« 이전계속 »
KLAU'DER-WELDON DYEING MACH./ LAWRENCE v. LITTLEFIELD et al. (SuCO., Respondent, y: GILES, Appellant. (Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, First Departpreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Depart- ment. April 30, 1915.) Action by Julia M. C. ment. March 3, 1915.) Action by the Klau- Lawrence against Charles E. Littlefield and der-Weldon Dyeing Machine Company against others. No opinion. Motion granted ; question John H. Giles. No opinion, Judgment unan- certitied. Order filed. See, also, 152 N Y. imously affirmed, with costs, upon the opin- Supp. 130. ion in Klauder-Weldon Dyeing Machine Co. v. Weldon, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1068, decided herewith.
In re LEDER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 22, 1915.)
In the matter of Benjamin Leder. No opinion. KOEHNE, Respondent, v. HOTEL ASTOR, Referred to Hon. Roger A. Pryor, official refInc., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- eree. Settle order on notice. vision, First Department. March 12, 1915.) Action by Joseph Koehne against Hotel Astor,
LEDERER, Appellant, v. FIELD & FANCY Incorporated. T. H. Lord, of New York City, PCB. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Air for appellant. C. M. Beattie, of New York pellate Division, Second Department. April 9, City, for respondent.
1915.) Action by Alison M. Lederer against PER CURIAM. Judgment and order af- the Field '& Fancy Publishing Company. firmed, with costs. Order filed.
PER CURIAM. Motion denied, upon condiCLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., dissent.
tion that appellant print as an addendum that
part of the judgment roll which was omitted KOIN v. LEOPOLD POWELL & CO. (Su- from the printed papers on appeal, and be preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- ready for argument on Thursday, April 13, ment. April 16, 1915.) Action' by Charles M. 1915; otherwise, motion granted, with $10 Kohn against Leopold Powell & Co. No opin- of Philadelphia, 144 App. Div. 592, 129 N. Y.
Code Civ. Proc. $ 1353; Muller v. City ion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
KOPP, Appellant, V. ADLER MONUMEN- LEERBURGER V. WATSON. (Supreme TAL & GRANITE WORKS, Respondent. (Su- Court, Appellate Division, First Department. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- April 16, 1915.) Action by Henry Leerburger partment. April 1, 1915.) Action by John against Henry R. C. Watson, executor, etc. Kopp against the Adler Monumental & Granite PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and pro Works. No opinion. Judgment and order unan- ceedings under the order stayed, upon plaintiff's imously affirmed, with costs.
giving a bond in the penalty of $18,000 for the
payment of the amount to be paid by him acLA CHICOTTE, Appellant, V. KRACKE, cording to the judgment for the specific perRespondent (two cases). (Supreme Court, Ap’ | formance of his contract within 10 days afte: pellate Division, First Department. March 26, the affirmance of the order, if the order appeal1915.) In the matter of Henry A. La Chicotte ed from is affirmed. See, also, 157 App. Div. against Frederick J. H. Kracke, as commis- 915, 142 N. Y. Supp. 1127. sioner. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order asfirmed, with 'In re LEFSTEIN & ROSENFELD CO. et $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, San
ond Department. April 16, 1915.) in the matLAMBERT, Appellant, v. LANEHART, Re- ter of supplementary proceedings as to the Lef. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, stein & Rosenfeld Company. Second Department. March 19, 1915.) Action PER CURIAM, Order affirmed, without by Ismenia Lambert against Louis N. Lanehart. costs. The determination was within the disNo opinion. Order ailirmed by default, with cretion of the Justice. He might well be re $10 costs and disbursements.
luctant to convict of contempt on ex parte pas
pers, and he might well remit the creditor to LANE, Appellant, v. JACOBS, Respondent. the remedy of procuring the attendance of the (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De- debtor by attachment. See Matter of Nejez, partment. March 26, 1915.) Action by Charles | 54 Misc. Rep. 38, 104 N. Y. Supp. 505. V. Lane against Albert W. Jacobs. No opinion.
BURR, J., not voting. Motion for reargument (152 N. Y. Supp. 605) denied, with $10 costs.
LELMAN, Appellant, v. KULLA et al., Re LA SALLE, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respond-spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divient. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-sion, First Department. March 26, 1915.) A ond Department. March 19, 1915.) Action by tion by Jennie Leiman against Jacob Kuils Gladys Louise La Salle against William B. and another. J. Gans, of New York City, für Smith. No opinion. Order affirmed, without appellant. R. Tally, of New York City, for costs, and without prejudice to a renewal of the respondents. No opinion. Judgment and order motion at Special Term for a writ of inquiry aflirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, als upon proper papers.
151 N. Y. Supp. 1126.
LEONARD, Appellant, v. QUALE CO., Re- given, motion for stay denied. Settle order on pondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, notice. See, also, 164 App. Div. 802, 149 N.
irst Department. March 26, 1915.) Action Y. Supp. 1001. y William Leonard, an infant, against the Quale Company. B. L. Pettigrew, of New York ity, for appellant. E. F. Lindsay, of New In re LINCOLN AVE. IN CITY OF NEW 'ork City, for respondent.
YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- Second Department. April 16, 1915.) Appeal ed, with costs. Order üled.
from Special Term, Kings County. In the matLAUGHLIN, J., dissents.
ter of the application of the City of New York
relative to acquiring title for opening a street. LEVER, Appellant, v. GALLAGHER, Re
From an order setting aside an award to proppondent (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, erty owners by commissioners of estimate and first Department. March 19, 1915.) Action
assessment, the City appeals. Order reversed, 2y John Lever against Peter C. Gallagher. F. and motion to confirm the report of the com
Melville J. France, of 1. Mayham, of New York City, for appellant. Brooklyn (Howard L. Campion, of New York
granted. W. J. Martin, of New York City, for responda City, on the brief), for appellant. Ferdinand ent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 Pecora, of New York City, for respondents. costs and disbursements. Order filed.
PER QURIAM. Order reversed, with $10 LEVEY, Appellant, v. LEVEY, Respondent costs and disbursements, and motion to confirm Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second the report of the commissioners of estimate Department. March 19, 1915.) Action by
and assessment granted. We think that the Tarrena D. Levey against Clarence D. Levey. the correct theory by the commissioners as to
evidence clearly establishes the adoption of No opinion. Motion denied, without prejudice to a renewal thereof in the event that the ap
consequential damages, and, if the amount peal is not speedily prosecuted. See, also, 88 awarded by them is open to criticism at all, it Misc. Rep. 315, 150 N. Y. Supp. 610.
is that it is liberal rather than otherwise.
PUTNAM, J. (dissenting). The proposed LEVI, Respondent, v. HEISS et al., Appel- opening of Lincoln avenue cuts through a large lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, tract lying on Jamaica avenue, nearly opposite First Department. January 29, 1915.) Action Cypress Hills Cemetery. It is used for manu
facture of monuments. by Harry Levi against Samuel W. Heiss and
The value of the strip another. M. B. Blumenthal, of New York City, of intersecting land taken is not disputed. The for appellants. L. S. Ehrich, Jr., of New York
How much is the resulting damage City, for respondent. No opinion. , Judgment into two isolated parts, one of which is thereby
to the plant, which this 50-foot street divides and order reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event, on the ground that cut off from power? The obvious losses are the verdict was against the weight of evidence. not only that power is cut off, but in the means Settle order on notice.
to carry back and forth the rough and worked blocks of granite in process of finishing, which
now move along a diagonal tramway, used 15 LEVIN v. WM. A. WHITE & SONS. (Su- or 20 times a day. The present power is by preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. steam at the western end of the premises. It muent. April 16, 1915.). Action by Morris Lev- works a compressed air plant; also electric in against Win. A. White & Sons. No opinion. generators. An underground conduit takes the Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 compressed air, beneath where the street now costs, unless appellant complies with terms is to go, to the eastern yard. An overhead wire stated in order, Order filed.
conducts the electric current across to operate
an electric traveling crane. A tramway runs LEVITT, Respondent, v. J. M. HORTON between the two yards to carry heavy blocks. ICE CREAM CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, The stone material first goes into the eastern
The crane then Appellate Division, l'irst Department. May 7, yard, to the cutting plant. 1915.) Action by Moris Levitt against the j. swings it on the platform car on the tramway, M. Horton Ice Cream Company. W. L. Glen
where it comes across to the westerly plant. ney, of New York City, for appellant. M.
Two electric derricks then deposit the blocks at Trowbridge, of New York City, for respondent. the polishing machines. Afterwards it goes No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with back to the eastern yard on storage, and for costs. Order filed.
exhibition. In this way the plant is so unified that one boiler and engine supply all the power
at a daily cost of $S. Such a plant cannot be LEVY V. LOUVRE REALTY CO. (Su-operated as a unit after it has been sundered preme Court, Appellate Division, First Deby a public street. The damage estimates, partment. April 16, 1915.). Action by Leopold therefore, primarily are for the changes so as Levy against the Louvre Realty Company. to give the easterly yard the needed power to
PER CURIAM. Proceedings stayed, pending be run independently; also to arrange a mode decision of the Court of Appeals, on condition of interchange of material which can no longer that appellant give a bond in the penalty of be effected by this tramway. Mr. Adanson es$750, conditioned upon appellants' paying addi-timated the entire plant at $75,000 in its prestional interest, costs, or damages to accrue by ent condition. Other witnesses made it more. reason of the appeal. If. within 10 days after In order to give power to the eastern yard, he date of entry of this order, such bond is not 'figured on a new engine house there, with boil
er, engine, generator, compressor, and shafting tion by Lester Doctor against Edward A. Manconnections, which items he detailed to make up ico and another. M. G. Holstein, of New York $9,050. The proposed a truck, horses, and har- City, for appellant. J. H. Iselin, of New York ness as a substitute for the tramway, by which City, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment to transfer the material, which he estimated at attirmed, with costs. Order filed. $2,350, making a total outlay, as a substitute for the present power, distribution, and track, LOOMIS et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK of $11,600. Asked as to the damaged value of CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Suprenie the plant, he subtracted this last figure from Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department $75,000 and gave the remainder, $63,400, as his March 10, 1915.) Action by Leslie G. Loonis answer. But obviously this leaves a plant sepa- and another against the New York Central & rated into two units, with duplicate cost of Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinioa. engineers, fuel, and other outlays, and leaving Motion granted, and order of reversal (133 out any increased cost of superintendence) App. Div. 938, 138 N. Y. Supp. 1126) entered would add to the yearly overhead charges over November 20, 1912, amended, so as to state $3,000. When Adamson was recalled, he was that the reversal was made upon questions of asked to make this clear, namely, that $63,400 | law only, and that the facts had been examined only represented the outlay to supply power in and no error found therein. See, also, 135 App the part cut off, and for transferring the blocks. Div. 879, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1131. . He attempted to capitalize the increased cost of operation, which perhaps he erroneously LO RE V. FEDERMAN. (Supreme Court, computed. The city's position, therefore, comes Appellate Division, Second Departmed to this: The street as opened cuts off part of March 12, 1915.) Action by Vincent Lo Re a united plant. To go on, two power plants against Philip Federman and Carl Rieger. No must take the place of one. The award of opinion. Motion granted, without costs. Set, $10,000 about represents the cost of the neces- also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1127. sary structural changes. But two separate installations are obviously a wasteful duplication, LORENZ, Respondent, v. LORENZ, Appelcompared with a plant that is intact. Hence lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisios, an award of $10,000 either did not reckon these First Department. April 30, 1915.) Action ly structural changes, or did not allow for the Ada C. Lorenz against Samuel Lorenz. H. waste and loss of efficiency which the changes Fluegelman, of New York City, for appellant necessarily involved. Where an intervening A. 1. Nova, of Brooklyn, for respondent. No street excludes an owner from the beneficial opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and use of part of a manufacturing plant, he is en- disbursements. Order filed, titled to the full resulting diminution of value, not only for the cost of installing new power, In re LOW et al., Board of Rapid Transit but to the extent that these changes have left R. Com’rs. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dive the property damaged and impaired as compared sion, Second Department. April 23, 1915.) lo with its condition before taking. Otherwise, the matter of the application and petition of the damages assessed are inadequate. Matter of Seth Low and others, constituting the Board of Alexander Street, 145 App. Div. 495, 129 N. Y. Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, etc., Supp. 944. The discrepancy also in the assess
for the appointment of commissioners of afments for benefits by which these respondents' praisal, etc. No opinion. Motion to require lots are valued above those in the same block, | acceptance of the notice of appeal dated April and especially as compared with lots to the 8, 1915, on behalf of the Public Service Con south of Wood street (the next street southerly mission, granted without costs. and parallel with Jamaica avenue), seem to me to forbid confirmation. Hence I vote to affirm LOWENSTEIN v. KOCH. (Supreme Court the order setting aside the report of the com- Appellate Division, First Department. April missioners.
30, 1915.) Action by C. Albert Lowenstein
against Lulu Koch. No opinion. Motion fo: LINDEMANN, Respondent, V. RICHTER,
leave to appeal (165 App. Div. 760, 152 X. I. Appellant. (Supreme Court,' Appellate Divi: Supp. 500) granted; question certified; order
filed. sion, First Department. April 9, 1915.) ACtion by Katherine F. Lindemann, as executrix, etc., against Helena M. Richter. F. J. Sullis
LOWINSON, Respondent, V. HILTON et van, of New York City, for appellant. L. C. al., Appellants. (Supreme Court. Appellate D. Ferguson, of New York City, for respondent. vision, First Department. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with Action by Oscar Lowinson against Joseph Hi
March 19, 1917) costs. Order filed.
ton and another. W. C. Low, of New York In re LITTLE. (Supreme Court, Appellate York City, for respondent. No opinion. Or
City, for appellants. A. T. Scharps, of Nero Division, First Department. April 1, 1915.) der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, In the matter of Jolin T. Little. No opinion without prejudice to a motion to con pel plais. Referred to Hon. Henry A. Gildersleeve, offi- tiff to serve a further bill of particulars.' Or cial referee. Settle order on notice.
der filed. DOCTOR, Appellant, v. MANICO et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- LUKMAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, W. sion, First Department. March 20, 1913.) Ac-' & B. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap
ella te Division, Second Department. April McKAIGNEY, Respondent, V. TIFFANY, 16, 1915.) Action by William Luhman against Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, he New York, Westchester & Boston Railway Second Department. March 19, 1915.) Action 'ompany. No opinion. Judgment aflirmed, by James Mekaigney, an infant, by Marie Mcvith costs, upon authority of Luhman v. New Kaisney, his guardian ad litem, against Charles York, Westchester & Boston Railroad Co., 103 M. Tillany. No opinion. Order of the County App. Div. 961, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1127.
Court of Kings County affirmed, with $10 costs
and disbursements, upon authority of Watt v. LUKANIK v. BATOVIC. (No. 7281.) (Su- Feltman, 111 App. Div. 314, 97 N. Y. Supp. Oreme Court, Appellate Division. First De-737. artment. April 30, 1915.) Appeal from Spe
Term, New York County. Action by VIike Lukanik against Jike Batovic. From an
VCKELVER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK Order granting a motion to open default and to LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court,
March answer, the plaintiff appeals. Order modified, Appellate Division, First Department. 50 as to require an undertaking for the pay? | 19, 1915.) Action by Stephen McKeever against ment of any judgment rendered against de- the New York Life Insurance Company. W. tendant. Abram S. Jaffer, of New York City, D. Reed, of New York City, for appellant. No for appellant.
opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and
disbursements. Order filed. PER CURIAM. The order appealed from is modified, by adding to the conditions to the MCKENZIE, Appellant, v. WOOD, Respondopening of the default that the defendant file ant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First an undertaking within 10 days after the serv- Department. March 12, 1915.) Action by Ece of the order to be entered hereon for the Peter A. McKenzie against Frederick R. Wood. payment of any judgment that the plaintiff C. E. Mundy, of New York City, for appellant. anay ultimately recover against him. If sucb C. C. Marsh, of New York City, for respondiundertaking be not given within the time fix- ent. No opinion. Judgment and order af. ed, the order appealed from will be reversed, firmed, with costs. Order filed. with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.
MacKINSTRY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK
CENT. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, LYNCH, Respondent, v. CENTRAL BREW- Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, ING CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- 1915.) Action by Everett MacKinstry against late Division, First Department.
April 30, the New York Central Railroad Company, suc1915.) Action by William Lynch, an infant, cessor to the New York Central & Hudson Rivetc., against the Central Brewing Company. er Railroad Company. W. A. Jones, Jr., of New York City, for appel- PER CURIAM. Judgment and order relant. G. F. Hickey, of New York City, for versed, and new trial granted, with costs to aprespondent. No opinion. Judgment and order pellant to abide event, on the ground that the affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
damages are excessive, unless the plaintiff stip
ulates to reduce the verdict to $2,500; in case MCCARTHY, Appellant, v. CITY OF FUL modified, and, as modified, judgment and order
such stipulation is filed, the judgment is so TON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate afirmed, without costs. Division, Fourth Department. March
10, 1915.) Action by Josephine G. VícCarthy
HOWARD, J., votes for affirmance. against the City of Fulton. No opinion. Order ailirmed, with costs.
McKNIGHT, Appellant, v. MCKNIGHT, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department. March 19, 1915.) Action McCHESNEY v. LUCIUS ENGINEERING by Chauncey P. Mcknight against Louise S. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, McKnight. R. L. Turk, of New York City, for Fourth Department. March 17, 1915.) Action appellant. P. Rooney, of New York City, for by John McChesney against the Lucius En- respondent.. No opinion. Order modified, by gineering Company,
reducing alimony to $7 per week, and, as modiPER CURIAM. Plaintiff's exceptions sus-fied, affirmed, without costs. Order filed. See, tained, and motion for new trial granted, with also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1128. costs to plaintiff to abide event. Held, that it was a question of fact as to whether the defend- MCLAUGIILIN V. NEW YORK RYS. CO. ant was negligent in furnishing a scaffold which (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dewas unsuitable and improper for the work partment. March 19, 1915.) Action by James which the plaintiff was required to do.
J. Melaughlin against the New York Railways ROBSON and FOOTE, JJ., dissent.
Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y.
Supp. 1128. MCINERNEY REALTY CO., Appellant, v. LANGSLOW, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March MCLEAN, Appellant, v. BRONX PARK. 26, 1915.) Action by the McInerney Realty WAY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Supreme Company against Harry Richard Langslow. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. April 1, 1915.) In the matter of Charles F.
McLean against the Bronx Parkway Commis- stances sbown in the moving papers did rt sion. E. S. Clinch, of New York City, for ap: justify the relief granted to respondent TV pellant. T. F. Stevens, of New York City, for trustee is under a large bond, and the duta respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with the trust terminate necessarily on Jug 5, $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. Proceedings to settle bis account as t.se
should not be multiplied at the expense of MCLEAN, Respondent, v. STUDEBAKER estate. The order is therefore reserved. I BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant. . (No. $10 costs and disbursements, and resou zdects 7050.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, motion is denied, without prejudice to aos: First Department. April 23, 1915.) Appealceedings that may be instituted either bg Le from Trial Term, New York County. Action by trustee or by any of the beneficiaries on the William McLean against the Studebaker Bros. termination of the trust on July , 1915. Company of New York. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Clayton J. In re MANHATTAN RY. CO. (Supreme Heermance, of New York City, for appellant. Court, Appellate Division, First Departure William F. Purdy, of New York City, for re- April 1, 1915.) In the matter of the Markt: spondent.
tan Railway Company. No opinion. Apple PER CURIAM. Judzment and order affirm-tion granted. Settle order on notice. Set. L. ed, with costs. Order filed.
so, 103 App. Div. 895, 147 N. Y. Supp. 113 INGRATIAM, P. J. (dissenting). . The plaintiff was not in the employ of the defendant, but in the employ of one who was working for the
v. RICHELSON defendant under an independent contract.
In Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di the course of this work he fell off a ladder not sion, Third Department. March 18, 1912 furnished by the defendant. The defendant Action by Antoine Manion, as administrare gave no directions as to how the work should etc., against Henry C. Richelson. Voore, be done, and, so far as appears, had no knowl- Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, Fit edge that the plaintiff was about to work at costs. this particular fan light or window at the time of the accident. Unless it was the duty of the defendant to keep this fan light bolted at all MARIANI, Appellant, v. NEW YORK times, I do not see how it would be negligence TELEPHONE CO., Respondent. (Sustent to have it unbolted at the time the plaintiff Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Deparice: selected for cleaning it. I think there is not March 26, 1915.) Action by Enidena Maria... the slightest proof that the defendant was neg
as administratrix, etc., against the New Toni ligent, or that the accident resulted from any Telephone Company. No opinion. Motion for lack of care of the defendant or its employés. leave to appeal (151 N. Y. Supp. 112, to the I think, therefore, the judgment should be re- Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. versed, and the complaint dismissed. HOTCHKISS, J., concurs.
MARTIN, Respondent, v. MENAMEE v. CHENOWETH et al.
DAD LAKÈ ASPHALT CO., Appellant. &
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart First Department. April 30, 1915.) Action by D. Martin against the New Trinidad Lake di
ment. March 12, 1915.)
Action by William Mary J. McNamee as executrix, etc., against Catlierine R. Chenoweth and others. "No opin-phalt Company, L. L. Kellogg, of New funt ion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with York City, for respondent. No opinion. Jadi
H. B. Johnson, of les $10 costs, unless appellants comply with terms stated in order. Orders filed.
ment and orders affirmed, with costs. One
filed. MCNEILLY, Respondent, v. CHAMPLIN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi
MARTIN, Respondent, v, SMITH BROS sion, Second Department. April 16, 1915.) PLUMBING CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court
. Action by William T. McNeilly against Jane Appellate Division, Second Deparıment. April Q. Champlin. No opinion. Order of the Coun- 9, 1915.) Action by Sarah Martin a ainst te ty Court of Westchester County reversed, with Smith Bros. Plumbing Company. No opinie $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion Motion to dismiss appeal denied, on condine to strike out and disallow the item of $15 that appellant perfect its appeal, place the case granted, with $10 costs, upon the ground that on the May calendar, and be ready for an the amended answer rendered nugatory the no- ment when reached; otherwise, motion grabt tice of trial.
ed, with $10 costs.
(Supreme Court, dr
In re MAHAR. (Supreme Court, Appellate
MARTINI v. BELL Division, Second Department. March 26, pellate Division, Third Department. Mas 1915.) 'In the matter of the accounting by 1915.) I'ranklin W. Mahar, substituted trustee, etc., Joserb Bell. No opinion. Motion granted, 14
Action by Caroline Martini agus of Susannah A. Dickie, deceased.
less within 40 days the appellant serres print PER CURIAM. Assuming the regularity ched papers and pays $10 costs of motion: the order appealed from, we think the circum-'such be done, motion is denied, without costs