Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

nd right of way of the New York Central & Iudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. lotion denied, with $10 costs. See In re Exension of North Third Ave., 30 App. Div. 56, 51 N. Y. Supp. 353; Id., 32 App. Div. 94, 53 N. Y. Supp. 46. All concur, except LAUGHLIN, J., who dissents. See 63 N. Y. Supp. 1106.

ment.

COGAN, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 9, 1900.) Action by Catherine Cogan against Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From an order denying defendant's motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer, it appeals. Reversed. Chas. F. Brown, for appellant. Thomas P. Wickes, for respondent.

In re CITY OF BUFFALO. (Supreme PER CURIAM. On the authority of VarCourt, Appellate Division, Fourth Depart-riale v. Railway Co. (decided herewith) 66 N. 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, rs of the city of Buffalo for the appointment and the motion granted, upon payment by the f commissioners to ascertain the compensa- defendant of all the costs of the action up to on 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 LAUGHLIN, J., not voting. See 63 N. Y. Supp. 1106.

COHEN, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 19, 1900.) Action by Mary V. Cohen against the ManCITY OF GENEVA, Respondent, v. GEN-hattan Railway Company. W. G. Peckham, EVA TEL. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, No opinion. for appellant. A. O. Wheat, for respondent.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs

Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Sep-and disbursements.
ember 18, 1900.) In the matter of the ap-
lication of the city of Geneva for a peremp-
ory writ of mandamus against the Geneva

CONGRESS BREWING CO., Limited, ReTelephone Company. No opinion. Order re Court, Appellate Division, Second Departspondent, v. STEIN, Appellant. (Supreme ersed, and proceeding remitted to the special erm for further hearing, with costs of this ap-gress Brewing Company, Limited, against ment. October 26, 1900.) Action by the Coneal to the appellant to abide event. Peter J. Stein. No opinion. Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs.

CONKLIN v. J. H. WOODBURY INSTI

First Department. July 17, 1900.)
TUTE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Action by

In re CITY OF TROY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. Sepember 25, 1900.) In the matter of the proeedings by the city of Troy for the widening f 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. pondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviion, Second Department. July 23, 1900.) COOK, Appellant, v. PERSONS et al., ReAction by Alexander W. Clapp against Cath-spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divirine Hunter, Nelly V. B. Clapp, Cora Callan, Action by Pierre F. Cook, as trustee, etc., sion, Fourth Department. October 10, 1900.) Henry A. Callan, and others. No opinion. lotion for reargument denied. See 65 N. Y. against Henry H. Persons and another, as Supp. 411. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

CLARK, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW WORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 19, 1909.) Action by Elizabeth S. Clark against the city f New York. T. Connoly, for appellant. H. A. Prime, for respondent. No opinion. Order ffirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 66 N. Y. Supp. 103.

CLARK, Respondent, v. TILTON et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviion, Second Department. October 12, 1900.) Action by Isabel A. Clark against Benjamin V. Tilton and another, as executor and execurix, etc., of Harriet Hull Seaver, deceased. PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the final ward of costs, unless respondent will stipuate within 20 days to reduce the recovery to the sum of $2,580, in which event the judgnent, as modified, is affirmed, without costs of his appeal to either party.

receiver, etc.

Appellant.
COOPER, Respondent, v. ROSENBERG,
sion, Second Department.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-
Action by Max Cooper against Abraham Rosen-
October 12, 1900.)
berg. No opinion. Judgment of the munici-
pal court affirmed by default, with costs.

CRANDALL, Appellant, V. BUFFALO HARDWOOD LUMBER CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. September 18, 1900.) Action by Vine Crandall against the Buffalo Hardwood Lumber Co. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

CRANDALL, Respondent, v. CITY OF HORNELLSVILLE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 2, 1900.) Action by Dora Adell Crandall against the city of Hornellsville. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

and 100 New York State Reporter

DESBECKER

CRANDELL, Respondent, v. BICKERD et lant. F. E. Eustis, for respondents. No. 1 al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and c Division, Third Department. September 25, bursements. 1900.) Action by John L. Crandell against Elizabeth Bickerd and William H. Gardner. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, on condition that the appellants within 20 days serve and file printed papers in this appeal, and pay respondent $10 costs of this motion. In default thereof, motion is granted, with $10 costs.

CURTIS v. VAN BERGH et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 2, 1900.) Action by Wendell J. Curtis, as assignee, etc., against Frederick W. Van Bergh and another. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See 51 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

DANNER, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 2, 1900.) Action by George Danner against the Erie Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event. Held, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law, and should have been nonsuited.

In re DAVIDSON. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 19, 1900.) In the matter of Edmund D. Davidson. No opinion. Decree affirmed, with

costs.

DAVIDSON et al., Respondents, v. SMITH, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 19, 1900.) Action by Hugh Davidson and others against Clarence L. Smith. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

DAVIS, Respondent, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. September 25, 1900.) Action by John C. Davis against the city of Syracuse. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except SPRING and LAUGHLIN, JJ., who dissent.

DAVIS, Appellant, v. LEHIGH VAL. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 10, 1900.) Action by Henry I. Davis against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

DEERING v. REILLY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 19, 1900.) Action by James A. Deering against William J. Reilly. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 56 N. Y. Supp. 704, and 61 N. Y. Supp. 1135.

DELECKER, Appellant, v. CAMP et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 19, 1900.) Action by Charles Delecker against Fred E. Camp and others. T. H. Friend, for appel

et al., Respondents, 7. CAUFFMAN et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Departmet October 10, 1900.) Action by Benjamin D becker and another against David M. Can man and another. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See 65 N. Y. Supp 1131.

DITMAS, Respondent, v. McKANE, Appe lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisi Second Department. October 19, 1900.) Ation by Abigal V. Ditmas, as administrati etc., of Henry C. Ditmas, deceased, agains Fanny McKane, impleaded, etc. No opinion Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse ments.

In re DODGE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 19. 1900.) In the matter of the application ef William W. Dodge for admission to the bar. No opinion. The papers should be amended. so as to show that no application has bee made for admission in any other department

In re DODGE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 2 1900.) In the matter of the application of Wiliam W. Dodge for admission to the bar. No opinion. Application granted.

DREYER v. TUTTLE et al. (Supreme Cent Appellate Division, Second Department. Octber 12, 1900.) Action by Louis Dreyer against Mary L. Tuttle, Bennett Dreyer, and another. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.

DURYEA v. FUECHSEL. (Supreme Cour Appellate Division, First Department. July 17. 1900.) Action by John Duryea against Catherine Fuechsel, as executrix, etc. No opin Motion granted, with $10 costs.

EARLY, Respondent, v. KORN et al. App lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divis Fourth Department. September 18, 1900.) A tion by Peter Early against Mary Ann Kor impleaded, etc., and others. No opinion. Inter locutory judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent and disbursements to the appellants payable out of the fund.

EGGLESTON, Respondent, v. RICHARDS et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di sion, Second Department. October 12, 19 Action by William N. Eggleston against Edwar J. Richards, James V. Lawrence, sole surviving member of the firm of Lawrence Bros., and oth ers. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appen. granted, with $10 costs of motion and the d bursements on the appeal.

FARQUHAR et al., Appellants, v. WISCON SIN CONDENSED MILK CO., Respondat (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De partment. July 23, 1900.) Action by Jas

aw Farquhar and John Black Farquhar against e Wisconsin Condensed Milk Company. PER CURIAM. Order (62 N. Y. Supp. 305) odified, so as to reduce the amount of the aditional undertaking to the sum of $4,000, and, 3 modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal › either party.

FARRINGTON, Appellant, v. MUCHMORE, espondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divion, Second Department. July 17, 1900.) Acon by George F. Farrington against Alice B. [uchmore, as administratrix, etc., of Edward 1. Muchmore, deceased.

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument de ied. We think that the defendant puts too mited a construction upon the case of Clare Lockard, 122 N. Y. 263, 25 N. E. 391, 9 R. A. 547. We are also of the opinion that, it were necessary to make out a case for ervice by publication, the affidavits in behalf of e plaintiff sufficed for that purpose. See 62 1. Y. Supp. 165, and 65 N. Y. Supp. 432.

FARRINGTON, Appellant, v. MUCHMORE, espondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divion, Second Department. July 23, 1900.) Acon by George F. Farrington against Alice B. luchmore, as administratrix, etc., of Edward Muchmore, deceased. No opinion. Motion or leave to appeal to the court of appeals deied. See 62 N. Y. Supp. 165, and 65 N. Y. upp. 432.

FENTON v. MATTHEWS et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, uly 24, 1900.) Action by George B. Fenton gainst George E. Matthews and others. No pinion. Plaintiff's exceptions overruled, and dgment ordered for the defendants on the verict, with costs.

FLEISCHMANN et al. v. FLEISCHMANN tal. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, irst Department. November 9, 1900.) Action y Udo M. Fleischmann and others, against Juus Fleischmann and others for an accounting. 'rom an order compelling an inspection of partership books (65 N. Y. Supp. 93), defendants ppeal. Affirmed. C. B. Smith, for appeilants. E. Winthrop, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. The facts in this case are he same as in the case of Fleischmann v. leischmann (decided herewith) 66 N. Y. Supp. 33, and for the reasons stated in the opinion that case the order is affirmed, with $10 Osts and disbursements.

FLIEH V. AVERILL et al. (Supreme Court, ppellate Division, Fourth Department. July 4, 1900.) Action by Mary L. Flieh against harles S. Averill and another. No opinion. Iotion for leave to appeal to the court of apeals denied, with $10 costs. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 133.

FLYNN et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Deartment. October 19, 1900.) Action by James I. Flynn and Canice Cassin against the city I New York.

[blocks in formation]

PER CURIAM. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

FUCHS v. AARONSOHN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. November 7, 1900.) Action by Louis Fuchs against Harris Aaronsohn. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. J. H. Wood, for appellant. I. Marks, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff's claim was that at the time of the action the defendant wrongfully detained the chattels in question. The evidence showed that there was no wrongful detention, and therefore the judgment awarding the chattels to the defendant was proper. The defendant, not having unlawfully detained the property, was entitled to recover, and, as he had been deprived of the property, it was proper that it should be restored to him, or that he should have its value. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

FUHRMANN, Appellant, v. BRAYER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May Term, 1900.) Action by William F. Fuhrmann against Nicholas L. Brayer. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GALLIGAN, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RÝ. CO., Appellant. (City Court of New York, General Term. October 29. 1900.) Action by John F. Galligan against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Henry A. Robinson, for appellant. Philip J. Britt, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GAVIN v. O'BRIEN et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 25, 1900.) Action by James F. Gavin against Edmond A. O'Brien and others. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

GEE, Respondent, v. GRIDLEY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. July 24, 1900.) Action by John W. Gee against Willis T. Gridley. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GIBBS, Appellant, v. ROCHESTER RY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate

and 100 New York State Reporter

of John Griffin upon Indian lands. No op ion. Appeal dismissed, under general rule &

Division, Fourth Department. October 10, 1900.) In the matter of the alleged introsa
1900.) Action by Clinton Gibbs against the
Rochester Railway Company. No opinion.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

GILL, Respondent, v. CLARK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. September 18, 1900.) Action by Robert Gill against William Clark. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 406.

GLEACHER, Respondent, v. WESTCHESTER ELECTRIC RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 5, 1900.) Action by Isabella Gleacher, by Joseph Gleacher, her guardian ad litem, against the Westchester Electric Railway Company. No opinion. Judgment and orders unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In re GRAY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. July 17, 1900.) In the matter of the application of Allan James Gray for admission to the bar. No opinion. Application granted.

GREEN. Respondent, V. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. July 17, 1900.) Action by Josephine E. Green, an infant, by Joseph S. Green, Jr., her guardian ad litem, against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with

costs.

In re GREENE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 11, 1900.) In the matter of the application of John R. Greene and Isaac P. Rockefeller for the removal of Ambrose Lasher from the office of commissioner of highways of the town of Germantown, Columbia county, N. Y. No opinion. Answer filed, and reference ordered to Noah H. Browning.

GREGOR, Respondent, v. NIEDERMAN, Appellant. (City Court of New York, General Term. October 29, 1900.) Action by Bret Gregor against August Niederman, as president. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Bernhard Rabbino, for appellant. Francis J. Nekerda, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

GREGORY V. CLARKE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 11, 1900.) Action by Theodore P. Gregory against Squire Clarke. No opinion. Motion for reargument granted, on payment by the appellant of the costs allowable for argument and before argument, and leave granted to amend the record as asked for in the motion papers. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 687.

In re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May Term,

In re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, AppelDivision, Third Department. September 1900.) In the matter of the will of Wi Griffin, deceased. No opinion. Motion for re argument denied.

In re GROGAN. (Supreme Court, Appels Division, Fourth Department. May Te 1900.) In the matter of the alleged intrusi of John Grogan upon Indian lands. No 2 ion. Appeal dismissed, under general rule 3.

HAMILTON, Appellant, v. VEITH, _R÷ spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi sion, Fourth Department. July 24, 1900.) I the matter of supplementary proceedings f the collection of a tax of Henry J. Veith. N opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs a disbursements.

HANNON, Respondent, v. SIEGEL-COOPER CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, App late Division, Second Department. July 1900.) Action by Mary F. Hannon against the Siegel-Cooper Company. No opinion. Motic for leave to appeal to the court of appelis denied. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 1135.

[ocr errors]

HAUSAUER et al., Respondents, MERKWA, Appellant. (Supreme Court. A pellate Division, Fourth Department. October 9, 1900.) Motion by Michael Hausauer and another against Julia Merkwa, impleaded, etc. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

In re HAWKINS. (Supreme Court, Appe late Division, Fourth Department. September 18, 1900.) In the matter of the petition of James Hawkins, for an order revoking and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 12,271, is sued to Thiel Bros., etc. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.

HAYNE, Respondent, v. BOTTGER. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department. October 19, 1900.)_Action by Samuel C. Hayne against Anna Bottger. I. Washburne, for appellant. J. G. Roe, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. with costs.

HERTZ, Respondent, v. WANAMAKER Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di sion, First Department. October 19, 19 Action by Minna Hertz against John Wa maker. W. Eidman, for appellant. D. F Kiely, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HILER, Respondent, v. EMBURY et a'. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di sion, Fourth Department. October 2, 19 Action by Jerome Hiler against Josiah H. E bury and another.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order firmed, with costs. Held, that the record fai to show that a sufficient legal tender was either pleaded or proved.

HOLLINGSWORTH, 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 ourt, Appellate Division, First Department. Kessler (N. Y. App.) 57 N. E. 402. The applicauly 17, 1900.) Action by John E. Hollings- tion is granted as of the date of the filing of the orth against the Spectator Company. From petition. In re Lyman, 28 Misc. Rep. 408, 59 n interlocutory judgment overruling plain- N. Y. Supp. 968; Id., 48 App. Div. 275, 62 iff's demurrer to paragraphs 4 and 6 of de- N. Y. Supp. 846. endant's answer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. lenry T. Fay, for appellant. Franklin Bartett, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. For the reasons given in he opinion in Hollingsworth v. Spectator Co. action No. 1, handed down herewith) 65 N. . Supp. 812, the interlocutory judgment should e affirmed, with costs.

HOLLINGSWORTH, Appellant, v. SPECATOR CO., Respondent. (No. 3.) (Supreme ourt, Appellate Division, First Department. uly 17, 1900.) Action by John E. Hollingsorth against the Spectator Company. From n interlocutory judgment overruling plaintiff's emurrer to paragraphs 3 and 7 of defendant's nswer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Henry '. Fay, for appellant. Franklin Bartlett, for espondent.

PER CURIAM. For the reasons given in he opinion in Hollingsworth v. Spectator Comany (action No. 1, handed down herewith) 65 . Y. Supp. 812, the interlocutory judgment hould be affirmed, with costs.

HOWE, Respondent, v. HAY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. April Term, 1900.) Action by Lucien Howe against Thomas A. H. Hay. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, under general rule 39. See 62 N. Y. Supp. 1139.

HOWSE, Respondent, v. VAN SICKLE,
Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-
October 2, 1900.)
sion, Fourth Department.
Action by Samuel H. Howse against Nancy
Van Sickle, impleaded, etc.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of county court and of justice's court reversed, with costs, as to the appellant, Nancy Van Sickle. Held, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment as against the appellant.

Oc

HUBBARD et al., Respondents, v. HUBBARD et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. 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, No opinion. Order afATOR CO., Respondent. (No. 6.) (Supreme his wife, and others. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 1011. Fourt, Appellate Division, First Department.firmed, with costs. uly 17, 1900.) Action by John E. Hollings- HUTCHINSON et al. V. DOYLE et al. forth against the Spectator Company. From n interlocutory judgment overruling the plain-(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Action by ff's demurrer to paragraphs 4 and 6 of de- Department. May Term, 1900.) endant's answer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Samuel Hutchinson and another against MichNo opinion. Henry T. Fay, for appellant. Franklin Bart- ael Doyle and another. denied, with $10 costs. ett. for respondent.

PER CURIAM. For the reasons given in e opinion in Hollingsworth v. Spectator Co. ction No. 1, handed down herewith) 65 N. Y. upp. 812, the interlocutory judgment should eaffirmed, with costs.

HOOLAHAN v. GOETZ et al. (Supreme ourt, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. eptember 18, 1900.) Action by Anna Hoolaan, as administratrix, etc., against George oetz and another. No opinion. Motion for argument denied, with $10 costs. Motion or leave to appeal to the court of appeals enied. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 1136.

In re HOWARD. (Supreme Court, Special erm, New York County. June 11, 1900.) In e matter of the liquor tax certificate of one oward. Certificate revoked.

LEVENTRITT, J. It is quite apparent om the survey that the required number of onsents within the prohibited distance has ot been secured. Even could the respondent's roneous claim of measurement be accepted, would still remain that several of the imroperly acknowledged consents necessary to ake the requisite two-thirds have been obined by fraud and misrepresentation, and ust, therefore, be disregarded. The misstate

Motion

[blocks in formation]

Ac

JACOBS, Respondent, v. WEBER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 19, 1900.) tion by Bernard Jacobs, as administrator, against Richard Weber. M. J. Earley, for appellant. H. L. Scheuerman, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

JENKINS et al., Respondents, v. HUMBOLDT LIBRARY, Appellant. (City Court of New York, General Term. October 29, 1900.) Action by Henry C. Jenkins and an

« AnteriorContinuar »