Page images
PDF
EPUB

and 120 New York State Reporter preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De practice or removed from office. Anonymous, partment. March 8, 1904.) Action by Max 22 Wend. 656; Percy's Case, 36 N. Y. 651; Binswanger against the New York Central & Matter of Brewster, 12 Hun, 109; and Matta Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. of Eldridge, 82 N. 'Y. 161, 37 Am. Rep. Jos Order athrined, with costs.

That course will be pursued in the preseat ease:

and if, upon the return of the order to shoe In re BLACKJER. (Supreme Court, Ap-cause, the attorney makes the same denials pellate Division, Second Department. March which he has already made informally, the mat4, 1904.) In the matter of the application of ter will be sent to a referee to take testimony, Henry V. Blackmer for admission to the bar. in accordance with the practice approved by the No opinion. Application granted.

Court of Appeals in the Eldridge Case. BLISS, Respondent, v. DUFFY, Appellant.

In re BROOKLYN BAR ASSN. In re (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- HAYNE. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, partment. March ii, 1904.) Action' by Ernest Second Department. March 4, 1904.) In the F. Elias, Jr., against Bridget Duffy. H. W. matter of the application of the Brooklyn Bar Kiralfy, for appellant. W. F. Timme, for re | Association to punish Eugene R. Hayne, an atspondent. No opinion. Order afhrmed, with torney. $10 costs and disbursements.

PER CURIAM. The same disposition will

be made of this matter as directed in Matter In re BOARD OF RAPID TRANSIT. (Su- of Valentine, ubi supra. preme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Jarch 11, 1904.) In the matter of In re_ BROOKLYN BAR ASS'Y. In re the board of rapid transit. No opinion. Appli- MURTHA. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divication granted.

sion, Second Department. January 29, 1904.

In the matter of the application of the Brook BRADFORD, Respondent, v. THIRD AVE. lyn Bar Association to punish James A. Mur. R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, tha, Jr., an attorney. Appellate Division, First Department. Febru- PER CURIAM. An order to show cause ary 5, 1901.) Action by George Bradford will be granted in this matter, providing for against the Third Avenue Railroad Company the service of the same, and the papers ftere. and others. C. F. Brown, for appellants. J. E. ou it is granted, in the manner prescribed by Russell, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment the Code of Civil Procedure for the substituted and order aflirmed, with costs.

service of a summous. BRADFORD, Respondent, v. WHEELER, In re BROOKLYN BAR ASSY. In re Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate MURTHA. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviDivision, First Department. February 5, 1904.) sion, Second Department. March 4, 1904.) In Action by George Bradford against Everett E. the matter of the application of the Brooklyn Wheeler, impleaded. W. H. Lyons, for appel- Bar Association to punish James A. Murtha, lant. J. E. Russell, for respondent. No opin- Jr., an attorney. ion. Judgment and order ailirmed, with costs. PER CURIAM. A formal order to shot

cause will be granted in this matter, as directed BRADLEY, Respondent, v. WAGNER et in Matter of Valentine, ubi supra. In consa al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- quence of the absence of the attorney, the order vision, First Department. January 22, 1901.) will provide for substituted service of the papers Action by James Bradley against Peter Wag- upon him. ner and others. J. P. Everett, for appellants. H. Wendt, for respondent. No opinion. Judg

BROSI, Respondent, V. METROPOLITAN ment atlirmed, with costs.

ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court. Ap.

pellate Division, Second Department. March BRAND), Appellant, v. BORDEN'S CON- 4. 1904.) Action by Maria Brosi against the DESSED MILK CO., Respondent. (Supreme Metropolitan Street Railway Company. No Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, opinion. Judgment and order unanimously afJanuary 29, 1901.) Action by Conrad Brand formed, with costs. against the Borden's Condensed Milk Company. No opinion. Motion denied.

BROWN, Appellant, v. DUTCHESS COUN. In re BROOKLYN BAR ASS'N. In re

TY MUT. 'INS. CO. OF POUGHKEEPSIE, VALENTINE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- Respondent: (Supreme Court, Appellate D vision, Second Department. March 4, 1904.)

sion, Fourth Department. January 26, 1904.) In the matter of the application of the Brook- | Action by Morris Brown against the Dutchess lyn Bar Association to punish Benjamin E. Val-County Mutual Insurance Company of Pouch

keepsie. entine, an attorney. PER CURIAM. After the preliminary exam

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with ination of the verified petition which has been costs, upon opinion of RUMSEY, J., in same presented to the Appellate Division in this mat

case, reported 64 App. Div. 9, 71 N. Y. Supp ter, the prescribed method of procedure in cases

670. of this kind requires the issuance of a formal order directing the accused attorney to show BRYANT, Respondent, V. GREENOUGH, cause wby he should not be suspended from Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirision.

Second Department. March 11, 1904.) Action CASE v. HUDSON CO. et al. (Supreme by Frederick Bryant against John Greenough, Court, Appellate Division, First Department. as receiver of the New York & Staten Island February 5, 1904.) Action by Franklin B. Electric Company. No opinion. Judgmeut and Case, Jr., against the Hudson Company and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10

costs. BURNETT, Respondent, v. BURNETT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, CHAMBERS, Respondent, v. WEBSTER, Second Department. January 15, 1904.) AC-Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate tion by Cornelia Cary Hull Burnett against Division, Second Department. March 11, 1904.) Harold Livingston Burnett.

Action by Sidney C. Chambers against David PER CURIAM. The papers in this case Webster, impleaded with others. No opinion. were submitted without argument, apparently Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. under the impression that the court had ordered that course to be taken. Such was not the fact. CHAMPLIN et al., Appellants, v. PARKER, The court desire to hear counsel orally in this Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divicase, and a reargument is ordered for the 25th sion, Fourth Department. January 26, 1904.) instant.

Action by Joshua E. Champlin and another against John Parker. No opinion. Judgment

and order affirmed, with costs, BURNETT, Respondent, v. BURNETT, AD pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 29, 1904.) AC

CHASE, Respondent, v. DRAKE, Appellant. tion by Cornelia Cary Hull Burnett agaiust (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeHarold Livingston Burnett. No opinion. Mo- partment. March 4, 1904.) Action by Durfee tion for leave to withdraw appeal granted.

C. Chase against Katharine B. Drake.

PER CURIAM. Order reversed on the argu. BUTTLAR, Respondent, v. MCLEAN et al., ment, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- authority of Jones v. Butler, 83 Hun, 91, 31 sion, First Department. February 19, 1901.) N. Y. Supp. 401; and Garrett' r. Wood,'61 App. Action by Christian Buttlar against John L. Div. 294, 70 N. Y. Supp. 358, and motion grantMcLean and another. S. Callaghan, for appel- ed, with costs; and the clerk of the county of lants. S. Assoski, for respondent. No opinion. Kings is directed to retax the costs, by striking Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- out the item of $15 for proceedings before the ments.

notice of trial.

CALLOPY, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF

CHEW, Respondent, v. WATERVLIET HY. TONAWANDA, Respoudent. (Supreme Court, DRAULIC CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisiou, Fourth Department. Jan-Appellate Division, First Department. Februuary 29, 1904.) Action by James H. Callopy ary. 5, 1904.) Action by Alexander D. Chew against the village of Tona wanda.

against the Watervliet" Hydraulic Company. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, From an order granting a motion for bill of upon the ground that the trial justice properly L. Miner, for appellant. L A. Tanzer, for reand 120 New York State Reporter or agreement was oral or in writing, and when I late Division, First Department. February 11. Lain and by whom made--and, as thus modified, af- 1904.) Action by the city of New York azt firmed, without costs to either party.

particulars, defendant appeals. Modified. G. exercised his discretion in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.

spondent.

PER CURIAM. The order appealed from is CAMMANN et al. v. HUNTINGTON. (Su- modified, by requiring the defendant to serve preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- upon the attorney for the plaintiff, within 10 ment. January 22, 1904.) Action by Charles days after service upon the defendant's attorL. Cammaun and others against Freeman F. ney of a copy of this order, a bill of particulars Huntington. No opinion. Motion denied, with of the matters alleged in the paragraph marked $10 costs.

1 of the answer herein, showing whether the contract alleged to have been entered into on or

about the 31st day of January, 1902, was oral CAMPBELL V. FRIEDLANDER et al. or in writing, as well as all of the terms and (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second conditions of it; what and when changes were Department. March 4, 1904.) Action by Ge thereafter made in such contract, and by whom, nie H. Campbell (substituted) against Albert and whether the same were oral or in writing: Friedlander and Marcus Marks. No opinion. also when the guaranty as to the capacity of Judgment affirmed, without costs.

the pump was given, and, if such guaranty

was not a part of the original contract, whethCARVALHO, Respondent, V. MERRILL, er it was oral or in writing, and when and by Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- whom made; also in what respect said pump sion, First Department. March 11, 1904.) AC- and apparatus were of defective material and tion by Solomon S. Carvalho against Bradford workmanship, and when and by whom the deMerrill. J. W. Gerard, for appellant. G. J. fects were pointed out to the Dean Steam Pump Shearn, for respondent. No opinion. Inter- Company; "also when the Dean Steam Pump locutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with Company promised and agreed to make good* leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer, and such defects, or substitute other and perfect to answer, on payment of costs in this court material and apparatus in place of the defectand in the court below,

ive parts furnished; also whether such promise

Ferdinand Shack. H. Nathan, for appelat

M. Saxe, for respondent. No opinion. Interior In re CITY OF NEW YORK. In re LON- utory judgment a tfirmed, with costs, ERGAN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer, an? Second Department. January 15, 1904.) In the to answer, on payment of costs in this couri matter of the application of the city of New and in the court below. York relative to acquiring title to Montgomery street, between the division line of the former CLARKE, Appellant, V. STATE INS. town of Flatbush and East New York avenue, OF DELAWARE, Respondent. (Supera in the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-Ninth Wards Court, Appellate Division, First Departmett

. of the borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New Fcbruary 19, 1904.) Action by Claries . York. Petition of Edward Lonergan.

Clarke against the State Insurance Company PER CURIAM. The court desires a rear- of Delaware. I. L. Miller, for appellant" ] gument upon the effect of section 1072 of the Van Schaick, for respondent. No opinion. Om Greater New York Charter (Luws 1901, p. 428, der affirined, with $10 costs and disbursements, c. 464). Case set down for Monday, January 25, 1904.

COHEX, Appellant, v. SCHNEIDER et .!

Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DE January 25, 1904.) Action by Abraham Cobea PEYSTER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, against Simon Schneider and others. From a Appellate Division, First Department. Febru- judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals ary 5, 1901.) Action by the city of New York Atirmed. Henry Sallant, for appellant Wagainst John W. De Peyster and others. W. A. der & Anderson, for respondents. Hoar, for appellants. T. Connoly, for respond- MacLEAN, J. One Solomon Sashinsky toent. No opinion. Interlocutory judgment af- dertook to do for the defendants certain work, firmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to specified in detail, and with a provision: "18 withdraw demurrer, and to answer, upon pay- extra work allowed, unless ordered in writing ment of costs in this court and in the court be by the owners." Claiming to have done, at the low.

request of the defendant, certain extra work,

he assigned his claim to the palintiff. arba CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, V. IV. brought this action, in which the defendants TERURBAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent. (Su- contended that the work called extra was wità. preme Court, Appellate Term. “February 4, in the work specifically undertaken by Saskin1901.) Action by the city of New York against sky, and that they had not given the orders or the Interurban Street Railway Company. From made the requests alleged. Both defenses were a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff made good by the evidence, as was found by appeals. Reversed. George L. Rives (Arthur the learned justice, whose judgment in favor of F. Cosby and George O'Reilly, of counsel), for the defendants should not be disturbed. Jode. appellant. II. A. Robinsou (Arthur K. Wing, ment attirmed, with costs to the defendants of counsel), for respondent.

All concur. GILDERSLEEVE, J. This case is almost identical with No. 1,023, in which an opinion COLE, Respondent, v. PREFERRED ACCIhas been filed. 86 N. Y. Supp. 673. The only DENT INS. CO. OF NEW YORK, Appelaut. differing feature is that on the trial a dispute (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De arose concerning the number of the car in which partment. March 4, 1904.) Action by Charles Mr. Olvany sought to go from Fifty-Ninth street H. Cole against the Preferred Accident Insr and Sixth Avenue to Tenth street and Hudson ance Company of New York. No opinica. street. But the precise number of the car was Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See immaterial. There was no question made but 81 N. Y. Supp. 901. that the car Mr. Olvany took was run by the defendant. Judgment reversed, and a new trial

COLLIER, Respondent, v. COLLIER, ANI ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide lapt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divino, the event. All concur.

Second Department. March 4, 1904.) Action

by Annie Collier against Robert Collier. Va CUTY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. opinion. Order affirmed on the argument, with MATTHEWS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap $ 10 costs and disbursements. pellate Division. First Department. February 11, 1904.) Action by the city of New

COLLISTER, Appellant, v. HAYMAN et al.

, York against James Matthews. From a judg. Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri i ment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirm- sion, First Department. February 5, 194.1 ed. Joseph A. Burr, for appellant. Martin Action by William H. Collister against Albert Saxe, for respondent.

| Hayman and others. M. D. Steuer, for appelPER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in 'lant. A. H. Hummel, for respondents. No the opinion herewith handed down in City of opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. New York v. Streeter, 86 N. Y. Supp. 605, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

COMMERCIAL WOOD & CEMENT CO.

Appellant, v. NORTHAMPTON PORTLAND CITY OF NEW YORK. Respondent, v. CEMENT CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court SHACK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel. Appellate Division, First Department. Feb

y 19, 1904.) Action by the Commercial pounded annually on even hundreds of interest, d & Cement Company against the North- and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs of this ton Portland Cement Company. A. c. 'appeal to the defendant Florence Crouse Clark e, for appellant. E. C. Moen, for respond against the plaintiff. See 84 N. Y. Supp. 755.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 1 and disbursements.

CULLINAN V. HIGGINS et al. (Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. INNOR v. KOCH et al. (Supreme Court, January 22, 1904.) Action by Patrick w. Culallate Division, First Department. Jan- linan against Mary E. Higgins and others. No

22, 1904.) Action by Elizabeth C. Con- opinion. Motion denied. as administratrix, etc., against Henry C. Coch and others. No opinion. Motion de- CULLINAN, Respondent, v. HIGGINS, Apwith $10 costs.

pellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di

vision, First Department. February 5, 1904.) OPER et al., Respondents, V. MANHAT. Action by Patrick W. Cullinan against Mary E.

RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Higgins, impleaded. E. Miehling, for appellant. ollate Division, First Department. March H. H. Kellogg, for respondent. No opinion. 1901.) Action by Edward Cooper and oth- Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburseagainst the Manhattan Railway Company. ments. · Davies, for appellant. W. G. Peckham, espondents. No opinion. Judgment affirmvith costs.

CUMMINGS, Respondent, v. METROPOLI. TAN ST. ᎡY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. JOTE, Appellant, v. WILLIAMSBURGH January 22, 1904.) Action by Thomas Cum· BANK et al., Respondents. (Supreme mings against the Metropolitan Street Railway t, Appellate Division, Second Department. Company. B. H. Ames, for appellant. J. H. ch 11, 1904.) Action by James Coote, as Cohn, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment inistrator, etc., against the Williamsburgh and order affirmed, with costs. ngs Bank and William A. Brown, as adstrator, etc. No opinion. Judgment af- CUZZONI, Appellant, v. PENNEY et al., Reod, with costs.

spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department. February 5, 1904.) Action DULSON, Appellant, v. FLYNN, Respond- by Lottie Cuzzoni, an infant, etc., against Wil

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, liam N. Penney and others. M. J. Cohen, for th Department. January 26, 1904.), Ac appellant. J. E. Hedges, for respondents. No by Katharine Coulson against Bernard G. opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CR CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with In re DALY, Commissioner of Public Works. s, upon opinion of KENEFICK, J., deliver (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Det Special Term. 83 N. Y. Supp. 944. partment. March 4, 1904.) In the matter of

the application and petition of Michael T. Daly. COUNTY TRUST CO. (Supreme as commissioner of public works of the city of t, Appellate Division, Second Department. New York, under chapter 189, p. 317, of the ch 4. 1904.) In the matter of the applica- Laws of 1893, to acquire certain real estate, of the County Trust Company for an order etc. No opinion. Motion denied. znating it as a deposit bank for funds and eys paid into court. No opinion. Order

DAMBMANN, Respondent, v. INTERURted, referring the application to John M. BAN ST. RY CO., Appellant. (Supreme ney, Esq., to examine and report.

Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 5, 1904.) Action by Emma A. AIG V. JAMES et al. (Supreme Court, Dambmann against the Interurban Street Railellate Division, First Department. Feb- way Company. C. F. Brown, for appellant. y 19, 1904.) Action by Robert A. Craig T. Sutro, for respondent. nst Thomas L. James and another. No Gon. Motion granted, except as to merits.ed, with costs.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmROUSE JUDSON V. et al. (Supreme

LAUGHLIN, J., dissents. t, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, ch 8, 1904.) Action by Charles E. Crouse,

DECKER, Respondent, V. KELLS. Appel

lant. dministrator, etc., against Edward B. Jud- Third Department. March 2, 1904.) Action by

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Jr., and others.

Mary L. Decker against Hiram Kells. No opinCR CURIAM. Judgment modified, by ion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with ing out all allowances of costs, except to

costs. lefendant Florence Crouse Clark, and as to directing that she recover her taxable costs nst the plaintiff herein, and further direct- DE COPPET et al., Respondents, v. NEW that the defendant Florence Crouse Clark YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. et al., Appelrer of the defendant Edward B. Judson, lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the sum of $19,317.05, being the proceeds Second Department. January 7, 1904.) Action he sale of stock, with interest at 342 per by Edward J. DeCoppet and Robert P. Doreper annum, from August 19, 1898, com- mus, as executors of the last will and testament

[ocr errors]

re

v.

costs.

and 120 New York State Reporter of Ernest F. Walton, deceased, against the New | Hardenbrook, for appellant. D. O. Leary, far York Central & Hudson River Railroad Com respondent. No opinion. Judgment afirmes, pany and the New York, New Haven & Hart- with costs. ford Railroad Company. No opinion. Motion denied. Execution stayed for 20 days, in order to give the appellants opportunity to apply to late Division, Third Department. March 2

DUNK V. DUNK. (Supreme Court, appela judge of the Court of Appeals for leave to 1904.) Action by Alfred O. Dunk against Eliza appeal to that court, if so advised.

Dunk, as executrix, etc., of Alfred Dunk, de DENTAL PROTECTIVE ASS’N OF UNIT- set down for March 9th for argument.

ceased. No opinion. Motion granted, and case ED STATES, Appellant, INTERNAL TOOTH CROWN CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourch

DUNN, Respondent, v. PATON, Appellant March 11, 1904.) Action by the Dental Protec: Department, March 8, 1901.) Action by John tive Association of the United States against N. 'Dunn against James J. Paton, as, etc. No the Internal Tooth Crown Company. P. B. Adams, for appellant. P. C. Peck, for respond: opinion. Judgment and order afirmed, with ent. No opinion. Appeal from decision dis. missed. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

ELSTNER, Respondent, V. MANHATTAN DITMAS, Respondent, y. McKANE et al., RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- late Division, First Department. February 19, vision, Second Department. January 14, 1904.) 1904.) Action by Ellen Elstner, individually, Action by Abigail V. Ditmas, individually and etc., against the Manhattan Railway Company. as sole surviving administratrix, etc., of Ilenry F. S. Williams, for appellant. W. G. Peckham, C. Ditmas, deceased, against James McKane, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmFanny McKane, George W. Roderick, and oth ed, with costs. ers. No opinion. Appeal transferred to the First Department.

ERHARDT, Respondent, V. POTTIER &

STYMUS CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, DOBBS, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW Appellate Division, Second Department. Jadi, YORK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel- ary. 7, 1904.) Action by William Erhardt late Division, First Department. March 11, against the Pottier & Stymus Company. 1904.) Action by Willoughby B. Dobbs against PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, without the city of New York. J. B. Kilsheimer, for costs. The case is distinguishable from Loretz appellant. T. Connoly, for respondent. No v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 1, 53 opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, N. Y. Supp. 1059, by reason of the fact that opinion in Eckerson v. City, 80 App. Div. 12, here the venue appears to have been laid by tte 80 N. Y. Supp. 168.

plaintiff in Kings county by mistake, and it

appears from the statement of counsel upon the DODGE et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK argument that there was an understanding on CENT. & H. R. R. CO. et al., 'Appellants. (Su- the hearing that the plaintiff should be regarded preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. as having moved to correct this mistake. ment. February 5, 1904.) Action by Murray W. Dodge and others against the New York

EUSTIS. Respondent, ST. LOUIS Central & Hudson River Railroad Company and STAMPING CO., appellant. (Supreme Court others. I. A. Place, for appellants. J. Holmes, Appellate Division, First Department. FebruJr., for respondents. No opinion. Order af ary 5, 1904.) Action by John P. Eustis against firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

the St. Louis Stamping Company. L. Marshall,

for appellant. C. B. Pierce, for respondent In re DOWNS. (Supreme Court, Appellate costs.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with Division, Second Department. March 4, 1904.) In the matter of the application of D. Lewis Downs to lay out a highway in the town of

EVERETT, Respondent, v. EVERETT, ApRiverhead, county of Suffolk, N. Y., and to as- pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, sess the damages therefor. No opinion. Mo- Second Department. January 29, 1901.) A tion to confirm the order of the County Court tion by Georgia L. Everett against Edward E. of Suffolk county granted, and order signed.

erett. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10

on

costs.

DREW, Respondent, v. SALMON et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

FAIRFIELD . DUMAS et al. (Supremne Second Department. March 4, 1904.) Action Court, Appellate Division, First Department by Alice M. Drew against Hamilton H. Salmon February 19, 1904.) Action by Mary C. Fair. and another. No opinion. Motion to resettle field against James S. Dumas and others. No order granted.

opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismise

appeal, with $10 costs. DUNCAN, Appellant, v. SOMERS, Respond- FALLER RICHARDSON. (Supreme ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Court, Appellate Division. Fourth Department. Department. February 19, 1901.) Action by January 26, 1904.) Action by Mary Falier Sarah Duncan against Daniel Somers. F. M. / against Eliza Richardson. No opinion. Motion

v.

« PreviousContinue »