페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

V.

tion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, tral & Hudson River Railroad Company and also, 163 App. Div. 830, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1112; another. No opinion. Judgment and orders 152 N. Y. Supp. 1112.

unanimously affirmed, without costs. FRANK, Respondent, ROWLAND & GARBARINI, Respondent, F. MOISANT SHAFTO,' Inc., et al., 'Appellants. (Supreme INTERNATIONAL AVIATORS, Apeliant

, , ! April 16, 1915.) Action by Adam Frank against partment. January 22, 1915.) Action by Luis Rowland & Shafto, Incorporated, and others. Garbarini against the Moisant Internatiosa J. V. Judge, of New York City, for appellants. Aviators. W. K. Van Meter, of New York Ciu. A. Frank, of New York City, for respondent. for appellant. B. F. Schreiber, of Ner I No opinion. Order atlirmed, with $10 costs and City, for respondent. No opinion. Judziem disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 152 N. and order atlirmed, with costs. Order file. Y. Supp. 1111.

GARDNER, Respondent, CENTRAL

PARK, N. & E. R. R. CO., Appellant. (SoFRANKLIN, Appellant, v. KIDD, Respond-preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depura ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ment. April 23, 1915.) Action by Fastub E Fourth Department.,, March 26, 1915.). Action Gardner against the Central Park, North & by Joseph S. Franklin against Agnes B. Kidd, East River Railroad Company. C. Mellea, & as executrix, etc. No opinion. Judgment (in New York City, for appellant. J. F. Melatyre, 87 Misc. Rep. 399, 149 N. Y. Supp. 767) affirm- of New York City, for respondent. ed, with costs.

PER CIRIAM. Judgment and order atira

ed, with costs. Order tiled. FRAZER, Appellant, v. R. & L. Co., Re- the ground that the evidence of negligence ca

MCLAUGHLIN and SCOTT, JJ., dissent, ca spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 30, 1915.) Action by the part of the defendant was not sutficient tu James S. Frazer against the R. & L. Company. justify submission of the case to the jury. S. H. Evins, of New York City, for appellant. II. A. Rubino, of New York City, for respond

GARDNER, Respondent, v. ELMIRA, C. & ent. No opinion. Judgment atlirmed, with W. RY., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apple costs. Order filed.

Division, Third Department.

May 5, 1912 Action by John Gardner against the Elmira,

Corning & Waverly Railway. No opol FRENCH, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with ROCHELLÉ, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap-costs. pellate Division, Second Department. April 9, 1915.) Action by Ida L. French against the City of New Rochelle. No opinion. Judgment In re GARVIN. (Supreme Court, Appellare affirmed, with costs.

Division, First Department. April 23, 1913)

In the matter of Michael J. Garvin. FREY, Respondent, v. E. REGENSBURG & PER CURIAM. In order to review the order SONS, Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate appealed from, it is necessary that all of the Division, First Department. April 9, 1915.) | ballots that were marked as exhibits and me Action by Isidor Frey against E. Regensburg & passed upon in the order appealed from shoshi Sons. E. L. Mooney, of New York City, for be submitted to the court. appellants. J. M. Kroskauer, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment

GAVRILUTZ V. SAVAGE (two cases). (S and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

preme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartFRUEAUFF v. MOORE. (Supreme Court; Gavrilutz against 'Joseph K. Savage. Nogle

ment. March 19, 1915.) Action by Rebecca Appellate Division, First Department. April 1, 1915.) Action by Chas. A. Frueauff against tiled. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. SUS.

ion. Motions denied, with $10 costs. Orders George Moore. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1116.

GEBERT v. GEBERT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

March 19, 1915.) Action by Anna N Gebert FULLER, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW against Charles Gebert and others. No opinice. YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse Division, Second Department. March 19, 1915.) ments. Action by Laura Fuller, as administratrix, etc., against the City of New York. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse GEELAN v. BAHR et al. (No. 7130.) (Saments.

preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart:

April 23, 1915.)

Term, New York County. Action by John Gee GALVIN v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. lan against Henry D. Bahr and another. From co. et al. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order Second Department. March 5, 1915.) Action denying a new trial, defendant Bahr appeak by Jeremiah Galvin against the New York Cen-' Affirmed. Stephen P. Anderton, of New York

ment.

Appeal from Trial

ty, for appellant. Louis Steckler, of New | graph Co., 161 App. Div. 781, 146 N. Y. Supp. ork City, for respondent.

$13. Order filed. See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp.

1113. l’ER CURIAM. Judgment and order afmed, with costs. Order filed.

INGRAHAM, P. J., and SCOTT, J., dissent,

on dissenting opinion in that case. MCLAUGHLIN, J. (dissenting). I think that e court erred in refusing to charge the jury hat, if the jury find that this accident hap

GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., Rened entirely by reason of the fact that the spondent, V. O'NEIL, Appellant. (Supreme ft-hand horse shied and forced the wagon over Court, Appellate Division, First Department. ainst the car, then under the issues presented April 23, 1915.) Action by the German-Amerithis case their verdict must be for the defend- can Coffee Company against John O'Neil. G. at Bahr." I therefore dissent, and vote to W. Harper, Jr., of New York City, for appel. verse the judgment and order appealed from, lant. E. S. Paine, for respondent. id for a new trial as to the defendant Bahr? PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 SCOTT, J., concurs.

costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Page, J., at Special Term, in German-American Cofiee Company v. Diehl, with leave to de

fendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer, GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., Ap-on payment of costs in this court and in the llant, v. DIEHL, Respondent. (Supreme court below. Order filed. See, also, 152 N. Y. ourt, Appellate Division, First Department. Supp. 1113. arch 26, 1915.) Action by the German-Ameran Coffee Company against Clarence A. Diehl. S. Paine, for appellant. W. Ferguson, of

GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO. V. ew York City, for respondent.

O'NEIL, (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, L'ER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 the German-American Coffee Company against

First Department. April 30, 1915.) Action by ists and disbursements, on De Raismes v. U. John O'Neil. No opinion. Motion for leave to

Lithograph Co., 161 App. Div. 781, 146 N appeal granted; questions certified. Order filed. . Supp. 813. Order filed. See, also, 152 N. See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1113. . Supp. 1113. INGRAHAM, P. J., and SCOTT, J., dis

GIBBS V. ARRAS BROS. (Supreme Court, int, on the dissenting opinion in that case.

Appellate Division, First Department. March

19, 1915.) Action by Benjamin Gibbs against GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE Co. v. Order signed.

Arras Bros. No opinion. Application granted. VIEHL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, first Department. April 16, 1915.) Action by le German-American Coffee Company against GINSBERG V. TRIANGLE WAIST CO. larence A. Diehl. No opinion. Motion grant- (two cases). (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi1; question certified as stated in order: Or- sion, First Department. March 19, 1915.) Acer filed. See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1113.

tion by Henrietta Ginsberg against the Tri

angle Waist Company. No opinion. Motion GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., Re- granted, unless appellant complies with terms pondent, V. DIEHL, Appellant. (Supreme Y. Supp. 1118.

stated in order. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. pril 23, 1915.) Action by the German-Amerian Coffee Company against Clarence A. Diehl. V. Ferguson, of New York City, for appellant.

GLOVER, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BANK S. Paine, for respondent.

OF COMMERCE, Respondent. (Supreme PER CURIAM. Order (in 86 Misc. Rep: April 9, 1915.) Action by Laura Glover, as

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. 47, 149 N. Y. Supp. 413) affirmed, with $10 administratrix, against the National Bank of osts and disbursements, on the opinion of Commerce. G. A. Honnecker, of New York Page, J., at Special Term, with leave to the City, for appellant. J. Quinn, of New York lefendant to withdraw the demurrer and to City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment inswer, on payment of costs in this court and and 'order aflirmed, with costs. See Glover v. n the court below. Order filed. See, also, 152 Xat. Bank of Commerce, 156 App. Div. 247, N. Y. Supp. 1113.

141 N. Y. Supp. 409. Order filed. See, also,

151 N. Y. Supp. 1118. GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., ApDellant,

O'NEIL, Respondent. (Supreme GOELDNER, Respondent, V. NEW YORK Court, Appellate Division, First Department. TELEPHONI) CO., Appellant. (Supreme llarch 26, 1915.) Action by the German-Amer- Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. can Coffee Company against John O'Neil. E. May 5, 1915.) Action by Ernest B. Goeldner S. Paine, for appellant. G. W. Ilarper, Jr., of against the New York Telephone Company. New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversPER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, and new trial granted, with costs to aped, with costs, on De Raismes v. U. S. Litho-'pellant to abide event, unless the plaintiff will

V.

2

stipulate to reduce the verdict to $370, and if In re GRADE CROSSING COM'RS OT
plaintiff so stipulates the judgment is so modi-CITY OF BUFFALO. (Supreme Court, Aş
fied, and, as modified, judgment and order pellate Division, Fourth Department. Vart
unanimously affirmed, without costs.

10, 1915.) In the matter of the application of

the_Grade Crossing Commissioners of the Cry
GOLDNER, Respondent, V. NEW YORK of Buffalo for the appointment of conmis.
TELEPHONE CO., Appellant. (Supreme ers of appraisal to ascertain the coupes
Court, Appellate Division, Third Department to be paid to the owners of and parues itt
May 5, 1915.) Action by William Goldner, an ested in lands claimed to be injured by ti
infant, by Ernest B. Goldner, his guardian ad change of grade, etc., and owned by the Geri
litem, against the New York Telephone Com-Prban Milling Company and others. Prom
pany. No opinion. Judgment and order unan- ing No. 101. No opinion. Motion grante,
imously affirmed, with costs.

questions certified to Court of Appeals tevi

tled. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 145, 1119.
In re GOODMAN. (Supreme Court, Appel-
late Division, First Department. March 12, GRAF v. MACKAY. (No. 7108) Sporda
1915.) In the matter of Elias B. Goodman. Court, Appellate Division, First Depart1
No opinion. Application denied. Settle order April 1, 1915.) Appeal from Special Tern,
on notice. See, also, 158 App. Div. 465, 143 New York County. Action by Richard G
N. Y. Supp. 577.

against R. Gordon Mackay. From an order de

nying a motion to make complaint more defekt:
GORTIKOV, Respondent, V. GORTIKOV, and certain, defendant appeals. Moline
Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- affirmed. H. H. Gibbs, of New York Cits,
sion, First Department. March 26, 1915.) AC- appellant. Frank Sowers, of New York Cits.
tion by Benjamin Gortikov against Marion for respondent.
Gortikov. M. M. Leichter, of New York City, PER CURIAM. The order appealed froos
for appellant. J. Fischer, of New York City, modified, by requiring the complaint to be mad
for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirm- more definite and certain, as stated in i
ed, with costs. Order filed. See. also, 163 graphs 1, 2, and 3 of the demand set forta
App. Div. 950, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1117.

the attidavit of the defendant's attorner. Lo

modified, the order is a thirmed, with $10 atst:
GOTTFRIED V. GRIFFENHAGEN. (Su- and disbursements to the appellant.
preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-
ment. March 19, 1915.) Action by Elias Gott GRAFTON, Respondent, v. BALL, Appen
fried against Max S. Griffenhagen. No opinion. (Supre ne Court, Appellate Division, Second
Application denied, with $10 costs. Order partment. March 12, 1915.) Action by Robert
signed.

Grafton against John Oscar Ball. No opie E.
Motion denied, with $10 costs.

App. Div. 70, 149 N. Y. Supp. Hi.
GOULD, Respondent, v. GOULD, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De GRAVES, Respondent. v. HERSPERGES
partment. April 1, 1915.) Action by Kathrine Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate 167
C. Gould against Howard Gould. Ñ. W. Lit- sion, Fourth Department. March 10, 1913.
tleton, of New York City, for appellant. A. F. Action by Chas. B. Graves against Adam Hem
Spiegel, of New York City, for respondent. sperger. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $1"
No opinion. Order aflirmed, with $10 costs and costs and disbursements.
disbursements. Order filed.

GRAY V. FORBES. (Supreme Court. 41-
GRACE, Appellant, v. TOWN OF NORTH 1915.) Action by George Gray azainst Jana

pellate Division, First Department. Varh 19
HEMPSTEAD. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Forbes. No opinion. Motion granted, with $18
Appellate Division, Second Department. March
19, 1915.) Action by Lillius Grace against the

Order filed.
Town of North Hempstead. No opinion. Mo-
tion granted, without costs. See, also, 152 N.

GREEN, Respondent, v. STEINBERG, Apa

pellant.
Y. Supp. 122.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Second Department. April 1, 1915.) den

by John Green against Ella V. Steinberg. Vo
In re

GRADE CROSSING COM’RS OF opinion. Judgment and order unanimously at
CITY OF BUFFALO. (Supreme Court, Ap-

firmed, with costs.
pellate Division, Fourth Department. March
10, 1915.) In the matter of the application of GRECO et al. v. BECKER et al. (Supri.
the Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City Court, Appellate Division, Second Depart2eo:
of Buffalo for the appointment of commissioners March 20, 1915.) Action by Michael Grecogn
of appraisal to ascertain the compensation to another against Rose Becker and others. Not
be paid to the owners of and parties interested opinion. Motion granted, without costs.
in lands claimed to be injured by change of
grade, etc., and claimed to be owned by the GREENBERG, Appellant, v. GOLDBERG.
Barber Asphalt Paving Company and others. Respondent, et al. Supreme Court, Appella
Proceeding No. 97. No opinion. Motion grant- | Division, First Department. March 12, 1913.
ed, and questions certified to Court of Appeals Action by Abraham Greenberg against Mater
resettled. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1119. Goldberg, impleaded with others. H. R. Eids

See, alse, 101

costs.

New York City, for appellant. N. S. Goetz, HAAKENSON, Appellant, v. ADAM REINNew York City, for respondent. No opinion. HARDT & BROS., Respondents, et al. (Suder affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse-preme Court, Appellate Division, First Departnts, with leave to plaintiff to amend on pay- ment. April 9, 1915.) Action by Daniel Haaknt of costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N.enson against Adam Reinhardt & Bros., imSupp. 1088.

pleaded with others. H. C. Smyth, of New York City, for appellant. E. P. Mowton, of

New York City, for respondents. TREENBERG, Appellant, v. GOLDBERG &

PER CURIAM. {EENBERG, Inc., Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with (Supreme

costs. Order filed. urt, Appellate Division, First Department. arch 12, 1915.) Action by Abraham Green

LAUGHLIN, J., dissents. rg against Goldberg & Greenberg, Incorporat· H. R. Elias, of New York City, for appel HAGARTY, Respondent, v. MOYKA et al., it. E. Fixman, of New York City, for re- Appellants. (S'ipreme Court, Appellate Diviondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with sion, Second Department. April 1, 1915.) AC0 costs and disbursements, with leave to tion by Helen Josephine Hagarty against John uintiff to amend on payment of costs. Order Moyka and another. d. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1088.

PER CURIAN. Without expressing an opin

ion as to whether the complaint states a cause In re GREENWOOD. (Supreme Court, Ap- of action, we are of opinion that the answer Date Division, Second Department. March 5, puts in issue the allegations of the complaint, 15.) In the matter of William Greenwood, and it cannot be regarded as frivolous. The attorney. No opinion. Motion granted. order is therefore reversed, with $10 costs and

disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 GRIFENHAGEN et al., Respondents, v. costs. HILDEN & HANCOCK, Appellant. (Sueme Court, Appellate Division, First Departent.

April 23, 1915.) Action by Max S. HAGMAYER V. NOVELTY STAMP CO. rifenhagen, as Sheriff, etc., and others, against (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. First Dehilden & Hancock. A. Massey, of New York partment. April 30, 1915.) Action by Cathty, for appellant. L. J. Wolff, of Brooklyn, erine Hagmayer against the Novelty Stamp r respondents. No opinion. Judgment and Company. No opinion. Application denied, der affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 151

N. Y. Supp. 1004. In re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, Appellate ivision. First Department. April 1, 1915.) HALSTED, Appellant, V. SIMMONS, Rei the matter of Francis H. Griffin. No opin- spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Respondent disbarred. Settle order on First Department. March 26, 1915.) Action tice.

by Florence Halsted against Julia G. Simmons. M. L. Towns, of New York City, for appellant.

W. W. Foster, of New York City, for respondGUIRIZINSKI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN ent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 ADIATOR CO., “Respondent. (Supreme costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff purt, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. to amend on payment of costs. Order filed. arch 26, 1915.) Action by Bernhardt Guiri. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1120. nski against the American Radiator Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with HAMER, Appellant, v. NASSAU ELECists. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1120. TRIC R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, LAMBERT and MERRELL, JJ., dissent.

Appellate Division, Second Department. March

12, 1915.) Action by Emily V. Hamer against GUTTA PERCHA & RUBBER MFG. CO., the Nassau Electric Railroad Company. No ppellant, v. HOLMAN, Respondent. (Su- opinion. Judgment and order unanimously afreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. firmed, with costs. ent.

April 30, 1915.) Action by the Gutta orcha & Rubber Manufacturing Company In re HAMMOND. (Supreme Court, Appelzainst Charles J. Holman, as treasurer, etc. late Division, First Department. April 30, · Pierce, of New York City, for appellant. W. 1915.) In the matter of James B. Hammond,

Fisher, for respondent. No opinion. Judg. deceased. No opinion. Order affirmed, with jent affirmed, with costs. Order tiled. See, $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, Iso, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1088.

also, 103 App. Div. 877, 147 N. Y. Supp. 881. G. W. MARTIN & BRO., Appellant, v. HANSON, Respondent, v. IIANSON et al., HELLHOOS, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divippellate Division, First Department. April sion, Third Department. March 18, 1915.) Ac. 6, 1915.) Action by G. W. Martin & Bro. tion by Aimee L. Ilanson against llenrietta saiost Elizabeth Shellhoos. F. Taylor, of Reutti Hanson and others, as committee of the ew York City, for appellant. P. Cantline, of person and property of said Walter Lathrop ewburgh, for respondent. No opinion. 'Or Hanson, an incompetent person. er reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, PER CURIAM. Order (in 88 Misc. Rep. nd motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. 244, 151 N. Y. Supp. 861) reversed, without

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

costs, and place of trial changed to Columbia HART, Appellant, v. FULLER, Respondent county, with costs to appellants to abide event. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third It IIOWARD, J., dissents.

partment. May 5, 1915.) Action by Nacze

A. Hart, as administratrix, etc., of Palme 1 HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES Hart, deceased, against Bernice L. Fuller. CO., Appellant, v. 119TH ST. REALTY CO., opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- costs. sion, First Department. May 7, 1915.) ACtion by Ilarbison-Walker Refractories Company against the 119th Street Realty Company. F.

HART v. HOPWOOD. (Supreme Court, ApM. Avery, of New York City, for appellant. pellate Division, First Department. Apa 21, S. T. Stern, of New York City, for respondent. 1915.) Action by Louis C. Hart against Ever No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with ard B. Hopwood. No opinion. Application de costs. Order filed.

nied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, eithe

151 N. Y. Supp. 871. IIARDIN et al., Respondents, V. ROBINSON, Appellant. (No. 7158.) (Supreme Court, HARTMANN v. ARMSTRONG. (No. 720 Appellate Division, First Department. April (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First I 16, 1915.) Appeal from Special Term, New partment. April 1, 1915.) Appeal from Space York County. Action by John R. Hardin and Term, New York County. Action by Eura others, as trustees, etc., against George R. Rob- A. X. Hartmann against Paul Arestrial inson. From an order continuing an injune- From an order denying a motion to vacate u tion during the pendency of the action, defend-order for the examination of a witness beim ant appeals. Reversed. Chester A. Jayne, of trial, defendant appeals. Modified and atraal New York City, for appellant. Elbridge L. l'helan Beale, of New York City, for appellae. Adams, of New York City, for respondents. Geo. W. Files, of New York City, for respond

PER CURIAM. There is no case made upon ent. these papers for the issuance or continuance of PER CURIAM. The order appealed from i an injunction pendente lite. The order appeal- modified, by restricting the examination to sa ed from is therefore reversed, with $10 costs ters concerning the receipt and contents of the and disbursements, and the motion denied, with letter specified in the affidavit of the plainti: $10 costs. Order filed.

attorney, and by striking out the provision for

the production of such letter. As so mudited HARGRAVES, Respond

WICK- the order is affirmed, without costs. WIRE STEEL CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. HARTWELL, Respondent, v. FARRELL, AD March 26, 1915.) Action by Susan Hargraves, pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisan, as administratrix, etc., against the Wickwire | Third Department. March 18, 1915.) Actes Steel Company. No opinion. Motion for leave by William L. Hartwell against Jerome J. Is to appeal (in 151 N. Y. Supp. 1120) to Court rell. No opinion. Order atfirmed, without acts of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.

HARTWICK POWER CO., Respondent, F. HARLEY, Respondent, v. PLANT et al., Ap- MIX, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apielle pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Division, Third Department.

May 5, 1962 Second Department. April 23, 1915.) Action in the matter of the application of the Hart by James Harley against Hannah E. Plant, ex- wick Power Company relative to acquiring titi ecutrix, etc., of Humphrey L. Plant, deceased, to certain real estate in the town of Mille? and another. No opinion. Judgment attirmed, Otseyo County, as against Edith Wilber Wii. with costs.

No opinion. Order aflirmed, with costs.

HARMON, Respondent, V. PRENTICE et

HATCH, Appellant, v. LAKE SHORE & M. al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- S. RY. CO.: Respondent. (Supreme Court

. d.vision, First Department. March 12, 1915.) pellate Division, Fourth Department. March Action by Margaretta T. Harmon against Hen- 26, 1915.). Action by Cora May Hateh, as s! ry L. Prentice and another. H. S. Savers, of ministratrix, etc., against the Lake Sbore & New York City, for appellants. c. c. Clark, of Michigan Southern Railway Company. Brooklyn, for respondent. No opinion. Judg

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order atirament and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. ed, with costs. See, also, 159 App. Dir.

145 N. Y. Supp. 781. HARRIS v. TED SNYDER CO. et al. (Su

KRUSE, P. J., and LAMBERT, J., dissent. preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart

April 9, 1915.) Action by Charles K. HAUPTMAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK Harris against the Ted Snyder Company and EDISON CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, der others. H. C. Smyth, of New York City, for pellate Division, First Department. April appellants. A. H. Rosenfeld, of New York 1915.) Action by Mayer Hauptmay, as adnia

: City, for respondent. No opinion. Order af-istrator, etc., against the New York Ecosi firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Or- Company. T. H. Beardsley, of New York City der filed. See, also, 163 App. Div. 956, 148 N. for appellant. J. F. Melntyre, of New furt Y. Supp. 1119.

City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment

ment.

« 이전계속 »