페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commissioner, , Steers, as President of the Borough of Brooketc.

lyn. No opinion. Orders affirmed, with costs. PER CURIAM. The motion was granted as to the determination upon the facts, but not to

PEOPLE ex rel. RODRIGUES V. WOODS. change the statement as to Mr. Justice Carr. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeSee Warn v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 163 N. partment. January 15, 1915.) Proceeding by Y. 525, 57 N. E. 742; Wangner v. Grimm, 169 the People of the State of New York, on the N. Y. 421, 427, 62 N. E. 569. See, also, 151 relation of Jas. E: C. Rodrigues, against Arthur N. Y. Supp. 1138.

Woods, as Commissioner. No opinion. Motion

granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. PEOPLE ex rel. MULDOON, Relator, v. PEOPLE ex rel. RUDD, Appellant, WALDO, Police Com'r, Respondent. (Supreme CROPSEY, Dist. Atty., Respondent. (SuCourt, Appellate Division, Second Department. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeJanuary 15, 1915.) Proceeding by the People partment. December 24, 1914.) Proceeding by of the State of New York, on the relation of the People of the State of New York, on the Anthony F. Muldoon, against Rhinelander relation of Stephen A. Rudd, against James C. Waldo, as Police Commissioner of the City of Cropsey, as District Attorney of the County of New York.

Kings. PER CURIAM. Determination annulled, PER CURIAM. Final order affirmed, with and writ sustained, with $50 costs and disburse. $10 costs and disbursements. See, also, 163 ments. There is no evidence of any neglect of App. Div. 910, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1135. duty.

CARR, J., not voting. BURR and THOMAS, JJ., vote to confirm.

PEOPLE ex rel. TAYLOR v. WALDO, Po

lice Com'r. PEOPLE ex rel. NOBLE v. ROMSEN et al., sion, Second Department. December 31, 1914.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate DiviBoard of Water Com'rs, Respondents. , (Su- Proceeding by the People of the State of New preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De York, on the relation of John M. Taylor, partment. January 8, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the sioner of the City of New York.

against Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commis

No opinion. relation of Franklin P. Noble, against John F. Determination confirmed, and writ dismissed, Romsen and others, constituting the Board of with $50 costs and disbursements. Water Commissioners of the Roslyn Water District, etc.

PEOPLE ex rel. WHITE, Respondent, v. PER CURIAM. Motions in so far as they PRENDERGAST, Comptroller, et al., Appelseek a reargument denied. Motions in so far lants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, as they seek leave to appeal to the Court of Second Department. January 8, 1915.). ProAppeals denied. Motions to resettle granted, ceeding by the People of the State of New and orders amended, so that it shall appear York, on the relation of Charles F. White, that the decisions were as a matter of law, against William A. Prendergast, as Comptroller, and not as a matter of discretion. Settle order etc., and another. No opinion. Order aflirmed, on notice before Mr. Justice RICH.

with $10 costs and disbursements. PEOPLE ex rel. O'FARRELL V. WALDO, PEOPLE ex rel. WINTERS V. EATON et Police Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third vision, First Department. January 29, 1915.) Department. January 15, 1915.) Proceeding Proceeding by the People of the State of New by the People of the State of New York, on the York, on the relation of Valerian J. O'Farrell, relation of Bryan L. Winters, against Edward against Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commis- W. Eaton and others, individually and as memsioner, etc. No opinion. Motion to dismiss bers of the Board of Supervisors in and for writ granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. the County of Tioga, and Fred G. Horton,

Clerk of said Board of Supervisors. No opinPEOPLE ex rel. PAIGE, Relator, v. WAL- ion. Motion denied, on the 'ground that the DO, Police Com'r, Respondent. (Supreme

court has no jurisdiction to grant the writ askCourt, Appellate Division, Second Department. ed for. January 15, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of PEOPLE'S NAT. BANK OF BROOKLYN, George F. Paige, against Rhinelander Waldo, IN NEW YORK, Respondent, V. MANNE as Police Commissioner of the City of New SCHMIDT, Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, York. No opinion. Determination confirmed, Appellate Division, Second Department. Janand writ dismissed, with $50 costs and disburse- uary 29, 1915.) Action by the People's Nationments.

al Bank of Brooklyn, in New York, against

Lucia H. Manneschmidt and Jacob MannePEOPLE ex rel. RILEY, Respondent, v. schmidt, Jr. No opinion. Judgment affirmed,

with costs. STEERS, Borough President, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 22, 1915.) Proceeding by In re PEOPLE'S TRUST CO. (Supreme the People of the State of New York, on the Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. relation of George Riley, against Alfred E. | December 24, 1914.) Appeal from Surrogate's

Court, Kings County. Judicial settlement of PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, upon the account of the People's Trust Company, questions of fact as well as of law, by striking one of the executors of William C. Roberts, de- therefrom so much thereof as enjoins defendceased. From part of a decree of the Kings ants from permitting their premises and buildCounty Surrogate's Court settling the account ings so to be used that loud and disturbing (79 Misc. Rep. 595, 141 N. Y. Supp. 201), noises proceed therefrom, and by striking from George S. Hice, one of the executors, appeals. said judgment that portion thereof which Reversed. Edmund L. Mooney, of New York awards to plaintiff the sum of $240 for rental City (Frederick A. Card, of New York City, damages, and, as so modified, judgment affirmed, on the brief), for appellant. James M. Gray, without costs. The twentieth and twenty. of Brooklyn, for respondents.

eighth finding of fact are reversed and set aside, PER CURIAM. The evidence shows with upon the grounds that said findings, and each requisite clearness that Roberts, fully compe- of them, are unsupported by the evidence, and tent to do so, executed the paper at its date, are contrary to said evidence and the weight whereby the shares of stock were transferred thereof. to Hice upon a condition since performed. The instrument itself, bearing the genuine signature of Roberts, speaks strongly for its own. TOR & TRANSFER CO., Respondent., (Su

PFEIFFER, Appellant, v. IRON ELEVAlidity, while the testimony of Barnes, McNeil, and Baker forcefully confirm it. The state preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De. ments of other witnesses, and, above all, the partment. January 27, 1915.) Action by Ida recital in the instrument of a note not then ex

Pfeiffer, as administratrix, etc., against the Iron isting, which either then or later was drawn in Elevator & Transfer Company. No opinion. a different form—the form in which Roberts Motion for leave to appeal (from 164 App. Div. and Hice desired it to be--and which was not 966, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1106) to Court of Apchanged to coincide with the recital earlier peals denied, with $10 costs. than January 18th, as shown by Hice's letter of that date and of the day following, bring to our attention matters of grave import, and have sT. RY. CO.' OF BUFFALO et al., Respoud

PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. CROSSTOWN been studied and weighed. But the explanation by Hice in association with the transfer itself, Fourth Department. March 3, 1915.) Action

ents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and the supporting evidence of men whose tes by Margaret E. Phillips, as administratrix, etc., the case free from the doubt that would re against the Crosstown Street Railway Company quire a rejection of the claim. The decree of of Buffalo and another. the surrogate should be reversed, without costs,

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmand judgment entered for the claimant, in aced, with costs. cordance with the findings as amended in this KRUSE, P. J., and ROBSON, J., dissent. court. The seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth See decision in same case on former appeal, refindings of fact, and third conclusion of law, ported in 157 App. Div. 876, 143 N. Y. Supp. are reversed. Findings of fact proposed by 183. George S. Hice, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 32, and conclusions of law Nos. 1 and 2, are found.

PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. FLAGLER et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

sion, · Fourth Department. January 6, 1915.) PERRON, Respondent, v. PERRON, Appel- Action by William E. Phillips against Lydia lant. (Supreme CourtAppellate Division, C. Flagler and others. No opinion. For opin. First Department. February 26, 1915.) Ac-ion below, see 82 Misc. Rep. 500, 143 N. y. tion by Mary F. Perron against Joseph N. Supp. 798. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Perron. R. A. Inch, of New York City, for appellant. H. A. Heydt, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, In re PHIPPS' ESTATE. (Supreme Court, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Jan

uary 29, 1915.) In the matter of the estate of PERRY, Respondent, V. BARRETT MFG. William W. Phipps, deceased. CO., Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appel

PER CURIAM. Decree modified, so as to late Division, Second Department. December construe the will to include in the homestead 31, 1914.) Action by Eugene A. Perry against the tenant place, so called, and, as so modified, the Barrett Manufacturing Company and oth-affirmed, with costs to all parties payable out

No opinion. Order reversed, without of the estate. costs, and matter remitted to the Special Term RORSON and FOOTE, JJ., dissent, and vote to pass upon that part of the motion which for affirmance. seeks to make the answer more definite and certain.

PINTLER, Respondent, V. NEW YORK

CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme PETEKOFSKY, Respondent, 1. PELLIS-Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. SIER et al., Appellants. _(Supreme Court, Ap- March 3, 1915.) Action by Hattie J. Pintler pellate Division, Second Department. January against the New York Central & Hudson River 15, 1915.). Action by Sarah Petekofsky against Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment af. Anthony Pellissier and others.

firmed, with costs.

ers.

v.

In re PLATT. (Supreme Court, Appellate | No opinion. Motion granted, unless appellant Division, Second Department. January 8, complies with terms stated in order. Order 1915.) In the matter of the application of Clar- filed. ence N. Platt for a peremptory writ of mandamus, etc., directed to Patrick A. Whitney, as Commissioner of Correction, etc. No opinion.

RANDALL, Respondent, y; BEACH, AppelOrder affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- | lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec

ond Department. January 8, 1915.) Action ments,

by Minnie E. Randall against Oren M. Beach,

Jr. No opinion. Judgment and order unanPOSS, Respondent, POSS, Appellant. imously affirmed, with costs. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 29, 1915.) Action by RANDOLPH v. FIELD. (Supreme Court, Frank R. Poss against Lillian K. Poss. G. G. | Appellate Division, First Department. Feb Battle, of New York City, for appellant. L.

ruary 11, 1915.) Action by Mary Randolph M. Hart, of New York City, for respondent. No against Armstead W. Field. No opinion. Moopinion. Judgment and order affirmed. Order tion granted. Questions certified. Order filed. filed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1107.

See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 822. POWLOWSKI, Respondent, v. NEW YORK REES et al., Respondents, V. TRINITY CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Appellant. (SuCourt, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth DeMarch 3, 1915.) Action by Louis Powlowski, partment. January 29, 1915.) Action by Glen an infant, etc., against the New York Central & H. Rees and another against the Trinity PresHudson River Railroad Company.

byterian Church. No opinion. Judgment and PER CURIAM. Judgment and order revers- order affirmed, with costs. ed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that the verdict is REHL, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appelagainst the weight of the evidence upon the lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, question of the defendant's negligence and the Fourth Department. January 29, 1915.) ACplaintiff's contributory negligence, that the tion by Pauline Rehl, as administratrix, etc., weight of the evidence supports the claim that against the Erie Railroad Company. No opinthe plaintiff attempted to board the train while ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disit was in motion, and that he was injured bursements. through his own carelessness. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1107.

REICHARDT V. RAYMOND et al. (Su

preme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartPRINCE v. REISER. (Supreme Court, Ap-ment. January 29, 1915.) Action by Hannah pellate Division, First Department. January | Reichardt against Max Raymond and others. 29, 1915.) Action by Henry Prince against Ely No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. J. Reiser. No opinion. Motion denied, with Order signed. Motion denied, with $10 costs. $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Order signed. Supp. 1107.

REID et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF PURCELL, Appellant, v. BURROUGHS et | BABYLON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apal.Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate pellate Division, Second Department. FebruDivision, Fourth Department. March 3, 1915.) ary 5, 1915.) Action by Willard P. Reid and Action by Kathryn S. Purcell against Rosalia another against the Village of Babylon. Burroughs and others. No opinion. Judgment PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 affirmed, with costs.

costs and disbursements.

BURR, J., not voting. PURTILL V. COAKLEY et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. REID v. WUERFEL et al. (Supreme Court, January 13, 1915.) In the matter of the appli- Appellate Division, First Department. Febcation of Edward A. Purtill for a writ of man-ruary 26, 1915.) Action by James P. Reid, as damus against John B. Coakley and others. administrator, against Gustave A. Wuerfel and No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs. another. No opinion. Motion for stay denied.

Settle order on notice. QUINLAN v. CITY OF NEW YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart

REILLY, Respondent, v. BARRETT, Apment. January 15, 1915.) Action by William

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, J. Quinlan against the City of New York. No Second Department. December 24, 1914.) ACopinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Or / tion by William F. Reilly against William M. der filed.

Barrett, as President, etc. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal (150 N. Y. Supp. 1108)

to the Court of Appeals denied. RAFTERY V. CARTER et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. RENOWN PAPER BOX CO. v. TOPILOW January 15, 1915.) Action by George A. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Raftery against Grace H. Carter and others, I First Department. January 15, 1915.) Action

[ocr errors]

by the Renown Paper Box Company against RODD v. C. F. BIELE & SONS CO. (SuHyman Topilow and another. No opinion. Ap- preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. plication denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. ment. January 15, 1915.) Action by Freder

ick E. Rodd against the C. F. Biele & Sons In re RICH. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- Company. No opinion. Application denied, vision, Fourth Department. January 6, 1915.) with $10 costs. Order signed. In the matter of the application of Anna Ingersoll Rich for a writ of mandamus directing the ROESLER, Respondent, v. DUNKIRK Onondaga Chapter, Daughters of the American HOME TELEPHONE CO., Appellant. (SuRevolution, and the officers thereof, to reinstate preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Desaid Anna Ingersoll Rich to membership, etc. partment. January 20, 1915.) Action by Eva Final order and judgment, and order denying Roesler, an infant, etc., against the Dunkirk motion for new trial, affirmed, with costs. In- Home Telephone Company. terlocutory judgment, order denying motion to PER CURIAM. Judgment and order af. frame issues, and order denying motion to make firmed, with costs. See, also, 162 App. Div. alternative writ more definite and certain,

af- 923, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1110. firmed, without costs. See, also, 160 App. 'Div. 912, 145 N. Y. Supp. 1143.

ROBSON and FOOTE, JJ., dissent. RICHARDSON PRESS VANDER

ROOT V. PULITZER et al. (two cases). GRIFT. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeFirst Department. January 29, 1915.) Action partment. January 29, 1915.) Action by W. by the Richardson Press against Joseph H. Russell Root, suing, etc., against Walter PulVandergrift. No opinion. Motion denied, with itzer, impleaded with others. No opinion. Mo. $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. tion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Supp. 238.

Order filed. See, also, 163 App. Diy. 949, 148

N. Y. Supp. 1141. RINI, Appellant, v. RINI, Respondent. (Su

ROOT v. PULITZER MAGAZINE CO. et al. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 22, 1915.) Action by Piet (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De. rina Rini against Nicola Rini.

partment. January 29, 1915.) Action_by W.

Russell Root, suing, etc., against the Pulitzer PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, without Magazine Company, impleaded with others. No costs. In affirming this order the court express

opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, es no opinion as to whether defendant is liable with $10 costs. in any proceedings that may be taken to pun. ish him for contempt for failure to pay arrears of alimony.

ROOT v. PULITZER PUB. CO. et al. (Su

preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. ROBINSON v. McKNIGHT et al.

ment. January 29, 1915.) Action by W. Rus

(Su- sell Root, suing, etc., against the Pulitzer Pubpreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-lishing Company, impleaded with others. No ment. January 15, 1915.) Action by Frank B. opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, Robinson, suing, etc., against Charles Mc- with $10 costs. Order filed. Knight and others, impleaded with the Western National Bank. R. E. T. Riggs, of New York City, for appellants. T. H. Keogh, of New

ROSENTHAL, Respondent, v. SOLOTO. York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order REFSKY et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on Appellate Division, Second Department. Janthe authority of Sadler v. Boston & Bolivia uary 8, 1915.) Action by Max Rosenthal Copper Co., 140 App. Div. 367, 125 N. Y. Supp. against Isidor Solotorefsky and others. No 405, affirmed 202 N. Y. 547, 95 N. E. 1139. Or- opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and der filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1142, disbursements.

ROBINSON v. McKNIGHT et al. (Supreme ROSS, Appellant, v. PENDERGAST, ReCourt, Appellate Division, First Department. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, January 29, 1915.) Action by Frank B. Robin- Second Department. February 19, 1915.). Acson, suing, etc., against Chas. McKnight and tion by William 0. Ross against Martin J. others, impleaded, etc. No opinion. Motion de- Pendergast. No opinion. Order affirmed, nied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, with $10 costs and disbursements. 151 N. Y. Supp. 1142.

ROTH v. SPENCER et al. (Supreme Court, ROBINSON CLAY PRODUCTS CO. v. Appellate Division, Third Department. March JOHN THATCHER & SON. (Supreme Court, 3, 1915.) Action by Max Roth against H. Jay Appellate Division, First Department. Febru- Spencer and another. No opinion. Motion to ary 19, 1915.) Action by the Robinson Clay dismiss appeal granted, unless the appellant Products Company against John Thatcher & serves and files printed case, and has case ready Son. No opinion. Application denied, with for argument at the next term of this court, in $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 150' N. Y. which case motion is denied. See, also, 158 Supp. 658.

App. Div. 895, 142 N. Y. Supp. 1142.

ROTHSCHILD et al., Respondents, v, MOR- , ruary 19, 1915.) Action by Thomas Sanders, RICE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Ap- Jr., against Kenneth T. Barnaby. No opinion. pellate Division, First Department. February Motion granted. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 11, 1915.) Action by Morris H. Rothschild and 580. another against David Morrice, Jr., and another. H. D. Estabrook, of New York City,

SANDHOP CONTRACTING CO. v. WHITE for appellants. J. R. Abney, of New York City,

et al. for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed,

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed! First Department. January 29, 1915.) Action

by the Sandhop Contracting Company against pellants. '(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Motion for 'stay denied, with $10 costs. Order ROYCE, Respondent, v. FARSON et al., Ap- John White and others. No opinion. Applica

Order signed. First Department. February 26, 1915.) AC

filed. tion by Stephen E. Royce against John Farson, Jr., and another. L. L. Delafield, of New York City, for appellants. H. Clark, Jr., of SARAFIAN v. UNITED STATES FIDELINew York City, for respondent. No opinion. TY & GUARANTY CO. (Supreme Court, ApOrder affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- pellate Division, First Department. February ments. Order filed.

19, 1915.) Action by Sumpad H. Sarafian

against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty RUBY et al., Respondents, v. STREEVER Company. No opinion. Application granted. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Order signed. Division, Third Department. March 3, 1915.) Action by Domonick Ruby and another against SCHAFFER V. PRESSURE LIGHTING Charles H. Streever and others. No opinion. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with Department. February 19, 1915.) Action by costs.

Max Schaffer against the Pressure Lighting

Company. No opinion. Application denied, R. & L. CO. v. METZ. (Supreme Court, Ap- with $10 costs. Order signed. pellate Division, First Department. · January 29, 1915.) Action by the R. & L. Company

SCHNEIDER, Respondent, V. FARLEY, against Herman A. Metz. No opinion. Motion State Excise Com'r, Appellant. (Supreme granted. Questions certified. Order filed. See, Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 813.

February 5, 1915.) Action by Morris Schneider

against William W. Farley, as State CommisIn re ST. PAUL'S PLACE SCHOOL SITE sioner of Excise, etc. No opinion. Judgment IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Supreme Court, reversed, on reargument, with costs of the apAppellate Division, First Department. Febru- peal, and complaint dismissed, with costs, on ary 11, 1915.) In the matter of the St Paul's authority of Suss v. Farley, etc., 164 App. Place School Site in the City of New York. Div. 161, 149 N. Y. Supp. 661, decided NovemNo opinion. Reference ordered. Settle order ber 6, 1914. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1111. on notice.

SCHUMACHER et al., Respondents, v. SALMON et al. v. BALLANCE. (Supreme (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant, Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Department. February 5, 1915.) Action by January 29, 1915.) Action by Hamilton H. Franceska Schumacher and August F. Brocke, Salmon and others against William A. Ballance.

as executrix and executor under the last will No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, and testament of Joseph Schumacher, deceased, with $10 costs, unless appellant comply with against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Comterms stated in order, Order filed.

pany. No opinion. Motion for stay granted,

on condition that defendant perfect and place SALOMON MATTHEWS. (Supreme its appeals on the March calendar, and be Court, Appellate Division, First Department. ready for argument when reached; cause in the February 26, 1915.) Action by Walter J. meantime not to lose its place on the trial calSalomon against Samuel D. Matthews. No

endar. opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.

SCHWARTZ, Appellant, V. SCHWARTZ, In re SANBORN. (Supreme Court, Appel- sion, First Department. February 26, 1915.)

Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divilate Division, Second Department. February Action by Louisa Schwartz against Jacob 11, 1915.) In the matter of Addison S. San- Schwartz. Leon Forst, of New York City, for born, an attorney.

appellant. A. J. Rifkind, of New York City, PER CURIAM. Matter referred to Hon. for respondent. No opinion. Order reversed, William D. Dickey, as official referee. See, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion also, 158 App. Div. 939, 143 N. Y. Supp. 1142. granted, as stated in order. Order filed. BURR, J., not voting.

SCHWEID et al., Appellants, v. BERKMAN, SANDERS y. BARNABY. (Supreme Court, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviAppellate Division, First Department. Feb-sion, Fourth Department. January 29, 1915.)

v.

« 이전계속 »