Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1

nd right of way of the New York Central & COGAN, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN Iudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Totion denied, with $10 costs. See In re Ex-Appellate Division, First Department. Noension of North Third Ave., 30 App. Div.vember 9, 1900.) Action by Catherine Cogan 56, 51 N. Y. Supp. 353; Id., 32 App. Div. against Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. 54, 53 N. Y. Supp. 46. All concur, except rom an order denying defendant's motion for AUGHLIN, J., who dissents. See 63 N. Y. leave to serve a supplemental answer, it apfupp. 1106.

peals. Reversed. Chas. F. Brown, for ap

pellant. Thomas P. Wickes, for respondent,
In re CITY OF BUFFALO. (Supreme PER CURIAM. On the authority of Var-
Yourt, Appellate Division, Fourth Depart. riale v. Railway Co. (decided herewith) 66 N,
gent. October 9, 1900.) 'In the matter of Y. Supp. 559, the order appealed from should
he application of grade-crossing commission be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements,
Ts of the city of Buffalo for the appointment and the motion granted, upon payment by the
! commissioners to ascertain the compensa- defendant of all the costs of the action up to
ion to be paid to the owners of and parties in the present time.
erested in certain lands, etc. No opinion.
Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except COHEN, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN RY.
LAUGHLIN, J., not voting. See 63 N. Y. Co., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate
Supp. 1106.

Division, First Department. October 19, 1900.)
Action by Mary V. Cohen against the Man-

hattan Railway Company. W. G. Peckham,
CITY OF GENEVA, Respondent, v. GEN- for appellant. A. 0. Wheat, for respondent.
EVA TEL. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs
Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Sep- and disbursements.
cember 18, 1900.) In the matter of the ap-
plication of the city of Geneva for a peremp CONGRESS BREWING CO., Limited, Re-
ory writ of mandamus against the Geneva spondent, v. STEIN, Appellant. (Supreme
Telephone Company. No opinion. Order re-
Tersed, and proceeding remitted to the special ment.' October 26, 1900.) 'Action by the Con-

Court, Appellate Division, Second Departcerm for further hearing, with costs of this ap- gress Brewing Company, Limited, against veal to the appellant to abide event.

Peter J. Stein. No opinion. Judgment of the
In re CITY OF TROY. (Supreme Court, municipal court affirmed, with costs.
Appellate Division, Third Department. Sep-

CONKLIN v. J. H. WOODBURY INSTI.
tember 25, 1900.) 'In the matter of the pro- TUTE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
ceedings by the city of Troy for the widening First Department. July 17, 1900.) Action by
of Mill street in said city. No opinion. Or- James D. Conklin against the J. H. Woodbury
der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Institute. No opinion. Motion denied. See
CLAPP, Appellant, v. HUNTER et al., Re- 64 N. Y. Supp. 608.
spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-

COOK, Appellant, v. PERSONS et al., Resion, Second Department. July 23, 1900.) arine Hunter, Nelly V. B. Clapp, Cora Callan, Action by Pierre F. Cook, as trustee, etc., Action by Alexander W. Clapp against Cath- spondents... (Supreme Court, Appellate 'Divi

sion, Fourth Department. October 10, 1900.) Henry A. Callan, and others. No opinion. Motion for reargument denied." See 65 N. Y: against Henry H. Persons and another, as

receiver, etc. No opinion. Supp. 411.

Order affirmed,

with $10 costs and disbursements. CLARK, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW COOPER, Respondent, V. ROSENBERG, YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Appellant. (Supreme Court Appellate DiviDivision, First Department. October 19, 1900.) sion, Second Department. October 12, 1900.) Action by Elizabeth S. Clark against the city Action by Max Cooper against Abraham Rosenof New York. T. Connoly, for appellant. H. berg. No opinion. Judgment of the municiA. Prime, for respondent. No opinion. Order pal court affirmed by default, with costs. affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 66 N. Y. Supp. 103.

CRANDALL, Appellant, BUFFALO CLARK, Respondent, V. TILTON et al., HARDWOOD LUMBER 'co. Respondent. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth

[ocr errors]

September 18, 1900.)

Action by Action by Isabel A. Clark against Benjamin Vine Crandall against the Buffalo Hardwood W. Tilton and another, as executor and execu- Lumber Co. No opinion. Order affirmed, tris, etc., of Harriet 'Hull Seaver, deceased with $10 costs and disbursements.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the final

CRANDALL, Respondent, v CITY OF 3ward of costs, unless respondent will stipu- HORNELLSVILLE, Appellant.

(Supreme ate within 20 days to reduce the recovery to Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. che stim of $2,580, in which event the judg- October 2, 1900.) Action by Dora Adell Cranment, as modified, is affirmed, without costs of dall against the city of Hornellsville. his appeal to either party.

iòn. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

No opin

[ocr errors]

TING

and 100 New York State Reporter CRANDELL, Respondent, v. BICKERD et lant. F: E. Eustis, for respondents. No. kelime al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and Division, Third Department. September 25, bursements.

( 1900.) Action by John L. Crandell against Elizabeth Bickerd and William H. Gardner. DESBECKER et al., Respondents

, 1, PER CURIAM. Motion denied, on condi- CAUFFMAN et al., Appellants. (Supreme tion that the appellants within 20 days serve Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Departus. and file printed papers in this appeal, and pay October 10, 1900.) Action by Benjamin Det respondent $10 costs of this motion. In de- becker and another against David M. Cari PIN fault thereof, motion is granted, with $10 costs. man and another. No opinion. Judgment et

order affirmed, with costs. See 65 N. I. Sapa CURTIS v. VAN BERGH et al., Appel- | 1131. lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 2, 1900.) Ac DITMAS, Respondent, v. McKANE, Appels tion by Wendell J. Curtis, as assignee, etc., | lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirise. against Frederick W. Van Bergh and another. Second Department. October 19, 1900.) de No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, tion by Abigal V. Ditmas, as administratri, with costs. See 51 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

etc., of Henry C. Ditmas, deceased, against DANNER, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Order aflirmed, with $10 costs and disbane

Fanny McKane, impleaded, etc. No opinka lil Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- | ments. sion, Fourth Department. October 2, 1900.) Action by George Danner against the Erie Railroad Company.

In re DODGE. (Supreme Court

, Appaliate

Division, Second Department October 19 PER CURIAM. Judgment and order re- 1900.) In the matter of the application versed, and new trial ordered, with costs to William W. Dodge for admission to the bar

. the appellant to abide event. Held, that plain. No opinion. The papers should be amended tiff was guilty of contributory negligence as so as to show that no application has been matter of law, and should have been nonsuited. made for admission in any other departner.

In re DAVIDSON. (Supreme Court, Ap In re DODGE. (Supreme Court, Appelatie pellate Division, First Department. October Division, Second Department. October 2 19, 1900.) In the matter of Edmund D. Da- 1900.) În the matter of the application of Wz. vidson, No opinion. Decree affirmed, with liam W. Dodge for admission to the bar. No costs.

opinion. Application granted.

DREYER v. TUTTLE et al. (Supreme Court DAVIDSON et al., Respondents, v. SMITH, Appellate Division, Second Department

. Out Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- ber 12, 1900.) Action by Louis Dreser against sion, Second Department. October 19, 1900.) Mary L. Tuttle, Bennett Dreyer, and abolie, Action by Hugh Davidson and others against No opinion, Order affirmed, with costs. Clarence L. Smith.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

DURYEA . FUECHSEL. (Supreme Cher

Appellate Division, First Department. Jer 11. DAVIS, Respondent, v. CITY OF SYRA- 1900.) Action by Jobo Duryea against Cather CUSE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate ine Fuechsel, as executrix, etc. No opzica. Division, Fourth Department. September 25, Motion granted, with $10 costs. 1900.)

Action by John C. Davis against the city of Syracuse. No opinion. Judgment and EARLY, Respondent, v. KORN et al. Ame! order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Drivicon. SPRING and LAUGHLIN, JJ., who dissent. Fourth Department. September 18, 190...

tion by Peter Early against Mars Aur kut. DAVIS, Appellant, v. LEHIGH VAL. R. impleaded, etc.

, and others. No opinion. Izen CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate locutory judginent afirmed, with costs to the Division, Fourth Department. October 10, respondent and disbursements to the appellants, 1900.) Action by Henry I. Davis against the payable out of the fund. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. EGGLESTON, Respondent, F. RICHARDS **

al., Appellants. (Supreme Court

, Appellate Din DEERING v. REILLY. (Supreme Court, sion, Second Department. October 12. 190 Appellate Division, First Department. Octo Action by William N. Eggleston against Edit ber 19, 1900.) Action by James A. Deering J. Richards, James V. Lawrence, sole surnus against William J. Reilly. No opinion. Mo- member of the firm of Lawrence Bros, and oth tion denied, with $10 costs.

See 56 N. Y. ers.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss apps Supp. 704, and 61 N. Y. Supp. 1135.

granted, with $10 costs of motion and the disa

bursements on the appeal, DELECKER, Appellant, v. CAMP et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi FARQUHAR et al., Appellants, F. WISCON sion, First Department. October 19, 1900.) SIN CONDENSED MILK CO., Resp. gdeas Action by Charles Delecker against Fred E. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Seond. Det Camp and others. T. H. Friend, for appel- / partment. July 23, 1900.) Action bs des

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

AF

shraw Farquhar and John Black Farquhar against PER CURIAM. Reargument ordered. In the che le Wisconsin Condensed Milk Company. argument already had no reference was made

PER CURIAM. Order (62 N. Y. Supp. 305) to the decision of the court of appeals in Re

odified, so as to reduce the amount of the ad- Dobson, 146 N. Y. 357, 40 N. E. 988. This * -itional undertaking to the sum of $4,000, and, court desires to bear counsel in regard to the 11.s modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal effect of that decision upon the question involved either party.

in this appeal. FARRINGTON, Appellant, v. MUCHMORE, FROST, Appellant, WEEHAWKEN respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- WHARF co., Respondent. (City Court of on, Second Department. July 17, 1900.) AC- New York, General Term. October 29, 1900.) on by George F. Farrington against Alice B. Action by Eelihu B. Frost, as assignee, against

luchmore, as administratrix, etc., of Edward the Weehawken Wharf Company. From an - Muchmore, deceased.

order the plaintiff appeals. Afirmed. Norman PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument de G. Johnson, for appellant. Wilder & Anderson, ied. We think that the defendant puts too

for respondent. mited a construction upon the case of Clare PER CURIAM. Order appealed from affirm

Lockard, 122 N. Y. 263, 25 N. E. 391, 9ed, with costs. 4. R. A. 547. We are also of the opinion that, I it were necessary to make out a case for

FUCHS V. AARONSOHN. (Supreme Court, ervice by publication, the affidavits in behalf of Appellate Term. November 7, 1900.) Action by he plaintiff sufficed for that purpose. See 62 Louis Fuchs against Harris Aaronsohn. From N. Y. Supp. 165, and 65 N, Y. Supp. 432.

a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Af

firmed. J. H. Wood, for appellant. 1. Marks, FARRINGTON, Appellant, v. MUCHMORE, for respondent. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi PER CURIAM. The plaintiff's claim was jon, Second Department. July 23, 1900.). Ac that at the time of the action the defendant ion by George F. Farrington against Alice B. wrongfully detained the chattels in question. Juchmore, as administratrix, etc., of Edward The evidence showed that there was no wrongful 5. Muchmore, deceased. No opinion. Motion | detention, and therefore the judgment awarding or leare to appeal to the court of appeals de- the chattels to the defendant was proper. The ļied. See 62 N. Y. Supp. 105, and 65 N, Y. defendant, not having unlawfully detained the šupp. 432.

property, was entitled to recover, and, as he

had been deprived of the property, it was proper FENTON V. MATTHEWS et al. (Supreme that it should be restored to him, or that he Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. should have its value. Judgment afirmed, with July 24, 1900.) Action by George B. Fenton costs. igainst George E. Matthews and others. No pinion. Plaintiff's exceptions overruled, and FUHRMANN, Appellant, v. BRAYER, Rejudgment ordered for the defendants on the ver- spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divilict, with costs.

sion, Fourth Department. May Term, 1900.)

Action by William F. Fuhrmann against Nicha FLEISCHMANN et al. v. FLEISCHMANN olas L. Brayer. No opinion. Judgment aft al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, tirwed, with costs. First Department. November 9, 1900.) Action py Udo M. Fleischmann and others, against Ju GALLIGAN, Respondent, V. METROPOLius Fleischmann and others for an accounting. ITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (City Court From an order compelling an inspection of part of New York, General Term. October 29. dership books (65 N. Y. Supp. 93), defendants 1900.) Action by John F. Galligan against the ippeal. Affirmed. C. B. Smith, for appeilants. Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From B. Winthrop, for respondents.

a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant apPER CURIAM. The facts in this case are reals. Affirmed. Henry A. Robinson, for apthe same as in the case of Fleischmann v. pellant. Philip J. Britt, for respondent. Fleischmann (decided herewith) 66 N. Y. Supp. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with 133, and for the reasons stated in the opinion costs.

that case the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

GAVIN v. O'BRIEN et al. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, Third Department. SepFLIEH V. AVERILL et al. (Supreme Court, tember 25, 1900.) Action by James F. Gavin Appellate Division, Fourth Department. July against Edmond' A. O'Brien and others. No 24, 1900.) Action by Mary L. Flieh against opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and Charles $. Averill and another. No opinion. disbursements. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied, with $10 costs. See 65 N. Y. Supp. GEE, Respondent, V. GRIDLEY, Appel1133.

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department. July 24, 1900.) Action FLYNN et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK. by John W. Gee against Willis' T. Gridley. No Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. partment. October 19, 1900.) Action by James 4. Flynn and Canice Cassin against the city GIBBS, Appellant, V. ROCHESTER RY. of New York.

CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate

DISCS

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

V.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

for the removal of Ambrose Lasher from the James Hawkins, for an order revokioz and TRA!

and 100 New York State Reporter

NG Division, Fourth Department. October 10, , 1900.). In the matter of the alleged intreal 00. 1900.) Action by Clinton Gibbs against the of John Griffin upon Indian lands. No ipo Rochester Railway Company. No opinion. ion. Appeal dismissed, under general rule

aj Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

In re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, Appel GILL, Respondent, v. CLARK, Appellant. Division, Third Department. September 1 (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 1900.) In the matter of the will of Wine Department. September 18, 1900.) Action by Griffin, deceased. No opinion. Motion for a 1. Fun Robert Gill against William Clark. No opin- argument denied. ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 406.

In re GROGAN. (Supreme Court

, Appelen

Division, Fourth Department. May Term GLEACHER, Respondent, v. WESTCHES- 1900.) In the matter of the alleged intrusin TER ELECTRIC RY. CO., Appellant. (Su- of John Grogan upon Indian lands. 9 preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- ion. Appeal dismissed, under general rules partment. October 5, 1900.) Action by Isabella Gleacher, by Joseph Gleacher, her guard HAMILTON, Appellant, 1. VEITH, Re ian ad litem, against the Westchester Electric spondent. (Supreme Court. Appellate Din Railway Company. No opinion. Judgment sion, Fourth Department. July 24, 190) and orders unanimously affirmed, with costs. the matter of supplementary proceedings fr

the collection of a tax of Henry J. Veith. No In re GRAY. (Supreme Court, Appellate opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and Division, Second Department. July 17, 1900.) disbursements. In the matter of the application of Allan James Gray for admission to the bar. No HANNON, Respondent, v. S.EGEL-COOR: opinion. Application granted.

ER CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appet

late Division, Second Department. Jus ** GREEN, Respondent, BROOKLYN 1900.) Action by Mary F. Hannon against the HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Siegel-Cooper Company. No opinion. Voca Court, Appellate Division, Second Depart- for leave to appeal to the court of appezie 401 ment. July 17, 1900.) Action by Josephine E. denied. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 1135. Green, an infant, by Joseph S. Green, Jr., her guardian ad litem, against the Brooklyn HAUSAUER et al., Respondents. Heights Railroad Company. No opinion. MERKWA, Appellant. (Supreme Court

, AsJudgment and order unanimously affirmed, with pellate Division, Fourth Department. October til costs.

9, 1900.) Motion by Michael Hausauer 2010 another against Julia Merkwa, impleade, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. In re GREENE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September In re HAWKINS. (Supreme Court, Apple 11, 1900.) In the matter of the application late Division, Fourth Department

. September of John R. Greene and Isaac P. Rockefeller 18, 1900.) In the matter of the petition of office of commissioner of highways of the town canceling liquor tax certificate No. 12.971.1 of Germantown, Columbia county, N. Y. No sued to Thiel Bros., etc. No opinion. Order opinion. Answer filed, and reference ordered affirmed, with costs. to Noah H. Browning.

HAYNE, Respondent, v. BOTTGER. Appala GREGOR, Respondent, V. NIEDERMAN, lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirish Appellant. (City Court of New York, General First Department. October 19, 1900.) Action i Term. October 29, 1900.) Action by Bret by Samuel C. Hayne against Anna Botiger, Gregor against August Niederman, as presi- I. Washburne, for appellant

. J. G. But, dent. From a judgment in favor of the plain- respondent. No opinion. Judgment afirmed. I. tiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Bernhard with costs. Rabbino, for appellant. Francis J. Nekerda, for respondent.

HERTZ, Respondent, v. WANAMAKER PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dhiri costs.

sion, First Department. October 19, 13
Action by Minna Hertz against Joko Wine

maker. W. Eidman, for appellant. D. F. GREGORY v. CLARKE. (Supreme Court, Kiely, for respondent. No opinion. Order at Appellate Division, Third Department. Sep- firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements

. tember 11, 1900.) Action by Theodore P. Gregory against Squire Clarke. No opinion. HILER, Respondent, r. EMBURY e Motion for reargument granted, on payment | Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri by the appellant of the costs 'allowable for sion, Fourth Department. October 2, 2016 argument and before argument, and leave Action by Jerome Hiler against Josiah 11. E granted to amend the record as asked for in bury and another. the motion papers. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 687. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order !!

firmed, with costs. Held, that the record tuis In re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, Appel- to show that a sufficient legal tender ** late Division, Fourth Department. May Term, 'either pleaded or proved.

INGST 200. B

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

LAHAN

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

39.

BOLLINGSWORTH, Appellant, v. SPEC-, ments were willful and of material facts, and ATOR CO., Respondent. (No. 2.) (Supreme compel a revocation of the certificate.

In re fourt, Appellate Division, First Department. Kessler (N. Y. App.) 57 N. E. 402. The applica

uly 17, 1900.) Action by John E. Hollings- tion is granted as of the date of the filing of the = forth against the Spectator Company. From petition. In re Lyman, 28 Misc. Rep. 408, 59 in interlocutory judgment overruling plain-N Y. Supp. 968; Id., 48 App. Div. 275, 62

tff's demurrer to paragraphs 4 and 6 of de N. Y. Supp. 846.
andant's answer, plaintiff appeals. A thirmed.
lenry T. Fay, for appellant. Franklin Bart-
itt, for respondent.

HOWE, Respondent, v. HAY, Appellant. PER CURIAM. For the reasons given in (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth he opinion in Hollingsworth v. Spectator Co. Department. Apri} Term, 1900.) Action by action No. 1, handed down here with) 65 N. Lucien Howe against Thomas A. H. Hay, No . Supp. 812, the interlocutory judgment should opinion. Appeal dismissed, under general rule e affirmed, with costs.

See 62 N. Y. Supp. 1139. HOLLINGSWORTH, Appellant, v. SPEC

HOW'SE, Respondent, V. VAN SICKLE, ATOR CO., Respondent. (No. 3.) (Supreme

Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

October 2, 1900.) Jourt, Appellate Division, First Department. sion, Fourth Department. uly 17, 1900.), Action by John E. Hollings- Action by Samuel H. Howse against Nancy vorth against the Spectator Company. From

Van Sickle, impleaded, etc. o interlocutory judgment overruling plaintiff's

PER CURIAM. Judgment of county court demurrer to paragraphs 3 and 7 of defendant's and of justice's court reversed, with costs, as Oswer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Henry | to the appellant, Nancy Van Sickle. Held, 8. Fay, for appellant. Franklin Bartlett, for that the evidence is insuficient to sustain the espondent.

judgment as against the appellant. PER CURIAM. For the reasons given in he opinion in Hollingsworth v. Spectator Com

HUBBARD et al., Respondents, V. HUB

(Supreme Court, ang, (action No. 1, handed down herewith) 65 BARD et al., Appellants.

OcY. Supp. 812," the interlocutory judgment Appellate Division, Second Department. hould be affirmed, with costs.

tober 12, 1900.) Action by John L. Hubbard

and Ann Frances Hubbard, his wife, against HOLLINGSWORTH, Appellant, v. SPEC- Samuel S. Hubbard and Lydia J. Hubbard, CATOR CO., Respondent. (No. 6.) (Supreme his wife, and others. No opinion. Order afFourt, Appellate Division, First Department, tirmed, with costs. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 1011. Tuly 17, 1900.)

Action by John E. Hollingsforth against the Spectator Company,

HUTCHINSON et al. v. DOYLE et al.

From un interlocutory judgment overruling the plain-|(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth iff's demurrer to paragraphs 4 and 6 of de Department. May Term, 1900.) Action by endant's answer, plaintiff appeals.

Afirmed. Samuel Hutchinson and another against Michi Henry T. Fay, for appellant.

No opinion. Motion Franklin Bart- | ael Doyle and another. ett, for respondent.

denied, with $10 costs. PER CURIAM. For the reasons given in IMPERIAL SHALE-BRICK CO. V. JEWhe opinion in Hollingsworth v. Spectator Co. | ETT. action No. 1, handed down herewith) 65 N. Y. Fourth Department.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

September 25, 1900.) supp. 812, the interlocutory judgment should Action by the Imperial Shale-Brick Company Je affirmed, with costs.

against Edgar B. Jewett. No opinion. Motion HOOLAHAN v. GOETZ et al.

denied, with $10 costs. See 60 N. Y. Supp. 35.

(Supreme Jourt, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. ISELIN et al., Respondents, v. McKEON, september 18, 1900.) Action by Auna Hoola- | Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divilan, as administratrix, etc., against George sion, First Department.. July 17, 1900.) ACsoetz and another. No opinion. Motion for tion' by William E. Iselin and others against eargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion Patrick J. McKeon and another. C. E. Thornor leave to appeal to the court of appeals all, for appellant. E. Blumenstiel, for respondlenied. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 1136.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10

costs and disbursements. In re HOWARD. (Supreme Court, Special Cerm, New York County. June 11, 1900.) In JACOBS, Respondent, v. WEBER, Appelhe matter of the liquor tax certificate of one lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, loward. Certificate revoked.

First Department. October 19, 1900.) AcLEVENTRITT, J. It is quite apparent tion by Bernard Jacobs, as administrator, rom the survey that the required number of against Richard Weber. M. J. Earley, for onsents within the prohibited distance has appellant.

H. L. Scheuerman, for respond10t been secured. Eren could the respondent's ent. No opinion. Judgment and order alFroneous claim of measurement be accepted, firmed, with costs. I would still remain that several of the imiroperly acknowledged consents necessary to

JENKINS et al., Respondents, V. HUMnake the requisite two-thirds have been ob- BOLDT LIBRARY, Appellant. (City Court

October 29, ained by fraud and misrepresentation, and of New York, General Term. aust, therefore, be disregarded. The misstate- | 1900.) Action by Henry C. Jenkins and ad'

ents.

« AnteriorContinuar »