« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
tered May 19, 1919, unanimously affirming an | the making thereof, and that there was no note award of the State Industrial Commission or memorandum in writing subscribed by the made under the Workmen's Compensation Law defendant. By way of reply plaintiff alleged (Consol. Laws, c. 67). The claimant, with four full performance of the contract except in so other men, had been working on July 4, 1918. far as defendant had refused to pay a balance When the men stopped work, they found the alleged to be due. The Appellate Division held watchman had locked the doors. After wait- that part performance did not render the coning a while three of them obtained a hose, tract enforceable. Robert W. Crawford, of which was placed out of a window, and they New York City, for appellant. Alexander slid down this hose to reach the ground. The Holtzoff and Paul Windels, both of New York claimant then attempted to slide down the City, for respondent. hose, slipped, and fell to a platform beneath,
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with causing a fracture of the leg. Appellants con
costs. tended that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Jeremiah F.
HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN,
PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.
In re WATSON'S IOSTATE. (Court of ApDREWS, JJ., concur. MCLAUGHLIN, J., dis-peals of New York, Oct. 7, 1919.) sents. HOGAN, J., absent. HISCOCK, C. J., not voting.
PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing dis
bursements. See 226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. In re TONE'S WILL. (Court of Appeals of 758. New York, Oct. 7, 1919.)
PER CURIAM. Motion to amend remittitur denied, without costs, on the ground that the
WEHRUM v. WEHRUM et al. (Court of surrogate has jurisdiction under section 2748 Appeals of New York, Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow com- from a judgment entered January 29, 1918, uppensation. See 226 N. Y. 696, 123 N. E. 892. on an order of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 814, 167 N. Y. Supp. 295),
reversing a judgment in favor of defendant enTRI-BULLION SMELTING & DEVELOP-tered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the MENT CO. V. CORLISS et al. (Court of Ap-court at a Trial Term without a jury, and dipeals of New York, Oct. 7, 1919.) Appeal recting judgment in favor of plaintiff in an acfrom a judgment of the Appellate Division of tion to partition certain real property. Jerethe Supreme Court in the First Judicial De- miah T. Mahoney and J. Archer Hodge, both of partment (186 App. Div. 613, 174 N. Y. Supp. New York City, for appellants. Oscar Wagner 830), entered April 8, 1919, modifying, and af- and Bernard Kronthal, both of New York City, firming as modified, a judgment in favor of for respondent. plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The motion
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed with was made upon the ground that the Court of
costs. Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and upon the further ground that no
HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, undertaking had been filed with the second no
CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANtice of appeal. Holmes V. M. Dennis, Jr., of DREWS, JJ., concur. New York City, for the motion. Richard T, Greene, of New York City, opposed.
PER CURIAM. Motion granted, without costs, unless within 10 days appellants file and
In re WHEAT EXPORT CO., Inc. Appeal
of NEW CENTURY CO. (Court of Apserve undertaking necessary to perfect appeal
Appeal under second notice, in which case motion is peals of New York, Oct. 21, 1919.)
from two orders of the Appellate Division of denied, without costs.
the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (185 App. Div. 723, 173 N. Y. Supp.
679), entered January 10, 1919, which reversed TYLER, Appellant, v. WINDELS, Respond two orders of Special Term, one denying a moent. (Court of Appeals of New York, Oct. 14, tion to confirm an award in arbitration pro1919.) Appeal from a judgment entered ceedings and the other granting a motion to March 12, 1919, upon an order of the Appellate vacate and set aside said award. The orders Division of the Supreme Court in the First at Special Term were made on the ground the Judicial Department (186 App. Div. 698, 174 arbitrators had not carried out the terms of N. Y. Supp. 762) which reversed an order of the submission in that they had not complied Special Term denying a motion by defendant with certain rules of the New York Produce for judgment on the pleadings, granted said Exchange forming part of the contract in conmotion and directed a dismissal of the com- troversy. The Appellate Division, however, plaint. The action was on contract. The an- held that these rules were properly disregardswer as a separate defense plead the statute ed by the arbitrators, because they were inof frauds, in that the contract was not by its applicable to the facts in the case. David terms to be performed within one year from Haar and Max Frieder, both of New York
(125 N.E.) City, for appellant. Victor E. Whitlock, of, Department (186 App. Div. 506, 174 N. Y. New York City, for respondent.
Supp. 524; 188 App. Div. 955, 176 N. Y. Supp. PER CURIAM. Orders affirmed, and award 927), which reversed an order of the court at confirmed, with one bill of costs.
a Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor
of plaintiff and granting a new trial and reinHISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CARDOZO, stated said verdict; also motion to dismiss apPOUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., peal from an order of said Appellate Division, concur. HOGAN, J., absent.
entered June 7, 1919, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The
motion was made upon the ground that perZUNINO, Appellant, V. PARODI CIGAR mission to appeal had not been obtained. CO., Inc., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of Samuel F. Frank, of New York City, for moNew York, Oct. 7, 1919.) Motion to dismiss tion.
Motion to dismiss tion. John B. Doyle, of New York City, opan appeal from a judgment entered July 25, posed. 1919, upon an order of the Appellate Division PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial costs.
END OF CASES IN VOL. 125