페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

MAI, A

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

LATEI

1912.) In the matter of John J. McDonald. MCMAHON. Respondent, v. MILLER et al., MARTI
No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi.
and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 137 sion, Fourth Department. October 8, 1912.)
N. Y. Supp. 1128.

Action by Thomas McMahon against Walter
Miller, as executor, etc., and others. No opino opinie

ion. In re McDONALD. (Supreme Court, Appel

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis

bursements. late Division, First Department. October 18,

HARTI 1912.) In the matter of John J. McDonald. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. McNAMARA, Appellant, v. STARKWEATH. Fou Order filed. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1128. ER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate

Division, Fourth Department. October 2, vegans. MCFADDEN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW 1912.) Action by A. Miles McNamara against YORK, Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Ap- Rufus G. Starkweather. No opinion. Order i den pellate Division, Second Department. Novem- affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ber 15, 1912.) Action by Harry J. McFadden against the City of New York and the Midwood McQUILLAN v. McQUILLAN et al. (Su R R. Construction Company.. No opinion, Judg-preme Court. Appellate Division, Second De plate ment and order unanimously affirmed, with partment. September 10, 1912.) Action by costs.

Margaret McQuillan against Jane McQuillan
and others.
No opinion.

Order (134 N. Y.
McGRAW, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW Supp. 893) affirmed, with $10 costs and dis-

bursements. YORK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Action by Margaret McGraw against McWHARF. Respondent, v. ROCHESTER the City of New York. No opinion. Judgment TAXICAB CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Oc:

tober 16, 1912.) Action by Irving McWharf MCINTYRE, Respondent, V. MASON-SEA- against the Rochester Taxicab Company. MAN TRANSP. CO., Appellant. (Supreme

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm-
Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. ed, with costs.
October 4, 1912.) Action by Patrick J. Mc-
Intyre against the Mason-Seaman Transporta-

SPRING, J., not sitting.
tion Company,
PER CURIAM. Judgment and order re-

MADDEN, Respondent, v. PITTSBURG

CONTRACTING CO., Appellant. (Supreme versed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. event, unless within 20 days plaintiff stipulates November 15, 1912.) Action by Joseph Madto reduce the recovery of damages to the sum den against the Pittsburg Contracting Comof $6,000, in which event the judgment, as pany. No opinion. Judgment and order unanmodified, and the order denying motion for a imously affirmed, with costs. new trial, are unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal.

MALTZ et al., Respondents, V. WESTMcKIERNAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, CHESTER COUNTY BREWING CO., AppelS. & W. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court,

lant, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec. Appellate Division, Second Department. Sep' ond Department. November 1, 1912.) Action tember 10, 1912.) Action by John McKiernan by Adolph Maltz and Marie Maltz against the against the New York, Susquehanna & West- Westchester County Brewing Company. No ern Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment opinion, Order afirmed, with $10 costs and and order unanimously affirmed with costs.

disbursements. MCKIERNAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK,

In re MANTON. (Supreme Court, Appellate S. & W. R. Co., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912) Appellate Division, Second Department. tober 18, 1912.) Action by John McKiernan Manton for an order continuing a mechanic's against the New York, Susquehanna & Western lien. No opinion.

Motion granted, without Railroad Company, No opinion. Motions for costs. See, also, 136 N. Y. Supp. 597. reargument (of 137 N. Y. Supp. 1128) and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs.

MARINO, Appellant, v. RUNKEL BROS, Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

: MCLEAN, Appellant, y GARDNER, Re- Action" by Giuseppa Marino, as administratri

sion, First Department. November 1, 1912.

) First Department October 16, 1912. Action against Runkel Bros. R. Maggio, of New York by Thomas 0. McLean,

administrator,

City, for appellant Edward P. Mowton, of against Ernestine C. Gardner, J. O'Connell, of New York City, for respondents. New York City, for appellant. J. H. Koban, of PER CURIAM, Judgment and order affirm. New York City, for respondent. No opinion. ed, with costs. Qrder filed. See, also, 135 N. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse. Y. Supp. 1126. ments. Order filed.

LAUGHLIN, J., dissents.

[ocr errors]

as

MARTIN, Appellant, v. MARTIN, Respond-, bert I. Mehrbach against the J. J. White Man. ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-ufacturing Company. No opinion. Motion deond Department. November 1, 1912.) Action nied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, by Helen Martin against Michael J. J. Martin. 136 N. Y. Supp. 1141. No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs.

In re MERRILL et al. (Supreme Court, ApMARTIN, Respondent, v. PULLMAN CO., pellate Division, Third Department. . September Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- 27, 1912.). In the matter of the judicial settlesion, Fourth Department.

October 2, 1912.) ment of the accounts of Susie Merrill and Diar Action by James Martin against the Pullman Baker as administrators, etc., of Orson A. Van Company. No opinion. Motion for leave to ap- Alstine, deceased. peal to Court of Appeals (from 136 N. Y. Supp. PER CURIAM. A decision having been 1141) denied, with $10 costs.

handed down by this court on the 27th day of

June, 1912 (136 N. Y. Supp. 884), and upon noMAY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & tice of an application to make findings and alH. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, low costs, thereby modifying said decision, it is Appellate Division, Second Department. Sep- ordered that said decision be amended and modtember 10, 1912.) 'Action by John H. May, as ified, by allowing to the special guardian costs administrator, etc., of Charles Nelson May, de- of the appeal, to be taxed to be paid out of the ceased, against the New York Central & Hudson fund belonging to Clara Van Alstine and Lulu River Railroad Company. No opinion. Judg. Van Alstine, and by adding thereto the four ment and order unanimously afirmed, with findings of fact attached to the notice of motion costs, on the authority of May v. New York herein. The following findings of fact are reCentral & Hudson River Railroad Co., 137 | versed, so far as they are in conflict herewith, App. Div. 7, 121 NY. Supp. 791. See, also, to wit: The second, twelfth, thirteenth, four139 App. Div. 933, 124 N. Y. Supp. 1121. teenth, and fifteenth. MAY V. MAY.

HOUGHTON, J., dissents. LYON, J., not (Supreme Court, Appellate sitting. Division, First Department. October 18, 1912.) Action by Susie G. May against Lewis A. May. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted,

METROPOLITAN TRUST CO. OF NEW with $10 costs. Order filed.

YORK, Appellant, v., MOORE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeMAYER, Respondent, v. HEINZE, Appel-partment November 1, 1912.) Action by the lant, et al. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, An- Metropolitan Trust Company of New York, pellate Division, First Department. November against James A. Moore. H. Parsons, of New 1, 1912.) Actions by Jacob Mayer against Roth York City, for appellant. C. W. Lucas, of New N. Heinze, impleaded with others, and by Jacob York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order Mayer against Ada L. Heinze. F. Bien, of New affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. OrYork City, for appellant. B. N. Cardozo, of der filed. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1129. New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgments and orders affirmed, with costs. Or

METROPOLITAN TRUST CO. v. MOORE. ders filed.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 1, 1912.) Action by the

Metropolitan Trust Company against James A. MAZZULA v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. Moore. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 R. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, costs. Order filed. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. Fourth Department. October 8, 1912.) Action 1129. by Vincenzo Mazzula, as administrator, etc., against the New York' Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

METZGER, Respondent, v. KNOX et al., ApPER CURIAM. Plaintiff's exceptions over- Second Department. November 15, 1912.). Ac

pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ruled, motion for new trial denied, with costs. tion by Charles E. Metzger against Edward M. and judgment directed for the defendant upon Knox and others. No opinion. Order (77 Misc. the nonsuit, with costs.

Rep. 271, 136 N. Y. Supp. 681) affirmed, with KRUSE, J., dissents.

$10 costs and disbursements, MEHL, Appellant, v. W. E. UPPERGROVE MEYER, Respondent, v. WILCOX, AppelCIGAR BOX LUMBER CO., Respondent. lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec(Supreme Court, Appellat- Division, Second De- ond Department. November 1, 1912.) Action partment. November 15, 1912.) Action by by Gustav Meyer against Clayton H. Wilcox. Charl's E. Mehl, as administrator, etc., of Rich- No opinion. Interlocutory judgment (136 N. Y. ard Gray, deceased, against the W. E. Upper- Supp. 337) affirmed, with costs. grove Cigar Box Lumber Company. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis

MICHIGAN FRUIT EXCH., Respondent, v. HALL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate

Division, Fourth Department. October 8, 1912.) MEHRBACH V. J. J. WHITE MFG. CO. Action by the Michigan Fruit Exchange against

No opinion. Judgment af. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- Charles A. Hall. partment. October 18, 1912.) Action by Al- !firmed, with costs.

bursements.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

PER

[ocr errors]

MIDLAND R. TERMINAL CO., Respond- leged election of Warden and Vestrymen of ent, v. NEW YORK HERALD CO., Appellant. Trinity Church, Roslyn, N. Y., etc. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 partment. September 10, 1912.) Action by the costs and disbursements.

PER Midland Railroad Terminal Company against

d, sitt the New York Herald Company.

BURR, J., dissents.

100 PER CURIAM. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with the right to defendant s. & E. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court

,

MOORE et al., Appellants, v. ROCHESTER, to answer upon the merits, upon payment of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Octocosts included in said judgment and of this ap: ber 16, 1912.) Action by Ann Moore and an

63 F peal within 10 days after service of a copy of other, as executrices, etc., against the Rochester, the order of affirmance and notice of entry Syracuse & Eastern Railroad Company. No thereof.

opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon

stipulation filed. In re MILLER et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 18, MORAN v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW 1912.) In the matter of Isaac Miller and Abra-YORK. bam Miller, attorneys.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 8, 1912.) Action

la re PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and re- by John J. Moran against the Standard Oil spondents suspended from practice for a period Company of New York. C. P. Howland, of New of one year from the date of the entry of the York City, for Standard Oil Co. of New York. order herein.

W. C. Beecher of New York City, for Moran. JENKS, P. J., and HIRSCHBERG, J., vote PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afirmto adopt the recommendation of the referee. ed, with costs to plaintiff. Order filed.

CLARKE and MILLER, JJ., dissent.
MILLER, Respondent, v. MILLER, Appel-
lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec MORRISON, Respondent, V. ONTARIO
ond Department. October 4, 1912.) Action by KNIFE CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap-
Mary E. Miller against George M. Miller. No pellate Division, Fourth Department. October
opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis-18, 1912.) Action by Clarence E. Morrison, an
bursements.

infant, etc., against the Ontario Knife Company.
No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to

Court of Appeals (from 136 N. Y. Supp. 1142)
MILLS, Respondent, v. LELAND et al., Ap- denied, with $10 costs.
pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department. November 1, 1912.) Action MOSES, Respondent, v. SALOMON, Appel-
hy Harriet A. R. Mills against Francis L. Le lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
land and others. L. L. Kellogg, of New York Department. November 8, 1912.) Action by
City, for appellants. J. H. Banton, of New Moss F. Moses against Walter J. Salomon. W.

1 York City, for respondent. No opinion. Ap- H. Bond, of New York City, for appellant. c. peal dismissed, with $10 costs. Order filed. J. Heermance, of New York City, for respond

ent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 MILTON RATHBUN CO., Appellant, v. costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant REESING, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap- to withdraw demurrer and answer on payment pellate Division, First Department. November of costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 App. Div. 8, 1912.) Action by the Milton Rathbun Con- 929, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1128. pany against Herman Reesing. H. C. Marshall, of New York City, for appellant. G. B. Hayes, of New York City, for respondent.. No opinion. Fitz, County Treasurer, Respondent. Su

M. R. E. HOLDING CO., Appellant, V.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Or-
der filed.

preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De-
partment. September 10, 1912.) Action by the

M. R. E. Holding Company against Charles R.
MOONEY, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respond- Fitz, as County Treasurer of Suffolk County, N.
ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First | Y. (Action No. 1.) No opinion. Judgment, in
Department. October 25, 1912.) Action by so far as appealed from, affirmed, with costs.
William J. Mooney, as administrator, against
George T. Smith. F. L. Taylor, of New York
City, for appellant. J. V. Bouvier, Jr., of New

M. R. E. HOLDING CO., Appellant, v. FITZ,
County Treasurer, Respondent.

(Supreme York City, for respondent.

Court, Appellate Division, Second Department,
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with September 10, 1912.) Action by the M. R. E.
costs.
Order filed.

Holding Company against Charles R. Fitz, as INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, J., County Treasurer of Suffolk County, N. Y. (Ac dissent.

tion No. 2.) No opinion. Judgment afirmed,

with costs. In re MOORE et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. September 10, 1912.) In the matter of the application of AR REFINING CO., Appellant. (Supreme i slang

MULCAHY, Respondent, v. FEDERAL SUGHarry W. Moore and others to set aside the al- I Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

[ocr errors]

TR

NOS

[ocr errors]

NAPI

PER

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

September 10, 1912.) Action by John Mulcahy | partment. November 15, 1912.) Action by the against the Federal Sugar Refining Company. Nassau-Suffolk Bond & Mortgage Guarantee

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afirm- Company against James H. Draper, impleaded ed, with costs.

with others. No opinion. Judgment of the WOODWARD and RICH, JJ., dissent.

County Court of Nassau County, in so for as

appealed from, affirmed, with costs. MULLER et al. V. CITY OF PHILADEL PHIA et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 18, 1912.)

NEALE et al., Respondents, V. BURNS, Action by Charles F. Muller and others' against | Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divithe City of Philadelphia and others. No opin- sion, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) ion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with Action by Herbert H. Neale and another' against $10 costs, unless appellants comply with terms David E. Burns. No opinion. Motion to disstated in order. Order filed. See, also, 144 miss appeal denied, on condition that appellant App. Div. 592, 129 N. Y. Supp. 1037.

perfect his appeal, place the case on the next

calendar of this court, and be ready for argu(Supreme Court, Ap- with costs. In re MULLIGAN.

ment when reached; otherwise, motion granted, pellate Division, First Department. November 8, 1912.) Proceedings on charges of professional misconduct against William G. Mulli

NEIMAN, Respondent, v. MILLER, Appel-
gan, an attorney. Respondent censured. Einar lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-
Chrystie, of New York City, for petitioner. ond Department. November 1, 1912.) Action
William G. Mulligan, of New York City, pro se. by Jacob Neiman against Samuel A. Miller.

PER CURIAV. The petitioner charges the No opinion. Judgment and order unanimous-
respondent with professional misconduct in en ly afirmed, with costs.
tering three judgments in favor of himself and
his wife in an action of ejectment, which judg-
ments were improper, and contained provisions

In re NELLIS. (Supreme Court, Appellate
not justified, which the court subsequently va- Division, Fourth Department. October 8,
cated and annulled. The respondent attempts 1912.) In the matter of Joseph Nellis, attorney
to justify or excuse these judgments, but with and counselor at law. No opinion. Report of
out success. Upon his own statements they referee confirmed, and charges dismissed.
were improper, and the court at Special Term
quite properly struck out the improper provi-
sions. For the practice thus adopted by re-
spondent, he is hereby censured.

OCCIDENTAL CONST. CO., Respondent, v. MILLER, Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First Department. NoMURCOTT et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF vember 1, 1912.) Action by the Occidental NEW YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- Construction Company against Charles Miller, pellate Division, Second Department. Sep impleaded with others. E. G. Metcalfe, of tember 10, 1912.) Action by Thomas Murcott Brooklyn, for appellant. L. H. Freedman, of and others against the City of New York. New York City, for respondent. No opinion. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse

ments. Order filed. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp.

1131. MUSSEY v. CASANOVA et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Hirst Department. October 18, 1912.) Action by Allen S. Mus OLISEWSKY, Respondent, V. NATIONAL sey against Pedro C. Casanova and others. No BRIDGE WORKS, Appellant. (Supreme opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 143 | October 11, 1912.) Action by Benny Olisewsky App. Div. 933, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1136.

against the National Bridge Works.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversNAPEAR, Appellant, V. INTERBOROUGH ed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the RAPID TRANSIT CO., Respondent.

(Su

event, unless within 20 days plaintiff stipulate

to reduce the recovery of damages to the sum preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, September 10, 1912.) Action by of $4,000, in which case the judgment, as modiEva Napear against the Interborough Rapid fied, and the order, are unanimously affirmed, Transit Company.

without costs. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 145 App. Div. 944, 130 N. Y. Supp. 1122.

OLSEN, Appellant, V. SINGER MFG. CO.

et al., Respondents, (Supreme Court, AppelWOODWARD, J., dissents.

late Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Action by Gjeruld Olsen against the

Singer Manufacturing Company and another. NASSAU-SUFFOLK BOND MORT- No opinion. Motions denied, without costs. GAGE GUARANTEE CO. v. DRAPER et al. See, also, 151 App. Div. 516, 135 N. Y. Supp. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- 1872.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

mased. . Court

PEN CENT Court,

DESIC deale

ers.

v.

ONONDAGA COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, PACKARD, Respondent, v. LYON et al., ApRespondent, v. WYCKOFF et al., Appellants. pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De- Third Department. September 27, 1912.) Ac partment. September 27, 1912.) Action by the tion by Nathan J. Packard, substituted as Onondaga County Savings Bank against Em- plaintiff for the Ulster County Savings Inma R. Wyckoff and another, impleaded with stitution, against Anna E. Lyon and others. others. (No. 1.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs. PER OURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 See, also, 130 N. Y. Supp. 229. costs and disbursements, with leave to demurring defendants to withdraw demurrer and an

PAKAS, Respondent, V. HURLEY, Appel

Prode swer within 20 days from service on their at- lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, torney of copy of this order, upon payment of First Department. October 18, 1912.) Action

comme costs of this appeal and of $10 costs of the by Solomon L. Pakas against Frank C. Hur PEI motion below.

ley. A. I. Sire, of New York City, for appel ed, w lant. J. A. Corbin, of New York City, for re

SPI spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with ONONDAGA COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, PES Respondent, v. WYCKOFF et al. Appellants. also, 149 App. Div. 909, 133 N. Y. Supp. 499. pelian (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 27, 1912.) Action by the

PASCHKE, Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND Onondaga County Savings Bank against Emma R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, AppelR. Wyckoff and another, impleaded with oth-late Division, Second Department. September (No. 2.)

10, 1912.) Action by John Paschke against the his a PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 Long Island Railroad Company. No opinion. costs and disbursements, with leave to demurOrder affirmed, with costs.

reach ring defendants to withdraw demurrer and answer within 20 days from service on their at

PASCHKE, Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND

PE torney of copy of this order, upon payment of R. CO.,. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appelcosts of this appeal and of $10 costs of the molate Division, Second Department. October 18,

Appe tion below. 1912.) Action by John Paschke against the

ber 1 Long Island Railroad Company. No opinion.

Stati Motion denied, without costs. See, also, 137 N. OPPENHEIMER TREBLA REALTY Y. Supp. 1132.

orde CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Anpellate Division, First Department. October 18, 1912.) Action by Herman 1. Oppenheimer against the Trebla R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel

PASCHKE, Appellant, V. LONG ISLAND

PI Healty Company and others. No opinion. Mo- late Division, Second Department. September tion granted. Order filed. See, also, 150 App. 10, 1912.)

part

Action by Lillie Paschke against Diy. 915, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1130.

the Long Island Railroad Company. No opiu- lila ion. Order affirmed, with costs.

P OPPENHEIMER, Appellant, V. VAN RA

the

PASCHKE, Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND ALTE et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel

J Appellate Division, First Department. Octo-late Division, Second Department. October 18, ber 18, 1912.) Action by Louis Oppenheimer 1912.) Action by Lillie Paschke against the

T against Emanuel Van Raalte and another. G. Long Island Railroad Company. No opinion.

(Se Trosk, of Brooklyn, for appellant. E. H. Motion denied, without costs. See, also, 137 Sykes, of New York City, for respondents. No N. Y. Supp. 1132.

the opinion. Order affirmed, with $ 10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 151 App.

Ida Div, 601, 136 N. Y. Supp. 197.

PATE, Appellant, v. LEIGHT, Respondent. (Supreme CourtAppellate Division, Second for

Department. October 4, 1912.) Action by ed. OTT, Respondent, v. OTT, Appellant. (Su- Mary E. Pate, etc., as administratrix, etc., of preme Court. Appellate Division, Fourth De- Samuel Douglass, deceased, against Charles K. partment. October 8, 1912.) Action by Ed Leight. No opinion. Interlocutory judgment

A ward E. Ott against Albert W. Ott. affirmed by default, with costs.

be PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

PATTISON V. CUSACK et al. (Supreme
costs.
ROBSON and FOOTE, JJ., dissent.

Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
October 21, 1912.) Action by George B. Patti-
son, as substituted trustee, etc., against Kittie

Akin Cusack, individually and as trustee, etc., OVERPECK, Respondent, V. HARRISON, and Ella F.'Cusack. No opinion. Judgment Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- affirmed, with costs. See, also, 147 App. Div. sion, Fourth Department. October 16, 1912.) 428, 131 N. Y. Supp. 795. Action by Ida M. Overpeck against Harry Harrison. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. pellate Division, Second Department October

In re PECK'S WILL. (Supreme Court, ApSPRING, J., not sitting.

4, 1912.) In the matter of the probate of the

pai

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« 이전계속 »