Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and 121 New York State Reporter Action by Eliza Fairweather against Cath- sion, Second Department. April 22, 1904.) A erine Hali Burling. No opinion. Order affirm- tion' by William J. Fitzpatrick against Patrick ed, on argument, with $10 costs and disburse- Fox and Catherine Fox. No opinion. Motion ments.

granted, and order resettled.

FARRELLY v. EMIGRANT INDUSTRIAL

FOLEY & CO. Respondent, 5. SHERSAV. BANK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di-WOOD, Appellant.” (Supreme Court, Appellate vision, First Department. April 15, 1904.) Division, Fourth Department. April 5. 1904.) Action by Thomas Farrelly against the Emi- | Action by Foley & Co. against Amos B. Shergrant Industrial Savings Bank. No opinion. wood.

No opinion. Judgment and order af Motion denied.

firmed, with costs.

FERGUSON, Appellant, v. RABINOWITZ,

FREEMAN, Appellant, v. WYSE, RespondRespondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First sion, First Department. March 25, 1904.) AC- Department. April 8, 1904.) Action by Lewis tion' by Benjamin Ferguson against Abraham 0. Freeman against Marie_s. Wyse. L. C. Rabinowitz. R. L. Pritchard, for appellant. Freeman, in pro. per. R. T. Greene, for reT. B. Chancellor, for respondent. No opinion. spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- $10 costs and disbursements. ments.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V, SIRE et al. FIDELITY TRUST 00., Appellant, v.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De

March 25, 1904.)

partment. MARSHALL, et al., Respondents. (Supreme General Electric Company against Meyer L

Action by the Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Sire and others. F. Bien, for appellants. J.T. March 22, 1904.) Action by the Fidelity Trust Bouvier, Jr., for respondent Kiernan. No opis Company, as committee, etc., against Charles

ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disD. Marshall, as executor, etc., and Charles

bursements. D. Marshall, as administrator, etc.

PER CURIAM. Interlocutory judgment and order affirmed, with costs, with leave to the

GERMAN BANK, Respondent, 5. METRO plaintiff to plead over upon the payment of the POLITAN BANK, Appellaut. (Supreme Court costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. Held, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. April that the decision of the questions involved in 5, 1904.) Action by the German Bank agaiust this case is controlled by the cases of U. s. the Metropolitan Bank. Trust Co. v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 115

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 N. Y. 152, 21 N. E. 1025, and Walsh v. Mu

costs and disbursements. tual Life Insurance Co., 133 N. Y. 408, 31 N. E. 228, 28 Am. St. Rep. 651.

SPRING, J., not voting. McLENNAN, P. J., dissents, upon the authority of Amberg v. Manhattan

Life Insur- GERSHENSON, Appellant, V. SHELKOance Co., 171 N. Y. 314, 63 N. E. 1111, and WITZ, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appelalso upon the ground that it was not the inten- late Division, First Department. April tion of the parties to the contract of insurance 1904.) Action by Nathan Gershenson against that any part of the insurance moneys should Jacob Shelkowitz. M. Schleimer, for appellant. be paid to the representatives or assigns of any M. Brown, for respondent. No opinion. Order child of the insured who might die without issue affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. before the death of the insured.

GIRARD Y. INTERNATIONAL PULP CO. FIDELITY TRUST CO. OF BUFFALO v. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De MARSHALL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-partment. March 16, 1904.) Action by Delina sion, Fourth Department. March 29, 1904.) AC-Girard, as administratrix, etc., against the lition by the Fidelity Trust Company of Buffalo, ternational Pulp Company. No opinion. Moas committee, etc., against Charles D. Marshall, tion denied. as administrator, etc. No opinion. Motiou for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and questions certified as presented in the GIVEEX V. GANS. (Supreme Court, Appel moving papers.

late Division, First Department. March 25 1904.) Action by John S. Giveen against Ler

L. Gans. No opinion. Motion granted. FITZPATRICK, Respoudent, V. BUTLER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- GODFREY v. SCHMIDT et al. (Supreme sion, Second Department. , April 29, 1904.) AC-Court, Appellate Division, First Department tion by Thomas Fitzpatrick against James But- March 23, 1904.) Action by Frederick S. God ler. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs frey against Charles Schmidt and others. No and disbursements.

opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs.

GOLDSTEIN et al., Appellants, F. MEN FITZPATRICK, Respondent, v. FOX et al., TRUP, Respondent. Supreme Court Appels Appellants. (Supreme Court, 'Appellate Divi.'late Division, Second Department. April 15.

[ocr errors]

904.) Action by Charles Goldstein and Aaron reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to apSelenko against Josephine Mentrup. No opin- pellant to abide the event. All concur. on. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, rith costs.

GREGORY, Respondent, v. D. 0. HAYNES In re GOTTLIEB. (Supreme Court, Appel- & CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate ate Division, First Department. March 25, Division, First Department. April 22, 1904.) 904.) In the matter of Gettel Gottlieb. No Actiou by G. Felix Gregory against D. O. pinion. See memorandum per curiam.

Haynes & Co. R. S. Bald win, for appellant.

R. B. Aldcroft, for respondent. No opinion. GRANT, Appellant, V. PRATT & LAM- Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to de3ERT, Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appel- fendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer, ate Division, First Department. April 8, on payment of costs in this court and in the 904.) Action by W. Wallace Grant against court below. Pratt & Lambert. E. M. Shepard, for appelant. L. C. Ledyard, for respondents.

No pinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis- Iu re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, Appellate sursements.

Division, Second Department. March 15, 1904.)
In the matter of the application of James H.

Griffin for admission to the bar. No opinion. GRAVES, Respondent, v. CENTRAL NEW Application granted. TORK TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 15, 1904.) Action by Nel- GRIFHAHN, Respondent, v. KREIZER et ie Graves against the Central New York Tele- al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diphone & Telegraph Company.

vision, Second Department. March 15, 1904.) PER CURIAM. Interlocutory judgment af- Action by Mary C. Grifhahn, as administratrix, irmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant etc., against Bernard Kreizer and others. No o plead over, upon payment of the costs of the opinion. Undertaking approved and filed. lemurrer and of this appeal. WILLIAMS, J., dissents.

HAACK, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN LA

BOR LYCEUM ASÁ'N et al., Respondents. GREENSPAN, Respondent, v. JOFFE, Ap- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Deellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. partment. April 22, 1904.) Action by Laura March 24, 1904.) Action by Abraham Green A. Haack against the Brooklyn Labor Lyceum pan against David Joffe. From a judgment Association, Joseph Hellig, and the city of New or plaintiff, and from an order denying a new York. No opinion. Judgment reversed, and a rial, defendant appeals. Reversed. A. B. new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on Greenberg, for appellant. J. Rieger, for re- the opinion in Bruno Haack v. Same (decided pondent.

herewith) 87 N. Y. Supp. 814. FREEDMAN, P.J. Plaintiff brought this acion, claiming to be the lessee of certain prem- HALE, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ses which he sublet to the firm of Singer & Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisherman. These subtenants used the premises sion, First Department. April 22, 1904.) ACor the manufacture of cigarettes. Upon the tion by John P. Hale, Jr., against the city of lissolution of their partnership they sold some New York. T. Connoly, for respoudent. No f their machinery to this defendant. The opinion. Judgment attirmed, with costs, on the laintiff alleges that the defendant, in removing authority of People v. Rich, 36 App. Div. 60, he machinery so purchased, damaged the prem- 56 N. Y. Supp. 277. ses by breaking the ceilings, etc., which by the erms of plaintiff's lease the plaintiff was bound o repair. Plaintiff was the only witness who HAMILTON, Respondent, V. FARNHAM, estified that the alleged damages were done by Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divihe defendant. The defendant and two other sion, Second Department. April 15, 1904.) ritnesses testified that the defendant did not Action by William J. Hamilton against Pauldamage, but that the machinery purchased by ing Farnham. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, im was all taken apart by his grantors, and with costs. hat he found such machinery lying on the floor eady to be removed, which he did without dong any damage. There was a sharp conflict In re HAMMOND TYPEWRITER CO. In f testimony. After the court rendered a judg- re HAMMOND. (Supreme Court, Appellate nent in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant Division, First Department. April 15, 1904.) Doved for a new trial upon the ground of newly In the matter of the Hammond Typewriter iscovered evidence. This appeal is from the Company and of James B. Hammond. R. D. udgment, and also from the order denying a Benedict, for appellant. W. Lindsay, for reew trial. The testimony set forth in the affi- spondent. Order modified by reducing the sum a vits used upon the motion for a new trial is of $7,532.81, to be paid under the terms of the learly material upon the issues in the case, and order, to the sum of $5,000, and, as modified, re think the interests of justice would be best affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either ubserved by granting a new trial. Judgment party.

and 121 New York State Reporter HARVEY MEDICAL COLLEGE, Respond- I and others. No opinion. Judgment afirmed, ent, v: COCHEU, Appellant. (Supreme Court with costs. Appellate Division, Second Department. April 22, 1904.) Action by the Harvey Medical College against Fred C. Cocheu. No opinion. HOADLEY, Respondent, v. LEOPOLD et Judgment reversed, an new trial granted, costs al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dito abide the event, for error in ruling in the vision, First Department. April 8, 1904.) A exclusion of evidence at folios 45 to 48, inclu- tion by Alfred H. Hoadley against James Leosive, in the printed case on appeal.

pòld and another. From an interlocutory order

restraining defendants pendente lite from selling HAYES V. CITY OF NEW YORK. (Su- certain stocks, they appeal. Affirmed. Court preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- land V. Anable, for appellants. William X. ment. March 18, 1904.) Action by John Hayes Cohen, for respondent. against the city of New York. No opinion. PER CURIAM. We think that the questions Motion granted, with $10 costs.

involved should be disposed of at the trial, and

not upon affidavits; and without, therefore, con HAYES, Respondent, v. MOORE, Appellant. sidering or passing upon the merits, which (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- should be left until the trial can be had, we partment. April 8, 1904.) Action by Bridget think that the injunction order should remain. Hayes against William L. Moore. G. Zabris- Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirm kie, for appellant. J. B. Marshall, for responded, with $10 costs and disbursements to abide ent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirm- the event. ed, with costs.

HOAGE, Respondent. v. LINN, Appellant. HELMER, Respondent, V. MERCHANTS' (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De CO-OPERATIVE FIRÉ INS. ASS'N OF partment. April 29, 1904.) Action by David NEW YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap-I. Hoage against Frank E. Linn. No opinion. pellate Division, Fourth Department. March Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with 22, 1904.) Action by Sophia Helmer, as adınin- costs. istratrix, _etc., _against the Merchants' Co-operative Fire Insurance Association of New York. No opinion. Judgment and order affirm- HOGG et al., Respondents, v. HOGG et al ed, with costs.

Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri

sion, Fourth Department. March 15, 1904) HERMAN, Appellant, V. DANIELS, Re- George T. Hogg and others.

Action by William Hogg and another against spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

PER CURLAM. The attorneys for tbe re First Department. April 8, 1904.) Action by Paul Herman against John' L. Daniels. H. 3. spective parties to this appeal haring without Hindes, for appellant. G. s. Daniels, for re: objection entered upon the argument of the case spondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, upon

the merits, it is unnecessary for the court

. with costs.

HOGG et al., Respondents, v. HOGG, AppelHEWIT HEDDEN et al. (Supreme lant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Fourth Department. March 22, 1904.) Action March 15, 1904.) Action by Loren M. Hewit by William Hogg and another against George against Viner J. Hedden and others. No opin- T. Hogg, impleaded with others. ion. Motion granted, without costs.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs. HIBBITES, Appellant, BROOKLYN

SPRING, J., not sitting. HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 15, 1904.) Action by Maria J. Hibbites In re HOLTJE. (Supreme Court, Appellate against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Compa- Division, First Department. April 13, 1904.) py. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirm- In the matter of Herman Holtje. No opinion. ed, with costs.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.

[ocr errors]

HIDDEN v. GODFREY et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. HOME FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. OF April 15, 1904.) Action by Thomas B. Hidden SAN FRANCISCO, Appellant. v. KLINE E against Fred S. Godfrey and others. No opin- al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate ion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss ap- Division, Fourth Department. March 15, 1904.) peal, with $10 costs.

Action by the Home Fire & Marine Insurance
Company of San Francisco against Philip E.

Kline and others. HIGGINS, Respondent, v. POWELL et al. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi PER CURIAM. Judgment and order dens sion, Second Department. April 15, 1904.) Acing motion for new trial upon the minutes af. tion by John Higgins against Sarah C. Powell'firmed, with costs. Order denying motion for

new trial upon the ground of newly-discov- 122, 1904.) Action by Charles H. Hutwelkers red evidence affirmed, with disbursements. and others against Samuel L. Bruck and Mendel

Schulman. No opinion. Judgment of the MuIn re HOPKINS' WILL. (Supreme Court, nicipal Court aflirmed, by default, with costs. uppellate Division, Second Department. April 9, 1904.) In the matter of the probate of the IESIEF v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. will of Robert E. Hopkins, deceased. No opin- Co. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, on. Motion for reargument granted, and case Fourth Department. March 15, 1904.) Action et down for argument on May 31, 1904. by Peter Iesief against the New York Central

& Hudsou River Railroad Company. No opinHOPKINS. Respondent, v. METROPOLI-ion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with "AN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, costs, including $10 costs of this motion. Appellate Division, First Department, March 5, 1904.) Action by John Hopkins against the IRON NAT. BANK OF PLATTSBURG, setropolitan Street Railway Company. C. F. Respondent, v. DOLGE et al., Appellants. Brown, for appellant. T. E. Munday, for re (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Depondent. No opinion. Judgment and order af-partment. March 15, 1901.) Action by the rmed, with costs.

Iron National Bank of Plattsburg against Alfred Dolge and others. No opinion. Order af

firmed, with $10 costs aud disbursements. HORNE, Appellant, v. ACKLEY et al., Repondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, IRVING SAV. INST. v. SMITH et al. (SuFourth Department. March 22, 1904.) Action preme Court, Appellate Division, First Departy Walter P. Horne against Griffin T. Ackley ment. April 15, 1904.) Action by the Irving nd others.

Savings Institution against Arthur E. Smith PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- and others. No opinion. Motion granted, with d, with costs.

$10 costs. WILLIAMS and STOVER, JJ., dissent.

JARVIS, Respondent, v. HIGH GROUND HUBER et al. v. CASE et al. (Supreme DAIRY CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, ApSourt, Appellate Division, Second Department, pellate Division, Second Department. April 15, Ipril 15, 1904.) Action by Helen Huber and 1904.) Action by Frank Jarvis against the thers against Franklin B. Case, Jr., and oth- High Ground Dairy Company. No opinion. rs. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with ind disbursements, on opinion of Huber v. costs. Case (decided herewith) 87 N. Y. Supp. 663. HURD, Respondent, v. TAYLOR, Appellant.

JAYNE, Appellant, v. BROWN, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division,' Fourth De: (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Deartment. March 15, 1904.) Action by F. Sew-F. Jayne against Mary F. Brown. No opinion.

partment. April 29, 1904.) Action by Andrew rd Hurd against George M. Taylor.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion PER CURIAN. Judgment and order affirm- of Jr. Justice Wilmot M. Smith at Special d, with costs. Held, that the question of the Term. llegality of the contract was properly submited to the jury.

McLEYNAN, P. J., and WILLIAMS, J., dis- JEWYIE CLARKSON HOME FOR CHILent. upon the ground that the evidence conclu- DREN, Respondent, v. UNION PACIFIC R. ively establishes that the agreement under CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appelphich the plaintiff seeks to recover was a wager late Division, First Department. March 25, ontract, and was understood by the parties to 1904.) Action by the Jennie Clarkson Home e such, and that therefore the plaintiff is not for Children against the Union Pacific Railroad ntitled to recover.

Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff (83 N. Y. Supp. 913), defendauts ap

peal. Affirmed. Austen 0. Fox, for appellant In re HURLEY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Gibson. Pierce & Greer, for appellant Union Division, Second Department. March 15, 1904.) Pac, Ry. Co. Henry W.' Sackett, for respondn the matter of the application of William ent. '. Hurley for admission to the bar. No opin- INGRAHAM, J. The questions presented in in. Application granted.

this case are the same as those determined in

the case of Jennie Clarkson Home for ChilHUTCHINSON v. SIMPSON et al. (Su- dren v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company reme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart decided herewith) 87 N. Y. Supp. 348. The ent. April 22, 1904.) Action by Archibald A. judgment in this case, however, gave to the [utchinson against John W. Simpson and oth: plaintiff a judgment against the defendant

Union Pacific Railroad Company and Robert rs. No opinion. Motion denied.

Gibson, as general partner of the limited part

nership of H. Knickerbocker & Co. For the HUTWELKERS al., Respoudents, reasons stated in the case of Jennie Clarkson RUCK et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Home for Children v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railppellate Division, Second Department. April I way Company, we have reached the conclusion

87 N.Y.S.—72

et

to

and 121 New York State Reporter that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment, it has obtained against Gibson. The form which against the defendant Gibson, and the judgment the trial of the action assumed conferred author must therefore be reversed as to Gibson, and the ity upon the court to award any relief which the complaint dismissed, with costs Gibson facts warranted; and, as it appeared that the against the plaintiff. The judgment against the defendant Gibson could be made liable for a Union Pacific Railroad Company is affirmed, conversion of the proceeds of the bonds, it was with costs to the plaintiff against the Union proper for the court to award the judgment Pacific Railroad Company.

against him which it did. I am, therefore, for VAN BRUNT, P. J., concurs in result.

the affirmance of the judgment in its entirety. HATCH, J. I concur in the opinion of Mr. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Justice INGRAHAM, so far as it disposes of

PATTERSON and LAUGHLIN, JJ. We the question arising between the railroad com-concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice INGRApany and the plaintiff. I also think that the HAM, except so far as the liability of the de plaintiff is entitled to the judgment which it has fendant Gibson to the plaintiff is concerned, and obtained against Gibson. The form which the with respect to that we concur in the opinion of trial of the action assumed conferred authority Mr. Justice HATCH. upon the court to award any relief which the facts warranted; and, as it appeared that the JENNINGS, Respondent, 6. NICHOLS et defendant Gibson could be made liable for a al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diconversion of the proceeds of the bonds, it was vision, Third Department. March 15, 1904.) proper for the court to award the judgment Action by Herbert T. Jennings, as receiver of against him which it did. I am, therefore, for the Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs the affirmance of the judgment in its entirety. Railway Company, against Morton C. Nichols The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. and others. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, on

PATTERSON and LAUGHLIN, JJ. We stipulation, without costs. concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice INGRAHAM, except so far as the liability of the de- JEWELL, Respondent, v. CITY OF MT. fendant Gibson to the plaintiff is concerned, and VERNON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appewith respect to that we concur in the opinion of late Division, Second Department. April Mr. Justice HATUH.

1904.) Action by William Jewell against the city of Mt. Vernon. No opinion. Motion for

reargument denied, with $10 costs. JENNIE CLARKSON HOME FOR CHIL DREN, Respondent, v. MISSOURI, K. & T. JOHNSON v. ROACH. (Supreme Court RY. CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Apri Appellate Division, First Department. March 8, 1904.) Action by Mary M. Johnson agaiast 25, 1904.) Action by the Jennie Clarkson Home Edward Roach. No opinion. Motion granted for Children against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company and another. From a JONES, Respondent,

BROOKLIS judgment for plaintiff (83 N. Y. Supp. 913), de- HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant (two cases! fendants appeal. Affirmed. Ward, Hayden & (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Satterlee, for appellant Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Department. April 22, 1904.) Actions by Atte Co. William R. Bronk, for appellant Gibson. lia Jones and by George E. Jones against the Sackett & McQuaid, for respondent.

Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. INGRAHAM, J. The questions presented up- PER CURIAM. We do not consider tha: ou this appeal are the same as those determined the determination of the appeals from the in in the case of Jennie Clarkson Home for Childers in these cases affects the question which : dren v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (de- is suggested in the moving papers was ruis. cided herewith), 97 N. Y. Supp. 348; and for and determined upon the trials of the cases s the reasons stated in that case the judgment ap- to the admissibility of the release as eriden pealed from should be modified, by requiring upon the measure of damages; and these the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Com- tions are therefore denied. pany to restore to the plaintiff the bonds which it has illegally transferred, or, in default of the KEIM V. TOWNSEND. (Supreme Court delivery of such bonds to the plaintiff, the plain. Appellate Division, First Department. Apa tiff should have judgment for the value of the 8, 1904.) Action by Frederick Keim again bonds as found by the court, with interest, and David C. Townsend. No opinion. Motion de that the defendant the Missouri, Kansas & Tex- nied. as Railway Company is entitled to judgment against the defendant Gibson for the amount that it is required to pay to the plaintiff as the KENT, Appellant, v. NEW YORK, N. H. & value of the bonds, with interest thereon, and, H. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court4 as modified, the judgment should be affirmed, pellate Division, Second Department. Var with costs to the plaintiff.

18, 1904.) Action by James L. Kent, as VAN BRUNT, P. J., concurs in result. ministrator of the goods, chattels, and credi

HATCH, J. I concur in the opinion of Mr. of John E. Kent, deceased, against the Net Justice INGRAHAM so far as it disposes of York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com the question arising between the railway com- pany. pany and the plaintiff, and also between the PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed. and railway company and Gibson. I also think that trial granted, costs to abide the erent, on es the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment which I thority of Strauss v. New York, New Hare

« AnteriorContinuar »