ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 443, 91 N. Y. Supp. 839), entered January 28, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial. William P. Rudd and Allen Wardwell, for appellants. Joseph A. Arnold and Leon Lauterstein, for respondent.

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

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, J., not voting. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

BRADLEY, Respondent, v. WAGNER et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (90 App. Div. 607, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered February 3, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. John P. Everett, for appellants. Henry Wendt and Edward D. Edson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

BRISCOE, Appellant, v. BAKER et al., Civil Service Com'rs, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 13, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (107 App. Div. 616, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1116), entered July 13, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term which denied the petitioner's motion for an order directing the defendant civil service commission to permit an inspection of certain papers under their control. John W. Weed, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and William B. Crowell, of counsel), for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur.

BUCKLEY, Appellant, v. WESTCHESTER LIGHTING CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division_of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 436, 87 N. Y. Supp. 763), entered May 5, 1904, affirming a judg ment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Jacob Marks, for appellant. Frank Verner Johnson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

BUFFALO CEREAL CO., Respondent, v. ATKINS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 642, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1090), entered October 26, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at an Equity Term. Charles F. Tabor, for appellant. Frank O. Ferguson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, so as to be without prejudice to the appellant asserting title to the premises in dispute under any other source than the tax deed from the city of Buffalo, with costs to the respondent.

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

BUSHA, Respondent, v. ALICE FALLS CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 619, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1090), entered January 14, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff eutered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Lewis E Carr and Edward W. Douglass, for appellant. Adelbert W. Boynton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, O. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

BYARS, Appellant, v. BENNINGTON & H. V. RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a 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 favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. J. K. Long and Thomas S. Fagan,_for_appellant. P. R. Chapman and George E. Greene, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WILLARD BARTLETT, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent. CHASE, J., not sitting.

CAHILL, Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (96 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 order denying a motion for a new trial. William W. Webb, Corp. Counsel (John M. Stull, of counsel), for appellant. Henry R. Glynu and Harvey F. Remington, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

CARLISLE, Respondent, v. BARNES, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) Motion to dismiss appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 573, 92 N. Y. Supp. 917), entered April 7, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal had been taken pursuant to an order of a judge of the Court of Appeals granting permission to appeal and that said order had been thereafter vacated by the court. Henry M. Ward, for the motion. F. H. Van Vechten, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed.

CARLISLE, Respondent, v. BARNES, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied. See 183 N. Y. 272, 76 N. E. 27.

CARY et al., Appellants, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (89 N. Y. Supp. 1101) entered July 13, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. Ansley Wilcox and Henry A. Bull, for appellants. Frank Gibbons, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CHAMBERLAIN, Respondent, v. CUMING, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 561, 91 N. Y. Supp. 105), entered December 22, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. Edward L. Blackman and Alfred B. Cruikshank, for appellant. Joseph Fischer and Louis J. Vorhaus, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

CHAMBERLAIN, Respondent, v. NESTER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 511, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1090), entered January 19, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. Frank Rice and George L. Bachman, for appellant. J. N. Hammond, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

CHAMBERS, Respondent, v. HOWARD, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 619, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1091), entered December 8, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. John L. Hill, for appellant. J. A. Kellogg and H. P. King, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. MIT CHELL et al., Assessors, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) Motion to amend remittitur so as to provide that "the order and judgment appealed from be af

firmed, with costs." See 183 N. Y. 245, 76 N. E. 18.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, without costs. What appears to be designated in the record on appeal as a judgment of the Appellate Division is, under sections 2141 and 2143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, denominated a final order. It is that order which has been affirmed by this court, and the application is therefore unnecessary. We prefer to adhere to the nomenclature prescribed by the Code.

CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, V. SLOAT et al., Town Assessors, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1905.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (106 App. Div. 614, 94 N. Y. Supp. 1113), entered June 29, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the proceedings of the respondents herein in assessing property of the petitioner for the purposes of taxation and dismissing a writ of certiorari to review such proceedings. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (I. J. Beaudrias, of counsel), for appellant. Clayton Ryder and George E. Anderson, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion in Matter of City of New York v. Mitchell, 183 N. Y. 245, 76 Ñ. E. 18.

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

In re CITY OF ROCHESTER. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (108 App. Div. 360, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1118), entered October 20, 1905, which affirmed an order of the Monroe County Court granting to Edna C. Cobb, the appellant herein, costs and an additional allowance in the above-entitled proceeding. William F. Lynn, for appellant. W. W. Webb, Corp. Counsel (Chester F. Kiehel, of counsel), for respondent. PER

CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with

costs. 'CULLEN. C. J., and O'BRIEN. HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

CLARK, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (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 and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Alexander S. Bacon, for appellant. Charles F. Brown, Bayard H. Ames, and Henry A. Robinson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER. JJ., concur. GRAY, J., not sitting. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

CLEVELAND CITY FORGE & IRON CO., Respondent, V. STERN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Di vision of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 625, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1094), entered June 18, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Eldon Bisbee, for appellants. Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

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

COE v. PATTERSON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 6, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (108 App. Div. 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 at Special Term. The motion was made upon the grounds that the judgment appealed from does not finally determine the action and that no appeal has been allowed therefrom. John Van Voorhis & Sons, for the motion. Pierre M. Brown, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, without costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division as undecided, for its determination of the appeal from a final judgment at Special Term.

COHNFELD, Respondent, V. TANEN. BAUM. Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judg ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 614, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1119), entered March 6, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Benjamin N. Cardozo and Sol M. Stroock, for appellant. George W. Weiffenbach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, HAIGHT, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

CONLEY, Appellant, V. LACKAWANNA IRON & STEEL CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 15, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment entered May 17, 1904, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (94 App. Div. 149, 88 N. Y. Supp. 123), overruling plaintiff's exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment in favor of defendant upon the verdict. Hamilton Ward, for appellant. Louis L. Babcock, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

CORBET, Appellant, V. MANHATTAN BRASS CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 217, 87 N. Y. Supp. 577), entered July 15, 1904, upon an order reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee and directing a dismissal of the complaint. Harrie C. Manheim, for appellant. George Ryall, for respondent.

HAIGHT, J. We agree with the Appellate Division as to its construction of the contract between the parties (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. 531, 7 N. E. 621; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109, 58 N. Y. Supp. 889; affirmed on opinion below 167 N. Y. 577, 60 N. E. 1110); but we think the Appellate Division should have ordered a new trial instead of dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff in his

complaint alleged that he had demanded of the defendant a reassignment to him of the patents referred to in the contract and that the defendant had refused to reassign the same. The issue formed upon this allegation does not appear to have been determined by the trial court. The judgment of the Appellate Division should therefore be modified accordingly; costs to abide event.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ.,

concur.

CRAPO, Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 6, 1906.) Motion for reargument. See 183 N. Y. 395, 76 N. E. 465. Walter W. Magee, for the motion. Thomas Hogan, opposed.

O'BRIEN, J. The ouly ground upon which the respondent moves for a reargument, so far as I can learn from the moving papers, is that the court failed to pass upon the question of negligence. I think the learned corporation counsel is mistaken in that contention. It will be seen from the report of the case (183 N. Y. 395, 76 N. E. 465) that one of the opinions deals fully with the question as to whether there was proof of negligence on the part of the plaintiff sufficient to submit to the jury, and it was held there was. Three other judges concurred in the reversal of the Appellate Division and affirmance of the trial court. This was necessarily a vote on their part that the question of negligence was for the jury. The majority of the court differed among themselves on one point only, and that was whether the action was for a personal injury. That question was immaterial so long as it was held that the cause of action did not accrue till the appointment of the administratrix. The motion for a reargument should be denied, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

CRAWFORD, Respondent, v. TRUSTS & GUARANTEE CO., Limited, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (98 App. Div. 633, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1092), entered February 20, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. C. D. Kiehel, for appellant. D. F. Searle, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

CROSBY, Respondent, v. SECURITY MUT. LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment, entered June 20, 1904, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (94 App. Div. 614, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1095), which affirmed an order of the court at a Trial Term, denying a motion for a new trial after a verdict in favor of plaintiff directed by the court. Frank Rice, C. N. Bovee, and F. W. Jenkins, for appellant. Henry E. Miller and Charles E. Opdyke, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, J., dissent. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

CURNEN, Respondent, v. REILLY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 159, 90 N. Y. Supp. 974), entered December 20, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. John C. McGuire, for appellant. Charles E. Mahony, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISCOOK, JJ., concur.

DALY v. REINELDT et al. (Court of Ap peals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 147, 89 N. Y. Supp. 647), entered July 28, 1904, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. George W. S. Schulz and Lewis S. Goebel, for appellants. John M. Digney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order of Appellate Division reversed, and judgment of Special Term affirmed, with costs in all courts, unless within 60 days the respondent obtains from the Appellate Division an amendment of the order of reversal on terms prescribed in which case appellant is allowed to withdraw appeal, without costs.

CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ.,

concur.

DASSORI, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supremo Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 636, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1102), entered July 28, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of de fendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury. Frederic R. Coudert and John P. Murray, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodoro Connoly and Terence Farley, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

DAVIDSON, Appellant, v. GERRY, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21. 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 627, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1103), entered July 20, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Louis Marshall, Franklin Bartlett, and Charles J. Buchanan, for appellant. William H. Harris, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

DECKER, Respondent, v. KELLS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (92 App. Div. 615,

86 N. Y. Supp. 1133), entered March 11, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. T. E Courtney and J. Courtney, for appellant. James Dougherty, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, by striking therefrom the sum of $60 taxed below for stenographer's fees, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs in this court to respondent.

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

DEGNON-MCLEAN CONST. CO., Respondent, v. CITY TRUST, SAFE DEPOSIT & SURETY CO. OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 195, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1029), entered December 17, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Frederic J. Swift, for appellant. Herman Aaron, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT. VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

In re DELANO'S ESTATE. (Court of Ap peals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (105 App. Div. 642, 94 N. Y. Supp. 1143), entered June 24, 1905, which affirmed an order of the New York county Surrogate's Court assessing a transfer tax on the estate of Laura Astor Delano, deceased. Lucius H. Beers, for appellants. George M. Judd and Edward H. Fallows, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. OULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

DENISON v. DENISON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 418, 89 N. Y. Supp. 126), entered September 3, 1904, which affirmed a judgment construing the will of Noel J. Becar, deceased, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Hugo Kohlman, Charles A. Runk, Francis L. Kohlman, and Augustus N. Hand, for appellants. Thomas W. Butts and Frederick Geller, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

DENNIS-WICKERS, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF ELMIRA HEIGHTS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 182 N. Y. 534, 75 N. E. 1129.

DEVEREAUX, Respondent, ▼. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (94 App. Div. 613, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1096), entered May 24, 1904, affirming a judg

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Eugene Van Voorhis, for appellant. James M. E. O'Grady, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

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

DOLAN et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK & H. R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1905.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 175 N. Y. 367, 67 N. E. 612.

DUKE, Appellant, v. O'DELL et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 517, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1093), entered February 1, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. William F. Goldbeck, for appellant. Richard Reid Rogers and Paul D. Cravath, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

In re EAST 178TH ST. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (107 App. Div. 22, 94 N. Y. Supp. 838), entered September 23, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceedings. John C. Shaw and Joseph S. Frank, for appellants. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly, John P. Dunn, and Thomas C. Blake, of counsel), for respondent.

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

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur.

EGGLESTON, Respondent, v. TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (90 App. Div. 314, 86 N. Y. Supp. 279), entered January 18, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. A. B. Ottaway, for appellant. Jerome B. Fisher, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

lant. Alfred J. Gilchrist and Carl J. Heyser, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

EULER, Respondent, v. KAPPLEMANN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 632, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1104), entered August 10, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Clarence Edwards, for appellant. H. A. Monfort, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

EVANS v. SOUTHERN TIER MASONIC RELIEF ASS'N. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 182 N. Y. 453, 75 N. E. 317.

EVERDELL et al., Appellants, v. HILL et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 625, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1098), entered June 29, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. James L. Bennett and Jacob S. Van Wyck, for appellants. Jacob F. Miller and Cyrus C. Miller, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

FALLON, Appellant, v. HOWARD, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 15, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (95 App. Div. 629, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1098), entered June 11, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. Edward J. McCrossin. for appellant. Frederic W. Hinrichs and Alfred E. Hinrichs, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

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

FARNSWORTH, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Court 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 Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 621, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1123), which affirmed a final judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a former reversal by the Appellate Division of an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. Ernest B. Millard, for appellant. H. E. Rourke, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.