MEMORANDUM DECISIONS ALBRECHT, Respondent, v. ROCHESTER, S. & E. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 914, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered January 29, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant. See, also, 142 App. Div. 910, 126 N. Y. Supp. 1120. Ernest I. Edgcomb, for appellant. Percival De Witt Oviatt, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. HISCOCK and COLLIN, JJ., not voting. ANDERSON et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK & H. R. CO. et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 939, 121 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered April 25, 1910, affirm; ing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to obtain a judicial determination that the defendant Wheeler is a trustee for the benefit of the plaintiffs of all damages, fee and rental, sustained through the maintenance and use of the viaduct on Park avenue in front of certain property by the defendant railroad companies, for an injunction restraining, the defendant Wheeler and the defendant railroad companies from settling as between themselves the claims for said damages, and for an injunction restraining the defendant railroad companies from maintaining and using said viaduct until they pay the plaintiffs the fee damages to be fixed by the court. L. M. Berkeley, for appellants. Horace E. Deming, for respondent. Everett P. Wheeler, Alexander S. Lyman, Ira A. Place, and William Greenough, for respondents New York and Harlem Railroad Company and others. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with ARNOLD, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 68, 122 N. Y. Supp. 92), entered April 13, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the defendant's negligence. See, also, 138 App. Div. 921, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1105. Smith Lent, Clarence S. Davison, and William G. Given, for appellant. George A. Blauvelt, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Carr, J., below. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, BAKER et al., Appellants, v. DUFF et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 30, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 13, 120 N. Y. Supp. 184), entered February 11, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action of ejectment. Frank Hendrick and Ernest M. Garbe, for appellants. Charles E. Hill and Sidney F. Rawson, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., absent. BARNES et al. v. SOUTHFIELD BEACH CO. et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 16, 1911.) BARRINGER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 17, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (140 App. Div. 903, 125 N. Y. Supp. 540), entered June 17, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to reinstate the relator as principal of public school No. 39 in the borough of Manhattan. Arnon L. Squiers and Warren I. Lee, for appellant. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (Terence Farley and Charles McIntyre, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. LEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, J., dissenting. CUL BARSON et al., Respondents, v. MULLIGAN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (143 App. Div. 931, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered February 24, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term amending nunc pro tunc a judgment theretofore entered in the above-entitled action. The motion was made upon the grounds that appellants had failed to perfect their appeal by filing the required undertaking, that the order of affirmance was not appealable of right to the Court of Appeals, and that permission to appeal had not been 127 N. Y. Supp. 1111. Henry A. Forster, for obtained. See, also, 143 App. Div. 908, 910, the motion. William G. Mulligan, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. BARTHOLOMA, Respondent, v. TOWN OF FLORENCE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart 1114), entered December 3, 1909, affirming a First Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 919. judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a 121 N. Y. Supp. 1125), entered March 25, 1910, verdict in an action to recover for personal in-affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enterjuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant in failing to keep its highways in repair. William S. Mackie, for appellant. Albert T. Wilkinson, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. ed upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover money alleged to be due for labor performed and materials furnished. See. also, 137 App. Div. 926, 122 N. Y. Supp. 1122 Franklin Bien, for appellant. George Edwin Joseph and Leon Laski, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ.. concur. CULLEN, C. J., not voting. BARTLETT, Respondent, v. M. D. KNOWL- BIRD et al. v. CASEIN CO. OF AMERICA. TON CO. et al., Appellants, et al. (Court of ALDEN SPEARE'S SONS CO. v. SAME. Appeals of New York. May 30, 1911.) Ap- (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 3. peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division 1911.) Appeal, in each of the above-entitled of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial De-actions, from a judgment of the Appellate Divipartment (136 App. Div. 939, 121 N. Y. Supp. sion of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial 1125), entered February 7, 1910, affirming a Department (137 App. Div. 918, 121 N. Y. judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a Supp. 1125, 122 N. Y. Supp. 1121), entered verdict in an action to recover the purchase March 16, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor price of certain stock. John T. Fenlon, John of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict in an action V. Judge, John Dane, Jr., and Herbert E. Dane, on contract. Charles J. Hardy, George J. for appellants. Philip Carpenter and Frank Gillespie, William F. Delaney, and Frederick Parker Ufford, for respondent. P. Whitaker, for appellant. William S. Haskell, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. BEACH v. LARGE. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment entered May 11, 1911, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 988, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1114), which affirmed an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action of partition. See, also, 201 N. Y. 564, 95 N. E. 1122. Edgar T. Brackett and A. J. Dillingham, for appellant. William W. Morrill and William H. Hollister, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Judgment in each case affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, WERNER. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. In re BLOOMFIELD ST. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 16, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (122 App. Div. 890, 106 N. Y. Supp. 1117), entered November 12. 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in condemnation proceedings. Daniel E. Hanlon and Michael J. Mulqueen, for appellants. William H. Harris, Ernest E. Wheeler, and Manfred W. Ehrich. for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. BOARDMAN et al., Appellants, v. HITCHCOCK et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 16, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su (136 App. Div. 253, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1039). entered January 20, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an aetion for the construction of a will. Stewart F. Hancock, for appellants. E. W. Hamn, for respondents. BECKER v. OHIO GERMAN FIRE INS. CO. OF TOLEDO, OHIO. SAME V. LAW FIDELITY & GENERAL INS. CORPORATION, Limited. SAME v. ACME FIRE INS. CO. OF LISBON, IOWA. SAME v. AN-preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department CHOR FIRE INS. CO. OF DES MOINES, IOWA. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 30, 1911.) Appeal in each of the above-entitled actions from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 932, 114 N. Y. Supp. 1118, 1119), entered January 27, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover upon a policy of fire insurance. Henry C. Quinby, .for appellants. Frederick J. Moses, A. B. Steele, Isham Henderson, and James W. Ferguson, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment in each action affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., absent. BICKERSTAFF, Respondent, v. PERLEY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. BRANDLY, Respondent, V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (139 App. Div. 932, 124 N. Y. Supp. 1110), entered July 13, 1910. affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Spe given to discharge an attachment. Schuyler C. Carlton and George F. Allison, for appellant. Benjamin N. Cardozo and Nathan Ottinger, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs and 10 per cent. damages for delay under subdivision 5 of section 3251 of the Code of Civil Procedure. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. In re BRIDGE OVER SPUYTEN DUYVIL & P.M. R. R. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (144 App. Div. 447, 129 N. Y. Supp. 446), entered May 16, 1911, which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in condemnation proceedings. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel, (Joel J. Squier and Edward F. Reynolds, of counsel), for appellant. John C. Shaw, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. B. SCHLESINGER CO., Respondent, v. I. B. KLEINERT RUBBER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 30, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 939, 121 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered February 4, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. Abraham Benedict, for appellant. Jesse S. Epstein, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOČK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. BULKLEY, Respondent, v. WHITING MFG. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (132 App. Div. 929, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered July 16, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict dismissing defendant's counterclaim for funds alleged to have been unlawfully appropriated by plaintiff while acting as president of the defendant company. See, also, 136 App. Div. 479, 121 N. Y. Supp. 159. J. Noble Hayes, for appellant. Ralph S. Rounds, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the plaintiff's motion for the direction of a verdict in his favor should have been granted. to the jury were immaterial. We are of opinion that the relinquishment by Salisbury of the salary was a question of fact, to be determined by the jury. BURFEIND, Respondent, ▼. PEOPLE'S SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (139 App. Div. 762, 124 N. Y. Supp. 385), entered July 29, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to reCover on a guaranty bond. F. Sidney Williams, Edward M. Grout and Paul Grout, for appellant. Ernest G. Stevens and William O. Gantz, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. BUTTS et al., Appellants, v. CAREY et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 19, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (143 App. Div. 356, 128 N. Y. Supp. 533), entered March 24, 1911, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial in an action for partition and to establish a lien on real property. The motion was made upon the ground that the reversal was upon questions of fact as well as law, and therefore not appealable to the Court of Appeals. Louis O. Van Doren, for the motion. P. J. Dobson, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. CANDEE, SMITH & HOWLAND CO. v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 19, 1911.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 202 N. Y. 527, 95 N. E. 1124. LEY, Respondent, et al. CARPENTER et al., Appellants, v. HOAD(Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (138 App. Div. 190, 123 N. Y. Supp. 61), entered May 18, 1910, upon an order reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directed by the court and directing judgment in favor of defendant in an action to recover on two promissory notes. Edmund L. Mooney, Frederick A. Card, and Lawrence A. Sullivan, for appellants. John H. McCrahon and Ralph Polk Buell, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, costs. and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ. (dissenting). We are all of the opinion that there is but one question in this case, whether the unpaid salary of the treasurer, Salisbury, had been relinquished by him, or whether it remained a valid claim against the A majority of the court think that, company. as a matter of law, on the evidence it was not relinquished; that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the direction of a verdict; and CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. CARSON, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF DRESDEN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York Oct. 17, 1911.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 202 N. Y. 414, 95 PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. mission to appeal had not been obtained. JoCHARLESTON ILLUMINATING CO., Re-seph W. Murphy, for the motion. Isidor Wels, spondent, v. KNICKERBOCKER TRUST CO., opposed. Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (138 App. Div. 107, 122 N. Y. Supp. 994), entered May 12, 1910, in favor of plaintiff, upon the submission of a controversy, pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to the correct interpretation of a provision of a mortgage executed by the plaintiff to the defendant as trustee and known as the refunding and improvement mortgage of the plaintiff. Charles H. Tuttle, for appellant. William M. Wherry, Jr., for respondent. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Respondent. (Actions Nos. 1. 2.) (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal in each of the aboveentitled actions, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (138 App. Div. 131, 138, 123 N. Y. Supp. 132, 136), entered June 24, 1910, upon an order which reversed a determination of the AppelPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, without late Term affirming a judgment of the Municcosts, on opinion of MILLER, J., below. ipal Court of the city of New York in favor CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, of plaintiff, and dismissed the complaint in an VANN, WERNER, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, action to recover penalties for the operation JJ., concur. of surface cars without the display in such cars of certificates of payment of license fees. as required by a city ordinance. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (Terence Farley and George Rublee, Joseph P. Cotton, Jr., George Frank B. Pierce, of counsel), for appellant. S. Franklin, and James L. Quackenbush, for V. CITY OF BUFFALO, Respondent, FRONTIER TELEPHONE CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (139 App. Div. 926, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1111), entered June 10, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover under an alleged agreement whereby the defendants were to pay to plaintiff a certain percentage of their gross receipts in consideration of permission to string their wires along the streets and avenues of the city of Buffalo. Daniel J. Kenefick and Guy Wellman, for appellants. Clark H. Hammond, Corp. Counsel (George E. Pierce, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The defendant having applied for and voluntarily entered into the agreement with the city, it is not in a position to challenge its validity. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. In re CITY OF NEW YORK. In re MITCHELL et al., Town Assessors. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (129 N. Y. Supp. 1116), entered June 2, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term sustaining an assessment of the petitioner's property in the town of Southeast for purposes of taxation. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (I. J. Beaudrias, of counsel), for appellant. Charles H. Young, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. respondent. PER CURIAM. affirmed, with costs. Judgment in each action CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. CHASE and VANN, JJ., concur on the ground that the ordinance is unreasonable. GRAY, J., not sitting. CLARK et al., Respondents, v. KIRKLAND, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York May 30, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 826, 118 N. Y. Supp. 315), entered July 13, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to remove a cloud upon title to real property. Albert T. Wilkinson, for appellant. William S. Mackie and Smith M. Lindsley, for respond CLOSE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM M. CALDER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (139 App. Div. 175, 123 N. Y. Supp. 749), entered July 8, 1910, in favor of plaintiff upon the submission of a controversy, under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to the marketability of the title to certain real property. Harry Percy David, for appellant. James A. Sheehan, for respond ent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Loring v. Binney, 38 Hun, 152, affirmed 101 N. Y. 623. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. In re CITY OF NEW YORK. In re MURPHY. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 N. Y. Supp. 540), entered July 7, 1911, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for an order directing the payment of the balance of an award theretofore COBB, Respondent, v. UNITED ENGImade in condemnation proceedings against NEERING & CONTRACTING CO., Appelwhich a lien had been filed. The motion was lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June made upon the ground that the order appealed 6, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap First Judicial Department (135 App. Div. 921, | 120 N. Y. Supp. 1118), entered December 29, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action by plaintiff to recover for the loss of his wife's services occasioned by injuries alleged to have been received by her through the negligence of defendant. John Vernou Bouvier, Jr., Stephen P. Anderton, Dudley Davis, and Frank V. Johnson, for appellant. Benjamin Slade, Maxwell Slade, and David Slade, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. COHEN, Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 213, 121 N. Y. Supp. 956), entered March 11, 1910, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered up: on a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granting a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. John A. Garver, for appellant. Nicholas W. Hacker and James C. Foley, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed and judg ment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., not sitting. COHN, Respondent, v. CATSKILL MOUNTAIN RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 30, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (135 App. Div. 920, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1119), entered January 5, 1910, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. Frank H. Osborn, for appellant. Herman Gottlieb, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., absent. In re COUTANT'S WILL. (Court of Ap peals of New York. Oct. 24, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 N. Y. Supp. 1108), entered June 23, 1911, which affirmed a decree of the New York County Surrogate's Court admitting to probate the will of Charles A. Coutant, deceased. Henry A. Forster, for appellant. Charles E. Travis, Benjamin L. Blauvelt, Adolph Bloch, and Henry Bloch, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. VANN, J., absent. CULLEN, Respondent, v. BATTLE ISLAND PAPER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart In re DENNIS. (Court of Appeals of New York. of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Oct. 3, 1911.) Appeal from an order in the First Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 917, 121 N. Y. Supp. 1129), entered March 11, 1910, which affirmed a decree of the New York County Surrogate's Court judicially settling and surcharging the accounts of Moses F. Dennis, as executor of Van Wyck Horton, deceased. William H. Hamilton, Norman C. Conklin, and Warren E. Sammis, for appellant. Henry B. Corey, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. DE VERASTEGUI, Respondent, v. LEVY, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 19, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (143 App. Div. 949, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1120), entered March 29, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage. The motion was made upon the ground that the exceptions were frivolous and presented no question for review. Allan C. Rowe, for the motion. Louis Sachs, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. DIXON, Appellant, V. BARKELY, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of in the Third Judicial Department (131 App. the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Div. 918, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1118), entered January 28, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor referee in an action to set aside an alleged of defendant entered upon the report of a satisfaction of a mortgage on the ground of fraud. Fred A. Bratt, for appellant. Edgar T. Brackett and Wyman S. Bascom, for respondent. DIXON, Respondent, v. COZINE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 10, 1911.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied. with $10 costs. See 202 N. Y. 554, 95 |