« AnteriorContinuar »
quired the payment of said costs and dis- of appeal has been served upon them albursements by the respondent who in that though they had become parties to the proproceeding was the appellant here. The ceeding. The court cannot deprive them of question of the taxation of these costs has, the rights which they had secured, upon an therefore, been twice presented, once at the appeal to which they are not parties. The Special Term and once at the General Term : appeal should be dismissed, with ten dollars and this seemingly should have been an end costs and disbursements. Present -- Van of the matter. After the entry of judgment Brut, P. J., Williams, O'Brien, Ingraham and the issuance or an execution, an order and Parker, JJ. to examine the appellant in suplementary Henry Diedel, Respondent, v. The New York proceedings was granted. Thereupon, a Elevated Railroad Company and The Manmotion was made to set aside such order hattan Railway Company, Appellants. —upon the ground that the taxation originally Judgment mollified as directed in opinion made by the clerk was unauthorized, and and as modified, atlirmed, without costs.-the judgment founded thereon void. The PER CURIAM: We think that the fee damage motion was denied at the Special Term, and allowed is supported by the evidence. The on appeal the oriler denying such motion rental damage, however, is too high. That of was affirmed by this App iate Division, No. 375 Third avenue should be reduced to Thereafter the appellant made this motion $7% a year, and of No. 513 Third avenue to to set aside the taxation and the execution $120 a year. The extra allowance contained upon the ground that Cassidy v. Ur Farlauud in the judgment must be correspondingly (139 N. Y. 201) sustains the proposition that reduced. The judgment should be modified no authority or power whatever was con accordingly and as thus modified, attirmed, ferred upon the clerk to tax the disburse. without costs to either party. Present ments, and that, therefore, the execution Van Brunt. P. J., Williams, O'Brien, Ingraissued had no judicial determination upon! ham and Parker, JJ. which it could rest; and that, under the William H. Price, Respondent, V. The Ohio authority of Komprkup (59 NY. 212), Falls Car Company, Appellant. - Judgment the appellant has the right at any time to affirmed, with costs.assail the validity of the judgment entered PER CURIAM: As to the plaintiff's right to reupon the clerk's action. Te do not intend cover a broker's commission for the sale of to examine anew this question, it having the cars alleged to have been brought about been presented and the same authorities by his procurement, there was a clear cut examined upon the former appeal, and we question of fact, and the judge in his charge, must regard the decision then made as an in which every request submitted by the deallju lication upon the precise question now fendant was embodied, and to which no expresented. The order should be affirmed, ception was taken, clearly presented the subwith ten dollars costs and disbursements, ject to the jury. We lo not think that the Present- Van Brunt, P. J., Williams, Pat verdict was so clearly against the law that a terson, ('Brien and lugraham, JJ.
direction at the close of the case in defendPeter B. Olney, Receiver. Respondent, v. Frank ant's favor would have been proper; and the
W. Goodwin, Appellant.- Order affirmed, question having been presented to the jury with ten dollars costs and disbursemeuts in an unexceptional charge we find no legal PER CURIAM: The order in this case should ground for interfering with the verdict. The be affirmed on the authority of Munzinger only exception taken was to the ruling exv. Courier Co. (82 Hun, 575). Order affirmeil. cluding the conversation between the dewith ten dollars costs and disbursements. fendant's president and one Matthews. This Present -- Van Brunt. P. J., Barrett, Rum we have examined, but do not regard the Sev, O'Brien and Ingraham, JJ.
ruling as arroneous. The judgment should, Sarah J. Sawyer, Appellant, y. William W. therefore, be affirmed, with costs. Present
Badger et al., Respondents. - Judgment af - Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, firinel, with costs.
O'Brien and Ingraham, JJ. PER CIRIAM: The rulings of the court upon Max Aigner v. The Mayor.-- Motion denied. the several exceptions to the admission and . The Breckenridge Company v. James D. Perrejection of evidence were correct. The sin; kins et al.-. Motion denied. gle question presented which requires exam. Mary (. Bernard v. Bernard S. McKean - Moination is, whether the findings of the trial tion denied. judge were supported by the evidence. On Samuel Bacharach v Manhattan Railway Comcareful consideration of all the testimony, i pany.-- Motion for resettlement granted. we are clearly of the opinion that the learned 'Colwell Lead Company y. Leander S. Sire.judge was justified in coming to the conclu- Motion denied sion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the Frederick L. Colwell v. Genevieve R. Colwell. transfer in question was made with intent to - Motion denied. hindler, delay and defraud the creditors of Thomas N. Dwyer, Plaintiff. v. James Rorke. Josephine M. Mack. The judgment shouldDefendant.-- Motion granted, unless the be afirmed, with costs. Present -- Van: plaintiff within teu days after notice of the Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, O'Brien entry of the order hereon shall give a bond and Iugraham, JJ.
with two sureties in the penalty of $15.000, John M. Bemis and Edward J. H. Tamsen, as conditioned to pay to the defendant the Sheriff of the City and County of New York, whole or such part of the sum of $10,000 Appellants, v. Collis P Huntington, Re. received by the plaintiff from the Central spon lent. -- Appeal (lismissed, with ten dol- Trust ('ompany, with interest thereon from lars costs and lisbursements.
the time of such receipt, as the defendant PER CURIAM: We do not see how the appeal shall be finally adjudged to be entitled to. in this action can be entertained upon the Charlotte W. Gregan v. Charles J. Buchanan. notice of appeal as served. The notice of - Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. motion was addressed to the parties who Charles Hutchinson v. Mary F. Root. - Motion had maile claims upon the defendant, and for resettlement granted. some of these parties appeared in court, as Reuben Krause, Respondent, V. Thomas is shown by the order from which the appeal Hagan, Appellant. Impleaded, etc.-- Judgis attempted to be taken. These parties, by ment affirmed by default, with costs. virtue of this order, acquired certain rights; William Knauss v. G. Kreuger Brewing Comand it is sought to deprive them of those pany. -- Motion granted, with ten dollars rights by the appeal taken hereiu. No notice costs.
Fourth DEPARTMENT, MARCH TERM, 1897. [Vol. 15, App. Div.]
Edward B. Lawler v. William F. Lennon.- Gould Roofing Company, Appellant, v. Peter Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
L Ryan, Respondent.- Order attirmed, with The People of the State of New York ex rel. ten dollars costs and disbursemeats. No
The International Navigation Company, Re- opinion. spondent, v. Edward P. Barker and others, Charlotte W. Gregan v. Charles J. Buchanan.as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. of the City of New York, Appellants--- Order Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disburse. v. Mary E. Bailey et al.; Same v. Richardi. ments. No opinion.
son et al.; Same v. Whalen et al.- Motion The People of the State of New York ex rel. denied. Eugene A. Masterson, Respondent, v. The John VeHale. Respondent, v, Fidelity and Board of Police, etc., of the City of Newi Casualty Company, Appellant. - Motion deYork. Appellant.--Order affirmed, with ten nied, with ten dollars costs. dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. In the Matter of the Petition of Timothr DonoMargaret A. Pooler V. Manhattan Railway van. - Motion granted.
Company. - Motion granted, with ten dollars Jeremiah T. Smith, Respondent. v. Joseph costs.
Fleischman, Appellant Impleaded with The People of the State of New York ex rel Others.-- Order affirmed, with ten dollars Patrick McElroy v. Theodore Roosevelt and costs and disbursements. No opinion. Others. - Motion for resettlement granted. Charles MacRae . Charles W. Graham.The People of the State of New York ex rel., Motion to amend notice of appeal grantel
Commissioners of Public Charities v. Henry upon payment of ten dollars costs to the D. Garrett - Motion granted, with ten dol i respondent lars costs
In the latter of Stanley M. Hatfield. – Motion Martin Reynolds v. Samuel Smyth et al.-Mo- denied. tion granted, with ten dollars costs.
Willoughby Weston, as Trustee, Appellant, V. The Seventy-thiril Street Building Compan Cornelia P. Goodrich et al., Respondents.
Appellant, v. Francis M Jeneks. Respond Motion granted.
FOURTH DEPARTMENT, March TERM, 1897.
Frank M. Carle, Appellant, v. Wellington W. I sent this case at the present term of the Kingsley, Respondent - Motion denied, with court, the inotion to put over the term is out costs. All concurred.
granted. Mary Kiefer, as administratrix of John Kiefer, John W. Nichols v. Rilla E. Nichols,- Motion
Deceased, Respondent, v. The Grand Trunk to dismiss the appeal granted, without costs.
John N. Renninger. Respondent, v. The New Wellington W. Kingsley, Respondent, v. Frank York Central and Hudson River Railroad
M.Carle, Appellant.-Motion denied, without Company, Appellant. - Motion granted and costs. All concurred.
order amended as follows: Ordered, that In the matter of Maria Berrus, an Alleged that part of the order which denies a motion
Incompetent Person. - Motion to dismiss the for a new trial made on a case and excepappeal granted, with ten dollars costs and tions, on the ground that the verdict is condisbursements. All concured.
trary to the evidence, and that it is for exIn the matter of Proving the will of Nehemiah cessive damages, affirmed; and that part of
Denton, Deceased.--Motion denied, without the order which clenies a motion for a new costs. All concurred.
trial on exceptions taken, and because the In the latter of the Appraisal of the Property verdict is contrary to law, is, together with of George B. Sherman, Deceased, under the the judgment, reversel, and a new trial orAct in Relation to Taxable Transfers of dered, with costs to abide the event. All couProperty --Orrier affirmed, with ten dollars curred, except Ward, J., dissenting Custs and disbursements. All concurred. Johannah Scanlon, Respondent, v, The City of The People of the state of New York, Re Watertown and John Ryan and Fred very
spondent, r. John F. Dorthy, Appellant. – Appellants.- lotion denied, with ten dollars Motiou to put case over the term granted.-- costs. All concurred. PER CIRLAM: It appearing by the papers Anice S. Smith, as Administratrix, etc., Represented to the court upon an application spondent, v. The New York Central and Hudto postpone the argument of the appeal in son River Railroad Company, Appellant.this case that there has been great delay in Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. All presenting to the court the appeal, both on concurred. the part of the prosecution and the defense, Charles Tullar, Respondent, v. The Silrer Metal and the circumstances being such that it is Manufacturing Company, Appellant.- Moapparent this record cannot be printeil and tion denied. All concurred. the briefs prepared so as to properly pre
In an action of this character it appeared that the defendant, who was an
One Dishaw, the plaintiff in the present action, who resided in the town
While an execution against his person was still in the hands of a con-
Held, that the action could be maintained as one for an abuse of legal
That from the evidence the jury might have found that the present
That such a use of a subpoena was a perversion and abuse of the process
See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT - An assignment of a bond and mortgage, acknorrl.
See LIMITATION OF ACTION.
See MONEY RECEIVED.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.
Mere possession for twenty years is not sufficient to establish title by
See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
STEIXAU 0. SCHEUER...
2. - The objection of double employment of a broker cannot be raised for the
3. — Not dismissed because of the absence of papers, not filed by the
4. — Remedy by motion to correct a judgment not following the decision.]
- Stay of proceedings -- appeal by the elevated railroals from a judgment
See BOARD OF ('OMRS. 1. MCCLOSKEY............................ 41
See MCKECINIE BREWING ('0. v. TRUSTEES..
See PEOPLE EX REL. THOMAS 7. SACKETT ........................ 290
See LOY ". METROPOLITAN ELEVATED RAILWAY CO................ 1
2. -- Their compensation is a county charge 1 Prior to the adoption of
3. - It need not be cocered by the annual legislative appropriation. The
The object of section 3 of article XI was to require the maintenance of the