

Appeal by the defendants, Charles J. McDermott, doing business under the name or style of the Iroquois Rubber Company, 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 Suffolk on the 3d day March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 3d day of March, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, Frederick D. Burfeind, from a judgment of. the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of-'Suffolk on the 10th day of March, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 5th day of March, 1896, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Appeal.-by the defendant, Michael Seitz, from a judgment of the ., Oounty .Court of Kings county, entered in the office of the clerk.of ^ the county of Kings on the 6th day of February, 1897, reversing ■the judgment of a justice of the peace.

Appeal by the defendant, The German-American 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 11th day of December, 1896, upon tlie verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 10th day of December, 1896, denying the defendant’s motion for a- new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, The Long Island 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 Suffolk on the 4th day of March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of March, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, the Ocean Causeway of Lawrence, Long' Island, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 15th day of January, 1897, upon the verdict óf a jury, and also from an. order entered in said clerk’s office on the 5th day of February, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Charles O. Brown, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of thé defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 1st day of April, 1897, upon the dismissal of the complaint directed, by the court after a trial before the court arid a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 26th day of March, 1897, denying the • plaintiff’s, motion for a new trial. ■

Appeal by the defendant, the Erie 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 10th day of November, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order-entered in said clerk’s office on the 24th day of November, 1896,. denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the. minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of the Church of the Holy Apostles in the city of Hew York, from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city of Hew York in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 16th day of Julyj 1894, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at an Equity Term of said court, dismissing the complaint. ■ This appeal was transferred from the first department, to the second…

Appeal by the defendants, John Carr and Daniel Carr, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Suffolk on the 8th day of March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury,, and .also from an order bearing date the 4th day of March, 189-7, and entered in said clerk’s office denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Appeal by .the defendants, Alexander R. Chisolm and'William F. Carey, from ¿'judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff; entered in the office of the clerk, of the county of Kings on the 8th day of July, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 29th day of March, 1896, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, John Devlin, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 9th day of January, 1897, upon the report of a referee.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, The People of the State of Hew York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on ■ the 6th day of February, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Westchester Special Term.</p>

Appeal by the defendant,. The Kings County Elevated Eailway. Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the jilaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 12th day of January, 1897, upon the. verdict of a jury, and also from- an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 14th day of January, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made npon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Ruth A. Johnstone, 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 18th day of August, 1896, upon the report of a referee.

Appeal by Isaac M. Marsh and others, commissioners, etc., The Town of Southfield and The Board of Supervisors of the County of Bichmond in the first above-entitled proceeding, 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 8th day of February, 1897, denying their motion to quash an alternative writ of mandamus.

Appeal by the plaintiff, The Peekskill, State Camp and Mohegan Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 27th day of March, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Westchester Special Term.

Appeal by the defendants, William Kennedy and Michael J. Cantwell, 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 27th day of February, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court.

Appeal by the relator, Frederick Eldred, Jr., 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 25th day of September, 1897, denying the relator’s motion for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to make and transmit to the clerk of the county of Kings and to the board of elections of the city of Brooklyn amended notices of election, which •amended notices “ shall state that…

■ Appeal by the defendant, The East River Gas Company of Long Island City, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Queens on the 28th day of October, 1896, upon -the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 29th day of October, 1896, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the defendant, David W. Binns, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 10th'day of April, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after á trial at the Kings County Special Term overruling the said defendant’s demurrer to the complaint. ’

Appeal by the Interstate Steamboat Company and Frederic B. Vandegrift from a decision of the County Court of Kings county, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 22d day of March, 1897, confirming the report of a referee in proceedings for the final settlement of the accounts of Yaulx Carter,' as assignee for the benefit of creditors of the Cowles Engineering Company, and directing a distribution of the funds of the estate among those entitled…

Appeal by the plaintiff, Josephine Whitlatch, 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 4th day of February, ' 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 1st day of February, 1897, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, William Dewey, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rockland on the 8th day of December,. 1896, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the-.

Appeal by the defendant, William H. Martens, 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 3d day of April, 1897, upon the decision of .the court rendered after a trial at the Westchester Special Term.

Appeal by the defendant, Mary A. Brennecke, from a judgment of the Westchester County Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 28th day of November, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Henry 0. Harding, 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 22d day of January, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term.

Appeal by the plaintiff, William V. Kissam, 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 12th day of November, 1896, upon the report of a referee, and also from an order made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in said- clerk’s office on the 21st day of December^ 1896, denying the plaintiffs motion for a retaxation of costs.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Suffolk County, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant-, entered in the office of the county of Suffolk on the 4th day of March, 1897, upon the dismissal of the complaint directed by the court after a trial before the court and a jury.

Appeal by the plaintiff, George W. Bradford, 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 25th day of March, 1897, upon the dismissal of the complaint directed by the court, after a trial before the court and a jury. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries which the plaintiff claimed to have sustained through the negligence of the defendant.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, James T. Fahy, 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 Bichmond on the 24th day of June, 1897, vacating an injunction pendente lite.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant, The Town Board of the Town of Hempstead, 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 13th day of September, 1897, commanding that an alternative writ of mandamus issue directing the defendant to convene immediately and divide the town of Hemp-stead into.election districts, so that the districts will be respectively wholly within or wholly without the boundary of the Greater New York in that town, and to make such division upon the boundary line shown upon-"a map filed in the county clerk’s office in 1894, 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 30th day of September, 1897, directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue directing the defendant to convene and divide the said town of Hempstead into election districts, as directed in the alternative writ of mandamus.</p>

<p> Quar’anty of goods, to be purchased on. four months time—surety not discharged by the taking of a four months’ note two weeks after the last delivery—effect of the purchase being made in a firm name. </p> <p>Goods were sold upon- the faith of the following guaranty: “ I hereby guarantee-the payment of the purchase of leather belting on four months’ time by Martin. Murphy,”' and' on the. representation of Murphy that he was doing business- - under the style of Keogh & Murphy the orders were entered “sold to Keogh & Murphy ” on October nineteenth, twenty-first and twenty-sixth, and on November thirteenth a note was taken at four months for the purchase price, signed. Keogh & Murphy.</p> <p>Held, that the finding that the sale was made to Murphy was justified;.</p> <p>That, it appearing that the belting was not only to be delivered, but was also to-be adjusted, the fact that the vendor, some two weeks after the last delivery of goods, took from the vendee his note, payable- in four months, was not such a suspension of its right to collect beyond the four months named in the-guaranty as would discharge the guarantor.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant, The German-American 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 28th day of March, 1894, upon the report of a referee. Charles Coldzier, for- the appellant.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, John L. Merritt, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 20th day of March, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Westchester Special Term dismissing the complaint.</p>

<p>Negligence—the liability of .a foreign corporation is determined by the law of the foreign State in which the action accrued — it is not liable for the consequences of an act done in violation of the statute of such State — amendment of the cbmvlaint—custom.</p> <p>The courts of the State of New York have jurisdiction to entertain an action • brought against a' Pennsylvania corporation to recover damages for injuries , sustained by the plaintiff while employed in its mines in that State when, at the time of the commencement of the action, the plaintiff is a resident of the" State of New York; and the fact of such residence, "although not alleged in the complaint, may be shown by examination upon the trial, and when thus shown the court may direct that the complaint be amended accordingly.</p> <p>In such a case the liability of the defendant corporation must be determined by' the laws of the State, of Pennsylvania where the accident occurred; and where . it appears that, in defiance of the statute of that State prohibiting persons ■ from riding upon loaded cars in any place in or about a mine, and requiring the mine foreman or his assistant to see that no person shall work in an unsafe place, the plaintiff, by direction of the assistant foreman (who, under the- ' decisions of that State, is held to be his co-employee), was riding upon such car and was injured in consequence of his being thrown" dow"n by the turning , under his foot of a defective bumper, which it. was the foreman’s duty to keep in repair, he is not entitled to recover against the corporation for injuries resulting therefrom; nor will the fact that a custom of the "employees to-ride upon the cars was sanctioned-and approved by the officers of the corporation render it liable.</p>

Appeal by John T. Rowland, a judgment debtor, from an order of the county judge of Rockland county, entered in the office of. the clerk of the county of Rockland on the 7th day of September, 1897, denying his motion to set aside an order for his examination in supplementary proceedings, with notice of an inténtion to bring up for review upon' such appeal an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12thday of August, 1897, directing such examination.

<p> A covenant against inaíimbranees—when it runs.with the land—effect of its being coupled with a covenant for further assurance or for quiet enjoyment. </p> <p>Wherever a covenantee under a covenant against incumbrances has, upon an alienation of the property by him, either rendered himself liable to his grantee by a like covenant, or has by Ms conveyance estopped himself from asserting title to the incumbrance as against his grantee, in case he should afterwards acquire it, his deed operates as an assignment of his claim against his grantor for a breach of £uch covenant.</p> <p>Semble, that a covenant for further assurance,, contained in a- deed, runs with the land, and operates to carry with it, for the benefit of subsequent grantees, a covenant against Incumbrances coupled with it in the same deed; and the same rule applies where the deed contains a covenant for quiet enjoyment.</p>

<p>Oity clerk of Brooklyn — he must pay over to the city comptroller the naturalization fees received by him.</p> <p>Service rendered by the city clerk of Brooklyn in recording applications for naturalization and in issuing certificates of compliance to applicants, pursuant to sections 4 and 7 of chapter 937 of the Laws of 1895, must be deemed to have been performed by him in his official capacity as city clerk, and under the provisions of the city charter (Chap. 583 of the Laws of 1888) must be paid over by him to the comptroller of the city.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, John J. Moran, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant Nina E. James, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 26th day of June, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term, as dismisses the complaint as to the said defendant.</p>

Appeal by the defendants, Adolph L. King and Anna M. King, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Richmond Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 3d day of August, 1896, refusing to grant an injunction.

Motion by the relator,' Charles Kirkpatrick, overseer of the poor, etc., to dismiss an appeal taken by the defendant, John Crowley, from an order of the County Court of Rockland county, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rockland on the 8th day of April, 1897.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Adolf Prince, a judgment creditor, 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 16th day of July, 1897, denying his motion to punish the defendant, a judgment debtor, for contempt, for disobedience of an order forbidding any transfer of his property.

Appeal by the plaintiff, George Miller, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 12th day of January, 1897, upon the dismissal of the complaint directed by the court after a trial before the court and a jury.

Appeal by the defendants, Samuel W. Gear and others, from a judgment of the County Court of Queens county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county 'of Queens on the 16th day of March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of March, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, The Claus Lipsius Brewing Company, 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 6th day of March, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes, in an action tried before the court and a jury, in which a verdict was rendered for the ■plaintiff.

<p>Veteran—a veteran can recover pay of a city only for the period of Ms employment— notice that he is a veteran.</p> <p>A veteran of the war was employed by the board of education for the city of Brooklyn in 1876 for an indefinite term, and continued in such employ until December 16, 1890, when he was discharged. After his discharge he neither tendered nor rendered services until November 16, 1891, when he was again employed by the board. It did not appear that the board of education ever knew that he was a veteran.</p> <p>Held, that he could not recover pay for the time that he was not employed.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, The D. H. Koehler & Son Company, and Frank J. Connolly, as receiver, etc., of Henry Flebbe, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Dutchess Special Term and entered in the office of the. clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 29th day of July, 1897, directing the said receiver to deliver a liquor tax certificate to the respondent, Oeorge I. Amsdell.

Appeal hy the defendants, Benjamin F. Blair and others, commissioners of election, comprising the board of elections of the city of Brooklyn, in action No. 1, 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 13th day of October, 1897, directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus.

Appeal by the defendant, Frank B. Walker, 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 1st day of July, 1897, modifying a'provision for alimony inserted in a final judgment' of.the Supreme Court by increasing the stim provided therein to be-paid by the defendant.

<p> Town bonds —provisions of the Town Law by which taxpayers may demand that the question of a public improvement, involving the issue of town bonds, shall be voted, upon by the electors at a town meeting, when not complied with. </p> <p>The provisions of the Town Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 569, art. 2, § 84) to the effect that “No proposition, or'other matter than the election of officers, shall he voted upon hy ballot at any town meeting, unless the town officers or other persons (twenty-five taxpayers whose names appear upon the last town assessment roll) entitled to demand a vote of the electors of the town thereon, shall, at least twenty days before the town meeting, file with the town clerk a written application, plainly stating the question they desire to have voted upon, and requesting a vote thereon at such town meeting,” are not complied with where it appears that a sufficient number of qualified persons signed a paper, denominated a “ resolution,” which recited that a certain sum should be raised on the ■ faith-and credit of the town by an issue and sale -of its bonds, and that the money raised and its interest should be charged upon .the property of the town taxable therefor, for the purpose of grading arid paving certain roads, these being stated as well as the tenor of the bonds—the paper not being addressed to any person, body or officer, and not stating any question which the signers desired should be voted upon, or requesting that any vote be taken thereon at a town meeting, and the signers, although taxpayers, not being described as such.</p> <p>A purchaser, who has contracted to buy bonds of the town issued upon the faith of this “resolution,” will not be compelled to complete his purchase.</p>

Appeal by the defendants, Francis W. Boyer 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 Kings on the 2d day of November, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order bearing date the 27th day of October, 1896, and entered in said clerk’s office denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the defendants, Richard Cody and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Kings on the 29th day of June, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a bill of particulars. The action was brought to recover a balance due upon the purchase price of certain lager beer, which the plaintiff claimed to have sold and delivered to the defendants between certain dates.

Appeal by John T. Brennan 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 24th day of June, 1897, denying and dismissing his application to be relieved from a purchase made by-him of certain premises sold in execution of a judgment rendered in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage on the premises.

Appeal by the defendant, Charles Gr. Peterson, 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 25th day of January, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term.

Appeal by the relator, John H. Burbank, 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 Richmond on the 2Sth day of August, 1897, denying his motion for an absolute writ of prohibition.

Appeal by the defendant, Royal C. Peabody, 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 5tli day of April, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury directed by the court, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s 'office on the 31st day of March, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Charles Odell, from a judgment of the 'City Court' of Acnkers in favor of the defendant, entered in the . office of the clerk of said court on the. 3d day of February,. 1897, upon the verdict: of a jury.

Motion by the defendants, Louis Mesier and another, for a reargument of an appeal 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 26th day of October, 1896, upon the report of a referee.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, Robert Douai, 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 3d day of March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendants, Frederick W. Seward and others, as executors, etc., of Maria Weed Alden, deceased, 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. 22d day of June, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Dutchess County Special Term:</p>

<p> Undue influence in procuring the execution of a will—circumstances of doubt requiring the submission of issues to a jury. </p> <p>On appeal from a surrogate’s decree admitting á will to probate, the Appellate Division considers tfle whole evidence de novo, and if in doubt whether the will was the free and voluntary act of the testator, that court will set aside the probate and direct a trial of the issues before a jury.</p> <p>In proceedings for the probate of a will, by which a testatrix devised the whole of her estate, amounting to some §40,000, to her husband, and in case he did not survive her to his son by a former marriage, there was evidence tend- . ing to show .that the testatrix, an unattractive, hard-working woman, fifty-three years old, in humble life, had married her second husband after an acquaintance of two days, made through a matrimonial agency; that he was her junior by about eleven years, and her superior in appearance and education, being an accomplished linguist and having a knowledge of metallurgy and electroplating ; that although asserting that his former wife was dead he had procured a divorce from her — invalid for want of jurisdiction ; that soon after the marriage he had driven from the house a favorite cousin of the testatrix, who was her only companion, and to whom, as stated in the will, she had intended to make some bequest, and that he then entered on a course of brutal treatment, and by working on his wife’s fears and making use of a charge that she destroyed the will of her former husband, in order to obtain his property, exercised a controlling influence over her,- as was shown from her letters to relatives; that some five months after the marriage the testatrix had, for a consideration of ten dollars, conveyed her real property, which comprised nearly her whole estate, to a third person, who thereupon reconveyed to her merely a life interest, with remainder to the son of her husband, and that before the expiration of a year from the date of her marriage she committed suicide by taking poison. Held, that, under the circumstances of this case, a trial should be had before a jury, to determine whether the will in question was freely and voluntarily made by the testatrix, or whether its execution was procured by fraud, coer- • cion or undue influence practiced upon her.</p>

<p>Appeal by Isaac E. Eye and others from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Dutchess County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rockland on the 13th day of August, 1897, staying their proceedings upon an order, made by the surrogate of the county of Rockland, which adjudged Erastus Tan Houten, as executor, etc., of Edward Gr. TanHouteh, deceased, guilty of contempt of court, pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the aforesaid order of the surrogate.</p>

Appeal- by the defendant-, George H. Van Yleok, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Erie Special Term on the 4th day of June, 1897, and entered in the office of the clerk of the , county of Erie on the 10th day of June, 1897, directing the defendant to- pay alimony.

Appeal by the defendants, William F. Wendt and Henry W. Wendt, 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 4th day of December, 1896, upon the verdict of a. jury for $1,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12th day of April, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the defendant, Lynn D. Watkins, from an order of' the Cattaraugus County Court, made, at a Special Term of said court and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Cattaraugus on the 19th day of September, 1895, granting the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the defendant in' this action from a judgment rendered herein by a justice of the peace in favor-■of the plaintiff, unless the defendant pay to the plaintiff or his attorneys on said…

.Appeal by the defendant, The Metropolitan 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 Oneida on the 14th day of October, 1896, upon the- verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12th day of October,. 1896, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, E. Bement & Sons, from a judgment ■of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office ■of-the clerk of the county of Oneida on the 11th day of June, 1895, upon the report of a referee awarding $20,985 damages and $1,535.23 costs; total, $22,520.23, and adjudging that defendant specifically perform certain contracts and be restrained from violating them.

Appeal by'the defendants, Luke A'. Beecher and others, from á judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Steuben on the 22d day of January, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Alfred Lyth, from a judgment of the Supreme. Court in favor of the .defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 31st day of December, 1896, upon the report of a referee.

<p>Appeal by the relator, John Blocher, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Erie Special Term and entered-in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 31st day of July, 1897, quashing a writ of certiorari granted to review an assessment of personal property.</p>

Motion by the plaintiff, Hattie E. Minor, for a new trial made upon a case containing exceptions, ordered to be heard at the Appellate Division in the first instance upon the dismissal of the complaint directed by the court after a trial before the court and a jury at the Monroe Trial Term.

Motion by the plaintiff, Margaret Hughes, as administratrix, etc., of Ellen Hughes, deceased, for a new trial made upon a' case containing exceptions, ordered to be heard at the Appellate Division in the first instance upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the defendant directed by the court after a trial at the Cayuga Trial Term.

Appeal by the defendant, Buffalo Park, 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 10th day of November, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an-order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12-th day of January, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

• Appeal by the defendants, Alexander S. Clark and another, 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 Livingston on the 7th day of June, 1897, denying their motion to reopen a sale of mortgaged premises.

Appeal by the plaintiff, George G. Kenyon, from' ajudgmentof the Supreme Court in- favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of .Onondaga on the 24th day of June, 1896, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial before ■ the court without a jury, at the Onondaga Trial Term,

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Frederick Dassori, 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 24th day of May, 1897, confirming the report of commissioners of appraisal, with notice of an intention to bring up for review upon such appeal a judgment entered in said clerk’s office on the 9th day of February, 1897, upon the report of a referee.</p>

Appeal by the petitioner, William F. Brugman, as-sole surviving executor and trustee of Francis F. Brugman, deceased, from so much of 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 July, 1897, as denies his application for an order requiring and directing the comptroller of the city of New York to pay to said petitioner the award made, to him by commissioners of estimate and…

Appeal by the plaintiff, David Boyd, individually and as administrator, etc., of Samuel Bo.yd, deceased, from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New-York,, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 14th day of November, 1895, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at an Equity Term of said court dismissing the complaint upon the merits. ’ ■

<p>Interpleader — the moving defendant must give notice to the claimant sought to be brought in and must state facts tending to show that the latter’s demand is well founded.</p> <p>An order of interpleader should not be granted in an action where the defendants making the motion have failed to give the party making the claim against them notice of the application as required by section 820 of the Code of- Civil Procedure, or where the moving affidavit fails to state any facts or circumstances which place in doubt the right of the plaintiff to recover the moneys sued for, or which, in any way, show that the demand of the alleged claimant is well founded.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, Walker Winston, 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 24th day of May, 1891, denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to discontinue the action. This is an action for an absolute divorce. The defendant has pleaded a decree of absolute divorce granted her by the United States District Court in Oklahoma.

Appeal by the plaintiffs, Amos N. Kling and Elisha G. Allen, ns assignees, etc., of Thomas- P. Wallace, 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 30 th day of March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury directed by the court, with notice of an intention to bring up for review upon such appeal an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12th day of April, 1897, denying the plaintiffs’…

Appeal by the infant defendants, Florence L. De Graaf and others, by their guardian ad litem, from, a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs and of the defendant Amanda M. Dé Graaf, entered in the office of the- clerk of the county of New York on the 25th day of May, 1897, upon thé report of a referee. Henry P. De Graaf died seized of a large amount of real estate, leaving a last will and-testament.

Appeal by the plaintiff, the Merchants’ National Bank of 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 June, 1897, vacating-the plaintiff’s warrant of attachment. This action was brought to recover $13,964.49 upon a promissory pote made, by the defendant on December 18, 1896, and payable-four months after date.

Appeal by the defendant, Thomas E. Ward, from so much of 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 August, 1897, as denied his motion to vacate an order for the defendant’s examination as a party before trial, such motion being made upon the ground of the insufficiency of the papers upon which the order was granted.

Appeal by the defendants, Thomas' W. Pearsall 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 10th day of April, 1897, denying, their motion to strike the cause from the calendar, and for judgment in their favor.

Motion by the defendant, The Bank of America, for a new trial upon a case containing exceptions, ordered to be heard at the Appellate Division in the first instance, npon the verdict .of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Ammi W. Wright, 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 April, 1897,, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order bearing date the 30th day of March, 1897, and entered in said clerk’s office, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.</p>

Appeal by tire plaintiff, Wilhelm Gaertner, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of New York on the 15th day of February, 1897, upon the dismissal of his complaint directed by the court after a tidal at the New York Trial Term.

Appeal by the plaintiff, William G. Horgan, from- a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk.of the county of Hew York on the ,9thday of September, 1896, upon the dismissal of his complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the Hew York Trial Term.

Appeal by the defendant, Robert C. Watson', 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 13th day of February, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Trial Term before the court without a jury. The action was brought to recover a balance alleged to-be due for money loaned to the firm of Watson & Bartholow, composed of-the defendants, Robert 0.

Appeal by the plaintiff, William Gamble, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant Nicholas Cuneo, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York- on the 9th day of April, 1897, upon the dismissal of the complaint directed by the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Mary Eliza Graham, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Yew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Yew York on the 9th day of June, 1897, dismissing her complaint for want of prosecution; also from a judgment entered in said clerk’s office on the 18th day of June, 1897, dismissing said complaint and vacating and canceling a Us pendens filed in the action ; also, from an order made at the Yew York Special…

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, Bernard Golden; from an interlocutory" judgment of the Supreme Oourt in favor of the defendants,-entered. in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 25th day of Slay, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term overruling his demurrer to separate defenses in the'answer of the defendants, and also from an order, made at the New York Special,,Term and entered in said-clerk’s office on the 24th day of May, 1897, upon which said judgment was entered.</p>

' Appeal by the defendant, the Metropolitan Street Railway 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 January, 1897, upon the verdict of' a jury, and also .from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 9th day of February, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes..

Appeal by tlie plaintiff, Bridget Patterson, as administratrix, etc., of Mary Flannery, deceased, 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 14th day of June, 1897, denying her motion to open a judgment and for liberty to amend her complaint.

Appeal by the plaintiff, The Trustees of the Freeholders arid Commonalty of the Town of Southampton, 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 16th day of January, 1893, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with costs. ' This appeal was transferred from the second department to the first department.

<p>Pledgor and pledgee—measure of damages when promissory notes are converted by a pledgee thereof -r- duty of the pledgee of stock upon a reorganization of the corporation— ratification of the act of an agent.</p> <p>A pledgee of promissory notes who, without .the consent of the pledgor, surrenders them to the maker, a railroad corporation, receiving therefor second mortgage ■bonds at the rate of seventy-five cents on the dollar, is guilty of a 'conversion; the measure of the pledgor’s damages, however; is the actual and not the face value of the notes.</p> <p>Promissory notes which a pledgee has converted by surrendering them to the maker, a corporation, without consideration, do not derive any special value from the fact that the pledgee being a stockholder of the corporation was subject to a contingent statutory liability for its debts—-the indebtedness represented by the notes not being extinguished by the surrender, hut being available to the pledgor upon the redemption of the pledge.</p> <p>Executors of a pledgee of stock of a corporation, for the reorganization of which- ■ a proposition has been submitted, are under no legal obligation to the pledgor, whose debt is unpaid, to make any arrangement by which he may use his hypothecated stock in the reorganization, nor to delay the reorganization because of his demand for his stock or for an accounting.</p> <p>A party who is called upon to ratify or repudiate an act assumed to he done on his behalf, must, if he elects to ratify it, ratify it as performed by the assumed agent; having once elected to repudiate it, his election is binding, and he cannot thereafter ratify it. - ■ -</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff, Fred E. Guy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of. the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 25th day of March, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after, a trial at the Hew York Special Term dismissing his complaint.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Sarah B. Halsted, 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 19th day of July, 1897, denying her motion for an injunction restraining the defendants, the trustees of Charles S. Halsted, from paying to him any part of the accrued income in their hands, or the income which may accrue from time to time, from the funds of the several trusts in excess of…

Appeal by the defendants, Albert H. Hatch and another, individually and as executors, etc., of William Moses, deceased, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff and' the defendant Henry M. Moses, entered in the office of the clerk* of the county of Hew York on' the 17th day of March, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered- after a trial at the Hew York Special Term.

Motion by the defendant, The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, for a new trial upon a case containing exceptions,' ordered to be heard at the Appellate Division in the first instance, upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the 26th day of April, 1897, after a trial at the New York Trial Term.

<p>Motions to dismiss appeals.</p>

<p> A bill of partiaula/i's of an answer, consisting only of admissions and denials, ccmnot be demanded. </p> <p>In an action in which the answer contains only admissions and denials, the plaintiff is not entitled to an order requiring the defendant to serve a hill of particulars.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff, Matilda Wallace, 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 July, 1897, vacating a warrant of attachment against the property of the defendant, Thomas Baring, theretofore granted in the action.</p>

<p>Appeal by -the relator, Moses Bijur, 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, 1897, dismissing a writ of certiorari issued to review an assessment for taxation of the-relator.</p>

<p> Legacy directed to be paid from, a certain bank deposit—when it is demonstrative and not specific—when it is a charge upon real estate devised to the residuary legatee—presumption that a legacy is general rather than specific. </p> <p>Where the will of a testatrix gives her daughter, whom she nominates asexecutrix, all her property, both real and personal, including a bank deposit standing in the daughter’s name, “ excepting also the disposition of moneys belonging to me now on deposit in her name,” and then directs her, "out of the moneys belonging to me (the testatrix) on deposit in her name, to pay my said son the sum of fifteen hundred dollars,” the legacy is not specific, but demonstrative, and consequently does not adeem because of the subsequent expenditure by the testatrix of the deposit.</p> <p>The legacy is a charge upon the land devised to the daughter, and upon the acceptance of the devise the daughter becomes personally liable for the amount of the legacy.</p> <p>The courts are not inclined to hold a legacy to be specific rather than general, especially when the legatee is of the blood of the testator and has a natural claim upon his bounty.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Thomas H. Brooks, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme.

<p> Where goods tendered under an executory contract of sale are wrongfully rejected further tenders are excused—interest. </p> <p>After the vendors in an executory contract for the manufacture and sale of knit underwear, to be delivered on and after Juné 1, 1891, according to the vendees’ orders, and to be paid for by them on June 10, 1891, have, within the specified time, manufactured all the goods and s.ent invoices of them to the -vendees, and on-August fifth, in settle.ment of a dispute as to whether the buttons on the shirts already delivered conformed to the sample, have made an allowance for such, defect in the shirts delivered and have remedied it in the remaining goods, several installments of which have thereafter been accepted by the vendees, the refusal of the latter to receive on August twenty-fifth a. further installment ordered by them to be forwarded, is such a breach of the contract as excuses the vendors from further tenders of the goods as a necessary condition precedent to an action brought by them to recover the price.</p> <p>In such a case interest should be allowed from August twenty-fifth.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, The American Soda Fountain Company, from so much of 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, 1897, as denied its motion .that the. plaintiff increase his security upon an attachment granted in the action.

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

<p> An action at law maintainable between firms having, in part, the same members. </p> <p>A general assignee for creditors .of a copartnership may maintain an action at law for a debt due it from another copartnership, two of the members of which latter were members of the firm making the general assignment.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Harvey M. La Eollette, 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 24th day of June, 1897, denying his motion to'vacate an order of arrest and for such other relief as might be just.

Appeal by Benjamin F. Cakn, assignee of R. Rothschild’s Sons Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of r the county of New York on the 12th day of August, 1897, directing him, as assignee for the benefit of creditors of R. Rothschild’s Sons Company, to allow the H. Herrmann Lumber Company, a creditor of said assignor, to make an inspection and examination of the books and papers of the assignor.

<p>Appeal by the defendant Henry H. Cooper 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 9th day of September, 1897, adjudging him guilty of contempt of court, in willfully disobeying an injunction order made to continue during the pendency of the action.</p>

Appeal' by the - plaintiff, John Burns, as administrator, etc., of William Burns, deceased, 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 23d. day of February, 1897, upon the dismissal of his complaint directed by the court after a trial at th.e New York Trial Term..

Appeal by Max Hallheimer, original assignee for the benefit of creditors of Morris Ginsberg, under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and also by his sureties, 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 February, 1897, modifying the report of a referee and confirming the report as modified, and directing the payment of the balance •found in such…

Appeal by William T. Gilbert, as receiver of the Commercial Alliance Life Insurance 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 22d day off -June, 1897, overruling, his exceptions to the report of a referee, and •confirming said report.

Appeals by the plaintiff, George W. Wallace, as executor, etc., by the.defendant, Thomas P. Wallace,-as sole surviving partner, etc., • and by Charles M. Warner, 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 July, 1897,. granting a motion made by the Southern National Bank of New York for leave , to levy a certain warrant of attachment obtained by…

Appeal by the defendants, Isaac Stern and others, from a judg- . ment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 18th day of February, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 14th day of January, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Amos R. Eno, from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 18th day of June, 1891, upon the verdict of a jury awarding him nominal damages, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the loth day of June, 1891, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiffs, John B. Stetson .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 New York On the' 14th day of April, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term dismissing the complaint.

Appeal by the defendant, the American Grocery 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 February, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New-York Special Term.

Appeal by the defendants, Daniel G. Bogert and another, as executors and trustees, etc., of Louisa ML Bogert, deceased, 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 Yoik on the 6th day of August, 189Y, denying their motion to compel the plaintiff to assign to them a mortgage.

Appeal by the defendants, Clinton P. A.yers 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 New York on the 4th day of March, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court..

Appeal by Helen Beddick, the tenant of the premises described in the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered in the above-entitled action, 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 July, 1897, granting the plaintiff’s motion to require the sheriff to put him in possession of the real estate sold under said judgment.

Appeal by the defendant, George H. Jewell, from a judgment of the Su]Dreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 8th day of October, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order bearing date the 5th day of October, 1896, and entered in said clerk’s office, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.'

Application by the plaintiffs, J. Wesley Rosenquest and another, for judgment upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the Rew York Trial Term, subject to the opinion of the Appellate Division.-.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Charles S. Halsted, 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 20th day of May, 1897, directing the payment by him of alimony and counsel fees! The action, which was brought to obtain- an' absolute divorce, was begun in December, 1892.

<p>Appeal by the. defendants, Frederick Buse 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 19th day of December, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12th day of January, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.</p>

<p> A receiver of firm, property appointed in an action for its dissolution—Tie should not be superseded by a receiver appointed in supplementa/ry proceedings. </p> <p>A receiver of partnership assets who has been appointed in an action brought for a dissolution of the partnership, and whose appointment is apparently satisfactory to a large number of' the firm creditors, should not, in the absence of any evidence to impeach his good faith or the honesty of his proceedings, or to impute to him collusion with members of the firm, or with the creditors thereof, be superseded by another person appointed receiver in supplementary proceedings instituted by a judgment creditor of the firm.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, Supreme. Lodge, Knights of Honor,,' 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 27th day of January, 1897, upon the: verdict of a jury, and also from an- order hearing date the 26th -day of January, 1897, and entered in said clerk’s office, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial .made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Sarah Phalen, as administratrix, etc., of George Phalen, deceased, 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 August, 1897, granting the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Michael Keating, 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 4th day of January, 1897, upon the dismissal of his complaint directed by the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Edward Y. Burton, 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 September, 1897, denying the plaintiff’s motion to punish Nora O’Connell, a purchaser on the sale had in this action, for contempt of court.

Appeal by the defendant, The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of Mew York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Mew York on the 23d day of March, 1894, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from' an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12th day of - April, 1894, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Appeal by the defendant, Amelia Gorman, as executrix, etc., of - John J. Gorman, deceased, 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 December, 1896, denying her motion to substitute the sheriff’s indemnitors in an action brought against him in his lifetime, said appellant being the personal representative of said sheriff.

<p>Appeal by the defendant, Amelia Gorman, as executrix, etc., of John J. Gorman, deceased, 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 April, 1897, denying her motion to substitute the sheriff’s indemnitors as defendants in an action brought against John J. Gorman, late sheriff of the county of New York, deceased.</p>