Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Larocque, Jr., for appellant. Lyman W. RedIn re STICKNEY'S ESTATE. (Court of Ap- ington, for respondent. peals of New York. June 12, 1906.) No opin- PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new ion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 trial granted, costs to abide event; unless plaincosts. See 185 N. Y. 107, 77 N. E. 993.

tiff stipulates to reduce her recovery to the sum of $50, without interest from the date of the

loss, with costs, in which event the judgment as STRONG, Respondent, v. GOOGINS, Appel- reduced is affirmed, without costs of this appeal, lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jine 5,

on opinion in Tewes y. North German Lloyd S. 1906.) `Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate S. Co., 186 N. Y. -78 N. E. 864. Division of the Supreme Court in the First

GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERJudicial Department (104 App. Div. 631, 93 N.

NER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CÚLLEN, Y. Supp. 1148), entered June 6, 1905, affirming

C. J., and HAIGHT, J., dissent. O'BRIEN, J., a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a

absent. decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel the specific performance of a contract for the exchange of two parcels of

THIEME, Respondent, v. NIAGARA FIRE real property. Franklin Bien, for appellant. Allen McCulloh and Henry Hill Pierce, for

INS. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New

York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment respondent.

of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

in the First Judicial Department (100 App. Div. costs.

278, 91 N. Y. Supp. 499), entered April 5, 1905, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T.

affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enterBARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HIS

ed upon a verdict directed by the court, and an COCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., 'absent.

order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon a policy of fire insurance.

Robert Thorne, for appellant. Charles E. Le SWIFT, Appellant, v. AMERICAN EXCH. Barbier and Frederick H. Stillwagen, for reNAT. BANK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals | spondent. of New York. Oct. 2 1906.) Appeal from a PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su- costs. preme Court in the First Judicial Department CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, EDWARD (103 App. Div. 610, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1148), enter- T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, HISCOCK, and ed April 26, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor

CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., absent. of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to impress upon funds in the hands In re THOMPSON'S ESTATE. (Court of of the defendant a judgment theretofore recover- Appeals of New York. May 25, 1906.) Motion ed by plaintiff against a certain corporation, as- for reargument. See 184 N. Y. 36, 76 N. E. sets of which, it was alleged, had been received 870. Louis Cohen, for the motion. Henry Hill by defendant. Beno B. Gattell, Thomas D.

Pierce, opposed. Adams, and George L. Carlisle, for appellant.

PER CURIAM. This is the second motion Michael L. Cardozo, for respondent.

made by the respondent for a return of our rePER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with mittitur for amendment, the first having been costs.

denied, and no leave given to renew. The moCULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, tion also includes an application for a rearguWILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and ment based mainly upon the fact that the execuCHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. trix is a non resident of the state; but it ap

pears that she became a nonresident in May,

1902, more than three years before the appeal SYRACUSE TRUST CO. v. SYRACUSE was argued in this court. Both applications CONST. CO. et al. (Court of Appeals of New

are predicated substantially upon the inconYork. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment

venience to the creditors in this state of going of the Appellate_Division of the Supreme Court

to the state of New Jersey in order to sue the in the Fourth Judicial Department (111 App.

former executrix, Mrs. Thompson. This fact did Div. 907, 96 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered January

not give the Surrogate's Court jurisdiction of 9, 1906, which affirmed a judgment in favor of

an action in the nature of a creditor's bill to plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on

reach assets not belonging to the estate. We did trial at Special Term, and two intermediate not pass upon the merits in our decision, but orders theretofore made in an action to foreclose

simply held that the surrogate had no jurisa lien on collateral held as security for the pay

diction of such a controversy. Matter of ment of two promissory notes. Le Roy B.

Thompson, 184 N. Y. 36, 76 N E. 870. Outside Williams, for appellants. Edwin Nottingham,

facts, not appearing in the record, but shown for respondent.

only by the affidavit of the attorney for the

creditors, cannot give the surrogate jurisdiction PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appeal from intermediate orders dismiss

if the statute never conferred it. Either the ed, without costs.

surrogate had or had not jurisdiction to decide

the question which arose between the creditors CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, and the executrix as to the title to the moneys EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and purchased by the excess of insurance under the CHASE, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not sit- statute. If the surrogate had jurisdiction, our ting.

decision was wrong. If he had no jurisdiction. under any circumstances, as we unanimously

held, then no outside fact could confer jurisTEWES, Respondent, v. NORTH GERMAN diction upon him. There is no inconsistency LLOYD S. S. CO., Appellant. (Court of Ap- between our decision in this case and that made peals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) Appeal from in Kittel v. Domeyer, 175 N. Y. 205, 67 N. E. a judgment of the Appellate Division of the 433. That was an action in the Supreme Court Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Depart- in equity, and did not, directly or indirectly, ment (104 App. Div. 619,

93 N. Y. Supp. 1149), involve any question as to the jurisdiction of a entered May 4, 1905, affirming a judgment in

surrogate. We followed that decision and made favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an it the basis of our judgment in the case before order denying a motion for a new trial in an us as to the rights of creditors to the excess action to recover for a loss of baggage through of insurance and the basis upon which they ihe alleged negligence of deferdant. Joseph rest, namely, legislative grant. We held, as we

bad held before, that such insurance moneys are not general assets of the estate, but constitute a special fund, created by statute for a special purpose, to be applied on the claims of creditors only after a decree in a court of equity. There is nothing to call for a reargument or for an amendment of the remittitur, and the motion should therefore be denied, with $10 costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WÉRNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, J., not sitting.

Motion for reargument denied.

versed a decree of the King's County Surrogate's Court removing two of the executors of the will of Henry Waterman,

deceased. Thaddeus D. Kenneson, Ralph W. Kenyon, and Charles H. Kelby, for appellant. Robert H. Wilson, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BART. LETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

TREFFINGER, Respondent, v. M. GROH'S SONS, Appellant (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. — 98 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered April 26, 1906, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful discharge from employment. The following question was certified," "Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?" Thomas F. Keogh, for appellant. Abram I. Elkus and Joseph M. Proskauer, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., absent.

In re WEBSTER. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (113 App. Div.

- 98 N. Y. Supp. 1116), entered May 2, 1906, which affirmed an order of the Chautauqua County Court denying the application herein. E. C. Randall, for appellant. Daniel A. Reed and Royal R. Scott, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

WEEKS v. COE. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 888, 97 N. Y. Supp. 704), entered March 2, 1906, which reversed an order of Special Term requiring the respondent herein to deposit in a certain trust company moneys received by him in the above-entitled action, of which he was attorney for the plaintiff. A. P. Bachman, for appellant. Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

WASSERMAN, Appellant, V. BACON, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment .of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (105 App. Div. 632, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered May 31, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to charge defendant as undisclosed principal for goods sold and delivered to his alleged agent. Ira Leo Bamberger and Sidney Lowenthal, for appellant. David B. Hill, Edward S. Griffing, and William F. McCombs, Jr., for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HIISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

WELSTEAD, Respondent, V. JENNINGS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (104 App. Div. 179, 93 N. Y. Supp. 339), entered April 23, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to set aside a tax deed as a cloud upon title for alleged irregularities in the assessment roll. Harrie M. Howell, for appellant. Joseph R. Swan, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, HISCOCK. and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY and O'BRIEN, JJ., absent.

In re WATERMAN'S ESTATE. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) MOtion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (113 Apr. Div.

99 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered May 9, 1906, which reversed a decree of the King's County Surrogate's Court removing two of the executors of the will of Henry Waterman, deceased. The motion was made upon the grounds that the questions involved were matters of discretion, and the reversal upon the law and the facts, and the Court of Appeals therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the same. Robert H. Wilson, for the motion. Ralph W. Kenyon, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, without costs, without prejudice to a renewal of the motion upon argument before us.

WESTCHESTER TRUST CO. V. HOBBY BOTTLING CO. et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 464, 92 N. Y. Supp. 482), entered March 10, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an ac tion for the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure an issue of corporate bonds. Robert Stewart, for appellant. Ralph Earl Prime, Jr., for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT. HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., absent.

In re WATERMAN'S ESTATE. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 313, 98 N. Y. Supp. 583), entered April 27, 1906, which re

former appeals. Affirmed. J. B. McFadden, for appellant.

PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed.

ZAPFE, Respondent, v. JOHN MULLINS & SONS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. - June 12, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (112 App. Div. --, 98 N. Y. Supp. 1118), entered April 20, 1906, which affirmed an order of the court at a Trial Term denying a motion to set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by plaintiff's intestate through defendant's negligence. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was unauthorized ; the Court of Appeals having no jurisdiction to entertain it. Isaac M. Kapper, for the motion. Eidlitz & Hulse, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

ADAMS et al. V. STAHLER et al. (No. 9,352.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. 19, 1905.) Error to Circuit Court, Pike County. Seney & Johnson, J. W. Washburn, and J. W. Long, for plaintiffs in error. F. E. Dougherty, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., and PRICE, CREW, SUMMERS, and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

AHLERS v. WALTZ et al. (No. 9,520.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 22, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County. Keam & Keam and Drausin Wulsin, for plaintiff in error. E. C. Reemelin, C. H. Reemelin, and Jacob Shroder, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. SHAUCK, C. J., and CREW and SPEAK, JJ., concur.

DIAMOND PLATE GLASS CO. et al. v. DEAN. (No. 5,584.) (Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1. June 28, 1906.) Appeal from Superior Court, Grant County ; B. F. Harness, Judge. Action by Benjamin F. Dean against the Diamond Plate Glass Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Blacklidge, Shirley & Wolf, for appellants. B. C. Moon, for appellee.

MYERS, J. The questions presented by this appeal are the same as those considered and decided by this court May 11, 1906, in cause No. 5,581, Diamond Plate Glass Company v. Knote, 77 N. E. 954, and upon the authority of that case the judgment in this cause is affirmed.

ALKIRE v. ALKIRE et al. (No. 8,996.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Feb. 20, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Madison County. John R. Tanner and John Logan, for plaintiff in error. McCloud & Converse and Abernethy & Folsom, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ALLEN v. CINCINNATI STEEL RANGE & FURNACE CO. (No. 8,944.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Jan. 30, 1906.) Error to Cir. cuit Court. Hamilton County. C. B. Wilby and R. S. Holmes, for plaintiff in error. John W. Peck, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. SHAUCK, CREW, and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

DIAMOND PLATE GLASS CO. et al. v. NEWHOUSE. (No. 5,583.) (Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1. June 28. 1906.) Appeal from Superior Court, Grant County, B. F. Harness, Judge. Action by Isaac Newhouse against the Diamond Plate Glass Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Blacklidge, Shirley & Wolf, for appellants. B. C. Moon, for appellee.

MYERS, J. The questions presented by this appeal are the same as those considered and decided by this court_May 11, 1906, in cause No. 5,581, Diamond Plate Glass Company v. Knote, 77 N. E. 954, and upon the authority of that case the judgment in this cause is affirmed.

INDIANAPOLIS NORTHERN TRACTION CO. V. SPURGEON. (No. 5,640.) Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1. Oct. 4, 1906.) Appeal from Superior Court, Howard County; B. F. Harness, Judge. Action by Simeon Spurgeon against the Indianapolis Northern Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Jas. A. Van Osdol and Blacklidge, Shirley & Wolf, for appellant. John W. Cooper and Thomas S. Gerhart, for appellee.

MYERS, J. The pleadings, the facts, and the questions reserved on the rulings of the court and presented in this case were considered and decided by this court in Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. Harbaugh, 78 N. E. 80, and upon the authority of that case the judgment herein is affirmed.

AMBLER v. BENTLEY et al. (No. 9,126.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 27, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Columbiana County. Carey & Mullins, for plaintiff in error. Taylor & Harris, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and judgment for plaintiff in error, as shown in journal entry. It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed; and this court, proceeding to render the judgment and make the decree which should have been rendered and made by the circuit court, finds for the plaintiff in error on his note and mortgage. The court further finds that the defendants William J. Street, Marian Street, Homer J. Street, and Harold Street, together with Elizabeth Street, executed and delivered to the defendant Byron S. Ambler the mortgage and promissory note set up in the answer of the defendant Byron S. Ambler. The court, coming now to determine the respective rights of the parties hereto to the proceeds of the sale of said premises in the petition described, finds that there is now due the defendant Byron S. Ambler, as principal debt on said promissory note, the sum of $3,000, with interest thereon at 7 per cent. per annum, to be paid semiannually from July 28, 1900, subject to certain credits; that by the terms of the will of Martha Street, deceased, the entire income of all her estate now remaining in the hands of the administrator was given to William J. Street and his wife, Marian Street, to be disposed of at their discretion; that said income belongs to said beneficiaries absolutely, and the expres

LINGENFELTER V. LINGENFELTEK. (No. 5,803.) (Appellate Court of Indiana. Oct. 11, 1906.) _Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County ; Will M. Sparks, Judge. Action between Thomas J. Lingenfelter and Laura Lingenfelter. From a judgment for the latter, the

AMOR V. PECK. (No. 9,438.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Feb. 20, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Cuyahoga County, J. N. Amor and E. J. Pinney, for plaintiff in error. Foster, Foster & Howells, for defendant in error PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., and CREW and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

ANCHOR FIRE INS. CO. V. BURRELL. (No. 9,572.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 27, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Lorain County. F. M. Dotson, L. B. Fauver and J. M. Sheets, for plaintiff in error. Chamberlain & Hamlin, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. PRICE, SUMMERS, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

sion in said will of the purpose for which said income was given that is, the support of said William J. Street and Marian Street-is not deemed to be the expression of an intention that the right of said income shall be inalienable. The court further finds that by the signing, execution, and delivery of said note and mortgage, as set forth in the answer of the defendant Byron S. Ambler, the said William J. Street and Marian Street, his wife, have pledged the income from said property, so given to them, to the payment of said indebtedness to said Byron S. Ambler. It is therefore ordered that out of the proceeds of the sale of said premises said administrator shall pay to the defendant Byron S. Ambler the sum so found due, in the following manner; that he shall reinvest the purchase price of said premises in securities to be approved by the probate court of Columbiana county, Ohio, and that the entire income therefrom shall from time to time be paid to the defendant Byron S. Ambler, to be applied on the indebtedness aforesaid. The court further finds that the defendants in error Homer J. Street and Harold Street have by the signing, execution, and delivery of said note and mortgage equitably pledged to the payment of said indebtedness whatever interest they may have in the estate of said Martha Street, deceased, of which the premises herein to be sold form a part, and that if said indebtedness is unpaid at the time of the decease of said William J. Street and Marian Street, or the survivors of them, that sufficient of the proceeds invested by said administrator, as aforesaid, shall be paid to the defendant Byron S. Ambler to cancel any balance remaining due and unpaid on this decree according to the terms of said note and mortgage; and this cause is remanded to the circuit court, with directions that it calculate the true amount due said Ambler on his note and mortgage, after giving credit for all payments, and that said correct sum of the principal and interest, when so found, be made a part of this decree. It is further directed that said circuit court make such further orders as may be necessary to enforce and carry out this decree, but such orders are to be consistent with this decree.

PRICE, CREW, SUMMERS, SPEAR, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ANDERSON V. MOFFAT FEED WATER HEATER & PURIFIER CO. (No. 9,208.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 22, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County. Jacob Shroder and R. M. Van Horne, for plaintiff in error. Maxwell & Ramsey, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., and CREW, SUMMERS, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

AYERS v. CITY OF TOLEDO et al. (No. 9,195.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 31, 1905.) Error to Circuit Court, Lucas County. B. A. Hayes, for plaintiff in error. U. G. Den. man, F. G. Crane, and Smith & Baker, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Rehearing. Former Judg. ment (76 N. E. 1118) adhered to,

DAVIS, C. J., and PRICE, CREW, SUMMERS, and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

REW,

AYERS ASPHALT PAVING CO. V. KING et al. (No. 9,278.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 3, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Erie County. George E. Reiter, for plaintiff in error. King & Ramsey, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS, and DAVIS, JJ., coge cur.

AMERICAN STEEL CASTING CO. V. FITES. (No. 9,551.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. June 19, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Stark County. McCarty & Pontius and C. C. Bow, for plaintiff in error. Craine & Snyder, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, CREW, SUMMERS, and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

BACHTEL V. WILSON, Sheriff. (No. 10,166.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. June 29, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Stark County. Virgil P. Kline, Welty & Albaugh, Austin Lynch, Wm. A. Lynch, and Joseph M. Blake, for plaintiff in error. Charles C. Upham, Pros. Atty., and John W. Craine, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. . SHAUCK, C. J., and PRICE, CREW, SUMMERS, SPEAR, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK V. AKRON SAVINGS BANK CO. et al. (No. 9,596.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 27, 1906) Error to Circuit Court, Summit County. D. A. Doyle, for plaintiff in error. Grant & Sieber, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

BAILUS v. GOULD, Warden. (No. 9,977.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 13, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Franklin County. Ulery, Martin & Webster, for plaintiff. Wade H. El lis, Atty. Gen., Roscoe J. Mauck, and George H. Jones, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., and CREW and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK V. AKRON SAVINGS BANK CO. et al. (No. 9,597.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 27, 1906.) H. C. Willcox, J. W. Mason, and D. A. Doyle, for plaintiff in error. Grant & Sieber, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Judgnient affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

BAKER V. CONNOR. (No. 9,462.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Feb. 20, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County. Shay &

[blocks in formation]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »