Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BART. I First Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 343, LETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BART 91 N. Y. Supp. 832), entered February 18, 1905, LETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff ennot sitting.

tered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. James P. Niemann, for appel

lants. Graut C. Fox, for respondent. FARRELL, Respondent, V. RYAN et al., PER QURIAM. Judgmeut affirmed, with Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York.

costs. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the

CULLEY, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and Third Judicial Department (90 App. Dir. 617,

CHASE, JJ., concur. 85 N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered March 9, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special GADSKI-TAUSCHER, Respondent, V. Term. W. H. Johnson and Watson Lamont, for GRAFF, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New appellants. Herman Aaron and John H. Ro York. March 6, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an gan, for respondent.

appeal from a judgment of the Appellate DiPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with vision of the Supreme Court in the First Jucosts.

dicial Department (103 App. Div. 596, 92 N. Y. CULLEN, C. J., and BARTLETT, HAIGHT, Supp. 1124), entered June 17, 1905, affirming a VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. GRAY judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a and O'BRIEN, JJ., absent.

decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The motion was made upon the ground that the

action was for services, the judgment of afFERGUSON V. TOLEDO, A. A. & N. M. firmance by the Appellate Division unanimous, R. Co. et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. and, therefore, not appealable to the Court of Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the

Appeals, except by permission, which had not Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

been granted. Henry N. Wessel, for the motion. First Judicial Department (85 App. Div. 352,

Walter M. Rosebault, opposed. 83 N. Y. Supp. 283), entered July 24, 1903, PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and apaffirming a judgment in favor of defendant peal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of morespondent entered upon a dismissal of the tion, on the ground that the complaint is complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. clearly one to recover for services rendered, Jobn M. Bower, for appellant. Howard Mans and the character of the action is determined field and Herbert C. Lakin, for respondent by the complaint, within the meaning of secAnn Arbor R. Co.

tiou 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

GANGUZZA, Appellant. v. ANCHOR LINE

(HENDERSOV BROS., Limited). Respondent. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VA.XX,' and WERNER, JJ., concur.

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

vision of the Supreme Court in the Second JuFILBERT, Appellant, v. NEW YORK, N. H.

dicial Department (97 App. Div, 352, 83 N. Y. & H. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals

Supp. 1049), entered October 22, 1904, affirming of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.)_Appeal from a

a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon judgment of the Appellate Division of the

a verdict and an order denying a motion for a Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Depart

new trial. Louis 0. Van Doren, for appellant. ment (95 Apr. Div. 199, 88 N. Y. Supp. 438),

Ererett Masten, for respondent. entered March 11, 1905, affirming a judgment

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal costs. of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. CULLEY. C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. Robert H. Barnett, for appellant. Walter C. BARTLETT, HAIGHT. VANN, and CHASE, Anthony, for respondent.

JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, J., not PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

sitting costs. CULLEN, O. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

GENEVA MINERAL SPRINGS CO., ApBARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JI., concur.

pellant, v. STEELE, Respondent, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order

of the Appellate Division of Supreme Court in FINN, Respondent, V. IRONOLAD MFG.

the Fourth Judicial Department (102 App. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New

Div. 620, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1125), entered March York. March 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judg

11, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme

| Term denying plaintiff's motion to set aside Court in the Second Judicial Department (99

the report of a referee and for a new trial. App. Div. 625, 90 N. Y. Supp. 887), entered

The motion was made upon the grounds that December 6, 1904, affirming a judgment in

the order appealed from was an intermediate favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an

one, and so not appealable as of right to the order denying a motion for a new trial. Johu

Court of Appeals, and that permission to appeal J. Kuhn and William W. Dykmau, for appel

had not been granted. William S. Moore, for lant. James C. Cropsey and F. W. Catlin,

the motion. John Gillette, opposed. for respondent PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and ap

peal dismissed, with costs, and $10 costs of costs.

motion. GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANY, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent. WILLARD BART. GERMANIA LIFE INS. CO., Appellant, v. LETT, J., not sitting.

CASEY, Respondent, et al. (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.)

Appeal in each of the above-entitled actions FOX, Respondent, V. ERBE et al., Appel- | from a judgment of the Appellate Division of lants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. the Supreme Court in the First Judicial De16, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the partment (98 App. Div. 88. 90 Y. Y. Supp. 418; Appellate Division of the Supreme Court iu the '98 App. Div. 619, 90 N. Y Supp 1097), entered December 2, 1904, affirming a judgment in Cossum, for appellants. Alton B. Parker; favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of Frank B. Lown, and Allison Butts, for rethe complaint by the court on trial at Special spondent. Term. Henry B. Pogson, for appellant. Benja PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. min N. Cardozo and Jacob Steinhardt, for

HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISrespondent.

COCK, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J. and PER CURIAM. Judgment in each action

M. Judgment in each, action | O'BRIEN, J., disseut. BARTLETT. J.. not affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that the

sitting. second conclusion of law by the trial court is in part a finding of fact as to an agreement between the plaintiff and the owner of the prop HANCOCK, Respondent, V. NEW YORK erty for an extension of the time for the pay CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of ment of the principal sum secured by the mort Appeals of New York. Feb. 16, 1906.) Apgage.

peal from a judgment of the Appellate Di. GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, vision of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Ju. and WILLARD BARTLETT, JJ., concur. dicial Department (100 App. Div. 161, 91 N. Y. HAIGHT_and CHASE, JJ., dissent. CUL

Supp. 601), entered March 24, 1904, affirming LEN, C. J., absent.

a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a

new trial. Daniel M. Beach, for appellant. E. GORHAM, Respondent, v. VOUGHT et al., A. Griffith, for respondent. Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the

costs. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, BART. the Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div.

LETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., concur. 632, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1105), entered August 8,

GRAY and HISCOCK, JJ., not sitting. 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. John L. Hill and Rob HANDY, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ert L. Redfield, for appellauts. Charles Haines, ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of for respondent.

New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a PER QURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with judgment of the Appellate Division of the Sucosts.

preme Court in the First Judicial Department CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, 794 App. Div. 620, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1103), enVANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS tered June 3, 1904, affirming a judgment in COCK, JJ., coucur.'

favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Charles

F. Brown, Bayard H. Ames, and Henry A. GRAND TRUNK RY. 00. OF CANADA. Robinson, for appellant. James Russell Soley, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent. (Court of for respondent. Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with from a judgment of the Appellate Division of costs. the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial De CULLEN, C. J., and BARTLETT, VANN, partment (97 App. Div. 631, 89 N. Y. Supp. and WERNER, JJ., concur. HAIGHT, J., 1105), entered November 15, 1904, affirming a dissents. GRAY, J., not sitting. O'BRIEN, J., judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon an absent. award of the Court of Claims. William L. Marcy, for appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (Horace McGuire, of coursel), for the HAWLEY, Respondent, V. UNITED State.

STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York, costs.

Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., Fourth Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 12, concur. CHASE, J., not sitting.

90 N. Y. Supp. 893), entered December 21, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff en

tered upon a verdict directed by the court and GRIEBEL Appellant, v. BROOKLYN an order denying a motion for a new trial. HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent. (Court of George P. Keating, for appellant. Henry W. Appeals of New York. Feb. 13. 1906.) Ap Killeen and V. H. Riordan, for respondent. peal from a judgment of the Appellate Di PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with vision of the Supreme Court in the Second Ju costs. dicial Department (95 App. Div. 214, 88 y. Y.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. Supp. 767), entered June 23, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD

BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial, J. Stewart_Ross, for appellant. I. R. Oeland and George D. Yeomaus, for respond HOGG et al. v. ROSE et al. (Court of Apent.

peals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) No opin. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

ion. Motion to amend remittitur denied, with costs.

$10 costs. See 183 N. Y. 182, 76 N. E. 38. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

HOLCOMB, Respondent, V. NEW YORK

CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of In re HALSTED. (Court of Appeals of

Appeals of New York.' Nov. 21, 1905.) ApNew York. March 13, 1906.) Appeal from an

peal from a judgment, entered February i.

1905, upon an order of the Appellate Division order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme

of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Court in the Second Judicial Department (110

Department (100 App. Div. 512, 91 N. Y. Supp. App. Div. - 95 N. Y. Supp. 1131) entered

1097), which affirmed an order made at a Trial December 8, 1905, which affirmed a decree of

Term denying a motion for a new trial after the the Dutchess county Surrogate's Court settling

rendition of a verdict in favor of plaintiff. the accounts of the trustee herein. George H. Daniel M. Beach, for appellant. William S. Yeaman, George C. Kobbé, and Charles F.

Jenney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

IRISH, Respondent, V. UNION BAG & costs.

PAPER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of CULLEN, C. J. and BARTLETT, HAIGHT,

New York. Oct. 27, 1905.). Appeal from a VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. GRAY,

judgment of the Appellate Division of the SuJ., not sitting. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

preme Court in the Third Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 45, 92 N. Y. Supp. 695), en

tered March 11, 1905, affirming a judgment in HOOKE, Respondent, V. FINANCIER CO.,

favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York.

order denying a motion for a new trial. EdFeb 16 1906) Cross-appeals from a judgment gar T. Brackett, for appellant. Lewis E. Carr of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court

and A. D. Arnold, for respondent. in the First Judicial Department (99 App.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Div. 186, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1012), entered Decem

costs. ber 19, 1904, modifying, and affirming as modi

CULLEN, C. J., and BARTLETT, VANN, fied, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered up

and WERNER, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., not on the report of a referee. John J. O'Connell,

voting. O'BRIEN and HAIGHT, JJ., absent. for plaintiff. Theron G. Strong, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The stipulation of the parties was plainly intended to eliminate from the

JACKSON, Respondent, V. LAWYERS' appeal all questions relating to the amount

SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant. of the judgment. We find that the contracts of

(Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) employment were valid and binding obligations

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Diviof the defendant, and that that part of the judg

sion of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial ment appealed from by the plaintiff, appellant,

Department (95 App. Div. 368, 88 N. Y. Supp. should be reversed, and the judgment as en 576), entered July 11, 1904, reversing a judgtered upon the report of the referee should be

ment in favor of defendant entered upon a ver. affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff in the Ap dict by the court and directing judgment in pellate Division and in this court.

vor of plaintiff for the relief demanded in the CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

complaint. Francis Smyth and George W. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and Wickersham, for appellant. Edward W.s. JohnsCHASE, JJ., concur.

ton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs, on opinion below. HUDSON, Appellant, v. ERIE R. R. CO., CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and Jan. 9, 1906.). Appeal from a judgment of the CHASE, JJ., concur. Appellate Division of the

Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (92 App. Div. 621, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1138), entered March 23, 1904, JACOBS, Appellant, v. COHEN et al., Reaffirming a judgment in favor of defendant en spondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. tered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the Feb. 6, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for recourt at a Trial Term. John M. Gardner, for argument denied, with $10 costs. See 183 N. Y. appellant. Henry Bacon and Joseph Merritt,

207, 76 N. E. 5. for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with JAWPOLE et al., Respondents, V. LASKY, costs.

Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Feb. 16, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of BARTLETT. HAIGHT, VANN,' and WER: | the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in NER, JJ., concur.

the First Judicial Department (94_App. Div. 353, 88 N. Y. Supp. 50), entered February 6,

1905, in favor of plaintiffs upon the submission HUNT, Respondent, v. DEXTER SUL of a controversy under section 1279 of the PHITE PULP & PAPER CO., Appellant. Code of Civil Procedure. Samuel D. Lasky, (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 12, for appellant. Moses Esberg, for respondents. 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth

costs, on opinion below. Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 119, 91 N. Y. Supp. 279), entered January 13, 1905,

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

BARTLETT, WERNER, HISĆOOK, and affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered

CHASE, JJ., concur. upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Henry Purcell, for appellant. A. E. Kilby, for respondent.

KABLE. Respondent, v. ROCHESTER GAS PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with & ELECTRIC CO., Appellant. (Court of Apcosts.

peals of New York. Nov, 21, 1903.) Appeal CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER: | the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial DeNER, JJ., concur.

partment (96 App. Div. 639, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1108), entered July 13, 1904, affirming a judg

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upod a verdict HUNT, Respondent, v. THOMPSON, Appel and an order denying a motion for a new trial. ant. (Court of Appeals of New York. January Albert H. Harris, for appellant. George Raines 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap and H. W. Rippey, for respondent. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the PER OURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 633,

costs. 89 N. Y. Supp. 1107), entered October 5, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff en

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

HAIGHT, VANN, and WERKER, JJ., contered upon the report of a referee. Walter Farrington. A. M. Card, and G. Card, for ap

cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. pellant. Charles Morschauser, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with KAHNER, Respondent, v. OTIS ELEVA. costs.

TOR CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, New York, Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER judgment of the Appellate Division of the SuNER, JJ., concur.

preme Court in the First Judicial Department

[ocr errors]

(96 App. Div. 169, 89 N. Y. Supp. 185), entered
July 27, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor
of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. William
B. Hornblower and Mark W. Potter, for ap-
pellant. Charles F. Brown and Sumuer B.
Stiles, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the questions raised by the appellant do not survive the unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division.

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

of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
in the First Judicial Department (97 App. Dis.
514, 90 N. Y. Supp. 205), entered November
26, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of
plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order
denying a motion for a new trial. Benjamin
F. Einstein, for appellants. Frank M, Wells,
for respondent.
· PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with
costs.

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

KALB et al., Appellants, v. KALB, Respond KEMBLE, Respondent, v. RONDOUT VAT. ent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1

BANK OF KINGSTON, Appellant. (Court of 1905.) Appeal from a judgment, entered Janu Appeals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Apary 19, 1905, upon an order' of the Appellate

peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Judicial Department (98 App. Div. 634, 90 N. Department (94 App. Div. 544, 88 N. Y. Supp. Y. Supp. 1101), which overruled plaintiffs' 246), entered May 13, 1904, affirming a judg. exceptions ordered to be heard in the first

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a ver instance by the Appellate Division, denied a dict and an order denying a motiou for a new motion for a new trial, and directed judg. trial. Howard Chipp, for appellant. John W. ment for defendant on a verdict directed at a Searing and William D. Brinnier, for respond. Trial Term. George D. Forsyth, for appellants. ent. Eugene Van Voorhis, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs. costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, CULLEY, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERHAIGHT. VANY, and WERNER, JJ., cou: NER, JJ., concur. cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. KATZ, Appellant, v. H. & H. MFG. CO..

KIRKPATRIOK, Appellant, v. ALLEMAN

NIA FIRE INS. CO., Respondent. (Court of Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York.

Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Ap Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal, by permission, from

peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division an order of the Appellate Division of the Su

of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial preme Court in the First Judicial Department

Department (102 App. Div. 327, 92 N. Y. Supp. (109 App. Div. 49, 95 N. Y. Supp. 663), en

466), entered March 10, 1905, affirming a judg. tered December 12, 1905, which reversed an

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verorder of Special Term continuing a preliminary

dict and an order denying a motion for a new injunction to restrain the election of directors

trial. William B. Ellison and Arnold L. Davis, of the defendant company. The following

for appellant. Edgar J. Nathan and Michael questions were certified: "(1) The by-laws of

H. Cardozo, for respondent. the defendant corporation provide that the directors shall be five in number, and also

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with provide that 'stockholders by a vote of 90 per

costs. cent. of the stock issued and outstanding may

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. at any regular or special meetiúg, alter or

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD amend' the by-laws. A meeting was duly

BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. called for the purpose of adopting a resolution to decrease the number of directors from five to four and to amend the provision

LA MONTAGNE et al., Appellants, v. of the by-laws by substituting the word

BANK of NEW YORK NAT. BANKING 'four for the word 'five' with respect to ASS'N, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New the number of directors. The holders and

York. Jan. 16, 1906.) No opinion. Motion owners of more than 50 per cent. of the issued for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See and outstanding stock of the defendant, but 183 N. Y. 173, 76 N. E. 33. less than 90 per cent. of such stock, duly voted in favor of this resolution. Was it lawful for the company to reduce its number of directors

LAWRENCE BROS., Inc., Respondent, . by a vote of the holders of more than 50 per HEYLMAN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of cent. but less than 90 per cent. of the issued and New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a outstanding stock of the defendant where all judgment of the Appellate Division of the Suthe statutory requirements have been complied preme Court in the Second Judicial Department with? (2) Is it lawful for a corporation to pro (89 App. Div. 620, 85 N. Y. Supp. 189), envide in its by-laws that a vote of the holders tered January 13, 1904, affirming a judgment of 90 per cent. of its issued and outstanding in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and stock shall be required in order to change the an order denying a motion for a new trial. number of directors, notwithstanding section Thaddeus D. Kenneson and Henry B. Heyl21 of the stock corporation law?" Herbert R. man, for appellant. Ralph Earl Prime, Jr., Limburger, for appellant. William H. Hirsh, and A. J. Prime, for respondent. for respondent.

PER QURIAM. Judgment afirmed, with PER QURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. costs. First question certified answered in the af ·OULLEN, C. J. and GRAY, O'BRIEN, firmative; second, in the negative.

BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and OULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, CHASE, JJ., concur. VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS COCK, JJ., concur.

LAY et al., Respondents, v. DOYLE, Appel

lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. KAUFMAN, Respondent, v. ROSENSHINE 12, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New | Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in York. Jau. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment 'the Fourth Judicial Department (94 App. Dir. 613, 88 X. Y. Supp. 1105), entered June 2, 1904, Chittenden, for appellant. George W. Wingate affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs en- and Joseph F. Keany, for respondent. tered upon à verdict and an order denying a PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with motion for a new trial. James M. E. O'Grady, costs, on the ground that under the statute the for appellaut. Philetus Chamberlain, for re- plaintiff's claim is against the fund provided spondents.

by the municipality and not against the defendPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with ant. costs.

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

LIVINGSTON et al., Respondents, v. STAF. L. D. GARRETT CO., Appellant, v. APPLE FORD, Commissioner of Highways et al., ApTON, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New

pellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. York. March 6, 1906.) Appeal from an order

February 16, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (101 App.

in the Third Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 507, 92 N. Y. Supp. 136), entered Feb

Div. 108, 91 N. Y. Supp. 172), entered Decemruary 24, 1905, reversing a judgment in favor

ber 17, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court

plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new

at a Trial Term without a jury. Frederick trial. Edgar J. Nathan and Michael H. Car

Collin, for appellants. Andrew J. Nellis and

Robert F. Livingston, for respondents. dozo, for appellant. Charles E. Lydecker, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg

costs, on the opinions of the Trial Term and Ap

pellate Division below. ment absolute ordered against the plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs in all the courts, on

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

WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT,

O'BRIEN, J., dissents. CHASE, J., not sitting. VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

LORY, Respondent, v. TOWN OF HERKIM

ER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New L. D. GARRETT CO., Appellant, v. CLARK,

York. Oct, 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York.

of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court March 6, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the

in the Fourth Judicial Department (97 App. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

Div. 642, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1104), entered October First Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 611,

19, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plain92 N. Y. Supp. 1132), entered February 24,

tiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying 1905, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff

a motion for a new trial. Ch. D. Thomas, for entered upon a decision of the court on trial at

appellant. A. B. Steele and Arleigh D. RichardSpecial Term and granting a new trial. Ed.

son, for respondent. gar J. Nathan and Michael H. Cardozo, for PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with appellant. Alfred B. Cruikshank, for respond.

costs. ent.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. ment absolute ordered against the plaintiff on O'BRIEN, J., absent. the stipulation, with costs in all the courts, on opinion below.

GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, LOWTHER et al. v. ABEL et al. (Court HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Moand CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., tion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of absent.

the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (108 App.

Div. 365, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1142), entered DecemLICHTENSTEIN, Respondent, V. RABO ber 8. 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of LINSKY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a trial at Special Term. The motion was made judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Decem upon the ground that the decision of the Apber 29, 1904, upon an order of the Appellate pellate Division was unanimous, and that thereDivision of the Supreme Court in the Fourth fore no question is presented that the Court of Judicial Department (98 App. Div. 516, 90 N. Appeals has jurisdiction to review. W. H. Y. Supp. 247), which reversed an order of the Van Benschoten, for the motion. Franklin court at a Trial Term granting a motion for Bien, opposed. new trial after a verdict in favor of plaintiff PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal and directed judgment on the verdict. Mauls dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. by Kimball, for appellant. August Becker, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

MCGOVERN, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN, costs.

RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, York. March 6, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ.,

appeal from an order of the Appellate Division concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (110 App. Div. - , 96 N. Y. Supp.

1134), entered January 12, 1906, which affirmed LINTON, Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND R. an order of the court at a Trial Term denying Co., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New

a motion for a new trial. The motion was made York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment

upon the ground that the order was not appealof the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court able as of right to the Court of Appeals and perin the Second Judicial Department (91 App. mission to appeal had not been granted. AuDiv. 515, 86 N. Y. Supp. 903), entered March

gustus Van Wyck, for the motion. Austen 12, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of de

G. Fox and Charles A. Gardiner, opposed. fendant entered upon a dismissal of the com PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal plaint by the court at a Trial Term. R. Percy dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

« AnteriorContinuar »