(123 N.E.) a bodily injury through accidental means that PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, resulted in his death directly, independently on authority of Matter of Sweeting v. Ameriand exclusively of all other causes; whether can Knife Co., 226 N. Y. 199, 123 N. E. 82. four consecutive yearly renewal premiums of said policy were paid in advance, and whether notice of death and proof of loss were furnished as required by the policy. Walter A. Chambers, of Glens Falls, for appellant. C. E. Fitzgerald and James McPhillips, both of Glens Falls, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. MCLAUGHLIN, J., not voting. HISCOCK, C. J., and CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CHASE and HOGAN, JJ., vote to remit to Industrial Commission for further hearing. VENNER, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 21, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (177 App. Div. 296, 164 N. Y. Supp. 626), entered March 14, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by In re VANDERBILT'S ESTATE. (Court of the court on trial at Special Term. The ac Appeals of New York. April 29, 1919.) Ap- tion was brought for the purpose of preventpeal, by permission, from an order of the Ap-ing and, so far as accomplished, of undoing pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the a consolidation (agreement executed April 29, First Judicial Department (184 App. Div. 661, 1914) of the New York Central & Hudson Riv172 N. Y. Supp. 511), entered December 27, er Railroad Company, whose railroad began 1918, which unanimously affirmed an order of at New York City and ended at Buffalo, with the New York County Surrogate's Court as- the Lake Shore & Michigan Central Railway sessing a transfer tax upon the estate of Al- Company, whose line began at Buffalo and fred G. Vanderbilt, deceased. The decedent ended at Chicago and other Western points, by his will made provision for payment to his and of nine other railroad companies owning widow of an amount due her by the terms of branch lines, all of them together representan antenuptial agreement. The question was ing a capitalization of over $900,000,000, which whether said amount was subject to a trans- consolidation had been approved by all the fer tax. Schuyler C. Carlton and Lafayette Public Service and Public Utilities CommisB. Gleason, both of New York City, for ap- sions whose approval was required, and by pellant. Roy C. Gasser and Henry B. Ander- the Interstate Commerce Commission. The son, both of New York City, for respondents. basis of the plaintiff, appellant's attack was PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. that the consolidation was in violation of the HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, federal Anti-Trust Acts (Act July 2, 1890, c. CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and AN- 647, 26 Stat. 209; Act Oct. 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 DREWS, JJ., concur. Stat. 730), and various constitutional provisions and acts of the states through which the railroads of the consolidated company extend, forbidding the consolidation of parallel and competing lines of railroad, and forbidVAUGHN, Respondent, v CLARE KNIT-ding the creation of monopolies. Elijah N. TING CO., Inc., et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 8, 1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (172 N. Y. Supp. 924), entered November 19, 1918, affirming an award of the State Industrial Commission made under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67). The award included an allowance for facial disfigurement, as permitted by subdivision 3 of section 15 of said statute. Defendant contended that the statute is unconstitutional, in that it assesses damages without the right of a trial by jury, in addition to providing comVER DINE, Respondent, v. JOHNCOX, Appensation for disability; that it is contrary to pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. the Constitution of the United States and to April 8, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the the Constitution of the state of New York, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the in that it takes property without due process Fourth Judicial Department (177 App. Div. of law; and that the Compensation Law of the 952, 164 N. Y. Supp. 1117), entered April 3, state of New York being a compulsory act, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of plaincompensation cannot be awarded for disability tiff entered upon a verdict. The action was and additional compensation for damages for to recover for injuries to plaintiff's horse disfigurement in violation of the Constitution through its being struck by defendant's auof the United States and the Constitution of tomobile while being driven along a road in the state of New York. William H. Foster, Ontario Center, Wayne county. The only of Syracuse, for appellants. Charles D. New-point raised on appeal was that the verdict ton, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of was a compromise and was not based on the counsel), for respondent. evidence. J. S. Albright, of Rochester, for ap Zoline, of New York City, for appellant. Wal- PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. BACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and pellant. Clyde W. Knapp, of Lyons, for re- [sion of the Supreme Court in the Second Juspondent. VETAULT, Respondent, v. KENNEDY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 8, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (178 App. Div. 228, 165 N. Y. Supp. 203), entered May 29, 1917, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action was to recover for merchandise, labor and material alleged to have been furnished defendant by plaintiff at her request. The answer consisted of a general denial and a separate defense setting up the statute of limitations. Defendant contended that the claim should have been made against her husband and not against her. The referee held that the defendant was bound by the acts of her husband, who in the transactions covered by the complaint was her agent and that payments on account had taken the case out of the statute of limitations. See, also, 223 N. Y. 556, 119 N. E. 1083. Frank A. Gaynor and John Thomas Smith, both of New York City, for appellant. Harry G. Stephens, of Easthampton, L. I., for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. dicial Department (182 App. Div. 926, 168 N. Y. Supp. 1133), entered February 26, 1918, which modified, and affirmed as modified, an order of the Kings County Surrogate's Court opening a former decree settling the accounts of the executors of Charlotte Barnett, deceased, and restating said accounts, so as to surcharge said executors with the amount of a legacy by the terms of the will payable to the petitioner herein when she should arrive at the age of 21 years, but, as shown by said accounts, paid to the petitioner's father in her infancy. Alexander S. Bacon, of New York City, for appellant. John D. Armstrong, of Brooklyn, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CRANE, J., not voting. WESTERN NEW YORK WATER CO., Respondent, v. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 20, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (176 App. Div. 944, 162 N. Y. Supp. 1149), entered February 23, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The action was brought for the purpose of obtaining a judgment permanently restraining Judgment affirmed, with and enjoining the defendants from continuing HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT, Respondent, v. WHITE et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 22, 1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (172 N. Y. Supp. 924), entered December 6, 1918, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for an order amending nunc pro tunc as of April 8, 1918, a previous order granting an injunction restraining the defendants from using the public highways of the plaintiff with and by an automobile truck, carting filling material to the property of the defendant White, the hauling being done by the defendant Miele, because it alleged such use injured the surface of the highway. Michael J. Tierney, of New Rochelle, for appellants. Clarence De Witt Rogers, of New York City, for respondent. to discharge the wash water effluent from its Robert PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ.. concur. WIKOFF, Respondent, v. NEW AMSTEKDAM CASUALTY CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 8, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (177 App. Div. 951, 164 N. Y. Supp. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and AN-1118), entered March 30, 1917, affirming a DREWS, JJ., concur. In re WEED et al. In re BARNETT. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 3, 1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Divi judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover upon a policy of accident insurance. The issue tendered by the defense presented the inquiry whether or not the decedent violated the following clause of the policy: "If the as (123 N.E.) sured shall sustain any loss covered hereby WINTER, Appellant, v. PETER DOELGER while in an occupation classed by the company BREWING CO., Inc., Respondent. (Court of as more hazardous than that stated in the said Appeals of New York. March 21, 1919.) Apschedule, or while doing an act or thing per- peal, by permission, from a judgment, entered taining to any occupation so classed, except February 27, 1917, upon an order of the Apordinary duties about his residence or while pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the engaged in recreation, this policy shall not be First Judicial Department (175 App. Div. 796, forfeited thereby, but the liability of the com- 162 N. Y. Supp. 469), reversing a determinapany hereunder shall be only for the amount tion of the Appellate Term, which reversed a of insurance that the premium paid would pur- judgment of the Municipal Court of the City chase in such more hazardous class, accord- of New York in favor of defendant, and affirming to the table of rates and classification of ing said Municipal Court judgment. The acrisks filed with the insurance department of tion was to recover for personal injuries althe state wherein this policy is issued or de- leged to have been sustained by plaintiff livered prior to the occurrence of the in- through the negligence of defendant, his emjury for which claim is made." It was estab- ployer. The complaint was dismissed upon lished by the evidence that the assured was the ground that the plaintiff had a complete killed by the explosion of a stick of dynamite remedy under the Workmen's Compensation in his hands which was being used in the ex- Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67). Anthony J. Ernest, cavation of a well. James Coupe, of Utica, for John J. McBride, and Walter A. Swett, all of appellant. Almet Reed Latson, of New York New York City, for appellant. Frank J. City, for respondent. O'Neill, of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE and MCLAUGHLIN, JJ., dissent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. END OF CASES IN VOL. 123 |