its.

dismiss appeal denied, without costs, without for appellant. A. Steckler, for respondent. No ejudice to the right to renew upon sufficient opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and pers.

disbursements. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. PEN

FRANCIS, Respondent, v. ALBRIGHT, Ap LETON. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in, First Department. March 11, 1904.) AC- Third Department. March 2, 1904.) Action by in by the farmers' Loan & Trust Company Jennie Francis against Edmund Albright. No ainst Jennie F. Pendleton. No opinion. "Mo- opinion. Judgment atfirmed, with costs. in denied.

FRANK, Respondent, v. FRANK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De FARNSWORTH V. NEW YORK CENT. & partment. February 5, 1904.) Action by Al

R. R. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- fred Frank against Rose Frank. A. H. Humion, Fourth Department. January 26, 1901.) mel, for appellant. W. 0. Miles, for respondtion by Ralph C. Farnsworth against the ent. No opinion. Interlocutory judgment afw York Central & Hudson River Railroad firmed. mpany. No opinion. Motion for leave to apal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10

FRIEDMAN, Respondent, v. FRIESNER_et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di

vision, First Department. January 22, 1904.) 'ARQUAHR, Appellant, V. OSBORNE et Action by Aaron J. Friedman against Isaiah

Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Friesner and others. J. Wilkenfeld, for respondvision, Fourth_Department. January 26, ent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirm4.) Action by Francis E. Farquahr against ed, with costs, curice H. Osborne and another. No opinion. dgment affirmed, with costs.

FROST, Respondent, v. LIVINGSTON et al.,

Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviare FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF sion, First Department. March 11, 1904.) AC"RYLAND. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- tion by. Elilu B. Frost, as trustee, against Julia ion, Third Department. March 2, 1904.) In R. Livingston and others. H. D. Baldwin, for

matter of the application of the Fidelity & appellants. P. B. Luckey, for respondent.' No posit Company of Maryland for leave to opinion. Order affirmed," with $10 costs and nmence an action against George H. Stev- disbursements. s, as committee of the person and estate of ncy C. Warner, an incompetent. No opinion. FRUIN-BAMBRICK CONST. 00., Respondtion granted.

ent, v. MARKS, Appellant. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First Department. Februnre FITCH._(Supreme Court, Appellate ary 5, 1904.) Action by the Fruin-Bambrick vision, Second Department. March 4. 1901.) | Coustruction Company against William L. the matter of the application of Francis Marks. D. McCurdy, for appellant. H. A. ch for admission to the bar. No opinion. Powell, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment plication granted.

V.

and 120 New York State Reporter In the matter of James V. Gilloon. H. A. , was too late, as in the mean season, while the Forstor, for appellant. L. W. Stotesburg, for plaintiffs' attorney let the stay hinder the de respondent. No opinion. Order attirmed, with fendant, another marshal came in under other $10 costs and disbursements,

process and sold the goods. In fact, the plais.

tiffs' attorney let the stay bide until July 7th, GIVENS, Respondent, BROOKLYN when it was vacated by order upon his affidavit

. HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Now the plaintiffs have a judgment against the Court, Appellate Division, Second Departmeut. defeudant as for his neglect, to which they are March 4, 1904.) Action by Christopher Givens not entitled, and which should be rerersed. The against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Com- marshal did no wrong in not breaking up the pany. No opinion. Order setting aside verdict debtor's place on Saturday, if he was willing and granting new trial affirmed, with costs of to run the risk of nonremoval of the goods till this appeal to abide the event of the action. Monday. On Monday his hands were tied, and

the lawyer let them stay so until long after GLENNON, Appellant, v. ERIE R. CO., the marshal could do anything. Were it a paxili Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- now to be considered, which it is not, upon Mr. sion, Second Department. January 7, 1904.) Tuckman's statement in his affidavit for the Action by Ann Glennon, as administratrix, etc., vacation of the stay and as a witness upon the of Richard Glennon, deceased, against the Erie trial of this cause, there is enough to show Railroad Company. No opiniou. Motion de that after the levy the lawyer gave directions nied.

to the marshal, which on the one hand were oppressive and erroneous, and on the other

went to releasing the defendant. Whether the GUAEHLE V. ROSENBERG et al. (Su- marshal put in a keeper, or the keeper was preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-temporarily absent, is immaterial herein, exment. February 11, 1904.) Action by Charles cepting as to the taxation of due disbursements, Gmaehle, as administrator, against Morris Ros- since it is undisputed that the lery was good, enberg and another. No opinion Motion and the property levied upon was ample, when granted.

the marshal was stayed, and kept stayed. The

judgment should have been the other way, and GOLDMAN et al., Respondents, v. ROCCA, now should be reversed. City Marshal, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. February 4, 1904.) Action by

GOTTSCHALK, Respondent, v. JUNGMAN David Goldman and another against Luigi A. et al., Appellauts. (Supreme Court Appellate Rocca, as one of the marshals of the city of Division, First Department. February 3, 1904.) New York. From a judgment of the Municipal Action by Louise Gottschalk against Julius Court for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirm- Jungmann and others. J. Fettretch, for appeled. Fulton McMahon (Henry C. De Witt, of lants. C. H. Collins, for respondent. counsel), for appellant. Stanislaus N. Tuck- PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, by remau, for respondents.

ducing the same as entered to the sum of $1,DAVIS, J. This action was brought by the 559.16, and, as so modified, affirmed, without plaintiffs against the defendant to recover dam- costs. ages for defendant's neglect of duty as a mar- VAN BRUNT, P. J., and MCLAUGHLIN, shal in failing to properly levy and collect un- J., dissent. der an execution issued to him in an action in the Municipal Court of the city of New York,

GOTTSCHALK, First judicial district. The judgment was ren- MAYN et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Ap

Respondent, JUNG dered, after hearing, on contlicting testimony pellate Division, First Department. February as to matters of fact, and there appears po 5, 1904.) Action by Louise Gottschalk against good reason upon the record to reverse it. Julius Jungmann and others. J. Fettreteh, lor Judgment affirmed, with costs.

appellants. C. H. Collins, for respondent. FREEDMAN, P. J., concurs.

PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, by reMacLEAN, J. (dissenting). On Saturday, ducing the same as entered to the sum of $2,May 16, 1903, the plaintiffs, through their at. 143.71, and, as so modified, affirmed, without torney, Mr.. Tuckman, issued execution for costs. $194.50 against one Herman Rosenberg to the defendant, a city marshal, who the same day 'J., dissent.

VAN BRUNT, P, J., and MCLAUGHLIN, levied upon goods amply sufficient to satisfy the execution, and received $50 on account, with promise of payment in full from the judgment

GRAY et al. v. YORK STATE TELEdebtor on Monday. On Monday, however, the PHONE. CO. et al. (Supreme CourtAppel. marshal was stayed by the filing and service late. Division, Third Department. March 2, of an undertaking, approved by a justice, with 1904.). Action by William A. Gray and others a notice of appeal. To the sufficiency of the against the York State Telephone Company sureties the attorney excepted, aud nothing more

and another for an injunction restraiuing de till the 25th, when he wrote the marshal that fendants from erecting, telephone poles and the sureties 'had failed to appear and justify, wires on a highway adjoining the plaiutiffs and requested him to make a levy the follow- land. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, ing day. Even had the stay been lifted, which defendants appeal. Affirmed. it was not by mere failure of appearance and PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, on opinjustification of the sureties, the following day 'ion in Richard A. Gray et al. v. Same De

endants, 86 N. Y. Supp. 771. One bill of costs, sion, First Department. March 11, 1904.) ACnly allowed in this case and in the case of tion by M. Albert Harris against John C. Richard A. Gray et al. v. Same Defendants. Hayues and others. W. H. Benn, for appel

lant. C. N. Jordan, for respondents. No opinGRAY v. SIEGEL COOPER CO. (Supreme ion. Order afiirmed, with $10 costs and disJourt, Appellate Division, First Department. bursements. ebruary 11, 1904.) Action by Mary A. Gray, s administratrix, against the Siegel Cooper HARRISON, Respondent, v. WILSON et al., Iompany. No opinion. Motiou denied.

Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

sion, First Department. February 19, 1904.) GRIFHAHN. Respondent, v. KREIZER et Action by Antoinette P. Harrison against 1. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- George Wilson and another. M. F. Cary, for ision, Seconi Department. March 4, 1904.) appellants. J. W. Shepard, for respondent. .ction by Mary C. Grifbahn, as administratrix, No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. tc., against Beruard Kreizer and others. No pinion. Motion granted, unless the appellant HARTMAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK le within 10 days an undertaking accurately | CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme escribing the judgment and approved by the Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. residing Justice.

January 26, 1901.) Action by Francis Hart

man against the New York Central & Hudson GROARKE, Appellant, V. LAEMLE, Re-| River Railroad Company. No opinion, Judgondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ment and order aflirmed, with costs. irst Department. February 19, 1904.).

Acon by Francis J. Groarke against George

HAWES, Respondent, v. CARR, Appellant. aemle. T. Bracken, for appellant. D. L. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second erier, for respondent.

Department. January 15, 1904.) Action by PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Alice L. Hawes, as committee of the person sts on opinion on previous appeal. 56 App. person, against Alfred Carr. No opinion. Or

and estate of Mary Crosbie, an incompetent iv. 61, 67 N. Y. Supp. 409.

der of the Special Term modified, so as to preO'BRIEN, J., dissents.

fer this case only over the issues of the DeGUILES v. VILLAGE OF CATTARAU-cember, 1903; Trial Term, and, as modified, and 120 New York State Reporter 29, 1904.) In the matter of the application of as a city marshal for the city of New York

. Carolyn Dancel Heatherton for a compulsory No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court judicial settlement of the account of the pro-afbrined by default, with costs. ceedings of Christian Dancel and another, as administrators, etc., of Christian Dancel, de- HOGAN, Respondent, 7. STRAUSS, Agre! ceased. No opinion. Motion to resettle order lant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Liti grauted, and order resettled.

sion, First Department. February 5, 24

Action by John E. Hogan against Here:13 HENNESSEY, Respondent, v. METROPOL-Strauss, impleaded. L. S. Carrere, for ajipele ITAN LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Supreme lant. M. J. Joyce, for respondent. No Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disease March 8, 1904.) Action by George F. Hennes-ments. sey against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. No opinion. Judgment and order

HOUSMAN et al. v. STRAUS. (Sopron affirmed, with costs.

Court, Appellate Division, First Deprecat et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court. Appellate opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. HENRY et al., Respondents, v. HEYDORN March 11, 1904.) Action by Arthur A.

man and others' against Mark J. Strals. Division, Third Department. March 2, 1901.) Action by A. E. Henry and Elmer E. Stanton against Elizabeth Heydorn and Rebecca Hey: spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diris

HUDSON, Appellant, v. ERIE R. CO. Rdorn Bulson. No opinion. Order unanimously First Department. affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

March 11, 1901.) Ato

by George C. Hudson against the Erie R HENTZ, Respondent, v. CITY OF MT. Bacon," for respondent. 'No opinion on

Company. J. M. Gardner, for appelen. E VERNON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- ment å flirmed, with costs, on opinion re late Division, Second Department. January 22, 1901.) Action by J. Henry Hentz against upon previous appeal. 61' App. Div. 134, 7.3. the city of Mt. Vernon. No opinion. Motion

Y. Supp. 350. denied.

HUTCHINS, Respondent, 5. PENTSTIHERRMAN et al., Respondents, v. SCHER-VANIA R.. CO., Appellant. (Supreme cez RER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Ap; 4, 1904.) Action by Martha Hutchinson

Appellate Division, Second Department. Ver pellate Division, Second Department., March the Pennsylvania Railroad Com pans. No 4. 1904.) Action by Dionysis and Elizabeth iop. Judgment and order aflirmed, with east Herrman against Albert and Mary Scherrer. No opinion. Order affirmed on the argument, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HYERS, Respondent, v. INTERURBANS

RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court 47, UEWITT V. HEDDEN. (Supreme Court, | 1904.) Action by William H. Hvers, as a ise

late Division, Second Department. Jagod! Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 26, 1901.) Action by Loren M. Hewitt istrator, etc., of Percy W. Hyers, de partie against Verner J. Hedden. No opinion. Mo- against the Interurban Street Railway len

ny. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $' tion for reargument denied, with $10 costs.

costs and disbursements. HIRSCHBERG, Appellant, v. HOROWITZ,

J. G. DIFFENDERFER CO., Respantas Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- IMPORTERS & TRADERS: JAT. BANK sion, Second Department. March 4, 1904.) OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Action by Jacob Hirschberg against Charles Appellate Division, Fourth Department of Horowitz. No opinion. Judgment of the Mu- uary 29, 1904.) Action by the J. G. DIT nicipal Court affirmed, with costs.

fer Company against the Importers & Truies

National Bank of New York. HOEFER, Respondent, V. GRANT, Appel

PER CURIAM. Order reversed, and more! lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, for interpleader granted, upon condition" First Department. November 6, 1903.) Action within 30 days the defendant procure the B by August Hoefer against Hugh J. Grant, as of Arizona and Colvin to appear and me receiver. A. Ofner, "for appellant. c. Cald: this

1. James Kane against the Metropolitan Street | against James F. McKernen. No opinion. Mo

Railway Company. No opinion. Motion de- tion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with nied, with $10 costs.

$10 costs. In re KEEDY. (Supreme Court, Appellate

LAWSON, Respondent, v. LORD, Appellant. Division, Second Department. January 15,

1904.) In the matter of the application of S! (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De10: Marbourg Keedy for admission to the bar. No partment. February 5, 1904.) Action by Wil

liam C. Lawson against Franklin B. Lord, as pinion. Application granted.

executor. H. D. Baldwin, for appellant. c.

B. Blair, for respondent. No opinion. Judg. KEIM, Respondent, v. TOWNSEND, Appel- ment and order affirmed, with costs. ant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, first Department. February 5, 1901.) Action LEARY, Respondent, v, CORVIN et al., Apg Frederick Keim against David C. Town- pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, end. D. McCurdy, for appellant. E. M. Shep- First Department. March 11, 1904.) Action rd, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment | by Rose M. Leary against Lizzie J. Corvin and nd order reversed, and new trial ordered, with others. D. McClure, for appellants. J. A. osts to appellant 'to abide event, unless plain. Hodge, for respondent. iff stipulates to reduce judgment as entered, PER CURIAM. Judgment afirmed, with

cluding costs and allowance, to the sum of costs, on the opinion of the court below. 4,883.69, in which event the judgment as so

O'BRIEN, J., dissents. hodified, and the order appealed from, are af. rmed, without costs.

LEAYCRAFT et al., Respondents, v. HEU

ER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di. KENNEDY, Respondent, v. THOMPSON, vision, First Department. February 5, 1904.) : al., Appellauts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Action by J. Edgar Leaycraft and others ivision, Second Department. January 29, against Henry 0. Heuer. C. G. F. Wahle, for 101.) Action by William T. Kennedy against appellant. G. H. Crawford, for respondents. e Marcus A. Thompson and another. No No opinion, Judgment and order afirmed, with pinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, on costs. ndition that the appellant pays $10 costs and Irfects his appeal within 10 days. Upon faile to comply with these conditions, the motion

LEISTEN, Respondent, v. CORNING, Apgranted, with $10 costs.

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 26, 1904.) AC

tion by Augustus Leisten against Anna CorKIRKPATRICK, Appellant, V. ALLEMAN-ning. No opinion. Judgment and order afIA FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURG, PA: |firmed, with costs. 'spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviin, Second Department. January 7, 1904.)

In re LEITCH'S WILL. (Supreme Court, tion by John J. Kirkpatrick against the Appellate Division, First Department. Februlemannia Fire Insurance Company of Pitts-ary 19, 1904.) In the matter of the will of John rg, Pa. No opinion. Order affirmed, without Leitch, deceased. W. J. Leitch, for appellant. its.

J. E. Kelly, for respondent. No opinion. De

cree affirmed, with costs. KLEIN, Respondent, EAST RIVER ECTRIC LIGHT CO., Appellant. (Su

LEWIS, Appellant, V. TINDEL MORRIS me Court, Appellate Divisiou, First Depart-ICO. . Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate nt. February 19, 1904.) Action by Freder- Division, First Department. March 11, 1904.) Klein against the East River Electric Light Action by Thomas A. Lewis against the' Tindel mpany. No opinion. Motion granted. Ques-Morris Company. J. D. P. White, for appelis to be settled on presentation of order.

lant. N. B. Beecher, for respondent. No opinion. Order aflirmed, with $10 costs and dis

bursements. NIBBS v. EGGERS et al. (Supreme Court, pellate Division, Third Department. March 904.) Action by William H. Knibbs against

McCHESNEY, Respondent, v. MOORE, Apnie Mosher Eggers and others. No opinion.

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department. March 11, 1904.) Action gment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

by Margaret J. McChesney against James COHON, Appellant, v. KOHON, Respond-Moore. J. H. Hazelton, for appellant. A. M.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Thiery, for respondent. artment. February 5, 1901.) Action by PER CURIAM. Interlocutory judgment afjamin Kohon against Rose Kohon. S. Goo-firmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to an, for appellant. H. M. Marks, for re-withdraw demurrer, and to answer, on payment ident. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, of costs in this court and in the court below, costs.

VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, J., dis

sent. INGLEY McKERNEN. (Supreme -t, Appellate Division, First Department. McCORD V. LAUTERBACH. (Supreme ruary 11, 1904.) Action by John Langley | Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

v.