페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

dition that appellant file with this court and by Aaron M. Wands against Frank Moore and serve upon respondents' attorney the case and others. No opinion. Motion granted, and appapers on appeal, including brief, on or before peal dismissed, with costs. January 23, 1915, and, at the option of the respondents, that the case be placed upon the day WARD, Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL calendar for argument for January 26, 1915. RY. CO.Appellant. (Supreme Court, AppelSee, also, 87 Misc. Rep. 592, 149 N. Y. Supp. late Division, Fourth Department. January 964.

27, 1915.) Action by Maud A. Ward against LAMBERT, J., not sitting.

the International Railway Company. No opin

ion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. VORON v. CHAIT. (Supreme Court, Appel. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1149. late Division, First Department. January 15, 1915.) Action by Isaac Voron against Sabbatia WARD, Respondent, V. INTERNATIONAL Chait. No opinion. Motion denied, without RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appelcosts. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. late Division, Fourth Department. March 3, 1116; 151 N. Y. Supp. 1149.

1915.) Action by Maude A. Ward against the

International Railway Company. No opinion. VORON, Respondent, v. CHAIT, Appellant, Motion for reargument (of 151 N. Y. Supp. 1149) et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to apFirst Department. January 15, 1915.) Action peal to Court of Appeals denied. by Isaac Voron against Sabbatia Chait, impleaded with others. A. C. Cass, of New York In re WARREN et al. (Supreme Court, ApCity, for appellant. A. Thain, of New York pellate Division, Fourth Department. January City, for respondent. No opinion. Order af-20, 1915.) In the matter of the application of firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Or- Arthur Warren and others, as taxpayers of the der filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1116; Town of Brighton, etc. No opinion. Judg151 N. Y. Supp. 1149.

ment affirmed, with costs. In re VORON & CHAIT, Inc. (Supreme

WARTELS v. AUGENBLICK et al. (SuCourt, Appellate Division, First Department. preme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartOctober 30, 1914.) In the matter of Voron & ment, January 29, 1915.) Action by Aaron Chait, Incorporated. No opinion.

Motion Wartels against Samuel Augenblick and others, granted. Settle order on notice. Memorandum impleaded, etc. L. S. Lewkowitz, of New York for counsel only. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. City, for appellant. S. J. Block, of New York 1149.

City, for respondent. No opinion. Order af.
tirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. Order

filed.
In re VORON CHAIT, Inc. (Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 29, 1915.) In the matter of Voron &

WASSERSTROM V. COHEN, FRANK & Chait, Incorporated. L. I. Grossfield, of New Co. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First York City, for appellant. A. C. Cass, of New Department. January 29, 1915.) Action by York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order Louis B. Wasserstrom against Cohen, Frank & affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Co. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 Order tiled. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1116; costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 151 N. Y. Supp. 1149.

638.

[ocr errors]

WAHOWICZ, Respondent, UNITED

WEAVER, Appellant, v. QUINN, RespondSTATES CAST IRON PIPE & FOUNDRY ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Department. February 11, 1915.) Action by Division, Fourth Department. January 29, Isabella L. Weaver against James B. Quinn. 1915.) Action by Jacob Wahowicz against the C. J. Katzenstein, of New York City, for appelUnited States Iron Pipe & Foundry Company. lant. H. B. Lewis, of New York City, for reNo opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.

$10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

V.

WALGROVE DOUGLASS. (Supreme

WEIDENFELD V. ADAMS et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. December 31, 1914.) Action by Effingham 1. February 19, 1915.) Action by Camille WeiWalgrove against Walter Douglass.

denfeld against Alfredo B. Adams and another. PER CURIAM. The question whether the

PER CURIAM. Motion denied. title is marketable depends upon the 'validity PUTNAM, J., not voting. of the appointment of the general trustees in the earlier action, and in the absence of per- WERNER, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondsons who were interested in the land we decline ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First to determine that question. The proceedings Department. February 11, 1915.) Action by are dismissed, without costs.

Arthur M. Werner against Henry Smith. II.

S. Dottenheim, of New York City, for appelWANDS, Appellant, v. MOORE, et al., Re-lant. J. S. Darcy, of New York City, for respondents.' (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with Fourth Department. January 6, 1915.) Action $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

V.

WESTCOTT v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO. pellant comply with terms stated in order. Or. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- der filed. partment. January 29, 1915.) Action by Emma Westcott, as administratrix, against the Otis Elevator Company. No opinion. Motion & Co., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate

WILLIAMSON, Respondent, v. C. P. FORD to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Or Division, Fourth Department. der filed.

January 6, 1915.) Action by Georgia Williamson against

the C. P. Ford & Company. No opinion. Judg. WESTON et al. v. WATTS. (Supreme ment and order affirmed, with costs. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 11, 1915.) Action by Walter Weston WILLMARTH, Appellant, v. FIRST BAPand others against James R. Watts. No opin- TIST CHURCH OF SIDNEY, N. Y., Reion.

Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, filed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1118. Third Department. March 3, 1915.) Action by

I. J. Willmarth against the First Baptist WHEELER, Respondent, v. TOWN OF Church of Sidney, N. Y. No opinion. JudgBARKER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- ment unanimously affirmed, with costs. late Division, Third Department January 6, 1915.) Action by Sheldon S. Wheeler against WILLSON & ADAMS CO. V. MACK PAVthe Town of Barker.

ING & CONST. CO. et al. (Supreme Court, PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- Appellate Division, Second Department. Febed, with costs.

ruary 26, 1915.) Action by the Willson & LYON, J., not voting.

Adams Company against the Mack Paving &

Construction Company and another. WHEELER, Appellant, UNIVERSAL PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with MOTOR TRUCK CO. et al., Respondents. costs, on the authority of Willson & Adams Co. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dey: Mack Paving & C. Co., 147 App. Div. 141, partment. January 29, 1915.) Action by 132 N. Y. Supp. 297. See, also, 78 Misc. Rep. George W. Wheeler against the Universal Mo- 441, 138 N. Y. Supp. 407. tor Truck Company and others. G. Lange, Jr., BURR, J., not voting. of New York City, for appellant. C. D. Fran. cis, of New York City, for respondents.

In re WILSON (two cases). (Supreme Court, PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 Appellate Division, Second Department. Jancosts and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff uary 15, 1915.) In the matter of the applicato serve amended complaint on payment of tion of Robert H. Wilson, an attorney. In the costs. Order filed.

matter of the charges against Robert H. Wilson, LAUGHLIN, J., dissents.

an attorney. No opinion. Order of reference

made to Hon. George C. Holt, in place of Hon. WIENER V. ROSS. (Supreme Court, Ap- John Clinton Gray, resigned. See, also, 150 pellate Division, First Department. January N. Y. Supp. 1118. 15, 1915.) Action by Moses A. Wiener against Louis Ross. No opinion. Application granted.

WILSON, Appellant, V. AGER et al., ReOrder signed.

spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department. January 27, 1915.) Ac WILKINSON, Respondent, v. NIAGARA tion by Homer E. Wilson against C. Leonard FALLS GAS & ELECTRIC Co. et al., Ap-J. Ager and another, No opinion. Judgment pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, with costs. Fourth Department. January 6, 1915.) Action by Lillian Wilkinson, as administratrix, etc., In WILSON'S ESTATE. (Supreme against the Niagara Falls Gas & Electric Com-Court, Appellate Division, First Department. pany, impleaded with another.

January 22, 1915.) In the matter of the appliPER CURIAM. Order modified, by limiting cation for the discharge of the committee of the the examination to the facts respecting the estate of Emma J. Wilson, an alleged incomdeath of plaintiff's intestate and the surround-petent person, in which Clara Miller, as coming circumstances, and of the rules and method mittee, etc., appeals. of doing the work and conducting the defend PER CURIAM. The petitioner's brother or ant's station, and of all the matters particularly sister do not wish to take charge of her, and set forth in the 7th paragraph of plaintiff's the hospital deems itself discharged. The sister affidavit, and, as so modified, the order is af- alone seems to have any interest to participate firmed, without costs of this appeal to either in the proceeding. The condition is not entirely party.

satisfactory, but, as the court below presumably

acted with necessary discretion, this order is WILLIAMSBURG IRON & WIRE WORKS, affirmed, without costs. If the petitioner beInc., V. KUHN et al. (Supreme Court, Appel' comes homeless and incompetent, proceedings late Division, First Department. February 11, can be taken for her protection. 1915.) Action by the Williamsburg Iron & Wire Works, Incorporated, against John F. WINSLOW, Appellant, v. JEFFREY, ReKuhn and others. No opinion. Motion to dis- spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, miss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless ap-1 Fourth Department. March 3, 1915.) Action

re

No

by Catherine H. Winslow against Henry Jeff | summary by plaintiff's counsel should have been rey. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with disregarded. costs.

YOUNG, Appellant, v. WENZ et al., Re. WINTERER, Respondent, v. BAECHTOLD, spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, sion, Second Department. January 15, 1915.) First Department. February 19, 1915.) Action Action by Henry G. Young against Jacob Wenz by Louise Winterer against Charles A. Baech- and another. No opinion. Judgment affirmed told. C. E. Francis, of New York City, for ap- with costs. pellant. E. M. Wilcox, for respondent. opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order

YOUSEY, Respondent, v. QUEEN INS. CO tiled.

OF AMERICA, Appellant. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Jan. WISSBACH V. TERRY & TENCH CO., uary 29, 1915.) Action by Peter Yousey against Inc. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- the Queen Insurance Company of America. No ond Department. January 22, 1915.) Action opinion. Judgment (148 N. Y. Supp. 125) and by Philip Wissbach, as administrator, etc., of order affirmed, with costs. Ernest C. Wissbach, deceased, against the Terry & Tench Company, Incorporated. No opin- YUNG V. BLAKE. (Supreme Court, Apion. Plaintiff's exceptions overruled, and judg- pellate Division, First Department. October ment unanimously directed for defendant on the 30, 1914.) Action by Charles Yung against nonsuit, with costs.

Anna M. Blake. No opinion. Motion denied.

Order filed. Memorandum for counsel only. WYLLYS CO. v. NIXON. (Supreme Court, See, also, 163 App. Div. 501, 148 N. Y. Supp. Appellate Division, First Department.

557.

January 29, 1915.) Action by the Wyllys Company against Lewis Nixon. No opinion. Motion de ZIMMERMAN et al. v. SONNENSCHEIN nied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, et al. (No. 6948.) (Supreme Court, Appellate 150 N. Y. Supp. 944.

Division, First Department. February 26, 1915.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County. YAGEL V. JONES & CO. (Supreme Court, Action by Joseph Zimmerman and others Appellate Division, Third Department. Jan- against Benjamin Sonnenschein and others. uary 6, 1915.) Action by George Yagel against From an order striking out the answer as friv. Jones & Co. No opinion. . Motion granted by olous, certain defendants appeal. Reversed, and default.

motion denied. Louis Joseph, of New York

City, for appellants. Bernard Breitbart, of YATES v. DELAP et al. (Supreme Court,

New York City, for respondents. Appellate Division, Second Department. Feb- PER CURIAM. The defense of usury is sufruary 5, 1915.) Action by Mary L. Yates ficiently pleaded to resist a motion to strike out against Peter B. Delap and another, as execu- the answer as frivolous. The order should be tors, etc., of Sarah ). Delap, deceased. No reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

the motion denied, without costs. YOUNG, Appellant, v. McGRAW, Respond- ZWERLING, Appellant, V. NEUGASS, Re

(Supreme Court, Appellate' Division, spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 27, 1915.)

Ac Second Department. January 29, 1915.) ACtion by James A. Young against 'William Mc- tion by Morris Zwerling against Frederick NeuGraw.

gass. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with PER CURIAM. Judgment of County Court costs. reversed, and judgment of Justice's Court affirmed, with costs in this court and county ZWIRZ, Respondent, v. MITCHELL et al., court to the plaintiff. Held that, upon the Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divimerits, the plaintiff clearly was entitled to the sion, Second Department. January 8, 1915.) judgment rendered, and that, under the cir- | Action by Ernest Zwirz against John R. Mitcumstances disclosed by the record, the error, if chell and another. No opinion. Judgment and any, in denying defendant's application for leave order of the County Court of Kings County to present his summary to the jury after the lunanimously affirmed, with costs.

ent.

DND or CASES IN VOL. 151

[blocks in formation]

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and

Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests

V.

ABATEMENT.

for having all accrued after the surviving part

ner's death.-Sturmwald v. Poppe, 151 N. Y. See Nuisance, $8 85, 96.

S. 570.

$ 48 (N.Y.Sup.) A complaint which seeks ABUTTING OWNERS.

damages for breach of a contract, and also asks See Courts, $ 93.

that it be declared void for fraud, states two in

consistent causes of action.--Hunt v. ArmACCEPTANCE.

strong, 151 N. Y. S. 850. See Contracts, $ 24.

IV. COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION,

AND TERMINATION.
ACCOMMODATION PAPER.

$ 65 (N.Y.Sup.) Assignment of a claim for See Bills and Notes.

shortage of land conveyed held not to sustain

any right in the assignee to maintain a suit inACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

stituted before the assignment.--Fairchild

Scarsdale Estates, 151 N. Y. S. 1042.
See Release.

ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.
ACCOUNT.

See Boundaries.
See Account Stated: Assignments for Benefit
of Creditors, § 387; Infants, $ 83; Insane

ADMINISTRATION.
Persons, § 42; Justices of the Peace, $ 99;
Mortgages, $ 199; Partnership, § 300; See Executors and Administrators.
Trusts, $8 283, 298; Wills, $ 428.
ACCOUNT STATED.

ADMIRALTY.

See Shipping. See Bills and Notes, $ 103; Payment, $ 86. $12 (N.Y.Sup.) Where an account stated was

ADMISSIONS. impeached for fraud, the referee properly de- See Criminal Law, 88 406-420; Evidence, $s clined to restate the account, eliminating the objectionable items.-Stiebel v. Lissberger, 151

215, 251. N. Y. S. $22.

ADULTERY.
ACTION.

See Divorce, § 129.
I. GROUNDS AND CONDITIONS PRE-

ADVERSE CLAIM. CEDENT. $ 12 (N.Y.Sup.) That plaintiff was a member See Quieting Title. of an anti-boycott association, by which its counsel was employed in violation of Penal Law,

ADVERSE POSSESSION. 280, restricting the right to practice law, cannot be raised as a defense to the action. -Bos

I. NATURE AND REQUISITES. sert v. Dhuy, 151 N. Y. S. 877.

(B) Actual Possession. III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLI $ 19 (N.Y.Sup.) Under Code Civ. Proc. 8 372, DATION, AND SEVERANCE.

construction of building is an "inclosure" of the 8 48 (N.Y.Sup.) In action to recover pay

ground on which it stands.-Green v. Horn, 151 ments which deceased partner's will directed sur. N. Y. S. 215. viving partner to make, held, that causes of ac $ 20 (N.Y.Sup.) Under Code Civ. Proc. $ 372, tion were not improperly united; the sums sued | construction of building is an “improvement" For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (3) NUMBER 151 N.Y.S.-73

(1153)

« 이전계속 »