Volume 50 — New York Miscellaneous Reports

<p>injunction — Preliminary injunction — Grounds and matters considered— Doubtful cases — Conspiracy — Civil liability — To increase. wages.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff’s right is doubtful, the court will not grant an injunction pendente lite containing the same relief that would, ultimately be granted if the plaintiff succeeded upon the trial of the action.</p> <p>While the right of striking employees “to picket” their employer’s place of business and to strive by reason, argument and proper appeal to win over, those who have taken their places at work is well established, the striking employees and the local labor unions of which they are members may be restrained from resorting to any threats, intimidation, force or fraud in their relations with the employees who took their places.</p> <p>The employees of a publishing company on strike and the local labor unions of which they are members are within their legal rights in publishing circulars setting forth the circumstances of the strike and requesting their friends to withhold their patronage from the company, and an injunction may be granted only from resorting to threats, intimidation, force or fraud in their relations with the customers of the publishing company, and the publication of such circulars may not be restrained upon the ground that they contain innuendoes of a libelous character.</p> <p>The verb “ to boycott ” does not necessarily signify to employ violence, intimidation or other unlawful coercive means, but may correctly signify to combine in refusing to have business dealings with another until he removes or ameliorates conditions deemed inimical to the welfare of the members of the combination, or some of them, or grants concessions which are deemed to make for that purpose. As such a combination may be formed and held together by argument, persuasion or, by the “ touch of nature ” and accomplish its purpose without violence or other unlawful means, it cannot be sa'id that “ to boycott ” is to offend the law.</p>

<p>Motion to continue an injunction pendente lite. The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Motion to confirm referee’s report herein designated “ Interlocutory Report Ho. 4.”</p>

<p>Action for specific performance.</p>

<p>Demurrer to the complaint hy the defendant, State of New York, in an action brought to foreclose a lien upon moneys applicable to the construction of a public improvement, on the ground that the court has not jurisdiction of said defendant</p>

<p>Penalties — Nature and character — Aggregation of penalties: Actions for penalties — Pleading.</p> <p>Pleading — Complaint — Necessity that each cause of action as pleaded he complete in itself.</p> <p>Joinder of causes of action — What causes of action may be joined — Several penalties.</p> <p>Commerce — Offenses — Penalties for adulteration. (Agricultural Law, § 20.)</p> <p>In section 20 of the Agricultural Law (L. 1883, ch. 338) there are seven different provisions by which and for a violation of which a penalty may be incurred, and the plaintiff must state in his complaint in an action to recover such a penalty every fact required to enable the court to judge whether he has a cause of action under the statute.</p> <p>Where under the complaint the second and each succeeding alleged cause of action do not repeat or refer to essential facts set forth in the first cause of action, the complaint upon its face shows that no separate or independent cause of action has been properly set forth as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 481, sub-' division 2, and, therefore, as to those causes of action, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.</p> <p>Cumulative penalties for violations of the Agricultural Law are not recoverable; and a complaint which unites several independent causes of action to recover such penalties, is demurrable under sub- ' division 7 of section 488 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the ground that causes of action have been improperly united.</p>

<p>Motion to cancel judgment, ordered to stand as security on opening default</p>

<p>Mechanics’ liens — Priorities — Mortgage — Building loan contract — (Lien Law, § 21) — Foreclosure — Judgment — Personal judgment.</p> <p>Lis pendens — Persons affected by notice — Effect on remedy of subsequent lienor.</p> <p>Joint agreements and liabilities — On contracts — In general — Evidence.</p> <p>Where, subsequently to the filing of the lis pendens in an action to foreclose a second mortgage, a materialman files a notice of lien under section 21 of the Lien Law (L. 1897, eh. 418) against the interests of a title company, the holder of a building loan mortgage, and also against the interests of the holder of a second mortgage and of the owner of the premises, the plaintiff in an action to foreclose the lien, though not made a phrty to the mortgage foreclosure action, is.hound by the judgment entered therein only to the extent of all proceedings taken in the action after the filing of the lis pendens (Code Civ. Pro. § 1671) and the judgment entered in that action operates as a bar only in so far as it prevents the plaintiff from foreclosing its lien against the property.</p> <p>The defendant title company, having failed to incorporate in its building loan agreement, filed pursuant to section 21 of the Lien Law, the provision that its mortgage, executed simultaneously therewith, was to be made a first lien by using part of the loan to pay off the first mortgage, incurred the penalty prescribed by the Lien Law of having its interest in the property subjected to the lien of the plaintiff who had a right to rely upon the letter of the building loan agreement that the entire loan should be devoted to the building under construction.</p> <p>The penalty prescribed by the statute did not attach to the interests of the owner and of the'holder of the second mortgage because of the omission to file the contract of sale of the premises which provided that if, upon the completion of the building, the owner needed further funds, the other party to the contract would advance a certain amount, as such contract did not constitute a building loan agreement within the meaning of section 21 of the Lien Law, and, hence, there was no occasion for filing the same.</p> <p>The acts of the holders of the second mortgage in watching the progress of the work, insisting upon the observance of the spedfications and finally paying certain compulsory labor claims indicate nothing more than an intention on their part to conserve their interests under their mortgage, and do not point to a copartnership or joint enterprise between them and the owner, and a claim that they were personally liable as partners of or engaged with him in a joint building enterprise, is untenable.</p> <p>Plaintiff, in addition to its relief against the title company, is entitled to a personal judgment against the owner; but the defendant lienors, having filed their liens only against the owner, can assert no claim against the title company and are limited to a personal judgment against the owner.</p>

<p>Taxes — Equalization.—Review — County hoards.</p> <p>Mandamus — Against public officers — Levy of taxes — Certificate of city’s share of taxes.</p> <p>Counties — Board of supervisors — Compelling new board to perform duty omitted by old board.</p> <p>The annual amount required in Ontario county for State and county taxes must be raised from the real and personal property therein taxable for general purposes, exclusive of bank stocks specially taxed under section 24 of the Tax Law (L. 1896, ch. 90S), and the share of the city of Geneva is to be determined by the ratio which the property in said city, assessed and taxable for State and county purposes, hears to the entire property within the county assessed and taxed for that purpose. Where, therefore, the board of supervisors of 1905, in estimating the city’s share of the State and county taxes, included in its estimate of the aggregate personal property the value of the shares of the Geneva hanks and thus determined the city’s share to be $24,270.42, whereas, by the method which should have been adopted, it would have been $23,059.11, held that, as the city, under the provisions of its charter (L. 1897, ch. 3G0, §§ 110, 114, 115, 119) has a direct interest in the amount, validity and enforceability of the State and county taxes levied upon its taxpayers, it was injuriously affected by the illegal action of the hoard of 1905 and was entitled to have the error corrected.</p> <p>The omission of the hoard of 1905 to do its duty does not render a substantial compliance with the statute impossible; and the city should not he deprived of its right to have its share reduced to the proper amount, although to recall the tax rolls from the various town collectors and distribute the deficiency thus created among the towns which should have been charged with it originally, was impossible.</p> <p>Accordingly held, that a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue, directing the board of supervisors of 1906 to immediately convene and to issue forthwith, as directed by section 110 of the charter, a certificate that the share of the State and county taxes to be raised in the city for the year 1906 is $23,059.11. .</p>

<p>Actions to recover penalties under section 104 of the Railroad Law, for refusal to give transfers. Motion to dismiss the complaint. The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>This is an appeal from a judgment of forty-six dollars, damages and costs, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered by the Municipal Court of the city of Syracuse, upon the verdict of a jury.</p>

<p>Form of action — Contract or tort — Waiver of tort.</p> <p>Pleading — Evidence admissible under pleadings: Variance between allegations and proof.</p> <p>The plaintiff, in an action for goods sold and delivered, may at the trial prove a forcible and wrongful taldng of the goods, waive the facts in evidence constituting a tort and recover under the allegations of his complaint; and a dismissal thereof at the close of the plaintiff’s case upon the ground that the cause of action proved was not the one alleged and that plaintiff should have sued for conversion is error.</p>

<p>Religious societies — Property and funds — Order for sale — When not required.</p> <p>Vendor and purchaser — Rights and liabilities between date of sale ' and delivery of deed — Vendor, trustee for purchaser.</p> <p>A religious corporation, to which are devised, under the residuary clause of a will, lands which the testatrix had, before her death, contracted to sell and convey, takes the legal title to such lands under the will merely as a trustee for the vendee, to whom it is bound to convey upon the vendee’s performance of the contract; and leave of the court is not required to authorize a conveyance by the corporation to the vendee.</p>

<p>Actioh for the specific performance of a contract.</p>

<p>Demurrer to complaint.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the City Court of the city of New York, denying a motion made by petitioner under section 812 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be released as surety upon the bond of Arthur F. Cosby, as receiver.</p>

<p>Appeal from a final order in summary proceedings made by the justice of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, second district, borough of Manhattan, after a trial before the court and a jury.</p>

<p>Appeal by the tenant from a final order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the landlord.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the City Court of the city of Hew York rendered in favor of the defendant.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Oity Court of the city of-Hew York rendered in favor of the plaintiff.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, sixth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, twelfth district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing his complaint, entered in the City Ctiurt of the city of Hew York.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of ¡New York, second district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of defendant.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Gifv Court of the city of New York, entered in favor of the defendant by direction of the court.

<p>Master and. servant — Master’s liability for injuries to servant — Actions — Sufficiency of evidence.</p> <p>Where a workman is engaged in his work upon a scaffold and a fellow servant at work on a stone shelf or coping above him falls off and knocks him off the scaffold on to the stone floor below and he is injured thereby, the facts do not establish negligence upon the part of the employer and a judgment in" Ms favor will be affirmed.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of ¡New York, thirteenth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendants.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of ¡New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Master and servant — The relation — Duration of employment and termination of relation—Renewal or continuance of employment — General or indefinite hiring; actions for wrongful discharge — Instructions.</p> <p>A hiring at so much a year, no time being specified, may be terminated at any time by either party.</p> <p>Where plaintiff entered defendant’s employ May 29, 1893, under a distinct agreement that the hiring was for one year, and, in ar action for a wrongful discharge under an allégation of employment for one year from May 29, 1904, at a salary of $1,200, there is evidence that his salary was increased from time to time, usually on the first of January, a request to charge that under the original agreement there was a presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that “ the plaintiff and • defendant agreed to a continuation for another year ” is properly refused as such a request calls for a finding, not as to the alleged implied contract sued upon, but to an alleged contract for one year from May 29, 1894.</p> <p>The. last increase of salary, which was to $1,200, began January 1, 1902, for which plaintiff receipted monthly in a book in defendant’s office which, as he knew, contained an entry to the effect that his compensation was to be at the rate of $1,200 per annum by order of the executive committee; held, that this acknowledgment of what constituted the contract of the parties from the date of the last increase of salary superseded the previous arrangement and made plaintiff’s request to charge as to an implication of a renewal of the original employment wholly immaterial.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, sixth district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Infants—Property and conveyances — Sale under order of court — Exchange of property not authorized.</p> <p>Where infants and other persons are tenants in common in five separate parcels of real estate, a proceeding, by which it is sought to effect an exchange of the interests of the infants in four of the parcels to the other tenants in consideration of a conveyance of their interests in the other parcel to the infants, is unauthorized.</p>

<p>Infants — Property and conveyances — Sale under order of court — Grounds; Reference — Report does not bind court.</p> <p>Executors and administrators — Administration in general — Determination of rights in foreign estate — Jurisdiction.</p> <p>The report of a referee, appointed under section 2354 of the Code of Civil Procedure to examine into the truth of the allegations of a petition for the sale of infants’ real estate, is not binding upon the court.</p> <p>Where it appears from the testimony of the infants’ mother, who is the administratrix of the father’s estate in New Jersey, that in addition to the real estate he left $2,000 which remains invested iñ a mortgage; that since his death she has received $2,000 income from the real estate and personal property; that,xafter deducting expenses, taxes and her dower share, there remains a balance' of $667.14 belonging to the infants and she credits herself with $1,300 for their support the last five years and claims a balance owing to her thereon of $632.86, and the referee finds that the said sum is a valid, legal and equitable claim and should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the property described in the petition, his report in that respect will not be confirmed, as the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim based, in whole or in part, upon her dealings as administratrix with the estate of her husband in a foreign jurisdiction.</p> <p>But, where it sufficiently appears from the testimony and the report of the referee that it will be for the best interests of the infants to sell the property described in the petition, for the reason that their personal property and the income of their real estate are insufficient for their support and maintenance, the report in these respects will be confirmed and the guardian directed to contract for the sale of the real estate in accordance with the terms specified in the said report, the proceeds to be invested for the benefit of the infants and to be used for their maintenance and education as the court may from time to time direct.</p>

Action to impress a vendee’s lien on real estate belonging to defendants for tbe amount of deposit paid on account of the purchase price thereof.

<p>Arrest on criminal charge — Preliminary complaint, information or affidavit — Setting forth particular facts — Sufficiency.</p> <p>Larceny — Under the Penal Code — Elements of the offense in general.</p> <p>To constitute the crime of larceny there must be an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property and such intent must be a criminal intent and contemplate an act which involves moral turpitude, or the contravention of an express statute, or some act contrary to public policy, and not merely the commission of an unauthorized act; but the giving of the funds of a life insurance company to a political campaign fund is pernicious and illegal and not justified by the opinion of the trustees of the company that the success of the Republican party is essential to the maintenance of the value of the company’s securities as the trustees are not responsible for fluctuations in such values resulting from political or general economic conditions brought about by no manipulative acts of theirs.</p> <p>Accordingly, depositions which show that one who was a trustee and vice president of a life insurance company and chairman of its finance committee received $48,000 of the corporate funds to reimburse him for a payment of that amount made, at the request of its president, to the treasurer of the Republican National Committee for use in a presidential campaign and that the entries in the company’s books do not disclose the nature or purpose of such payment are sufficient to authorize a magistrate to find that the crime of grand larceny was committed and that there was reasonable ground to believe that such officer committed it and to issue a warrant for his arrest; and this, notwithstanding the person charged states in a letter forming part of the depositions that he had nothing to do with the books of account of the company and was ignorant of its book-keeping methods and the entries relating to the transaction in question; that he derived no personal benefit from it, had no interests to serve except those of the'company and that no question as to the propriety of the payment ever occurred to him; for such statements admit the facts and merely deny the inference of criminal intent which the magistrate is, nevertheless, authorized to- draw from them.; and writs of habeas corpus and certiorari which challenge the sufficiency of the depositions must be dismissed and the prisoner remanded to custody.</p>

Application by petitioner for an order to open certain ballot boxes, containing the ballots cast at the election held in the city of Hew York, in the thirtieth aldermanic district, and to permit an inspection of the ballots in said boxes.

<p>Proceedings to review an adverse determination of the county treasurer in refusing to grant a liquor tax certificate to, and upon the application of, the relator.</p>

Motioh to submit the question of local option under the Liquor Tax Law to a special town meeting of the town of Hanover, H. Y.

Application under section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law for a special town meeting in the town of East Bloomfield, H. Y., at which the four local option questions provided by said section 16 shall be resubmitted.

Moticot to submit the question of local option under the Liquor Tax Law to a special town meeting of the town of Chautauqua, EL Y.

<p>Service of papers — Service by mail.</p> <p>Default — Opening default — Grounds or excuses — Failure to receive notice of trial</p> <p>The registry of the package containing the plaintiff’s notice of trial, served by mail, does not invalidate such service; but where, by reason of illness, the defendant did not receive it until five days after the court had convened, a judgment obtained by plaintiff on an inquest should, in the exercise of the discretion of the court, be set aside; and an affidavit of merits need not be served with the moving papers.</p>

<p>Divorce—Judgment — Entry—Nunc pro tunc.</p> <p>An interlocutory decree of divorce may not be filed nunc pro tunoj but sufficient cause being shown, it may be filed forthwith.</p>

<p>Demubbeb to complaint.</p>

<p>Specific performance — Actions — Pleading — Complaint — Allegation of title in defendant.</p> <p>The complaint in an action by the vendee to compel specific performance of a contract to convey real estate must allege the' title to the premises to be in the defendant, and the failure to make such, allegation is not cured by the prayer for general relief.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of blew York, twelfth district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered in favor of the plaintiffs on a verdict directed by the court.

defendant’s motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover the sum of $280 with interest, the amount of an alleged death benefit claimed to be due the plaintiff from the defendant on the death of one Joseph Zajic, who was a member of the defendant’s society during his lifetime.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York entered in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial before the court and a jury, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Pleading — Complaint — Statement of cause of action in general: Motions relating to pleadings — Motion to dismiss — For failure of complaint to state a cause of action.</p> <p>Where plaintiff alleges that $500, deposited as security for his performance of the terms of a lease of defendant’s premises, was to be repaid upon the expiration of the lease and that plaintiff had been dispossessed for' non-payment of $80 rent, and demands judgment for the balance of the deposit, and the answer pleads that, in addition to the rent reserved, the lease contains further covenants and conditions for the performance of which the deposit was also to be security, the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of substance upon the ground that it does not allege plaintiff’s compliance with the other terms which it does not mention is erroneous, the question presented being the same as upon a demurrer to the complaint.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, Fourth District, borough of Manhattan.</p>

Appead by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, Twelfth District, borough of Manhattan.

Appeál by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, Third District, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Appeal from a final order in summary proceedings made in favor of the tenant in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, Fourth District, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, Fourth District, borough of Manhattan, denying a motion by one Peter Doelger to vacate and set aside a final order entered in summary proceedings, and for leave to intervene and defend.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor ,of the plaintiff entered in the City Court of the city of New York, after a trial before the court and a jury, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Few York, Second District, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Oity Court of the city of New York entered in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial before the court and a jury, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Appeax by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, Tenth District, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Negotiable instruments — Bona fide holders — What constitutes — Notice of equities generally — Appearance of alteration.</p> <p>Where a mere inspection of a cheek shows that its date has been changed, a purchaser thereof, under section 41 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, has notice of its infirmity and cannot recover thereon as a holder in due course within section 91 of said law.</p>

• Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered for the plaintiff upon a verdict directed in his favor. Action under section,1937 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforce the liability of one of two copartners not summoned in a former action brought to enforce a copartnership debt.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the City Court of the city of Hew York rendered in favor of the plaintiff upon a verdict.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered in the City Court of the city of Rew York, after a trial before the court and a jury, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial

<p>Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment in favor of the' defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, Seventh District, borough of Manhattan.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, Thirteenth District, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Oity Court of the city of ¡New York rendered in favor of the plaintiffs upon a verdict. Action for breach of contract to purchase certain goods.

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City-Court of the city of Hew York entered in favor of the plaintiff after a trial before the court and a jury, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.</p>

<p>Appeal "by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, thirteenth district, rendered in favor of the defendants upon demurrer to the complaint.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, third district, borough of Manhattan, rendered for the plaintiff in an action against the alleged surety upon an instrument purporting to be an undertaking, given upon the principal’s discharge from custody in proceedings before one of the police magistrates, which terminated in the principal’s conviction as a disorderly person in that he abandoned his wife, leaving her without.adequate means of support.</p>

<p>Saving questions for review — Presentation and reservation of questions in general — necessity of exception.</p> <p>Master and servant — Services and compensation — Actions for wages — Instructions.</p> <p>Where, on the trial of an action brought by a minor against his employer for wages, no question was raised as to the plaintiff’s emancipation and his father testified that he was entitled to his own earnings, that question cannot he raised for the first time upon appeal.</p> <p>In such a case the refusal of the court to charge, at defendant’s request, that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove his “version of the transaction” is not error, as his burden was to prove the agreement.</p>

<p>Municipal Courts — Procedure — Costs — City Court of the City of Hew York.</p> <p>Costs — When allowable — Recovery of less than statutory amount. Code Civ. Pro., § 3228, Subd. 5.</p> <p>In an action in the City Court of the city of New York brought upon two causes of action amounting to $776, where one cause of action is settled and by stipulation eliminated from the suit and the plaintiff recovers a verdict for $200 on the other cause of action; he is not entitled to costs; and a motion to vacate the taxation should be granted.</p>

<p>Wills — Interpretation — Conditions, contingencies and alternatives — Particular terms of doubtful meaning — Death without heirs by present wife.</p> <p>Where a testator gave the residue of Ms estate “ to my son John, his heirs and assigns, except that in the event of his death without heirs by his present wife, then she, the present wife of said John, shall have the use of the property hereby devised to John, during her life or as long as she remains his widow and on her decease or re-marriage, then said property hereby devised to John to go to the children of my daughter, Alida, and my son, Isaac, share and share alike,” held, that there was an absolute devise to John except only in the event of his death without children before the death of his “present wife.”</p>

<p>' Death by wrongful act — Persons liable — Two or more persons.</p> <p>Negligence — Proximate cause of injury — Concurrent causes: Actions — Pleading — Complaint ■— Negativing contributory negligence — When contributory negligence appears upon face of complaint.</p> <p>For injuries resulting in death the personal representatives of the decedent may maintain an action against two or more persons through whose concurrent negligence the injuries happen. In such a case the plaintiff is not required to make all the joint tort feasors defendants but may prosecute his • action against them jointly or severally.</p> <p>The question of contributory negligence may be raised by demurrer to the complaint; and, although the. complaint alleges generally that plaintiffs’ intestate was free from carelessness, yet, where it appears from the complaint that the decedent was in the employ of one of the defendants, a telephone company, and at the time of the accident on a pole owned by an electric railroad company not a party to the action which bore a wire, belonging to the other defendant, an electric lighting company, having insulation that was either inadequate or out of repair .and that carried a current of high voltage dangerous to human life, and also a wire of the telephone company, and, in transferring the telephone wire to a new place, he untied the electric light wire from its insulator and, afterward, when replacing it received the shock that killed him; and where there is no allegation that the defendant, the electric light company, had reason to know that any one would have occasion to interfere with its wire •or that it consented to or had knowledge of any such interference, •or that the wire could have been rendered harmless by any known ■insulation, nor any allegation that the decedent was ignorant of -the deficiency of the insulation, or that the defective character -was not obvious, nor any allegation from which it may be inferred that it was solely by reason of the defective insulating material that the intestate was killed, the complaint shows a want of reasonable precaution on the part of the intestate; and a demurrer by the defendant, the electric light company, to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action should be sustained.</p> <p>The right of the intestate to go upon the pole to work on the telephone wire does not imply a license to interfere with the electric light wire.</p> <p>The defendant, the electric light company, owed to a licensee or trespasser no active duty nor any duty to keep its wires properly insulated at the place where decedent received his injury, and one standing in either relation to it must be held to the exercise of reasonable care.</p> <p>A man of mature age, employed in connection with wires carrying electricity, is bound to take active measures to determine the condition of the insulating material of a wire carrying a deadly current of electricity at the point of contact before deliberately and intentionally coming in touch with it.</p>

<p>Executors and administrators — Collection of assets — Rights, duties and liabilities — Right to pursue property fraudulently conveyed— When executor was party to fraudulent transaction.</p> <p>An action may be maintained by an executor and testamentary trustee in his representative capacity to set aside a conveyance made by himself and his co-executors and co-trustees on the ground that such conveyance was induced by fraud, notwithstanding the fact that he was a party to the fraudulent transaction, and may also join as plaintiff in his individual capacity so far as may be necessary for the determination of his individual rights.</p>

<p>Demurrer to complaint.</p>

<p>Wills — Interpretation — Nature and quality of estates — Future interests and vesting — Future interest on happening of uncertain event is a contingent estate.</p> <p>Where a testator gave the residue of his estate to his executor-in trust for the benefit of his wife for life and upon her death to - divide the same into equal shares; to convey one of them to his son in such manner that he might thenceforth have, hold and enjoy the same in severalty, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever; and in ease he should have died leaving lawful issue living at the death of testator’s wife then to convey such share to them; and in case he should have died without such issue then living to hold such share for testator’s daughter and her issue upon the same trust; and where the testator further provided that upon his wife’s death his executors should hold and retain the other share upon the further trusts to receive the income and pay it over to his daughter for life and, upon her death leaving lawful issue, to convey the same to them; or upon her death without issue to convey the same to testator’s said son; or, if he should have died leaving lawful issue, to them; and where the testator further provided that if hoth his son and daughter should die before his wife without issue living at his wife’s death; or, if his daughter should die after his wife without issue and after the son’s death without issue his executors should then ■ convey such part of the estate as they then held in trust to the testator’s brothers and brother-in-law and to their issue,- held, that the son of testator alone took a vested estate in remainder and that a brother of testator' took only a contingent estate which could not pass under his will.</p>

<p>Abatement and revival — Revival or continuation of suit — Death of one of several defendants — Where defendants are copartners. Partnership — Dissolution; settlement and accounting — Effect — As to estate of deceased partner — Liability to creditors — Necessity of resort to surviving partner.</p> <p>In an action against two copartners upon their copartnership contract, where the summons is served upon one of them and he dies befor'e service upon the other, the action does not abate, as the cause of action survives, but may proceed against the survivor and no leave is necessary therefor.</p> <p>And in such a case the plaintiff need not make the personal representatives of the deceased copartner parties to the action, as the surviving partner is primarily liable and the plaintiff could only maintain an action against them in case the surviving partner should be insolvent or unable to pay the debt.</p>

<p>Mechanics’ liens — Foreclosure: Parties — A person liable for debt under separate guaranty; Judgment — Eendition of personal judgment.</p> <p>In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien one who is liable for the debt upon which the lien is founded may he joined as a defendant though his. liability arises upon a separate instrument guaranteeing the performance of the contract. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 484, 3399.)</p>

<p>Action to set aside a hill of sale.</p>

<p>Abutting owners — Remedies of abutting owners and actions against railroad companies — Right to injunctive relief.</p> <p>Injunction — Nature of remedy and when granted — Substantial injury.</p> <p>An injunction should not be granted during the pendency of an action brought to restrain the placing of six transmission cables, each inclosed in a three-inch iron pipe, on the west exterior girder of the viaduct in Park avenue in the city of New York and six on the east exterior girder; the pipes to be in horizontal layers of three pipes each, to extend about fourteen inches above the girder and to occupy a space about fourteen and one-half inches in width, to be supported by wooden blocks four inches thick and twenty inches wide at intervals of twelve feet, placed transversely to the pipes and through which the pipes pass, and the upper surface of which is eighteen inches above the top of the girder, with an overhang along the edge of the girder whose upper surface is on the same level as that of the girder to assist in supporting the pipes and blocks, and constituting part of a system designed for the operation of trains by electricity over the viaduct; when the question raised apparently relates only to the location of the conduits and the court cannot determine from the conflicting affidavits whether it is practicable to locate the cables in any way below the upper surface of the girder or under the viaduct and where the work is prosecuted under a law prohibiting the operation of trains by steam locomotives after a certain date and will be of great benefit to property along the line of the viaduct and plaintiff’s damages can be as readily ascertained as previous damages amounting to $22,321.92 paid by the defendants to plaintiff for the maintenance of the viaduct and the operation of trains thereon and where the complaint does not allege that the conduits will damage the fee or impair the rental or usable value of the premises but alleges that it will constitute a nuisance and continuous trespass and produce irreparable mischief for which it has no adequate remedy at law and the defendants have never acquired the right to construct or maintain the additions to the structure and where defendants’ loss and the public inconvenience from the injunction asked for would far outweigh any possible damage to plaintiff from withholding it.</p>

<p>Action to restrain the creation of a cloud upon title and to secure an injunction. Demurrer to complaint:</p>

<p>Action for partition.</p>

<p>Action for partition. The opinion states the case.</p>

Action by plaintiff, the vendee, under a contract to convey realty, to enforce a vendee’s lien for the sum of $1,000 paid by him on said contract, together with the amount paid for searching title.

<p>Action by plaintiffs, who are now acting as trustees, praying that their accounts be taken and that they be instructed how to dispose of the moneys remaining in their possession.</p>

<p>Gas — Gas companies — Statutory regulations — Charges — Maximum rate.</p> <p>Constitutional law—Deprivation of property without due process of law — Fixing maximum rate of charge by public utility corporation.</p> <p>When the Legislature fixes a maximum rate of compensation for the services of a public utility corporation beyond which it may not charge, it is equivalent to granting express authority to charge up to that rate.</p> <p>Where such rate, however, is so low" as to work practical destruction or confiscation of the rights of property of the corporation, it is deprived of its property without such compensation as the Constitution secures and therefore without due process of law; but those for whom the service is performed suffer no impairment of their constitutional rights by a rate that is too high, because they are not compelled to accept the service nor to pay for it.</p> <p>Accordingly, in an action by a gas company for gas furnished • to a municipality for lighting its streets, in the absence of a contract fixing the price, the company may recover the maximum rate fixed by the Legislature; and an order granting an examination of the plaintiff’s books, for the purpose of showing the cost of producing gas, and hence that the price charged is unreasonable, will not be made.</p>

<p>Fraudulent conveyances—What constitutes: Voluntary conveyances</p> <p>and sufficiency of consideration — Conveyances to creditors. Corporations — Insolvency and receivers — In general — Prohibition of transfers with intent to prefer.</p> <p>Foreclosure of mortgages on land — Foreclosure by action and sale— Distribution of proceeds and surplus — Persons entitled to interpose claims to surplus.</p> <p>Where a mortgage is given by the owner of real estate, upon which a building is being erected, to a trustee for the purpose of paying each and all creditors who could file mechanics’ liens against the premises and the mortgagee at the same time executes to the mortgagor a deed of trust, declaring the trust upon which the mortgage is given, the deed is a sufficient consideration to support the mortgage.</p> <p>In such case the mortgage does not create an unlawful preference and when a preference results from the refusal of certain creditors to accept the benefit of the mortgage such preference arises from the act of the creditor and not from the intent of the mortgagor and the mortgage is not thereby invalidated.</p> <p>Where tenants pay rents to a receiver of mortgaged premises, during the pendency of a foreclosure suit, in advance of the terms of their leases, the purchaser cannot obtain such rents through proceedings for the distribution of the surplus moneys arising on the foreclosure sale under section 2405 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but must have recourse to the tenants to enforce proper payment to himself.</p>

<p>Motion to compel the production of certain "books and documents, and to vacate a subpoena duces tecum.</p>

<p>Motion for mandamus.</p>

<p>Eminent domain — Measure of compensation — Appraisal of pier shedded under revocable license.</p> <p>Where, in a proceeding instituted by the city of New York to acquire title to a pier, upon which the owners ha.d erected a shed under a revocable permission from the municipality, with full knowledge of the plan of the city to acquire the entire dock system within an area including the pier in question, the commissioners valued the property as a shedded pier and not an open pier; held, that their report should not be confirmed against the opposition of the city, for the taking of the property by the city operated as a revocation of the permission to maintain the shed and as to this the owner was not entitled to compensation and the property should, therefore, have been valued as an unshedded pier.</p>

Motion to vacate a temporary injunction which restrains the defendant from “ acting officially in any way, under and pursuant ” to a certain petition of electors of the town of Brownville, that the question of granting licenses to sell liquor in said town be submitted and voted upon at the next general election.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of a justice’s court in an action to recover the penalty prescribed by law for the failure to pay a poll tax assessment.</p>

<p>Street railways — Operation — Actions — Sufficiency of evidence — Injuries to persons crossing tracks.</p> <p>Where it appears that after plaintiff,' driving a gentle horse, had safely crossed defendant’s railroad track and had reached a point in the highway opposite the middle of the ear, which had been stopped to allow her to pass, her horse became frightened "at the usual noise made in starting a car fitted, with compressed air brakes, ran away and plaintiff was thrown out of the wagon and injured, held, that the evidence was. insufficient to impute negligence to defendant. , ..."</p>

This action was brought against the defendant to recover assessments under a written agreement signed by the defendant and others. The agreement consisted of two parts, called Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B.” Burnap & Bumap, the parties of the first part, agreed to build and equip a butter factory under the specifications contained in Exhibit “A” for $4,350, payable in cash when the building was completed.

<p>Actioy against a sheriff as for an escape. The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Municipal Courts — Procedure — Process — Alias summons.</p> <p>The issue of an alias summons in an action brought in the Municipal Court of the city of New York without a return of the original summons to the effect that the defendant cannot be found, as required by section 30 of the Municipal Court Act, is unauthorized.</p> <p>Where, upon the return day of the alias summons, defendant appears specially and his motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction upon the ground that no alias summons could issue without the proof required by said section 30 is denied and, when the cause is reached for trial before another justice, the motion to dismiss is renewed upon the same grounds as before and again renewed at the close of plaintiff’s case when defendant rests, a judgment dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to a new action is proper.</p> <p>A formal order denying the motion made on the return of the alias summons having been unnecessarily entered and not being appealable, the subsequent action of the justice in granting defendant’s ¡motion before he had waived any of his rights by a general appearance is not a review of another justice's order.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the complaint rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of the Bronx.</p> <p>The action was for a penalty for refusing to give a transfer.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, second district, borough of the Bronx.

<p>Municipal Courts — Jurisdiction — No power to enforce attorney’s lien. Attorney and client — The relation with the client — Lien — Enforcement.</p> <p>A plaintiff may settle his action at any time whether his attorney consents or not and, having done so and released the defendant, it is error to refuse to dismiss the complaint.</p> <p>The Municipal Court of the city of New York lias no power to enforce an attorney’s lien if such a lien exists in that court.</p>

Appeal by defendant from an order made at Special Term of the City Court of the city of blew York, denying defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside the judgments entered and to allow the defendant to come in and defend each of said actions.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of Hew York dismissing his complaint.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Flew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of hTew York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan*

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Municipal Courts — Procedure—Relief from default — When default should he opened.</p> <p>The proper procedure for relief from a judgment in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, entered upon defendant’s default in appearing at the trial, is not by an appeal from the judgment.</p> <p>nor by a motion at the appellate term but by motion in the court where the judgment was rendered.</p> <p>Where, in an action in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, upon the day set for the trial the defendant’s attorney is actually engaged in the trial of a case in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn and has been for two days previous thereto and the plaintiff’s attorney .is so notified and, when the case is called, an affidavit is submitted setting forth such engagement and asking for an adjournment, but the request is refused, an inquest is taken and judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, a motion to open the default should be granted and, upon appeal from an order denying such motion, the order will be reversed. ■</p>

<p>Advertising contracts — Short rates.</p> <p>Independent contractors — Who are independent contractors — Advertising agent.</p> <p>Where an advertising agent contracts with an advertiser for the sale to him of newspaper advertising space and afterward settles with him and is paid for the space used, and where the newspaper publisher recovers a judgment against the advertising agent for short rates during the period such advertisement was • published, in consequence of the terms of the contract for such space between the publisher and the agent, to which the advertiser was not a party, the agent may not recover from the advertiser the excess which it was compelled to pay the publisher under its contract with such publisher.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of ÍTew York, thirteenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city' of Yew York, second district, borough of the Bronx.

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of Hew Tork, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff in the City Court of the city of Hew York, after a trial before the court and a jury, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city if ¡New York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, ninth district,- borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Carriers — Carriage of passengers — Liability for personal injuries — Actions for personal injuries — Instructions — As to burden 6f proof.</p> <p>Where, in an action for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in falling from one of the defendant’s street ears, it appeared that the plaintiff was standing on the rear platform of the ear and leaned against the iron gate which was supposed to be closed for the better sepurity of the passengers and, according to his statement, the gate opened and he fell from the platform and was dragged 150 feet, and the court charged the jury that, in view of the fact that the gate did come open it was for the defendant to prove itself free from negligence, held that the charge went further than a statement of the proposition that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to the case, and was equivalent to charging that the burden of proving plaintiff's case had shifted to the defendant, and was error for which the judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the complaint as to the defendant- Joy Steamship Company, entered in the City Court of the city of Hew York.

<p>Carriers — Carriage of goods — Actions against carriers — Sufficiency of evidence — Effect of receipt given by connecting carrier.</p> <p>In an action against a carrier for damage to goods shipped by it from Lyons Falls, N. Y., for delivery to another carrier in New York city for transportation to California, where they arrived in a badly damaged condition, a receipt of the Panama Railroad Company, containing a statement “ Bdls., covers torn, ends exposed ”, concerning which a witness called by plaintiffs testified that the receipt was a carbon copy signed by him when he was in the employ of the Panama Steamship Company; that the receipt was not made by him but by a person now dead whose hand writing he recognized and that he presumed the receipt was giver to the shipper, and that it was customary to insert the condition of the goods in the bill of lading if they were not in perfect order, . is not evidence against the defendant that the damage complained of was received on its line; and a judgment for the plaintiffs, based on that evidence received under defendant’s objection, should he reversed.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the complaint, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Cause of action — Splitting cause of action — Whether transaction involves single or several causes of action.</p> <p>A contract, under which plaintiff agrees to sell and offer for sale automobile tops manufactured by defendant, at a compensation amounting to whatever he may obtain over and above the price fixed by defendant upon them, is entire and indivisible and a claim for compensation thereunder cannot be divided and made the subject of several suits.</p>

<p>Conversion (tortious) ■— Demand and refusal — Necessity of demand.</p> <p>Damages — Measure for torts — Liability for conversion — Time and place of estimating value — Market value.</p> <p>Where a landlord, upon dispossessing a tenant for non-payment of rent, comes into possession of a soda water apparatus, leased by a third person to the tenant for use in his business, no action for conversion lies against the landlord until after a demand and refusal to deliver the property.</p> <p>The measure of damages in such case is what the apparatus could have been replaced for in the market at the time of the tortious taking, with interest.</p> <p>Where plaintiff testifies that the property, when delivered to the tenant, was worth $600, but it is shown that, at or about the time of the alleged conversion, he offered to sell it for $25, and he also testifies that he saw the apparatus two days after his lessee had removed from defendant’s premises and it was then “ smashed, corners and all ” and of no value, a judgment in his favor will be reversed for want of evidence of the value of the apparatus at the time of the alleged conversion.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs/ rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, first district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendants, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to modify said judgment in regard to jury fees.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of ¡New York, • entered in favor of -the plaintiff after a trial before the court and a jury.

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered in favor of the defendant upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the City Court of the city of Kew York, setting aside a verdict for defendant and granting a new trial.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, sixth district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fourteenth district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the defendant from an order filed in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, thirteenth district, borough of Manhattan, denying defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside the judgment entered in this action.

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in the Oity Court of the city of Sew York.</p>

<p>Evidence — Parol evidence — General rules — Instruments incompletely expressing intention of parties.</p> <p>Where the vendee of real property deposits money to bind a sale, upon a writing that states the property is to be sold subject to certain mortgages but is silent as to the time of payment of the mortgages or the rate of interest they bear and provides that a regular contract of sale should be signed on a future day, in an action by the vendee to recover the deposit, parol evidence is proper to show that the agreement as to the time of payment and rate of interest of the mortgages, was different from that contained in the contract tendered by the vendor in performance of his agreement and that the vendee was, therefore, not bound to execute it and was entitled to have the deposit refunded.</p>

<p>Parties — Bringing in new parties — Party claiming lien on chattel replevied. (Code Civ. Pro. § 452.)</p>

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the City Court of the city of New York, denying a motion to set aside an inquest.

<p>Appeal from an order of the City Oourt of the city of New York, granting a new trial upon a motion on a case made and settled.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the City Court of the city of New York, after a trial before the court and a jury.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the • city of New York, twelfth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of plaintiff.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, sixth district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the ' . defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eighth district, borough of Manhattan.

This is an appeal from an order, made at a Special Term of the City Court of the city of New York, vacating an order requiring plaintiff to appear to be examined in order to enable the defendant to frame his answer.

<p>Municipal Courts — Procedure — Process — Service on foreign corporation.</p> <p>Foreign corporations — Actions and proceedings — Process — Agents or officers for service.</p> <p>Municipal Court Act of New York city, § 31.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment by default and for a new trial, made in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the City Court of the city of ¡Mew York, denying a motion to compel defendant to accept a notice of appeal.

<p>municipal Courts — Procedure — Vacation of judgment — Motion must be made within five days in New York city.</p>

Appeal by the defendant, New York City Railway Company, from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in. the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Municipal Courts — Review — Saving questions for review — Lack of exceptions.</p> <p>Saving questions for review — Objections and exceptions in general — Necessity.</p>

<p>Witnesses — Credibility of witnesses — Interest and bias of witness. ’ Examination of witnesses — Cross-examination — Latitude.</p>

<p>Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan, after a trial before the court without a jury.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, rendered in favor of the defendant for the dismissal of the complaint. Action for negligence.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Landlord and tenant — Creation and existence of relation — Lease or license.</p>

<p>Appeal by the landlord from a judgment in favor of the tenant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>App'eal "by the defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Negligence—'Actions — Evidence — Weight and sufficiency.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Principal and agent — Rights and liabilities of principal as to third persons — Unauthorized acts — Apparent authority.</p> <p>Replevin — Right of action and defenses — Possession of defendant — When may be maintained though defendant has parted with possession.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, twelfth district, ren-' dored in favor of the defendant. Action for breach of '-ontract for sale and delivery of corporate stock.

<p>Frauds, Statute of—Operation and efiect of statute — Readiness and willingness to perform contract.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district,, borough of the Bronx.

<p>Municipal Courts — Procedure — Appearance — Effect of. Process—'Defects and amendments — Waiver of objections — By appearance.</p>

<p>Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered in (the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan, setting aside a judgment rendered -upon the merits in favor of defendant.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order 'of the City Court of the city of New York, denying a motion for an order of interpleader under section 820 of the Code.</p>

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, second district, borough of the Bronx, and also from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of the Bronx.

Appeal by the defendant from an order entered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan, granting a motion to set aside a verdict, rendered in favor of the defendant after a trial before the court and a jury.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of'the City Court of the city of New York, entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiffs.

<p>Replevin—Parties, pleading and evidence — Weight and sufficiency ol evidence.</p>

<p>Principal and agent — Unauthorized acts — Apparent authority — Appearance of authority arising only from agent’s conduct.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Sales — Remedies of seller — Action for price — Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence.</p>

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.

<p>Vendor and purchaser — Enforcement generally — Damages for failure to convey.</p>

<p>Wills — Probate, establishment and annulment — Procedure — Presumptions and burden of proof.</p>

<p>Application by the special guardian for a construction of the will in question.</p>

<p>Wills — Interpretation and construction — Disposal of the qntire estate — Lapsed or void gifts — Surplus in trustee’s hands after satisfying trusts.</p>