페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

ment,

KLAUDER-WELDON DYEING MACH. 1 LAWRENCE v. LITTLEFIELD et al. (8 CO., Respondent, v. GILES, Appellant. (Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart: preme Court, Appellate Division, Third Depart. ment. April 30, 1915.) Action by Juia 1.6

March 3, 1915.) Action by the Klau- Lawrence against Charles E. Littleüt d add der-Weldon Dyeing Machine Company against others. No opinion. Motion granted: questo John H. Giles. No opinion. Judgment unan- certified. Oruer filed. See, also, 152 X I 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, 1911

In the matter of Benjamin Leder. No epica KOEHNE, Respondent, v. HOTEL ASTOR, Referred to Hon. Roger A. Pryor, official re Inc., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di-eree. Settle order on notice. vision, First Department. March 12, 1915.) Action by Joseph Koehne against Hotel Astor, Incorporated. T. H. Lord, of New York City, PUB. CO., Respondent.

LEDERER, Appellant, v. FIELD & FANCT for appellant. c. M. Beattie, of New York pellate Division, Second Departinent. Așril 2

(Supreme Court

, ly 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, upos ciodCLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., dissent.

tion that appellant print as an addendum that

part of the judgment roll which was optred 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 la Kohn against Leopold Powell & Co. No opin. of Philadelphia, 144 App. Div. 592, 129 N. I. April 16, 1915.) Action' by Charles M. 1915; otherwise, motion granted, with $0

Code Civ. Proc. $ 1333; Muller v. Cit ion, Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.

Supp. 1037.

KOPP, Appellant, v. ADLER MONUMEN

LEERBURGER V. WATSON. (Supreme TAL & GRANITE WORKS, Respondent. (Su- Court, Appellate Division, First Departeat

. 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 preWorks. No opinion. Judgment and order unan- ceedings under the order stayed, upon painni: imously affirmed, with costs.

giving a bond in the penalty of $iso) for the

payment of the amount to be paid by him a LA CHICOTTE, Appellant, v. KRACKE, cording to the judgment for the specific pret Respondent (two cases). (Supreme Court, Ap! formance of his contract within 10 days after pellate Division, First Department. March 26, the affirmance of the order, if the order and 1915.) In the matter of Henry A. La Chicotte ed from is affirmed. See, also, 157 App. Liv. against Frederick H. Kracke, as commis- 915, 142 N. Y. Supp. 1127. sioner. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order aflirmed, with In re LEFSTEIN & ROSENFELD CO. et $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisioa, S4

ond Department. April 16, 1915.) in the mai LAMBERT, Appellant, v. LANEHART, Re- ter of supplementary proceedings as to the lespondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, stein & Rosenfeld Company. Second Department. March 19, 1915.) Action PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, witheat by Ismenia Lambert against Louis N. Lanehart. costs. The determination was within the dis No opinion. Order allirmed by default, with cretion of the Justice. He might well be $10 costs and disbursements.

luctant to convict of contempt on ex parte

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 Nejer partment. March 26, 1915.) Action by Charles | 54 Misc. Rep. 38, 104 N. Y. Supp. 505. M. Lane against Albert W. Jacobs. No opinion. Motion for reargument (152 N. Y. Supp. 605)

BURR, J., not voting. denied, with $10 costs.

LEIMAN, Appellant, v. KULLA et al. Re LA SALLE, Appellant, v. SUITH, Respond-spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dini

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-sion, l'irst Department. March 26, 1915. ond Department. March 19, 1915.) Action by tion' by Jennie Leiman against Jacob Ka Gladys Louise La Salle against William B. and another, J. Gans, of New York City, fx Smith. No opinion. Orier 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 atlirmed, with costs.

Order filed. See, alsů. upon proper papers.

151 N. Y. Supp. 1126.

ent.

ent.

LEONARD, Appellant, v. QUALE CO., Re- given, motion for stay denied. Settle order on
spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, notice. See, also, 164 App. Div. 862, 149 N.
Hirst Department. March 26, 1915.) Action Y. Supp. 1001.
by William Leonard, an infant, against the
Quale Company. B, L. Pettigrew, of New York
City, for appellant. E. F. Lindsay, of New In re LINCOLN AVE. IN CITY OF NEW
York City, for respondent.

YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PER QURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- Second Department. April 16, 1915.) Appeal ed, with costs. Order filed.

from Special Term, Kings County. In the mat

ter of the application of the City of New York LAUGHLIN, J., dissents.

relative to acquiring title for opening a street,

From an order setting aside an award to propLEVER, Appellant, v. GALLAGHER, Re-erty owners by commissioners of estimate and spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, assessment, the City appeals. Order reversed, First Department. March 19, 1915.) by John Lever against Peter C. Gallagher. F. and motion to confirm the report of the com

Melville J. France, of L Mayham, of New York City, for appellant. Brooklyn (Howard L. Campion, of New York W. J. Martin, of New York City, for respondo City, on the brief), for appellant. Ferdinand

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 Pecora, of New York City, for respondents. Lei costs and disbursements, Order filed.

PER QURIAM. Order reversed, with $10 LEVEY, Appellant, v. LEVEY, Respondent. costs and disbursements, and motion to confirm Palermo Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second the report of the commissioners of estimate

We think that the Di Department March 19, 1915.)

and assessment granted.

Action by
Warrena 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 Real is not speedily prosecuted. See, also, 85 awarded by them is open to criticism at all, it

is that it is liberal rather than otherwise. Ti Misc. Rep. 315, 150 N. Y. Supp. 610.

PUTNAM, J. (dissenting). The proposed LEVI, Respondent, v. HEISS et al., Appel- opening of Lincoln avenue cuts through a large lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Øivision, tract lying on Jamaica avenue, nearly opposite First Department. January 22, 1915.) Action Cypress Hills Cemetery. It is used for manu

The value of the strip mby Harry Levi against Samuel W. Heiss and of intersecting land taken is not disputed. The

another. M. B. Blumenthal, of New York City, issue is: How much is the resulting damage for appellants. L. S. Ehrich, Jr., of New York

to the plant, which this 50-foot street divides City, for respondent. No opinion. , Judgment into two isolated parts, one of which is thereby and order reversed, and new trial ordered, costs

cut off from power? The obvious losses are to appellant to abide event, on the ground that

not only that power is cut off, but in the means
the verdict was against the weight of evidence.
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 ment. 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 beavy 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. Gien: where it comes across to the westerly plant. ney, of New York City, for appellant. M.

Two electric derricks then deposit the blocks at

Afterwards it goes
Trowbridge, of New York City, for respondent: the polishing machines.
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 REALT CO. (Su-operated as a unit after it has been sundered preme Court, Appellate Division, First De by a public street. The dauage 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, Adamson 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

[ocr errors]

answer.

er, engine, generator, compressor, and shafting tion by Lester Doctor against Edward 4. Merconnections, which items he detailed to make up ico and another. M. G. Holstein, of Sex Turt $9,050. He proposed a truck, horses, and har- City, for appellant. J. E. Iselin, of New Tork ness as a substitute for the tramway, by which City, for respondents. No opinion. Judget to transfer the material, which he estimated at athrmed, with costs. Order filed. $2,050, making a total outlay, as a substitute for the present power, distribution, and track, LOOMIS et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK of $11,000. Asked as to the damaged value of CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Suprede the plant, he subtracted this last figure from Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Departmez! $75,000 and gave the remainder, $63,400, as his March 10, 1915.) Action by Leslie G. Laais

But obviously this leaves a plant sepa- and another against the New York Centrais rated into two units, with duplicate cost of Hudson River Railroad Company. No opice engineers, fuel, and other outlays, and (leaving Motion granted, and order of reversal lu out any increased cost of superintendence) | App. Div. 938, 138 N. Y. Supp. 1120) ciciel 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 $63,100 law only, and that the facts had been eignina only represented the outlay to supply power in and no error found therein. See, also, lj5 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 Department 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.de must take the place of one. The award of opinion. Motion granted, without costs. Se $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, Appels compared with a plant that is intact. Hence lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divis.. an award of $10,000 either did not reckon these First Department. April 30, 1915.) Action to 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 appellani necessarily involved. Where an intervening A. 1. Nova, of Brooklyn, for respondents 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 D. the property damaged and impaired as compared sion, Second Department. April 23, 1915.) 1 with its condition before taking. Otherwise, the 'matter of the application and petition 4 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. Etter Supp. 944. The discrepancy also in the assessments for benefits by which these respondents' praisal, etc.

for the appointment of commissioners of 99

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 Cozsouth 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 the order setting aside the report of the com- Appellate Division, First Department. Apron

LOWENSTEIN v. KOCH. (Supreme Court missioners.

30, 1915.) Action by C. Albert Lowepit.

against Lulu Koch. No opinion. Motion : LINDEMANN, Respondent, V. RICHTER,

leave to appeal (165 App. Div. 760, 152 N L. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- Supp. 500) granted; question certifed; orde: sion, First Department. April 9, 1915.)

filed.

Action by Katherine F. Lindemann, as executrix, etc., against Helena M. Richter. F. J. Sullivan, of New York City, for appellant. L. C. al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Fit

LOWINSON, Respondent, V. HILTON Ferguson, of New York City, for respondent. vision, First Depariment. No opinion. Judgment and order aflirmed, with Action by Oscar Lowinson against Joseph Hi

March 19, 1921 costs. Order filed.

ton and another. W. C. Low, of New York In re LITTLE. (Supreme Court, Appellate York City, for respondent.

City, for appellants. A. T. Scharps, of Nes Division, First Department.

No opinion. Or April 1, 1915.) der affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements In the matter of John T. Little. No opinion. without prejudice to a motion to compel plain 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 LUHMAN, Respondent, F. NEW YORK, T. sion, l'irst Department. March 20, 1915.) AC- & B. R. CO., Appellant.' (Supreme Court, Ap

[ocr errors]

pellate Division, Second Department. April McKAIGNEY, Respondent, v. TIFFANY, 16, 1915.) Action by William Luhman against appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the New York, Westchester & Boston Railway Second Department. March 19, 1915.) Action Company. No opinion. Judgment aflirmed, by James Mckaigney, an infant, by Marie Mewith costs, upon authority of Luhman v. New Kaigney, his guardian ad litem, against Charles York, Westchester & Boston Railroad Co., 163 M. Tiffany. 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. preme Court, Appellate Division. First De- | 737. partment. April 30, 1915.) Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Mike Lukanik against Mike Patovic. From an

MCKELVER, 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. so as to require an undertaking for the pay? | 19, 1915.) Action by Stephen McKeever against

W. ment of any judgment rendered against de- the New York Life Insurance Company. fendant. Abram S. Jatfer, of New York City, D. Reed, of New York City, for appellant. No for appellant.

opinion. Order athirmed, 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 ice 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. may ultimately recover against him. If such C. C. Marsh, of New York City, for respond

undertaking be not given within the time fix-ent. No opinion. Judgment and order afDimed, the order appealed from will be reversed, ürmed, 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 afirmed, with costs. Order filed.

damages are excessive, unless the plaintiff stip-
ulates to reduce the verdict to $2,500; in case

such stipulation is filed, the judgment is so
MCCARTHY, Appellant, v. CITY OF FUL- modified, and, as modified, judgment and order
TON, Respondent." (Supreme Court, Appellate alirmed, without costs.
Division, Fourth Department. March 10,
1915.)

HOWARD, J., votes for affirmance. Action by Josephine G. McCarthy against the City of Fulton. No opinion. Order affirmed, 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 CURIAN.

Order filed. See, Plaintiff's exceptions sus-fied, affirmed, without costs. 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 neglizent in furnishing a scaffold which (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, l'irst Dewas unsuitable and improper for the work partment. March 19, 1915.) Action by James which the plaintiff was required to do.

J. McLaughlin 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.
MEINERNEY REALTY CO., Appellant, v.
LANGSLOW, Respondent. (Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March MCLEAN, Appellant, v. BRONX PARK.
26, 1915.) Action by the Melnerney 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 shown in the moving papers did nt 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 dotas respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with the trust terminate necessarily on Juiz 3, 14:17 $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. Proceedings to settle his account as triste

should not be multiplied at the expense of tMCLEAN, Respondent, v. STUDEBAKER estate. The order is therefore reversed. Tit. BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant. . (No. $10 costs and disbursements, and resident's 7056.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, motion is denied, without prejudice to an First Department. April 23, 1915.) Appeal ceedings that may be instituted either be the from Trial Term, New York County. Action by trustee or by any of the beneficiaries ont William McLean against the Studebaker Bros. termination of the trust on July 5, 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 Departmen: William F. Purdy, of New York City, for re- | April 1, 1915.) In the matter of the Wache spondent.

tan Railway Company. No opinion. Apply PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- tion granted. Settle order on notice. See, .. ed, with costs. Order filed.

so, 163 App. Div. 895, 147 N. Y. Supp. 115 INGRAHAM, P. J. (dissenting). The plaintiff was not in the employ of the defendant, but in the employ of one who was working for the

MANION, Respondent, RICHELSON defendant under an independent contract. In

Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divithe course of this work he fell off a ladder not sion, Third Department. March 18, 1914 furnished by the defendant. The defendant Action by Antoine Manion, as administratas gave no directions as to how the work should etc., against Henry C. Richelson. So opuid. be done, and, so far as appears, had no knowl- Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, tiu 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. (Sort to have it unbolted at the time the plaintiff Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Depasikeit selected for cleaning it. I think there is not March 26, 1915.) Action by Enidena Varian. the slightest proof that the defendant was neg

as administratrix, etc., against the New York ligent, or that the accident resulted from any Telephone Company. No opinion. Motion fc lack of care of the defendant or its employés. leave to appeal (151 N. Y. Supp. 112S) 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. NEW TRINIMCNAMEE v. CHENOWETH et al. (two

DAD LAKÉ ASPHALT CO., Apellant. (8 cases.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, preme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartFirst Department. April 30, 1915.) Action by D. Martin against the New Trinidad Lake 4

March 12, 1915.)

Action by William Mary J. McNamee as executrix, etc., against Catherine R. Chenoweth and others. "No opin-phalt Company, L. L. Kellogg, of New Turk $10 costs, unless appellants comply with terms ment and orders affirmed, with costs. Order

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with City, for appellant. H. B. Johnson, of Net stated in order. Orders filed.

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 Department. April Q. Champlin. No opinion. Order of the Coun- 9, 1915.) Action by Sarah Martin against the ty Court of Westchester County reversed, with Smith Bros. Plumbing Company. No opinien

. $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion Motion to dismiss appeal denied, on mndithio to strike out and disallow the item of $15 that appellant perfect its appeal, place the cox 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 grant tice of trial.

ed, with $10 costs.

In re MAHAR. (Supreme Court, Appellate

MAKTINI v. BELL (Supreme Court

, 19 Division, Second Department. March 1915.) 'In the matter of the accounting by 1915.)

26; pellate Division, Third Department Mari Franklin W. Mahar, substituted trustee, etc., Joserb Bell. No opinion. Motion granted. 21:

Action by Caroline Martini against of Susannah A. Dickie, deceased,

less within 40 days the appellant serves print

: L'ER CURIAM. Assuming the regularity cf ed papers and pays $10 costs of motion: 1 the order appealed from, we think the circum-such be done, motion is denied, without costs

« 이전계속 »