페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

the Eastern Embroidery Works against Samuel | reduced, however, by the amount of $9,129.7€, Reitman and others, with two other cases. No which had been voluntarily relinquished by the opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. plaintiff appellant. As so modified, the judg.

ment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff apEAST 46TH STREET MILLINERY CO. v. pellant. This modification of the judgment ANDERSON AUCTION CO, (Supreme requires a reversal of several findings of fact Court, Appellate Division, First Department. made in favor of the defendant appellants, and January 15, 1915.) Action by the East 46th the finding by this court of several requests to Street Millinery Company against the Ander- find facts and conclusions of law. The order son Auction Company. No opinion. Applica- making such reversals and new findings should tion denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. be settled on notice. Settle order on notice be

fore Mr. Justice CARR. EDGAR, Appellant, v. FISH, Respondent. BURR, J., not voting. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 29, 1915.) Action by Max

EPSTEIN 7. MILLER. (Supreme Court, well Edgar against Stuyvesant Fish. D. J. Appellate Division, First Department. FebDowling, of New York City, for appellant. H. ruary 19, 1915.) Action by Joseph Epstein Taylor, of New York City, for respondent. No against Morris Miller. No opinion. Applicaopinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with tion denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1084.

EPSTEIN V. JOHN WANAMAKER, N. Y.,

et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO., First Department. January 15, 1915.) ACRespondent, v. MASON-SEAMAN TRANSP. tion by Annie Epstein against John WanaCO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate maker, New York, and others. No opinion. Division, First Department. February 26, Motion granted by directing the pleadings and 1915.) Action by the Electric Storage Battery notice of appeal to be printed and annexed to Company against the Mason-Seaman Transpor- the papers when printed by appellant Wanatation Company. W. L. Woodward, of New maker so that both appeals can be heard toYork City, for appellant. J. H. Shaffer, of gether. Settle order on notice. New York City, for respondent. No opinion, Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- ERLANGER v. SULLIVAN et al. (Suments. Order filed.

preme Court, Appellate Division, First De

partment. February 11, 1915.) Action by EMERY V. LANGEVIN et al. (Supreme Abraham L. Erlanger against Patrick H. SulCourt, Appellate Division, Second Department. livan and others. No opinion. Motion to disDecember 24, 1914.) Action by William N. miss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Order Emery against William Paschal Langevin and filed. another. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect his appeal, place the case on the January cal

ERNST, Appellant, v. TERMINAL CLEARendar, 1915, and be ready for argument when ING HOUSE ASS’N, Respondent. (Supreme reached; otherwise, motion granted, with costs. February 19, 1915.) Action by Irving L. Ernst,

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. In re EMMET. In re EMPIRE STATE as trustee, etc., against the Terminal Clearing SURETY CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- House Association. H. A. Heiser, of New York vision, First Department. January 15, 1915.) City, for appellant. C. E. Thorn, of New In the matter of William T. Emmet, superin- York City, for respondent. tendent, etc. In the matter of the Empire

PER CURIAM. Judgment (86 Misc. Rep. State Surety Company. No opinion. Motions 295, 149 N. Y. Supp. 181) affirmed, with costs. granted. Settle orders on notice. See, also, Order filed. 150 N. Y. Supp. 567.

INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.,

dissent. EMPIRE TRUST CO. v. COLEMAN et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. February 5, 1915.) Action by the

ETTLINGER v. KRAMER et al. (Supreme Empire Trust Company against Charks w. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Coleman, as executor and trustee, etc., of February 26, 1915.) Action by Elsie H. Ett: Charles Donohue, deceased, and others.

linger against Albert J. Kramer and others.

No opinion. Motion granted, unless appellant PER CURIAM. As to the question of inter- complies with terms stated in order. Order est upon the three separate mortgages involved

filed. in this action, we think the subject-matter is

See, also, 159 App. Div. 907, 144 N. Y. covered by the decision of the United States

Supp. 1115. Supreme Court in Brown v. Marion National Bank, 18 Sup. Ct. 390, 169 U. S. 416, 42 L. FAIRCHILD V. SCARSDALE ESTATES Ed. 801, and that the judgment below (85 et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Misc. Rep. 312, 147 N. Y. Supp. 740) should Second Department. January 8, 1915.) ACbe so modified as to provide interest at the tion by Josephine M. Fairchild against the legal rate of 6 per cent, on all three mortgages Scarsdale Estates and others. No opinion. Orfrom the date of the beginning of this action, der modified, by providing that the deposition viz., June 24, 1913; the principal sum to be I be printed as an appendix to the case, if ap

pellants prefer, and, as so modified, affirmed, , ary 15, 1915.) Action by William Farnum without costs. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1085; against William H. Harrison. No opinion. 151 N. Y. Supp. 1042.

Application granted. Order_signed. See, also,

S3 Misc. Rep. 424, 145 N. Y. Supp. 36. In re FARLEY, State Excise Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- FAY, Respondent, v. BUFFALO VOLKEpartment. January 15, 1915.) In the matter FREUND PRINTING CO., Appellant. (Suof the petition of William W. Farley, as State preme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartCommissioner of Excise, for an order revoking ment. February 11, 1915.) Action by James and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 8325, Fay against_the Buffalo Volkefreund Printing issued to Charles J. Volckening. No opinion. Company. W. C. Carroll, of Buffalo, for apOrder affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse pellant. B. Cowen, of New York City, for rements.

spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with

$10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. In re FARLEY, State Excise Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De Co., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di

TAY, Respondent, v. TRI-STATES PUB. partment. January 27, 1915.) In the matter of the petition of William W. Farley, as Com-Action by James Fay against the Tri-States

vision, First Department. February 11, 1915.) missioner of Excise of the state of New York, Publishing Company. for an order revoking and canceling liquor tax York City, for appellant.

A. R. Latson, of New certificate No. 16126, issued to Peter Jan- of New York City, for respondent.

G. H. D. Foster, hiewicz. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with-ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis

No opinout costs, upon stipulation filed.

bursements. Order filed. In re FARLEY, State Excise Com’r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De

FEDERMAN, Appellant, v. RIEGER, Repartment. February 19, 1915.) In the mat- Second Department. February 19, 1915.). Ac

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ter of the petition of William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, for an order tion by Philip Federman against 'Carl Rieger. revoking and canceling liquor' tax certificate

PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, by addNo. 6510, issued to John Darmstadt.

ing at the foot thereof a provision directing PER CURIAM. Order aflirmed, with $10

that there be credited and applied thereon all

moneys paid on the judgment in Lo Re v. costs and disbursements.

Federman, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1127, decided hereRICH, J., not sitting.

with, as stated in the conclusion of law at

folios 290 and 291 of the record on appeal, and, In re FARLEY, State Excise Com'r. (Su as so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 3, 1915.) In the matter of FENSTERER V. PRESSURE LIGHTING the petition of William W. Farley, as State CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Commissioner of Excise, for an order revoking Department. February 19, 1915.) Action by and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 16410, Walter J. Fensterer against the Pressure Lightissued to Charles Marshall and transferred to ing Company. No opinion. Application denied, Arthur Helmer. No opinion. Appeal dismiss- with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 85 ed, unless appellant file and serve printed pa- | Misc. Rep. 621, 149 N. Y. Supp. 49. pers within 20 days.

FINNIE, Respondent, NEW YORK In re FARLEY, State Excise Com'r. (Su-CENT. & H. R. R. CO.,' Appellant. (Supreme preme Court, Appellate Division, Third De Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Departpartment. March 3, 1915.) In the matter of ment. March 3, 1915.) Action by Bridget E. the petition of William W. Farley, as State Finnie, as administratrix, etc., against the New Commissioner of Excise, for an order revoking York Central & Hudson River Railroad Comand canceling liquor tax certificate No. 23482, rany. No opinion. Judgment and order afissued to Louisa Hill.

firmed, with costs. PER CURIAM. Final order reversed on law and facts, and application granted, without

FISCHEL V. FRIEDLANDER. (Supreme costs; the finding of fact of which the court Court, Appellate Division, First Department. disapproves being that the respondent did not make false answers in her application for the January 15, 1915.) Action by Alexander Fisch

el against Mayer Friedlander. No opinion. liquor tax certificate.

Motion granted, unless appellant complies with

terms stated in order. Order filed. FARLEY, State Excise Com'r, Respondent, v. BUCHMULLER et al., Appellants. (Su- FISH, Appellant, v. ISELIN, Respondent. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 19, 1915.) Action by Wil-partment. January 29, 1915.) Action by J. liam W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Ex- Albert Fish against Adrian Iselin, Jr. H. W. cise, against Charles Buchmuller and another. Hayward, of New York City, for appellant. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. J. W. Tobey, of New York City, for respond

ent. No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 FARNUM v. HARRISON. (Supreme Court, costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Appellate Division, First Department. Janu- 'with $10 costs. Order filed.

V.

V.

FISHER V. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. ond Department. Feb. 11, 1915.) Action by
CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Bertha Frank against Moses Frank.
Department. January 29, 1915.) Action by PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with
Elizabeth Fisher, as executrix, against the New costs. See, also, 160 App. Div. 598, 144 N. Y.
York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com Supp. 1116.
pany. No opinion. Application denied, with
$10 costs.

BURR, J., not voting.
Order filed.
FISHMAN BAUMSTEIN.

FRANK, Respondent, v. HOWE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeJanuary 15, 1915.) Action by Isaac Fishman Frank against Charles M. Howe.

partment. January 15, 1915.) Action by Adam against William Baumstein. No opinion. Ap-Ernst, of New York City, for appellant. A.

W. E. plication granted. Order signed. See, also,

Frank, of New York City, for respondent. No 150 N. Y. Supp. 101.

opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and

disbursements. Order filed. FLANAGAN et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 29, 1915.)

FRENCH, Appellant, v. FRENCH, RespondAction by James Flanagan and another against ent. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, Egbert D. Thomas.

Fourth Department. January 27, 1915.) ACPER CURIAM. Judgment for specific per- tion by Elizabeth French against Benjamin F. formance affirmed, with costs.

The learned French. No opinion. Motion granted, and apSpecial Term has found that the judgment in peal dismissed, with costs. See, also, 151 N. Y. foreclosure in the action of the Columbus Trust Supp. 1116. Company against the heirs at law of Lula P. McGarry and others is conclusive upon all the

FRENCH, Appellant, v. FRENCH, Respondparties thereto, and barred the equity of re

ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, demption. This conclusion is well sustained Fourth Department. January 29, 1915.). Acby the judgment roll, and by the evidence tion by Elizabeth French against Benjamin F. aliunde from the Surrogate's Court of Orange French. No opinion. Order dismissing appeal county. That record of letters of administra- vacated, and application to withdraw motion tion on the estate of Lula P. McGarry to a granted, upon stipulation filed. See, also, 151 creditor as administrator is followed by the N. Y. Supp. 1116. administrator's subsequent receipt of the surplus money in this foreclosure, and its distribution among the deceased's creditors. As proof FRIEDEBERG, Respondent, v. CHAPMAN of death there was, therefore, the inference et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate from the exact identity of names (16 Cyc. 1055), Division, Fourth Department. January 29, confirmed by the deceased being described as 1915.) Action by Theodore Friedeberg against in the town of New Windsor, where the mort- Levi S. Chapman and another. No opinion. gaged land was situated, together with the sur- | Judgment affirmed, with costs. rogate's subsequent disposition of the proceeds of this mortgaged property. The other objec FRUEAUFF et al., Respondents, v. MOORE tions to dispensing with notice of the applica- et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate tion for the appointment of a guardian for the Division, First Department. February 11, unknown heirs, and to the form of the order 1915.) Action by Charles A. Frueauff and anof reference, do not affect the judgment, and other against George Moore and another. P. are therefore unavailable to this defendant. Bonynge, of New York City, for appellants.

W. B. Robinson, of New York City, for respondFOGEL, Respondent v. NEW YORK RYS. ents. No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate costs and disbursements, and motion denied, Division, First Department. February 5, 1915.) with $10 costs, on Pace v. Amend, 164 App. Div. Action by Jacob Fogel against the New York | 206, 149 N. Y. Supp. 736. Order filed. Railways Company. J. P. Brennan, of New York City, for appellant. A. Hutter, of New FULTON, Respondent, RICHMOND York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judg- | COUNTY SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF ment and order affirmed, with costs. Order CRUELTY TO CHILDREN, Appellant, et al. filed.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 22, 1915.) Action by

Edward J. Fulton against the Richmond County FOLLERT v. ERIKSON et al. (Supreme Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Chile Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. dren, impleaded with others. January 22, 1915.) Action by Anton Follert, as

PER CURIAM. Motion for leave to appeal administrator, etc., against John Erikson and the City of New York. No opinion. Judgment fied, and order signed.

to the Court of Appeals granted, question certiand order unanimously affirmed, with costs. See, also, 156 App. Div. 372, 141 N. Y. Supp.

JENKS, P. J., takes no part. 428.

In re FURLONG. (Supreme Court, Appel

late Division, Second Department. December FRANK, Respondent, v. FRANK, Appel-24, 1914.) In the matter of the application of lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-'Henry J. Furlong for reinstatement as a mem

[ocr errors]

ers.

ber of the bar. No opinion. Matter referred Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. to Hon. William D. Dickey, official referee, for January 22, 1915.) Action by Mary J. Gardner action and report to this court; and the offer against the New York Consolidated Card Comof the Bar Association is submitted to him for pany. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with such action thereon as he deems proper.

costs. GABEL, Respondent, v. HASTINGS HOMES CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate STATE RYS., Åppellant. (Supreme Court, Ap

GARRICOTT, Respondent, v. NEW YORK Division, Second Department. February 5, 1915.) 'Action by George Gabel against the 1915.) Action' by Sam Garricott against the

pellate Division, Fourth Department. March 3, Hastings Homes Company. No opinion. Judg. New York State Railways. ment affirmed, with costs. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1117.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm

ed, with costs. GABEL, Respondent, v. HASTINGS HOMES the court erred in charging the jury as matter

KRUSE, P. J., dissents, upon the ground that CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate of law that the defendant was guilty of an asDivision, Second Department.

February 5, sault. 1915.) Action by George Gabel against the Hastings Homes Company. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. GEIGER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK TELSee, also, 161 App. Div. 889, 145 N. Y. Supp. EPHONE CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, 1124; 151 N. Y. Supp. 1117.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March

3, 1915.) Action by Charles Geiger against the GAFFNEY, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW New York Telephone Company. No opinion. YORK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel- Judgment affirmed, with costs. late Division, Second Department. January 29, 1915.) Action by Rose A. Gaffney against the GEORGE, Appellant, V. JOHNSON et al., City of New York.

Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new sion, Second Department. December 24, 1914.) trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the Action by Mary E. George, individually and as ground that plaintiff's evidence presented a executrix, etc., against Margaret J. Johnson, inquestion of fact, which required submission of dividually and as administratrix, etc., and 'oththe case to the jury.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal JENKS, P. J., and STAPLETON, J., dissent. (from 149 N. Y. Supp. 1083) to the Court of

Appeals denied. GAGE, Respondent, V. GAGE, Appellant.

GEORGE V. MURRAY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second

(Supreme Court, Department. February 5, 1915.) Action by

Janu

Appellate Division, First Department. Jennie Gage against James B. Gage. No opin- ary 15, 1915.) Action by Lennie L. George ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis- against William R. Murray. No opinion, Apbursements.

plication denied, with $10 costs. Order sign-
ed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 503, 87 Misc.

Rep. 175.
GALE V. CORTLAND COUNTY TRAC-
TION CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, Third Department. January 6, 1915.)

GEORGE W. PECK CO. v. HAGAMAN et Action by Cora ). Gale, as administratrix, I al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth etc., of Harry Gale, deceased, against the Cort Department. January 6, 1915.) Action by the land County Traction Company and another. George W. Peck Company against Theodore C. No opinion. Motion denied. See, also, 149 N. Hagaman and others. No opinion. Appeal disY. Supp. 1083.

missed, without costs, upon stipulation filed. GALLAGAN, Respondent, V. PITTSBURG

GERBER STATE BANK. (Supreme CONTRACTING CO., Appellant. (Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 29, 1915.) Action by Gustav Gerber February 19, 1915.) Action by Patrick Gal- against the State Bank. No opinion. Applicalagan, as administrator, etc., of John Galagan, tion granted. Order signed. deceased, against the Pittsburg Contracting Company.

GERBINO V. GREENHUT-SIEGEL COOPPER CURIAM. Motions denied.

ER CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PUTNAM, J., not voting.

First Department. February 11, 1915.)

tion by Charles Gerbino against the GreenhutGALLAGHER v. BRUNNER. (Supreme

Siegel Cooper Company. No opinion. Motion Court, Appellate Division, First Department. granted. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. January 15, 1915.) Action by Joseph Gallagher Supp. 1117. against Jane L. Brunner. No opinion. Motion granted, with 10 costs. Order filed.

GERBINO V. GREENHUT-SIEGEL COOP

ER CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, GARDNER, Appellant, V. NEW YORK First Department. February 11, 1915.) AcCONSOL. CARD CO., Respondent. (Supreme' tion by Charles Gerbino against the GreenhutGraef and another against the Trumbull Motor & Electric Company.

V.

Ac

Siegel Cooper Company. No opinion. Motion GLOVER v. NATIONAL BANK OF CONfor stay granted. Settle order on notice. See, MERCE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dirision, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1117.

First Department. February 26, 1915.) Action

by Laura Glover against the National Bank of In re GIBSON, (Supreme Court, Appellate Commerce. No opinion. Motion for exten. Division, First Department. January 29, 1915.) sion of time granted, on condition that papers In the matter of William Gibson, deceased. No are filed and case ready for argument on Mareb opinion. Motion granted. Question certified. 16th. Settle order on notice. See, also, 156 Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 459. App. Div. 247, 141 N. Y. Supp. 409. GILLETT. Appellant, v. BRISCOE & LOCK

GODDARD, Respondent, v. BIGELOW, ApENGINEERING CO., Respondent. (Supreme

pellant. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Second Department. February 5, 1915.) AC

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, February 26, 1915.) Action by Charles W. Gil- tion by Charles H. Goddard against Warren lett against the Briscoe & Lock Engineering

Bigelow. Company. D. C. Muhleman, of New York City, for appellant. F. H. Mills, of New York action is stated, and in our opinion it is an

PER CURIAM. We think but one cause of City, for respondent. No opinion. Order reversed with $10 costs and disbursements, and action for assault, and not for trespass. Ormotion denied, without costs, on the ground that der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. the bill of particulars served pending the motion is sufficient. Order filed.

GOODENOUGH v. WOOD HARMON WAR.

RANTY CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiGIMBERNAT, Respondent, V. GIMBER- vision, First Department. January 15, 1915.) NAT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Action by Elizabeth Goodenough against the Division, First Department. January 15, 1915.) Wood Harmon Warranty Company. No opinAction by Ruth M. Gimbernat against Jules R. ion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order Gimbernat. P. Carpenter, of New York City, filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1088. for appellant. L. Ogust, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order modified, as stated in order, and, as modified, affirmed, with spondents.' (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

GOULD, Appellant, v. GOULD et al., Reout costs. Order filed.

First Departinent. January 15, 1915.) Action

by George J. Gould against Howard Gould and GINSBERG V. TRIANGLE WAIST CO. another. R. B. Knowles, of New York City, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- for appellant. W. L. Marshall, of New York partment. February 26, 1915.) Action by City, for respondents. No opinion. Order reHenrietta Ginsberg against the Triangle Waist versed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and Company. No opinion. Motion granted, with motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. $10 costs. Order filed.

GOURD v. HEALY. _(Supreme Court, ApGINSBERG V. TRIANGLE WAIST CO. pellate Division, First Department. February (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- íl, 1915.) Action by Henry E. Gourd against partment. February 26, 1915.) Action by Isi- | Thomas Healy. No opinion. Motion denied, dor Ginsberg against the Triangle Waist Com- with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. pany. No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 Y. Supp. 1006. costs. Order filed.

GLOBE WOOLEN CO., Appellant, v. UTI

GRAEF et al., Respondents, v. TRUMBULL CA GAS & ELECTRIC CO., Respondent. (Su- MOTOR CAR CO., . Appellant. (Supreme preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. partment. January 6, 1915.) Action by the

February 26, 1915.) Action by Ernest W. Globe Woolen Company against the Utica Gas Car Company. J. A. Gray, of New York City,

for appellant. A. B. Hano, of New York City, PER CURIAM. It appearing that the jus- for respondents. No opinion. Order modified, tices qualified to sit in this appeal are equally by reducing attachment to $3,500, and, as so divided and unable to render a decision herein, modified, aflirmed, without costs. "Settle order the appeal is transferred to the Appellate Divi

on notice. sion, Third Department, to be there heard and determined, pursuant to section 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See, also, 151 App. Div. In re GRADE CROSSING COM’RS OF 184, 136 N. Y. Supp. 24; 151 N. Y. Supp. 1118. CITY OF BUFFALO. (Supreme Court, AppelMERRELL, J., not sitting.

late Division, Fourth Department. January 6,

1915.) In the matter of the application of the GLOBE WOOLEN CO. v. UTICA GAS & Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of ELECTRIC CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Buffalo for the appointment of commissioners Division, Third Department. March 3, 1915.) to ascertain the compensation to be paid to the Action by the Globe Woolen Company against owners, etc., of lands claimed to be injured by the Utica Gas & Electric Company. No opin- change of grade, etc., and claimed to be owned ion. Motion granted. See, also, 151 N. Y. by Lila G. Dwyer and others. Proceeding No. Supp. 1118.

99. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.

« 이전계속 »