페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

V.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

City, for appellant. C. J. Nehrbas, of New PITTSBURGH-WESTMORELAND

CO., York City, for respondents. No opinion. Or- Respondent, v. KERR et al., Appellants. (Suder affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Deon opinion in Flaxman v. Hennessy, 74 Misc. partment. October 8, 1912.) Action by the Rep. 166, 134 N. Y. Supp. 145, affirmed on Pittsburgh-Westmoreland Company against opinion below, 149 App. Div. 952, 134 N. Y. John K. Kerr and others. No opinion. InterSupp. 1143. Order filed.

locutory judgment (135 N. Y. Supp. 1088) af

firmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant PERKINS et al. v. CONSOLIDATED ES- to plead over within 20 days, upon payment of TATES CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. sion, Third Department. September 27, 1912.) Action by Frank Perkins and another against PLAINE, Respondent, BROOKLYN the Consolidated Estates Company. No opin- HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant, et al. (Supreme ion. Order reversed, without costs, and motion Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. granted, without costs, on the authority of Bir- November 15, 1912.) Action by Frances mingham v. Squires, 139 App. Div. 129, 123 Plaine, an infant, etc., against the Brooklyn N. Y. Supp. 906.

Heights Railroad Company and Henry Cogh

lan. No opinion. Judgment and order unaniPETUR, Appellant, v. ERIE R. CO., Re- mously affirmed, with costs. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Action

PLAISTED V. SYRACUSE, L. S. & N. R. by James Petur, by Samuel Petur, his guardian Fourth Department. October 8, 1912.) Action

CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ad litem, against

the Erie Railroad Company. by Nellie Plaisted against the Syracuse, Lake No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. See, also, 151 App. Div. 578, 136 N. Y. Supp. opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, up

Shore & Northern Railroad Company. No 79.

on stipulation filed. PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO., Respondent, v. INTERNA

PORTER, Respondent, v. BOLDT, Appel

lant. TIONAL BANKING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

(Su-Fourth Department. October 16, 1912.) Ac
preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-tion by Samuel J. Porter against George C.
ment. November 8, 1912.) Action by the Phil. Boldt.
ippine Sugar Estates Development Company firmed, with costs.

No opinion. Judgment and order af.
against the International Banking Company.
W. C. Prime, of New York City, for appellant.
G. T. Kirby, of New York City, for respondent. RY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap-

PORTER, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with pellate Division, Fourth Department. October costs. Order filed.

2, 1912.) Action by Louise Porter against PHILLIPS et al., Appellants, v. WISNER, ion. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed,

the International Railway Company. No opin. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- with costs. sion, Second Department. September 10, 1912.) Action by Harriet H. Phillips and another, as administrators, etc., of_ Anna E. Comer, deceas POUCH et al., Respondents, v. CANTUS, ed, against Henry G. Wisner, as executor, etc.,

Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Diviof John H. Comer, deceased.

sion, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, so as to Action by Frederick H. Pouch and another, as direct that sufficient funds be delivered to the executors, etc., of Alfred J. Pouch, deceased, |

No opinion. plaintiffs to pay such legacies as remain unpaid, Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburseand also to meet expenses of administration and

ments. distribution, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.

In re PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. PHILLIPS, Respondent, et al. v. WISNER, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- Department. October 18, 1912.) In the matsion, Second Department. September 10, 1912.) ter of the application of the Public Service Action by Harriet H. Phillips and George W. Commission, etc., for the appointment of three Murray, as administrators, etc., of Anna E commissioners, Steinway Tunnel and QueensComer, deceased, against Henry G. Wisner, as | boro Plaza Route. No opinion. Motion grantexecutor, etc., of John H. Comer, deceased.ed, and newspapers designated. No opinion. Judgment (75 Misc. Rep. 278, 132 N. Y. Supp. 1006) affirmed, with costs.

PYNE, Respondent, v. CURRAN et al., Ap.

pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PIERCE, Appellant, v. BOLLERT et al., First Department. October 18, 1912.) Action Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- by Anne Pyne against Catherine Curran and sion, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) others. W. G. Mulligan, of New York City, Action by Benson H. Pierce against Florence for appellants. W. E. Ernst, of New York City, B. Bollert and others. No opinion. Judgment for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, affirmed, with costs.

with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

QUARANTA, Respondent,, v. GRIFFIN-partment, September 10, 1912.) Action by
WHITE SHOE CO.,, Appellant. (Supreme the Realty Protective Company against the
Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Cord Meyer Company, impleaded with another.
November 1, 1912.) Action by Thomaso Quar- | (Appeal No. 1.)
anta against the Griffin-White Shoe Company. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10

PER CURIAM. Order of the County Court costs and disbursements.
of Kings County reversed, with $10 costs and WOODWARD, J., dissents.
disbursements, and motion granted, without
costs, on the ground that the defendant, on REALITY PROTECTIVE CO., Appellant, v.
the face of the motion papers, was entitled un- MEYER, Respondent, et al. (Supreme Court,
questionably to the relief sought. See, also, Appellate Division, Second Department. Sep-
136 N. Y. Supp. 1145.

tember 10, 1912.) Action by the Realty Pro

tective Company against Cord Meyer, impleadQUAYLE & SON, Respondent, v. LAWSON ed with another. (Appeal No. 2.) HOSE CO. NO.5, Appellant. (Supreme Court, PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 Appellate Division, Third Department.. Sep costs and disbursements. tember 27, 1912.) Action by Quayle & Son against the Lawson Hose Company (No. 5.)

WOODWARD, J., dissents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

REEVE, Appellant, v. REEVE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, ppellate Division, Second

Department. September 10, 1912.) Action by QUINN, Respondent, V. NASSAU ELEC- Oscar M. Reeve, an infant, by John T. Reeve, TRIC R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, his guardian ad' litem, against Anna McKenna Appellate Division, Second Department. No- Reeve. vember 15, 1912.) Action by Peter J. Quinn PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company. costs. No opinion. Judgment and order of the Coun

WOODWARD, J., dissents ty Court of Kings County unanimously affirmed, with costs.

REIGLE, Respondent, v. LEHIGH VALLEY

R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, AppelRADNER, Respondent, v.

LOCKPORT

late Division, Fourth Department. October 8, LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO., Appellant, et 1912.) Action by Willis W. Reigle, an infant, al. (Supreme CourtAppellate Division, etc., against the Lebigh Valley Railroad ComFourth Department. October 8, 1912.)

AC

pany. No opinion. Judgment and order aftion by Ida H. Radner, as administratrix, etc., firmed, with costs. against the Lockport Light, Heat & Power Company, impleaded with another. No opinion.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with REIZENSTEIN, Appellant, v. MILLER et costs, with leave to the defendant to plead over al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate within 20 days, upon payment of the costs of Division, Second Department, November 1, the demurrer and of this appeal.

1912.) 'Action by Charles Reizenstein against

Abraham Miller and others. No opinion. RAFKIN, Appellant, V. SOUTHERN PAC. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4,

RENAULT FRÈRES SELLING BRANCH, 1912.) Action by Peter Rafkin against the

Inc., v. SEWELL & ALDEN, (Supreme Southern Pacific Company. No opinion. Order denying motion for new trial unanimously Court, Appellate Division, First Department. affirmed, with costs.

Action by the Renault
October 18, 1912.)
Frères Selling Branch, Incorporated, against

Sewell & Alden. No opinion. Motion granted. RAMMAURO, Respondent, ILLINOIS Settle order on notice. See, also, 136 N. Y. SURETY CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Supp. 800. Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Action by Francesco Rammauro against the Illinois Surety Company. RENKAFF, Respondent, y. NASSAU ELECNo opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with TRIC R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, costs.

Appellate Division, Second Department. Sep

tember 10, 1912.) Action by Abraham RenRASTETTER et al. v. HOENINGER et al. kaff against the Nassau Electric Railroad Com(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De: pany. No opinion. Judgment and order unanipartment October 18, 1912.) Action by Eliz- mously affirmed, with costs. abeth Rastetter and others against John C. Hoeninger, as executor, and others. No opin REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. TOWNSEND et ion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate filed. See, also, 136 N. Y. Supp. 961.

Division, Second Department. October 4,

1912.) Action by Mabel A. Reynolds, as exREALTY PROTECTIVE CO., Appellant, vecutrix, etc., of George Osmar Reynolds, de. CORD MEYER CO., Respondent, et al. (Suceased, against James M. Townsend and others. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- / No opinion. Judgment afirmed, with costs.

v.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

R. G. PACKARD CO., Appellant, v. CITY lo and another, impleaded with others. (Action OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Supreme No. 7.) No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with Court, Appellate Division, First Department costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1140. October 18, 1912.) Action by the R. G. Packard_Company against the City of New York. RILEY, Respondent, v. RANSOM et al., Ap A. B. Kellogg, of New York City, for appel- pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, lant., C. L. Barber, of New York City, for re- Second Department. October 18, 1912.) Ac. spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with tion by Elizabeth B. Riley against Eleanor M. $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. Ransom and others. No opinion. Motion to See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 9.

dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs. RICHFIELD COMMERCIAL & SAVINGS RITCHEY, Appellant, V. RITCHEY, Re. BANK, Respondent, y. PURDY, Appellant. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- First Department. October 18, 1912.) Action partment. October 25, 1912.) Action by the by Sarah P. Ritchey against Henry F. Ritchey. Richfield Commercial & Savings Bank against J. Newman, of New York City, for appellant. Sarah F. Purdy, as executrix. F. S. Gannon, W. L. Stone, of New York City, for respondent. Jr., for appellant. G. J. McDonnell, of New No opinion. Order affirmed, without prejudice York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judg- to renewal on proof of change in defendant's ment and order affirmed, with costs. Order financial condition. Order filed. filed.

In re ROBINSON. (Supreme Court, AppelRIDER, Respondent, v. GALLO et al., Ap-late Division, First Department. October 18, pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

1912.) In the matter of Geo. Robinson, an Second Department. November 15, 1912.) attorney. With this case has been consolidated Action by Edward W. Rider against Saverio in this court cases bearing titles as follows: Gallo and another, impleaded with others. Matter of William A. Hayes, an attorney; Mat(Action No. 2.) No opinion. Judgment after of Clifford L. Beare, an attorney; Matter firmed, with costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. of Edward V. Slauson, an attorney; and Mat1140.

ter of Chester A. Bayliss, an attorney. No
opinions. Referred to official referee. Settle

orders on notice.
RIDER, Respondent, v. GALLO et al., Ap-
pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department. November 15, 1912.)

In re ROESCH. (Supreme Court, Appellate Action by Edward W. Rider against Saverio Division, Second Department. October 18, Gallo and another, impleaded with others. 1912.) In the matter of John B. Roesch, an (Action No. 3.) No opinion. Judgment affirm- attorney. No opinion. The proceeding is abated, with costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1140. ed by the death of the respondent.

RIDER, Respondent, V. GALLO et al., Ap ROGERS, Respondent, v. ATLANTIC, G. & pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- P. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate sion, Second Department. November 15, Division, Third Department. September 11, 1912.) Action by Edward W. Rider against 1912.) Action by Elizabeth M. Rogers against Saverio Gallo and another, impleaded with oth- the Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company. No

(Action No. 4.) No opinion. Judgment opinion. Judgment and order unanimously afaffirmed, with costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. firmed, with costs, on the authority of Dix v. Supp. 1140.

Jaquay, 94 App. Div. 554, 88 N. Y. Supp. 228,
and the former decision in this case, 142 App.

Div. 923, 127 N. Y. Supp. 1141.
RIDER, Respondent, v. GALLO et al., Ap-
pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

ROGERS, Respondent, V. NEW YORK November 15, 1912.) | CENT. & 8. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Second Department. Action by Edward W. Rider against Saverio | Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Gallo and another, impleaded with others. October 2, 1912.) Action' by Sadie M. Rogers, (Action No. 5.) No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. Central & Hudson River Railroad Company,

as administratrix, etc., against the New York 1140.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and

disbursements. RIDER, Respondent, V. GALLO et al., Ap. pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

ROGOWSKI V. BRILL (two cases). (SuSecond Department. November 15, 1912.) ACtion by Edward W. Rider against Saverio Gal- preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart.

ment. lo and another, impleaded with others.

November 1, 1912.) Actions by Henri

(ACtion No. 6.) No opinion, Judgment affirmed, plications granted. Orders signed. See, also,

Rogowski against Max Brill. No opinion. Apwith costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

74 Misc. Rep. 472, 132 N. Y. Supp. 370; 132 RIDER, Respondent, v. GALLO et_al., Ap. N. Y. Supp. 1144. pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 15. 1912.) AC ROMAIN, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND tion by Edward W. Rider against Saverio Gal-{R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

ers.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) | ican Gas & Electric Company. No opinion.
Action by Frank Romain, Jr., an infant, etc., Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
against the Long Island Railroad Company. See, also, 136 N. Y. Supp. 602.
No opinion. Motions denied, without costs.
See, also, 136 N. Y. Supp. 1146.

RYDER. Respondent, v. O’DELL & EDDY

CO., Appellant. - (Supreme Court, Appellate Di. ROONEY, Respondent, V. BROOKLYN | vision, Fourth Department. October 16, 1912.) HEIGHTS R. CO.,. Appellant. (Supreme Action by Horace R. Ryder against the O'Dell Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. & Eddy Company. September 10, 1912.) Action by John Rooney PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmagainst the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Comed, with costs. pany. No opinion. Judgment and order of

McLENNAN, P. J., dissents, upon the ground the County Court of Queens County unanimous that the failure to properly guard the saw was ly affirmed, with costs.

pot the proximate cause of the accident, and In re ROSE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- dence the saw was properly guarded.

that under the circumstances shown by the evivision, Third Department. September 27, 1912.) In the matter of the judicial settle

R. & S. REALTY CO., Respondent, v. HUDment of the accounts and proceedings of Elmer SON REALTY CO. et al., Appellants.

(SuRose, administrator, etc., of the estate of Peter Rose, deceased, and in the matter of the appeal preme Court; Appellate Division, First Depart

October 25, 1912.) Action by the R. & of said Elmer Rose, as such administrator, from S. Realty Company against the Hudson Realty part of decree and decision of the Surrogate's Company and others. J. Frank, of New York Court of the County of Rensselaer, allowing City, for appellants. J. N. Helfat, of New claim of J. A. Sipperly for legal services, etc.

York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judg. PER CURIAM. Motion to dismiss denied, ment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. provided the appellant serves a notice of appeal on the next of kin and files a proper bond un In re SALAVANNO. (Supreme Court, Apder section 2577. Code Civ. Proc., to perfect bis pellate Division, Second Department. October appeal within 10 days, and pays respondent is, 1912.) In the matter of the application of $10 costs of this motion within 10 days after Alexander Salavanno. No opinion. Motion de service of the order of this court on appellant's nied. attorney; otherwise, motion granted, with $10 costs to respondent.

SALOMON et al., Respondents, v. W. J. ROSELLE. Respondent, v. BROOKLYN, Q. FARRELL CO., Inc., Appellant. (Supreme C. & S. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Appellate Division, Second Department. Sep

November 1, 1912.) Action by Maurice Salotember 10, 1912.) Action by Harry Roselle mon and another against the W. J. Farreil

F. A. Winslow, of against the Brooklyn, Queens County & Sub-Company, Incorporated. urban Railroad Company. No opinion. Judg. New York City, for appellant. B. Rogers, of ment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

New York City, for respondents. No opinion.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburseROSENBAUM, Respondent, v. LEVIN, Ap- ments. Order filed. pellant. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Action

In re SANBORN. (Supreme Court, Appelby William Rosenbaum against Morris Levin. I late Division, Second Department. October 11, No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and 1912.). In the matter of Addison S. Sanborn, disbursements.

an attorney.

PER CURIAM. The practice of using, even In re ROWLAND et al.

tempora rily and with purpose of immediate re

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, NO

payment, the money of a client by his lawyer, vember. 15. 1912.) In the matter of the judi- without authority, is condemned, and has in the cial settlement of the account of Laura E. Row present instance resulted in painful consequences land and others, in which the Brooklyn Trust professional conduct, it is unnecessary to pro

to respondent; but, in view of his usual good Company, as trustee, and Richard M. Henry, ceed farther in matter of discipline. as, special guardian,' etc., are appellants. No opinion. Motions to dismiss appeals denied, without costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1010. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department,

SANDFORD V. CRANE et al. (Supreme In re RUDDICK.

November 15, 1912.) Action by Isabel Sandford (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 18,

against Antoinette Crane and others. No opin1912.) In the matter of William B. Ruddick.

ion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

SARANAC LAND & TIMBER CO., Re

spondent, v. ROBERTS, Comptroller, AppelRUSSELL V. AMERICAN GAS & ELEC- lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, TRIC CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- Third Department. September 27, 1912.) ACsion, Mirst Lepartment. October 18, 1912.) tion by the Saranac Land & Timber Company Action to Charles M. Russell against the Amers against James A. Roberts, as Comptroller, etc.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

(Action No. 1.) No opinion. Judgment and or a common-law action for such negligence, de der unanimously affirmed, with costs.

fendant is not liable. SARANAC LAND & TIMBER CO., Respond SCOTT v. SMITH. (Supreme Court, Apent, v. ROBERTS, Comptroller, Appellant. pellate Division, First Department. October (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De 18, 1912.) Action by William Scott against partment. September 27, 1912.) Action by the Francis D. Smith. No opinion. Application Saranac Land & Timber Company against denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. James A. Roberts, as Comptroller, etc. (Action No. 2.)

No opinion. Judgment and order SCUNDI, Respondent, v. STEPHENS, Apunanimously afirmed, with costs.

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department. November 15, 1912.) AcSCHMINKE et al., Respondents, v. ROSEN- tion by Giovanni Scundi against John F. SteBERG, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- phens. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with late Division, Fourth Department. October 2, costs. 1912.) Action by George C. Schminke and another against Anna Rosenberg. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

SEALY, Respondent, v. COHN, Appellant. be had in Rochester Municipal Court on the Department. September 10, 1912.) Action by

New trial to (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 16th day of October, 1912, at 10 o'clock in the Lillian D. Sealy against Hugo Cohn. No opinforenoon. See, also, 136' App. Div. 915, 120 ion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. N, Y. Supp. 1145. SCHMITT et al., Respondents, v. DUELL TER CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

SELLS et al. v. AUTOGRAPHIC REGISet al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate First Department. June 22, 1912.) Action by Action by Robert Schmitt and another against Elijah W. Sells and others against the AutoJames Duell and others. No opinion. Motion tion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs.

graphic Register Company. No opinion. Modenied, without costs.

Order filed. See, also, 134 N. Y. Supp. 1085; SCHULTIS, Respondent, v. WATERBURY

136 N. Y. Supp. 1147. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.. October 4, 1912.) TER CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

SELLS et al. . AUTOGRAPHIC REGISAction by George A. Schultis against the Wa

First Department. terbury Company. No opinion. Motions de

June, 1912.) Action by nied, without costs. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. Elijah W. Şells and others against the Auto352.

graphic Register Company. No opinion. Mo

tion to dismiss_ appeal denied, with $10 costs. SCHWARTZ v. DUNNE et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

SHEEHAN, Respondent, V. NEW YORK October 18, 1912.) Action' by Joseph Schwartz CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme against Charles J. Dunne and others. No opin- Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. ion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with han, as administrator, etc., against the New

Action by Jeremiah Shee$10 costs. Order filed.

York Central & Hudson River Railroad ComSCOTT V. KELLY.

pany.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afirm

ed, with costs. 11, 1912.) Appeal from Westchester County Court. Action by George H. Scott against SPRING, J., not sitting. George T, Kelly. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying plaintiff's SHEELEY, Respondent, v. WILLIAMS, Apmotion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Af- pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, firmed, without opinion. Harold s. Recknagel, Second Department. November 15, 1912.) ACof New York City, for appellant. William A. tion by David Sheeley against Eliza Jane Wil. Walsh, of Yonkers, for respondent.

liams. No opinion. "Judgment and order afPER CURIAM. Judgment and order of the

firmed, with costs. County Court of Westchester County_affirmed, with costs. HIRSCHBERG, WOODWARD, SHELLAS et al., Appellants, v. ARVERNE and RICH, JJ., concur.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

BUH

BLDG. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, ApBURR, J. I dissent. Plaintiff was not in- pellate Division, Second Department. October jured by a defective scaffold.

If the plank

4, 1912.) Action by George W. Shellas and which was laid on the brick piers 16 inches another against the Årverne Building Company: high, which was placed on the regular scaffold, No opinion. Judgment of the County Court of could itself be called a scaffold, and if we

Kings affirmed, with costs. should concede that it was a defective scaffold, plaintiff was not injured thereby. Defendant SHOYER et al. V. PHOENIX KNITTING was removing this improper structure, when WORKS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, one of plaintiff's fellow servants carelessly First Department. November 8, 1912.) Appeal dropped a brick and injured him. This being from Special Term, New York County. Action

bile 1

SIN ALT

« 이전계속 »