to repeat, in substance, what I wrote upon the subject some years ago in Association v. Newkirk (Sup.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 177. There can be no question that an insurance policy, with an annual premium of less than $500, is exempt from claims of the husband's creditors, but is it also exempt from the claims of the wife's creditors after her husband's death? We held in Baron v. Brummer, supra, that such a policy could not, during the life of the husband, be subjected to the lien of creditors either of the husband or wife. That decision was based, so far as the husband is concerned, upon the words of the statute expressly exempting the policy from the claims of his creditors. As to the wife, it rested upon a line of decisions, already cited, holding, not that the policy is exempt from the demands of her creditors, but that it was not then assignable, except in the cases where assignments were authorized by statute, and that the court would not compel her to do that which she could not voluntarily do. Practical exemption was thus worked out for the wife, because the policy was not assignable until it became due, except as provided by the legislature. While the result was the same in the case of either husband or wife, it was reached in the one instance because the policy was actually exempt, and in the other because it could not be assigned. This distinction, while unimportant during the lifetime of the husband or before the maturity of the policy, became of controlling importance when the policy matured, as thereupon a cause of action accrued in favor of the wife, that she could assign without hindrance. Although she could not lawfully assign the policy while it was an executory contract, after it became a contract executed on her part, and had ripened into a cause of action in her favor to recover a definite sum of money, she had the same right to dispose of it that she had to dispose of any other property belonging to her separate estate. The common law gave her this right, and, as there was no statutory prohibition, she needed no statutory permission. While she could not assign the contingency created by the policy, she could assign the certainty created by her husband's death, or by the expiration of the period of endowment. When either of these events occur, the policy becomes "realized personal property," and stands upon the same footing as any other chose in action. There is no foundation for a distinction between a policy which has become payable, with the money ready to pay it, and the proceeds of such a policy when actually paid. Unless both are exempt, neither is exempt. If one is assignable, both are assignable, and all property that can be voluntarily disposed of by the owner, unless exempt by legislative enactment, may be reached by creditors. Bolt v. Keyhoe, 30 Hun, 619, 96 N. Y. 646; Crosby v. Stephan, 32 Hun, 478; Kratzenstein v. Lehman, 18 Misc. Rep. 590, 42 N. Y. Supp. 237.

In the absence of a statute expressly exempting a policy after it has become due and payable, it would be narrow and unreasonable to hold it exempt, unless its proceeds are also exempt, and so continue as long as they can be identified. The respondent, both at the trial and upon the argument before us, made the broad claim that the proceeds of the policy, after payment thereof to the wife, are exempt from all legal process issued against her property. What would be the practical effect of such a rule? Policies upon the lives of husbands for the benefit of their wives, the premiums being paid by the husband, are almost universal. Hence a vast accumulation of property would not only be placed beyond the reach of creditors for the collection of their just claims, but it would also be withdrawn from taxation, as the same rule applies to both subjects. "All property exempt by law from execution," with two exceptions not now important, is also "exempt from taxation" by the express command of the tax law (Laws 1896, c. 908, 4; Laws 1897, c. 347, § 1). A man, however heavily indebted he might be, could expend $500 every year in the purchase of insurance upon his life, either endowment or ordinary; and, after it was paid over to his wife, she could hold it not only in defiance of his creditors, but also of her own, and of the state itself. The exemption would be purely arbitrary, and wholly independent of her necessities; for, if she is entitled to it at all, she is entitled to it whether she needs it or not. Whether with or without children, whether destitute or in affluence, she could claim exemption simply because the subject was money derived from insuring her husband's life. Insurance money is not like that derived from pensions, which are granted only when the primary recipient is disabled, wholly or in part, by wounds or by disease contracted in the service of his country in time of war. Moreover, pensions are a bounty paid by government, and do not spring from a fund which may have come from creditors, and may be needed for the payment of debts. They are designed to prevent those who have rendered valuable services to the nation from becoming dependent on account of some disability received while rendering such services. They do not come from creditors either of the husband or the wife. but, if the rule contended for is to prevail, even money borrowed to pay premiums, and thus to create the insurance fund, could not be collected out of it.

If the legislature intended to exempt insurance money, the presumption is that it would have said so expressly, and possibly would have so hedged in the exemption as to limit it to the needy and deserving. It apparently regarded it as a sufficient protection to exempt policies from the claims of the husband's creditors, without extending the exemption to the creditors of the wife. At one time it exempted insurance moneys paid by

co-operative societies, but it has reversed its policy in that regard, and they are no longer exempt. Bull v. Case, supra. It has never declared that insurance moneys paid by regular insurance corporations should be exempt, and the courts cannot declare them exempt without judicial legislation.

As the money is not exempt after it has been paid to the beneficiary, we do not think it is exempt after it has become due, and we therefore reverse the order of the appellate division, and affirm the judgment rendered by the trial court, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, and MARTIN, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN and HAIGHT, JJ., not voting.

Ordered accordingly.

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

ABBEY, Appellant, v. WHEELER, Respondent, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1902.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 170 N. Y. 122, 62 N. E. 1074.

ASHLEY, Respondent, v. ASHLEY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 6, 1902.) Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for appellant. James G. Meyer and William Vanamee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (61 App. Div. 622, 70 N. Y. Supp. 1134) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and HAIGHT, MARTIN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. BARTLETT and VANN, JJ., d.. sent.

In re BALDWIN'S ESTATE. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 1, 1902.) No opinion. Motion for reargument. See 170 N. Y. 156, 63 N. E. 62. Remittitur amended so as to allow the appellant and the respondent Warner their disbursements on appeal to the appellate division and this court out of the fund. In other respects the motion is denied.

BALL, Appellant, v. WILLIAMS et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 8, 1902.) J. W. Rayhill, for appellant. William Kernan and A. M. Mills, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (54 App. Div. 628, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1125) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

BECKER, Respondent, v. WEIDENFELD et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 27, 1902.) George Alfred Lamb, for appellants. J. Rider Cady and Frank V. Millard, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (54 App. Div. 626, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1126) affirmed, with costs. GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. PARKER, C. J., absent.

In re BOSTON & A. R. CO. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 8, 1902.) E. R. Harder, for appellant. A. B. Gardenier, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order (64 App. Div. 257, 72 N. Y. Supp. 32) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. HAIGHT, J., not sitting.

BREED, Respondent, v. NATIONAL BANK OF AUBURN, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 6, 1902.) Charles I. Avery, for appellant. Alexander H. Cowie, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (57 App. Div. 468, 68 N. Y. Supp. 68) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, II., concur. O'BRIEN, J., dissents.

BRENNAN, Respondent, v. ALBANY & G. B. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 25, 1902.) Randall J. Le Boeuf, for appellant. John S. Wolfe, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order (61 App. Div. 279, 70 N. Y. Supp. 344) affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

BRINCKERHOFF et al., Appellants, v. FARIAS et al., Respondents. (Court of Ap peals of New York. May 13, 1902.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 170 N. Y. 427, 63 N. E. 437.

BROWN et al., Appellants, v. MASON et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 7, 1902.) A. C. Pickard, for appellants. N. H. Hill and V. E. Peckham, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (55 App. Div. 395, 66 N. Y. Supp. 917) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur.

BUSH, Appellant, v. COLER, City Comptroller, et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 25, 1902.) Frederic R. Kellogg, for appellant. George L. Rives, Corp. Counsel (Terence Farley and Theodore Connoly, of counsel), for respondents comptroller and city of New York. Franklin Bien, in pro. per. M. R. Crow, for respondent New York & Westchester Water Co.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (60 App. Div. 56, 69 N. Y. Supp. 770) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. UPTON, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 6, 1902.) Albert H. Harris and George W. Wickersham, for appellant. George P. Decker, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (66 App. Div. 434, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1084) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

COOK, Appellant, v. PERSONS et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 15, 1902.) J. W. Russell. for appellant. Norris Morey and Edward R. Bosley, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs. See 54 App. Div. 629, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1129, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1130.

PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

COWELL. Respondent, v. STREETON et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1902.) Douglas A. Levien and John Reilly, for appellants. Frank G. Wild, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (39 App. Div. 638, 57 N. Y. Supp. 1136) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

DIXSON, Respondent, ▼. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 1, 1902.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Second judicial department, made January 17, 1902, which reversed an order of the court at a trial term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granting a new trial, and directed judgment upon the verdict. The motion was made upon the ground that the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Samuel S. Whitehouse, for the motion. George D. Yeomans, opposed. No opinion. Motion granted. and appeal dismissed, with costs, and $10 costs of motion. See 68 App. Div. 302, 74 N. Y. Supp. 49.

DROEGE, Appellant, v. BAXTER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 20, 1902.) Otto H. Droege and Isaac V. Schavrien, for appellant. William J. Barr, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order (69 App. Div. 58, 74 N. Y. Supp. 585) affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

DYER, Respondent, v. BROWN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 1, 1902.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Fourth judicial department, entered September 5, 1901, which reversed an order of the court at a trial term setting aside and vacating a verdict in favor of plaintiff and the judgment entered thereon, and granting a new trial and directed judgment upon the verdict. The motion was made upon the ground that the court of appeals has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. D. Raymond Cobb, for the motion. Charles L. Stone, opposed. No opinion. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. See 64 App. Div. 89, 71 N. Y. Supp. 623.

EINSTEIN, Respondent, v. DUNN, Sher iff. Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1902.) Edward W. S. Johnston and Philip J. Britt, for appellant. Gratz Nathan and Maurice Marks, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (61 App. Div. 195, 70 N. Y. Supp. 520) affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

In re EVANS' WILL. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 6, 1902.) J. Noble Hayes, for appellant. Wolcott G. Lane, Charles H. Griffin, and Stephen O. Lockwood, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order (65 App. Div. 100, 72 N. Y. Supp. 495) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

EVERDELL et al., Appellants, v. HILL et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1902.) Jacob S. Van Wyck, for appellants. Jacob F. Miller and Cyrus C. Miller, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs. 58 App. Div. 151, 68 N. Y. Supp. 719. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

EWING, Respondent, v. COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS' MUT. ACC. ASS'N OF AMERICA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 25, 1902.) W. A. Matteson and M. W. Van Auken, for appellant. Joseph P. Eustace and A. C. Eustace, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (55 App. Div. 241, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1050) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, J., dissents.

FULLERTON. Respondent, ▼. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 25, 1902.) Charles F. Brown and Henry A. Robinson, for appellant. Edward A. Sumner, for respond

ent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (63 App. Div. 1, 71 N. Y. Supp. 326) affirmed, with costs. BARTLETT, MARTIN, VANN. CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. PARKER, C. J., and HAIGHT, J., absent.

GALLAGHER. Appellant, v. KEATING, Commissioner of Highways et al., Respondents.

(Court of Appeals of New York. May 27, 1902.) Isaac M. Kapper, for appellant. George W. Wingate, William J. Kelly, and George L. Rives, Corp. Counsel (James McKeen, of counsel), for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (57 App. Div. 626, 68 N. Y. Supp. 1138) affirmed, with costs. GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, and WERNER, JJ., concur. PARKER, C. J., absent. CULLEN, J., not sitting.

GARDNER, Respondent, v. DEMBINSKY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 25, 1902.) Delos McCurdy, for appellant. Edward E. Sprague and William H. Stockwell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (52 App. Div. 473, 65 N. Y. Supp. 183) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

OF

GERMAN-AMERICAN INS. CO. NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STANDARD GASLIGHT CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 1, 1902.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered January 20, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a trial term without a jury. The motion was made upon the ground that the court of appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. William D. Murray, for the motion. Henry Thompson, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 67 App. Div. 539, 73 N. Y. Supp. 973.

GORMAN, Respondent, v. FINN et al., Appellants (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. April 15, 1902.) T. B. Chancellor, W. M. K. Olcott, and Patrick H. Loftus, for appellants. Archibald C. Shenstone and John T. Canavan, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgments (56 App. Div. 155, 67 N. Y. Supp. 546) affirmed, with one bill of costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, and MARTIN, JJ., concur. VANN, J., absent.

GORMAN, Respondent, v. FINN et al., Appellants (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1902.) No opinion. Motion to amend the remittitur, so as to award the respondent separate bills of costs in each case, denied, with $10 costs. See 171 N. I. - ubi

supra.

GRACIE, Respondent, v. STEVENS et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 27, 1902.) David B. Hill and William D. Leonard, for appellants. Judson S. Landon,

Abram I. Elkus, and Carlisle J. Gleason, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (56 App. Div. 203, 67 N. Y. Supp. 688) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTÍN, and VANN, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., not voting.

GUMBY, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1902.) Charles F. Brown, Theodore H. Lord, and Henry A. Robinson, for appellant. J. Brownson Ker and M. P. O'Connor, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (65 App. Div. 38, 72 N. Y. Supp. 551) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

HAFNER et al. v. HAFNER et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1902.) Robert A. B. Dayton, for plaintiffs. Howard C. Tracy, for Thomas F. Brandon. George Flint Warren, Jr., for Francis McCabe and cthers. William H. Hirsh, for Rosana C. Haf

ner.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (62 App. Div. 316, 71 N. Y. Supp. 1) affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, J., not voting.

HALL, Appellant, v. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 6, 1902.) George W. Stephens and Patrick J. O'Beirne, for appellant. George B. Stoddart, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (61 App. Div. 508, 70 N. Y. Supp. 710) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

HASBROUCK, Respondent, v. MARKS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 25, 1902.) Emanuel J. Myers, for appellant. Louis Marshall, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (58 App. Div. 33, 68 N. Y. Supp. 510) affirmed, with costs and 10 per cent. damages, under section 3251 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

HASBROUCK, Respondent, v. MARKS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 15, 1902.) No opinion. Motion to amend remittitur, by striking therefrom the award of 10 per cent. damages, denied, with $10 costs. See 170 N. Y. —, ubi supra.

HILL, Respondent, v. CHAMBERLAIN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 25, 1902.) Thad. Collins, Jr., and Dwight S. Chamberlain, for appellants. Frank C. Sargent, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (64 App. Div. 609, 71 N. Y. Supp. 639) affirmed, with costs and 10 per cent. damages, under section 3251 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on opinion below. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

HINE. Respondent, v. VANDERBEEK et al. (ZIMMERMANN et al., Appellants.) (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1902.) Payson Merrill, for appellants. William C. Breed and Henry H. Abbott, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (56 App. Div. 621, 67 N. Y. Supp. 801) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, HAIGHT. MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, J., not voting.

HITCHINGS, Respondent, v. KAYSER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1902.) Charles J. Hardy, for appellant. Melvin G. Palliser, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (65 App. Div. 302, 72 N. Y. Supp. 749) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

HOES, Respondent, v. OCEAN S. S. CO. OF SAVANNAH. Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1902.) Herbert Barry and Julien T. Davies, for appellant. Franklin Pierce and Frank W. Arnold, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (56 App. Div. 259, 67 N. Y. Supp. 782) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY. O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur.

HUTCHINSON, Appellant, v. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF MANHATTAN CO., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1902.) John L. Branch and Jehiel T. Hurd, for appellant. Charles E. Rushmore, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (49 App. Div. 629, 62 N. Y. Supp. 1105) aflirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT. HAIGHT, and CULLEN, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., absent.

INDUSTRIAL & GENERAL TRUST, Limited, Respondent, v. TOD et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1902.) Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 170 N. Y. 233, 63 N. E. 285.

JONES et al., Respondents, v. JONES et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 20, 1902.) Jacob F. Miller, for appellants. Herbert Parsons and Edward M. Shepard, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order (68 App. Div. 5, 74 N. Y. Supp. 297) affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ.,

concur.

JONES, Appellant, v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 15, 1902.) L. Latin Kellogg and Alfred Ĉ. Petté, for appellant. George L. Rives, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Chase Mellen, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (60 App. Div. 622, 70 N. Y. Supp. 296) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT. HAIGHT, MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur.

JONES et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1902.) L. Laflin Kellogg and Alfred C. Petté, for appellants. George L. Rives, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (57 App. Div. 403, 68 N. Y. Supp. 228) affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and GRAY. O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur.

JONES et al. v. KELLY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1902.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 170 N. Y. 401, 63 N. E. 443.

KEATOR, Appellant, v. DALTON, Commissioner of Water Supply, et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1902.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, made December 23, 1901 (67 App. Div. 619, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1138), which affirmed an order of special term confirming the report of a referee assessing the damages suffered by the defendant the Ramapo Water Company by reason of an injunction. The motion was made upon the ground that the court of appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson, for the motion. McCurdy & Yard, opposed. No opinion. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, on the ground that the order appealed from is an order in an action, and not in a special proceeding, with costs of appeal and $10 costs of motion.

KEOUGH, Respondent, v. ALBANY & T. STEAMBOAT CO., Limited, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1902.) William J. Roche and Lewis E. Griffith, for appellant. T. F. Hamilton and Thomas F. Powers, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The unanimous affirmance of the judgment herein by the appellate division (62 App. Div. 630, 71 N. Y. Supp. 1139) prevents this court from considering the very serious questions presented by the motion to dismiss the complaint. The exceptions taken to the admission of testimony and to the charge will not support a reversal. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

KING, Appellant, v. KING, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 6, 1902.) T. F. Hamilton, for appellant. Winsor B. French, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (55 App. Div. C36, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1137) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, MARTIN, VANN, CULLEN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

KINGMAN et al., Respondents, v. DUNSPAUGH, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 7, 1902.) A. Frank B. Chace and Gerrit S. Collier, for appellant. Edson R. Harder, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (35 App. Div. €25, 55 N. Y. Supp. 1142) affirmed, with costs. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur.