Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with | STEVENS, Appellant, V. MARCELLUS Osts.

ELECTRIC 'R. CO. et al., Respondents. (SuINGRAHAM, J., dissents.

preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. April 5, 1904.) Action by Lyman A. Stevens against the Marcellus Electric Rail

road Company and others. No opinion. Order SOUTHAMPTON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellant, v. VAN BRUNT et al., Respondnts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec STRAUB, Respondent, v. METROPOLInd Department. March 15, 1904.) Action by TAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme he Southampton Electric Light Company Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. gainst Willis D. Van Brunt, president, and April 29, 1904.) Action by Joseph Straub thers, trustees, etc. No opinion. Appeal dis- against the Metropolitan Street Railway Comnissed, with costs, on the ground that the pany. rinted appeal papers are insufficient.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order revers

ed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the SPINDLER v. GIBSON et al. (two cases). Levent, unless within 20 days plaintiff stipulate Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De

to reduce recovery of damages to the sum of Jartment. April 8, 1904.) Action by Annie

$750, and extra allowance proportionately, in Špindler against Mary E. Gibson and another.

which case the judgment and order, as modified, To opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dis

are unanimously affirmed, without costs of this niss appeal, with $10 costs.

appeal to either party. SPINDLER V. GIBSON. (Supreme Court, In re SUGARMAN. (Supreme Court, AppelIppellate Division, First Department. April | late Division. First Department. March 18. 5, 1904.) Action by Annie Spindler against | 1904.) In the matter of Ascher D. Sugarman. Mary E. 'Gibson. No opinion. Motion denied, No opinion. Yotion der vith $10 costs.

In re SUMMIT AVE. (Supreme Court, Ap

pellate Division, First Department. March 18, STEARNS V. SHEPARD & MORSE CO.

O: 1904.) In the matter of Summit avenue. No Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De

opinion. Motion granted. Memorandum per artment. March 18, 1904.) Action by George

curiam. 1. Stearns against the Shepard & Morse Comvany. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 osts.

SUSE v. BIGLIN et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 8,

04.) Action by Leontine Suse against BerSTEARNS v. SHEPARD & MORSE LUM;

0.

M nard Biglin. No opinion. Motion denied, with 3ER CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviion, First Department. April 8, 1904.) ACion by George A. Stearns against the Shepard

Morse Lumber Company. No opinion. Mo SUSE V. METROPOLITAN ST. R. CO. ion denied, with $10 costs.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De

partment. March 18, 1904.) Action by LeonSTEINACKER, Respondent, V. HILLS

tine Suse against the Metropolitan Street RailBROS. CO., Appellant." (Supreme Court, Ap

road Company. No opinion. Motion denied, bellate Division, Second Department. April

with $10 costs. :2, 1904.) Action by Charles Steinacker against he Hills Bros. Company. No opinion. Moion denied.

SUSSMAN et al., Appellants, v. OSFER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division

e Court. Appellate Division.

Second Department. April 29, 1901.) Action STEINMAN, Respondent, v. INTERUR- | by Hyman Sussmau and Alexander Sussman BAY ST. RY. CO.. Appellant. (Supreme Court, against Samuel Osfer. No opinion. Judgment Appellate Term. March 24, 1901.) Action by of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. gnatz Steinman against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plainiff, defendant appeals. Reversed. Henry W. In re THOMAS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Goddard and William E. Weaver, for appellant. Division, Second Department. Varch 16, 1901.) Sol De Young (Frank Herwig, of counsel), for in the matter of the application of James M. respondent.

Thomas for admission to the bar. No opinion. SCOTT, J. A former judgment in favor of Application granted. plaintiff was reversed, on the ground that upon plaintiff's own evidence it affirmatively appeard that he had been guilty of contributory neg THOMPSON, Respondent, V. INTERNAigence. 84 N. Y. Supp. 231. The evidence up- TIONAL FERRY CO., Appellant. (Supreme on the present trial does not differ in any es Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. sential particular from that on the former trial. | March 22, 1904.) Action by Helen Thompson The judgment should be reversed, and a new against the International Ferry Company. No rial granted, with costs to appellant to abide opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with he event. All concur.

costs.

costs.

and 121 New York State Reporter TINDLE et al., Respondents, v. BIRKETT, | l5, 1904.) Action by Mary Vent, by guardian, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson Fourth Department. March 29, 1904.) Action River Railroad Company. No opinion. Judeby Thomas Tindle and another against Clarence | ment and order attirmed, with costs. T. Birkett. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

VINAL, Appellant, v. MASONIC LIFE INS. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate

Division, Fourth Department. March 22, 1904.) TOMPKINS v. MORTON TRUST CO. (Su-| Action by Elizabeth A. Vinal against the Mapreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- sonic Life Insurance Company of Western Sex ment. April 15, 1904.) Action by Hamilton B.York. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with Tompkins against the Morton Trust Company. costs. No opinion. Motiou denied.

In re TOREK. (Supreme Court, Appellate VOGELGESANG, Appellant, v. LEDWIN, Division, Second Department. April 29, 1904.) | Respondent. (Supreme Court, 'Appellate DiviIn the matter of the application of Franz J. A. sion, Fourth Department. March 29. 1904.) Torek for the examination of Patrick M. Hanni: Action by Jacob Vogelgesang against Susanna gan. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 Ledwin. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

costs.

TOWN OF PALATINE et al. v. WATER WARREN, Respondent, Y. STIKEMAN ER SUPPLY CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiDivision, Third Department. March 15, 1904.) vision, Second Departm Action by the town of Palatine and others Action by Charles J. Warren against James against the Water Supply Company and others. Stikeman and Harry L. Stratton. No opinion No opinion. Motion granted.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with

costs. TRIGGS v. SUN PRINTING & PUBLISH: ING CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

WARREN, Respondent, v. STIKEMAN et al First Department. March 25, 1904.). Action

| Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diniby Oscar L. Triggs against the Sun Printing &

sion, Second Department. April 23, 1904.) Ae Publishing Company. No opinion. Motion

tion by Charles J. Warreu against James E. granted.

Stikeman and another. No opinion. Motion for

reargument denied, with $10 costs. VALENTINE, Appellant, v. LORENZO, Re

WATERS, Respondent, V. SPENCER, Ap spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

pellant. First Department. April 8, 1904.) Action by

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department. April 22, 1904.) Action by Elizabeth H. _Valentine against Gregorio Di

Martin J. Waters against Ralph L. Spencer Lorenzo. B. E. Valentine, for appellant. 0.

W. K. Hall, for appellant. S. Callahan, for H. Droege, for respondent. No opinion. Order

respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

| $10 costs and disbursements. VAN DE CARR SPICE CO., Appellant, v.

WAYNE, Appellant, v. GALE, Respondent. COOK et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court,

(Supreme Court, Appellate Dirision, Second Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 22, 1904.) Action by the Van De Carr Spice

Department. March 18, 1904.) Action by

Cynthia Wayne against Mary Gale. No opisCompany against Frederick Cook and another. ;

er. ion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmeNo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

ed, with costs. VAN KIRK, Respondent, v. GENESEE VALLEY BLUE STONE CO., Appellant. (Supreme

In re WEBB. (Supreme Court, Appellate Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Dit March 15, 1904.) Action by Luther E. Van

1 Division, Second Department. April 15, 1904. Kirk against the Genesee Valley Blue Stone

In the matter of the application of Arthur

| Leon Webb for admission to the bar. No Company. No opinion. Judgment and order af

opinion. Application granted. firmed, with costs.

WEILL, Respondent, y. WHISSEL et al VARIANO, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW Appel

OF NEW Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirt YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate

asion, Fourth Department. March 29, 1904. Division. First Department. April 22, 1904.)

| Action by Henry Weill against Michael Whis. Action by Gaetano Variano, an infant,'against

od another. No opinion. Judgment afthe city of New York. T. Farley, for appellant.

firmed, with costs. M. Simmons, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

In re WEINBERGER. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First Department. March VENT, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & 25, 1904.) In the matter of Joseph S. WeitH. R. Ř. Co., Respondent. (Supreme Court, berger. No opinion. Order to show cause Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 'granted. Memorandum per curian.

Willis

WHEELER v. NORTON. (Supreme Court, WINEHILL, Respondent, V. CONSOLIAppellate Division, First Department. April | DATED GAS CO., Appellant. (Supreme 8, 1904.) Action by Fannie S. Wheeler Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Norton. N

on. M

pril 22. 1904.) Annette E. Winehill against tion denied, with $10 costs.

the Consolidated Gas Company. D. McClure, for appellant. D. P. Hays, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, In re WHITE. (Supreme Court, Appellate with costs. Division, Second Department. March 18, 1904.) In the matter of the application of Josiah J. White, guardian of the person of Fred WITHERS v. ОITY OF NEW YORK. (Sueric Hall White, for the payment of funds by the preme Court, Appellate Division, First De. Long Island Loan & Trust Company for the partment. April 15, 1904.) Action by Fred- . support and maintenance of said Frederic Hall | erick C. Withers against the city of New York. White, etc. No opinion. Order a ffirmed, on No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. argument, with $10 costs and disbursements.

WITMARK et al. v. TAMS. (Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. In re WHITE. (Supreme Court, Appellate March 25, 1904.) Action by Marcus Witmark Division, Second Department. March 18,

and others against Arthur W. Tams. No opin1904.) In the matter of the application of Jo-ion. Motion for leave to go to Court of Apsiah J. White, guardian of the person of Fred

hite, guardian of the person of Fred-peals granted, and question certified as stated eric Hall White, an infant, to compel an ac in memorandum per curiam. counting of the Long Island Loan & Trust Company, guardian of the property of said in WOLPERS, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & fant. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with $10 | Q. ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO., Ap. costs and disbursements.

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department. April 22, 1904.) Action WILLIAMS v. BACKUS. (Supreme Court, | by Conrad Wolpers, Jr., an infant, by his Appellate Division, First Department. April guardian ad litem, Conrad Wolpers, against 15, 1904.) Action by Joseph Williams against the New York & Queens Electric Light & PowMargaret E. Backus. No opinion. Appeal dis

er Company. No opinion. Motion denied. missed, without costs.

W. & J. SLOANE, Respondents, v. PEAWILLIAMS v. BACKUS et al. (two cases). BODY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- Division, First Department. April 22, 1904.) partment. April 15, 1904.) Actions by Joseph Action by W. & J. Sloane against Royall C. Williams against Margaret E. Backus and oth- Peabody. R. P. Chittenden, for appellant. S. ers. No opinion. Appeals dismissed, without Bacon, for respondents. No opinion. Order costs.

I affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

In re YOUNG. In re EVERSON. (SuWILPON, Respondent, v. METROPOL-preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth DeITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme | partment. March 22, 1904.) In the matter of Court, Appellate Division, First Department. petition of Catharine Young for letters of adMarch 25, 1904.) Action by Jacob Wilpon ministration, etc., of John Young, deceased. In against the Metropolitan Street Railway Com- the matter of petition of Mina Y. Everson for pany. B. H. Ames, for appellant. J. Bogert, letters, etc., of John Young, deceased. No for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and or- opinion. Decree of Surrogate's Court afirmder affirmed, with costs.

ed, with costs.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 87.

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT.

ACCESSORIES
Leased premises, see "Landlord and Tenant," Criminal responsibility, see "Criminal Law,"
3.

$ 1.
of appeal, see “Appeal,” $ 4.

ACCIDENT.
ABATEMENT.

Accident insurance, see "Insurance," $ 6.
Of legacy, see "Wills,” $ 5.

ACCOMMODATION PAPER.
ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. See “Bills and Notes.”
Judgment as bar to another action, see "Judg-
ment,” 8 4.

ACCOMPLICES.
Right of action by or against personal repre-

sentative. see "Executors and Administra- | Testimony, see “Criminal Law," $ 3.
tors," $ 8.
f 1. Death of party and revival of ac- ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

tion.
Complaint alleging cause of action for breach See "Novation"; "Payment"; "Release.”
of promise of marriage and seduction held not
to survive and pass to personal representative.-

A judgment creditor held bound by executed
Larocque v. Conheim (Sup.) 625.

| agreement for the compromise and settlement

of the judgment.- Weeker v. Requa (Sup.) 959.
Since an infant cannot maintain an action for
seduction, the right of action does not survive
her death.-Larocque v. Comheim (Sup.) 625.

ACCOUNT.

Accounting between partners, see “Partner-
ABETTORS.

ship," $ 4.

| Accounting by executor or administrator, see
Criminal responsibility, see "Criminal Law,"

"Executors and Administrators," $ 9.
$ 1.

Accounting by trustee, see "Trusts," $ 4.

Accounting by trustees in bankruptcy, see
ABSENCE.

"Bankruptcy," $ 2.

Accounting in partition proceedings, see “Parti-
Suspension of running of statute of limitation, | tion," $ 1,
see “Limitation of Actions," $ 2.

Evidence as to damages in action for account-

ing, see “Damages," $ 4.

Interest as element of damages in action for
ABUTTING OWNERS.

accounting, see “Damages," $ 1.

Measure of damages in action for accounting,
Assessments for expenses of public improve-1 see “Damages," $ 3.

ments, see "Municipal Corporations," $ 4. | Reference of, see "Reference," $ 1.
Rights in streets in cities, see "Municipal Cor- / Right to accounting under contract, see "Con-
porations,” $ 6.

tracts," $ 2.
ACCEPTANCE.

ACCRUAL.
Of goods sold in general, see “Sales,” g 2.

Of right of action, see "Limitation of Actions,”

$ 2.
ACCESSION.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
Annexation of personal to real property, see Operation and effect of admissions as evidence,
"Fixtures."

see "Evidence," $ 3.
97 N.Y.S.—73

(1153)

« AnteriorContinuar »