Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Philip Mahoney against Westinghouse, Church, to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to & Kerr, a corporation.

reduce judgment as entered, including interest, PER CURIAM. Judgment of the Municipal costs, etc., to $2,164.60, in which event judgCourt affirmed, with costs.

ment, as so modified, and order, affirmed, with

out costs. BARTLETT and MILLER, JJ., dissent. MALDOON, Respondent, V. JEFFERSON MARTIN v. CROSSLEY. (Supreme Court, POWER CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 7, 1905.), Action by John Martin against Han3, 1905.) Action by Fred D. Maldoon against nah L. Crossley. No opinion. Motion granted. the Jefferson Power Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order af- | INS. CO. OF NEWARK,' N. J., Appellant,

MARTINEZ, Respondent, v. FIREMEN'S firmed, with costs. WILLIAMS and STOVER, JJ., dissent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second

Department. April 21, 1905.) Action by John MALLORY, Respondent, v. DIMOOK, AP | Company of Newark, N. J. No opinion. Mo

P. Martinez against the Firemen's Insurance pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, tion denied, with $10 costs. Second Department. April 28, 1905.) Action by David D. Mallory against Anthony W.

MATOTT et al., Respondents, V. GONYO Dimock.

et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate PER CURIAM. Judgment and order re- Division, Third Department. May 3, 1905.) Tersed on argument, and new trial granted, Action by William Datott, Napoleon Matott, costs to abide the event, on account of error and Robert Wiley against Isaac Gonyo and in the rulings of the trial court in permitting others. No opinion. Judgment unanimously afthe opinion of the Appellate Division of the firmed, with costs. Third Department, containing statements of fact in another case injurious to the defend MAYER et al., Appellants, v. ROTHFUSS, ant, to be read to the jury in the course of Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divihe defendant's cross-examination.

sion, First Department. April 7, 1903.) AC

tion by Gerson Mayer and others against Oscar MAN, Appellant, v. SASLAVSKY, Respond. M. Rothfuss. B. Tuska, for appellants. J. P. ant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Eustis, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment Department. April 20, 1905.) Action by Wil- and order affirmed, with costs. iam Man against Nathan Saslavsky. G. B. Goodman, for appellant. A. H. Solotaroff, for MEEHAN, Respondent, v. ATLAS SAFE espondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with MOVING CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, $10 costs and disbursements.

Appellate Division, First Department. April

7, 1905.) Action by Mary L. Meehan, as adMANHEIM et al. v: RATNER. (Supreme ministratrix, against the Atlas Safe Moving Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Company. H. C. Smyth, for appellant. G. G. Ipril 14, 1905.) Action by Jacob Manheim Battle, for respondent. nd others against Charles Ratner. No opin

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afon. Motion denied, on payment of $20 costs.firmed, with costs. MARCH v. MARCH et al. (Supreme Court,

INGRAHAM, J., dissents. ppellate Division, First Department. May 5, 305.) Action by Egbert G. March, as execu

MEGOWAN et al., Respondents, v. PETERor, against Seth B. March and others. W. B. SON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Tornblower, for appellants. M. Williams, for Action by James Megowan and William s.

Division, Second Department. April 28, 1905.) espondent Kennedy. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with ion. Motion denied.

Goddard against Charles G. Peterson. No opinosts, VAN BRUNT, P. J., dissenting.

In re MEYER'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First Department. April MARQUETTE, Respondent, v. WATER- 7, 1905.) In the matter of John D. Meyer, deOWN THERMOMETER CO., Appellant, ceased. No opinion. Motion denied. Jupreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Deartment. May 3, 1905.) Action by Alice Mar

MILLER, Appellant, v. VAN BRUNT ST. uette against the Watertown Thermometer & E. B. R. Co., Respondent. (Supreme Court, ompany. No opinion. Judgment and order Appellate Division, Second Department. May firmed, with costs.

12, 1905.) Action' by Samuel Miller against

Van Brunt Street & Erie Basin Railroad ComMARRONI, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW pany. No opinion. Judgment and order of the ORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate County Court of Kings county unanimously af'ivision, First Department. May 5. 1907.) firmed, with costs. ction by John Marroni, as administrator, zainst the city of New York. T. Connoly, MITCHELL, Respondent, v. MITCHELL, ir appellant. L. Steckler, for respondent. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviPER CURIAM. Judgment and order revers- sion, Third Department. May 16, 1905.) Aci, and new trial ordered, costs to appellant tion by Sophia Mitchell against Fred Mitchell.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

and 127 New York State Reporter No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs. I istratrix, against the Bishop & Babcock Com Appeal should be from the judgment, and not pany: G. W. Miller, for appellant. C. G. F. from the order.

Wahle, for respondent. No opinion. Juda

ment affirmed, with costs. MOHR v. GEORGI. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 12, MURRAY V. METROPOLITAN ST. RT. 1903.) Action by Minnie Mohr against Otto CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirision, Fir H. Georgi. No opinion. Motion denied, with Department. April 14, 1905.), Action by George $10 costs.

Murray against the Metropolitan Street Pa:

way Company. No opinion. Motion denied. MORAN, Respondent, V. MANHATTAN on payment of $20 costs. TRANSIT CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April In re MUSGRAVE. (Supreme Court, AT 20, 1905.) Action by Peter J. Moran, as ad late Division, First Department. Mar 20, 18.1. ministrator, againsť the Manbattan 'Transit In the matter of Francis E. Musgrave. R. . Company. G. S. Graham, for appellant. A. Moffatt, for appellant. F. Bien, for appement F. Clark, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new

disbursements.

1 trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce judgment

NAPOLETANO, Respondent, V. BROOKas entered, including costs, etc., to the sum of LYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Soprez: $2,609.94, in which event judgment, as so mod Court, Appellate Division, Second Departm-1 ified, and order, affirmed, without costs.

April 21, 1905.) Action by Joseph Napoleta

an infant, etc., against the Brooklyn Heigts i MORAN V. MANHATTAN TRANSIT CO. Railway Company. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, by stos partment. May 12, 1905.) Action by Peter J. ing out the provision for an extra allorance, ea Moran against the Manhattan Transit Com the ground of want of power in the court pany. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 low to grant the same, and, as modified, it has costs.

ment and order unanimously affirmed, with a

costs of this appeal to either party. MORRISON et al., Respondents, v. YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

NATHAN v. METROPOLITAN ST. R.CO. Fourth Department. May 10, 1905.) Action' (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First iby Solomon Morrison and another against Dan- partment. May 12, 1905.) Action by Arte iel York.

J. Nathan against the Metropolitan S PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10

Railroad Company. No opinion. Motiog da

nied. costs and disbursements. WILLIAMS and HISCOCK, JJ., dissent. NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO., Respondent. *.

HUGHES, Appellant. (Supreme Court 4* MOTT, Appellant, v. DE NISCO, Respond-pellate Division, Second Department. May ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-1905.Action by the National Fire Instrum.* ond Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by Company against William Hughes. No cum Emma L. B. Mott against Carmine De Nisco. ion. "Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Reargument ordered, and case set down for June 7, 1905.

NATIONAL REFINING CO. v. WATKINS MULLER V. MULLER. (Supreme Court, partment. May 12, 1905.) Action by the

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First ? Appellate Division, First Department. April tional Refining Company against Charles ? 20, 1905.) Action by Frank W. Muller against Watkins, Jr. No opinion.

Motion grante George J. Muller. No opinion. Motion grant- with $10 costs. ed, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs. MULLIGAN v. HARLAM. (Supreme Court, TAN STREET RY. CO.. Appellant sur

NAUGHTON, Respondent, F. METROP: Appellate Division, First Department. May Court. Appellate Division, First Departs 12, 1905.) Action by Thomas F. Mulligan April 7, 1905.) Action by Michael J. Varg's against Edward M. Harlam. No opinion. Mo- against the Metropolitan Street Railwar tion denied, with $10 costs.

B. H. Ames, for appellant !

Maloney, for respondent. No opinion. O MULLIN, Respondent, v. VAN DUZER, Ap- affirmed, with costs. pellant. (Supreme Court, Anpellate Division, Second Department. April 28, 1905.) Action In re NEKARDA. (Supreme Court. Are by Francis B. Mullin against Maria J. Van late Division, First Department. Duzer, individually and as executrix, etc. No 1905.) In the matter of Francis J. Nearls opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court af- Xo opinion. Motion for order to show ch. firmed, with costs.

granted. MURPHY, Appellant, v. BISHOP & BAB In re NEKARDA. (Supreme Court, Arn COCK CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap-late Division, First Department. pellate Division, First Department. May 5, 1905.) In the matter of Francis J. Vetando 1903.) Action by Margaret Murphy, as admin-| No opinion. Reference ordered.

pany.

April

costs.

NEW HAMPSHIRE FIRE INS. CO., Re- In the matter of the application of Fred D.
spondent, v. HUGHES, Appellant. (Supreme Oiler for admission to the bar. No opinion.
Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Application granted.
May 12, 1905.) Action by the New Hampshire
Fire Insurance Company against William O'KEEFE, Appellant, V. HINSDALE, Re-
Hughes. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with spondent. (Supreme Court Appellate Division,

Fourth Department. May 3, 1905.). Action by

Frank D. O'Keefe against Ira C. Hinsdale. NEW YORK EXPANDED METAL CO., Re PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmspondent, v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. Ored, with costs. MARYLAND, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap HISCOCK, J., dissents, on the ground that pellate Division, First Department. April 7, upon the evidence a question of fact was pre1905.) Action by the New York Expanded sented as to the item of $110 paid by plaintiff Metal Company against the Fidelity & De- for real estate, which should have been submitposit Company of Maryland. E. F. Clark, for ted to the jury. appellant. 1. C. Wait, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment reversed, and complaint O'SHAUGHNESSY, Respondent, V. ÆTNA dismissed, with costs, on authority of Bossert |LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, 7. Fox, 89 App. Div. 7, 85 N. Y. Supp. 308.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May

3, 1905.) Action by Margaret O'Shaughnessy NORMAN, Appellant, v. LOOMIS-MAN- against the Ætna "Life Insurance Company. NING FILTER CO., Respondent. (Supreme No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. costs. April 21, 1905.) Action by F. Stout Norman against the Loomis-Manning Filter Company; No opinion, Order affirmed, with $10 costs and

OTIS, Respondent, v. PORTER, Appellant, disbursements.

et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department. May 3, 1905.) Action NORRIS, Respondent, V. NORRIS, Appel- pleaded with Alonzo McDonald and another. No

by George A. Otis against John B. Porter, imlant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and Third Department. May 9, 130.5.) Action by

new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant Jary D. Norris against John P. Norris. No

to abide event. Held, that the verdict was conopinion. Order allirmed, with $10 costs and trary to and against the weight of the evidisbursements.

dence, NUNNALLY, Respondent, V. NEW YORK HERALD CO. et al., Appellants (two cases). Division, Third Department. May 3, 1903.)

In re PALMER. (Supreme Court, Appellate (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second De- In the matter of the application of James Palpartment, April 28, 1905.) Action by Florence Nunnally against the New York Herald law. No opinion. Motion granted.

mer for admission as attorney and counselor at Company and James G. Bennett. No opinion. Motion granted, without costs.

PARSONS, Respondent, y. PARSONS, ApO'BRIEN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW Fourth Department. May 10, 1905.) Action

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate by Amelia c. Parsons against Archelaus H. Division, Second Department. April 21, 1905.) Parsons. Action by Sarah O'Brien against the city of New York. No opinion. Judgment and order the amount of alimony

allowed to $5 per week,

PER CURIAM. Order modified, by reducing inanimously affirmed, with costs.

which latter sum is allowed upon condition O'BRIEN v. D. S. MORGAN & Co. (Su- that the plaintiff, within 10 days after service preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De- of a copy of this order, together with notice partment. May 10, 1905.) Action by Michael of entry thereof, file a stipulation consenting 1. O'Brien against D. S. Morgan & Co.

No nunc pro tunc to an order of reference in this pinion. Motion for reargument denied, with action. Said order is further modified, by

10 costs and disbursements. Motion for leave striking out the provision for an order of refo appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

erence herein, unless within 10 days after serv

ice of a copy of this order, together with noO'CONNOR, Respondent, VIRGINIA tice of entry thereof, the defendant and the PASSENGER & POWER CO. et al., Appel- co-respondents who have answered make and ants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, file stipulations consenting nunc pro tunc to an Third Department. May 10, 1903.) Action by order of reference herein. As so modified, the Chomas O'Connor against the Virginia Pas-order appealed from is afirmed, without costs enger & Power Company, the Atlantic Develop- of this appeal to either party; but, in case aent Company, Frank Jay Gould, and Helen the plaintiff fails to file such stipulation, the Tiller Gould. No opinion. Motion denied, and order appealed from is amended by striking out ase not permitted to be moved by the respond the allowance of all sums to her by way of nt before Wednesday, May 17, 1905.

alimony.

WILLIAMS and STOVER, JJ., dissent, on In re OILER. (Supreme Court, Appellate the ground that the court had no power to Division, Second Department. May 12, 1905.) refer the case, because no motion for a refer

V.

and 127 New York State Reporter ence was made and no notice of intention to PEOPLE, Appellant, y. HALL, Respondent

. have a reference was given to the co-respond-(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De ents; that there was no consent to the order partment. May 3, 1905.) Proceedings by the directing the reference by either of the co-re people of the state of New York against Benspondents, the plaintiff, or the defendant; and jamin E. Hall. that all the parties have an absolute right to a PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with trial by jury.

costs. WILLIAMS, J., also dissents, on the further PARKER, P. J., and SMITH, J., dissent. ground that, under the circumstances of this litigation and of the former litigation between

PEOPLE the parties, no allowance of alimong should Court, Appellate Division, Third Department

,

HASBROUCK. (Supreme be made, and that the amount allowed for expenses should not exceed $100.

May 16, 1905.) Proceedings by the people !

the state of New York against Frederick HasPATTERSON, Respondent, V. CITY OF

brouck. ELMIRA, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel

PER CURIAM. Motion, in so far as it asts late Division, Third Department. May 3, 1903.) that the papers specified in the order of the Action by Abe Patterson, as administrator, etc., Special Term be printed upon this apres. of Helen M. Patterson, against the city of granted, unless within 30 days, upon prope Elmira. No opinion. Judgment and order application to the Special Term, the appellat: unanimously aflirmed, with costs.

procures the order below to be amended, s

as to specify what proceedings in the act:00 PAYNE CO., Respondent, V. HALL, Ap- and before the referee were in fact ased upon pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the motion at the Special Term, and alene Third Department. May 3, 1905.) Action by and serves the printed record accordingly, in the Payne Company against Joseph P. Hali. which case, motion denied. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HEIMAN, A

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division PEABODY, Respondent, v. ANTHONY & First Department. April 20, 1905.) Proceedia SCOVILL CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, ings by the people of the state of New Iet Appellate Division, First Department. May 20, against Leo Heiman. E. A. Alexander, ir 1903.) Action by Richard A. Peabody against appellant. H. S. Gans, for the People. No the Anthony & Scovill_Company. S. 81. Evins, opinion. Judgment affirmed. for appellant. P. G. Bartlett, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. PEOPLE V. MARTINO. (Supreme Court

Appellate Division, First Department. Masa PELL .V. PELL. (Supreme Court, Appel- 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the si late Division, First Department. May 12, of New York against Frank Martino. No opet 1905.) Action by Anna O. Pell against Duncan ion. Appeal dismissed: G. Pell. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MOTOLA, Apze

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diris PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BOURNE, Appel- First Department. April 20, 1905.) Prope. lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ings by the people of the state of New Im First Department. May 5, 1905.) Proceedings against Angelo Motola. M. Wechsler, for a by the people of the state of New York against pellant. R. C. Taylor, for the People. 'No ori Frederick G. Bourne. W. W. Niles, for ap- ion. Judgment affirmed. pellant. R. C. Taylor, for the People. NO opinion. Judgment affirmed.

PEOPLE v. TUDINO. (Supreme Court A PEOPLE, Respondent, V. BRIGGS, Appel- 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the site

pellate Division, First Department. Mer > lant. Fourth Department. May 10, 1905.) Proceed of New York against Frank Tudino. No oplo ings by the people of the state of New York

ion. Appeal dismissed. against Charles M. Briggs. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. PEOPLE, Respondents, v. VAN VLIET..

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diriga PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CREED, Appel- Second Department. May 12, 1905.) Procesor lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ings by the people of the state of Ner ses Fourth Department. May 3, 1905.) Proceed against John B. Van Vliet. No opinion or ings by the people of the state of New York der affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse Deuts against Rose Creed. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.

PEOPLE ex rel. AMM et al. v. BOARD OF

RAILROAD COM'RS et al. (Supreme Cart PEOPLE v. DUKE._(Supreme Court, Appe! Appellate Division, Third Department. My late Division, First Department. April 20, 9, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state state of New York, on the relation of Jeunes of New York against William Duke. No opin- Amm and others, against the board of raisa ion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss ap- commissioners of the state of New York 231 peal.

others. No opinion. Motion denied.

er.

PEOPLE ex rel. CHILDS CO. V, MILLER, PEOPLE ex rel. IRWIN v. HYNES, Com'r. State Comptroller. (Supreme Court, Appellate (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeDivision, Third Department. May 9, 1905.) partment, April 14, 1905.). Proceedings by Proceedings by the people of the state of New the people of the state of New York, on the York, on the relation of the Childs Company, relation of James H. Irwin, against Thomas igainst Nathan L. Miller, as State Comptroller. W. Hynes, as commissioner. No opinion. No opinion. Motion denied.

Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal,

with $10 costs. PEOPLE ex rel. COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITIES V. ABRAHAMS (two cases).

PEOPLE ex rel. KLEIN, Appellant, v. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De WELLS et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, artment. May 12, 1905.) Proceedings by the Appellate Division, First Department. May people of the state of New York, on the rela- 20, 1905.). Proceedings by the people of_the ion of the commissioners of charities, against state of New York, on the relation of Emil athan Abrahams. No opinion. Motion de- Klein, against James L. Wells and others. E. ied, on payment of $10 costs.

Cohn, for appellant. G. S. Coleman, for re

spondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with PEOPLE ex rel. COWLES v. BOARD OF

$10 costs and disbursements. UP’RS OF ALLEGANY COUNTY. (Sureme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De PEOPLE ex rel. LYNCH v. MCADOO, POartment. May 3, 1905.) Proceedings by the lice Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dieople of the state of New York, on the rela- vision, Second Department. April 21, 1905.) on of Adolphus E. Cowles against the board of Proceedings by the people of the state of New apervisors of Allegany county.

York, on the relation of Michael J. Lynch, PER CURIAM. Determination of the board against William McAdoo, as police commission{ supervisors modified, so as to allow the

No opinion. Determination confirmed, aim of the relator at the sum of $290, with with costs. iterest thereon from the 11th day of January, M04, and, as so modified, said determination is PEOPLE ex rel. MARKT & STRULLER pfirmed, without costs to either party, on the Co. v. MILLER, State Comptroller. (Supinion of McLennan, P. J., in People ex rel. preme Court, Appellate Division, Third Deerrick v. Same Defendants (decided herewith) partment. May 16, 1905.) Proceedings by the 3 N. Y. Supp. 426.

people of the state of New York, on the rela

tion of the Markt & Struller Company, against PEOPLE ex rel. FARCY & OPPENHEIM Nathan L. Miller, as State Comptroller. No 0., Respondent, v. WELLS et al., Tax

opinion. Determination of the Comptroller om’rs, Appellants. (Supreme Court, "'Appel- unanimously confirmed, with $50 costs and diste Division, First Department. May 5,

bursements. 105.) Appeal from Special Term. Certiorari 7 the people of the state of New York, on

PEOPLE ex rel. MICARI, Appellant, v. e relation of the Farcy & Oppenheim Com- MILAZZO'S WORKMEN'S INDEPENDiny, to review a determination of James L. ENT SOC., Respondent. Supreme Court, Ap'ells and others, commissioners of taxes and pellate Division, Second Department. April sessments of the city of New York. From 21, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the I order reducing the assessment (87 N. Y. state of New York, on the relation of Franipp. 84), defendants appeal. Affirmed. George cesco Micari, against Milazzo's Workmen's InColeman, for appellants. Frederic R. Cou-dependent Society. No opinion. Order affirmrt, for respondent.

ed, with $10 costs and disbursements. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, I the opinion in People ex rel. Sherwin Wil PEOPLE ex rel, NEW YORK QENT, & H. ms Co. v. Barker, 5 App. Div. 246, 39 N. Y. R. R. CO. et al. v. BOARD OF RAILROAD pp. 151.

COM'RS et al. (Supreme Court, Appellite DiHATCH, J. (dissenting). I am unable to vision, Third Department. May 9, 1905.) Tee that the case of People ex rel. Sherwin Proceedings by the people of the state of New illiams Co. v. Barker, 5 App. Div. 246, 39 York, on the relation of the New York CenY. Supp. 151, is controlling of the ques. others, against the board of railroad commis

tral & Hudson River Railroad Company and ins presented by this appeal. On the coniry, I think the facts are in all essential re

sioners of the state of New York and others. ects the same as was presented to the court No opinion. Motion denied.

People ex rel. Durand Ruel v. Wells, 41
ise, Řep. 144, 83 N. Y. Supp. 936, affirmed PEOPLE

ex

rel. REAGAN PARthis court on appeal 92 App. Div. 622, 87 TRIDGE, Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate

Y. Supp. 1144. The distinction between Division, First Department. April 7, 1905.) at and the Sherwin Williams Case and the Proceedings by the people of the state of New thorities upon which it was based is clearly | York, on the relation of Stephen J. Reagan, inted out by Mr. Justice Leventritt in his against John X. Partridge, commissioner. A inion. The order reducing the assessment I. Elkus, for relator. T. Connoly, for respondould therefore be reversed, and the assess ent. No opinion. Writ dismissed, and pro ent as made confirmed.

ceedings affirmed, with costs.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »