Page images
PDF
EPUB

RANDALL, Appellant, v. DELAWARE, L. ROGERS et al.,_ Respondents, V. NEW W. R. CO. Respondent (Supreme Court; YORK CENT. & H. R. R. co., Appellant. ppellate Division, Third Department. March (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth

1904.) Action by Myron J. Randall against Department. January 26, 1904.) Action by le Delaware, Lackawanua & Western Rail- John W. Rogers and another against the New ad Company. No opinion. Judgment and or- York Central & Hudson River Railroad Comor unauimously affirmed, with costs.

pany. No opinion. Judgment and order affirm

ed, with costs. RATHBUN, Respondent, v. DORRANCE et

Appellants. _(Supreme Court, Appellate Di- ROMAINE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK, N. sion, Fourth Department. March 8, 1904.) H. & H. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, ction by Sarah M. Rathbun against Emma G. Appellate Division, Second Department. Janorrance and another. No opinion. Judgment uary 15, 1904.) Action by Lillian Romaine, as ürmed, with costs.

administratrix of the goods, chattels, and cred

its of Wayland D. Romaine, deceased, against RAY, Appellant, V. MAHONEY, Respondent: road Company. No opinion. Motion for rear

the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railupreme Court, Appellate Division, Second

gument granted, and case set down for Monepartment. March 4, 1904.) Action by eorge W. Ray agaiust'James Mahoney. No day, January 23, 1904. vinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court af

ROMAINE, Appellant, V. NEW YORK, N. 'med, with costs.

H. & H. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, Second Department. March REDDING, Respondent, v. AMERICAN11, 1904.) Action by Lillian Romaine, as adISTRIBUTING CO. et al., Appellants. (Su-ministratrix, against the New York, New 'eme Court, Appellate Division, Second De Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. irtment. January 29, 1904.) Action by Ralph PER CURIAM. Motion for leave to appeal 1. Redding against the American Distributing to the Court of Appeals granted. It is not necompany and another. No opinion. Motion

essary, upon an appeal from such a judgment nied, with $10 costs.

as this, to certify any special question, but the

certificate should be made in the form prescribREED v. REED et al. (Supreme Court, Ap-ed by section 191, subd. 2, Code Civ. Proc. late Division, First Department. February 1904.) Action by Eva L. Reed against Ellen ROSEN v. WARD et al. (Supreme Court,

Reed and others. No opinion. Motion Appellate Division, First Department. Febanted, so far as to dismiss appeal, wit $10 ruary 19, 1904.) Áction by Jacob Rosen, as

trustee, against J. Langdon Ward and another.

No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to take REICH, Respondent, v. DYER et al., Appel motion and $10 costs of term.

papers from files, on payment of $10 costs of nts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, irst Department. February 11, 1904.) ACon by Elizabeth Reich against Edith L. Dyer RYER, Respondent, v. PRUDENTIAL INS. id another, executrices of Alicia V. La Bau. | CO. OF AMERICA, Appellant. (Supreme rom an order denying a motion for a new trial Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. i the ground of newly discovered evidence, de- March 4, 1904.) Action by Fannie C. Ryer, as ndants appeal. Affirmed. John M. Bowers, administratrix, etc., against the Prudential InT appellants. Charles Strauss, for respond-surance Company of America. No opinion.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse

ments. INGRAHAM, J. As we have determined, on je appeal from the judgment, to reverse the dgment and order a new trial, the determina- SAGAR, Respondent, v. OLDSBURY ELECon of the questions presented on this appeal TRO-CHEMICAL 00., Appellant. (Supreme comes unnecessary. The order will therefore Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. ? affirmed, without costs. All concur.

March 8, 1901.) Action by William F. Sagar

against the Oldsbury Electro-Chemical CompaRILEY VILLAGE OF BALLSTON ny. PA. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division,

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order rehird Department. March 2, 1904.) Action versed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the 7 Benjamin C. Riley against the village of appellant to abide event, upon questions of allston Spu. No opinion. Motion granted.

fact. Held, that the finding of the jury that

the defendant was guilty of negligence, that In re ROBINSON. (Supreme Court, Appel- gence, and that the plaintiff did not assume

the plaintiff was free from contributory neglite Division, First Department. March 11, the risks incident to his employment, is con101.) In the matter of Agnes H. Robinson, trary to the weight of the evidence. aceased. W. W. Mumford, for appellant. G. C. Judd, for respondent.

SAN DONATO, Appellant, V. NATIONAL PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 CONTRACTING CO., Respondent. (Supreme ists and disbursements.

Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. VAN BRUNT, P. J., dissents.

March 8, 1901.) Action by Eligio San Donato

[ocr errors]

it.

[ocr errors]

costs.

V.

V.

and 120 New York State Reporter against the National Contracting Company.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of the County No opinion. Judgment and order a liirmed, with Court of Kings county reaffirmed, after reargu

ment, but without further costs. See 82 N. I.

Supp. 403.
SAREY, Appellant, v. H. KOEHLER &

HOOKER, J., not voting.
CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, First Department. March 11, 1301.) HATTAN

SCHRUMPF et al., Respondents, 1. MAN

RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Action by Alexander Sarey against H. Koehler Court, Appellate Division, First Department. & Co. 8. H. M. Roehr, for appellant. 1 January 22, 1904.

) Action by Jacob Seurumpf Bouvier, Jr., for respondent. No opinion. and others against the Manhattan Railsay Judgment and order allirmed, with costs.

Company. T. L. Waugh, for appellant. W. G.

Peckham, for respondents. No opinion, Judg. SATZINGER, Appellant, CHEBRA ment affirmed, with costs. CHAI ODOM ANSHI MINSK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- SCHULTEIS, Respondent, v. SCHEPP, AŞ partment. February 5, 1904.) Action by Wer-pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ner Satzinger against the Chebra Chai Odom First Department. March 11, 1904.) Actico Anshi Vinsk. H. M. Heymann, for appellant. by Christian H. Schulteis against Leupold J. Manheim, for respondent. No opinion. Ap- Schepp. D. P. Hays, for appellant E. B. peal from décision dismissed. Judgment affirm. Whitney, for respondent. No opinion. Order af. ed, with costs.

tirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

SCHULTHEIS, Appellant, v. SCHEPP, Re SCHALL et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF spondent. (Supreme Court, 'Appellate Division, NEW YORK, Appellant (two cases). (Su- First Department. March 11, 1904.) Action preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De by Christian Schultheis against Leopold Schelp. partment. January 7, 1901.) Actions by Sarah E. B. Whitney, for appellant. I. P. Hars, and Rudolph Schåll against the city of New for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, York. No opinion. Motion denied.

with $10 costs and disbursements. SCHEER BLISNIKOFF. (Supreme

SCHUYLER, Respondent, v. JETROPOLICourt, Appellate Division, First Department. TAN ST. RY. CO., . Appellant. (Srpsene March 11, 1901.) Action by Rose Scheer Court, Appellate Division, First Department. against Max Blisnikoff. No opinion. Motion January 22, 1901.) Action by Katherine L granted, with $10 costs.

Schuyler against the Metropolitan Street Raiway Company, C. F. Brown, for appellant.

E. P. Wheeler, for respondent. No opinion. SCHIVEREA v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. R. CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 29, 1904.) Action by George Schiverea against the Brook- | TION LIQUIDATING CO., Respondent. (Se

SEARLE et al., Appellants, v. CORPORAlyn Heights Railroad Company and others. No opinion. Motions for reargument, or for leave preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De

January 26, 1901.)

partment. to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied. George R. Searle and others against the Cor

Action by Twenty days' stay granted to the appellants, to oration Liquidating Company. No opinion. enable them to apply to a judge of the Court | interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, of Appeals for leave to appeal to that court, it with leave to the plaintiff to piead over apos so advised.

payment of the costs of the demurrer and of

this appeal. SCHLOTTERER. Respondent, v. BROOKLYN & N. Y. FERRY CO., Appellant. (Su- SEEMAXX, Respondent, v. CENTRAL preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De BREWING CO., Appellant (Supreme Court, partment. January 29, 1904.) Action by Lou- Appellate Division. Second Department. March isa Schlotterer, an infant, etc., against the 4, 1904.) Action by Edward Seemann against Brooklyn & New York Ferry Company. No the Central Brewing Company. To opinion opinion. Motion denied.

The court desire to see counsel in this case, SCHLOTTERER, Respondent, V. BROOK

SEIGEL v. LASKER et al. (Supreme Court, LYN & N. Y. FERRY CO., Appellant. (Su-Appellate Division, Second Department. Janupreme Court. Appellate Division, Second De-Lary 29, 1904.) Action by Samuel Seigel against partment. March 4, 1904.) Action by Louisa George Lasker and Gottlieb Weldman. No Schlotterer, an infant, etc., against the Brook - pinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. lyn & New York Ferry Company. No opinion. Motion to amend order denied.

SHELDON V. TOWN OF ALLEGANY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth

Department. January 29, 1901.) Action by SCHNURR, Appellant, v. QUINX, Respond Margaret E Sheldon against the town of Alle ent. (Supreine Court, Appellate Division. Sersany. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal ond Department. January 29, 1904.) Action to Court of Appeals, for certificate of question, by Tilly Schnurr against Alexander Quinn. denied, with $10 costs.

1147

arthent.

sts.

SKINNER, Respondent, v. GRAY, Appellant. SPLAIX, Appellant, v. UTICA GAS & Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- ELECTRIC CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court,

March 11, 1904.) Action by Wil- Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Janu, am Skinner against Milton C. Gray. N. ary 26, 1901.) Action by John Splain against mith, for appellant.

F. W. Mattocks, for the Utica Gas & Electric Company. espondent. No opinion. Judgment atlirmed, PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new ith costs.

trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to

abide event. Held, that the question of defendIn re SMITH. (Supreme Court, Appellate ant's negligence was one of fact for the jury; livision, Second Department. March 4, 1901.) also held, that the plaintiff was not barred from 1 the matter of the application of John Gil recovery by reason of the fact that he did not atric Smith for admission to the bar. No opin- own the fee of the land upon which the tree n. Application granted.

stood. See Donohue v. Keystone Gas Co. (de

cided by this court at present term) 85 N. Y. SMITH, Respondent, v. BALDWIN et al., Supp. 478. ppellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divion, Second Department. Varch 4, 1901.) ACon by Walter S. Smith against Kate L. Bald. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second

SPOR, Appellant, V. GRAU, Respondent. in. William T. Munson, and Smith Lent, as Department. January 29, 1904.) Action by dministrators of Frederick A. Junson, de: George Spor against Frederick W. Grau. No ased. No opinion. Judgment alirmed, with opinion. Motion denied.

STANDARD TRUST 00., Respondeut, v. SMITH V. DUNN et al. (Supreme Court, NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. et al., ppellate Division, First Department. March Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi1, 1904.) Action by Thomas A. Smith against sion, Second Department. January 7, 1901.) homas J. Dunn aud others. No opinion. Jo- Action by the Standard Trust Company, as exon granted, without costs.

ecutor of the last will and testament of Alfred

M. Perrin, deceased, against the New York SNEAD, Appellant, V. METROPOLITAN Central & Hudson River Railroad Company T. RY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, and others. No opinion. Motion denied. Exeppellate Division, First Department. January cution stayed for 20 days, in order to give 2, 1:204.) Action by Ella J. Snead against the the appellants opportunity to apply to a judge Letropolitan Street Railway Company. J. J. of the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal to sumenthal, for appellant. C. F. Brown, for that court, if so auvised. Spondent. No opinion. Order aflirmed, 'with

STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Respond

ent, v. RUSYON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, SNEAD V. METROPOLITAN ST. R. CO. Appellate Division, Second Department. March

11, 1901.) Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De

Action by the State Board of irtment. February 11, 1904.) Action by Ela Pharmacy against Walter A. Runyon and · Snead against the Metropolitan Street Rail Charles A. Cannon. No opinion. Judgment of ad Company. No opinion. Motion denied.

the Municipal Court affirmed by default, with

costs. SPAHN, Respondent, v. INTERURBAN ST. Y. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- STERN, Respondent, v. WABASH R. CO., te Division, Second Department. March 4, Appellaut. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi104.) Action by Charles Spahn against the In- sion, First Department. January 22, 1904.) rurban Street Railway Company. No opin- Action by Isaac L. Stern against the Wabash n. Judgment of the Municipal Court aflirmed, Railroad Company. H. A. Rubino, for appelith costs.

lant. J. A, Arnold, for respondent. No opin

ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disSPALDING,

bursemeuts.

SUPREME Respondent, OUNCIL, ROYAL TEMPLARS OF TEMERANCE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, STEVENSON, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW ppellate Division, Fourth Department. Jan. YORK. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appelry 29, 1901.) Action by Sarah A. Spalding late Division, First Department. February 5, gainst 'the Supreme Council, Royal Templars 1904.) Action by Robert Stevenson against the Temperance, and others.

city of New York. J. M. Ward, for appellant. PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, so as to T. Connoly, for respondent. No opinion. Judg-ovide that there be paid out of the fund to ment affirmed, with costs. e appellants, Mary Jane Beadle and Ira E. uie, the sum of $198.50, dues and assessments STIRLING V. KELLEY. (Supreme Court, aid by them to the association upon the certif- Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Janate, and also to the defendant Ira E. Huie the uary 29, 1904.) Action by, Catharine Stirling

of $500 as beneficiary under the original | against Bridget Kelley. No opinion. Motion licy or certificate, and the remainder of the for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals 2.000 to the plaintiff, and, as so modified, af- granted. Questions to be certified to the court med, without costs of this appeal to either to be settled by and before SPRING, J., upon rty.

two days' notice.

Osts.

V.

1

and 120 New York State Reporter STROMBERG, Respondent, v. TRIBUNE this order, $10 costs of this motion and $10 ASS.X, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate term fee. In case of failure to pay the saine, Division, First Department. January 22, 1904.) motion granted, with $10 costs. Action by Philip Stromberg against the Tribune Association. No opinion. Motion granted. TAYLOR, Respondent, v. McCLYMONDS,

Appellaut. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, In re STRONG. (Supreme Court, Appellate Second Department. March 11, 1904.) Action Division, First Department. January 22, 1904.), by Josiah Taylor against J. Walter Mur. In the matter of Elizabeth L. Strong, deceased. monds, as executor, etc., of Louis K. MCS. W. R. Adams, for appellant. J. S. Darcy and monds, deceased. No opinion. Judgment and J. Ewen, for respondents. No opinion. Decree order unanimously affirmed, with costs. affirmed, with costs.

TENEMENT HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF In re SUGARMAN. (Supreme Court, Appel- NEW YORK v. MOESCHEN (two cases). (89 late Division, First Department. February 5, preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart

. 1904.) In the matter of Ascher D. Sugarman. ment. February 19, 1904.) Actious by the No opinion. The respondent should verify his Tenement House Department of New York answer.

against Katie Moeschen. No opinion. Motion granted. Question to be settled on presenta.

tion of order. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. ADLER VENEER SEAT CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January THOMAS, Respondent, v. CITY OF WA. 13 25, 1904.) Action by Nora Mary Sullivan TERTOWY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apagainst the Adler Veneer Seat Company. No peliate Division, Fourth Department. March & opinion. Judgment and order affirmed by de- 1904.) Action by Alcinda Thomas against the fault, with costs.

city of Watertown. No opinion. Judgment and

order affirmed, with costs. SULLIVAN et al., Respondents, V. GREMS et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate TERY et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri

THURSTON v. CYPRESS HILLS CEMEDivision, Fourth Department. January 26, 1904.) Action by Daniel F. Sullivan and an- sion, First Department. January 22, 1904.) other against Harry B. Grems and another. Action by George W. Thurston against the CF! No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with press Hills Cemetery and others. No opinion

.

Motion denied, with $10 costs. costs.

In re TOTTEN. (Supreme Court, Appellate SUSE, Respondent, v. BIGLIN, Appellant, et Division, Second Department. January 22 al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 1904.) In the matter of the judicial settlement Department. February 5, 1904.) Action by of the account of William H. B. Totten, as ad. Leontine Suse against Barnard Biglin, impleadministrator, etc., of Fanny Amelia Lattan, de ed. R. J. Fox, for appellant. W. C. Cam- ceased. No opinion. Motion denied. diann, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

TRADERS' NAT. BANK OF ROCHES

TER, Respondent, v. SHIRE, Appellant. (Su• SUSE, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN

preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appartment. January 29, 1904.) Action by the pellate Division, First Department. February Traders' National Bank of Rochester against 5, 1904.) Action by Leontine Suse against the Moses Shire, as administrator, etc. No opinion. Metropolitan Street Railway Company. C. F. Judgment and order affirmed with costs, upon Brown, for appellant. W. c. Cammann, for the opinion of this court in Flour City National respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order Bank v. Same Defendant, reported S8 App. Div. affirmed, with costs.

401, 84 N. Y. Supp. 810. SUSSMAN, Appellant, v. BERRY, Respond- TRAUBER V. THIRD AVE, R. CO. (SQent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Sorpreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart ond Department January 15, 1904.) Action ment. February 11, 1904.) Action by George by Adolph Sussman against Harris Berry. No T. Trauber against 'the Third Avenue Railroad opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court af- Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with firmed by default, with costs.

$10 costs. SWIFT v. ASPELL & CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Febru

TREANOR, Respondent, 6. METROPOLIary 5, 1904.) Action by Charles N. Swift TAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant." (Supreme Court, against Aspell & Co. No opinion. Motion de- Appellate Division. First Department. Februnied, with $10 costs.

ary 19, 1904.) Action by Hugh Treanor against

the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, B. TALBOTT, Respondent, v. SHEAR, Aprel H. Ames, for appellant. J. B. Kerr, for me lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third spondent. No opinion. Judgment and order af. Department. March 2, 1904.) Action by Jo-firmed, with costs. seph B. Talbott against Russell Shear. No opinion. Motion denied, upou appellant paying TRIPP, Respondent, v. BOOTH, Appellant. defendant, within 10 days from the service of '(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De

2

partment. March 2, 1904.) Action by Madi- , whole, does state facts sufficient to constitute son B. Tripp against David 's. Booth. No opin- a cause of action. The judgment appealed from on. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

must be affirmed with costs. TRUMAN, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appel- In re VAN WYCK et al. (Supreme Court, ant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- Appellate Division, First Department. Januind Department. March 4, 1904.) Action by ary 22, 1904.) In the matter of Robert A. Van George R. Truman against Pbilip Smith. No Wyck and others. No opinion. Motion denied. pinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court afrmed, with costs.

VAUBEL, Appellant, v. KNOX et al., Re

spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, TUOHY, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND R. First Department. February 5, 1904.) Action 0., Appellant." (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- by Gertrude Vaubel against Mary W. Knox and ision, Second Department. January 22, 1904.) others. C. Dushkind, for appellant. T. B. ction by Thomas F. Tuohy against the Long Chancellor and A. C. Salmon, for respondents. sland Railroad Company. No opinion. Mo- No opinion. Appeal from decision dismissed. on denied, with $10 costs.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs,

with leave to plaintiff to amend complaint, upon TWELFTH WARD BANK OF CITY OF payment of costs in this court and in the court EW YORK v. SPIERS et al. (Supreme below. ourt, Appellate Division, First Department, ebruary 5, 1904.) Action by the Twelfth Ward ank of the City of New York against Joseph lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First

VLASTO, Respondent, V. VLASTO, Appelpiers and others. E. Rosenthal, for appellant. E. Bullen, for respondent. No opinion. Or- Elizabeth R. Vlasto against Solon J. Vlasto.

Department. February 5, 1904.) Action by raffirmed,' with $10 costs and disbursements. L. F. Doyle, for appellant. A. H. Kaffenburgh,

for respondent. No opinion. Order modified, ULANOFF v. COHEN. (Supreme Court, by reducing counsel fee to the sum of $150, and, ppellate Division, First Department. March as so modified, atlirmed, without costs. , 1904.) Action by Harris Ulanoff against urned Cohen. No opinion. Motion denied, ith $10 costs.

WALLACE, Appellant, v. JONES et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department. March 11, 1904.) Action In re UNION TRUST CO. (Supreme Court, by George Wallace against Williams H. Jones pellate Division, First Department. March and others. No opinio. Judgment affirmed, 1904.) In the matter of the Union Trust with costs. empany, as substituted trustee of Richard M. se. R. B. Moffat, for appellant. E. B. Whity and R. E. Deyo, for respondent. No opin

WALL V. UNITED ELECTRIC LIGHT & 1. Decree affirmed, with costs. See 71 N. POWER CO. et al. (Supreme Court, AppelSupp. 844.

late Division, First Department. January 22,

1904.) Action by Francis H. Wall against the INITED STATES, to Use of NICHOLS, v. George W. Simpson.

United Electric Light & Power Company and

H. Aplington, for appelION SURETY & GUARANTY CO. et al.

lants. H. J. Hemmens, for respondent.

No upreme Court, Appellate Term. February 23, opinion. Order affirmed, with $ 10 costs and 1.) Action by the United States of Amer- disbursements.

the use and benefit of Adelbert S. hols, against the Union Surety & Guaranty mpany and others. From a judgment over

WARD, Respondent, v. MYERS, Appellant. ng its demurrer to the complaint, defendant (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Deapany appeals. Affirmed. Van Schaick & partment. January 22, 1904.) Action by Mar

ton (Wilson B. Brice, of counsel), for appel- tin J. Ward against Charles R. Myers. G. W. . Goeller, Schaffer & Eisler (Robert Goel- Betts, Jr., for appellant. W. N. O'Neil, for reof counsel), for respondent.

spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with ER CURIAM. The defendant demurred to $10 costs and disbursements. ntiff's complaint on the grounds : (1) That plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue, be

WARD, Respondent, v. SUPREME COUNse he has not obtained leave of the United CIL,, A. L. H., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ees of America to bring this action ; (2) Appellate Division, Second Department. March of the action; and (3) that the complaint No opinion. Judgment afirmed, with costs, ou this court has not jurisdiction of the sub-14, 1904.) Action by Sarah Ward against the

Supreme Council, American Legion of Honor. not state facts sufficient to constitute a se of action. The questions presented under the authority of Simon v. Supreme Council, A. first two grounds are fully controlled by L. H. (decided herewith) 86 N. Y. Supp. 806. opinion and decision of the Appellate Din of this Department in Alexander, as WATKINS et al., Respondents, v. BROWN, stee, etc., v. Union Surety & Guaranty Co., Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate pp. Div. 3, 85 N. Y. Supp. 282, and conse- Division, Second Department. January 29, tlv they must be determined in favor of the 1904.) Action by Edward Watkins and others atiff. That being so, the complaint, as a against William M. Brown, impleaded with an

to

« PreviousContinue »