ROURKE v. METZ, Comptroller. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 13, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (139 App. Div. 155, 123 N. Y. Supp. 720), entered June 13, 1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term determining title to certain awards made in condemnation proceedings. Stephen M. Hoye, for appellant. Matthew J. Wheelehan, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. ROY, Respondent, v. FLAXMAN 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 Second Judicial Department (138 App. Div. 926, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1139), entered May 31, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to rescind a contract to sell real property and cancel a deed delivered pursuant thereto upon the ground of fraud. See, also, 199 N. Y. 553, 93 N. E. 1131. Eli J. Blair, for appellants. L. Harding Rogers, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. RUBBER TRADING CO., Respondent, v. FISK RUBBER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 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. 1146), entered February 8, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. William G. Phlippeau, for appellant. Harry D. Nims, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J.. and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. SABATINO, Respondent, V. ROEBLING CONST. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (143 App. Div. 955, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1144), entered March 10, 1911, affirming 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, his employer. The motion was made upon the grounds that the exceptions were frivolous and the appeal taken only for purposes of delay. William J. Maloney, for the motion. Satterlee, Bissell, Taylor & French, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. SCHMEISER, Appellant, v. LESSLER, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (139 App. Div. 914, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1140), entered June fendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action for libel. Harry K. Jacobs and Reno R. Billington, for appellant. Leonard J. Obermeier, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, WERNER, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. SCHNAIER, Respondent, V. ONWARD CONST. CO. et al., Appellants, et al. (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 (138 App. Div. 909, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1140), entered June 22, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. See, also, 200 N. Y. 507, 93 N. E. 1131. L. Laflin Kellogg and Hiram R. Fisher, for appellants. Milton Mayer, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. SERLING, Respondent, v. SERLING et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 930, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1141), entered March 31, 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 by plaintiff through the negli gence of defendants, his employers. Frederick T. Pierson, for appellants. T. Aaron Levy, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. (Court SHIRLEY, Appellant, V. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. 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 (133 App. Div. 939, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1147), entered June 18, 1909, upon an order overruling plaintiff's exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for defendant on the nonsuit granted by the trial court. Walter H. Knapp and James A. Rolfe, for appellant. Edward Harris, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. In re SIMMONS et al., Board of Water Supply. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 13, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department (141 App. Div. 120, 125 N. Y. Supp. 697), entered November 18, 1910, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to confirm a report of commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings and directing a new appraisal before new commissioners. Archibald R. Wat sel), for appellants. Tompkins McIlvaine, Herbert Parsons, and Albert Southard Wright, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. entered upon a verdict in an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the failure of defendant stockbrokers to execute his order to sell certain stock. William F. S. Hart and Millard F. Tompkins, for appellants. Lewis H. Freedman and Albert Stickney, for respondent. VANN PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Miller, J., below. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., ecGRAY, J., dissenting on opinion of INGRAHAM, P. J., below. In re SIMMONS et al., Board of Water Supply. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 13. 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Ap-cur. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (140 App. Div. 914, 126 N. Y. Supp. 1146), entered September 13, 1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming an award of commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings. G. D. B. Hasbrouck, for appellant. Archibald R. Wat; son. Corp. Counsel (Amasa J. Parker, Jr., and William MeM. Speer, of counsel), for respond ents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, WERNER, HAIGHT, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. SIRE v. FURST et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (143 App. Div. 927, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1146), entered March 13, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to impress a trust upon real property and the proceeds of real property. The motion was made upon the grounds that the affirmance was unanimous, the exceptions frivolous, and that no questions of law were presented for review. Benjamin N. Cardozo and Maurice Marks, for the motion. Henry B. Johnson and Ralph Q. Kelly, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. In re SMITH. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 10, 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. 907, 127 N. Y. Supp. 1145), entered February 17, 1911, which aflirmed an order of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the county of New York requiring the appellant herein to pay a certain sum weekly for the maintenance of his wife at the Manhattan State Hospital. The motion was made upon the ground that the order of affirmance was not appealable of right to the Court of Appeals, and that permission to appeal had not been obtained. Seldon Bacon, for the motion. K. Henry Rosenberg, opposed. SMITH, Respondent, v. ULSTER & D. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New Yors. Oct. 31, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (137 AFF Div. 935, 121 N. Y. Supp. 1148) entered March 29, 1910, modifying and affirming as modifed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained througa the negligence of defendant. H. H. Fleming and Amos Van Etten, for appellant. A. L. Kellogg, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. SMYTH et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 3, 1911.) Motion to amend remittitur by respondent City of New York. See 203 N. Y. 106, 96 N. E. 400. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, without costs. Where an award of costs on appeal is made to several respondents, each respondent is entitled to, tax his disbursements as part of the bill of costs, and on its payment each par ty is entitled to the amount of his disburse ments as taxed and the allowance should be divided equally between all the parties. In re SOUTHFIELD BEACH R. CO. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1911) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (130 N. Y. Supp. 1131), entered June 16, 1911, which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners in condemnation proceedings. Harold Russell Griffith, Adrien H. Larkin, and Lewis H. Freedman, for appellant. John Brooks Leavitt and Stuart G. Gibboney, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal on authority of Philadelphia, R. & N. E. R. R. dismissed. Co. v. Bowman, 23 App. Div. 170, 48 N. Y. Supp. 901. SMITH, Appellant, v. GEIGER, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 10, 1911.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 202 N. Y. 306, 95 N. E. 706. SMITH, Respondent, v. HUTTON 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 First Judicial Department (138 App. Div. $59, 123 N. Y. Supp. 656), entered June 14, CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. VANN, J., absent. SPENCER, Respondent, v. BINGHAMTON RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 30, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Sapreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 905, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1147). entered January 10, 1910, affirming a judgmest in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries and for injury to property alleged to have been sus ligence. Thomas J. Keenan, for appellant. | R. Abney and Edward D. Brown, for respondThomas B. Kattell, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WIL LARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. SPENCER, Respondent, V. ORDER OF THE GOLDEN SEAL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (129 N. Y. Supp. 1147) entered May 10, 1911, which affirmed a judgment of the Chemung County Court affirming a judgment of the City Court of Elmira in favor of plaintiff. The motion was made upon the grounds that the action was commenced in a court of interior jurisdiction, was, therefore, not appealable of right to the Court of Appeals, and that permission to appeal had not been obtained. Thomas M. Losie, for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and $10 costs of motion. In re SPENSER. (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 (143 App. Div. 229, 128 N. Y. Supp. 168), entered April 6, 1911, disbarring the appellant Armand Spenser from practicing as an attorney and counselor at law in the state of New York. Louis S. Posner, Walter S. Dryfoos, and Cyril F. Dos Passos, for appellant. Paul Fuller, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., con cur. I ents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HAIGHT, WERNER. WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and HISCOCK, J., not voting. STENSON, Appellant, v. J. H. FLICK CONST. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 17, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 N. Y. Supp. 555), entered July 14, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The motion was made upon the ground that the undertaking required to perfect the appeal had not been filed. Louis Cohn, for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. In re STEVENSON (two cases). In re KERNOCHAN. (Court of Appeals of New York. June, 13, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 789, 122 N. Y. Supp. 664), entered March 8, 1911, directing certain payments to be made from the general fund of the Supreme Court in the First Department. See, also, 200 N. Y. 513, 93 N. E. 1133; 143 App. Div. 901, 127 N. Y. Supp. 1146. Thomas Carmody, Atty. Gen. (Joseph A. Kellogg, Valentine Taylor, and Robert P. Beyer, of counsel), for appellant. Harlan F. Stone and Chester R. Dewey, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order in each case affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. STIEBEL et al., Respondents, v. GROSBERG, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 10, 1911.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 202 N. Y. 266, 95 N. E. 692. WILLARD BARTLETT, J. (dissenting). dissent on the ground that the order of the Appellate Division is defective in omitting to state the specific misconduct of the attorney. The opinion of the Appellate Division indicates that the judges of that tribunal have found the appellant guilty of the most serious charges upon which he was acquitted by the official referee; but, however this may be, I think that a definite and specific adjudication of misconduct should be required to be made by the ApSTRAUS, Appellant, V. CUMBERLAND pellate Division, as the basis of an order dis- REALTY CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals barring or suspending an attorney. As was pointed out by Judge Werner in Matter of of New York. May 19, 1911.) Appeal from a Droege, 197 N. Y. 44, 90 N. E. 340, this court judgment of the Appellate Division of the Sufrom an early day has exercised jurisdiction to review the action of the Supreme Court in cases of this character; but, in the absence of some adjudication analogous to findings of fact, no effective review is practicable. I think the case should be sent back to the Appellate Division in order that the defect which I have pointed out may be remedied. SPRINGS et al., Respondents, . JAMES, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 13, 1911.) Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 110, 121 N. Y. Supp. 1054), entered March 24, 1910, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover money alleged to have been paid out for the benefit of defendant. See, also, 137 App. Div. 669, 122 N. Y. Supp. 470. Herbert D. Mason, Victor Lamar Smith, Preme Court in the Second Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 896, 121 N. Y. Supp. 1149), entered April 18, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover broker's commissions. LARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and STRAUSS, Appellant, v. EASTERN BREWING CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 930. 118 N. Y. Supp. 1145), entered October 8, 1909, sustaining defendant's exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance tion for a new trial in an action to recover broker's commissions. Samuel H. Guggenheimer, for appellant. Jay C. Guggenheimer, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. STREET et al., Respondents, v. GALT, Appellant. (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. 724, 121 N. Y. Supp. 514), entered March 18, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover on contract. Walter C. Anthony, for appellant. William Allaire Shortt, for respondents. costs. THEDFORD, Appellant, v. HERBERT, Respondent. (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 (139 App. Div. 903, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1144), entered June 16, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint ly the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. George H. Fletcher and James H. Richards, for appellant. Lyman E. Warren, for respond ent. PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on opinion rendered on previous appeal. 195 N. Y. 63, ST N. E. 798. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with SWEETING, Appellant, V. IROQUOIS CHINA CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 19, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 931, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1143), entered March 26, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover on a promissory note. Thomas Woods, for appellant. Lamont Stilwell, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. TABOR, Respondent, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1911.) Motion for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 258, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1089), entered January 12, 1910, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial in a action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant. The motion was made upon the ground that the order of reversal was not appealable to the Court of Appeals. H. A. Hickman, for the motion. H. J. Westwood, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted on payment, within 20 days, of $10 costs and taxable costs that have accrued on appeal. Nov. 21, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (140 App. Div. 881, 124 N. Y. Supp. 1132), entered July 15, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover upon a promissory note. George L. Bachman and W. S. Bachman, for appellant. Charles A. Hawley, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. THOMAS, Appellant, v. DAVIS, Respondent, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment entered February 5, 1910, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 915, 121 N. Y. Supp. 1149), overruling plaintiff's exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial, and directing judgment for defendant on the verdict directed by the trial court in an action of ejectment. John D. Lynn and Milton Noyes, for appellant. Eugene Van Voorhis, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NEW YORK ELEVATED R. CO. et al., Appellants. (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. 916, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered December 6. 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an abutting owner's action to enjoin the maintenance of defendant's elevated railroad and for damages. J. Osgood Nichols and James L. Quackenbush, for appelCharles H. Strong and Charles L. Jones, for respondent. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE IN TANZER, Appellant, v. MORGAN, Respondent, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (139 App. Div. 10, 123 N. Y. Supp. 497), entered June 17, 1910, which modified and affirmed as modified a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action for false imprisonment. Laurence Arnold Tanzer, for appellants. lant. Martin S. Lynch, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, CHASE, and COL UNITED BUILDING MATERIAL CO. v. VOGT et al., Respondents, v. HAYMAN et CITY OF NEW YORK et al. (Court of al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New Appeals of New York. June 6, 1911.) Mo-York. Nov. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgtion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (136 Court in the Second Judicial Department (143 App. Div. 912, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1149), entered App. Div. 952, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered January 14, 1910, affirming a judgment in faMarch 31, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor vor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directof plaintiff entered upon a decision of the ed by the court in an action to recover for an court on trial at Special Term in an action to alleged breach of contract of sale. George E. foreclose a mechanic's lien. The motion was Pierce, for appellants. George A. Lewis, for made upon the grounds that the Court of Ap- respondents. peals had no jurisdiction of an appeal by receivers appointed by the Supreme Court from a judgment of that court unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division; that the appellants were not parties aggrieved; that the case presented no questions of law for review; that the exceptions were frivolous, and the appeal taken for purposes of delay. Hugh M. Hewson, for the motion. Clifford Couch, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. In re VAN ALST AVE. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1911.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (143 App. Div. 564, 128 N. Y. Supp. 371), entered March 24, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners in street opening proceedings. Hartwell P. Heath, Arthur C. Bostwick, and R. A. Mansfield Hobbs, for appellants. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel, and Clarence Edwards (Joel J. Squier, and William B. R. Faber, of counsel), for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, Č. J., not voting. VAN SCHAICK, Respondent, v. HEYMAN 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 First Judicial Department (138 App. Div. 905, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1146), entered May 9, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered. See, also, 199 N. Y. 554, 93 N. E. 1134. Arthur B. Hyman, Martin Paskus, and William S. Gordon, for appellants. I William H. Hamilton and Thomas Gregory, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, HAIGHT, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. WILLARD' BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, WERNER, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. WAKEFIELD v. GAYNOR et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 10, 1911.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (144 App. Div. 905, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1149), entered May 8, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in a taxpayer's action to restrain the officials of the village of Portchester from paying certain moneys. The motion was made upon the grounds that the parties appealing were not parties to the action nor interested in the subject-matter thereof. Frederick W. Sherman, for the motion. Clinton T. Taylor, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. WALDER, Respondent, v. ENGLISH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 43, 122 N. Y. Supp. 1), entered April 6, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover damages arising from an alleged breach of a lease. Joseph W. Middlebrook and Ellery E. Albee, for appellant. and Michael J. Tierney, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Walter G. C. Otto CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. WALTERS, Respondent, v. GRINBERG 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 Third Judicial Department (138 App. Div. 933, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1147), entered May 20, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for an alleged conversion. T. B. Merchant and L. M. Merchant, for appellants. Archibald Howard, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. VOGEL & BINDER CO. v. MONTGOMERY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 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. 1146), entered June 11, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant respondents entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. C. C. Werner, Frederick M. Whitney, and Albert H. Stearns, for appellants. W. C. Carroll, George WARNER-QUINLAN ASPHALT CO., ApY. Webster, and Hiram R. Wood, for respond-pellant, v. CENTRAL NEW YORK TELE ents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs against appellants. CULLEN, C. J., and VANN. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, CHASE, and COL CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and COLLIN, JJ., concur. PHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 3, 1911.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (136 App. Div. |