페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

1148

.1114 WTC

[ocr errors]

Page

Page Weidlich, Collier v. (Sup.)..., 1115 Williams, Meserole v. (Sup.).

.1046 Weinstein, Gotthoffer v. (Sup.). .1122 Williams, Schwartz y. (Sup.).

1048 Weinstein v. Livoti (Sup.). .1148 Williams, Sheeley v. (Sup.)...

.1142 Weiss, Joseph V. (Sup.). .1124 Williamson, Degnan v. (Sup.)

.1117 Welch, In re (Sur.). 941 Wills, Swenson v. (Sup.).

516 Wells, Busch v. (Sup.). . 1113 Wilson v. Bracken (Sup.).

.1149 Wentworth v. Goldman (Sup.). . 1148 Wilson, Church v. (Sup.).

.1002 Werblinsky, People v. (Sup.). .. 1135 | Wilson v. Rosentbal (Sup.)..

547 Werner V. Mohawk Condensed Milk Co. Wimpfheimer v. A. T. Demarest & Co. (Sup.)

(Sup.)

908 Westchester Bronxville Realty Co., Smith Winne v. Murphy (Sup.).

.1150 v. (Sup.).. 690 Wise, Wood v. (Sup.)...

.1017 Westchester County Brewing Co., Maltz v. Wisner, Phillips v., two cases (Sup.)... ..1138 (Sup.) .1128 Witte v. Koerner (Sup.).

.1150 Western Union Tel. Co. v. White (Sup.).. 689 W. J. Farrell Co., Salomon v. (Sup.). ...1141 TL Westminster Presbyterian Church v. Trus Wocker, Loughlin v. (Sup.).

257 tees of Presbytery of New York (Sup.)1148 Wojtczak v. American Mfg. Co. (Sup.).... 287 Wetmore, In re (Sup.).

222 Wollf, Casey v. (Sup.). . Wetzlar v. New York Finance Co. (Sup.) 1148 Wolowich v. National Surety Co. (Sup.)..1150 Wetzlar v. Wood (Sup.). . 1149 Wonderland, Ertsaas v. (Sup.).

.1119 W. E. Uppergrove Cigar Box Lumber Co., Wood, Wetzlar v. (Sup.).

..1149 Mehl v. (Sup.).... 1129 Wood' y. Wise (Sup.)...

...1017 Whale Creek Iron Works, Hall v. (Sup.). .1122 Woodbury, People ex rel. New York Cent. White, Evans v. (Sup.).. ..1089 & H. R. R. Co. v. (Sup.).

..1137 White, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Sup.). . 689 | Woodmont Realty Co. v. Indelli (Sup.)..1150 White v. White (Sup.)...

.1149 Woods v. David Stephenson Brewing Co. White Mfg. Co., Mehrbach v. (Sup.) .1129 (Sup.)

1150 Whitney Opera Co., Parkes v. (Sup.).. 927 Woolworth, Turner v. (Sup.).

.1071 szt! Whitten, In re (Sup.).

360 Wooster v. Niven Co. (Sup.). Whitten, in re (Sup.). .1149 Worden v. Worden (Sup.).

.1150 Whitten v. Gaynor, two cases (Sup.). 360 | Work's Estate, In re (Sur.).

97 Whitten v. Gaynor, two cases (Sup.). .1149 Wright v. Smith (Sup.).

264 Wickham v. Hawley (Sup.). .1149 | Wunderlich v. Alexe (Sup.).

.1150 Widmer v. Stoutenburgh (Sup.). ...1149 Wyckoff, Onondaga County Sav. Bank V., Wiener v. Home Title Ins. Co. (Sup.)...1149 two cases (Sup.). ....

.1132 Wiggins, Davidge v. (Sup.). 127 Wynus v. Utz (Sup.)....

532 Wightman v. Cottrell (Sup.).

.1149 Wightman, Lockwood v. (Sup.).

,1127

Xiques v. Laubenberger (Sup.)... .1150 Wilcox, Meyer v. (Sup.). .1129 Yarter, People v. (Sup.)....

462 Wilkens v. American Bank of Torreon, S. Yerkes, Inre, four cases (Sup.)

.1150 A. (Sup.)..... .1149 Youngs v. Hallock (Sup.)...

.1150 Willard School, Charles P. Boland Co. v. Younker, In re (Sup.)..

.1150 (Sup.)

.. 474 William H. Henry & Co. v. Fry (Sup.). . 894 Zarbarowski v. Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. William Messer Co., Strnad v. (Sup.). 914 Co. (Sup.).

. 1150 Williams, In re (Sup.). .1149 Zartman v. Sayre (Sup.).

.1110 Williams' v. Ashner (Sup.). 275 Zeggio v. Robinson (Sup.)

.1104 Williams, Keystone State Const. Co. v. Zehr v. Zehr (Sup.)...

1150 (Sup.)

405 Zobrest v. East Buffalo Brewing Co. (Sup.) Williams v. Lindemann (Sup.). .1149

1150

899

CASES

IN THE NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT WHICH HAVE BEEN PASSED UPON

BY THE COURT OF APPEALS

[blocks in formation]

.126 N, Y. Supp.

51

Hard v. Mingle....

Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 542, 206 N. Y. 173. Hopper V. Willcox.

Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 241, 206 N. Y. 110.

. 135 N, Y. Supp. 384

.125 N, Y. Supp. 1125

International Text-Book Co. v. Connelly ...

Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 722, 206 N. Y. 188.

125 N. Y. Supp. 357

Kerker v. Levy....

Order affrmed. 99 N. E. 181, 206 N. Y. 109. Kertscher & Co. v. Green....

Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 146, 205 N. Y. 522.

.127 N. Y. Supp. 1127

131 N. Y. Supp. 537

Lowe, In re....

Order modified. 99 N. E. 722, 206 N. Y, Memoranda, 47.

133 N. Y. Supp. 956

.133 N. Y. Supp. 1131

McCargo v. Jergens....

Judgment reversed. 99 N. E. 838, 206 N. Y. 838. McCormick's Estate, In re.

Order reversed. 99 N. E. 177, 206 N. Y. 100. Mortimer v. Otto......

Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 189. 206 N. Y. 89.

.126 N. Y. Supp. 866

..127 N. Y. Supp. 1134

Noonan v. Luther...

Judgment reversed. 99 N. E. 178, 206 N. Y. 105.

.125 N. Y. Supp. 1030

Oakes Mfg. Co. 7. New York...,
Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 540, 206 N. Y. 221.
137 N.Y.S.

(xxvii)

Peck, In re.

.135 N. Y. Supp. 1131 Order reversed. 99 N. E. 258, 206 N. Y. 55. People v. Knapp..

.132 N. Y. Supp. 747 Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 841, 206 N. Y. 373. People v. Sheffield Farms-Slawson-Decker Co...., .133 N. Y. Supp. 1138

Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 181, 206 N. Y. 79. People ex rel. Burke v. Fox....

.134 N. Y. Supp. 642 Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 147, 205 N. Y. 490. People ex rel. Hotchkiss v. Smith..

.137 N. Y. Supp. 387 Order modified. 99 N. E. 568, 206 N. Y. 231. People ex rel. Hubert v. Kaiser....

.135 N. Y. Supp. 274 Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 195, 206 N. Y. 46. People ex rel. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Priest..133 N. Y. Supp. 1087

Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 547, 206 N. Y. 274. People ex rel. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Woodbury

.133 N. Y. Supp. 1139 Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 545, 206 N. Y. 301. People ex rel. Staples v. Sohmer.

.134 N. Y. Supp. 543
Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 156, 206 N. Y. 39.
People ex rel. Woodruff v. Britt..

....137 N. Y. Supp. 393
Order modified. 99 N. E. 573, 206 N. Y. 246.
Public Service Commission, Second Dist., v. Westchester
St. R. Co.

....135 N. Y. Supp. 1138 Order affirmed. 99 N. E. 536, 206 N. Y. 209.

Ryon v. Willcox...

Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 241, 206 N. Y. 110.

..135 N. Y. Supp. 1140

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Guaranty Trust Co. of
New York

.129 N. Y. Supp. 421
Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 162, 205 N. Y. 609.
Seeman v. Levine...

.125 N. Y. Supp. 184 Order reversed. 99 N E. 158, 205 N. Y. 514.

Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. City of New York.......126 N. Y. Supp. 1148

Judgment affirmed. 99 N. E. 160, 205 N. Y. 496. Turner, In re.

.134 N. Y. Supp. 1148 Order reversed. 99 N. E. 187, 206 N. Y. 93.

.

Ward v. International R. Co...

. 125 N. Y. Supp. 1149
Judgment reversed. 99 N. E. 262, 206 N. Y. 83.
Weinheimer v. Ross..

.125 N. Y. Supp. 1149
Judgment reversed. 99 N. E. 145, 205 N. Y. 618.
Wynn v. Provident Life & Trust Co. of Philadelphia,
Pa.

.126 N. Y. Supp. 1151 Judgment reversed. 99 N. E. 800, 206 N. Y. Memoranda, 77.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

See End of Index for Tables of New York Supplement Cases in Other Reports

THE

NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT

VOLUME 137

LICHENSTEIN V. LORGE et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County. August 20, 1912.)

1. ATTACHMENT ($ 28*)—ABSENCE OF RESIDENT DEFENDANT-FAILURE TO FILE DESIGNATION-PROOF.

To authorize attachment on the ground of defendant, an adult resident of the state, having been continuously without it for more than six months next before the order of publication of the summons against him, and not having made a designation, still in force, of a person on whom to serve a summons in his behalf, as prescribed in Code Civ. Proc. $ 430, as amended September 1, 1899 (Laws 1899, c. 524), the records in the office of the clerk of the county, where such designation must be filed, must be searched not merely for such six months, but from September 1, 1899, as a designation might at any time after then have been filed and be still in force. Such section provides it shall remain in force during the period specified in it, if any, or, if no period be specified, then for

three years.

(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Attachment, Cent. Dig. 88 74–78; Dec.

Dig. § 28.*] 2. ATTACHMENT (8 111*)—ABSENCE OF RESIDENT DEFENDANT-FAILURE TO FILE DESIGNATION-AFFIDAVIT.

The affidavit for attachment, on the ground of absence from the state for more than six months of the resident defendant, without having made a designation, still in force, of a person on whom to serve a summons in his behalf, as prescribed in Code Civ. Proc. $ 430, as amended September 1, 1899 (Laws 1899, c. 524), is insufficient, where merely alleging defendant has not made a designation, as appears by the clerk's certificate, as it must be considered to be limited to the six-months period covered by the clerk's certificate of search of his records, or else to be on information and belief.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Attachment, Cent. Dig. 88292-302; Dec. Dig. § 111.*] Action by one Lichenstein against Julius R. Lorge and others. De fendants move to vacate an attachment. Motion granted.

Henry W. Stowell, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Otterbourg, Steindler & Houston, of New York City, for defendants. 'For other cases see same topic & & NUMBER 10 Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to dato, & Rep'r Indexer

137 N.Y.S.-1

BRADY, J. This is a motion to vacate an attachment and is based upon the warrant and the papers upon which it was granted. The attachment was issued upon the ground that the defendants, being adults and residents of the county and state of New York, were continuously without the state, but within the United States, for more than six months next before the granting of the order of publication of the summons against them, and had not made a designation of a person upon whom to serve a summons on their behalf, as prescribed in section 430 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [1, 2] The only question arising for determination on the motion is whether the proof of absence from the state and of the failure to make such designation submitted upon the application for the attachment is sufficient. The proof of failure to file a designation consisted of an allegation in the affidavit of Arthur S. Friend, one of the plaintiffs, in the following language:

“That the defendants are adults, and have been continuously absent from the state of New York for more than six months next before the granting of the order of publication of the summons against them on the 25th day of July, 1912, and said defendants and neither of them have made a designation of a person upon whom to serve a summons against him or them, as appears. by the certificate of the clerk of the county of New York, herewith submitted.”

The certificate of the clerk of the county referred to was made upon a requisition signed by the attorneys now acting for plaintiffs and which reads as follows:

"The clerk of the city and county of New York will please search for the designation by Julius R. Lorge, Joseph W. Lorge, and J. B. Lorge & Co., of any person upon whom service of a summons can be made on behalf of said Julius R. Lorge and Joseph W. Lorge, filed pursuant to the terms of section 430 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from January 1, 1912, to date of return, and certify the result to Wise & Lichenstein, attorneys, etc., and said certificate reads as follows: 'Nothing found for period mentioned.' "Dated July 18, 1912, 9 A, M. “[Signed]

Wm. F. Schneider, Clerk." I am of the opinion that the proof furnished was not sufficient. Section 430 aforesaid, as amended September 1, 1899 (Laws 1899, C. 524), provides that a resident of the state, of full age, may execute under his hand and acknowledge in the manner required by law.to entitle a deed to be recorded a written designation of another resident of the state as a person upon whom to serve a summons during the absence from the state of New York of the person making the designation, and may file the same with the written consent of the person so designated, executed and acknowledged in the same manner, in the office of the clerk of the county where the person making the designation resides, and that the designation remains in force during the period specified therein, if any, and, if no period is specified, it remains in force for three years. It needs no argument to show that under this section a designation might have been filed by the defendants at any time after September 1, 1899, which might have specified therein a period of such length as to keep it in force for many years yet to come after the date of the affidavit, or that a designation might have been filed by them at any time after July 25, 1909, which specified no period, but which, by virtue of the section, would remain in force.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« 이전계속 »