Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

nenbaum. F. Bien, for appellant. H. A. Fried BLISS, Appellant, v. PRELL, Respondent. man, for respondent. No opinion. Order af- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Or Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Fander filed. See, also, 125 App. Div. 770, 110 N. nie M. Bliss against Emil Prell. No opinion. Y. Supp. 108.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

BECKER, Appellant, v. BURKE et al., Re BOOKBINDER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK spondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, MILLINERY & SUPPLY CO., Appellant. First Department. April 30, 1909.), Action by (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeHans Becker against Luke A. Burke and oth-partment. April 30, 1909.) Action by Louis ers. I. N. Miller, for appellant. W, F. Kimber, Bookbinder against the New York Millinery & for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, Supply Company. W. D. Sporborg, for appelwith $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. lant. C. C. Peters, for respondent. No opin

ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis

bursements. Order filed. BERGEN, Respondent, v. SEGER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action In re BORLAND. (Supreme Court, Appelby Joseph L. Bergen against George N. Seger late Division, Second Department. April 23, and another. No opinion. Judgment of the 1909.) In the matter of the application of Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

Charles Borland for admission to the bar. No

opinion. Application granted. BERGER, Respondent, v. RUSSELL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First BORST, Respondent, v. LYON, Appellant. Department, April 8, 1909.) Action by Ben- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dejamin Berger against Henry Russell. C. H.partment. May 5, 1909.) Action by Frank Stoddard, for appellant. M. S. Hyman, for re Borst against James B. Lyon. No opinion. spondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to with | with costs. draw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs. Order filed.

BRANT, Appellant, v. SIEGER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeBERLIN CONST. CO., Appellant, v. WA-partment. April 23, 1909.). Action by Henry TERVLIET FOUNDRY' & MACH.' CO., Re- L. Brant against Philip C. Sieger. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PER CURIAM. Motion granted, without Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by costs, so as to amend the second notice of apthe Berlin Construction Company against the peal by striking out as surplusage that part Watervliet Foundry & Machine Company. which appeals from the judgment, and by

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with striking out the words thereof, "denying plaincosts.

tiff's motion to vacate said judgment and for a KELLOGG, J., dissents.

new trial in this action," and inserting instead thereof, "denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate said judgment upon the exceptions tak

en on the trial, as contrary to the evidence or In re BEVERLY ROAD IN CITY OF NEW contrary to the law, or,. the alternative, YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, modifying said judgment." Second Department. April 23, 1909.) In the matter of the application of the city of New York relative to acquiring title for the purpose BRENNAN, Respondent, v. KENNEDY, Apof opening Beverly Road from Bedford avenue pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, to East Thirty-First street, in the Twenty- Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action Ninth ward, Brooklyn.

by Terence Brennan against Mary Kennedy. PER CURIAM. The moving party not think- No opinion. Appeal dismissed by default, with ing the motion of sufficient importance to sub-costs. mit a brief or a memorandum of authorities, and it not appearing on what sections of the charter or decisions he relies, the motion is

BRENNEN v. FRANCISCO et al. (Supreme denied. See, also, 115 N. Y. Supp. 208.

Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Margaret Brennen against Frederick Francisco and others. No

opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and In re BISHOP. (Supreme Court, Appellate disbursements. Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) In the matter of the application of L. W. Bishop to lay out a highway in the town of Hemp BRESLIN, Respondent, v. BORDEN'S CONstead, Nassau county, N. Y., and the assess- DENSED MILK CO., Appellant. (Supreme ment of damages therefor. No opinion. Order Court, Appellate Division, First Department. of the County Court of Nassau county con- May 7, 1909.) Action by Catherine Breslin, as firmed, and order settled.

administratrix, against the Borden's Condensed

Milk Company. G. C. Fox, for appellant. E. CAMPBELL, Respondent, v. MONTCLAIR V. Dernoot, for respondent.

HOTEL CO., Áppellant. (Supreme Court, Ap PER CURIAM. Judgment and order repellate Division, First Department. April 16 versed, and new trial ordered, with costs to ap 1909.) Action by Frank C. Campbell against pellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipu- the Montclair Hotel Company. C. A. Brodek, lates to reduce verdict to $5,000, in which for appellant. C. Goldzier, for respondent. So event, judgment, as so reduced, and order, af- opinion. Order afirmed, with sio costs and firmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. disbursements. Order filed.

BRIGHTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT CO. Appellate Division, First Department. Apra

In re CANTON'S WILL. (Supreme Court v. HAAS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 18, 1909.) In the matter of the will of Susan First Department. May 21, 1909.) Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action firmed, with costs. Order filed.

M. Canton, deceased. No opinion. Decree at by the Brighton Beach Development Company against Abraham Haas. From an order deny. ing a motion for a bill of particulars, plaintiff CAPLAN, Appellant, v. GUION et al., Re appeals. Reversed. James W. McElhinney, spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirifor appellant. Epstein Bros. (Alfred Epstein, sion, Second Department. April 23, 1903.) A of counsel), for respondent.

tion by Alexander Caplan against Harry Guion PER CURIAM. The order appealed from and others. No opinion. Motion granted, with should be reversed, and the motion granted, so $10 costs. far as to require the defendant to furnish a bill of particulars of the instances of sales or

CAROGA LUMBER CO., Respondent, F. exposure of the articles, for which the defendant was to have an exclusive privilege of sell- FULTON et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court ing, which he will seek to prove on the trial, Appellate Division, Third Department May 3. but not to require the amount of such sales, 1909.), Action by the Caroga Lumber Company with $10 costs and disbursements to the ap- ion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs

against James Y, Fulton and others. No opis pellant. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Respond

CARSTAIRS, Respondent, v. TEGELER et ent, v. BROOKLYN CITY R. co.,''Appellant. al.,, Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second vision, Second Department. April 23, 1919.) Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by the Action by J. Haseltine Carstairs against John Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company against H. Tegeler and others. No opinion. Judgment the Brooklyn City Railroad Company. No opin- affirmed, with costs. ion. Motion granted, with costs. See, also, 124 App. Div. 896, 109 N. Y. Supp. 31.

CASE Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court

Appellate Division, Second Department. April BROOKS V. E. M. BROWN PAPER CO. 23, 1909.), Action by Maude L Case agaicst (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De- the New York Central & Hudson River Railpartment. May 5, 1909.) Action by William road Company. No opinion. Judgment and H. Brooks against the E. M. Brown Paper order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Company. No opinion. Motion denied.

CHAPIN, Respondent, V. RUNDELL AD BURNHAM et al., Respondents, v. BURN- pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirisioa. HAM, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Alphonso Chapin against John M. Rundell. No Action by Elizabeth M. Burnham and another opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with against Arthur W. Burnham. No opinion. costs. Judgment (58 Misc. Rep. 385, 111 N. Y. Supp. 252) unanimously afirmed, with costs.

CHAPMAN et al., Appellants, v. NATION

AL CITY BANK, Respondent. (Supreme CAMINO, Appellant, v. HAMILTON, Re- April 30, 1909.) Action by Elverton R. Chap

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 30, 1909.) Action by J. D. Fearhake, for appellants. H. Barry, for

man and others against the National City Bank. Joseph Camino against William J. Hamilton. respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with C. Bisberg, for appellant. R. Gillette, for re- $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. spondent.

PER CURIAM. Order modified, so as to require the defendant, in addition to the terms imposed by the order, to pay $10 costs of mo CHRISTOPHER, Appellant, V. FREED tion, $30 trial fee, and the disbursements of MAN et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, the inquest and entry of judgment, and, as 80 Appellate Division, Second Department. April modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order | 30, 1909.) Action by Eliza W. Christopher

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, with $10 CORNELL, Respondent, V. INTERBORcosts, unless the appellant perfect the appeal, OUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Appellant. place the cause on the calendar for the June (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Determ of this court, and be ready for argument partment. April 8, 1909.) Action by Sophie when reached, in which case the motion is B. Cornell, as administratrix, against the Indenied, without costs.

terborough Rapid Transit Company. J. H.

Adams, for appellant. A. J. Dittenhoefer, for CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondenţ, v. respondent. DRY DOCK, E. B. & B. R. co., Appellant. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order revers(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- ed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appartment. May 7, 1909.) Action by the City pellant to abide event unless plaintiff stipulates of New York against the Dry Dock, East to reduce verdict to $8,500, in which event, Broadway & Battery Railroad Company. J. P. judgment, as so modified, and order, affirmed, Cotton, Jr., for appellant. T. Farley, for re without costs. Settle order on notice. spondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, MCLAUGHLIN, J., dissents, on the ground with costs. Order filed.

that the proof does not establish that defendant's negligence was the cause of the collision,

and also on the ground that the court erred in CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. FLAT admitting in evidence against defendant's obBUSH GAS CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, jection and exception the American Mortality Appellate Division, Second Department. May Tables. 7, 1909.) Action by the City of New York against the Flatbush Gas Company. No opinion. Judgment afirmed on argument, with CRIST, Appellant, v. HOFFMAN, Respondcosts.

ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third

Department. May 5, 1903.) Action by Arthur CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v.

H. Crist against Henry Hoffman. No opinion. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Appellant, et al. Judgment unanimously afirmed, with costs. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by the City of New York against the New York City Rail

CURTIS, Respondent, v. MAMMANO et al., way Company, impleaded. J. P. Cotton, Jr., 1 Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divifor appellant. T. Farley, for respondent. No sion, Second Department May 1, 1909.) ACopinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order tion by Louis, Curtis against Joe Mammano filed. See, also, 116 N. Y. Supp. 765; Id. 939. and others. No opinion. Final order of the

Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

CLEM, Appellant, v. FAIRCHILD, Respondent, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec CURTIS, Respondent, v. POMEROY et al., ond Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviJames S. Clem against Alice L. Fairchild, as sion, Third Department.. May 5, 1909.) Acadministratrix, etc. No opinion. Judgment of tion by Adelbert B. Curtis against Whiting G. the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. See, Pomeroy and others. also, 127 App. Diy. 261, 111 N. Y. Supp. 262. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

one bill of costs against the defendant town. CLUTE, Respondent, v. CLUTE et al., Ap

KELLOGG, J., dissents. SEWELL, J., not pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

sitting.
Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by
Catherine Clute, as administratrix, etc., against
Mary B. Clute and others.

DADY, Respondent, v. O'SULLIVAN, AppelPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. ond Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SecCHESTER and SEWELL, JJ., dissent. Michael J. Dady against Michael O'Sullivan.

No opinion. . Judgment of the Municipal Court

affirmed, with costs. COLUMBIA PAPER BAG CO., Respondent, v. LENTIN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap DALY, Appellant, v. WELSH, Respondent. pellate Division, Second Department. April (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De23, 1909.) Action by the Columbia Paper Bag partment. April 23, 1909.) Action by Eda Company against Louis L. Lentin. No opinion. Daly against Rachel Welsh. No opinion. JudgMotion for stay denied, with $10 costs, and ment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with stay granted in the order to show cause vacated. costs.

COMMERCIAL TRUST CO. OF NEW DEADY, Respondent, v. DEGNON-MCLEAN YORK v. PECK et al. (Supreme Court, Ap CONTRACTING CO., Appellant. (Supreme pellate Division, Second Department. April Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. 23, 199.) Action by the Commercial Trust May 7, 1909.) Action by Edward Deady against Company of New York against Walter A. Peck the Degnon-McLean Contracting Company. Mb and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with opinion. Judgment and order unanimously al$10 costs.

firmed, with costs.

DEAN, Appellant, v. F. R. LONG CO., Re- sion, First Department. May 7, 1909.) Ass spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, tion by John Dougherty against Helen Free First Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by lich, as executrix. L. B. Faber, for appellant Caspar W. Dean against the F. R. Long Com-. J. Earley, for respondent. No opinion pany. H. H. Bowman, for appellant. N. Za- Judgment and order afirmed, with costs. 01briskie, for respondent. No opinion. Judg- der filed. ment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

DRESSEL et_al., Appellants, V.A HUP

FEL'S SONS, Respondent. DEEGAN, Respondent, v. GUTTA PERCHA

(Supreme Court, & RUBBER MFG. CO., Appellant. (Supreme 1909.) Action by Simon Dressel and another

Appellate Division, First Department. May 1, Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. against A. Hupřel's Sons. M. Grossman, fo: April 23, 1909.) against the Gutta Percha & Rubber Manufac- appellants. A. Benedict, for respondent. No

opinion. turing Company. No opinion. Motion denied.

Judgment and order affirmed, with

costs. Order filed. See, also, 115 N. Y. Supp. 291.

DUNCAN, Respondent, v. NASSAU ELECDENT REALTY CO., Respondent, v. CHEL TRIC R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme TON PARK REALTY CO. et al., Appellants. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second April 23, 1909.) Action by Lorenzo Docan Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by the against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company Dent Realty Company against the Chelton Park and the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. Realty Company and another. No opinion. PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed on re Judgment affirmed, with costs.

argument, and new trial granted before the

court, costs to abide the event, unless the plaisDEVINE. Respondent, v. ALPHONS CUS- which case the judgment, as so reduced. is af

tiff consent to reduce the damages to $3,000. in TODIS CHIMNEY CONST. CO., Appellant. firmed, without costs here. See, also, 127 App. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De Div. 252, 111 N. Y. Supp. 210. partment. April 8, 1909.) Action by Patrick Devine against the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company. J. C. Robinson, for ap DWYER, Appellant, v. SCUDDER, Respood pellant. 0. N. Jacoby, for respondent.

ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by Thom ed, with costs. Order filed.

as H. Dwyer against Arthur Scudder. To CLARKE, J., dissenting. See, also, 126 App. opinion. Judgment unanimously atfirmed, with Div. 7, 110 N. Y. Supp. 119.

costs.

In re EAST 179TH ST. (Supreme Court, ApDIECKMAN, Respondent, v. LASAROVITZ, Appellant. (Supreme Court.' Appellate Division; pellate Division, First Department. April 18 Second Department. April 23. 1909.) Action 1909.). In the matter of the opening of E:* by Louisa Dieckman against Sigmond Lasaro, $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

179th street. No opinion. Order affirmed, with vitz. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

EDGERLEY, Appellant, 7. BLACKBURN DODD, Respondent, v. ANDERSON, Appel- Division, First Department. April 16, 1**.)

et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appe! 3te lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec. Action by Oscar M. Edgerley against Samuel P. ond Department. April 23, 1909.). Action by Blackburn and another. 8. M. Hewson, for William P. Dodd against William J. Anderson, appellant. J. S. Ross, for respondents. administrator, etc., of William H. Anderson, deceased.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10

costs and disbursements. PER CURIAM. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and question

CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., dissent. certified as follows: Does the complaint state a cause of action? See, also, 115 Ñ. Y. Supp.

ELECTRO-TINT ENGRAVING CO., Appel688.

lant, v. AMERICAN HANDKERCHIEF CO. BURR, J., taking no part.

Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri

sion, First Department. April 16, 1919.) AC DONOVAN, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF tion by the Electro-Tint Engraving Company OWEGO, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- E. C. Crowley, for appellant. M. G. Clarke

against the American Handkerchief Compacy. late Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909,) for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed. Action by Katherine Donovan against the vil, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order fiied. lage of Owego. No opinion... Judgment and See, also, 115 N. Y. Supp. 34. order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

ELIAS, Respondent, v. MITCHELL, AppelDOUGHERTY, Respondent, v. FROELICH, lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ist

Elias against Charles F. Mitchell. 1. M. ELY, Appellant, V. STATE, Respondent. Wormser, for appellant. B. Patterson, for re- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Despondent. No opinion. Judgment and order partment. May 5, 1909.) Action by George affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

Burke Ely against the state of New York. No

opinion. Judgment unanimously afirmed, with ELLIOTT V. GUARDIAN TRUST CO. OF costs. NEW YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 14, 1909.) AD

EMPIRE BRICK & SUPPLY CO., Respondpeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Samuel Elliott against Guardian ent, . DENIKE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Trust Company of New York. From an order Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. denying a motion to vacate order for examina- April 23, 1909.) Action by the Empire Brick reversed, and the order for examination of de Municipal Court aftirmed, with costs. tion of defendant, defendant appeals. Order & Supply Company against Mary I. Denike

No opinion. Judgment of the fendant modified. Joseph D. Fackenthal, for appellant. Henry L. Sprague, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order appealed from re ESPOSITO, Appellant, v. SOCIETA ITALversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and IANA DI MUTUO SOCCORSO DI BROOKmotion granted, to the extent of modifying the LYN, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate order for the examination of defendant by in. Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) serting therein, after the word "complaint”, in Action by Guiseppe Esposito against the Societhe second paragraph of the order excluding the ta Italiana Di Mutuo Soccorso Di Brooklyn. recital of the moving papers, the following: No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, "So far as the same relate to the execution of with costs. the mortgage by the La Dicha & Pacific Railroad Company and the acceptance of the trust by the defendant;" by inserting in the order be

FARRELLY V. SKELLY. (Supreme Court, fore the words "to wit,” in the ninth line of the Appellate Division, First Department. April second paragraph, the following: “For the pur-16, 1909.) Action by Stephen Farrelly against pose of refreshing the recollection of the wit- Mary A. Skelly. No opinion. Motion denied, nesses and aiding their memories on the ex

with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 115 amination, and not for the purpose of inspec- N. Y. Supp. 522. tion by the counsel for the plaintiff;" by striking out subdivisions 3 and 4 of the said second In re FEUCHTWANGER. (Supreme Court, paragraph of the order; by modifying the fifth Appellate Division, First Department. April subdivision of said paragraph by striking out 30, 1909.) In the matter of Sigmund Feuchtthe words “subject-matter of this litigation or

wanger. No opinion. Reference ordered. Setin any way relating to the matters set forth in tle order on notice. said complaint," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "execution of the mortgage and the acceptance of the trust by the defendant"; by

FISHER. Respondent, v. WAKEFIELD modifying the sixth subdivision of said para- PARK REALTY.CO., 'Appellant. (Supreme graph by striking out the words "matters set Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. forth in the complaint,” and inserting in lieu May 7, 1909.) Action by Anthony Fisher thereof the words "execution of the mortgage against the Wakefield Park Realty Company. and the acceptance of the trust by the defend- No opinion. Order affirmed by default, with ant”; and by striking out at the end of said costs. subdivision the words “the subject-matter of this litigation or in any way relating to the FITTON, Respondent, v. HUDSON RIVER matters set forth in the complaint herein,” and WOOLEN MILLS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, inserting in lieu thereof the words “or in any Appellate Division, Second Department. April way relating to the execution of the mortgage 30, 1909.) Action by Henry H. Fitton against and the acceptance of the trust by the defend the Hudson River Woolen Mills. No opinion. ant"; by modifying the seventh subdivision of Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with said second paragraph by striking out the costs. words “the subject-matter of this litigation or relating in any way to the matters set forth in the complaint,” and inserting in lieu thereof

FLEISCHNER, Appellant, v. LEFSTEIN et the words “or relating

(Supreme Court, Appellate any way to the ex

al., Respondents. ecution of the mortgage and the acceptance of Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) the trust by the defendant”; and by striking Action by Yetta Fleischner against Morris Lef

stein and others. out the eighth subdivision of said second para

No opinion. Judgment of graph, and also the third paragraph, of said the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. order.

FOSTER et al. v. JONES et al. (Supreme ELLIS v. HEARN. (Supreme Court, Appel-Court, Appellate Division, First Department. late Division, First Department. May 7, 1909.) | April 16, 1909.) Action by Frederick D. FosAction by Edith H. Ellis against George A. ter and another against Augustus L. Jones and Hearn. No opinion. Motion granted, without others. No opinion. Motion granted, and time costs. Order filed, See, also, 116 N. Y. Supp. to file and serve printed record on appeal ex977.

tended to May 1, 1909. Settle order on notice.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »