are of opinion that all of the objections to the validity of the statute raised by the appellant and comprehended in the questions certified to us, with one, or possibly two, exceptions, are destitute of merit, and we shall dispose of them simply by answering the questions certified to us.

The exception to which we refer is the claim that the statute violates section 10, art. 8, of the state Constitution, which provides that no county, city, town, or village shall be allowed to incur any indebtedness, except for county, city, town, or village purposes, in that it pledges the credit of the county of Westchester for the payment of the bonds issued to raise the funds necessary for the construction of the sewer. The bonds on their face purport to be the obligation of the county, and the fact that the county is ultimately to be reimbursed by the local assessments provided by the act cannot relieve it from its primary obligation to the holders of the bonds. Therefore the statute does require the county of Westchester to incur a debt, and the question is whether that debt is for county purposes. We think that it plainly is. Usually sewers are constructed by cities or other municipal corporations. The reason for this, however, is, not that the disposition of sewage is in its character so inherently a city or village function that it may not be undertaken by the state or by a county, but that ordinarily drainage districts are so small in area as to be included within the territory of a city or village, and in a majority of cases comprise only a portion of such territory. It may happen, however, that the contour of the country is such that the drainage of a large territory, embracing within its limits several cities, towns, and villages, must obtain a single common outlet. Such is the present case. large part of the county of Westchester, including the towns of White Plains, Greenburgh, Scarsdale, East Chester, the city of Mt. Vernon, and part of the city of Yonkers, is to drain into this sewer. The whole of this territory, usually termed the "Bronx Valley," drains into the river of that name, which is an insignificant stream. The density of the population in this area has so increased of late years that the river has become utterly inadequate to properly dispose of the sewage, and the health of the whole region is seriously menaced by its pollution. The scheme of the improvement is the construction of a trunk sewer to collect all this sewage, and, instead of allowing it to flow into the Bronx, to divert it to the Hudson river, where the great flow of water can successfully carry it off. The prosecution of this work could not be undertaken by any of the municipalities named alone, nor should the burden of its cost be imposed on any single municipality. The work was for the common benefit of all.

A

There is in this state no political subdivision or organization intermediate the county and town or city. The Legislature might 83 N.E.-71

have prescribed some special method of joint action between the several municipalities through which the sewer is constructed. But it was not obliged to take that course. On the contrary, it seems to us more in conformity with the general frame of the state government that the prosecution of a work which exceeded the domain of any one municipality should be conferred upon the next higher political organization which was capable of performing it and within whose territory lay the whole improvement. Usually roads, parks, and sewers are the work of a municipality; but there are such things as county roads, and we do not see why there may not be county parks, or county sewers, for the general benefit of the inhabitants of the county. The prosecution of such an improvement would be a county purpose. Moreover, the question is, to a certain extent, one of degree. An improvement which was solely for the benefit of a single municipality should not be imposed on the county. Such, however, is not this case; but the area sought to be drained is so great that failure to properly drain it may be well thought to threaten the health of by far the greater part of the inhabitants of the county. It was said in People ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly, 76 N. Y. 475: "The Legislature, when legislating in view of this constitutional limitation, must determine in the first instance what is a municipal purpose. Its decision is not, however, final. When its act is challenged as in conflict with this constitutional limitation, the courts must determine whether debt is authorized to be incurred for a purpose not municipal. But as the dividing line between what is a municipal purpose and what is not is, in many cases, shadowy and uncertain, great weight should be given by the courts to the legislative determination, and its action should not be annulled unless the purpose appears clearly to be one not authorized." Clearly, within this rule, the statute must be upheld.

We see no force in the suggestion that the taxpayer is without opportunity to appear before the board of supervisors and be heard as to the apportionment of the assessment of the cost of the improvement between the several municipalities benefited thereby. The statute provides (Laws 1905, p. 1630, c. 646, § 14) that the apportionment or equalization shall be made by the board at the annual meeting after the dissolution of the commission appointed to construct the sewer. This act, though local, is public, not private, and the taxpayers of the county are bound to take notice of it.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and each of the questions certified answered in the negative.

GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ.,

concur.

Order affirmed.

ALLISON, Respondent, v. HUBBARD, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 19, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (115 App. Div. 894, 100 N. Y. Supp. 1103), entered October 9, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action for conversion. Arthur L. Chapman and H. C. Teepell, for appellant. F. B. Pitcher and C. H. Walts, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

AMERICAN FRUIT PRODUCT CO., Appellant, v. WARD, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (113 App. Div. 319, 99 N. Y. Supp. 717), entered May 22, 1906, which modified, and affirmed as modified, a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee, and affirmed an order granting an additional allowance in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. James Breck Perkins, for appellant. Lewis E. Carr, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the ground that, there being no exception in the record to the referee's report, the court is confined to an examination of the rulings on the evidence, and it finds no error therein.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and granted a new trial in an action to recover possession of a bank book issued to plaintiff's intestate. E. C. Emerson and George W. Reeves, for appellant. John N. Carlisle, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., not voting.

AVON SPRINGS SANITARIUM CO., Respondent, v. WEED, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 26, 1907.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 189 N. Y. 557, 82 N. E. 1123.

In re BAUM. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 14, 1908.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (121 App. Div. 496, 106 N. Y. Supp. 113), entered October 4, 1907, which affirmed a decree of the Queens County Surrogate's Court judicially settling the accounts of the administrator herein. The motion was made upon the grounds that no questions of law were involved which could be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, that the exceptions were frivolous, and that the decree of the surrogate was supported by the findings of fact, which findings had been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. Henry D. Merchant, for the motion.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs.

BARNUM, Respondent, v. WILLIAMS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (115 App. Div. 694, 102 N. Y. Supp. 874) entered December 1, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover for work done and materials furnished by plaintiff's assignee under a contract. Richard T. Greene, for appellant. John J. Kuhn and William N. Dykman, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, J., not sitting.

BEARD, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 3, 1907.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (119 App. Div. 894, 104 N. Y. Supp. 1122), entered May 10, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling the answer as frivolous and directing judgment for plaintiff. Francis K. 'Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (James D. Bell and Jerome W. Coombs, of counsel), for appellant. Ralph James M. Bullowa and Sutherland D. Smith, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the ground that this is an appeal from

an order only, and not from any judgment finally determining the action.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

BEST, Appellant, v. EASTMAN KODAK CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 621, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1116), entered March 21, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint at an Equity Term in an action to restrain the continuance of an alleged nuisance and for past damages. Louis E. Fuller, for appellant. Walter S. Hubbell, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., not sitting.

BUCKLEY et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK & B. DYEWOOD CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 19, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (113 App. Div. 911, 100 N. Y. Supp. 1108), entered June 13, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action for an injunction to restrain the use of certain machinery in defendant's factory. Welton C. Percy, for appellant. Robert H. Roy, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, and WILLARD BARTLETT, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., dissents. WERNER, J., absent.

CASBY, Respondent, v. LAWLESS et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 7, 1908.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (116 App. Div. 922, 101 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered December 26, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendants' negligence. James S. Havens, for appellants. John Gillette, for respondent.

CITY OF NEW YORK v. DE PEYSTER et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 20, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (120 App. Div. 762, 105 N. Y. Supp. 612), entered July 31, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to restrain the continuance of an encroachment upon a street in the city of New York. William Allan Hoar, for appellant. Francis K. Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and George O'Reilly, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THIRD AVE. R. CO., Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (115 App. Div. 899, 101 N. Y. Supp. 1116), entered November 28, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover license fees alleged to be due from the defendant for running passenger cars on its railway in the city of New York. J. P. Cotton, Jr., George H. Bartholomew, and H. A. Robinson, for appellant. William B. Ellison, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Terence Farley, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

In re CLEMENT, State Excise Com'r. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 3, 1907.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (119 App. Div. 622, 104 N. Y. Supp. 25), entered May 28, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for the revocation of a liquor tax certificate. Daniel A. Reed and H. Walter Lee, for appellant. Henry W. Killeen, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

COHEN, Respondent, v. SMALL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 21, 1908.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (120 App. Div. 211, 105 N. Y. Supp. 287), entered June 21, 1907, reversing an order of the Appellate Term, which affirmed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York sustaining a demurrer to and dismissing the complaint in an action to recover money alleged to have been paid in violation of the provision of the bankruptcy law in regard to preferential payments. The following questions were certified: “(1) Does it appear upon the face of the complaint that the Municipal Court of the city of New York has jurisdiction of the subject of the action? (2) Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?" Henry Bennett Leary, for appellant. Michel Kirtland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Both questions certified answered in the affirmative.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

COLEMAN, Appellant, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 20, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (117 App. Div. 917, 102 N. Y. Supp. 1133), entered February 21, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have occurred

through defendant's negligence. George C. Riley, for appellant. Louis L. Babcock and Evan Hollister, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., con

cur.

COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC CHARITIES OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FARLEY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 3, 1907.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (119 App. Div. 894, 104 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered May 3, 1907, which affirmed an order of filiation of the Court of Special Sessions in the city of New York adjudging the defendant to be the father of the unborn child of the complainant, Margaret Pendergast. Thomas C. Whitlock, for appellant. Francis K. Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (James D. Bell, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, without costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

COOPER, Appellant, v. PAYNE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 19, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (111 App. Div. 785, 97 N. Y. Supp. 863), entered March 21, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, a jury having been waived, in an action to recover on a promissory note. Andrew J. Nellis and J. S. Sitterly, for appellant. Henry V. Borst, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. VANN, J., absent.

DATE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK GLUCOSE CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 19, 1907.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (114 App. Div. 789, 100 N. Y. Supp. 171), entered October 5, 1906, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused through defendant's negligence. Melville G. France, for appellant. Frederick Hulse, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, J., not sitting.

DERR, Appellant, v. KEARNEY, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (110 App. Div. 889, 96 N. Y. Supp. 1122), entered December 28, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. John Mulholland, for appellant. Joseph Fettretch and R. B. Kelly, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

.DUDLEY v. VANDERPOEL et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 26, 1907.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (119 App. Div. 928, 105 N. Y. Supp. 1114), entered May 29, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term imposing terms as a condition to the granting of a motion for substitution of attorneys; also motion on the part of appellant for leave to file a new and amended undertaking. The motion to dismiss was made upon the grounds that the appeal was not taken in time, and that a proper undertaking had not been filed. Carroll Whitaker, for the motion to dismiss. Rollin Tracy, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs, and motion for leave to file a new and amended undertaking granted, upon payment of $10 within 10 days.

DURANT, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF SOLVAY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 20, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (116 App. Div. 923, 101 N. Y. Supp. 1119), entered January 5, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have occurred through the defendant's negligence. Lamont Stilwell, for appellant. Walter Welch, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ.,

concur.

DUVAL, Respondent, v. RACQUETTE RIV. ER PAPER CO, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 7, 1908.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (117 App. Div. 913, 102 N. Y. Supp. 1135), entered February 11, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have occurred through defendant's negligence. D. B. Lucey, for appellant. Ledyard P. Hale and William H. McCormick, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., con

cur.

FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. BOSTWICK et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 21, 1908.) Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (120 App. Div. 271, 105 N. Y. Supp. 130), entered July 15, 1907, which modified, and affirmed as modified, a judgment of Special Term construing the will of Jabez A. Bostwick, deceased, and certain trust deeds executed by him. James F. Horan, for Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. George L Shearer, for United States Trust Co. William

Pierrepont Williams and Lanman Crosby, for administrator. Egerton L. Winthrop, Jr., for Famie E. Francis. Charles E. Buckingham, for Albert C. Bostwick, Jr., and others. Frank L. Polk, for Marion B. Carstairs and others. George F. Chamberlain, for Albert C. Bostwick. Ward B. Chamberlain, for Helen C. Bostwick.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of Appellate Division reversed, and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing in this court and filing briefs, payable out of the fund, on the authority of N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Cary, 191 N. Y. 33, 83 N. E. 598.

FASANI, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 19, 1907.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (109 App. Div. 404, 96 N. Y. Supp. 415), entered December 8, 1905, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused through defendant's negligence. D. F. Searle, for appellant. Charles T. Titus, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., not sitting.

GAGE, Respondent, v. BLOOMQUIST et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 17, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (113 App. Div. 890, 100 N. Y. Supp. 1117), entered May 19, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendants' negligence. Arthur C. Wade, James L. Weeks, and Arthur W. Kettle, for appellants. Thomas H. Dowd, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

GILROY, Appellant, v. EVERSON-HICKOK CO. et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 7, 1908.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (118 App. Div. 733, 103 N. Y. Supp. 620), entered April 16, 1907, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict in an action of replevin. Charles W. Dayton, Jr., for appellant. N. Miller, for respondents.

Isaac

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and WIL WARD BARTLETT, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not voting.

GLEASON, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division_of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (115 App. Div. 896, 101 N. Y. Supp. 1123), entered October 23, 1906, affirming a Judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a

new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. William S. Jenney, for appellant. George W. Driscoll, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., dissents.

GOLDMAN, Respondent, v. GOLDBERG, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 19, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (113 App. Div. 912, 100 N. Y. Supp. 1118), entered June 15, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of a contract to convey real estate. Nathan D. Stern and Edward Herrmann, for appellant. Arthur Hurst, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

GORDON, Appellant, v. MAAS, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment entered December 8, 1906, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (115 App. Div. 377, 100 N. Y. Supp. 891), which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint in an action to set aside an assignment. William P. Maloney, for appellant. Walter J. Rosenstein, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

GRANT, Appellant, v. CANANEA CONSOL IDATED COPPER CO., Respondent, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 3, 1907.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 189 N. Y. 241, 82 N. E. 191.

GUMBES et al., Appellants, v. HICKS et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (116 App. Div. 120, 101 N. Y. Supp. 741), entered December 21, 1906, which reversed an order of the Broome County Court denying a motion for the vacation of a warrant of attachment and granting said motion. The following question was certified: "Were the papers upon which the warrant of attachment was granted sufficient to authorize the county judge to grant said attachment?" C. H. Hitchcock, for appellants. Albert S. Barnes and Hiram Mintz,

for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Question certified answered in the negative. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

GURSKI, Respondent, v. DOSCHER, Ap pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 10, 1907.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 845,