Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme 1 PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, so as Court in the First Judicial Department (100 to be without prejudice to the appellant as App. Div. 443, 91 N. Y. Supp. 839), entered serting title to the premises in dispute under January 28, 1905, affirming a judgment in any other source than the tax deed from the favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict di city of Buffalo, with costs to the respondent. rected by the court and an order denying a CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, motion for a new trial. William P. Rudd and

| BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., Allen Wardwell, for appellants. Joseph A.

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. Arnold and Leon Lauterstein, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

BUSHA, Respondent, v. ALICE FALLS CO., CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT,

Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. BART

Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of LETT, J., not voting. O'BRIEN, J., absent the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court

in the Third Judicial Department (99 App.

Div. 619, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1090), entered January BRADLEY, Respondent, v. WAGNER et al., 14, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the

denying a motion for a new trial. Lewis E. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in

Carr and Edward W. Douglass, for appellant. the First Judicial Department (90 App. Div.

| Adelbert W. Boynton, for respondeut. 607, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered February PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with 3, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of costs. plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court OULLEY, O. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, on trial at Special Term. John P. Everett, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. for appellants. Henry Wendt and Edward D. O'BRIEN, J., absent. Edson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

· BYARS, Appellant, v. BENNINGTON & H. GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT,

V. RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and OHASE,

of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 34, 90 N. Y. Supp. 736), entered

December 10, 1904, affirming a judgment in BRISCOE, Appellant, V. BAKER et al.,

favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal Civil Service Com'rs, Respondents. (Court of

of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. Appeals of New York. March 13, 1906.) Ap

J. K. Long and Thomas S. Fagan, for appelpeal from an order of the Appellate Division

lant. P. R. Chapmau and George E. Greene, of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial |

for respondent. Department (107 App. Div. 616, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1116), entered July 13, 1905, which affirmed an

PER CURIAM. Judgment afirmed, with order of Special Term which denied the peti

costs. tioner's motion for an order directing the de

GRAY, EDWARDT. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, fendant civil service commission to permit an

VANY, and WILLARD BARTLETT. JJ., inspection of certain papers under their con concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent. CHASE, J., troi. John W. Weed, for appellaut. John J. not sitting. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and William B. Crowell, of counsel), for respond

CAHILL, Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.

TER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New

York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from a judg. CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT,

ment of the Appellate Division of the SuVANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS

preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department OOCK, JJ., concur.

196 App. Div. 557, 89 N. Y. Supp. 67), entered July 14, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor

of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an BUCKLEY, Appellant, v. WESTCHESTER

order denying a motion for a new trial. WilLIGHTING CO., Respondent. (Court of Ap liam W. Webb, Corp. Counsel (John M. Stull, peals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal of counsel), for appellant. Henry R. Glyon from a judgment of the Appellate Division of and Harvey F. Remington, for respondent. the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial De

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with partment (93 App. Div. 436, 87 N. Y. Supp.

costs. 763), entered May 5, 1904, affirming a judg

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, ment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a

VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ. new trial. Jacob Marks, for appellant. Frank

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. Verner Johnson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with CARLISLE, Respondent, V. BARNES. ADcosts.

pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, Jau. 16, 1906.) Motion to dismiss appeal from HAIGHT. VANY, and WERNER, JJ., con a judgment of the Appellate Division of the cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depart. ment (102 App. Div. 573, 92 N. Y. Supp. 917),

entered April 7, 1905, affirming a judgment BUFFALO CEREAL CO., Respondent, v. in favor of plaintiff entered upon a perdiet ATKINS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of and an order denying a motion for a new trial. New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a The motion was made upon the ground that judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su the appeal had been taken pursuant to an preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department order of a judge of the Court of Appeals (97 App. Diy. 642, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1030), en granting permission to appeal and that said tered October 26, 1904, affirming a judgment order had been thereafter vacated by the court. in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision Henry M. Ward, for the motion. F. H. Van of the court on trial at an Equity Term. Vechten, opposed. Charles F. Tabor, for appellant. Frank O. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and apFerguson, for respondent.

| peal dismissed,

firmed, with costs.” See 183 N. Y. 245, 76 CARLISLE, Respondent, v. BARNES, Ap N. E. 18. pellant. Court of Appeals of New York. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, without Jan. 16, 1906.) No opinion, Motion for re

costs. What appears to be designated in the recargument denied. See 183 N. Y. 272, 76 N.

ord on appeal as a judgment of the Appellate E. 27.

Division is, under sections 2141 and 2143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, denominated a

final order. It is that order which has been CARY et al., Appellants, V. MARYLAND affirmed by this court, and the application is OASUALTY CO., Respondent. (Court of Ap therefore unnecessary. We prefer to adhere peals of New York Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal to the nomenclature prescribed by the Code. from a indgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (89 N. Y. Supp. 1101) entered July

CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. 13, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of de

SLOAT et al., Town Assessors, Respondents. fendant eutered upon a dismissal of the com

(Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1905.) plaint by the court at a Trial Term. Ansley

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division Wilcox and Henry A. Bull, for appellants.

of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Frank Gibbons, for respondent.

Department (106 App. Div. 614, 94 N. Y. Supp. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with 1113), entered June 29, 1905, which affirmed an costs.

order of Special Term confirming the proceedCULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, VANN, ings of the respondents herein in assessing propWERNER,' and BARTLETT, JJ., concur. erty of the petitioner for the purposes of taxaHAIGHT, J., not voting. HISCOCK, J., not tion and dismissing a writ of certiorari to resitting.

view such proceedings. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (1. J. Beaudrias, of counsel), for ap

pellant. Clayton Ryder and George E. AnderCHAMBERLAIN, Respondent, v. CUMING, son, for respondents. Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, York. Feb. 13, 1906.). Appeal from a judge on opinion in Matter of City of New York v. ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Mitchell, 183 N. Y. 245, 76 N. E. 18. Court in the Second Judicial Department (99 CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, App. Div. 561, 91 N. Y. Supp. 105), entered BARTLETT, HAIGUT, VANN, and WER December 22, 1904, affirming a judgment in fa NER, JJ., concur. vor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. Ed. ward L. Blackman and Alfred B. Cruikshank, In re CITY OF ROCHESTER. (Court of for appellant. Joseph Fischer and Louis J. Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) ApVorhaus, for respondent.

peal from an order of the Appellate Division of PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Decosts.

partment (108 App. Div. 360, 95 N. Y. Supp. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN.

1118), entered October 20, 1905, which affirmed BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and

an order of the Monroe County Court granting

to Edna C. Cobb, the appellant herein, costs CHASE, JJ., concur.

and an additional allowance in the above-en

titled proceeding. William F. Lynn, for appelCHAMBERLAIN, Respondent, V. NESTER,

lant. W. W. Webb, Corp. Counsel (Chester

F. Kiehel, of counsel), for respondent.
Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York.
Nov, 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the costs.
Fourth Judicial Department (100 App. Div. CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT,
511, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1090).

VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., conin 19, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plainc l.. Supp: 1090), entered January

cur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. tiff entered upon the report of a referee. Frank Rice and George L. Bachman, for appellant. J. N. Hammond, for respondent.

CLARK, Appellant, V. METROPOLITAN PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

ST. RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals costs.

of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT,

judgment of the Appellate Division of the SuHAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

preme Court in the First Judicial Department O'BRIEN, J., absent.

(102 App. Div. 614, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1119), entered March 11, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal

of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term CHAMBERS, Respondent, V. HOWARD,

and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York.

Alexander S. Bacon, for appellant. Charles F. Feb. 13, 1906.). Appeal from a judgment of the

Brown, Bayard H. Ames, and Henry A. RobinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

son, for respondent. Third Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 619,

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with 90 N. Y. Supp. 1091), entered December 8, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff

costs. entered upon a decision of the court on trial at

CULLEN, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, Special Term. John L. Hill, for appellant. J.

VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. GRAY, A. Kellogg and H. P. King, for respondent.

J., not sitting. O'BRIEN, J., absent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CLEVELAND CITY FORGE & IRON CO., CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Respondent, v. STERN et al., Appellants. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ.

(Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) concur. CHASE, J., not sitting.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judi

cial Department (96 App. Div. 625, 88 N. Y. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. MIT. Supp. 1094), entered June 18, 1904, affirming CHELL et al., Assessors, Respondents. (Court a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) Mo verdict and an order denying a motion for a tion to amend remittitur so as to provide that new trial. Eldon Bisbee, for appellants, Thad. "the order and judgment appealed from be af- ! deus D. Kenneson, for respondent

Want

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with complaint alleged that he had demanded of the costs.

defendant a reassignment to him of the patents CULLEN, a. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, referred to in the contract and that the defendBARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER ant had refused to reassign the same. The NER, JJ., concur.

issue formed upon this allegation does not appear to have been determined by the trial court.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should COE V. PATTERSON et al. (Court of Ap therefore be modified accordingly; costs to abide peals of New York. March 6, 1906.) Motion

event. to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the BARTLETT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., Fourth Judicial Department (108 App. Div. concur. 360, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1122), entered November 9, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial CRAPO, Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, at Special Term. The motion was made upon

Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. the grounds that the judgment appealed from

March 6, 1906.) Motion for reargument. See does not finally determine the action and that

183 N. Y. 395, 76 N. E. 465. Walter W. Magee, no appeal has been allowed therefrom. John

for the motion. Thomas Hogan, opposed. Van Voorhis & Sons, for the motion. Pierre M. Brown, opposed.

O'BRIEN, J. The only ground upon which PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and ap

the respondent moves for a reargument, so

far as I can learn from the moving papers, is peal dismissed, without costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division as undecided, for its

that the court failed to pass upon the question

of negligence. I think the learned corporation determination of the appeal from a final judgment at Special Term.

counsel is mistaken in that contention. It will be seen from the report of the case (183 X. Y.

395, 76 N. E. 465) that one of the opinions COHNFELD, Respondent, V. TANEN.

deals fully with the question as to whether BAUM, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New

there was proof of negligence on the part of

the plaintiff suficient to submit to the York. Feb. 27, 1906.). Appeal from a judg. ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme

and it was held there was. Three other judges Court in the First Judicial Department (102

concurred in the reversal of the Appellate Di. App. Div. 614, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1119), entered

vision and affirmance of the trial court. This March 6, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of

was necessarily a vote on their part that the plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court

question of negligence was for the jury. The on trial at Special Term. Benjamin N. Car

majority of the court differed among them. dozo and Sol M. Stroock, for appellant. George

selves on one point only, and that was whether W. Weiffenbach, for respondent.

the action was for a personal injury. That PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

question was immaterial so long as it was held

that the cause of action did not accrue till costs.

the appointment of the administratrix. The GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN,

motion for a reargument should be denied, with HAIGHT, WILLARD BARTLETT, and

costs. CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT,

HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. CONLEY, Appellant, V. LACRAWANNA IRON & STEEL CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 15, 1905.) Appeal ORAWFORD, Respondent, V. TRUSTS & from a judgment entered May 17, 1904, upon

GUARANTEE CO., Limited, Appellant. (Court an order of the Appellate Division of the Su | of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Diment (94 App. Div. 149, 88 N. Y. Supp. 123), vision of the Supreme Court in the Fourth overruling plaintiff's exceptions ordered to be Judicial Department (98 app. Div. 633, 90 Y. heard in the first instance by the Appellate Y. Supp. 1092), entered February 20, 1905, Division, denying a motion for a new trial and affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff endirecting judgment in favor of defendant upon tered upon a verdict and an order denying a the verdict. Hamilton Ward, for appellant. motion for a new trial. C. D. Kiehel, for apLouis L. Babcock, for respondent.

pellant. D. F. Searle, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. NER, JJ., concur.

O'BRIEN, J., absent.

CORBET. Appellant, V. MANHATTAN BRASS CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals CROSBY, Respondent, v. SECURITY MUT. of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal from a

LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su

of New York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from a preme Court in the First Judicial Department

judgment, entered June 20, 1904, upon an (93 App. Div. 217, 87 N. Y. Supp. 577), en

order of the Appellate Division of the Sutered July 15, 1904, upon an order reversing a

preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Departjudgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the

ment (94 App. Div. 614, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1095). report of a referee and directing a dismissal of

which affirmed an order of the court at a Trial the complaint. Harrie C. Manheim, for ap

Term, denying a motion for a new trial after pellant. George Ryall, for respondent

a verdict in favor of plaintiff directed by the HAIGHT, J. We agree with the Appellate

court. Frank Rice, C. N. Bovee, and F. W. Division as to its construction of the contract

Jenkins, for appellant. Henry E. Miller and between the parties (Wing v. Ansonia Clock

Oharles E. Opdyke, for respondent. Co., 102 N. Y. 531, 7 N. E. 621; Ebert v. Loe

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with wenstein, 42 App. Div. 109, 58 N. Y. Supp. 889; costs, affirmed on opinion below 167 N. Y. 577, 60 N. HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and BARTE. 1110); but we think the Appellate Division LETT, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J.

and should have ordered a new trial instead of dis O'BRIEN, J., dissent. HISCOCK, J Dot missing the complaint. The plaintiff in his ' sitting.

CURNEN, Respondent, v. REILLY, Appel- / 86 N. Y. Supp. 1133), entered March 11, 1904, lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff en6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ape tered upon the report of a referee. T. E. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the | Courtney and J. Courtney, for appellant. James First Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 159, Dougherty, for respondent 90 N. Y. Supp. 974), entered December 20, 1904, PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, by affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff en

striking therefrom the sum of $60 taxed betered upon the report of a referee. John C.

low for stenographer's fees, and, as so modified, McGuire, for appellant. Charles E. Mahony,

affirmed, with costs in this court to respondent. for respondent.

OULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, PER QURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER: costs.

NER, JJ., concur.
CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT,
VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS
COOK, JJ., concur.

DEGNON-MCLEAN CONST. CO., Respondent, v. CITY TRUST, SAFE DEPOSIT &

SURETY CO.OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant. DALY V. REINELDT et al. (Court of Ap (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) peals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Difrom an order of the Appellate Division of the vision of the Supreme Court in the First Ju. Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Depart dicial Department (99 App. Div. 195, 90 N. ment (97 App. Div. 147, 89 N. Y. Supp. 647), Y. Supp. 1029), entered December 17, 1904, entered July 28, 1904, reversing a judgment

afirming & judgment in favor of plaintif enin favor of defendants entered upon a dismissaltered upon a verdict and an order denying a of the complaint by the court on trial at motion for a new trial. Frederic J. Swift, for Special Term. George W. S. Schulz and Lewis appellant. Herman Aaron, for respondent. S. Goebel, for appellants. John M. Digney, PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with for respondent.

costs. PER CURIAM. Order of Appellate Division CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. reversed, and judgment of Special Term affirm BARTLETT, HAIGHT. VANN, WILLARD ed, with costs in all courts, unless within 60 BARTLETT, and OHASE, JJ., concur. days the respondent obtains from the Appellate Division an amendment of the order of reversal on terms prescribed in which case ap

In re DELANO'S ESTATE. (Court of Ap pellant is allowed to withdraw appeal, without peals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal costs.

from an order of the Appellate Division of the CULLEN, O. J., and GRAT O'BRIEN, Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department BARTLETT, HAIGHT VANN, and WER,

(105 App. Div. 642, 94 N. Y. Supp. 1143), enNER, JJ., concur.

tered June 24, 1905, which affirmed an order of the New York county Surrogate's Court

assessing a transfer tax on the estate of Laura DASSORI. Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW Astor Delano, deceased. Lucius H. Beers, for YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New

appellants George M. Judd and Edward H. York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal from a judg

Fallows, for respondent. ment of the Appellate Division of the Supremo PER CURIAM. Order afirmed, with costs. Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. OULLEN. O. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Div. 636, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1102), entered July BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER: 28, 1904, afirming a judgment in favor of de NER, JJ., concur. feudant entered upon a dismissal of the com. plaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury. Frederic R. Coudert and John P.

DENISON V. DENISON et al. (Court of Murray, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp

Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal Obunsel (Theodoro Connoly and Terence Far

from a judgment of the Appellate Division of ley, of counsel), for respondent.

the Supreme Court in the First Judicial DePER CURIAM. Judgment afirmed, with

partment (96 App. Div. 418, 89 N. Y. Supp.

126), entered September 3, 1904, which affirmcosts.

ed a judgment construing the will of Noel J. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

Becar, deceased, entered upon a decision of BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER

the court op trial at Special Term. Hugo NER, JJ., concur.

Kohlman, Charles A. Runk, Francis L. Kohl

man, and Augustus N. Hand, for appellants. DAVIDSOX, Appellant, v. GERRY, Respond

Thomas W. Butts and Frederick Geller, for ent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov,

respondent. 21. 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Apo

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

costs. First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 627, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1103), entered July 20, 1904, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., conaffirming a judgment in favor of defendant cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Louis_Marshall, Franklin Bartlett, and Charles J. Buchanan, for appel

DENNIS-WICKERS, Respondent, v. VILlant. William H Harris, for respondent.“

LAGE OF ELMIRA HEIGHTS, Appellant PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

(Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.)

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, costs.

with $10 costs. See 182 N. Y, 534, 75 N. E. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT,

1129. HAIGHT, VANN,' and WERNER, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

DEVEREAUX, Respondent, v. METRO

POLITAN LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Court DECKER, Respondent, V. KELLS, Appel- of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Aplant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division 12, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial De Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the partment (94 App. Div. 613, 88 N. Y. Supp. Third Judicial Department (92 App. Div. 615, 1096), entered May 24, 1904, affirming a judg.

sent.

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a deci- 1 lant. Alfred J. Gilchrist and Carl J. Hey ser, sion of the court on trial at Special Term. 1 for respondent. Eugene Van Voorhis, for appellant. James M. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with E. O'Grady, for respondent.

costs. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, costs.

BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, CHASE, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

EULER, Respondent, V. KAPPLEMANN,

Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York DOLAN et al., Respondents, V. NEW YORK

Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of & H. R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Ap

the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court

in the Second Judicial Department (97 App. peals of New York. Nov. 28, 1905.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10

| Div. 632, 89. N. Y. Supp. 1104), entered Au

gust 10, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of costs. See 175 N. Y. 367, 67 N. E. 612.

plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order

denying a motion for a new trial. Clarence DUKE, Appellant, V. O’DELL et al., Re

Edwards, for appellant. H. A. Monfort, for re

spondent. spondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.). Appeal from a judgment of the

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (100 App. Div. CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN. HAIGHT, 517. 91 N. Y. Supp. 1093), entered February VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., con1, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of de- cur. BARTLETT, J., not sitting. fendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. William F. Goldbeck, for appellant. Richard Reid Rog

EVANS V. SOUTHERN TIER MASONIC ers and Paul D. Cravath, for respondents.

RELIEF ASS'N. (Court of Appeals of New PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

York. Jan. 16, 1906.) No opinion. Motion

for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 182 costs.

N. Y. 453, 75 N. E. 317. GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., ab. EVERDELL et al., Appellants, y. HILL et

al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judge

ment of the Appellate Division of the SuIn re EAST 178TH ST. IN CITY OF NEW

preme Court in the First Judicial DepartYORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan.

ment (96 App. Div. 625, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1098), 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appel

entered June 29, 1904, affirming a judgment in late Division of the Supreme Court in the First

favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of Judicial Department (107 App. Div. 22, 94

the complaint by the court on trial at Special N. Y. Supp. 838), entered September 23, 1905,

Term. James L. Bennett and Jacob S. Van which affirmed an order of Special Term con:

Wyck, for appellants. Jacob F. Miller and firming the report of commissioners of estimate

Cyrus C. Miller, for respondents. and assessment in the above-entitled proceedings.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with John C. Shaw and Joseph S. Frank, for appellants. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore

costs, Connoly, John P. Dunn, and Thomas C. Blake,

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, of counsel), for respondent.

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs,

NER, JJ., concur. on opinion below.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, FALLON, Appellant, v. HOWARD, RespondVANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS ent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. COCK, JJ., concur.'

15, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

Second Judicial Department (95 App. Div. 629, · EGGLESTON, Respondent, V. TOWN OF

88 N. Y. Supp. 1098), entered June 11, 1904, CHAUTAUQUA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, enof New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a tered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su court at a Trial Term. Edward J. McCrossin, preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart for appellant. Frederic W. Hinrichs and Jlfred ment (90 App. Div. 314, 86 N. Y. Supp. 279),

E. Hinrichs, for respondent. entered January 18, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with an order denying a motion for a new trial. A.

costs. B. Ottaway, for appellant. Jerome B. Fisher,

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, for respondent..

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

NER, JJ., concur. costs.

CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY. BARTLETT, FARNSWORTH, Appellant, v. NEW YORK HAIGHT. VANN, and WERNER, JJ., con: CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Court cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment, entered March 16, 1905.

upon an order of the Appellate Division of the ERN, Respondent, V. BROOKLYN Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial DepartHEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Ap ment (102 App. Div. 621, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1123). peals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from

which affirmed a final judgment in favor of à judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su defendant, entered upon a former reversal by preme Court in the Second Judicial Depart. the Appellate Division of an interlocutory ment (101 App. Div. 609, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1093), judgment of Special Term sustaining a demur. entered January 12, 1905, affirming a judgment | rer to the complaint. Ernest B. Millard, for apin favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and pellant. H, E. Rourke, for respondent. an order denying a motion for a new trial. I. | PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with R. Oeland and George D. Yeomans, for appel- ! costs.

« AnteriorContinuar »