Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and 121 New York State Reporter preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-1, PEOPLE ex rel. GRAHAM V. STUDWELL ment. March 23, 1904.) Proceeding by the Supervisor, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate people of the state of New York, on the rela- Division, Second Department. March 15, 1904. tion of Barnard College, against James L. Wells Proceeding by the people of the state of Sex and others. S. B. Brownell, for appellant. G. York, on the relation of Samuel H. Graham. S. Coleman, for respondents. No opinion. Or- against Edwin F. Studwell, as supervisor, and der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. others, composing the town board of the town

of Rye. No opinion. Motion granted, and or PEOPLE ex rel. CONINE, Appellant, v.

der resettled and sigued. STEUBEN COUNTY et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 29, 1904.) Proceeding by PEOPLE ex rel. GRANT , GREENE, the people of the state of New York, on the Police Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divirelation of Gamaliel T. Conine, against the sion, First Department. April 15, 1904.) Cer. county of Steuben and others. No opinion. tiorari, on the relation of Donald Grant, to re Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, upon view the determination of Francis V. Greere, as the opinion of NASH, J. (85 N. Y. Supp. 244), police commissioner, dismissing relator from the delivered at special term.

police force. Writ sustained. Frank S. Black,

for relator, Terence Farley, for respondent. PEOPLE ex rel. DURAND-RUEL, Appel- PATTERSON, J. The relator, an inspector lant, v. WELLS et al., Respondents. (Supreme in the police department of the city of New Court, Appellate Division. First Department. York, was tried before the deputy police coMarch 25, 1904.) Proceeding by the people of missioner upon charges, and was dismissed by the state of New York, on the relation of the police commissioner from the force. The George Durand-Ruel, against James L. Wells charges made against him were substantially and others. F. R. Coudert, for appellant. G. the same as those preferred against Poice S. Coleman, for respondents. Vo opinion. Or- Captain Stephenson, who was also convicted by der (83 N.' Y. Supp. 936) affirmed, with $10 the police commissioner and dismissed from the costs and disbursements.

force, but who has been reinstated by this

court (87 N. Y. Supp. 172) on a reversal of the PEOPLE ex rel. ELY v. GROUT, Comptrol- conviction. The evidence in the record Dot be ler. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First fore us is, upon the substantial matters is Department. March 18, 1904.) Proceeding by volved, identical with that taken before the the people of the state of New York on the police commissioner on the trial of Stephenson, relation of Ambrose K. Ely, against Edward M. and it appears that the record of the evidence Grout, comptroller. No opinion. Motion grant- received as that upon which the findings of the

taken in the Stephenson Case was offered ani' ed, with $10 costs.

police commissioner were made in the case at

bar. The only additional proof seems to coPEOPLE ex rel. FRANK V. BOARD OF sist of the testimony of Police Commissioner EDUCATION. (Supreme Court. Appellate Di. Partridge and of the relator himself and of vision, First Department. March 18, 1904.) James Haggerty, and some exhibits, which is Proceeding by the people of the state of New no way strengthen the case against the present York, on the relation of Augusta B. Frank, relator. In that state of the record, the finding against the Board of Education. No opinion of the commissioner that the relator was guilty Motion granted, with $10 costs.

of the charges against him must be set aside for insufficiency of evidence to establish any one

of the charges upon which the relator was ar PEOPLE ex rel. GOETZ SILK MEG. CO., raigned and tried. The proceedings must be Respondent, v. WELLS et al., Appellants. (Su: annulled, and the writ of certiorari sustained. preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- and the relator reinstated in his former posiment. April 8, 1904.) Proceeding by the peo- tion, with $50 costs and disbursements. ple of the state of New York, on the relation of VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN the Goetz Silk Manufacturing Company, against and LAUGHLIN, JI., concar. James L. Wells and others. G. S. Coleman, INGRAHAM, J. I concur, as concluded by for appellants. W. A. McQuaid, for respond the Stephenson Case, 87 N. Y. Supp. 172. ent. No opinion. Order (85 N. Y. Supp. 533) affirmed, with costs.

PEOPLE ex rel. HUSTED et al., RespondPEOPLE ex rel. GOLER v. BOARD OF ents, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TILSUP'RS OF MONROE COUNTY. (Supreme LAGE OF WHITE PLAINS, Appellants Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. (three cases). (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri March 22, 1904.) Proceeding by the people of sion, Second Department. April 15, 1904.) the state of New York, on the relation of George Proceedings by the people of the state of Nes W. Goler, against the board of supervisors of York, on the relation of Harvey Husted and the county of Monroe.

others, against the board of trustees of the ridPER CURIAM. Writ of certiorari to review lage of White Plains. No opinion. Orders afthe determination of the board of supervisors of firmed with $10 costs and disbursements, on Monroe county dismissed, with $30 costs and the opinion of Mr. Justice KEOGH at Special disbursements against relator.

Term.

PEOPLE ex rel. LA MOTTE, Appellant, v. 1 on the relation of Joseph H. McKeewn, against NEW YORK CATHOLIC PROTECTORY, Francis V. Greene, as commissioner. H. RingRespondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- rose, for relator. T. Farley, for respondent. sion, First Department. April 8, 1904.) Pro- No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceedings ceeding by the people of the state of New York, affirmed, with costs. on the relation of Antonio La Motte, against the New York Catholic Protectory. E. Sandford, for appellant. J. T. Ryan, for respondent PEOPLE ex rel. MASONIC HALL & ASY. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and LUM FUND, Appellant, v. WELLS et al., Redisbursements.

spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartmentMarch 25, 1904.). Proceed

ing by the people of the state of New York, PEOPLE ex rel. LEFFERTS, Respondent, on the relation of Masonic Hall & Asylum v. MCCLELLAN et al., Appellants. (Supreme Fund, against James L. Wells and others. A. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Crook, for appellant. G. S. Coleman, for reMarch 18, 1904.) Proceeding by the people of spondents. No opinion. Order afirmed, with the state of New York, on the relation of Rob- $10 costs and disbursements. ert Lefferts, against George B. McClellan and others, composing the board of estimate and PEOPLE ex rel. MASTEN, Respondent, v. apportionment of the city of New York. MAXWELL. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 pellate Division, Second Department. April 22, costs and disbursements.

1904.) Proceeding by the people of the state BARTLETT and JENKS, JJ., dissent, upon of New York, on the relation of Minnie R. the ground that it does not appear that the Masten, against William H. Maxwell, as city resolution of the local board of Flatbush has superintendent of schools of the city of New ever been presented to the existing board of York. No opinion. Motion granted, and rearestimate and apportionment, but being of the gument ordered for Friday, April 29, 1904. opinion that, if it had been so presented, the order below would have been proper.

PEOPLE ex rel. PETERSON v. GREENE, Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department. April 22, 1904.) ProceedPEOPLE ex rel. LORD v. FEITNER. (Su-ing by the people of the state of New York, preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- on the relation of Robert S. Peterson, against ment. March 18, 1904.) Proceeding by the Francis V. Greene, as commissioner, etc. L. J. people of the state of New York. on the relation Grant, for relator. T. Connoly, for respondent. of Elizabeth S. Lord, against Thomas L. Feit- No opinion.., Writ dismissed, and proceedings ner. No opinion. Order resettled, on payment affirmed, with costs. by relator of costs and disbursements of defendant on the appeal to the Court of Appeals.

PEOPLE ex rel. SINCLAIR V. SINCLAIR. See 80 N. Y. Supp. 534.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, First De

partment. April 15, 1904.) Proceeding by the PEOPLE ex rel. LYON v. VAN DE CARR. people of the state of New York on the relation (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- of Ella Sinclair, against Daniel A. Sinclair. partment. March 18, 1904.) Proceeding by the No opinion. Motion denied. people of the state of New York, on the relation of Samuel Lyon, against John D. Van De

PEOPLE ex rel. VAN ALLEN et al. v. VAN Carr. No opinion. Motion granted.

BRUNT et al. PEOPLE ex rel. BURNETT

et. al. v. SAME. (Supreme Court, Appellate PEOPLE ex rel. McCABE et al., Respond Division, Second Department. April 29, 1904.) ents, v. MATTHIES et al., Appellants. (Su. Proceedings by the people of the state of New preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De York, on the relation of Mary A. Van Allen partment. April 22, 1904.) Proceeding by the and another, and on the relation of David H. people of the state of New York, on the relation Burnett and another, against Willis D. Van of William F. McCabe and another, against Brunt, president, and Henry H. Post and othCharles A. Matthies and others. No opinion. ers, trustees, etc. No opinion. Motions denied, Motion denied.

on condition that the relators print and prepare the papers, so that these matters may be argued

at the next term of this court. PEOPLE ex rel. MCCABE et al., Respondnts, V. MATTHIES et al., Appellants. (Su

PERLMAN v. BERNSTEIN et al. (Supreme vreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De Court, Appellate Division, First Department. vartment. April 29, 1904.) Proceeding by the April 15, 1904.) Action by David Perlman eople of the state of New York, on the relation against Moses Bernstein and another. No opinf William F. McCabe and John Duffy, against ion. Motion granted, as stated in memorandum Charles A. Matthies and others. No opinion. per curiam. lotion granted.

PERSSE v. GRAU. (Supreme Court, AppelPEOPLE ex rel. McKEEWN, v. GREENE, late Division, First Department. March 18, 'om'r.. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1904.) Action by Thomas H. Persse against first Department. April 22, 1904.). Proceed- Robert Grau. No opinion. Motion granted, so ng by the people of the state of New York, ) far as to dismiss appeal.

and 121 New York State Reporter PETRI, Respondent, v. BIRKETT, Appel- In re PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERlant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ICA. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, San Fourth Department. March 15, 1904.) Action ond Department. April 29, 1904.) In the matby Albert Petri against Clarence T. Birkett. ter of the application of the Prudential InsurNo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. ance Company of America for a writ of manda

mus against Hon. William J. Gaynor, one of

the Justices of the Supreme Court, to compel PHETTEPACE V. LANE. (Supreme Court, him to settle and sigo a case on appeal, etc Appellate Division, Third Department. March

PER CURIAM. This application must be de 15, 1904.) Action by Julian Phettepace against nied, on the ground that the case on appeal

, Smith Lane. No opinion. Motion granted, alleged to have been presented to Mr. Justice without costs.

Gaynor for signature, under rule 35 of the general rules of practice, did not set out the er

hibits or the substance thereof. An appellant PIETROFESA v. DELAWARE, L. & W. cannot be required to print the case on appeal R. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, as corrected and settled by the trial judge to First Department. March 25, 1904.) Action entitle him to have it signed and ordered on by Rocco Pietrofesa against the Delaware, file; but, if it includes any exhibits, the sub Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company stance thereof must be stated in the case, or tbe No opinion. Motion denied.

exhibits must be set out in full, if the trial judge so direct. It is apparent from the state ment of Mr. Justice Gaynor. in answer to the

motion arising upon the order to show cause PLEWES, Respondent, v. PHILADELPHIA herein, that he is entirely willing to sign and CASUALTY CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, order on file a manuscript or typewritten ease Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March prepared in accordance with his corrections, it 29, 1904.) Action by Stanley E. Plewes against it contain such exhibits. We have no doubt the Philadelphia Casualty Company.

that the appellant, upon complying with this PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm. signature and order, under rule 35 of the gen

requireinent, can obtain from him the desired ed, with costs. Held, that while the complaint eral rules of practice. contains some allegations appropriate only in an action upon contract for services, yet it contains all the allegations necessary to constitute spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

QUANCHI, Appellant, v. AILINGER, Re a cause of action for damages for breach of the First Department. March 25, 1904.) Action by contract. The cause of action may be regarded Lewis Quanchi against George G. Ailinger, as by this court as one for damages, and the other

president. L. L. Kellogg, for appellant allegations disregarded as surplusage. The amount of the recovery under the evidence affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements,

Steckler, for respondent. No opinion. Order would be practically the same in either form of action. The distinction between the two, under the facts of this case, is technical rather HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant.

QUINN, Respondent,

BROOKLYN

(Supreme than real.

Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

. MCLENNAN, P. J., dissents, upon the ground April 22, 1904.) Action by Peter Quinn against that the sole cause of action alleged in the com- the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. No plaint is for services rendered, and the evidence opinion. Motion denied. wholly fails to establish it, but only tends to prove a cause of action for damages for a breach QUINN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK BREAD of a contract of employment, and therefore, Co. et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, as under the authorities, the plaintiff is not entitled pellate Division, First Department. April & to recover. Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 1904.) Action by Charles J. Quinn against the Am. Rep. 285; Weed v. Burt, 78 N. Y. 191; New York Bread Company and others. C Perry v. Dickerson, 85 N. Y, 345, 39 Am. Rep. O'Connor, for appellant. J. V. Bouvier, Jr., for 663; Dexter v. Ivins, 133 N. Y. 551, 30 N. Ê. respondents. No opinion. Judgment and order 594.

affirmed, with costs.

RAQUETTE FALLS LAND CO., RespondPLUM, Respondent, V. METROPOLITAN ent, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO., apST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court. Ap-pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, pellate Division, Second Department. April 29, | Fourth Department. April 5, 1904.) Action by 1904.) Action by Marietta Plum against the the Raquette Falls Land Company against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. No International Paper Company. opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the 836) affirmed, with costs.

PER CURIAM. Judgment (84 N. Y. Supp. Court of Appeals denied, without costs.

WILLIAMS, J., not sitting. PRINCE, Appellant, v. ALTER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- RAY, Appellant, v. MAHONEY, Respondent. partment. March 18. 1904.) Action by Delia (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De L. Prince against Harris Alter. No opinion. partment. April 29, 1904.) Action by George Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with W. Ray against James Mahoney. No opinion costs.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

v.

No

rs.

REDDING V. AMERICAN DISTRIBUT- ROTHSCHILD, Appellant, V. DREYFUS, NG CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviision, Second Department. March 18, 1904.), sion, First Department. April 22, 1904.), AcAction by Ralph W. Redding against the Amer- tion by Victor H. Rothschild against Isaac can Distributing Company and others. No Dreyfus. B. Tuska, for appellant. J. C. Gug. pinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis- genheimer, for respondent. No opinion. Order ursements.

affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

In re RYER. (Supreme Court, Appellate REDMOND v. CITY OF NEW YORK. (Su- Division, First Department. March 18, 1904.) reme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. In the matter of John B. Ryer. No opinion. rent, March 25, 1904.) Action by Michael Red- Motion denied. sond against the city of New York. L. L Kellogg, for plaintiff. T. Farley, for defendant, To opinion. Judgment affirmed, without costs. SAMPTER V. EDELSVARD et al. (Su

preme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeREED, Respondent, V. NEW YORK & R. partment. March 18, 1904.) Action by Arnold AS CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- Sampter against Gustaf A. Edelsvard and othate Division, Second Department. April 29, ers. No opinion. Judgment, so far as appeal904.) Action by Thomas M. Reed against the ed from, affirmed, with costs. jew York & Richmond Gas Company. pinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

SAWTELL, Appellant, v. DE MONDE, Re

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ROBINSON et al., Respondents, V. NEW Second Department. March 15, 1901.) Action ORK ELEVATED R. 00. et al., Appellants. by Emma P. Sawtell against Agnes E. De Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De-Monde. No opinion. Order affirmed, by deartment. April 8, 1904.) Action by Frederick fault, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Robinson, as trustee, and others, against the lew York Elevated Railroad Company and oth- SAXTON V. SEBRING et al. (Supreme

C. N. Morgan, for appellants. J. A. Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Veekes, for respondents. No opinion. Judg- March 15, 1904.) Action by Frank J. Saxton rent affirmed, with costs.

against James O. Sebring and others.

PER QURIAM. Motion to correct printed ROMAN, Appellant, v. TAYLOR, Respond case on appeal granted, with $10 costs, and the nt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- printed case directed to be corrected accordingnd Department. April 29, 1904.) Action by ly, but upon condition that the respondents ames D. Roman against Edmund K. Taylor. stipulate to set the case down for argument not lo opinion. Motion for reargument denied, later than Monday of the fourth week of the rith $10 costs.

present term of this court, at the option of the

appellant. In the event of the failure of the RONDE, Respondent, v. CRUIKSHANK, Ap- is granted, without costs.

respondents to give such stipulation, the motion ellant. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, 'irst Department, March 25, 1901.) Action by SOHLOTTERER, Respondent, V. BROOK'rank Ronde against Clarence D. Cruikshank. LYN & N. Y. FERRY 00., Appellant. (Su. D. Cruikshank, for appellant. A. Mayer, for preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Deespondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with partment. March 15, 1904.) Action by Louisa 10 costs and disbursements.

Schlotterer, an infant, against the Brooklyn &

New York Ferry Company. No opinion. MoROONEY, Respondent, v. BODKIN et al., tion denied. ppellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divion, Second Department. April 29, 1901.) ction by Margaret Rooney against Martin R. SCHNEIDER, Respondent, V. HIGH odkin and others. No opinion. Motion grant-GROUND DAIRY CO., Appellant. (Supreme 1, and order resettled.

Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 15, 1904.) Action by Philip Schneider ROSENFELD, Appellant, v. DAVIDSON, against the High Ground Dairy Company. No espondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court afon, First Department, March 25, 1904.) AC-firmed, with costs. on by Amy R. Rosenfeld against Mary M. avidson. Ő. Horwitz, for appellant. $. B. ivingston, for respondent.

SCHOMBURG et al., Respondents, V. COPER QURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- HEN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate 1, with costs.

Division, Second Department. March 18, 1904.) PATTERSON and O'BRIEN, JJ., dissent. Action by Frederick H. Schomburg and Henry

E. A. Wolff, copartners, etc., against Max CoROSS v. BAYER-GARDNER-HIMES 00. hen. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De Court affirmed, with costs. irtment. April 15, 1904.) Action by Charles . Ross against the Bayer-Gardner-Himes Com- SOOTT, Respondent, v. CONN, Appellant. iny. No opinion, Motion denied, with $10 (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dests.

partment. April 8, 1904.) Action by Walter by Nicholas Smith, by his guardian ad lit. PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and Catharine Smith, against Jose Berre King and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to George R. King. No opinion. Judgment and abide event, upon questions of law and of fact, order unanimously affirmed, with costs. unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict by deducting therefrom the sum of $103 as

and 121 New York State Reporter Scott against Charles G. Conn. H. J. McCor- 1 No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court mick, for appellant. C. D. Ridgway, for re- affirmed, by default, with costs. spondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

SILER, Respondent, v. BATH & H. R. 00., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department. March 29, 1904.) Action SEARLE et al. v. CORPORATION LIQUI- by Charles Siler against the Bath & HamDATING CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di: mondsport Railroad Company. vision, Fourth Department. March 29, 1904.)

PER CURIAM. Order granting new trial reAction by George R. Searle and others against versed, with costs, and judgment directed in fa the Corporation Liquidating Company, No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with that, the jury having found the plaintiff ris

vor of the defendant upon the verdiet. Hed $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the not 'free from contributory negligence, he was Court of Appeals denied.

not entitled to recover, even although the de

fendant was guilty of negligence. SEEMANN, Respondent, CENTRAL BREWING CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, SIMPSON v. CITY OF NEW YORK. (S) Appellate Division, Second Department. April preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart 15, 1904.) Action by Edward Seemann against

March 18, 1904.), Action by Frederick the Central Brewing Company. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with bo: Simpson against the city of New York. No

opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. costs.

SMITH, Respondent, v. HERTER, AppelSEIDEN, Appellant, v. EPSTEIN, Respond- Department, March 25, 1904.) Action by Ed

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- ward Smith against Maria A. Herter. H. E ond Department. April 29. 1904.). Action by Wesselman, for appellant. P. S. Menken, for Frank Seiden against Hyman Epstein. No opin. respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with ion. Order affirmed, on argument, with $10 $10 costs and disbursements. costs and disbursements.

SMITH, Respondent, V. HERTER, AppelSÉLIGMAN BENJAMIN.

lant. (Supreme

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Court, Appellate Division, First Department. First Department. April 8. 1904.) Action 5 April'15,

1904.) Action by Washington Selig- Edward Smith against Maria A. Herter. B. L man against Alfred N. Benjamin. No opinion. Kraus, for appellant. P: $. Menken, for re Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.

spondent. No opinion, Judgment affirmed with costs.

ment.

SHAPER, Respondent, V. DAVIS, Appel

SMITH, Respondent, V. KING et al., Ar lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 29, 1904.) Action pellants. (Supreme Court, Appel ate Divi-ioa. by John H. Shaper against Mary E. C. Davis. Second Department. April 15, 1904.) Artie

SMITH, Respondent, v. LAZIER GAS EN. of the date of the rendition thereof, in which GINE CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court. 13event the judgment, as so modified, and the or- pellate Division, Fourth Departinent.

Marek der, are affirmed, without costs of this appeal to 29, 1904.) Action by Henry Smith against the either party. Held, that the evidence does not Lazier Gas Engine Company. Vo opinic. satisfactorily establish that the defendant was Judgment and order affirmed, with costs spas suffering from the disease claimed by the plain- opinion of NASH, J., delivered at Special Terz. tiff, and which warranted a charge of two dollars per day from the 25th day of January to the 15th day of July, 1902, as allowed by the SEIDENSPINNER, Respondent, F. MET referee.

ROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., Appellant SPRING and STOVER, JJ., dissent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 22, 1904.) Action by Epe

lie R. Seidenspinner against the Metropolita: SHEEHAN v. ERBE. (Supreme Court, Ap- Life Insurance Company. No opinion. Ju pellate Division, First Department. March 18, ment affirmed, with costs, on the authority 1904.) Action by William Sheehan against Wil- same case in this court. 70 App. Div. 476, 74 liam Erbe. No opinion. Motion denied, with N. Y. Supp. 1108. $10 costs.

SOMERS, Respondent, v. GUDE, Appellast. SIBBERN, Respondent, V. REISNER, Ap- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. First De pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, partment. April 22, 1904.) Action by Jah H. Second Department. April 22, 1904.) Action Somers against Oscar J. Gude. A. S Gilbert by Rudolph T. Sibbern against Harry Reisner, for appellant. J. H. Land, for respondent

« AnteriorContinuar »