Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and 121 New York State Reporter Action by Eliza Fairweather against Cath-, sion, Second Department. April 22, 1904.) ACerine 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, . SHERSAV. BANK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 15, 1904.) | Division

WOOD, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate

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.

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

C. Freeman against Marie S. Wyse. L. a Rabinowitz. R. L. Pritchard, for appellant.

Freeman, in pro. per. R. T. Greene, for re T. B. Chancellor, for respondent. No opinion.

spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, Fith Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse

$10 costs and disbursements. ments.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. SIRE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Da FIDELITY TRUST 00., Appellant, v.

partment. March 25, 1904.) Action by the MARSHALL, et al., Respondents. (Supreme

General Electric Company against Meyer L 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 opin 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, v. METRO plaintiff to plead over upon the payment of the POLITAN BANK, Appellant. (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 against this case is controlled by the cases of U. S. | the Metropolitan Bank. Trust Co. v. Mutual Benefit Life_Ins. Co., 1151 PER CURIAM. Order afirmed with 310 N. Y. 152, 21 N. E. 1025, and Walsh v.' Mu-l

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. SHELKO ance Co., 171 N. Y. 314, 63 N. E. 1111, and / WITZ. Respondent. "Supreme Court A also 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 V. INTERNATIONAL PULP CO. FIDELITY TRUST 00. OF BUFFALO v. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De MARSHALL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-partment. March 15, 1904.) Action by Delos sion, Fourth Department. March 29, 1904.) AC- Girard, as administratrix, etc., against the Is tion by the Fidelity Trust Company of Buffalo,ternational Pulp Company. No opinion. Mo as committee, etc., against Charles D. Marshall, I 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 GIVEEN v. GANS. (Supreme Court, Appel moving papers.

late Division, First Department. Marcb 25 1904.) Action by John S. Giveen against Leri

L. Gans. No opinion. Motion granted. FITZPATRICK, Respondent, V. BUTLER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-| GODFREY v. SOHMIDT 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 8. Godler. 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, Appel Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- 'late Division, Second Department April 15.

1904.) Action by Charles Goldstein and Aaron reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to apZelenko against Josephine Mentrup. No opin- | pellant to abide the event. All concur. ion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

GREGORY, Respondent, v. D. 0. HAYNES In re GOTTLIEB. (Supreme Court, Appel & CO., Appellant." (Supreme Court, Appellate late Division, First Department. March 20, Division, First Department. April 22, 1904.) 1904.) In the matter of Gettel Gottlieb. No Action by G. Felix Gregory against D. 0. opinion. See memorandum per curiam.

Haynes & Co. R. S. Baldwin, for appellant.

R. B. Aldcroft, for respondent. No opinion. GRANT, Appellant, v. PRATT & LAM- Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to deBERT, Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appel- fendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer, late Division, First Department. April 8, on payment of costs in this court and in the 1904.) Action by W. Wallace Grant against court below. Pratt & Lambert. E. M. Shepard, for appellant. L. C. Ledyard, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis In re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, Appellate bursements.

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. YORK TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 15, 1904.) Action by Nel GRIFHAHN, Respondent. v. KREIZER et lie 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-| Actiou by Mary C. Grifhahn, as administratrix, irmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant etc., against Bernard Kreizer and others. No :0 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 ASS’N et al., Respondents. GREENSPAN. Respondent. V. JOFFE. Ap- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeJellant. (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 Diviherman. These subtenants used the premisession, First Department. April 22, 1904.) ACor the manufacture of cigarettes. Upon the tion by John P. Hale, Jr., against the city of issolution 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 ) repair. Plaintiff was the only witness who HAMILTON, Respondent, v. FARNHAM. estified that the alleged damages were done by Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divine defendant. The defendant and two other sion, Second Department. April 15, 1904.) 'itnesses 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. lat he found such machinery lying on the floor ady to be removed, which he did without doig any damage. There was a sharp conflict. In re HAMMOND TYPEWRITER CO. In : testimony. After the court rendered a judg- re HAMMOND. (Supreme Court, Appellate ent in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant Division, First Department. April 15, 1904.) oved for a new trial upon the ground of newly | In the matter of the Hammond Typewriter scovered evidence. This appeal is from the Company and of James B. Hammond. R. D. dgment, and also from the order denying a Benedict, for appellant. W. Lindsay, for re

W trial. The testimony set forth in the afh- spondent. Order modified by reducing the sum Tvits used upon the motion for a new trial is of $7,532.81, to be paid under the terms of the early material upon the issues in the case, and order, to the sum of $5,000, and, as modified, e think the interests of justice would be best affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either Ibserved by granting a new trial. Judgment' party.

and 121 New York State Reporter HARVEY MEDICAL COLLEGE, Respond- and others. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. 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, and new trial granted, costs al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di to 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 orde

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. înent. 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, coa 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 partment. April 8, 1904.) Action by Bridget think that the injunction order should remai. Hayes against William L. Moore. G. Zabris- Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirkie, 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 FIRE ÎNS. ASS'N OF partment. April 29, 1904.) Action by David NEW YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap I. Hoage against Frank E. Linn. Vo opinios. pellate Division, Fourth Department. March Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with

Imer, 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, 1902)

Action by William Hogg and another against HERMAN, Appellant, V. DANIELS, Re George T. Hogg and others. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

PER CURIAM. The attorneys for the te First Department. April 8, 1904.) Action by

spective parties to this appeal having without Paul Herman against John L. Daniels. H. J. Hindes, for appellant. G. S. Daniels, for re

objection entered upon the argument of the case

upon the merits, it is unnecessary for the court spondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed,

to decide the motion. with costs.

HOGG et al., Respondents, v. HOGG, AppelHEWIT V. 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, V. 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 15, 1904.) ny. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirm In the matter of Herman Holtje, No opinion. ed, with costs.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.

22.

Hels

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 Insuranæ

Company of San Francisco against Philip E. HIGGINS, Respondent, v. POWELL et al.!

e Kline and others. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi PER CURIAM. Judgment and order denssion, 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

+ al

new trial upon the ground of newly-discov- | 22, 1904.) Action by Charles H. Hutwelkers red evidence affirmed, with disbursements and others against Samuel L. Bruck and Mendel

Schulman. No opiniou. Judgment of the MuIn re HOPKINS' WILL. (Supreme Court, nicipal Court aflirmed, by default, with costs. ppellate Division, Second Department. April 9, 1904.) In the matter of the probate of the IESIEF V. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. vill 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 lesief 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, letropolitan 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, 1904.) Action by the rmed, with costs.

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

firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. HORNE, Appellant, V. ACKLEY et al., Re pondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, IRVING SAV. INST. v. SMITH et al. (Suourth 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 HUBY

preme
DAIRY CO

: (Supreme Court, ApYourt, Appellate Division, Second Department. pellate Division, Second Department. April 15, April 15, 1904.) Action by Helen Huber and 1904.) Actiou 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.

JAYNE, Appellant, v. BROWN, Respondent. HURD, Respondent, v. TAYLOR, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeSupreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Deartment. March 15, 1904.) Action by F. Sew

partment. April 29, 1904.) Action by Andrew

F. Jayne against Mary F. Brown. No opinion. rd Hurd against George M. Taylor.

Judgment aftirmed, with costs, on the opinion PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- of Mr. 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. MCLEYVAN, P. J., and WILLIAMS, J., dis- JEMNIE 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, Appelrhich 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 Williament. '. Hurley for admission to the bar. No opin INGRAHAM, J. The questions presented in on. Application granted.

this case are the same as those determined in

the case of Jeunie Clarkson Home for ChilHUTCHINSON V. SIMPSON et al. (Su

dren v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company

(decided herewith) 87 N. Y. Supp. 318. The reme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-1 ient. April 22, 1904.) Action by Archibald A.

judgment in this case, however, gave to the lutchinson against John W. Simpson and oth

| plaintiff a judgment against the defendant rs. No opinion. Motion denied.

Union Pacific Railroad Company and Robert
Gibson, as general partner of the limited part-

nership of H. Knickerbocker & Co. For the HUTWELKERS et al., Respondents, v. reasons stated in the case of Jennie Clarkson TRUCK 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

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 to 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, V. 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.

.. j and others. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, on

i and others Noninion 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, Appe? with respect to that we concur in the opinion of late Division, Second Department. April 29, 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 CHILI DREN, Respondent. v. MISSOURI, K. & T. I 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, V. BROOKLYN judgment for plaintiff (83 N. Y. Supp. 913), de- | HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant (two cases fendants appeal. Affirmed. Ward, Hayden & (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sed Satterlee, for appellant Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Department. April 22, 1904.) Actions by Atis 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: on this appeal are the same as those determined the determination of the appeals from the or in the case of Jennie Clarkson Home for Chil- ders in these cases affects the question which dren v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (de- is suggested in the moving papers was rus. cided herewith), 87 N. Y. Supp. 348; and for and determined upon the trials of the casa $ 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 Coort delivery of such bonds to the plaintiff, the plain- | Appellate Division, First Department. A 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 O. Townsend. No opinion. Motion & 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 Court. 4 as modified, the judgment should be affirmed, pellate Division, Second Department. Van 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 cred HATCH. J. I concur in the opinion of Mr. I of John E. Kent, deceased, against the en 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 ser railway company and Gibson. I also think that trial granted, costs to abide the event, on $ the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment which thority of Strauss v. New York, New Hare

« AnteriorContinuar »