Page images
PDF
EPUB

and 120 New York State Reporter March 11, 1904.) Action by John C. McCord MARTIN, Respondent, V. AMBROSE A against Edward Lauterbacb. No opinion. Mo- GAVIGAN Co. et al., Appellants. (Supreme tion denied, with $10 costs.

Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 4, 1904.) Action by Francis P. Vartio McCORMICK V. MCCARTON. (Supreme against the Ambrose A. Gavigan Company and Court, Appellate Division, First Department. the Dominican Convent of Our Lads of the February 5, 1904.) Action by Thomas McCor- Rosary. No opinion. Reargument ordered, a) mick against Francis A. McCartou, as presi- case set down for March 14, 1901. dent, etc. No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs of the term and $10 costs MARTIN, Appellant, v. WILSON, Resporto of motion.

ent. (Supreme Court, 'Appellate Division, St

ond Department. January 7, 1904.) Actico by MCGOWAN, Appellant, v. JUILLARD et Alexander Martin against Charles J. Wilson al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate

PER CURIAM. Order reversed on argues Division, First Department. March 11, 1904.) without costs, on the ground that the mic Action by Thomas H. McGowan against Au- was heard by one justice of the Supreme (na gustus D. Juillard and others. W. W. Cooper, and decided by another, and that such dispus for appellant. C. E. Rushmore, for respond | tion of the matter was not made with the cuz ents. No opinion. Judgment and order af- seut of the parties. Motion remitted to the firmed, with costs.

Special Term for hearing and determination McGURK, Respondent, v. JAMES D. JOHN- In re MARX. (Supreme Court, Appellate [lSTON CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- vision, Second Department. January 22, 19) pellate Division, First Department. March 11, In the matter of the application of Joseph Vari 1904.) Action by John H. McGurk against the for admission to the bar. No opinion. Appá James D. Johnston Company. E. Herrman, forcation granted. appellant. F. S. Fisher, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order a ihrmed, with

MATHER et al., Respondents, v. YOST costs.

al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Aprellate D

vision, Fourth Department. March 6, 1994 MCKAY, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN Action by Simeon Mather and another agais ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap-Charles G. Yost and another. pellate Division, First Department. February

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afro 5, 1904.) Action by Cornelia McKay against ed, with costs. the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.

WILLIAMS and STOVER, JJ., dissent. A. Ofuer, for appellant. C. O'Connor, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order

In re MAYOR. In re CONSOLIDATED affirmed, with costs.

ICE CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisia McMANUS v. ELBS. (Supreme Court, Ap- matter of the mayor (department of parks

First Department. February 5, 1:) 11 pellate Division, Fourth Department. January In the matter of the Consolidated Ice Low 26, 1904.) Action by Emmett A. McManus against John G. Elbs. No opinion. Motion to pany. J. A. Deering, for the motion. T. Ce amend remittitur denied, without costs.

noly, opposed. No opinion. Motion to outs

report granted, with $10 costs. MCNALLY, Appellant, BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent.

In re MAYOR. In re TABER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Se nd Department. preme Court, Appellate Division, First Teen March 4, 1901.) Action' by Thomas MeNally the mayor (department of parks). In the

ment. February 5, 1904.) In the Late against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Com- ter of Thomas T. Taber and others J. pany. No opinion. Judgment and order unan

Deering, for the motion. T. Connols, op imously aflirmed, with costs.

No opinion. Motion to confirm report grand

with $10 costs.
McQUILLAN, Respondent, v. METROPOL-
ITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme
Court, Appellate Term. February 23, 1904.)

MEAD, Appellant, v. COOLIDGE € ! * Action by James McQuillan against the Metro- spondents. (Suprenie Court, Appellate Dinis a politan Street Railway Company. Judgment

Third Department. March 2, 1904.) A for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed. Royal P. Mead against Jonathan M. Co Bayard H. Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, for and Louis M. Brown, as erecutors, e appellant. G. H. Epstein, for respondent.

George W. Lee, deceased, and others. No PER CURIAM. Aside from the question

ion. Judgment unanimously affirmed to whether the plaintiff showed himself free from

costs. contributory negligence, his evidence fails to establish negligence in the defendant. Upon MEISEN, Respondent, v. ROTHFELD 1 this point the case at bar is identical with Mey- pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate In erowitz v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 84 N. Second Department. March 4, 1904. Y. Supp. 233. The judgment must be reversed, by Michael P. Meisen against 'Isaac fine and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant Xo opinion. Motion for stay of practition to abide the event.

pending appeal granted.

V.

MENDOZA, Respondent, V. METROPOLI- MOFFAT, Respondent, v. MOLONEY BROS. LAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Co., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiAppellate Division, First Department. March vision, Second Department. January 7, 1904.) 1, 1904.) Action by Frances Mendoza against Action by Fraser M. Moffat against the Ma be Metropolitan Street Railway Company. B. loney Bros. Company. No opinion. Order af. 1. Ames, for appellant. J. H. Cohn, for re- firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. pondent. No opinion. Judgment and order afrmed, with costs.

MONROE, Respondent, v. METROPOLI

TAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, MERSEREAU, Appellaut, v. CAMP, Re- Appellate Division, First Department. Februpondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ary 5, 1904.) Action by Orlando Monroe against hird Department. March 2, 1904.) Action by the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. a. rederick W. Mersereau against Diana Camp, F. Brown, for appellant. F. Hulse, for re; executrix, etc. No opinion. Judgment 86 N. spondent. No opinion. Judgment and order af. . Supp. 568, unanimously affirmed, with costs.firmed, with costs.

MOORE, Respondent, V. FULLER, AppelMEYER v. MEYER et al. (Supreme Court, lant. ppellate Division, Fourth Department. Janu- Third Department. March 2, 1904.) Action

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 29, 1904.) Action by Douglass W. Meyer by Delia Moore against George H. Fuller. No ainst Isaac' Meyer and another. No opinion. opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. otion for reargument denied, with $10 costs.

In re MORRIS ST. (Supreme Court, AppelMILLER, Appellant, v. LEHIGH VALLEY late Division, Second Department. January 29,

CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel- 1904.) In the matter of laying out and opene Division, Third Department. March 2, ing Morris street, in the city of Yonkers. 04.) Action by Flora A. Miller, as adminis- PER CURIAM. Motion to dismiss appeal tris, against the Lehigh Valley Railroad denied. It is evident that the delay in perfectmpany. No opinion.. Judgment and order ing the appeal in this matter has been due to animously affirmed, with costs.

a misunderstanding as to the proper method

of preparing the appeal papers. There is no 11LLER, Appellant, V. NEW YORK & N. necessity of any settlement of a case either beRY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap-fore the court or referee. The appeal book late Division, Second Department. March should consist simply of the papers which are 1.901.)

Action by Elizabeth D. Miller recited in the order appealed from, including, inst the New York & North Shore Railway of course, the testimony which was taken benipany. No opinion. Judgment atfirzed with fore the referee. ts.

MOSEMAN, Respondent, v. MOSEMAN, Ap

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, IILLER v. QUINCY. (Supreme Court, Ap Second Department. March 4, 1904.) Action late Division, First Department.. February by Lulu E. Moseman, an infant, by John H. 1904.) Action by Theodore S. Miller against Miner, her guardian ad litem, against Merritt iah Quincy. Nó opinion. Motion for leave | W. Moseman. No opinion. Order affirmed, appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and with $10 costs and disbursements. stion certified as follows: Does the amendcomplaint state facts sufficient to constitute MULLIGAN, Respondent, V. METROPOLI. 1use of action?

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

Appellate Division, Second Department. Jan. ILNER, Respondent, v. HERTER, Appel- uary 29, 1904.) Action by Matthew Mulligan

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- against the Metropolitan Street Railway ComDepartment. March 4, 1901.) Action by pany. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 es

S. Milner against Peter Herter. No costs. ion. Judgment of the Municipal Court afed, with costs.

MURPHY, Respondent, v. RYAN, Appel

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First INNEAPOLIS TRUST CO., Appellant, v. Department. March 11, 1904.) Action by THER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap- Elizabeth Murphy, by guardian, against Mary te Division, Fourth Department. March 8, Ryan. T. C. O'Sullivan, for appellant. 0. C. .) Action by the Minneapolis Trust Com- Sommerich, for respondent.

against Helen Mather. No opinion. Mo- PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 for reargument denied, with $10 costs and costs and disbursements. ursements.

VAN BRUNT, P. J., and INGRAHAM, J.,

dissent. VSHULL, Respondent, v. WASHBURN, llant, et al. (two cases). (Supreme Court, MUTUAL LOAN ASS'N v. LESSER et al. Ilate Division, Second Department. Janu- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De29, 1904.) Actions by Sarah E. Jinshull partment. February 11, 1904.). Action by the by William J. Minshull against Thomas Mutual Loan Association against Joseph S. ashburn and Frederick A. Jewett. No Lesser and another. No opinion. Motion de Motions denied.

nied.

on.

and 120 New York State Reporter NATIONAL CONTRACTING CO., Appel- | Jenny K. Stafford. E. A. Jones, for aprellast lant, v. NIAGARA FALLS POWER CO., Re- J. Newman, for respondent No opic:00. OTspondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursempenz. First Department. February 5, 1904.) Action by the National Contracting Company against PACKARD, Respondent, v. ELSOHN, A9the Niagara Falls Power Company. L. L. Kel. pellant, et al. (Supreme Court Appeilate De logg, for appellant. W. N. Cohen, for respond vision, Fourth Department. January 24, 1942) ent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 Action by Samuel Packard against Leri Elsona costs and disbursements.

and others. Francis C. Raines, for appeiant

Samuel Packard, for respondent NILES, Respondent, v. MILLER, Appellant. PER CURIAM. The order of the Special (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De-Term granted August 1, 1903, is hereby modipartment. March 2, 1904.) Action by Eliza-fied, by striking out that part which refuses to beth Niles against Hawley Miller. No opinion. allow the appellant to serve and file erceptions Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- to the report of the referee nunc pro tube, and ments.

by inserting therein that leave to file and Ive

such exceptions is hereby granted, and, as so O'BRIEN, Respondent, V. METROPOLI. | modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal TAN ST. RY. CO., 'Appellant. (Supreme to either party. Said exceptions are

to be Court, Appellate Division, First Department. served and filed within five days after entry March 11, 1904.) Action by Thomas J. O'Brien of the order herein provided for. That part of against the Metropolitan Street Railway Com-the order of the Special Term granted Septenpany. B. H. Ames, for appellant. F. H. San- ber 5, 1903, which denies the defendant's ap born, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment | plication for the renewal of the motion for an and order affirmed, with costs.

order to file such exceptions, is stricken out

If the respondent declines to supply the appelO'DONNELL, Appellant, v. NEW YORK lant with necessary exhibits, a motion to obtain CENT. & H. R. R. CO. Respondent. (Su- | the same may be made at Special Term. The preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De printed record is to be filed and serveri on or partment. January 26, 1904.) Action by Mat- before the 27th day of February, 1941. Tbe thew J. O'Donnell against the New York Cen- form of the order to be settled by and before tral & Hudson River Railroad Company.

SPRING, J., upon two days' notice. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order re- McLENNAN, P. J., not sitting. versed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event. Held, that the ques- PARISH et al. v. PARISH et al. (Sapreme tion of defendant's negligence. plaintiff's free. Court, Appellate Division, First Department dom from negligence, and whether the plaintiff February 5, 1904.) Action by Henry Parish at the time of the accident was engaged in the and others against Susan D. Parish and others. line of his duty, were questions of fact for the J. J. Crawford, for appellants. E. C. Parish jury.

and G. T. Emmet, for respondents. No opinion SPRING and STOVER, JJ., dissent.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse

ments. In re OPENING OF FOSTER AVE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- PAYNE CO., Appellant, v. PRATT, Respondpartment. January 22, 1904.) In the matter ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, of opening Foster avenue from westerly line of Third Department. March 2, 1901) Action by Flatbush avenue to the easterly line of Coney the Payne Company against Richard W. Pratt Island avenue, in Twenty-Ninth, Thirtieth, No opinion. Judgment unanimously affrmed, Thirty-First, and Thirty-Second Wards, bor- with costs. ough of Brooklyn, city of New York. No opinion. Motion denied.

PEOPLE V. CELIANO. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First Department. Febrze O'REILLY, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN arv 11, 1904.) Proceeding by the people against HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Rocco Celiano. No opinion. Motion granted. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, January 29, 1901.) Action by Mary A. O'Reil- PEOPLE. Respondent, p. CLARK, Appelly, as administratrix, etc., of Peter F. O'Reilly, lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, deceased, against the Brooklyn Heights Rail | First Department. January 15, 1904.) Ewan road Company. No opinion. Motion denied. H. Clark was convicted of grand larceny in the

first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed. Mas OSBORN, Respondent, v. CARDEZA et al., D. Steuer, for appellant. Robert C. Taylor, for Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- | the People. sion, Second Department. March 4, 1901.) AC- INGRAHAM, J. The same questions are tion by Ellen C. Osborn against Howard 'J. M. presented in this case as in the case of People Cardeza and others. No opinion. Judgment af- v. Putnam (decided herewith) 85 N. Y. Scpp. firmed, with costs.

1056. We therein indicated our reasons for af.

firming that judgment, and what is there said OWENS. Respondent, v. STAFFORD, AD- will apply to this case; there being no subpellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, stantial difference in the questions presented First Department. March 11, 1904.) Action For the reasons there stated, the judgment is al1 'atherine Owens, as administratrix, against 'Grmed. All concur.

rman.

PEOPLE V. ENGEL (Supreme Court, Ap-ley, against Leander S. Wright and others, asellate Division, First Department. January sessors. 2. 1904.) Proceeding by the people against PER CURIAM. Order reversed, and assess'hilip Engel. No opinion. Motion granted. ment ordered stricken from the roll, with $10

costs and disbursements of this appeal. Held, PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KESTLINGER, that the relator was not a resident of the town ppellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, of Perrysburg, and was not liable to assessirst Department. January 22, 1901.) Pro- ment in said town. eding by the people against Abraham Kestnger. S. Hoffman, for appellant. R. C. Tay- PEOPLE ex rel. DWYER V. GREENE, r, for the People. No opinion. Judgment af-Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, rmed.

First Department. February 19, 1904.) Pro

ceeding by the people, on the relation of John PEOPLE V. MARTIN et al. (two cases). Dwyer, against Francis V. Greene, as cominisjupreme Court, Appellate Division. First De sioner. J. W. Ridgway, for relator. T. Farley, irtment. January 22, 1904.) Proceeding by for respondent. No opinion. Writ dismissed, le people against Robert L. Martin and Harry and proceeding affirmed, with costs. elthusen. No opinion. Motion granted.

PEOPLE ex rel. GANNON V. GREENEL

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DePEOPLE, Respondent, v. SCHNITTEL, Appartment. February 5, 1904.) Proceeding by llant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the people, on the relation of James Gannon, irst Department. February 19, 1904.) Pro- against Francis V. Greene. W. M. K. Olcott, eding by the people against Michael Schnittel. for relator. T. Connoly, for respondent. No

G. F. Wahle, for appellant. R. C. Taylor, opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceeding afr the People. No opinion. Judgment af- firmed, with costs. med.

PEOPLE ex rel. INDEPENDENT TELEPEOPLE, Respondent, v. ZIMMERMAN, PHONE CO. v. MONROE, Com'r. (Supreme opellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- | Court, Appellate Division, First Department. in, Fourth Department, January 29, 1904.) February 19, 1904.) Mandamus by the people, oceeding by the people against Andrew Zim

ou the relation of the Independent Telephone No opinion. ^ Judgment affirmed, with Company, against Robert G. Monroe, as comsts.

missioner. From an order denying a motion for a peremptory writ, relator appeals. Af

firmed. G. Hill, for appellant. T. Connoly, for PEOPLE ex rel. BACH V. NEW YORK

respondent, \THOLIC PROTECTORY. (Supreme Court,

PER CURIAM. Affirmed, with $10 costs pellate Division, Second Department. March

and disbursements, 1904.) Proceeding by the people, on the recion of Franz Bach, against the New York

LAUGHLIN, J. I dissent. The transportatholic Protectory. No opinion. Order re- tion corporation law (Laws 1890, p. 1136, c. rsed on the argument, and proceedings re-560), under which relator was incorporated, tted to the Special Term for further dis- gives it a franchise; and it is, without obtain sition.

ing any further franchise from the municipal

assembly, in a position to apply to the respondPEOPLE ex rel. BRADY V. HAWKES, section 528 of the Greater New York Charter

ent for a permit, pursuant to the provisions of m'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, (Laws 1901, p. 237, c. 466), which must be enrst Department. February 19, 1904.) Pro- tertained and" granted upon such reasonable ding by the people, on the relation of Thomas terms, conditions, and restrictions as may be ady, against McDougal Hawkes, as commis- imposed by the respondent pursuant to any ner. F. B. House, for relator. T. Farley, provisions of law applicable thereto. · respondent. PER CURIAM. Writ dismissed, and pro

PEOPLE ex rel. MAHON, Appellant, v. dings affirmed, with costs.

GREENE et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, AUGHLIN, J., dissents.

Appellate Division, First Department. March

11, 1904.) Proceeding by the people, ou the 'EOPLE ex rel. CAMPBELL v. PAR- relation of William J. Mahon, against Francis IDGE, Police Com’r. (Supreme Court, Ap- V. Greene and others. W. M. K. Olcott, for late Division, Second Department. March appellant. T. Farley, for respondents. NO

1904.) Proceeding by the people, on the re opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and ion of James Campbell, against John N. disbursements. rtridge, as police commissioner of the city New York. No opinion. Motion granted.

PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & H.

R. R. CO. v. BOARD OF RAILROAD 'EOPLE ex rel. DEWEY, Appellant, v. COM'RS et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiRIGHT et al., Assessors, Respondents. (Su-vision, Third Department. March 2, 1904.) me Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De- Proceeding by the people, on the relation of the tment. March 8, 1904.) Proceeding by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad ple, on the relation of William Fowler Dew- | Company, against the board of railroad comand 120 New York State Reporter missioners of the state of New York, Ashley | partment. February 5, 1904.), Action by W. Cole and others, being the members thereof, Emilie M. C. Peters against the Morning Join and the Monroe County Electric Belt Line nal Association. No opinion. Motion denied Company. No opinion. Determination unani- with $10 costs. mously confirmed. with $50 costs and disbursements.

In re PETITION FOR COURT RULE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De. PEOPLE ex rel. ROARKE, Relator, v. partment. January 29, 1904.) In the matter GREENE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap- of a petition asking for restoration of court pellate Division, First Department. February rule. 5, 1904.) Proceeding by the people, on the re- PER CURIAM. We think that this applica. lation of Martin H. Roarke, against Francis V. tion should be made to the Supreme Court in Greene. C. E. Hunter, for relator. T. Farley, Kings county, rather than to the Appellate Di. for respondent. No opinion. Writ dismissed, vision. and proceedings atlirmed, with costs. PEOPLE ex rel. SANDMAN, Respondent, v.

PFEIFER, Respondent, V. SUPREME BRUSH, County Treasurer, et al., Appellants: LODGE, Appellant (Supreme Court

, Appels (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisiov, Second De- late. Division, First Department. February 19, partment. March 4, 1904.) Proceeding by the 1904.) Action by Mary Pfeifer, as administra people, on the relation of David Sandman, trix, against the Supreme Lodge, etc. E against Henry s. Brush, county treasurer of Hynes, for appellant. P. Jones, for respondent Suffolk county, and Patrick W. Cullinan, as

No opinion. Judgment afirmed, with costs. State Commissioner of Excise. PER CURIAM.

PHILLIPS, Respondent, 5. FULLER et al., Order affirmed, with $10 Justice Wilmot M. Smith at Special Term. 83 Action by Lottie Phillips against Frank Fuller costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dist

.

sion, Fourth Department. January 29, 1944.) N. Y. Supp. 607.

and others. No opinion. Judgment affirmned,

with costs.
PEOPLE ex rel. SHIELS V. GREENE,
Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department. February 19, 1904.) Pro-

POLLACK, Respondent, V. RUTH, Apzelo ceeding by the people, on the relation of John lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First R. Shiels, against Francis V. Greene, as com

Department. February 5, 1904.) Action by missioner. J. W. Ridgway, for relator. T. David Pollack against Abraham Ruth. M. H. Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Writ dis- Hayman, for appellant. M. L. Steuer, for remissed, and proceeding affirmed, with costs.

spondent. No opinion. Judgment and order

atfirmed, with costs. PEOPLE ex rel. MILLS v. PARTRIDGE, Com'r.

QUINLAN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK, N. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 19, 1901.) Pro: H. & H. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, ceeding by the people, on the relation of Wil. 4,"1901.) Action by Jennie Quinlan, as aduit

.

Appellate Division, Second Department. March liam D. Mills, against John N. Partridge, as istratrix, etc., against the New York, New Ha. commissioner. L. J. Grant, for relator. T. Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Writ dis-ion. Motion devied, with $10 costs.

ven & Hartford Railroad Company. No opiemissed, and proceeding affirmed, with costs.

PEOPLE ex rel. YETTER et al., Respond- RABEN, Respondent, v. VOHE, Appellent ents, v. BRUSH, County Treasurer, et al., Ap-|(Supreme Court, Appellate Dirision, Secord Da pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, partment. March 11, 1901.) Action by Peter Second Department. March 4. 1904.) Proceed- Raben against Karl Nohe. No opinion. Juds. ing by the people, on the relation of Frank G./ment of the Municipal Court affirmed bs conYetter and George V. Moore, against Henry S. sent, without costs. Brush, county treasurer of Suffolk county, and Patrick W. Cullinan, as State Commissioner of RABINOWITCH, Respondent, v. FRIEDExcise.

MAN et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court

, apo PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 pellate Division, First Department

. February costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. 19, 1901.) Action by Hirsh Rabinowitch, 13 Justice Wilmot M. Smith at Special Term. 83 executor, against Rachel Friedman, individus.. N. Y. Supp. 607.

ly, etc., and others. A, Nelson, for appellauts.

N. Alienikoff, for respondent. No opinion. PERSONS et al., Respondents, v. BROWN, Judgment atfirmed, with costs. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 8, 1904.) RAGONA, Respondent, r. PALMIERI, ApAction by Henry II. Persons and another nellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, against Mary Helen Brown. No opinion. Judg. First Department. January 22, 1904.) Action ment affirined, with costs.

by Salvatore Ragoua against John Palmieri

,

as executor. J. Palmieri, for appellant. NL PETERS v. MORNING JOURNAL ASS'N. Keach, for respondent. No opinion. Order al (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De-firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »