Volume 76 — New York Supreme Court Reports

Appeal by Fannie M. Rice and Anna Bunnelle, legatees under tbe will of Mary D. Tyler, deceased, from a decree of tbe Surrogate’s Court of tbe county of Oswego, granted on tbe 2d day of August, 1892, and entered in said surrogate’s office on tbe 23d day of August, 1892, and also from tbe decree of said court granted and entered on tbe 22d of June, 1892.

Appeal by tbe defendant, John B. Flagler, from a judgment of the County Court of Dutchess county, entered in the office of the clerk of that county on the 5th day of December, 1892, affirming a judgment of a Justice’s Court in favor of the plaintiff.

Appeal by the defendants, Heman L. White and George W. Bartholomew, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the city and county of New York on the 4th day of March, 1892, upon a verdict rendered at the New York Circuit.

<p>Supplementary proceedings — examination of a third person — 'what proceedings must be had, in the district where the judgment debtor resides.</p> <p>While an order for the examination of a third person in supplementary proceedings maybe made by a. judge outside of the judicial district in which the judgment debtor resides, yet all proceedings subsequent to the examination, including the appointment of a receiver, must be before a judge of the district in which the judgment debtor resides.</p>

Appeal by tbe plaintiffs, William T. Hart and others, from an order of tbe Supreme Court made at the Essex Special Term, and entered in tbe office of tbe clerk of St. Lawrence county on tbe 16th day of January, 1893, vacating and setting aside an order granting a preliminary injunction.

Appeal by the claimant, Sarah 0. Thumb, from that part of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court for Montgomery county, entered in the office of the surrogate on the '7th day of November, 1892, finally settling the accounts of James W. Walrath, deceased, as administrator, etc., of Matilda Sunderlin, deceased, and awarding the net surplus of the estate to said Walrath as next of kin of the intestate, which provides: “And Mrs. Sarah 0.

Appeal by tbe plaintiff, George IL Richardson, from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady county, entered in the office of the clerk of that county on the 6th day of June, 1892, as amended September 2, 1892, affirming on the plaintiff’s appeal, with costs to tbe defendants, a judgment for thirteen dollars damages, and costs, rendered in favor of tlie plaintiff by a Justice’s Court.

Appeal by tlie defendant, Setb Hill, from an order of the Supreme Court made at the Saratoga Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of Saratoga county on the 16th day of December, 1892, vacating a taxation of costs in favor of the defendant, and ordering a retaxation of costs and directing the clerk, on such retaxation, to allow costs to the plaintiff.

Appeal by the defendants, the Central National Bank of Boston, ■and others, holders of receiver’s certificates, from an order made at the Saratoga Special Term, and entered in the office of the clerk of Rensselaer county on the 14th day of January, 1892, denying their motion to strike out the clause in the decision of the Special Term in this action directing judgment, perpetually enjoining them from proceeding with a sale under a decree obtained in the United States Circuit…

Appeal by the plaintiff, Rebecca Van Etten, from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster county, entered in the office of the clerk of that county on the 21st day of January, 1893, in favor of the defendant, reversing, upon appeal, a judgment of a Justice’s Court in favor of the plaintiff.

Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the cleric of Clinton county on the 16 th day of March, 1892, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Clinton Circuit before the court without a jury. The action was brought to recover for a total loss, under a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.

.Appeal by the plaintiffs, Luther L. Dean and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of Montgomery county on the 5th day of February, 1892, upon a decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Montgomery Circuit, dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. .

Appeal by the defendant John H. Foley from an order of the County Court of Monroe county, in each of the above-entitled actions, entered in the office of the clerk of that county on the 2d day of January, 1892,-confirming as modified thereby the report of a referee and directing the distribution of surplus moneys arising on a sale in foreclosure.