Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

eme

deputy commissioners, who, after taking the tering the order, we think that no costs of this evidence presented on behalf of the prosecution, appeal should be allowed to either party. The held that the evidence was insufficient to war. order of the Appellate Division should be modi. rant a conviction on four of the charges speci fied in the particulars mentioned, and, as modi. fied and the trial thereupon proceeded upon the fied, affirmed, without costs to either party. other two charges. At the conclusion of the CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, evidence the deputy commissioner made the fol BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. lowing report to the commissioner, accompanied O'BRIEN, J., not voting. by the evidence taken by him: "After mature deliberation I find Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan of the Twenty-Fifth precinct guilty of neglect PEOPLE ex rel. ROTHSCHILD, Appellant, of duty, in that he failed to repress or restrain V. MUH et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals the unlawful and disorderly houses within the

of New York. Dec. 5, 1905.) Appeal from an Twelfth precinct, to which precinct he was at order of the Appellate Division of the sy tached as precinct detective, between September Court in the First Judicial Department (101 24, 1899, and November 26, 1900, and did not App. Div. 423, 92 N. Y. Supp. 22), entered arrest the persons guilty of violating the laws February 27, 1905, which affirmed a determinaor ordinances for the suppression and punish

tion of the defendants in refusing to award the ment of crimes and offenses in certain places

relator damages for a change of grade of a charged in the complaint. I further find Patrol

street in front of premises of said relator and man Stephen J. Reagan of the Twenty-Fifth

dismissed a writ of certiorari to review the precinct guilty of disobedience of rule 47, para same. F. W. Hottenroth and Adolph C. Hottengraph H, of the rules and regulations of the roth, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corporapolice department. I recommend that the said

tion Counsel (Theodore Connoly and George L. Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan of the Twenty

Sterling, of counsel), for respondents. Fifth precinct be dismissed from the police force of the city of New York.” This report was

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. signed by the deputy commissioner, N. B. Thurs

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, ton, and underneath is indorsed the following:

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER“Approved, August 22, 1902. John N. Part

NER, JJ., concur. ridge, Commissioner." Upon this report and the approval of the commissioner there was

PEOPLE ex rel. RYAN, Appellant, v. STURentered that which we will denominate the final

GIS, Fire Com'r, Respondent. (Court of Aporder in the proceeding, under the same date, in which there is a recital of the proceedings,

peals of New York. Dec. 5, 1905.) Appeal all of the charges. numbering them from 1 to

from an order of the Appellate Division of the

Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depart6 inclusive, the trial before the deputy commis

ment (96 App. Div. 620, 88 N. Y. Supp. 631). sioner, and the reference thereof to the police

entered June 15, 1904, which affirmed the procommissioner for his decision; and then con.

ceedings of the defendant in dismissing the recludes : "Upon due consideration the police com

lator from the fire department of the city of missioner does adjudge the said Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan to be guilty of the charge

New York and dismissed a writ of certiorari

to review_the same. Delos McCurdy, for apand does convict him thereof, and upon such conviction adjudges and determines that the said

pellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theo Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan be dismissed

dore Connoly, Terence Farley, and Thomas F.

Noonan, of counsel), for respondent. from the police force of the police department of the city of New York. By Order of the

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Commissioner. [Signed] William H. Kipp, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, Chief Clerk.” It will be observed that the final BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERorder, in form, convicts the relator upon all of NER, JJ., concur. the charges upon which he was tried, whereas, in fact, four of the charges were dismissed during the trial by the deputy commissioner after

PEOPLE ex rel. SMITH, Appellant, v. VAN the close of the evidence on behalf of the pros

DE CARR, Warden, et al., Respondents. ecution, and the trial then proceeded only upon

(Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, the two remaining charges. Upon the conclu

1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an sion of the evidence the deputy commissioner

order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme made his report to the commissioner, finding the

Court in the First Judicial Department (86 relator guilty upon those two charges, and

App. Div. 9, 83 N. Y. Supp. 245), entered July thereupon recommended his removal. The com

16, 1903, which reversed an order of Special missioner of police indorsed upon this report Term sustaining writs of certiorari and habeas his approval, thereby confirming the conviction

corpus on behalf of the relator. The motion upon those two charges and the recommendation was made upon the grounds that the relator had of the deputy for his removal. The final order

failed to perfect the appeal by filing an underappears to have been entered and signed by a

taking and had taken no steps towards the prosclerk, and not by the commissioner. It does

ecution of said appeal since the filing of notice not conform to the finding and recommendation

thereof. William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. of the deputy commissioner, which was approved

(Howard S. Gans, of counsel), for the motion. and confirmed by the commissioner. It is there PER CURIAM. Motion granted. fore apparent that the commissioner's judgment in imposing the punishment of dismissal from the force was based solely upon the two charges

PEOPLE ex rel. VICTOR KOECHL & CO., upon which he was found guilty, and the only Appellant, v. MORGAN, State Comptroller, Reerror appearing in the case is that the clerk spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. in entering the final order did not conform the Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the same to the findings which were approved by

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the the commissioner. The Appellate Division has

Third Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 110, unanimously affirmed, and we conclude that the 88 N. Y. Supp. 1066), entered September 23, only modification required is that the final 1904, which modified, and affirmed as modified, order, as entered, be made to conform to the a determination of the defendant assessing a findings approved by the commissioner, by strik franchise tax upon the relator. Edmund L. ing out therefrom the four charges which had Cole, for appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. been dismissed during the trial. Inasmuch as

Gen. (Horace McGuire, of counsel), for rethis relief could have been obtained upon an spondent. . application to the commissioner, upon calling PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, his attention to the error of the clerk in en | on opinion below.

76 N.E.—70

ah

ta

CULLEN, O. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, I ment (101 App. Div. 612, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1142), VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS: entered January 12, 1905, which affirmed an COCK, JJ., concur.

order of Special Term in surplus money proceedings. James M. Sullivan and J. John Has

sett, for appellant. Frederick Collin, for re PERELES, Appellant, V. ROCHESTER spondent Chemung Canal Bank. GERMAN INS. Co. OF ROCHESTER, Res.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. pondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap

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

VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISpellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

COCK, JJ., concur. Fourth Judicial Department (94 App. Div. 614, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1114), entered June 28, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant en

PURDY et al., Respondents, v. BRANTINGtered upon a verdict and an order denying a HAM, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of motion for a new trial. Vernon Cole and Moses

New York. Feb. 13, 1906.). Appeal from & Shire, for appellant. Joseph W. Taylor, for

judgment of the Appellate Division of the Surespondent.

preme Court in the First Judicial Department PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with (100 App. Div. 516, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1110), costs.

entered January 30. 1905. affirming a judgment CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN. WILLARD the court on trial at Special Term. Alexander BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

Thain, for appellant. Allan C. Rowe, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with PERKINS, Appellant, V. STANTON, Re

costs. spondent (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from a judge ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme

WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., conCourt in the Third Judicial Department (96

cur. BARTLETT, J., not voting. App. Div. 631, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered August 17, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor

RANDALL, Respondent, V. UNITED of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the

STATES LEATHER CO., Appellant. (Court complaint by the court on trial at Special Term.

of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) ApD. Raymond Cobb, for appellant. Theodore E.

peal from a judgment of the Appellate DivisHancock, for respondent.

ion of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Department (95 App. Div. 620, 88 N. Y. Supp. costs,

1114), entered June 6, 1904, affirming a judg. CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verVANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS dict and an order denying a motion for a new COCK, JJ., concur.

trial. H. Austin Clark, for appellant. Martin

S. Lynch, for respondent. PLACE V. KENNEDY et al. (Court of Ap

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs. peals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, BARTthe Supreme Court in the Second Judicial

LETT, HAÍGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ.,

concur. GRAY, J., dissents on the ground of the Department (89 App. Div. 167, 85 N. Y. Supp.

erroneous instruction to the jury with respect 766), entered January 7, 1904, affirming a judg. ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a deci

to the liability of the defendant. sion of the court at Special Term after a verdict in an action for partition. Edward L. Black

RANKINE, Respondent, V. DE VEAUX man and Alfred B. Cruikshank, for appellant.

COLLEGE FOR ORPHAN & DESTITUTE Burton C. Meighan, for respondent.

CHILDREN et al., Appellants. (Court of PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal costs, on the ground that the judgment appealed from a judgment of the Appellate Division of from is not final.

the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial De CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, partment (94 App. Div. 611, 88 N. Y. Supp. VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN 1114), entered July 5, 1904, affirming a judg. and HÁIGHT, JJ., absent.

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.

John G. Milburn, for appellants. Francis PLATT, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF ONE Lynde Stetson and A. K. Potter, for respondent. ONTA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from an order costs. of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT. in the Third Judicial Department (88 App. Div.

VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., 192, 84 N. Y. Supp. 699), entered December 14,

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. 1903, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granted REYNOLDS v. BRITTON et al. (Court a new trial. Douglas W. Miller, for appellant. of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) ApAlbert C. Tennant and J. Lee Tucker, for re peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division spondent.

of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg. Department (102 App. Div. 609, 92 N, Y. Supp. ment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipu

2), entered March 11, 1905, affirming & judg. lation, with costs.

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a deciCULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT,

sion of the court on trial at Special Term. HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

Robert J. Mahon, for appellant. Claude V. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

Pallister and Francis C. Reed, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs. POWELL V. HARRISON et al. (Court of GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, Appeals of New York. March 13, 1906.) Ap- HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, peal from an order of the Appellate Division of and CHASE, JJ.,' concur. CULLEN, C. J., the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Depart. 'absent.

G. Mihurt on trial vered upon and

Appellaudicial 99), entment

1 of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from RIKER et al., Appellants, V. PRESIDENT, an order of the Appellate Division of the SuETC., OF FLREINS. CO. OF NORTH

preme Court in the Third Judicial Department AMERICA, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of 198 App. Div. 606, 90 N, Y. Supp. 631), entered New York. Feb. 16, 1906.) Appeal from a judg November 29, 1904, reversing a judgment in ment entered January 18, 1904, upon an order favor of defendant' entered upon a dismissal of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in the Fourth Judicial Department (90 App. without a jury and granting a new trial. E. G. Div. 391, 85 N. Y. Supp. 546), overruling plain Bullard and George E. Waldo, for appellant. tiffs' exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first J. K. Long and Thomas S. Fagan, for respondinstance by the Appellate Division, denying a ent. motion for a new trial and directing judgment | PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. and judg. for the defendant. Frederick W. Smith, for ment absolute ordered against defendant on the appellants. Horace McGuire, for respondent. stipulation, with costs, on opinion below.

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

VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., conGRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, cur. HISCOCK, J., dissents. and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., dissents. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

ROTH, Respondent, V. ROTH, Appellant.

(Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) In re RILEY et al. (Court of Appeals of Appeal from a judgment, entered April 22, New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an 1904, upon an order of the Appellate Division order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Court in the Second Judicial Department (109 | Department (90 App. Diy. 87, 85 N. Y. Supp. App. Div. - 95 N. Y. Supp. 1156), entered 640), which affirmed an interlocutory judgment November 24, (1905, which affirmed a decree of in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision the Kings County Surrogate's Court directing of the court at Special Term after a trial of distribution of the estate of John Martin, the issues of fact before a jury. William C. deceased. John R. Kuhn and P. J. McGold Rosenberg and Jesse S. Epstein, for appellant. rick, for appellants. Melville J. France, for Hugo Wintner, for respondent. respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. costs.

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

cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

In re RILEY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 6, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 183 N. Y. 576, supra.

ROTH, Respondent, V. ROTH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan, 23, 1906.) No opinion. Motion to amend remittitur, by striking out costs against the appellant, granted, without costs of motion. See 183 N. Y. - , supra.

RING, Respondent, v. HOWELL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 442, 87 N. Y. Supp. 682), entered May 19, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the Kings County Court on trial without a jury. Robert H. Wilson, for appellant. James C. Cropsey and Frank Mann, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

RUSSELL, Appellant, V. INMAN et al., Respondents. (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 (90 App. Div. 618, 85 N. Y. Supp. 1146), entered January 22, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict directed by the court. J. H. Hanson, for appellant. Henry V. Borst, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

In re ROCKWOOD ST. IN CITY OF NEW SAXE, Appellant, V. OGDEN et al., ReYORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. spondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appel- Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of late Division of the Supreme Court in the the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court First Judicial Department (107 App. Div. 612, in the Second Judicial Department (97 App. 94 N. Y. Supp. 841), entered September 23, Div. 631, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered August 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term 2, 1904, modifying, and affirming as modified, confirming the report of commissioners of es a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon timate and assessment in the above-entitled pro a dismissal of the complaint by the court on ceedings. John C. Shaw, Fordham Morris, trial at Special Term. Milton Mayer, for apWilliam Grossman, and William Arrowsmith, pellant. Laurence L. Driggs, for respondents." for appellants. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with (Theodore Connoly, John P. Dunn, and Thomas costs. C. Blake, of counsel), for respondent.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, BARTLETT. WERNER, HISCOCK, and on opinion below.

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

SCHAUB, Arpellant, v. STATE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate DiROLLINS. Respondent, v. CO-OPERATIVE vision of the Supreme Court in the Third JudiBLDG. BANK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals | cial Department (88 App. Div. 618, 84 N. Y. Supp. 1144), entered November 17, 1904, affirm. 1 ing a judgment in favor of defendant entered | SHANNON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & upon a dismissal by the Court of Claims of the Q. ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO., Apclaim herein. Jefferson W. Hoag, for appel- pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. lant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (Horace 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the ApMcGuire, of counsel), for respondent.

pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Second Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 627, costs.

91 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered December 23, CULLEN, O. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT,

1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., con

entered upon a verdict and an order denying cur. O'BRIEN, J., not voting.

a motion for a new trial. Eugene Lamb Richards, Jr., for appellant. Melville J. France, George V. S. Williams, and William R. Wilson,

for respondent. SCHWARZENBACH, Respondent, v. ELECTRIC WATER POWER CO. OF ONEONTA,

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York.

trial granted, costs to abide event, on the disFeb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the

senting opinion of Woodward, J., below. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, the Third Judicial Department (101 App. Div.

VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., con345, 92 N. Y. Supp. 187), entered January cur. BARTLETT, J., not sitting. 10, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. A. R. Gibbs, for ap SHAPER, Respondent, v. DAVIS, Appellant. pellant. Alva Seybolt, for respondent.

(Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Divi

sion of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial costs. EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT,

Department (93 App. Div. 606, 87 N. Y. Supp. VANN, and WILLARD BARTLETT, JJ.,

1148), entered June 22, 1904, modifying, and concur. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, J., dis

affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of

plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. sept. CHASE, J., not sitting.

Ch. D. Thomas and Adam J. Smith, for appellant. H. A. De Coster, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with SEILLIERE v. BAILEY et al. (Court of

costs. Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depart.

BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ. ment (102 App. Div. 614, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1145),

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. entered March 3, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict di

SHEARY et al., Respondents, v. O'BRIEN rected by the court. James D. Fessenden, for

et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New appellants. Stephen 0. Lockwood, for respond

York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from an order ent.

of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with in the Third Judicial Department (75 App. Div. costs.

121, 77 N. Y. Supp. 378), entered December 8, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. 1902, reversing a judgment in favor of defendBARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD ants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. by the court at a Trial Term and granting a

new_trial. John W. Browne, for appellants.

H. D. Bailey, for respondents. SEIZER, Respondent, V. BROOKLYN PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg. HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Ap ment absolute ordered against defendants on peals of New York. Feb. 16, 1906.) Appeal the stipulation, with costs in all courts, on from a judgment of the Appellate Division of opinion below.' the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial De 1 CULLEN. C. J., and EDWARD T. BART. partment (101 App. Div. 609, 92 N. Y. Supp. | LETT, HAIGHT. VANN. and WILLARD 1145), entered February 6, 1905, affirming a BARTLETT, JJ., concur. GRAY and CHASE, judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a JJ., not sitting. verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. George D. Yeomans and I. R. Deland, for appellant. Edward A. Alexander SMITH, Respondent, V. HULL, Appellant. and Jerome H. Buck, for respondent.

(Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Di. costs.

vision of the Supreme Court in the Second JuCULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, | dicial Department (97 App. Div. 228, 89 N. Y. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and

Supp. 854), entered October 20, 1904, in favor CHASE, JJ., concur.

of plaintiff, upon the submission of a controversv under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure. William F. Timm, for appellant.

Franklin Couch, for respondent. SCOTT, Respondent, V. CONN, Appellant.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21,

costs. 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appel

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, late Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 612, 87 N. Y.

BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and Supp. 1147), entered April 12, 1904, affirming

CHASE, JJ., concur. a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. Edwin Countryman, for

SOKOLSKI, Appellant, v. BUTTENWIESappellant. Charles D. Ridgway, for respond ER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of ent.

New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme costs.

Court in the First Judicial Department (96 CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, | App. Div. 18, 88 N. Y. Supp. 973), entered HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

July 8, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of O'BRIEN, J., absent.

defendants entered upon a dismissal of the com. plaint by the court on trial at Special Term. 1 preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart. Alton B. Parker and Edward W. S. Johnston, ment (96 App. Div. 441, 89 N. Y. Supp. 381), for appellant. Edward M. Shepard, for re entered July 20, 1904, affirming a judgment spondents.

in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

of a referee. A. J. Hastings, for appellants. costs.

Greenleaf S. Van Gorder and Elijah W. Holt; CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

for respondent. BARTL

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with , HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

costs.

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

VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., SOMERS, Respondent, V. GUDE, Appel concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.). Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the STRAUS, Respondent, v. BUCHMAN et al., First Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 614, Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. 87 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered April 22, 1904, Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff en Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the tered upon a verdict and an order denying a First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 270, motion for a new trial. A. S. Gilbert, for ap | 89 N. Y. Supp. 226), entered July 30, 1904, pellant. James H. Laird, for respondent.

affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with tered upon a verdict and an order denying a costs.

motion for a new trial. Samson Lachman and CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT,

Theodore Baumeister, for appellants. Charles HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., con

Strauss, for respondent. cur, O'BRIEN, J., absent.

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

CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. SPENCER, Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (100 STRICKLAND, Respondent, v. HENRY, ApApp. Div. 163, Ann Div. 463. 91 N. Y. Supp. 561). entered N.2: Pupp: von

pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. January 18, 1905, affirming a judgment in 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Apfavor of defendants entered upon the report of peliate Division of the Supreme Court in the a referee. Herbert Barry, Julien T. Davies, Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 637, Charles H. Tuttle, and Julian C. Harrison, for 90 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered October 20, appellant. Maxwell Evarts, for respondents. 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plain

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with tiff entered upon à verdict and an order denycosts, on opinion below.

ing a motion for a new trial. Charles M. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, and

Stafford, for appellant. John R. Farrar, for WERNER, JJ., concur. BÁRTLETT and

respondent. VANN, JJ., not voting. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J. and GRAY, O'BRIEN, SPRINGER, Appellant, v. FUCHS & LANG BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERMFG. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals NER, JJ., concur. of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depart SULLIVAN, Respondent, V. PENNSYLment (87 App. Div. 617, 84 N. Y. Supp. 1147), VANIA R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals entered October 20, 1903, affirming a judgment of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a in favor of defendant entered upon the report judgment of the Appellate Division of the Suof referee. Elbert Crandall, for appellant. preme Court of the Fourth Judicial Depart. Charles F. Brown and Louis M. Sonnenberg, ment (98 App. Div. 635, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1115), for respondent,

entered December 7, 1904, affirming a judgment PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and costs.

an order denying a motion for a new trial. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT,

Allen J. Hastings, for appellant. M. B. Jewell, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNÉR, JJ., concur.

for respondent. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, STARKWEATHER, Respondent, v. SUND VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., STROM et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third SUNDHEIMER, Respondent, v. CITY OF Judicial Department (108 App. Div. 356, 95 N. NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals Y. Supp. 1162), entered November 28, 1905, of New York.' Dec. 5, 1905.) Appeal, by peraffirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff en mission, from an order of the Appellate Divitered upon a verdict and an order denying a sion of the Supreme Court in the First Judimotion for a new trial. The motion was made cial Department (105 App. Div. 642, 94 N. Y. upon the ground that the appeal was frivolous. Supp. 1164), made June 9, 1905, which affirmed A, D. Wales, for the motion. Abram F. Servin, an order of Special Term denying a motion for opposed.

retaxation of costs. The following question was PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 certified: "Has a plaintiff who commences an costs.

action against the city of New York prior to January 1, 1902, such a right under section

261 of the Greater New York Charter as enSTATE BANK OF PIKE, Respondent, v. titled him, when he recovered a judgment for BROWN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals less than $50 subsequent to its amendment by of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a chapter 466 of the Laws of 1901, to a full bill judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su- l of costs?" John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel

« AnteriorContinuar »