WEAGANT v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 8, 1912.) Action by Minerva J. Weagant, as administratrix, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals (from 134 N. Y. Supp. 1150), denied. WELTS, Appellant, v. ANDERSON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 22, 1912.) Action by Harry J. Welts against Joseph C. Anderson, as executor, etc. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. See, also, supra. WERST, Respondent, v. MANN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second WEAVER, Appellant, v. YOUNG et al., Re-Magdalena Werst against Frank Mann, as SecDepartment. April 19, 1912.) Action by spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- ond Deputy Tenement House Commissioner of sion, Fourth Department. May 1, 1912.) Ac- the city of New York. No opinion. Judgment tion by Oscar Weaver against John M. Young affirmed, with costs. and others. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed. ent. WERTHEIMER V. RUBINSTEIN. (Su ment. heimer against Morris Rubinstein. No opinion. May 10, 1912.) Action by Max WertMotion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. WEBER, Appellant, v. BALBACH, Respond-preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 29, 1912.) Action by Louise Weber against Wilhelmina F. Balbach, as administratrix, etc. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. WESSLAU, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Action by George J. Wesslau against the Long May 31, 1912.) Island Railroad Company. appellant. D. B. Griffin, for respondent. No J. F. Keany, for opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on Morgan v. Woolverton, 136 App. Div. 351, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1008, affirmed 203 N. Y. 52, 96 N. E. 354, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 640. Order filed. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., Respondent, v. HARRISON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. June 7, 1912.) Action by the Western Electric Company against William H. Harrison. W. H. Good, for appellant. F. R. Stoddard, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. ́WESTON, Respondent, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 29, 1912.) Action by Sophie C. Weston against the City of Buffalo. affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Judgment and order In re WEST 151ST ST. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 10, 1912.) In the matter of closing W. 151st Street. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. WHITE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK MILITARY ACADEMY REALTY CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 7, 1912.) Action by Dennis White against the New York Military Academy Realty Company. No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the authority of Clark v. New York Military Academy Realty Company, 135 N. Y. Supp. 865, decided herewith. WHITSON, Respondent, v. WHITSON AUTOPRESS CO., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 24, 1912.) Action by Anna Whitson against the Whitson Autopress Company. N. April, for appellants. A. W. Levy, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. WIEDMAN, Respondent, v. KINZLY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 1, 1912.) Action by Edward Wiedman, an infant, etc., against Frank Kinzly. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that the court committed prejudicial error in excluding the testimony of the chief of police, tending to show that the defendant had been directed to disperse people congregating on street corners, and in view of the charge of the court on the subject of malice this error is so prejudicial as to require a reversal. MCLENNAN, P. J., dissents, upon the ground that the question of malice was not involved, and the evidence referred to was therefore properly excluded, and that the charge of the court in that respect was not excepted to, and, therefore, the question of error is not before this court. WILKIE, Appellant, v. ERIE R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. June 14, 1912.) Action by George Wilkie against the Erie Railroad Company. E. W. S. Johnston, for appellant. F. R. Jennings, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court. Ap, pellate Division, Second Department. April 19, 1912.) Action by Mary E. Williams against the City of New York and another. No opinion. Motion granted, with costs. WRIGHT CO., Appellant, v. AERO CORPORATION, Limited, Respondent. (Supreme WILLIS, Respondent, v. EVERETT, Appel- Court, Appellate Division, First Department. lant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- June 22, 1912.) Action by the Wright Comsion, Second Department. May 1, 1912.) Ac-pany against the Aero Corporation, Limited. tion by Charles Willis against Robert K. Ever- F. W. Williamson, for appellant. W. W. Niles. No opinion. Judgment and ett, impleaded with others. No opinion. Judg- for respondent. Order filed. See, ment and order unanimously affirmed, with order affirmed, with costs. also, 128 N. Y. Supp. 726; supra. costs. WITH, Respondent, v. COOK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. June 14, 1912.) Action by Thorbjorg With against D. Randolph Cook. F. Hulse, for WRIGHT & ALEXANDER CO., Respondent, v. ALEXANDER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 1, 1912.) Action by the Wright & Alex ander Company against David A. Alexander. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. YUSEFF v. BUTLER-BUTLER, Inc. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 26, 1912.) Action by Abraham Yuseff against Butler-Butler, Incorporated. I. W. Goodhue, for plaintiff. J. H. Jones, for defendant. No opinion. Submission dismissed, without costs. Settle order on notice. ZOBREST, Appellant, v. EAST BUFFALO BREWING CO. et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 1, 1912.) Action by John W. Zobrest against the East Buffalo Brewing Company and others. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with See, also, 135 N. Y. Supp. 815. MCLENNAN, P. J., dissents. END OF CASES IN VOL. 135 KEY NUMBER SYSTEM) THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and ABANDONMENT. See Adverse Possession, § 24; Divorce, $ 82; ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. See Divorce, § 83. II. ANOTHER ACTION PENDING. §13 (N.Y.City Ct.) Pendency of action in ed in abatement of an action in New York on the same cause of action.-Scott v. Demarest, V. DEATH OF PARTY AND REVIVAL (B) Continuance or Revival of Action. ACCEPTANCE. See Contracts, §§ 16, 26; Dedication, § 35; ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See Compromise and Settlement; Payment. and defendant electric railways for an adjust- . To constitute an accord and satisfaction there §5 (N.Y.Sup.) An accord and satisfaction $11 (N.Y.Sup.) Where a buyer sent a letter § 16 (N.Y.Sup.) An agreement for an accord § 20 (N.Y.Sup.) An agreement does not oper- ACCOUNT. See Brokers, § 29; Corporations, §§ 189, 314, ACKNOWLEDGMENT. (N.Y.Sup.) There was no accord and sat- For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER (1153) |