« AnteriorContinuar »
and 100 New York State Reporter other against the Humboldt Library. From In re JONES. (Supreme Court, App-it an order refusing defendant a new trial after vision, Fourth Department. May Tere
. judgment by default, except on certain condi- In the matter of the alleged intrusion la tions, it appeals. Reversed in part. Max D. raim Jones upon Indian lands. No Steuer, for appellant. Frayer, Smith, White Appeal dismissed, under general rule 2: & Seaman, for respondents.
HASCALL, J. We think, under all the cir- KATZ, Appellant, v. INDIA-RUBBER cumstances disclosed by the papers, that a Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appe'at considerate adininistration of justice requires sion, First Department. July 17, 1sm modification of the order appealed from, and by Edward A. Katz against the India: conclude that the defendant may have a trial Company, M. H. Ellison, for appa before the jury, Upon payment of $10 mo- Kling, for respondent. No opinion. Orde Le tion costs by the defendant, the order com- firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements & FIZIL plained of will be modified' by opening the 65 N. Y. Supp. 1137. default upon which judgment was entered for the purpose and to the extent of enabling KELLER, Respondent, v. SIMM et al., 1. JANNEdefendant to present its defense at trial term lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate T'em. at some convenient, but early, day, which vember 7, 1900.) Action by Maurice Srl should be within the fortnight after the an- against George Simm and another
. Find nouncing of this decision; but judgment to judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal All In stand for security, and all proceedings on both firmed. Blumenthal, Moss & Feiner, for rind, sides and by the sheriff to be held and stayed lants. J. Goode, for respondent. until after verdict or other disposal of the
PER CURIAM. The action is not issues by the court at trial term. To this equity, and the municipal court had juridinio de extent the order appealed from will be reversed, and the relief above indicated accord- disposed to interfere with the finding of the sa
to entertain it. Upon the evidence we are a la te ed thereupon by such modification, with costs tice that there was a written memorande
NUING and disbursements of this appeal to abide the lease. The defendants failed to show noen toomplied with, then the order appealed premises
, or an agreement to release queda from will be affirmed, with costs and disburse defendants and look to the other. Judgmert ments absolute to respondent.
firmed, with costs. CONLAN, J., concurs.
KELLY, JENKINS, Respondent, V. HUMBOLDT HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant." (Supreme Court and
Respondent, LIBRARY, 'Appellant. (City Court of New Appellate Division, Second Department
. Use the York, General Term. October 29, 1900.). Ac- ber 19, 1900.) Action by Mary Kels je tion by Henry C. Jenkins against the Humboldt the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Compan. Men Library. From an order vacating a stay, de- opinion. Judgment and order (64 N. T. Sarashi fendant' appeals. Rerersed. Max D. Steuer, 61) unanimously affirmed, on reargument ? PATTI for appellant. Frayer, Smith, White & Sea- 65' N. Y. Supp. 430. man, for respondent.
HASCALL, J. Under the autborities (Peet KENT v. WEST. (Supreme Court, Appelas v, Cowenhoven, 14 Abb. Prac. 50; Wait, Prac. Division. Fourth Department. May to 606), this order will be reversed, without costs. 1900.) Action by Charles S. Kent against 198! Wewrite at this term, under the same title. S. West, as committee, etc. No opinion. I on appeal from another order herein (66 N. tion denied, with $10 costs. All coneur, editri. Y. Supp. 1133) directly involving the status of McLENNAN, J., not voting. the parties after judgment, and adjust the same for a trial upon the merits, deeming such KETCHAM, Appellant, v. KETCHAM, BI a course the most expeditious in the adminis- spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division tration of justice between these litigants. Or- Second Department. October 5, 1900.) ALOK der reversed, without costs.
by Emma* A. Ketcham against Warrea 1 CONLAN, J., concurs.
Ketcham. No opinion. Order modified, og er
gument, so as to direct the issue of alera In re JOHNSON. (Supreme Court, Appellate ment also to be tried by jury, and, as nuo Division, Second Department October 19, affirmed, without costs. See 59 N. I. Ny top to 1900.) in the matter of the application of R.
Henry Gossel." From an order deuying defeat
. Carpe In re JOHNSON. (Supreme Court, Appellate Hughes & Dwight, for appellant. Daniel 1. Division, Second Department. October 26, Patterson, for respondent. 1900.) 'In the matter of the application of Robert L. Johnson for admission to the bar. der, made at special term, denying defendants
CONLAN, J. This is an appeal from an o No opinion. Application granted. See 60 N. Y. motion for leave to serve an amended abse Supp. 1140.
We are satisfied, on examination, that the disa
tant should be allowed to serve his proposed of which refers to and specifies different papers nded answer. The order appealed from will as having been used upon such motion, but nodified, so as to allow defendant to serve only one of which has been appealed from, we answer within five days from the entry of decline to hear the appeal until the proper ororder on this decision, on the payment of der has been settled and entered with the apable costs to date, together with $10 costs proval of Mr. Justice Nash, before whom the this motion, at the same time stipulating motion was heard. t the cause retain its place on the calendar
be tried when reached; otherwise, order KRUGER v. PERSONS et al. (Supreme ealed from affirmed, and costs of this appeal Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. either event to respondent.
May Term, 1900.) Action by Edward H. Kru'ITZSIMONS, C. J., and HASCALL, J., con- ger against Henry H. Persons and another, as,
PER CURIAM. Ordered that the order hereKINNEY, Appellant, v. REID ICE-CREAU tofore entered be corrected, so as to read as 1. Respondent et al. (Supreme Court, Appel- follows: "Order refusing leave to discontinue e Division, Second Department. October 5, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and 10.), Action by Joseph R. Kinney against the judgment modified, by striking therefrom the id Ice-Cream Company, impleaded with Wil- words ‘upon the merits,' which modification is m J. Weller and William M. Reger, defend made upon the ground that the trial court did
No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal not have power to dismiss the complaint upon anted, unless the plaintiff pay $10 costs with the merits, and the judgment (60 N. Y. Supp. five days, and perfect the appeal, so that 1078), as thus modified, affirmed, without costs may be heard on the 22d inst.
of this appeal to either party. See 57 N. Y.
Supp. 416, 1145, and 60 N. Y. Supp. 1071, KLINGER, Appellant. MARKOWITZ, espondent._(Supreme Court, Appellate Divi
KUHN, Respondent, v. SLOTE et al., Appelon, First Department. November 9, 1900.)
lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ction by Louis Klinger, by guardian,' against Fourth Department. October 2, 1900.) Action erman Markowitz. From an order granting by Charles L. Kuhn against John Slote and fendant's motion to set aside a judgment in another. No opinion., Judgment and order af. !vor of plaintiff and awarding a new trial (65 firmed, with costs. All concur, except McLEN
X Supp: 369); plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. NAN, J., who dissents, and LAUGHLIN, J.; oseph Wilkenfeld, for appellant.
Max Alt: who did not vote, layer, for respondent. O'BRIEN, J. For the reasons stated in the OF CATHOLIC MUT. BEN. ASS'N, Respond
LAHEY, Appellant, v. SUPREME COUNCIL pinion of the court below, the order appealed ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth rom should be affirmed, with costs.
Department. May Term, 1900.) Action by PATTERSON and HATCH, JJ., concur. Hannah Lahey against the Supreme Council of INGRAHAM, J. (dissenting). The court be- the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association. No O granted a new trial of this action upon the opinion. Order affirmed, without costs. round that one of the witnesses called by the laintiff in rebuttal testified falsely. His testi- LAIBLE, Appellant, v, NEW YORK CENT. mony was contradicted, and the questions of & H. R. R. Co. et al., Respondent. (Supreme act were submitted to the jury. The court Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. hen, upon the affidavits of several persons October 10, 1900.) Action by Elizabeth Laible which tended to show the statement of this against the New York Central & Hudson River vitness called by
plaintiff was false, granted Railroad Company, impleaded with the Fall new trial. I know of no principle upon which Brook Railway Company. No opinion. Order such an order can be sustained. When the iş- aflirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See sues in such an action are tried by a jury, their 43 N. Y. Supp. 1003. Ferdict should, I think, be final; and, if they may be retried upon affidavit by the special term, LAMBURN, Respondent, V. STATEN IS. I seems to me that it would be better to have LAND MIDLAND R. CO., Appellant. (Suhe case originally tried upon affidavits, rather preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Departhan to go through the useless formality of sub-ment. July 23, 1900.) Action by William Lam. nitting the question to a jury. I think the or- burn against the Staten Island Midland Railder should be reversed.
road Company. No opinion., Judgment and VAN BRUNT, P. J., concurs.
order unanimously affirmed, with costs. KNOWLES, Appellant, v. DILLENBECK et
In re LANGSLOW. (Supreme Court, Appela... Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- late Division, Fourth Department. May Term, Fision, Fourth Department. October 10, 1960.) 1900.) In the matter of Mary E. Langslow, as Action by George W. Knowles against Sylvester executrix, etc,
No opinion. Order affirmed, P. Dillenbeck, as, etc., and others.
with costs. All concur, except ADAMS, P. J., PER CURIAM. It appearing from the rec
not voting. ord and the concession of counsel in their briefs Chat two orders had been entered in this action.
LARY, Respondent, v. PETTIT et al., Appeleach of which purports to have been entered lants. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, upon the decision of the same motion, and each Fourth Department. May Term, 1900.) Action
and 100 New York State Reporter by Herman S. Lary against Isaac N. Pettit and July 24, 1900.) Action by the Lumber Er MCR Myrtle L. Pettit.
change Bank against Charles Weston and LAND PER CURIAM. It appearing that two of the others.
frece ( members of this court are disqualified from sit- PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reparinen ting in this case, it is hereby directed that the versed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to Balet case be certified to the Third judicial depart- the appellant to abide event. Held, that the trie Rai ment, in accordance with the provision of sec- question as to whether the defendants, by their to lear tion 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
acts and dealings with the defendant Campbei dezled
and with the property held by them in touLAWRENCE, Appellant, v. DAWSON et al., mon, constituted themselves co-partners under UGO Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- the name of Nice & Co., and were thus lia- FALO. sion, Second Department. October 5, 1900.) ble upon the notes in suit, was one of fact for furth Action by James V. Lawrence, as sole surviv- the jury, and not of law for the court, ing partner of the firm of Lawrence Bros., against John Dawson and William Archer, im- LUTHER, Respondent, V. CORNWELL miasta pleaded, etc. No opinion. Motion for reargu- Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divister ment denied. See 54 N. Y. Supp. 647, 55 N. Y. sion, Fourth Department. October 2, 1900 ordered Supp. 1142, and 64 N. Y. Supp. 185.
Action by William M. Luther against Willian unts
C. Cornwell. No opinion. Interlocutory juda LEACH, Appellant, v. THORNBRUGH, Re- ment affirmed with costs, with leave to the de 16 spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, fendant to withdraw his demurrer, and answer, OF BU First Department. July 17, 1900.). Action by upon payment of the costs of the demurrer par Adele W. Leach against Edgar D. Thornbrugh. and of this appeal, All concur. C. R. Leavitt, for appellant. E. B. Southworth, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment attirm- LYMAN, Respondent, v. CHEEVER et al., ed, with costs.
Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi
sion, Fourth Department. May Term, 19.1. LEE, Respondent, v. BANISTER, Appellant. Action by Henry H. Lyman, as state commis(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De- sioner of excise, against Thomas H. Cheerer partment. September 25, 1900.)'Action by and another. No opinion. Interlocutors judz. Fred Lee against Albert Č. Banister. No opin- ment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the ion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. defendant to withdraw the demurrer, and an
swer, upon payment of the costs of this appeal
LYMAN v. CHEEVER et al. (Supreme and others against Edward Harlem. From a Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. September 25, 1900.) Action by Henry H. Affirmed. Joseph Rosenzweig, for appellant. Lyman, as state commissioner of excise, Hayes & Bitterman, for respondents.
against Thomas H. Cheever and the United PER CURIAM. The only conclusion which States Guarantee Company. No opinion. Mo the evidence warrants as to compensation is tion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals 2 that the plaintiffs were to receive $50. The filed with the clerk. All concur. See 63 N. I. witness Silverman alone testified as to the amount of the commissions, and he said that
Supp. 809. the plaintiffs were to get $50. There was no evidence which conflicts with his statement. As to jurisdiction, see Worthington ; Acci- CLUB, Appellant. (Supreme Court
LYMAN, Respondent, v. ELM SOCIAL judgment is therefore modified by reducing it in the matter of petition of Henry H. Lyman, $100, and, as modified, is affirmed, without as, etc., for an order reroking and canceling costs.
liquor tax certificate No. 11,384, issued to the
Elm Social Club. No opinion. Order affirm. LORENZEN, Respondent, DILLON, ed, with costs. Mayor, et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Oetober 5, 1900.) Action by Frederick Lorenzen LYONS, Appellant, v. CONNORS et al., Re against Michael J. Dillon, mayor of the city of spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi: New Rochelle, and others. No opinion. Order sion, Second Department. October 19, 190 affirmed, on argument, with costs.
Action by Thomas H. Lyons against George J.
Connors and another. No opinion. Motion for LUCIA, Respondent, v. OMEL, Appellant. reargument denied. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 1083 Var (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. July 17, 1900.) Action by Louis LYONS ELECTRIC LIGAT & POWER M. Lucia against Louis Omel. No opinion. co., Respondent, v. BASTION, Appellant Juilgment of the municipal court afirmed, with preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Departa
ment. July 24, 1900.) Action by the Lyons LUMBER EXCH. BANK, Appellant, v. Bastion. No opinion. Judgment afirmed
, with Electric Light
& Power Company against Dari WESTON al., Respondents. (Supreme costs. All concur, except ADAMS, P. J. Det Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. I voting.
3, MCCREADY, Respondent, v. STATEN IS- 1 1900.) Action by John Maloney against John
LAND ELECTRIC R. CO., Appellant. (Su- S. Lynam and another. No opinion. Judg. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De ment and order affirmed, with costs. partment. July 17, 1900.) Action by George B. McCready against the Staten Island Elec- MANDONI V. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY tric Railroad Company. No opinion. Motion | OF NEW YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate for leave to appeal to the court of appeals | Division, First Department. October 19, denied. See 64 N. Y. Supp. 996.
1900.) Action by Joseph Mandoni against the
mayor, etc., of city of New York. S. Lent, for MCGUIRE v. BELL TEL. CO. OF BUF- appellant. T. J. O'Neil, for respondents. No FALO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and Fourth Department. May Term, 1900.) AC- disbursements. tion by Patrick McGuire against the Bell Telephone Company of Buffalo. No opinion. Defendant's exceptions overruled, and motion for
MANGEL, Respondent, v. CORTRIGHT
(Supreme Court, Appellate a new trial denied, with costs, and judgment et al.: Appellants. ordered for the plaintiff upon the verdict, with Division, Second Department. July 17, 1900.)
Action by Charles Mangel, as administrator, costs.
etc., against Jacob Cortright and another. No McGUIRE, Respondent, v. BELL TEL. CO. costs of this appeal to abide the event.
opinion. Order granting new trial affirmed; OF BUFFALO, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. July MARKOWITZ v. METROPOLITAN ST. 24, 1900.) Action by Patrick McGuire against RY. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. the Bell Telephone Company of Buffalo. No July 13, 1900.) Action by Morris Markowitz opinion. Motion for reargument denied. Mo: against 'the Metropolitan Street-Railway Comtion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals
pany. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with granted.
costs. See 63 N. Y. Supp. 961, MACHINISTS' SUPPLY CO., Respondent, : v. LESTERSHIRE MFG. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth
MARNELL, Respondent, v. BEERS, Appel
lant. Department. September 18, 1900.) Action by
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the Machinists' Supply Company against the Second Department. October 5, 1900.) Ac: Lestershire Manufacturing Company.
Notion by Edward Marnell against Mary L. opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and Beers. No opinion. Interlocutory judgment disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 affirmed, with costs. costs to abide event.
MARTIN, Appellant, NEW YORK MCKAY, Appellant, v. HUDSON RIVER CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (SuLINE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel- preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De.
Action by Delia late Division, Second Department. ”October partment. July 24, 1900.) 12, 1900.) Action by Retta L. McKay against Martin, as administratrix, etc., against the the Hudson River Line. No opinion. Appeal New York Central & Hudson River Railroad transferred to the appellate division of the
Company. No opinion. Order (64 N. Y. First judicial department.
Supp. 364) affirmed, with costs. See 45 N. Y.
Supp. 925. McLINSKY UNITED DRESSEDBEEF Co. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- MASTERS, Appellant, v. DE ZAVALA sion, First Department. July 17, 1900.), Ac et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appeltion by Thomas McLinsky against the Unit- late Division, First Department. November ed Dressed-Beef Company. No opinion. Mo-9, 1900.) Action by Joseph W. Masters tion denied. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 1139.
against Henry De Zavala and another. From
a judgment for defendants on decision of the MacPHERSON, Respondent, V. GILLES
court after trial without a jury, plaintiff apPIE, Appellant. '(Supreme Court, Appellate peals. Affirmed. Jacob Fromme, for appelDivision, Second Department. October 12, lant." William T. Schley, for respondents. 1900.) Action by John H. MacPherson, Jr.,
HATCH, J. The questions involved in this against Earl A. Gillespie. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously atfirmed, with appeal are identical with those determined by
this court in Reese v. Resburgh (decided at this term) 66 N. Y. Supp. 633, and the judg
ment appealed from should therefore be atMAGGIO, Appellant, v. BALL et al., Re-firmed, with costs, upon the opinion in that spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- case. sion, Second Department. July 17, 1900.) ACtion by Antonio Maggio against Charles A. Ball and others. No opinion. Order affirmed, MEYER, Respondent, v. FRANK et al., Apwith $10 costs and disbursements.
pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Fourth Department. July 24, 1900.) Action MALONEY, Appellant, v. LYNAM et al., by Theophelia L. Meyer against Jane Frank Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- and others. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, vision, Fourth Department. April Term, / with costs.
PER CURIAM. Order atfirmed, with $10 R
PAKAS, Respondent, v. HOLLINGSHELT L Le B Action by James G. Murphy Appellate Division, Third Department. Be UPLE,
and 100 New York State Reporter MILLER, Respondent, v. HATTER, Appel- 1 NATIONAL CASH-REGISTER CO.!: lant, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, BESCH. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri | PATTI Fourth Department. April Term, 1900.) Ac- sion, Third Department. September 11, 1900) tion by Henrietta Miller against Elizabeth Hat- Action by the National Casb-Register Com A ter. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, under pany against Joseph Besch. general rule 39.
PER CURIAM. Order modified, 80 as to
read as follows: "Interlocutory judgment me MISHNER v. SINGER MFG. CO. (City versed, with costs of appeal to the appellant, Court of New York, General Term. October und demurrer overruled, with costs of demur aim 29, 1900.) Action by Louis Mishner against rer to the appellant to abide the event of the the Singer Manufacturing Company. From a action.” See 64 N. Y. Supp. 462. judgment in favor_of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
1 N Benjamin L. Brandner, for NAVEL, Appellant, v. BODDY, Responde appellant. Max D. Steuer, for respondent.
ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Fourth Department. September 25, 1971 costs.
Action by William Navel against William V DPI
costs and disbursements. MITCHELL et al., Respondents, V. ANDERSON, Defendant (BELL, Appellant). NEUSTADT, Respondent, V. NASSAU (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth ELECTRIC R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Department. May Term, 1900.) Action by Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. John Mitchell and another against William E. July 17, 1900.) Action by Lena Neustadt Anderson and James A. Bell, attaching cred against 'the Nassau Electric Railroad Comitor, No opinion. Appeal dismissed, under
pany. general rule 39. See 66 N. Y. Supp. 118.
PER CURIAM. Judgment and order udarMORGAN v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY.
imously affirmed, with costs. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
GOODRICH, P. J., and JENKS, J., coor 1-1 be. First Department. July 17, 1900.) Action by
cur for affirmance, except as to amount of res ! Morgan E. Morgan against the Metropolitan dict, which they think should be reduced. Street-Railway Company. No opinion. Motion denied. See 59 N. Y. Supp. 1110, and
NEW YORK ROOFING CO., Respondent, 64 N. Y. Supp. 826.
v. SMITH et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court
Appellate Division, First Department. Justin MUNZINGER v. UNITED PRESS et al. 17, 1900.) Action by the New York Rooflik (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De: Company against James B. Smith and others partment. October 19, 1900.) Action by
J. F. Miller, for appellants. E. Baumeistet, Louis Munzinger against the United Press for respondent. No opinion. Judgment 108 and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with N. Y. Supp. 1142) affirmed, with costs. $10 costs. See 46 N. Y. Supp. 1097, and 47 N. Y. Supp. 1143.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., Appellant."
. So MURGATROYD
preme Court, Appellate Dirision, Fourth De v. TOWN OF HEMP-partment. STEAD GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. Northern Trust Company, as, etc. against the
October 9, 1900.) Action by the
. Appeoliate Appellate Division, Second Department. Oc- Term. November 7, 1900.) Action by Sonunda tober 26, 1900.) Action by Nora Murphy L. Pakas against William E. Hollingshesd god against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company. another. l'rom a judgment of the general tert No opinion. Judgment of the county court of the city court of New York afirming : of Kings county unanimously affirmed, with judgment in favor of plaintiff (65 X. I. SCP costs.
663), and an order denying a new trial, the de
fendants appeal. Affirmed. MURPHY, Appellant, SUPREME
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC MUT. BEN. costs. ASS'N, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. April PAPANOE Y. DONAHOE. (Supreme Couri Term, 1900.) against the Supreme Council of the Catholic tember 11, 1900.) Action by Albert Papana Mutual Benefit Association. No opinion. Judg. against Martin C. Donahoe. No opinion. Ilment and order affirmed, with costs,
tion denied, without costs.